New Zealand authorities are keen to protect citizens; but what of the demolition workers.
Yesterday I did something that I very rarely do in the pages of Demolition News; I banned one of my own articles.
Call it the Monday Morning Blues or a genuine concern for the demolition workers charged with making safe the buildings in post-quake Christchurch, but I had sat down and penned a pre-emptive obituary for the first person to be killed during the dismantling process.
The article was ill-timed, sensationalist and insensitive, even if it was well-intentioned. And so it never made it onto your screens.
However, the message at the heart of that article just refuses to go away. Christchurch has literally hundreds of buildings and structures damaged by the February quake and further undermined by subsequent aftershocks.
Quite rightly, the New Zealand authorities have indicated that public safety is their number one priority and that these buildings need to be demolished or dismantled to allow some sense of normality to return to the city.
But that public safety may come at a cost; and it will be demolition workers that will pay the price, putting their lives on the line and entering buildings that could all too easily collapse at any moment.
The collapse of the Timeball Station served as a timely reminder of the inherent dangers involved in this kind of work. It is worth bearing in mind that the station is some 130 years old and that it was damaged by a quake in September 2010 and then again in February’s massive tremor.
Several workers were in a crane-mounted cage erecting a debris containment screen when a Magnitude 5.5 aftershock hit. Thankfully, they escaped unscathed, the crane driver having the presence of mind to lower them to safety before they all made their escape.
But the picture of the building in the immediate aftermath tell a chilling story. What if demolition workers had been close to the building when it finally caved? What if an excavator had been stood close by?
Of course, this latest collapse has reignited the fire of debate over chosen demolition methods; and there are some very knowledgeable and experienced people on the ground suggesting that explosive demolition will minimise the human risk. That may well be true, but even explosive demolition will require men to enter a building, the stability and integrity of which is unknown.
The safeguarding of the public at the potential risk to the lives of demolition workers is an unenviable paradox with which the New Zealand authorities will have to juggle for some months to come; and we can only hope that it’s a gamble that pays off.
