An over-the-top blog post title spoiled a great round-up by Stephen Franks of the costs and benefits of higher building standards regarding earthquakes:
- Employees are pressing employers to avoid premises seen as risky even if the earthquake risk is a fraction of the risks faced by employees in their homes, or getting to and from work;
- Retroactive earthquake strengthening may cost more than the cost of a completely new building (the Canterbury Earthquake Royal Commission mentions up to 120%);
- Retroactively strengthening buildings outside our highest seismic risk regions is rarely likely to pass any rational cost/benefit test because few if any of them will ever cause an injury.
- The Martin Jenkins & Associates cost benefit study mentioned by the Canterbury Earthquake Royal Commission showed no retrospective upgrading policy that could deliver net economic benefit.
- Rationally, almost all existing weaker buildings should be allowed to end their useful life naturally and be replaced.
- In high risk Wellington the $60m the Council is looking at spending on the Town Hall would save more lives if spent on dedicated cycle-ways.
via StephenFranks.co.nz » Blog Archive » Time to call out the earthquake sooks.
I remember reading a justifiably bitter op-ed by a woman who survived the bus on which a wall fell on and flattened in the second Canterbury Earthquake in February 2011. Eleven died.
That historic wall was known to be in risk is collapse both before and after the first Canterbury Earthquake in 2010.
The wall could not be demolished because of restrictions under the Historic Places Act.
A relative sat on a council committee in a small country town that was among other things trying to demolish a derelict building. The building was protected by heritage legislation.
Permission was refused to demolish the derelict building even after it caught fire and nearly burnt down the pub next door.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments