That does not make it dangerous, however.
The mall’s owner, Lendlease, has 35 years to carry out seismic strengthening, because it is in a low-risk seismic zone.
The company carried out an assessment before it was necessary to do so.
Structural engineers judged the mall to have seismic performance of less than 34% of the new building standard.
That prompted the mall’s anchor tenants, Kmart and H&J Smith, to stay closed when other businesses reopened following the Covid-19 lockdown.
Kmart is on the lookout for a new site and a company representative has said its policy is to seek sites with seismic performance above 67% of the new building standard.
H&J Smith has since reopened but the Dunedin shop will close next year when the company consolidates around its Invercargill base.
In the mid-to-late 1990s, a few complications cropped up connected with the development but major problems were not apparent.
More than 990cu m of concrete was poured on site during the construction, which also used 440 tonnes of reinforcing steel.
During excavation to provide below-ground retail space, 27,500cu m of earth was shifted.
Representatives for mall manager the Oyster Property Group have said the Dunedin building is safe and it has a warrant of fitness.
Building warrants of fitness, however, reflect such things as lifts functioning and emergency lighting working properly.
Oyster group retail asset manager Jennifer Andrews has said the company is working through design plans for seismic upgrade works. But the company has provided no further information about that to the Otago Daily Times since May.
Since then, Kmart confirmed it would leave and Vodafone cited health and safety concerns for its exit this month.
But in the next few years, the mall will be far from the only building in the city to be classed earthquake-prone.
Related Stories
Comments
Honestly, it sounds more like an excuse from these businesses to vacate from the mall. Which begs the question, is this due to tough trading conditions, or high rents?
It's not an excuse, it's that the insurance premiums for these businesses operating in buildings with a seismic performance of less than 34% of the new building standard, are astronomical. Ever since Chch, insurance companies pretty much price businesses out of the market, if they're attempting to run a reasonably sized operation out of a non-complying building.
Never thought of it being due to insurance rates. Thanks for enlightening me.
So, make your insurance premiums so high that businesses cannot stay afloat, and they no longer need the policy!....Yep that's logical!
Am I the only person who cringes at “earthquake prone?” A building may be “earthquake damage prone”, or preferably “earthquake vulnerable”. The term “earthquake prone” applies to countries or regions.