Then and now: The Christchurch Blueprint (2012) Part 2

In the second of a two-part series, Marc Baily, Rachel de Lambert and Ken Gimblett share the highs and lows of 100 days spent developing The Blueprint for the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan —and their appraisal of its success — ten years on.

Read the first part of this interview

Q: The Blueprint was put together on an incredibly tight timeline, and the pressure to deliver must have been immense. What do you remember most about those 100 Days? What were the high and the low points?

Ken Gimblett: I remember working constant 18-hour days with little sleep. I recall the number on the “day-counter” on the wall going down and that being a constant reminder of the time remaining to complete our work.

I loved the challenge, being tested professionally, doing something positive for my home city, and appreciating the experiences we had endured as a community. I felt a great sense of obligation and responsibility, and real nervousness knowing we had to get it right – we knew our work would be widely judged.

Working with my Boffa Miskell partner colleagues (Don Miskell, Marc and Rachel) was a rare and rewarding opportunity. The level of professional competence was very high – very experienced and skilled professionals were doing what they do best across a range of consultancy organisations.

I recall Don being interviewed on TV when we were first awarded the project and saying, “We've trained our whole lives for this!” While there was incredible pressure to perform, there was also lots of laughter and collegial support amongst the group. I also vividly remember the public launch of the Blueprint after the 100-day process and the applause it received when the visual presentation was rolled out by the politicians.

As I mentioned before, I wasn't part of the Design Consortium. I worked in a small team of essentially three people (wo planners and a lawyer) on how to set a regulatory framework to deliver the Blueprint and wider recovery outcomes.

A distinct low point was having to explain to an MP what urban design was and justify to him why it mattered. I also recall leaving a copy of the highly confidential Blueprint spatial plan in a local café and running back to retrieve it before it found its way into the hands of the media — my career flashing before my eyes!

Marc Baily: Low moments were probably at the start — when we walked into the building we'd be working in and saw there were no desks, nothing in the way of support infrastructure and the clock already ticking down.

The second day, we went walking out east and I remember thinking "Holy cow, the damage goes on forever!" The wind was blowing, it was cold and desolate. "How are we going to deal with this?"

But out of the lower points came good things. With no workstation set-ups we made our own spaces, sharing what desks we had and moving around. We used cardboard cut-outs to help us think about key spaces and projects. The East Frame was born from that walk on the second day – we had to soak up some surplus space and create an edge to the City Centre.

Rachel de Lambert: Like Ken I remember the collegiality: the wine, the pork pies. The snow, masses of butter paper; long conversations and debates to the point of losing time by going around in circles. There were long hours, the Government's advice was changing daily: Town Hall — in or out?

I felt some pretty big (for me) earthquakes from inside the tallest building still standing in the city, and I recall my mother saying, "Yes, but it won’t be a city again in my lifetime, will it?" Well, she’s still with us at 92, and I think we can say it’s a city again.

Q: We have to ask you The Big Question: “How Are We Doing?”
Have we stuck to the plan? Where have we dropped the ball, and where have we hit it out of the park?

Marc: Plans never work (at the scale we were working at) to provide precision or exactness as to outcomes. As I said before — having a plan is the most important thing. I think some of the spatial strategies have come to fruition: making the Avon River a focus to start with, so people got at least part of the city back as soon as possible, given this was also where the land value and development economics were best enabled.

The East Frame is a bit of a mixed bag for me — the integrity of this as a park space that, with Hagley Park, clearly framed the city has been diluted in terms of the original idea; but having people living closer to the centre is a good thing. The Convention Centre is (to me) a thing that will need some mulling over — perhaps, if it brings the energy it is intended to, it might be seen to be successful for the city centre and region. But by straddling the blocks it has lost the original intent, in its location, of maintaining the street connection through. I think this is the one Anchor Project (for me) that I questioned most.

Rachel: I am rewarded by the work achieving some things that we had sought to achieve for a long time — the river focus; and not just the celebration of the river in the city, and its people-related attributes; but the water quality and ecology. I think the mauri — the wairua — is stronger and that’s a great outcome. Those moves underpinned the ‘Spaces and Places’ bit of the Blueprint and the involvement of Ngāi Tahu / Matapopore has been great and evident.

I guess for me if there is an elephant in the room it's Worcester Street – should the Convention Centre sit across that axis? The back to the Square is pretty bad. Development of the empty site might improve it (probably will do) but it’s under-delivered for me. Maybe if it does bring the people, its problems can be righted; but with COVID and changed times ahead, will it do its job for such a key and potentially damaging move? I feel like we regained the Victoria Street axis – which is a real benefit - but lost another that is just as important.

Ken: I've already touched a bit on what we might have done differently, but in the main I think The Blueprint remains a very valid and reliable plan guiding us forward. We have delivered exactly what it envisaged in many areas — and less so in others — but the essential principles remain.

It isn’t without some challenges still, and it continues to receive some criticism, particularly from those that would have preferred greater community input in its development. It is still seen by many as "The Government's Plan" rather than a plan developed by the people of Christchurch.

That aside, I think the city can be very proud of it and the foundation it provides. As with any plan it should be capable of adaptation and evolution informed by the actual experience of its progressive implementation.