“Looking after things”: Caring for sites of trauma in post-earthquake Christchurch, New Zealand

Abstract

The devastating earthquake in 2011 in Christchurch caused 185 deaths and the loss of 80% of the urban fabric of the CBD. As the rebuild gains momentum one of the design challenges is the two sites where the major loss of life occurred – known as the CTV and PGC sites, named after the buildings which collapsed. A decision-making process is underway for an earthquake memorial for the city, but is problematic because the event is not ‘over’ - the earthquake sequence is ongoing (over 13,000 aftershocks have been recorded). Also it is not clear where a memorial should be located. In the meantime the sites of trauma need to be protected and cared for. As an academic and landscape architect working as a consultant to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), I was in the unique position of being asked to bring theories relating to care and sensitive sites to the issues confronting Christchurch. Very early in the post-disaster response this involved developing a protocol for mementoes left on site, drawing on the experience at sites such as the Oklahoma bombing, the Columbine High School shooting, and the murder of Pym Fortuyn in Rotterdam (Doss 2008). Following this immediate concern was a strategy for caring for the sites into the medium and longer term. The identification of survivor trees which had endured the events, and the need to ‘designate’ the site – following the theories of Kenneth Foote (2013) – became the foundation for the design approach. Initial presentations to CERA and to Ngai Tahu (the local Maori tribe) were moving and revealed the depth of affective and emotional connection to the sites – even within the heavily bureaucratic recovery process. Stakeholders and bureaucrats, as well as tribal members, spoke of their emotional response to the ideas presented, echoing Tuan’s (1974) “field of care” – that affective bond between place and people. And beyond a simple bond, was an amplification of care in times of trauma, to show not simply affection, but Heidegger’s preserving, sparing and freeing; a sense of “looking after things.” (Malpas 2006).