The Press SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1936. Response to Loan Proposals

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21940, 14 November 1936, Page 14

The Press SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1936. Response to Loan Proposals

The Government’s recent loan conversion proposals, with the call for a certain amount of new money, have produced a response which, according to the figures given by the Prime Minister in a statement printed , this morning, can certainly not be described as confident. The issue which stockholders were invited to convert totalled £12,500,000; and acceptances have been received for only £8,253,780.'That a proportion of holders should decline, and elect to be paid out, was of course to be expected; but refusals covering a third of the issue can only be interpreted as a distinctly chilly reception of an investment offer not at all unattractive in its terms. Mr Savage has not divided the amount accepted into the two forms open to investors —3i per cent, for 20 years and 3 per cent, for four years and a half; and it may be possible, when the stockholders’ preference is disclosed, to judge whether the public is wary of locking up money for a long time at the rate offered or is dissatisfied, relatively, with the short-term opportunity. The figures for the new money proposal and response, in the meantime, though they are smaller, are more significant. Here, again, the Prime Minister does not divide the applications into short-term and long-term; but £2,714,750 was applied for, against a net requirement of £ 1,500,000. The surplus will assist the Government in paying out non-accept-ors of the conversion proposals; but the response is sluggish and weak. Bank figures indicate very plainly the quantity of money which is awaiting opportunity for secure investment at a reasonable rate; and that the Government has been able to attract less than £3,000,000 must disappoint its expectations and, if it is wise, must cause it to look introspectively for the reason. Broadly, there can be only one explanation. Regarded as proposals for gilt-edged investment, those the Government issued could hardly be criticised. They were neither generous nor audaciously fine-cut. But the public has viewed them coolly and responded half-heart-edly. It can only have done this because it is distrustful of the Government’s programme and principles; and when such distrust exists, the investor does not look willingly at loan proposals, however fair in themselves and however sound their ultimate backing.

The Government and Housing It would be interesting to hear more about the aesthetic side of the Government’s housing programme. Even for a new country, New Zealand has deplorably low architectural standards. With few exceptions, public buildings are either dull or vulgar, while the greater number of houses have been built either in the over-ornamented style of the late nineteenth century or in the more modern and not less ugly bungalow style. Perhaps the greatest benefit that a State building scheme can confer on the community is the establishment of a higher standard of beauty and convenience. Although it is very far from true that what is “ functional ” is necessarily beautiful, it is certainly true that in housing an effort to achieve greater simplicity, cheapness, and convenience will result in houses that are pleasanter in appearance. But quick results cannot be expected; and for that reason efforts to hasten the work of the new Department of House Construction seem ill-advised. Radical improvements in house design require not only changes in the organisation of the housing industry but also an attempt to educate public taste. There is a suggestion on this subject in a recent issue of “ Planning,” the organ of the Town-planning Institute of New Zealand, which is worth serious consideration.

The creation of a new foundation devoted to the study of housing problems is urgently required. . . . It is a commonplace that a person buying a motor-car to-day pays about half the price he would have had to pay a few years ago, and gets twice as good an article. If, however, he has to build a home he will find conditions just about reversed. The only reason for this absurd situation is that one industry has profited by first-rate scientific and engineering thought; the other has not. . . . An organisation devoted to the study of housing problems and equipped to experiment in different types of design and construction would have the chance to make a contribution of inestimable significance towards the improvement of present conditions.

The Department of House Construction, working in co-operation with the private building i. uustry, could fill the need here stated. Unfortunately, however, there is little political value in research and patient experiment. The danger is that, in its anxiety for spectacular .results, the Government will build hundreds of houses which are aesthetically abominable and only a little cheaper and more convenient than existing houses of the same type. Mr J. A. Lee’s statements on the subject are not at all reassuring. He is, for instance, very proud of the fact that 650 plans will be ready by the end of the year and that no two houses will be the same. Variety is not beauty; and it is the desire to make houses “ different ” that causes some of the worst excrescences in design. No one is deterred from buying a motorcar because there are hundreds of identical motor-cars on the road. The appearance of a street will not be spoilt because two houses are identical; it can very easily be spoilt by a self-conscious avoidance of similarities. It would be a relief to have from Mr Lee some indication that this aspect of the problem is not being ignored, for he will at least admit that up to the present Government architecture has been uniformly bad.