Road Through The Gardens?

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31830, 7 November 1968, Page 10

Road Through The Gardens?

Sir, —Hats off to the old Coats off to the new. Mr Guthrey’s wonderful idea of making it possible to drive through our city’s gardens will enable the elderly to enjoy seeing the progress of many trees they have seen planted therein, and give great pleasure to many folk unable to walk. Let the council progress in sharing this isolated beauty spot.—Yours, etc.,

NAN FLORANCE. November 6, 1968

Sir, —Mr Guthrey may well take a “thin edge of the wedge” optimism from your editorial advocating cars through the gardens one day a week. Even this exception would involve the provision of unsightly car-parking facilities. While your suggestion has definite merit regarding the elderly and infirm, it has no merit if it encourages ablebodied degenerates, whether they be citizens or tourists, to drive through the gardens. To the extent that his “progressive” plans are touristorientated, Mr Guthrey should be wary of exposing himself to accusations of self-interest. The interests qf Christchurch a.njl. thr interests of the tourist industry will not always coincide.—-Yours, etc.,,.- . ’ , 1 R. J. CAIRD. ' November 6, 1968. Sir, —The proposal is bold and responsible. Those who oppose the road should recognise that their selfishness might cost a lot of happiness to other people. Aged and lame persons have little chance at present to see the Botanic Gardens and they stand to benefit greatly from a slow drive through the centre. Many tourists and visitors to the city have only a short time with us and are usually deprived of seeing what is certainly one of the prettiest parts of the city Those who feel the pressure to get away from life will find the gardens will still. be large enough for tbem to find a quiet spot.—Yours, etc., R. M. O’GRADY. November 6, 1968.

Sir, —While the rest of the world plans to put people before vehicles, Mr Guthrey hastens to turn the clock baeK for Christchurch. Public apathy, nurtured by newspaper monopoly, gives ns minority municipal government serving sectional interests, and the Botanic Gardens could be turned into a Seth Newell memorial speedway if it would be good for business. The obsolete hospital complex, which should be banished to an area where parking is available, is still expanding and currently disfigures the Avon, and, white Christ's College has its own set/ of traffic lights even on its quiet preserve of Roll’s-

ton Avenue, Hagley High School pupils do not even merit a pedestrian crossing for park access. Too much of the park area has been reserved too long for too few. —Yours, etc., VARIAN J. WILSON. November 6, 1968

Sir, —The moderation of the Mayor’s plans for commercialisation of the Botanic Gardens astounds me. I had

honestly never realised that there were so many thousands of deprived, legless people in Christchurch. But why stop at a road? Why not ban all those cumbersome pedestrians, and have a twolane motorway leading to a large, revenue-producing hotel in the rose gardens (demolish that costly Cuningham House). Hydrofoils could be used on the Avon and a carsales could be opened by the intended car park. The utilitarian possibilities are bou.idless. Shame upon our forefathers for imagining that the people of Christchurch would want a place of peace and beauty to walk and sit in!—Yours, etc, RICHARD BENZIE. November 5, 1968

Sir, —The new Mayor has certainly stirred up a hornet’s nest by his progressive suggestion to open the Botanic Gardens to vehicular traffic. Unlike many overseas gardens, our beautiful gardens have not ample room and are not suitably planned to take a procession of motor-cars On the other hand, most motorists, especially those with families, would support adequately increasing the free parking area now adjoining the garden; .near the children’s playground and tea kiosk, with an entrance from Riccarton Road.—Yours, etc.,

REG. H. STILLWELL. November 6, 1968.

Sir,—l knew as soon as the Mayor (Mr A. R. Guthrey) suggested that the Botanic Gardens should be open to motor-cars there would be the usual Canterbury clicking of tongues. So many people here do not like change in anything and yet other cities and towns in New Zealand have proved that this idea is a success and many more can enjoy the beauty of the gardens. 1, for one, with elderly parents, welcome Mr Guthrey’s suggestion and hope it will not be filed away and forgotten.—Yours, etc.. J. SMITH. November 6, 1968. Sjr,—Hands off the Botanic Gardens! Besides being a sanctuary for birds, the gardens are the only quiet and beautiful sanctuary for mothers, children, and young people where a few hours without the worry of traffic and noise can be spent. Beauty cannot really be appreciated when viewed from a motor-car, and if people are too lazy and uninterested to walk, then why worry about them? For elderly folk who cannot walk it would help if the council made half a dozen wheel chairs available. Provision for a new library is, I believe, a part of the civic centre plan, but the suggestion that a new and more accessible art gallery be built is constructive. A site could perhaps be made available in the centre.—Yours, etc., R. J. GLEN. November 6, 1968,

Sir, —Once it was Hagley Park. Now Christchurch’s equally-famous beauty spot, the Botanic Gardens, comes under threat of motor encroachment, and from, of all persons, our newly-elected Mayor. Let Mr Guthrey stick to his airport and car-parks there, and leave the Botanic Gardens alone. They were meant, and must be kept, as a place of quiet and restful beauty, a haven from the hurly-burly of modern motor traffic. Mr Guthrey would have a slow speed for his Botanic Gardens traffic. We already have this in Christchurch—3o miles an hour—but is Mr Guthrey so naive as to imagine it is observed, or would be on the fine, broad walks of the Botanic Gardens? Motors’ speeds and hazards of 1968 are such that they must be kept out of the gardens. Otherwise, what is all this talk of road safety?—Yours, etc., CAM. November 6, 1968.

Sir, —Seth Newell confuses parks with gardens. The Botanic Gardens, Kew, progenitor of Christchurch’s, are

not in a London park. Is it possible to corner, simultaneously admire the azaleas, and plead not guilty to a charge of not keeping a proper look-out? The traffic department may consider rubber-necking in the gardens improper, thus leading to a collision of committees. If prosecutions were proceeded with, an outcry to straighten driveways might arise, involving the hacking down of once immemorial trees. Although free exhalation of carbon monoxide, inhaled or absorbed in the rose garden, might save insecticide, rental pedicabs powered by garden experts would produce revenue. If ratepayers ever subsidise a sight-seeing bus and driver trained in horticulture and paying two union fees, flower beds should be spared the side-on exhaust positioning. George 111 started something if he were ever carried round the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, in a sedan chair.—Yours, etc.,

A. B. CEDARIAN. November 6, 1968.

Sir, —Our new Mayor proposes to open the Gardens to the motor-car. I say, in all humility, please God keep the stinking automobile out of one of our last refuges. I own a car, but my legs still work well enough to carry me 200 yards or so.—Yours, etc.,

ANTI-AUTO. November 6, 1968.

Sir;—lt was with disgust that I read this morning Mr Guthrey’s statement that he hoped the reserves committee would allow vehicles to drive through the Botanic Gardens. Does he not realise that it is with great relief that people leave the noisy, dusty, smelly roads to amble through that green and beautiful place? Please, Christchurch people, rally round now and stop this insane suggestion before we lose the one place in which we can be at peace, to listen to the song of the birds, and admire nature at its best.— Yours, etc., GARDEN-LOVER. November 5, 1968.