The aim of this report is to investigate the ductile performance of concrete tilt-up panels reinforced with cold-drawn mesh to improve the current seismic assessment procedure. The commercial impact of the project was also investigated. Engineering Advisory Group (EAG) guidelines state that a crack in a panel under face loading may be sufficient to fracture the mesh. The comments made by EAG regarding the performance of cold-drawn mesh may be interpreted as suggesting that assessment of such panels be conducted with a ductility of 1.0. Observations of tilt-up panel performance following the Christchurch earthquakes suggest that a ductility higher than μ=1.0 is likely to be appropriate for the response of panels to out-of-plane loading. An experimental test frame was designed to subject ten tilt-panel specimens to a cyclic quasi-static loading protocol. Rotation ductility, calculated from the force-displacement response from the test specimens, was found to range between 2.9 and 5.8. Correlation between tensile tests on 663L mesh, and data collected from instrumentation during testing confirmed that the mesh behaves as un-bonded over the pitch length of 150mm. Recommendation: Based on a moment-rotation assessment approach with an un-bonded length equal to the pitch of the mesh, a rotation ductility of μ=2.5 appears to be appropriate for the seismic assessment of panels reinforced with cold-drawn mesh.
To address the provocation provided by the editors I wish to reflect upon the ongoing civic and artistic responses to the earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, 2010-11, in which 185 people lost their lives (largely due to poor engineering and construction practices). Whilst the example is very different in character from that of efforts to memorialize July 22, 2011, I wish to use the case to briefly respond to the issue of temporality as raised by Jacques Rancière in his critique of the ‘endless work of mourning’ produced by testimonial art. The orientation of this mourning, he argues, is always backward-looking, characterized by, ‘a reversal of the flow of time: the time turned towards an end to be accomplished – progress, emancipation or the Other – is replaced by that turned towards the catastrophe behind us.’ How might memorial practices divide their gaze between remembered pasts and possible futures? AM - Accepted Manuscript
This thesis is a theoretical exploration of ‘remembrance’ and its production in the interactions between people/s and the landscape. This exploration takes place in the broad context of post earthquake Christchurch with a focus on public spaces along the Ōtākaro – Avon river corridor. Memory is universal to human beings, yet memories are subjective and culturally organized and produced - the relationship between memory and place therefore operates at individual and collective levels. Design responses that facilitate opportunities to create new memories, and also acknowledge the remembered past of human – landscape relationships are critical for social cohesion and wellbeing. I draw on insights from a range of theoretical sources, including critical interpretive methodologies, to validate subjective individual and group responses to memory and place. Such approaches also allowed me, as the researcher, considerable freedom to apply memory theory through film to illustrate ways we can re-member ourselves to our landscapes. The Ōtākaro-Avon river provided the site through and in which film strategies for remembrance are explored. Foregrounding differences in Māori and settler cultural orientations to memory and landscape, has highlighted the need for landscape design to consider remembrance - those cognitive and unseen dimensions that intertwine people and place. I argue it is our task to make space for such diverse relationships, and to ensure these stories and memories, embodied in landscape can be read through generations. I do not prescribe methods or strategies; rather I have sought to encourage thinking and debate and to suggest approaches through which the possibilities for remembrance may be enhanced.
Planning in New Zealand in 2014 has largely been dominated by housing and urban development, potential local government and legislative reforms, and water issues. This volume’s peer reviewed research, which combines Issues 1 and 2, focuses on these issues, but with perspectives and issues that are outside the mainstream. In our lead research article, John Ryks and his co-authors review the opportunities from Treaty settlements and legislative provisions and challenges for Māori participation in urban development, such as the balancing of matawaka and mana whenua perspectives. Water issues are picked up by Ronlyn Duncan and Phil Holland who each take constructively critical views toward some currently well-regarded approaches to resolutions. We have reflective and somewhat contrasting contributions from two highly respected semi-retired planners, Malcolm Douglass (FNZPI) and Derek Hall, that challenge aspects of New Zealand’s current approach to planning. In our outreach part of this Volume we include the response of some political parties to questions put to them about planning by LPR team member Nicole Read. Finally, Lincoln University appears to have turned a corner after the earthquakes, at least in the planning programmes.
Though generally considered “natural” disasters, cyclones and earthquakes are increasingly being associated with human activities, incubated through urban settlement patterns and the long-term redistribution of natural resources. As society is becoming more urbanized, the risk of human exposure to disasters is also rising. Architecture often reflects the state of society’s health: architectural damage is the first visible sign of emergency, and reconstruction is the final response in the process of recovery. An empirical assessment of architectural projects in post-disaster situations can lead to a deeper understanding of urban societies as they try to rebuild. This thesis offers an alternative perspective on urban disasters by looking at the actions and attitudes of disaster professionals through the lens of architecture, situated in recent events: the 2010 Christchurch earthquake, the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and the 2005 Hurricane Katrina. An empirical, multi-hazard, cross-sectional case study methodology was used, employing grounded theory method to build theory, and a critical constructivist strategy to inform the analysis. By taking an interdisciplinary approach to understanding disasters, this thesis positions architecture as a conduit between two divergent approaches to disaster research: the hazards approach, which studies the disaster cycles from a scientific perspective; and the sociological approach, which studies the socially constructed vulnerabilities that result from disasters, and the elements of social change that accompany such events. Few studies to date have attempted to integrate the multi-disciplinary perspectives that can advance our understanding of societal problems in urban disasters. To bridge this gap, this thesis develops what will be referred to as the “Rittelian framework”—based on the work of UC Berkeley’s architecture professor Horst Rittel (1930-1990). The Rittelian framework uses the language of design to transcend the multiple fields of human endeavor to address the “design problems” in disaster research. The processes by which societal problems are addressed following an urban disaster involve input by professionals from multiple fields—including economics, sociology, medicine, and engineering—but the contribution from architecture has been minimal to date. The main impetus for my doctoral thesis has been the assertion that most of the decisions related to reconstruction are made in the early emergency recovery stages where architects are not involved, but architects’ early contribution is vital to the long-term reconstruction of cities. This precipitated in the critical question: “How does the Rittelian framework contribute to the critical design decisions in modern urban disasters?” Comparative research was undertaken in three case studies of recent disasters in New Orleans (2005), Haiti (2010) and Christchurch (2010), by interviewing 51 individuals who were selected on the basis of employing the Rittelian framework in their humanitarian practice. Contextualizing natural disaster research within the robust methodological framework of architecture and the analytical processes of sociology is the basis for evaluating the research proposition that architectural problem solving is of value in addressing the ‘Wicked Problems’ of disasters. This thesis has found that (1) the nuances of the way disaster agents interpret the notion of “building back better” can influence the extent to which architectural professionals contribute in urban disaster recovery, (2) architectural design can be used to facilitate but also impede critical design decisions, and (3) framing disaster research in terms of design decisions can lead to innovation where least expected. This empirical research demonstrates how the Rittelian framework can inform a wider discussion about post-disaster human settlements, and improve our resilience through disaster research.
DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government's economic programme supporting stronger regional job growth? Hon SHANE JONES to the Minister of Commerce: Is he aware of demands being made by the Countdown supermarket group for retrospective payments from New Zealand suppliers, with threats Countdown will not stock their products? JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister for Economic Development: Why is the Government holding up economic development in Auckland's CBD, according to Auckland City officials, by delaying the opening of the City Rail Link until 2025? ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received about the state of the nation in relation to social outcomes? DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he aware of any proposals to transport asbestos-contaminated material from the Christchurch rebuild to sub-standard landfills? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied New Zealanders are receiving timely and affordable healthcare? MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he received on positive progress being advanced on the Government's housing agenda? DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Does he agree with the Prime Minister's statement on the minimum wage that "I think we've been pretty fair in what we've done in the past and we probably will be in the future"? CLAUDETTE HAUITI to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How are the National Science Challenges bringing together the best scientific talent across New Zealand? HONE HARAWIRA to the Minister for Economic Development: Will he commit to spending the $41m on reducing child poverty, after signalling that he might not now give that money to Team New Zealand to compete in the next America's Cup? Dr RAJEN PRASAD to the Minister of Immigration: When he said in response to an oral question on 29 January 2014 that it was "a pretty simple process…to alert immigration authorities", what was his understanding of the process a complainant would go through? CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Associate Minister of Transport: What progress is being made in improving road safety?
