Nazareth House

Press, 29 August 1986, Page 20

Nazareth House

Sir,—C. S. Wood and Don Donnithorne (August 23) still have rose-tinted spectacles for Nazareth House. It could never be a Maryville or Bishopspark success story. Every room in Nazareth House has a 6.1 m ceiling. Who in their right minds are going to pour that sort of lostheat money into a building just for the love of it? Have either of these people looked through from the inside of the Nazareth House north wall, only to view Canterbury Apparel and L.W.R.? If the house had been facing the park I may have joined their argument, but in behind that great sunny facade are sunless work areas and much of the living space. I think it very sad indeed that the nursing sisters have to endure such' opposition to their decision when it was made after months of prayer and consultation with, and for, those to whom it really matters.— Yours, etc., B. A. SCOTT. August 25, 1986.

Sir,—No one could disagree with B. A. Scott’s statement (August 21) that “the real Nazareth House is the community within,” and that this community must be rehoused in more convenient buildings with modern facilities alongside the chapel. When Nazareth House was completed in June, it was praised for its convenience and the quality of its design. This came from both the sisters and the wider community who had helped fund it Collins and Harman, the architects who also designed the later wing and chapel, provided a building of “character and beauty” which admirably met the requirements

of the times. It no longer does this and the community needs a modern environment. The point C. S. Wood (August 18) makes is that when it is possible to achieve this while retaining some of the original building and giving it a worth-while new use it is bitterly disappointing that a decision has been made not to do so. — Yours, etc., PAM WILSON. August 21, 1986.