After the quake: old new town solution for new overspill problem

Post war London, England → 1970s Canterbury, New Zealand?
In 1974 central planners came up with the idea that development of the small rural service centre, Rolleston, 25km from the CBD, as a “new town” would help accommodate the growth of Christchurch City.  Not long living in the UK at the time, I had looked closely at the new towns north and east of London and argued that the initiative was unjustified.

The post-war new towns in South East England were intended to take up some of the growth pressures on London, containing its expansion and relieving the highly stressed housing situation in the capital.  The new towns were intended to cater for London's overspill, but to be as self-sufficient in employment terms as possible.  There was also a commitment to a “mixed social class”, a reaction against the social problems associated with large, undifferentiated working class housing estates in London.  [1]

The new towns were built around long-standing garden city principles, but to a young kiwi did not appear particularly attractive.  To my mind, it made little sense to transfer the concept to Christchurch, with its more modest growth and scale, different housing and lifestyles, wide open spaces, mountain vistas, and ready access to the coast.  

Rolleston Vistas
(Images, Steve Busson)

It was already committed through various planning documents to moderating growth on the edges.  In the Port Hills there is a natural green buffer to the south while the Waimakariri River flood plain forms a natural boundary to the north. 

Rolleston new town was a solution in search of a problem.  It did not go ahead. 

But that was then

It did not stop Rolleston growing in its own right, especially over the past fifteen years, nor the other rural towns of Canterbury.  Consequently the districts surrounding Christchurch City, Waimakariri and Selwyn, have been among the country’s fastest growing in recent times, a reflection of the attraction of their small towns for people seeking an affordable lifestyle, a sense of community, and the convenience of proximity to Christchurch City.

Perhaps now is the time to revisit the idea of coordinated growth focused on these small settlements close to Christchurch, or even in greenfield sites that offer better prospects of geological stability than the city’s ruptured and traumatised eastern suburbs.

Can east move west?
Any such solution cannot be simply mandated and imposed on the suffering communities east of the Christchurch CBD today: if people displaced by the earthquakes of the past nine months are to stay in and around the city, they need to have a say in where and what sort of community they might move to.  The sort of wholesale dislocation they face may require the powers and capacity of central government to initiate and facilitate solutions, but the community has to be central to any relocation exercise.  And perhaps whole community solutions are required, not sot hat they prevent individuals from taking their own measures, but which enable communities to work together to find solutions that they may share. 

What I am suggesting is the transfer of communities -- groups of households -- into the 21st century equivalent of the new town west of Christchurch.

The institutional framework may have be revamped for the purpose – the Earthquake Commission, the insurance companies, government agencies, even the banks working together to best discharge their individual and joint liabilities and responsibilities; while the people and professionals work together to shape the city of the future.  There may be an opportunity to work together to create an affordable and very liveable alternative.

The township alternative
I have already suggested that Christchurch’s best shot may be decentralised intensification, suburbs focused on human scale community centres, linked by wide avenues or boulevards.  Add to this mix subtly worked new towns or villages, not of the scale of a Crawley, Basildon, or Stevenage in southeast England, but something fitting the Canterbury landscape and Christchurch people. 

Such developments bring with them real lifestyle advantages in an attractive physical setting.   This is what the similarly attractive shire of Margaret River in Western Australia is doing with its town site and rural hamlet strategies; establishing a human scale, low impact alternative to extensive urbanisation in a popular growth area.  It is doing this, interestingly, with the help of Auckland-based Common Ground urban designers.

Tying it together the Curitiba way
We can add to this vision.  Away from the eastern suburbs the garden city survives around its avenues, as attractive as ever.  Its suburban and town centres are likely to play a bigger role, though, with employment and retailing potentially dispersed throughout the city even more in the future than in the past.

That is not to detract from the CBD.  Christchurch has a commitment to rebuilding its CBD as the heart of the region.  This may be in a moderate density, medium-rise manner (and let’s face it, high rise building in Christchurch has been the exception in the past, and will be a lot harder to justify in the future). 

What we will have to think about, though, is how to tie the CBD back to more self-sufficient neighbourhoods, and to growing satellite villages and townships.  Sam Coutts drew our attention to what Curitiba has achieved.  This is a sustainable city built around wide boulevards that provide green corridors and capacity for a variety of transport modes (the city relies heavily on bus transit), green spaces and extensive parks and gardens to manage and contain floods and cater for a population living in relatively high density housing, and efficiently networked services.  Even though Curitiba is bigger than Christchurch (with a population approaching 2,000,000), it offers ideas and inspiration about what can be achieved in a sustainable 21^st century city located  ina dynamic physical environment. 

This is now
I sometime wonder whether as it has grown, urban planning in places like New Zealand, with advanced urbanisation, maturing cities, modest growth, and reasonable levels of wealth and income, has had too little to do.  In seeking out problems to solve it has concentrated increasingly on process and minutiae (in the name of growth management, perhaps?) 

But today Christchurch has real problems, and they are big ones.  It is time to rise above the detail, to cut through undue process, and to act with a combination of vision and conviction.  Now the public and private sectors, citizens and their institutions need to put practical solutions in place.  There do not even appear to be many options to debate.  Going west, the 1974 solution, may just be the one Christchurch has to adopt in 2011.

---

[1]               Heraud B (1966) “The New Towns and London’s Housing Problem” Urban Studies, 2, 8-22

Recover, rebuild: Christchurch after the earthquake

Supporting Recovery in Christchurch

Lincoln University did a great job of assembling some leaders in the principles and practice of disaster recovery for its Resilient Futures workshop last week in support of recovery in Christchurch.  And in keeping with one of the themes – the importance of quality and timely communications --  the papers and summary are already posted on the web.

Without being there, it’s hard to judge the tone of discussion and the weight given to the lessons from experience overseas and in New Zealand.  But quick publication of the papers provides useful insights. 

My immediate thoughts follow – but I recommend anyone interested to read the summary and original papers.

Key themes

Some of the papers looked a bit academic, but there is correspondence between what the practitioners and academics have  to say.  It’s good to see theory and practice reinforce each other. 

Here are what I see as the most important threads:

(1)    The common sense but urgent approaches proposed for recovery, and the practicality of  some of the examples of what has been done elsewhere and what can be done in Christchurch;

(2)    The role of central government; there were differences in the detail among speakers, but by and large they see government adopting a leadership and motivational role, providing funding and oversight, especially in the recovery stage;

(3)    Local democracy is a key based on the role of local government and citizen participation, especially in the planning and rebuilding processes, and on the importance of involving local, even localised, communities (“clusters", "villages”).

(4)    The need for existing institutions to adapt to changed circumstances, streamlining decision-making while maintaining transparency;

(5)    The need to ensure that citizen, community, and other interest groups can participate and contribute by way of knowledge, resources, and time;

(6)    The need for speed, which nevertheless brings with it a risk of exacerbating pre-disaster imbalances and inequities between areas and groups; and the trade-off that may be required between speed and deliberation to deliver good long-term outcomes;

(7)    Recognising how easily the temporary can become permanent, and planning accordingly;

(8)    The window of opportunity that might be created for improving land uses and infrastructure in the course of replacement and rebuilding;

(9)    Finding the time to envision the future, to build consensus around architecture and planning options, and to achieve citizen buy-in to proposed solutions;

(10)The need for plans to address and reduce – and be seen to reduce – future risks;

(11)The significance of open space,  the importance of greenways and green-spaces, the likelihood that the city will have to expand, and the notion of an expanded city as an assembly of connected villages;

(It’s reassuring to see I’m not alone in advocating a new approach to spatial planning to limit the damage arising from extreme events, and to facilitate post-disaster recovery.  See my post of March 2 2011).

The challenges

There are potential contradictions in all this.  For example, speed is of the essence where infrastructure and shelter are laid waste, where jobs have evaporated, and communities have been torn apart. But haste should not create a city with parts which are forever temporary, where material gaps among groups widen, or where short-term expediency creates long-term risks. 

Nor should the importance of government leadership limit the capacity of the community at large to participate in rebuilding, to deliberate and debate, and help shape the new Christchurch.

The various speakers confirmed the importance of addressing multiple risks, something fundamental to planning for resilient cities.  If it can address multiple risks and provide outcomes that reduce them, then planning for the new Christchurch will enable “communities and local leaders to make best use of the opportunities the event has created”.

The experience of previous disasters confirmed that public engagement is central to achieving “political stability, community buy-in and support for new initiatives, the identification of workable solutions, and a generally positive recovery that promotes confidence in both the process and the likely end result”.

Differentiating recovery and rebuilding

Perhaps what we need to do if we are to use the wealth of material and insight provided by the Lincoln University initiative, and others like it,  and to work through the contradictions is distinguish between recovery and rebuilding.  Recovery is about restoring as quickly as practical safety, security and shelter, and the structures and infrastructure needed to ensure them.  It demands urgent attention, rapid deployment of resources, and  high level of expediency. 

Rebuilding is a little less urgent and maybe even more challenging.  It is about the way communities will live in the future, how people get on with their lives, their play, their work, and their recreation in a healthy and prosperous urban environment.  Rebuilding requires deliberation, identification of options, and working our way to consensus.  It cannot be rushed.  Nor should it be unnecessarily prolonged.  Ideally, rebuilding will start with community engagement rather than tagging it on through consultation later on, a strategy which risks energy- and morale-sapping disputes about objectives and outcomes.

Getting the governance right

It appears from the papers presented that we know what has to be done: it’s how we set about doing it that is critical to a successful rebuild.

Accelerating and sustaining recovery while laying solid foundations for rebuilding is perhaps the biggest challenge facing those in positions of authority and leadership.  Recognising the differences between them might be a good starting point.

If this challenge is to be met, it is important that the governance structures - who does what and under what authority – are appropriate at the outset.  The creation of a central agency, the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), looks like a good start, especially if it focuses on recovery and thereby gives Christchurch City Council the space and capacity it needs to provide leadership in the rebuilding process.  How these two agencies demarcate their roles and work alongside each other will have a major impact on the creation of a resilient and liveable Christchurch.