FURNISHINGS AT AIRPORT

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28532, 11 March 1958, Page 7

FURNISHINGS AT AIRPORT

Use Of Architect Declined

An architect’s services in choosing the furnishings for the new terminal building at the Christchurch airport were not necessary, the City Council decided last evening, although the chairman of the airport committee (Cr. A. R. Guthrey) had urged the council not “to spoil a beautiful building for the sake of £lO or £2O ” The architect for the building (Mr Paul Pascoe) had asked permission to make some preparatory investigations of furnishings for the public concourses and lounges so that a last-minute rush would be avoided and so that the whole job would have a unified appear ance, the committee reported. It recommended approval subject to public tenders being invited. “I disagree with the principle of paying an architect’s fee for furnishings, and I must oppose the recommendation,” said Cr. L. Christie.

“If architects are employed to design buildings, let them finish a’ that,” Cr. L. G. Amos said. “The job of furniture designing is not within their realm. This is a really good ‘perk,’ but as far as I am concerned it is not going to be allowed. “Dreamy People”

“Let us call in consultants who know about the manufacture and designing of furniture and decorations,” he said. “In the mam, architects are dreamy people and have not got a practical attitude.” If the whole building was to be furnished by the council, it would be possible to accept Cr Amos’s suggestion, said Cr. Guthrey, but the council was responsible for only a small part. Airlines, Government departments, and other users were furnishing their own parts of the building, and it was absolutely essential that the furnishings should be the same throughout. Otherwise a beautiful building would be spoiled by a “hotchpotch.” The architect had offered to reduce his fee from 7J per cen-t. to 2£ per cent., said Cr. Guthrey. “but I threw the letter in the wastepaper basket. Then be offered to do it for nothing. I tossed that letter into the wastepaper basket too. “If the council is not willing to pay the money, then I will pay it myself. Don’t let’s spoil this building by not having uniformity of design.” The committee’s recommendation was rejected by 10 votes to six.