Hey,

I came across something this weekend in The New York Times—they used the phrase “contempt for expertise,” and I couldn’t help but think it fits the Wellington City Council’s latest move. You know, the whole City to Sea Bridge drama? On Thursday, they decided to demolish it, even though their own consultants didn’t think it was necessary. The mayor, in The Post on Saturday, tried to justify it by saying there’s a “genuine threat to public safety.” Here’s the quote: “I know for some, the City to Sea Bridge decision will feel like we are losing an icon that many have grown up with. It is a beloved space, and it is one that will be missed. But the Kaikōura earthquake and the events which followed showed us that our city must be resilient when disaster strikes. Engineering reports have demonstrated that there is a genuine threat to public safety.” Except… that’s not what the reports say. Not at all. The Dunning Thornton report, which the council got literally the day before their meeting, paints a very different picture. Here’s the gist: Life-Safety Risk: The bridge is actually less risky for people during earthquakes than typical buildings. It’s got open air, so the risk of serious injury or death is lower. Key Transport Routes: They said the chance of the bridge collapsing and blocking the Quays is slim. If something that massive happened, there’d already be plenty of other disruptions from roads buckling, seawalls failing, or liquefaction. Oh, and they suggested cheaper fixes like exclusion zones and motion-triggered warning lights instead of full-on demolition. Legislative Risk: There’s no legal requirement to demolish or even strengthen the bridge under earthquake laws. Plus, it should be classified as a less risky structure (IL2, not IL3), which would make the seismic rating more favorable. And it’s not just Dunning Thornton saying this. Spencer Holmes, another trusted engineering firm, confirmed the bridge isn’t classified as earthquake-prone. They even recommended adjusting its rating upwards. There’s more. Sir Hugh Rennie KC reviewed five other reports and found that none of them recommend demolition either. In fact, the Warren and Mahoney report claims demolition is “the only practicable option,” but Rennie calls that out as unsubstantiated. He even suggests there’s an agenda here to make way for new developments and open up the space for high-rises. Here’s what really gets me: the reports highlight liquefaction as a big risk if we get a massive quake (over 7.1), but there hasn’t been liquefaction near the bridge during past earthquakes, including Kaikōura. Even if the bridge goes, they’d still need to fix the seawall. So why the rush? Why ignore the experts and push for demolition when there are viable, less disruptive solutions? It feels like there’s more to this than what we’re being told. Anyway, just wanted to share my thoughts. Feels like the City to Sea Bridge deserves better than being a pawn in whatever game this is. What do you reckon?

Cheers,

Ellis Marlowe