Despite low international coal prices, the financially troubled State-owned coal company, Solid Energy, says its time to mine for more coal. A referendum on self-rule is held in eastern Ukraine overnight, we'll have the latest on the turnout and Prime Minister, John Key, is denying money is being held back from the Canterbury earthquake recovery to make the Government's books look better.
Scavenger Hunt 101 - SH 8 (abandoned building or ruin) The ruins/remains of what was the third highest building in Christchurch, pre earthquakes, the Price Waterhouse Coopers building in Armagh Street. At 76.3 metres ( 21 floors) the demolition has left the basement (now flooded) and these supports. Just one of many photos from Christchurch ...
"Prior to the devastating 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes, the city of Christchurch was already exhibiting signs of a housing affordability crisis. The causes and symptoms were similar to those being experienced in Auckland, but the substantial damage to the housing stock caused by the earthquakes added new dimensions and impetus to the problem. Large swathes of the most affordable housing stock in the east of the city were effectively destroyed by the earthquakes. In itself this would have pushed the mean house price upwards, but compounding problems exacerbated the situation. These include the price effects of reduced supply of both rented and owned housing and increased demand from both displaced residents and an influx of rebuild workers. The need for additional temporary housing while repairs were undertaken and the associated insurance pay-outs bidding up rents with improved rental returns leading to increased interest in property investment. Land supply constraints and consenting issues inhibiting the build of new housing and political infighting and uncertainty regarding the future of parts of the city leading to a flight of development activity to peripheral locations and adjoining local authorities. Concerns that the erosion of the city council rating base combined with inadequacy of insurance cover for infrastructure will lead to large rates increases, increased development costs and reduced amenities and services in future years. These and other issuers will be elaborated on in this paper with a view to exploring the way forward for affordable housing Christchurch City."
DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government's economic programme helping to keep interest rates lower during this economic cycle, compared to the previous economic cycle in the mid-2000s? Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How much more is an average New Zealand household that uses 8,000kwh of power annually paying for electricity per year as of November 2013 compared to November 2008, according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment's latest Quarterly Survey of Domestic Electricity Prices? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: What will he do to "spread some of the benefits of growth" when hourly wage rates have only grown by 1.6 percent in the year to December 2013, which is close to 0 percent in real terms, when 45 percent of listed corporates have double-digit profit growth? JACQUI DEAN to the Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has the Government made on the classification for drilling for oil and gas in New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Justice: When she told the House yesterday "I had previously told Oravida that it could not use my name or photograph to endorse or promote its business products or services" when was that and what specific circumstances did it relate to? COLIN KING to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How is the Youth Guarantee Scheme helping the Government achieve the Better Public Services target of 85 percent of all 18-year-olds achieving NCEA Level two or an equivalent qualification in 2017? CAROL BEAUMONT to the Minister of Women's Affairs: Does she have confidence in the Ministry of Women's Affairs given their 2013 Annual Report shows that six out of seven policy outcomes have stayed the same or gone backwards in the last past year; if so, why? SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister for Courts: How is the Government improving the way the Disputes Tribunal works to make it easier for New Zealanders to resolve civil disputes? Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What action, if any, has he taken this year to show the Prime Minister that he has met the highest ethical standards required by Section 2.53 of the Cabinet Manual? ALFRED NGARO to the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs: What steps is the Government taking to lift the skills of Pacific people in New Zealand? DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he accept the conclusion in the Human Rights Commission's report Monitoring Human Rights in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery that "many people affected by the earthquakes continue to experience deteriorating standards of living and impacts on their quality of life that go beyond the immediate effects of the disaster"? CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Has he had any discussions with any Indian Government Ministers about selling Solid Energy assets?
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.