It seems clear that there is a current knee-jerk reaction (especially by Brownlie) to clear-fell the inner city and rebuild entirely in new buildings.
I would have thought that some consideration of what exact purpose the inner city is to perform in Christchurch for the future would be the first aspect to settle. No successful redesign can occur without some coherent vision and strategy. Why refill it with offices and retail? What purpose does that achieve?
Retail has very obviously and successfully relocated to the suburbs as parking and infrastructure have failed to cope in the inner city. there is no real reason why office blocks are needed in the inner city when decentralised buildings function just as well and perhaps more safely for the future.
Rather than complete it's transition to a cbd ghetto, perhaps this is a chance to create a more European style 'green heart' with a focus on recreation, tourism, apartment living and socialising for Christchurch. This would allow the use of lower buildings and less intense vertical population, again increasing safety.
While it would be wonderful to preserve the remaining heritage buildings, it is clear that a far higher standard of redevelopment will have to be employed and far more stringent oversight of any repair on surviving heritage buildings than has been the case in the past. It may be that the use of facades or recreating heritage fascias in modern materials will become necessary to achieve this.
As far as the redesign itself goes - I'd have to say that the only architect I'd be interested in having redesign the inner city would be the person/firm who designed the Art Gallery. Two major seismic events and it hasn't even cracked a plate on the glass wall as far as I'm aware. The company who constructed it are also to be acknowledged as outstanding.