WAIRARAPA HIGH SCHOOL MASTERTON.

Progress, Volume XVIII, Issue 6, 1 February 1923, Page 132133

WAIRARAPA HIGH SCHOOL MASTERTON.

principal Elevation. principal Elevation.

J. F. MUNNINGS, A.N.Z.1.A., A.R.I. Architect.

i The fine building illustrated above has been erected at Masterton to meet the 'grooving demand for secondary education in the Wairarapa. The west elevation shown has a total length of 280 feet. It is isometrical, and one portion contains two stories, including th* chemistry and physics laboratories and demonstration rooms. A wing running at right angles towards the east contains four large classrooms. The whole building is provided with means of easy communication by corridors at the rear. The building is constructed of red brick, with natural slate roofs. Its cost, including shelter sheds, boundary walls and gates, and furniture for laboratories and classrooms, is £16,300. Owing to the architect's departure for Sydney before the completion of the contract, Mr. Wm. M. Page, F.N. Z.1.A., took charge of the final stages of the work.

The chairman pointed out that certain difficulties had arisen whereby it was impossible to form a branch at the Institute in any district where there were not a certain number of Fellows of the Institute in practice. This case applied to Hamilton. Mr. B. C. Chilwell, in reply to a suggestion that a number of Associates in Hamilton be granted Fellowships in order to make the formation of the proposed branch possible, stated that this was the wrong course, and should not be put into operation. He pointed out that difficulties throughout New Zealand would arise if the suggestion were adopted. The chairman stated that it would be necessary to alter the rules of the Institute to allow a branch to be formed at Hamilton, and a notice of motion would be necessary. Mr. Gummer suggested that a sub-branch to the Auckland branch be formed at Hamilton. Mr. Grierson, at this juncture, withdrew the notice of motion. On behalf of the Hawke's Bay-Gisborne branch, Mr. J. Greig moved: —"That it be a recommendation that the executive endeavours to have legislation introduced for making it statutory law that all building work entailing expenditure of public money be carried out under the supervision of a registered architect." Mr. G. Penlington seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Mr. Greig, also on behalf of the Hawke's Bay branch, moved: "That it be a recommendation to the executive that no registered architect shall allow himself to be drawn into any dispute arising from work not originating from a registered architect's office." Mr. W. Fielding seconded the motion, and deprecated the fact that registered architects often became involved in such cases and lost both fees and prestige. Mr. L. D. Coombs said that although he was in sympathy with the tenor of the motion, he did not wish to take too drastic an action in the matter, and thought that an architect should have certain discretionary powers. Mr. Greig further stated that he wished the executive to express its disfavour of architects becoming involved in such cases as mentioned in the motion. Mr. Crichton asked if it would not be better to word the motion to the effect "That people be discouraged from asking registered architects to become involved in disputes arising from work not originating from a registered architect's office." The amended motion was carried. GENERAL.

It was decided to continue with the publication of the "Journal" on the same lines as last year, but provision was made to enlarge editions of the paper after the general meeting if necessary. The meeting then adjourned till the following day, when the Conference commenced sitting. Mr.

Page presided, and in the absence of Mr. Ford, the President, read his address, in the course of which Mr Ford expressed regret that circumstances had conspired to prevent his being present at the second annual meeting of the Institute during his term of office at President. During the past two years the officers of the Institute had experienced a time of considerable anxiety, caused in a large measure by the fact that the world-wide slump, which had affected members of the Institute very seriously, caught it in a period of transition and re-organisa-tion. In expressing appreciation of the work of the various committees of the Institute, Mr. Ford paid special tribute to the splendid service of the Executive and Education Committees.

ARCHITECTURE—A SOCIAL ASSET. Continuing, Mr. Ford drew attention to the social value of architecture in a modern democracy. This, he stated, was not an academic question, but an eminently practical one. Upon the attitude taken regarding it by those in whose hands lay the control and guidance of democracy on one hand, and by the profession on the other, was involved, not alone the immediate future of the individual architect, but what was of infinitely greater importance, the welfare in a significant respect of the State itself. We might or might not like the democratisation of society, he continued, but it would be futile to ignore the process or the fact. We lived in New Zealand in an advanced state of democracy. The government, both national and municipal, was entirely in the hands of the people on the broadest possible franchise. The practical importance to architects of the question "has architecture a social value in a modern democracy?" lay in the fact that, if it could be shown that architecture had no social value and that the profession of architecture could make no contribution towards the construction of a sound and noble democracy, then, inevitably, the future would see the elimination of the architect. Fortunately for architecture this was not so. Architecture, he hoped to be able to show, had without question a great social value and architects who were able to measure up to their opportunities had a great and growing part to play in the world's work.

ARCHITECTURE AND BEAUTY. To define architecture with clearness and satisfaction was admittedly no easy task, but "beautiful building," taking building in its widest sense, might prove a satisfactory description. The essential factor in architecture, that which differentiated it from building—was beauty. This might be held by those who differed from this definition that architects claimed to be artists. That, in a modern democracy, was fatal. What was demanded was good, practical commonsense; let art go hang. There was a tendency with some to-day to assent to this attitude, and, it must be confessed, with some practical reason. We did not find the "practical" man in the profession in much popular favour. It was possible for him, with considerable financial benefit

to himself, to conceal his ignorance alike upon the aesthetic and the practical side of his profession by a loud and emphaticalthough —claim to superior practical knowledge and ability. Nevertheless, it was by its content of beauty alone that architecture had persisted through the ages. John Drinkwater had written in the course of a poem, “The Building,” that every building was the captive image of the dream of some one man. It was for the architect to translate man’s dream into material form and to infuse into his work something of the eternal, the Divine spirit. Mr. Ford stated further that the towns and cities of the new democracy, to be sound and noble, must themselves be rich and beautiful, and the buildings therein— public and privatewhilst being the expression of the national life, must also themselves aid in making that life more beautiful and more satisfying. They could not do this unless they were more than mere buildings. They must be examples of architecture. They must be beautifully planned and beautiful in form. It was necessary to emphasise that beauty in architecture was something that could not be applied to a structure which was not in itself beautiful. Beauty was in some way inherent in a building as a structure apare from any external decoration, although the latter might be there, or it was not architecture.

CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN. Construction and design, the practice and the art were inseparable. It was for this reason that no one but an architect could fill an architect's function in the State. No one else had the requisite training. Given the task of designing any of the varying types of buildings required to house the many activities of a modern democracy, the architect would proceed to the execution of the problem in the same manner —his consideration of the practical problems of planning and construction going hand-in-hand with that of the art of his calling. The training of the architect and that of no other—the training in construction, in planning and design, in traditional architecture, in sanitation and hygiene, is all directed to this end. The importance of planning was never sufficiently realised, nor was the fact that the architect alone was instructed in the history and practice of this science ever recognised. Faulty planning alone laid a heavy tax on the community each year in wasted energy and financial loss.

LACK OF APPRECIATION. In deprecating the lack of appreciation on the part of the public of art in general, he stated that the one art that touched the people more nearly than any other, the one art from which they could not escape if they world, that of architecture, is the art which most lacked popular understanding and appreciation. No art had the place which it should in popular esteem. Art in general, to' the sad loss of the national life, was too much regarded as something merely to amuse an idle hour. It was very noticeable that in book shops there were always in

stock quite a number of volumes written for amateurs and laymen, upon music and painting, popular biographies of painters, musicians, authors and poets, but a non-technical work upon architecture was only very rarely seen. The speaker had never yet seen upon the shelves of a bookshop in New Zealand a biography of an architect. There was very evidently—as shown in many other ways —an almost entire lack of popular interest in architecture. From music, from art in its ordinary sense, we could escape if we wished, but from architecture we could not escape unless we were blind. Such lack of appreciation of architecture was to be deprecated, because it deducted from our capability of the enjoyment of things beautiful. Public bodies often erred in their endeavour to please ratepayers by calling upon their engineers to perform work which could only be carried out successfully by an architect. It was no reflection on municipal engineers to say that they are not fitted to carry out architectural work—their whole training was directed to filling other ends, other duties. They had not the necessary training in planning which would enable them to produce an economical, well-balanced floor plan from which the building would build well, and, when erected, function properly. Municipal engineers could not be expected to have the requisite knowledge of architectural forms, nor could they be expected to find time to train and develop that sense of beauty which was essential to produce a piece of architecture. Another error into which people were apt to fall was caused by the same lack of appreciation of architecture. This was the selection with the object, again, as it was thought of effecting economy, of the improperly-trained or untrained architect, the man who boasted of being "practical."

A BUILDER OF HOUSES. In conclusion, the speaker dealt with the architect as the designer of the houses which formed the basis of the homes of the citizens in a modern democracy. The homes of the people formed the very foundation of the State. It was a regrettable fact that the great majority of houses were not designed by architects, although there was no class of building in which their knowledge and skill was more necessary. There were many reasons for that unfortunate state of affairs, but it was sufficient to say that domestic architecture offered opportunities for service of the greatest possible social value, services which could be satisfactorily performed by no one but an architect. If modern democracy did not avail itself of the services ready to hand, it must itself suffer. Skilled planning might save many unnecessary footsteps with consequent waste of illspared energy upon the part of many a weary mother. Proper design might give many young citizens their first glimpses of these aesthetic experiences which would enrich and glorify the whole of their lives. Very closely allied to the design of homes was the design of towns and cities. There had been in recent years a great awakening of civic consciousness, and town planning had become an ac-

complished fact. There was an immense field for service of the greatest social value in this direction, in collaboration with the doctor, the engineer, the sculptor and other artists. Architects, by virtue of their special knowledge and training, could make a contribution to the social welfare of the State which would be made by no one else. At the conclusion of the reading of the address, several members paid eulogistic testimony to the splendid work of Mr. Ford, who was accorded a hearty vote of thanks for his sterling service in the interests of the Institute.

GENERAL. Votes of thanks were passed to the Canterbury members for the complete arrangements they had made in connection with the holding of the conference. A further vote of thanks was passed to Mr. H. St. A. Murray for his work for the gathering. The following were elected members of the Council for the ensuing year: Messrs. B. C. Chilwell, W. H. Gummer, and M. K. Draffin (Auckland), Mr. J. Greig (Hawke's Bay, Gisborne), Messrs. T. H. Battle and R. G. Talboys (Taranaki-Wanganui), Messrs. W. Crichton and F. E. Greenish (Wellington), Messrs. E. J. Greenstreet and G. Penlington (Canterbury), Messrs. L. D. Coombs and O. E. Macfie (Otago). The Dunedin firm of Clarke, Menzies, Griffin and Ross was re-elected as official auditors to the Institute.

The first meeting of the newly-appointed Council of the New Zealand Institute of Architects took place on the last day of the session, Mr. Wm. M. Page presiding. On the motion of the chairman, seconded by Mr. F. J. Barlow (Christchurch), Mr. W. Crichton, of Wellington, was elected president for the ensuing year. Messrs. H. Mandeno (Otago), H. Grierson (Auckland), J. Greig (Gisborne), W. Gray-Young (Wellington), B. C. Chillwell (Auckland), W. H. Gummer (Auckland), and C. J. Brodrick (Invercargill) spoke in support of the motion, which was carried unanimously. The following were elected to fill vacancies on the Council:—Mr. H. G. Davies (Hawke's Bav-Gis-borne), Mr. L. E. Williams (Wellington"). Mr. A. C. Ford (Southland), and Mr. H. B. McDowellSmith (Otago). Mr. W. Gray-Young ' was re-elected honorary secretary, and Mr. W. Feilding, of Wellington, treasurer.

The following committees were appointed:— Advisory—Messrs H. C. Grierson and N. Wallnutt (Auckland"), H. A. Wasterholm (Hawke's BayGisborne), C. H. Mitchell (Wellington), C. W. Wood, G. H. A. Hart (Christchurch), O. E. Macfie (Dunedin), A. C. Ford (Invercargill), and R. Talboys (Wanganui).

Practice and Discipline Messrs. C. R. Ford (Wanganui), E. J. Greenstreet, H. St. A. Murray, J. S. Guthrie, C. W. Wood, G. Penlington (Christchurch), and L. C. Miles (Timaru). Library and General —Messrs. W. M. Page, S. Fearn, W. Crichton, F. E. Greenish, C. R. Ford, and A. B. Hamilton. Legislative—Messrs. C. R. Ford, W. M. Page, and W. Feilding. Finance and Executive—Messrs. L. E. Williams (Wellington) and E. J. Greenstreet. Architectural and Education —Messrs. C. R. Ford, W. M. Page, F. E. Greenish, W. H. Gummer, V. P. Haughton, and S. Fearn. Building and Materials —Messrs P. Y. Wales (Dunedin), E. J. Greenstreet, E. R. Wilson. (Invercargill), G. W. Allsop (Auckland), J. Louis Hay (Napier), G. H. Battle (Wanganui), A. S. Mitchell, F. E. Greenish, L. E. Williams, and C. PI. Mitchell (Wellington). It was decided to set aside the sum of £2OO to defray the expenses of councillors in coming to the conference. The matter of discussing conditions of contract with representatives of the Builders' Federation was left in the hands of the executive. Votes of thanks to the retiring councillors, the acting president, the secretary, Mr. D. G. Johnston, the retiring president, and Christchurch newspapers closed the meeting. The next annual meeting will be held in Auckland. A cable message was received by the newly-elected President from Mr. W. B. Flaville, the President of the American Institute of Architects:—"American Institute of Architects sends you greetings, and all success for your conference."