REDUCING EARTHQUAKE RISk

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 37, 12 August 1942, Page 4

REDUCING EARTHQUAKE RISk

The necessity for taking all possible measures to reduce earthquake risk is clear, and the suggestion by the Minister of Industries and Commerce (Mr..-Sullivan) that the mandatory application of a standard building code may be the best means of ensuring the greatest degree of safety can generally be endorsed. Experts have advised the necessity for taking account of possible seismic action, and in the face of. this it would be the height, of folly to erect buildings which experience has shown are not able to withstand shocks. The Standards Institute has been giving attention to the problem since the disastrous Napier earthquake and progress has been made in the preparation of model building bylaws. Six parts of a revised building code have been published and it is hoped to issue another six parts shortly. In many cases the code has been adopted by municipalities. In general those who are erecting new buildings will, in their ..-own interests, be anxious, to adopt all possible precautions against earthquake risk, and local bodies will be just as anxious lo see that plans submitted to them for approval conform strictly to what is required from a safety point of view. As the Minister points out, however, it may be necessary to strengthen the powers of the Government and local bodies by additional legislative, authority. If this is so, it I should not necessarily mean that buildings will have to be erected to I the one pattern. The object of a I standard building code is to guard tas far as possible against loss of life and property. * Subject to that consideration, there should be the greatest possible elasticity in design and construction, as well as a due regard to tlie particular needs in special districts. When any legislation that may be necessary is being prepared, consideration should also be given to the desirability of increasing the powers of municipalities in .directing the removal of dangerous superstructure from existing buildings. Judging from experiences in Wellington arising from the two recent earthquakes, there is a serious defect in the powers of local bodies under the bylaws. The council can advise but not direct where there is not immediate proved danger. In nine cases out of ten direction may not be necessary—the removal of danger points can be left to the good sense of owners—but it is the tenth ease which may endanger life and •'limb. It is to guard against such a case that increased authority is desirable. -^