The Darfield earthquake caused widespread damage in the Canterbury region of New Zealand, with the majority of damage resulting from liquefaction and lateral spreading. One of the worst hit locations was the small town of Kaiapoi north of Christchurch, an area that has experienced liquefaction during past events and has been identified as highly susceptible to liquefaction. The low lying town sits on the banks of the Kaiapoi River, once a branch of the Waimakariri, a large braided river transporting gravelly sediment. The Waimakariri has been extensively modified both by natural and human processes, consequently many areas in and around the town were once former river channels.
Background and methodology The Mw 7.8, 14th November 2016 earthquake centred (item b, figure 1) in the Hurunui District of the South Island, New Zealand, damaged critical infrastructure across North Canterbury and Marlborough. We investigate the impacts to infrastructure and adaptations to the resulting service disruption in four small rural towns (figure 1): Culverden (a), Waiau (c), Ward (d) and Seddon (e). This is accomplished though literary research, interviews and geospatial analysis. Illustrating our methods, we have displayed here a Hurunui District hazard map (figure 2b) and select infrastructure inventories (figures 2a, 3).
In the wake of the Canterbury earthquakes, one of the biggest threats to our heritage buildings is the risk of earthquakes and the associated drive to strengthen or demolish buildings. Can Small Town NZ balance the requirements of the EQPB legislation and economic realities of their places? The government’s priority is on safety of building occupants and citizens in the streets. However, maintaining and strengthening privately-owned heritage buildings is often cost prohibitive. Hence, heritage regulation has frequently been perceived as interfering with private property rights, especially when heritage buildings occupy a special place in the community becoming an important place for people (i.e. public benefits are larger than private). We investigate several case studies where building owners have been given green light to demolish heritage listed buildings to make way for modern developments. In two of the case studies developers provided evidence of unaffordable strengthening costs. A new trend that has emerged is a voluntary offer of contributing to an incentive fund to assist with heritage preservation of other buildings. This is a unique example where private owners offer incentives (via council controlled organisations) instead of it being purely the domain of the central or local governments.
he 2016 Building (Earthquake Prone Building) Amendment Act aims to improve the system for managing earthquake-prone buildings. The proposed changes to the Act were precipitated by the Canterbury earthquakes, and the need to improve the seismic safety of New Zealand’s building stock. However, the Act has significant ramifications for territorial authorities, organisations and individuals in small New Zealand towns, since assessing and repairing heritage buildings poses a major cost to districts with low populations and poor rental returns on commercial buildings.
This dissertation explores the advocacy for the Christchurch Town Hall that occurred in 2012-2015 after the Canterbury Earthquakes. It frames this advocacy as an instance of collective-action community participation in a heritage decision, and explores the types of heritage values it expressed, particularly social values. The analysis contextualises the advocacy in post-quake Christchurch, and considers its relationship with other developments in local politics, heritage advocacy, and urban activism. In doing so, this dissertation considers how collective action operates as a form of public participation, and the practical implications for understanding and recognising social value. This research draws on studies of practices that underpin social value recognition in formal heritage management. Social value is held by communities outside institutions. Engaging with communities enables institutions to explore the values of specific places, and to realise the potential of activating local connections with heritage places. Such projects can be seen as participatory practices. However, these processes require skills and resources, and may not be appropriate for all places, communities and institutions. However, literature has understudied collective action as a form of community participation in heritage management. All participation processes have nuances of communities, processes, and context, and this dissertation analyses these in one case. The research specifically asked what heritage values (especially social values) were expressed through collective action, what the relationship was with the participation processes, communities, and wider situation that produced them, and the impact on institutional rhetoric and decisions. The research analysed values expressed in representations made to council in support of the Town Hall. It also used documentary sources and interviews with key informants to analyse the advocacy and decision-making processes and their relationships with the wider context and other grassroots activities. The analysis concluded that the values expressed intertwined social and professional values. They were related to the communities and circumstance that produced them, as an advocacy campaign for a civic heritage building from a Western architectural tradition. The advocacy value arguments were one of several factors that impacted the decision. They have had a lasting impact on rhetoric around the Town Hall, as was a heritage-making practice in its own right. This dissertation makes a number of contributions to the discussion of social value and community in heritage. It suggests connections between advocacy and participation perspectives in heritage. It recommends consideration of nuances of communities, context, and place meanings when using heritage advocacy campaigns as evidence of social value. It adds to the literature on heritage advocacy, and offers a focused analysis of one of many heritage debates that occurred in post-quake Christchurch. Ultimately, it encourages practice to actively integrate social and community values and to develop self-reflexive engagement and valuation processes. Despite inherent challenges, participatory processes offer opportunities to diversify understandings of value, co-produce heritage meanings with communities, and empower citizens in democratic processes around the places they live with and love.
The M7.1 Darfield earthquake shook the town of Christchurch (New Zealand) in the early morning on Saturday 4th September 2010 and caused damage to a number of heritage unreinforced masonry buildings. No fatalities were reported directly linked to the earthquake, but the damage to important heritage buildings was the most extensive to have occurred since the 1931 Hawke‟s Bay earthquake. In general, the nature of damage was consistent with observations previously made on the seismic performance of unreinforced masonry buildings in large earthquakes, with aspects such as toppled chimneys and parapets, failure of gables and poorly secured face-loaded walls, and in-plane damage to masonry frames all being extensively documented. This report on the performance of the unreinforced masonry buildings in the 2010 Darfield earthquake provides details on typical building characteristics, a review of damage statistics obtained by interrogating the building assessment database that was compiled in association with post-earthquake building inspections, and a review of the characteristic failure modes that were observed.
In the early morning of 4th September 2010 the region of Canterbury, New Zealand, was subjected to a magnitude 7.1 earthquake. The epicentre was located near the town of Darfield, 40 km west of the city of Christchurch. This was the country’s most damaging earthquake since the 1931 Hawke’s Bay earthquake (GeoNet, 2010). Since 4th September 2010 the region has been subjected to thousands of aftershocks, including several more damaging events such as a magnitude 6.3 aftershock on 22nd February 2011. Although of a smaller magnitude, the earthquake on 22nd February produced peak ground accelerations in the Christchurch region three times greater than the 4th September earthquake and in some cases shaking intensities greater than twice the design level (GeoNet, 2011; IPENZ, 2011). While in September 2010 most earthquake shaking damage was limited to unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, in February all types of buildings sustained damage. Temporary shoring and strengthening techniques applied to buildings following the Darfield earthquake were tested in February 2011. In addition, two large aftershocks occurred on 13th June 2011 (magnitudes 5.7 and 6.2), further damaging many already weakened structures. The damage to unreinforced and retrofitted clay brick masonry buildings in the 4th September 2010 Darfield earthquake has already been reported by Ingham and Griffith (2011) and Dizhur et al. (2010b). A brief review of damage from the 22nd February 2011 earthquake is presented here
The objective of the study presented herein is to assess three commonly used CPT-based liquefaction evaluation procedures and three liquefaction severity index frameworks using data from the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Specifically, post-event field observations, ground motion recordings, and results from a recently completed extensive geotechnical site investigation programme at selected strong motion stations (SMSs) in the city of Christchurch and surrounding towns are used herein. Unlike similar studies that used data from free-field sites, accelerogram characteristics at the SMS locations can be used to assess the performance of liquefaction evaluation procedures prior to their use in the computation of surficial manifestation severity indices. Results from this study indicate that for cases with evidence of liquefaction triggering in the accelerograms, the majority of liquefaction evaluation procedures yielded correct predictions, regardless of whether surficial manifestation of liquefaction was evident or not. For cases with no evidence of liquefaction in the accelerograms (and no observed surficial evidence of liquefaction triggering), the majority of liquefaction evaluation procedures predicted liquefaction was triggered. When all cases are used to assess the performance of liquefaction severity index frameworks, a poor correlation is shown between the observed severity of liquefaction surface manifestation and the calculated severity indices. However, only using those cases where the liquefaction evaluation procedures yielded correct predictions, there is an improvement in the correlation, with the Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN) being the best performing of the frameworks investigated herein. However scatter in the relationship between the observed and calculated surficial manifestation still remains for all liquefaction severity index frameworks.
