Sadly, but understandably in retrospect, the list of contentious issues and frustrations around the rebuilding of Christchurch’s CBD is growing, with a full-on verbal confrontation between property developers and investors on one side and Christchurch residents, through their city council, on the other adding to the dispiriting mix.
For those not familiar with the week-by-week progress (or lack of it) in planning for post-earthquake Christchurch, the list of majorly contentious issues includes unavailability of insurance, access to the partly demolished CBD, saving heritage buildings versus widespread demolition, delays in decisions on land status, payouts for red-zoners, and where displaced families will live.
Now there’s a relatively new one: how will the new CBD look and function, with residents and developers at odds over the draft plan put forward by the city council.
The council plan, developed from thousands of submitted ideas from across the community, sees greener spaces, fewer cars, restrictions on building heights and, over all, a planned and more people-friendly “look and feel”.
Developers say some of the proposed regulations would be too onerous and restrictive on the people who are expected to fund the rebuild – the CBD property owners and investors – and many will take their payout money elsewhere leaving no-one to finance and build what the populace wants.
Letters to the editor show a big divide: those supporting the free market solution of letting investors do what they want, and those who say this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to design a city that suits people.
Sadly, both are talking past each other, and I see few published opinions that seek to balance the two views, so here goes.
I may be wrong, but …. I believe the larger businesses and landowners with the money and the community-minded residents actually need each other.
Residents and town planners who seek to design spaces and facilities that will make for stronger and healthier communities simply do not have the money to do it. Nor do they legally own the land on which their dream will be built. The people who hope to live in the kind of ideal city environment suggested by the draft plan can only do so if they have jobs to pay for it through rates and consumer patronage. And this can happen only if those who have the money to invest in buildings for businesses see a financial return.
Big business must expect certain incentives to stay and get involved. But the people pushing the business side of this dispute do also need to get down off their high horses and realise one key factor – if the CDB that they rebuild is not attractive or friendly to the people of Christchurch, they will be wasting their money anyway.
They need to listen carefully to what ordinary punters are saying, and consider their own involvement in that light. Otherwise current trends of small businesses moving to the suburbs and shoppers buying from suburban malls will simply continue, and the city will remain hollowed out for decades and provide no incentive for investors.
Hopefully the current stand-off between CBD investors and council planners will cool down and each will see the need for the other if the city is to rebuild successfully. The right sort of investors and developers will seriously consult with their potential customers and shape their thinking to develop building solutions that make the city attractive enough to win over the populace. And environmentally minded citizens and planners will work with developers as partners, not adversaries, to show them what will and will not work and why; and be thankful that someone is prepared to put hunks of money back into their beloved city.
It is, in fact, a classic case of market forces at play. Developers must accommodate and plan for their potential clientele, while residents, as consumers and citizens, must rely on funders to give them the choices they want.
Posted by David Armstrong