Thinking about East Christchurch
There's an interesting article in The Press today, entitled Could a water theme revitalise the east? It's an interesting read and on the major points I do agree with it. Yes, the east needs as much attention as the CBD did. Yes, New Brighton should be the focus of that attention, at least at first. Yes, it needs to be people-directed, not top-down. However, what I find most interesting and most infuriating in the article is the subtle snobbery detailed there by the author (and by some of the people he speaks to). Clearly, this isn't someone who lives here and he also very clearly has a sense of the east's 'place' in the city. It is described variously as 'the poorer half of the city' and 'lower socio-economic suburb' and there's a sniffing sadness at the loss of the 'relatively more affluent residential land' to the red zone and an idea that the local people would resent a 'gentrification' of the area.
Let's look at all those, shall we? First this idea of the 'poorer half' of the city. Sure, we don't have a Merivale or a Fendalton or the like, the suburbs where the super rich congregate. However, based on school decile ranking which in turn is based on the wealth of the neighbouring residential areas, the east -- apart from aforesaid lack of the super rich -- is not noticably different to the west. There are several schools in the general area which are deciles 8 and 9 (eg, those areas are in the top 20ish% of the wealth in the country.) These areas are not exactly poor. Then, if we look at the west, there is also a proliferation of decile 2-3 schools from across the area (or schools whose catchments include people with the 20ish% lowest wealth in the country). They can be found in Riccarton, Hornby, Hoon Hay and even Bishopdale. One in Hoon Hay is even a decile 1, representing the lowest 10% socio-economically in the country. This idea that 'the east' is the poor side is basically because we have Aranui, and it is poor. Aranui is not, however, the defining feature of the east, in the same way that Merivale and Fendalton are not the defining factors of the west. This is, however, a long time bias and it is entrenched into Christchurch mindests. I have lost count of the number of comments I've run into on twitter and news articles about the plight of the east along the lines of 'well, you chose buy/live in the cheap areas, so it's your own fault you're worse off from the quakes' which ... yeah, no. Many of the worst hit areas (not even the red zoned ones) include some very expensive housing and in fact there is some suggestion that east Parklands, for example, wasn't redzoned simply because it was cost prohibitive for the government to buy them out; that remediating the land on individual houses was a cheaper option than a buyout. So this idea of the 'relatively more affluent' area being lost to the red zone is, basically, a nonsense. The red zone incorporates both some of the richer people in the area and the poorer people. It cuts across a wide cross section of the population and so isn't in itself going to make the area poorer, or richer.
Second is this idea that New Brighton itself is a lower-scocio economic suburb. Maybe, if you focus only on Central New Brighton, you could make a case for that. That school is a decile 2; however the schools in wider New Brighton (that is out to North New Brighton and South New Brighton) are deciles 4 and 5 or closer to mid socio-economic, really. I do agree that anything imposed on the area 'from above' will be met with hostility and distrust but I don't agree that it's because of tension between those who want to remain lower socio-economic and those who want it gentrified. I don't think anyone truly hates the idea of the place getting a bit of a facelift. I think the biggest fear is that we won't have any say in what happens to our sense of place. I think it can be revitalised without losing character and that it's the suspicion of outside developers coming and making it a plastic, cookie-cutter 'upmarket' development that is really behind the lack of delight in gentrification, not a problem with becoming better as an idea in itself. The thing is, the New Brighton area is one that has a strong sense of itself as a place and most people don't want to lose that sense of self at the whim of someone else. So on that point I agree with the article - if this is done as a community-led inittiative then it will work; if not then problems are going to proliferate.
Anyway, I think the basic idea is a sound one and I agree that the east, and the focal point of New Brighton in particular, needs urgent attention since it has been almost 2 years now since the first earthquake. However, it just interested (and yeah, angered) me that there's still this snobbish perception of the east. It is that perception, rather than any true reality, that could cause us to be neglected and ghettoised. However, I think there are enough committed, energetic people around here who are trying to make a positive difference that we should be okay. Now, here's hoping that, unlike the central city, we are given the chance to develop our own identity and play with the natural potential that the area affords. I think the city could be pleasantly surprised by the way the east rebounds if they'll only give it the chance and not write it off as a bad job.