Encuestas aplicadas a los usuarios del Gobierno Parroquial de Santa

The term reclamation is used to describe “the winning of dry land from large water bodies such as the sea, lakes, rivers, estuaries and wetlands of different kinds” and may be distinguished from the process associated with the recovery of degraded land such as found on the margins of deserts or former industrial sites. This description is provided by Brian Hudson, who also introduces the concept of the urban littoral frontier, “the expansion of development into areas formerly permanently or periodically under water.”4 In Napier, reclamations were generally of lagoons, swamps and mudflats rather than the open sea. The original terrain before any significant reclamation activity is illustrated in Figure 1.2 (Chapter 1).

The traditional view of reclamation in urban areas is that this activity occurs only in a limited number of places, and is relatively unusual. Hudson contends that this process is

79

more common than generally realised, and “far from being a phenomenon which occurs only in special circumstances, is a normal process of city expansion.”5 He adds that reclamation to some extent has played a part in the urban development of most cities built alongside water, whether sea, estuary or lake. Examples of cities where reclamation has been important include Venice, Boston, San Francisco and Hong Kong, and London in relation to its Thames shoreline. Even reclamations of a very small size might have their significance greatly magnified by the value of additional land provided or the environmental impacts created.6

In New Zealand, reclamation works have been part of the development of some coastal towns and cities. Outside Napier, the most extensive works have been in Auckland, Wellington and Dunedin, where a long history of reclamation begins with early settlement and continues into recent times. The original shorelines of these cities bear little resemblance to what can be seen today. The first town plans for both Auckland and Dunedin envisaged that some reclamation might take place. The reclamations undertaken in these three cities have been piecemeal and evolutionary, rather than part of a single overall plan. While port activity has featured in many reclamation schemes in these cities, the reclaimed land has been used for other purposes, especially for commercial activities and transportation. In earlier days, wharves, warehouses and railways were typical uses, but in more recent times, reclaimed land has been used to store shipping containers and other commodities, as well as to provide roads and sometimes recreation facilities.7 Earthquakes have also affected or facilitated reclamation activity, with land in Wellington and in Napier being raised by major earthquakes in 1855 and 1931 respectively.8 There also appears to have been a strong desire for reclamation in these New Zealand cities, rather than searching for more suitable town sites elsewhere or promoting the establishment of satellite towns. In brief, those involved in building the larger New Zealand towns were prepared to remake or reshape the land through reclamation where necessary to facilitate urban growth. In other New Zealand towns, reclamations have generally been associated with harbour works, the most striking reclamation being the creation of an island harbour at Bluff, completed in 1960 and providing berthage for local and overseas shipping.9 Earlier reclamation projects of particular interest include the Taupo Quay reclamation in Wanganui from 1878 to 188110 and the reclamation of land near Invercargill that was eventually used for agricultural purposes and an aerodrome.11 A

port was also proposed for Invercargill at the New River estuary, but was not successfully established.12

The processes for planning and approving reclamations in New Zealand have changed over the years. Early reclamations were sometimes approved by local legislation that had the effect of vesting the land in a public authority, but until the 1970s little consideration was given to assessing environmental effects. In any case, in Napier reclamations were seen as a sign of progress and development, and not as an activity that had adverse consequences for nearby residents or the community generally. For minor reclamations, formal approval was sometimes overlooked or not sought. Reclamations were governed by the Harbours Act 1950 and earlier legislation. These statutory provisions generally required smaller reclamations to be authorised by an Order in Council, with a Local Act of Parliament being required for larger reclamations.13 Napier reclamations were generally authorised by local legislation that specifically vested this function with the Napier Harbour Board or Borough Council.

David Pinder and Michael Witherick have suggested a typology for urban wetland reclamation that can also be applied to the reclamation of seawater and lagoon areas.14 They identify three types of reclamation, derived from a comparison of land uses on the original and the reclaimed land. Expansion reclamations are those where existing activities need more space, and those activities have simply expanded or extended onto the adjacent reclaimed land. Examples include Tokyo and San Francisco. Clean-break reclamations are those where the new land is used for quite different purposes, such as for highways, airports or other infrastructure projects. Remedial reclamations are those that are designed to address a major environmental or urban problem, such as a new road being located offshore to alleviate congestion.15 The Napier reclamations were principally for expansion, with a view to providing more land for urban growth and housing for the town’s growing population. But several of the reclamations also had a remedial aspect, there being a desire to improve community health through better disposal of sewage, and to minimize the risk of further floods. The health aspect was particularly important in the 19th century when there was a real concern about the unhealthy condition of the swamps.

In contrast to the functional definition devised by Pinder and Witherick, Hudson suggests a classification based on motivation.16 This has the advantage of providing greater insight

81

into the objectives underlying particular reclamations. First, the purpose of reclamation might be for the disposal of waste material, which includes not just domestic refuse, but debris, dredgings and industrial waste. Second, the purpose may be to provide space for urban development. Third, the purpose may be to develop port facilities for wharves and other port amenities. Fourth, reclamation might be motivated as a public health measure, as polluted areas have in the past sometimes been regarded as unhealthy.17 All of these purposes are planning concerns, the overriding objective being to create a better living environment. In Napier the principal reason for reclamation has been to promote more space for urban development, or, later in the case of the post-earthquake Ahuriri Lagoon project, more land that could be used for agriculture. Some reclamation activity was intended to improve port facilities, while the Ahuriri Lagoon project provided land that could later be used as an airport, although that was not contemplated when plans were first produced for this reclamation. Most early Napier reclamations, in providing space for urban development, were also pursued simultaneously as a public health measure, there being a belief that the swamps at the edge of the town were responsible for illness and death. After the earthquake, reclamation also was useful for the disposal of rubble, in particular the expansion of the Marine Parade area towards the sea, discussed in Chapter 7.

Hudson has also proposed a model for urban reclamation that explains the direction and sequence of reclamation developments for an existing city. In this model, reclamation proceeds in stages, the resulting pattern and order of development being dependent on whether the city is on a straight coast, an embayed coast, or on an estuary. In the estuary situation, for example, reclamation development usually begins upstream near the city, and then moves downstream where water is likely to be deeper and reclamations larger.18 The reality is that those reclamations that are smaller, less expensive, technically easier to carry out, and located closer to an urban centre will usually be completed first. This is consistent with Hudson’s model. For Napier, the estuarine variation of that model is relevant, given that all pre-earthquake reclamations were carried out in an estuary or an inlet, rather than in open water. As time passed, reclamations in Napier became more ambitious. Napier South, of about 300 acres, was the largest project before the earthquake. The water and swamp of the Whare-o-Maraenui reserve, as it was known at the time and part of which became Napier South, was quite suitable for reclamation because the water was shallow and mainly stationary.19 Like Napier South, the later Ahuriri Lagoon reclamation also follows the estuarine model. The Ahuriri Lagoon reclamation, of about 7,500 acres, was to

become the largest reclamation in the area.20 While the Hudson model does to some extent present a morphological explanation for reclamation activity, it also presents some logic for project planning in making decisions about the location of possible reclamation projects and the sequence in which projects are undertaken. Much of the debate in Napier was about the choice of reclamation sites and the timing of reclamation projects. The general pattern in Napier was that smaller and easier reclamations were planned and completed first.

Reclamation can also be considered within the broader historical framework developed by Eric Pawson. He sees the history of New Zealand urban places as being about towns that were “on the edge.” In particular, there were three ways in which towns might be regarded as being on the edge. First, there was the progressive town, “built boldly on the edge of wilderness.” These typically were towns that were determined to grow or promote themselves to the outside world. Napier is mentioned as an example for its positive response to the 1931 earthquake and also for the more recent rediscovery of its Art Deco architecture in the 1980s. Second, there was the vulnerable town, “placed unwittingly on the edge of unpredictable nature.” Floods are discussed in some detail, and other hazards such as earthquakes and fogs are referred to, although Pawson does not specifically mention Napier in this context. Third, there were suburbs, built “in search of environmental amenity on the edge of town.” Particular reference is made to the outskirt suburbs of Auckland, Wellington and Dunedin. Pawson concludes his discussion with a brief study of Timaru, a seaside and port town that, he considers, combines all three of these themes. He also mentions how a breakwater, constructed to help trade, resulted in the unexpected formation of a golden beach at nearby Caroline Bay, but has also caused problems elsewhere because other beaches have been starved of gravel.21