The Minister for Earthquake Recovery, Gerry Brownlee, was quite right to state this week that no more people should die trying to save Christchurch's unreinforced, non-earthquake-proofed historic buildings: the safety of human life must come before the preservation of buildings, however "iconic".
Since no part of New Zealand is safe from earthquakes, it is certain the lessons of Christchurch will mean the reconsideration of building codes, including codes for relatively modern and supposedly safer structures.
What this will mean for the rest of New Zealand is moot, although it is relevant to remind ourselves that Wellington underwent a substantial, costly and controversial process 30 years ago which saw many historic buildings demolished because they did not meet new building codes, and many new buildings erected which are supposedly far safer for human occupation, especially when fitted with vibration control technologies such as the lead-rubber base isolation system invented here by Dr Bill Robinson.
Many of our buildings and bridges are now fitted with this system, including Parliament and the Museum of New Zealand, but notable historic buildings, especially of the 19th century, have no such protection. This state of affairs is especially relevant to Dunedin which, although more distant from major known fault lines, cannot be considered any less vulnerable.
The scale of potential damage and destruction in Dunedin's central business district should an earthquake of Christchurch's magnitude strike may be assumed to be colossal. Mr Brownlee has declared, somewhat imperiously, that historic buildings in Christchurch if they have "any damage at all" will be demolished, no matter what their connection to the past.
He was annoyed that the Christchurch City Council refused consent to allow historic structures damaged in the September event to be demolished, and has declared the council will not have that power "this time", noting that several workers while engaged in the renovation of some of those buildings were killed in last week's earthquake.
He then said, somewhat confusingly, that some structures would be rebuilt to "replicate" older versions and would "officially" be new buildings, while others would be replaced with a completely new style - but that was up to the people of Christchurch.
All this sounded like policy being invented on the hoof; understandable in light of the web of complications the recovery measures are unravelling.
However, the question remains and must be dealt with: how is the safety of people to be assured even in buildings that have been built to existing standards? Mr Brownlee has also said he does not see an immediate need to change building and earthquake codes, yet the public, horrified by the visual images of the failure of those standards, likely will demand more convincing assurances than this.
It is probable that restrictions will be imposed on the reconstruction of the Christchurch CBD, both in building height and location: the foolishness of permitting unsuitable urban development on swampy or sandy ground is obvious by now, and not just in Christchurch.
Since the earthquake code applies retrospectively to all buildings, including historic buildings, one question also needing answers is that of cost, and who should pay. Some heritage buildings have been strengthened to meet the code, usually when being redeveloped.
But the cost is high, well beyond the means of many historic building owners whose properties stand empty, or are being used in ways that involve limited human occupation. There is also the issue of obtaining a reasonable investment return from expenditure.
The lessons from Christchurch will require re-examination of construction policies in every city and town in the country.
In Dunedin, that must surely include existing building standards and compliance codes; whether the district plan should continue to allow construction on land likely to be subject to liquefaction and, if so, the degree of protection required; the provision, location and design of services; and, surely, the future of many of our heritage buildings. None are insurmountable challenges, but they are challenges and have to be faced.
