Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

Mr. Connell
IN Reply
SIR-From the informative reply
(8/10/1953) by Mr. Lewis,
the builder of University House,
it is evident that he misunder-
stood my criticism of University
building schemes. He says the
structural sizes are the minimum
permitted under local regulations
That is not the point;
far from aiming, at minimum
standards of building, the best
that finances permit should be
the goal of the new University.
The question remains whether'
money that has been spent has
been wisely spent.
Mr. Lewis' letter raises new
doubts in this regard. He says,
of the new Medical School that
"no contract has ever been made"
sure.ly a haphazard way of
handling a construction estimated
at near by £1 million.
About the smaller items, such
V5 the 100-odd built-in wardrobes,
none of which will hold a suit of
clothes, he says nothing; are they
not below even the minimum
standards- hut he must be thanked
for pointing out that the can
-full heating system, which at
present cannot beat the houses
built around it, will become one
comical to work when more houses
are ultimately built.
Not being a builder, r must at
kept his word on the cheapness
of the materials used, and probably
Um University staff showing
mc the solid columns on the -hill
side, reaching from' ground to
roof, were misinformed on this.
But why could he not, with his
great knowledge, answer my
chief criticism that a modern
Australian- building and not a
conventional brick box would
have been more suitable to the
union's central!
R. G. CONNELL
Ainslie.
$