Since I'm in poll mode, what do you all think about relocating and bringing the University of Canterbury back into the city centre?

The city was Canterbury's original home - so should it return?

The university is rapidly engulfing the being hemmed in by the suburb of Ilam causing all types of social and urban issues - so should it stay and plan for a bright future in the suburbs?

The mayor wants it back in the city centre and so do I, but what do you think?

I've done a multi vote poll to give a bit of flexibility. Although I'd love to see a fully fledged move back into the city, I just don't quiet see that happening at this time, so the option for a split site would be my second choice.

Suburban universities aren't half as interesting as those that are part of the urban fabric of the city. Students are big consumers and can bring business to the surrounding area. They also add to the ambiance, the availability of clubs and bars and entertainment in a city. They would help to bring growth to the city centre - and that will be much needed following the earthquake.

Keep it in the city centre.

TVNZ

Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker says he would like to bring the University of Canterbury back into the heart of the city as part of the earthquake rebuild.

Parker was asked on TV ONE's Close Up tonight if he has a vision for the city, in the way San Francisco's then mayor, Art Agnos, looked to the future after the big quake there in 1989.

Parker said Christchurch first of all has to be the safest city seismically, and the opportunity should be taken to make it as clean and green as possible.

His real wish was for the university to be brought back into the city.

"My real wish is I'd like to bring the university back into the heart of the city and establish an extraordinary precinct which would tie together the university, CPIT (Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology) and a number of other educational institutions," he said.

The university is situated in the suburb of Ilam, but the campus used to be at what is now the Arts Centre in the central city. The historic Arts Centre buildings were badly damaged by the quake.

Parker said he also wants to see the commercial heart of the city given the opportunity to return "and a city which carries with it a quality of beauty and amenity reflecting the history and the garden nature of Christchurch."

But he said he has to listen to the whole community, and working through the process is not going to be easy.

Advertisement

Parker said Agnos had executive powers as mayor whereas he is effectively just the chair of the council.

"Our vision should naturally come from our community. We're going to download as many ideas, as many visions from right across the city as we can. And then we've got an incredibly difficult job. We've got to condense that down, try to capture the best of it, taking good advice and effectively present that to government in around about six month's time."

Recovery Bill to be passed urgently

Meanwhile, Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee told Close Up there will be no compromise on standards to rebuild Christchurch.

The government will introduce a Bill in the House tomorrow to give it the authority to move very quickly to make decisions in the best interests of the community, he said, and that move would be controversial.

"There'll be plenty of people lining up to kick it as being highly unconstitutional etcetera. But they're not living in those broken up houses out in the far eastern and other parts of the city. Nor are they seeing the devastation in the central city and I think not appreciating the urgency with which most of us who are residents in the city want to move," he said.

The Bill will enact the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and the government intends to pass it under urgency this week.

CERA will lead and co-ordinate the ongoing recovery effort in Canterbury. It will enable an effective, timely and co-ordinated rebuilding and recovery effort by working closely with local councils and engaging with local communities, Brownlee said in a statement later.

He said the purpose of the bill is to provide CERA with the necessary powers to relax, suspend or extend laws and regulations for clearly defined purposes related to earthquake recovery.

"The bill has undergone extensive consultation with government department legal experts and has been provided to the opposition parties for their review."

A CERA newsletter will also be delivered to all greater Christchurch households from tomorrow to give an update on earthquake recovery efforts.

"There was a lot of criticism following the first earthquake about lack of communication so CERA has undertaken to send this newsletter out as its first official communication to keep residents informed about what is happening," Brownlee said.

The newsletter includes an update on land damage and states the government hopes to be able to give an initial indication about the state of the land and identify options for the worst affected suburbs by late May.

The government is working to build a comprehensive picture of the damage to both residential and commercial land and to identify the key issues for rebuilding, Brownlee said.

"We hope to be able to give a general overview of the damage that has occurred to land across Canterbury and how it has moved due to the earthquakes - upward, downward and horizontally," he said.

"We are also aiming to give an initial indication of new hazard issues for areas that have experienced the greatest land damage, and to give an indication of the areas of relatively undamaged land where it's okay to start repairing and rebuilding.

"There are terabytes of data to collect, collate and analyse so an accurate picture can be formed about the damage to land in Canterbury and options for the future.

Brownlee says currently only about 30% of the technical information needed is available and has been collated.

"We are working as fast as we can but due to the scale of this disaster it will take time."

"There's still a long way to go to do all the work to obtain this technical information. We need to take this time because it's important we base our decisions on the best scientific and engineering advice available.

"However, we realise we need to get information out to residents in the worst affected suburbs to keep them informed about what has happened to the land and the process from here, which is why we have said we'll have an update for them by late May.

Brownlee said they hope to give some timelines for when more detailed information will be completed and available, by the end of May.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/parker-wants-university-moved-into-city-s-heart-4113611/video

option b is definitely a no go. you can't have two halves of a uni several km apart.
it has to be all or none. I do think it is a good idea to move the uni to the city, but I just don't see how it can happen.
The uni has minimal damage, unlike the CBD. Why not rebuild the CBD in Riccarton on the other side of Hagley Park? it would be a lot closer to the uni there, and the ground seems to be a lot more solid.

It may not necessarily be the whole university, maybe a few faculties. What has been suggested on Reimagine Christchurch was an ikea style business institute of some form, like what Finland did when the Berlin wall came down. Riccarton is already emerging as a cbd, and planners are going to have to do something about traffic congestion on Riccarton Road. Westfield Riccarton is likely to get bigger as well. A clear blueprint for the future of the cbd won't be availble for several months. Still speculation at the moment.

^^ Re Riccarton new cbd. Unlikely but thats for another thread. Cant see anybody liking that idea- especially residents there.

Re the Uni. Im torn as both moving it and keeping it were it is are both great ideas. Honestly the state the city is in right now we really need to do whatever we can to help the cbd out. Without a strong cbd the city would a patch on its previous self.

Ultimately I like the idea of two campuses. Ilam is a great neighbourhood, I used to own there. The uni really gives it a great feel, I wouldnt like to see that change.

That said, a secondary campus based around what was the Lichfield Lanes would give the city a real shot in the arm. A block from the mall, all that space to the east of it...

This is the time to dream big.

CARTEL you little shit!!!!!! You're bloody alive you bugger!!!! If I was 12,000 miles closer to you I'd give you a damned good slapping and huge hugs!!!!!

Mate its so good to see you post - where have you been? I was well stressed out that something had happen to you in the quake?!

(emotional outburst all finished)

Trust you to vote like that ;-) welcome back :)

Great to see you are about Cartel. I hope you've been ok dealing with the last couple of months.

Feel free to update us on Sol Square when you have time (or strength). Cheers man.

Last year I had at the University of Canterbury in two months. Could you post photos of University of Canterbury?

Photo by me
http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc498/mrhanoi/DSC09675.jpg
http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc498/mrhanoi/DSC09672.jpg
http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc498/mrhanoi/DSC09653.jpg
http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc498/mrhanoi/DSC00172.jpg
http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc498/mrhanoi/DSC00165.jpg

photo by me
http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc498/mrhanoi/DSC09686.jpg
http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc498/mrhanoi/DSC09911.jpg
http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc498/mrhanoi/DSC09862.jpg
http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc498/mrhanoi/DSC09857.jpg
http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc498/mrhanoi/DSC09760.jpg

I think moving back to the cbd would be a good idea, not so keen on the split campus though. If there are buildings that have to come down then please let it be most of the ones at the university, a lot of eyesores there. One major porblem with the university now is its serious lack of parking space which would almost certainly be made worse by a move to the cbd; hopefully such a problem would be avoided by the city putting in some sort of public transportation system.

. If there are buildings that have to come down then please let it be most of the ones at the university, a lot of eyesores there.

not going to happen. I agree the buildings look horrible, but they are all fine. no one is going to demolish a building that is fine, no matter how ugly it is.

If the University were to shift to the cbd one way or another almost all of the buildings would eventually come down; if not for a university library then who would need a ten storey building in the middle of ilam?

If there's one way to revitalise the city centre, then returning the university back to the city would be at the top of my list. I hope it happens. Maybe move half, start with the humanities subjects first as these students are more likely to wander over to nearby pubs, bars and cafes

http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1303702707/634/4924634.jpgOn the move: Canterbury University temporary buildings being built on the sports grounds.

I was, at first, surprised by Associate Professor Katie Pickles' article (Perspective, April 8), titled "A natural break from a colonial past".

Perhaps because I expected an historian to be more concerned with the past, "those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it" and so on.

A number of responses in The Press, including the editorial, indicate similar surprise.

But I realise that Pickles was not simply saying we should forget the past. Her argument was that the earthquake might represent a post-colonial moment, allowing us to move on from the old colonial values that still beset Christchurch.

With this idea I agree. Partly. Christchurch is bound by old class values, a provincialism based in the stoic masculine ethos of the pioneer settlers with all the associated puritan attitudes. (Ironically, the recent Ron Mueck exhibition may owe its extraordinary popularity to this still strong strain of Puritanism with all the prurience it encourages).

Most of all, the city is overwhelmed with an old fart mentality that drives many young - especially in the creative industries - away to the North Island or overseas. In case this view be considered ageist, I'm not just talking about the young in terms of age.

It is difficult to have a youthful and fresh view in Christchurch (at any age) without being beaten down by Tradition (class and conservatism). For this reason I have some sympathy for Katie Pickles' point of view.

However, I would argue that we should maintain our symbols from the settler past as markers to social change, change that might be advanced with the earthquake's rupturing of Christchurch society.

By social rupturing I mean the sudden awareness of the whole body of Christchurch, all its constituent parts. You know, neighbours talking to each other, Fendalton households rushing food to those in Aranui - and other extraordinary sights we keep seeing and experiencing.

Unfortunately, the sewerage issue seems to have put paid to the initial collective brotherhood. But, then again, we'll be in it together when Bromley packs up.

There are lots of reasons, besides backed-up sewerage, to leave. Especially for the young creative types - the ones presumably you want to help populate a new city and give it life.

So you have to ask why would they want to stay (or come here)? And what would attract them back to the city centre away from the faceless suburban shopping malls that many find so enticing?

I have two answers.

One is keeping the old relics that Pickles would like to get rid of.

They provide a sense of history, of where you come from, markers that provide a sense of identity that is quite different to anywhere else.

And I can tell you from experience that discovering this heritage, its detail and nuance, is hugely exciting and can be the source of ongoing creative work.

The second reason is in part related to the first.

The university should return to the central city. It was suggested in a Press editorial soon after February 22.

The mayor and a host of others recognise it as perhaps the best and quickest way to breathe life back into the city.

The university already has a presence in town via the University Theatre (home of the Free Theatre), Te Puna Toi and SoFA Gallery, all in the Arts Centre.

These endeavours are the reason I have stayed in Christchurch against the usual flow out of the city.

But I would suggest that students, and particularly postgraduate students, be consulted about what would entice them to the city and make them want to stay beyond graduation.

Being involved in creating their own city will be a sure-fire way, not only of introducing new and exciting ideas into the city, but of getting people to stay and return. Leg 5

* Dr George Parker works at Te Puna Toi, set up by Canterbury University's Department of Theatre and Film Studies.

I still think its feasable to split the campus. The arts subjects can come to the city, leave the meaty ones out at Ilam.

Yes, I appreciate there will be the need for students to travel between the two. Set up a complimentary express bus service from campus to campus. Students only. 15 minute duration.

Ilam keeps its special feel, the city gets a boost!

the problem with arts is maths. you have maths in both science and arts.
I am sure there would be other subjects that cross over two or more colleges.
Actually maths is a part of the College of Engineering, so you have half the uni linked by one subject. if one of them were moved, it would screw up all of them.
it is all or nothing, and I can't see the whole uni moving, so it will be staying put, unless someone can come up with the billions of dollars to build a whole new campus in the city.

the problem with arts is maths. you have maths in both science and arts.
I am sure there would be other subjects that cross over two or more colleges.
Actually maths is a part of the College of Engineering, so you have half the uni linked by one subject. if one of them were moved, it would screw up all of them.
it is all or nothing, and I can't see the whole uni moving, so it will be staying put, unless someone can come up with the billions of dollars to build a whole new campus in the city.

I don't see your logic that it's all or nothing - it's not going to come down to the Maths Department being part of more than one college. This is a bigger picture strategy than that. Moving Humanities into the city is definitely, definitely doable with very little upheaval of the current system.

Plus, Ilam is a 10 min drive from the city. It takes longer than that to walk across most decent-sized campuses.

I think the split campus would work well. Bringing students studying and living in the city centre would be one of the single most important acts towards the rebirth of the city centre (wherever that might be). I really hope the university, CCC and CERA at least talk about the possibility of gown and town for the future.

According to Kohan McNab, the president of the University of Canterbury Student Association, the chances of the whole Campus moving into the CBD is very slim. There is $500 million worth of buildings and infrastructure at the Ilam site, even more money would be needed to move the campus. He did state however that there is a possibility of a strong UC presence in Central City but not of a wholesale move. Halls of residence in the CBD may be a possibility and there is a chance of some faculties moving as well including the school of medicine and school of Law.

Yea I don't expect the more expensive engineering and science labs to move, and even the law faculty is in a new-ish facility that I can't imagine them abandoning. Humanities subjects, however, could be moved fairly easily. Good to see someone directly involved starting to speak out in favour (although of course not involved in the actual decision)

The Press

Christchurch's inner city could become a hub for medical research, sport and recreation, Canterbury University Vice-Chancellor Rod Carr says.

Carr, responding to public calls to relocate the university campus to the inner city, said moving the campus to infuse the area with vitality was not the answer.

However, the university would be interested in having a medical research centre in the central city, he said.

"The university would welcome the opportunity to support the creation of a world-leading research and teaching medical complex to support the million people who live in the South Island," Carr said.

A centre of applied medicine accommodating a postgraduate medical school, the training of allied medical professionals and the development of advanced applied medical technologies should be created, he said.

Sport and recreation facilities could be relocated and health sciences could also be moved.

"[The inner city] may in the future be home to medical, recreational and sporting facilities the city and region could become renowned for, and where relevant research and teaching is co-located and employees and students choose to live," he said.

"That vision does not require the university to relocate, but merely to be convinced, as it reaches out, that there is a real opportunity to be grasped."

The university campus should not "up sticks and head east" because:

It has plenty of space at its present site.

The buildings did not fall down or suffer significant structural damage in the earthquakes.

The buildings assessed pre-earthquake were found to be of above-average quality.

The focus should be on attracting 5000 more students to Christchurch.

With the university fully operational, a move would be an enormous distraction.

Parker welcomed the idea of an educational "hub" in the central city, but his "dream view" would include the entire university.

Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce chief executive Peter Townsend said it was ironic some people were calling for the university to move to the central city, after it had unsuccessfully tried to shift the music school to the Arts Centre. That proposal was rejected last year.

"The university is firmly established where it is.

"It needs to rebuild and recover from where it is, and take out of the earthquake whatever it can to improve its position long term."

There would be other opportunities for activities to be clustered and centralised in a new-look central city, he said.

"The rationale is to inject population and life, but we are going to do that. The city will be a place for people to live and play and work in low-profile buildings.

The Press

Some have argued Canterbury University should move back to the central city. Vice-Chancellor ROD CARR says it should stay where it is - with a couple of provisos.

More than 60 years ago a decision was made to relocate the University of Canterbury from its town site to a new greenfield site at Ilam, on the outskirts of Christchurch city.

That decision was taken for a number of reasons, not least of which was the fact the university had outgrown its land and buildings and post-war projections of growth and prosperity forecast not only increasing demand but an increasing willingness and ability to pay for higher education.

It took over 20 years to complete the relocation, which was fully implemented over 35 years ago.

Today, the 87-hectare university campus services over 20,000 staff and students. More than 70 per cent of the university's students live within 2.5km of the campus. Eight thousand rooms are clustered in 240 separate structural spaces with a depreciated book value of over $525 million and a replacement cost in the billions of dollars. Half a century of plantings has created a natural environment that is a unique and defining characteristic of the university.

It was only last year that the proposition of relocating even a small part of the university - the School of Music - to be closer to the passing audiences and heritage buildings of the old university site in the central city lead some to argue that any splitting of the campus would detract from the integrated campus and learning community at Ilam.

Since then, two earthquakes and numerous aftershocks have changed parts of our city for ever. The question has been raised by some as to whether the university should up sticks and head east.

Why? Because there is space to the east and some have a mission and mandate to infuse the struggling area within the four avenues with vitality. Relocating the university is not the answer. Here is why:

Firstly, the university has not run out of space where it is. The University of Canterbury has more land and built infrastructure per student than the average New Zealand university. Our facilities are not as fully utilised as they should be. We can accommodate any projected increase in domestic and international student numbers on land we own or control.

Secondly, the university buildings did not fall down or even suffer significant structural damage in the earthquakes. Yes, there is remediation work to be undertaken over coming years, but more than 220 of our 240 separate structural spaces will have been certified for general occupation by the end of this month, less than four months after the earthquake in February. Remediation will cost tens of millions of dollars, but this reflects as much the size and scale of the university as the extent of the damage.

Thirdly, our capital asset management plan involved a detailed assessment of the state of our buildings pre-earthquakes and assessed the vast majority of the space to be of above average quality.

We should not forget that buildings such as Commerce and Law were built in the 1990s and the $10 million NZi3 building, $32m biological sciences building and multimillion-dollar primary data centre are all less than three years old.

Yes, there are some older spaces ready for refurbishment in Science and Engineering, but this will represent a fraction of the cost of rebuilding substantial buildings.

Fourthly, it makes no economic sense to abandon special-purpose infrastructure that is not damaged at a time when the economic demands to replace damaged infrastructure are so great.

The university needs to ensure its remediation efforts are supported by insurance proceeds and central government, but funds will go much further when used to remediate rather than replace infrastructure.

In addition, shifting the economic activity generated by the university and its students to another part of town does nothing to increase the total economic activity in the city.

Our focus should be on attracting 5000 more students to study in Christchurch, not on shifting the current activity 10km to the east.

Fifthly, the university must focus on recruiting and retaining students, supporting staff and their research effort and reassuring potential collaborators and stakeholders that the university is fully operational.

Our laboratories and libraries, lecture theatres and infrastructure are capable of supporting our current community into the future. Talk of relocating the university has the potential to be an enormous distraction.

So what might attract the university to locate some activities within the four avenues?

In the case of teaching and research related to medicine, obviously the university would welcome the opportunity to support the creation of a world- leading research and teaching medical complex to support the million people who live in the South Island.

A postgraduate medical school, the training of allied medical professionals and development of advanced applied medical technologies should be focused in what is known as the central business district, but may in future be known as the Centre of Advanced Applied Medicine.

It may also make sense to locate sports and recreation facilities in proximity to the existing stadium, and health sciences, which are not unrelated to sports science, may also be considered.

In its draft campus master plan, the university identified its desire to provide for facilities for music on its Ilam campus and to enhance the sports and recreational infrastructure to support health, lifestyles and wellbeing for its community.

As these plans are progressed, they should not be seen as in conflict with the needs of other communities that constitute the greater city of Christchurch.

We do not seek and cannot afford to replace the Town Hall, Convention Centre, QE II Stadium or Arts Centre, but we will develop arts, cultural, entertainment, recreation and retail activities of appropriate scale to support our vibrant community and wider neighbourhood.

We will do this mindful of and in association with the wider city and the emerging vision of the area that formerly housed many businesses but may in the future be home to medical, recreational and sporting facilities for which the city and region could become renowned, and where relevant research and teaching is co-located and employees and students choose to live.

That vision does not require the university to relocate but merely to be convinced, as it reaches out, that there is a real opportunity to be grasped.

Interesting article - fairly pointless talking about some Post-Graduate Medical School, as if 76 or so student doctors strolling about the central city is going to have any discernible effect haha!

We've got it from the horses mouth - the University is staying. I really do hope they look at moving a few lighter subjects gradually into the city as it becomes possible, however.

Maybe the idea is to support CPIT all the way. Give it a proper big campus. The idea being that it'll become a university and rival/support UC in the future.

There seems to be a ground swell of support for a parts of the University to return to the city centre and be part of the rebuild...