Open Towns.

Another scheme of improvement I have thought over for some time, and one which, if elected, I would like to see introduced, is the scheme as it may be called, of "open towns." The question of the laying-off of towns has never yet had that attention bestowed on it which its importance deserves. When we consider the proportion of the human race which lives in towns, the subject is a worthy one indeed. In the former days of war and ignorance, walls surrounded towns, and the inhabitants had to be enclosed and packed within these walls regardless of everything save their defence from enemies. But in our day the case is different, resulting chiefly from changes in the art of war. In this colony a law has been passed, and well passed, regulating the width and levels of streets. I think the law should go much farther, and order that in all future towns in the colony, whether laid out by the Government or by the individual, every alternate section or space be left vacant for gardens or recreation. I am a firm page 143 believer in the rus in urbe. The allotments might be in quarter or half-acre pieces, surrounded by open spaces accordingly. The advantages are such as these:—(1) It would undoubtedly be conducive to the health of the citizens. Health, as is truly said is a blessing we never know the good of till we lose it. What will a man give in exchange for his health—for his life? By letting in the light of day on four sides of a building instead of two, you in this way even add probably to its healthiness. I see they are proposing to burn down a part of Cairo to get rid of the cholera. It might be well if parts of 10,000 other towns were burnt down at the same time. (2) All those destructive and extensive fires which we hear so often of would cease. A town so laid out, and in possession of a moderate supply of water, could never be devastated by a fire. Insurance would thus be greatly cheaper. (3) The sewage could be far more easily dealt with, and the smoke nuisance would be abated. (4) The buildings presenting three sides to view, there would be more room for ornamentation. (5) A town built in this plan would of course suffer less from earthquakes then if raised in the common way. From earthquakes New Zealand is not free. (6) To bombard a town so built would require for the same amount of damage ten times the shot and shell as if built in the ordinary way. We owe to posterity page 144 an open town. Anyone who reflects on the cost of rebuilding old towns, such as Edinburgh or Paris, will admit this. With them it is almost a question whether the new town with its taxation, or the old with its trouble, is the worse. On the other hand, it would be more costly to light such a town, and distacnes would be longer from one house or shop to another; but this with tramways and underground and elevated railways need not very much disturb us. There is plenty of land in the world, and no good reason can ever be given for a closely-built town. The open spaces would be in gardens, in flower vegetable, or fruit, and would be therefore anything but waste. And though in the case of very large factories or warehouses, some inconvenience might be caused to the builder and owner by the divided housing, yet this even to him would be balanced by the advantages mentioned. Moreover, such cases would not very often occur.

I believe also that the plan might be applied to farmsteadings. Fires would be less destructive were the buildings—the stable, barn, and byre—separated by intervening spaces. I have a plan by me of a steading in France arranged thus, the intervening spaces being planted with fruit trees, the walls being also utilised for fruit-growing.