Talk:Christchurch

Blocked?

I appear to be blocked from the main page of this article and the New Zealand article. Anybody else having having trouble with edits? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger I have just made a small edit successfully. I hope you can get this resolved promptly._Marshelec (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks as though your edit this morning went through fine? Turnagra (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I see it has gone through now. Initially it did't go through which seemed unusual. A few days ago I made some edits to 'New zealand' which also did not go through. I'll let it be and move on. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Christchurch Politics

Should we add a section on Christchurch's politics? The city tends to be more conservative than the rest of New Zealand TheodosiusM (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Does the government section not already serve this purpose? ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, I meant my page was not properly loading when I made that comment,

Thanks for your help anyway! TheodosiusM (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Metropolitan population

I was asked if I could provide figures for a metropolitan population for Christchurch in an edit summary by User:Schwede66 today. There is such a figure in the infobox, which was added by User:Lcmortensen on 17 June 2023, with an extra note added on 2 April 2024. The figure is for Christchurch urban area and 12 satellite towns, including Kaiapoi and Rangiora, plus a hard-coded figure for the "Extrapolated FUA [functional urban area] population from the 2018 census; 40,311 is the rural population within the FUA". I'm not sure exactly where this hard-coded figure comes from; I might be able to work it out, but Lcmortensen is probably the appropriate person to update this to the 2023 census. The 2023 statistics I work with do not include the FUA, and the various territorial authorities, SA3, SA2, and SA1 areas do not map to it, ie some of the FUA boundaries cut through SA1 blocks.-Gadfium (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

A minor correction; it appears the 2018 and 2022 SA1 boundaries do match the FUA boundaries. The 2023 ones don't in the Ashley Forest area.-Gadfium (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate you looking into it. That's fabulous – thank you. Schwede66 02:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure the stats will be able to provide a more accurate view, but in the interim I did a cursory look the other day and came across this from Te Whatu Ora that may be useful. It includes the line In 2019, the greater Christchurch usually-resident population was estimated to be 516,800, and by 2038 it is projected to reach 621,600. and a few other stats that could be helpful. I can't seem to find what they identify as greater Christchurch, though. Turnagra (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Akaroa in the infobox

BTW, a lot of people are confused why Akaroa is in the infobox. Banks Peninsula is technically part of Christchurch, though I think it would be better if the image was replaced with something that depicts the city better (maybe the Bridge of Rememberance or the Christchurch Convention Centre Precinct). Alexeyevitch^(talk) 13:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not confused but you seem to be. Banks Peninsula is administered by Christchurch City Council which, self-evidently, is not the same as being in Christchurch, technically or not. To pretend otherwise is, quite frankly, silly. That image of Akaroa in the infobox should be removed postehaste. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, the lead images should be mostly of the central city. Although I don't believe Banks Peninsula is part of Christchurch much like how Helensville and Mauku are not part of Auckland but are governed by Auckland Council. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Just today the 6'o'clock news used 'Christchurch and Banks Peninsula' in a headline for example. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

On the topic, I do not believe the current lead image is a good one, I do not really recognise the image as Christchurch from a quick glance. I think something like the cathedral should be used; The New Regent Street image is good and contains two icons of the city; Hagley Park is also recognisable, just not from the sky and a ground view should be used; I personally don't find Sumner and Southshore to be recognisable as Christchurch although I am not a local; is the art gallery a new building? I don't recall seeing it and I visited last in 2021.

As for suggested images, I'd say the Avon River boatsheds are a good one and to avoid simply having images of the central city Riccarton should be used. Riccarton is probably the most well known Christchurch suburb. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree. A problem IMO is that most of the city centre is new since the earthquakes and those buildings are not easily recognised even by locals, especially those old enough to remember Christchurch as it was. I think using mainly the few remaining pre-quake buildings is preferable than newer buildings. The cathedral is unfortunately still a building site. My choice would be a view from Mt pleasant and/or Sign of the takahe, boatsheds/punters. art centre and/or museum area, new regent st and/or cashel mall by Ballantynes, and for a newer building I think the courthouse is more recognisable that many others. Riccarton isn't easy to neatly capture in a photo. I think a view down Rotherham from Riccarton rd might work. For Hagley Park I think a lake with trees and flowers is safe and better than an aerial view. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

>The cathedral is unfortunately still a building site.

Doesn't mean it cannot be used, nothing requires lead images to be current, simply recognisable landmarks and the eponymous cathedral is probably the most recognisable building in Christchurch given the central location.

>Riccarton isn't easy to neatly capture in a photo

Riccarton has several landmarks that can be used, I'd recognise Riccarton House for example and I'm not a local. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

There was a Reddit post about this a few months ago. I noticed many locals were confused about why Akaroa was in the infobox. I do not think an image of the pre-earthquake city is helpful, particularly for tourists. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and Riccarton House is easy to photograph. It also has historic significance for Christchurch. I think most people, locals at least, would associate Riccarton with Riccarton Rd shops and the mall, which is what I was thinking of. Riccarton is also a large area with different parts having their own mini-points of interest, which applies even if we call upper and lower Riccarton separate suburbs. I take your point about the pre-quake Cathedral being recognisable but I would still hesitate to use it now. Most locals would associate the Cathedral now with the cordoned off bombsite that has been there in the city centre for 14 years. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Geographic scope of article

Regarding the Akaroa confusion, maybe it's worthwhile to talk about the underlying issue. For all district councils, we have an article for the territorial authority (Foo district). For most cities (bar one), we don't have separate territorial authority articles. The argument has always been that a city covers the same area as what it covers as a territorial authority, hence it's not necessary to have separate articles. That was obviously not true for Auckland and even before the 2010 reform, the article Auckland Council was written. It's arguably also not true for Christchurch since the 2006 amalgamation with Banks Peninsula District. However, there isn't a separate article for Christchurch City (or Christchurch City (district)). If we were to have that article, it would presumably tighten the scope of the Christchurch article, with Banks Peninsula falling outside that scope. And the moment that is done, it's clear that the Akaroa picture doesn't belong into the infobox.

However, as the scope currently stands, it is unclear whether Banks Peninsula is covered by this article or not. Without there being a separate article for the district, I would argue that this article needs to cover Banks Peninsula. Hence, for the time being, having a photo of Akaroa in the infobox is defensible. Schwede66 23:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Well the lead currently states 'It is located near the southern end of Pegasus Bay, and is bounded to the east by the Pacific Ocean and to the south by the ancient volcanic complex of the Banks Peninsula. The Avon River (Ōtākaro) winds through the centre of the city, with a large urban park along its banks. With the exception of the Port Hills, it is a relatively flat city, on an average around 20 m (66 ft) above sea level.' so it clearly isn't encompassing the area of the Christchurch City Council, which has it's own article. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Isn't that an example of what some people call woke-ism? This problem is worldwide, not just Christchurch. Questions are asked whenever the administrative area differs noticeably from the actual city area, such as here, but rarely when they are similar. My view is there should always be two articles - the city and the city's administrative area. Interestingly, there are also usually two articles created whenever the name of the city and it's administrative area are not the same or similar. I wonder what would happen if, for example, instead of Christchurch City Council, the administrative body was called Pegasus Bay Council? Would we carry on pretending that Christchurch city was the same as Pegasus Bay Council? Some people would argue that there would be unnecessary repetition if we always created two articles, but I think that simply highlights another problem: people assuming the admin body is the city and filling the admin body's article with off-topic detail. An admin body's article should be relatively small and dealing only with the admin body itself. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

No, 'woke-ism' is racism and sexism disguised as "bringing equality for all". Here is an explanation. Hopefully that can help us stay on topic. 📶Panamitsu (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, my mistake. It's not woke.

I looked at a few different cases to see how the geographic scope of articles about cities has been handled elsewhere. The cities I have chosen are just a few that came to mind. These examples demonstrate some diversity in approach to the scope of articles.

Several of these examples include articles with coverage of outlying areas that are up to 80km by road, or more, from the centre of the city (a similar distance to that of Akaroa from the Christchurch CBD). Examples are:

• Brisbane (the article scope includes areas around 60km to the north of the CBD)
• Dunedin (the article scope includes distant Middlemarch and Hyde)
• Melbourne (the article scope includes areas around 80km from the CBD to the south and east)

A related issue is the definition of the Functional Urban Area used by Statistics NZ. The FUA extends from the southern edge of Lake Ellesmere a long way north into North Canterbury, and includes Amberley.[1]. At present, the current Christchurch article mentions the FUA in the section listing satellite towns. These satellite towns are in other districts for governance purposes, but are part of "Greater Christchurch". With regards to boundaries of "Greater Christchurch", I have found a map: [2] This includes satellite towns such as Rangiora and Rolleston and Lincoln (that are in separate local government districts). But it doesn't go as far into North Canterbury as the Statistics NZ FUA boundary.

One possible way ahead is to create a new article about Greater Christchurch. The Greater Christchurch article scope would include Banks Peninsula and Akaroa. This could allow Banks Peninsula to be removed from coverage in the Christchurch article. The problem is that this removal seems arbitrary. If we look at the examples of some other city articles, as noted above, several of the "common name" articles cover outlying towns a considerable distance from the city CBD.

Overall, my opinion is that the best outcome is not to create a new article, but to give the Christchurch article a broad geographic scope, probably aligned with the "Greater Christchurch" scope, so long as this is clearly explained in the lead and the body of the article. I don't think there is any significant risk of confusing the reader, and it seems more efficient to have an article with a scope that covers the "Greater Christchurch" region. I note that we already have a decent article about the Christchurch CBD: Christchurch Central City. Marshelec (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Another ambiguous word is 'Greater'. It is sometimes defined geographically and sometimes not. I think there is mixed usage in the UK, regarding Manchester and London, both of which have a 'greater' version, but for London it is not generally used and for Manchester it is. I think this is because within Greater Manchester is Oldham, which was a large enough town when GM was formed not to want to be called part of just Manchester. No such large town existed near London so all the smaller towns became districts of just London, and saying they are actually in Greater London, not London required using one word too many. I wonder how people in Prebbleton (Selwyn district) would feel about being told they are in Greater Christchurch, even though they are much closer to urban Christchurch (a couple of fields apart) than places like Rolleston. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)