<b>In the late 1960s the Wellington City Council surveyed all the commercial buildings in the city and marked nearly 200 as earthquake prone. The owners were given 15 years to either strengthen or demolish their buildings. The end result was mass demolition throughout the seventies and eighties.¹ Prompted by the Christchurch earthquakes, once again the council has published a list of over 630 earthquake prone buildings that need to be strengthened or demolished by 2030.²Of these earthquake prone buildings, the majority were built between 1880 and 1930, with 125 buildings appearing on the Wellington City Council Heritage Building List.³ This list accounts for a significant proportion of character buildings in the city. There is a danger that the aesthetic integrity of our city will be further damaged due to the urgent need to strengthen these buildings. Many of the building owners are resistant because of the high cost. By adapting these buildings to house co-workspaces, we can gain more than just the retention of the building’s heritage. The seismic upgrade provides the opportunity for the office space to be redesigned to suit changes in the ways we work. Through a design-based research approach this thesis proposes a framework that clarifies the process of adapting Wellington’s earthquake prone heritage buildings to accommodate co-working. This framework deals with the key concepts of program, structure and heritage. The framework is tested on one of Wellington’s earthquake prone heritage buildings, the Wellington Working Men’s Club, in order to demonstrate what can be gained from this strengthening process. ¹ Reid, J., “Hometown Boomtown,” in NZ On Screen (Wellington, 1983).</b>
² Wellington City Council, List of Earthquake Prone Buildings as at 06/03/2017. (Wellington: Absolutely Positively Wellington. 2017).
³ ibid.
Abstract The original intention for the Partnership Community Worker (PCW) project in 2006 was for it to be an extension of the Pegasus Health General Practice and furthermore to be a bridge between the community and primary healthcare. It was believed that a close working relationship between the Practice Nurse and the PCW would help the target population of Māori, Pacifica and low income people to address and overcome their perceived barriers to healthcare which included: finance, transport, anxiety, cultural issues, communication, or lack of knowledge. Seven years later although the PCW project has been deemed a success in the Canterbury District Health Board annual reports (2013-14) and community and government agencies, including the Christchurch Resettlement Service (2012), many of the Pegasus Health General Practices have not utilised the project to its full extent, hence the need for this research. I was interested in finding out in the first instance if the model had changed and, if so why, and in the second instance if the promotional material currently distributed by Pegasus Health Primary Health Organisation reflected the daily practice of the PCW. A combination of methods were used including: surveys to the Pegasus Health General Practices, interviews with PCWs, interviews with managers of both the PCW host organisations and referring agencies to the PCW project. All the questions asked of all the participants in this research were focussed on their own perception of the role of the PCW. Results showed that the model has changed and although the publications were not reflecting the original intention of the project they did reflect the daily practice of the PCWs who are now struggling to meet much wider community expectations and needs. Key Results: Partnership Community Worker (PCW) interviews: Seventeen PCWs of the 19 employed were interviewed face to face. A number expressed interest in more culturally specific training and some are pursuing qualifications in social work; for many pay parity is an issue. In addition, many felt overwhelmed by the expectations around clients with mental health issues and housing issues now, post-earthquakes. Medical Practice surveys: Surveys were sent to eighty-two Pegasus Health medical practices and of these twenty five were completed. Results showed the full capacity of the PCW role was not clearly understood by all with many believing it was mostly a transport service. Those who did understand the full complexity of the role were very satisfied with the outcomes. PCW Host Community Manager Interviews: Of the ten out of twelve managers interviewed, some wished for more communication with Pegasus Health management because they felt aspects of both the PCW role and their own role as managers had become blurred over time. Referring organisations: Fifteen of the fifty referring community or government organisations participated. The overall satisfaction of the service was high and some acknowledged the continuing need for PCWs to be placed in communities where they were well known and trusted. Moreover results also showed that both the Canterbury earthquakes 2010-2011 and the amalgamation of Partnership Health PHO and Pegasus Health Charitable Limited in 2013 have contributed to the change of the model. Further future research may also be needed to examine the long term effects on the people of Canterbury involved in community work during the 2011-2014 years.
