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?
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.
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.
