CONCERTE V. BRICK.

Timaru Herald, Volume CV, Issue 16082, 2 October 1916, Page 8

CONCERTE V. BRICK.

"We will assuinej'Mr.. Reader, that you are contemplating the erection of a. house, and have not yet dec;ded what material tn use. You have reviewed in your mind various houses that you know of, and you have co.ne to the conclusion that it will p:iy you to build in the most substantial material' proenrable. Well, mi f.u- so good; your choice is getting limited! Now, what is it go ng to be, brick or concrete. Perhaps it would b? advisable to consider the various advantage.; of each, so here aire a few facts that, may be of use. Well, first of all, concrete is the strongest., for, is nr.t a jointless wall stronger than a wall of joints. Bes'dos, concrete is used in brick buildings where strength is required; look at the next brick building you see. Concrete s also more ("reproof. It is the roof timbers that giro the stability to a brick building, consequently, when these timbers are

destroyed by fire, the &ta.b'lity is gone, and the. bricks come down like nineni'ns when the -.vater is. turned on, but there is never enough bent generated in an average fire to destroy concrete, so even - if yon have a fire. you will still liavo tho vails left. A glance over Hie h : storv of the great San Francisco fire, proves tliat this .statement is not exaggerated. Then regarding durability, it is well known that, concrete gets harder' tho older, it gets, but tin; same law does not applv to brick Father Tine treats brick differently, and it usually succumbs and crumbier- with age. Did you never see a tumble down, crumbling brick waill or cbimnev on a foundation of concrete that was i'n >£ood order? Well, the moral is obvious, and no one will d'spute that the fonndat'on was bu It first. In any car-e a chain is no stronger than its weakest link, and even if bricks a.ixs burnt like flint in the kilns, the mortar is not of sufficient durability io last many years. Concrete being harder is more verminproof than brick, being of a stony and loss absorbent nature is also more .sanitary. Both buildings are. dampproof if built with hollow walls, but hollow concrete walls; are very slow conductors of cither heat or cold, therefore your rooms are pract'cally at the saiw temperature all the year round. There are many other arguments that could be advanced in favour of concrete, but just one more, tho main one of the lot, the £ s. d. argument, and tlrs is one that concrete wins easily.. In conclusion, we would add that these remarks refer only to monoiith c. concrete. or concrete built in situ, similar to 'Messrs Gluo Bros., Simplex Holow Wall System.