COST OF HOUSES.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 February 1922, Page 7

COST OF HOUSES.

CONCRETE VERSUS TIMBER. VIEWS OF AUCKLAND EXPERTS. The comparative merits of timber and concrete blocks for house-building were discussed last week by a well-knowd Auckland architect, who expressed the opinion that concrete was undoubtedly the coming building material. The time is near when our timber resources will be very much curtailed,” he said, “consequntly making the timber house more expensive to build, whereas with practically unlimited supplies of concrete aggregate, and with the latest methods of handling it, the tendency will be to cheapen the concrete block house. Concrete block work has been greatly retarded by the pool* class of work done and material used by amateurs, but with good plans and supervision, proper material and quantities, there i® no doubt but that the concrete block method will become first favorite in house construction.” During the past few years, continued the architect, the shortage of homes has been very serious, particularly in the cottage class of houses of about five rooms and conveniences. The great difficulty and cost of -'procuring suitable building timber had been one of the main causes of the shortage, and it was certain the time bad arrived when the question of building Auckland homes with something more durable than wood must be considered. COMPARATIVE COSTS. With the object of arriving at the comparative cost, the speaker had taken out plans and estimates in detail of a five-roomed cottage, one in timber and one in concrete block work, of the same design and size. The timber house would be constructed with first-class timber outside, the roof of corrugated iron and painted, ceilings throughout of fibrous plaster. The concrete block house would have walls of concrete, plastered and tinted to the color desired. The ceilings, plumbing, and interior finishings would be the same as in the timber house, and the roof would be built of concrete tiles. The outside would be finished in rough-cast, tinted any color desired. Having carefully worked out the comparative costs, he was satisfied the difference would only amount to about 5 per cent, more for the concrete blocks, provided the work were carried out by competent men, while the advantage® would easily out weight the slight increase. The advantages of concrete block houses, the architect continued, were many; they had much greater durability, cost very little in upkeep, carried a low rate of fire insurance, and were free from all insects and borer, while the cost of painting the outside once every few years would be about £5 as against £6O for a timber house.

SOME DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.

This hopeful summary of the concrete block proposition was supported by one builder, who also considered that if comp tent workmen were employed the difference in cost would not work out at more than 5 per cent. Other builders and several architects were much less optimistic, however. While admitting the strong claims of the concrete blocks, they considered the difference in cost would be nearer 15 or 20 per cent, than 5 per cent. “It might work out at 5 per cent, on paper,” remarked one authority, “but when actual teats are made, they ehow

an increase of 15 or 20 per cent., on account of the extra. cost of labor. You cannot get a straight ‘go* at concrete block® as you can at timber; there is so much fitting and shaping up of the block® to ‘be done. Tney are larger than brick®, and consequently require much more handling. It is quicker to build in brick® than concrete blocks, tor this reason.

“Of course, the blocks are very useful for building in districts where there is plenty of sand, and not much clay or timber. There is no doubt as to the increased durability and lower cost of maintenance in regard to concrete houses, but I think, owing to the difference in price, the timber house will continue to be greatly in request for a long time to come.”