Temporary projects, permanent impact
By Brie Sherow. This essay first appeared in the book Once in a Lifetime: City-building after Disaster in Christchurch (Freerange Press. 2014)
Brie Sherow is experienced in urban planning, spatial analysis and international community development. She has been involved in the Christchurch earthquake rebuild in both a technical and strategic capacity, as a Spatial Analyst at Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) and as Projects Manager of Life in Vacant Spaces Charitable Trust.
Over 1300 buildings have been demolished in Christchurch’s central city since the February 2011 quake. The loss of physical infrastructure leaves an unavoidable visual impact as the city is now full of demolition sites and vacant lots. The loss of social infrastructure is just as pervasive. Responder organisations such as Gap Filler emerged post-quake to fill vacant lots with events and installations, actively taking part in recreating their city. They realised that a significant amount of the work occurred before a project appeared on site, as landowner negotiations and legal paperwork started to dominate actual project plans. Gap Filler worked with Christchurch City Council (CCC) to create a separate trust to broker access to unused spaces and provide support to participants during project planning stages. Life in Vacant Spaces (LIVS) was the result — it was initiated in September 2012 to unlock permissions and provide a framework for groups to use available space.
LIVS is a small team of two, a director and a projects manager, supported by CCC and Canterbury Community Trust. Our work includes negotiations with local and national government, private developers and local landowners, community groups and neighbouring businesses. We cover practical considerations like legal agreements, insurances, site preparations and connections to utilities and services where possible. As LIVS evolves it has taken a leading role in strategy discussions, advocating for policies friendly towards transitional use of space. LIVS primarily works in the central city but liaises with neighbourhood groups carrying out similar work in the suburbs, such as Renew Brighton and Project Lyttelton.
After a year and a half in existence LIVS has received hundreds of inquiries and project proposals; close to 75 have been activated through LIVS in the central city. The projects have ranged in scale. Some have been static installations or involved slight landscaping of the site. Others have called for massive transformations involving built structures and hundreds of volunteers, and have attracted thousands of visitors. Whether the project ‘works’ or not has less to do with the scale and more to do with the commitment and capability of the team managing the project.
Varieties of projects
Transitional projects fall into five main categories: events, installations, landscaping, social enterprises and small businesses. Events range from outdoor concerts organised by experienced production companies, such as Fledge, to plays coordinated by youth theatre company Two Productions. Installations have included replica artworks placed on walls by Christchurch Art Gallery (CAG) and the large-scale built artwork Temple for Christchurch. Installations have also explored innovative buildings such as micro-architecture in the case of Gap Filler’s office and Agropolis Urban Farm’s earthen shed.
Landscaping is undertaken by experienced gardening groups such as Canterbury Horticultural Society, guerrilla gardeners such as Plant Gang and urban agriculture advocates such as Garden City 2.0. Social entrepreneurs coordinate projects such as a 3-D printing fabrication lab at the Makercrate and a community bike workshop at Gap Filler’s RAD Bikes. Small businesses include new local fashion designers Blackeyepeach and old businesses that have been displaced since the quakes such as Arts Central. Then there are projects that don’t fit easily into any category, such as a relocatable international artist residency set in a live-in caravan on a vacant site, managed by arts collective The Social.
Experience and flexibility
Experienced groups and start-ups alike have had difficulties. While established groups may benefit from years of experience, they must learn to function in a new context. Projects that attempt to begin with the ‘finished, polished plan’, or that respond to the status quo, often fall flat at their initiation. New groups are often advantaged because they can adapt rapidly. In either case, the most successful groups are the ones that are flexible and learn by doing.
Successful groups explore synergies with other organisations rather than adhering to a decisive plan that places their project in a vacuum. They reconcile their plans within the wider context of the city and the specific context of a vacant site rather than developing a project merely to place on a site. It takes time and many different inputs to create something worthwhile. A project starts out slow and DIY, testing different designs and materials. Project coordinators may work with many different volunteers and people as they seek specific skill sets. The projects and the spaces evolve over time together, eventually reaching a point where they gain a critical mass that often includes attention from the wider community, media and sponsors.
Private property versus public space
Activating a private property site takes more work than coordinating events in a public space. The demolished lots in Christchurch are not granted to project participants in a comfortable state: they are full of ungraded rubble, rebar and pieces of foundation, and lack access to basic utilities and services. LIVS participants have found themselves in the position of not only managing their project, but also prepairing their site and providing power and water. While local government maintains public spaces such as city parks, the general upkeep and security of private property sites are best managed by ensuring the site is well-used through regular hours of activities or frequent events.
Importance of collaboration
The most well-used sites have been the result of multi-team efforts. One team adds landscaping, another adds additional amenities such as structures, another organises events, and yet another looks after the site by opening their business at regular hours. The successful spaces become microcosms of city life and are used in different ways at different times by different people, just the way that a city street or a neighbourhood is.
Project initiators that have a willingness to align agendas, share information, and are motivated to learn and improve along the way create successful sites. Success may stem from creating educational opportunities, enhancing infrastructure or encouraging innovation. Many sites benefit from a core project (e.g. the Pallet Pavilion at The Commons or the RAD Bikes workshop on High Street) that has a high level of influence on the site’s design and can initiate further development such as markets or food caravans. The core projects are quick-response site anchors, testing ideas rather than providing solutions. However, when an idea is tested and it works, this creates a solution.
Outsourcing design
LIVS is able to remain organisationally light as it outsources the design work to the public. When groups propose a project, LIVS may be involved during the planning stages, but once the project is on site the daily management is the responsibility of the participants. The group then has direct control and responsibility over the outcomes. LIVS is able to avoid lengthy consultation phases with the assumption that the project proposal itself is evidence that there is a community that supports the plan. These projects can be enacted cheaply –often groups gain support from social or professional networks and are able to recruit designers, builders and project managers as volunteers. Top-heavy organisations would be paying a premium for these services. The downside is that when the expected support doesn’t come through, projects end up poorly maintained or with a rough look.
Complexities of land ownership
Vacant lots may appear to be a single open space but the reality is that they are comprised of many land parcels with different landowners. Landowners are faced with uncertainties about development timeframes, insurance pay-outs and potential land sales. Locally based small-scale landowners are often amenable to making their property available because they have first-hand experience with the results. If land is owned by overseas development trusts it can be difficult to reach a decision maker. Decision makers are likely managing many properties and may be unfamiliar with the local context, so specific sites in Christchurch are not a high priority for them. The CCC property team was among the first to make land available to LIVS, and Council also provides small grants for transitional activities.
Relationship with CERA
Initially LIVS had expected to work closely with CERA since the Crown is the single largest landowner in the central city and many of their anchor projects will take years to realise. LIVS was included in the CERA Blueprint but the relationship has been difficult. While many individuals within CERA are supportive of transitional-use projects, the hierarchical structure of the organisation means that it can be very difficult to reach decision makers. Projects occurring on land designated for Government anchor projects require twenty-one signatures before they are approved, even for minimal impact projects such as a zen garden that simply involved rearranging materials on a site. Even after projects had official approval there were instances of internal communication issues at CERA that caused licenses not to be honoured.
Communication improved in spring 2013 when CERA approached LIVS to coordinate transitional use of a section in the East Frame. The land was granted to LIVS ‘immediately’, and six months later the proposal had received twenty of the twenty-one signatures required for sign-off. CCDU Director Warwick Isaacs’ signature was the last needed for approval, but after months of further consideration he rejected the proposal. CERA has previously expressed concern regarding the unpolished manner in which many of these projects start, but the East Frame proposal included significant sponsorship and well-known delivery partners. Isaacs’ concern in this instance was that the people of Christchurch might become too attached to the temporary work.
This situation demonstrates the skewed priorities of those in power, who would prefer that nothing happen rather than something popular happen that they themselves didn’t initiate. LIVS has backed away from its relationship with CERA; it’s difficult to be agile and community-focused when requiring individual project approvals from a government ministry. Ultimately the success of the recovery will depend on top-level coordination with grassroots initiatives, and as momentum and international focus grows in the transitional movement it’s becoming clear that slow beginnings can yield impressive results. Transitional projects may be on site only temporarily, but the ideas and experiences are becoming a permanent part of the city.
