Progress and Finance

No Organisation could do more to encourage good house design in New Zealand than the State Advances Corporation. Yet it is the biggest bar to progress. It is by far the largest lending agency and so has the final word as to what will and what will not do in the design of a large proportion of our houses. What young architect, keen with exciting designs and ideas for saving costs, has not been knocked back by the State Advances when applying for a loan? In many districts flat roofs and concrete slab floors are not accepted, sloping ceilings, any form of free planning, direct entry to the living room, vertical boarding and many other ideas do not meet the Corporation's requirements. There must be a great dead weight somewhere that needs lifting. And I don't hink that dead weight is necessarily the Government, for there are instances when some of our most adanced institutions are State run. It must be a matter of either individuals, or policy. Architects and builders and those house owners who have experienced frustration, should start a move to liberalise this body. To start with, I suggest that someone collect documented cases in which good designs and ideas have been killed and replaced by dull, conventional bungalows.

* * *

Thirty Years On

It is not often now that one of the old guard of architecture is so bold as to have a crack at contemporary design. At the laying of the foundation stone of the Wellington City Council administration block, the architect said the building would not have large areas of glass as if it did, the rooms would be cold in winter and hot in summer! Well, that's a hard statemen to swallow, when in fact the reverse would be nearer the mark. But you will see what it all means when the scaffolding is removed in a few years' time. In the second half of the twentieth century, we are to see in a young country divorced from tradition and with a strong emergent culture, a reinforced concrete office building with rustications on the ground floor, applied classical pediments over the entrances, narrow vertical windows in deep reveals in formal groupings without relation to the rooms they are to light, and with archaic light well looking in all like a stone building of the late 19th century with half its ornament removed. Can one really be oblivious to what has been happening in the rest of the world during the last thirty years?

* * *

Outdoor Living

New Zealanders are known to be outdoor people. But do we not still spend too much time behind blind-pulled windows in stuffy restaurants, dingy hotel lounges and shabby congested bars? Why don't we spend more time sitting ou of doors, as well as digging, lawn-cutting and playing games? Why don't we drink our afternoon tea on Sunday on the lawn or terrace, or read in a deck chair in the seclusion of a sheltered patio? Why don't we have cafes and restaurants out of doors as in Europe? Whatever the reasons may be—climate, social habit, dull minds or lack of space—I am sure we miss many of the pleasant experiences that life has to offer. Our climate is certainly variable and windy, but we could build sheltered areas—a screen is a simple thing—which would not only keep out the wind, but provide privacy which we so fondly cherish.

I imagine most of us don't have our tea on the lawn because we wouldn't be comfortable there—it is probably cluttered up with beds of annuals, faces on to the street, or is overshadowed by the neighbours. And our backyards are either untidy or full of clothes lines and cabbages. These and other matters concerning the way we live, or rather could live if we bothered to think about it for ourselves, are to be subjects of illustrations in this magazine—so the editors tell me. And I hope they will help to wake us all up a little.

* * *

Architecture for Students

The 1953 Prospectus of the Auckland School of Architecture is little different from previous years, apart from poor layout. It is always difficult to judge architectural drawings when they have been reduced to such a scale that the lettering cannot be read. But this year's selection of work in the Prospectus shows a maintained standard, which I consider compares favourably with many leading overseas schools. But students' work always looks more exciting than any work we see built. Does this mean that once the student becomes a practising architect he loses his design ability, or does it mean his studio work cannot be translated into actual buildings? Or does it mean that the bright boys don't get much of a chance when they leave school?

* * *

Auckland Still Out of Hand

A correspondent has written from Auckland disagreeing with my views on the necessity for building more and taller flats in that city. He corrects me on one point, the actual numbers to be rehoused in the Freeman's Bay Redevelopment Scheme and puts forward some controversial thoughts about flat living and flat building which are worth discussion. I have no room in this issue, but the editors are giving me an extra page next time to print the letter and a full reply.

* * *

The Three-piece Again

Some months ago I wrote of the disappearance of the massive three-piece chesterfield suite and its replacement by the fireside chair with wooden arms. One reader has questioned this view, so I must explain further. The reason for the decline of the padded suite was its excessive bulk and weight, together with the diminishing size of modern living-rooms. But it has advantages. We have a truly elephantine suite, and it has stood the ravages of human recline for nearly 30 years with little more ill effect than drooping of the arms. Sitting in it is really a relaxation—one sinks back and is absorbed, two can sit on the sides of each chair, and, though the suite is virtually irremovable, it is also virtually indestructible. Children, parties, sun and cats have failed to send it to the auction rooms. It may not be your answer to comfortable sitting, but is the Maple fireside chair the answer either?