Advocates for Compact City, Smart Growth and New Urbanism claim intensification of land use as a means to achieve sustainability imperatives, manage urbanisation and curb peripheral sprawl. It appears policy makers and planners have taken this perspective into consideration over the last two decades as intensification appears more prevalent in policy and planning. Literature points to residential infill as a method of providing for housing development within city limits. While residential infill is recognised in literature, little is known about what it consists of and the different stakeholders involved. This study will document different types of infill, identify various stakeholders associated with the different types and how their roles align and conflict.
Creative temporary or transitional use of vacant urban open spaces is
seldom foreseen in traditional urban planning and has historically been
linked to economic or political disturbances. Christchurch, like most
cities, has had a relatively small stock of vacant spaces throughout
much of its history. This changed dramatically after an earthquake and
several damaging aftershocks hit the city in 2010 and 2011; temporary
uses emerged on post-earthquake sites that ran parallel to the “official”
rebuild discourse and programmes of action. The paper examines
a post-earthquake transitional community-initiated open space (CIOS)
in central Christchurch. CIOS have been established by local community
groups as bottom-up initiatives relying on financial sponsorship,
agreements with local landowners who leave their land for temporary
projects until they are ready to redevelop, and volunteers who build
and maintain the spaces. The paper discusses bottom-up governance
approaches in depth in a single temporary post-earthquake community
garden project using the concepts of community resilience and social
capital. The study analyses and highlights the evolution and actions of
the facilitating community organisation (Greening the Rubble) and the
impact of this on the project. It discusses key actors’ motivations and
values, perceived benefits and challenges, and their current involvement
with the garden. The paper concludes with observations and recommendations about the initiation of such projects and the challenges for those wishing to study ephemeral social recovery phenomena.
