Publicly accessible
URL: http://www.nzetc.org/collections.html
copyright 2007, by Victoria University of Wellington
All unambiguous end-of-line hyphens have been removed, and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line.
Some keywords in the header are a local Electronic Text Centre scheme to aid in establishing analytical groupings.
Volume 5, Number 4.
September-October 1953
Design Review is published bi-monthly by the Architectural Centre Inc., Wellington.
Letters and contributions should be addressed to the Editor, Design Review, P.O. Box 2460, Wellington, C.1., accompanied by a stamped addressed envelope.
The subscription rate is 10/- for six issues post free for one year, and should be sent to Design Review, P.O. Box 6402, Wellington, C.1.
Rates for advertising may be obtained on application to the Advertising Manager, Design Review, P.O. Box 6402, Wellington, C.1, or from accredited Advertising Agents.
Design Review is printed by The Garratt Printing Co. Ltd., Wellington. Blocks by Thompson Photo Engravers Ltd., Wellington.
We all have a housing problem. Some of us want to build, buy, or rent a house. The rest of us find that what we have costs us too much, is too small or too large, has too much ground to maintain or not enough open space, is too far from our work, too close to other people's. If our clothes suited us as well as the houses we live in, we would be a strangely dressed race.
Most people are aware of all this. The past few months have produced a National Housing Conference, a lower-cost house competition, the Wilson and Hammond houses, some more imported prefabs, a few private housing schemes, a drop in the rate of both public and private building, and a spate of words on such subjects.
The Conference was a serious attempt by the Government to find out causes and remedies, and if it was effective it deserved to be. Findings were generally sound, within the limits of the agenda, though often excessively cautious. In assessing the nature of the problem the Conference seemed to under-estimate the dangers to the national economy of unlimited subdivisions, and the proportion of people for whom the mortgaged or rented three-bedroom house in the suburbs is no answer. In suggesting solutions the Conference seemed over-concerned with minor financial manipulations and neglected the possibilities of efficient methods of construction, improved practice in siting, and variety of housing types.
We can only hope that the Government in framing and implementing a policy based on the Conference recommendations shows itself as vigorous and far-sighted as it would have us believe.
If the Conference was a qualified success, the lower-cost house competition was a qualified failure. Those entrants who were not deterred by the extraordinary conditions of the competition (which were in any case ignored by the judges) should have been warned by the publication, well before the closing date, of the two infamous houses under the names of two of the judges, Messrs. Wilson and Hammond. These two houses, despite the extensive publicity they received, contributed nothing to better housing in New Zealand. The Wilson “experimental” house clothed its ponderously conventional plan in bright paint, the bright paint of the Hammond “experimental” house clothed as bad an attempt at open planning as we have seen. Both houses made timid attempts to improve on State House detailing and trim, with just a little success.
The entries in the competition were generally disappointing. The most encouraging feature was the fact that the judges rated highly the sensible structural methods suggested by many competitors. It is now up to the State Advances Corporation, which in the past has discouraged every deviation from the State House norm, to support such improved building practice.
Apart from this hope, the competition as a means to producing good houses at less cost was a failure, and could hardly have been otherwise. A more effective competition would have been to invite collaborating teams of builders, architects, engineers, building component manufacturers, etc., to submit designs and tenders for the development of a large area, say at last 500 housing units. Then we might have got somewhere.
The Government has been trying to do just this with its 1,000 Austrian prefabs at Wellington and Auckland. But they seem to have failed again. The houses cost too much, and are poor in planning, detailing, appearance and siting. The fault does not appear to lie with the contracting firm.
On the other hand, some private building firms in New Zealand have been making serious and effective efforts to build houses atless cost. We believe that the housing problem could be met if our Government gave more encouragement to genuine enterprise and paid less attention to the unfounded fear of appearing to advocate the unorthodox.
The recent National Housing Competition was an attempt by the Government to foster interest in building good houses more cheaply.
It was unfortunate that the conditions neglected such important issues as prefabrication, pre-cutting, by-law revision and mass-production; perhaps it was thought that the Housing Conference would deal with these matters. The conditions in the design part of the competition related only to family houses built singly under present-day conditions. Thus it was largely a planning problem.
Design Review has inspected a number of entries, including the winning designs, and reports here some of the more interesting aspects of the plans.
Note the simple shape. No jigs outside or in—easy for the builder to lay out—no awkward angles for him to “fill in” or “patch up”. The square plan has the smallest perimeter—the least length of external wall. And the external wall is the expensive one with its foundation, weatherboarding, window joinery and the strength required to support the roof.
And it is easier and cheaper to build a simple roof.
Note “snug” retreat from general family activities.
(Patience and Gabites).
Note the small number of internal partitions in this plan.
Unless they are necessary to support the roof they have in most cases been left out—storage units do the necessary screening. These wardrobes and cupboards were required anyway—here they do a double job.
(D. E. Barry Martin, A. C. Vallenduuk and A. I. Van Melle).
The Government arranged the National Housing Conference to see what could be done about housing costs and the housing shortage. On the findings of the Conference future Government Policy is to be based. While the Government acted with courage and initiative in calling the Conference, its success will depend on the way those findings are acted upon.
The biggest hurdle for anyone wanting to build a house is money. There is a big gap between the amount you can borrow and the builder's price. The Conference made various suggestions:—
1. You can borrow up to 90% under the Government's mortgage guarantee scheme, with a limit of $2000. This figure is not high; the problem of bringing costs down to meet it remains.
2. You can get a cheaper section through subdivisions to be developed by Government and Local Bodies, sold at cost, and smaller than usual if you prefer.
3. You can lease a section and thus avoid a heavy drain on your available cash.
4. You can build it yourself, or perhaps just do the finishing work, and the Government will encourage lending institutions to help you save that way.
Now while these proposals will make it easier for you to finance the building of a low-cost house, where is the low cost house to come from? Various suggestions for reducing cost were put forward by the Conference, some good, some vague or inadequate, some likely to have more bad effects than good.
Smaller Houses—There was some suggestion of reducing the overall area of the house. We suggest that simply to subtract square feet from a house may be bad economics. The mere reduction in usable living space may not save much in initial cost and may seriously affect the value of the house. Careful planning to eliminate unnecessary space is a different matter, but again it is doubtful if this is the whole key to the problem of cost—it is however an essential starting point.
The Open Plan—From the effort to cut waste space some more adventurous architects have ben led to reconsider the way a family really uses a house. This has led to a freer relationship of rooms and the elimination of some expensive internal walls and corridors. But beware of ill-considered imitations! It is not sufficient merely to omit a piece of wall here and replace a door with a curtain there. It would be better to stick to the conventional rooms and corridors than turn the living spaces into pedestrian crossings through a misunderstanding of the principles of “open planning”. An example of such misunderstanding is the plan of the “Hammond” house.
Flexible Planning—Further planning ideas have resulted from the study of how a family uses and grows up in a house. One is to recognise that different parts of the house are increasingly used for several different purposes throughout the day, and that a dining
Here is a compact two bedroom house of 700 square feet for a young family.
As the family grows in number it needs more space—but not only sleeping space—it needs more space to live in and to play in. In this plan the addition is not just a bedroom stuck on; the enlarged house, by simple rearrangement gives more space to all the family activities affected.
(James A. Beard).
Here is a house which lets the sun into the right rooms at the right time. No hot sun in the kitchen when you are cooking but plenty in the living portions and enough in the bedrooms.
The road is shown at the northern end of the section.
But if the section you own is around the corner and therefore the house runs east and west, by transposing the rooms from one side of the house to the other the sun can still adequately warm the rooms requiring it.
(Rigby and Mullen)
room used on'y for meals or a bedroom planned only for sleeping with no provision for children playing, study, or just plain privacy, are uneconomical luxuries for most of us today. Similarly as the family grows up, its pattern of living changes and the house should be sufficiently flexible to provide for this.
Compactness and Simplicity—these are essentials for economical housing. They are also characteristic of the finest traditional houses of America and England. How different from the tortuously contrived assemblage of diminishing boxes that are so usual in New Zealand today!
Site Organisation—American methods of organisation of work on the site and delivery of materials as required, are probably the best in the world. The result is that a house costs the American artisan a much smaller proportion of his salary than a New Zealander has to pay. There is immense room for improvement here.
Modular Co-ordination—Most designs in the National Housing Competition together with the Hammond and Wilson houses, were planned to a 3ft. Oin. square grid which determined the position of the major walls and fittings. This 3ft. Oin. module is based on the maximum spacing of studs permitted under certain conditions by by-laws and is by no means ideal. It bears no relation, for example, to the 4ft. Oin. sheets of internal lining board commonly used. A positive step towards the reduction of site work and material wastage would be an investigation of manufacturer's sizes with a view to relating them to some common dimension or multiple of it. This is a job for the Building Research Organisation. Probable future developments would include extensive pre-cutting to suit the standard dimensions; the manufacture of structural panels using local materials and industrial production methods; prefabricated plumbing and electrical services and modular equipment, including windows, doors, storage units, etc.
The Conference discussed the much-needed co-ordination and revision of by-laws to facilitate improved building techniques. Many people have found that methods of construction in common use overseas (including the earthquake countries) are here disallowed by out-dated by-laws. We agree with delegates who suggested that by-laws should govern standards of performance and calculable strength rather than standards of practice. The latter could well be, as in England, the subject of a separate code.
The Conference recommended that a building research station be set up to examine and disseminate information on new materials and techniques. Who then is going to devise these new materials and techniques in the first place? Such enterprise should not be left to “the Government” but should come from the co-ordinated efforts of the industries, trades, professions and individuals concerned; all of us, in fact.
There is plenty of scope for research in new ways of using our local materials. Pinus (what about it, Forest Products?), concrete block, brick and other clay products, stabilised earth, synthetic sheet materials and plywoods come to mind, and all are worth considering if their use is on a wide enough scale to lower costs, and provided they can pass a fair durability test
Grouping plumbing together to keep costs low often makes an awkward house. Here, however, a better plan has come about through an imaginative placing of the plumbing unit. The pipes and drains are all together but the bathroom has been placed in the middle of the house. This gives spaces for the laundry and the entrance on either side, both being partially screened by the bathroom itself.
The kitchen is handy to the dining table and to the rest of the house. There is no need to hide this area completely, since nowadays the cook also looks after your children and the kitchen has become part of the liveable space.
(Brown and Fairhead).
A house need not stop at its external walls—its area can extend to take in the surroundings.
The garage and third bedroom here help to enclose an outdoor play space and the hedge has indicated a paved terrace for adult sitting in the sun.
(
In this plan, too, outdoor space has been considered. With the stoep or verandah you can shift chairs into the sun. A pleasant sheltered area of the house and garden in one.
(Rigby and Mullen)
We are very suspicious of the results of this suggestion. The Government proposes to encourage developers to build a large group of houses under a State Guarantee to buy back any left unsold. This simply seems to take the speculation (i.e., risk) out of spec. building. In order to avoid having dud houses left on its hands, the Government would naturally keep its eye on standards, and the resultant standards would be the same old obsolescent ones perpetrated by State Advances and the Housing Department. There would be little chance of competitive efforts to reduce costs by new planning and construction techniques leading to different but not inferior standards, if conformity to Government “standards” means certain profit and no risk.
There was a lot of talk about low output in man hours and the need, on the part of operatives, to “work harder”. The building industry is the least industrialised of all industries. This harping on “production” instead of “productivity” seems to be barking up the wrong tree.
There are three major aspects of the housing shortage, each requiring the attention of Government policy.
The answer is no doubt, to build more houses. But what sort of houses? Not everyone wants to live in a three-bedroomed house, and our national economy could not stand the consequent cost of transport and services and the loss of more and more of our arable land. And as the Public Service Journal said, “the Conference, obsessed with the idea that everyone “ought” to own their homes, was just impracticable.” Well, then,
the housing units we have are not used to the best advantage (single elderly people in large houses, families in flats). One answer is to provide for the single elderly people and the like who can't afford to build or who are afraid to subdivide. For the former, small rental cottages, flats and terrace or row houses. For the latter, amend the Tenancy Act. We leave that one to the politicians.
The available variety of types of dwelling does not correspond to the needs of the normal variety of people. For instance, over 40% of households in our cities consist of one or two persons. Few attempts have been made to provide for such people. The following figures speak for themselves (from “State Housing in N.Z.”).
Applicants for State Housing:
Types of State Housing Units built 1945–49:
We have gone into this question more fully elsewhere in this issue, but we were glad to see the Conference come out for a limited policy of flat building which may, we hope, lead ultimately to a more healthy diversification of our housing programme.
Is Warmer: Properly damp-proofed, it traps the natural warmth of the earth by preventing surface evaporation.
Is Draught-Free: No cold damp air under the house and through the floor boards.
Is Rot and Vermin Proof: No timber to deteriorate, no holes for stray animals and bugs.
Allows Variety of Finish: Any flooring at all—cork, asphalte, lino, rubber, all the patent tile sheet and trowelled floors, carpet, and even timber—can be laid over concrete.
Cuts out High Foundations: No steps, no elaborate foundations, the house hugs the ground rather than being propped above it.
Frees the Plan: All the rooms—bedrooms as well as living rooms, dining rooms, playroom, kitchen—can open to garden or lawn without steps, decks or built-up terraces—and no elaborate podium for the front door.
Is Easy on the Feet: You don't walk on bare concrete! A resilient floor covering or underlay makes a concrete floor easier on the feet than timber construction.
Is Cheaper: On a level site, or a site that can be easily bulldozed, a properly designed concrete slab is cheaper as well as better.
Ever been in a house with a sloping ceiling? No, not The attic bedroom kind that rushes past their ears, but the sort of thing we illustrate here. If you have, you will agree that the house is
Spacious: There is no by-law-minimum-8ft.-stud feeling, the height to the ceiling probably averages 9ft. and seems even more. The whole house seems larger. Often the ceiling sweeps over glass doors to enclose an outdoor terrace as part of the house.
Gracious: Some of the finest houses, both old and new, have a ceiling off the horizontal in one way or another. The changing height and direction seem to correspond to the various activities in the different parts of the house and room, and with skilful design the feeling may be elegant or down-to-earth, intimate or vast, formal or informal. There is an immense variety of finish possible, depending upon the pitch and complexity of the roof, upon whether you expose dressed and oiled or painted rafters or line underneath them, and upon the type of ceiling lining you use (oiled sarking, plywood, chipboard, paint, plaster, and so on).
Costs Less: This sort of roof saves money in two ways: 1. Much less elaborate roof construction—no separate rafters and ceiling joists—no maze of partitions necessary for structural support—you don't have to pay for space in the roof you don't use. 2. Higher average ceiling heights can still mean lower outside walls, consequently less cost.
At top, house at Takapuna, Group Architects. At bottom, house at Napier, Natusch & Son.
Above, the living room of a house in Takapuna by Group Architects. The fitting on the left, about half of which is shown, contains bookshelves, built-in radio, and two drop-leaf desks for writing and sewing, and also has games and toy cupboards accessible from the play space (at a lower level) behind. (See also the photograph at top of previous page.) Beyond the playspace are the three bedrooms, and to the right of the fitting just described can be seen high-up sliding doors to a big junk-space (suitcases, old mattresses, etc.), which is above the wardrobe and dressing-space in the main bedroom. On the right a block of kitchen cupboards screens the kitchen from the living room, while the glass in its upper part allows the display of favourite china and glassware. A mural by
Every house requires storage space; kitchen cupboards, bookshelves and other storage in living rooms, storage for games equipment and children's toys, wardrobes in bedrooms, coat cupboards, linen storage, storage for trunks and junk, for fuel, buckets, and bicycles. Most of us know the shortcomings of newly-built houses, and the inconvenient and makeshift ways these problems are later met.
Storage should be planned with the house.
Most walls in a house need not be used to hold up the roof—all that the usual heavy framing has to hold up is the wallpaper.
Well-finished storage units can be built in place by the carpenter, and cost appreciably less than a normal finished wall plus shop-bought furniture (which includes heavy retail profit).
Built-in storage is a better insulation against sound than a normal wall. It is most economical in space and versatile in use Its possible patterns of doors, shelves, glass, paint, plywood, paper, and so on give a character to the room, and the storage can extend to the ceiling as a full wall, or stop at any appropriate height to divide the space while allowing the continuity of the ceiling to increase the apparent size of the space.
Windows are not just holes in the wall to let in light and air. Above are a few of the many things to consider in designing windows in your new house.
A deck to sit out on and enjoy the view; wide eaves to give shade and protection; glass doors that extend the living rooms to include the deck and the view; these are all pleasant features of many new houses today, adapted to suit modern living from the early New Zealand verandah and french doors. This house is at Blockhouse Bay, Auckland; architect, Victor A. Youl.
Readers are Invited to Submit to Design Review any problems of design which may be of general interest. Ways of answering such problems will form the basis of a series of feature articles in future issues. The Editors cannot undertake to provide architectural services, but rather to illustrate general principles by particular examples. We are prepared to deal with aspects of design from beach cottages and lamp shades to traffic intersections and harbour bridges! Write to the Editors, DESIGN REVIEW, P.O. Box 2460, Wellington, C.1.
Know this place? It might have been your new house forty-odd years ago. Look over the trimmed hedge and beyond the flowering shrubs of a thousand suburban lawns, this house is as much part of our landscape as are the gorse and pine.
As frank as a music-hall ballad in its obvious gestures, the old house above is doing its best to be distinguished. The shingle-hung bay window, the tricked-out porch and the structurally pointless gable on the front end are all there to “distinguish” this house from the one next door. The one next door did the same things in a different order, and so it went on down the street.
Well at least people are more sane in their demands upon the external appearance of a new house today. Those mean and woody casements, those coloured leadlights of the old-timer above are largely a thing of the past, even if a tendency to build impassable french doors still lingers. So on the whole one might be tempted to say that today the small house relies entirely on its own merits, with a minimum of gesturing to the passer-by in an effort to distinguish itself. But this is not wholly true. While the area of glass in windows has without doubt increased and the great clutter of extraneous decoration almost disappeared, we often find that the temptation of the “street frontage” has been too great to resist. Against all logic of sunshine or view the ubiquitous “landscape” window, purblind with curtain or holland, peers toward the street in an effort to impress. So, too, the “front door”, protected by an utterly useless porch—a vestige of the ample old verandah—still clings to the street front because that is considered the proper place for it.
Well are these the things which will give character and that sought-after “distinction” to your new house?
Our feeling is that a house should convey primarily the impression that it is a fine and pleasant place to live in. With this aim most people will agree. But if you then try to convey it by using large areas of glass in such a position that it is necessary to draw the blinds for a large part of the day, then we think you have failed. Similarly the presence of a pompous little heap of steps up to a front porch is not so much an invitation as a positive discouragement to enter. Surely the impression of good living we are looking for is conveyed as much by suggestion as by what is openly stated on the front wall. The hint of generous living-room windows or doors opening on to a partly screened lawn or terrace is more attractive than an embarrassing exposure through a front window. A wide eaves, a pergola, or a verandah along the warm side of the house conveys a more ample sense of shelter and invitation than an unnecessary appendage on the street side.
In other words, we feel that there has been achieved a sort of negative virtue in the exterior of most small houses today. Much that was bad has been left off and by its omission the house has become a fairly sensible, uncluttered envelope to the plan. But the vital spark is still missing. What is necessary now is to take these various advances and turn them to more positive benefit in achieving grace and our old friend distinction.
Thus, without pretending to offer anything more than an attitude toward the design of a house we list the following as a set of aims:
Concentrate your large areas of glass where they will be most use. Shelter them above and screen the area they overlook.
Try to keep a simple regularity about the remaining “secondary” windows to avoid peppering the house full of holes.
Accept the low-pitch or flat roof for its positive merits in economy of structure and sheathing and forget about these silly references to shearing sheds.
Put your low pitch roof to work around the house by projecting it really well out where you need shelter—and don't hesitate to cut off unnecessary overhangs elsewhere.
Use whatever colour you like for the exterior but where changes of tone or colour are introduced see that the contrast created enlivens rather than flattens. Also observe that against the dark tones of glass in a window, white or something near it on the joinery sharpens the contrast and minimises the bulk of your woodwork.
Make the most of fences, trellises or walls to anchor the house, visually, to its site. As our houses get smaller and smaller so they need more help in trying to look at home on the ground. Here the use of a concrete slab floor helps to bring the height down and eliminate the slightly surprised air of many new houses.
For the rest, refinement and precision of structural detailing, grace of proportion and care in selection of materials, these are satisfied. We like to believe, that they are among the reasons for the continued existence of architects.
House at Takapuna by Group Architects
House at Lower Hutt by S.
House at Wellington by
Single-unit dwellings are ideal for the family of husband, wife and two or more children. But consider now the housing needs of the smaller family groups: the couple with only one child, the couple with no children at all, and the single person.
These are the people for whom little or no provision is made in the housing programme; yet they comprise over 40 per cent, of the population of our cities—almost one-half.
These are the people for whom a detached house standing in its own grounds is not necessarily the most practical proposition. Its maintenance is too costly in terms of time, money or ability.
These are the people who would be happy living in flats, maisonettes, or terrace houses, handy to shopping and entertainment facilities; with plenty of sunlight and fresh air, but without the unwanted responsibility of maintaining a large garden and a detached house; without the unnecessary expense of a large frontage and individual services.
Multi-unit housing development in the cities is as important to the economy of the country as a single-unit development in the suburban areas; such development has sometimes been carried out successfully in the past but it carries the stigma of the overcrowded slum with it. The need for welldesigned flats is more pressing than ever before and the people who need them most are least in a position to finance their erection. This must be a task for local or national government, or for the larger private investment agencies.
Elevator Apartment
Advantages.—Fine view—maximum services—opportunity for sociability—most economic use of all kinds of equipment—lots of space around building—proximity to play areas and nursery schools—economic use of land—allows concentration.
Disadvantages.—Dependence on elevator—if you wish to garden you must go, to community patches.
Flats—2 and 3 Storey.
Advantages.—Access to ground—little or no stair climbing—most shelter for your rent—private or community garden can be arranged.
Row Houses.
Advantages.—Economy in use of land, streets, utilities—private gardens—your “own four walls and a roof.”
Disadvantages.—Narrow gardens—difficulty of through-access to rear except through house.
Double Houses.
Advantages. — Added exterior openness.
Disadvantages.—More land and utilities for the same degree of real privacy.
Single Dwellings.
Advantages.—Many express preference for houses for family life—peace and quiet.
Disadvantages.—Highest cost—spreads population, making greater distances from shops, play areas and transport.
Above: Four unit houses in Lower Hutt
“The average occupancy figures reveal another important social phenomenon that is not perhaps as widely known as the modern fashion for smaller families. That is the number of older people who are occupying houses of family size … the building industry should not overlook the need and possibility of building houses that are perhaps more suited to the needs of older people, whose family responsibilities are past… .”
(The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Holyoake, 5/8/53)
Below left: Grey's Avenue Flats, Auckland
Below right: Berhampore Flats, Wellington
“The demand for well-designed large blocks of city flats in New Zealand's scheme of housing development seems to have been under-estimated…. There is a considerable number of people who prefer flat life. If modern blocks, after the style of the Dixon Street flats, were built the strain on the city's housing accommodation would be relieved and there would be a slowing up of the costly suburban sprawl… .”
(“The Dominion”, 10/8/53)
This is how the new package furniture comes to you. The arms, legs, dowels and webbing are neatly parcelled together with all necessary screws and tacks, glue and sandpaper.
Assembly is quick and easy with a hammer and screwdriver. The timber is selected pine and any finish can be applied from paint to clear lacquer or oil.
The illustration shows the parts of the chair on the opposite page, one of the range of the ‘Charm’ productions.
Confronted by the bare interior of your new house and with pockets nearly empty, furnishing can be a big problem. On these two pages we offer a few suggestions for cheaper furniture, based on the idea that reducing costs means doing some of the work for yourself. The work is not difficult, nor do you need to be a cabinet maker, and as most of us are craftsmen at heart there is much enjoyment to be gained.
Think twice about four or five piece suites if you have children. Wear and tear will mean covering all of them at intervals, while the loose chair will be found more useful in the room. A combination of divan and individual chairs will bring more flexibility and value.
If you are any sort of carpenter you can save money by building the storage units into the house before it is complete. They can be built as partitions or screens, assembling the parts as you want them.
A good idea has come forward in package furniture and some of the possibilities are illustrated on these pages. The idea is simple, you buy the parts and build them yourself. The parts available range from chairs and stools to cupboards and sink units.
Apart from package furniture, other cheap kinds can be had today, though probably not always living up to the finish of the more expensive. However, having been built for simplicity they are often well designed, and the small windsor chairs come into this category. A rasp and sandpaper will transform them into quite elegant chairs only requiring oil and polish or perhaps loosely covered foam rubber cushions. Their cost varies from 18 to 25 shillings.
For those more adventurous, why not watch the auction sales for sound simple furniture? You can always scrape the varnish off. If it is good timber it can be cleaned and oiled, if not it can be painted.
A new surface can be stuck on the badly handled table, and with the old chest of drawers a new top and sides can be built around the old drawers after dressing up with sandpaper or paint.
Here is a bedroom fitted with “Easybuilt” units constructed from parts to form storage cabinets. It is a good example of their use and also shows how flexible the unit system can be.
The range includes all sizes of drawers and cupboards with sink bench and bed units.
This the “charm” packaged living room chair in selected pine assembled from parts and available in cherry red, apple green, and cyclamen coloured webbing.
Price £3/157/- from Premier Products, Wellington.
The “charm” table and bookcase suitable for books, magazines or records; you assemble it yourself.
Price £5/5/- from Premier Products, Wellington.
A living-room cupboard unit showing the possibilities of assembling the Easybuilt units.
This example price £7/17/3 without the glass from Builders Hardware Ltd., Wanganui, and W. H. Long Ltd., Wellington.
An example of chest-of-drawer unit that can be assembled from Easybuilt parts.
The choice of drawer size and arrangement is yours as is the choice of handles.
This example price £12/3/9 from Builders Hardware Ltd., Wanganui, and W. H. Long Ltd., Wellington.
Listeners to a recent “Lookout” broadcast were probably startled to hear new Government legislation roundly described as “shocking”. The legislation referred to was the Town and Country Planning Bill, the speaker Mr. D. W. McKenzie, senior lecturer in Geography at Victoria University College. “Design Review” has invited Mr. McKenzie to set out here his views on this matter of vital national importance.
New Zealand's rising population must expand its agricultural production to feed itself and to maintain the country's world trade. The rise in general farm production is a matter of improving techniques, the research for which is inadequately supported by New Zealanders. One aspect of food production, the growing of vegetables, is in a critical position, for while population rises, the acreage under vegetables declines. This decline, reflected in soaring vegetable prices, is closely bound up with the expansion of housing on to veegtable-growing land, which is widespread in New Zealand. Only adequate planning of urban expansion will save our limited vegetable-growing soils for continued production.
The control of urban development in the national interest will receive a severe set-back if the Town and Country Planning Bill now before the House becomes law. The Bill does not demand that a community plan the wise use of its land, and even when the community does so plan, it does not provide that such a plan shall be approved by any competent body as being in the national interest. The people to be satisfied are in essence the people who make the plan. Provision for appeal against a plan virtually deals only with an individual who feels he is not justly done by. The contrast is revealing between such thoughtless “laissez-faire” use of our national heritage and the strict control which Britain exercises.
New Zealand should have such a body as a National Resources Board, to whom plans both large and small should be submitted, a board which is competent to assess what our resources are and how we should conserve them. The “go-as-you-please” attitude of the New Zealander is his greatest weakness; his Government in this Bill is pandering to this, and closing its eyes to the crying need for the conservation and wise use of our resources.