CONCRETE COTTAGES

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 114, 11 November 1919, Page 10

CONCRETE COTTAGES

TO THE EDITOR,

Sir,—l had no intention of making any further statement on this subject, but as Mr Manning has misrepresented the matter and confused the issue, it is imperative that the correct position should be made clear. ■

In my first contribution of Mr. Lakeman's extracts the same clause as he now produces was quoted by me to show that Mr Lakeman condemned solid concrete block wall construction, also that he' was of opinion that all forms of solid wall construction were more or less unsatisfactory, and he had come to the conclusion that, taking everything into v consideration, the solid blocks in two thicknesses with a cavity between had proved the most satisfactory so far for domestic work. Your correspondent knows perfectly well that no extracts were quoted by me : to show that solid wall construction was advocated by Mr Lakeman. On the contrary, they were condemned and cavity walls advocated. Youi readers are quite capable of deciding whether I am endeavouring to mislead Regarding cavity--wall construction, one of your correspondents stated that this form of construction was not suitable in a country that was subject to earthquake shocks. Cavity brick walls have been constructed in this country for about thirty years, and a large proportion of our public and private building are so constructed, and many more are likely to be built. The profession generally consider it to be a standard form of sound construction; moreover; provision for such construction is made in the building bylaws of this country. Surely it is premature to pass judgment on concrete cottages in Christchurcb or elsewhere in the Dominion, as they are only in the experimental stage. Some of your correspondents appear sceptical regarding the hollow brick wall buildings after a trial of thirty years in this country.—l am, etc., F.R.1.8.A.

10th November.