CITY OF THE FUTURE.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1885, 20 October 1913, Page 3

CITY OF THE FUTURE.

; — STEEL & CONCRETE MUST COME. AUSTRALIA'S OPPORTUNITY. Tlie Federal capital Architect, tho manfrom America, Mr. Walter Burley Grifim, believes that architects have gone all wrong for thousands of years, llicy Jiavo all been looking back to the ideals of Greece, or, at least, of mediaeval Europe, when they should havo been taking a leaf out of engineering, and using thejr own brains to build somo thing to meet tho needs of this present country and time. And in Australia's very insularity, ho says, lies hope, in that wo may leavo off following Europe and\dovelop a style of our own. All this was said at a meeting of tho Institute of Architects, summoned specially to meet Mr. Griffin, in Sydney last week. The attitude of town planning -upon which he preferred to dwell, said Mr.. Griffin, was homogeneity. What rational way was' there by which we might obtain homogeneity in our towi\sP It was an absolute requisite. It wasvhopeloss to attempt in the old way to build up a "town beautiful" with the selected units taken from this, that, or tho other style at tho will of the architect or the owner. There was something wrong with our development that had for the last 400 years prevented the reaching of a homogeneous styleof building. What we had was just a juxtaposition of diverso elements that worried each other. This question of homogeneity—was really a radical one, and to' tackle it, we must go to the thing which was supposed most to characterise our civilisation—democracy. There we should find tho answer we sought. From any other standpoint the problem would be impossible. Thero could be no cornpulsorily enacted style. Human nature would prevent that and tell each of us what sort of expression to givo to tho buildings we had to create. But wo might get a unity and homogeneity by going to the very bottom of any common feeling wo possesses. In architectural matters wo had all ail intuitive appreciation of simple combinations in time and space. Architecturewas not, as he understood it, a literary matter at all, much as some people might like so to treat it. It was not legitimately an intellectual pursuit. It was an art, which must appeal directly to tlie soul, just as music did. A Greek ideal was not our own, and in setting out to express it, we were really after what suited somebody else. It was tho conception of a few who had had certain advantages, which wo had to carry out, and naturally tho peoplo generally could not understand it, and lost interest in it, and it wa3 left,to a priestcraft of its own. Primitive man had conceived beautifully in architecture, and civilised man had not. Not that our civilisation had cut us ofE from the appreciation of beauty, for in modern music wo had a striking example of a development far in advauco of anything primitives man v/as capable of. But civilisation had been held back too much by dogma. In religious matters we wero getting rid of it, but in architecture it still prevailed. The engineer was not so hold back, and ho had, therefore, been able to get away ahead of the architect. The engineer did not look back into the past history for ail example of a locomotive or an aeroplane ; he developed these things to moot tho conditions of our own time, using his natural intelligence. And ir we approached architecture in a similar way we might produce an architecture which would liavo tho homogeneity pos-sessed-by .engineering,-. .. .Not that our engineering' standards 1 wero not dynamic; they changed every day. But wo could sco that engineering was advancing, whereas architecture did not advance. That was because wo imagined that the, highest architectural ideal existed somo thousands of years ago, or 400 years ago, in ancient of in mediaeval Kurops. We had not even looked to Asia, where,.there*, existed other standards, which might hr.vo been equally suitable to us, aiid as inapplicable to modern conditions. We must admit that, within tho limitations imposed by the attempt, the automobilo and tho ferry boat were creations of beauty. Without any effort in this direction, in meeting their own problems, they nad necessarily become so. It was tho same in the case of buildings, in which the owner had been obliged, through motives of-economy, to restrict the architect; and in warehouses of the (theoretically) unexposed sides ot skyscrapers there was'often really impressive construction. Tlie architect had then been more successful in prd-. portion to his lack of eifort. The contrast/ between the fronts and backs of buildings was not'alwajs to the advantage of the front. It represented a dishonesty which was as bad and revolting in architecture as in any other aspcct of life. And tlie imposition upon us of ancient styles and ideals .was also dishonest. This losson was one that might well bo taken to heart in Australia at the present time, when many Australian architects were looking towards America, and students were being sent over there. There were many good things to be learnt in America, but there were perpetuated out here thb dishonest systems that had existed,for 400 years, and of which the misuse of steel and concrete was a flagrant instance the proper development of architecture in Australia would simply bo held back. "You have," 'Mr. Griffin declared, "a cleai} slate out here, and these new forms aro bound to come. They will be dictated, among other motives, by those of economy, and the rising prices of land. "Closely related to architecture is gardening, and Australia, from the impressions I have gathered in tho delightful trips throughout this country, offers a field in this respect which is probably unequalled in the'world. For tho climate, while so adapted to this northern race, at tho same time enables that race to express itself as only southern .peoples, of perhaps more sluggish temperaments, havo dono before. I mean by' 'sluggish' not emotionally so, but sluggish in intellectual activity, and in material progress. Tho house, which goes to mako up 99 per cent of tho city of the future, is tho unit as to which wo have first to develop our homogeneity of style. Here America shows most hopeful prospects, and ■ hero you may find ideas .perhaps moro national than thoso of moro pretentious structures. "You Australians," Mr. Griffin continued, "aro modest—(laughter)—excessively so. I have heard somo Australians confess an inferiority which docs not exist.) (A voice in'tho audience: "Thanks!") You fail in many respects to appreciate the tremendous advantages you havo over tho rest of tho world, and. which are likely to keop you towards a uniformity which tho rest of tho world does not possess. Coming from a country which is tho nearest parallel to yours, I can easily many of theso advantages. We havo iicweloped out of that respect for Europe—carried, I feel, too far—which you aro apt to accord just now. But we wero closer to Enropo than you are, and it is to be hoped that the insularity of Australia will. bo a factor in throwing 'off tho shackles of that Jpoint of view. This applies to both town planning and architecture. These two cities of yours, Sydney and Melbourno, express moro of tho actual /-development of health and comfort in city life tban any cities in tho rest of the world. You peoplo as a whole havo more freedom of outdoor life and more general comfort than are found in other cities. It would be well, therefore, to look to possibilities here, rather than to other cities, or to books, for the development of the city of tlie future,"