Search

found 10 results

Articles, Christchurch uncovered

Recently we’ve been working in Lyttelton at the intersection of Canterbury and Winchester Streets for the installation of a replacement stormwater. While Lyttelton isn’t exactly over the rainbow, for archaeologists it is a pretty fantastic place to discover heritage and … Continue reading →

Articles, Christchurch uncovered

The two-storey red building in the centre of Christchurch was like many typical pre-1900 buildings that had been modified over the years. The veranda was enclosed to provide more rooms within the building and multiple other extensions and rooms had … Continue reading →

Audio, Radio New Zealand

TVs, shopping trolleys, beds, mattresses, even a gun. That is just some of the rubbish found by residents surrounding Christchurch's residential red zone. The area used to be filled with houses, but damage after the Canterbury earthquakes forced thousands of homes to be demolished. While many of the old suburban roads remain, the area now resembles a park. But it is now attracting those wanting to dump their rubbish for free - and Land Information NZ, which controls the land, has removed 25 tonnes of trash since January. Residents have had enough as well - with some taking matters into their own hands. Checkpoint reporter Logan Church has the story.

Audio, Radio New Zealand

Putting his own subversive spin on Christchurch's proliferation of post-earthquake 'no go' and other public signs has kept artist Phllip Trusttum busy for the past few years. No Go! is the name of the latest exhibition of his 'Signs' series that's about to go on show in Picton. It includes a yellow dog straining at its leash to escape a No Dogs sign, while a cyclist tries to escape a prohibitive red circle. Phillip takes Lynn Freeman back to 2011 when his fascination with signs started. Philip Trusttum's exhibition No Go! opens on Wednesday, September 25, at the Diversion Gallery in Picton, Marlborough.

Research Papers, Lincoln University

The National Science Challenge ‘Building Better Homes, Towns and Cities’ is currently undertaking work that, in part, identifies and analyses the Waimakariri District Council’s (WMK/Council) organisational practices and process tools. The focus is on determining the processes that made the Residential Red Zone Recovery Plan, 2016 (RRZRP) collaboration process so effective and compares it to the processes used to inform the current Kaiapoi Town Centre Plan - 2028 and Beyond (KTC Plan). This research aims to explore ‘what travelled’ in terms of values, principles, methods, processes and personnel from the RRZRP to the KTC planning process. My research will add depth to this research by examining more closely the KTC Plan’s hearings process, reviewing submissions made, analysing background documents and by conducting five semi-structured interviews with a selection of people who made submissions on the KTC Plan. The link between community involvement and best recovery outcomes has been acknowledged in literature as well as by humanitarian agencies (Lawther, 2009; Sullivan, 2003). My research has documented WMK’s post-quake community engagement strategy by focusing on their initial response to the earthquake of 2010 and the two-formal plan (RRZRP and KTC Plan) making procedures that succeeded this response. My research has led me to conclude that WMK was committed to collaborating with their constituents right through the extended post-quake sequence. Iterative face to face or ‘think communications’ combined with the accessibility of all levels of Council staff – including senior management and elected members - gave interested community members the opportunity to discuss and deliberate the proposed plans with the people tasked with preparing them. WMK’s commitment to collaborate is illustrated by the methods they employed to inform their post-quake efforts and plans and by the logic behind the selected methods. Combined the Council’s logic and methods best describe the ‘Waimakariri Way’. My research suggests that collaborative planning is iterative in nature. It is therefore difficult to establish a specific starting point where collaboration begins as the relationships needed for the collaborative process constantly (re)emerge out of pre-existing relationships. Collaboration seems to be based on an attitude, which means there is no starting ‘point’ as such, rather an amplification for a time of a basic attitude towards the public.