THE NEW PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1248, 5 October 1911, Page 4

THE NEW PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.

The awards of tho gentleman «-/)- pointed to decide between the various competitors who forwarded designs for the new Parliamentary Buildings liave provoked a good deal , of : - adverse comment. No doubt it will bo said, and quite rightly, that whatever the awards might be there was certain to be some dissatisfaction, but this fact affords no guarantee that there is not real ground for complaint. Indeed, it is quite evident from a very cursory examination of the plans that the conditions attached to the competition have been departed from in more than ono instance by those who shared in the prize money, and that explanation is called for in several important directions. It will be recalled that when tho decision of the Government respecting the conditions of the competition was under discussion in April last protest was made against the Government Architect being permitted to compete. One architect, referring to the matter in the columns of The Dominion, . contended that tho Government should either havo relied entirely upon its own ■architects or debarred them altogether from the competition. As things now stood, tho Government men had access to information that outsiders could not possibly get near. Tho ' Government architects were in touch with officials who wore to them "Jones," "Brown," or "Smith," although to outsiders they were inacccssiblo behind. barriers of official reservo. It was no use ignoring these things, said tho architect abovo-mwi'tioned, they were bound to affect tho result of tho competition. Moreover, tho Government men, in order to prepare their desiirns, must work upon them in time that had been bought and paid for by the public. To suggest that they should prepare their designs in their own spare time, by way of recreation, was idle. No private firm would tolerate such a thing for a moment. If a man sat up half a nig'ht working on competitive designs, ho would bo of little service in his office nest inorniujj.

Now that the Government Architect has won two out of the four prizes —the first and fourth—in the competition the public will perhaps better appreciate the reasonablchess of the protest made, especially in view of the fact that it is pretty obvious from the judge's report that it was not the superior merit of the Government Architect's designs that won him so large a share of success, but rather the fact that they met particular conditions required to a greater extent than the other designs. Who, then, informed the judge of what was required | We have no desire to detract from the merit of the Government Architect's work, but it must be obvious that as the person mainly responsible for the framing of the conditions attached to the competition, he must have had a very material advantage over the other competitors. What is of equal importance is the fact that to a certain extent the judge probably had to rely on official guidance from the Public Works Department in matters of detail, and that guidance would no doubt bo in conformity with the ideas held by the Government Architect and embodied in his designs. An outstanding feature of the competition is the fact that it would seem that none of the designs of merit can be carried out for the amount fixed as the limit of cost. Another point of importance is that the rules laid down for the guidance of the judge in making his awards appear to have l>cen departed from in material directions._ Designs which encroach into forbidden area have been awarded prizes, while in one case at least the judge has on this ground ruled out a design which appears to have otherwise won his high respect. There are other points which call for explanation, and it is to be hoped that members will insist on a thorough examination of the plans and a full explanation of the Government's proposals before anything is agreed to. Colonel Verkon, who judged the designs, is Tell,

qualified to do so, but we should like to know more definitely the restrictions imposed on him in forming his judgment—Uiafc is as to the conditions required to be met—and why departure was made from the published conditions and _ prizes awarded in cases which plainly ignored those conditions. The general opinion amongst architects who have seen the plans appears to be that the work cannot be carried out satisfactorily in accordance with any of the successful designs for the price stipulated; also that the ground available for the new building could be better utilised than is possible under tho conditions laid down, and a- large saving thus made in the cost of the building. We know what happoned over the Government's estimate for the Hutt ltoad and railway improvement work—it cost the country more than three times the amount originally stated. On appearances, it would not be surprising to witness a similar experience with the new Parliament Buildings unless members probo this matter thoroughly!