P.S.… But A Whimper

As we go to press the results of the Housing Competition are announced. So far we have seen only newspaper reproductions of the winning paln, but these are sufficient to show that those competitors who placed emphasis on houses extensible from two to three bedrooms, or on flexible orientation and siting, or even on low cost, backed the wrong horse. Although these factors were conditions of the competition they are not particularly evident in the winning design.

Flags.

I think it is a mistaken attitude to be derisive of flag hanging and other forms of festoonery—even if they are done out of compliance rather than zeal, the effect of temporary gaiety can do no harm. I hope those who are now planning the final details of the Queen's visit will have learned something about the use of flags and bunting during the Coronation week. One thing I noticed was how much more effective were a few large flags than a whole string of little ones. One of the most effective means of street decoration is rows of flags or decoration across from building to building unifying the whole street as a colourful parade.

Floodlighting.

I like a city to be brilliantly lit at night. I like neon lights and I like floodlit buildings. But I would enjoy floodlit buildings a lot more if some skill were shown in the way the lights are arranged. The Coronation floodlighting showed us that it is not enough to throw powerful rays indiscriminately on to the face of a building. I object to red white and blue and any other sort of coloured floodlighting. Most of all I object to seeing plastic flex draped out of the first floor window of a government building to a piece of pinus nailed to the side of the lightstand on the footpath, trailing along to the next stand, looping round a lamp post on the way and then disappearing again into another window. If floodlighting is to enhance a building by night, why clutter it up by day? I hope the experts who were responsible will learn better by the time of the Royal visit.

The National Memorial.

In comparison with memorials to World War I, local memorials to World War II have had as their theme ‘a living memorial’. Community centres, and sports grounds have curried more favour than stone obelisks or brick entrance gates. But for the National Memorial one could not have expected us to have developed sufficiently to wish for anything else than what we are to have—a great pillared hall of memories in concrete and stone. Designs have been published showing lofty halls flanking the Carillon in front of the Dominion Museum. As a formal classical composition in two dimensions it appears to adhere to most of the rules. But I seriously question whether the architects have given sufficient study to the scheme in perspective. If we remember that the site is a steep one sloping up from Buckle Street with long nights of steps to the Carillon and up again to the Museum, we will realise that the design can never be seen in front elevation as it has been shown. It can be seen only from below, reducing the height of the main Museum building. The serious weakness of the design is, I fear, that the new structure will almost hide the main building and gain undue prominence. The whole group is fairly complete now and there is scarcely space for further structures on the main axis. I should like to see a perspective or model before I am convinced that the estimated £250,000 is to be spent to good effect.

Bright to Cloudy.

By now entries for the Government's housing competition will have been judged. Congratulations to the winners and may their ideas get further than the walls of Bellamy's. Pardon my pessimism, but I don't see much hope of this unless times have changed since the last competition was held to solve the housing problem. Anyway, people ask, has the Government's Housing Division not been producing bright ideas on the subject since 1936 that it is now necessary to appeal to the public for them? I should have thought that at this stage a clear-sighted nation-wide policy would do more.

Fair to Fine.

The long-delayed Town Planning Bill will be before Parliament this Session. If it goes through as an Act it will replace the existing legislation which has, for the last 27 years, made town planning control available to local authorities. They haven't used it very much though many have tried. The trouble largely lay in the unwieldy method of central control placed in the hands of the Town Planning Board. This was a formidable obstacle to the wide adoption of town planning proposals. If, as we can expect, the new Act disbands the Town Planning Board in favour of more local responsibility then more planning activity should result. And if recent public statements about the need for foresight—planning, in other words—in the use of our agricultural land and the expansion of our towns mean anything, then the Act will be most welcome. Two things will be needed, however. Firstly, a greater respect among local authorities for the sort of assistance they use in preparing their plans—the sanitary inspector really isn't the man for the job. And secondly the amount of practical advice, research information and helpful surveillance the central government intends to make available to them. I feel that either through the Ministry of Works or, preferably, a special Ministry, the Government might now exercise a stronger hand in promoting town planning than it has so far.

Dull.

News that the Queen is to lay the foundation stone of the Wellington Anglican Cathedral reopens an issue that had appeared to be almost forgotten. So Wellington is to get its Cathedral apparently—for once a building has a foundation stone something is bound to follow sooner or later. The question this building once raised was the vexed one of architectural worthiness for its elevated purpose. It seems now that the criticism then showered on the ponderous design is to be quietly ignored. And no one will be surprised, though some will be very disappointed. It seems there is something indefinitely hereitcal in criticising a dull cathedral design, even though one may have the interests of the Church very much at heart in doing so. I should like, however, to raise a question which is strictly a matter of Church policy—is St. Paul's Pro-Cathedral really inadequate for the purpose? If the surrounding area were to have a fraction of the cost of the new Cathedral spent on it in providing an appropriate setting, wold not this fine old building embellish the City in a manner impossible to the proposed new structure?