on_wx Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 It was felt as far away as Wellington and Invercargill and has seen Christchurch Airport evacuated. Fire Service spokesman Ian Lynn said a bridge has reportedly come down following the magnitude 6.0 quake - believed to possibly be on Gayhurst Road, Avonside. He said there have been further callouts, mostly for broken water mains. "This place is going mad." Read more: http://www.nzherald....jectid=10731968 USGS: http://earthquake.us.../10/170_-45.php In February, a 6.3 shook the city and killed 181 people http://en.wikipedia....urch_earthquake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastLow Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 How do you tell them that they'd better get used to it, what with the fault zone becoming more active by the day? Aftershock or is this likely to be the new normal activity for the region? I wouldn't mind betting we see Christchurch turn into a ghost town in the next 10-20 years. An interesting discussion on the complex fault system and it's migration into the Christchurch region: http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2010/09/tectonics-of-the-m7-earthquake-near-christchurch-new-zealand/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
on_wx Posted June 13, 2011 Author Share Posted June 13, 2011 How do you tell them that they'd better get used to it, what with the fault zone becoming more active by the day? Aftershock or is this likely to be the new normal activity for the region? I wouldn't mind betting we see Christchurch turn into a ghost town in the next 10-20 years. An interesting discussion on the complex fault system and it's migration into the Christchurch region: http://all-geo.org/h...ch-new-zealand/ Thanks for the link. CBC just showed videos of lines of cars leaving the city as people are evacuating. They were also interviewing some people packing up saying they can no longer live in the city because they fear for their lives. After the Feb quake there was an official on the tv who said it would be better to not rebuild Christchurch but I can't remember why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derecho! Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Thanks for the link. CBC just showed videos of lines of cars leaving the city as people are evacuating. They were also interviewing some people packing up saying they can no longer live in the city because they fear for their lives. After the Feb quake there was an official on the tv who said it would be better to not rebuild Christchurch but I can't remember why. Well, Christchurch Cathedral has lost its spire 3 times in quakes since 1881, which tells you something. Eventually, we're probably going to have a sequence of moderate quakes like this in LA which will drive people insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastLow Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 The big problem with Christchurch, as I understand, is not just the new fault zones opening up closer to the city, but the nature of the alluvial soils it's built on. You can clearly see the problem with the massive areas of liquefaction that happen every quake. I feel sorry for people that live there, I'd move away, but how do you move if the vast majority of your life's savings are tied up in a dwelling no one will buy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojitodd Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 The big problem with Christchurch, as I understand, is not just the new fault zones opening up closer to the city, but the nature of the alluvial soils it's built on. You can clearly see the problem with the massive areas of liquefaction that happen every quake. I feel sorry for people that live there, I'd move away, but how do you move if the vast majority of your life's savings are tied up in a dwelling no one will buy? Some of the eastern parts of the city are toast. They know it and some committee has already decided which areas of the eastern suburbs are going to be depopulated-they just have not released the report yet. The liquefaction has hit almost exclusively along the Avon and Heathcote rivers and the swampy estuary land they drain around and into (most of the east side)-most of the central and western parts of the city have not had the extreme damage or liquefaction. Also areas northeast that were filled in swampland(like Parklands) are in trouble. It is all too certain that large areas of the eastern suburbs will have to be turned into parkland and recreational land. There will probably be a government buyout, and I think that is what many of the worst affected areas hit by liquefaction area hoping for-they just want out now, and are just waiting for the buyout. It is just a matter of exactly where and how much, and if those people choose to leave the city or rebuild in safer areas. Right now they are tied to the areas by jobs and mortgages, and who knows how many will stay once it is just the job holding them there and not their property? If they rebuild the CBD, they will have to account for the soil with buildings with extremely strong foundations. There will probably be a big deal of new development west and southwest of the city, out toward Lincoln and past the airport-those areas did not have much damage and have soils that are more stable. That is the talk there anyway. Not so sure what the future holds for the hill suburbs and the port Lyttleton. Seems the worst there is the rockfalls. I imagine once things settle down most areas there will still be habitable-just not those on cliff edges, and at the bottom of said cliff edges. I know there is a big push to keep the port up and going-they sent a team to Kobe and Kobe officials told them how important it was to get the port up and running and how Kobe had lost it's place port-wise in Japan and has not regained it, and how it has hurt that city. They in fact are planning to expand the container port with some of the rubble from the earthquake as fill I read somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastLow Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I agree with all of that, I just don't think the New Zealand economy is strong enough to support a large scale buyout and rebuild of what is a fairly large city by their standards. I certainly wouldn't be counting on it as a landowner. The larger buildings the CBD are not far from toast (who knows how much damage has been sustained by buildings there already?), it would take a huge amount of money AND time to sort that out, minimum a couple of years for reconstruction. That's another nail in the coffin for redevelopment, incomes for the population waiting for all that to happen. I'd expect those that could move away, even for 12 months and stay with relatives, would and that means less money flowing around the community for such projects and for repairs in general. As an aside, it's always interesting to me that the old weatherboard dwellings on piers seem to hold up to quakes a lot better than many newer structures, it seems a lot of Christchurch has houses built in this way, could possibly have saved a lot of people from becoming homeless. I think Christchurch is an interesting current model to study for other cities that face the potential for large quakes, even though the quakes weren't seismically huge, the damage and effects are very widespread, and the mix of fairly old construction and new (some of which hasn't stood up to the quakes at all well) is also an interesting factor. Some of the eastern parts of the city are toast. They know it and some committee has already decided which areas of the eastern suburbs are going to be depopulated-they just have not released the report yet. The liquefaction has hit almost exclusively along the Avon and Heathcote rivers and the swampy estuary land they drain around and into (most of the east side)-most of the central and western parts of the city have not had the extreme damage or liquefaction. Also areas northeast that were filled in swampland(like Parklands) are in trouble. It is all too certain that large areas of the eastern suburbs will have to be turned into parkland and recreational land. There will probably be a government buyout, and I think that is what many of the worst affected areas hit by liquefaction area hoping for-they just want out now, and are just waiting for the buyout. It is just a matter of exactly where and how much, and if those people choose to leave the city or rebuild in safer areas. Right now they are tied to the areas by jobs and mortgages, and who knows how many will stay once it is just the job holding them there and not their property? If they rebuild the CBD, they will have to account for the soil with buildings with extremely strong foundations. There will probably be a big deal of new development west and southwest of the city, out toward Lincoln and past the airport-those areas did not have much damage and have soils that are more stable. That is the talk there anyway. Not so sure what the future holds for the hill suburbs and the port Lyttleton. Seems the worst there is the rockfalls. I imagine once things settle down most areas there will still be habitable-just not those on cliff edges, and at the bottom of said cliff edges. I know there is a big push to keep the port up and going-they sent a team to Kobe and Kobe officials told them how important it was to get the port up and running and how Kobe had lost it's place port-wise in Japan and has not regained it, and how it has hurt that city. They in fact are planning to expand the container port with some of the rubble from the earthquake as fill I read somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derecho! Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 As long as they don't have enormously heavy tile roofs (like in Kobe) wood buildings generally hold up quite well in quakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.