DEPARTMENTAL ARCHITECTS.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 17983, 29 January 1924, Page 5

DEPARTMENTAL ARCHITECTS.

PROTEST FROM CANTER-

BURY COLLEGE BOARD.

Tho proposal of the Education Department that all school buildings must be designed by a Government architect has aroused a good deal of opposition. At the meeting of the Canterbury College Board of Governors yesterday the following clause in the report of tho High Schools' and Hostels' Committee ■was considered:—

"That the Board protest against tho decision of the Education Department not to permit of the employment of architects in private practice in the erection of secondary and technical school buildings; and that a copy of this protest be forwarded to the governing bodies of all Secondary and Technical High School Boards in the Dominion. ''

Mr C. T. Aschman said the protest had been framed as a result of a letter received from the Institute of Architects. The Board did not wish to become an ally of such a body which was interested in the pounds, shillings, and pence of the subject, but .it did feel that the time had come to make a protest against the mania for centralisation which had been taken up lately by the Education Department. There, should be a little bit of individuality left to the Boards of Governors of secondary schools. . Mr L. M. Isitt, M.P., said the question was more than one of centralisation. It meant that tho Department was trying to have public school buildings made by men who were in the employ of the Government. He gave an instance where a Government architect had failed to get the best results. He thought that it was an invidious proposal, and hoped that the clause would bo carried and backed up. Colonel G. J. Smith said there wero two sides to the question, and he doubted if it were wise to pass the clause as it stood. If any big case arose, the Board could employ any architect it lilted. Ho was not sure that it was wise to make such a general protest. Dr. C. Chilton, rector of Canterbury College, said the question was whether the architect would bo central in "Wellington or whether tho architect would be local. He gave an instance where a Government architect had ordered a school to be built in a different position from that advised by local architects. The Government architect would bo liable to make mistakes through lack of local knowledge. Mr L. B. Wood supported the argument of Colonel Smith.

The Rev. S. Lawry said he did not know the reason underlying the action of the Department, but there certainly arose occasions when outside architects should be employed. If the Government was going to concentrate all architectural work there would arise individual occasions for protest, so they should protest against the general principle now. The proposal was part of the general centralisation by tho Department. Government architects were not remarkable for their skill, but were able to design buildings with an enormous waste of room.

Mr J. J. Dougall endorsed the action of the committee. It was clear that architects with local knowledge were, other things being equal, superior to ones without local experience. Ho gave a case in which an architect of the Government had built a school and made no provisoin for the installation of electric light.' Representation was made to the Minister, and tho architect pleaded that he had received no instructions on the subject. The buildings of the Board were a thing of beauty, with a symmetry and completeness about the whole.

Mr W. Brock said there was nothing to be feared from centralisation. Each Education Board had its own architect, who consulted a central architect. The Department's proposal was made more with the idea of standardising school buildings for greater efficiency. The aim wias economy and efficiency. Mr Aschman, in reply, said he wanted to be fair to the Department. It was his experience that the Board's architects had been very considerate. If the refused to pass the clause he would like to see it referred back to the committee again. An amendment that the clause be referred back to the committee for consideration was lost on the casting vote t>f the chairman, and the clause was adopted.