A Line of Best Fit explores weakness and disconnection in the city. Weakness: There are over 600 earthquake prone buildings in Wellington. The urgency to strengthen buildings risks compromising the aesthetic integrity of the city through abrasive strengthening techniques, or losing a large portion of our built environment to demolition. The need for extensive earthquake strengthening in Wellington, Christchurch and other New Zealand cities provides an exciting opportunity for architecture. Disconnection: In Wellington pedestrian activity is focused around three main routes: Cuba Street, Lambton Quay and Courtney Place. The adjacent areas are often disconnected and lack vibrancy due to large building footprints, no-exit laneways and lack of public spaces. The Design proposes a strategy for earthquake strengthening, preserving and upgrading the built environment, and expanding and connecting the pedestrian realm. The site is two earthquake prone buildings on the block between Marion Street and Taranaki Street in central Wellington. A cut through the centre of the Aspro and Cathie Buildings ties the buildings together to strengthen and create a new arcade as public space. The cut aligns with existing pedestrian routes connecting the block with the city. The Design is divided into three components: Void, Curve, and Pattern and Structure. Void investigates the implications of cutting a portion out the existing buildings and the opportunities this provides for connection, urban interaction, and light. Curve discusses the unusual form of The Design in terms of scale, the human response and the surrounding spaces. Pattern and Structure considers the structural requirements of the project and how a void enveloped in perforated screens can strengthen the earthquake prone buildings. The importance of connection, providing strength in the city, a dialogue between old and new, and engagement with the unexpected are evaluated. Opportunities for further development and research are discussed, with particular reference to how the principles of The Design could be implemented on a larger scale throughout our cities. A Line of Best Fit is an architectural proposal that creates strength and connection.
This thesis is a theoretical exploration of ‘remembrance’ and its production in the interactions between people/s and the landscape. This exploration takes place in the broad context of post earthquake Christchurch with a focus on public spaces along the Ōtākaro – Avon river corridor. Memory is universal to human beings, yet memories are subjective and culturally organized and produced - the relationship between memory and place therefore operates at individual and collective levels. Design responses that facilitate opportunities to create new memories, and also acknowledge the remembered past of human – landscape relationships are critical for social cohesion and wellbeing. I draw on insights from a range of theoretical sources, including critical interpretive methodologies, to validate subjective individual and group responses to memory and place. Such approaches also allowed me, as the researcher, considerable freedom to apply memory theory through film to illustrate ways we can re-member ourselves to our landscapes. The Ōtākaro-Avon river provided the site through and in which film strategies for remembrance are explored. Foregrounding differences in Māori and settler cultural orientations to memory and landscape, has highlighted the need for landscape design to consider remembrance - those cognitive and unseen dimensions that intertwine people and place. I argue it is our task to make space for such diverse relationships, and to ensure these stories and memories, embodied in landscape can be read through generations. I do not prescribe methods or strategies; rather I have sought to encourage thinking and debate and to suggest approaches through which the possibilities for remembrance may be enhanced.
Following the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes Christchurch is undergoing extensive development on the periphery of the city. This has been driven in part by the large numbers of people who have lost their homes. Prior to the earthquakes, Christchurch was already experiencing placeless subdivisions and now these are being rolled out rapidly thanks to the efficiency of a formula that has been embraced by the Council, developers and the public alike. However, sprawling subdivisions have a number of issues including inefficient land use, limited housing types, high dependence on motor vehicles and low levels of resilience and no sense of place. Sense of place is of particular interest due to its glaring absence from new subdivisions and its growing importance in the literature. Research shows that sense of place has benefits to our feeling of belonging, well-being, and self-identity, particularly following a disaster. It improves the resilience and sustainability of our living environment and fosters a connection to the landscape thereby making us better placed to respond to future changes. Despite these benefits, current planning models such as new urbanism and transit-oriented design tend to give sense of place a low priority and as a result it can get lost. Given these issues, the focus of this research is “can landscape driven sense of place drive subdivision design without compromising on other urban planning criteria to produce subdivisions that address the issues of sprawl, as well as achieving the benefits associated with a strong sense of place that can improve our overall quality of life?” Answering this question required a thorough review of current urban planning and sense of place literature. This was used to critique existing subdivisions to gain a thorough understanding of the issues. The outcomes of this led to extensive design exploration which showed that, not only is it possible to design a subdivision with sense of place as the key driver but by doing this, the other urban planning criteria become easier to achieve.
Research on human behaviour during earthquake shaking has identified three main influences of behaviour: the environment the individual is located immediately before and during the earthquake, in terms of where the individual is and who the individual is with at the time of the earthquake; individual characteristics, such as age, gender, previous earthquake experience, and the intensity and duration of earthquake shaking. However, little research to date has systematically analysed the immediate observable human responses to earthquake shaking, mostly due to data constraints and/or ethical considerations. Research on human behaviour during earthquakes has relied on simulations or post-event, reflective interviews and questionnaire studies, often performed weeks to months or even years following the event. Such studies are therefore subject to limitations such as the quality of the participant's memory or (perceived) realism of a simulation. The aim of this research was to develop a robust coding scheme to analyse human behaviour during earthquake shaking using video footage captured during an earthquake event. This will allow systematic analysis of individuals during real earthquakes using a previously unutilized data source, thus help develop guidance on appropriate protective actions. The coding scheme was developed in a two-part process, combining a deductive and inductive approach. Previous research studies of human behavioral response during earthquake shaking provided the basis for the coding scheme. This was then iteratively refined by applying the coding scheme to a broad range of video footage of people exposed to strong shaking during the Canterbury earthquake sequence. The aim of this was to optimise coding scheme content and application across a broad range of scenarios, and to increase inter-coder reliability. The methodology to code data will enhance objective observation of video footage to allow cross-event analysis and explore (among others): reaction time, patterns of behaviour, and social, environmental and situational influences of behaviour. This can provide guidance for building configuration and design, and evidence-based recommendations for public education about injury-preventing behavioural responses during earthquake shaking.
In the last century, seismic design has undergone significant advancements. Starting from the initial concept of designing structures to perform elastically during an earthquake, the modern seismic design philosophy allows structures to respond to ground excitations in an inelastic manner, thereby allowing damage in earthquakes that are significantly less intense than the largest possible ground motion at the site of the structure. Current performance-based multi-objective seismic design methods aim to ensure life-safety in large and rare earthquakes, and to limit structural damage in frequent and moderate earthquakes. As a result, not many recently built buildings have collapsed and very few people have been killed in 21st century buildings even in large earthquakes. Nevertheless, the financial losses to the community arising from damage and downtime in these earthquakes have been unacceptably high (for example; reported to be in excess of 40 billion dollars in the recent Canterbury earthquakes). In the aftermath of the huge financial losses incurred in recent earthquakes, public has unabashedly shown their dissatisfaction over the seismic performance of the built infrastructure. As the current capacity design based seismic design approach relies on inelastic response (i.e. ductility) in pre-identified plastic hinges, it encourages structures to damage (and inadvertently to incur loss in the form of repair and downtime). It has now been widely accepted that while designing ductile structural systems according to the modern seismic design concept can largely ensure life-safety during earthquakes, this also causes buildings to undergo substantial damage (and significant financial loss) in moderate earthquakes. In a quest to match the seismic design objectives with public expectations, researchers are exploring how financial loss can be brought into the decision making process of seismic design. This has facilitated conceptual development of loss optimisation seismic design (LOSD), which involves estimating likely financial losses in design level earthquakes and comparing against acceptable levels of loss to make design decisions (Dhakal 2010a). Adoption of loss based approach in seismic design standards will be a big paradigm shift in earthquake engineering, but it is still a long term dream as the quantification of the interrelationships between earthquake intensity, engineering demand parameters, damage measures, and different forms of losses for different types of buildings (and more importantly the simplification of the interrelationship into design friendly forms) will require a long time. Dissecting the cost of modern buildings suggests that the structural components constitute only a minor portion of the total building cost (Taghavi and Miranda 2003). Moreover, recent research on seismic loss assessment has shown that the damage to non-structural elements and building contents contribute dominantly to the total building loss (Bradley et. al. 2009). In an earthquake, buildings can incur losses of three different forms (damage, downtime, and death/injury commonly referred as 3Ds); but all three forms of seismic loss can be expressed in terms of dollars. It is also obvious that the latter two loss forms (i.e. downtime and death/injury) are related to the extent of damage; which, in a building, will not just be constrained to the load bearing (i.e. structural) elements. As observed in recent earthquakes, even the secondary building components (such as ceilings, partitions, facades, windows parapets, chimneys, canopies) and contents can undergo substantial damage, which can lead to all three forms of loss (Dhakal 2010b). Hence, if financial losses are to be minimised during earthquakes, not only the structural systems, but also the non-structural elements (such as partitions, ceilings, glazing, windows etc.) should be designed for earthquake resistance, and valuable contents should be protected against damage during earthquakes. Several innovative building technologies have been (and are being) developed to reduce building damage during earthquakes (Buchanan et. al. 2011). Most of these developments are aimed at reducing damage to the buildings’ structural systems without due attention to their effects on non-structural systems and building contents. For example, the PRESSS system or Damage Avoidance Design concept aims to enable a building’s structural system to meet the required displacement demand by rocking without the structural elements having to deform inelastically; thereby avoiding damage to these elements. However, as this concept does not necessarily reduce the interstory drift or floor acceleration demands, the damage to non-structural elements and contents can still be high. Similarly, the concept of externally bracing/damping building frames reduces the drift demand (and consequently reduces the structural damage and drift sensitive non-structural damage). Nevertheless, the acceleration sensitive non-structural elements and contents will still be very vulnerable to damage as the floor accelerations are not reduced (arguably increased). Therefore, these concepts may not be able to substantially reduce the total financial losses in all types of buildings. Among the emerging building technologies, base isolation looks very promising as it seems to reduce both inter-storey drifts and floor accelerations, thereby reducing the damage to the structural/non-structural components of a building and its contents. Undoubtedly, a base isolated building will incur substantially reduced loss of all three forms (dollars, downtime, death/injury), even during severe earthquakes. However, base isolating a building or applying any other beneficial technology may incur additional initial costs. In order to provide incentives for builders/owners to adopt these loss-minimising technologies, real-estate and insurance industries will have to acknowledge the reduced risk posed by (and enhanced resilience of) such buildings in setting their rental/sale prices and insurance premiums.
Christchurch was struck by a 6.3 magnitude earthquake on the 22 February 2011. The quake devastated the city, taking lives and causing widespread damage to the inner city and suburban homes. The central city lost over half its buildings and over 7000 homes were condemned throughout Christchurch. The loss of such a great number of homes has created the requirement for new housing to replace those that were lost. Many of which were located in the eastern, less affluent, suburbs. The response to the housing shortage is the planned creation of large scale subdivisions on the outskirts of the city. Whilst this provides the required housing it creates additional sprawl to a city that does not need it. The extension of Christchurch’s existing suburban sprawl puts pressure on roading and pushes residents further out of the city, creating a disconnection between them. Christchurch’s central city had a very small residential population prior to the earthquakes with very few options for dense inner city living. The proposed rebuild of the inner city calls for a new ‘dense, vibrant and diverse central hub’. Proposing the introduction of new residential units within the central city. However the placement of the low-rise housing in a key attribute of the rebuild, the eastern green ‘Frame’, diminishes its value as open green space. The proposed housing will also be restrictive in its target market and therefore the idea of a ‘vibrant’ inner city is difficult to achieve. This thesis acts as response to the planned rebuild of inner Christchurch. Proposing the creation of a model for inner city housing which provides an alternative option to the proposed housing and existing and ongoing suburban sprawl. The design options were explored through a design-led process were the options were critiqued and developed. The ‘final’ proposal is comprises of three tall towers, aptly named the Triple Towers, which condense the proposed low-rise housing from an 11000 square metre footprint to combined footprint of 1500 square metres. The result is an expansion of the publicly available green space along the proposed eastern frame of the city. The height of the project challenges the height restrictions and is provocative in its proposal and placement. The design explores the relationships between the occupants, the building, the ‘Frame’ and the central city. The project is discussed through an exploration of the architecture of Rem Koolhaas, Renzo Piano and Oscar Niemeyer. Rather than their architecture being taken as a direct influence on which the design is based the discussion revolves around how and why each piece of comparative architecture is relevant to the designs desired outcome.
