The quality of multi-owned residential buildings and the capability to maintain that quality into the future is important in preserving not only the monetary value of such housing (Lujanen, 2010) but also the quality of life for its residents. The aim of this paper is to examine the governance and decision-making rules and regulations as they relate to the undertaking of major repairs in multi-owned residential buildings in Finland and New Zealand with particular regard to the Finnish Limited Liability Housing Companies Act 2010 (LLHCA 2010) and the New Zealand Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA 2010). Currently, major building repairs are topical issues in both countries; in Finland as a result of ageing buildings requiring major re-fitting of pipes and other infrastructure, and in New Zealand as a result of earthquake damage in Christchurch and Leaky Building Syndrome nationwide. Major repairs can be a significant financial burden to unit owners and collective decisions can be difficult to achieve. Interestingly, new legislation that governs multi-owned housing was enacted in both countries in 2010. The recent enactment of this legislation provides an opportunity to examine the UTA 2010 and LLHCA 2010 with regard to how they address major repairs, improvements in housing stock and the financing possibilities associated with these undertakings. More specifically this paper explores housing intensification (i.e. building up, out or alongside existing multi-owned residential buildings on commonly owned land) as a means of financing major repairs. The comparison of governance and decision-making in two different shared ownership systems with different histories and cultural contexts provides a chance to explore the possibilities and challenges that each country faces, and the potential to learn from each other’s practices and develop these further. In this regard the findings from this paper contribute to the academic literature (Bugden 2005; Easthope & Randolph 2009; Dupuis & Dixon 2010; Lujanen 2010; Easthope, Hudson & Randolph 2013) concerning to the governance of multi-owned housing as it relates to intensive housing development and its wider social and economic implications.
A video of a protest against the demolition of the Majestic Theatre on Manchester Street. The video includes an interview with Christchurch City Councillor Yani Johanson. Johanson talks about how the lack of heritage recovery programme in Christchurch has meant that many heritage buildings have destroyed, mainly through the fast-tracking of consenting by the government. Johanson asks that the government returns normal democratic decision making over heritage to the Christchurch City Council so that the public can have a say. The video also includes footage of the Wizard and a protester speaking outside the Majestic Theatre.
TE URUROA FLAVELL to the Minister of Conservation: Does he agree with Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, that joint decision-making with the Minister for Energy and Resources on mining the conservation estate undermines the role of the Minister of Conservation as guardian of that estate, and how will he respond to her advice to Parliament that conservation should take precedence?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "for most New Zealanders an indicator of how well the economy is doing is whether or not they can keep up with the cost of living"; if so, is he satisfied that they currently can?
Hon TAU HENARE to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on inequality in New Zealand, and how do recent changes in trends compare to other countries?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with BERL that "outside of dairy and forestry, export receipts have effectively flatlined since April 2009" and that "The risks inherent in such a narrowing of our export base should be of concern to all"; if not, why not?
Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What announcements has he made about the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training initiative?
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's decisions?
PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Housing: What progress has he made with local government in securing Housing Accords under the legislation passed last year, and how are they increasing the supply and affordability of housing?
Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What was the original forecast cost for Health Benefits Limited and what is the revised forecast cost now, if any?
MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on the Government's $359 million investment to raise student achievement?
Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: How much has the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority spent on legal fees in the last 3 years?
DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister of Transport: When will the Government provide a comprehensive and integrated land transport plan for New Zealand?
PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Revenue: What is the objective of the Government's recently announced Taxpayer's Simplification Panel?
The Evaluating Maternity Units (EMU) study is a mixed method project involving a prospective cohort study, surveys (two postnatal questionnaires) and focus groups. It is an Australasian project funded by the Australian Health and Medical Research Council. Its primary aim was to compare the birth outcomes of two groups of well women – one group who planned to give birth at a primary maternity unit, and a second group who planned to give birth at a tertiary hospital. The secondary aim was to learn about women’s views and experiences regarding their birthplace decision-making, transfer, maternity care and experiences, and any other issues they raised. The New Zealand arm of the study was carried out in Christchurch, and was seriously affected by the earthquakes, halting recruitment at 702 participants. Comprehensive details were collected from both midwives and women regarding antenatal and early labour changes of birthplace plans and perinatal transfers from the primary units to the tertiary hospital. Women were asked about how they felt about plan changes and transfers in the first survey, and they were discussed in some focus groups. The transfer findings are still being analysed and will be presented. This study is set within the local maternity context, is recent, relevant and robust. It provides midwives with contemporary information about transfers from New Zealand primary maternity units and women’s views and experiences. It may help inform the conversations midwives have with each other, and with women and their families/whānau, regarding the choices of birthplace for well childbearing women.
TRACEY MARTIN to the Minister responsible for Novopay: Does he stand by his statement of 11 February 2014, "education payroll is the most complex in New Zealand and more work remains to be done to simplify the business processes to ensure it runs as smoothly as possible each year"?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that "the true builders of that future are the millions of New Zealanders working in the homes, the businesses, the industries of our country"?
MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making with its share offer programme, which is freeing up money for reinvestment in new public assets without having to increase Government debt?
ANDREW LITTLE to the Attorney-General: Will he release all correspondence between the Christchurch Crown Solicitor or any other solicitor acting for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and counsel for Peter Whittall on the decision not to proceed with the prosecution of Mr Whittall under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 relating to conditions at the Pike River Mine that lead to the deaths of 29 miners; if not, why not?
KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister of Health: When were Ministry of Health officials first informed that the dispute between the Southern District Health Board and South Link Health involved allegations of the misuse of public funding, and when were they first informed that this alleged misuse was suspected to involve elements that could be fraud?
Dr CAM CALDER to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What announcements has the Government made on the Tertiary Education Strategy for New Zealand?
Hon RUTH DYSON to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Does he stand by his statement made yesterday in the House with regard to Canterbury Labour Members of Parliament that they "have made no more than five requests for assistance through the Earthquake Commission"; if not, when will he be correcting his statement and apologising?
MARK MITCHELL to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: How is the Government's Information and Communication Technology programme improving New Zealanders' access to improved technology and better connectivity?
GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Justice: On what date did she receive an invitation to visit the Shanghai office of Oravida Ltd during her Ministerial visit to China in October 2013, and what actions did she take to ensure this visit met her obligations under the Cabinet Manual?
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Associate Minister of Education: Did the communities in Christchurch, Auckland and Queenstown, where four schools are to be built using a public-private partnership (PPP) model, ask the Government for private sector management of their school buildings?
PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Health: What investment is the Government making in improving nutrition and exercise for pre-schoolers?
JOANNE HAYES to the Minister of Corrections: What steps has the Government taken to improve access to alcohol and drug treatment for prisoners?
In the last century, seismic design has undergone significant advancements. Starting from the initial concept of designing structures to perform elastically during an earthquake, the modern seismic design philosophy allows structures to respond to ground excitations in an inelastic manner, thereby allowing damage in earthquakes that are significantly less intense than the largest possible ground motion at the site of the structure. Current performance-based multi-objective seismic design methods aim to ensure life-safety in large and rare earthquakes, and to limit structural damage in frequent and moderate earthquakes. As a result, not many recently built buildings have collapsed and very few people have been killed in 21st century buildings even in large earthquakes. Nevertheless, the financial losses to the community arising from damage and downtime in these earthquakes have been unacceptably high (for example; reported to be in excess of 40 billion dollars in the recent Canterbury earthquakes). In the aftermath of the huge financial losses incurred in recent earthquakes, public has unabashedly shown their dissatisfaction over the seismic performance of the built infrastructure. As the current capacity design based seismic design approach relies on inelastic response (i.e. ductility) in pre-identified plastic hinges, it encourages structures to damage (and inadvertently to incur loss in the form of repair and downtime). It has now been widely accepted that while designing ductile structural systems according to the modern seismic design concept can largely ensure life-safety during earthquakes, this also causes buildings to undergo substantial damage (and significant financial loss) in moderate earthquakes. In a quest to match the seismic design objectives with public expectations, researchers are exploring how financial loss can be brought into the decision making process of seismic design. This has facilitated conceptual development of loss optimisation seismic design (LOSD), which involves estimating likely financial losses in design level earthquakes and comparing against acceptable levels of loss to make design decisions (Dhakal 2010a). Adoption of loss based approach in seismic design standards will be a big paradigm shift in earthquake engineering, but it is still a long term dream as the quantification of the interrelationships between earthquake intensity, engineering demand parameters, damage measures, and different forms of losses for different types of buildings (and more importantly the simplification of the interrelationship into design friendly forms) will require a long time. Dissecting the cost of modern buildings suggests that the structural components constitute only a minor portion of the total building cost (Taghavi and Miranda 2003). Moreover, recent research on seismic loss assessment has shown that the damage to non-structural elements and building contents contribute dominantly to the total building loss (Bradley et. al. 2009). In an earthquake, buildings can incur losses of three different forms (damage, downtime, and death/injury commonly referred as 3Ds); but all three forms of seismic loss can be expressed in terms of dollars. It is also obvious that the latter two loss forms (i.e. downtime and death/injury) are related to the extent of damage; which, in a building, will not just be constrained to the load bearing (i.e. structural) elements. As observed in recent earthquakes, even the secondary building components (such as ceilings, partitions, facades, windows parapets, chimneys, canopies) and contents can undergo substantial damage, which can lead to all three forms of loss (Dhakal 2010b). Hence, if financial losses are to be minimised during earthquakes, not only the structural systems, but also the non-structural elements (such as partitions, ceilings, glazing, windows etc.) should be designed for earthquake resistance, and valuable contents should be protected against damage during earthquakes. Several innovative building technologies have been (and are being) developed to reduce building damage during earthquakes (Buchanan et. al. 2011). Most of these developments are aimed at reducing damage to the buildings’ structural systems without due attention to their effects on non-structural systems and building contents. For example, the PRESSS system or Damage Avoidance Design concept aims to enable a building’s structural system to meet the required displacement demand by rocking without the structural elements having to deform inelastically; thereby avoiding damage to these elements. However, as this concept does not necessarily reduce the interstory drift or floor acceleration demands, the damage to non-structural elements and contents can still be high. Similarly, the concept of externally bracing/damping building frames reduces the drift demand (and consequently reduces the structural damage and drift sensitive non-structural damage). Nevertheless, the acceleration sensitive non-structural elements and contents will still be very vulnerable to damage as the floor accelerations are not reduced (arguably increased). Therefore, these concepts may not be able to substantially reduce the total financial losses in all types of buildings. Among the emerging building technologies, base isolation looks very promising as it seems to reduce both inter-storey drifts and floor accelerations, thereby reducing the damage to the structural/non-structural components of a building and its contents. Undoubtedly, a base isolated building will incur substantially reduced loss of all three forms (dollars, downtime, death/injury), even during severe earthquakes. However, base isolating a building or applying any other beneficial technology may incur additional initial costs. In order to provide incentives for builders/owners to adopt these loss-minimising technologies, real-estate and insurance industries will have to acknowledge the reduced risk posed by (and enhanced resilience of) such buildings in setting their rental/sale prices and insurance premiums.
