The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 28, 1947. The Mayor And The Architects

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25274, 28 August 1947, Page 6

The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 28, 1947. The Mayor And The Architects

When a responsible and representative body of professional men takes the trouble to examine and pronounce upon a matter of public importance on which it is well qualified to speak, its opinions are entitled to be heard with respect, even by those who disagree with them. Any such body should be given the. credit for good intentions and pub-lic-spirited motives, however undiplomatically it may set about what it regards as its public duty. The Mayor of Christchurch, unfortunately, does not give this credit to the Canterbury branch of the Institute of Architects. Replying to the architects’ criticism of Christchurch development over the last 25 years, Mr Andrews, in a statement which appeared in'“The Press” yesterday, lectured them as he might lecture naughty schoolboys. Many citizens will dislike some of the phrasing of his lecture: “Always ready to cry “ ‘ stinking fish ’”, “ jaundiced vis- “ ion ”, “ cheap jibe ”, and so on. Mr Andrews replied with such irritability as to suggest that he regarded the architects’ criticism as an attack on him personally or on the civic administration he has led for six years. Clearly nothing of the sort was intended. The criticism was directed specifically at civic progress over the last 25 years; and any thoughtful citizen will recognise at once that few shortcomings in the amenities of the city to-day are fairly to be attributed to the failure of war-time and post-war administrations.

The fact is that there are shortcomings, which civic-minded residents of Christchurch, including city councillors, deplore, and of which the great body .of citizens must be made conscious. Dwelling on the many creditable features of the city will not help to remove shortcomings or supply deficiencies; it will merely justify the architects’ charge of complacency. It is undeniable that the city would be the better for every improvement the architects urged. Too many citizens are content with things as they are, or are not prepared to work for and pay for the development of a better city. The Mayor might have served the city better had he applauded and welcomed the attempt to arouse civic consciousness; such approval

need not have precluded a reply, in considered and moderate terms, to that part of the architects’ statement which might be construed as a reproach to the present City Council For just as there was truth in what the architects said, there was truth also in the Mayor’s reply. Almost every city, in every country, is now taking stock of its position and realising that things have been done which should not have been done, other things have been done badly and still other necessary things left undone. According to newspaper exchanges reaching this office in the last week exactly the same complaints are being made in Dunedin and Melbourne as the architects have made in Christchurch. It is good that the complaints should be made; it is the surest way to progress. In his eagerness to claim for the City Council the foresight and vision for which the architects pleaded, Mr Andrews allowed himself to be carried on into some unjust and unnecessary references to the architects themselves. . it would be “ more helpful if, instead of criticising, these people would come to “light with practical ideas. One or “ two have been made in the last “ month or two, but they would “take years to complete and can- “ not be begun the day or month “ after they are proposed He added the irrelevant information that he “ could name some city “ architects who could be accused of “ definite obstruction to some of “ the progressive ideas that have “ been put forward Mr Andrews could also have said, for he knows it well, that architects have given, individually and collectively, valuable assistance to a great many civic enterprises and that several give valuable service on public and semipublic bodies. Many excellent longterm planning proposals have in fact been put forward by Christchurch architects, not “in the last “ month or two ”, but in the last few years. Some have been rejected by the City Council; some have been, shelved; none, as far as is known, has been written into a plan of future civic development. Ideas of this kind are not the worse for “ tak- “ ing years to complete ”. They are probably the most worthwhile of all because they call for the longterm planning which the Architects’ Institute rightly insists upon. Members of the professions, bound by traditional professional reticence, are seldom good publicists; their professional organisations are often inarticulate, at least on public questions. In these columns architects and others who may contribute something to civic progress have frequently been urged to play a more positive role in civic affairsthey can do much to inform citizens and to mould public opinion. In time they may learn to do this without treading on civic corns. It is to be hoped the Architects’ Institute will not be discouraged by the brusque reception of its (first?) essay. If it stings Christchurch citizens as it appears to have stung the First Citizen it will have served a useful purpose.