THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. MONDAY, JUNE 15, 1931. MAKING BUILDINGS SAFER.

Wairarapa Age, 15 June 1931, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. MONDAY, JUNE 15, 1931. MAKING BUILDINGS SAFER.

Though its recommendations are tentative and isubject to revision in light of .the continued inquiry which it advocates by a permanent Earth quake Investigation Committee, the Building Regulations Committee appointed by the Government after the Hawke’s Bay earthquake has done valuable work. In its preliminary re* port, of which a brief summary was published last week, the committee has made a good beginning in a task which undoubtedly should be continued methodically. “The people of New Zealand must realise,” the committee observes, “that the earthquake risk in this country is undoubtedly great and that all structures, including buildings, if not properly designed and constructed to resist the destructive forces, will suffer in a severe earthquake. In future the architect and the engineer must pay even greater attention to the importance of earthquake resistant construction, and must co-operate with the geologist and the seismologist in the practical application of scientific principles.” Common sense demands that prompt action should be taken to ensure the general adoption of by-laws establishing reasonable safeguards againsJ; earthquake damage and construction. That this will not mean in all cases adding to the cost of building is indicated in the committee’s observa tion that: “Our motto should be 'Better building at less cost’ ”. A building of simple but effective design, free from meretricious ornament, may easily be less costly than a. structure more ornate, but less secure. The style of construction recommended by the committee for buildings used to house great public assemblies, and for structures' which it is for other reasons specially important, to safeguard, necessarily will entail a very considerable outlay. It seems quite likely, however, that in the case of many buildings, good planning, providing reasonable safeguards against earthquake damage, may rather reduce than increase costs. An important point made by the committee is that many existing buildings are unsafe from the point of view of earthquake resistance. A certain amount of work is now being done to strengthen, existing buildings (the report observes) and to remove unnecessary and dangerous weight therefrom. This policy is undoubtedly sound and owners should act on the best technical advice procurable. The problem really requires a systematic survey of all doubtful buildings, so that the most dangerous may be selected for immediate action. In Masterton, some attention has been directed to the Post -Office tower and to the parapet of the Municipal Buildings. In regard to the Post Office tower, there seems to be some conflict of opinion. A report by the Borough Engineer not long ago with regard to the parapet on the Municipal Buildings seemed to indicate quite clearly that its presence would 'be dangerous in the event of a severe earthquake. It is clear that the authorities respectively concerned will accept a very serious responsibility if they allow the parapet and the tower to remain without having definite and dependable technical advice that it is reasonably safe to do so. To a great extent, no doubt, existing buildings must be accepted as they stand, but ■ /••he removal of unnecessary and dangerous weights, particularly from buildings much used by the public, clearly demands practical attention.