Some info here on building performance:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/318927/an-engineer%27s-eye-view-of-the-quake

I am fascinated by the idea that structural engineers use a "one in 500 year" earthquake as a target. The worst that could happen in Wellington is a rupture on the Wellington fault and that hasn't let go for about 600 years, so if it were to happen tomorrow does that mean that it would be outside the design limits of the local buildings?

DarthKermit:

 

I'm having a hard time understanding why all these buildings in Wellington have to be demolished. It would be good to see some pictures of the actual damage and what was so bad about it.

 

I think it's an easy way for the Council to get new, up-to-code, buildings built, right now.

The idea of large numbers of 33% of code buildings standing around seems to me to be a big risk to public safety.

frankv:

 

DarthKermit:

 

I'm having a hard time understanding why all these buildings in Wellington have to be demolished. It would be good to see some pictures of the actual damage and what was so bad about it.

 

 

I think it's an easy way for the Council to get new, up-to-code, buildings built, right now.

 

The idea of large numbers of 33% of code buildings standing around seems to me to be a big risk to public safety.

 

 

 

There's an issue with tax treatment for costs of EQ strengthening (commercial) buildings.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/9122725/IRDs-role-in-quake-strengthening

That article from 2013 - it's in the news again, but not resolved.

I expect that a problem is that if carrying out structural strengthening, then you'd probably be making other "improvements" at the same time, separating out costs would be difficult, then there's the possibility that it would be creating a loophole subject to abuse.

If you were a tenant in a quake prone building, would you be prepared to pay significantly higher rent for the owner to carry out strengthening work which made no difference to how you conducted your business?  

Chch found out the hard way - but it could have been much much worse from a human toll POV.  Many of the most prone buildings were empty on Feb22 2011, having suffered some damage in the 2010 quake. 

I don't think there's a simple answer.  It can cost serious $$$ to bring a building up to code.  Someone has to pay.

I am sure quite a few building owners would want to walk away from their building as the costs associated with immediate strengthening would never be recoverable and perhaps make the building non commercial.

It does need a whole lot more thought from Council, Central Govt and the owners. I do agree that action needs to be forthcoming sooner rather than later.

Aerial view of before and after showing east coast around Kaikoura.