MILL CONSTRUCTION BUILDINGS 



took comparative figures on two buildings, one mill constructed and one of 

 reinforced concrete. The two buildings were to cover an area of 100 by 100 

 plastered throughout, as if they were to be used for retail stores. The 

 figure we received, without heating, lighting, plumbing and elevator, for 

 mill construction was $27,135 against $37,651 for the reinforced concrete 

 building, an additional cost of 37 percent. To those figures, add $6,000 to 

 both buildings for plumbing, etc., and the additional cost of the reinforced 

 concrete building was 31.7 percent more than the cost of the mill constructed 

 building. This is because lumber is cheaper in the West than it is in the 

 East, and cement, sand and gravel are much more expensive. 



"Now the best comparison of safe types of fire resisting construction can 

 perhaps be shown by the comparative insurance rates from the judgment of 

 men whose business it is to study this question. We in Portland have secured 

 comparative insurance rates assuming occupancy of a furniture store and 

 the rate on the wood construction building was 47 cents and on the fireproof 

 building 35 cents and with sprinklers the comparison was 28 cents on the mill 

 and 21 cents on the fireproof. The rate was made on the building, not on the 

 contents. The rate for the mill constructed building, sprinklered, 28 cents, 

 was less than on the unsprinklered fireproof building, 35 cents. 



"I also had copies of fire rates from the Chicago Board of Fire Under- 

 writers, assuming a machine shop occupancy. The rate on a building not 

 sprinklered, mill construction, was $1.11, as against 24 cents for fireproof 

 construction; and sprinklered, 15 cents for mill construction as against 14 

 cents for fireproof material. The comparison between the sprinklered mill 

 construction building shows 15 cents as against 24 cents for the non-sprink- 

 lered fireproof building; and where both are sprinklered only 1 cent dif- 

 ference, 15 cents for the mill construction and 14 cents for the fireproof. 

 On the contents, the rate on non-sprinklered mill construction was $1.36 as 

 against 64 cents for the fireproof; the rates on the contents of sprinklered 

 building were 30 cents for the mill as against 26 cents for the fireproof 

 building. The comparison there for the sprinklered mill constructed is 30 

 cents as against 64 cents for the non-sprinklered fireproof building. This 

 shows clearly that a sprinklered mill construction building is a safer risk 

 from a fire insurance standpoint than one of non-sprinklered fireproof con- 

 struction. 



"The sprinklered mill constructed building is safer both as to building 

 and contents than is a fireproof building, non-sprinklered. In the same way 

 a mill constructed building with properly constructed stairways and elevator 

 shafts is safer as to contents than the non-sprinklered unprotected stairway 

 of a fireproof structure. Another thing is the temperature which runs from 

 1,000 to 1,200 degrees as compared to 1,800 degrees in fireproof non- 

 sprinklered buildings. The steel columns almost invariably buckle early in 

 the game and are of no further support to the building. 



"I believe, from my experience in both kinds of construction, that the 

 mill constructed building, masonry walls, wire glass windows, equipped with 

 a sprinkler system, would have almost as great effect in stopping a conflagra- 

 tion as if the interior was of so-called fire-proof construction, that is, in- 

 combustible materials." 



Page forty-three 



