The Heritage Problem: Is Current Policy on Earthquake-Prone

Liv Henrich and John McClure The Heritage Problem is current policy on This series of earthquakes has acted as earthquake-prone heritage a wake-up call for many citizens of earthquake-prone regions and has highlighted the importance of preparing buildings too costly? for earthquakes (McClure et al., 2016). These events have also reinforced the Introduction political drive to strengthen legislative Earthquakes are a major hazard around the world policy for earthquake-prone buildings, particularly after the Canterbury earth- (Bjornerud, 2016). A recent example is New Zealand, where quakes. Earthquake resilience has become an issue in political discourse and public three major earthquake events occurred within a six-year policy in New Zealand. Although period. The 2010–11 earthquakes in Canterbury, centred earthquakes are unpredictable events, the damage they trigger can be greatly reduced close to the city of Christchurch, led to 185 fatalities, mainly through actions to ensure the resilience of due to two collapsed buildings and crumbling facades building structures (Spittal et al., 2008). The major cause of fatalities in earthquakes (Crampton and Meade, 2016). In addition, the rebuild of is the collapse of buildings (Spence, 2007), as demonstrated in the Canterbury Christchurch after the earthquakes cost $40 billion (English, earthquakes. Strengthening buildings is 2013), a large sum for a small country. Subsequent large thus a key measure to reduce harm from earthquakes, and may also provide earthquakes occurred in 2013 in Seddon (close to Wellington) economic benefits (Auckland Council, 2015). New Zealand, like many countries, and in 2016 in Kaiköura. has policies on earthquake legislation that Liv Henrich completed her MSc in Psychology at Victoria University of Wellington and is working affect these mitigation actions. as a research assistant in the Department of Psychology there. She has been publishing research with a focus on the effects of framing on earthquake risk perceptions. In 2017 she is moving to The special case of heritage buildings the Netherlands to complete postgraduate study at Leiden University. John McClure is Professor of Risk mitigation is vital not only for Psychology at Victoria University of Wellington. His research examines psychological factors that impede preparation for earthquakes and other hazards such as climate change, focusing particularly the regular building stock but also for on ways of reducing the risk from those hazards. heritage buildings, which have specific Policy Quarterly – Volume 13, Issue 3 – August 2017 – Page 73 The Heritage Problem: is current policy on earthquake-prone heritage buildings too costly? protections in government and local masonry buildings to secure street-facing and remediation of difficult-to-insure council legislation. About 1,000 buildings parapets and facades within a one-year buildings; the high cost of repairs due to in New Zealand in medium- and high- time frame (Ministry of Business, like-for-like heritage replacement risk earthquake zones are categorised as Innovation and Employment, 2017), with specifications; commercial tenants category 1 or category 2 heritage buildings the work part-funded by the government. avoiding hazardous buildings; tenants’ (Hunt, 2016). In Wellington, situated As most parapets are on heritage buildings, unwillingness to pay a premium for in a high earthquake risk area, the city the new legislation should reduce the risk strengthened buildings; and owners being council holds a list of all 633 earthquake- stemming from earthquake-prone forbidden from tearing down their prone buildings (at February 2017). Of heritage buildings. heritage building if they find strengthening these, 124 are heritage listed, and 20 of economically unviable. these are Heritage New Zealand historic The heritage buildings problem Egbelakin et al. (2015) similarly noted places category 1, while 42 are category Despite the value of strengthening that despite the benefits of strengthening 2. A category 1 historic place is defined buildings for public safety, the legislation buildings, there are other significant as: ‘of special or outstanding historical or and policies are still widely debated. A key barriers to this work which prevent many cultural significance or value’ (Heritage part of this debate concerns earthquake- owners from adopting this mitigation policy. One barrier is that earthquake risk is poorly accounted for in property An underlying reason for protecting valuations. In addition, disclosure of seismic risk is not mandatory and there is heritage buildings is that these buildings no unified system for seismic risk information. They also claim that the cost serve to give a city its unique character of strengthening is unlikely to be and also provide a sense of belonging recovered, because renters are unwilling to pay an increased rent on the basis of and cultural identity. building strengthening. High insurance premiums and a lack of risk-based insurance premiums pose another cost- related barrier. Furthermore, property New Zealand website). Category 2 places prone heritage buildings. There are owners often judge that upgraded older are defined as: ‘of historical or cultural two opposing arguments. As noted by buildings are less in demand than newer, significance or value’. Thus, heritage Property Council New Zealand chief more energy efficient ones, and thus pose buildings vary in their cultural value to executive Connal Townsend, ‘Cuba Street a financial loss. These barriers point to the the country. [in Wellington] revealed a rift between the common factor of cost, which is a major As heritage buildings are protected by Government’s stance of focusing purely point in the discussions about the risks law, their owners cannot simply demolish on security of life inside buildings and the and benefits of strengthening heritage them and replace them with more resilient public’s desire to save heritage’ (Cann and buildings. This issue is particularly new buildings. Local councils set their Devlin, 2016). pressing in the capital city, Wellington, own regulations dealing with alterations One point of view in this debate argues where a major earthquake on one of five to heritage buildings. In Wellington, for the right of building owners to known faults is possible (New Zealand internal alterations or repairs to heritage demolish heritage buildings to increase Government, 2015). buildings are permitted (with some public safety. This is exemplified by the The alternative point of view in this exceptions), whereas any external Deadly Heritage report, a collaboration policy debate argues that Wellington alterations or repairs, relocation or between the New Zealand Initiative and should preserve its heritage buildings demolition are not permitted unless the Deloitte New Zealand (Crampton and (Hunt, 2016). This view is represented by council and Heritage New Zealand Meade, 2016). The report argues that for Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister approve (for details, see chapter 21 of the many property owners the protection of Maggie Barry, city councillor Iona Wellington District Plan (Wellington City heritage buildings is not economically Pannett, chairperson of the council’s Council, 2014)). So owners of heritage viable and demolition should be an option strategy committee, and Ian Cassels, buildings have to follow due process when ‘where demolition or protective works are Wellington property developer. They planning to alter their building. There is a needed to prevent injury or death’ (p.4). highlight that there are relatively few 15-year deadline for strengthening The report highlights several barriers for earthquake-prone heritage buildings in earthquake-prone heritage buildings in owners: ‘arbitrary’ national building Wellington and that there is steady Wellington. standard guidelines; lack of knowledge progress in strengthening them, especially New legislation on parapets and among owners of heritage buildings of the since the Christchurch and Seddon facades was also introduced in 2017. This rules that apply to their building and earthquakes in 2011 and 2013. Pannett legislation requires owners of unreinforced where to get help; costs of investigations states: ‘That [number of earthquake- Page 74 – Policy Quarterly – Volume 13, Issue 3 – August 2017 prone heritage buildings] for me is owners to strengthen their (heritage) category 1 buildings in Wellington, but manageable. If we had a thousand heritage buildings. no articles have examined the status of buildings that were prone, that would be In addition, one outcome of the recent this whole class of heritage buildings. more problematic’ (Fitzsimmons, 2016). earthquakes is that public funding for To address this issue, we review data Cassels agrees: ‘Take Cuba St. The strengthening heritage buildings has on current strengthening upgrades to combined rateable value of the quake- increased in Wellington and nationwide. category 1 buildings, to clarify progress prone heritage buildings on the street is For example, heritage building owners on this important group. This specific not particularly high – perhaps $80 can apply for financial support from the issue has a bearing on broader questions million. That’s not a big job. It’s not a large Wellington City Council built heritage that form the context for this work. Do part of the city, but it is a huge part of the incentives fund (increased from $400,000 the costs really outstrip the benefits of city’s character’ (ibid.). to $3 million) and the

Load more