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.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, March 14, 2011
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'.
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'.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
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!
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!
Sunday, March 6, 2011
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
