This paper presents the preliminary conclusions of the first stage of Wellington Case Study project (Regulating For Resilience in an Earthquake Vulnerable City) being undertaken by the Disaster Law Research Group at the University of Canterbury Law School. This research aims to map the current regulatory environment around improving the seismic resilience of the urban built environment. This work provides the basis for the second stage of the project which will map the regulatory tools onto the reality of the current building stock in Wellington. Using a socio-legal methodology, the current research examines the regulatory framework around seismic resilience for existing buildings in New Zealand, with a particularly focus on multi-storey in the Wellington CBD. The work focusses both on the operation and impact of the formal seismic regulatory tools open to public regulators (under the amended Building Act) as other non-seismic regulatory tools. As well as examining the formal regulatory frame, the work also provides an assessment of the interactions between other non-building acts (such as Health and Safety at Work Act 2015) on the requirements of seismic resilience. Other soft-law developments (particularly around informal building standards) are also examined. The final output of this work will presents this regulatory map in a clear and easily accessible manner and provide an assessment of the suitability of this at times confusing and patchy legal environment as Wellington moves towards becoming a resilient city. The final conclusion of this work will be used to specifically examine the ability of Wellington to make this transition under the current regulatory environment as phase two of the Wellington Case Study project.
During the 2011 M7.8 Kaikōura earthquake, ground motions recorded near the epicentre showed a significant spatial variation. The Te Mara farm (WTMC) station, the nearest to the epicentre, recorded 1g and 2.7g of horizontal and vertical peak ground accelerations (PGA), respectively. The nearby Waiu Gorge (WIGC) station recorded a horizontal PGA of 0.8g. Interestingly, however, the Culverden Airlie Farm (CULC) station that was very closely located to WIGC recorded a horizontal PGA of only 0.25g. This poster demonstrates how the local geological condition could have contributed to the spatially variable ground motions observed in the North Canterbury, based on the results of recently conducted geophysical investigations. The surficial geology of this area is dominated by alluvial gravel deposits with traces of silt. A borehole log showed that the thickness of the sediments at WTMC is over 76 metres. Interestingly, the shear wave velocity (Vs) profiles obtained from the three strong motion sites suggest unusually high shear wave velocity of the gravelly sediments. The velocity of sediments and the lack of clear peaks in the horizontal-to-vertical (H/V) spectral ratio at WTMC suggest that the large ground motion observed at this station was likely caused by the proximity of the station to the causative fault itself; the site effect was likely insignificant. Comparisons of H/V spectral ratios and Vs profiles suggest that the sediment thickness is much smaller at WIGC compared with CULC; the high PGA at WIGC was likely influenced by the high-frequency amplification caused by the response of shallow sediments.
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.
