N.Z. Earthquakes.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20231, 15 February 1934, Page 8

N.Z. Earthquakes.

Severe Lesson

Need for Supervision of Building.

POINTING OUT that New Zealand had

had a severe lesson in the Napier earthquake, Mr A. R. Galbraith, City Engineer, declared last night at a meeting of the Christchurch branch of the Town Planning Institute of New Zealand that the Government should have gone on with the legislation governing building construction. There should be an effort made to secure the needed supervision of building construction.

Mr Galbraith, who was in the chair and introduced the subject, said the Government had decided not to go on with the legislation, and the suggestion was that the whole thing would be thrown back on the local authorities. “To my mind,” he said, “ there are certain very distinct advantages in having a full code in connection with earthquake-proof construction. We had a pretty severe lesson in Napier. It is all very well for people to think that because they have never experienced an earthquake, say, in Dunedin or Auckland, earthquakes are not going to happen there. It seems to me that this institute should not be satisfied with the status quo, but should bring pressure to bear on the local authorities and endeavour to see if something cannot be done.” Action by Cities. Mr Galbraith said he thought they might arrive at some common procedure for each of the four cities in regard to the construction of buildings. If they could arrive at that it was quite probable that the other centres would follow suit. The engineers’ conference next week might be asked to consider the matter. If the architects and the engineers were both to move in the matter their action would have quite a good effect. It would be a tremendous help if these two institutes could stand together. Professor J. E. L. Cull said that while it was true that a lack of agreement between the architects and the engineers in the past had been an obstacle to the Government proceeding with legislation, it had since been definitely stated that the two bodies had agreed on the details. “ I cannot help feeling,” he said, “ that if the Government were fully informed they would not hesitate to proceed. I have net been able tp ascertain just the reason for their dropping the legislation.” He thought the Government proposed to achieve what would have been achieved under the legislation by means of the existing powers. He did not agree, however, that they would be able to do all that was necessary. The task of producing a satisfactory code was a very big one. The next best alternative to action by the Government would be for the four main centres to combine. These centres should combine their technical and other forces and produce a really sound code applying to the construction of all large buildings. The code should be made Dominion-wide and should be backed by the State. The State could see that each local body had by-laws that were satisfactory. Mr Galbraith: I wonder if we could get the State to draw up model by-laws for earthquake-resisting buildirtgs ? Enforcement. Professor Cull said that in addition to the production of the standard code there was the question of enforcement of the by-laws in conformity with the code. Mr Galbraith: I believe enforcement is the hurdle. Certain interests are afraid of the expense of the clerks of works and resident engineers. Professor Cull: I do not think the tenor of the proposed legislation was altogether known by the critics. The matter of the compulsory employment of clerks of works was not finally defined. He thought it would be found that under the legislation the local authorities would act much as they do at the present time. Mr Galbraith said that apart altogether from new construction there was the danger that existed with the old buildings. Professor Cull said the best they could hope for was that the new buildings should be earthquake-resisting. In a generation, dealing with new construction only, they would have safe cities. To raise the question of the existing buildings would only be to provoke opposition.

Mr Galbraith said it had been suggested that the building subsidy might be extended to deal with the old buildings. Professor Cull said the subject -was one for the conference of local bodies. He doubted the wisdom of the professional bodies pressing the matter if the local bodies were not displaying interest. The discussion lapsed without any motion being carried.