Earthquake Red Tape

Demolition, Deconstruction, Repair, Rebuild

Sophie Taylor-Brown

Credit: Geof Wilson, 2011. Source: https://www.ceismic.org.nz/search/33693604/

In the wake of the Canterbury Earthquakes, the city of Christchurch was facing what looked like an insurmountable task which seemed more daunting each time an aftershock rolled through the region. Health and safety concerns dictated demolition in the CBD, while other deconstructions, repairs and rebuilds demanded attention from Port Hills to the northernmost suburb of Brooklands. Zones and cordons sprouted up everywhere, and lives were put on hold, placed in limbo, or restarted completely. Responsibility for all this fell to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, known by its acronym CERA. It was a government department, established to lead and coordinate the response and recovery efforts following 2010 and 2011. While they worked with the Christchurch City Council on matters concerning local policy, the authority to bring down the city fell to them. While they worked with the Christchurch City Council on matters concerning local policy, the authority to bring down the city fell to them. By October 2012, more than 1000 buildings had been demolished in the CBD, with a red zone of 387 hectares at its largest – over twice the size of Hagley Park. Finally, by June 2013, it became official: Christchurch was entering a period of reconstruction for the first time since February 2011. This came about a year after the city blueprint was released, the details of which can be found here, on pages C2 and C3. The largest deconstruction, however, was within what was known as the residential red zone. This area was situated around the eastern suburbs of the city and was comprised of 630 hectares.

Credit: The Press, Fairfax Media New Zealand. Source: https://quakestudies.canterbury.ac.nz/store/object/222288

This page will look at some of the processes, policies, opinions and decisions behind the earthquake response, to further enable a broader understanding of how and why it happened the way it did.

Resources

  • The New Zealand Herald 13 September 2010 | "Owners can try to fight demolition rulings." - This article from the New Zealand Herald, published just over a week after the 7.4 magnitude quakes, describes how owners were able to contest the rulings made on their buildings. It also describes in brief detail the certain costs surrounding potential repairs if buildings were to be saved rather than demolished. At the end of the article, a list containing the number of quake-prone buildings is provided, sourced from the Christchurch City Council
  • 'Think of people not buildings' - CHCH property owner | RNZ - This 3-minute audio recording from RNZ from 14 September 2010, depicts the other side of the demolition argument from the 2010 earthquake. It is an interview with a local building owner, whose building has “nothing left to save” but is being held up by new consent processes that the City Council installed to enable help for heritage damaged buildings. Mayor Bob Parker stated at the time that “restoration efforts will have to be prioritised.”
  • Quake hit building owners given three month deadline to repair | RNZ - In this RNZ report from 26 October 2010, a new City Council response is described as an ultimatum. Building owners were given a deadline of January 31st to repair or demolish, otherwise the council would step in, do the work, and send owners the bill. Those in disagreement with the process say that other factors have not and need to be taken into account, as the unrealistic nature of the deadline only adds more stress to those involved.
  • Establishment of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority - This small media release that was published on the now archived site, cera.govt.nz, marked the creation of CERA, the new sole authority behind the coordination of Canterbury’s recovery. Another announcement was made on 29 March, described the inception, purpose and intentions of CERA in more detail. It contains information about the structure of CERA, and how it intended to carry out the work, with particular emphasis on the public being able to have confidence that CERA would always be acting appropriately.
  • Demolitions | Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority - This page from the (now archived) CERA website contains all the information related to the Christchurch post-quake response. It includes a demolitions list, notes on specific demolition process, and other information pertinent to the policies and activities of the time.
  • CERA land zoning policy and the residential red zone | UC QuakeStudies  - This report from 2016, published by CERA, gives all the details of the land zoning policy response that occurred after the earthquakes in 2011. It describes the policy, where and how it was implemented, and the options provided for residents within the designated red zones. It also acknowledges the challenges that arose from it, including the legal challenges and court cases.
  • Christchurch Press 30 March 2011: Section A, Page 1 | "Five years under new rule." - This issue of The Press discusses the creation of CERA and the initial response to it. Page 1 contains an infographic of the structure and powers of CERA as it was at the time. Page 2 describes some initial responses to the Authority, some already concerned about the potential lack of “local involvement” and government control. On the other hand, there is also cautious optimism, as the community forum established within CERA was seen as a way for the community to be part of the process, to ensure “local interests were met”. Further opinion is provided on page 22.
  • Christchurch Press 4 July 2011: Section A, Page 5 (South Island Edition) | "Owner clashes with Cera over building demolition." - This article from The Press is an example of the issues that building owners were faced with after the earthquakes. Communication problems, lack of assurances and “hefty bills” all led to distressing experiences with CERA, as well as the loss of personal property. These include not just the building itself, but belongings within. 
  • The Star 20 August 2011 (Page 1 & 3) | "Insurance woes slow recovery." - Incompatible policies and processes were a serious hindrance to the earthquake recovery, as this article from The Star reports. Questions have been raised about where responsibility falls for earthquake payout, as insurance companies butt heads with the Earthquake Commission. The continuing aftershocks were also a contributing factor to the delay, creating even more hoops to jump through.
  • Christchurch Press 24 August 2011: Section A, Page 19 | "Unlucky, but please don't toss us aside." - This article, written by resident Leeann Apps, describes the realities of living in a disaster zone: the broken condition of the houses and the land around them, the lack of resources like power and water, and the always looming battle of the powers that be. Apps writes the article as a call for recognition, so that the country would no longer misunderstand such a complex time.
  • Christchurch Press 20 December 2011: Section B, Page 2 | "Skilled work as buildings are reduced to rubble." - In December of 2011, The Press published this article on the demolition companies working in the city. It contains short details on certain demolition companies, which in turn provide insight into the nature and difficulties of the jobs they were tasked with. Recycling and salvaging were also part of many companies' processes, especially when it came to heritage features and quality building materials.
  • Red Zone hold outs want answers from the Government | RNZ - On the second anniversary of the February quake, this RNZ interview focusses on homeowners from the residential red zone who chose not to take the voluntary government buy out of land. For some, continuing to live in the red zone was preferable to the reality of huge losses of money. Others felt pressure to leave a house that was structurally safe, and economically viable, all because of the area where it was situated.
  • Christchurch people gather to protest earthquake response | RNZ - A general sense of dissatisfaction is evident in this report from RNZ broadcasted over a year after the February earthquake. Residents were unhappy at the overall lack of essential assistance such as communication, leadership, and democracy. Local and central government responses were disputed, including those related to planned rates rising, land zoning, and insurance decisions.
  • Delays rebuilding quake damaged homes four years on | RNZ - Insurance delays and EQC complications were still a common occurrence for homeowners 4 years on from the February quake. For residents still living in quake damaged homes, it wasn’t an enjoyable time; active limbos between the two entities only served to delay things further, leaving some people in the dark about who would be repairing their homes.
  • Christchurch business waits years for neighbours to be fixed | RNZ - This RNZ interview from 28 November 2016 shows another side of the demolition process and its effect on business owners.  A local business owner describes the “soul destroying” reality of what has been happening since 2011. Being surrounded by damaged buildings puts a safe building in limbo, when there is no news about planned repairs or possible demolition.

Credit: Kiwi Jono, 2010. Source: https://www.ceismic.org.nz/search/33695975/

General Searches:

For more information on the Canterbury Earthquakes, search the CEISMIC collection or get started with one of the links below:

  • For a general search on everything to do with the earthquake response, click here.
  • To view the articles from the Christchurch Press, which contain extensive reports detailing the Canterbury Earthquake click here.
  • For a more detailed search containing the keywords, demolition, deconstruction, repair, rebuild, click here.

...