AUCKLAND’S SPATIAL PLAN DESERVES BETTER

In reporting on Auckland’s “Spatial Plan” the media seems to strive for controversy.  And in so doing, it does a disservice to the plan’s potential.  Polarized views define the parameters of an issue, but not its substance.  That may sell news, but it doesn’t help the outcome.

Typical is the debate over the cost of housing and the shape of urban growth.

In places, the plan is misleading – like setting “the compact city” as a goal.   This is disingenuous and to many, confrontational.   It flies in the face of reality.  “Compact” is a relative term – what suits one may be an anathema to another.  More accurate is the term used in the plan “avoiding growth at the expense of the attributes that make Auckland appealing”.  This sets incontestable qualitative goals worth pursuing. 

But rather than seeking real responses, the media debate is defined by articles like:

1. The Productivity Commission, as reported, perpetuates the myopic approach illustrated by the group that criticized the Puhoi and Victoria Park tunnels as too expensive options - but fails to take into account the wider less quantifiable issues.   Who agrees with them now on the tunnels?
2. The pronouncements of politicians like Mike Lee in the Herald 17 December use extremes to achieve their goal of getting media attention. 
3. The self serving land development/house building industry presents new subdivisions as the only solution.  There are many other elements to the problem.
4. The architects don’t help by promoting ‘design lead’ solutions as the panacea to all problems.  Important yes, but there are other issues.

They are all right – and wrong – to an extent.    There is no single silver bullet.  What should be debated is the balance - but not in the absolute terms the plan sets out.  City growth is a dynamic, ever changing pattern.  Council needs to establish an interactive process that encourages innovative solutions responsive to Auckland’s changing needs.   That would be good government – and possibly achieve the Mayor’s goal of ‘the most livable city”.  But if the media choose controversy over substance, is there any hope?

SHAME ON YOU ANGLICAN CHURCH AND CHRISTCHURCH COUNCIL

For agreeing to demolish the Anglican Cathedral Christchurch City Council and the Anglican Church should hang their heads in shame.  Despite the devastation wrought by the earthquakes, there were a number of buildings critical to what Christchurch is – the Anglican Cathedral was one of them.  Cities throughout history have shown how these valued parts of our past, destroyed by tragedy,  must, and can be re-built – even if it takes years to achieve.    Rather than rush in and demolish, or replace in a compromised way, they fenced off the treasures until they were able to rebuild them – as they were.

It can be done – and it is disingenuous to label it as Disney Land.  It has much more integrity, reflecting deeply held feelings for built heritage and human values.

I fear that the Church and Council have been hijacked by bureaucratic box tickers given authority they exercise within narrow definitions.  History, culture, heritage – don’t seem to rate compared with narrow code compliance, OSH and economics. 

The Church, the Council and committed individuals must stand up for the historic values of Christchurch – or stand condemned by the future.

AN UNUSAL FASCINATION WITH TOILETS

In addition to natural features and public spaces, most towns and cities are identified by their iconic buildings.  This is usually a cathedral, concert hall, art gallery or museum.    Some have their seat of government and some like Dubai rely on the unusual size or design of major buildings.            

I suspect we are the only nation that identifies towns with their public toilets.  The most recent is the Hobsonville lot – then we have the Hundertwasser ones in Kawakawa and those that have become the focus of the Matakana town centre. 

Town dunnies continue to receive awards from the Institute of Architects – no doubt warranted for individual excellence.   But surely there are more significant architecturally significant buildings, monuments or icons in each place!   What does this tell people about a town and its leadership?

SUPPORT A CAUSE – RENT A JOURNO.

I usually defend Brian Rudman, not because I agree with him (I seldom do), but because he is true to his ‘leftist’ bias in reporting on issues he considers important.  But his article “Queens Head horror too awful to destroy” illustrates the danger of his leanings – that he becomes the ‘hand maiden’ (his term) of any protest cause, regardless of its merits.

“Facadism” is worth debating – but we are entitled to expect some investigative journalism if it is to feature in our major daily.  From being a “cause” (not without validity), heritage issues are now hopefully receiving more balanced treatment.  Age is not the only value to be considered – not everything from the past is that much better than what we do today. 

The Queens Head was, in 1986, a façade with a dilapidated timber building behind that had been constantly, and badly, renovated.  Perhaps the only thing of historic value was the 1950’s Formica sheet lining to bathrooms – but even that was delaminating through neglect.  And while criticizing this and the Jean Batten Building, Rudman ignores such acclaimed buildings a Lloyds Insurance in London which does exactly the same with the old façade.

Facadism has its place in an urban environment where the spaces around buildings are as important as the interiors.  And the notion of “palimpsest” with parts or all of existing buildings is an important way of ensuring the dynamism of urban growth is not frozen by blind ideology triumphing over reason.

AUCKLAND, RWC AND BIG EVENTS

The RWC illustrated the potential of a city in the current age.                                                                                                                  

Firstly it demonstrated the appeal of ‘people focused spaces like The Wynyard Quarter, Party Central, Fort St shared space and Queen St.  The learned lawyer who proposed tickets to limit attendance (less than 1% were disadvantaged!!), was an unfortunate aberration which I hope will be ignored.                                                                         

Second, it showed how important ‘big’ events are.   Having lots on is good, but a city needs a calendar of international attractions – like Arts Festivals, Biennales, International sports events etc.  That’s a challenge for the politicians.                                                             

Third, it shows how people behave appropriately in these special event times.  Fan zones, Fan Trails, Towns adopting teams, flags on cars and buildings – all event specific and contributing to its specialness.                                                                                             

 And finally, it provided a reason and time frame to get things done – like the shared space, Wynyard Quarter, Queens Wharf and many others.                                                              

So take note politicians!!!  Build on this lesson of success – and do it again. 

SHARED SPACE AND CYCLISTS - DANGER!

I am a real fan for 'shared space' and have every confidence it will go a long way to reclaiming the city for people.  It relies on the ability of vehicular and pedestrian traffic to co-exist. As I have said, we have been doing this by default - jaywalking - and gotten pretty good at it. 
But a parallel official enthusiasm for cycling means there is another party to the sharing - people on bikes.   I am not so confident on the compatibility.  They have little or no audible or sensory presence to a pedestrian, and the new ones travel fast!  Cyclists tend to assume the right to ignore traffic signals and rules - especially at intersections and crowded streets.  I suspect they are an accident waiting to happen.
We need to see and establish cycleways a a part of the 'integrated transport system' talked about.  Sydney and Melbourne are setting examples on this - recognising the incompatibility of cycles and walkers.

SHARED SPACE HAS A HISTORY

I am a strong supporter of shared space – the new fashion in Urban renewal.  What an improvement the initial ones in Fort and Elliott Streets have made to Auckland’s inner city!      While motorists still need to learn how to use them, pedestrians have been ‘sharing’ road space for years. We called it ‘jay walking’ and it was illegal.  So ‘shared space’ is accepting the inevitable – and doing it well.

SHAME ON YOU ROD ORAM AND SUNDAY STAR TIMES

The way our cities grow over the next ten years is too important to be the subject of cheap journalism.  The Rod Oram article on September 4 is counter-productive tabloid journalism.

Auckland, Wellington, and of course Christchurch have recently produced plans for their cities that aspire to quality outcomes.  Finally,Local Government is putting urban quality at the top of the agenda.   Worldwide, governments are accepting the simple equation:

Good environments = Dynamic communities= Dynamic economies
Few will believe everything proposed in the schemes will happen as published.

First – these are discussion documents – and commendably, seek to engage with community attitudes.  Happily, in the current climate, people realise that good urban environments are critical to successful cities.

Second – effected parties will lobby to protect their economic position. This has always happened – and in the current scene presents a governance challenge to accommodate them without compromising qualitative aspects.

Thirdly – successful plans must be dynamic – every action achieved changes the criteria against which future plans need to be considered. 

What the process does not need is  polarizing statements in the Oram article like “battle lines are drawn” (they aren’t) “the government is ignoring the bold plans” (what arrant nonsense), and “in stark contrast the government is pushing for….” (misleading to say the least).

No doubt Ministry for the Environment initiatives like The Urban Protocol and Tool Kit, or Urban Design Advisory Committees, and Urban Champions are not in Mr Oram’s references – urban growth is not like his financial commentaries - almost everyone is involved and most are interested.  The issues are the focus of continuous dialogue with government by organisations representing Architects, Landscape Architects, Urban Designers etc.

So I say “stick to your knitting Mr Oram – or if you want to write about urban aspirations, at least engage with process.  The issues are too important for tabloid journalism.  

CHRISTCHURCH PLAN - FIRST IMPRESSIONS - POSITIVE

The Christchurch plan is a big document. I have only scanned it and accept  it is the first cut - and will be subject to change.   But I believe the authors are to be congratulated for producing such a persuasive document, with so much input, in such a short time.  I await the next stage with interest.
The points that particularly impressed me included:
1.  The way the process engaged with the community. The circumstances clearly contributed to the level of interest, but it feels like there were some valuable inputs that have influenced the plan.
2.  The height limit in the central area - provided it is based on urban quality, not concern for safety (because that would be accepting kneejerk responses as valid).   This will come under a lot of pressure - but I believe it would be worth using compensating methods if the imposition creates a demonstrable loss.  Think of the great cities of the world - Paris, Berlin, most of old London - the buildings are generally no more than 6 or 7 levels.  It provides a 'human urban scale'. High rise can be confined to specific areas (like the Le Defence area of Paris).   
3.  The sensible commitment to light rail to create a link to Ilam - and the uban consequences.  Christchurch lost a lot when the planners shifted the University - this is a very sensible way of re establishing the link.
There's lots more - but for now - all power to Christchurch!

IS LOCAL GOVERNMENT OUT OF CONTROL?

The increased rumblings on compliance costs, delays and process frustrations hilight the impact local Government bureaucracy is having on NZ.   The stories are hair raising and according to some, are making a lot of small scale building unachievable.
Council reactions to the lunacy created by NZ's insistence on retaining Joint and Several Liability, which has left them carrying the costs in an increasing litigious society, has multiplied the compliance documents they require tenfold!  To avoid possible legal suits they have submerged the process in a sea of demands and imposed a process that is often breathtakingly arrogant.  Has it improved the situation?  Unlikely! 
Central Government seems averse to providing effective leadership - and is tip toeing around the issue, throwing out crumbs of reform that do not address the substantive issues.
But architects don't help!  On the one hand they claim the right to be the arbiters of design and construction standards, On the other they seldom agree within themselves on design issues.  And they often become advocates for vested interests which compromise the bigger picture.
What's the answer?  I suspect a reduction in the 'policemen' role of Local Government, the acceptance of other's skills, and an equitable allocation of responsibility will help.  A little humility by the vocal members of the architectural profession will also help.

PLEASE TAKE CARE DR SMITH - BIO- DIVERSITY'S TOO IMPORTANT TO PLAY POLITICS

Few will disagree with the goal of protecting New Zealand's unique bio-diversity.  And the debate will always be articulated by extreme positions.   The reality for most Kiwis will lie somewhere in the middle. 
Bio-diversity is too important to be dictated by extreme views, or subjected to political ideology.
So the challenge for Dr Smith and the government, is to achieve a strategy that can accommodate most positions within acceptable goals.  It needs real national leadership - not profile posturing!
Here is an opportunity for the government to implement policy that recognises locality differences and respects local knowledge and history.  It should accommodate site specific demands and imperatives.    It is an opportunity to show a new kind of governance - one that can realistically engage with informed stakeholders.
One size will not fit all - but the goals will be the constant.   The differences between farmers and conservationists can be bridged by a flexible and responsive government.  Such an approach can illustrate a process desperately needed in the RMA, Building Act to name but two.

AUCKLAND'S NEW PLAN - THE NEED FOR BALANCE

There's no doubt - the argument for a better urban environment, not totally dominated by traffic planning  is winning!  What's happening in Shortland/Fort Sts, Darby St and Aotea Square is great.  But then so too is the new Northern Motorway to Puhoi.
Reading the lastest Discussion Document on a City Centre Masterplan, you could be forgiven for thinking people in cars have no place in it!  But to treat the private car as a 'pariah' is to fly in the face of history and Auckland's culture.
I suggest city spaces (roads etc) need to be graded into:

• Spaces like Aotea Square - pedestrians only except for service and civic needs.
• Shared space - like Darby St etc - a managed equality.
• Pedestrian predominant road - like Queen St.
• Vehicle predominant road - like Symonds St.
• A motorway - vehicles only except for emergencies and service.

Then urban design, landscape, architectural and traffic engineering skills can be applied in the right balance.
The goal of better urban space is indisputably right - what's needed is the balance that comes from wisdom rather than wholesale embracing popular trends.

Christchurch re- building - the dangers in the system

Current Building Consent requirements will almost certainly be a challenge in rebuilding Christchurch.   While earthquake damage may not be a durability failure, the compromising of structural, fire safety or plumbing/draiange issues will generate the requirement for a Building Consent. In the current bureauracratic climate, the demands for detailed information, Producer Statements etc combined with the shortage of skilled staff in Territorial Authorities will inevitably lead to costly delays. 
Beware the potential parasites who will feed off this - promoting their (add on) services by raising the fears of non-compliant, leaky buildings.   To avoid this of course, will require their services - and, with 'leaky homes' hysteria still prevalent, Councils could embrace them as an additional line of checking security.   To hell with the cost to the poor building owner!
The answer is to use the skills that exist and will be required anyway.  Make sure the architects and engineers are properly registered, and require them to confirm the design is Code Compliant.  Make sure competent builders do the work and it is comprehensively supervised.
The challenge to Councils should be seen as an opportunityto make the best of what we have - not create cost blow-outs and barriers.

AUCKLAND UNLEASHED - let's get it right!

The ‘Big Picture’ is great!  I will be submitting comments - these relate to the first part:

1.     The report AUCKLAND UNLEASHED is about 30-40% bigger than it need be to communicate the concept.  It would benefit from a pragmatic editing.        Some would say that the verbosity is counter- productive.  I suggest the dangers include:  

(i)   The format is typical of reports that are far too big for their purpose - the report and consultation seem more important than the outcome.    

(ii)  The aspirations are so extensive and detailed, many of them are unlikely to happen.             

(iii) The report format signals a continuation of officer attitudes that delay, complicate and frustrate progress on proposals.   

(iv) The report has a Social Agenda that reads like a Labout Party election manifesto - and which focusses on lower socio-economic groups.   Others are just as important, and necessary, in achieving City goals.   

2.     The elements that make Auckland unique and the need to nurture them is not given sufficient emphasis as a driver of development.  This transcends economic overlays.

3.     Cultural engagement, awareness and City commitment is a critical component of successful cities.  Auckland has it in abundance – it should be acknowledged and prioritised.

4.     A real ‘Big Picture’ need is a City administration that shares the goals and commitments of the Mayor and Council.                                                                                                                                                            .                    

What's our deputy-Mayor playing at?

Is deputy-Mayor Hulse trying to white-ant the new Super City?  Or is she just a local politician chasing media exposure?
First she hit out at the use of consultants, then she criticized the governance structure.  
No-one believes the new order is 100% perfect - Mayor Brown rightly describes it as 'a work in progress.'
Deputy-Mayor Hulse should not delude herself - no-one believes we should have retained the old system of warring Councils, function duplication and rampant bureaucracy - other than self serving Councilors and employees in 'the trough'.    Most of us had to endure the frustrating processes and pay the growing costs.
The new structure could work - if we get the right balance of responsibilities, efficiencies and outcomes.  But to do so so requires elected leaders committed to making it work - not grabbing headlines by knocking it!
Sure there will be things to criticize - but there's always 2 sides to the argument - and bigger agendas.  So please Council, rise above the old petty squabbling and questionable reporting in media with questionable objectives.  Aucklanders want, and need, enlightened governance - and exciting outcomes.

AUCKLAND UNLEASHED Vs DEMOCRACY: THE CHALLENGE!

AUCKLAND UNLEASHED, despite being at least 30% longer than it need be, is an excellent discussion document that anticipates a "PLAN" for Auckland (they call it the Spatial Plan).
But the real issue is whether this 'PLAN' becomes an aspirational concept or a bureaucratic straight jacket.  No 'PLAN' can anticipate all outcomes. No 'PLAN" can satisfy all democratic inputs.   
The successful cities we all love have resulted from a single agency or dictator - democracy seldom had much say!    This enabled outcomes to be continually assessed, and if so decreed, changed (like the origin of the Spanish Steps in Rome).   For the true manifestation of democracy - look at our suburbs. 
The CHALLENGE to the politicians, is to satisfy democratic demands while still achieving the kind of outcomes AUCKLAND UNLEASHED aspires to.  The danger of adopting a 'PLAN' is to empower legions of objectors, vested interests and 'box ticking' bureaucrats - and lose any chance of achieving it.  The danger of asserting authority is to stand accused of negating the democratic process.
Therein lies the CHALLENGE!

Planing for people and vehicles - Auckland's Challenge

Good things are happening in Auckland!  Finally, the concept of 'SHARED SPACE' is being given a chnace.  This tecnique of inner city spatial treatment has proven itself in other countries and is now happening in Darby St, part of Lorne  St, Fort St, Fort Lane, Jean Batten Place and Shortland St.
In removing signage, carriageway/pedestrian separation and kerbing it must be an anathema to Traffic Planners.  But then the dominance of planning for traffic has dominated (and compromised) the planning of our cities for years!   And it has not produced the kind of city we all want.
Traffic Planners are not my most admired profession - but then we must be pragmatic in asessing traffic and pedestrian needs.  
People move in 3 broad categories - pedestrian, private vehicle and public transport.  Our movement spaces will then range from:

• a multi lane freeway where vehicle requirements are paramount and pedestrians access only in emergencies or to service it, to-
• an inner city square where pedestrian requiremens are paramount and vehicles access only in emergencies or to service it.

The challenge is to ballance the needs and position each space between these extremes. 'Shared Space' offers a new option.
As people see how it works, I believe there will be an increasing demand to develop options that prioperly respond to the needs ballance.  So Urban Designers and Traffic Planners have a lot of challenges in front of them.

CHRISTCHURCH SHOULD NOT BE A BLAME GAME

It is said that a Royal Commission is never appointed unless the outcome is known.  Whether that's true or not, to expect the Christchurch Earthquake Commission to apportion blame for building failures is both unfair to them and dangerous to the recovery.
1.  It will be virtually impossible to determine the cause of a failure.  It could be any one or a combination of:  design, regulations, consent checking, construction, supervision. 
New Zealand, along with Japan, California and other jurisdictions, has very effective earthquake regulations.  We also have a very active Earthquake Engineering Society that brings the best skills together.   I have confidence in them - and would be sory to see their initiatives and commitment submerged by overlayed regulatory systems.
2.  Trying to lay blame will inevitably result in litigation.  And given the problematic nature of any attempted decision, this will do little more than feed the lawyers.
3.  It will also delay the recovery process as particpants avoid any action that might incurr similar responses.  In our punitive system of joint and several liabilty, industry participants are becoming extremely 'gun shy' of anything that might expose them to claims.
The Commission could contribute valuable oversights resulting from 'new eyes' surveying a situation that many countries have faced.   The danger is that their deliberations will result in an increased prescriptive regulatory regime that Local Government does not have the skills to administer.  So once again (like the Leaky Homes crisis),  we will have bureaucratic delays that will frustrate the important recovery process.

AUCKLAND (SUPER) CITY - DANGERS

DANGER NO 1:
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ELECTED AND EMPLOYED - WHO MAKES THE DECISIONS?

Two things reported today illustrate one of the big challenges to the new administration:
1.  The treatment of a small cafe owner in seeking a license to provide wine with his tapas.
2.  Councilors' expressed concerns at not being given the costs of additional WRC hosting.

It has been said that ' if Jimmy Hoffa (former head of the American Teamsters Union in the 1950 -60s) was reincarnated as a modern trade unionist he would probably represent civil servants'.  Public sector employees in many 'rich' countries of the world enjoy higher wages, better job practices and security than in the private sector.  Reform that threatens jobs is resisted.  
So the trumpeted claims of job cuts for efficiency will ring hollow as job roles are created under different headings or consultancy contracts.

How many have been told 'My Minister will say this - but I will tell you what will really happen?'  So when the new Auckland Council tries to excecise some authority that cuts across the 'expert' determinations already made by key staff - they are on a 'hiding to nothing'.  There will be 'sound and fury' - but when the dust settles, the beauracrats will have their way.  The politicians will be left to justify the actions.

Maybe that's not a bad thing - given the complexity of some of the issues, and the ability of many politicians to make decisions on other than parochial or limited positions. 

That's the challenge - to find a way of ballancing the qualified inputs with political wisdom.   But the kind of outcomes Auckland needs depends on them doing that - today's Herald reports don't auger well.

Finding something positive from the Christchurch earthquake.

It's dificult to find some ray of light rom the tragedy of Christchurch - but I believe there is one.  I was reading  Chudleigh's account of visiting Christchurch from the Chantham Islands around 1868.  He desribes a beautiful city of flowing fountains, parks and boulevardes.  
But like most cities in the western world, Christchurch's rapid growth through the 19 and 20th centuries was dictated by:  1.  A statutory, land-use based planning system whose planners' main task was to enforce compliance with highly prescriptive rules.
                 2.  A committment to maximising the capital return on any site - and doing nothing that might be seen to dimninish its profit potential.
                 3.  The supremacy of the car - traffic planners and roading engineers reigned supreme over people's needs.
Happily that is changing.  People are realising that the 'people qualities' of a city are the main catalyst to economic and social success.  The city is arguably man's greatest creation - but from the time of the industrial revolution, we screwed up.  Cities grew with little or no regard for the well being of their citizens - equating it with economic efficiency.  Succesful cities are now realising the essential value of good urban design, of parks and squares, boulevardes, galleries, public art, civic events - and heritage.
Chrischurch has them all - or it had until man's greed compromised a lot of them, and the earthquake finished it off.  But there's enough left to reclaim the qualities Chudleigh wrote of.  There's the iconic buildings, the parks, the opportunity for great spaces and connections. 
But to achieve it will need a strong, empowered directorate with the ability and authority to:
                  1.  Ensure the process is design lead - but have the ability to discern innovative, enduring design from the 'current fashion' and 'kneejerk' resposnes that will abound, and
                  2.  Use the traffic, civil and utility engineers as valuable input but not the dictaters of physical outcomes.
                  3.  Ensure the city is able to accommodate and benefit from technical innovations.
                  4. Navigate public engagement without becoming parlysed by the process.
Sounds simple!  But in our PC environment it is a real challenge - but here's hoping!  The 'Positive" is the potential for Christchurch to become the most desirable city in the world.

SOME POINTS NOT TO MISS IN EARTHQUAKE REVIEWS

As the only architect to travel with the NZ surveillance teams to Kobe (Japan) and Bagio (Phillipines) earthquakes, I was part of a team that identified some key issues - which any review of NZ Regulations should be aware of.
It's fine to reveiw the Codes - but I suggest they are not the main issue.  Like Japan and California, NZ has refined and reviewed earthquake regulations - and they are by and large good.  They should withstand a Royal Commission interrogation.
But if the Commission wants to achieve some relevance I suggest the following be included:
1.  Quality controll of construction:  A large building is made up of a many junctions - beams to cols, slabs to beams etc etc.  The failure of one under seismic load is likely to precipitate a major failure of that building (like the Grand Chancellor).  The need is for comprehensive quality control of the building process, especially in critical points such as junctions.  The most effective way would be to require Registered Engineers to inspect and certify the quality of junctions (not another TA inspection regime!). 
2.  Infill panels:  After the building is completed and signed of (Code Compliance), the interior fitout begins.  Being non-structural, much of this can be done without a Building Consent.  Installing rigid walls in structural bays can change the seismic performance of a building, leading to failure.  I am not proposing more regulatory controlls - but a Code of Practice adopted by Building Owners, ensuring that fitouts do not change the sesimic performance of the building would be valuable. 
3. Fittings, furniture etc:  In an earthquake, desk top computers, bok shelves appliances and furniture become lethal missiles.  They will cause considrable damage, injury and even death.  Making simple restraints  available with reccomendations on use would minimise this.
There is a lot of information and knowledge on the performance of modern buildings in earthquakes - the Govt, in establishing Commissions etc should make use of it rather than 'reinventing the wheel'.

TAKE CARE WITH CHRISTCHURCH

It's all gone well so far - but reconstruction planning will need to ballance public and media views with achieving the best outcomes - with minimum delays.  Christchurch reconstruction can basically now go in one of two ways:-
1. It can become mired in beauracratic processes, delayed by endless consultations and objections, ultimately achieving outcomes that are compromises in most aspects.  A scenario Norman Foster described as "a terrible thing happened...they all fluffed around and looked at each other's navels and got buried in committees and engaged in political infighting. Sad."  or
2.  A dynamic team can be appointed, with the authority to make decisions, the humility and sensitivity to engage with the community, and the ability to mobilise the best and most appropriate skills to achieve progress.
Clealry option 2 is the most desirable.
The new Christchurch must be design lead.  First, identify what was valuable to the culture and social cohesiveness of Christchurch in the past - and rebuild them promptly.  There is nothing that cannot be reinstated if it has that kind of value - and it will have a positive impact on people's perception of the reconstruction.
Then look to the new city - the linkages, the public spaces - the urban generators.  This is where the great opportunities will emerge for sensitive, creative and innovative replanning. 
Christchurch is an opportunity to initiate a succesful blend of new technologies and techniques with the value of history.  It will be a ballancing act - they all have extremely committed and persuasive advocates. 
Cities are dynamic - and have countless changing inputs.  So the process must set the pattern, monitor the growth and respond to emerging opportunities with the 'big picture' in mind.
Here's hoping it goes that way!

CHRISTCHURCH - BOQUETS AND WARNINGS

Now the Christchurch reconstruction is beginning we need to acknowledge the successes - but be aware of the dangers!
SUCCESSES INCLUDE:
1.  The excellent leadership shown by Government both National and Local.
2.  The efficency, quality and sensitivity of the first response teams.
3.  The New Zeland people and the 'ownership' the took of the disaster.
These are not all evident to such an extent in similar diasasters the world has recently experienced.
BUT WE MUST BE CAREFUL OF:
1. Quoted costs:  The latests Treasury estimate has to be taken with 'a grain of salt'.   At best it can only be an informed guess based on limted data.  By comparison the 1995 Kobe earthquake (6.8 magnitude in a city of 1.5 million) cost $132 billion! 
2. Demolition orders:  They are the consequence of engineers assessing structures against their current rules (which represent the latest theories).  Where doubt exists they must be interrogated against heritage, social and macro-economic fatcors.  Technology exists that will make almost any building recoverable - if it is important enough (as it clearly was in many European cities after WW2 bombing destruction).
3. Infra-structure reinstatement:  Many of those determining how to do it have a career interest in centralised, highly engineered schemes.  Is there an opportunity to use low tech, loclalised schemes for such things as stormwater recycling, electricity generation etc?

REBUILD CHRISTCHURCH - BUT WITH CARE.

Christchurch must be rebuilt - that's a 'no-brainer'.  The effeciency of the first response', the management of the recovery, the stoicism of the people, and the natiowide response are justifiably acclaimed world wide (although the TV1 news presenter dressed as an undertaker was a bit naff!).
Cities have been described as "our species greatest invention" - which is why they keep rebuilding on the same sites.  And it is only natural that we should want the rebuild to address what we saw as the failings of the former city.
New Zealand has the architects and urban designers to produce an outstanding response - and Christchurch has more than its fair share of them.  And regardless of some comments, the NZ Earthquake Regulations I believe are generally good - which is why so many buildings are still OK (compare this with the Kobe, Japan earthquake). 
I am sure we can be confident of the architecural quality of the new buildings - and we know they can be reconfigured to respond to changing needs. It's the urban design we must be careful of!  Peter Ackroyd's "Biogaraphy of London" describes how, as the city rebuilt over the centuries,  the urban functions like health, justice, commerce etc keep reappearing in the same locations!  So, despite the great innovative designs of people like Wren, Hawkesmoore - and more recently the South Bank, - the shape of the city by and large remains.  You could call it "ORGANIC HISTORICSM'. 
The challenge to the decision makers in Christchurch is to get the best from the skills and talent available, but temper it with a respect for history.  You can be sure they will conflict at times!
That we have the skills is without doubt - but they are still (like most in the world), heavily influenced by fashions.  These are widely published and self-promoted by professional bodies.  But they are not the ultimate - rather, good examples of curent thinking, which must be tempered with history.
This is a time we need informed leadership, capable of making decisions in a wider context than current media provides.

HERITAGE, URBAN DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY

Recent media debates on Heritage Building retention in Auckland hilight one of the dilemmas of a growing city.  GOOD URBAN OUTCOMES AND DEMOCRACY ARE NOT GOOD BEDFELLOWS!
Most of the cities we flock to and love in Europe were the result of autocratic impositions by the Church or State - Rome, Paris, Sienna, Washington, London - the list is endless.  The 'people' had little say in the outcome.
The 20th century franchised people power - so here in NZ we have two often opposing forces:
1.  The initiators - usually driven by architects or urban designers.  Much of it is good - real good - but most of the proposed works reflects the current fashions now so brilliantly promted by sycophantic journalists and clever photographers.   It is usually clothed in impressive rhetoric with analyses justifying the outcomes.
2.  The 'opinion of the people' - usually media articles promoting a dissenting view and seeking to sensationalise the issues.   But in so doing, they often provide the necessary interrogation of proposals and a valuable dose of common sense!
So the challenge is to get the benefit of talented and innovative design while retaining the things that matter.   The designers, despite persuasive presentations and glowing rhetoric, are usually following global trends - which is good in that it represents a body of knowledge and experience.   The commentators on the other hand, often represent values that are important to people.   They also often make much out of minority opinions and feed off the general resistance to change.
It all points to the need for enlightened leadership and Governance  - so that the best decision on the outcome is made.  We cannot afford to have our cities designed in newspaper articles - but on the other hand, idealistic designs must be grounded in local needs and aspirations.
The best result will usually fall somewhere in the middle.

The lawyers comments on Quake law don't help.

The article published by the Auckland District Law Society critisizing the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010 does them little credit.  Apart from the points made by the Canterbury- Westland Law Society branch president and the fact that "Extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary legislation" - this legislation has the potential to avoid the farce the leaky Homes legislation has become.
ADLS casts a scary scenario of 'Possible examples', and tries to draw innapropriate comparisons with the Napier earthquake.  But I suspect the nub of the issue is that lawyers might be cut out of the action.
The legal process has virtually hijacked the Leaky Homes process - and questionable 'experts' appear to be 'farming much of what remains. 
The result is that the outcomes so desperately needed, are often severely compromised by the legal and consultant fees.  So the victims still suffer!
Already apparently lawyers and major providers are starting to use even the Canterbury system to maximise their returns at the expense of local providers - so the lack of 'on the ground action' must be concerning local people.
The Law Society would do much better to use their skills to ensure the people who have lost so much get rapid help, quality outcomes - and value for money.  At times like this Governments must govern - and it's results that count, not the legal rhetoric.

I feel confident in commenting on issues of architecture and urban design in New Zealand.   Our profession is characterised by large egos and a belief in self infallibility.  Few will admit it - but architecture and urban development are subject to fashion - we just clothe them in architectural rhetoric! 
This often results in personal gratification and sycophantic journalists embellishing misleading, but beautiful selected photographic images.
Having said that, some developments do achieve qualities that should withstand the test of time. 
How to achieve them is the issue! 
Check out my webiste http://www.jsaconsultants.co.nz/