| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 112552 | 2010-09-11 02:32:00 | Earthquake questions | beetle (243) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1136391 | 2010-09-11 02:32:00 | As most of you know and have probably been following and watching the news, the internet etc you have seen the devistation it has caused. it has raised some questions from me........... i may have missed these answers on the news or on the net.... but am curious for the people who are homeless, hoping they can get a home of their own again soon. some involve knowledge or insurance answers i guess or just plain thinking? if Chch is now on a known fault line / plate, the people who now have no house but have a section of rubble left, insurance will replace the house yes? will they be able to build on the section, or will they be required to move from the area? i realise this mite be a once in a lifetime happening, but will they if they can replace the house be able to then get full insurance to cover it for all the normal things now its in a quake zone? and the council is talking about fast tracking building consents for homeless people........ what about the consents that the council in the past has ok'd and the house's that were built got flooded in sludge? new subdivisions that got built but not specifically safe from quakes or flooding? what happens to that land? is it safe to build on now? again? or is it contanimnated now? and fast tracking building consents may mean corners cut? beetle :confused: |
beetle (243) | ||
| 1136392 | 2010-09-11 02:51:00 | now its in a quake zone? We (including you) all live in a quake zone and always have. Unless you plan on moving into Low Orbit, there is always the possibility of being effected by an earthquake. Where your house is will make very little difference to earthquake cover. Flooding risk, on the other hand is much more predictable, and will have a much greater effect on your ability to insure your property. |
fred_fish (15241) | ||
| 1136393 | 2010-09-11 02:51:00 | Well going by the past I would assume you can rebuild as we currently have a rebuilt Napier for instance. | Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1136394 | 2010-09-11 03:05:00 | I meant to rebuild the house on a unsafe peice of ground? the ones that the council had previously said were not safe, which are now all swamped with mud, sludge stuff, should they be rebuilt on if known to be prone to or have known probs like that? will it mean a whole redig and clear out of the soil? remove and bring in sand or clean fill? and yes i know all of nz is at risk, but a zone that has not had a known fault line before may have not had the risk / insurance quirks added to their insurance cover...... beetle :illogical |
beetle (243) | ||
| 1136395 | 2010-09-11 03:10:00 | No matter where you build the ground underneath has to be brought up to a standard first, Makes no difference if there has been an earthquake or not. What happens in a really big earth quake is the ground water gets pushed to the surface, But thats something that no council can make rules about it.It happens. where and when is pure guesswork. If we were to only build on areas earthquake damage wasn't a potential threat then we had best go to Aussie.... |
Metla (12) | ||
| 1136396 | 2010-09-11 03:24:00 | All very ggod questions, and I'd be curious to know the answers. I suspect the insurance companies will only be interested in rebuilding on the existing site, with the existing (compromised) services - in order to save their own expenses of creating whole new subdivisions. However, once rebuilt on that site, you can bet the house that the very same insurance company will refuse to provide any further cover. The ideal would be to shift to a new site in an area less at risk of liquefaction... but who is going to buy the new land and introduce services (water, sewer, phone, power, streets, kerbing, stormwater drainage)? The insurance company sure won't, so it would be up to the victims to buy better land, and to potentially shoulder the cost of walking away from their existing fractured piece of land, which in future should be used for the likes of reserves, parks, golf courses, farmland. Homes built on the same land might be 'worth' $200,000 as a new home, but the immediate history of the sites will depress any market for those homes. Either way, the owners will lose financially, even if their insurance is for 100% replacement. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1136397 | 2010-09-11 03:25:00 | I read an article that Chch Mayor had said that a certain subdivions had ion the past been built on but had been known to be a potential land problem and that procedures needed to be done to fix or lesson the effect of the problem or that the contractors had been told not to build a specific type of building on it, this was ignored, and that whole subdivision is substantially damage and will need to be demolished . one building which had all the building preventitives built in is in the same suburb and has no earthquake probs . cant find the link, article . but im wondering if the contactors didnt listen then, will the next ot of house's be any better off? being built in same place with possibly no disaster plans in place? make sense? :illogical beetle |
beetle (243) | ||
| 1136398 | 2010-09-11 03:28:00 | All very ggod questions, and I'd be curious to know the answers. I suspect the insurance companies will only be interested in rebuilding on the existing site, with the existing (compromised) services - in order to save their own expenses of creating whole new subdivisions. However, once rebuilt on that site, you can bet the house that the very same insurance company will refuse to provide any further cover. The ideal would be to shift to a new site in an area less at risk of liquefaction... but who is going to buy the new land and introduce services (water, sewer, phone, power, streets, kerbing, stormwater drainage)? The insurance company sure won't, so it would be up to the victims to buy better land, and to potentially shoulder the cost of walking away from their existing fractured piece of land, which in future should be used for the likes of reserves, parks, golf courses, farmland. Homes built on the same land might be 'worth' $200,000 as a new home, but the immediate history of the sites will depress any market for those homes. Either way, the owners will lose financially, even if their insurance is for 100% replacement. yes! this is what im meaning........... why couldnt i explain it like that...... :p thank you for understanding my babble......:D beetle |
beetle (243) | ||
| 1136399 | 2010-09-11 03:56:00 | The next quake for that faultline is once every 16,000 years. Now its done its move thing the place is safe as houses for a long time. Wellington is overdue for a biggy though. The thought of 12V falling down a crevice distresses me. Waynes World exclamation. |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 1136400 | 2010-09-11 05:32:00 | 12V? | pine-o-cleen (2955) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||