‘Christchurch rebuild plans ‘rubbish’

Posted on October 11, 2011 by KG

A draft plan for the recovery of central Christchurch is a “rubbish pipedream” that has terrified potential investors, councillors have been told.
The Christchurch City Council’s draft central-city plan came under fire from property owners during yesterday’s public hearings.
Councillors sat in stony-faced silence as property owner Angus McFarlane said the “obstructive, dictatorial and impractical” plan was a “rubbish pipedream”.
…..He told councillors they had made a mess of the city before the quakes, and the draft plan “proves you have got it wrong again”.
…Property Council New Zealand chief executive Connal Townsend said property owners and developers supported the council’s vision for the city centre but were “terrified” by the proposed regulations within the plan.
“You have gone to an extraordinary level of specifics that many members are terrified by.”
….A statement in the plan about extinguishing the existing-use rights of property owners would also discourage investment in the city. “Those are the magic words which are guaranteed to turn investors off … That’s just not the sort of message that I believe you should be sending.”…’
Councils…never under-estimate the ability of these petty nazis to screw up– and charge the ratepayers for it. They see the rebuilding of the city as an opportunity for more power, more control, more self-aggrandizement.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to ‘Christchurch rebuild plans ‘rubbish’

  1. pmofnz says:
    October 11, 2011 at 05:55

    “obstructive, dictatorial and impractical”

    Finally, the first true statement I have seen on the Christchurch debacle since the first earthquake. And they wonder why it is known as the Village of the Damned.

  2. wake up says:
    October 11, 2011 at 07:00

    There’s no way it should be rebuilt on the existing turf at all, but nobody has the nerve to say so.

  3. Ciaron says:
    October 11, 2011 at 07:20

    There’s no way it should be rebuilt on the existing turf at all, but nobody has the nerve to say so.

    Bullshit. You just need to spend more money doing it right than most tight arsed developers are prepared to.

    • WAKE UP says:
      October 11, 2011 at 14:25

      Ciaron, I object to your language; mine was a serious comment.

      Only yesterday Christchurch had yet another serious tremor in the ongoing series that hasn’t stopped, and NOBODY I know (including people who own houses there) wants to go anywhere near the place – a reality that is being blinded by foolish sentiment. Everybody wants to get OUT.

      The whole place needs to be rebuilt ELSEWHERE; it needs a radical rethinking.
      ———————————
      The difference between Christchurch and Napier is that Napier had no further quakes. Christchurch hasn;t stopped.

  4. Darin says:
    October 11, 2011 at 11:07

    Pick one side of the fault line or the other would be my first suggestion.And stop trying to save buildings that were dependant on Termites holding hands before the quake even would be my other.

    Failing that disband and join other countries.

    • Ciaron says:
      October 11, 2011 at 12:08

      I’m afraid its a bit more techo than that brother. It’s not so much a single, clear fault line as such. More like two plates with east plate going under the west plate to the north, west plate going under the east plate to the south, plates trying to slide in the middle and failing miserably, causing multiple perpendicular fault systems as the plate fails in compression.

      Makes for nice mountains but. :grin:

  5. WAKE UP says:
    October 11, 2011 at 14:25

    Ciaron, I object to your language; mine was a serious comment.

    Only yesterday Christchurch had yet another serious tremor in the ongoing series that hasn’t stopped, and NOBODY I know (including people who own houses there) wants to go anywhere near the place – a reality that is being blinded by foolish sentiment. Everybody wants to get OUT.

    The whole place needs to be rebuilt ELSEWHERE; it needs a radical rethinking.
    ———————————
    The difference between Christchurch and Napier is that Napier had no further quakes. Christchurch hasn;t stopped.

    • Ciaron says:
      October 11, 2011 at 15:07

      FYI, I’m a structural technician working for a large multi discipline consultancy in Christchurch. I have experienced every one of the nigh on 8000 aftershocks. I have been in buildings in the red zone when aftershocks have come through. The solution is not to build elsewhere, but to build properly in the first instance.

      BTW, I heard on the radio yesterday that a survivor of the Napier earthquakes state that the aftershocks continued for over a year. (I’m guessing you weren’t their either so I’ll take his word for it ;-) )

      • WAKE UP says:
        October 12, 2011 at 07:46

        Maybe, but I am a grizzled lifetime veteran of Hawkes Bay earthquakes. I still think the point is that people are reluctant to go (back) to Christchurch in its present location.

  6. Flashman says:
    October 11, 2011 at 14:44

    Dear Christchurch City Council,
    Here are the facts:
    1. Developers put up buildings.
    2. Which they then sell to owners,
    3. Who then lease them out to commercial tenants.

    So, if your rules raise the risk to developers to unacceptably high levels [i.e. any building constructed is so expensive no owners would buy them], then no construction will take place.

    Now study this hard.

    There will be a test on this tomorrow.
    Good luck!
    Professor Two IQ Points

  7. Cadwallader says:
    October 11, 2011 at 15:25

    The comments quoted here are applicable throughout NZ. The RMA is a stalinesque tool to allow council staff to dictate to us all how to develop, manage and nurture OUR land! Private property rights are not acknowledged anywhere in the RMA. The CHCH quakes may be a good opportunity to repeal this vile piece of crap!

  8. Kris K says:
    October 11, 2011 at 15:30

    Indeed, Flashman – and lets not raise the issue of it being nigh on impossible to secure insurance. And that’s ignoring whether or not said insurance would be affordable and/or economically viable.

    • Flashman says:
      October 12, 2011 at 03:28

      Agreed Kris K – stratospheric insurance costs for a “rebuilt” Chch CBD would be factored into any developer’s risk analysis. And it’s not just commercial properties – would anyone put up a residential property in Chch on spec today?

      Personally I think what was once the CBD should be turned into a Grand Central Park complete with the restoration of the area’s original creeks and wetlands. Any “New” Chch should be a low rise format and out west/north west.

      It won’t be the first time that earthquakes have resulted in the abandonment of an urban center. In antiquity, Antioch was one of three largest cities of the Roman and Byzantine Empire but it was earthquake prone and fell back to becoming a village once again. Just one of many such examples really.

      [Factoid: Chatting to some folk with property in Chch recently – they were told it would be about 18 months before rectification work could begin on their home. Which is how Antioch’s happen.]

      • Ciaron says:
        October 12, 2011 at 04:06

        Yes, there will be a significant delay, however, it will be for a plethora of reasons and not simply council/government procrastination.

      • Kris K says:
        October 12, 2011 at 06:17

        “… and fell back to becoming a village once again.”

        Perhaps Christchurch’s nick-name, “Village of the Damned”, was prophetic regarding its eventual status as a population centre ;)

        • Ciaron says:
          October 12, 2011 at 07:18

          Well, consider this: When the alpine fault goes and the shaking carries on for a couple of minutes, Westport would be my least favored place to be but the whole South Island could be a bit touch & go…

  9. WAKE UP says:
    October 12, 2011 at 07:47

    I still think the point is that people are reluctant to go (back) to Christchurch in its present location

    • Ciaron says:
      October 12, 2011 at 08:07

      Changing the location is a mind job. In the event of the alpine fault going, shifting the CBD 10-20 k’s in any direction will have little effect. Like I said earlier, best just build things properly from here on. (trouble with that is “visionarys” stick their oars in where common sense should apply) for instance, the desire to have a city full of 4-5 storey structures is a nonsense, as 10 storey+ buildings are inherently better at dissapating lateral forces. (provided contractors dont fill seismic gaps/slots ect.)

    • Kris K says:
      October 12, 2011 at 08:57

      I’m with you, Wakey.

      Why am I reminded of the following, especially in regards to the sub-strata under much of Christchurch:

      Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
      Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
      Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
      Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

      At least here in Wellington, when the big one arrives, we’re founded upon the rock [apart from the odd bit of land reclaimation].
      No matter how well engineered structures in Christchurch may be in the future, you can never get away from its Achiles heel which is the sub-strata.

      • Ciaron says:
        October 12, 2011 at 09:14

        I just told one of our secondee engineers (50+ years of experience mostly in the UK & Europe) what you said in your last paragraph. He gave me a sideways look and muttered “Stupid boy”. :lol:

        • Kris K says:
          October 12, 2011 at 09:34

          Having experienced numerous earthquakes here in Wellington –

          some while in the suburbs which are primarily built on rock, others in the Hutt Valley, which is essentially a large river bed with a shallow water table

          – may I just say I hardly feel earthquakes when on a rock base, while others in the Hutt Valley complain over the severity of the same quake. And vice versa when I’ve been in the Hutt Valley and experienced large quakes.

          Christchurch, while in its current location, will continue to be a “disaster waiting to happen”. And people that refuse to move through self-deluded ignorance of the obvious will rather be the “stupid boys”.