EARTHQUAKE-PROOF BUILDING

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 710, 9 July 1929, Page 10

EARTHQUAKE-PROOF BUILDING

THE methods through which architects and build'ers may minimise the possibility of structural damage in areas that may be wracked by future earthquakes have been carefully outlined by Mr. C. R. Ford, of Auckland, who has been making an investigatory tour of the West Coast as a unember of the special committee appointed by the New Zealand Institute of Architects. In the first place, it has to be borne in mind that Mr. Ford’s observations are entitled to special consideration, for he has devoted much time to the study of the problems which are of vital concern tp the architects who will be designing the buildings to replace those- wrecked in the recently afflicted South Island areas. He has his own theories about the most effective building methods for earthquake country, and those theories, adequately set out in a text-book, have been endorsed by many architectural authorities. The first point is that great damage, other than that* readily discernible, has been done on the West Coast, and both this and the major damage is directly attributable to had designing or faulty construction. It is simpl? enough to say that precautions should be taken against future trials of a similar kind, but the prime difficulty will be in forcing people to the realisation that precautions are necessary. It is true that New Zealand is rarely afflicted with earthquakes severe enough to place buildings on trial at allbut the calamity has happened once, and surely it is no more than common sense to make provision for the future. Earthquakes are phenomena that experts are only theoretically informed about, yet it does seem as if they have the disconcerting habit of seldom striking twice in the same place. For example, had Arthur’s Pass been a thickly populated area, there might easily have been a tragedy in March matching that of Westland and Duller last m.onth. We do know that the habits of earthquakes are not to be relied upon, and therefore it is a present duty to take precautions. Mr. Ford gives his professional assurance that the erection of buildings strong enough to withstand earthquake shock is not an expensive process. It makes demand upon knowledge and understanding rather than upon finance. The slight additional cost necessary should be considered more as an insurance premium than anything else, and it has the further charm of not being a recurring one. Investigations have shown that faulty construction has been responsible for the bulk of the damage, although, as Mr. Ford admits himself, there is much in the nature of the damage tliat can be explained only by the local peculiarities of the shocks. Why some houses should he damaged, and others in the same line escape, certainly presents a problem; but still these isolated happenings do not affect general principles. There is, however, the one confronting fact that buildings erected in haphazard way have been the first to suffer, while those more carefully constructed have escaped with a satisfactory minimum of damage. There is, fortunately, no need to take an alarmist view of the positionbut it must be admitted that what has happened in the past may happen again. The future gives no guaranteed immunity. Some parts of New Zealand are subject to earth : quakes, and our experts have not yet determined definitely just which those parts are. So, in the meantime, it is not extravagant to ask that precautions should be taken, particularly when those precautions cost little.