The Press SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1953. University Site

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27191, 7 November 1953, Page 6

The Press SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1953. University Site

■The question of the future location of Canterbury University College was properly raised and debated in the House of Representatives on Wednesday. Notwithstanding the assertion of the member for Avon, ,this is a proper subject for Parliamentary consideration, first because the provision of educational services is the business of Parliament, and (Second, because Parliament cannot be indifferent to the effect upon the 'community of the policies—in education as in everything else—which it sanctions. And since the i Government of the day concurred in the Canterbury College Council’s (decision to move from the present ; central site to Riccarton, a great (deal of evidence has accumulated to I show that this would be good neither for the university nor for the city of which it is a vital and integral part. It is to be regretted that the debate amounted to little more than a statement of personal opinions. Much of the argument for [the transfer to Riccarton was 'irrelevant; for the inadequacy and | unsuitability of the present buildiings is an argument for new buildings, not for a change of site. Not enough attention was directed to the really relevant points—that contrary to earlier assumptions, land is available, at far from exorbitant cost, for expansion about the present site; and that the transfer must take far longer, divide the college far longer, and cost very much more than anyone could have foreseen. It is fair to say that many of those who acquiesced in the decision to move to Riccarton did so because they had a mistaken and wholly unrealistic picture of the alternatives. On the one hand they saw the present college, congested within its

out-of-date permanent buildings and its weird assortment of temporary ones; on the other hand they saw a prospect of fine new buildings in beautiful and spacious grounds. The true picture would be far different —perhaps, tatter a lapse of some years, one or two fine new buildings on the broad Riccarton acres, and all the rest of the growing university still huddled within its present site—perhaps, even, a contracting site—and still glad to make use of the present ramshackle buildings. And unless capital becomes available sooner and more freely than anyone now has a right to expect, this might be the true picture not for a few years or even 10 or 20, but perhaps half a century and more.

The most regrettable feature of the debate, however, was the failure to seek some method of resolving the controversy by an appeal to sound and objective principles. Members of Parliament were quick to deny that any of their number have a monopoly of wisdom on this question. This is true in a wider context. New Zealand has had little enough experience of the planning and siting of universities, still less of re-planning and re-siting. But the problems of both are very familiar and very well understood in older lands; and a leading university planner from Britain or America could no doubt be engaged to report on the rival sites for Canterbury College. Parliament on Wednesday missed an opportunity to impress on the Government that it should not deny itself, the university, and the people of Christchurch, the benefit of knowledge and experience that are not available in New Zealand.