WAR MEMORIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16582, 15 November 1921, Page 6

WAR MEMORIAL.

WORK TO PROCEED. The City Council decided last night to hand over the supervision of the whole of the Bridge of Remembrance to the successful architects for the bridge, Messrs prouse and Gummer, of Wellington. This decision was come to after a discussion regarding architects’ fees, following on an amendment that the supervision of the understructure should be in the hands of the Acting City Engineer, and not of the successful designer of the bridge and arch. COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION. The report of the Finance Committee, which had been held over from the previous meeting, stated that the committee had met representatives of the War Memorial executive and recommended that the work of the understructure of the bridge should be fully set out in the plans and specifications for which tenderers would be required to give a separate price. The committee also recommended that the whole work should be entrusted to Pious© and Gummer, the winners of the competition, and that the War Memorial Committee should be informed that plans and specifications for the understructure must be submitted to the council and approved before tenders were called for the work, and that only New Zealand stone should be used in the erection of the bridge. CONDITIONS OF CONTEST. Tho secretary of the Christchurch War Memorial Committee wrote as follows:—“The conditions of the competition for the Bridge of Remembrance design provided that the competitors were to design the whole bridge, understructure and superstructure. . . Tho successful competitor to supervise the erection of the bridge and to receive the scale of commission as adopted by the New Zealand Institute of Architects, the premium being merged in the commission.” According to the scale of professional charges, the successful competitor was entitled to receive 4 per cent if the work was carried out under the council’s supervision. If the supervision was undertaken by the council, the saving would only be per cent, and the executive was strongly of the opinion that divided authority, resulting in divided responsibility, would be a mistake, and that the council and the War Memorial Committee would be best served by entrusting the carrying out of the whole work to the winning architects, Messrs Prouse and Gummer. Mr J. W. Beanland had offered to act as honorary clerk of works. Councillor W. H. Winsor moved that the committee’s report should bo adopted. Councillor E. H. Andrews seconded the motion. AMENDMENT PROPOSED. Councillor F. R. Cooke moved an amendment that the Acting City Surveyor should supervise the work. He said that it had been a “jump up” on the council that those whe had arranged for th© superstructure should superintend the understructure, which was properly the work of the council. The council should construct the bridge as cheaply and well as possible, and if it could save 6£ per cent on £IO.OOO it should do so. The council should watch the construction very closely. He favoured all works being done by day labour. Councillor Hunter seconded the amendment, stating that it was urgently necessary that the council’s official should supervise the work, with an eye to economy and efficiency. Councillor J. R. Brunt, reading the conditions of the competitions, asked whether the council was not bound by them. “ No,” said several councillors. Councillor Hunter said that the council had agreed to be responsible for the understructure. but hnd never made a bargain with the Bridge Committee. Councillor H. T. Armstrong said that the council had made a bargain that it would provide the understructure, and any bargain that the Bridge Committee made with its architect had nothing to do with the council. Councillor Winsor said that a pnltrv £250 should not prevent the council from getting the services of the architect who had design ed the bridge. Was the council’s officer a bridge engineer? QUESTION OF ECONOMY. Councillor A. Manhire said that in saving £250 the committee might lose thousands. Divided authority would be most regrettable, as the understructure would have to be carried out under tho designer’s instructions. Councillor J. A. Flesher, replying to a question as to whether the council’s extra liability would be £650 or £250, said that it all depended on tho cost of the understructure. If the cost was £IO,OOO the fee would be £650. The council had never authorised the employment of the committee’s architect, but it had provided that the plans and specifications of the understructur© must !e submitted to the council and approved before tenders were called for .he work If the recommendation was adopted the council would see to it that only what was necessary for the under? I ructure would be the council’s liabihtv. That liability had been limited to £IO,OOO. which would include the architect’s fees. If the understructure cost £IO.OOO the Bridge Committee would have to pay the architect’s fees. If it cost less the council would pay up to £IO,OOO. Councillor Winsor: Are you going to accept the plans without paying for them ? Councillor Flesher: That will be a matter between the council and the War Memorial Committee, for negotiate n. Councillor R. D. Martin said that the committee had taken upon itself to call for designs for on understructure. It had Usurped the council’s functions. It would cost the council £650. Councillor Winsor interjected that the extra cost would bo £250. Councillor Martin said that Councillor Winsor had placed professional etiquette first, and it would cost the council £650. ** Only if we adopt this, clause,” said Councillor M’Kellar, “ and then our liability will bo limited to £10,000.” “ HEIGHT OF ABSURDITY'.” Councillor J. K. Archer baid the discussion was unfortunate. He agreed as a general principle that the council should use its own staff, in whom he had the utmost confidence, but it was inadvisable in tho present case, and it was regrettable that there should appear to be any friction between the committee and the council. It would be the height of absurdity to have two staffs at work on the job. If anything went wrong with the superstructure the designer would say quite rightly, that the understructure was wrong. Even at £650 it would be better to have the job done well. Councillor H. F. Herbert said that be hoped the council would not disgrace itself by holding im the war memorial any longer. Dual control meant trouble,

and if Mr Daw© was employed on the understrueirar© his time would be so fully employed that assistance would have to bo given him for his ordinary work. Councillor A. Williams said that if the architect’s design for the bridge was accepted tho commission would have to be paid to the extent of £4OO. Th© council was holding Itself up to ridicule by discussing- the matter meeting after meeting. The council was under a debt of gratitude to the War Memorial Committee in forcing the matter on the council. The bridge was a special work and if there were to be two contractors it would never bo a success. The amendment- defeated by thirteen votes tc five, the division list being ns follows: — For: Councillors Martin, M’Combs, Oooke, Hunter and Armstrong. Against: Councillors Williams, M’Kellar, Manhire, Andrews, Brunt, Hervev, Winsor, Herbert, Hart. Gant! M’Gregor Wright, Archer and Flesher. The recommendation of the committee was adopted.