In the wake of the Canterbury earthquakes, one of the biggest threats to our heritage buildings is the risk of earthquakes and the associated drive to strengthen or demolish buildings. Can Small Town NZ balance the requirements of the EQPB legislation and economic realities of their places? The government’s priority is on safety of building occupants and citizens in the streets. However, maintaining and strengthening privately-owned heritage buildings is often cost prohibitive. Hence, heritage regulation has frequently been perceived as interfering with private property rights, especially when heritage buildings occupy a special place in the community becoming an important place for people (i.e. public benefits are larger than private). We investigate several case studies where building owners have been given green light to demolish heritage listed buildings to make way for modern developments. In two of the case studies developers provided evidence of unaffordable strengthening costs. A new trend that has emerged is a voluntary offer of contributing to an incentive fund to assist with heritage preservation of other buildings. This is a unique example where private owners offer incentives (via council controlled organisations) instead of it being purely the domain of the central or local governments.
Following the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes, a renewed focus has been directed across New Zealand to the hazard posed by the country‘s earthquake-vulnerable buildings, namely unreinforced masonry (URM) and reinforced concrete (RC) buildings with potentially nonductile components that have historically performed poorly in large earthquakes. The research reported herein was pursued with the intention of addressing several recommendations made by the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission of Inquiry which were classified into the following general categories: Identification and provisional vulnerability assessment of URM and RC buildings and building components; Testing, assessment, and retrofitting of URM walls loaded out-of-plane, with a particular focus on highly vulnerable URM cavity walls; Testing and assessment of RC frame components, especially those with presumably non-ductile reinforcement detailing; Portfolio management considering risks, regulations, and potential costs for a portfolio that includes several potentially earthquake-vulnerable buildings; and Ongoing investigations and proposed research needs. While the findings from the reported research have implications for seismic assessments of buildings across New Zealand and elsewhere, an emphasis was placed on Auckland given this research program‘s partnership with the Auckland Council, the Auckland region accounting for about a third each of the country‘s population and economic production, and the number and variety of buildings within the Auckland building stock. An additional evaluation of a historic building stock was carried out for select buildings located in Hawke‘s Bay, and additional experimental testing was carried out for select buildings located in Hawke‘s Bay and Christchurch.
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.
