AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

Keywords

Cultural heritage value; seismic retrofit; heritage principles; earthquake architecture; technology

Abstract

The ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value
2010 recognises that conservation encompasses the “evidence of time” and “contributions of all
periods.” Buildings have a certain degree of layering seen through architectural changes over
time that we accept as an evolving society. As time elapses, new research and technology are
brought to the forefront of society. With an ongoing risk of earthquake damage to New
Zealand’s historic heritage, seismic retrofitting is becoming an integral part of ensuring our
heritage continues to survive. This gives opportunity for current generations to leave a mark of
technological advancement on society, however issues must be addressed as to the sensitivity
of certain strengthening interventions. There is risk that work can negatively impact the heritage
values of a building. By considering strengthening interventions from an architectural
perspective it is possible new work can add, rather than detract from heritage value.

Introduction

This paper will start with a brief introduction of the latest legislation relating to earthquake-prone
buildings introduced by parliament and the potential issues this has for heritage buildings. The
aim of discussing legislative issues is to outline a purpose for introducing an appropriate method
to deal with strengthening of heritage buildings. It will then go on to discuss current issues and
techniques of seismic strengthening, and the architectural possibilities these offer. The
principles of the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural
Heritage Value will be commented on, without helpful insight given into their
foundations.Through investigation into ICOMOS principles an appropriate methodology for
strengthening heritage buildings will be made. Three case studies will be looked into, with
multiple alternatives for strengthening considered. The first - St Mary’s of the Angels in
Wellington - will raise concerns that perhaps new techniques for seismic strengthening could
have a negative impact on New Zealand’s heritage, however the inverse may also be argued.
The second will be a study of the Arts Centre of Christchurch that will show a history of seismic
strengthening. The third - St Benedict's Church and Presbytery Complex (Catholic) in Auckland
- will offer a potential design for a building that has recently been deemed earthquake-prone.

The need for seismic strengthening introduced by the Building Act

The Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 came into force on July 1,
2017 and brought with it large changes in the way earthquake-prone buildings (EPB) are dealt
with. The primary aim of the Act is to prevent death and minimise risk, and it does this by
balancing three main considerations: “protecting people from harm in an earthquake, the costs
of strengthening or removing buildings and the impact on heritage.” ¹ In dealing with buildings of
heritage value, advice can be sought on consent requirements from the relevant Territorial
Authority, and an extension of up to ten years for work completion can be applied for.
Guidelines for Earthquake Strengthening published by NZHPT and written by Lou Robinson and
Ian Bowman, are available, however they were written in 2000 and only being guidelines do not
hold any statutory power. This can lead to work that contradicts ICOMOS principles resulting in
a loss of heritage fabric. Lambton Quay Properties Nominee Ltd v Wellington City Council
(2014) was a case argued in the environment court regarding the fate of the Harcourts Building
in Wellington’s CBD. This case outlined quite clearly the dangers presented to heritage by this
legislation. Under the Building Act the Harcourts Building owner had the option to either
strengthen their building at large cost or demolish it. The owner chose to apply for demolition,
however Wellington City Council acting under the Resource Management Act denied this
application given the buildings exceptional heritage value. The court raised concerns of
“tension” and “inherent irony”² between the Building Act and Resource Management Act. This
case showed that quite often owners are given no option but to strengthen their heritage
building, although there are minimal rules as to how this must be done. The case also showed
the new provisions of the Building Act introduced by the need for seismic strengthening had the
potential to lead to a loss of heritage without legal intervention.

Literary review for seismic retrofitting of heritage buildings

Seismic strengthening is led by current technology and economic drive, and as a result heritage
conservation is not always a priority, resulting in lots of techniques currently leading to “heavy
demolition.”³ Internationally recognised conservation architect Randolph Langenbach has
commented “unlike maintenance and rehabilitation from decay, a seismic project may tear apart
a building which was otherwise in good repair and make it almost entirely new. In such an
instance, only the image, rather than the substance, of much of the historic fabric is preserved.”⁴
He goes on to say that unless architects and engineers “understand the importance of the
original structure”⁵ destruction of important elements and characteristics will continue because it
will be treated as a new building and no consideration will be given to evidence of the original
handiwork. Look, Wong and Augustus in The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings (1997)
recommended three principles to mitigate adverse effects of retrofitting heritage buildings.
These have since been adopted by the U.S Department of the Interior as official guidelines for
the USA for preserving historic homes and are as follows:

      a) “Historic materials should be preserved and retained to the greatest extent
      possible and not replaced wholesale in the process of seismic strengthening;

b) New seismic retrofit systems, whether hidden or exposed, should respect the
character and integrity of the historic building and be visually compatible with it in
design; and

c) Seismic work should be ‘reversible’ to the greatest extent possible to allow
removal for future use of improved systems and traditional repair of remaining
historic material.”⁶

 

These principles will be carried forward into a methodology for seismic strengthening. A paper
written by Paulo B. Louren ç o and published at the Getty Conservation Institute, USA,
recognises “[seismic strengthening] interventions must be based on understanding of the nature
of the building and the actual causes of damage or change.”⁷ The paper notes the first most
important action is to improve connections through anchoring systems or externally bonded
systems. The second most important action is to prevent disintegration by repointing of mortar,
or anchoring multiple leaves of a wall using metallic or polymer meshes. Earthquake engineer
and architect Andrew Charleson writes “minimum intervention involves utilizing the capabilities
of the existing structure to the greatest extent possible.”⁸ This is reflective of Langenbach’s
philosophy that realises historic buildings have structural strength in their own right, and utilising
this strength with supplementary systems will allow the most retention of original fabric.
Examples of systems that may be introduced for seismic reinforcement are:

a) Vertical structure members: steel posts or mullions, reinforced concrete
b) Diaphragms - plywood, steel horizontal truss, reinforced concrete slab
c) Shear Walls - perforated steel, reinforced concrete
d) Braced frames - steel, dampening devices
e) Moment frames - steel, reinforced concrete
f) Seismic isolation - dampening devices

However these systems alone cannot just be inserted into a building. They must be carefully
integrated to ensure compatibility with the structure. Furthermore there are rules that should be
followed to guarantee the heritage value of the structure remains intact. These guidelines can
be found and adopted from the history of conservation theory.

 

Commentary on conservation principles

In order to place large emphasis on the importance of the ICOMOS principles as far as they
concern care of heritage buildings it is necessary to gain an understanding of how these
principles were founded. The writings of William Morris (1834-1896), founder of the Society for
the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) in Britain in 1877, are especially relevant in this
case. It is in his manifesto where the foundations for an appropriate methodology for seismic
strengthening can be found.

He argued to “put Protection in the place of Restoration... to prop a perilous wall or mend a
leaky roof by such means as are obviously meant for support or covering, and show no
pretence of other art, and otherwise to resist all tampering with either the fabric or ornament of
the building as it stands.” This implies additions are more appropriate over alterations to a
building’s fabric. Leave what is in place and add to it in an effort of protection. A common theme
is brought about in this theory. Buildings in their original form are regarded as important
documents that hold valuable information about construction techniques within a certain period
of time. To lose or replace fabric would be a loss of this valuable information. Morris goes on to
write, “thus, and thus only can we protect our ancient buildings, and hand them down instructive
and venerable to those that come after us.” ⁹ This selfless view of looking past his lifetime to
generations ahead is an invaluable thought process that should be more readily adopted today.

 

Camillo Boito (1836-1914) was one of the founding figures in Italian preservation, and although
he found some disagreement with his English counterparts, agreed in a number of areas. He
said “architectural monuments from the past are not only valuable for the study of architecture
but contribute as essential documents to explain and illustrate all the facets of the history of
various people throughout the ages… [therefore] any alteration, however slight, if it appears to
be part of the original could be misleading and eventually give rise to erroneous assumptions.”¹⁰
This asserts the theory that new additions must be made in the contemporary style of the time.
It aims to provide the building with a map of time where the eras of new additions can be traced
conclusively. Boito’s 1893 revised Charter is seen as the foundation document for modern
conservation policy in Italy,¹¹ leading into the Venice Charter for the Conservation and
Restoration of Monuments and Sites 1964.

 

Interestingly, this philosophy of allowing interventions to be obviously noticeable somewhat
aligns with the Gothic Revival movement, responsible for the creation of the majority of New
Zealand’s churches. ‘Simplicity as an expression of humble function’ and ‘honesty of
construction’ - “whereby a building’s practical usage and construction materials should not be
concealed.”¹² As a result, the concept of honesty of construction could be argued as a suitable
intervention for the strengthening of Gothic churches. As they fundamentally require lateral force
strengthening, the insertion of steel trusses, with extending steel columns down the walls to
connect with a rigid floor diaphragm could be considered appropriate. This exoskeleton
approach will be applied in the second case study.

Gustavo Giovannoni (1873-1947) was another important Italian figure in conservation who
shared similar views with Boito. He held the belief that in many cases restoration could be
achieved by the use of modern methods and technologies. For example using “metal structures”
or “reinforced concrete as a safeguard against earthquakes.”¹³ However he  had concerns that
work should not go too far so as to retract from the historic building. In this way he preferred
columns in a cathedral to be taken out, cut into pieces and reinforced as opposed to the
insertion of a concrete frame.¹⁴ Architectural historian Jukilheto wrote that Giovonanni believed it
was possible to over-emphasise modern techniques, and a balance must be found between
different aspects and values present in the monument.¹⁵ Nonetheless it is clear he argued more
on the side progressive modernity for conservation purposes as seen in his strong writings
against the restoration philosophy of Viollet Le Duc.

 

Image not available

Giovannoni’s first of 5 principles for restoration. Restoration by consolidation, the integration of a
secondary system to prop/repair a damaged element.
_{Lucina Napoleone, “Teorie e storia del restauro,” Corso di laurea Restauro Architettonico, 2004-05.}

 

The Venice Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites 1964 is a
coming together of popular philosophies previously outlined and is able to provide a baseline for
seismic strengthening theory. It informed the creation of the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter,
thus similarities are found between the two and will be discussed. Of particular relevance is
Article 2 “The conservation and restoration of monuments must have recourse to all the
sciences and techniques which can contribute to the study and safeguarding of the architectural
heritage.”¹⁶ This outlines the concept that if a technique - such as seismic strengthening - will
contribute to protecting a heritage building it is an accepted form of work. When this article is
read in conjunction with Article 3, which states “the intention in conserving and restoring
monuments is to safeguard them no less as works of art than as historical evidence,”¹⁷ it
becomes obvious that removing historical evidence is not satisfactory, therefore making
additions is the appropriate conclusion. If an argument of aesthetic value being lost is raised,
Article 3 addresses this by stating there is no hierarchy between “works of art” and “historical
evidence”, therefore an appropriate form of aesthetic design for strengthening should be
prioritised over the removal of fabric.

 

The ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value
continues a theme of the contribution of time periods playing a crucial role in a building’s life. In
its fifth principle titled ‘Respect for surviving evidence and knowledge’, it states the importance
of “authenticity” and “integrity”.¹⁸ In conservation terms these words have specific meanings.
Authenticity is defined as “the credibility or truthfulness of the surviving evidence and knowledge
[which includes] form and design, substance and fabric, technology and craftsmanship.”¹⁹ In
other words, authenticity is important in retaining an understanding of how a building was
initially built. Truthfulness is saying ‘this structure was not built to be earthquake proof’ - it’s a
reflection of that time-period of structural knowledge. It is important to conserve for future
generations. Integrity is the “wholeness or intactness of a place”²⁰ including a ll tangible and
intangible attributes and elements that express its cultural heritage value. This would imply that
a place should remain as close to its original form and materiality as possible, despite any
alterations that are necessary as a result of the Building Act provisions. The ICOMOS Charter
through principle 21 - ‘Adaptation’ - makes use of Boito’s philosophy mentioned earlier, that all
new work should be distinguishable from old, be the minimum necessary to contribute to a
continued use, and be “substantially reversible”.²¹ Principle 18 regarding preservation is
particularly relevant to earthquake strengthening, stating that “repair of a technically higher
standard than that achieved with the existing materials or construction practices may be justified
only where the stability or life expectancy of the site or material is increased, where the new
material is compatible with the old, and where the cultural heritage value is not diminished.”²²
This points to the need for a methodology which takes these principles into account and directly
applies them to seismic strengthening work.

 

Adopted methodology for seismic strengthening

The process of coming up with a methodology for the seismic strengthening of heritage
buildings that takes an architecturally dominated standpoint has included consideration of all
previous points mentioned in this paper. However, arguments can be made against this
philosophy and these will be addressed in the two case studies at the end.

The Methodology is as follows:

1. Evaluation of seismic strength outlined in the EQ-Assess guidelines for the Seismic
Assessment of Existing Buildings^.23 This will involve writing up an Initial Seismic  Assessment,
followed by a Detailed Seismic Assessment aimed at giving the building a percentage rating of
strength against the New Building Standard.

2. Diagnostic write-up as to the level of strengthening required. This will include the areas that
need to be considered (floor slabs, facades, connections etc). This is an important first step as it
gives an idea as to the extent of work required leading into the design phase.

3. Research conducted into the cultural heritage value of the building and prevalent architectural
themes to aid an understanding of the intentions of the architect(s) and contributions of the
building to society as a whole.

4. Application of a sympathetic, architectural design of strengthening that balances minimum
intervention with an acceptable level of rating against the New Building Standard. The design
will take into account architectural themes and historic motifs in a range of ways. The design
work does not aim at mimicking the current fabric, but complementing it, adding a layer of
heritage value to the building. Examples of earthquake architecture may include patterned steel
shear walls; steel columns with dressings that reflect the architectural style of the building;
considered layout of members (scale, organisation, composition etc) that conform to a desired
overall form in keeping with the heritage values; considered anchor design; considered member
design (size of steel, colour etc); connection aesthetics between members.

5. In completing the design phase the building should:

a) Retain historic materials and preserve them to the greatest possible extent, most likely
through an increase in structural capacity.

b) Include new seismic retrofit systems that are aesthetically compatible and respectful of
the character and integrity of the building.

c) Utilise reversible elements to allow for future restoration and allow for future
improvements.

 

Case Studies

The first case study that will be examined is the strengthening work conducted on St Mary’s of
the Angels in Wellington (2014), for which the construction company won a national
heritage/restoration award. This project will introduce the method used by the construction
company, and argue that a more suitable process could have been used. It will compare the
work done against the criteria of the methodology outlined earlier.

The church was “believed to be the world’s first reinforced concrete gothic-styled churches.”²⁴ Its
gothic columns and portals were a mark of technological advancement introduced by the
architect Frederick Clere in 1922. In 1984 Heritage New Zealand recognised “[the] building
enlarges our understanding of the diversity of Clere's work. It maintains its integrity and is in
itself a history of the development of the Catholic Church in the area and a lasting monument to
the skill and originality of the architect.”²⁵ If we take the words of Morris and Boito into account, it
would show these columns to be of outstanding heritage value and as such should be retained.
Giovannoni, as pointed out earlier, has held the belief that columns can be taken out and
strengthened, however should remain as original fabric.

As part of the seismic work LT McGuinness introduced “replacement gothic columns to support
the structure,”2⁶ removing the original ones. New foundations were added requiring the
replacement of the floor, all interior walls were lined with spray concrete shear walls, new
concrete portals were added and the roof structure was tied together with steel rods. In an effort
to retain the aesthetic quality of the church, most of its original structural fabric was replaced or
covered. It’s been written “most visitors marvelling at the restored interior think the new portals
and columns are original.”²⁷ From one side of the argument this can be seen as a positive
intervention. One of the most significant aspects of the church is its aesthetic quality, and these
works adhered to retaining this aspect for public benefit. In addition, the strengthening works will
lead to the lasting survival of the building.

Proposed works to the building that show the extent of what was modified.
Image: https://nzia.co.nz/awards/local/award-detail/8221#St%20Mary%20of%20the%20Angels

 

On the other side of the argument the construction techniques were in contradiction to many
principles outlined in the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter. New additions were not reversible and
did not respect the surviving evidence and knowledge of the building. Alterations did not align
with minimum intervention by utilising the existing structure, they completely replaced it.
Re-creation or reconstruction “of an existing or former structure” ²⁸ are not considered
conservation processes. It can be argued that repair in a more advanced material is justified
where stability of the building is increased, however this is a compromise that should not
diminish the cultural heritage value of the building. It should however be accepted that given
modern day building standards and the weight of life safety requirements, certain compromises
need to be reached. This paper will explore how a design could have been implemented that
meets both the required level of safety for the building while not completely retracting from
certain important areas of its heritage value.

The first option will accept that the gothic columns required stronger replacements, however will
suggest that not all of the columns required replacing. To retain at least one original column on
each side is an obvious solution to retaining past knowledge of the original architects intentions.
Steel elements will be introduced on each side of the original columns to ensure this area of the
building has the required strengthening level. It is impertinent to retain a view of the columns so
the placement of steel will be carefully considered. It is possible these elements could take the
form of post-tensioning cables which would completely reduce visual impairment. For purposes
of symmetry one column on each side of the nave will be retained in situ. The addition of
sprayed reinforced concrete shear walls over the original walls has compromised heritage
value. Instead, it is suggested that perforated steel plate shear walls be utilised against the
existing walls. These will be tied into the new foundations and to the supporting steel beams in
the ceiling of the aisles. Being perforated, the original walls will be visible behind them, and it is
possible to pick and choose the placement of panels. Steel plate shear walls have high energy
dissipating capabilities and are ductile members.²⁹ The advantage of these additions is their
replaceable nature. An appropriate colour treatment can be applied, removing any visual
intrusiveness that naked steel might possess.

An artistic impression aimed at displaying different alternatives to the removal of the columns.

 

The other option which was referenced in one of the proposals, but not carried out, is the
wrapping of the gothic columns in Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP). FRP’s are a relatively new
technology for seismic strengthening of existing members by wrapping around them.³⁰ They
have the benefit of not changing the appearance of the member, and only adding a few
millimeters of thickness. They are the least intrusive alternative that allow all the original
columns to be retained in situ and preserved.

These techniques are aimed at prioritising authenticity of the original structure. The removal of
historic fabric leading to a misunderstanding of the structure for future generations should be
avoided. In 300 years if documentation is lost and a survey is needed to gather information
about the building, the possibility of learning how construction happened in 1922 has been lost.

 

Arts Centre of Christchurch

The Arts Centre of Christchurch consists of 23 buildings, with 21 of them category 1 listed on
the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero. The complex has a long history of seismic
strengthening dating back to 1974, giving useful insight into how heritage values may be
impacted by certain techniques. A report written in 1974 outlined the following strengthening
work:

a) Brace all chimneys by securing to roofs and walls.
b) Tie the walls together through roof and roof planes and by supplementary bracing in
some areas.
c) Build new structures (shear walls, steel frames) within the former Chemistry, Biological,
Engineering and Observatory Tower buildings.³¹

Following potential issues raised by implementing seismic strengthening work, a Conservation
Plan was written by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust in 1991. This planned outlined that
an acceptable cost for strengthening “will depend to a large extent on the intensity of the
earthquake they are designed to resist.”³² This idea was a social choice based on the
philosophy that a greater effort would be made to protect more precious parts of the complex. In
1993 another stage of strengthening was proposed to introduce new concrete walls and to
strengthening diaphragms, however this raised more concerns about how work would intrude on
the buildings. Writer Glyn Strange in her discussion about conservation issues wrote “a full
programme of strengthening may intrude further upon the historic fabric of the buildings and
alter their appearance to such an extent that it might obscure some of the reasons for their
preservation.”³³

One of the latest strengthening projects involved an upgrade to the 1878 Christchurch Girls
High School. Implemented by Holmes Consulting Group, the work utilised Fibre Reinforced
Polymers (FRP) wrap to the walls. Floors were overlaid with plywood to provide a bracing
diaphragm, the roof had extra bracing introduced and was tied to the gables. The use of FRP
wraps meant the 150mm concrete walls that would have added exceptional weight and visual
impairment were not required. The use of FRP also allowed internal linings to be put in place
over the top, reducing all visual impact of strengthening work. The FRP layers introduced
increased the thickness of the walls by 6mm. Overall, these upgrades ensured this part of the
complex was not damaged in the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes.³⁴

 

St Benedict's Church and Presbytery Complex (Catholic)

St Benedict’s Church and Presbytery Complex (Catholic) is a Historic Place category 1 building
on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero. On 4th March 2019 it was identified as an
earthquake-prone building with a rating of 0%-20%NBS.³⁵ Using the methodology outlined
previously in this paper a seismic scheme will be presented.

1. The building has already been assessed as not reaching past 20%NBS.

2. This section requires consultation with a structural engineer, however following the example
of St Mary’s of the Angels it can be presumed that the building needs structural improvements in
its foundations, nave columns, outer aisle walls and roof structure. Areas of large spans will
need to be addressed and the double leaf brickwork will require tying together.

3. The current structure is the second church built on the site (1887-1888) mostly designed by
Edward Mahoney’s son, Thomas Mahoney. The first (1881-1882) was made from timber and
destroyed in a fire in 1886. The current building was constructed in the popular Gothic Revival
style, reflecting the work of Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin. This second building was close in
plan to its predecessor, although built of brick and stone. (Oamaru stone and Melbourne
Malmsbury bluestone). Timber used in the trusses above the nave is heart kauri. The building
reflects the ideals of Pugin of “simplicity... as an expression of humble function.”³⁶ Pugin’s notion
of honesty of construction “whereby a building’s practical usage and construction materials
should not be concealed,”³⁷ is exemplified in this building and offers guidance for a seismic
scheme. The building historically “marked a significant shift in Catholic ecclesiastical
construction in Auckland.”³⁸ It is the only survivor of several ecclesiastical structures of the 19th
century in the surrounding area. The place has a great potential to provide knowledge of large
scale ecclesiastical construction, and has special importance as the headquarters of the first
Benedictine mission to New Zealand.

4. Given its potential to provide knowledge, it must first be noted that it would not be appropriate
to remove any current fabric of the building. When new foundations are laid it will be vital to
document the process and restore as much of the flooring back as possible. The design will
take into account the idea of expressing structural members, however it will do this in a
non-intrusive manner, making sure new members have a reduced scale in comparison to the
rest of the structure, and are placed in areas that do not block any major architectural elements.
The insertion of a network 20mm steel rods with a copper finish will tie the structure together.
Connections between steel rods can either take on a similar copper appearance, or be finished
in metallic blue to match the colour of the column capitals. These will connect into a new
subfloor structure through 200mm hollow steel sections lining the perimeter of the aisle walls.
HSS steel members will be finished in white in keeping with the colour of the walls and columns.

The HSS columns around the perimeter will also allow tying of the exterior double leaf brick
masonry walls through common steel anchor systems. Columns and interior walls will be
wrapped with FRP as is becoming common practice. The insertion of a steel dressing around
the base of the columns will allow them to be anchored into the new foundations. This dressing,
although mostly not visible at ground level, will incorporate perforated patterning.

 Drawing concepts for seismic strengthening of St Benedict's Church and Presbytery Complex
(Catholic).

 

Conclusion
There is no doubt that seismic issues are a large consideration for the majority of heritage within
New Zealand. This paper has introduced the concept that seismic strengthening is an
inevitability for the survival of heritage buildings, however must be done in a sensitive manner
so as not to compromise the very thing it is trying to save. With reference to the foundations of
conservation theory seen in the writings of William Morris, Camillo Boito and Gustavo
Giovannoni this paper argued there can be a sensitive approach to seismic design. The heritage
conservation principles written by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS),
and reiterated in the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural
Heritage Significance have been paramount to coming up with a method in which buildings can
be carefully retrofitted. This paper has argued that if done well, the action of a retrofit may not
only be of technological value for future generations, but also safeguard existing values in
historic buildings. Three case studies have been used to show seismic retrofitting in action, and
exemplify techniques that may lead to this desired result.

“After all, if retrofit structure is well designed and respectful of the existing fabric, it can add
another layer of historical intervention.”³⁹

 

1 Fee Langstone, “Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016.”
2 Lambton Quay Properties Nominee Ltd v Wellington City Council [2013] NZEnvC 147 at [82].
3 Zvonko Sigmund, “A challenge of retrofitting a historic building,” 2.
4 Randolph Langenbach, Architectural issues in the seismic rehabilitation of masonry buildings , 1994.
5 Randolph Langenbach, Architectural issues in the seismic rehabilitation of masonry buildings , 1994.

6 Department of the Interior, The Preservation of Historic Architecture: The U.S. Government’s Official
Guidelines for Preserving Historic Homes, 518.
Look, Wong, Augustus, The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings, Keeping preservation in the forefront,
Preservation Brief 41.
7 Paulo B. Louren ç o, “Reducing Seismic Vulnerability: Retrofitting Historic Buildings,” 16.
8 Andrew Charleson, Seismic Design for Architects: Outwitting the quake , 204.

9 The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), “The SPAB Manifesto.”
10 Jukka Jokilehto, A History of Architectural Conservation: The Contribution of English, French, German,
and Italian Thought Towards an International Approach to the Conservation of Cultural Property, 336.
11 Jokilehto, 338.
12 HNZPT, “St Benedict's Church and Presbytery Complex (Catholic).” 

13 Jokilehto, 355
14 Jokilehto, 355.
15 Jokilehto, 355.

16 ICOMOS, International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The
Venice Charter).
17 ICOMOS, International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The
Venice Charter).
18 ICOMOS New Zealand (Inc), ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural
Heritage Value (ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010), 5.
19 ICOMOS NZ.
20 ICOMOS NZ.
21 ICOMOS NZ, 21.
22 ICOMOS NZ, 18(iii)

23 MBIE, The Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings, Part A.

24 Jackson, “Earthquake Strengthening of St Mary’s of the Angels Church.”
25 HNZPT, “St Mary’s of the Angels Church (Catholic).”
26 Jackson, “Earthquake Strengthening of St Mary’s of the Angels Church.”
27 Jackson, “Earthquake Strengthening of St Mary’s of the Angels Church.”

28 ICOMOS NZ, 17.

29 Chan, Albermani and Kitipornchai, “Stiffness and Strength of Perforated Steel Plate Shear Wall.”
30 Structural Technologies, “Seismic Retrofit and Repair.”

31 Community Arts Centre Steering Committee, Old University Precinct Future Use Feasibility Study, July
1974, 13.
32 Chris Cochran and Rod Cook, Arts Centre Christchurch Conservation Plan , 127.
33 Glyn Strange, The Arts Centre of Christchurch Then and Now, Clerestory Press , 1994, 126.
34 NZHPT, Heritage Buildings, Earthquake Strengthening and Damage: The Canterbury Earthquakes
September 2010 - January 2012, 103.

35 MBIE, “Register of Earthquake-prone Buildings (EPB Register).” ID N003560.
36 HNZPT, “St Benedict's Church and Presbytery Complex (Catholic).”
37 HNZPT, “St Benedict's Church and Presbytery Complex (Catholic).”
38 HNZPT, “St Benedict's Church and Presbytery Complex (Catholic).”

39 Andrew Charleson. Seismic Design for Architects: Outwitting the quake , 2014.

 

Bibliography

Asteris, Panagiotis G., and Vagelis Plevris. Handbook of research on Seismic Assessment and
Rehabilitation of Historic Structures, Volume 2. IGI Global, 2015.
https://app.knovel.com/web/toc.v/cid:kpHRSARHS1/viewerType:toc//root_slug:handbook-of-res
earch.

Chan, Ricky, Faris Albermani and S. Kitipornchai. “Stiffness and Strength of Perforated Steel
Plate Shear Wall.” Procedia Engineering, Volume 14, 2011. Elsevier. Accessed June 19, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.086.

Charleson, Andrew. Seismic Design for Architects: Outwitting the quake. Oxford: Elsevier, 2008.
Cochran, Chris and Rod Cook. Arts Centre Christchurch Conservation Plan , NZHPT, June
1991.

Community Arts Centre Steering Committee, Old University Precinct Future Use Feasibility
Study , July 1974.

Department of the Interior. The Preservation of Historic Architecture: The U.S. Government’s
Official Guidelines for Preserving Historic Homes . Connecticut: The Lyons Press, 2004.

Earthquake Commission; Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; New Zealand

Society for Earthquake Engineering; Structural Engineering Society; and New Zealand
Geotechnical Society. The Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings: Technical Guidelines for
Engineering Assessments, Part A. 2017.
http://www.eq-assess.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/a-assessment-objectives-principles.p
df.

Fee Langstone, “Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016.” Accessed June
5, 2019.
https://www.feelangstone.co.nz/blog/2018/2/9/a-closer-look-at-building-earthquake-prone-buildi
ngs-amendment-act-2016.

Glyn Strange, The Arts Centre of Christchurch Then and Now, Clerestory Press, 1994, p 126
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT). “St Benedict's Church and Presbytery
Complex (Catholic).” Accessed June 21, 2019. https://www.heritage.org.nz/the-list/details/640.
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT). “St Mary’s of the Angels Church (Catholic).”
Accessed June 20, 2019. https://www.heritage.org.nz/the-list/details/36.

ICOMOS New Zealand (Inc), ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of
Cultural Heritage Value (ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010).

International Council On Monuments and Sites, (ICOMOS). International Charter for the
Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter), 1964.

Jokilehto, J. A History of Architectural Conservation: The Contribution of English, French,
German, and Italian Thought Towards an International Approach to the Conservation of Cultural
Property, 1986. Accessed June 20, 2019.
http://www.iccrom.org/pdf/ICCROM_05_HistoryofConservation00_en.pdf.

Lambton Quay Properties Nominee Ltd v Wellington City Council [2013] NZEnvC 147.
Langenbach, Randolph. “Architectural Issues in the Seismic Rehabilitation of Masonry
Buildings.” Management of Natural Disaster Mitigation and Response Programs for Historic
Sites, August 9, 1995. Accessed June 23, 2019.
http://life.csu.edu.au/~dspennem/Disaster_SFO/SFO_Lang.html.

Look, D.W., T. Wong, S.R. Augustus. The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings, Keeping
preservation in the forefront, Preservation Brief 41. USA: The National Park Service, 1997.

Louren ç o, Paulo B. “Reducing Seismic Vulnerability: Retrofitting Historic Buildings.” Seismic
Retrofitting Issue, Spring, 2015. Accessed June 8, 2019.
https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/newsletters/pdf/v30n1.pdf.

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). “Register of Earthquake-prone
Buildings (EPB Register).” ID N003560. Accessed June 20, 2019.
https://epbr.building.govt.nz/register/view/3021c66a-d0cc-459f-afc1-313ac65d2a49.

New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga. Heritage Buildings, Earthquake
Strengthening and Damage: The Canterbury Earthquakes September 2010 - January 2012 .
Report for the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission, March 8, 2012.

Sigmund, Zvonko. “A challenge of retrofitting a historical building.” 2nd WTA PhD, 2011.
Accessed June 20, 2019.
https://www.academia.edu/1109963/A_challenge_of_retrofitting_a_historical_building.

The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), “The SPAB Manifesto.” Accessed
June 21, 2019. https://www.spab.org.uk/about-us/spab-manifesto.

Structural Technologies. “Seismic Retrofit and Repair.” Accessed June 25, 2019.
https://structuraltechnologies.com/seismic-retrotfit/.

Yekrangnia, Mohammad, and Sala Arian. “Advanced Design Examples of Seismic Retrofit of
Structures.” 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2017-0-00468-8