billingham

Has this screened over there yet? It is about the Christchurch Earthquake, just seen it on Oz TV, pretty damning stuff.

Stormer999

Pretty difficult to tell from your post.....

Bo-Jangles

I'm guessing this was the 'snippet' of the ABC doco called 'Why?' that we got tonight, on the collapse of the CTV building.

http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/why-20-21-video-4334114

billingham

The program is called "The Anguish, the anger", the question was has it screened over there yet? Which part of the post was difficult to understand!

Jan n Neil

Watched the first few minutes, which were very sad. But if it sought to attach blame (I stopped watching) then I feel that this is perhaps premature. There is a very comprehensive Royal Commission of Enquiry into the CTV building collapse, going on right now, whose report will be informed by discussion with a wide range of organisations and individuals in NZ, including the families and their representatives, the building owner(s), professional engineers, accrediting organisations, universities, etc.

Edit: if it didn't seek to apportion blame, then I apologise for jumping in

Jan

Stormer999

Sorry thought you had missed the link you didn't point out that your title was the prog name. No not screened here yet.
Thanks BJ for the link.....pretty upsetting, just full of emotions turning to anger.

billingham

The whole point is that the Royal Commission is not going to apportion blame - that is not in their remit - which is why the victim's families are having to seek legal representation.

It will be interesting to see if the full program is screened in NZ (doubtful) but I suspect many would have the same attitude - turn off after a few minutes. Sometimes it is difficult to accept that people died because of cover-ups and incompetence.

There seems to be a bit of a worrying theme running in NZ -The Pike River disaster, which according to aspects of the reports emerging, was predicted. Also the Christchurch earthquake - a 150 page document in 2002 setting out the problems with the buildings - ignored.

The CTV building was only built in 1986 - it should not have collapsed in that way. There was also concern from victims' families over why they were let back in after the original quake. Apparently, the engineers reports giving the 'ok' are 'not available'.

Bellasmum

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2011/s3278640.htm

Charismatic

As far as I understand the building met the building codes at the time of construction. Now you can criticize the codes in hindsight for being too relaxed and not requiring upgrading but I doubt you’ll get any distance in court on that.

Much like getting a WOF on your car if the car has a dangerous mechanical issue unchecked or noticed there is no legal recourse. It’s the way gubbermints work innit?

Better to learn from our mistakes and make sure next time buildings meet modern building safety codes. Despite all of 'em adverts and stuff many buildings still don't meet modern codes.

My view is that with over centralised government in Wellington and lack of access routes in an emergency it's a potential catastrophe.

billingham

These are the excuses that appear, and will no doubt be adopted instead of reasons, and below are some counter points of view.

1. You know, and the authorities know, that the CTV building was built to the safety specifications relevant in 1986. This is not new knowledge, it didn't just 'appear' because of the earthquake - they have known about it since.....1986!!! Why had they not brought it up to 21st century standards?

2. In engineering, there is always an amount of hysteresis. Buildings are designed to withstand a certain load, then they add quite a bit of 'headroom'. It could be that the design would have stood, unless of course corners were cut with the actual building construction materials and processes.

3. Whilst it would be expedient to 'move on', listening to some of the devastation wreaked upon the minds of the relatives of the dead, I feel it may take them slightly longer - and they want answers.

The upshot of all this has to be one of building a better and safer future. By making people accountable for their actions now, it may make the relevant authorities think a little more clearly about the priorities for safety in the next 25 years.

Charismatic

Because it wasn't a legal regulation? The landlord runs a business, he wants to keep his overheads down. Prior to the earthquake no one ever asked what standard buildings where certified to, I bet in many other NZ cities they still don't.

I agree regulation should have been stronger in hindsight, all we can do is learn from our mistakes though.
Or maybe just liquefaction placing unexpected stresses on the building?

Jan n Neil

Notwithstanding any conclusions the Royal Commission may reach, the following is widely known about the February earthquake and its relevance to building code:

There is a design called "maximum considered earthquake". Probably because of Christchurch's good record for being stable, most buildings are built to some percent of that. As far as I am aware, nowhere in NZ builds to full MCE specifications- the desired code shoud be for "life-safe" - stays up for 30 minutes to alow exit. HOWEVER a "MCE" only occurs about every 2500 years.

The groundshaking experienced in February was twice MCE. Nowhere in NZ are buildings designed to this level. a once in 5000 year event, approximately. This was some of the greatest ground shaking (i.e. g's) ever recorded in the world.

By the way I totally agree with the comment about Wellington, and I hope that the eyes of NZ will turn to ChCH as living proof they need to move fast.

Jan

billingham

"One of New Zealand's most highly respected structural engineers says there was no need for scores of people to die in a landmark Christchurch building that collapsed during February’s earthquake.

Engineer Barry Davidson says the way the CTV building pancaked when others did not demonstrates a drastic failure - a design flaw, a construction fault or both.

"Nobody needed to die in the CTV building," Mr Davidson told ABC TV's Foreign Correspondent.

"It's a horrible thing to say but it should not have collapsed the way it did."

You clearly have access to more information than Mr Davidson.

On a more worrying note:

"Royal Commission chairman Mark Cooper believes Mr Davidson's strongly held views eliminate him from assisting the commission."

I bet they do.

Bottom line is this - if no building could have survived that quake, how come buildings across the road from the CTV did remain standing?

Expat Kiwi

I'm in Aus and recorded it last night, haven't watched it yet so I can't comment on the contents.

From what I've gleened over here the issue about legal building standards in the 80s is a red herring, the real issue is why the building was still in use after the damage it sustained in the September earthquake, it was damaged then and that damage was worstened by aftershocks and demolition work that was being performed on neighbouring buildings.

Should the CTV building been allowed to remain in use and who decided it was safe to do so?

The Inquiry will not apportion blame because if it did witnesses will clam up and protect their interests, it would prejudice the inquiry.

There is also the issue that the families of foreign nationals are still pressing for compensation but their ability to sue is prohibited in New Zealand.

To admit fault may cause a change in that law because of the international pressure that may be brought to bear. This will open up many other NZ businesses to multi-million dollar claims for compensation and none of them will be equipped to pay them (ie. they are not insured) think of all the asbestos compo claims that could be filed.

nuculetul

Premature ? For a 6 months old issue ? For only one building (the major part of the inquiry was about the CTV building) ?... Unbelievable !