From The Hip @laytonduncan - Tumblr Blog

UCLA's 1948 Mechanical Computer - wonder if it seemed as incredible at the time as it does today?

Wellington Street Art. Leeds St.

Hear what every neighbourhood was like 20 years ago from any pay phone in Manhattan.

Incredible sign-writer David Smith creates hand-crafted reverse glass signs for John Mayer 'Born & Raised' album cover art.

"The Big Brother" Nizhny Novgorod

Tiny apartment, designed incredibly thoughtfully. Clever touches at every turn.

#Design #Apartment

Entrepreneurshit. It never ends. It’s not all glamor. It’s mostly not glamorous at all. It’s just something you have to do. Often because you’re unemployable. Your impertinence would get you fired in 2 days for telling your boss he’s a fuck wit. And it’s why you probably will quit on day 366 after the acquisition.

Mark Suster on 'Entrepreneurshit'

There are two attitudes you can take when criticised. You can attack and dismiss without ever thinking, or you can sit back and ask why is the person saying this, perhaps they have a point there?

Brownlee doesn't think. Ever. It's reactionary attack and dismiss mode all the time.

He just keeps alienating people who have real skills to contribute to Christchurch, residents and 'tourists' alike. I'm sure Christchurch will rise to be the best it can be with that attitude, Gerry.

#EQNZ #Christchurch Earthquake

Why I'm Leaving Christchurch

There is no mechanism here whereby the smartest, most creative, and most energetic can contribute in a meaningful way. I know. I've written to those with the power to change this, explaining what I have to offer, and what I need to make it happen. I only had one 'personal' response months later, this person suggested that the best way I could contribute was to write a submission on one of the various plans which have been produced in the last two years. My skills don't lie in talking about things. They lie in building things to solve problems.

The mentality here from authorities is one of "thank God we're here!" don't touch anything people of Christchurch, we've got this! You can't go there, it's too dangerous, we'll put up a fence. You can't rebuild your house, we need to tell you how to rebuild it. Don't worry about anything we're gonna sort it all out for you, and we'll let you know when we're done. It's a culture of we know best, don't worry your pretty little heads, we'll let you know in a few years. It's incredibly disempowering, and the total opposite of what needs to happen in times of disaster.

Ultimately you only have one life to live, you have to choose where your energy is best spent. For me the decision is that it's not Christchurch. It would be a life of constant battle to achieve anything meaningful. There are other things I want to build which are meaningful in different ways, and where the culture surrounding it is incredibly supportive.

I wish it wasn't that way. I've made this clear to people who could change it. They're not interested, and now, after a year and a half, neither am I.

This is why I am leaving for Australia, like so many of my generation here.

Layton

#eqnz

The Invisible Bicycle Helmet - two idealistic young female entrepreneurs who created a revolutionary 21st-century design object everyone told them would be impossible to fashion.

#cycling #invisible helmet #helmet

100 Weeks And Another Plan

If you ignore the events of the last few years, it looks like a nice plan on the whole, it could be a plan for any other small city, anywhere in the world.

But that's exactly the problem, it's ignoring what's happened here, and what it's enabled. It totally misses what makes our situation here in Christchurch like almost no other in the world.

The state of Christchurch right now is unique:

4 out of 5 buildings downtown are or will shortly be vacant lots.

Around half of the roads in the city require serious reconstruction.

A not insignificant proportion of residents need homes to move to.

A critical mass of residents trapped here and just making do.

Now consider some of the challenges which face cities around the world:

Congestion and inefficiency / expense in moving people around

Crime and vandalism

The failure of suburbs to scale economically

The failure of suburbs to deliver the promised lifestyle

Ageing populations, changing demographics

The end of cheap oil

Public debt

Increasing rich poor divide

And then you look at what the CCDU plan addresses:

Placement of eight civic assets.

Bounds of four 'precincts' (Innovation, Retail, Health, Avon River)

An earthquake memorial.

An extremely large green 'frame' park out of prime private land presumably compulsorily acquired and grassed over.

It's extremely hard for me to see how this could be described as 'visionary' by any stretch of the imagination. It's just nice. It's less than what a number of great cities already have today, but it'll be a decade or more before Christchurch has it. I'll be nearly 40 years old then. It seems like a lifetime away at my age. I could be on a plane and experiencing something better than this plan's target end goal tomorrow. Why would I stay? More importantly, why would anyone want to move here? Why would they want to invest here?

And when this plan is all implemented, decades down the track, where will Christchurch be? The same place every other city will be, still grappling with how to retrofit to deal with all the real challenges listed above. Except there'll be one difference, the knowledge that we had the opportunity to avert it, but those in control lacked the insight and vision to realise that.

Taking a look at page 8 of the plan and you'll see this:

Not one of these tackles uniquely 21st century problems in order to create a 21st century city. In fact, a few short pages later, you'll see on page 14, The Plot of Christchurch dated March 1850 on which you'll see projects with an uncanny resemblance to this plan. Surely we have progressed in 162 years?

None of the genuine challenges cities are facing are front and centre in this plan. They should be. THIS is the visionary stuff. This is the opportunity which Christchurch presents with the massive influx of insurance money, an immediate critical mass of people, and an essentially blank canvas to start from.

In my view, the Government's role (actually it should be the council, but Government seems intent on destroying CCC), is to set a framework whereby certain fundamental outcomes are made inevitable, not to be dictating what's built where, and compulsorily acquiring large amounts private land for no genuine reason.

How does this plan allow Christchurch to scale to a million, or 2 million people in the future? We've seen the mistakes made in Auckland, and the price of attempting to fix them, if they even can be fixed. How does it address the changes in how people live? Baby boomers who's kids have left home, and are now going out of their minds in oversized houses in the suburbs? How does it address how people move around the city effortlessly? How does it address crime? How does it address the infrastructure scaling problem? How does it address the rich poor divide which is dragging everyone down?

It's not puzzling to see why people are praising the plan. It's been two years of little action, just constant governmental obstruction to recovery. Those in the city who've got their buildings and houses repaired and are up and running have only been able to do that through soul destroying and relentless battles with insurance, access, and approval.

People are so wary and tired of the lack of progress, they're looking for any sign of progress. The CCDU plan feels like they're finally doing something. Its superficiality is easy to sell. People want Christchurch to be great again, but I'm not sure most people are really thinking about what's been presented here, nor what actually makes great cities. It's easier just to repeat the PR key messages of "BOLD" and "VISIONARY". In reality, it's bland, and highly superficial: it's a total failure to capitalise.

The plan reminds me of a quote attributed to Henry Ford (rightly or wrongly)

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.

Christchurch now has a plan which is a faster horse. A design professional's job is to listen to what people say they want, and figure out what the fundamental problem to be solved is - to figure out what they actually want. Vary rarely is it what they say they want. The companies and individuals responsible for this plan have totally failed in that job.

Design isn't how things look, design is how things work. This plan hasn't been designed.

Layton

Muted Memories

This weekend a small part of the downtown Christchurch Red Zone was opened to the public again. It included some of the parts of streets I walked out of the city on the afternoon of the 22nd. Streets and areas which were the scene of some of the more graphic things I saw that day.

I walked some of that route again today. It was odd. I'd expected the images and memories of that day to come flooding back. For the most part, they didn't. Most of the buildings that lined those streets have gone now. Intersections are hardly recognisable. It was like I was visiting a foreign place, before sighting a recognisable structure, and having to think hard to reorient myself. Latimer Square was the only place that got me. An unchanged, recognisable land mark.

It occurred to me, when they've finally finished demolishing the city, little will remain of downtown Christchurch. An often repeated phrase here is that buildings are just bricks and mortar. They're replaceable. But that's not completely true. Buildings, and the places they form, are hitching posts for our memories. They're constants whose sight trigger memories, good and bad. Memories that can remind us of great times, significant events, remind us not to become complacent, motivate us to do things differently. Without these visual hitching posts, these memories become buried, harder to access.

This is one of reasons why I believe the Cathedral should be saved, and not demolished. Destroying these hitching posts takes with them the triggers of all the memories of those who've lived in and visited this city. Not just the bad ones of that day, but also the years of accumulated happier memories, and significant events in peoples life. Destroying these places mutes memories.

Layton

#EQNZ #Christchurch

The Facts About Christchurch Cathedral

1. It's too unsafe to save.

"...this is now a very dangerous building that needs to be made safe. Our priority is also to ensure people working on-site are safe - in fact if anyone had been in the building on December 23rd they would have been put at a great risk of serious injury or worse."

2. It's too costly to save.

"A replica Cathedral has been ruled out due to an estimated $100 million shortfall, while a new build incorporating some of the old would incur a shortfall of up to $50million. We would not be responsible stewards if we ignored the financial realities"

First lets debunk the safety deception and misinformation carefully spread by the Church Property Trust, Bishop Mathews, Warwick Isaacs, and Gerard Brownlee, aided by Chambers PR.

Assertion 1:

The Miyamoto Cardno plan to retain the Cathedral is safer than the chosen plan to demolish.

Miyamoto Cardno were retained by the Christchurch City Council's Heritage Response Team to prepare a report to make safe the Cathedral (HRT Report PDF and Report Appendices PDF). Their proposal did not require contractors to enter the Cathedral, the primary make safe strengthening method of core drilling, happens from the outside the structure. In fact, the Miyamoto Cardno proposal is significantly safer than the Church Property Trust's current demolition plans for those working on the Cathedral, as it only strengthens the structure as work progresses, not weakening it as a demolition does.

Assertion 2:

The Miyamoto Cardno plan is affordable.

It's fairly self evident from the Miyamoto analysis documnets and proposal that the vast majority of the Cathedral structure is in good shape, the problems are the west wall and the tower and its immediate surrounds. Their plan is $3.5 to $4 million and six to eight weeks to make safe, that is, to make sure further deterioration of the structure does not occur. Weather proofing, basic stabilisation and the like. Then $20 to $30 million to restore the building to code.

$30 million certainly doesn't buy much of any architectural quality, let alone a replacement icon for a city.

Assertion 3:

Holmes Consulting Group are either inexperienced in this type of work, or have been instructed (directly or otherwise) on a 'desired outcome' by the Church Property Trust.

Miyamoto + Cardno's response to Holmes Consulting Groups critique of their plan:

From:Michael King

To:Barrett, Philip

Philip, I have reviewed the enclosed letter from Stuart Oliver of Holmes Consulting

A general comment: Mr Olivers comments on the methodology is without merit. The general make safe option of centercore the wall is a 'tried and true' methodology and has been done for years on many buildings all over the world. We have expert engineers from Milan, Italy who are prepared to come to NZ to assist in this work (or any other.)

The stone structure has sufficient strength to support the lateral loading as long as the stones are locked to remain in place.

Some basic points are as follows:

1. Can't use center core on damaged piers without some sort of grouting to lock it all together

Miyamoto + Cardno : The stones are not dislodged that greatly (maximum 40mm but most much much less.† The centercore machine does grout the space ñ that is actually the actual process that is centercore. Not sure what Mr. Oliver comment is about as he must not understand the process as you cannot install centercore without grouting it. If a few stones need to be removed and reset to make for a better installation then this work can easily commence from the outside and will be very limited in scope.

2. On one corner, where top has been displaced, center core would make it difficult to restore to original position.

Miyamoto + Cardno : Note above ñ it only occurs in a few locations near the tower or in the last pier on the southwest side. The wall can be reset before the centercore is installed.

3. Roof braces need replaced

Miyamoto + Cardno : Of course this will be replaced. This is a detail item and is easily performed. There are also many details to the installation which were not provided as this is a schematic design only. A more detailed analysis and plans will be provided.

4. How does center core stabilize clear story area.

Miyamoto + Cardno :The installation of the roof braces actually supports the clear story area. The vertical loading capacity of the clear story area is not in question. The lateral capacity is. By providing the centercore on the sides and the roof braces and the west wall brace then we find that the clear story area is stable to the load levels indicated.

5. Public will not feel safe

Miyamoto + Cardno : This is not a requirement in the 'make safe' plan as noted. This will be for the repair and retrofit final option. There are several possibilities for this installation with Base Isolation, Concrete shearwalls (internal in the stone walls), Final centercore, or other options that need to be explored together in a collaborative effort to properly address the building issues and save this iconic structure for New Zealand

Cheers, Michael

Michael King

S.E. (CA USA)

Structural Engineer

[redacted]

www.miyamotocardno.co.nz

Fact 1:

The Church Property Trust Explicitly Ruled Out Fundraising As An Option To Help Repair The Cathedral

From meeting minutes taken by HRT:

Brigitte asked whether the Church had considered funding for the cathedral restoration. Church replied that a position was filled that was dedicated to funding all 24 church properties including the cathedral to be considered as a whole. The cathedral was not single out as an individual item for funding consideration.

Fact 2:

A $4 Million dollar donation from a single individual for the repair of the Cathedral, will need to be refunded if the building is not repaired.

This single donation alone would cover Miyamoto + Cardno's make safe plan. Instead this money will be returned to the donor.

Fact 3:

CCC Heritage Response Group Formally tabled their serious concerns about the working group's decision making process.

The entirety of the letter and concerns raised can be read here. The summary is:

i) The current process cannot produce a robust and thorough planned approach to make safe and protect future options/decisions for this iconic building;

ii) A Firm understanding should first be obtained from CERA regarding its expectations of progress and timing;

iii) More detailed discussion and professional critique of the HCG (Holmes Consulting Group) make option is undertaken;

iv) Alternative techniques are considered and professionally critiqued.

v) That no costing is obtained until 3 & 4 above are completed coupled with a firm response from CERA

vi) Funding potential be considered both nationally and internationally.

Fact 4:

The Church Property Trust demanded the tabled concerns be retracted, or they would not even entertain considering the Heritage Response Groups proposals to save the Cathedral.

In response to the Heritage Response Groups formal statement of their concerns around the decision making process:

From:Barrett, Philip

To:'Marcus Read'

Hi Marcus,

I must say that your request below is surprising, given that as a result of the collaboration yesterday we are know able present an alternative viable and proven methodology. Your request below suggests only your interpretation of collaboration is acceptable. Collaboration I think is the ability to hear all points of view and opinions freely and with an expectation†to be heard. I see no reason to withdraw the letter rather it serves to support the collaborative process undertaken yesterday the result of the meeting yesterday is extremely positive. That this letter might be discovered under the OIA or indeed a LGOIMA request is not presented in isolation to the outcome. It proves that the collaboration works.

I hope that you will reconsider.

Philip

Team Leader District Plan

Strategy & Planning Group

[redacted]

Christchurch City Council

From: Marcus Read

Sent: Wednesday, 19 October 2011 8:57 am

To: Barrett, Philip

Subject: RE: Collaborative Working Group

Thanks Philip,

Attendance would only be possible if the letter tabled yesterday is retracted as a sign that collaboration is continuing from CCC's perspective. Once I have confirmation that the letter is retracted I will seek CPT and Cathedral Chapter permission for one CCC attendee (Jenny May will be in attendance as part of Chapter). The Friday presentation already has 18 people attending so it may be standing room only.

Regards

Marcus Read

Senior Project Manager

RPC repeatedly tried to get the letter retracted, apparently under instruction from the Church Property Trust:

From: Marcus Read

Sent: Tuesday, 25 October 2011 11:12 a.m.

To: Bill Gregory; Elizabeth Clarke; Gavin Holley; Jackie Gillies; Tracey Chambers; Rosie Paul; Dave Margetts; Stuart Oliver; Doherr, David

Subject: FW: Cathedral Miyamoto Cardno Input

Hi All,

Please find attached the Make Safe scheme prepared by CCC's consultant engineers Miyamoto Cardno, for consideration.

I have spoken with Philip and again asked that CCC consider retracting the letter tabled at last week's CWG meeting and he is to come back to me shortly.

If he chooses not to retract the letter I will send an email formally requesting it's retraction cc'd to his GM and the CEO and requesting confirmation by 6pm, tonight. Should we not receive confirmation that CCC will retract the letter by 6pm tonight CPT will draft a formal letter of response and start a more formal process towards resolution.

Regards

Marcus Read

Senior Project Manager

Fact 5:

100 Engineers from the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Believe The Cathedral can be safely repaired.

I assume these people know what they're talking about.

Assertion 4:

The Church Property Trust's default position now appears to be 'how can we get away with destroying the Cathedral' rather than 'how can we save the Cathedral'

Reading their behaviour above, it's hard to come to any other conclusion than the Church Property Trust is trying their hardest to make a case as to why they need to destroy the Cathedral, rather that trying their hardest to save it.

Summary

Miyamoto + Cardno proposal is safer than the Church Property Trust's current works in progress.

The vast majority of the Cathedral structure does not have major damage.

100 addition engineers specialising in earthquake engineering believe it can be safely repaired.

It appears that the Church Property Trusts default position is 'How can we get away with destroying the Cathedral building'

The Church Property Trust, via RCP appear to have attempted to circumvent OIA and LGOIMA forcefully demanding the Heritage Response Team retract their official tabling of concerns around the decision making process.

Who Can Stop The Unnecessary Destruction Of Our Cultural Heritage, And The Significant Value the Cathedral as a Structure brings to Christchurch?

In order of increasing desperation:

The Church Property Trust could halt demolition immediately.

Warwick Isaacs could revoke the demolition permits they have issued to the Church Property Trust.

Gerard Brownlee could compulsorily acquire the land and building as is if the Church Property Trust will not do the responsible thing. CCC have expressed interest in retaining the building, Bishop Mathews went berserk at the suggestion (they clearly want to keep the most valuable land in the city as their own, and it's more valuable to them without a costly to operate old Cathedral on it)

Demolition companies could refuse to work on the building.

CCDU

Digging deeper into this Christchurch Central Development Unit announcement from yesterday, the government just did the following:

Took over all planning duties from the CCC

Added yet another abstraction between residents of the city and those in control.

Adopted the excellent Central City Plan, developed and delivered by the CCC on time, and with a world leading public consultation process.

Oh, except Volume 2 - the mechanism for actually achieving what was outlined in Volume 1 - that's in the trash.

Oh and ignoring that transport part. That won't be considered either.

Almost forgot, they also didn't adopt the car parking restrictions either.

Seems they're all about precincts. A simpletons approach to urban planning, which unnecessarily enables crime, and social division and intolerance.

Basically, the government has said they've 'Adopted' the CCC's draft Central City Plan, but the reality is, they've just picked bits and pieces to ignore, compromising the whole integrity and consistency of the plan.

These things don't work piecemeal, things such as transport, parking, building heights and building uses are all interdependent, picking bits, and ignoring others from a cohesive plan is a recipe for disaster.

So, now we wait another 100 days for an 'action plan' on how the city will start to be rebuilt, which explicitly excludes the consideration of perhaps the single most important part of how cities function - transport. How people are moved around cities drastically affects design of buildings, where people live, and uses of those buildings.

The thing the government have forgotten (or perhaps never even considered) in all this, is that cities aren't for developers, they're not for investors, they're not even for businesses, they are for all residents. It's not developers, or investors you need to pander to, it's all residents. Plan a city placing residents as the most important party, and the developers, investors, and businesses will follow.

I'm fairly certain these guys can't deliver the radical re-imagination of how cities need to work in this century. Christchurch, unlike any other city in the world, now has essentially a blank slate opportunity to do that. This announcement doesn't inspire confidence that those in power have the courage to do this. I hope I'm wrong.

It seems those who understand this need, must make it happen themselves, resources and power be damned. Be the change you want to see in the world etc.

I wonder if you could kickstart a city?

Layton

#EQNZ #CCDU #Christchurch

'The Market' won't work fast enough in post Earthquake Christchurch

In response to this:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/rebuilding-christchurch/6601594/Christchurch-rent-crisis-best-left-to-market

Any engineer and likely any educated finance professional would have studied control theory of dynamical systems. Essentially how to control the output of systems with many interdependent variables such that they are first and foremost stable (don't self destruct) and second, trend quickly to a desired state. These sorts of systems are everywhere in real life. (Here's an intuitive primer on this topic if you're interested)

Anyone who's familiar with this knows that when you take one of these systems which is operating happily at a steady state, where all variables and control parameters are balanced such that the output is relatively predictable (i.e. Christchurch pre earthquake), knows that as soon as you give the system a massive impulse change (say a series of giant earthquakes), it can, at worse, make the system totally unstable, to the point of self destruct, or oscillate wildly as the system tries to find a new steady state.

But this doesn't have to be the outcome. If you recognise this impulse and shift in inputs, you can adjust the control parameters to quickly bring the system to it's new steady state without wild oscillations (i.e. unnecessary grief for Christchurch residents).

'The Market' is the old set of control parameters. It may never deliver what Christchurch needs long term, it may self destruct. Or it may deliver... eventually... with a LOT of pain along the way.

Christchurch needs a new set of control parameters, 'The Market' will be the slowest, most painful way to achieve what needs to be done here.

Layton

#EQNZ

That is about the only thing that will get [young people] out of bed before 7 o'clock at night to vote, but it's not politically sustainable to put interest back on student loans. It may not be great economics, but it's great politics. It is a bit of a tragedy because it sends the wrong message to young people, it tells them to go out and borrow debt.

John Key on interest free student loans.

The only tragedy here is that the Prime Minister would knowingly and intentionally not act in the best interests of the country.

This is the tragic and filthy reality of politics. Surely this is the least noble of any 'profession'.

Democracy as we know it is in desperate need of a revolution.

One day, a year ago.

9:35 AM

1:12 PM

1:26 PM

1:35 PM

1:36 PM

2:18 PM

2:39 PM

2:46 PM

2:47 PM

2:52 PM

3:37 PM

4:08 PM

4:10 PM

4:11 PM

4:12 PM

4:21 PM

4:31 PM

4:33 PM

4:34 PM

4:36 PM

4:37 PM

4:39 PM

4:42 PM

4:44 PM

4:46 PM

4:50 PM

4:51 PM

5:49 PM

5:53 PM

7:36 PM

7:38 PM

7:43 PM

7:44 PM

9:15 PM

9:31 PM

9:58 PM

10:02 PM

10:03 PM

10:10 PM

10:16 PM

10:19 PM

10:31 PM

10:42 PM

11:10 PM

11:13 PM

11:47 PM

#EQNZ #Christchurch Earthquake

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

From The Hip