The seismic tremor that shook Christchurch on February 22, 2011, not only shattered buildings but also the spirit of the city’s residents. Amidst the ruins, this design-focused thesis unravels two intertwining narratives, each essential to the city’s resurrection. At its core, this thesis probes the preservation of Christchurch’s memory and character, meticulously chronicling the lost heritage architecture and the subsequent urban metamorphosis. Beyond bricks and mortar, it also confronts the silent aftershocks - the pervasive mental health challenges stemming from personal losses and the disfigured cityscape. As a native of Christchurch, intimately connected to its fabric, my lens reflects not just on the architectural reconstruction but also on the emotional reconstruction. My experience as an autistic individual, a recently discovered facet of my identity, infuses this design journey with a distinct prism through which I perceive and interact with the world. The colourful sketches that drive the design process aren’t mere illustrations but manifestations of my interpretation of spaces and concepts, evoking joy and vitality—a testament to embracing diversity in design. Drawing parallels between healing my own traumas with my colourful and joyful neurodivergent worldview, I’ve woven this concept into proposals aimed at healing the city through whimsy, joy, and vibrant colours. Personal experiences during and post-earthquakes profoundly shape my design proposals. Having navigated the labyrinth of my own mental health amid the altered cityscape, I seek avenues for reconciliation, both personal and communal. The vibrant sketches and designs presented in this thesis encapsulate this vision—a fusion of vivid, unconventional interpretations and a dedication to preserving the essence of the original cityscape while still encouraging movement into the future
Mechanistic and scientific approaches to resilience assume that there is a “tipping point” at which a system can no longer absorb adversity; after this point, it is liable to collapse. Some of these perspectives, particularly those stemming from ecology and psychology, recognise that individuals and communities cannot be perpetually resilient without limits. While the resilience paradigm has been imported into the social sciences, the limits to resilience have often been disregarded. This leads to an overestimation of “human resourcefulness” within the resilience paradigm. In policy discourse, practice, and research, resilience seems to be treated as a “limitless” and human quality in which individuals and communities can effectively cope with any hazard at any time, for as long as they want and with any people. We critique these assumptions with reference to the recovery case in Ōtautahi Christchurch, Aotearoa New Zealand following the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquake sequence. We discuss the limits to resilience and reconceptualise resilience thinking for disaster risk reduction and sustainable recovery and development
The role of belonging in post-disaster environments remains an under-theorised concept, particularly regarding refugee populations. This paper presents a qualitative study with 101 refugee-background participants from varying communities living in Christchurch, New Zealand, about their perspectives and responses to the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010–11. Participants spoke of how a sense of belonging as individuals and as a wider community was important in the recovery effort, and highlighted the multiple ways in which they understood this concept. Their comments demonstrate how belonging can have contextual, chronological and gendered dimensions that can help inform effective and resonant disaster responses with culturally and linguistically diverse populations. This analysis also illustrates how the participants' perspectives of belonging shifted over time, and discusses the corresponding role of social work in supporting post-disaster recovery through the concepts of civic, ethno and ethnic-based belonging AM - Accepted Manuscript
Though generally considered “natural” disasters, cyclones and earthquakes are increasingly being associated with human activities, incubated through urban settlement patterns and the long-term redistribution of natural resources. As society is becoming more urbanized, the risk of human exposure to disasters is also rising. Architecture often reflects the state of society’s health: architectural damage is the first visible sign of emergency, and reconstruction is the final response in the process of recovery. An empirical assessment of architectural projects in post-disaster situations can lead to a deeper understanding of urban societies as they try to rebuild. This thesis offers an alternative perspective on urban disasters by looking at the actions and attitudes of disaster professionals through the lens of architecture, situated in recent events: the 2010 Christchurch earthquake, the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and the 2005 Hurricane Katrina. An empirical, multi-hazard, cross-sectional case study methodology was used, employing grounded theory method to build theory, and a critical constructivist strategy to inform the analysis. By taking an interdisciplinary approach to understanding disasters, this thesis positions architecture as a conduit between two divergent approaches to disaster research: the hazards approach, which studies the disaster cycles from a scientific perspective; and the sociological approach, which studies the socially constructed vulnerabilities that result from disasters, and the elements of social change that accompany such events. Few studies to date have attempted to integrate the multi-disciplinary perspectives that can advance our understanding of societal problems in urban disasters. To bridge this gap, this thesis develops what will be referred to as the “Rittelian framework”—based on the work of UC Berkeley’s architecture professor Horst Rittel (1930-1990). The Rittelian framework uses the language of design to transcend the multiple fields of human endeavor to address the “design problems” in disaster research. The processes by which societal problems are addressed following an urban disaster involve input by professionals from multiple fields—including economics, sociology, medicine, and engineering—but the contribution from architecture has been minimal to date. The main impetus for my doctoral thesis has been the assertion that most of the decisions related to reconstruction are made in the early emergency recovery stages where architects are not involved, but architects’ early contribution is vital to the long-term reconstruction of cities. This precipitated in the critical question: “How does the Rittelian framework contribute to the critical design decisions in modern urban disasters?” Comparative research was undertaken in three case studies of recent disasters in New Orleans (2005), Haiti (2010) and Christchurch (2010), by interviewing 51 individuals who were selected on the basis of employing the Rittelian framework in their humanitarian practice. Contextualizing natural disaster research within the robust methodological framework of architecture and the analytical processes of sociology is the basis for evaluating the research proposition that architectural problem solving is of value in addressing the ‘Wicked Problems’ of disasters. This thesis has found that (1) the nuances of the way disaster agents interpret the notion of “building back better” can influence the extent to which architectural professionals contribute in urban disaster recovery, (2) architectural design can be used to facilitate but also impede critical design decisions, and (3) framing disaster research in terms of design decisions can lead to innovation where least expected. This empirical research demonstrates how the Rittelian framework can inform a wider discussion about post-disaster human settlements, and improve our resilience through disaster research
Territorial authorities in New Zealand are responding to regulatory and market forces in the wake of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake to assess and retrofit buildings determined to be particularly vulnerable to earthquakes. Pending legislation may shorten the permissible timeframes on such seismic improvement programmes, but Auckland Council’s Property Department is already engaging in a proactive effort to assess its portfolio of approximately 3500 buildings, prioritise these assets for retrofit, and forecast construction costs for improvements. Within the programme structure, the following varied and often competing factors must be accommodated: * The council’s legal, fiscal, and ethical obligations to the people of Auckland per building regulations, health and safety protocols, and economic growth and urban development planning strategies; * The council’s functional priorities for service delivery; * Varied and numerous stakeholders across the largest territorial region in New Zealand in both population and landmass; * Heritage preservation and community and cultural values; and * Auckland’s prominent economic role in New Zealand’s economy which requires Auckland’s continued economic production post-disaster. Identifying those buildings most at risk to an earthquake in such a large and varied portfolio has warranted a rapid field assessment programme supplemented by strategically chosen detailed assessments. Furthermore, Auckland Council will benefit greatly in time and resources by choosing retrofit solutions, techniques, and technologies applicable to a large number of buildings with similar configurations and materials. From a research perspective, the number and variety of buildings within the council’s property portfolio will provide valuable data for risk modellers on building typologies in Auckland, which are expected to be fairly representative of the New Zealand building stock as a whole
