John Key third "most ridiculous" world leader

[Ocean1]

Was it the best standard of the time?

It was THE standard of the time. Yo don't actually know what that means, do you?

[mashman]

It was THE standard of the time. Yo don't actually know what that means, do you?

Yes. I understand what the standard is. Is it impossible to build beyond standard? which would equal the best standard

[Swoop]

your spelling and grammer ...

Grammar.

why wouldn't a civil defense HQ be as quake proof as possible?

I wouldn't be too worried about earthquake proofing CD HQ.
Being in the basement of the beehive, the dam located up the valley is more of a threat. If that breaks there had better be good waterproofing of the doors to CD HQ.

[scumdog]

Yes. I understand what the standard is. Is it impossible to build beyond standard? which would equal the best standard

How far 'beyond'?
1%?
43.2%?

And if no incentive - why 'beyond' at all?

[Clockwork]

Yes. I understand what the standard is. Is it impossible to build beyond standard? which would equal the best standard

Mashie, as much as I generally agree with your sentiments, what CEO or budget holder is EVER going to spend more than they are required to on such mundane things as structural integrity. Cos if they did throw their money around with such ghaye abandon, how long could they hope to keep their job?

[mashman]

How far 'beyond'?
1%?
43.2%?

And if no incentive - why 'beyond' at all?

Would, Just In Case, be enough of an incentive? Buildings are already the wrong shape.

Mashie, as much as I generally agree with your sentiments, what CEO or budget holder is EVER going to spend more than they are required to on such mundane things as structural integrity. Cos if they did throw their money around with such ghaye abandon, how long could they hope to keep their job?

FINALLY someone points out the major (imho, only?) limiting factor. Aye, I am aware of the main reason why these things aren't done. Hence why I'm not bagging the people who have done the job as they have had to do so with given constraints. Ocean knows that, but didn't want to bring it up for some unknown reason . Technically it's possible to build to way above and beyond high standards. Financially it isn't.

[scumdog]

Would, Just In Case, be enough of an incentive? Buildings are already the wrong shape.

So how much 'more' is enough for 'just in case'???

BTW: The world isn't run buy altruistic builders and manufacturers...and why should they? - I bet nobody has ever said "I'm so glad the builders exceeded the specifications - and without any additional cost"!

[husaberg]

Mashie, as much as I generally agree with your sentiments, what CEO or budget holder is EVER going to spend more than they are required to on such mundane things as structural integrity. Cos if they did throw their money around with such ghaye abandon, how long could they hope to keep their job?

While it is rare for me to agree with Mashy
A building that goes beyond the current standard is not that rare.
The buzz word is "Its called future proofing".
Sometimes its just different materials or design it doesn't necessarily need to cost more.
If it does other aspects can also be compomised like the looks, the open spaces etc.
Regardless most corporates are basically too afraid to say no, provided someone puts a safety angle at it.
In my experiance boards make the decisions anyway.

[mashman]

So how much 'more' is enough for 'just in case'???

BTW: The world isn't run buy altruistic builders and manufacturers...and why should they? - I bet nobody has ever said "I'm so glad the builders exceeded the specifications - and without any additional cost"!

Til you run out of space for strengthening.

Of course it isn't, but cost being a consideration/reason for not making a building as strong as possible ain't my idea of sensible resource usage, amongst other things. Just another tick against the financial system . We couldn't afford it, sorry the building collapsed and your loved ones died ain't a satisfactory excuse is it?