Town Hall Site

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29265, 25 July 1960, Page 3

Town Hall Site

Sir, —I commend your editorial on the town hall project. Since my letter was printed on June 30, I have investigated the Latimer square area; and . I have found it inadequate for a metropolitan headquarters. Not only would all trees have to be removed, but the hall would have to be built right over and above Worcester street, to provide the same area as in Cambridge terrace. With regard to the Canterbury Club building, I support your very terse observations. Until recently, when they tried to “sparkle” it up with some fresh paint, it was one of the dreariestlooking structures in the whole city. At the same time, I would prefer a judgment in equity, as the best of all settlements.— Yours, etc., R. M. THOMSON. July 23, 1960.

Sir,—Without a decision having been reached about the future of the Canterbury Chib, it is difficult to appreciate the council’s present intention. Cr. Griffiths apparently holds the astonishing view that citizens generally are incompetent and therefore not . worthy of being heard on this subject. If, as Cr. Hay believes, the needs of the next 100 years require to be considered, it is all the more reason why the community at large, .who are invited to do the paying, should be- consulted atpbn

a controversial issue involving extraordinary expenditure. There is as yet no reason to justify Cr. Skellerup’s assertion that the club’s membership is standing in the way of 151,000 people. The town haM site controversy appears to have become another case of history repeating itself, although not in the same way. The other was the McDougall Art Gallery site.—Yours, etc., ANALYSIS. July 22, 1960.