The Sun SATURDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1929 LESSONS OF THE EARTHQUAKE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 852, 21 December 1929, Page 10

The Sun SATURDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1929 LESSONS OF THE EARTHQUAKE

LESSONS of the severe West Coast earthquake of last June are presented in the report of the committee of architects which was appointed to investigate and report on the damage to buildings in the seriously affected area. The committee consisted of Mr. C. Reginald Ford, of Auckland, Mr. H. Butcher, and Mr. Alexander S. Mitchell, three highly-qualified men whose conclusions deserve the greatest respect. In the circumstances it is perhaps a pity that the order of reference for their inquiry was not made rather wider. They discuss the weakness of various buildings in terms that for the most part will be clear only to architects or builders. What is wanted is a report that will bring home to the uninformed property-owner and home builder the folly of erecting badly supported structures for the sole purpose of creating a pretentious hut otherwise valueless effect. Being appointed by the Institute of Architects, instead of by the Government, which seems to have let a very valuable opportunity of collecting the fullest information pass, the committee had a first duty to the institute, and its report is addressed to the president of that body. For the purposes of technical knowledge this is as it should be, hut the committee itself a greater need than this, as it suggests in the report the desirability of having a Permanent Committee on Earthquake Resisting Construction, which committee would report upon framed structures as used in most dwellings as well as on the brick and concrete construction employed in larger buildings. The largest structure to suffer damage in the shock was the main building of Nelson College, a handsome brick edifice standing in a commanding position. Its principal architectural feature was a square tower, which crashed with disastrous results, including serious injury to two of the boys. In the opinion of the investigating committee, the collapse of the tower was due to inherent weaknesses in its construction. It was not to be expected that it would survive a serious shock. Here is seen the lesson for people who insist that architects shall, against their professional judgment, follow out lay ideas of decoration. The original Nelson College was a wooden building, practically modelled on the design of a famous English public school. It carried a tower, a series of arcades on either side of the tower, and pinnacles along the parapet. During fifty years, these architectural features became an integral part of the school tradition. Then the old building was burned down. When it was rebuilt in brick the governors, apparently over-riding the architect’s judgment, insisted that what might have been entirely safe and feasible in timber should be duplicated in the widely different medium of brick. Although their resources were presumably limited, the college governors insisted on a brick building of handsome external appearance. Within his limitations the architect did his work well and, according to the committee, the building as it followed the design was an excellent piece of work. The difficulty of adhering to elaborate specifications at limited cost resulted, however, in paring of expenditure at many points. There was not a cross brick wall in the building. Even where cross brick walls could have been erected without interference with the design, these were omitted, and their important strengthening functions delegated to inadequate walls of timber. There were no brick internal partitions even in the centre, under the tower, where they would have assisted in distributing the tower load, besides helping to tie the opposite walls. Nelson College was, in effect, a. hollow brick shell, and its subsequent wreck was due, in the opinion of the committee, to defects which might have been avoided. That story of sacrificing structural essentials to reduce costs, or of loading buildings with dangerous and trumpery ornamental features, is repeated, with reservations, throughout the committee’s report. One of the buildings which suffered most was the Post Office at Westport, which collapsed in a crumbling mass of masonry at the corner surmounted by a tower. Here the committee makes the interesting disclosure that the Post Office at Nelson (which also suffered) and that at Westport were of practically identical design. Doubtless they were all built from the one design in accordance with the economical principles of some former Government, and in each case the damage exemplified the danger of a tower, particularly where weaknesses may he present in the supporting structure. A store in Murchison, which collapsed completely, was a building that not even the most cheerful_ optimist could have expected to survive a shock of any severity. It was without internal bracing of any kind. The Bank of New Zealand, Nelson, was an excellent building, but damage occurred at a weak point left by alterations executed five years ago. Discussing wooden buildings, the committee confirms opinions as to their strength and suitability for New Zealand conditions, but stresses the need for better foundations, and for elimination of “the method of building the framework of the ground floor, and then placing the frame of the second floor upon it, making in, fact two structures, one upon the other.” This, the committee contends, is dangerous and unsound, an opinion that even the most poorly-informed layman will endorse.