The aftermath of three earthquakes has forced Christchurch to re-plan and rebuild. New perspectives of a sustainable city have arisen granting Christchurch the chance of becoming an example to the world. This work is centred on bioclimatic landscape design as a base for greening strategies. It deals with strategic landscape design adapted to a specific climate, from a user’s perspective. The investigation will be applied to Christchurch’s urban centres, assessing cultural adaptability to the local climate and implications for landscape design. Climatic data shows that humidity is not a local problem. However, the wind is the determinant. In Christchurch the solar radiation and the prevailing winds are the most important microclimatic variables, the latter intensifying the loss of surface heat, decreasing the radiant temperature and affecting thermal sensation.
The research objective is to explore design parameters at the street-scale and identify ways to maximise thermal comfort in outdoor spaces through design-based strategies. The investigation will apply methods of participant observation, depth interviews, climatic data collection and design experimentation based on thermal comfort models and computer simulation tools. Case study sites chosen for investigation are places with current levels of activity that may be anticipated in the rebuild of the central city. The research will have two main outcomes: improved understanding of local urban culture adaptation to microclimate, and a demonstration of how design can enhance adaption. These outcomes will inform designers and city managers about good design practices and strategies that can be used to ensure a long term liveable city.
There is a critical strand of literature suggesting that there are no ‘natural’ disasters (Abramovitz, 2001; Anderson and Woodrow, 1998; Clarke, 2008; Hinchliffe, 2004). There are only those that leave us – the people - more or less shaken and disturbed. There may be some substance to this; for example, how many readers recall the 7.8 magnitude earthquake centred in Fiordland in July 2009? Because it was so far away from a major centre and very few people suffered any consequences, the number is likely to be far fewer than those who remember (all too vividly) the relatively smaller 7.1 magnitude Canterbury quake of September 4th 2010 and the more recent 6.3 magnitude February 22nd 2011 event.
One implication of this construction of disasters is that seismic events, like those in Canterbury, are as much socio-political as they are geological. Yet, as this paper shows, the temptation in recovery is to tick boxes and rebuild rather than recover, and to focus on hard infrastructure rather than civic expertise and community involvement. In this paper I draw upon different models of community engagement and use Putnam’s (1995) notion of ‘social capital’ to frame the argument that ‘building bridges’ after a disaster is a complex blend of engineering, communication and collaboration. I then present the results of a qualitative research project undertaken after the September 4th earthquake. This research helps to illustrate the important connections between technical rebuilding, social capital, recovery processes and overall urban resilience.
A magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck the city of Christchurch at 12:51pm on Tuesday 22 February 2011. The earthquake caused 182 fatalities, a large number of injuries, and resulted in widespread damage to the built environment, including significant disruption to the lifelines. The event created the largest lifeline disruption in a New Zealand city in 80 years, with much of the damage resulting from extensive and severe liquefaction in the Christchurch urban area. The Christchurch earthquake occurred when the Canterbury region and its lifelines systems were at the early stage of recovering from the 4 September 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) magnitude 7.1 earthquake. This paper describes the impact of the Christchurch earthquake on lifelines by briefly summarising the physical damage to the networks, the system performance and the operational response during the emergency management and the recovery phase. Special focus is given to the performance and management of the gas, electric and road networks and to the liquefaction ejecta clean-up operations that contributed to the rapid reinstatement of the functionality of many of the lifelines. The water and wastewater system performances are also summarized. Elements of resilience that contributed to good network performance or to efficient emergency and recovery management are highlighted in the paper.
