PARLIAMENT HOUSE DESIGN COMPETITION.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1100, 12 April 1911, Page 8

PARLIAMENT HOUSE DESIGN COMPETITION.

FURTHER CRITICISM. (By Tclecraph.-Spccial Correspondent.! Christchurch, April 11. Referring to the reply sent under instructions irom the Minister for Public Works by Mr. Blow (Under-Secretary for Public Works) to the secretary of' the Institute of Architects concerning tho suggestions and criticisms made by the institute regarding the conditions of the Parliament House design competition, Mr. T. Hurst Seager, tho wellknown Christchurch architect, writes to the "Press":— "In tho original conditions it is stated 'tlio designs will be judged by a committee appointed by the Government, and such committee before making its awards will obtain tho advice and assistance of a competent professional man practising outside the Dominion.' Architects naturally took very strong exception to their designs being judged by a committee having an infinite variety of ideas as to tho .requirements which had not been properly expressed in tho conditions. The Minister has given way on this point, and although ho has refused to immediately appoint an assessor to draw up proper and full conditions, he has stated that the assessor appointed shall be the sole judge of the plans submitted, and that tho prizes shall ha awarded on his recommendation, in accordance with tho same conditions under which the competitors are asked to compete. This alters the position entirely, for the competition would then become not n competition for tho erection of a building which shall servo the actual needs of those who are, to use it, but an academical competition for an ideal Parliament Houso. This, I expect, will be considered fair from the architect's point of view, for the architects are then asked to compote for the prizes offered, not for the honour of erecting a building which shall exactly fulfil the requirements of the Government. This is certainly an extraordinary position for promoters of a competition to take up, and it is a matter of public interest whether or not the Government are justified in spending £2000 in prizes for tho production of designs of purely academical interest p.ihl value. Of course in such a competition civil servants would have no advantage over other competitors. Thnro is a misconception in respect of our request thiit the position of the buildings on the site should bo left to the competitors to determine. This has been, construed into a request on our part that an entirely new site should be chosen. We had no thought of this. The Government have a large area of ground on which the old Parliament Buildings and Government House, now used as tho Parliament Buildings, stand. If this large site were owned by a private individual who wished to fcuild thereon, tho first thing he would do would be to consult his architect as to the best position the building should occupy upon that site, keeping in view the fact, that the old building must remain while the.new one is being erected. Instead of doing this, tho Government liave themselves chosen the exact position which the building is to occupy, which position all tho architects arc unanimous in stating is tho worst position on the site that could have been chosen. So that while a free hand is given to the architect to design an ideal building untrammelled by ally exact conditions of requirements, ho is hampered and prevented from expressing his ideals by having to place his building in such a cramped and unsuitable position that it is impossible to express them."

Tho-Institute, of Architects will hold a meeting in Wellington to-morrow to determine what notion shall bo taken regarding the Minister's reply.