BOND STREET

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 113, 10 February 1928, Page 10

BOND STREET

QUESTION OF AESTHETICISM ARISES BUILDINGS AND SECTIONS DISCUSSED CITY COUNCIL APPROVES PLANS Approval of a number of small subdivisions in Farish Street was asked of the City Council last night by Bond Street, Ltd., and granted only after a long debate. Councillor M. F. Luckie, chairman of the By-laws Committee, said that the average frontage of the sections would b e2O feet and the depth 30 feet, which was ample for a lock-up shop. The frontage of one section was 18mt. 7in. Their past subdivisions had been residential, but this area was useful only for commercial purposes. The Mayor (Mr. G. A. Troup), whose question had provoked Councillor Luckie’s explanation, said that lie had been wondering whether the time bad not come when the city should have some say in the architecture of its streets. They allowed buildings to be constructed one and a half times the width of the street. If the street was •12 feet wide, they would have the structures going up 63 feet. Could they imagine a lot of buildings in the city less than 20 feet wide and over 60 feet high ? Councillor R. Semple: Ridiculous. Councillor C. D. Morpeth: They would look like a lot of chimneys. "A Decent Size.” They should insist on decent-sized sections, said Councillor G. Mitchell. It was impossible for decent buildings to go up on 18j feet of frontage. Councillor Semple: I suggest that these proposals should be handed to the town planner for a report. Councillor R. McKeen: They want fifteen subdivisions in that one block. This would mean that we would have a hideous street with buildings of all sizes. Councillor T. A. Hislop: The matter has already been before the' town planner. Councillor Semple: Does* he approve of this thing? Councillor Hislop: He doesn’t; but it’s a matter of economic principle. If a man is to get a return from his land he will build accordingly. The buildings were already there, and all that was proposed was to put new fronts on them, said Councillor \V. H. Bennett. For the Future. The Mayor said that he was of opinion that if they had the powers something could be” done. They must look to the future. Councillor Mitchell: Do the city engineer and town planner not recommend this subdivision? Mr. Troup: They do not. Councillor Hislop: For architectural reasons. Councillor Morpeth: We should ask the advice of the city solicitor. The city solicitor (Mr. J. O’Shea) stated that the by-law gave the council general powers to refuse subdivisions of less than 40 feet. The Mayor: If we prevent people from building, would we have to pay compensation ? Mr. O’Shea: There is a suggestion of compensation in the Act. Councillor H. D. Bennett said at first sight the plan did not appeal to him, but when the whole matter was discussed he came to the conclusion that they were doing the right thing in approving the plan. The buildings would certainly be better than those i which hitherto existed there. The Mayor said the building permit had been issued. Councillor B. G. H. Burn said the plan submitted showed splendid buildings, but if one man was to buy one section and erected a building of a certain height, and another purchaser built one of another height, they could not help it. On the plans shown he had approved it.

Councillor Meadowcroft said if. the buildings were to be the same height, they would conform to the aesthetic idea, but he did not wish to see in Parish Street what had occurred in Willis Street.

The citv engineer said that they had issued the permit, but it was for tlie council to say whether they were to give the right to the owners to build on sucii sections, buildings of any or varied height. His objection was from the structural point of view, as it might lead in the future to the erection of a series of inverted cigar boxes,

Councillor M. F. Luckie said that the economic demand would dictate the class of building. There was no greater blunder than the one Councillor Meadowcroft had mentioned. He pointed out that the size of the sections had been reduced by the land the council insisted on getting before it approved of the scheme.

The plan was passed,' Councillors Mitchell, McKeen, Semple, and Aston dissenting.