The quality of multi-owned residential buildings and the capability to maintain that quality into the future is important in preserving not only the monetary value of such housing (Lujanen, 2010) but also the quality of life for its residents. The aim of this paper is to examine the governance and decision-making rules and regulations as they relate to the undertaking of major repairs in multi-owned residential buildings in Finland and New Zealand with particular regard to the Finnish Limited Liability Housing Companies Act 2010 (LLHCA 2010) and the New Zealand Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA 2010). Currently, major building repairs are topical issues in both countries; in Finland as a result of ageing buildings requiring major re-fitting of pipes and other infrastructure, and in New Zealand as a result of earthquake damage in Christchurch and Leaky Building Syndrome nationwide. Major repairs can be a significant financial burden to unit owners and collective decisions can be difficult to achieve. Interestingly, new legislation that governs multi-owned housing was enacted in both countries in 2010. The recent enactment of this legislation provides an opportunity to examine the UTA 2010 and LLHCA 2010 with regard to how they address major repairs, improvements in housing stock and the financing possibilities associated with these undertakings. More specifically this paper explores housing intensification (i.e. building up, out or alongside existing multi-owned residential buildings on commonly owned land) as a means of financing major repairs. The comparison of governance and decision-making in two different shared ownership systems with different histories and cultural contexts provides a chance to explore the possibilities and challenges that each country faces, and the potential to learn from each other’s practices and develop these further. In this regard the findings from this paper contribute to the academic literature (Bugden 2005; Easthope & Randolph 2009; Dupuis & Dixon 2010; Lujanen 2010; Easthope, Hudson & Randolph 2013) concerning to the governance of multi-owned housing as it relates to intensive housing development and its wider social and economic implications.
This thesis revisits the topic of earthquake recovery in Christchurch City more than a decade after the Canterbury earthquakes. Despite promising visions of a community reconnected and a sustainable and liveable city, significant portions of the city’s core – the Red Zone – remain dilapidated and “eerily empty”. At the same time, new developments in other areas have proven to be alienated or underutilised. Currently, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s plans for the rebuilding highlight the delivery of more residential housing to re-populate the city centre. However, prevalent approaches to housing development in Christchurch are ineffective for building an inclusive and active community. Hence, the central inquiry of the thesis is how the development of housing complexes can revitalise the Red Zone within the Christchurch city centre. The inquiry has been carried out through a research-through-design methodology, recognising the importance of an in-depth investigation that is contextualised and combined with the intuition and embodied knowledge of the designer. The investigation focuses on a neglected site in the Red Zone in the heart of Christchurch city, with significant Victorian and Edwardian Baroque heritage buildings, including Odeon Theatre, Lawrie & Wilson Auctioneers, and Sol Square, owned by The Regional Council Environment Canterbury. The design inquiry argues, develops, and is carried through a place-assemblage lens to housing development for city recovery, which recognizes the significance of socially responsive architecture that explores urban renewal by forging connections within the social network. Therefore, place-assemblage criteria and methods for developing socially active and meaningful housing developments are identified. Firstly, this thesis argues that co-living housing models are more focused on people relations and collective identity than the dominant developer-driven housing rebuilds, as they prioritise conduits for interaction and shared social meaning and practices. Secondly, the adaptive reuse of derelict heritage structures is proposed to reinvigorate the urban fabric, as heritage is seen to be conceived as and from a social assemblage of people. The design is realised by the principles outlined in the ICOMOS charter, which involves incorporating the material histories of existing structures and preserving the intangible heritage of the site by ensuring the continuity of cultural practices. Lastly, design processes and methods are also vital for place-sensitive results, which pay attention to the site’s unique characteristics to engage with local stakeholders and communities. The research explores place-assemblage methods of photographic extraction, the drawing of story maps, precedent studies, assemblage maps, bricolages, and paper models, which show an assembly of layers that piece together the existing heritage, social conduits, urban commons and housing to conceptualise the social network within its place.
