Queenstown and Christchurch are twin poles of New Zealand's landscape of risk. As the country's 'adventure capital', Queenstown is a spectacular landscape in which risk is a commodity. Christchurch's landscape is also risky, ruptured by earthquakes, tentatively rebuilding. As a far-flung group of tiny islands in a vast ocean, New Zealand is the poster-child of the sublime. Queenstown and Christchurch tell two different, yet complementary, stories about the sublime. Christchurch and Queenstown are vehicles for exploring the 21st-century sublime, for reflecting on its expansive influence on shaping cultural landscapes. Christchurch and Queenstown stretch and challenge the sublime's influence on the designed landscape. Circling the paradoxes of risk and safety, suffering and pleasure, the sublime feeds an infinite appetite for fear as entertainment, and at the same time calls for an empathetic caring for a broken landscape and its residents.
The sample of water referred to in the present note was collected by the writer on the 21st January, 1889, in the Otira Gorge, from a spring which is stated to have been first discovered shortly after the earthquake of the 1st September, 1888. From the results obtained this water might be termed siliceous and sulphurous. It is essentially different from the water from the Hanmer Springs, and pertains more to the character of the waters of the Rotorua district. It differs, however, from these waters in having only a portion of its carbonic anhydride replaced by silica, and in containing less dissolved matter.
This report forms part of a research project examining rural community resilience to natural hazard events, with a particular focus on transient population groups. A preliminary desktop and scoping exercise was undertaken to examine nine communities affected by the Kaikoura earthquake and to identify the variety of transient population groups that are commonly (and increasingly) found in rural New Zealand (see Wilson & Simmons, 2017). From this, four case study communities – Blenheim, Kaikoura, Waiau and St Arnaud – were selected to represent a range of settlement types. These communities varied in respect of social, economic and geographic features, including the presence of particular transient population groups, and earthquake impact. While the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake provided a natural hazard event on which to focus the research, the research interest was in long-term (and broad) community resilience, rather than short-term (and specific) response and recovery actions which occurred post-earthquake.
The Kaikoura earthquake in November 2016 highlighted the vulnerability of New Zealand’s rural communities to locally-specific hazard events, which generate regional and national scale impacts. Kaikoura was isolated with significant damage to both the east coast road (SH1) and rail corridor, and the Inland Road (Route 70). Sea bed uplift along the coast was significant – affecting marine resources and ocean access for marine operators engaged in tourism and harvesting, and recreational users. While communities closest to the earthquake epicentre (e.g., Kaikoura, Waiau, Rotherham and Cheviot) suffered the most immediate earthquake damage, the damage to the transport network, and the establishment of an alternative transport route between Christchurch and Picton, has significantly impacted on more distant communities (e.g., Murchison, St Arnaud and Blenheim). There was also considerable damage to vineyard infrastructure across the Marlborough region and damage to buildings and infrastructure in rural settlements in Southern Marlborough (e.g., Ward and Seddon).
The Building Act 2004 now requires Territorial Authorities (TAs) to have in place a policy setting out how they intend making existing buildings that would be unable to withstand a moderate earthquake safe for their occupiers. Many of the resultant policies developed by TAs have put in place mandatory upgrade requirements that will force owners to expend large amounts of capital on seismic upgrading of their buildings. The challenge for the property owners and TAs alike is to make such development work economic or the result will be wide scale demolition of old buildings. This has serious implications for both heritage conservation and inner city revitalisation plans that are based on existing heritage buildings. This paper sets out the issues and challenges for the seismic upgrading of buildings in New Zealand and puts forward some potential solutions
An emerging water crisis is on the horizon and is poised to converge with several other impending problems in the 21st century. Future uncertainties such as climate change, peak oil and peak water are shifting the international focus from a business as usual approach to an emphasis on sustainable and resilient strategies that better meet these challenges. Cities are being reimagined in new ways that take a multidisciplinary approach, decompartmentalising functions and exploring ways in which urban systems can share resources and operate more like natural organisms. This study tested the landscape design implications of wastewater wetlands in the urban environment and evaluated their contribution to environmental sustainability, urban resilience and social development. Black and grey water streams were the central focus of this study and two types of wastewater wetlands, tidal flow (staged planning) and horizontal subsurface flow wetlands were tested through design investigations in the earthquake-affected city of Christchurch, New Zealand. These investigations found that the large area requirements of wastewater wetlands can be mitigated through landscape designs that enhance a matrix of open spaces and corridors in the city. Wastewater wetlands when combined with other urban and rural services such as food production, energy generation and irrigation can aid in making communities more resilient. Landscape theory suggests that the design of wastewater wetlands must meet cultural thresholds of beauty and that the inclusion of waste and ecologies in creatively designed landscapes can deepen our emotional connection to nature and ourselves.
During the 21st century, New Zealand has experienced increasing public concern over the quality of the design and appearance of new developments, and their effects on the urban environment. In response to this, a number of local authorities developed a range of tools to address this issue, including urban design panels to review proposals and provide independent advice. Following the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, the commitment to achieve high quality urban design within Christchurch was given further importance, with the city facing the unprecedented challenge of rebuilding a ‘vibrant and successful city’. The rebuild and regeneration reinforced the need for independent design review, putting more focus and emphasis on the role and use of the urban design panel; first through collaboratively assisting applicants in achieving a better design outcome for their development by providing an independent set of eyes on their design; and secondly in assisting Council officers in forming their recommendations on resource consent decisions. However, there is a perception that urban design and the role of the urban design panel is not fully understood, with some stakeholders arguing that Council’s urban design requirements are adding cost and complexity to their developments. The purpose of this research was to develop a better understanding on the role of the Christchurch urban design panel post-earthquake in the central city; its direct and indirect influence on the built environment; and the deficiencies in the broader planning framework and institutional settings that it might be addressing. Ultimately, the perceived role of the Panel is understood, and there is agreement that urban design is having a positive influence on the built environment, albeit viewed differently amongst the varying groups involved. What has become clear throughout this research is that the perceived tension between the development community and urban design well and truly exists, with the urban design panel contributing towards this. This tension is exacerbated further through the cost of urban design to developers, and the drive for financial return from their investments. The panel, albeit promoting a positive experience, is simply a ‘tick box’ exercise for some, and as the research suggests, groups or professional are determining themselves what constitutes good urban design, based on their attitude, the context in which they sit and the financial constraints to incorporate good design elements. It is perhaps a bleak time for urban design, and more about building homes.
