Search

found 388 results

Images for urban; more images...

Research Papers, Lincoln University

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.

Research Papers, Lincoln University

The increase in urban population has required cities to rethink their strategies for minimising greenhouse gas impacts and adapting to climate change. While urban design and planning policy have been guided by principles such as walkability (to reduce the dependence on cars) and green infrastructure (to enhance the quality of open spaces to support conservation and human values), there have been conflicting views on what spatial strategies will best prepare cities for a challenging future. Researchers supporting compact cities based upon public Transit Oriented Development have claimed that walkability, higher density and mixed-uses make cities more sustainable (Owen, 2009) and that, while green spaces in cities are necessary, they are dull in comparison with shopfronts and street vendors (Speck, 2012, p 250). Other researchers claim that green infrastructure is fundamental to improving urban sustainability and attracting public space users with improved urban comfort, consequently encouraging walkability (Pitman and Ely, 2013). Landscape architects tend to assume that ‘the greener the better’; however, the efficiency of urban greenery in relation to urban comfort and urbanity depends on its density, distribution and the services provided. Green infrastructure can take many forms (from urban forests to street trees) and provide varied services (amended microclimate, aesthetics, ecology and so forth). In this paper, we evaluate the relevance of current policy in Christchurch regarding both best practice in green infrastructure and urban comfort (Tavares, 2015). We focus on the Christchurch Blueprint for rebuilding the central city, and critically examine the post-earthquake paths the city is following regarding its green and grey infrastructures and the resulting urban environment. We discuss the performance and appropriateness of the current Blueprint in post-earthquake Christchurch, particularly as it relates to the challenges that climate change is creating for cities worldwide.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Members of the USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team and New Zealand Urban Search and Rescue Team in front of a collapsed house in the Christchurch central city. In the background, the Newstalk ZB Building can be seen.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Members of the USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) and New Zealand Urban Search and Rescue in a building which was severely damaged during the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Members of the USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) and the New Zealand Urban Search and Rescue Team conferring in a tent full of equipment in Latimer Square. Latimer Square was set up as a temporary headquarters for emergency management personnel after the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Urban Search and Rescue personnel escorting construction workers down Colombo Street in the aftermath of the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Behind them a team of Fire Service and Urban Search and Rescue personnel can be seen using a crane to check the Forsyth Barr building for trapped people.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Members of the USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) and the New Zealand Urban Search and Rescue, breaking through the floor of a building which was severely damaged during the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Urban Search and Rescue personnel escorting construction workers down Colombo Street in the aftermath of the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Behind them a team of Fire Service and Urban Search and Rescue personnel can be seen using a crane to check the Forsyth Barr building for trapped people.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Members of the USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) and New Zealand Urban Search and Rescue breaking through the floor of a building which was severely damaged during the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Members of the USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) and New Zealand Urban Search and Rescue breaking through the floor of a building which was severely damaged during the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

A photographs of members of a China Urban Search and Rescue team on Worcester Street near the Christchurch Art Gallery. The art gallery served as the temporary headquarters for Civil Defence after the 22 February 2011 earthquake. In the background, the earthquake damage to the dome of the Regent Theatre can be seen.

Research Papers, Lincoln University

Successful urban regeneration projects generate benefits that are realised over a much longer timeframe than normal market developments and benefits well beyond those that can be uplifted by a market developer. Consequently there is substantial evidence in the literature that successful place-making and urban regeneration projects are usually public-private partnerships and involve a funder, usually local or central government, willing to contribute ‘patient’ capital. Following the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes that devastated the centre of Christchurch, there was an urgent need to rebuild and revitalise the heart of the city, and increasing the number of people living in or near the city centre was seen as a key ingredient of that. In October 2010, an international competition was launched to design and build an Urban Village, a project intended to stimulate renewed residential development in the city. The competition attracted 58 entrants from around world, and in October 2013 the winning team was chosen from four finalists. However the team failed to secure sufficient finance, and in November 2015 the Government announced that the development would not proceed. The Government was unwilling or unable to recognise that an insistence on a pure market approach would not deliver the innovative sustainable village asked for in the competition brief, and failed to factor in the opportunity cost to government, local government, local businesses and the wider Christchurch community of delaying by many years the residential development of the eastern side of the city. As a result, the early vision of the vitality that a thriving residential neighbourhood would bring to the city has not yet been realised.