A video of a presentation by Dr Duncan Webb, Partner at Lane Neave, during the third plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Loss of Trust and other Earthquake Damage".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: It was predictable that the earthquakes which hit the Canterbury region in 2010 and 2011 caused trauma. However, it was assumed that recovery would be significantly assisted by governmental agencies and private insurers. The expectation was that these organisations would relieve the financial pressures and associated anxiety caused by damage to property. Some initiatives did exactly that. However, there are many instances where difficulties with insurance and related issues have exacerbated the adverse effects of the earthquakes on people's wellness. In some cases, stresses around property issues have become and independent source of extreme anxiety and have had significant impacts on the quality of people's lives. Underlying this problem is a breakdown in trust between citizen and state, and insurer and insured. This has led to a pervading concern that entitlements are being denied. While such concerns are sometimes well founded, an approach which is premised on mistrust is frequently highly conflicted, costly, and often leads to worse outcomes. Professor Webb will discuss the nature and causes of these difficulties including: the complexity of insurance and repair issues, the organisational ethos of the relevant agencies, the hopes of homeowners and the practical gap which commonly arises between homeowner expectation and agency response. Observations will be offered on how the adverse effects of these issues can be overcome in dealing with claimants, and how such matters can be managed in a way which promotes the wellness of individuals.
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.
