On September the 4th 2010 and February 22nd 2011
the Canterbury region of New Zealand was shaken by
two massive earthquakes. This paper is set broadly
within the civil defence and emergency management
literature and informed by recent work on community
participation and social capital in the building of resilient
cities. Work in this area indicates a need to recognise
both the formal institutional response to the earthquakes
as well as the substantive role communities play in their
own recovery. The range of factors that facilitate or
hinder community involvement also needs to be better
understood. This paper interrogates the assumption
that recovery agencies and officials are both willing
and able to engage communities who are themselves
willing and able to be engaged in accordance with
recovery best practice. Case studies of three community
groups – CanCERN, Greening the Rubble and Gap
Filler – illustrate some of the difficulties associated
with becoming a community during the disaster
recovery phase. Based on my own observations and
experiences, combined with data from approximately
50 in-depth interviews with Christchurch residents
and representatives from community groups, the
Christchurch City Council, the Earthquake Commission
and so on, this paper outlines some practical strategies
emerging communities may use in the early disaster
recovery phase that then strengthens their ability to
‘participate’ in the recovery process.
An often overlooked aspect of urban housing development is the composition of the space between buildings; the streetscape. The pressures of suppressing suburban sprawl have seen housing developments respond by increasing residential density within more centralised city sites. Medium-density housing typologies are often used as urban infill in response to the challenge of accommodating an increasing population. A by-product of these renewed areas is the creation of new open space which serves as the fundamental public space for sociability to develop in communities. Street space should emphasise this public expression by encouraging social exchange and interaction. As a result, a neighbourhood owes its liveliness (or lack thereof) to its streets. The issue of density when applied to the urban housing landscape encompasses two major components: the occupancy of both the private realms, constituting the residential built form, and the public spaces that adjoins them, the streets. STREETSCAPE: dialogues of street + house. Continual transition between the realms of public and private (building and
street space) enact active edges, giving way to public stimulation; the opportunity for experiencing other people. The advent of seeing and hearing other people in connection with daily comings and goings encourages social events to evolve,
enhancing the notion of neighbourly conduct. Within New Zealand, and specifically in Christchurch as considered here, the compositions of current streetscapes lack the demeanor to really encourage and facilitate the idea of neighbourly interaction and public expression. Here lies the potential for new street design to significantly heighten the interplay of human activity. In response, this research project operates under the notion that the street spaces of urban residential areas are largely underutilised. This lack is particularly evident in the street. Street design should strive to produce spaces which stimulate the public life of residents. There exists a need to reassert eminence of the street as a space for vibrant neighbourhood life. This thesis employs design as a tool for researching and
will involve using numerous concept generators to trigger the production of multiple scenarios. These scenarios are to
explore the ways in which the streetscapes within medium-density urban communities could respond in the event of (re)
development.
There is a critical strand of literature suggesting that there are no ‘natural’ disasters (Abramovitz, 2001; Anderson and Woodrow, 1998; Clarke, 2008; Hinchliffe, 2004). There are only those that leave us – the people - more or less shaken and disturbed. There may be some substance to this; for example, how many readers recall the 7.8 magnitude earthquake centred in Fiordland in July 2009? Because it was so far away from a major centre and very few people suffered any consequences, the number is likely to be far fewer than those who remember (all too vividly) the relatively smaller 7.1 magnitude Canterbury quake of September 4th 2010 and the more recent 6.3 magnitude February 22nd 2011 event.
One implication of this construction of disasters is that seismic events, like those in Canterbury, are as much socio-political as they are geological. Yet, as this paper shows, the temptation in recovery is to tick boxes and rebuild rather than recover, and to focus on hard infrastructure rather than civic expertise and community involvement. In this paper I draw upon different models of community engagement and use Putnam’s (1995) notion of ‘social capital’ to frame the argument that ‘building bridges’ after a disaster is a complex blend of engineering, communication and collaboration. I then present the results of a qualitative research project undertaken after the September 4th earthquake. This research helps to illustrate the important connections between technical rebuilding, social capital, recovery processes and overall urban resilience.
Earthquakes and other major disasters present communities and their authorities with an extraordinary challenge. While a lot can be done to prepare a city’s response in the event of a disaster, few cities are truly prepared for the initial impact, devastation, grief, and the seemingly formidable challenge of recovery. Many people find themselves overwhelmed with facing critical problems; ones which they have often never had experience with before. While the simple part is agreeing on a desired outcome for recovery, it appears the argument that exists between stakeholders is the conflicting ideas of How To effectively achieve the main objective. What I have identified as an important step toward collaborating on the How To of recovery is to identify the ways in which each discipline can most effectively contribute to the recovery. Landscape architecture is just one of the many disciplines (that should be) invovled in the How To of earthquake recovery.
Canterbury has an incredible opportunity to set the benchmark for good practice in earthquake recovery. To make the most of this opportuntiy, it is critical that landscape architects are more effectively engaged in roles of recovery across a much broader spectrum of recovery activities. The overarching purpose of this research is to explore and provide insight to the current and potential of landscape architects in the earthquake recovery period in Canterbury, using international good practice as a benchmark. The research is aimed at stimulating and guiding landscape architects dealing with the earthquake recovery in Canterbury, while informing stakeholders: emergency managers, authorities, other disciplines and the wider community of themost effective role(s) for landscape architects in the recovery period.
