SCHOOL BUILDINGS

Otago Witness, Issue 4031, 16 June 1931, Page 19

SCHOOL BUILDINGS

THE DANGERS OF BRICK AVOIDANCE OF EARTHQUAKE RISK. NELSON, June 13. In regard to a criticism directed against the Minister of Education (Mr H. Atmore) by- the chairman of the Terrace End School Committee at Palmerston North, the Minister has made the following reply: The whole question resolves itself into consideration of the safety of the school children, and if the chairman of the committee referred to had been in full possession of the facts in connection with the earthquakes of 1929 and this year he would not have levelled his unfounded criticism. Immediately the Hawke’s Bay earthquake occurred I _ telegraphed through New Zealand stopping the construction of all brick work on school buildings and ordered an immediate inspection of those buildings already in occupation by children. This was a precautionary measure on which the. Government has been congratulated. I visited Hawke’s Bay on the day after the earthquake and found that practically every- one of the 260 deaths was caused by-the collapse of brick buildings. I saw on the ■ floor of the wooden courthouse in Napier 39 victims of the collapse of brick Jyuildings, including some school children.’’ In the Wellington earthquake of IS4B nearly all the brick buildings were thrown down and the three deaths that then occurred were caused by bricks. Quite recently an influential deputation representing the brickmakers of the Dominion waited upon the Prime Minister to protest against my- attitude in regard to the use of bricks in school buildings. The Prime Minister - was asked to stay- and curb the Minister of Education in his attitude. Mr Forbes replied in these words: “ In regard to the building construction of school buildings, if there is any question of doubt about any materials it is the Minister’s duty to have the material about which there is the least doubt. The Government would be blamed immediately if it. used unsuitable materials in its buildings and an earthquake disaster occurred. We have no right to place chil-

dren in buildings of material which has not proved satisfactory.” When the Prime Minister was reminded that the decisions of the Minister of Education had had a tremendous effect upon public opinion, Mr Forbes replied: .. riiay.be so. . The very earthquake itself and the opinions expressed at that time were bound to have that effect on the us e of bricks in buildings. The in>preasrons created were adverse to brick.” This fine reply of the Prime Minister gives a good -indication of the proper attitude to be taken up by all those in authority in connection with school buildings and the consequent safety of the 250 000 children in the schools of New Zealand. The Dilworth Institute Committee at Auckland recently offered a prize for the best design for the erection of an £BO,OOO building for the purposes of the institute, and the prize was awarded in December last to Mr Henry White, a well-known Sydney architect. After the Hawke’s Bay earthquake Air White visited that district, and as a result he advised the Dilworth trustees not to build in brick. The trustees thereupon decided to erect buildings of reinforced concrete. The Murchison earthquake caused a loss through the destruction of the brick buildings in the Nelson Boys’ College area of over £40,000, whilst at the Girls’ College, which is a wooden building, the sum of £4l only- was expended, and this on account of falling brick chimneys. The Girls’ College is an old building erected in 1882. The Boys’ College was erected in 1905.

The insurance companies i n New Zealand are charging a tariff of 6s per £lOO for insurance against earthquake for buildings constructed of wood or iron frame, but for brick or stone 15s. But if the building is to be erected on reclaimed ground, then the tariff for a brick building is 20s per £lOO.

I know it is unfortunate for those who have invested money in brick works that the results of the recent earthquakes have proved conclusively that bricks should not be used for building construction in earthquake countries, but the paramount consideration for the Minister of Education is the safety of the children, and, as the Prime Minister finely stated, it is the Minister’s duty to have material for schools about which there is the least doubt. That is my attitude, and lam sure it will meet with the commendation of all parents. ’ , The difficulty in connection with the Central School at Palmerston North is on account of its being a two-toreyed building with some unsatisfactory top gear. I have had reports made by architects and engineers, and as there was a difference of opinion, the Prime Minister suggested that we should have an independent opinion from Professor Cull, of Christchurch. Professor Cull has suggested that two Wellington experts should visit and report o n this school, and this has occasioned some delay, which was unavoidable.

I repeat that as Minister of Education I am responsible for the safety of the children in our schools, and that duty I shall not shirk, whatever criticism maybe levelled against me. Buildings can be erected in wood and the interest on the difference, in cost between such a wooden school and a brick one. spread over a period of 36 years, would suffice for the replacement of the wooden building. If it is a hostel that is to be built, then it can be built in reinforced concrete at no appreciably greater cost, if any. than for a brick building. There is no reflection necessarily on the architects or builders in that I have ordered a rigid inspection of all brick schools, but' the results of the recent earthquakes have shown that more strength is required in buildings than was considered necessary prior to the Murchison earthquake in 1929. In brick work there is a construction joint every three inclies, and one may ask how would any engineer like to depend upon reinforced concrete if a construction joint was necessary every three inches. There is no need for any alarm in the minds of New Zealanders at a possible recurrence of earthquakes if we build with a full recognition of the faetthat we are building in an earthquake country, for the earthquakes since 1840 in New; Zealand have not damaged well-built wooden houses, and since the advent of reinforced concrete work no well-constructed building of that description has been damaged by earthquake action.

In conclusion, I repeat that the deaths in Hawke’s Bay were caused by the collapse of brick buildings, and we must guard against a repetition.

Speaking at the meeting of the Terrace End School Committee last week the chairman (Mr W. B. Cameron) said:— “I think the Minister has been a bit premature about putting statements around regarding brick buildings. There will be some difficulty in getting the children back into Central School, and if he goes on the way he is doing, we will not have the parents sending their children back to any of the brick schools. Does he expect us to tear down all the brick schools and erect wooden ones? He should have taken the whole thing in committee.”

Te Oha, one of the carved storehouses in the Maori collection at the Auckland War Memorial Museum, once contained the body of a victim of cannibalism, said Mr V. F. Fisher, in the course of a lecture the other afternoon. Tahuri-o-Rangi, the son of Manawa, the craftsman who carved the storehouse, w-as in a party led by Haere Huka, who murdered a Ngati-Haua chieftain named Hunga in 1835. The body of Hunga was cooked and placed on the veranda of the building. The outrage caused warfare between the Ngati-Pikiao and the NgatiHaua, the hostilities lasting until 1860. The use of the term “ quid ” is not permissible when one is addressing Air E. D. Mosley, S.AL, and a solicitor. Air G. G. Lockwood, was rebuked when he made use of the term in the Alagistrate’s Court, Christchurch. “ Have you never had the experience of a member of the staff borrowing a quid and putting in an I 0 U for it? ” asked Air Lockwood of a w-it-ness in a civil case. Air Alosley expressed surprise at the use of the word by a legal man. Air Lockwood: “I was putting it from the point of view of an office boy.” Air Alosley: “Yes, but it is not an office boy speaking.”