4 years later Christchurch is still an active demolition site
If you’re looking for something to read while researching emigrating to New Zealand, here’s something you may want to take a look at.
“Many New Zealand cities and towns are spartan, ugly and makeshift – designed with little regard to the natural world around them” not our words, but those of urban designer Garth Falconer.
Falconer is the author of “Living in Paradox – A History of Urban Design Across Kainga, Towns and Cities in New Zealand“, which “highlights the struggle to reconcile development with the country’s climate, landscape and geology.” Anyone who has watched Top of the Lake will have some appreciation of what he means by that.
In an interview with Radio New Zealand, Falconer said there is
“…a fundamental disclocation (sic) between topography, landscape and urban form, resulting in a minimal, discontinous (sic) and eclectic landscape presence in the emerging urban environments.”
Sounds like he doesn’t like it much, but then very few of New Zealand’s towns and cities could be called either environmentally sensitive, or picturesque.
The book’s final chapter is devoted to our biggest city, Auckland, known for urban sprawl and traffic jams. Mr Falconer said Auckland’s biggest problem was not traffic but social division. It had become a city of two halves, divided by the woeful state of social housing, poor lending policies and too much low-rise detached housing.
“It is time to undertand what the New Zealand city is and to design and live in it with ease. This will involve recognising and developing a strong network of small towns, vibrant regional centres and outstanding metropolitan cities…read on
All well and good but what’s happening right now? for example, with the rebuild of Christchurch, said to be another 6 years in the making? Anyone visiting New Zealand’s second largest city today could be forgiven they’d stumbled across a set for a Balkans war movie.
Having a vision is all well and good, but having the smarts and the resources to translate it into reality is another matter entirely.
Must be something to do with the (political) landscape?
You may also be interested in
Christchurch Rebuild is “Hampered by NZ Government – “three years after the earthquake and “Christchurch’s recovery is “painstakingly slow”, say key rebuild firms who blame local and central government for hampering progress. A damning survey by the New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development (NZCID) shows major banks, construction companies and engineering firms believe the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (Cera) and the Christchurch City Council (CCC) are holding back the rebuild. Some of those surveyed called for Cera to be axed and for an independent board to be set up to replace it.”… read on
“The Best and the Worst of the Christchurch Re-Build” – No better symbol for the inequity of the rebuild than the Hagley Cricket Oval – Four years after the 22 February earthquake we’re re-blogging a post from the site RebuildingChristchurch.wordpress.com as a tribute to the people who still live in Christchurch and wonder when their city will ever be restored to normal…read on
Christchurch Rebuild – EQC Pulling Plug, Fletchers Tells Builders to Start Looking Elsewhere For Work – It looks today like the Christchurch rebuild has withered on the vine. Three years after the quake, and with bare ground marking the places where many buildings once stood, it appears that the Earthquake Commission is giving up on the city…Fletchers have told their workers to down tools as work is winding down…read on
E2NZ.org 
New Zealand architecture is a joke! Ugly is too kind a word for the structures Kiwi’s call buildings… the homo …sapiens living there should all be euthanised, especially their architects!
What has me baffled? There IS a vast amount of “outside” influence available to alter the design elements, yet the “outside” elements are rejected.
The building standard is set very low. The buildings are very plain, poor “energy” design [insulation, insulated windows, weather striping…], made with poor quality materials, antiquated designs…
The “value” of these structures is very low yet the cost of these structures is very high. There are savings in production methods that could be employed, but are rejected as being not “locally” generated, new or different materials are rejected as being too difficult to source or too expensive. The same old stuff seems to be tolerated and actually accepted quite well. There only seems to be any critical evaluation of standard building practices when “outsiders” come and see what and how things really are, then they are told “she’ll be right”, “that’s how we roll here in NZ” and similar.
Why is there such a determined effort to be mediocre?
Probably because an established cartel benefits from 0 competition.
Things only stay mediocre if those in power benefit the most from that.
Having competition also means … choices, which means … halved or much less income for cartels.
Along with keeping prices honest and affordable.
Quite startling the difference in kitset homes –
http://www.latitudehomes.co.nz/
http://www.jorntra.co.uk/swedish-log-homes
Even the ‘mobile’ (jorntra) homes are better built.
New Zealand went through most of the 20th.Century building mediocre buildings and there was very little by way of imaginative town planning. Mediocrity describes urban New Zealand and the scenic potential in many cities and towns has been submerged in mundane architecture. Wellington and Nelson are prime examples of where hillsides have become covered with third-rate, uninspired housing – nevertheless very pricy. It’s probably because most Kiwis are descended from settlers from the depressing north of England and know no better because they were brought up in grim environments.