THE PRESS TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1982. Looking beyond building rules

Press, 27 July 1982, Page 18

THE PRESS TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1982. Looking beyond building rules

Building a house in New Zealand today is not cheap. Part of the cost can be attributed to the stringent building requirements and standards that have been devised over the years. The attempt by the Housing Corporation to ascertain whether the cost of housing could be lowered if the building regulations were set aside is a novel way of reviewing the regulations. When, in December, last year, the corporation invited builders and manufacturers to forget all the regulations and submit innovative ideas for low-cost houses, the effect was a challenge to the industry to show what requirements were prohibitive in terms of cost and what devices could be used to get around them. To encourage this experimentation, the corporation suggested such avenues as light-weight units, prefabricated and bought “off the rack,’’ that could be stacked like bunks in housing developments. Twenty-seven entries have been submitted and the corporation is expected to announce the three most favoured within a few days. Apparently none of the entries requires a deviation from existing regulations. In this the builders and manufacturers appear to have shown an appreciation for the requirements of good sense and an understanding of what is likely to be acceptable. Existing standards for housing are the result of years of experience. New Zealand is subject to earthquakes and subject to extremes of weather. Short cuts in the standards that control safety should not be

acceptable. From what is known of the designs submitted, the designers have avoided such short cuts, but nevertheless have managed to offer significant savings in costs. Low-cost housing will be welcomed by many New Zealanders, but only if it is in an acceptable form. Rows of similar, boxlike houses will be resented. The lesson of such housing developments should have been learned. Departures from well tested designs can also be troublesome. Only this month the corporation learned to its cost what can arise when money is lent to build a new type of house, this one in fibreglass, when the problem of condensation has not been sufficiently foreseen. The corporation will have achieved its end if the designs now before it provide genuine savings in the construction of satisfactory housing and do not create social costs elsewhere. In spite of all the qualifications and reservations, the encouragement to designers to be adventurous, and to meet housing demands and standards of building in ways other than those that have been laid down to serve all builders, must be approved. The rules for buildings have their proper purposes; preventing innovations should not be among them. Full advantage should be taken of design and manufacturing progress. New ideas may well match or surpass the conventional results in strength, durability, convenience, health requirements, aesthetic qualities, and safety even if the conventional rules have been bent a little.