A video of a presentation by David Meates, Chief Executive of the Christchurch District Health Board and the West Coast District Health Board, during the first plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Local System Perspective".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: The devastating Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 have resulted in challenges for the people of Canterbury and have altered the population's health needs. In the wake of New Zealand's largest natural disaster, the health system needed to respond rapidly to changing needs and damaged infrastructure in the short-term in the context of developing sustainable long-term solutions. Canterbury was undergoing system transformation prior to the quakes, however the horizon of transformation was brought forward post-quake: 'Vision 2020' became the vision for now. Innovation was enabled as people working across the system addressed new constraints such as the loss of 106 acute hospital beds, 635 aged residential care beds, the loss of general practices and pharmacies as well as damaged non-government organisation sector. A number of new integration initiatives (e.g. a shared electronic health record system, community rehabilitation for older people, community falls prevention) and expansion of existing programs (e.g. acute demand management) were focused on supporting people to stay well in their homes and communities. The system working together in an integrated way has resulted in significant reductions in acute health service utilisation in Canterbury. Acute admission rates have not increased and remain significantly below national rates and the number of acute and rehabilitation bed days have fallen since the quakes, with these trends most evident among older people. However, health needs frequently reported in post-disaster literature have created greater pressures on the system. In particular, an escalating number of people facing mental health problems and coping with acute needs of the migrant rebuild population provide new challenges for a workforce also affected by the quakes. The recovery journey for Canterbury is not over.
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.
