While the Christchurch City Council has been confirmed as taking the lead in a ‘Recovery Plan‘ for the Central Business District ( and CERA will have ultimate authority anyway), there are definitely question marks over the future urban form Greater Christchurch may follow in the ‘post-quake’ environment.
Certainly there is a need to provide housing in Christchurch for people whose houses do not have a long-term future due to damage sustained in the earthquakes (particularly those in the hard hit eastern suburbs), and also possibly for people moving here for work during the rebuild. Pressure is being put upon the Council to allow residential developments, such as the controversial Prestons site, to go ahead as soon as possible. Failure to come to a (favourable?) decision soon enough could result in CERA flexing its muscles.
The problem is we need to balance a response to the current situation without setting a precedent that encourages unplanned sprawl. For example, the Prestons development is really in the middle of nowhere and will apply pressure for authorities to develop more infrastructure to cater for its growth rather than being within a planned development zone that can make use of a concentrated corridor of development and infrastructure (i.e. spend more for less). If Prestons is given the go ahead, with voices of support amplified by the emotive argument of post-quake recovery, it could set a worrying precedent in that, and other, parts of the city fringes. We only need to look at parts of Auckland, such as the Flat Bush development which is highly car dependent and poorly structured, to see where that could lead to.
So what is the desired outcome? Is Prestons really needed due to the earthquakes? That is the key question to be answered. Are other locations better? Can other more concentrated locations provide enough room to accommodate the required new housing over the next couple of years (i.e. in the short-term). The reason why that should be asked is because surely it would be better to have people making as much use of existing facilities and infrastructure (shops, roads, bus routes etc) that have capacity rather than having to spend money on new ones? For example, the new Wigram development is probably far better placed to have the recovery argument applied to have it sped up, as it is adjacent to major arterials, public transport routes and shopping centers already. All you have to worry about is the development itself, and any future improvements to key infrastructure required to accommodate the extra population, for example Main South Rd, would have far wider benefits.
My intention is not to rat on the Prestons development, but rather to say that I believe we shouldn’t blindly use the earthquakes as an excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater and allow every developer and his dog to be given the green light. It should be a managed process and some common sense should apply, otherwise, as with most things in this recovery, we are at risk of getting it massively wrong.
Ultimately, there is going to be quite a strong voice for any developments to go ahead, and the Council may not have the power to stop it. Instead, the best hope is that the Council mange the situation as best they can and make it a very obvious short-term thing with conditions attached, while strengthening a long-term plan that adheres to a more planned and structured Greater Christchurch.
marsoe
jhumm
bismarck
April 23, 2011
Prestons isn’t really in the middle of nowhere… it’s actually one of the few areas of greenfield remaining that is within a nice cycling distance from the CBD… Wigram being the other major area.
More than likely, development will get the go ahead though my main concern for Marshland is exactly as it’s name suggests, is a rather wet boggy place and will need a lot of preparation work to ensure that it doesn’t liquify like so many other suburbs have.
Personally, I think “if” Prestons and Wigram can go ahead then they should do for none other reason being that they are comparatively close into the city… the alternative is that we’ll see sprawling suburbs pop up in places like Rolleston, West Melton, Yaldhurst which are showing to be very attractive as they have good ground that didn’t subside in the quakes, but these areas are only viably served by a road and more private cars. Sure, Rolleston is served by rail, but allowing developers free reign to carve up land for houses isn’t automatically going to result in the government stumping up $200m that they don’t have for a passenger rail system.
Because there is likely to be a lot of land swapping going on, now is the time to take advantage and do something that Chch planners have failed to do very well… designate land for PT purposes such as light rail/trams/cycleways etc.
For example, when Prestons gets the go ahead, a corridor could be designated for a future tram/light rail line. In turn, once people of Bexley, Avondale etc abandon their suburbs, those suburbs could have the land remediated and resold with designations for PT there as well.
It’s an opportunity not to be missed really but the lynchpin will be whether the CERA, council and other parties will actually see that opportunity and run with it. I sure hope they do.
jhumm
April 25, 2011
I think you have misunderstood me a little here Bismark. By ‘in the middle of nowhere’ I didn’t mean it wasn’t within a nice cycling distance of the CBD or anything. It’s the fact that it is not on/linked up with a major corridor of development, and could lead to a flood of similar developments that are developed without conforming to a well planned template. Even Rolleston at least has potential to utilise existing infrastructure in future & could set a precedent to develop the corridor along SH1 and the railway line towards Christchurch (much like what we see in Wellington).
bismarck
April 28, 2011
Ahh yes, true jhumm… yes, I’ll agree that Prestons is indeed away from any existing corridor. It would make more sense to perhaps infill some corridor where transport opportunities are more appropriate. Perhaps Weedons, a greenfield area between Rolleston and Templeton… It is adjacent to SH1 and a rail line and would help to further the cause of rail for the southern towns.
Prestons just means more land for more roads/rails and more costs.
In addition, Prestons could be on quite soft boggy land and the cost to prepare for building might be way more expensive than the hard stony lands of Weedons.
jhumm
April 30, 2011
Perhaps if they ever get around to developing plans for a transport corridor through the eastern suburbs and out through the north-east toward Belfast and Kaianga, then Prestons will look more favourable. Perhaps that is also the answer, but without such a development anytime soon I say it is better to infill along existing corridors.