Anyone else appalled that the govt won't release the list of CTV Style buildings to the public?

Forums › Off topic › Anyone else appalled that the govt won't release the list of CTV Style buildings to the public?

keewee01

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#129627 22-Sep-2013 11:33

I find it appalling that the list of CTV style buildings won't be publically released by the government.

As I understand it most of the building owners on that list have been contact and that in some parts of the country they might have a shorter time frame than other building owners to bring their buildings up to code. But without the list being out in the public it lets building owners continue to hide in obscurity and to not carry out their responsibilities to quake proof their buildings with haste.

Does anyone else think that the list of high risk CTV style buildings should be publically released, rather than hidden away?

1 | 2

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#899662 22-Sep-2013 12:07

Wasn't that a list of potentials? I would like to see it released anyway, but I get why they wouldn't want to tarnish any building that isn't confirmed as flawed.

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#899664 22-Sep-2013 12:37

Releasing a list of buildings with "possible" issues would be disastrous for the building owners, especially when it's just an allegation. If proven flawed then certainly make it public, or even condemn the buildings until fixed.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

nickb800

2715 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#899665 22-Sep-2013 12:37

I think it should be hidden, for now.

That list was made with a very rough methodology, and a significant proportion will be false positives (for earthquake prone-ness). We need to wait for building owners to commission detailed evaluations (which will take time, engineering resource is stretched in NZ atm). PERHAPS in 18 months when most of the evaluations have been conducted, we should release the list of non-compliant building owners (remembering that MBIE cannot legally force building owners to conduct these evaluations under current law).

We need to remember that a number of factors contributed to the failure of CTV - the 'genre' of building (non-ductile, etc), debatably poor quality engineering design (Alan Reay currently under investigation by the engineering body for this), poor construction supervision and an incredibly powerful earthquake.

Prematurely releasing this info would promote unnecessary FUD across the country, loose significant amounts of money for compliant building owners and yield a negligible gain in safety as most non-ductile buildings wont share the construction and design failures that CTV did.

alasta

6701 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#899672 22-Sep-2013 12:47

I would have thought that local authorities should be taking responsibility for this. Wellington City Council has been quite upfront about earthquake prone buildings.

It is really important that people pressure their employers to provide as much information as possible about the safety of the building they are working in. I have been advised of the status of the 1980s building that I work in relative to the current building code but this is only a theoretical measurement so the building owners have agreed to undertake a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) which will involve engineers physically assessing the earthquake resistance of major structural components.

Bung

6477 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#899685 22-Sep-2013 12:52

nickb800: Prematurely releasing this info would promote unnecessary FUD across the country, loose significant amounts of money for compliant building owners and yield a negligible gain in safety as most non-ductile buildings wont share the construction and design failures that CTV did.

Isn't there an engineer, John Scary, who claims that "Son of CTV" buildings are still being designed?

"Are you aware that a brand new 'Son of CTV' building was recently designed, peer reviewed, consented and constructed in Christchurch, complete with the same critical deficiency as the CTV Building - very poor connection of the concrete floors to the lateral load resisting elements? This was found by accident, and this brand new building has had to be retrofitted. " 9 july entry http://www.buildingguide.co.nz/building-guide/building-blog

nickb800

2715 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#899688 22-Sep-2013 13:09

Bung:
nickb800: Prematurely releasing this info would promote unnecessary FUD across the country, loose significant amounts of money for compliant building owners and yield a negligible gain in safety as most non-ductile buildings wont share the construction and design failures that CTV did.

Isn't there an engineer, John Scary, who claims that "Son of CTV" buildings are still being designed?

"Are you aware that a brand new 'Son of CTV' building was recently designed, peer reviewed, consented and constructed in Christchurch, complete with the same critical deficiency as the CTV Building - very poor connection of the concrete floors to the lateral load resisting elements? This was found by accident, and this brand new building has had to be retrofitted. " 9 july entry http://www.buildingguide.co.nz/building-guide/building-blog

That is indeed scary, but isn't really related to this thread as the CTV-style list is only concerned with buildings between 1986 and 1992. Sounds like he is using the "son of CTV" monkier to gain publicity for the cause, rather than on a technical basis.

The bigger issue from that case (bigger than the failure of CCC consenting) is the severe lack of engineering expertise within council consenting departments, putting the onus for ensuring safe design onto the mostly professional and competent engineers, and the others.

alasta

6701 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#899692 22-Sep-2013 13:23

nickb800: The bigger issue from that case (bigger than the failure of CCC consenting) is the severe lack of engineering expertise within council consenting departments, putting the onus for ensuring safe design onto the mostly professional and competent engineers, and the others.

I have heard that back in the 80s when the CTV building was consented there was some significant resistance from inside the council towards granting the consent. Unfortunately bureaucracy and politics got in the way and the wrong decision was made to go ahead with granting the consent.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#900690 22-Sep-2013 14:40

nickb800: PERHAPS in 18 months when most of the evaluations have been conducted, we should release the list of non-compliant building owners (remembering that MBIE cannot legally force building owners to conduct these evaluations under current law).

Honest question, how many evaluations do you believe will be complete in 18 months?

Given that there are no legal mechanisms yet - putting some kind of timescale on the release of the report could be beneficial.

We should also remember these are multilevel buildings and worth a fair number in rent/lease. These are design level evaluations. How much do they cost? Is 20K in the ball park? Surely that is not a great imposition on an asset of this value.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#900705 22-Sep-2013 15:05

The people that work in these building are entitled to know there is a risk, then they can make a decision to stay working in them or not.

nickb800

2715 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#900707 22-Sep-2013 15:09

gzt:
nickb800: PERHAPS in 18 months when most of the evaluations have been conducted, we should release the list of non-compliant building owners (remembering that MBIE cannot legally force building owners to conduct these evaluations under current law).

Honest question, how many evaluations do you believe will be complete in 18 months?

Given that there are no legal mechanisms yet - putting some kind of timescale on the release of the report could be beneficial.

We should also remember these are multilevel buildings and worth a fair number in rent/lease. These are design level evaluations. How much do they cost? Is 20K in the ball park? Surely that is not a great imposition on an asset of this value.

My guess: Most. As you have pointed out, any smart landlord should realise that it is a tiny investment to help retain/attract tenants. Especially in a market like Wellington where tenants are much more educated about seismic hazard and are demanding this info themselves.

There will be a fraction of absentee landlords (e.g. lift shaft in Lukes Lane, Wellington) or just plain stubborn (e.g. these 2 out of 338).

In terms of a mandated timeframe, I think local council requirements (particularly WCC) will catch a few building owners up

nickb800

2715 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#900715 22-Sep-2013 15:25

KiwiNZ: The people that work in these building are entitled to know there is a risk, then they can make a decision to stay working in them or not.

Absolutely, but the point is that this list doesn't really provide any useful information about risk. It has been drawn up from the most rudimentary methodology possible, and much more detailed work is still ongoing, to identify the fraction of buildings on the list that actually present a threat.

IMHO a much more important list that needs to be released by councils is the list of buildings which have received a detailed engineering assessment and are confirmed to be below 33% of current building standard. Wellington City Council was one of the first to make their list public, more councils released theirs following the Canterbury EQs, but their is really no excuse for this list to be kept away from the public

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#900717 22-Sep-2013 15:28

nickb800:
KiwiNZ: The people that work in these building are entitled to know there is a risk, then they can make a decision to stay working in them or not.

Absolutely, but the point is that this list doesn't really provide any useful information about risk. It has been drawn up from the most rudimentary methodology possible, and much more detailed work is still ongoing, to identify the fraction of buildings on the list that actually present a threat.

IMHO a much more important list that needs to be released by councils is the list of buildings which have received a detailed engineering assessment and are confirmed to be below 33% of current building standard. Wellington City Council was one of the first to make their list public, more councils released theirs following the Canterbury EQs, but their is really no excuse for this list to be kept away from the public

I believe all buildings that pose a threat need to notified to those who work/live/visit them.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#900725 22-Sep-2013 16:08

alasta: I would have thought that local authorities should be taking responsibility for this. Wellington City Council has been quite upfront about earthquake prone buildings.

It is really important that people pressure their employers to provide as much information as possible about the safety of the building they are working in. I have been advised of the status of the 1980s building that I work in relative to the current building code but this is only a theoretical measurement so the building owners have agreed to undertake a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) which will involve engineers physically assessing the earthquake resistance of major structural components.

Slightly pedantic, but who invented this ridiculous concept of buildings being prone to earthquakes?

No building is any more prone to an earthquake than any other building.

The correct expression would be "earthquake damage prone" rather than "earthquake prone" (i.e. prone to damage by an earthquake, not prone to cause them).

NZ, for example, is an earthquake-prone country and the UK is not. Thus any building in NZ is syntactically speaking "prone to earthquakes".

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#900728 22-Sep-2013 16:20

Geektastic:
alasta: I would have thought that local authorities should be taking responsibility for this. Wellington City Council has been quite upfront about earthquake prone buildings.

It is really important that people pressure their employers to provide as much information as possible about the safety of the building they are working in. I have been advised of the status of the 1980s building that I work in relative to the current building code but this is only a theoretical measurement so the building owners have agreed to undertake a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) which will involve engineers physically assessing the earthquake resistance of major structural components.

Slightly pedantic, but who invented this ridiculous concept of buildings being prone to earthquakes?

No building is any more prone to an earthquake than any other building.

The correct expression would be "earthquake damage prone" rather than "earthquake prone" (i.e. prone to damage by an earthquake, not prone to cause them).

NZ, for example, is an earthquake-prone country and the UK is not. Thus any building in NZ is syntactically speaking "prone to earthquakes".

someone pointless. A rose by any other name....

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#900747 22-Sep-2013 17:16

KiwiNZ: The people that work in these building are entitled to know there is a risk, then they can make a decision to stay working in them or not.

Yes, and if there is a known risk then they should be told.

The point here is that there is a large "hand-waving" list of buildings where there might or might not be an issue, and a plan to fairly rapidly assess them. The information should be released when available. At the moment it isn't. All you would do is create chaos by releasing a long list of unsubstantiated "possible maybes" at this point.

1 | 2