Talk:South Otago

Untitled

How is South Otago defined? Clutha has a precise definition, according to Statistics New Zealand, which defines it as including the towns of Benhar, Stirling, Bruce, Milton, Kaitangata, Clinton, Kaka Point, Owaka, Clutha, Balclutha, Tuapeka, Tapanui, and Lawrence. Should this article therefore be moved to Clutha District? Backspace (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As the article is written, they do seem to be the same, which is odd, because that isn't how the term "South Otago" is generally used. The definition of exactly what is and isn't South Otago is a litle hazy, since it has no political/administrative definition, but is rather usually determined by similarity of geography and community interest. It and Clutha District are similar, but certainly not identical, in coverage and area. Most definitions of South Otago include the Taieri Plain, much of which is in Dunedin City, and often include the towns of Mosgiel and Brighton. It seems that the article needs quite an overhaul - someone's been adding spurious census figures and non-existent towns like "Bruce" and "Clutha". I'll see what I can do to it to make it clear what the differences are. Grutness...wha? 22:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have been the "someone" adding those "spurious" census figures to the article, which, as I stated, were in particular for Clutha District, and not for "South Otago", and which come straight out of the 2006 (population) and 2001 (land area) censuses from Statistics New Zealand, and are available from them, so that there should be no question as to their validity. The "non-existent towns", I'll have to admit, may indeed be non-existent "towns" per se, as I am unfamiliar with what local New Zealanders call these localities, whether they be "cities", "towns", "villages", "settlements", "hamlets", or whatnot. They are, however, the names of whatever the divisions are as used by the census people at Statistics New Zealand. For now, I will just call them by a vague U.S. Census Bureau term: "places". Backspace (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops - sorry, didn't realise it was you who did that :). As someone who visits South Otago regularly and lived there for six years (and was actually in Balclutha this time last week), I can categorically state that these three "places" do not exist. They aren't towns, settlements, villages, hamlets, localities, or anything else. Bruce, Clutha, and Tuapeka are the names of the three former counties which ceased to exist in the 1980s when Clutha District was formed, and the names are no longer used either at local government level or for any other formal purpose. I've no idea why they'd still be listed by SNZ. A US equivalent would be giving statistics for Deseret and claiming it is a town in Utah.

As to the differences between South Otago and the Clutha District - in a nutshell, heading north Clutha District stops at the Waipori River, South Otago continues across the Taieri Plains towards, or even past, Mosgiel, and north along the coast towards Brighton and Waldronville. The boundaries of South Otago inland are also a little different to those of Clutha District. It's a considerably more informal term than Clutha District, but it's a far more widely used term in general parlance,a nd tends to cover a wider, if less well-defined area. Redirecting it wholesale to Clutha District - to draw another US analogy - would be like redirecting Appalachia to West Virginia. Grutness...wha? 12:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, I find that those three named places, which range in land area between 1,357 km² (Bruce) to 2,323 km² (Tuapeka) to 2,664.5 km² (Clutha), i.e., rather large, are most probably rural areas outside of the "towns" and such. (They in fact make up 99.7 percent of Clutha District's total land area and 45.57 percent of its population.) Obviously rural areas are also part of the district and must therefore have a name, thus the use of the old county names for want of something better. Backspace (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Presumably SNZ still uses the old county boundaries to calculate their stats, since there are no current subdivisions of Clutha District. It should be noted that if that's the case, that 99.7% will contain everything not in the old Balclutha and Milton Boroughs - including Kaitangata, Stirling, Clinton, Owaka, etc. I'll add that info over at the Clutha District article. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the 99.7% would exclude all of the "towns", which all together have an almost negligible 0.3 percent of Clutha District's land area (although they do have 54.43 percent of its population concentrated within them). The largest towns in area, for instance, are Balclutha (6.29 km²), Kaitangata (2.53 km²), Lawrence (2.46 km²), and Milton (2.025 km²). None of the others has even 2 km² (going down as far as 0.36 km² for Kaka Point). That's a fairly tiny part of the District, landwise. By the way, the "old counties" you speak of, did they include these towns within their boundaries, or were the towns autonomous? Backspace (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Prior to amalgamation (which was in about 1986, IIRC), what is now Clutha District was five separate entities - Clutha County, Bruce County, Tuapeka County, Milton Borough, and Balclutha Borough. All the smaller towns and settlements were administered by the county councils, so the towns weren't autonomous (I think they had community boards below that level, but they didn't have much independent power, if any). I must admit that I'm surprised that - given SNZ seems to be using the old county names - the towns aren't still counted as part of them for statistical purposes. Grutness...wha? 06:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)