554 PKOCEEDINGS OF SECTION H. 



the debatable question has arisen upon a height restriction. 

 Although the State Government could never find an opportunity 

 to take in hand a badly-required revised Building Act, it can 

 find time to pass a measure dealing with this secondary matter 

 cf the height of buildings, and has now by statute fixed a maxi- 

 mum of 150 feet, measured from pavement upwards, dealing itself, 

 through one of its Departments, with all projected buildings of a 

 height from 100 feet upwards, and leaving it to the municipal 

 council to deal with those under 100 feet. 



Two building authorities have therefore come into being over 

 a matter that clearly should rest with the municipal council alone. 

 The wisdom of all this is very questionable, and, judging from 

 the public knowledge of the surrounding circumstances, one cannot 

 avoid the doubt that the situation has been made, not so much 

 ii the public interest, but that the statute has been aimed solely 

 at a newspaper politically opposed, on general grounds, to the 

 present Government, which was preparing to erect a building- 

 exceeding in height the limit now fixed. 



The subject is a controversial one, but I am not aware it is 

 not a proper one for discussion at the present conference. The 

 fcture appearance of the principal Australian cities must be the 

 result of present policy, and this must be laid down only after 

 deliberation, and on a consensus of opinion of those able to speak. 

 Such a step was not taken in this case. 



My own view is that the comparative conditions and prospects 

 of population and wealth, but at the same time of the distribu- 

 tion of Australian interests among at least six maritime cities, 

 with similar conditions in New Zealand, are such modifying 

 factors as will never induce the result of sky-scrapers as seen in 

 New York to-day, where all questions of wealth and concentration, 

 with an enormous population behind, are accentuated to an enor- 

 mous extent beyond v*^hat is likely to occur with any of the Aus- 

 tralian seaports. It is reasonable to judge that the requirements 

 and expectations of these cities will make their own limitations, 

 and that the intrusion of the real "sky-scraper" into the sky- 

 line of our cities is immeasurably far off. 



Excessive land taxation by Commonwealth and civil authori- 

 ties would appear to be more likely agents in inducing excessive 

 building on a small area than the legitimate requirements of the 

 community. The new legislation has seized the shadow and missed 

 the substance, and in its haste to control is faulty, inasmuch as 

 it has omitted to lay down regulations regarding the external 

 design of a building which may in all probability stand in lofty 

 isolation 



I think it quite possible that public sentiment has been raised 

 against the erection of lofty buildings promiscuously in a city, 

 not so much because of their height, but because the eye and 



