I am one of the many fortunate South Africans who have come across to New Zealand and made it our ‘land of milk and honey’! One of the biggest lessons of life is that the only constant throughout life is change. The challenge quite obviously is to identify the positive outcomes quickly and harness them. Standing at the southern tip of the great African continent, feeling that there is nowhere else to go requires a leap of faith, particularly when changing continents. Everybody has a suite of reasons for changing countries, but this is not the focus of this short article. Of far greater impact to my career in the building industry within New Zealand are the similarities and differences in design and construction techniques between the two countries. My LSD trip (look, see and deposit funds) made it blatantly clear from the first steps I took on New Zealand soil (which were rather more spongy and sodden than the hard dry plains of the African Highveld), that construction and design are different in the South Pacific.

South Africa has a large low and semi-skilled labour pool that coupled with a good supply of clay resources, made for a very viable brick industry which in turn has had a major impact on housing materials and designs. Double skin brick external walls with the outer face either plastered or done as a ‘face-brick’ finish was, and continues to form the basis for middle to upper income family homes (no cavity by the way). Good eaves coupled with reasonably pitched roofs generally shield windows and doorways from the heavy but intermittent thunderstorms. As in Europe, the robust structural nature of this type of construction suggests these houses, if well maintained, will still be in service in 300 years time.

New Zealand, having extensive sustainable and renewable timber resources has naturally used timber and timber products in the construction of its housing stock generally. In the early days, the harder woods (generally softwoods though) dominated but as end user demand sky-rocketed with the increased population, a faster growing timber alternative had to be substituted. The United States of America seems to have had a fair influence towards the use of softer-wood alternatives for house framing timbers. These softer woods are also more easily treated adding to their durability.

The additional use of products such as fibre cement sheeting, together with regular sheet sizes and an emphasis on minimum wastage and therefore cost, appears to have had a significant influence on the design of buildings in New Zealand and particularly in housing.

My initial impression of house construction in New Zealand was that the finished product was ‘lightweight’. This in no way suggests substandard, but this is precisely the point of departure between the two basic house construction techniques I am comparing (SA ? brick vs NZ ? timber frame).

Standards required in construction and specifically by the New Zealand Building Code (NZBC) place a minimum ‘life requirement’ of 50 years on items such as timber framing. This fact gives me the impression that houses are ‘to last the distance’ but are not expected to last significantly above and beyond this time frame. And this impression is possibly reinforced by the reduced durability requirement for say claddings to last at least 15 years and more easily accessible and replaceable elements such as internal wall linings to last a minimum of 5 years. We all, however vaguely, understand why these durability limits have been legislated, but they do produce a disquiet when compared to those Great Grandaddy’s that form the skyline of Europe. Are we building with a view to replace or building to last?

I humbly suggest the limits set within the NZBC have led to an industry that is simply required to meet a minimum standard, and sadly no more. Perhaps a good proportion of the blame for the ‘leaky building’ crisis currently being discovered on a daily basis (particularly in Auckland) can be attributed to the philosophy of ‘trying to get away with just enough’.

This is where industry standards can play a part in lifting the bar. New Zealand has the good fortune to have seemingly limitless timber resources, undoubtedly ‘champions’ within and directing the building industry, not to mention a robust construction workforce from designers through to the people who put the work in place. A winning combination if ever there was one! We all need to learn from each other which most definitely includes a robust review of who has the winning formulas that we can apply or adapt to enhance New Zealand ‘best practice’. Recently proposed improvements to the New Zealand Building Code and related Standards such as the requirement for framing timbers to be treated, will immediately improve the fundamental durability of New Zealand houses and increase their ‘longevity’, thereby assuring our grandchildren of valuable assets.

I believe the Building Industry here in New Zealand has and will continue to benefit from the exposures it has to international ‘best practice’ techniques, products and systems, both directly as well as through its immigrants who have been given permanent residence status for this very reason – to add value to New Zealand. I look forward to playing my part at Prendos in ‘raising our industry standards and practices’ for the step up and journey onwards to meet New Zealand’s future construction challenges.