MODERN BUILDING

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 153, 25 March 1925, Page 8

MODERN BUILDING

GOVERNMENT’S ATTITUDE DIRECTION OF STATE EFFORT MINISTER REPLIES TO CRITICS Recent criticism of the Government’s attitude towards architecture in new State buildings has drawn an interesting statement on the position from the Minister of Works (Hon. J, G. Coates).

"The Public Health, Education, ot Public Works Denartments are opposed to standardisation of buildings as inadvisable and imp-acticable,” said Mr Coates, “and the Government’-: policy is that of standardisation of details and equipment only, as far as possible. Local conditions as to climate, site, aspect, and availability of materials are all carefully considered when plans are under consideration.

"The real grievance of the Institute of Architects is that some time ago it was decided that high school buildings should, like primary schools and. other public buildings, be designed and elected by salaried officers of the State, and that certain hospital boards, composed of able business men, had sug gested that a similar arrangement should be made with regard to erection of hospitals. The soundness of the policy has been amply demonstrated in connection with Government buildings in the Dominion and other countries, and was not questioned by the Institute of Architects until it appeared that another tvpe of public building was to be added to those already dealt with bv the Government officers.

Schools and Hospitals. "School and hospital designs are really specialist work, and New Zealand offers such little scope that few private practitioners can obtain the experience necessary to become thoroughly expert. On that account the Government found it necessary to . employ special officers in the Education and Health Departments to criticise the plans submitted by architects and advise them on details. The proposal now is to utilise the time and knowledge of these officers, previously used to a great extent for the benefit of architects, in directing the work of other State employees skilled.in architecture, and collaborating with them in perfecting details which, to those responsible for the efficiency of the institutions, contribute greatly towards convenient and successful working. Supervision of Building. "The criticism that supervision .of building erection is handed over entirely to district engineers is probably founded upon the fact that, in the standard printed conditions of contract, the district engineer is referred to as the officer having local authority under the contract. It will not be disputed that it is necessary, to have a resident rurponsible officer in tlie several districts, and that such an officer requires to exercise authority, not only in constructional matters, as the representative of the Minister and his head office organisation in all its branches. District engineers have clerks of works and building overseers on their staffs and, in the larger centres, architectural draughtsmen, but in architectural matters the Government architect is ‘Aie controlling authority, and all important plans are prepared under his direction, or are submitted to him for approval before the work proceeds.

Government Plans. “District engineers have no authority to depart from the plans and specifications of the Government architect as approved bv him without referring the matter to him for sanction. Whenever the Government architect . considers it necessary, the work is inspected by him or a member of Ins staff thoroughly conversant with the spirit and intention of the design. No one will dispute . the statement that the ideal is that an architect should personally superintend the carrying out of his own design, but does any architect with any considerable . practice claim that he personally designs and constantly superintends all work entrusted to him? . . “The Government architect is in a similar position to private practitioners in that respect, but has an advantage that on Government works there is "an organisation which ensures satisfactory construction, and in addition to periodic inspections by his staff there i P s constantly in close touch with the clerks of works and guilders an engineer—a highly educated and cultured man—who, if lie cannot design works of art himself, is capable of sympathetically assisting to carry out the intention of the designer as expressed in the plans and specifications, and elucidated by personal contact with the architect.” _