Understanding different perspectives on the preservation of community and heritage buildings in the Wellington Region,New Zealand |
| |
| Authors: | Tatiana Goded Andrew Beaupre Michael DeMarco Tina Dutra Andro Gogichaishvili Daniel Haley Alex Hyman Nicholas Kepka Calvetti John Potter Maureen Coomer Kim Wright Andrew King |
| |
| Institution: | 1.GNS Science,Lower Hutt,New Zealand;2.Worcester Polytechnic Institute,100, Institute Road,Worcester,USA;3.Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management,Wellington,New Zealand |
| |
| Abstract: | The Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquake sequence of 2010–2012 caused unexpectedly extreme levels of damage and disruption, being an unparalleled event in New Zealand in terms of the damage extent. Christchurch’s heritage buildings were seriously damaged during these events, with churches especially affected in 22 February 2011 M w 6.2 earthquake. During this earthquake, a total of 84% of the heritage unreinforced stone and 81% of the clay brick masonry churches in the Canterbury region were either considered unsafe (receiving red placards) or with restricted access (yellow placards). Following the earthquakes, authorities across New Zealand are reassessing the capacity of older buildings to resist earthquakes. Current legislation requires that a building judged as earthquake prone either be strengthened by retrofitting or be demolished within a legislated number of years. Many building owners are facing the problems of owning earthquake-prone buildings and lacking the funding to upgrade. This affects both community and heritage buildings, resulting in the likely abandonment or demolition of some buildings. To address the problem of the balance between life safety and preservation in the Wellington Region, this project gathered and compared the perspectives of the general public, church communities, heritage specialists, professional engineers, and local authorities to assist in balancing the interests of these stakeholders. As a result of the findings, several recommendations have been provided that include standardizing structural assessment processes and training, feasibility of additional public funding to upgrade buildings, new signage to increase public awareness of earthquake-prone buildings, and regular communication among stakeholders to understand and resolve differences. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
