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.
We’ll never know why the thirteen people whose corpses were discovered in Pompeii’s Garden of the Fugitives hadn’t fled the city with the majority of the population when Vesuvius turned deadly in AD79. But surely, thanks to 21st century technology, we know just about everything there is to know about the experiences of the people who went through the Canterbury Earthquakes. Or has the ubiquity of digital technology, combined with seemingly massive online information flows and archives, created a false sense that Canterbury’s earthquake stories, images and media are being secured for posterity? In this paper Paul Millar makes reference to issues experienced while creating the CEISMIC Canterbury Earthquakes Digital Archive (www.ceismic.org.nz) to argue that rather than having preserved all the information needed to fully inform recovery, the record of the Canterbury earthquakes’ impacts, and the subsequent response, is incomplete and unrepresentative. While CEISMIC has collected and curated over a quarter of a million earthquake-related items, Millar is deeply concerned about the material being lost. Like Pompeii, this disaster has its nameless, faceless, silenced victims; people whose stories must be heard, and whose issues must be addressed, if recovery is to be meaningful.
The UC CEISMIC Canterbury Earthquakes Digital Archive was built following the devastating earthquakes that hit the Canterbury region in the South Island of New Zealand from 2010 – 2012. 185 people were killed in the 6.3 magnitude earthquake of February 22nd 2011, thousands of homes and businesses were destroyed, and the local community endured over 10,000 aftershocks. The program aims to document and protect the social, cultural, and intellectual legacy of the Canterbury community for the purposes of memorialization and enabling research. The nationally federated archive currently stores 75,000 items, ranging from audio and video interviews to images and official reports. Tens of thousands more items await ingestion. Significant lessons have been learned about data integration in post-disaster contexts, including but not limited to technical architecture, governance, ingestion process, and human ethics. The archive represents a model for future resilience-oriented data integration and preservation products.
Spatial variations in river facies exerted a strong influence on the distribution of liquefaction features observed in Christchurch during the 2010-11 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES). Liquefaction and liquefaction-induced ground deformation was primarily concentrated near modern waterways and areas underlain by Holocene fluvial deposits with shallow water tables (< 1 to 2 m). In southern Christchurch, spatial variations of liquefaction and subsidence were documented in the suburbs within inner meander loops of the Heathcote River. Newly acquired geospatial data, geotechnical reports and eye-witness discussions are compiled to provide a detailed account of the surficial effects of CES liquefaction and ground deformation adjacent to the Heathcote River. LiDAR data and aerial photography are used to produce a new series of original figures which reveal the locations of recurrent liquefaction and subsidence. To investigate why variable liquefaction patterns occurred, the distribution of surface ejecta and associated ground damage is compared with near-surface sedimentologic, topographic, and geomorphic variability to seek relationships between the near-surface properties and observed ground damages. The most severe liquefaction was concentrated within a topographic low in the suburb of St Martins, an inner meander loop of the Heathcote River, with liquefaction only minor or absent in the surrounding areas. Subsurface investigations at two sites in St Martins enable documentation of fluvial stratigraphy, the expressions of liquefaction, and identification of pre-CES liquefaction features. Excavation to water table depths (~1.5 m below the surface) across sand boils reveals multiple generations of CES liquefaction dikes and sills that cross-cut Holocene fluvial and anthropogenic stratigraphy. Based on in situ geotechnical tests (CPT) indicating sediment with a factor of safety < 1, the majority of surface ejecta was sourced from well-sorted fine to medium sand at < 5 m depth, with the most damaging liquefaction corresponding with the location of a low-lying sandy paleochannel, a remnant river channel from the Holocene migration of the meander in St Martins. In the adjacent suburb of Beckenham, where migration of the Heathcote River has been laterally confined by topography associated with the volcanic lithologies of Banks Peninsula, severe liquefaction was absent with only minor sand boils occurring closest to the modern river channel. Auger sampling across the suburb revealed thick (>1 m) clay-rich overbank and back swamp sediments that produced a stratigraphy which likely confined the units susceptible to liquefaction and prevented widespread ejection of liquefied material. This analysis suggests river migration promotes the formation and preservation of fluvial deposits prone to liquefaction. Trenching revealed the strongest CES earthquakes with large vertical accelerations favoured sill formation and severe subsidence at highly susceptible locations corresponding with an abandoned channel. Less vulnerable sites containing deeper and thinner sand bodies only liquefied in the strongest and most proximal earthquakes forming minor localised liquefaction features. Liquefaction was less prominent and severe subsidence was absent where lateral confinement of a Heathcote meander has promoted the formation of fluvial stratum resistant to liquefaction. Correlating CES liquefaction with geomorphic interpretations of Christchurch’s Heathcote River highlights methods in which the performance of liquefaction susceptibility models can be improved. These include developing a reliable proxy for estimating soil conditions in meandering fluvial systems by interpreting the geology and geomorphology, derived from LiDAR data and modern river morphology, to improve the methods of accounting for the susceptibility of an area. Combining geomorphic interpretations with geotechnical data can be applied elsewhere to identify regional liquefaction susceptibilities, improve existing liquefaction susceptibility datasets, and predict future earthquake damage.
The Lake Coleridge Rock Avalanche Deposits (LCRADs) are located on Ryton Station in the middle Rakaia Valley, approximately 80 km west of Christchurch. Torlesse Supergroup greywacke is the basement material and has been significantly influenced by both active tectonics and glaciation. Both glacial and post-glacial processes have produced large volumes of material which blanket the bedrock on slopes and in the valley floors. The LCRADs were part of a regional study of rock avalanches by WHITEHOUSE (1981, 1983) and WHITEHOUSE and GRIFFITHS (1983), and a single rock avalanche event was recognised with a weathering rind age of 120 years B.P. that was later modified to 150 ± 40 years B.P. The present study has refined details of both the age and the sequence of events at the site, by identifying three separate rock avalanche deposits (termed the LCRA1, LCRA2 and LCRA3 deposits), which are all sourced from near the summit of Carriage Drive. The LCRA1 deposit is lobate in shape and had an estimated original deposit volume of 12.5 x 10⁶ m³, although erosion by the Ryton River has reduced the present day debris volume to 5.1 x 10⁶ m³. An optically stimulated luminescence date taken from sandy loess immediately beneath the LCRA1 deposit provided a maximum age for the rock avalanche event of 9,720 ± 750 years B.P., which is believed to be realistic given that this is shortly after the retreat of Acheron 3 ice from this part of the valley. Emplacement of rock avalanche material into an ancestral Ryton riverbed created a natural dam with a ~17 M m³ lake upstream. The river is thought to have created a natural spillway over the dam structure at ~557 m (a.s.l), and to have existed for a number of years before any significant downcutting occurred. Although a triggering mechanism for the LCRA1 deposit was poorly constrained, it is thought that stress rebound after glacial ice removal may have initiated failure. Due to the event occurring c.10,000 years ago, there was a lack of definition for a possible earthquake trigger, though the possibility is obvious. The LCRA₂ event had an original deposit volume of 0.66 x 10⁶ m³, and was constrained to the low-lying area adjacent to the Ryton River that had been created by river erosion of the LCRA1 deposit. Further erosion by the Ryton River has reduced the deposit volume to 0.4 x 10⁶ m³. A radiocarbon date from a piece of mānuka found within the LCRA2 deposit provided an age of 668 ± 36 years B.P., and this is thought to reliably date the event. The LCRA2 event also dammed the Ryton River, and the preservation of dam-break outwash terraces downstream from the deposit provides clear evidence of rapid dam erosion and flooding after overtopping, and breaching by the Ryton River. Based on the mean annual flow of the Ryton River, the LCRA2 lake would have taken approximately two weeks to fill assuming that there were no preferred breach paths and the material was relatively impermeable. The LCRA2 event is thought to have been coseismic with a fault rupture along the western segment of the PPAFZ, which has been dated at 600 ± 100 years B.P. by SMITH (2003). The small LCRA3 event was not able to be dated, but it is believed to have failed shortly after the LCRA2 event and it may in fact be a lag deposit of the second rock avalanche event possibly triggered by an aftershock. The deposit is only visible at one locality within the cliffs that line the Ryton River, and its lack of geomorphic expression is attributed to it occurring closely after the LCRA2 event, while the Ryton River was still dammed from the second rock avalanche event. A wedge-block of some 35,000 m³ of source material for a future rock avalanche was identified at the summit of Carriage Drive. The dilation of the rock mass, combined with unfavourably oriented sub-vertical bedding in the Torlesse Supergroup bedrock, has allowed toppling-style failure on both of the main ridge lines around the source area for the LCRADs. In the event of a future rock avalanche occurring within the Ryton riverbed an emergency response plan has been developed to provide a staged response, especially in relation to the camping ground located at the mouth of the Ryton River. A long-term management plan has also been developed for mitigation measures for the Ryton riverbed and adjacent floodplain areas downstream of a future rock avalanche at the LCRAD site.
