Wellington: Natural Disasters

QUESTIONS:

How has your city been affected by natural hazards? What measures were taken to eliminate these problems or mitigate their effects, when? 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

DISCUSSION

In recent years New Zealand’s earthquake risk has been underscored by the 2010 Canterbury and 2011 Christchurch earthquakes, but as Greg Belton-Brown has written “history tells us once every few decades the ground will rumble in New Zealand” (2012, 213). This is evidenced from the colonial beginnings of the country: serious earthquakes took place in Marlborough, the Wairarapa, Tarawera and Wellington between 1848 and 1886 (Belton-Brown, 2012, 213).

Illustration 1. A raupo house in Taranaki between 1875 and 1885. Image from the National Library of New Zealand. 

In his article McClean presents the impact of some of these earliest of earthquakes on Wellington’s formation, particularly in terms of building. He notes that in 1840 the Wellington area was being built on by the New Zealand Company and in early May of that year settlers experienced their first earthquake, though it was minimized by the Company as a rare event in order to encourage the arrival of more settlers (McClean, 2014, 446). This was evidently successful as the area continued to develop, with draughtsman Charles Heaphy estimating that in November 1841 there were around 195 wooden and brick buildings in Wellington as well as 250 Maori dwellings, along with a number of raupo (a material related to bulrush) and clay constructions (McClean, 2014, 446). In the early phases of Wellington’s development, most buildings were timber-framed, with dried raupo used as insulation, and thatched roofs (Harman, 2014, 39). This was in part due to the early experience of natural hazards such as the 1840 earthquake and flooding, but also because of the “practicality of using local and cheap building material, the influence of Maori building practices” (McClean, 2014, 446). Though Maori buildings featured heavily in early 1840s Wellington, with an estimated 491 Maori buildings in the area in 1843, by 1845 that number had dropped to 213, as European style buildings increased (McClean, 2014, 446-447). This corresponded to an increase in brick and stone constructions in the area. Timber continued to be the preferred material, however, due to its stronger performance in earthquakes. There were only around 47 brick or stone buildings in central Wellington in 1848 (McClean, 2014, 447-448). The developing preference of colonists for timber, brick and stone over raupo is not only reflective of an increase in European-style building practices but was most likely influenced by the 1842 devastating fire, in which over 40 raupo and timber buildings were destroyed (Harman, 2014, 48 & McClean, 2014, 447). The raupo buildings were largely blamed for this fire and in 1843 fines were introduced as part of the raupo houses ordinance (McClean, 2014, 447 & Harman, 2014, 48).

The New Zealand Company’s city of Wellington saw its first true test with the 1848 Marlborough earthquake. The earthquake struck on 16^th October 1848 in the Marlborough area and measured around 7.6 on the Richter scale, with Wellington sustaining significant damages (McClean, 2014, 448 & Belton-Brown, 2012, 214). Overall, 49 buildings reported damages, of which 20 were brick buildings, 17 were clay, 10 were a combination of clay and brick and two were timber-framed (McClean, 2014, 449). Additionally, almost every chimney in Wellington was damaged or destroyed (McClean, 2014, 449). Following the earthquake, a Board of Inquiry was established to measure the damages. They found that timber buildings generally survived the event, only sustaining real damage to the chimneys, though Mclean notes that the Board “did not wholly support the construction of new timber buildings” (McClean, 2014, 449). The Board’s recommendations instead focused on improving the construction of brick buildings, recommending “new timber-supported masonry buildings” consisting of bond-timber supports and mortar of lime and clay as opposed to lime and sand (McClean, 2014, 449). The population, however, strongly preferred timber buildings because of their performance in the earthquake and so the Board also recommended greater separation between buildings as an additional measure to avoid collapses and as a further fire precaution (McClean, 2014, 449). Aside from this inquiry no other forms of government assistance were provided aside from a declaration of a day of prayer as well as an order that all ships attempting to leave Wellington harbour in the few days following the earthquake be detained (Belton-Brown, 2012, 214-215). Both were done to provide some moral support and ensure that inhabitants did not feel deserted and to avoid a mass exodus from the settlement (additionally, the harbour closure was likely ordered also to prevent debtors from running out on their debts) (Belton-Brown, 2012, 214-215). 

Illustration 2. A map showing the differing effect on ground levels around the Cook Strait of the 1855 earthquake. A 5000 sq km section of land to the west of the fault was lifted by anywhere from one to six metres. Image from New Zealand Geographic.

The Wellington area did not have long to recover as smaller-scale earthquakes continued to hit the region. Only seven years later it was hit by the 1855 Wairarapa earthquake, which was an estimated 8.2 on the Richter scale “making it the largest recorded earthquake in New Zealand” (McClean, 2014, 450 & Belton-Brown, 2012, 216). However, like the Marlborough earthquake, Wellington was not at the centre of it, but the city did suffer the most damage. This earthquake in fact changed the geography of the city. Between Wellington and the Hutt Valley “a strip of land was raised” and the “previously swampy Basin Reserve was drained and gave the city its historic cricket ground” (Belton-Brown, 2012, 216). Wellington’s inhabitants had learned from the 1848 event and had reconstructed mostly in timber, meaning that New Zealand’s largest earthquake only had a death toll of between five and nine people (Belton-Brown, 2012, 216). Another Commission was established to gauge the damages and had much the same findings as the 1848 Board of Inquiry, that solid timber support was necessary for brick and stone buildings and that “well-built buildings with solid foundations suffered little damage” (McClean, 2014, 450). The Commission, according to McClean, recommended that “future buildings should be low level, fire resistant, earthquake resistant structures to be hopefully maintained in good condition”, though he notes that public opinion was still more strongly in favour of enhanced or reinforced timber-framed structures (McClean, 2014, 450). Perhaps the most surprising element of the 1855 earthquake is not the repetition of advice but the continued lack of government response, with the only immediate provision being some tents provided by the colonial forces to certain individuals whose homes were made uninhabitable (Belton-Brown, 2012, 216). 

Overall, early government response to these hazards appear to have been founded on an expectation of self-reliance and independence, since with government assistance was minimal (Belton-Brown, 2012, 217). Aside from some building considerations regarding material and spacing, the government response to earthquakes and other natural disasters would not significantly evolve until well into the 20^th century. Following the 1855 earthquake, reconstruction was again primarily in timber (McClean, 2014, 452-453). However, memories of these earlier events faded from public consciousness. After Wellington was designated the capital, demand rose for larger civic buildings. Timber construction declined from the mid-1870s onward, influenced by colonial engineers and architects who called for “masonry buildings to enhance fire safety and achieve greater perceived permanence” (McClean, 2014, 452-453).

The impact of earthquakes on Wellington is not just a question of history but a concern in the present as well. It forces questions not only linked to urban planning and building design but also concerning the preservation of heritage sites throughout the city. As noted by Goded et al, “New Zealand experiences approximately 15,000 earthquakes annually, of which 150-200 are strong enough to be felt” (2017, 186). Following large-scale earthquakes in Hawkes Bay in 1931 and Wairarapa in 1942 government response was strengthened through actions such as the creation of the Earthquake and War Damage Act, a fund to assist people affected by earthquakes (Belton-Brown, 2012, 230). The name has changed but this institution survives today as the Earthquake Commission (Belton-Brown, 2012, 230). 

Illustration 3. The Reading Cinema parking building being demolished following damage due to the 2017 Kaikoura Earthquake. Image by Mark Mitchell, taken from the New Zealand Herald.

These events of the mid-20^th century also gave rise to considerations of heritage buildings as well as building design generally. According to reports, the Wellington City Council between 1968 and 2003 either strengthened or demolished 500 of 700 buildings that were identified as earthquake prone (McClean, 2014, 453). Though heritage was a factor in the assessment of which buildings were earthquake prone, this criteria does not seem to have been given much weight particularly in the 1970s and 1980s as demolition appears to have more frequently been pursued. For example, in 1973 758 buildings in Wellington were identified as being earthquake risks, and by 1983 261 (34%) were demolished and only 17 strengthened (McClean, 2014, 453). The buildings that were strengthened McClean notes, were often the subject of “intense and high profile preservation campaigns” (McClean, 2014, 453). This suggests that the decision between strengthening or demolishing buildings was a pragmatic one of safety and cost (as reinforcing buildings, particularly heritage ones, could be an expensive process). 

Following the Canterbury earthquake in 2011 a commission was created to “investigate and report on the causes of building failures as a result of earthquakes” and to evaluate the strength of buildings left standing (Goded et al, 2017, 186). In Goded et al’s article they studied how Wellington is attempting to preserve heritage locations and protect them from earthquakes as well as how different stakeholders (building owners, city planners/engineers, members of the public etc.) view preservation and heritage. They report that the Canterbury earthquake  prompted cities across the country, including Wellington, to carry out similar investigations as Canterbury had, particularly to assess the “capacity of older buildings to resist earthquakes” (Goded et al, 2017, 186). In 2016 it was determined that 641 buildings in Wellington were classified as earthquake prone, of which 21 were churches, raising questions as to how these older structures, many of which were heritage sites or places of historical, cultural, religious or community significance ought to be protected (Goded et al, 2017, 187). Overall recommendations that have been put forward are that there needs to be better communication with communities regarding the structural integrity of these sites and the issues of earthquake safety and preservation; the provision of opportunities for public funding to improve the structures, as not all building owners can afford the burden of renovating buildings to meet standards; as well as better cohesion in building assessment procedures, as there is currently a high degree of variation between assessors (Goded et al, 2017, 205-207). 

Building earthquake resistant structures in this earthquake-prone city is a challenge and has been since its founding. However, balancing the protection of the city’s heritage, particularly the buildings that have managed through decades of earthquakes, while adapting for the future is a key consideration for Wellington. 

Sources:

1. Belton-Brown, G. (2012). Revolution or Evolution – The Response of the Law to Earthquakes in New Zealand 1848-1948. Canterbury Law Review, 18(2), 213-231.
2. Goded, T. et al. (2017). Understanding Different Perspectives on the Preservation of Community and Heritage Buildings in the Wellington Region, New Zealand. Natural Hazards, 87, 185-212.
3. Grapes, R. (2000). The Day The Earth Shifted. New Zealand Geographic, 046. https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/the-day-the-earth-shifted/
4. Harman, K. (2014). ‘Some dozen raupo whares, and a few tents’: remembering raupo house in colonial New Zealand. Journal of New Zealand Studies, 17, 39-57.
5. McClean, R. (2014). Making Wellington: Earthquakes, Survivors and Creating Heritage in the Town. In M.G & E.P. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 12^th Australasian Urban History Planning History Conference. (445-462). Australasian Urban History/Planning History Group and Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, 2014.
6. Vosslamber, R. (2015). After the Earth Moved: Accounting and Accountability for Earthquake Relief and Recover in Early Twentieth-Century New Zealand. Accounting History, 20(4), 518-535.
7. White, I. & J. Lawrence. (2020). Continuity and Change in the National Riskscapes: A New Zealand Perspective on the Challenges for Climate Governance Theory and Practice. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 13, 215-231.