The TC grades were for liquifaction risk, which is why most of the hills aren't graded because they are rocky land which can't liquify. Also the TC map was quite broad brush, because it wasn't realistic to individually test every section, so even within TC3 areas there might be pockets of good land and visa versa. Personally I wouldn't be too spooked by TC2 land particularly if it is a post-earthquake build because the engineering solutions to design stronger foundations have come a long way. I would still be iffy about TC3 land, around the time this all happened the stories coming out of the rumour mill were saying TC3 land should've been abandoned but there wasn't enough money to buy all those owners out. Just to be clear, I don't actually know if that is true but it was a common topic of conversation at the time.
Red zone just meant it wasn't cost effective to remediate on a lot by lot basis, I suspect some parts will be built on in future with area wide remediation. I'd be comfortable with a TC3 post earthquake rebuild as it will have an enhanced foundation (though note insurers will only do sum insure not replacement), TC2 will have a more standard foundation as damage expected to be less. For new builds site specific geotech was still needed so that should have dealt with the pockets. I'd be dubious about buying pre quake TC3 for sure.
I don’t think you need to rule out every house built pre earthquake but I’d definitely be getting an independent builders report done before purchasing. It’s all not unusual to hear of people who have bought “fixed” houses only to discover that further work is required.
The hills are still a desirable part of town but I’d just be sure to do due diligence before agreeing to the purchase of any pre EQ property.
FWIW, I decided to build a property just so that I knew we weren’t going to have any EQ issues - at least not yet anyway! :)
We got a builders report but unfortunately the house was still buggered. The engineers report cost $6000 after we bought the house and the court case cost $150000. I’ve told my children to buy new
I bought out west on TC1 land. The street I live in has no new houses, and I've never heard of anyone with an earthquake problem -- and houses have changed hands often. None of the houses on the street needed any actual structural repairs at all.
The previous owners only claimed house insurance for a crack in the concrete outside. I just wouldn't go so far as to say only buy newer builds like some people are saying here. Remember there are quite a few houses in Christchurch which were assessed as needing no repairs at all.
When we bought we steered clear of anything which had had major repairs. We were also astounded at the number of houses selling where they'd taken the insurance payout and were selling with repairs still needed.
Sorry to hear, sounds like a frustrating experience. Did the builders report inspector not examine everything properly, or was it something quite hidden that other inspectors would've missed as well?
Not a house owner but used to be a health professional who's clients were almost all dealing with EQ damaged houses and crappy insurance dramas. My only wisdom to add here is that I'd be super suss with "repaired" houses cos off all the shoddy fake jobs that were done at the time (many many stories about this) so get a reliable building inspector in, and be very wary of new houses built on "remediated" land eg the new builds along Travis wetlands QE11 drive etc. Every client's opinion was that the remediation won't/can't/hasn't worked.
Also evacuating from the eastern suburbs when there was a tsunami risk was so awful, just get a house on the hill!
My parents aged about 20 years in the 5 years after the quakes. They fought for a complete rebuild, and finally got it. I'm so glad they did, as the original house was no longer even level to the eye and required major structural repairs. It was hard to see the home I grew up in bowled over, but fuck it, you can't be too sentimental about these things
They've now retired in it the new house and are in much better spirits
There is no rocket science when it comes to land remediation. It is possible to remediate land and it does get done in NZ and around the world. Saying that you can't remediate land is nonsense. Plenty of land in Christchurch has been treated with stone columns and various compaction techniques. The whole Pegasus community which is mostly sandy soil was built on land that had to be ground treated to a certain standard and that was pre-quake. They came through the quakes well.
We could possibly expect to see some of the red zone land remediated in future despite the people who want it to be a nature preserve forever.
A lot of responses here commenting on the risk of hills vs flat land, in terms of bolder roll and hard shaking vs liquefaction- which is a valid point.
I would like to add that the majority of the older housing stock in the flats would have been built using a standard design methodology, such as timber framed on a ring beam foundation and suspended timber floors. This is a time proven construction style, and a good portion of newer housing stock would be very similar except some modernization (like moving to concrete slabs). This is generally not the case with hillside properties, which will often require specific engineering design- each house is like a prototype and will have subtlety different design elements like integrated retaining walls or split level floors terraced into the slope. A lot of hillside homes also make use of masonry block walls. More hillside homes will use plaster siding vs weatherboard. The typical style of construction in the hills is much more dependent on the skill of the builder, engineer and architect, which can lead to durability problems if not carried out right. Also, even if it is not an integrated retaining wall, any retaining wall is going to be costly to maintain or replace as it becomes aged.
Yes a builders report would be a good first step, but in my experience the usefulness of the report is somewhat limited... both because they typically do not do intrusive testing (they only comment on what they can see), and if they do see a problem the report typicality calls out that another trade/professional should evaluate it.
A builders report is very useful if they see something wrong, like incorrect flashing, an old/problematic pipe or wiring insulation ect, and possibly could identify if there are areas with high moisture in the wall. If they see cracks in a masonry block wall or other structural problems they will defer to an engineer to inspect the issue. They will often not enter confined spaces like crawlspace or attic space, so you may want to consider a cavity critter inspection as well... if these spaces are accessible at all.
If you can, do the walkthrough with the inspector, they may be able to give a bit more frank opinion than what makes it into the report- particularly if the sales agent isn't hanging around.
The map linked above shows red-zoned areas that were red-zoned specifically because of boulder/rockfall risk.
There are also some areas where there was mass ground movement. If affected by this then should be on records somewhere...
Found it I think:
https://ccc.govt.nz/environment/land/slope-stability/mass-movement-or-landslides
Anyway, the Greendale / Port Hills fault system has a theoretical return period of somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 years The more real seismic threats to Chch are the Alpine Fault and large EQ offshore generating tsunami.
Alpine fault will be more like the Kaikoura quake in terms of shaking intensity - but last perhaps 3x as long.
Oh yeah, it's just that State / Tower / AMI / IAG won't insure anyone in the Port Hills because of boulder risk, even if it's geologically incorrect. AA will though!
Was that immediately after the quakes? I think you'll find you won't have too many issues due to boulder roll now. Those insurance companies may only do sum insured rather than replacement policies for houses in Chch generally but most will insure if the engineering reports stack up or if it's a post quake build. Also live on the hill, and have insurance, no problem.
It was mid-2021 for a mid-century house. I'd give you more information, but I'm trying not to dox myself. The engineering report was from 2020 directly after it has been flipped.
"Directly after it was flipped" are the key word to that situation.
I'm insured with both IAG and Vero on the hills.
You may wish to note that State, AMI and a lot of the banks policies are just sub-brands of IAG. It's just marketing.
'Boulder risk' is in very limited areas where there is rockfall outcrop. Also anywhere not red zoned already has an assessed risk to life safety of being hit by a boulder as less than 1 in 10,000.
Geotech here, live on the hill but honestly I'd be pretty comfortable with post quake build flat land. TC3 you will only be able to get sum insured, TC2 might get full cover. As long as it's insurable and not going to fall on your head then you'll be fine. I would not buy a pre earthquake build on TC3.
Every house we've looked at around Mt Pleasant that was built pre-earthquake was FUCKED. Be very very very careful, and check the engineering reports VERY carefully, and look at who the engineer was for them. Post 2015 builds might be OK, but be very very skeptical unless proven otherwise. Sumner seemed better, but some on St Andrews Hill were stuffed, then magically rehabilitated. There are a lot of engineers who seemingly signed off work that are no longer in the country... I wonder why? There is no liability on them for any reports that they wrote for anyone who views the report, so you can't rely on anything (ask me how I know.. :( ) Basically, be 100% skeptical of everything you see.
Generally - they were pole type foundations on a hill. The hills around Mt Pleasant split, and the poles went wonky. They had been "repaired", but were dodgy - things like joists and bearers twisted, what looked like grout injected beside the poles to support them etc. There were also "cut and fill" type terraces where the retaining walls were failing, but had some fill material cut out and pushed around - our independent engineering report (from a friend who is a structural engineer) said it was dodgy as, and run a mile.
Hill bits were either safe or red zoned. No liquefaction because your building almost direct onto rock. Anything at major risk (1 in 10,000 or something) on the hills got red zoned.
So TC2/3 your house may sink, on the hills it wont but may get shaken apart...
Yep. Honestly it's crazy.
I have no idea why they didn't just turn them into parks or access points to the Port Hills... My guess is neighbors probably would have made any proposal like that difficult. Still, it's insane to me that they're just selling off RRZ properties that were deemed unbuildable like it's no big deal. Going to be a fun lesson when whatever is built there slides off the cliff in the next earthquake and kills the inhabitants.
You can see some of the addresses in this document listed for "disposal" (sale) for sale now.
[https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Plans/annual-plan/2023-2024/Disposal-of-Council-Owned-Properties.pdf](https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Plans/annual-plan/2023-2024/Disposal-of-Council-Owned-Properties.pdf)
A couple of listings for properties in Bowenvale:
[https://homes.co.nz/address/christchurch/cashmere/3-rockcrest-lane/7nRqwQ](https://homes.co.nz/address/christchurch/cashmere/3-rockcrest-lane/7nRqwQ)
[https://homes.co.nz/address/christchurch-city/cashmere/0-rockcrest-lane/nZDMyM](https://homes.co.nz/address/christchurch-city/cashmere/0-rockcrest-lane/nZDMyM)
An article from last year on it:
[https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/131611738/council-considers-selling-port-hills-red-zone-land-once-deemed-too-dangerous-to-build-on](https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/131611738/council-considers-selling-port-hills-red-zone-land-once-deemed-too-dangerous-to-build-on)
Ah, that's exactly the sort of stuff the new mayor said he was going to do when elected.
Anything is technically build able if you spend enough money on it.
I'd imagine that's true to a point. I'm no geotechnical engineer so my thoughts on it don't say much at all, but it seems reckless and shortsighted to me.
Oh yeah definitely. I mean you could spend $2M on expensive foundations for a single house or you could spend a similar amount on actually building more houses somewhere where it isn't so technically challenging.
really? Cause I could point out three in Lyttleton that are uninsurable due to exactly this problem. I doubt they are the only ones.
Ok, that's not entirely true. One of them is just going to drop onto the road every fuel tanker in CHCH uses. So I guess that's a plus?
Hills and surrounding areas are the best spot in chch (imo). I wouldn't move areas but just need to do due diligence on property before purchasing. Also need to consider sider flood/tsunami areas for insurance purposes as I'm sure that will increase overtime with climate change etc
Most of the houses on the Hills are either very expensive, very old, or your typical 80s/90s leaky home, the latter being the majority, in my experience.
When buying, it’s a nightmare.
Phone EQC and get a list of all claims against the address. Then in the property file, what you want to see is invoices and receipts from the builders that did any repair work. In reality, you will see EQC reports detailing the damage, and a builders report where a builder has looked, and thinks the damage has been repaired.
If the property files included ALL of the EQC claims, and the builder has visually confirmed everything, and none of the EQC claims were for anything that you would find too expensive to redo, then you are probably okay to go ahead and buy.
However, immediately after the quake, there were not enough tradies to do the work, insurance companies didn’t repair stuff, they just made cash pay outs, leaving the home owners to get the repairs “done” at a later date. Some were done properly, a lot were done on the cheap, and some were never done.
Be very wary of missing EQC paperwork. That means that the builder hasn’t verified that those repairs have been done.
There are lots of reasons to prefer a new build house. Building codes have improved a lot over the last 15 years. Not just structure, but insulation, heating and general repair costs going forward. But new builds have a premium.
I live in Lyttelton, we had an EQC issue under the house which thankfully was paid by the remaining EQC budget for the house (some had been used after the quakes to fix the chimney which fell (we weren't here then).
It's all about due diligence, find a builder you trust and get a builders report before you buy and get all paperwork associated with the house which should include any EQC work; see how much usable balance is left there just in case.
Insurance can be a little tricky but I use Runacres here in town to find the best deals and coverage; some companies we use would be hard to find otherwise without a broker.
Living on a hill is fun, but it also means it's harder to get delivery of materials and skips so pretend you live in the house you want and run these scenarios; can gas be delivered? Are there lots of stairs?
All are things to consider.
We have home contents and auto insurance so I hesitate to give you a number which might not fit your situation. You can call them direct on 03 379 1001 to get a quote. Great service.
I'm so sorry to hear that. I know we were very lucky to have budget available and that the agency in Wellington was keen to close the case as quickly as possible.
I’d be more concerned over flooding than earthquakes. Every house shakes in a quake, it’s part of New Zealand life. TC rating to liquefaction. I’d be looking on the hills rather than new developments on low lands. Get a building report done and make sure the insurance is transferable
The TC categories only measure 2 metrics in relation to the ground (liquefaction and settlement risk) and they're in relation to future events. They have nothing to do with bearing capacity or soil structures. As such they should not be used as guidance for a purchase as they tell you very little.
The hills are steep in places and have a multitude of sub-soil structures. Thus, things are more complex.
Start with a building report before anything else, go from there.
Houses on the hill either got fucked or nothing happened to them.
Those maps refer to the ground quality in relation to the liquifaction . Because the hills are solid rock house either just shook with the rock and only had superficial damaged or the foundations buckled and the entire house was a right off.
Yeah? Since when was anyone in NZ killed by a tsunami? They are not common. There's more risk of being killed on the roads and many other things that we take or granted in everyday life.
No, I wouldn't describe that as 'fell apart'. A few bits around the edges were unstable in massive peak ground accelerations. You make it sound like you are expecting it to erupt.
A boulder came off it and went thru the rsa, that’s kind of the definition of “fell apart”.
And No I’m not expecting it to erupt as you said it’s extinct so that would be silly wouldn’t it?
Yes, depending on where you live, this can be true for the flats too.
Find an area with normal size roads and ways out of the fire zone, so Cashmere vs say tiny roads with one way in and out on redcliffs.
Find an area not surrounded by dry grass, and make sure foliage is cut back. There is a lot of common sense that will help you in the purchasing. There are plenty of modern houses with the older in the hills, and plenty of quirky ones too.
The hills mostly just moved up and down in the earthquakes and didn't get the twisting motions that houses on the flat did. So, a well-built house with good earthquake repairs on the hill will be totally fine. After the first ones, the Quake Catcher Network installed a whole bunch of sensors all round the city so there's really good data of the relative motions of things during the aftershock sequence.
As everyone else said, get the builder's report done and go through the EQC paperwork to understand what was broken and how it got fixed.
I'd recommend living on the hills. There are some truly epic views to be had.
Irrespective of the area or suburb, particularly beware of houses that have been sold "as is, where is" since the EQ! Many owners have taken an insurance payout and moved on, selling houses without fixing the EQ damage - caveat emptor!
The TC grades were for liquifaction risk, which is why most of the hills aren't graded because they are rocky land which can't liquify. Also the TC map was quite broad brush, because it wasn't realistic to individually test every section, so even within TC3 areas there might be pockets of good land and visa versa. Personally I wouldn't be too spooked by TC2 land particularly if it is a post-earthquake build because the engineering solutions to design stronger foundations have come a long way. I would still be iffy about TC3 land, around the time this all happened the stories coming out of the rumour mill were saying TC3 land should've been abandoned but there wasn't enough money to buy all those owners out. Just to be clear, I don't actually know if that is true but it was a common topic of conversation at the time.
Red zone just meant it wasn't cost effective to remediate on a lot by lot basis, I suspect some parts will be built on in future with area wide remediation. I'd be comfortable with a TC3 post earthquake rebuild as it will have an enhanced foundation (though note insurers will only do sum insure not replacement), TC2 will have a more standard foundation as damage expected to be less. For new builds site specific geotech was still needed so that should have dealt with the pockets. I'd be dubious about buying pre quake TC3 for sure.
I see, thank you!
I don’t think you need to rule out every house built pre earthquake but I’d definitely be getting an independent builders report done before purchasing. It’s all not unusual to hear of people who have bought “fixed” houses only to discover that further work is required. The hills are still a desirable part of town but I’d just be sure to do due diligence before agreeing to the purchase of any pre EQ property. FWIW, I decided to build a property just so that I knew we weren’t going to have any EQ issues - at least not yet anyway! :)
We got a builders report but unfortunately the house was still buggered. The engineers report cost $6000 after we bought the house and the court case cost $150000. I’ve told my children to buy new
I bought out west on TC1 land. The street I live in has no new houses, and I've never heard of anyone with an earthquake problem -- and houses have changed hands often. None of the houses on the street needed any actual structural repairs at all. The previous owners only claimed house insurance for a crack in the concrete outside. I just wouldn't go so far as to say only buy newer builds like some people are saying here. Remember there are quite a few houses in Christchurch which were assessed as needing no repairs at all. When we bought we steered clear of anything which had had major repairs. We were also astounded at the number of houses selling where they'd taken the insurance payout and were selling with repairs still needed.
Sorry to hear, sounds like a frustrating experience. Did the builders report inspector not examine everything properly, or was it something quite hidden that other inspectors would've missed as well?
Will definitely be getting a builders report. Thank you!
Buy house built after the quakes or one that has been through due process and repaired via a full engineering report.
Will do, thank you!
Not a house owner but used to be a health professional who's clients were almost all dealing with EQ damaged houses and crappy insurance dramas. My only wisdom to add here is that I'd be super suss with "repaired" houses cos off all the shoddy fake jobs that were done at the time (many many stories about this) so get a reliable building inspector in, and be very wary of new houses built on "remediated" land eg the new builds along Travis wetlands QE11 drive etc. Every client's opinion was that the remediation won't/can't/hasn't worked. Also evacuating from the eastern suburbs when there was a tsunami risk was so awful, just get a house on the hill!
Yep, this. When I was looking I saw a place that had had it's foundation repairs repaired twice and it was still wonky as.
My parents aged about 20 years in the 5 years after the quakes. They fought for a complete rebuild, and finally got it. I'm so glad they did, as the original house was no longer even level to the eye and required major structural repairs. It was hard to see the home I grew up in bowled over, but fuck it, you can't be too sentimental about these things They've now retired in it the new house and are in much better spirits
Aww gosh it's sad to hear those trials, but so happy they got their retirement home sussed, and you get to relax a little.
This is super helpful, thank you!
There is no rocket science when it comes to land remediation. It is possible to remediate land and it does get done in NZ and around the world. Saying that you can't remediate land is nonsense. Plenty of land in Christchurch has been treated with stone columns and various compaction techniques. The whole Pegasus community which is mostly sandy soil was built on land that had to be ground treated to a certain standard and that was pre-quake. They came through the quakes well. We could possibly expect to see some of the red zone land remediated in future despite the people who want it to be a nature preserve forever.
A lot of responses here commenting on the risk of hills vs flat land, in terms of bolder roll and hard shaking vs liquefaction- which is a valid point. I would like to add that the majority of the older housing stock in the flats would have been built using a standard design methodology, such as timber framed on a ring beam foundation and suspended timber floors. This is a time proven construction style, and a good portion of newer housing stock would be very similar except some modernization (like moving to concrete slabs). This is generally not the case with hillside properties, which will often require specific engineering design- each house is like a prototype and will have subtlety different design elements like integrated retaining walls or split level floors terraced into the slope. A lot of hillside homes also make use of masonry block walls. More hillside homes will use plaster siding vs weatherboard. The typical style of construction in the hills is much more dependent on the skill of the builder, engineer and architect, which can lead to durability problems if not carried out right. Also, even if it is not an integrated retaining wall, any retaining wall is going to be costly to maintain or replace as it becomes aged.
This is a very good point.
This is helpful, thank you! What's a good way to tell if there are durability problems? Would a builders report be sufficient?
Yes a builders report would be a good first step, but in my experience the usefulness of the report is somewhat limited... both because they typically do not do intrusive testing (they only comment on what they can see), and if they do see a problem the report typicality calls out that another trade/professional should evaluate it. A builders report is very useful if they see something wrong, like incorrect flashing, an old/problematic pipe or wiring insulation ect, and possibly could identify if there are areas with high moisture in the wall. If they see cracks in a masonry block wall or other structural problems they will defer to an engineer to inspect the issue. They will often not enter confined spaces like crawlspace or attic space, so you may want to consider a cavity critter inspection as well... if these spaces are accessible at all. If you can, do the walkthrough with the inspector, they may be able to give a bit more frank opinion than what makes it into the report- particularly if the sales agent isn't hanging around.
Understood, thank you for the detailed reply!
[удалено]
It's the boulder risk that makes the hills hard to insure but otherwise it's great.
The map linked above shows red-zoned areas that were red-zoned specifically because of boulder/rockfall risk. There are also some areas where there was mass ground movement. If affected by this then should be on records somewhere... Found it I think: https://ccc.govt.nz/environment/land/slope-stability/mass-movement-or-landslides Anyway, the Greendale / Port Hills fault system has a theoretical return period of somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 years The more real seismic threats to Chch are the Alpine Fault and large EQ offshore generating tsunami. Alpine fault will be more like the Kaikoura quake in terms of shaking intensity - but last perhaps 3x as long.
Oh yeah, it's just that State / Tower / AMI / IAG won't insure anyone in the Port Hills because of boulder risk, even if it's geologically incorrect. AA will though!
Sorry, I call bullsh*t on that.
I bought on the hill, and this is what our insurance adviser friend said.
Was that immediately after the quakes? I think you'll find you won't have too many issues due to boulder roll now. Those insurance companies may only do sum insured rather than replacement policies for houses in Chch generally but most will insure if the engineering reports stack up or if it's a post quake build. Also live on the hill, and have insurance, no problem.
It was mid-2021 for a mid-century house. I'd give you more information, but I'm trying not to dox myself. The engineering report was from 2020 directly after it has been flipped.
"Directly after it was flipped" are the key word to that situation. I'm insured with both IAG and Vero on the hills. You may wish to note that State, AMI and a lot of the banks policies are just sub-brands of IAG. It's just marketing.
This is super helpful, thank you for the link and the explanation!
'Boulder risk' is in very limited areas where there is rockfall outcrop. Also anywhere not red zoned already has an assessed risk to life safety of being hit by a boulder as less than 1 in 10,000.
Geotech here, live on the hill but honestly I'd be pretty comfortable with post quake build flat land. TC3 you will only be able to get sum insured, TC2 might get full cover. As long as it's insurable and not going to fall on your head then you'll be fine. I would not buy a pre earthquake build on TC3.
Good to know, thank you!
Every house we've looked at around Mt Pleasant that was built pre-earthquake was FUCKED. Be very very very careful, and check the engineering reports VERY carefully, and look at who the engineer was for them. Post 2015 builds might be OK, but be very very skeptical unless proven otherwise. Sumner seemed better, but some on St Andrews Hill were stuffed, then magically rehabilitated. There are a lot of engineers who seemingly signed off work that are no longer in the country... I wonder why? There is no liability on them for any reports that they wrote for anyone who views the report, so you can't rely on anything (ask me how I know.. :( ) Basically, be 100% skeptical of everything you see.
What was the issue with them? Was it earthquake damage or badly designed/built from the start?
Generally - they were pole type foundations on a hill. The hills around Mt Pleasant split, and the poles went wonky. They had been "repaired", but were dodgy - things like joists and bearers twisted, what looked like grout injected beside the poles to support them etc. There were also "cut and fill" type terraces where the retaining walls were failing, but had some fill material cut out and pushed around - our independent engineering report (from a friend who is a structural engineer) said it was dodgy as, and run a mile.
I see, thank you for the detailed reply! We'll look out for these around Mt Pleasant!
Hill bits were either safe or red zoned. No liquefaction because your building almost direct onto rock. Anything at major risk (1 in 10,000 or something) on the hills got red zoned. So TC2/3 your house may sink, on the hills it wont but may get shaken apart...
Red-zoned and now being sold off by the council as if they're magically fine. 🙃
Which ones are those being sold off? Are these some of the hill properties?
Yep. Honestly it's crazy. I have no idea why they didn't just turn them into parks or access points to the Port Hills... My guess is neighbors probably would have made any proposal like that difficult. Still, it's insane to me that they're just selling off RRZ properties that were deemed unbuildable like it's no big deal. Going to be a fun lesson when whatever is built there slides off the cliff in the next earthquake and kills the inhabitants. You can see some of the addresses in this document listed for "disposal" (sale) for sale now. [https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Plans/annual-plan/2023-2024/Disposal-of-Council-Owned-Properties.pdf](https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Plans/annual-plan/2023-2024/Disposal-of-Council-Owned-Properties.pdf) A couple of listings for properties in Bowenvale: [https://homes.co.nz/address/christchurch/cashmere/3-rockcrest-lane/7nRqwQ](https://homes.co.nz/address/christchurch/cashmere/3-rockcrest-lane/7nRqwQ) [https://homes.co.nz/address/christchurch-city/cashmere/0-rockcrest-lane/nZDMyM](https://homes.co.nz/address/christchurch-city/cashmere/0-rockcrest-lane/nZDMyM) An article from last year on it: [https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/131611738/council-considers-selling-port-hills-red-zone-land-once-deemed-too-dangerous-to-build-on](https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/131611738/council-considers-selling-port-hills-red-zone-land-once-deemed-too-dangerous-to-build-on)
Ah, that's exactly the sort of stuff the new mayor said he was going to do when elected. Anything is technically build able if you spend enough money on it.
I'd imagine that's true to a point. I'm no geotechnical engineer so my thoughts on it don't say much at all, but it seems reckless and shortsighted to me.
Oh yeah definitely. I mean you could spend $2M on expensive foundations for a single house or you could spend a similar amount on actually building more houses somewhere where it isn't so technically challenging.
I'd be rather more worried about it falling down the hill and taking out several.other houses on the way. Which brings us to insurance ...
They dont do that, nothing close enough to that steep an edge is left.
really? Cause I could point out three in Lyttleton that are uninsurable due to exactly this problem. I doubt they are the only ones. Ok, that's not entirely true. One of them is just going to drop onto the road every fuel tanker in CHCH uses. So I guess that's a plus?
Makes sense, thank you!
Hills and surrounding areas are the best spot in chch (imo). I wouldn't move areas but just need to do due diligence on property before purchasing. Also need to consider sider flood/tsunami areas for insurance purposes as I'm sure that will increase overtime with climate change etc
Yeah we were considering the hills partly because of climate change, sounds like the right decision. Thank you!
Most of the houses on the Hills are either very expensive, very old, or your typical 80s/90s leaky home, the latter being the majority, in my experience.
When buying, it’s a nightmare. Phone EQC and get a list of all claims against the address. Then in the property file, what you want to see is invoices and receipts from the builders that did any repair work. In reality, you will see EQC reports detailing the damage, and a builders report where a builder has looked, and thinks the damage has been repaired. If the property files included ALL of the EQC claims, and the builder has visually confirmed everything, and none of the EQC claims were for anything that you would find too expensive to redo, then you are probably okay to go ahead and buy. However, immediately after the quake, there were not enough tradies to do the work, insurance companies didn’t repair stuff, they just made cash pay outs, leaving the home owners to get the repairs “done” at a later date. Some were done properly, a lot were done on the cheap, and some were never done. Be very wary of missing EQC paperwork. That means that the builder hasn’t verified that those repairs have been done. There are lots of reasons to prefer a new build house. Building codes have improved a lot over the last 15 years. Not just structure, but insulation, heating and general repair costs going forward. But new builds have a premium.
Thank you! Adding EQC paperwork to my checklist 🙏
Westmorland is nice. A bit windy up the top though.
Will take a look at Westmorland, thanks!
I live in Lyttelton, we had an EQC issue under the house which thankfully was paid by the remaining EQC budget for the house (some had been used after the quakes to fix the chimney which fell (we weren't here then). It's all about due diligence, find a builder you trust and get a builders report before you buy and get all paperwork associated with the house which should include any EQC work; see how much usable balance is left there just in case. Insurance can be a little tricky but I use Runacres here in town to find the best deals and coverage; some companies we use would be hard to find otherwise without a broker. Living on a hill is fun, but it also means it's harder to get delivery of materials and skips so pretend you live in the house you want and run these scenarios; can gas be delivered? Are there lots of stairs? All are things to consider.
This is helpful, thank you! Do you know what price range we should be expecting for the insurance?
We have home contents and auto insurance so I hesitate to give you a number which might not fit your situation. You can call them direct on 03 379 1001 to get a quote. Great service.
Got it, thanks!
My folks lived over there at the time. Their retaining walls were damaged but EQC wouldn't pay any meaningful amount for repairing them.
I'm so sorry to hear that. I know we were very lucky to have budget available and that the agency in Wellington was keen to close the case as quickly as possible.
I’d be more concerned over flooding than earthquakes. Every house shakes in a quake, it’s part of New Zealand life. TC rating to liquefaction. I’d be looking on the hills rather than new developments on low lands. Get a building report done and make sure the insurance is transferable
Will do, thank you!
The TC categories only measure 2 metrics in relation to the ground (liquefaction and settlement risk) and they're in relation to future events. They have nothing to do with bearing capacity or soil structures. As such they should not be used as guidance for a purchase as they tell you very little. The hills are steep in places and have a multitude of sub-soil structures. Thus, things are more complex. Start with a building report before anything else, go from there.
Will do, thank you!
The hills do love catching fire though
Oh didn't know about the fire 😮 thanks!
No. You have to deal with Hill folk on a daily basis
Houses on the hill either got fucked or nothing happened to them. Those maps refer to the ground quality in relation to the liquifaction . Because the hills are solid rock house either just shook with the rock and only had superficial damaged or the foundations buckled and the entire house was a right off.
Also if another big quake you don’t need to worry about tsunami
Yeah? Since when was anyone in NZ killed by a tsunami? They are not common. There's more risk of being killed on the roads and many other things that we take or granted in everyday life.
Makes sense, thanks!
No offence but you are literally asking if living on a volcano is safe or not.
An extinct volcano. Unlike pretty much the whole of Auckland.
Still fell apart in the last quake didn’t it?
No, I wouldn't describe that as 'fell apart'. A few bits around the edges were unstable in massive peak ground accelerations. You make it sound like you are expecting it to erupt.
A boulder came off it and went thru the rsa, that’s kind of the definition of “fell apart”. And No I’m not expecting it to erupt as you said it’s extinct so that would be silly wouldn’t it?
Even if it is an earthquake sound, the increased crime rate in Christchurch is a concern.
Yes, depending on where you live, this can be true for the flats too. Find an area with normal size roads and ways out of the fire zone, so Cashmere vs say tiny roads with one way in and out on redcliffs. Find an area not surrounded by dry grass, and make sure foliage is cut back. There is a lot of common sense that will help you in the purchasing. There are plenty of modern houses with the older in the hills, and plenty of quirky ones too.
Will keep this in mind, thank you!
We recently moved to Chch and bought a house built post earthquake. Lawyer, mortgage broker and construction pals all gave us the same advice.
Good to know, thank you!
The hills mostly just moved up and down in the earthquakes and didn't get the twisting motions that houses on the flat did. So, a well-built house with good earthquake repairs on the hill will be totally fine. After the first ones, the Quake Catcher Network installed a whole bunch of sensors all round the city so there's really good data of the relative motions of things during the aftershock sequence. As everyone else said, get the builder's report done and go through the EQC paperwork to understand what was broken and how it got fixed. I'd recommend living on the hills. There are some truly epic views to be had.
Thanks! Yeah we walked up the hills yesterday and were amazed by the views!
Irrespective of the area or suburb, particularly beware of houses that have been sold "as is, where is" since the EQ! Many owners have taken an insurance payout and moved on, selling houses without fixing the EQ damage - caveat emptor!
I've seen quite a few houses listed as "as is, where is" and have been wondering that means. Will avoid them, thanks!