SAVING MONEY

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 27, 1 February 1924, Page 7

SAVING MONEY

IN DESIGNING SCHOOLS

MINISTER REPLIES TO CRITICISM.

Protests have been made by education boards and board of college governors in various parts of the Dominion lately against the decision of the Edu-' cation Department that Government architects are to be employed ,in futurein connection: with the erection of secondary school buildings. Reply to these statements was made ■ yesterday after-' noon by the Minister of Education (the Hon. C. J. Parr). t ; / ' "During my absence from Welling-, ton," said the Minister, "the Education. Department decided that for the future the various high school boards should employ the Government architects when erecting high schools. Previous to this decision each of come thirty-five, nigh school boards had its own local architect. Some objection is now being taken to the Department's decision. It must^be admitted, however, that: "tneDepartment has some good reason/for the change. In the first place, the Department is only applying to secondary schools the principle Which has been in operation with regard to' primary schools for many years past. All the primary schools are built by State t or rather Education Board architects, . and not by architects in private practice. No private architects are employed in the erection of primary school building*, and-no one can reasonably complain that the primary schools are poorly designed or built. Our'-new-primary schools are as well designed and built as schools anywhere in the' world."

THE SCORE OF EXPENSE.

The^ Minister pointed but that the total building grant" for. the' year was half a million pounds, and that, if private architects were employed at a charge of 6£ per cent, the architectural fees would amount to £32,500 "for New Zealand; Whereas in New South Wales, with double ' the population, the whole of the architectural work is carried out by Government officers' at a total cost of about £11,000 per annum. One strong reason for applying to secondary schools the same practice as existed ;with primary schools was. on the score of expense. For instance,'-, the Minister stated that in one town" the Government had recently made grants for secondary, technical, and • university buildings amounting to £178,000, and private architects' commission on this would amount-, at i 6iper cent., to £11,750. By increasing somewhat the Government's staff oi architects, all this workp- amounting to £178,000, could be carried put- -for , not more than £2000, a saving of £9570 in the one town alone. • .'■."'

Another disadvantage arising front the employment of private architects, for school buildings .was that scarcely any of these architects were specialists in this important type of building. The result was that plans submitted by private architects had often to be entirely remodelled by the Departmental architects. Particularly in respect of the specifications would the new system result in a considerable saving. '

NO SACRIFICE OF ORIGINALITY.

"Only to-day," remarked the Minis- **?» ". t' lere nas come be/ore me air application for the expenditure of SiOdQ to remedy defects in a building erected ' under the old system. I hope. to save sufficient money by the change to enable the Government to build at least a. dozen more country - schools every year. I am sure there is little force in the suggestion that the State archi-tect-will have a stereotyped and uni- * form plan. In the primary schools The same board architect is able to produce a very useful, attractive diver-' sity of type, and there' is no reas6u>: why this "should not apply to secon- ' dary schools.

"I feel confident that under the new system not only wiil there be a large direct saving in architects' expenses, but buildings will be erected at a lower cost without sacrifice of originality and variety of design. It is profitless to talk' about centralisation and eliminating bcai interest. My job is to save the taxpayers' money \vithout lessening efficiency, and I am sure we shall do it."