TEACHERS’ DAY 2005 THE CHANGING SHAPE OF CHRISTCHURCH Doug Johnston Room 311 Ext. 7917

OBJECTIVES: i)to examine the role transport has in influencing the shape of expanding cities ii) to outline non-transport factors that also affect the shape of expanding cities iii) to examine these ideas in the context of Christchurch as a case study

1. CHANGING URBAN TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY i) Walking [horse]; FOOT city; ii) horse bus; horse tram; ¦ ¦ iii) early railways; ¦ TRACKED city; ¦ iv) electric trams; bus services; ¦ v) [bicycle] private car; motorcycle; RUBBER city;

1. CHANGING URBAN TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY II Changes in transport technology: => higher travel speeds / shorter travel time; (some) => greater spatial flexibility; (some) => greater temporal flexibility;

1.CHANGING URBAN TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY III BUT: - changes did not occur abruptly (modes often co-existed for a long time); - changes did not occur simultaneously throughout the city; - improved transport technology did not necessarily mean cheaper transport costs; - assumption of ongoing population growth; HOWEVER: we can identify distinct phases of urban change in relation to particular types of modes

Schematic relationship between urban form and transport (Daniels and Warnes, 1980, p 3) 1. Pedestrian city 2. Horse bus&tramways 3. Early railway 4. Later rail and bus 5. Car & other private

a) Foot City / Pedestrian City: - relatively small area, densely built up; - little spatial segregation : - all land-uses together; - people live at / near work-place; (ala Asian “shop-house”) - everything within walking distance; - only elites had private transport (horse-drawn)

b) Hansom cab / Horse bus / Horse tram - first forms of urban public passenger transport BUT: - relatively expensive; - cheaper than private transport; => elites able to move away from congested centre; = first real separation of residence and place of work; - expanded areal extent of city but still essentially circular (?)

Hansom cabs at Christchurch Railway Station, 1880s (Alexander, 1983, p 10)

Horse tram on the Sydenham line, Christchurch (Alexander, 1985, p 27)

c) Early railways / steam trams: - allowed urban expansion along distinct corridors defined by rail tracks; + able to commute to CBD from nearby settlements; => - commercial development around stations; + residential areas within walking distance of stations;

Steam tram in Cathedral Square, Christchurch ( ) (Alexander, 1985, p 2)

d) Electric tram / Motor bus - provided higher capacity per vehicle; - shorter distance between stops; => continuous development along corridors + buses - independent of special “tracks” => feeder services to railway stations; + routes between railway lines; => residential “in-filling” between rail corridors

Christchurch’s first motor bus, 1904 (Dew, 1996, p 8)

Electric tram and trailers in Christchurch, 1922 (Alexander, 1986, p 52)

Buses in Cathedral Square, Christchurch, 1936 (Dew, 1996, p 17)

e) Private car (and motorcycle) => completed in-filling between rail / bus corridors; + further outward expansion;  back to “circular city”

3. CASE STUDY: CHRISTCHURCH I a) foot city: compact central settlement; + outlying villages; - horse transport (but only for well off); b) Christchurch had railway from 1863: - but not of major importance for daily travel: - season tickets at Kaiapoi, Woolston, Heathcote => 250 people per day!

(Douglass, 2000, p 2) Christchurch 1886

3. CASE STUDY: CHRISTCHURCH II c) steam / horse trams from 1881, electric from low fares => almost universally available; => radial expansion of city along main lines linking pre-existing villages => suburbanisation along Ferry, Papanui, Riccarton, Lincoln & Colombo roads

Tramlines of the steam and horse tram era (Alexander, 1985, centrefold)

Christchurch Tramway Board’s operations in the 1920s (Alexander, 1986, centrefold)

3. CASE STUDY: CHRISTCHURCH III d) motor buses added to system from 1904: - in theory, more flexible than trams: - in practice: took over same network plus added extra radial spokes => in-filling between original “corridors”; + few non-radial routes (i.e. strong focus on CBD)

(Douglass, 2000, p 2) Christchurch 1926

3. CASE STUDY: CHRISTCHURCH IV e) Private motor vehicle: - rapid increase in numbers of vehicles and “availability” per person; => significant extension of urban area by 1966; - not circular but identifiable “obstacles”: - Travis Swamp and the Estuary; - Wigram Airfield; - Harewood Airport; - urban fence;

(Douglass, 2000, p 2) Christchurch 1976

3. CASE STUDY: CHRISTCHURCH V f) Expansion continued: - within urban area; - extensions:- Halswell; - West Melton; - Kaiapoi; PLUS - in recent years => “life-style blocks” - “counter-urbanisation” - “urban people in rural areas”

(Douglass, 2000, p 2) Christchurch 1996

3. CASE STUDY: CHRISTCHURCH VI BUT NOTE: - transport improvement does not CAUSE expansion - makes expansion possible via reduced travel time; - can travel further in “acceptable” time; OTHER FACTORS affect whether “opportunity” taken up

4. OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING EXPANSION OF CITIES i) Working hours: - in old European cities (ala Charles Dickens) worked hour days; emphasised need to live close-by; - NZ => 40 hour, 5-day week from 1936; - as working day became shorter (custom / law) => more time “available” for travel to work; ii) Income levels relative to transport costs: - as incomes increased => able to afford public transport and live more than walking distance from work;

4. OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING EXPANSION OF CITIES iii) land available for housing influences: - ability to expand; - direction(s) of expansion; - relative cost of land/building; - affected by:- physical factors (slope, drainage, soil, view, aspect); - cultural factors (ownership, subdivision rules etc); - actions of developers; + Christchurch expansion => policies to curb “sprawl” - “urban fence” - minimum subdivision size; - satellite towns (e.g. Rolleston)

4. OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING EXPANSION OF CITIES iv) availability of housing finance: - New Zealand introduced policies to provide relatively easy access to housing loans; => encouraged / allowed transition from rental to owned => lower density housing and greater spread; v) Acceptability of “high-density” living: - in-fill housing - “high-rise” apartments

5. OVERVIEW Transport technology CAN influence the expansion / shape of a city: - compact pedestrian city - “star” shaped “tracked” city - circular “rubber” city BUT other factors are also involved: i) Working hours: ii) Income levels relative to transport costs: iii) Land available for housing influences: iv) Availability of housing finance: v) Acceptability of “high-density” living: AND: as city expands it changes in structure

(Douglass, 2000, p 5)

6. THE CASE OF CHRISTCHURCH I -Decentralization of employment: Percent of Employment Yearin Central Business District 1959 (55 approx.) (Regional Planning Authority and Census data)