Transport Board Divided On Square Development

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30831, 17 August 1965, Page 9

Transport Board Divided On Square Development

The proposed multi-storey parking building on the old tramway sheds site in Cathedral square found the Christchurch 1 ransport Board divided when it met yesterday.

An hour-long debate ended ■ In a decision to make another approach to the City Council about erecting such a building if the air-space above a bus barn were made available to it—but not before Mr S. E. Boanas had voiced opposition. All board members, including Mr Boanas. were agreed on the need for a new administrative building on the present Transport Board building site. Both the chairman (Mr J I R. Smith) and Mr E. J Brad-; Khaw urged the fullest de- 1 velopment of the board’s whole Cathedral square site i It was, according to the City ; Engineer (Mr P. G. Scoular), the No. 1 parking-building site in Christchurch, said Mr Smith. “[ think he is right” he added. Mr Bradshaw said it would be ’‘criminally irresponsible” not to develop the site to its fullest extent—“and that means going up to the allowable limit in height and thereby providing very valuable office space for letting. "If the City Council is not interested in undertaking the parking-building project, then I feel that this board has a public obligation to do it” Mr Bradshaw said. Mr Boanas, who described himself as “the odd man out” on the matter, said he thought there was not yet sufficient pressure of parking to warrant the building. “I am not in favour of the parking building," he said. “It is not our province to build it, and it is highly debatable whether it would be profitable. “I must differ with you on this matter,” Mr Boanas told Mr Bradshaw. “I am sorry about this, because 1 know you are so keen on it. But 1 would not be honest with myself if I supported it." The three Labour members of the board—Messrs R. Jones and H. E. Denton, and Mrs L. E. Macfarlane—expressed general agreement on the need for redevelopment of the Cathedral square site, although Mrs Macfarlane said

she “again had doubts” about the board erecting a parking building. Sub-Committee Report It was considered that the board’s offices should remain in Cathedral square, rather than be placed on the old brewery site in Falsgrave street—to be developed into an open-air parking site for buses, said the budding subcommittee's report. “On the question of an office-cum-parking building our valuable site in Cathedral square should be developed, in the best interests of the public.” the report said “It is essential that the board retains the bus-barn facilities in the Square, because it is essential to its efficient traffic operations. “The sub-committee considers that the provision of parking buildings is a function of the City Council, and it feels that the council should again be approached to see of it would undertake the parking building if the sky space above the barn Is made available to it, and that the board build the office building on the site for its own requirements, as well as for letting, in accordance with statutory rights in the 1927 Christchurch Tramway Amendment Act.” The chairman said it was hoped to meet the City Council as soon as possible to see whether it would take over the “sky space.” “If they are not interested, I am going to say I think we should proceed,” he said. Mr Bradshaw said that on first thought parking buildings in Cathedral Square were “unthinkable." But the proposed building would be “unobtrusive, and practically unseen.” It would be hidden from view by the present Transport Board building—or its replacement —and by the Government Buildings. As a parking site, with three-direction access, it was a most valuable public asset, Mr Bradshaw said, and should be developed accordingly—to its fullest extent.

Mr Bradshaw said he would be happy to see the City Council acquire the air space over the bus bam “for no consideration whatever,” apart from reimbursement to the board of architectural, and other such incidental, expenses. “Proceed Itself” If necessary, the board should proceed with the building itself—in which case the whole of the metropolitan area would stand any initial loss, through the board’s rating, and reap the benefit of subsequent profit. “Either the whole metropolitan area pays and receives, or the City Council area of the city—that is the only difference I see between the board or the City Council erecting the building,” Mr Bradshaw said. Mr Boanas, expressing opposition, said the site would not depreciate in value if there were no building on it. Looking ahead 10 or 15 years, the City Council might by then be forced itself to approach the Transport Board to put a parking building on it. Mr Denton pressed for action on a new administrative building, and general site development. “We must get rid of our heap of bricks, iron and rubble—that is all it is,” he said. “This is the worstdesigned building in Christchurch. I mean that.” When the building sub-com-mittee had inspected the lower floors, they were “rather surprised” at what they found, Mr Denton said. (The board meets in a room on the second floor.) “And we were very much taken aback when we reached the cafeteria,” Mr Denton said. Mr R. G. Brown said the debate had been “all good talk. “It’s a waste of time talking any more,” he said. “The only thing to do is to go to the City Council and get their yes or no.” “Then let us gather together and say: ‘Where do we go from here?’ ” Mr Brown said. The chairman then put the sub-committee’s recommendation, for a second approach to the City Council, to the vote. It was carried on the voices. A sub-committee comprising the chairman, Mr Bradshaw, and the board’s general manager (Mr J. F. Fardell) was appointed to meet city councillors on Thursday.