BUILDING SAFEGUARDS

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 65, 17 March 1934, Page 8

BUILDING SAFEGUARDS

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In view of the more frequent and more violent earthquake troubles evidenced by the Murchison earthquake of 1929, the Hawke's Bay earthquake of 1931, and last week's widely-extended though less serious damage, it is in&eed high, time that something. definite should be done to regulate building and to . make our permanent structures safer for .occupation. As a layman who has had experierice'of property of various kinds, I quite realise the,economic need for buildings which are of a permanent nature and which haye a relatively low cost of maintenance; but in fulfilling such heed it, is essential,that the utmost regard should be taken of the earthquake-resisting nature of the construction, ( .which, I understand it is possible to secure, with greater assurance against Joss of .life;' personal injury, and material damage to the structure. It appears .to me,, however, that legislation and bylaws may accomplish a- certain measure of security,-.but it is.only in the fulfilment of such requirements that the end in view may be attained. From experience of .the results; of local, body control under municipal bylaws, I know that it is impossible, without the employment of a large army of inspectors, to ensure adequate performance of,the by-1 laws. I know also that in many cases, through personal influences, local authorities have granted exemption from their bylaws to an extent detrimental to the public interest. Being a body of laymen, they do not, of course, always appreciate the technical principles involved, and ars at times; inclined to be over-lenient. "As-a suggestion to increase security, I am o£ opinion that if every building had to be inspected by a qualified architect during its construction and he were required- to give a certificate on completion that the structural work fulfilled the requirements of the • bylaws, a great deal more_ might be accomplished and'-th&'in-spection work carried out at the expense of the person who is having ■ the <x>uilding erected, instead of at tiie, -public expense by a large staff of .focal, body officials. ' .•., >'jj';',v,'- -''.■' A possible objection -'to' sucW aniidea might possibly be that''the. architect „is only human, and he might" err.« Well, so might the local body, inspector; but" as such work is the livelihood" bfr;the-\archK tect, and he could be called.to account and prevented from pracfiicevinvWe 'event of negligence or fraud to a.much more serious extent than a local body official, there would appear to be a possibility of such a system being reasonably efficient. There are parallel cases in 'other professions. The authorised surveyor has to give a certificate regarding every survey for land transfer, his work is periodically checked, and, if he is in error he can be called to' account. This system has built up a high standard in the surveying profession in New Zlealand. There are many other professions and callings which are required to act in a similar way for the protection of the public as, for instance, medical practitioners. Furthermore, the need of inspection is not confined to the cities and boroughs: there are many buildings in the county areas equally in need of inspection. Nor is. it confined to .buildings of a certain size or cost; a small shop costing £300 may be just as much a menace as a latger one. "By all means, let us achieve greater security by placing the liability on those who are competent to accept it, and on those in whose interest the building is being erected. We have had enough of shoddy building; our standard has been too low. Let us take steps generally to improve the standard.—l am, etc., •a, i. ,* CIVIS. March 16. „