Crisis calls for long-term thinking

Some commentators are heralding the demise of cities and offices, while others argue that we will return to a semblance of normality once the new vaccines have been deployed.

We are still in the midst of the crisis and our decision making and thinking reflect this. There is a prevailing sense of panic and a misguided desire to make big decisions rather than let things run their course. This has led to polarised commentary, knee-jerk reactions and statements that might not stand up to scrutiny in the long term.

Having worked in Christchurch following the 2011 earthquake, I see lessons that can be learned from how New Zealand handled that crisis with how we should tackle the pandemic.

In the immediate aftermath of the earthquake city dwellers were in shock and some of the decision making and rationale behind some of the decisions seemed to be disproportionate.

To a degree, this is understandable and entirely natural given the way humans deal with our “fight or flight” response.

Do the new ideas put forward have true longevity post-Covid-19

We were the first overseas design firm to be invited to work on rebuilding and the tenants we spoke to were decidedly against constructing anything of more than two storeys in height. Much of the mental and physical trauma had been caused through the collapse of the city’s taller buildings. This led some developers to rush to create what they thought tenants wanted in the long term: low-rise developments outside the city centre.

Although an immediate need for space was apparent, this was poor long-term decision making based on reactive thinking, as ultimately out-of-town locations provided poor amenities and tenants started to miss the gradually returning town-centre amenities.

The need to instantly provide a solution meant that many new developments were poorly designed and didn’t meet long-term requirements – a direct result of knee-jerk action and thinking a “paradigm shift” was in place.

Over time, tenants overcame psychological trauma and aspired once more to taller, centrally located buildings that offered good views, proximity to amenities and sociability.

Given time, what originally compelled people to congregate in city-centre locations didn’t change. However, there was a flight to quality. An initial desire for the comfort of solid-looking buildings lent itself to the newly adopted structural buildings code and gave rise to more rigour and detail going into design.

The need for better, more interactive outdoor space was proved right in the small independent projects that arose in the city centre, such as small community gardens and interactive play areas.

Taking the long-term view

The buildings and developers that did well were those that took a long-term view of life returning to normal.

How does this compare with where we are currently in London and the UK? Yes, existing trends have accelerated, such as demand for more flexible work practices, new innovations and the adoption of technology, but do the new ideas being put forward have true longevity post-Covid 19?

For example, does the 15-minute city idea, which has been heavily publicised recently deprive us of the diversity that large cities have to offer?

Do we really want to exist in a bubble within a 15-minute walk of our house? Do we really want to work more at home, potentially eroding the pleasure we get from having a space that is removed from the workplace?

Ultimately, we must remember that while our psyche has been disrupted by this event, our underlying behavioural wants and needs haven’t changed.

In preparation for the Second World War in 1939, the British government came up with the much-replicated slogan ‘keep calm and carry on’.

It is a notion that I think we would do well to follow in the present day; as we learned in Christchurch in 2011, we must not rush into making ill-thought-out decisions that could have unintended negative long-term consequences.

Tim Ridd is co-founder of Fourfoursixsix