1 disappointing thing with the Christchurch rebuild plan

Forums › Off topic › 1 disappointing thing with the Christchurch rebuild plan

1 | 2

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#664716 31-Jul-2012 16:16

Oblivian:
minimoke: Lets not forget the old waterways that lie under the CBD.
?

I get the feeling most people over looked the fact I subtly pointed it out this and the reasoning behind restrictions.. if you shake a carpet.. it takes a bit to straighten it out. If you fill a bucket with mud, it doesn't dry in 5 seconds.

People have to look a little deeper than old building vs new asthetics - This puppy didn't just write off a building here and there.. the entire city GROUND has been affected (at the least warped). (fyi the greater city has rotated clockwise about 2-6ft)

Lets remember the reason for the residential redzone.. it is not viable to build on the GROUND - the land cannot be re-mediated. It turned to slush which can take 20+years to re-settle as pointed out by our resident engineer.

And as pointed out by the CBD enquiry and old river mapping zones.. the CBD is no different with pockets of ick underfoot.

Yes, ideally would you rebuild there at all on those ground conditions? I wouldn't. Surely they could move it out west where the ground is better, it is not as though there are a huge number of buildings remaining. History has shown that cities/towns do move under extreme conditions.

Skolink

1081 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 32

#666343 2-Aug-2012 16:20

mattwnz:
gzt: The Grand Chancellor did not collapse but it was a close thing wasn't it?

I don't think that was height related though, and I don't think that building is any great loss, probably one of NZ's ugliest buildings. I think the verdict on that has still to be released, but I had heard that that building wasn't initially that tall, someone may know more on the history of it. But new modern buildings shouldn't have any problems with EQs up to 8.

It was more to do with the cantilevered wall on the side that collapsed. Originally it was to have pillars in the middle of the alleyway, and the developer assumed he would get permission and proceeded. Permission was not granted, so the upper floors had to overhang the alleyway. Thats how I understand it.

sen8or

1897 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1402

#666723 3-Aug-2012 09:31

I would also put money on the height restrictions being linked to building value and insurability (is that a word?)

Could be all well and good allowing to rebuild any height, but its hard enough to get insurance on a single story house build on solid ground in Christchurch, how likely is it a 10+ story building, built on previous red zoned land would get insurance? I'm guessing there has been some comprimises

Can't seriously see that many businesses rushing back to the CBD, those that are still trading now have all moved and are in medium-long term leases. By the time buildings are ready in the CBD, and the leases are coming due, there is going to have to be a heck of incentive to get the businesses back in there.

Nyvx

6 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 21

#666966 3-Aug-2012 13:36

Magnitude is not important. Remember a lot of the Christchurch buildings were rated for large magnitude earthquakes too. The real measure though is ground force accelleration both horizontal and vertical. In Christchurch they measured 2.2G vertical uptrust which was quite a bit beyond the building code. Plus the ground under the CBD is mostly swamp & sand. So wanting to build tall buildings in this area is always going to be questionable. Plus for some of us who prefer sunny streets it is nice to see the open sapce again.

1 | 2