THE PRESS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1987. Looking twice at the tower

Press, 24 February 1987, Page 20

THE PRESS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1987. Looking twice at the tower

The exciting proposal for the building of a 167-metre tower in Victoria Square, and the prospect of its being a splendid tourist attraction, should not deter the Christchurch City Council from looking very hard at the scheme. First, the idea entails a dramatic change of gear in the replanning of Victoria Square since one street entrance to the square has been blocked by the building of a hotel next to the Christchurch Town Hall.

Much was said at the time of the closing of Victoria Street about the importance of maintaining a human scale and the greatest possible amenity for people in the space preserved. Consuming one comer of the square, once street space, for the base of the tower tends to encroach on what was foreseen to be more space for people on foot. Now it is suggested that a three-storey building should be put there — not to mention the tower above.

In all fairness to the promoters and designers, the tower itself is probably not an intrusion. Its height and relative slenderness gets the structure out of the way, out of view almost from those immediately below. Nevertheless, dedicating public land to this scheme is a notable change in the concept of Victoria Square that was being planted in the minds of Christchurch citizens. The council and the promoters should not be surprised if a lot of people do not like the scheme on this ground alone. This is not a reason for rejecting a new and good idea. The tower may be a welcome, money-making, job-creating ornament for Christchurch. This is what has to be so carefully tested before the thing is allowed to

go ahead. The accuracy of the estimates of activity that the tower might create is of vital importance to Christchurch as well as to the promoters. Even if the council insisted that they find another site on privately owned land near Victoria Square the ultimate success of the tower is important to the city as a whole.

The tower will not be a gain to the tourist industry unless it stimulates additional business. Visitors will have to be induced to stay longer in Christchurch; otherwise the tower will simply divert visitors — and employees — from established tours, restaurants, and other attractions. Perhaps the scheme would succeed in the proclaimed purpose, though it is doubtful whether similar towers in many other cities around the world prolong visitors’ stays or stimulate additional rather than alternative spending. If the scheme goes ahead, it must succeed. Failure of the scheme would be a huge problem for the city. A tower of such proportions could not be put to any other use; dismantling it might be almost as costly as putting it up. Who, in the event of failure, would be responsible either for pressing on regardless, or for removing the structure; not, one must hope, the Christchurch ratepayers.

If Christchurch greatly needs a high viewing platform, perhaps it should simply buy an airship to float quietly over the city. This would be no less a novelty than a tower; certainly it would cost less, and it would be disposable. The tower scheme should not lightly be condemned; it is, after all, a daring notion. Yet it must be cautiously and exactingly assessed. Being left up in the air, the tower will do Christchurch no good at all.