The disaster which struck Christchurch on February 22 represents the greatest loss to this country's stock of heritage buildings from a single event, raises profound questions and poses great challenges. Some commentators have already offered their solutions. The issues should be worked through carefully.
It is natural to say, "People matter, buildings don't". The safety of people should be our first concern but it doesn't follow buildings don't matter. If you care about people you care about the buildings they invest with intense feeling. This is concentrated in our heritage stock, which therefore deserves special attention. Recognition of this is usually a secondary, but early, reaction.
It happened when Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker called for the restoration of the Anglican Cathedral. It is the symbol of the city and the province. To accept its loss would be like accepting their demise. Few would welcome that. But how great is the loss and what should be done about it?
Broadly, after Dunedin, Christchurch had the greatest concentration of buildings from our colonial era, including many of national and some of international significance. More specifically, but incompletely, the Anglican Cathedral, though badly damaged, is not reduced to rubble.
The Catholic Cathedral seems in worse shape. The Provincial Council chamber appears a total ruin. These last contained two of the outstanding interiors in New Zealand, spaces of international distinction. The Timeball Station at Lyttelton, another internationally important structure, is to be demolished.
Perhaps 16 churches have gone. The Press building is badly damaged. The Cranmer Centre (formerly Christchurch Girls' High School) has apparently been badly hit. More cheerfully, despite statements that Christ's College was severely affected, it seems significant damage is confined to the Harper/Julius and School House buildings.
The state of the Christchurch Arts Centre, the old Canterbury College buildings, is less clear. It was damaged in the September quake, though not irreparably. Its clock tower now shows an ominous crack.
I understand the different clock tower in Victoria Square has been demolished. Numerous commercial and residential buildings are afflicted. The worst-affected areas are Lyttelton and the CBD. In the latter, upwards of 25% of buildings have been red-stickered as in danger of imminent collapse.
Some recently constructed buildings have also failed, two with a great loss of life: the Canterbury Television tower and the Pyne Gould Corporation's office. This gives the lie to Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee's premature pronouncement of February 26 that "As a general premise, older buildings are the buildings where people have suffered loss of life".
It also raises questions about why buildings fail and where they should be sited. Unreinforced masonry buildings are at risk from lateral shaking which occurs in many earthquakes and can cause their collapse.
Many of the colonial-era buildings in Christchurch were of this type although, by the time of last September's earthquake, several had been retrofitted with reinforcing. That event showed even a little such strengthening makes a considerable difference to a building's performance.
That quake was centred west of the city and deeper while the February one was east, nearer and shallower. Christchurch's CBD is an old riverbed where the February event caused liquefaction. The concomitant vertical shaking was very great.
Also, if its site turns to liquid even a tensilely strong structure may fail, apparently the reason some modern buildings did. This has produced suggestions of relocating the CBD and enhancing building codes to mitigate the hazard.
It seems to me relocating the CBD would so prolong its reconstruction as to risk killing Christchurch's revival by delay. It seems better to rebuild on the existing site, but to new standards.
What should be done about heritage and "character" buildings? In the case of those registered as historic places, and/or listed in the district plan, a democratic process has already flagged the public's interest, meaning they should be considered for special attention and public funding. Here's one option for their future.
Some will be capable of restoration. Restored masonry buildings should be given tensile reinforcement. Retrofitting them against liquefaction might be challenging but could also be done. Some buildings reduced to rubble should be replaced with durable replicas. It won't be possible to do this for all. Enough should be done to re-conjure Old Christchurch. This won't appeal to everyone.
Chris Trotter (ODT, 25.2.11) thinks Christchurch should be rebuilt only with modern buildings. He speaks of the phoenix being born again from the debris of its own demise; this is not a moment for clinging to the past.
But the reborn phoenix looked the same as the old. That is how it transcended ruin. If they're not to have an emotionally neutered future, people will need reminders of the past. Providing that safely is the challenge. It is a high mountain. It can be climbed.
• Peter Entwisle is a Dunedin curator, historian and writer.
