A large number of businesses that used to be in the centre of Christchurch relocated after the earthquakes. Are they satisfied with their new locations and do they intend to return to the central city? We questioned 209 relocated businesses about their relocation history, present circumstances and future intentions. Many businesses were content with their new premises, despite having encountered a range of problems; those businesses that were questioned later in our survey period were more content. The average business in our sample rated the chances of moving back to the central city as around 50 %, but this varies with the type of business. Building height did not emerge as a major issue, but rents may be. The mix of types of business is likely to be different in the new city centre.
The city of Christchurch and its surrounds experienced widespread damage due to soil liquefaction induced by seismic shaking during the Canterbury earthquake sequence that began in September 2010 with the Mw7.1 Darfield earthquake. Prior to the start of this sequence, the city had a large network of strong motion stations (SMSs) installed, which were able to record a vast database of strong ground motions. This paper uses this database of strong ground motion recordings, observations of liquefaction manifestation at the ground surface, and data from a recently completed extensive geotechnical site investigation program at each SMS to assess a range of liquefaction evaluation procedures at the four SMSs in the Christchurch Central Business District (CBD). In general, the characteristics of the accelerograms recorded at each SMS correlated well with the liquefaction evaluation procedures, with low liquefaction factors of safety predicted at sites with clear liquefaction identifiers in the ground motions. However, at sites that likely liquefied at depth (as indicated by evaluation procedures and/or inferred from the characteristics of the recorded surface accelerograms), the presence of a non-liquefiable crust layer at many of the SMS locations prevented the manifestation of any surface effects. Because of this, there was not a good correlation between surface manifestation and two surface manifestation indices, the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) and the Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN).
