This research attempts to understand how the Christchurch rebuild is promoting urban liveability in the Central City, focussing on the influence of communities and neighbourhoods in this area. To do this, gathering the perceptions of Christchurch residents through surveys, a focus group and semi-structured interviews was carried out to see what aspects they believe contribute to creating more liveable places. These methods revealed that there are pockets of neighbourhoods and communities in the inner-city, but no overall sense of community. Results from the semi-structured interviews reinforced this; the current buyers of inner-city property are in the financial position to be able to do this, and they seem to be purchasing in this area due to convenience and investment rather than to join the existing communities in the area. Analysing the survey responses from Central City residents revealed contrasting results. Those currently living in the area felt there is a sense of community in the inner-city, but these are found in pockets of neighbourhoods around the Central City rather than in the overall area. The focus group revealed that community is further prioritised later in life, and that many of the community groups in the inner-city predominantly consist of those who have lived there since before the Christchurch Earthquake Series. However, participants of all three methods believed that the Central City is slowly becoming a lively and vibrant place. To improve urban liveability in the inner-city, it seems that prioritisation of the needs of current inner-city residents is required. Improving these neighbourhoods, whether it be through the implementation of services or providing more communal spaces, is needed to create stronger communities. The feelings of place, connectedness, and belonging that arise from being part of a community or well-connected neighbourhood can improve mental health and wellbeing, ultimately enhancing the overall health of the population as well as the perceived urban liveability of the area.
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.
