THE DANNEVIRKE TOWN HAIL

Progress, Volume VIII, Issue 2, 1 October 1912, Page 63

THE DANNEVIRKE TOWN HAIL

Some Comments and a Reply In the editorial section of the "Dannevirke Evening News" of September 14th appeared the following:— THE TOWN HALL " 'Progress', the Wellington commercial paper, has been endeavouring to let us see the Town Hall as others see it, but that aspect generally makes no allowances for the

compared with what has been expended by other municipalities in town halls and municipal theatres, it must be acknowledged that Dannevirke has got wonderfully good value for its money. ‘Progress’ has judged the building from the outside, and has given no consideration to what has been provided inside for the limited expenditure involved. The main consideration in erecting the Town Hall was to secure a building that would pay, and for this reason the Borough Council had to go in an economical way to work. The real grievance in the ‘Progress’ article, however, is that the building should have been designed by an Australian architect. There is no doubt some room for this

local point of- view. The criticism which we publish in another column is unfair because it makes no allowance for local conditions. No one is going to attempt to argue that the exterior of the Town Hall is a monument of architectural beauty. The ratepayers’ money was not intended to be expended in external ornamentation. What was wanted was a comfortable hall for the people, and when

criticism when ignorance of the facts is allowed for. Under the arrangements made by the Borough Council the services of the first theatrical architect in Australia were obtained on terms that it would have been exceedingly foolish to reject. It is absurd to say that Dannevirke was unpatriotic. Had ‘Progress’ cared to properly inquire into the facts it might have learned that a local architect was employed in

supervising the erection of the building, and the recommendations that he made were adopted by the Hon. W. Pitt. It is a simple thing to dub a building 'crude and amateurish' when the value obtained for the money available is left out of account. We are not blind to some of the faults of the Town Hall, but the ratepayers are quite prepared to overlook minor deficiencies, and there is no justification for outside critics crying 'stinking fish.' " And in the same paper of September 16th the following:— OUR TOWN HALL.-ANOTHER OPINION "ALL THAT COULD BE DESIRED" On Saturday we published one opinion which appeared hi "Progress'' concerning the Dannevirko Town Hall. It bad been written by a man with a grievance—the burden of which was that New Zealand architects had been overlooked when the plans were required to be drawn.

Speaking relative to our Town Hall, Mr. Berkeley said it was “absolutely up to the handle,” because it was just right for the place, was just big enough, every appointment was adequate, and it was built on up-to-date lines to facili- 1 tate the working and the productions of big companies.' ‘‘lake this pantomime of ‘Sinbad the Sailor.’ This is certainly the biggest ever shown in Dannevirke. It comprises 112 people. Here we can give the flying ballet, in which a number of girls fly off the stage and over the auditorium distributing bouquets. This can only bo accomplished in an up-to-date theatre, because we must have height and depth of stage. The very fact that we arc bringing ‘Sinbad the Sailor’ here is quite sufficient to show that the theatre is perfectly satisfactory and quite big enough ' for our gigantic production. You will get precisely the same show hero as in the big cities, because we have the room on the stage. The acoustics are splendid, I consider, and the hall should be very suitable lor our big opera. companies

To-day we give another opinion that of a gentleman connected with the theatrical profession on the managerial side, and who must be credited with knowing something about what he says. This is Mr. Chas. Berkeley, representative of J. C. Williamson, Ltd., who, when shown the “Progress” article, remarked: “hancy anyone cavilling about the Hon. Mr. Pitt building a theatre. Why, he absolutely stands out on his own in this connection. Ho might possibly seem extravagant, but he will give you value for your money.” Mr. Berkeley said he did not suppose that if the whole of the architects in New Zealand were picked over there would be found six in their number who had built theatres, while the Hon. Mr. Pitt had been building theatres for the last 25 years. He had also built the Opera House in Napier, which, for its size, was absolutely the best in Australasia.

when they come this way. If more money had been spent on your structure there could have been more ornamentation, but not greater essential satisfaction. You can do without the frills at present.” Mr. Berkeley said that all the circle seats were satisfactory in the views they gave of the stage, while the fact that the company had to dress over 100 people, and could do so comfortably in the rooms available, showed that the accommodation in this connection was quite sufficient for requirements for 25 years to come.”

A"V e are glad to read the editorial comments which appeared in the Dannevirke Evening News, and the subsequent paragraphs, all of which we quote above. We welcome this expression of opin-

ion, even though it does not coincide with our own. It is evidence that the matter is not regarded with apathy, and we are happy to have the opportunity of replying. hirst, it is abundantly evident to anyone who reads our criticism of the building in question, that it applies only to the building as seen from the street. We only had a photograph of the exterior but for our own purpose it was quite sufficient. _ Secondly, while it is quite true that we have a grievance, it is also evident from our criticism that the real grievance is not as suggested in the above editorial, that a Hew r Zealand architect was not engaged to design and carry out the work, but that the building is disappointing from an architectural point of view. Thirdly, we take up the position that every building should be “a monument to architectural beauty,” or, more correctly, that every building should be good architecturally. Fourthly, the money at disposal has nothing whatever to do with the matter, and “external ornamentation” on a building in no way redeems it if the general design is bad. The editorial comments in the Dannevirke paper and “another opinion” are quite beside the mark. We would like to emphasise the fact that it is not because the new Town Hall and theatre is, comparatively, what is commonly called a plain building, that we take exception to it, but because the exterior design is not good and has little architectural value. W do not suggest for a moment tliat the Town Halls erected by other municipalities are good from an architectural standpoint. They are not good so far as we have seen, although large sums of money have been spent on their erection. It is not the amount of money available so much as the ability of the designer that is the determining factor as to whether the building shall have any merit or shall be quite devoid of the same. It is quife true, of course, that the first essential of every building is that it shall fulfil adequately and completely its primary purpose, that is, the purpose for which it is built, whether it be for a dwelling, for business, entertainment, music, or worship. The building must be thoroughly well planned and, especially in these days, economically planned, to provide the necessary accommodation, and for this alone a thoroughly well-trained architect mast be engaged. In addition to all this, however, something more is require before the building can rank as architecture. Every part inside, and outside, must be so proportioned and disposed that the whole shall be pleasant and satisfying to the educated eye and mind, and the complete building must be carried out with honest material and in a straightforward manner. We presumed that the building in question fulfilled every requirement from a point of view of convenience, although even as regards this point we would not be prepared to accept the opinion of any but those ho have the necessary knowledge to judge of these matters. And then there is the question of the interior decoration, or treatment which we •would like to hope is better than the promise displayed on the exterior. It does not by any means follow that because a, man has had long experience of a certain class of building he is specially successful in this particular

branch of an architect's work. There is nothingmysterious about a theatre and municipal offices, and all the theatres, etc., of Europe and lireat Britain are available as models, and in many of which all the mechanical contrivances of the stage, etc., are to be found in conjunction with good architectural treatment outside and inside. We have no hesitation in saying that a thoroughly welltrained architect who has never before built a theatre would approach such a problem, and solve it in a perfectly satisfactory manner from a strictly theatrical point of view, and in addition impart to it a large measure of architectural value. We confess to a keen sense of disappointment that after twenty-five years of experience of this class of work the designer of the theatre in Dannevirke and the new Opera House in Welington is unable to produce something better architecturally. We cannot see that the local point of view has anything to do with the matter. It is for the architect to study the local conditions in every way, and as for the special terms upon which che architect's services were required we have always understood that the terms of all first-rate architects are the same. vVe certainly do consider it unfortunate that a New Zealand architect was not employed in view of the fact that the result is not better than would have been achieved by, we will not say a local architect, but a New Zealand architect, and in the concluding paragraph of our criticism we state, that "we would like to think that the architects jf New Zealand would be the first to welcome a fine building, were the architect for it seven times a stranger." Our real grievance, therefore, is as we stated at the beginning of this article. With regard to "another opinion" we do not question the author's experience and authority to speak on the matters discussed in his criticism, but those have no connection with the point at issue. These refer only to the inconveniences and contrivaces of the building. # We hear too often that such and such a building is "absolutely the best in Australasia" and it conveys no sense of value of merit. In our buildings, both public and private, we should aim at a higher and better standard than that which Australasia affords. If we have no such better standard, not only for our buildings, but in our arts, then our progress will indeed be slow. The fact that girls can fly off the sta.«-e only proves that there is adequate height and space in the theatre and has no connection with the architectural qualities of the building. If we in New Zealand are all that we fain would have others believe, then we think that our education and culture should be manifested in our buildings. In conclusion, we repeat that the building under review iy kicking in this architectural quality which divides the commonplace from the beautifuland it is not an isolated example by any means —and bears the same resemblance to good architecture, as such expressions as, "absolutely up to the handle," and, "absolutely stands out on his own," bear to goou English.

A vigorous campaign for a new building for the Y.W.C.A., Christchurch, is being carried out, and is likely to prove very successful, nearly £3OOO having been collected at the date of writing.