Search

found 654 results

Images for urbanism; more images...

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.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Urban Search and Rescue personnel outside the collapsed Canterbury Television Building on Madras Street. In the background, smoke is billowing out of the building which was still partly on fire when the photograph was taken.

Audio, Radio New Zealand

Urban Search and Rescue's lead dog trainer, Brenda Woolley talks about her 17 years of training dogs to step up in dangerous and chaotic situations - including in the aftermath of the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes. Her lifelong ability to build rapport with dogs, and spot which ones have potential to do the tough jobs, led to Brenda working in animal control for the Christchurch City Council - she and her husband Rex have run the Council's dog shelter for 29 years - before she got into Land Search and Rescue and later, Urban SAR. She has a QSM for services to Urban Search and Rescue. If you think your dog fits the requirements Brenda outlines in this interview, and you're keen to register your interest with Urban Search and Rescue, you can visit the team's website, http://www.usardogs.org.nz/

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

In recent work on commons and commoning, scholars have argued that we might delink the practice of commoning from property ownership, while paying attention to modes of governance that enable long-term commons to emerge and be sustained. Yet commoning can also occur as a temporary practice, in between and around other forms of use. In this article we reflect on the transitional commoning practices and projects enabled by the Christchurch post-earthquake organisation Life in Vacant Spaces, which emerged to connect and mediate between landowners of vacant inner city demolition sites and temporary creative or entrepreneurial users. While these commons are often framed as transitional or temporary, we argue they have ongoing reverberations changing how people and local government in Christchurch approach common use. Using the cases of the physical space of the Victoria Street site “The Commons” and the virtual space of the Life in Vacant Spaces website, we show how temporary commoning projects can create and sustain the conditions of possibility required for nurturing commoner subjectivities. Thus despite their impermanence, temporary commoning projects provide a useful counter to more dominant forms of urban development and planning premised on property ownership and “permanent” timeframes, in that just as the physical space of the city being opened to commoning possibilities, so too are the expectations and dispositions of the city’s inhabitants, planners, and developers.