REPORT OF ADJUDICATORS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 224, 21 September 1922, Page 8

REPORT OF ADJUDICATORS.

TO CITIZEN'S' COMMITTEE. A special meeting of the Citizens' Committee was held yesterday afternoon in Xo. 10 wlna-rf shed, the chairlli.iu I Mr. .1. H. Gunson) presi'ling. when the rep-ort of tbe jury of award on the winning designs for the proposed war memorial museum was received, a-.d the names of die successful competitors announced. DECISION OF THE JURY OF AWARD. The jury of award (Messrs. (.'. K. lord. P.X.Z.1.A., F.S. Arch., chairman, C. U\ Wood, A.R.1.8.A., F.X.Z.I.A, T. P. Cheeseman, O. Xicholson and Dr. T. W. Leys) presented a report in which it was stated, inter alia, that seventyfour designs were submitted. These were displayed for the purposes of judging in TTarbour Board shed Xo. 16, where they had been unpacked and put in place by

the assistant curator of $"- museum. None of the members <jf the jury of award were acquainted with the place of origin of the designs, »nd every precaution was taken in accordance with tlhe conditions to preserve the an-:(_rj_adty of the authors. The fullest possible consideration bad 'been given to every design. At tbe outsqfc it was realised that a building containing the accommodation demanded by the conditions could not possibly .be erected for the amount stated in tbe conditions. Therefore, designs could not be rejected upon, the grounds that the cost of erecting the building shown therein would exceed the stated sum. The design awarded first place would give Auckland a most dignified memorial building, of distinctive character, fully worthy of the deeds and events tbe memory of "which it was intended to per. petuate, and would also fulfil all museum requirements. Certain necessary modifications could .be effected without loss to the monumental feeling of the structure. The selection of the design to take second place was a matter of great diffl- \ ctilty. The one finally selected had a lack" of the architectural distinction and memorial feeling of otber designs submitted in the competition, but it was obviously above others in the simplicity and directness witih ■whiicth the author met all tbe conditions as regards planning. Tlhe design placed tihird was one of considerable architectural merit, although it did not express the memorial • qualities of the first award, and theTe were defects in its planning. Among, such excellent work a definite selection was a matter of exceedingly great difficulty, and the award was confined for that reason to the three prize winners. Although in judging importance had not been attached' to dTausrbtsimanelh'ip. the jury expressed its odmd ration of the exquisite dT_.ug.hitsmansih.ip of design nju__b_rs 7. 67 and 60.

THE SUCCESSFUL COMPETITORS. The recommendations of the jury were unanimously confirmed, on the motion of Mr. J. H. Gtmson, it .beinc also decided that the first prize winners be appointed the architects to carry o ut the work. On opening the envelopes containing competitors' names, the chairman announced fihat "tlbe -prize winner- w»*i_: — 1. Messrs Grierson, Aimer and M. K. Draffin, Auckland. _. Messrs. R. W. Maclaurin and C. H. Mitchell, Wellington. 3. Messrs. E. G. Lc Petit, Takapuna, and George E. Downer, Auckland. The monetary value of tbe prizes was tool), £300 and £100 respectively. Entries were received from Great Britain, the United States, Canada, and India. The committee, on the motion of Mr. Gunswn. also rc-OTded i_s thiflh semi9e of appreciation of the work of the jury, particularly, of the services of Mr. Ford, who had for 12 months acted as honorary professional adviser, and to Mr. Wood, whosa expert assistance had also been most valuable. In proposing this motion. Mr. Gunson said that the decision was reached after nine day's strenuous work, and was .based entirely on merit, the identity of the authors of designs being absolutely unknown. In tHne-sie eireumi=itiin<>es it was wot inappropriate to say they were proud of the fact that Auckland architects had won the competition againat world entries, and by that achievement they had dona a very great honour to the profession in Xew Zealand. Messrs. Ford and Wood expressed to the chairman their thanks for the courtesies extended to them during the progress of the work of the jury of award, The jury had undertaken a very difficult task, but all the conditions had been I made as pleasant as possible. It haa [ been a real pleasure. ' | As a non-profcesional member of the jury, Dr. T. W. Leys said he would express the surprise and delight that had been experienced on examining the entries. In view of the all-round excellence of the competitive designs, it would have been invidious to select for special reference any but the first three. The unsuccessful should not experience any ehacrin at failure, because so many designs had "been submitted by men of high attainments that all the unsuccessful ones were in good company. As a member of the citizens' committee, Dr. Leys then proposed a motion placing on record warm appreciation of the splendid responses made .by members of the New Zealand Institute of Architects, and also by architects resident in other portions ot the British Empire, and this was carried unanimously. PUBLIC EXHIBITION. The exhibition of designs, it was decided, should remain open till l-Vday ewmine. the session's to be from 10 a.m. till 1 p.m., 2 to 5 p.m., and 7."0 to !) p.m.. and the charge of admisdon to .be 1/.