SANITARY INSTITUTE.

Evening Star, Issue 9774, 2 August 1895, Page 1

SANITARY INSTITUTE.

A meeting of the Sanitary Institute was held in the Town Hall last evening. Mr A. Burt presided. There were over twenty members present. CORRESPONDENCE. A copy of a report from Mr Doyle, head of the Sanitary Department in Wellington, was received. The town clerk, in acknowledging receipt of a letter from the Institute’s secretary inquiring what had been done regarding the insanitary buildings at the corner of Athol place and St. Andrew street, said steps had been taken iu accordance with the Municipal Corporations Act, 1888. REMEDYING A NUISANCE. Mr San dilands said he had interviewed blip harbor-master about the nuisance on the foreshore at the foot of Hanover street, and Mr Stevens had assured him that the matter would be remedied as soon as funds permitted. SANITARY CONSTRUCTION OF IUUI.DINCS. Mr Petre then read a paper on ‘The Sanitaiy Construction of Buildings.’ He prefaced his remarks by hoping that a stirring debate would follow, as he intended to attack well-worn theories held by many on the subject. In the selection of the site, the choosing of the material, and planning the arrangements of any construction meant for the habitation of man the chief and most important consideration, the speaker said, was that of sanitation. ■ The builders of past generations, considering their appliances, were good engineers and very capable artists, but they have left us very scant evidence of their capabilities as sanitarians; but for this there was much excuse, inasmuch as the science of sanitation was then unknown. Architects of the present day, however, had no such excuse. Sanitation is a progressive science, but unfortunately the architect is mostly a very conservative being. Many of the old methods of construction were continually to be met with. The choosing of the site was a most important matter, but it was seldom proper attention was paid to it. It was often settled on considerations quite apart from sanitary ideas. The speaker then gave his opinion as to what was desirable and undesirable in the selection and preparation of a site. In the construction of ground floors and foundations he advocated the use of concrete, composed of Portland cement and gravel, brought at least lOin or 12in above the ground, forming a solid base for the building. This would prevent the growth of anything like fungi or the accumulation of water in the state of putrefaction so often seen in brickwork and masonry constructed in the ordinary way. The speaker attacked at some length the system known as double-walling. He argued that the best dry wall was built by erecting walls with a middle cavity about Fin to 2in wide, this cavity to be filled in with good cement concrete, made of very coarse sand or fine gravel, with plenty of cement. Painting the outside face of walls was a good protection against the access of damp, ‘ but it had the drawback of not being permanent, and meant constantly recurring expense. As regarded drainage, he advocated that all soil pipes should be well coated inside with some bituminous coating. All discharges from the various parts of a building should be carried into a well-laid drain of good glazed stoneware, and all storm-water should be carried away by an open drain by the natural outfall. In the construction of a really healthy building great care should be bestowed on the avoidance of cavities under floors, as these afford every facility for the harboring and accumulation of vermin, germs of disease, and filth of all sorts. Where the requirements and site would not admit of a solid floor, it was better to cover the ground within the foundations with a good thick coating of cement, concrete, or asphalt. Mr Walks said many valuable suggestions were contained in Mr Petre’s paper, and if people who intended to build would only read the information supplied by newspapers of the doings of the Institute and similar bodies it would be to their advantage. At the same time there were one oi two things in Mr Petre’s paper with which he did not agree. His own views on ths matter of hollow walls were that if you had a cavity about Sin wide well ventilated both at top and bottom and a current of air was passing through the damp did not affect the inner wall. That was his experience. It was over twenty years since he built his first hollow walls, and they were quite dry yet, and in a number of other cases no damp had appeared with one exception. Mr Petre suggested that the cavity should be filled with concrete. He had never yet found that watertight. Mr Simpson thought that if you built the floor of a building a foot above the ground you would need no concrete. Mr Sandilands quoted By-law 72 of the City Council, which shelved that a person wishing to build double walls had to gel express permission, and that tended to show that the Council did not believe in them. He would have liked to hear Mr Pelre’s opinion on wooden houses. He quite agreed with Mr Petre that soil pipes required something in the way of coating to prevent rust. For himself he agreed with the system of hollow walls, and thought they could bo made quite damp proof. Dr Ooston said there could be no doubt that hollow walls properly ventilated would not admit damp to penetrate. It was not the damp itself which was harmful; it was what it nourished. It encouraged germs of disease. A current of air would kill those germs. Our bricks were improperly made—not properly compressed, not properly sundried, and not hard enough. It was to poorlymade bricks they owed a deal of dampness. As to concrete below buildings, if a building were properly raised and the underspaees properly ventilated there need be no damp. If anything were used it should not be concrete, for that soon cracked and allowed foul gases to be sucked up. Asphalt was preferable. The only way to keep soil pipes clean was to have them so small that at some time or other they could be filled up with a solid plug, as it were, of water, which would remove all impurities. Mr A. Morrison said that damp walls had always been a source of trouble. He thought the only cure was to oil and paint them. He thought the bricks made here were as good as those made in the Old

Country. You could not keep damp out of a building unless you built hollow walls and left a good space between them. Mr -Jenkins and Mr Lambert spoke in defence of the quality of colonial-made bricks.

The Chairman said that in bis experience the driest walla were the plastered walls of wooden houses, which he preferred to brick ones. He fully agreed with Dr Ogston in his remarks rt the cleansing of soil pipes. After Mr Petre had made some remarks inreplyitwas agreed to postpone the discussion. A hearty vote of thanks being awarded to Mr Petre concluded the business.