In the aftermath of the 2011 earthquake, a state of polycentric urbanity was thrust upon New Zealand’s second largest city. As the city-centre lay in disrepair, smaller centres started to materialise elsewhere, out of necessity. Transforming former urban peripheries and within existing suburbs into a collective, dispersed alternative to the city centre, these sub-centres prompted a range of morphological, socio-cultural and political transformations, and begged multiple questions: how to imbue these new sub-centres with gravity? How to render them a genuine alternative to the CBD? How do they operate within the wider city? How to cope with the physical and cultural transformations of this shifting urbanscape and prevent them occurring ad lib? Indeed, the success and functioning of the larger urban structure hinges upon a critical, informed response to these sub-centre urban contexts. Yet, with an unrelenting focus on the CBD rebuild - effectively a polycentric denial - little such attention has been granted. Taking this urban condition as its premise and its provocation, this thesis investigates architecture’s role in the emergent sub-centre. It asks: what can architecture do in these urban contexts; how can architecture act upon the emergent sub-centre in a critical, catalytic fashion? Identifying this volatile condition as both an opportunity for architectural experimentation and a need for critical architectural engagement, this thesis seeks to explore the sub-centre (as an idea and actual urban context) as architecture’s project: its raison d’etre, impetus and aspiration. These inquiries are tested through design-led research: an initial design question provoking further, broader discursive research (and indeed, seeking broader implications). The first section is a site-specific, design for Sumner, Christchurch. Titled ‘An Agora Anew’; this project - both in conception and outcome - is a speculative response to a specific sub-centre condition. The second section ‘The Sub-centre as Architecture’s Project’ explores the ideas provoked by the design project within a discursive framework. Firstly it identifies the sub-centre as a context in desperate need of architectural attention (why architecture?); secondly, it negotiates a possible agenda for architecture in this context through terms of engagement that are formal, critical and opportunistic (how architecture?): enabling it to take a position on and in the sub-centre. Lastly, a critical exegesis positions the design in regards to the broader discursive debate: critiquing it an architectural project predicated upon the idea of the sub-centre. The implications of this design-led thesis are twofold: firstly, for architecture’s role in the sub-centre (especially to Christchurch); secondly for the possibilities of architecture’s productive engagement with the city (largely through architectural form), more generally. In a century where radical, new urban contexts (of which the sub-centre is just one) are commonplace, this type of thinking – what can architecture do in the city? - is imperative.
A PDF copy of pages 240-241 of the book Christchurch: The Transitional City Pt IV. The pages document the transitional project 'UCSA Events Centre'. Photos: Douglas Horrell
An entry from Ruth Gardner's Blog for 29 November 2013 entitled, "Roller Restart".
None
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 15 April 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 6 May 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 29 July 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 15 July 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 22 April 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 24 June 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 27 May 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 5 August 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 17 June 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 13 May 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 20 May 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 22 July 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 10 June 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 18 March 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 25 February 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 11 February 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 11 March 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 28 January 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 17 February 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 21 January 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 4 March 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 4 February 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 8 April 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 14 January 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
A video of interviews with four enterprising young Christchurch residents recorded two years after the 22 February 2011 earthquake. The video includes interviews with Gap Filler Director Coralie Winn, Arts Centre Director Andrew Lovatt, artist Mike Hewson, and Student Volunteer Army leader Jason Pembleton. The interviewees are asked four questions: 'What do you think Christchurch city centre will look like in 10 years?', 'What do you most want to see in the new city?', 'What do you miss most about the old city?', and 'What keeps you in Christchurch?'.
The potential for a gastroenteritis outbreak in a post-earthquake environment may increase because of compromised infrastructure services, contaminated liquefaction (lateral spreading and surface ejecta), and the presence of gastroenteritis agents in the drinking water network. A population in a post-earthquake environment might be seriously affected by gastroenteritis because it has a short incubation period (about 10 hours). The potential for a gastroenteritis outbreak in a post-earthquake environment may increase because of compromised infrastructure services, contaminated liquefaction (lateral spreading and surface ejecta), and the presence of gastroenteritis agents in the drinking water network. A population in a post-earthquake environment might be seriously affected by gastroenteritis because it has a short incubation period (about 10 hours). The aim of this multidisciplinary research was to retrospectively analyse the gastroenteritis prevalence following the February 22, 2011 earthquake in Christchurch. The first focus was to assess whether earthquake-induced infrastructure damage, liquefaction, and gastroenteritis agents spatially explained the recorded gastroenteritis cases over the period of 35 days following the February 22, 2011 earthquake in Christchurch. The gastroenteritis agents considered in this study were Escherichia coli found in the drinking water supply (MPN/100mL) and Non-Compliant Free Associated Chlorine (FAC-NC) (less than <0.02mg/L). The second focus was the protocols that averted a gastroenteritis outbreak at three Emergency Centres (ECs): Burnside High School Emergency Centre (BEC); Cowles Stadium Emergency Centre (CEC); and Linwood High School Emergency Centre (LEC). Using a mixed-method approach, gastroenteritis point prevalence and the considered factors were quantitatively analysed. The qualitative analysis involved interviewing 30 EC staff members. The data was evaluated by adopting the Grounded Theory (GT) approach. Spatial analysis of considered factors showed that highly damaged CAUs were statistically clustered as demonstrated by Moran’s I statistic and hot spot analysis. Further modelling showed that gastroenteritis point prevalence clustering could not be fully explained by infrastructure damage alone, and other factors influenced the recorded gastroenteritis point prevalence. However, the results of this research suggest that there was a tenuous, indirect relationship between recorded gastroenteritis point prevalence and the considered factors: earthquake-induced infrastructure damage, liquefaction and FAC-NC. Two ECs were opened as part of the post-earthquake response in areas with severe infrastructure damage and liquefaction (BEC and CEC). The third EC (CEC) provided important lessons that were learnt from the previous September 4, 2010 earthquake, and implemented after the February 22, 2011 earthquake. Two types of interwoven themes identified: direct and indirect. The direct themes were preventive protocols and indirect themes included type of EC building (school or a sports stadium), and EC staff. The main limitations of the research were Modifiable Areal Units (MAUP), data detection, and memory loss. This research provides a practical method that can be adapted to assess gastroenteritis risk in a post-earthquake environment. Thus, this mixed method approach can be used in other disaster contexts to study gastroenteritis prevalence, and can serve as an appendage to the existing framework for assessing infectious diseases. Furthermore, the lessons learnt from qualitative analysis can inform the current infectious disease management plans, designed for a post-disaster response in New Zealand and internationally Using a mixed-method approach, gastroenteritis point prevalence and the considered factors were quantitatively analysed. A damage profile was created by amalgamating different types of damage for the considered factors for each Census Area Unit (CAU) in Christchurch. The damage profile enabled the application of a variety of statistical methods which included Moran’s I , Hot Spot (HS) analysis, Spearman’s Rho, and Besag–York–Mollié Model using a range of software. The qualitative analysis involved interviewing 30 EC staff members. The data was evaluated by adopting the Grounded Theory (GT) approach. Spatial analysis of considered factors showed that highly damaged CAUs were statistically clustered as demonstrated by Moran’s I statistic and hot spot analysis. Further modelling showed that gastroenteritis point prevalence clustering could not be fully explained by infrastructure damage alone, and other factors influenced the recorded gastroenteritis point prevalence. However, the results of this research suggest that there was a tenuous, indirect relationship between recorded gastroenteritis point prevalence and the considered factors: earthquake-induced infrastructure damage, liquefaction and FAC-NC. Two ECs were opened as part of the post-earthquake response in areas with severe infrastructure damage and liquefaction (BEC and CEC). The third EC (CEC) provided important lessons that were learnt from the previous September 4, 2010 earthquake, and implemented after the February 22, 2011 earthquake. The ECs were selected to represent the Christchurch area, and were situated where potential for gastroenteritis was high. BEC represented the western side of Christchurch; whilst, CEC and LEC represented the eastern side, where the potential for gastroenteritis was high according to the outputs of the quantitative spatial modelling. Qualitative analysis from the interviews at the ECs revealed that evacuees were arriving at the ECs with gastroenteritis-like symptoms. Participants believed that those symptoms did not originate at the ECs. Two types of interwoven themes identified: direct and indirect. The direct themes were preventive protocols that included prolific use of hand sanitisers; surveillance; and the services offered. Indirect themes included the EC layout, type of EC building (school or a sports stadium), and EC staff. Indirect themes governed the quality and sustainability of the direct themes implemented, which in turn averted gastroenteritis outbreaks at the ECs. The main limitations of the research were Modifiable Areal Units (MAUP), data detection, and memory loss. It was concluded that gastroenteritis point prevalence following the February 22, 2011 earthquake could not be solely explained by earthquake-induced infrastructure damage, liquefaction, and gastroenteritis causative agents alone. However, this research provides a practical method that can be adapted to assess gastroenteritis risk in a post-earthquake environment. Creating a damage profile for each CAU and using spatial data analysis can isolate vulnerable areas, and qualitative data analysis provides localised information. Thus, this mixed method approach can be used in other disaster contexts to study gastroenteritis prevalence, and can serve as an appendage to the existing framework for assessing infectious diseases. Furthermore, the lessons learnt from qualitative analysis can inform the current infectious disease management plans, designed for a post-disaster response in New Zealand and internationally.