A photograph of volunteers creating a garden area on Colombo Street.
A photograph of a garden area on Colombo Street.
None
None
None
A photograph of volunteers creating a beach garden in New Brighton.
A photograph of volunteers at a beach garden in New Brighton.
A photograph of volunteers creating a garden area on Colombo Street.
A photograph of a garden area and coffee kiosk on Colombo Street.
A photograph of volunteers creating a garden area on Colombo Street.
A photograph of a garden area and coffee kiosk on Colombo Street.
The community centre in my old neighbourhood. Now it's an empty lot.
The community centre in my old neighbourhood. Now it's an empty lot.
In 2016, the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 was introduced to address the issue of seismic vulnerability amongst existing buildings in Aotearoa New Zealand. This Act introduced a mandatory scheme to remediate buildings deemed particularly vulnerable to seismic hazard, as recommended by the 2012 Royal Commission into the Canterbury earthquake sequence of 2010–2011. This Earthquake-prone Building (EPB) framework is unusual internationally for the mandatory obligations that it introduces. This article explores and critiques the operation of the scheme in practice through an examination of its implementation provisions and the experiences of more recent seismic events (confirmed by engineering research). This analysis leads to the conclusion that the operation of the current scheme and particularly the application of the concept of EPB vulnerability excludes large numbers of (primarily urban) buildings which pose a significant risk in the event of a significant (but expected) seismic event. As a result, the EPB scheme fails to achieve its goals and instead may create a false impression that it does so
On 22 February 2011, the second day of the first semester, a devastating magnitude 6.2 earthquake struck the city of Christchurch forcing the campus of the University of Canterbury to close for several weeks. Here, we report on the sudden curriculum and assessment overhaul that needed to be implemented using two large, first-year introductory courses as case studies. We discuss the reasoning and justifications behind these changes, as well as the logistics of this process. We draw conclusions based on student feedback and assessments and formulate lessons learnt.
A photograph of a garden area on the former site of Piko Wholefoods.
A photograph of volunteers with the clock for the Rotherham Clock Park.
A photograph of a garden area and coffee kiosk on Colombo Street.
A photograph of a garden area and coffee kiosk on Colombo Street.
A photograph of a garden area on the former site of Piko Wholefoods.
A photograph of the Fitzgerald Avenue Community Garden.
A photograph of the Fitzgerald Avenue Community Garden.
A photograph of volunteers creating the Outdoor Music Room.
A photograph of a garden area on the former site of Piko Wholefoods.
A photograph of a snow sculpture in the Coffee Zone mini-park on Colombo Street.
A photograph of a band performing at the Outdoor Music Room.
A photograph of volunteers creating a garden area on the former site of Piko Wholefoods.
A photograph of volunteers at the Fitzgerald Avenue Community Garden.
A photograph of a truck delivering soil for a beach garden in New Brighton.
A photograph of volunteers creating a garden area on the former site of Piko Wholefoods.