Showing posts with label Christchurch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christchurch. Show all posts
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Active Authentic Christchurch Centre
I've been highly critical of the planning that led to the Christchurch we know was built before the earthquake. And I was also critical of some of the planning for the CBD post-earthquake.
In particular I could not believe the institutional silence around previous earthquakes that knocked the Cathedral spire down. However. Now that we are where we are, I now believe that New Zealand has a duty to protect as much as possible of the Cathedral from further demolition and from future earthquakes.
The rhetoric is compelling: the city is Christ Church, the centre of Christ Church is Cathedral Square, Christ Church is internationally known as the Cathedral City. There is massive value and history attached to this place and the icon that is the iconic church at the centre.
There are famous cathedrals and churches in Cologne, Coventry and Kobe - still standing, or rebuilt, iconic heritage, memories enshrined. Proudly. At a cost. A heritage cost. An investment.
Canterbury Cathedral has similar status for New Zealand now. Yes it is vulnerable and the Church of England can't pay the amount needed to protect it. But it is essential for the future of Christchurch that the church that remains - remain standing. It is precious for the economic future of Christchurch, as it is for the city's cultural future and its heritage. What better place to remember where the city came from, and to remember the earthquake itself. This has to be a Government responsibility and priority.
Which brings me to the 4 Avenues area of the old central business district. What to do, now that 800 or so buildings have been or are being demolished. I read the Listener magazine piece by Bob Jones, and agree with amalgamation of sites idea. Not sure about a lot of water spaces in there.
But it is clear that the market will not rush into building commercial buildings now in this part of Christchurch. A lot of money has already gone - to Auckland and other parts of New Zealand - and many businesses have relocated to other commercial hubs in other parts of Christchurch where there is some critical mass, and where there is infrastructure they can connect into.
I did entertain the idea of relocating Jade Stadium and QEII into the central business area. I was thinking, well, if both of these amenities are to be built, why not locate them in the centre - given all the available land. (I don't think it is appropriate to rebuild QEII at Burwood. This land is too compromised.)
But. Stadiums are very expensive things as we know, and we look at what's happening in Dunedin right now. The Super 15 games that have been playing in the Christchurch temporary rugby facility have had a great buzz about them. Recessions are not good times to rebuild the sort of stadium that Jade was - ie very big - very imposing, takes up a lot of space, and hardly gets used. Doesn't do a lot to activate an urban environment either.
But that's not the same with a multi-purpose athletic and swimming facility. It can integrate much better into an urban fabric, and be used as an anchor for a different sort of Christchurch centre....
I see Christchurch as the centre of a remarkable industry that is New Zealand's own. It's the outdoor pursuit, physical fitness, extreme sport capital of the world. It also offers the best place to chill, get organised, and equipped, for all those fantastic activitities that New Zealand is increasingly known for in Australia and further afield: Great Walks, cycling expeditions, mountaineering, ski-ing, tri-athlons, elite sport events, canoe-events, rafting...
The South Island has other centres, but they are constrained in their accommodation offerings, and do not offer the space that Christchurch now has to be the active life-style support city for the South Island.
Christchurch needs to be able live this lifestyle itself. Putting an upgraded QEII facility in the centre provides a new magnet, and new organising force for transport: cycling becomes much more dominant and rational. So does the related infrastructure. So does walking. And the sorts of businesses that would co-locate will be tourism, event and support services - event management, clothing, gear, and even manufacturers that specialise in elite sport equipment.
Well. That's what I think aanyway.
In particular I could not believe the institutional silence around previous earthquakes that knocked the Cathedral spire down. However. Now that we are where we are, I now believe that New Zealand has a duty to protect as much as possible of the Cathedral from further demolition and from future earthquakes.
The rhetoric is compelling: the city is Christ Church, the centre of Christ Church is Cathedral Square, Christ Church is internationally known as the Cathedral City. There is massive value and history attached to this place and the icon that is the iconic church at the centre.
There are famous cathedrals and churches in Cologne, Coventry and Kobe - still standing, or rebuilt, iconic heritage, memories enshrined. Proudly. At a cost. A heritage cost. An investment.
Canterbury Cathedral has similar status for New Zealand now. Yes it is vulnerable and the Church of England can't pay the amount needed to protect it. But it is essential for the future of Christchurch that the church that remains - remain standing. It is precious for the economic future of Christchurch, as it is for the city's cultural future and its heritage. What better place to remember where the city came from, and to remember the earthquake itself. This has to be a Government responsibility and priority.
Which brings me to the 4 Avenues area of the old central business district. What to do, now that 800 or so buildings have been or are being demolished. I read the Listener magazine piece by Bob Jones, and agree with amalgamation of sites idea. Not sure about a lot of water spaces in there.
But it is clear that the market will not rush into building commercial buildings now in this part of Christchurch. A lot of money has already gone - to Auckland and other parts of New Zealand - and many businesses have relocated to other commercial hubs in other parts of Christchurch where there is some critical mass, and where there is infrastructure they can connect into.
I did entertain the idea of relocating Jade Stadium and QEII into the central business area. I was thinking, well, if both of these amenities are to be built, why not locate them in the centre - given all the available land. (I don't think it is appropriate to rebuild QEII at Burwood. This land is too compromised.)
But. Stadiums are very expensive things as we know, and we look at what's happening in Dunedin right now. The Super 15 games that have been playing in the Christchurch temporary rugby facility have had a great buzz about them. Recessions are not good times to rebuild the sort of stadium that Jade was - ie very big - very imposing, takes up a lot of space, and hardly gets used. Doesn't do a lot to activate an urban environment either.
But that's not the same with a multi-purpose athletic and swimming facility. It can integrate much better into an urban fabric, and be used as an anchor for a different sort of Christchurch centre....
I see Christchurch as the centre of a remarkable industry that is New Zealand's own. It's the outdoor pursuit, physical fitness, extreme sport capital of the world. It also offers the best place to chill, get organised, and equipped, for all those fantastic activitities that New Zealand is increasingly known for in Australia and further afield: Great Walks, cycling expeditions, mountaineering, ski-ing, tri-athlons, elite sport events, canoe-events, rafting...
The South Island has other centres, but they are constrained in their accommodation offerings, and do not offer the space that Christchurch now has to be the active life-style support city for the South Island.
Christchurch needs to be able live this lifestyle itself. Putting an upgraded QEII facility in the centre provides a new magnet, and new organising force for transport: cycling becomes much more dominant and rational. So does the related infrastructure. So does walking. And the sorts of businesses that would co-locate will be tourism, event and support services - event management, clothing, gear, and even manufacturers that specialise in elite sport equipment.
Well. That's what I think aanyway.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Banks Peninsula Rising II
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Banks Peninsula Rising
Christchurch is situated on the east coast of the South Island of New Zealand in the south Pacific Ocean. The city is located at the coast of the Canterbury Plains adjacent to an extinct volcanic complex forming Banks Peninsula. The site of Christchurch was mainly swamp, behind beach dune sand, and estuaries and lagoons, which have now been drained.....Which is all news to me. Though it clearly wasn't to some people in 1996.
Geological constraints of concern to Christchurch include flooding, variable foundation conditions, slope instability on the Port Hills, and coastal erosion. The Waimakariri River with its catchment in the southern Alps, regularly flooded Christchurch prior to stopbank construction and river realignment, which began shortly after the city was established in 1850. Variable foundation conditions as a consequence of a high water table and lateral changes from river floodplain, swamp, and estuarine-lagoonal environments, impose constraints on building design and construction....
The geology, tectonic setting, and active seismicity of the Christchurch area indicate that future large earthquakes will occur which will have major impact on the city. Earthquakes are expected to produce liquefaction, landsliding, ground cracking, and tsunami. Planning and design to mitigate the consequences of these phenomena are an essential prerequisite for preparedness....
The identification and quantifying of geological hazards, and the implementation of regulation and planning designed to discourage irresponsible land use, should continue in the future as the geological knowledge and database is expanded....
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
How Strong was the Christchurch Earthquake?
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Garden City’s Cheeky Opportunity
New Zealand’s Garden City has the opportunity to re-invent itself from the bottom up.
I’m talking sewage.
Consider the large amount of clean water that is used to carry even a small quantity of human excreta. With each flush, over 10 litres of clean water goes down the drain. This clean water which is flushed down the toilet goes into a traditional sewage system. We reticulate all sewage solids and wastewater in a big network of ceramic pipes for centralised treatment. The Romans had the idea for that first and it was perfected by the British almost 200 years ago. It’s ancient.
In the absence of government support or massive rates, traditional sewage solutions threaten to bankrupt communities. Especially if sewer networks need to be rebuilt.
Traditional sewage systems are atrociously expensive to build today primarily because of the labour intensive drainage network. Sewage treatment plants themselves are relatively cheap. It’s the thousands of kilometres of pipes that cost seriously big money. And where pipes are laid in ground that moves – forget shakes – cracks open up in the pipes letting rainwater in and causing overflows, and letting sewage out polluting more water — invariably rivers and ponds and beachwater.
For more than a decade – as a Councillor - I have immersed myself in Auckland’s sewage problems, projects and costs. I chaired North Shore City Council’s Works & Environment Committee’s recommendation ten years ago to impose a fixed charge per ratepayer of $500 annually to reduce leaks from the city’s fragile sewer network. We debated the issue at length. I suggested – half in jest – that we’d be better off with old style night-cart collection of excreta, central composting, and recycling back to land. At least we’d know it was being collected, and we’d also know it wouldn’t end up on the beaches.
North Shore City ratepayers have invested close to a billion dollars in its sewage system. And it still leaks. Much of Auckland is built on soft Waitemata clays and sandstone. It’s shifting slowly all the time, cracking the sewer network. The damage is slow but it’s relentless. And so are the repairs and the costs.
Much of Christchurch is built on alluvial gravels and sand. Its sewer networks lie in ditches dug into this substrate which liquefies in even a small earthquake. Given the choice of developing Christchurch today as a greenfield site – subject to earthquakes from time to time - engineers today would surely advise against a ceramic pipe based wastewater network.
Ten years ago the Auditor General concluded that “it is difficult for Thames Coromandel District Council to demonstrate that the sewage reticulation option is indeed the best use of ratepayer’s funds.” That report was part of a long running battle between the majority of Cooks Beach lot owners and a Council determined to fix septic tank problems by imposing a traditional reticulated sewage scheme. I know Christchurch City is not like Cooks Beach.
My interest in sewage alternatives has taken me round the world and times have changed, as Sydney Water found when it investigated developments in the United States and Europe, after facing estimates of between $16,000 and $70,000 per lot to connect houses to new centralised sewage systems.
They found that on site wastewater services are used in 50% of lots in Norway and 25% of all lots in the USA. On-site servicing is no longer seen as a temporary measure in the USA where 35% of new city housing developments are now on-site serviced. Beverley Hills in LA is all on-site, and Barbra Streisand was one who lobbied the council to keep it that way. The US Environmental Protection Agency has advised the US government that “decentralised systems, where properly managed, could protect water quality over the long term and do so at lower cost than conventional systems in many communities.”
The most modern systems used in US urban environments combine sophisticated on-site primary treatment tanks, which retain and biodigest solids and need emptying every ten years or so, and small-gauge leak-proof pipes which reticulate the liquid effluent only, to either a centralised treatment plant, or to small local treatment facilities. Some of these use vacuum systems or small pumps to send effluent through leak-proof plastic pipes which can bend and move with ground movement.
While modern centralised wastewater treatment plants in New Zealand are using cleaner technology, the fact is that traditional sewage reticulation pipe networks are dreadfully leaky, and environmental disasters in themselves. Even without an earthquake.
It is difficult to justify their construction and use in coastal environments if the goal is to protect and preserve water quality in the long term.
It is no longer flush it and forget it in Christchurch. Every day people are faced with the personal challenge of what to do with their own, and their children’s excrement. Call it human bio-solids. Right now a system of Portaloos and regular collection is being rolled out across Christchurch.
The collected bio-solids will contain toilet paper and some sterile urine. But will not be contaminated with heavy metal trade wastes that get tipped into the sewer. It will not be diluted with thousands of litres of water. It will be pure. Ripe for composting and re-use. It can be developed into a modern, resilient and responsible sanitation system.
Christchurch has the opportunity to re-invent itself from the bottom up.
I’m talking sewage.
Consider the large amount of clean water that is used to carry even a small quantity of human excreta. With each flush, over 10 litres of clean water goes down the drain. This clean water which is flushed down the toilet goes into a traditional sewage system. We reticulate all sewage solids and wastewater in a big network of ceramic pipes for centralised treatment. The Romans had the idea for that first and it was perfected by the British almost 200 years ago. It’s ancient.
In the absence of government support or massive rates, traditional sewage solutions threaten to bankrupt communities. Especially if sewer networks need to be rebuilt.
Traditional sewage systems are atrociously expensive to build today primarily because of the labour intensive drainage network. Sewage treatment plants themselves are relatively cheap. It’s the thousands of kilometres of pipes that cost seriously big money. And where pipes are laid in ground that moves – forget shakes – cracks open up in the pipes letting rainwater in and causing overflows, and letting sewage out polluting more water — invariably rivers and ponds and beachwater.
For more than a decade – as a Councillor - I have immersed myself in Auckland’s sewage problems, projects and costs. I chaired North Shore City Council’s Works & Environment Committee’s recommendation ten years ago to impose a fixed charge per ratepayer of $500 annually to reduce leaks from the city’s fragile sewer network. We debated the issue at length. I suggested – half in jest – that we’d be better off with old style night-cart collection of excreta, central composting, and recycling back to land. At least we’d know it was being collected, and we’d also know it wouldn’t end up on the beaches.
North Shore City ratepayers have invested close to a billion dollars in its sewage system. And it still leaks. Much of Auckland is built on soft Waitemata clays and sandstone. It’s shifting slowly all the time, cracking the sewer network. The damage is slow but it’s relentless. And so are the repairs and the costs.
Much of Christchurch is built on alluvial gravels and sand. Its sewer networks lie in ditches dug into this substrate which liquefies in even a small earthquake. Given the choice of developing Christchurch today as a greenfield site – subject to earthquakes from time to time - engineers today would surely advise against a ceramic pipe based wastewater network.
Ten years ago the Auditor General concluded that “it is difficult for Thames Coromandel District Council to demonstrate that the sewage reticulation option is indeed the best use of ratepayer’s funds.” That report was part of a long running battle between the majority of Cooks Beach lot owners and a Council determined to fix septic tank problems by imposing a traditional reticulated sewage scheme. I know Christchurch City is not like Cooks Beach.
My interest in sewage alternatives has taken me round the world and times have changed, as Sydney Water found when it investigated developments in the United States and Europe, after facing estimates of between $16,000 and $70,000 per lot to connect houses to new centralised sewage systems.
They found that on site wastewater services are used in 50% of lots in Norway and 25% of all lots in the USA. On-site servicing is no longer seen as a temporary measure in the USA where 35% of new city housing developments are now on-site serviced. Beverley Hills in LA is all on-site, and Barbra Streisand was one who lobbied the council to keep it that way. The US Environmental Protection Agency has advised the US government that “decentralised systems, where properly managed, could protect water quality over the long term and do so at lower cost than conventional systems in many communities.”
The most modern systems used in US urban environments combine sophisticated on-site primary treatment tanks, which retain and biodigest solids and need emptying every ten years or so, and small-gauge leak-proof pipes which reticulate the liquid effluent only, to either a centralised treatment plant, or to small local treatment facilities. Some of these use vacuum systems or small pumps to send effluent through leak-proof plastic pipes which can bend and move with ground movement.
While modern centralised wastewater treatment plants in New Zealand are using cleaner technology, the fact is that traditional sewage reticulation pipe networks are dreadfully leaky, and environmental disasters in themselves. Even without an earthquake.
It is difficult to justify their construction and use in coastal environments if the goal is to protect and preserve water quality in the long term.
It is no longer flush it and forget it in Christchurch. Every day people are faced with the personal challenge of what to do with their own, and their children’s excrement. Call it human bio-solids. Right now a system of Portaloos and regular collection is being rolled out across Christchurch.
The collected bio-solids will contain toilet paper and some sterile urine. But will not be contaminated with heavy metal trade wastes that get tipped into the sewer. It will not be diluted with thousands of litres of water. It will be pure. Ripe for composting and re-use. It can be developed into a modern, resilient and responsible sanitation system.
Christchurch has the opportunity to re-invent itself from the bottom up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Showing posts with label Christchurch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christchurch. Show all posts
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Active Authentic Christchurch Centre
I've been highly critical of the planning that led to the Christchurch we know was built before the earthquake. And I was also critical of some of the planning for the CBD post-earthquake.
In particular I could not believe the institutional silence around previous earthquakes that knocked the Cathedral spire down. However. Now that we are where we are, I now believe that New Zealand has a duty to protect as much as possible of the Cathedral from further demolition and from future earthquakes.
The rhetoric is compelling: the city is Christ Church, the centre of Christ Church is Cathedral Square, Christ Church is internationally known as the Cathedral City. There is massive value and history attached to this place and the icon that is the iconic church at the centre.
There are famous cathedrals and churches in Cologne, Coventry and Kobe - still standing, or rebuilt, iconic heritage, memories enshrined. Proudly. At a cost. A heritage cost. An investment.
Canterbury Cathedral has similar status for New Zealand now. Yes it is vulnerable and the Church of England can't pay the amount needed to protect it. But it is essential for the future of Christchurch that the church that remains - remain standing. It is precious for the economic future of Christchurch, as it is for the city's cultural future and its heritage. What better place to remember where the city came from, and to remember the earthquake itself. This has to be a Government responsibility and priority.
Which brings me to the 4 Avenues area of the old central business district. What to do, now that 800 or so buildings have been or are being demolished. I read the Listener magazine piece by Bob Jones, and agree with amalgamation of sites idea. Not sure about a lot of water spaces in there.
But it is clear that the market will not rush into building commercial buildings now in this part of Christchurch. A lot of money has already gone - to Auckland and other parts of New Zealand - and many businesses have relocated to other commercial hubs in other parts of Christchurch where there is some critical mass, and where there is infrastructure they can connect into.
I did entertain the idea of relocating Jade Stadium and QEII into the central business area. I was thinking, well, if both of these amenities are to be built, why not locate them in the centre - given all the available land. (I don't think it is appropriate to rebuild QEII at Burwood. This land is too compromised.)
But. Stadiums are very expensive things as we know, and we look at what's happening in Dunedin right now. The Super 15 games that have been playing in the Christchurch temporary rugby facility have had a great buzz about them. Recessions are not good times to rebuild the sort of stadium that Jade was - ie very big - very imposing, takes up a lot of space, and hardly gets used. Doesn't do a lot to activate an urban environment either.
But that's not the same with a multi-purpose athletic and swimming facility. It can integrate much better into an urban fabric, and be used as an anchor for a different sort of Christchurch centre....
I see Christchurch as the centre of a remarkable industry that is New Zealand's own. It's the outdoor pursuit, physical fitness, extreme sport capital of the world. It also offers the best place to chill, get organised, and equipped, for all those fantastic activitities that New Zealand is increasingly known for in Australia and further afield: Great Walks, cycling expeditions, mountaineering, ski-ing, tri-athlons, elite sport events, canoe-events, rafting...
The South Island has other centres, but they are constrained in their accommodation offerings, and do not offer the space that Christchurch now has to be the active life-style support city for the South Island.
Christchurch needs to be able live this lifestyle itself. Putting an upgraded QEII facility in the centre provides a new magnet, and new organising force for transport: cycling becomes much more dominant and rational. So does the related infrastructure. So does walking. And the sorts of businesses that would co-locate will be tourism, event and support services - event management, clothing, gear, and even manufacturers that specialise in elite sport equipment.
Well. That's what I think aanyway.
In particular I could not believe the institutional silence around previous earthquakes that knocked the Cathedral spire down. However. Now that we are where we are, I now believe that New Zealand has a duty to protect as much as possible of the Cathedral from further demolition and from future earthquakes.
The rhetoric is compelling: the city is Christ Church, the centre of Christ Church is Cathedral Square, Christ Church is internationally known as the Cathedral City. There is massive value and history attached to this place and the icon that is the iconic church at the centre.
There are famous cathedrals and churches in Cologne, Coventry and Kobe - still standing, or rebuilt, iconic heritage, memories enshrined. Proudly. At a cost. A heritage cost. An investment.
Canterbury Cathedral has similar status for New Zealand now. Yes it is vulnerable and the Church of England can't pay the amount needed to protect it. But it is essential for the future of Christchurch that the church that remains - remain standing. It is precious for the economic future of Christchurch, as it is for the city's cultural future and its heritage. What better place to remember where the city came from, and to remember the earthquake itself. This has to be a Government responsibility and priority.
Which brings me to the 4 Avenues area of the old central business district. What to do, now that 800 or so buildings have been or are being demolished. I read the Listener magazine piece by Bob Jones, and agree with amalgamation of sites idea. Not sure about a lot of water spaces in there.
But it is clear that the market will not rush into building commercial buildings now in this part of Christchurch. A lot of money has already gone - to Auckland and other parts of New Zealand - and many businesses have relocated to other commercial hubs in other parts of Christchurch where there is some critical mass, and where there is infrastructure they can connect into.
I did entertain the idea of relocating Jade Stadium and QEII into the central business area. I was thinking, well, if both of these amenities are to be built, why not locate them in the centre - given all the available land. (I don't think it is appropriate to rebuild QEII at Burwood. This land is too compromised.)
But. Stadiums are very expensive things as we know, and we look at what's happening in Dunedin right now. The Super 15 games that have been playing in the Christchurch temporary rugby facility have had a great buzz about them. Recessions are not good times to rebuild the sort of stadium that Jade was - ie very big - very imposing, takes up a lot of space, and hardly gets used. Doesn't do a lot to activate an urban environment either.
But that's not the same with a multi-purpose athletic and swimming facility. It can integrate much better into an urban fabric, and be used as an anchor for a different sort of Christchurch centre....
I see Christchurch as the centre of a remarkable industry that is New Zealand's own. It's the outdoor pursuit, physical fitness, extreme sport capital of the world. It also offers the best place to chill, get organised, and equipped, for all those fantastic activitities that New Zealand is increasingly known for in Australia and further afield: Great Walks, cycling expeditions, mountaineering, ski-ing, tri-athlons, elite sport events, canoe-events, rafting...
The South Island has other centres, but they are constrained in their accommodation offerings, and do not offer the space that Christchurch now has to be the active life-style support city for the South Island.
Christchurch needs to be able live this lifestyle itself. Putting an upgraded QEII facility in the centre provides a new magnet, and new organising force for transport: cycling becomes much more dominant and rational. So does the related infrastructure. So does walking. And the sorts of businesses that would co-locate will be tourism, event and support services - event management, clothing, gear, and even manufacturers that specialise in elite sport equipment.
Well. That's what I think aanyway.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Banks Peninsula Rising II
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Banks Peninsula Rising
Christchurch is situated on the east coast of the South Island of New Zealand in the south Pacific Ocean. The city is located at the coast of the Canterbury Plains adjacent to an extinct volcanic complex forming Banks Peninsula. The site of Christchurch was mainly swamp, behind beach dune sand, and estuaries and lagoons, which have now been drained.....Which is all news to me. Though it clearly wasn't to some people in 1996.
Geological constraints of concern to Christchurch include flooding, variable foundation conditions, slope instability on the Port Hills, and coastal erosion. The Waimakariri River with its catchment in the southern Alps, regularly flooded Christchurch prior to stopbank construction and river realignment, which began shortly after the city was established in 1850. Variable foundation conditions as a consequence of a high water table and lateral changes from river floodplain, swamp, and estuarine-lagoonal environments, impose constraints on building design and construction....
The geology, tectonic setting, and active seismicity of the Christchurch area indicate that future large earthquakes will occur which will have major impact on the city. Earthquakes are expected to produce liquefaction, landsliding, ground cracking, and tsunami. Planning and design to mitigate the consequences of these phenomena are an essential prerequisite for preparedness....
The identification and quantifying of geological hazards, and the implementation of regulation and planning designed to discourage irresponsible land use, should continue in the future as the geological knowledge and database is expanded....
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
How Strong was the Christchurch Earthquake?
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Garden City’s Cheeky Opportunity
New Zealand’s Garden City has the opportunity to re-invent itself from the bottom up.
I’m talking sewage.
Consider the large amount of clean water that is used to carry even a small quantity of human excreta. With each flush, over 10 litres of clean water goes down the drain. This clean water which is flushed down the toilet goes into a traditional sewage system. We reticulate all sewage solids and wastewater in a big network of ceramic pipes for centralised treatment. The Romans had the idea for that first and it was perfected by the British almost 200 years ago. It’s ancient.
In the absence of government support or massive rates, traditional sewage solutions threaten to bankrupt communities. Especially if sewer networks need to be rebuilt.
Traditional sewage systems are atrociously expensive to build today primarily because of the labour intensive drainage network. Sewage treatment plants themselves are relatively cheap. It’s the thousands of kilometres of pipes that cost seriously big money. And where pipes are laid in ground that moves – forget shakes – cracks open up in the pipes letting rainwater in and causing overflows, and letting sewage out polluting more water — invariably rivers and ponds and beachwater.
For more than a decade – as a Councillor - I have immersed myself in Auckland’s sewage problems, projects and costs. I chaired North Shore City Council’s Works & Environment Committee’s recommendation ten years ago to impose a fixed charge per ratepayer of $500 annually to reduce leaks from the city’s fragile sewer network. We debated the issue at length. I suggested – half in jest – that we’d be better off with old style night-cart collection of excreta, central composting, and recycling back to land. At least we’d know it was being collected, and we’d also know it wouldn’t end up on the beaches.
North Shore City ratepayers have invested close to a billion dollars in its sewage system. And it still leaks. Much of Auckland is built on soft Waitemata clays and sandstone. It’s shifting slowly all the time, cracking the sewer network. The damage is slow but it’s relentless. And so are the repairs and the costs.
Much of Christchurch is built on alluvial gravels and sand. Its sewer networks lie in ditches dug into this substrate which liquefies in even a small earthquake. Given the choice of developing Christchurch today as a greenfield site – subject to earthquakes from time to time - engineers today would surely advise against a ceramic pipe based wastewater network.
Ten years ago the Auditor General concluded that “it is difficult for Thames Coromandel District Council to demonstrate that the sewage reticulation option is indeed the best use of ratepayer’s funds.” That report was part of a long running battle between the majority of Cooks Beach lot owners and a Council determined to fix septic tank problems by imposing a traditional reticulated sewage scheme. I know Christchurch City is not like Cooks Beach.
My interest in sewage alternatives has taken me round the world and times have changed, as Sydney Water found when it investigated developments in the United States and Europe, after facing estimates of between $16,000 and $70,000 per lot to connect houses to new centralised sewage systems.
They found that on site wastewater services are used in 50% of lots in Norway and 25% of all lots in the USA. On-site servicing is no longer seen as a temporary measure in the USA where 35% of new city housing developments are now on-site serviced. Beverley Hills in LA is all on-site, and Barbra Streisand was one who lobbied the council to keep it that way. The US Environmental Protection Agency has advised the US government that “decentralised systems, where properly managed, could protect water quality over the long term and do so at lower cost than conventional systems in many communities.”
The most modern systems used in US urban environments combine sophisticated on-site primary treatment tanks, which retain and biodigest solids and need emptying every ten years or so, and small-gauge leak-proof pipes which reticulate the liquid effluent only, to either a centralised treatment plant, or to small local treatment facilities. Some of these use vacuum systems or small pumps to send effluent through leak-proof plastic pipes which can bend and move with ground movement.
While modern centralised wastewater treatment plants in New Zealand are using cleaner technology, the fact is that traditional sewage reticulation pipe networks are dreadfully leaky, and environmental disasters in themselves. Even without an earthquake.
It is difficult to justify their construction and use in coastal environments if the goal is to protect and preserve water quality in the long term.
It is no longer flush it and forget it in Christchurch. Every day people are faced with the personal challenge of what to do with their own, and their children’s excrement. Call it human bio-solids. Right now a system of Portaloos and regular collection is being rolled out across Christchurch.
The collected bio-solids will contain toilet paper and some sterile urine. But will not be contaminated with heavy metal trade wastes that get tipped into the sewer. It will not be diluted with thousands of litres of water. It will be pure. Ripe for composting and re-use. It can be developed into a modern, resilient and responsible sanitation system.
Christchurch has the opportunity to re-invent itself from the bottom up.
I’m talking sewage.
Consider the large amount of clean water that is used to carry even a small quantity of human excreta. With each flush, over 10 litres of clean water goes down the drain. This clean water which is flushed down the toilet goes into a traditional sewage system. We reticulate all sewage solids and wastewater in a big network of ceramic pipes for centralised treatment. The Romans had the idea for that first and it was perfected by the British almost 200 years ago. It’s ancient.
In the absence of government support or massive rates, traditional sewage solutions threaten to bankrupt communities. Especially if sewer networks need to be rebuilt.
Traditional sewage systems are atrociously expensive to build today primarily because of the labour intensive drainage network. Sewage treatment plants themselves are relatively cheap. It’s the thousands of kilometres of pipes that cost seriously big money. And where pipes are laid in ground that moves – forget shakes – cracks open up in the pipes letting rainwater in and causing overflows, and letting sewage out polluting more water — invariably rivers and ponds and beachwater.
For more than a decade – as a Councillor - I have immersed myself in Auckland’s sewage problems, projects and costs. I chaired North Shore City Council’s Works & Environment Committee’s recommendation ten years ago to impose a fixed charge per ratepayer of $500 annually to reduce leaks from the city’s fragile sewer network. We debated the issue at length. I suggested – half in jest – that we’d be better off with old style night-cart collection of excreta, central composting, and recycling back to land. At least we’d know it was being collected, and we’d also know it wouldn’t end up on the beaches.
North Shore City ratepayers have invested close to a billion dollars in its sewage system. And it still leaks. Much of Auckland is built on soft Waitemata clays and sandstone. It’s shifting slowly all the time, cracking the sewer network. The damage is slow but it’s relentless. And so are the repairs and the costs.
Much of Christchurch is built on alluvial gravels and sand. Its sewer networks lie in ditches dug into this substrate which liquefies in even a small earthquake. Given the choice of developing Christchurch today as a greenfield site – subject to earthquakes from time to time - engineers today would surely advise against a ceramic pipe based wastewater network.
Ten years ago the Auditor General concluded that “it is difficult for Thames Coromandel District Council to demonstrate that the sewage reticulation option is indeed the best use of ratepayer’s funds.” That report was part of a long running battle between the majority of Cooks Beach lot owners and a Council determined to fix septic tank problems by imposing a traditional reticulated sewage scheme. I know Christchurch City is not like Cooks Beach.
My interest in sewage alternatives has taken me round the world and times have changed, as Sydney Water found when it investigated developments in the United States and Europe, after facing estimates of between $16,000 and $70,000 per lot to connect houses to new centralised sewage systems.
They found that on site wastewater services are used in 50% of lots in Norway and 25% of all lots in the USA. On-site servicing is no longer seen as a temporary measure in the USA where 35% of new city housing developments are now on-site serviced. Beverley Hills in LA is all on-site, and Barbra Streisand was one who lobbied the council to keep it that way. The US Environmental Protection Agency has advised the US government that “decentralised systems, where properly managed, could protect water quality over the long term and do so at lower cost than conventional systems in many communities.”
The most modern systems used in US urban environments combine sophisticated on-site primary treatment tanks, which retain and biodigest solids and need emptying every ten years or so, and small-gauge leak-proof pipes which reticulate the liquid effluent only, to either a centralised treatment plant, or to small local treatment facilities. Some of these use vacuum systems or small pumps to send effluent through leak-proof plastic pipes which can bend and move with ground movement.
While modern centralised wastewater treatment plants in New Zealand are using cleaner technology, the fact is that traditional sewage reticulation pipe networks are dreadfully leaky, and environmental disasters in themselves. Even without an earthquake.
It is difficult to justify their construction and use in coastal environments if the goal is to protect and preserve water quality in the long term.
It is no longer flush it and forget it in Christchurch. Every day people are faced with the personal challenge of what to do with their own, and their children’s excrement. Call it human bio-solids. Right now a system of Portaloos and regular collection is being rolled out across Christchurch.
The collected bio-solids will contain toilet paper and some sterile urine. But will not be contaminated with heavy metal trade wastes that get tipped into the sewer. It will not be diluted with thousands of litres of water. It will be pure. Ripe for composting and re-use. It can be developed into a modern, resilient and responsible sanitation system.
Christchurch has the opportunity to re-invent itself from the bottom up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




























