The study contributes to a better understanding of utilisation and interaction patterns in post-disaster temporary urban open spaces. A series of devastating earthquakes caused large scale damage to Christchurch’s central city and many suburbs in 2010 and 2011. Various temporary uses have emerged on vacant post-earthquake sites including community gardens, urban agriculture, art installations, event venues, eateries and cafés, and pocket parks. Drawing on empirical data obtained from a spatial qualities survey and a Public Life Study, the report analyses how people used and interacted with three exemplary transitional community-initiated open spaces (CIOS) in relation to particular physical spatial qualities in central Christchurch over a period of three weeks. The report provides evidence that users of post-disaster transitional community-initiated open spaces show similar utilisation and interaction patterns in relation to specific spatial qualities as observed in other urban environments. The temporary status of CIOS did apparently not influence ‘typical’ utilisation and interaction patterns.
The quality of public space is vital to livable cities. Yet livable cities also require empowered communities. This thesis asks: how is the landscape architect’s design expertise expressed as part of the public participation process, what are the key features of design expertise that lead to an effective design-based participation process and how does quality in the participation process relate to the quality of design outcomes? A theoretical framework is developed from which to clarify the relationship between decision-making processes in design and public participation. Insights from design theory are combined with the findings of key informant interviews with New Zealand and Northern Europe design experts, and with landscape architects, community and Council staff working in post-earthquake Ōtautahi/Christchurch, Aotearoa/New Zealand. Results of a case study of Albion Square in Ōhinehou/Lyttelton reveal that the designer’s interactions with the public play a critical role in shaping elegant design outcomes in public space design. Four key insights reveal that participatory design processes in New Zealand need to be reconsidered in order to enable landscape architects to work more closely with communities in mutual learning, rather than the currently limiting technical problem solving process. Institutional, professional and theoretical implications are drawn from the findings.
Nature has endowed New Zealand with unique geologic, climatic, and biotic conditions. Her volcanic cones and majestic Southern Alps and her verdant plains and rolling hills provide a landscape as rugged and beautiful as will be found anywhere. Her indigenous fauna and flora are often quite different from that of the rest of the world and consequently have been of widespread interest to biologists everywhere. Her geologic youth and structure and her island climate, in combination with the biological resources, have made a land which is ecologically on edge. These natural endowments along with the manner in which she has utilized her land, have given New Zealand some of the most spectacular and rapid erosion to be found.
It is quite evident that geologic and climatic conditions combine to give unusually high rates of natural erosion. Present topographic features indicate the past occurrence of large-scale flooding as well. Prior to the arrival of the Maori, it is very likely that most of the land mass of New Zealand below present bush lines was covered with indigenous bush or forest. Forest fires of a catastrophic nature undoubtedly occurred as a result of lightning, and volcanic eruptions. The exposed soils left by these catastrophes contributed to natural deterioration. While vast areas of forest cover were destroyed, they probably were healed by nature with forest or with grass or herbaceous cover. Further, it is probable that large areas in the mountains were, as they are now, subject to landslides and slipping due to earthquakes and excessive local rainfall. Again, the healing process was probably rapid in most of such exposed areas.
Following the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes Christchurch is undergoing extensive development on the periphery of the city. This has been driven in part by the large numbers of people who have lost their homes. Prior to the earthquakes, Christchurch was already experiencing placeless subdivisions and now these are being rolled out rapidly thanks to the efficiency of a formula that has been embraced by the Council, developers and the public alike. However, sprawling subdivisions have a number of issues including inefficient land use, limited housing types, high dependence on motor vehicles and low levels of resilience and no sense of place. Sense of place is of particular interest due to its glaring absence from new subdivisions and its growing importance in the literature.
Research shows that sense of place has benefits to our feeling of belonging, well-being, and self-identity, particularly following a disaster. It improves the resilience and sustainability of our living environment and fosters a connection to the landscape thereby making us better placed to respond to future changes. Despite these benefits, current planning models such as new urbanism and transit-oriented design tend to give sense of place a low priority and as a result it can get lost. Given these issues, the focus of this research is “can landscape driven sense of place drive subdivision design without compromising on other urban planning criteria to produce subdivisions that address the issues of sprawl, as well as achieving the benefits associated with a strong sense of place that can improve our overall quality of life?”
Answering this question required a thorough review of current urban planning and sense of place literature. This was used to critique existing subdivisions to gain a thorough understanding of the issues. The outcomes of this led to extensive design exploration which showed that, not only is it possible to design a subdivision with sense of place as the key driver but by doing this, the other urban planning criteria become easier to achieve.
Lincoln University was commissioned by the Avon-Otakaro Network (AvON) to estimate the value of the benefits of a ‘recreation reserve’ or ‘river park’ in the Avon River Residential Red Zone (ARRRZ). This research has demonstrated significant public desire and support for the development of a recreation reserve in the Avon River Residential Red Zone. Support is strongest for a unique natural environment with native fauna and flora, healthy wetlands and rivers, and recreational opportunities that align with this vision, such as walking, cycling and water-based sporting and leisure activities. The research also showed support for a reserve that promotes and enables community interaction and wellbeing, and is evident in respondents’ desires for community gardens, regular festivals and markets, and the physical linking of the CBD with eastern suburbs through a green corridor. There is less support for children’s playgrounds, sports fields or open grassed areas, all of which could be considered as more typical of an urban park development. Benefits (willing to pay) to Christchurch residents (excluding tourists) of a recreation reserve could be as high as $35 million each year.
Savings to public health costs could be as high as $50.3 million each year. The incorporation or restoration of various ecosystems services, including water quality improvements, flood mitigation and storm water management could yield a further $8.8 million ($19, 600) per hectare/year at 450 ha).
Combined annual benefits of a recreational reserve in the ARRRZ are approximately $94.1 million per annum but this figure does not include potentially significant benefits from, for example, tourism, property equity gains in areas adjacent to the reserve, or the effects of economic rejuvenation in the East.
Although we were not able to provide costing estimates for park attributes, this study does make available the value of benefits, which can be used as a guide to the scope of expenditure on development of each park attribute.
