Cultural heritage is a dynamic concept, incorporating the ideas and values of many different organisations and individuals; it is heavily dependent on the context of the item or site being conserved, and transforms something from an old article into a historically significant object. A formal definition of cultural heritage did not appear in the Antarctic Treaty System until 1995, however Antarctic heritage value has been applied to various sites and monuments since the inception of the Treaty, from Shackleton’s Nimrod Hut to a heavy tractor. This report examines a number of case studies to determine the various ways in which heritage items and sites can be managed – such as the removal of the South Pole Dome – as well as their conservation after natural disasters, for instance the Christchurch earthquakes.
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 12 July 2013 entitled, "Excelsior Excitment".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 8 January 2013 entitled, "'Tractive Tricksters".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's Blog for 16 December 2013 entitled, "Memory Mural".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's Blog for 23 October 2013 entitled, "'Home' by Julie Myerson".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 27 June 2013 entitled, "Father's Footsteps".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 25 January 2013 entitled, "Preservation Project".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's Blog for 28 November 2013 entitled, "Christmas Carol".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 6 August 2013 entitled, "Captivating Cathedral".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 24 April 2013 entitled, "Horological Happening".
An entry from Ruth Gardner's blog for 14 July 2013 entitled, "Memories of McLean's Mansion".
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 4 February 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 17 June 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 24 June 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 27 May 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 15 April 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 29 July 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 10 June 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 13 May 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 4 March 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
The "Lyttelton Harbour Review" newsletter for 20 May 2013, produced by the Lyttelton Harbour Information Centre.
Territorial authorities in New Zealand are responding to regulatory and market forces in the wake of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake to assess and retrofit buildings determined to be particularly vulnerable to earthquakes. Pending legislation may shorten the permissible timeframes on such seismic improvement programmes, but Auckland Council’s Property Department is already engaging in a proactive effort to assess its portfolio of approximately 3500 buildings, prioritise these assets for retrofit, and forecast construction costs for improvements. Within the programme structure, the following varied and often competing factors must be accommodated: * The council’s legal, fiscal, and ethical obligations to the people of Auckland per building regulations, health and safety protocols, and economic growth and urban development planning strategies; * The council’s functional priorities for service delivery; * Varied and numerous stakeholders across the largest territorial region in New Zealand in both population and landmass; * Heritage preservation and community and cultural values; and * Auckland’s prominent economic role in New Zealand’s economy which requires Auckland’s continued economic production post-disaster. Identifying those buildings most at risk to an earthquake in such a large and varied portfolio has warranted a rapid field assessment programme supplemented by strategically chosen detailed assessments. Furthermore, Auckland Council will benefit greatly in time and resources by choosing retrofit solutions, techniques, and technologies applicable to a large number of buildings with similar configurations and materials. From a research perspective, the number and variety of buildings within the council’s property portfolio will provide valuable data for risk modellers on building typologies in Auckland, which are expected to be fairly representative of the New Zealand building stock as a whole.