Posts by Barnaby Bennett
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Telling Our Own Tales, in reply to jeremy botham,
Jeremy, I completely agree that any minister would have found this all difficult, and in part I do quite respect how Brownlee has managed some extremely difficult problems. While the communication was not always the best the redzoning was really quite a significant move that was well handled. (apart from the 50% thing but that was small numbers).
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and correct the problems that we see. I really despise this either all for or all against model that many commentators have. Critique is an act of care, and our attempts to critique and criticise and bring into light what is going on is because we want the best, not because we dislike any group (Aucklander) or any person (Brownlee).
The sad reality is that we have little ability to critique and contribute to the big decisions being made because we have no facility to do that. The public has been excluded from this process by the Government, and as a professional in that area, it deeply concerns me. Its both undemocratic and really really bad for city-building. I've got an essay I will put up on line in the next few days which explores it all a lot more.
-
Speaker: Telling Our Own Tales, in reply to jeremy botham,
Ok. The only point I've got time to reply with here is the idea that Roger Sutton and CERA have been looking to locals for information.
The complete lack of public input into the government led plan is a planning and governance disgrace. This is a multi-billion dollar and ten year or so programme of activity that has had no international peer review and no iterative input from the public and no public consultation. It includes the largest compulsory buy out of private land in modern history, and billions of dollars of expenditure with no public oversight or local input.
It's absolute rubbish to suggest they've asked for substantial input from locals, and illustrates how little you know about the situation down here.
-
Speaker: Telling Our Own Tales, in reply to jeremy botham,
Jeremy. Nothing in Gerald's article or the book or anything I've heard anyone say is xenophopic or negative about people outside of Christchurch. It is a description about the problems that happen when people don't get to tell stories about themselves to each other. No one is asking for sympathy, it is neither wanted or needed. What people do want is some autonomy over there lives and perhaps the ability to be involved in the planning of their own city. Its a shame you consider that to be asking for too much.
-
Speaker: Telling Our Own Tales, in reply to ilmars Gravis,
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm one of the editors of the book that this essay is from. On some levels this government has done ok. There a thousand different scenarios that could have emerged post-quake and the one we have isn't amongst the worst. So in some ways I don' t think the question is whether they are doing a good job or a bad job, or whether it is happening fast enough. Both of these are distractions from the deeper question of the values that are at play. Because the government chose to take control of the rebuild almost entirely the decisions they make are deeply bound to the capitalist and economic and environmental conservatism embedded in the National party. It is a deeply undemocratic process, and the government is choosing which values it finds compatible with its views and which aren't. So we get environmental and urban design guidelines completely removed, and large Convention centres instead. In my mind the whole plan showed a fundamental distrust in the people of Christchurch, that it needed taking over.
The problem then is that we are governed by a central agency whose mandate comes from the rest of the country. In any other circumstance it wouldn't matter if people didn't follow what is happening here, and I completely understand how it is to stay up with the fast changing city here. But by not following things, the population is tacitly supporting the government. This is why Gerard's article is so important, its not intentional but the voice of people here has no amplification. This adds to the exhaustion and frustration of the whole process.
-
Simon, really tasteful and considerate thing to contribute on the fourth anniversary of the quakes. I've never heard a single person down here talk about hating anyone from the rest of the country. When people have been through enormous grief and suffering telling stories to each other is critical. This is what Gerard does, this is what our book is trying to do. If you aren't interested fine, but please don't put words into our mouths.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Hebe,
Hebe, you are right that it is a blueprint and not all the detail can be in there. What I am suggesting however is that they have worked out a lot of the detail but won't release it as it would muddy the good news of the announcement. Already today we have the Mr Brownlee implying that the council will have to start selling off assetts to pay for the plan that CERA and CCDU has just imposed on the council, and Warwick Isaacs in an interview suggesting PPP will dominate the development of the precincts. I'm a designer by trade and I understand that what emerges from these processes is not the result of a nice plan with great images, but the hard nuts and bolts of financial models and costings.
-
After watching the announcement and attending a meeting of designers and historians to discuss I quickly penned this response last night. Which seems to have been reinforced by todays commentary. Seems to me the themes are: Not a disaster, but needs lots more finesse and detail to make it work. Lack of mixed use is a big problem. Precincts are far too big, and too many of them. The Frame is an interesting idea, but has urban design issues. Stadium is odd. We need more details! Costings! Timelines!
http://www.projectfreerange.com/another-new-city-plan-for-christchurch/
"In short, it doesn’t seem like enough information to justify 100 days of hard work by a large team of international and national designers and planners. If we accept that everyone was working really hard to achieve this vision, then we have two options, either I’m underestimating what it takes to get to this level of details, or there is a lot of decision making that has taken place that is not in this plan. I’ve seen small teams of architecture or design students produce as much as this in 100 days before, so I’m led to believe the gritty detail in this has been left out on purpose. I’m also inclined to belief that some big and controversial decisions have been made and not announced today to protect the good news of the delivery. The absence of any announcement on the town hall is characteristic of this. It doesn’t appear in the plan, and rumour suggests that a decision has been made for it to be demolished, yet it makes only some vague comment about it, with no information about land quality, cost, or decision making criteria."