Damaged buildings along London Street. Wire fencing has been used to keep people away. From the left are the Volcano Cafe, the Lava Bar, a fish and chip shop, and the Coastal Living Design Store. Rubble from the side of the Volcano Cafe can be seen along the Canterbury Street footpath.
Christchurch Ōtautahi, New Zealand, is a city of myriad waterways and springs. Māori, the indigenous people of New Zealand, have water quality at the core of their cultural values. The city’s rivers include the Avon/Ōtākaro, central to the city centre’s aesthetic appeal since early settlement, and the Heathcote/Ōpāwaho. Both have been degraded with increasing urbanisation. The destructive earthquake sequence that occurred during 2010/11 presented an opportunity to rebuild significant areas of the city. Public consultation identified enthusiasm to rebuild a sustainable city. A sustainable water sensitive city is one where development is constructed with the water environment in mind. Water sensitive urban design applies at all scales and is a holistic concept. In Christchurch larger-scale multi-value stormwater management solutions were incorporated into rapidly developed greenfield sites on the city’s outskirts and in satellite towns, as they had been pre-earthquake. Individual properties on greenfield sites and within the city, however, continued to be constructed without water sensitive features such as rainwater tanks or living roofs. This research uses semi-structured interviews, policy analysis, and findings from local and international studies to investigate the benefits of building-scale WSUD and the barriers that have resulted in their absence. Although several inter-related barriers became apparent, cost, commonly cited as a barrier to sustainable development in general, was strongly represented. However, it is argued that the issue is one of mindset rather than cost. Solutions are proposed, based on international and national experience, that will demonstrate the benefits of adopting water sensitive urban design principles including at the building scale, and thereby build public and political support. The research is timely - there is still much development to occur, and increasing pressures from urban densification, population growth and climate change to mitigate.
At the conclusion of the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes more than 5100 homes had been deemed unsafe for habitation. The land and buildings of these were labelled “red zoned” and are too badly damaged for remediation. These homes have been demolished or are destined for demolition. To assist the red zone population to relocate, central government have offered to ‘buy out’ home owners at the Governmental Value (GV) that was last reviewed in 2007. While generous in the economic context at the time, the area affected was the lowest value land and housing in Christchurch and so there is a capital shortfall between the 2007 property value and the cost of relocating to more expensive properties. This shortfall is made worse by increasing present day values since the earthquakes. Red zone residents have had to relocate to the far North and Western extremities of Christchurch, and some chose to move even further to neighbouring towns or cities. The eastern areas and commercial centres close to the red zone are affected as well. They have lost critical mass which has negatively impacted businesses in the catchments of the Red Zone. This thesis aims to repopulate the suburbs most affected by the abandonment of the red zone houses. Because of the relative scarcity of sound building sites in the East and to introduce affordability to these houses, an alternative method of development is required than the existing low density suburban model. Smart medium density design will be tested as an affordable and appropriate means of living. Existing knowledge in this field will be reviewed, an analysis of what East Christchurch’s key characteristics are will occur, and an examination of built works and site investigations will also be conducted. The research finds that at housing densities of 40 units per hectare, the spatial, vehicle, aesthetic needs of East Christchurch can be accommodated. Centralising development is also found to offer better lifestyle choices than the isolated suburbs at the edges of Christchurch, to be more efficient using existing infrastructure, and to place less reliance on cars. Stronger communities are formed from the outset and for a full range of demographics. Eastern affordable housing options are realised and Christchurch’s ever expanding suburban tendencies are addressed. East Christchurch presently displays a gaping scar of devastated houses that ‘The New Eastside’ provides a bandage and a cure for. Displaced and dispossessed Christchurch residents can be re-housed within a new heart for East Christchurch.
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.