Talk:Timaru

Untitled
The Phar Lap and Mars refs came from a Wikipedia search via Google. Most of the rest is off the top of my head. :robinp 01:06, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't know about the crater, but the Phar Lap one's right. Timaru Race course is called Phar Lap Raceway - it's about 2km north of Washdyke. Grutness

Added a bit more body text and provided a basic organizational framework for other contributions, but this stub article really requires some more local input. Rmackenzie 18:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've now bulked out the original article. Future editorial content needs to come from Kiwis with more detailed knowledge about the town. The framework of subheadings is provisional and may need to be revised. Rmackenzie 01:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you really consider this a stub now? -Nichlemn 01:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of the article is fine, but there are significant gaps, such as the local politics and 20th century history components, that need attention.--Rmackenzie 10:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Added to Golf courses in New Zealand category. Not sure if its right though :o Sasank 00:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

no mention of smog ?
Advert or info guys !?! Smog is a problem people NEED to know about !

Do Auckland and Christchurch not pretend to have no smog on calm winter days ??

142.162.21.1 (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Timaru - City or Town?
Hi - where in the Stats NZ webpage http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/census_counts/2013CensusUsuallyResidentPopulationCounts_HOTP2013Census/Commentary.aspx#orderofcities does it say that Nelson is a city? Or do you have another source that shows it is? Cheers, Ollieinc  ( talk ) 07:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi ollieinc, thanks for your message on my personal talk page. I have tried to copy it here on the Timaru talk page because I think it fits better here. any errors in copying it over are my fault.


 * Some points I think are relevant: Comments by Statistics NZ are not the best because they are a person's interpretation of legislation. Better is to refer to the actual legislation in question, namely the Local Government Act 1974 (and 2002). The legislation is slightly ambiguous, but not by much, stating (I paraphrase) that any urban area wanting to apply for city status must have over 50,000 inhabitants.
 * Timaru district has not applied and even if it did its population is about 47,000. Timaru the town/city does not need to apply for city status because it already is one (apparantly from 1947). The LGA does not deal with removing city status, only with granting it, meaning that Timaru still is a city.
 * If the act said that a town is a town below 50,000 but a city above 50,000 we would have an absurd situation of cities hovering around 50,000 automatically dropping to town status one year and then the next year applying again for city status. Once the status is granted it cannot be easily removed.


 * More generally, it seems that the LGA was simply for administrative purposes. Timaru (town/city)'s status as a town or as a city is irrelevant in that regard. I might be wrong of course and welcome any contrary opinion's.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

To continue and to refer to Nelson as requested, the reasoning why Nelson is a city seems the same as Timaru. City status was granted by the monarch in 1858 and has never been revoked. The recent changes to local govt structures are nothing more than exercises in administration areas that will, inevitably, change again in the future. Here is an interesting press article about Nelson that has some ideas but misses the point and muddles up the Nelson District and the City of Nelson. http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/10313884/Is-Nelson-really-a-city. It quotes the actual wording of the legislation about granting an urban area city status. This presumably means that the Timaru District (not the city/town) bannot currenetly be a city status under the L.G.Act but could apply for city status if its population later exceededs 50,000. It would probably fail because it would not reach the other requirements, such as being a major regional hub (the town of Timaru is a hub but not the district). Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * and - I've added a footnote to cover the argument. Feel free to change the wording if you think it needs to be made more accurate. Grutness...wha?  04:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * and ..That is helpful Grutness, thanks. I would prefer "The LGA is "silent" rather than "ambiguous" about whether the city status of existing cities is revoked, but someone else can change it or give an opinion here if they want to - IMO it is a relatively minor point in an otherwise positive contribution. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - you're right, that's a better term. I've changed the text accordingly. Grutness...wha?  23:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No population / demographics?
Not a criticism, just wondering.

http://archive.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-about-a-place.aspx?url=%2FCensus%2F2013-census%2Fprofile-and-summary-reports%2Fquickstats-about-a-place.aspx&request_value=14926&tabname=&sc_device=pdf

Avaiki (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Source for size
Is there a source for the size of Timaru in the side bar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdert (talk • contribs) 05:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Longshore drift
The following Statement is not quite correct: "Following the loss of a number of vessels off the coast, work started on the redevelopment of the artificial port in 1877, which eventually caused sand washed south down the Pacific shoreline to build up against the northern mole. This was the beginning of the extensive land reclamation around the Caroline Bay district, an area which is still growing today."

The longshore drift at Timaru is south to north, and the coarse sediment built up behind the South Mole, resulting in a large reclaimed area at the southern end of the port. The finer sediment was able to drift to build up on the north of the North Mole, creating the beach at Caroline Bay. Another result was that little of the sediment reached Washdyke lagoon, which has steadily decreased in size since 1881 when the moles were constructed. I know there is a simplified version in Te Ara Encyclopedia, which is also incorrect. I did a study on this in 7th form geography. I'm trying to find sources on line, but there isn't a lot. Maybe someone still in Timaru could find a source at the museum or in a book to back it up.

Sorry I tried to log in but forgot my username and password Tim Costelloe