HOSPITAL BOARD ARCHITECT

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1025, 16 July 1930, Page 1

HOSPITAL BOARD ARCHITECT

WERE APPLICATIONS FROM CITY FIRMS PROPERLY CONSIDERED? INDIGNATION FREELY EXPRESSED ‘I7OU are wasting your time in applying for the position ; I the whole thing is cut and dried.” This, according to a prominent City architect, was a statement recently made to him by a member of the Hospital Board. It had reference to the advertised position of architect to the board, applications for which closed at noon yesterday.

Yesterday afternoon the board made its appointment, the successful applicant being Mr. J. Farrell, who had been engaged to supervise construe tion of the infectious disease wards now being completed. Design of this building was done by a young architt*; whose relations with the board termin ated shortly after he had designed the block. Announcement of the board's decision has angered manv Auckland architects who made appli cation, along with Mr. Farrell. Talk" ing with a Sun man today the applicant who had exchanged confidences with the board member complained that the profession had been unfairly treated by the board. He alleged that the board could not possibly have considered the applications, in the period from noon yesterday until 2.30 p.m., when the board met In his own case his firm had gone to a great deal of trouble to set forth its qualifications and to give details of works undertaken. The credentials occupied several pages which, in the nature of them, would require considerable ex amination. Other architects had also forwarded applications and it would have been impossible for the board to have made the thorough in quiry the position warranted. “Ir puts us in a very undignified position, if our applications are not considered,'' said the architect. “The board should have appointed a commitbee to consider all applications. This lends colour to the statement of the membet to whom I referred.”

The speaker fully realised that he was open to a charge of “crying" through having been unsuccessful. Nevertheless, he would have been satisfied had the board selected a rival firm which had made a bona fide application, though naturally he would have been disappointed. The excuse would mo doubt be forthcoming, said the arCNitects, that the board wanted a practical man who knew hospitals, and Mr. Farrell undoubtedly was practical. But a great many factors other than mere practicality entered into a position of this kind. Practical men had laid out the present hospital system, yet it was architecturally not pleasing to anyone.

“All this is disappointing alike to the public and to our profession,” the

j architect said. “I have protested before and I do so again.” he added. The Sun received, some days ago. a letter from another architect who claimed that it had been mentioned to him on several occasions that the board was insincere in calling for applications for the position of architect and that the architect who was originally appointed merely to supervise work in hand had been commissioned to prepare plans and arrange contracts for further buildings for the board, i “Obviously,” he wrote, “these actions are in the direction of forcing the appointment of the supervising firm to the permanent position.” DR. GUNSON'S SUGGESTION The 15 applications for the position of architect were considered, together with the testimonials and credentials of the applicants, in committee, and the appointment made, the whole pmceeding occupying jast over threequarters of an hour The appoin. - ment was then confirmed In open board. '. Before the board aenLinto committee, Dr. E. B. Gunson suggested that it would be advisable to have the applications referred to an architectural expert, such as the Dominion president of the Institute of Architecture, to advise the board on the fitness and qualifications of the applicants before making an appointment. He moved a motion on- these lines, stating that a similar procedure was adopted In the case of appointment of medical officers. The proposal, however, met with no response. Mr. J. Rowe further urged that consideration of the applications be de- ; ferred until a full meeting of the i board. This suggestion, also, was not sup- ■ ported, and on the notion of the chairman the hoard went into committee. After the suggestions by Dr. Gunson and Mr. Rowe had not been supported, Mr. E. H. Potter proposed that the appointment should be proceeded with at the conclusion of the meeting, and this was adopted. It is understood that the number of applicants were reduced to six by a series of divisions, and in the final vote Mr. Farrell was selected on a ' majority.