At the conclusion of the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes more than 5100 homes had been deemed unsafe for habitation. The land and buildings of these were labelled “red zoned” and are too badly damaged for remediation. These homes have been demolished or are destined for demolition. To assist the red zone population to relocate, central government have offered to ‘buy out’ home owners at the Governmental Value (GV) that was last reviewed in 2007. While generous in the economic context at the time, the area affected was the lowest value land and housing in Christchurch and so there is a capital shortfall between the 2007 property value and the cost of relocating to more expensive properties. This shortfall is made worse by increasing present day values since the earthquakes. Red zone residents have had to relocate to the far North and Western extremities of Christchurch, and some chose to move even further to neighbouring towns or cities. The eastern areas and commercial centres close to the red zone are affected as well. They have lost critical mass which has negatively impacted businesses in the catchments of the Red Zone. This thesis aims to repopulate the suburbs most affected by the abandonment of the red zone houses. Because of the relative scarcity of sound building sites in the East and to introduce affordability to these houses, an alternative method of development is required than the existing low density suburban model. Smart medium density design will be tested as an affordable and appropriate means of living. Existing knowledge in this field will be reviewed, an analysis of what East Christchurch’s key characteristics are will occur, and an examination of built works and site investigations will also be conducted. The research finds that at housing densities of 40 units per hectare, the spatial, vehicle, aesthetic needs of East Christchurch can be accommodated. Centralising development is also found to offer better lifestyle choices than the isolated suburbs at the edges of Christchurch, to be more efficient using existing infrastructure, and to place less reliance on cars. Stronger communities are formed from the outset and for a full range of demographics. Eastern affordable housing options are realised and Christchurch’s ever expanding suburban tendencies are addressed. East Christchurch presently displays a gaping scar of devastated houses that ‘The New Eastside’ provides a bandage and a cure for. Displaced and dispossessed Christchurch residents can be re-housed within a new heart for East Christchurch.
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.
