The Architecture of the Dominion.

Progress, Volume IV, Issue 6, 1 April 1909, Page 208

The Architecture of the Dominion.

What Lord Plunket said about the architecture of the Dominion a short time ago has been discussed considerably. His criticism has now found its way into the technical papers of the Old Country, and the general impression is that the architecture of our cities and suburbs is "contemptible." This conclusion is combated by Mr. T. K. Mason in the Empire Revieiv in that spirit of acquiescence which must lead most New Zealanders to pray to be saved from their friends. ' ' New Zealand, ' ' says this authority, "has no architecture at all as yet." His meaning will be plain from the following extract: — "Many hundreds of the chief buildings," he says, "have been erected piecemeal, new wings being added as the accommodation was required. In the old Parliamentary Buildings one portion was wood in the plain gable style, and the other, of stone, contained Gothic arches. There are no traditions, and such forms as there are, are generally adaptations of English designs to achieve the greatest accommodation at the least cost — that is, plain, barn-like structures with oblong windows. Ornamentation is avoided, as a rule, on the ground of expense, for economy is a ruling factor in colonial affairs. Hence any criticism of architecture in New Zealand must be premature. ' ' Now it is all very well to declare against adaptations, but must all architects be condemned to originality? It seems rather late in the day to insist upon new forms and fresh combinations when the world is so full of the achievements of genius. It is worth noting here that condemnation of imitation is not confined to the works of the Dominion architects. Professor Geddes, in a late issue of the Municipal Journal, complains with regard to many cities of both England and America "of a too crude and hasty adoption of city plans, inspired, not by local life, but by imitation of the costly and meretricious pomposities of great Continental capitals." The result he sees ' ' in -dreary perspectives and conventional ornament, relieved only by occasional extravagances," a state of things he boldly condemns as "even uglier than the prevalent industrial squalor and garishness of our poorer quarters or even than the featureless monotony of our respectable ones. ' ' In conclusion, he protests against repetition of the mistakes of the French city improvers of the Second Empire, and the corresponding developments of Berlin, Strasburg, etc." The ideal of the Professor is individuality. "The problem," he insists, "which every city has increasingly to face is to conserve and express its local individuality, its uniqueness and character, yet to recon-

cile this with a full and increasing participation in the material appliances and the immaterial advantages of other cities; in short, at once to live its own life, and this more and more intensely; yet to be also in the great world, and this more fully also." On these lines he advocates work of the cooperative order, hinting at something also

in the way of official interference, say by an officer at the head of a sort of civic General Survey Department empowered to see that architects keep to certain specified lines. This is the way in which ancient cities were bnilt, .and in which the modern lines of advancement are in some cases carried on. "We have mentioned the matter

here to ventilate it, not to endorse the sentiments. These, however, are commendable to say the least. To return to the "defence" of the Empire Reviewer. It strikes the most careless as somewhat too sweeping in its generalisation. One would imagine that everything ir the Dominion's street architecture is

patched and botched, antiquated and hideous. It is true that the old Parliamentary Buildings were patchy and very mixed. But we must not conclude that all other buildings, public as well as private, are of the same order. Speaking of Wellington alone, take the big wooden buildings for the Civil Service: surely they are

homogeneous enough for any one. Hard by is the Railway headquarter building, one of the finest buildings of its size in the world; of excellent design, homogeneous, a gracious ornament to the city. Further on there is the Customs Building, a handsome characteristic, well-designed pile, as far from deserving the offence of the Empire Reviewer's defence as is the dome of St. Paul's, London. If the reviewer wrote of the Year One he might be forgiven. But writing- of to-da^ he must be conviotecl Of not knowing as much as he ought about what he is writing for the information of others. The evidence of the public buildings in Wellington alone is conclusive against him. It does not stand alone, for there are public buildings in every one of our cities using the term for the four chief centres, public buildings which are an ornament to their city and a credit to the profession that designed them. Take the Railway Station of Dunedin, an exceedingly handsome building, criticised much for many things locally, but admired with unanimous decision in all quarters. Take the old University building of the same city, one of the finest in the Dominion erected forty-two

years ago, but requiring no apology from any critic faint-hearted or otherwise. The Post Office of Christchurch is far above the level described by the Reviewer, so is the Supreme Court ; and the old Provincial Council Building, besides being of very handsome exterior, contains the handsomest hall in the Dominion, one that would pass muster in any part of the world for imposing design and exquisiteness of detail. The Post Office and the Land Office at Auckland are standing contradictions to the reviewer, and as for the smaller towns there are public buildings in many of them which are excellent examples of what they ought to be. Moreover, the school buildings scattered all over the Dominion contain some very good examples of the school as reason would have it. Our ecclesiastical architecture is not in a state to compare with older countries filled with master pieces as they are, representing the product of many centuries of effort. Still there are some fine examples, quite enough to redeem the Dominion from the reproach of the supercilious and the reputation of the Dominion architects from the sweeping disgrace of the reviewer who is afraid to give sympathy where he undertakes to defend. There are fine churches in Auckland, at the head of which, for beauty and correctness of form, stands the dun'ch of St. Matthew, lately

finished. Wellington has a Basilica and two churches (St. Peter's and St. Andrew's) which ought to keep critics from spending all their ink in negation, and the old pro-cathedral of St. Paul is a striking proof of how well the pioneers of colonisation understood the requisites of church building in wood. Christchurch has a Gothic cathedral (Anglican), not designed by a local architect it is true, but forming part of the Dominion architecture, and therefore not to be passed over silently by anyone undertaking to speak of the buildings erected by the people of the Dominion. That is a cathedral of magnificent design and proportion, small as cathedrals go truly, but a wonderful church for so small a community to have built. The Catholic Cathedral is also on the small side, but at the same time creditable to the community that built it, and a fine example uf Italian architecture. Napier has a splendid cathedral in brick and stone. Dunedin has three fine church buildings, First Church, Knox Church, and St. Joseph's, and Invercargill has two. There are besides churches of all sizes scattered throughout the Dominion, correct in design, striking in appearance, and in the aggregate lifting the

architecture of their towns from undiscriminating condemnation. To those who know the by-ways of the Dominion, a recollection will occur in this connection readily. It is of the little parish church at Otekaike, built in the old Norman style, of Oamaru stone, solid chaste, a very gem of simplicity and elegance, correct and typical, from the design of Mr. Kane, of Christchurch, who built so many fine schools for the Provincial Council and for the Canterbury Education Board in his day. Neither do the ordinary street buildings lend themselves to a criticism which is a mere negation. In some of the cities, notably Auckland and "Wellington, the chief defect of the new buildings is that they are stucco. The parsimony of the men who order the buildings shuts out all considerations of the beauty of material and of the honesty of plain brick and stone. But the defect apart, the architecture is often of an order to be treated with respect. The chief cities are at all events emerging from the old state of unconventional beginnings to a style of much pretensions and some beauty. There are some streets in no way deserving the slurs of the reviewer. Queen street and Wellesley street, Auckland, Princes street, Dunedin, together with the streets by the railway station, Hereford street, and Cathedral

square, Christchurch ; Lambton quay and the reclaimed ground, where the big warehouses are, Wellington. These are good to look at, and the beginnings of a state of things of which the next generation will be proud. Take Lambton quay between Woodward street and the foot of Willis street. Along that stretch the fine buildings are the rule, some of them very elegant, and all designed with considerable taste and regard to tkeir positions and purposes. The same applies to the neighbourhood where are the National and Australasian Banks, Nathan's Building, and a good many others; part of a list they are comprising for its highest examples the Bank of New Zealand, King's Buildings, the Bank of New South Wales, and others too well known to require recapitulation. Among all these one can pick out many examples which give the contradiction emphatic to the generalities of banality which the reviewer of the Empire mistakes for sound criticism. Their style and materials, together with the workmanship in their construction, will stand examination of the most searching order, and have nothing to fear from comparison, no matter how close. Of course there are

mean buildings still in the streets named, and more of them in the other streets, and as you get outwards towards the outskirts of the city the state of things architectural is deplorable. This is paralleled in all the cities and towns of the Dominion — it is but another way of saying that the Dominion is yet young. That, however, is not a reason for unreasoning comprehensiveness of hostile criticism, neither is it for fainthearted negations of defence. As to the advice of the man who wants the individuality of a city to be preserved, the first thing needed is the individuality. If there is no individuality it can not be preserved. Each architect can have his own individuality, and a murrain on those who would do anything to stifle it. On the other hand, the suggestion is not bad that some check should be put upon exuberance, so that there may be secured a certain homogeneity of style, so far as is compatible with all the conditions surrounding. For the present, however, let us, above all things, learn to respect our own so far as it can be respected worthily. There can be no better foundation for greatness — architectural as of other kinds — than honest appreciation of modest worth, just as there can be none worse for the builder than the exaggeration of modesty into genius.