As a result of the Christchurch Earthquake that occurred on 22nd February 2011 and the resultant loss of life and widespread damage, a Royal Commission of Enquiry was convened in April 2011. The Royal Commission recommended a number of significant changes to the regulation of earthquake prone building in New Zealand. Earthquake prone buildings are buildings that are deemed to be of insufficient strength to perform adequately in a moderate earthquake. In response to the Royal Commission recommendations the New Zealand Government carried out a consultative process before announcing proposed changes to the building regulations in August 2013. One of the most significant changes is the imposition of mandatory strengthening requirements for earthquake prone buildings on a national basis. This will have a significant impact on the urban fabric of most New Zealand towns and cities. The type of traditional cost benefit study carried out to date fails to measure these impacts and this paper proposes an alternative methodology based on the analysis of land use data and rating valuations. This methodology was developed and applied to a small provincial town in the form of a case study. The results of this case study and the methodology used are discussed in this paper.
“One of the most basic and fundamental questions in urban master planning and building regulations is ‘how to secure common access to sun, light and fresh air?” (Stromann-Andersen & Sattrup, 2011). Daylighting and natural ventilation can have significant benefits in office buildings. Both of these ‘passive’ strategies have been found to reduce artificial lighting and air-conditioning energy consumption by as much as 80% (Ministry for the Environment, 2008); (Brager, et al., 2007). Access to daylight and fresh air can also be credited with improved occupant comfort and health, which can lead to a reduction of employee absenteeism and an increase of productivity (Sustainability Victoria, 2008). In the rebuild of Christchurch central city, following the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011, Cantabrians have expressed a desire for a low-rise, sustainable city, with open spaces and high performance buildings (Christchurch City Council, 2011). With over 80% of the central city being demolished, a unique opportunity to readdress urban form and create a city that provides all buildings with access to daylight and fresh air exists. But a major barrier to wide-spread adoption of passive buildings in New Zealand is their dependence on void space to deliver daylight and fresh air – void space which could otherwise be valuable built floor space. Currently, urban planning regulations in Christchurch prioritize density, allowing and even encouraging low performance compact buildings. Considering this issue of density, this thesis aimed to determine which urban form and building design changes would have the greatest effect on building performance in Central City Christchurch. The research proposed and parametrically tested modifications of the current compact urban form model, as well as passive building design elements. Proposed changes were assessed in three areas: energy consumption, indoor comfort and density. Three computer programs were used: EnergyPlus was the primary tool, simulating energy consumption and thermal comfort. Radiance/Daysim was used to provide robust daylighting calculations and analysis. UrbaWind enabled detailed consideration of the urban wind environment for reliable natural ventilation predictions. Results found that, through a porous urban form and utilization of daylight and fresh air via simple windows, energy consumption could be reduced as much as 50% in buildings. With automatic modulation of windows and lighting, thermal and visual comfort could be maintained naturally for the majority of the occupied year. Separation of buildings by as little as 2m enabled significant energy improvements while having only minimal impact on individual property and city densities. Findings indicated that with minor alterations to current urban planning laws, all buildings could have common access to daylight and fresh air, enabling them to operate naturally, increasing energy efficiency and resilience.
The quality of multi-owned residential buildings and the capability to maintain that quality into the future is important in preserving not only the monetary value of such housing (Lujanen, 2010) but also the quality of life for its residents. The aim of this paper is to examine the governance and decision-making rules and regulations as they relate to the undertaking of major repairs in multi-owned residential buildings in Finland and New Zealand with particular regard to the Finnish Limited Liability Housing Companies Act 2010 (LLHCA 2010) and the New Zealand Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA 2010). Currently, major building repairs are topical issues in both countries; in Finland as a result of ageing buildings requiring major re-fitting of pipes and other infrastructure, and in New Zealand as a result of earthquake damage in Christchurch and Leaky Building Syndrome nationwide. Major repairs can be a significant financial burden to unit owners and collective decisions can be difficult to achieve. Interestingly, new legislation that governs multi-owned housing was enacted in both countries in 2010. The recent enactment of this legislation provides an opportunity to examine the UTA 2010 and LLHCA 2010 with regard to how they address major repairs, improvements in housing stock and the financing possibilities associated with these undertakings. More specifically this paper explores housing intensification (i.e. building up, out or alongside existing multi-owned residential buildings on commonly owned land) as a means of financing major repairs. The comparison of governance and decision-making in two different shared ownership systems with different histories and cultural contexts provides a chance to explore the possibilities and challenges that each country faces, and the potential to learn from each other’s practices and develop these further. In this regard the findings from this paper contribute to the academic literature (Bugden 2005; Easthope & Randolph 2009; Dupuis & Dixon 2010; Lujanen 2010; Easthope, Hudson & Randolph 2013) concerning to the governance of multi-owned housing as it relates to intensive housing development and its wider social and economic implications.
