International.
In January 2010, his company was engaged by the UN, to assess the damage
to 400,000 buildings in Haiti. A GIS mapping process is used, and the
data is uploaded and made public every day.
In Japan 2011, 25000 people were lost. This is best organised disaster
recovery effort in history. Debris is classified and sorted and stored
for reuse. Concrete, brick, asphalt and gravel are separated at source.
Machinery, cars, motorcycles, reinforcing steel, and other metals have
been kept apart and stored.
Japan has learned the hard way that how well you do the cleanup flows on
into how well the rebuild is done.
Kobe was rebuild in three years. They lost 6000 people.
The quality of leadership demonstrated in Christchurch is good.
Christchurch has attempted to do things well, and that's very rare in
the world.
The building code in New Zealand is good. The buildings here performed
as expected. We expect buildings to deform. Some of them will break.
That absorbs the energy of the earthquake without killing people. We
don't expect buildings to collapse.
Liquefaction is common around the world. Resettlement of the land in
excess of one meter lower is also common. Compared with other places
Christchurch suffered a moderate earthquake and moderate damage. You had
a little earth movement here, and all the damage can be remediated. The
Christchurch earthquake was very average. To take your city down because
of that, is to make a hugely expensive mistake. Christchurch will pay
dearly if you choose to remove too many buildings.
On the 22 February, the strong motion lasted for only ten seconds.
There's damage, but it's not that bad.
Christchurch has many options. The question is: do you want to use those
options?
For instance; it's easy to rebuild safely on land that is subject to
liquefaction.
I would consider the removal of 20% of existing buildings to be extreme.
Demolition of about 50% of the buildings in Christchurch is intended. I
can't understand that. Technically speaking every building is
repairable. No exceptions. Do you choose to use that option?
Excessive demolition will slow down the rebuild, will make it difficult
to obtain new insurance, will make financing more difficult, and will
contribute to loss of investor confidence. Christchurch runs the risk of
suffering capital flight, and the creation of a donut city. A big effort
needs to me made to get people living in the central city.
It's not too late to stop the destruction. Ask if you really need to
remove all those buildings? Can we keep the bulldozers at bay for a
while and rethink the process? It's easy for me to say these things. I'm
pleased to know that many others have been thinking about it too.