Swaffield.x_Swaffield.x 1/02/13 9:51 AM Page 1 Place, Culture and Landscape After the Christchurch Earthquake Simon Swaffield Place, culture and landscape all provide continuity to our lives. Continuity of biophysical settings, of people and activities, of values and memories; in short, our sense of who we are. Yet communities become most aware of the importance of such continuity only when it is threatened — whether incremen- tally, for example, through globalisation; deliberately, through redevelopment; or dramatically, through natural disaster or conflict. At these times the impermanence and contingency of taken-for-granted places and their wider landscape setting is revealed, and the protocols and cultural practices of managing change, both intentional and imposed, are tested and not infre- quently found wanting. Yet new possibilities of place, culture and landscape also emerge, to which formal government and wider processes of governance must adapt. In this chapter I reflect upon the experience of the 2010–2012 Canterbury and Christchurch earthquake sequence, through a lens of landscape, and focused particularly on the changing relationships between culture and place. Some brief definitions are in order, to frame the discussion. They are indica- tive rather than normative. I take culture to be a distinctive way of living, combining values, practices and technologies. Place is a distinctive coming together of culture and its accumulated 1 SPACE PLACE & CULTURE Swaffield.x_Swaffield.x 1/02/13 9:51 AM Page 2 PLACE, CULTURE AND LANDSCAPE AFTER THE CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE meanings in a particular biophysical setting. Landscape expresses a wider network of relationships between culture and nature, and comprises a mosaic of places, biophysical systems, cultural practices and infrastructure. I use the term ‘government’ for the formal public institutions and powers created by law, and ‘governance’ for a wider network of formal and informal institutional relationships that shape our everyday lives, places and landscapes. The chapter is in five parts. First, I recount the seismic events of 2010–2012 and their immediate impacts. I then consider, in turn, the reconfiguring of everyday life, the recon- stitution of identities and memories, the necessary re-evalua- tion of future possibilities and vulnerabilities, and the tensions this creates for government and governance. Taken together, these dynamics re-place the way culture is embedded in a post- disaster landscape. Dis-placed: the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010–2012 The recent Canterbury earthquake sequence began on 4 September 2010 with a 7.1 magnitude event on a known fault line (the Greendale), located some 40 km from the city of Christchurch, New Zealand. There was liquefaction, build- ing damage, and damage to infrastructure across the city and its surrounds, but despite the size of the event, its rural location and timing (just after 4 am) — and a dose of luck — meant that there were no direct fatalities. Cantabrians collec- tively expressed relief at having ‘dodged the bullet’. Plans for repairs were drawn up, and despite continuing aftershocks (notably on Boxing Day 2010), the assumption was that life would quickly return to normal. Indeed, on Thursday 17 February 2011 a lecture series started in the Christchurch City Art Gallery1 to examine how we could collectively use the September 2010 event as a catalyst to reinvigorate plans to improve the urban environment. SPACE PLACE & CULTURE 2 Swaffield.x_Swaffield.x 1/02/13 9:51 AM Page 3 SIMON SWAFFIELD The initiative was well intentioned but sadly premature. At lunchtime on 22 February 2011, two very shallow and locally intense quakes (6.1 and 6.3 magnitude) occurred on a previously unknown fault line that has now been revealed to run along the foot of the hills across the south part of Christchurch. This was much closer to the central city than the September 2010 event, and the nature and direction of the shock waves caused widespread devastation. The city centre itself was badly damaged, with major building collapses, including several relatively modern structures, as well as heritage buildings and numerous brick and stone facades. To the south and south east of the city there were major rock falls in the coastal hill suburbs, and widespread and major liquefac- tion along the river corridors towards the estuary and along the coast, causing building subsidence and extensive damage to infrastructure networks. The February 2011 lunchtime quakes caused 185 fatalities, nearly all in the central city, and most in just three locations. Official inquiries into the causes of the building collapses are concluding as I write. Everyone who was in or close to Christchurch on 22 February 2011 has a unique and frequently harrowing story to tell. For some it was direct and tragic. I have a colleague, for example, who was the sole, badly injured survivor from a bus that was hit by a collapsing facade, and has faced a long and challenging period of rehabilitation. For others it involved heroic actions or just plain hard work helping on the day and in the following weeks. For many, it involved a period of intense worry and uncertainty, desperately trying to contact family and friends caught in the worst hit areas, or in the city- wide gridlock that followed. The technologies that we have come to rely upon, of reticulated water, sewerage, power, and road transport, were all disrupted. Telecommunications, both landline and mobile, were quickly overwhelmed, and many related services compromised or failed. 3 SPACE PLACE & CULTURE Swaffield.x_Swaffield.x 1/02/13 9:51 AM Page 4 PLACE, CULTURE AND LANDSCAPE AFTER THE CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE Disaster specialists recognise three main phases following a major event: immediate response (crisis/rescue); recovery (aftermath/relief); and reconstruction (rehabilitation/closure). The first is measured in days, the second in weeks and months, the third in years. In the Canterbury events, the second (recov- ery) phase has been prolonged by the continuing aftershocks and the uncertainty and disruption they create. Since September 2010 there have now been close to 12,000 after- shocks, and the Christchurch earthquakes have become one of the world’s most financially expensive natural disasters — a status which is disproportional to the physical magnitude of the tectonic events because of the extensive insurance held by property owners, including the government Earthquake Commission scheme. Rebuild costs are estimated in the order of NZ$30 billion. The majority of buildings in the Central Business District (CBD) of Christchurch have been condemned due to struc- tural damage, and are being demolished. But deconstructing modern and high rise buildings is a slow process, and some two years after the February 2011 event the city centre resem- bles an extensive demolition site, with growing areas of cleared land, but little new building. In the suburban areas the govern- ment has condemned large areas of residential land affected by liquefaction, and some due to rock fall, and 7,500 homes are being progressively vacated and abandoned. Many other property owners with complex damage still await insurance decisions on repairs. On the other side of the coin, many new initiatives have sprung up, and neighbourhoods that survived without serious damage have been reinvigorated by displaced businesses. In the days following the February 2011 event, affected businesses that were able to relocate did so quickly — leases for accommoda- tion in the relatively unaffected west of the city were being negotiated the following day. Actions by the new Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) have since released SPACE PLACE & CULTURE 4 Swaffield.x_Swaffield.x 1/02/13 9:51 AM Page 5 SIMON SWAFFIELD large areas of new residential building land north and west of the city, and displaced families and businesses are driving a construction and building boom. Within the city itself there have been a range of temporary recovery initiatives, discussed below, while some badly affected communities have also launched recovery projects. However, this bald account of the events says little about the impacts of the event upon people and community, and in the next section I explore some examples of the re-placing of culture in the damaged city and suburbs. Re-placing everyday life One immediate effect of the earthquakes was a dramatic disruption of everyday life. For the many people who worked in the central city, their workplaces were suddenly inaccessible. Half-eaten meals, personal belongings, all the details of working life were left in suspension as people fled the dangerous build- ings, and were barred from returning by the military enforced barriers around the CBD ‘red zone’. For the families of those killed or injured, and for the surviving victims, life changed forever. It also changed profoundly for the thousands across the wider city and nearby settlements whose homes were damaged. Some badly hit communities rapidly emptied out, as people abandoned their homes. The fortunate ones relocated to friends, relatives or holiday houses. Others had little choice but to stay, effectively camping in their damaged houses, and many continued to do so for months or even years. Power was restored relatively quickly to most areas, but water and sewer- age were more badly disrupted, and for a while Christchurch became ‘Portaloo’ city, with thousands of plastic toilet cabins along the suburban roadsides. In the low- lying areas, liquefac- tion spread grey silt across streets, gardens and into houses, and armies of volunteers arrived (see below) to remove what turned out to be several hundred thousand tons of silt. Over time, people’s lives have followed diverse trajecto- ries. Many have remained in, or returned to damaged suburbs, 5 SPACE PLACE & CULTURE Swaffield.x_Swaffield.x 1/02/13 9:51 AM Page 6 PLACE, CULTURE AND LANDSCAPE AFTER THE CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE adjusting to a ‘new normal’ of roads shut for infrastructure repairs, and closed or displaced facilities, such as libraries, sports centres, and shops.