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/