<b>In the late 1960s the Wellington City Council surveyed all the commercial buildings in the city and marked nearly 200 as earthquake prone. The owners were given 15 years to either strengthen or demolish their buildings. The end result was mass demolition throughout the seventies and eighties.¹ Prompted by the Christchurch earthquakes, once again the council has published a list of over 630 earthquake prone buildings that need to be strengthened or demolished by 2030.²Of these earthquake prone buildings, the majority were built between 1880 and 1930, with 125 buildings appearing on the Wellington City Council Heritage Building List.³ This list accounts for a significant proportion of character buildings in the city. There is a danger that the aesthetic integrity of our city will be further damaged due to the urgent need to strengthen these buildings. Many of the building owners are resistant because of the high cost. By adapting these buildings to house co-workspaces, we can gain more than just the retention of the building’s heritage. The seismic upgrade provides the opportunity for the office space to be redesigned to suit changes in the ways we work. Through a design-based research approach this thesis proposes a framework that clarifies the process of adapting Wellington’s earthquake prone heritage buildings to accommodate co-working. This framework deals with the key concepts of program, structure and heritage. The framework is tested on one of Wellington’s earthquake prone heritage buildings, the Wellington Working Men’s Club, in order to demonstrate what can be gained from this strengthening process. ¹ Reid, J., “Hometown Boomtown,” in NZ On Screen (Wellington, 1983).</b>
² Wellington City Council, List of Earthquake Prone Buildings as at 06/03/2017. (Wellington: Absolutely Positively Wellington. 2017).
³ ibid.
Over 900 buildings in the Christchurch central business district and 10,000 residential homes were demolished following the 22nd of February 2011 Canterbury earthquake, significantly disrupting the rebuild progress. This study looks to quantify the time required for demolitions during this event which will be useful for future earthquake recovery planning. This was done using the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) demolition database, which allowed an in-depth look into the duration of each phase of the demolition process. The effect of building location, building height, and the stakeholder which initiated the demolition process (i.e. building owner or CERA) was investigated. The demolition process comprises of five phases; (i) decision making, (ii) procurement and planning, (iii) demolition, (iv) site clean-up, and (v) completion certification. It was found that the time required to decide to demolish the building made up majority of the total demolition duration. Demolition projects initiated by CERA had longer procurement and planning durations, but was quicker in other phases. Demolished buildings in the suburbs had a longer decision making duration, but had little effect on other phases of the demolition process. The decision making and procurement and planning phases of the demolition process were shorter for taller buildings, though the other phases took longer. Fragility functions for the duration of each phase in the demolition process are provided for the various categories of buildings for use in future studies.
This study is a qualitative investigation into the decision-making behaviour of commercial property owners (investors and developers) who are rebuilding in a city centre after a major disaster. In 2010/2011, Christchurch, the largest city in the South Island of New Zealand, was a site of numerous earthquakes. The stronger earthquakes destroyed many buildings and public infrastructure in the commercial inner city. As a result, affected property owners lost all or most of their buildings, a significant proportion of which were old and in the last phase of their life span. They had to negotiate pay-outs with insurance companies and decide, once paid out, whether they should rebuild in Christchurch or sell up and invest elsewhere. The clear majority of those who decided to reinvest in and rebuild the city are ‘locals’, almost all of whom had no prior experience of property development. Thus, in a post-disaster environment, most of these property owners have transitioned from being just being passive investors to active property developers. Their experience was interpreted using primary data gathered from in-depth and semi-structured interviews with twenty-one “informed property people” who included commercial property owners; property agents or consultants; representatives of public-sector agencies and financial institutions. The study findings showed that the decision-making behaviour of property investors and developers rebuilding after a major disaster did not necessarily follow a strict financial or profit motive as prescribed in the mainstream or neo-classical economics property literature. Rather, their decision-making behaviour has been largely shaped by emotional connections and external factors associated with their immediate environment. The theoretical proposition emerging from this study is that after a major disaster, local urban property owners are faced with two choices “to stay” or “to go”. Those who decide to stay and rebuild are typically very committed individuals who have a feeling of ownership, belonging and attachment to the city in which they live and work. These are people who will often take the lead in commercial property development, proactively making decisions and seeking positive investment outcomes for themselves which in turn result in revitalised commercial urban precincts.
One of the most controversial issues highlighted by the 2010-2011 Christchurch earthquake series and more recently the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake, has been the evident difficulty and lack of knowledge and guidelines for: a) evaluation of the residual capacity damaged buildings to sustain future aftershocks; b) selection and implementation of a series of reliable repairing techniques to bring back the structure to a condition substantially the same as prior to the earthquake; and c) predicting the cost (or cost-effectiveness) of such repair intervention, when compared to fully replacement costs while accounting for potential aftershocks in the near future. As a result of such complexity and uncertainty (i.e., risk), in combination with the possibility (unique in New Zealand when compared to most of the seismic-prone countries) to rely on financial support from the insurance companies, many modern buildings, in a number exceeding typical expectations from past experiences at an international level, have ended up being demolished. This has resulted in additional time and indirect losses prior to the full reconstruction, as well as in an increase in uncertainty on the actual relocation of the investment. This research project provides the main end-users and stakeholders (practitioner engineers, owners, local and government authorities, insurers, and regulatory agencies) with comprehensive evidence-based information to assess the residual capacity of damage reinforced concrete buildings, and to evaluate the feasibility of repairing techniques, in order to support their delicate decision-making process of repair vs. demolition or replacement. Literature review on effectiveness of epoxy injection repairs, as well as experimental tests on full-scale beam-column joints shows that repaired specimens have a reduced initial stiffness compared with the undamaged specimen, with no apparent strength reduction, sometimes exhibiting higher displacement ductility capacities. Although the bond between the steel and concrete is only partially restored, it still allows the repaired specimen to dissipate at least the same amount of hysteretic energy. Experimental tests on buildings subjected to earthquake loading demonstrate that even for severe damage levels, the ability of the epoxy injection to restore the initial stiffness of the structure is significant. Literature review on damage assessment and repair guidelines suggests that there is consensus within the international community that concrete elements with cracks less than 0.2 mm wide only require cosmetic repairs; epoxy injection repairs of cracks less and 2.0 mm wide and concrete patching of spalled cover concrete (i.e., minor to moderate damage) is an appropiate repair strategy; and for severe damaged components (e.g., cracks greater than 2.0 mm wide, crushing of the concrete core, buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement) local replacement of steel and/or concrete in addition to epoxy crack injection is more appropriate. In terms of expected cracking patterns, non-linear finite element investigations on well-designed reinforced concrete beam-to-column joints, have shown that lower number of cracks but with wider openings are expected to occur for larger compressive concrete strength, f’c, and lower reinforcement content, ρs. It was also observed that the tensile concrete strength, ft, strongly affects the expected cracking pattern in the beam-column joints, the latter being more uniformly distributed for lower ft values. Strain rate effects do not seem to play an important role on the cracking pattern. However, small variations in the cracking pattern were observed for low reinforcement content as it approaches to the minimum required as per NZS 3101:2006. Simple equations are proposed in this research project to relate the maximum and residual crack widths with the steel strain at peak displacement, with or without axial load. A literature review on fracture of reinforcing steel due to low-cycle fatigue, including recent research using steel manufactured per New Zealand standards is also presented. Experimental results describing the influence of the cyclic effect on the ultimate strain capacity of the steel are also discussed, and preliminary equations to account for that effect are proposed. A literature review on the current practice to assess the seismic residual capacity of structures is also presented. The various factors affecting the residual fatigue life at a component level (i.e., plastic hinge) of well-designed reinforced concrete frames are discussed, and equations to quantify each of them are proposed, as well as a methodology to incorporate them into a full displacement-based procedure for pre-earthquake and post-earthquake seismic assessment.
On 14 November 2016, a magnitude (Mw) 7.8 earthquake struck the small coastal settlement of Kaikōura, Aotearoa-New Zealand. With an economy based on tourism, agriculture, and fishing, Kaikōura was immediately faced with significant logistical, economic, and social challenges caused by damage to critical infrastructure and lifelines, essential to its main industries. Massive landslips cut offroad and rail access, stranding hundreds of tourists, and halting the collection, processing and distribution of agricultural products. At the coast, the seabed rose two metres, limiting harbour-access to high tide, with implications for whale watching tours and commercial fisheries. Throughout the region there was significant damage to homes, businesses, and farmland, leaving owners and residents facing an uncertain future. This paper uses qualitative case study analysis to explore post-quake transformations in a rural context. The aim is to gain insight into the distinctive dynamics of disaster response mechanisms, focusing on two initiatives that have emerged in direct response to the disaster. The first examines the ways in which agriculture, food harvesting, production and distribution are being reimagined with the potential to enhance regional food security. The second examines the rescaling of power in decision-making processes following the disaster, specifically examining the ways in which rural actors are leveraging networks to meet their needs and the consequences of that repositioning on rural (and national) governance arrangements. In these and other ways, the local economy is being revitalised, and regional resilience enhanced through diversification, capitalising not on the disaster but the region's natural, social, and cultural capital. Drawing on insights and experience of local stakeholders, policy- and decision-makers, and community representatives we highlight the diverse ways in which these endeavours are an attempt to create something new, revealing also the barriers which needed to be overcome to reshape local livelihoods. Results reveal that the process of transformation as part of rural recovery must be grounded in the lived reality of local residents and their understanding of place, incorporating and building on regional social, environmental, and economic characteristics. In this, the need to respond rapidly to realise opportunities must be balanced with the community-centric approach, with greater recognition given to the contested nature of the decisions to be made. Insights from the case examples can inform preparedness and recovery planning elsewhere, and provide a rich, real-time example of the ways in which disasters can create opportunities for reimagining resilient futures.
