Architects Support Design Of N.Z. House

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28180, 19 January 1957, Page 4

Architects Support Design Of N.Z. House

| The New Zealand Government was wise in its selection of a site I and in its choice of an architect | for New Zealand House in Lon- • don but both decisions contained i hidden snags says the British i “Architects* Journal.”

With a heading “Working for 1 the Common-illth,” the December : 6 issue of the journal says that I when New Zealand decided to ! show its pride and faith in Brii tain and the Commonwealth by I building a large and mildly ' luxurious Government office on jan expensive site in the heart I of London “innocent simple fel- ' lows might have supposed that I every Minister and official would i have taken all possible steps to ■ help the project. | “As it happens, however, it ; seems * that a backward-looking upper layer of officialdom has been going out of its way to frustrate, confound and domineer over the executors of the proposal—the Government of New Zealand and their architect,” the article states. Of the site, the journal says it fi

forms an ideal hub and headquarters for what it hopes will be an ever-growing number of visitors from New Zealand. It is large enough to enable all the subsidiary official and trade departments to be housed under one roof, and still allow for a little expansion within the normal 5 to 1 plot ratio. Architect’s Standing Before entering private practice, the architect appointed by New Zealand, Professor Robert H. Matthew, was architect to the London County Council and ensured that his country had some of the finest housing anywhere, many excellent schools ' and a great concert hall. The snags, however, were that Professor Matthew designed modern buildings and that the site was on Crown land, the journal continues. In much of the upper governmental and ministerial circles (Mr David Eccles and the Ministry of Education being notable among the exceptions) there was no understanding of what was meant by modern architecture. “The site is on Crown land and under the Commissioners of Crown Lands, guided by the cautious Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, and therefore does not come under ordinary town planning procedure,” it continues. “In addition, as the site is not far from a Royal Park, the Ministry of Works has to be consulted.” Modern Techniques Professor Matthew had produced an answer to the design problem which should suit every democratic and contemporaryminded man, the journal considers. There was an open layout allowing nearly every office worker to have sunlight, a view and good office conditions. To provide that had meant using modern structural techniques to

build high—to 200 feet, or twothirds of the height of the Victoria Tower. The tower was slender and did not overshadow neighbouring buildings. The arrangement of public rooms in the four-floor podium promised to be visually interesting and the height of the podium was carefully related to the best of the nearby buildings.

Some Cabinet Ministers ("who presumably saw no reason to object to such antediluvian monsters as Whitehall Gardens”), the Ministry of Works and the Commissioners of Crown Lands had put great pressure on Now Zealand to reject the design, continues the article. The Ministry was not reconciled to the fact that the top of the tower would be seen over the top of Carlton House terrace from St. James’ Park. The Royal Fine Art Commission thought the tower was too high for an area which it seemed to wish to preserve in perpetuity as one with an even skyline. Its suggestion for reduction ignored the fact that the building would then be too small to contain all the staff. Its real complaint seemed to be with the 5 to 1 plot ratio, and that was something which should be taken up with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

“The commission has no right because it disagrees with ministerial planning policy, to victimise the developers of sites whose buildings have the misfortune to attract the commission’s attention,” the journal states. Two Alternatives “As for complaints of the Crown Commisisoners and the Ministry of Works, they have two alternatives—either to insist on the adoption of an outworn, dying, aesthetic theory of design which will compel the users of the offices to work under inadequate conditions of comfort, or they must accept the accomplishments of modern building technique and modern planning and design, and allow this forward-looking Dominion to house its workers in offices providing the standards of amenity and efficiency to which even the white-collared worker of a twentieth-century democracy is entitled,” the article concludes. Also in the journal is an article urging readers to put forward their views on the building, as the Commissioners of Crown Lands said they were interested to hear public opinion. The author considers that the design was a few stories higher. Rumour had it that the Queen was not objecting to “the idea of there being a visible symbol of the Commonwealth rising above the skyline and discernible from the Palace,” the author said.

“The main issue before the public, however, is high buildings and open planning versus low buildings, with re-entrants and internal wells and corridor streets. Is public opinion sufficiently behind modern architecture and planning to win the day by persuading the Commissioners to accept Robert Matthew’s design?” the author asks.