A video of an interview with landscape architect Di Lucas, about her vision for the Christchurch rebuild. Lucas talks about the need to build light buildings by using light materials such as timber. The video is part of The Press's 'Christchurch, one year after February 22, 2011' series.
At 4.35 a.m. on the 4th of September 2010 Christchurch residents were shaken awake by a magnitude 7.1 earthquake, the largest earthquake to hit urban New Zealand for nearly 80 years. It was a large earthquake. On average the world only has 17 earthquakes a year larger than magnitude seven. Haiti’s earthquake in January 2010 was magnitude 7.1 and Chile’s earthquake in February was magnitude 8.8. Although it was a big quake, Christchurch was lucky. In Haiti’s earthquake over 230,000 people were killed and in Chile 40,000 homes were destroyed. Happily this was not the situation in Christchurch, however the earthquake has caused considerable damage. The challenge for the Landscape Architecture community is to contribute to the city’s reconstruction in ways that will not only fix the problems of housing, and the city’s urban, suburban and neighbourhood fabric but that will do so in ways that will help solve the landscape problems that dogged the city before the earthquake struck.
Earthquakes and other major disasters present communities and their authorities with an extraordinary challenge. While a lot can be done to prepare a city’s response in the event of a disaster, few cities are truly prepared for the initial impact, devastation, grief, and the seemingly formidable challenge of recovery. Many people find themselves overwhelmed with facing critical problems; ones which they have often never had experience with before. While the simple part is agreeing on a desired outcome for recovery, it appears the argument that exists between stakeholders is the conflicting ideas of How To effectively achieve the main objective. What I have identified as an important step toward collaborating on the How To of recovery is to identify the ways in which each discipline can most effectively contribute to the recovery. Landscape architecture is just one of the many disciplines (that should be) invovled in the How To of earthquake recovery. Canterbury has an incredible opportunity to set the benchmark for good practice in earthquake recovery. To make the most of this opportuntiy, it is critical that landscape architects are more effectively engaged in roles of recovery across a much broader spectrum of recovery activities. The overarching purpose of this research is to explore and provide insight to the current and potential of landscape architects in the earthquake recovery period in Canterbury, using international good practice as a benchmark. The research is aimed at stimulating and guiding landscape architects dealing with the earthquake recovery in Canterbury, while informing stakeholders: emergency managers, authorities, other disciplines and the wider community of themost effective role(s) for landscape architects in the recovery period.
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.
The 48hr Design Challenge, run by the Christchurch City Council and held at Lincoln University, provided an opportunity for Council to gain inspiration from the design and architecture industry, while testing the draft Central City Plan currently being developed. The Challenge was a response to the recent earthquakes in Christchurch and brought together local and international talent. A total of 15 teams took part in the Challenge, with seven people in each including engineers, planners, urban designers, architects and landscape architects, as well as one student on each team. The four sites within the Red Zone included the Cathedral Square and BNZ Building; 160 Gloucester Street; the Orion NZ Building at 203 Gloucester Street; and 90 Armagh Street, including the Avon River and Victoria Square. The fifth site, which sits outside the Red Zone, is the former Christchurch Women’s Hospital at 885 Colombo Street. This is team SoLA's entry for 160 Gloucester Street.
Wellington is located on a fault line which will inevitably, one day be impacted by a big earthquake. Due to where this fault line geographically sits, the central city and southern suburbs may be cut off from the rest of the region, effectively making these areas an ‘island’. This issue has absorbed a lot of attention, in particular at a large scale by many different fields: civil engineering, architecture, infrastructure planning & design, policymaking. Due to heightened awareness, and evolved school of practice, contemporary landscape architects deal with post-disaster design – Christchurch, NZ has seen this. A number of landscape architects work with nature, following increased application of ecological urbanism, and natural systems thinking, most notably at larger scales. To create parks that are designed to flood, or implement projects to protect shorelines. A form of resilience less often considered is how design for the small scale - people’s 1:1 relationship with their immediate context in exterior space - can be influential in forming a resilient response to the catastrophe of a major earthquake. This thesis intends to provide a response to address the shift of scales, as a paradigm for preparation and recovery. After a large-scale earthquake, state and civic policies and agencies may or subsequentially not go into action. The most important thinking and acting will be what happens in the minds, and the immediate needs, of each and every person; and how they act communally. This is considered in general social terms in state and civic education programmes of civil defence, for example, but much less considered in how the physical design of the actual spaces we inhabit day-to-day can educate us to be mentally prepared to help each other survive a catastrophe. Specifically, the identification of design of typologies can provide these educative functions. Typology inherently a physical form or manipulation of a generic and substantial prototype applicable in contexts is something that exists in the mind. Working with the physical and social appearance and experience of typologies can also/will change people’s minds. Socially, and economically driven, the community-building power of community gardening is well-proven and documented, and a noticeably large part of contemporary landscape architecture. The designs of this thesis will focus on community gardening specifically to form typologies of resilience preparation and response to disaster. The foundation will remain at the small scale of the local community. The specific question this thesis poses: Can we design local typologies in landscape architecture to integrate community gardens, with public space by preparing for and acting as recovery from a disaster?
Artist and landscape architect Bridget Allen wouldn't have known how appropriate the name of her gardening business was to be when she set it up, out of Ilam art school and working at the Christchurch Botanic Gardens. The name Regenerative Gardening Maintenance was prophetic given her city and its landscape was about to start regenerating. The 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes saw not only buildings turned to rubble, large tracts of land, including an area around Ōtākaro Avon River the size of two New York Central Parks, started to turn from suburbia back to nature. The red zone has been turning green ever since. In the wake of tragedy artists and gardeners came together to innovate and create new public spaces, with an eye on sustainability and community connection. Allen cofounded New Brighton sewing charity Stitch-o-Mat and retrained as a landscape architect. Since 2023 she has been the director of The Green Lab, which began after the quakes as Greening the Rubble, creating urban green spaces and events for connection, while also working with residents to make their own backyards more sustainable. Ever busy with working and planting bees, workshops to build habitats for plants and nature, and consultations to help people make their backyards more sustainable, on August 16 Bridget is running with The Green Lab Birds of Brighton printmaking workshops. It's at the Make Station in New Brighton Mall at 11am and 1pm. No experience is needed. She joined Culture 101's Mark Amery.
Millions of urban residents around the world in the coming century will experience severe landscape change – including increased frequencies of flooding due to intensifying storm events and impacts from sea level rise. For cities, collisions of environmental change with mismatched cultural systems present a major threat to infrastructure systems that support urban living. Landscape architects who address these issues express a need to realign infrastructure with underlying natural systems, criticizing the lack of social and environmental considerations in engineering works. Our ability to manage both society and the landscapes we live in to better adapt to unpredictable events and landscape changes is essential if we are to sustain the health and safety of our families, neighbourhoods, and wider community networks. When extreme events like earthquakes or flooding occur in developed areas, the feasibility of returning the land to pre-disturbance use can be questioned. In Christchurch for example, a large expanse of land (630 hectares) within the city was severely damaged by the earthquakes and judged too impractical to repair in the short term. The central government now owns the land and is currently in the process of demolishing the mostly residential houses that formed the predominant land use. Furthermore, cascading impacts from the earthquakes have resulted in a general land subsidence of .5m over much of eastern Christchurch, causing disruptive and damaging flooding. Yet, although disasters can cause severe social and environmental distress, they also hold great potential as a catalyst to increasing adaption. But how might landscape architecture be better positioned to respond to the potential for transformation after disaster? This research asks two core questions: what roles can the discipline of landscape architecture play in improving the resilience of communities so they become more able to adapt to change? And what imaginative concepts could be designed for alternative forms of residential development that better empower residents to understand and adapt the infrastructure that supports them? Through design-directed inquiry, the research found landscape architecture theory to be well positioned to contribute to goals of social-ecological systems resilience. The discipline of landscape architecture could become influential in resilience-oriented multi disciplinary collaborations, with our particular strengths lying in six key areas: the integration of ecological and social processes, improving social capital, engaging with temporality, design-led innovation potential, increasing diversity and our ability to work across multiple scales. Furthermore, several innovative ideas were developed, through a site-based design exploration located within the residential red zone, that attempt to challenge conventional modes of urban living – concepts such as time-based land use, understanding roads as urban waterways, and landscape design and management strategies that increase community participation and awareness of the temporality in landscapes.
Many contemporary urban communities are challenged by increased flood risks and rising temperatures, declining water quality and biodiversity, and reduced mental, physical, cultural and social wellbeing. The development of urban blue-green infrastructure (BGI), defined as networks of natural and semi-natural blue-green spaces which enable healthy ecosystem processes, has been identified as one approach to mitigate these challenges and enable more liveable cities. Multiple benefits associated with urban BGI have been identified, including reduced flood risk and temperatures, improved water quality and biodiversity, enhanced mental and physical wellbeing, strengthened social cohesion and sense of place, and the facilitation of cultural connections and practices. However, socio-cultural benefits have tended to be neglected in BGI research and design, resulting in a lack of awareness of how they may be maximised in BGI design. As such, this research sought to understand how BGI can best be designed to enable liveable cities. Four questions were considered: (i) what benefits are associated with urban BGI, (ii) how does the design process influence the benefits achieved by BGI, (iii) what challenges are encountered during BGI design, and (iv) how might the incorporation of communities and Indigenous knowledge into BGI research and design enhance current understandings and applications of urban BGI? To address these questions, a mixed methods case study approach was employed in Ōtautahi Christchurch and Kaiapoi. The four selected case studies were Te Oranga Waikura, Wigram Basin, Te Kuru and the Kaiapoi Honda Forest. The cases are all council owned urban wetlands which were primarily designed or retrofitted to reduce urban flood risks following the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence. To investigate BGI design processes in each case, as well as how communities interact with, value and benefit from these spaces. BGI projects were found to be designed by interdisciplinary design teams driven by stormwater engineers, landscape architects and ecologists which prioritised bio-physical outcomes. Further, community and Indigenous engagement approaches closely resembled consultation, with the exception of Te Kuru which employed a co-design approach between councils and Indigenous and community groups. This co-design approach was found to enhance current understandings and applications of urban BGI, while uncovering multiple socio-cultural values to be incorporated into design, such as access to cultural healing resources, increased community connections to water, and facilitating cultural monitoring methodologies and citizen science initiatives. Communities frequently identified the opportunity to connect with natural environments and enhanced mental and physical wellbeing as key benefits of BGI. Conversely, strengthened social cohesion, sense of place and cultural connections were infrequently identified as benefits, if at all. This finding indicates a disconnect between the bio-physical benefits which drive BGI design and the outcomes which communities value. As such, there is a need for future BGI design to more fully consider and design for socio- cultural outcomes to better enable liveable cities. To better design BGI to enhance urban liveability, this research makes three key contributions. First, there is a need to advance current approaches to transdisciplinary design to better account for the full scope of perspectives and values associated with BGI. Second, there is a need to transition towards relational co-design with Indigenous and community groups and knowledge. Third, it is important to continue to monitor, reflect on and share both positive and negative BGI design experiences to continually improve outcomes. The incorporation of social and cultural researchers, knowledges and perspectives into open and collaborative transdisciplinary design teams is identified as a key method to achieve these opportunities.