Diverse Density proposes an alternative housing strategy to the idealistic top-down process of housing development. The term ‘Top – down’ refers to a situation in which decisions are made by a few people in authority rather than by the people who are affected by the decisions (Cambridge). Problems/Position/Question: New Zealand’s urban housing is in a period of flux. Pressures of densification have permitted the intervention of medium density housing development schemes but these are not always successful. These typically top-down processes often result in internally focused design schemes that do not adhere to their specific context. The subsequent design outcomes can cause detrimental impacts to the local, urban and architectural conditions. With vast quantities of council regulations, building restrictions and design guidelines clouding over the housing sector, commonly referred to as ‘red tape’, occupant participation in the housing development sector is dwindling. A boundless separation between top-down and traditional housing processes has occurred and our existing neighbourhoods and historic architectural character are taking on the brunt of the problem. The thought-provoking, alternative housings strategies of key research theorists Alejandro Aravena and John Habraken frame positions that challenge contemporary densification methods with an alternative strategy. This position is addressed by endeavoring to answer; How can demands for denser housing achieve dynamic design responses that adhere to changes in occupancy, function and local site conditions? Aim: The aim of this thesis is to challenge New Zealand’s current housing densification methods by proposing an alternative densification strategy. Explicit devotion will be attributed to opposing top-down building developments. Secondly, this thesis aims to test a speculative site-specific housing model. The implementation of a Christchurch housing scenario will situate an investigative study to test the strategy and its ability to stimulate greater diversity, site responsiveness, functional adaptability and occupancy permutation. The post-earthquake housing conditions of Christchurch provide an appropriate scenario to test and implement design-led investigations. Objectives: The primary objectives of this design-led research investigation it to challenge the idealistic top-down method of developing density with a new method to: - Develop contextual architectural cohesion - Encourage residential diversity - Reinvigorate architectural autonomy - Respond to, and recognise, existing site conditions - Develop a housing model that: - Adapts to occupant functionality preferences - Caters to occupancy diversity - Achieves contextual responsiveness The proposition is addressed through a speculative design-led scenario study. A well-established Christchurch urban environment is adopted to implement and critique the envisioned alternative strategy. Development of the designs responsiveness, adaptability, and functionality produce a prototype housing model that actively adheres to its particular context. Implication: The implications of this research would be an alternative densification strategy to perceive the advancement of punctual assessment of building compliance. With accelerated building processes, the research may have implications for addressing New Zealand’s housing crisis whilst simultaneously providing diverse, personable and responsive architectural solutions. A more dynamic, up-to-date and responsive housing development sector would be informed.
Advocates for Compact City, Smart Growth and New Urbanism claim intensification of land use as a means to achieve sustainability imperatives, manage urbanisation and curb peripheral sprawl. It appears policy makers and planners have taken this perspective into consideration over the last two decades as intensification appears more prevalent in policy and planning. Literature points to residential infill as a method of providing for housing development within city limits. While residential infill is recognised in literature, little is known about what it consists of and the different stakeholders involved. This study will document different types of infill, identify various stakeholders associated with the different types and how their roles align and conflict.
RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how?
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “if you see house prices rising, you might say the Government needs to do more” and “we take responsibility, we need to do a better job of it”?
SARAH DOWIE to the Minister of Finance: What international reports has he received showing New Zealand’s economic growth remains robust?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: On what date was the Ministry of Health first made aware of data manipulation of the six-hour Emergency Department target by district health boards?
CHRIS BISHOP to the Minister for Economic Development: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding support for earthquake-affected businesses?
METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Building and Housing: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o tana kōrero, “The proportion of New Zealanders living in rental homes is not changing dramatically and owner-occupiers will remain the dominant living arrangement for most Kiwi families into the future” i te mea, ā, e ai ki ngā tatauranga hou, nō mai anō i te tau Kotahi mano, iwa rau, rima tekau mā tahi, i taka ai te hunga whiwhi i tōna ake whare, ki raro rā nō? Translation: Does he stand by his statement that “The proportion of New Zealanders living in rental homes is not changing dramatically and owner-occupiers will remain the dominant living arrangement for most Kiwi families into the future” given that home ownership is at its lowest level since 1951, according to the latest census?
STUART SMITH to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made regarding support for earthquake-affected primary sectors?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that Treasury forecasts are “a load of nonsense, because they can’t get predications in 44 days right, let alone 44 years”?
ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Building and Housing: What additional Auckland housing projects did he announce during last week’s recess, and what are the latest reports on the growth in construction across Auckland showing?
Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Is he confident EQC will be employing the necessary resource to process and settle claims, from both the Canterbury earthquake sequence and the earthquake sequence of a fortnight ago, after 16 December; if so, why?
DAVID SEYMOUR to the Minister of Police: What reassurance can she give to Epsom residents concerned that their Community Policing Centre will cease to operate after 24 years?
IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has he made recently that support the continued growth of the New Zealand wine export market?
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, "There's actually quite legitimate business in New Zealand for servicing foreign trusts"?
JAMES SHAW to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
ALASTAIR SCOTT to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the state of the Crown accounts ahead of Budget 2016?
RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Housing: What support will Budget 2016 provide for people in need of emergency housing?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What is the total amount of efficiencies since 2011/12 made by the 20 district health boards and how much have they made for the February year to date?
JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Revenue: Does he stand by his statement, "these are the facts: there is no tax avoidance or evasion in New Zealand in respect of foreign trusts … There is no wealth hidden in New Zealand with these foreign trusts"?
MAUREEN PUGH to the Minister for Communications: What recent announcements has she made on progress of the Government's Ultra-Fast Broadband programme?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement made in Budget 2015 that "the unemployment rate is expected to fall below 5% in 2016"?
BARBARA KURIGER to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on Communities of Learning?
Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Has EQC's position that it will reinstate earthquake damage to a condition substantially the same as "when new" been applied to every home repaired in the Canterbury Home Repair Programme; if so, why does the EQC customer guide state that customers' homes will be returned to a "pre-earthquake state"?
MAHESH BINDRA to the Minister of Corrections: Does she have confidence in the Department of Corrections' ability to keep both staff and prisoners safe?
A video of a presentation by Jane Murray and Stephen Timms during the Social Recovery Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Land Use Recovery Plan: How an impact assessment process engaged communities in recovery planning".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: In response to the Canterbury earthquakes, the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery directed Environment Canterbury (Canterbury's regional council) to prepare a Land Use Recovery Plan that would provide a spatial planning framework for Greater Christchurch and aid recovery from the Canterbury earthquakes. The Land Use Recovery Plan sets a policy and planning framework necessary to rebuild existing communities and develop new communities. As part of preparing the plan, an integrated assessment was undertaken to address wellbeing and sustainability concerns. This ensured that social impacts of the plan were likely to achieve better outcomes for communities. The process enabled a wide range of community and sector stakeholders to provide input at the very early stages of drafting the document. The integrated assessment considered the treatment of major land use issues in the plan, e.g. overall distribution of activities across the city, integrated transport routes, housing typography, social housing, employment and urban design, all of which have a key impact on health and wellbeing. Representatives from the Canterbury Health in All Policies Partnership were involved in designing a three-part assessment process that would provide a framework for the Land Use Recovery Plan writers to assess and improve the plan in terms of wellbeing and sustainability concerns. The detail of these assessment stages, and the influence that they had on the draft plan, will be outlined in the presentation. In summary, the three stages involved: developing key wellbeing and sustainability concerns that could form a set of criteria, analysing the preliminary draft of the Land Use Recovery Plan against the criteria in a broad sector workshop, and analysing the content and recommendations of the Draft Plan. This demonstrates the importance of integrated assessment influencing the Land Use Recovery Plan that in turn influences other key planning documents such as the District Plan. This process enabled a very complex document with wide-ranging implications to be broken down, enabling many groups, individuals and organisations to have their say in the recovery process. There is also a range of important lessons for recovery that can be applied to other projects and actions in a disaster recovery situation.
A video of a presentation by Dr Sarah Beaven during the Social Recovery Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Leading and Coordinating Social Recovery: Lessons from a central recovery agency".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: This presentation provides an overview of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's Social Recovery Lessons and Legacy project. This project was commissioned in 2014 and completed in December 2015. It had three main aims: to capture Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's role in social recovery after the Canterbury earthquakes, to identify lessons learned, and to disseminate these lessons to future recovery practitioners. The project scope spanned four Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority work programmes: The Residential Red Zone, the Social and Cultural Outcomes, the Housing Programme, and the Community Resilience Programme. Participants included both Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority employees, people from within a range of regional and national agencies, and community and public sector organisations who worked with Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority over time. The presentation will outline the origin and design of the project, and present some key findings.
A video of a presentation by Jane Morgan and Annabel Begg during the Social Recovery Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Monitoring Social Recovery in Greater Christchurch".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: This presentation provides an overview of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's Social Recovery Lessons and Legacy project. This project was commissioned in 2014 and completed in December 2015. It had three main aims: to capture Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority's role in social recovery after the Canterbury earthquakes, to identify lessons learned, and to disseminate these lessons to future recovery practitioners. The project scope spanned four Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority work programmes: The Residential Red Zone, the Social and Cultural Outcomes, the Housing Programme, and the Community Resilience Programme. Participants included both Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority employees, people from within a range of regional and national agencies, and community and public sector organisations who worked with Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority over time. The presentation will outline the origin and design of the project, and present some key findings.
A video of a presentation by Richard Conlin during the Community Resilience Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Resilience, Poverty, and Seismic Culture".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: A strategy of resilience is built around the recognition that effective emergency response requires community involvement and mobilization. It further recognizes that many of the characteristics that equip communities to respond most effectively to short term emergencies are also characteristics that build strong communities over the long term. Building resilient communities means integrating our approaches to poverty, community engagement, economic development, and housing into a coherent strategy that empowers community members to engage with each other and with other communities. In this way, resilience becomes a complementary concept to sustainability. This requires an asset-based change strategy where external agencies meet communities where they are, in their own space, and use collective impact approaches to work in partnership. This also requires understanding and assessing poverty, including physical, financial, and social capital in their myriad manifestations. Poverty is not exclusively a matter of class. It is a complex subject, and different communities manifest multiple versions of poverty, which must be respected and understood through the asset-based lens. Resilience is a quality of a community and a system, and develops over time as a result of careful analysis of strengths and vulnerabilities and taking actions to increase competencies and reduce risk situations. Resilience requires maintenance and must be developed in a way that includes practicing continuous improvement and adaptation. The characteristics of a resilient community include both physical qualities and 'soft infrastructure', such as community knowledge, resourcefulness, and overall health. This presentation reviews the experience of some earlier disasters, outlines a working model of how emergency response, resilience, and poverty interact and can be addressed in concert, and concludes with a summary of what the 2010 Chilean earthquake tells us about how a 'seismic culture' can function effectively in communities even when government suffers from unexpected shortcomings.
A video of a presentation by Bridget Tehan and Sharon Tortonson during the Community and Social Recovery Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Community and Social Service Organisations in Emergencies and Disasters in Australia and New Zealand".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: What happens when support services for issues such as mental health, foster care or homelessness are impacted by a disaster? What happens to their staff? What happens to their clients? The community sector is a unique, valuable and diverse component of Australasian economy and society. Through its significant numbers of employees and volunteers, its diversity, the range of service and advocacy programs it delivers, and the wide range of people it supports, it delivers value to communities and strengthens society. The community and social services sector builds resilience daily through services to aged care, child welfare and disability, domestic violence, housing and homelessness, and mental health care. The sector's role is particularly vital in assisting disadvantaged people and communities. For many, community sector organisations are their primary connection to the broader community and form the basis of their resilience to everyday adversity, as well as in times of crisis. However, community sector organisations are particularly vulnerable in a major emergency or disaster. Australian research shows that the most community sector organisations are highly vulnerable and unprepared for emergencies. This lack of preparedness can have impacts on service delivery, business continuity, and the wellbeing of clients. The consequences of major disruptions to the provision of social services to vulnerable people are serious and could be life-threatening in a disaster. This presentation will review the Victorian Council of Social Service (Australia) and Social Equity and Wellbeing Network (formerly the Christchurch Council of Social Services) records on the impacts of emergencies on community sector organisations, staff, and clients. From the discussion of records, recommendations will be presented that could improve the resilience of this crucial sector.
The Canterbury region of New Zealand was shaken by major earthquakes on the 4th September 2010 and 22nd February 2011. The quakes caused 185 fatalities and extensive land, infrastructure and building damage, particularly in the Eastern suburbs of Christchurch city. Almost 450 ha of residential and public land was designated as a ‘Red Zone’ unsuitable for residential redevelopment because land damage was so significant, engineering solutions were uncertain, and repairs would be protracted. Subsequent demolition of all housing and infrastructure in the area has left a blank canvas of land stretching along the Avon River corridor from the CBD to the sea.
Initially the Government’s official – but enormously controversial – position was that this land would be cleared and lie fallow until engineering solutions could be found that enabled residential redevelopment. This paper presents an application of a choice experiment (CE) that identified and assessed Christchurch residents’ preferences for different land use options of this Red Zone. Results demonstrated strong public support for the development of a recreational reserve comprising a unique natural environment with native fauna and flora, healthy wetlands and rivers, and recreational opportunities that align with this vision. By highlighting the value of a range of alternatives, the CE provided a platform for public participation and expanded the conversational terrain upon which redevelopment policy took place. We conclude the method has value for land use decision-making beyond the disaster recovery context.
A video of a presentation by Dr Lesley Campbell during the Community and Social Recovery Stream of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Canterbury Family Violence Collaboration: An innovative response to family violence following the Canterbury earthquakes - successes, challenges, and achievements".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: Across a range of international jurisdictions there is growing evidence that shows a high prevalence of family violence, child abuse and sexual violence over a number of years following natural disasters (World Health Organisation, 2005). Such empirical findings were also reflected within the Canterbury region following the earthquake events in 2010 and 2011. For example, in the weekend following the September 2010 earthquake, Canterbury police reported a 53% increase in call-outs to family violence incidents. In 2012, Canterbury police investigated over 7,400 incidents involving family violence - approximately 19 incidents each day. Child, youth and family data also reflect an increase in family violence, with substantiated cases of abuse increasing markedly from 1,130 cases in 2009 to 1,650 cases in 2011. These numbers remain elevated. Challenging events like the Canterbury earthquakes highlight the importance of, and provide the catalyst for, strengthening connections with various communities of interest to explore new ways of responding to the complex issue of family violence. It was within this context that the Canterbury Family Violence Collaboration (Collaboration) emerged. Operating since 2012, the Collaboration now comprises 45 agencies from across governmental and non-governmental sectors. The Collaboration's value proposition is that it delivers system-wide responses to family violence that could not be achieved by any one agency. These responses are delivered within five strategic priority areas: housing, crisis response and intervention, prevention, youth, and staff learning and development. The purpose of this presentation is to describe the experiences of the collaborative effort and lessons learnt by the collaborative partners in the first three years after its establishment. It will explore the key successes and challenges of the collaborative effort, and outline the major results achieved - a unique contribution, in unique circumstances, to address family violence experienced by Canterbury people throughout the period of recovery and rebuild.
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Building and Housing given the falling rate of homeownership, especially among young people?
RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
MATT DOOCEY to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “There are more jobs, and people are being better paid”; if so, why?
Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said with regard to the Canterbury earthquakes, “on behalf of the Government, let me be clear that no one will be left to walk this journey alone”; if so, does he think all relevant information prepared by his Government has been made available to Cantabrians to assist them in navigating post-earthquake decisions?
METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o āna kaupapa here Kāwanatanga katoa, nē?
Translation: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?
Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about expanding 21st century learning options for parents and whanau?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: How will her Communities of Online Learning (CoOL) proposal differ from online charter schools in the United States, given a study partially funded by a private pro-charter foundation found students attending those schools lost an average of about 72 days of learning in reading, and 180 days of learning in maths during the course of a 180-day school year?
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister for the Environment: Will he commit to a regulatory regime that includes swimmable rivers in light of the comment from a Havelock North café owner who said that, “we’d trade all the compensation in the world if it would spur the Government into tidying up or cleaning up the waterways”?
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY to the Minister of Immigration: How many of the 209,000 work visas issued last year were for occupations on one of the Essential Skills in Demand lists?
JONO NAYLOR to the Minister of Police: What is the Police doing to assist potential victims of family violence?
STUART NASH to the Minister of Police: Does she believe that the Police have enough resources to implement their part of the Prime Minister’s 2009 promise to use the full force of the Government’s arsenal to “confront the P problem” given that P is cheaper, and as easy as it was to get in 2008?
PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on growth in wine exports?
Following the 22nd February 2011, Mw 6.2 earthquake located along a previously unknown fault beneath the Port Hills of Christchurch, surface cracking was identified in contour parallel locations within fill material at Quarry Road on the lower slopes of Mount Pleasant. GNS Science, in the role of advisor to the Christchurch City Council, concluded that these cracks were a part of a potential rotational mass movement (named zone 11A) within the fill and airfall loess material present. However, a lack of field evidence for slope instability and an absence of laboratory geotechnical data on which slope stability analysis was based, suggested this conclusion is potentially incorrect. It was hypothesised that ground cracking was in fact due to earthquake shaking, and not mass movement within the slope, thus forming the basis of this study. Three soil units were identified during surface and subsurface investigations at Quarry Road: fill derived from quarry operations in the adjacent St. Andrews Quarry (between 1893 and 1913), a buried topsoil, and underlying in-situ airfall loess. The fill material was identified by the presence of organic-rich topsoil “clods” that were irregular in both size (∼10 – 200 mm) and shape, with variable thicknesses of 1 – 10 m. Maximum thickness, as indicated by drill holes and geophysical survey lines, was identified below 6 Quarry Road and 7 The Brae where it is thought to infill a pre-existing gully formed in the underlying airfall loess. Bearing strength of the fill consistently exceeded 300 kPa ultimate below ∼500 mm depth. The buried topsoil was 200 – 300 mm thick, and normally displayed a lower bearing strength when encountered, but not below 300 kPa ultimate (3 – 11 blows per 100mm or ≥100 kPa allowable). In-situ airfall loess stood vertically in outcrop due to its characteristic high dry strength and also showed Scala penetrometer values of 6 – 20+ blows per 100 mm (450 – ≥1000 kPa ultimate). All soils were described as being moist to dry during subsurface investigations, with no groundwater table identified during any investigation into volcanic bedrock. In-situ moisture contents were established using bulk disturbed samples from hand augers and test pitting. Average moisture contents were low at 9% within the fill, 11 % within the buried topsoil, and 8% within the airfall loess: all were below the associated average plastic limit of 17, 15, and 16, respectively, determined during Atterberg limit analysis. Particle size distributions, identified using the sieve and pipette method, were similar between the three soil units with 11 – 20 % clay, 62 – 78 % silt, and 11 – 20 % fine sand. Using these results and the NZGS soil classification, the loess derived fill and in-situ airfall loess are termed SILT with some clay and sand, and the buried topsoil is SILT with minor clay and sand. Dispersivity of the units was found using the Emerson crumb test, which established that the fill can be non- to completely dispersive (score 0 – 4). The buried topsoil was always non-dispersive (score 0), and airfall loess completely dispersive (score 4). Values for cohesion (c) and internal friction angle (φ) of the three soil units were established using the direct shear box at field moisture contents. Results showed all soil units had high shear strengths at the moisture contents tested (c = 18 – 24 kPa and φ = 42 – 50°), with samples behaving in a brittle fashion. Moisture content was artificially increased to 16% within the buried topsoil, which reduced the shear strength (c = 10 kPa, φ = 18°) and allowed it to behave plastically. Observational information indicating stability at Quarry Road included: shallow, discontinuous, cracks that do not display vertical offset; no scarp features or compressional zones typical of landsliding; no tilted or deformed structures; no movement in inclinometers; no basal shear zone identified in logged core to 20 m depth; low field moisture contents; no groundwater table; and high soil strength using Scala penetrometers. Limit equilibrium analysis of the slope was conducted using Rocscience software Slide 5.0 to verify the slope stability identified by observational methods. Friction, cohesion, and density values determined during laboratory were input into the two slope models investigated. Results gave minimum static factor of safety values for translational (along buried topsoil) and rotational (in the fill) slides of 2.4 – 4.2. Sensitivity of the slope to reduced shear strength parameters was analysed using c = 10 kPa and φ = 18° for the translational buried topsoil plane, and a cohesion of 0 kPa within the fill for the rotational plane. The only situation that gave a factor of safety <1.0 was in nonengineered fill at 0.5 m depth. Pseudostatic analysis based on previous peak ground acceleration (PGA) values for the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, and predicted PGAs for future Alpine Fault and Hope Fault earthquakes established minimum factor of safety values between 1.2 and 3.3. Yield acceleration PGAs were computed to be between 0.8g and 1.6g. Based on all information gathered, the cracking at Quarry Road is considered to be shallow deformation in response to earthquake shaking, and not due to deep-seated landsliding. It is recommended that the currently bare site be managed by smoothing the land, installing contour drainage, and bioremediation of the surface soils to reduce surface water infiltration and runoff. Extensive earthworks, including removal of the fill, are considered unnecessary. Any future replacement of housing would be subject to site-specific investigations, and careful foundation design based on those results.
