Cathedral Square, Christchurch.

Progress, Volume XI, Issue 11, 1 July 1916, Page 664

Cathedral Square, Christchurch.

Competition for Improvements won by Messrs, Hart & Reese, Architects, Christchurch,

Sometime this month a conference will take place between the Christchurch Beautifying Association, the Tramway Board, and the City Council, to go into the question of the Assessor’s report on the recent competition set by Mr. Seager, F.R.1.8.A. for the best design for Improving Cathedral Square. As reported in our June issue, seven competitive designs were sent in, and one non-competitive (by Mr. G. S. Keesing of Sydney). The winning design (No. 6) by Messrs Hart & Reese, and the one placed

very considerable merit. He wrote to say that as he was leaving for the war he could not complete it but forwarded "not for competition" his sketch showing his ideas as far as he had time to express them.

The seven designs were very carefully examined. It was quickly apparent that one design was unquestionably far ahead of the others and would take first place, but as several of the others were evenly matched it was necessary to submit all of them to a very careful scrutiny and give comparative marks for each feature of the design.

The competition was suggested by the desire to have an artistic shelter to take the place of the one now existing. But the question of the form and

second (No. 8) by Mr. Roy Lovell Smith of Christchurch are reproduced in this issue. Other competitors were:Mr, Leslie D. Coombs, A.R.1.8.A. of Dunedin No. 7; Messrs Salmond- & Vanes, A.R.1.8.A. of Dunedin (No. 3); Messrs Atkins & Bacon, F.R.I. B.A. of Wellington; and Messrs Macfie & Hood. . The Assessor reports as follows: Christchurch, May 31st, 1916. The Chairman and Members of the Christchurch Beautifying Association. CATHEDRAL SQUARE IMPROVEMENT COMPETITION. Gentlemen, I have to report that seven designs were received in this competition and that a : sketch design was received from Mr. Keesing of Sydney, possessing

position of the shelter is so intimately bound up with the consideration of the general lay-out and improvement of the square itself, that it is impossible to consider the one without very carefully considering the other. The "Conditions" of competition were therefore prepared with the desire to ensure that the shelters themselves should not only be artistic, but that they should form part of a general scheme of improvement which would get rid of the very great inconveniences, and the appalling unsightliness which now exist. The present defects and suggestions for improvement are stated in the "Conditions." I am pleased to be able to report that Competitor No. 6 has by his very excellent scheme not only eliminated the defects : pointed out, but has improved on my suggestions for removing them.

It will be seen by the list of marks forwarded herewith, that No. 6 gains 123 marks out of a possible 127, while No. 8 comes second with 87 marks. No. 7 is only two marks less. No. 6 DESIGN.—I cannot too highly praise this design. It is one the designer may well be proud of, for it shows a scheme which if carried out—but one or two very minor alterationswould convert Cathedral Square into by far the most attractive civic centre in the Dominion, and one which would be comparable with the best seen elsewhere. This design and Nos. 7 and 8, adopt the suggestion for north and south shelters in the centre part of the square, but the essential difference between No. 6 and Nos. 7 and 8, is that while Nos. 7 and 8 retain the double line of trams on the eastern side of the shelters with its acknowledged defects, No. 6 separates the lines, leaving the line on which the trams run from north to south in its present position, and removing the south to north lines to the western side of the shelter. By running the present south

The paths through this garden form a most convenient and pleasing connection between the east and west colonnades of the shelters and would thus materially relieve the traffic along them. This arrangement of lines enables the passengers to enter the cars from the shelter side and to leave by the opposite sidean arrangement which would remove the present most inconvenient and annoying scramble, and would save a very considerable amount of time and expense to the Tramway Board. This feature has not been noted by the competitor, and he has not provided a footway on the Eastern side, but there is ample room for one 12 ft, wide and still leave a roadway 6 ft. wider than the roadway north and south of it. It is well sugested that the Godley statue should be moved to the westwards and placed in a curved triangular pavement corresponding to the space formed by the tram lines. The space between the eastern side of this curved pavement and the tram line going north, would form an ideal landing space

to north line to the western side of the shelter, it has been possible to place the shelters further east thus making a very easy curve for the new south to north line. The north and south shelters are connected by a covered collonade on the east and west sides thus forming with the shelters, a continuous curved shelter of pleasing form. The shelters terminate north and south in circular rooms in which at the north end is the parcel office, and ladies' room and at the south end the ticket office and inspectors' room.

These terminal rooms are covered by raised domes thus giving the required relief and emphasis to the design without clashing in any way with the view of the Cathedral.

The connecting colonnades open on to a central garden space which is formed on the site of the present grass mound. In this the present trees are carefully preserved. This garden is a most convenient and delightful feature of the design as it provides well sheltered seats in what may be formed into a beauty, spota charming resting and meeting place free from the rush of tram passengers.

for passengers coming from the south, quite free from vehicular traffic.

It will be seen that this design provides for no less than 440 ft. run of colonnade without in any way encroaching upon required traffic space. This would allow for ten trams to stand opposite the colonnades. The details of the design are in excellent taste and the architectural treatment is carried into supporting columns, lamp standards and flower vases which would all increase the aesthetic value of the scheme.

A further consideration of the vehicular traffic problem suggests a somewhat different placing of the "Islands" shown in the scheme. I have therefore prepared a scheme in accordance with this design as a basis which will I think, fulfil the requirements. At present vehicular and pedestrian traffic run riot, a proper system must be accepted and the traffic regulated in accord with it.

COST.The estimated cost of the scheme is £2,500 for the main shelter and £3OO each for the two auxiliary shelters which are placed north and

south of the Cathedral, making a total of £3,100 a very moderate amount to pay for the very great convenience and civic improvement shown. I suggest the following alterations: —A 10 ft. or 12 ft. wide pavement on the east side of the north to south trams; include the windows of ticket office looking north-east and north-west in the inspectors’ office by altering partition as shown, thus giving the inspectors a good view of all points of the system; re-arrange “Islands” in accord with scheme for vehicular traffic. DESIGN No. 8. —This is also a good design but the relative value of the two designs is accurately shown by the relative marks 87 to 123. The position of the shelter is very good and a connecting curved colonnade is formed on the western side. The grass mound and statue are shown to remain as at present. The design of the shelter is not so good as its general plan. The Roman Doric order is selected.

fall 7 ft. or 8 ft. within the shelter, and anything less than 19 ft. would not afford sufficient well protected sitting and standing space. No. 7 design has his two main shelters 165 feet apart with no covered connection between them. Ho leaves the whole of the central grass mound, railings and Godley statue as at present. The shelters arc of curved triangular plan set in the angles made by the tram lines. This is certainly a very great improvement on the existing arrangements but does not reach the convenience nor have they .the aesthetic value of No. 6. Placing the shelters so far apart makes them occupy valuable traffic space and leaves as a comparatively waste space the whole of the centre of the square. The design is however, so good and of so nearly equal merit to No. 8, that I would suggest an honorarium of £5 ss. be given in recognition of its merits. No. 3 DESIGN.—The only other design which I

This is too ponderous and demands that the space between the columns shall be too small to make it suitable for a tram shelter. The spaces between the bases of the columns is only 6 ft. and the cornice gives shelter to a distance of 18 in. beyond them. A much more original and freer treatment is demanded in a work of this kind. No. 6 has adopted a free modern treatment which enables him to place his columns 13 ft. apart and to give an overhang to his roof of 4 ft. thus affording a clear covered space closer to the sides of the trams.

No. 7 DESIGN.No. 7 in his design of the shelter is better than No. 3 approaching in this more nearly to the merits of No. 6, but the columns being 9 ft. 6 ins. apart at the bases arc too close and although he has an overhang of 4ft. 6 ins. from the base his total width of shelter is only 13 ft. as compared with 19 ft. in No. 6 and with 17 ft. 6 ins. on the west side and 16 ft. in the remainder of No. 8. The depth should certainly not be less than 19 ft. as drifting rain especially on the south-west side would often

might refer to in detail other than by means of the marks is No. 3, which comes next on the list. The author of this design has spared himself no pains in preparing his scheme and in thinking out the details. It is an extremely disappointing design in that the principles upon which he has based it is wholly wrong and the whole of his work is thrown away. The scheme is based on the total alteration of the tramway service in the square so that all cars pass round the square instead of passing through it. The competitor presents his design with great confidence for it is he says, based on the tram service at Milan. This is an instance of the great error into which architects and town-planners may be led by seeking for precedent instead of thinking out the problem as it stands and solving it in accord with well defined principles. lam well acquainted with the tramway system at Milan and forward herewith a sketch which I have made of it and also a photograph which I took in 1908. By the plan it will be seen that the square at Milan is totally different from Cathedral

Square in that all the main streets on which the tram lines run, enter the square at the angles not in the centre of the sides as here, and all the trams it will be seen, which do not pass along the streets bounding the ends of the square, circle round a portion of the square and leave it as quickly as possible. Had the competitor given a moment’s consideration to the effect of his proposition before he went to the trouble of preparing his very excellent set of drawings, he would have realized that the scheme was an absolutely impossible one. The increase of railage in the square and the method of service adopted increases the car mileage per annum no less than 18,720 miles on week days and 3,120 miles on Sundays. As the total expense of running the cars is 6.107 pence per mile and as this cost would be increased by 50 per cent. when running on the sharp curves shown round the square, the increased cost of running would be £833 per year without reckoning the interest on the initial expenditure required to alter the tram system and lay down the new lines. For this expenditure there is no compensating advantage but on the contrary a most decided disadvantage for the cars would be running in the square no less than 601 extra miles during one day. It is difficult to understand how a competitor can with confidence present such a scheme as likely to fulfil the requirements demanded, namely a scheme “which would facilitate traffic and prevent the present and increasing concentration.” It is clear therefore that any scheme adopting this principle cannot possibly be entertained. In addition to the great cost to the Tramway Board, the public would most dccidely object to being carried all round the square when there is an easy direct way through it. This design has four shelters which are placed in exactly the spaces that should be reserved for the traffic. Although the defects of this design are so obvious, I have carefully examined every part and awarded marks giving full credit for those portions of the design which show merit. It will be noted that this competitor gains very few marks for the general effect and this by reason of the fact that all the shelters have their solid back towards the outer part of the square and however well designed the details might be, these great masses would certainly not add to the dignity and beauty of the square as a whole and it is for this reason also that only low marks can be given for elevations. It will be noted that the three first designs all have their shelters open on all sides which not only increases their usefulness but they also form an attractive feature from every point of view. The draughtmanship of this design No. 3 is excellent and therefore I feel quite justified in awarding a special prize offered of £5 ss. 6d. for excellence of draughtmanship. The remainder of the designs do not call for special mention as the marks will show my opinion of the value of the separate parts, and by them it will be seen that my criticism of No. 3 applies equally to the lay-out of Nos. 2 and 4. In , conclusion I , congratulate the Beautifying

Association on being the medium through which so excellent a scheme has been prepared for the consideration of the Council. I trust the scheme will meet with the full approval of the Council and the Tramway Board and it is to be hoped the rate-payers will demand that it be carried out in its entirety as quickly as possible MARKS GIVEN IN COMPETITION FOR CATHEDRAL SQUARE VEM ENT SCHEME.

My recommendations are that the first prize of £25 he awarded to the author of design No. 6 and that he be entrusted with the commission for carrying out the design when it has met with the approval of the Council and rate-payers. That the second prize of £ls be awarded to the author of design No. 8 and that an honorarium of £5 ss. Od. be awarded to the author of Design No. 7 and that a special prize for draughtsmanship be awarded to the author of design No. 3. Yours faithfully, S. HURST SEAGER, Assessor.

Marks No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 6 No. 7 No. 8 General Effect 25 4 G 5 4 25 18 20 Lay-out of lines and convenience of Tram Passengers. RouteSquare to; — 1 Papanui ■2 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 9 Fcndalton 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 11 Cranford Street 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 Edgeware Road 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 Railway 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 9 Opawa 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 11 Coronation St.. . 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 Cashmere Hills 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 Square from : —- 3 Sunnier 2 1 0 1 1 2 2 0 4 Woolston 2 1 0 1 1 2 2 0 8 Riccarton 2 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 5 New Brighton . . 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 12 St. Martins 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 Square to : —■ 3 Sumner 2 1 0 0 ■ 1 2 2 0 4 Woolston 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 8 Riccarton 2 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 5 New Brighton . . 2 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 12 St Martins 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 G-7 Lincoln Road to 2 I 0 0 1 2 1 1 ■ Dallington . . 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 6-7 Dallington to Lincoin Road 2 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 10 Burwood to Burwood 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 Position of Shelters 10 5 5 0 5 10 8 10 Plan of Shelters— Public Space 5 8 4 4 4 5 4 5 Ticket Office 5 4 4 3 3 5 3 5 Inspectors’ Office 5 3 1 3 3 5 2 3 Ladies’ Retiring Room 5 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 Access to Lavatories 5 2 2 2 0 2 1 5 Elevations of Shelters 20 4 8 15 4 20 15 13 Lamps, Posts, &c. . . 5 0 2 5 . 0 5 1 0 — ' — — — — — — Total . . 127 46 39 50 40 ' 123 85 87