Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Nazareth House

Sir,—Nazareth House is sound. At least none of your correspondents favouring its demolition has suggested otherwise. The tickytacky huts replacing it will cost almost S2M. Interest from investment of a quarter of that amount would pay the total electricity bill and more. I cannot believe that for far less than S2M this solid, handsome building could not be thoroughly renovated, and false ceilings, internal partitions and modern conveniences installed. An enormous amount of evidence suggests it is usually far cheaper to restore old buildings than to build new ones from scratch. V. H. Anderson claims Nazareth House is not suitable for the elderly because “modern labour-saving devices have streamlined the work of their care” (October 22). How do modern inventions somehow render a building useless? It is not only preserving Nazareth House that might be a “liability on taxpayers,” taxpayers also pay for its destruction. Let the recipients of public money prove that destruction is the wisest course.—Yours, etc., MISS L. T. TAYLOR. October 23, 1985.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19851025.2.105.10

Bibliographic details

Press, 25 October 1985, Page 16

Word Count
168

Nazareth House Press, 25 October 1985, Page 16

Nazareth House Press, 25 October 1985, Page 16