Build Back Smarter: House performance improvements at the time of earthquake repairs

© Beacon Pathway Inc

Build Back Smarter:

House performance

improvements at the time of

earthquake repairs

Project aims

 To show that home performance

improvements can and should be included in the ‘standard’ repair of earthquake-damaged Canterbury homes.

 To find out how to include home performance improvements with earthquake damage

repairs without slowing down the rebuild process.

Why Canterbury?

 100,000+ homes damaged in the earthquakes  15,000 with major (>$100,000) repair by

insurers

 Compares with 3300 renovations/pa normally  Most homes will have been inefficient,

under-insulated and poorly performing

 The extensive repair and rebuilding create the opportunity to include upgrades which will

improve a home’s performance

 Most houses have major renovations on a 30 year cycle –once in a generation opportunity

Damage to be repaired Retrofit opportunity

Roof damage Ceiling insulation –low cavity roof spaces and skillion roofs

Heat transfer systems in low cavity roof spaces Ceiling damage Removal of downlights

Efficient lighting

Externally vented bathroom / kitchen ventilation Heat transfer systems

Cladding damage Wall insulation combined with building paper Wall lining damage Wall insulation

Floor or foundation damage Under-floor insulation Ground vapour barrier Twisted or raked window

frames

Double glazing/high performance glass Improved thermal frames

Reduce window area on south side

Chimney damage Replace older fires with efficient clean heating option Hot water cylinder damage Replace with solar, heat pump or wetback water heating

Cylinder wraps and seismic restraint Upgrade and lag piping

Plumbing damage Water efficient fittings Rainwater tanks

The houses

 12 case study homes identified – 6 repaired during three year duration of project, 3

rebuilds, 3 still under repair

 Detached dwellings – pre 1990

 Substantial damage – enabling thermal envelope improvements

 IAG and Southern Response (AMI) Insurer

 Repairs started in Port Hills – only recently on the flatter areas

House Household Typology Location Insurer/ _PMO

Huntsbury 1 Family: couple and two children

1950s Mass Housing+ 1980s addition

Port Hills Arrow/ Southern Response

Huntsbury 2 Retired couple 1950s Mass Housing+ 1980s addition

Port Hills IAG/ Hawkins Woolston 1 Couple and

disabled son, major health issues

1950s Mass Housing On the flat IAG/ Hawkins

Cashmere 1 Couple Villa + 2000s extension

Port Hills Arrow/ Southern Response

Mt Pleasant 1 Couple Villa + 2000s extension]

Port Hills IAG/ Hawkins Spreydon 1 Couple 1930s bungalow

[Lath and plaster linings]

© Beacon Pathway Inc

House Household Typology Location Insurer/ PMO

St Martins 1 Single

retired 1970s concrete floor, low pitch roof

On the flat Arrow/ Southern Response

Redcliffs 1 Rental. 1960s mass housing with more recent additions

Port Hills Hawkins/ IAG Somerfield 1 Couple with

2 kids Transitional bungalow[Lath and plaster linings]

On the flat Arrow/ Southern Response

Halswell 1 Couple 1960s mass housing On the flat Hawkins/ IAG Papanui 1 Extended

family 1950s mass housing On the flat Hawkins/ IAG New Brighton 1 Couple 1950s art deco On the flat Hawkins/ IAG

The process

 Houses identified by PMO, Beacon check, homeowner agree

 Whole house assessment, upgrade plan developed, agreed with homeowners, PMO  Upgrades undertaken at time of repair –

project funded + homeowner funded

 Upgrades implemented by insurer’s builder/ subcontractors – except for insulation

Evaluation

 Documentation during repair

 Post completion structured interviews:  Homeowner

 Building

 Project manager

 Homestar comparison

Halswell 1

& floor relevelled Underfloor insulation & vapourbarrier Double glazed windows in aluminium frames

Driveway, paths,

patio, drainage Upgraded double glazing to thermally broken low e Ceiling & wall linings

replaced

Wall insulation

Internal doors refitted

Solar hot water & pipe lagging

Liquefaction removed External ducting of rangehood

Brick cladding

replaced & building wrap installed

Bathroom extract fan – externally vented

Mt Pleasant 1

Earthquake Repairs

($260,000) BBS Upgrades ($12,000) Homeowner Improvements ($35,000)

Foundations Underfloor insulation –

insufficient access for vapour barrier

Replaced gas heater with wood burner

Roof replacement Ceiling insulation incl. skillion Double glazing with uPVC frames

Ceiling & wall linings replaced

Wall insulation Awnings over western windows

Internal doors refitted

Heat transfer system Low flow tapware & plumbing fittings Full interior

redecoration

Downlights replaced – LED/IC rated

Bathroom extract fan – externally vented

Somerfield 1

Spreydon 1

Key findings

 Retrofits easily incorporated with repairs – but Beacon project manager a critical component of success

 Retrofit work was minor vs repairs – sometimes poor workmanship – ventilation & plumbing

particularly, insulation damage

 All houses moved from 2 to 5 star rating

 Homeowners found high value from retrofits and performance improvements

 Full insulation seen as a “no brainer” by all  Strong willingness from PMOS & Insurers for

Process learnings

 Repair process has been very very very slow…  Delays have been caused by a range of

institutional constraints such as:

 apportioning costs from multiple events between insurers and EQR;

 attributing cause of building damage to land or earthquake (again EQR vs insurers);

 delays for geotech testing and foundation design

 issues of rebuilding/ repair of residential areas on a flood plain.

Scope of repairs

 Repairs are generally scoped by assessors

using non-intrusive methods (i.e. don’t go into the ceiling or subfloor)

 EQC vs insurance company repairs – often not clear

 Repair vs rebuild

 Changing scope of repairs in design phase – particularly where foundation damage

 Wiring issues – and extent of

under-maintenance and deterioration since the earthquakes

Ease of scale up

 Whole house assessment & independent project facilitator seen as key components for success  Homeowners funded many additional

improvements – but performance-related funding seen as critical

 High prices by PMO builders/subcontractors & low care means different delivery model needed

 Insulation & windows worked well with certified installers

 Materials & product costs also a barrier

Scale up?

Wide agreement in the need for funding for a “Build Back Smarter Service” but no funding agreements able to be reached

A “once in a generation