CONCRETE V. BRICK.

Timaru Herald, Volume CV, Issue 16080, 29 September 1916, Page 2

CONCRETE V. BRICK.

) We will assume, ?,fr Ee.ader, that you are contemplating the erection of a house, and have not yet «lec : ded what material tn use'. You have reviewed in your mind various houses that you know of, and you have come to tho conclusion that it will pay you to build in the most- substanVa.l material procurable. Well, so far so good; your choice is getting limited! Now. what is it gor'ng to be, brick or concrete. Perhaps it .would hj& advisable to consider the various advantages of each, so here nro a. few facts than may bo of use. Well, first of all, concrete is the strongest, for, is net a jomtless; wall stronger than a wall of ioints. Besides, concrete ia used in brick bui l dings where strength is required ; look at the next br'ck building you see. Concrete : s aifoo, more fire--woof. It is the roof timbers that give stability to a brick bu'ldrng, con-<-"cii'K>nt I y. these timbers are destroyed by fire, the stab'lity is gone, nnd the bricks come down like ninewhen the water is ; turned on, but there is never enough heat generated in an average fire to destroy couTci'c, so oven if voii have a fire. you will still have the v. alls left. A glance over +he h'story of the great Sin Francisco fire, proves that tins statement is not exaggerated. Then regarding durability, it is well < known that concrete gets harder the ! older it gets, but the same law does not apuly to brick father T.me tieats brick differently, and it usually succumbs a.nd crumbles w'th age. Did you never see a tumble down, crumbling brick Wall or chimney on a, foundation of concrete that was in order? Well, the moral is obvious, and no one will d'sputo that the foundation was bu It first. In any ease a chain is no ■ stronger than its weakest link, and I even if bricks aro burnt like flint hi the kilns, tli© mortar is not of sufficient durab lity to last mauy years. Concrete being harder is indro verminproof than, brick, being of a stony and less absorbant nature iis. also more sanitary. Both buildings are dampproof if built with hollow walls, but hollow concrete walls are very slow conductors of either heat or co2d, therefore your rooms are practically at the same temperature all the year round. There are many other arguments that could be advanced in favour of concrete, but just one more, the main one of the lot, the =fc, s. d. argument, and this is one that concrete wins easily. In conclusion we would add that theso remarks refer only to monolith/c concrete, or concrete built in situ, similar to Messrs Glue Bros., S'mplex Holow Wall System.