Harewood Airport

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28536, 15 March 1958, Page 3

Harewood Airport

Sir, —A visit to the “Parade of Homes” will surely convince our councillors of the necessity of having' a capable man to supervise the furniture and furnishings of the new airport building. Simple but well designed and well bui'lt furniture cannot be made cheaply. It is the attempt to do so which accounts for the bastard stuff the stores are filled with today and it is by this junk that most people judge so-called “contemporary” furniture. The airport building must be furnished with good furniture and in good taste. The man to do it is undoubtedly the architect.—Yours, DON DAVIES. March 14, 1958. Sir, —Cr. Guthrey must surely feel encouraged by the opinions expressed in your columns. It is indeed refreshing to see a councillor, although in the minority, fighting for such a sound principle. Mr Pascoe, on his return from the New Zealand architects’ national conference, will be gratified to find he has such support to encourage him to complete what surely will be one of the world’s most modern and attractive airport concources. Failing his appointment being approved by the City Council at its next meeting, I suggest that a fund be opened to pay fee, the main point which the council opposes.—Yours, etc., SPEED BIRD. March 14, 1958.

Sir, —Amos was the Biblical prophet of doom and destruction. To our Councillor Amos and his disciples, Councillors Olds, Schumacher, and Burtt, be it said (Amos VIII:8): “Shall not the land tremble for this, and everyone mourn that dwelleth therein. And it shall rise up wholly as a flood; and it shall be cast out and drowned, as by the flood of Egypt.”—Yours, etc., W.P.B. March 14, 1958.

Sir, —A true master builder is a versatile, imaginative fellow with an adaptable mind able to grasp new ideas and to turn them from drawings to fact. The cooperation of a good architect and a master builder result in a well planned, beautifully constructed building. Most master builders readily acknowledge this. A good architect is not “arty” but essentially favours the simple ( and functional. Structural novelty is what this codntry needs. One has only to drive around with eyes open to observe the dreary uniformity of most New Zealand houses. The same novelty, termed by “Master Builder” “eccentricity,” when applied to _dress. is similarly welcome. Stand at any street corner and watch the crowds go by—dull, stolid clothing, with seldom a smart cut or something to brighten the scene. —Yours, etc., ’ v AER LINGUS. March 13. 1958.

Sir,—Was Mr Grant writing with his tongue in his cheek? He must know that when such people as Chippendale and Sheraton (and not their copyists) designed their furniture, in their time, it was contemporary. In fact, history shows some was ahead of its,-time and rejected as vulgar. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says their is no evidence that Sheraton ever made a stick of furniture himself, and notes “the remarkable series of volumes of designs for furniture . . . upon which his fame depends . . . were not a commercial success. ... He was a great artistic genius who lived in chronic poverty.” Perhaps somebody, long forgotten, called him “dreamy and impractical.” If Sheraton were alive today, given the materials, technology, and needs of today, he would no more design Sheraton period furniture for the flight deck of a Viscount (or the concourse of the airport) than Henry Ford would try to market the original model T. — Yours, etc.,

WHITE PINE. [As no correspondent seems anxious to defend the >City Council’s decision and as we have received more critical letters, in verse and in prose, than we can find space to print, this correspondence may now cease.—Ed., “The Press.”]