Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

BUILDING DESIGN

v' TIIE BEST INSURANCE. i AUCKLAND, July 8. < Impressed with the splendid spirit of the refugees in the stricken earthquake area and the ne<xl for more study of designing and construction of buildings V.in order to make them capable of resisting Mr C. R,. Ford, a prominent Auckland architect, has returned after ten days’ tour of the Murchison. Nelson, and Westport districts. |Mr Ford was one of the committee, consisting of ,Dr C. E. Adams, Government Seismologist, Mr A. S. Mitchell, engineer, of Wellington, and Mr Butcher, architect and town planner, set up by the Institute of with the approval of the ’Minister* in charge of Scientific and Industrial . Research, to examine the biddings damaged by the earthquake :ahd make Recommendations as to future construction, having particular regard to,\ the possibilities of a repetition of the trouble. 1

“Speaking generally, the buildings that were damaged suffered either because of faulty designing or bad construction,” explained Mr Ford, in an interview this morning, ‘‘iln other words the designing and construction of- the buildings were good enough for of-dinary!conditions, but failed when put to the test of earthquake shocks. The damage; is; greater generally than appears: on ; the • surfaoe. . Generalisations ' arc difficult to make.: For instance, buildings were standing undamaged onw’one side of the street and glidingsinq•better' constructed on the dpj/ositje: side had suffered . considerably In; one street five wooden houses limit : exactly alike, had their chimneys down, with one exception. The explanation of this and many other inconsistencies is probably the complex nature of earthquake shocks. The only generalisation that can he made wilh safety-is that sound building construction, even with only slight recognition of possibility of natural disturbances, has in every case paid the own-

ers.” Replying to a question as to the unsuitability or otherwise of -brick work for construction in earthquake areas.' Mr Ford said that many brick buildings were found standing quite unkarmed. Investigations showed in everyi- cash that .where, buildings were properly, designed and built brick was quite a[j sound material in earthquake cou7)ti;v,' providing the designing was intelligent,'and the construction sound. The use of lime mortar was certainly responsible for many damaged buildings and chimneys. Small shops suffered badly because of top heavy brick facades built on slender piers and the walls themselves not being adequately tied back. The risk arising out of the earthquake was that, the actual shocks being over, architects 'and builders would relapse into their old ways.

Discussing measures necessary to make buildings safe in resistance to earth tremors, Mr Ford said that to make small public buildings and places of residence so safe that no one need have the slightest fear in case of earthquakes was a matter

- much more of understanding the probj lem involved and designing aocordi ingly, than it was one of cost. Tlie i added cost involved to make buildings safe was negligible. In the case of i,high buildings the cost might run to . a small additional percentage of the >; total cost. He understood that int; surance companies did not view • earthquake insurance with favour Rowing to the obvious risks, but buildijring owners had the matter in their to own hands. Buildings properly deY.'signed to withstand earthquakes were | the best possible insurance. Loss of v life' and property were absolutely unnecessary if adequate safeguards were taken.

In conclusion, Mr Ford expressed his sympathy with the small shop owners who were sufferers as the result of the South Island earthquake, and ■would probably be ruined. It seemed hard to him that it was only the settlers who were to be compensated for the damage that had been caused to ; their properties. He was much impressed with the spirit of the refugees. There was a great spirit of mutual [helpfulness and kindliness evident in the stricken area, he said, and, in • fview of the widespread damage that ■ha had seen, it was no wonder that • many had lost heart, and it must take ; them time to recover. Indications [were that every single penny oollecti'led for relief would be needed.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19290713.2.6

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 13 July 1929, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
673

BUILDING DESIGN Hokitika Guardian, 13 July 1929, Page 2

BUILDING DESIGN Hokitika Guardian, 13 July 1929, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert