It left building owners facing massive remediation costs, or demolition, or buildings left unused.
In rural towns such as Marton in Rangitīkei, or in smaller cities’ CBDs, such as Whanganui, the impact was stark.
Especially when the strengthening costs far outweighed potential yields.
In some areas, it had a negative impact on the vibrancy of main streets with buildings “being left to rot because people can’t afford the cost of bringing everything up to code”, according to Rangitīkei Mayor Andy Watson.
But it also kickstarted some much-needed rejuvenation of old heritage buildings.
In Whanganui, the council and some private building owners got on to strengthening early and, as a result, have restored many of the city’s beautiful heritage buildings.
Heritage has now become a key asset for the city.
But in far too many cases the work was just not getting done, with the can being kicked further and further down the road.
Until last week, when Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk announced a proposed legislative change that proposes to remove the NBS rating currently used to determine if a building is earthquake-prone.
The intention is to capture only buildings that pose a genuine risk to human life – such as concrete buildings three storeys or higher, and those constructed with unreinforced masonry – in medium and high seismic zones.
For others, owners must secure the facade before the building can be removed from the earthquake-prone register.
The proposed change is estimated to save New Zealanders more than $8.2 billion in remediation and demolition costs.
In a town such as Whanganui, which has 27 earthquake-prone buildings, the estimated remediation cost would be halved from $46 million to $24m.
Local councils will have the authority to grant extensions to remediation deadlines of up to 15 years.
It makes sense to have a mechanism for local differences.
The risk on Lambton Quay is not the same as Broadway in Marton.
As with all safety regulation, it is a balance between safety and cost – and where that pendulum falls is always up for debate.
It makes sense that in the immediate aftermath of something like the Christchurch earthquake, when the destruction and human cost are fresh in the mind, it swings towards safety.
It’s also true that time can make us forget.
As we consider how to deal with earthquake-prone buildings from here on, we need to learn from the practical application of the legislation over the past 15 years.
It may be the rules are causing significant financial strain for little or no safety benefit.
In that case, great, let’s revisit those rules as part of this proposal.
If it means our heritage buildings can continue to be used with little risk, then great.
The news will be welcomed by these towns and building owners, and even better if rule changes and money saved can help revive our CBDs.
But we can’t forget the Christchurch earthquake and the 185 lives it took.
Or the fact that New Zealand is built on an incredibly active faultline and that the risk posed to our buildings and the people that occupy them remains.
Because another one will strike this country.
The facts haven’t changed.
And as structural engineer Dmytro Dizhur told the Whanganui Chronicle: “Earthquakes don’t read policy.”
