Public resolutions oppose tower site

Press, 14 May 1987, Page 9

Public resolutions oppose tower site

A public meeting held last evening about the tourist tower proposed for Victoria Square resulted in resolutions opposing the site and calling for the Christchurch City Council to retain Victoria Square as an open space. The resolutions will be presented by the Civic Trust to the Christchurch City Council at its meeting on Monday evening.

More than 150 people attended a lively and sometimes heated meeting at the Horticultural Hall.

The tower developer, Mr Jamie Tulloch, presented plans for the tower which he said would bring $23 million in revenue to Christchurch.

Six directors were in the tourist tower company which aimed to promote tourism in the South Island and saw the tower at its proposed site as a good means of achieving this, he said.

“The tower would Drovide a visitors’ information centre and public ammenities, needed for the area.”

“It would create 160 jobs within the building and a further 160 ‘down-

stream’ on the basis that every dollar creates another dollar,” he said.

However, reaction against the tower and in particular the proposed site proved strong as many people challenged Mr Tulloch’s information.

“Why do you want to change the character of Christchurch? Where will we find peace and quiet? Is this what our tourists really want?” were some of the questions asked. “The Town Planner, Mr John Dryden said that although the council had approved the proposal ip principle a lot more work was needed to ensure it would be economical and sensitive to the environment

If those considerations were met there would have to be a change in the town-planning scheme to turn Victoria Square into a public open space which could be built on and leased to the developers, he said. Dr lan Lochhead, a member of the Victoria Square advisory group, said it was unfortunate that the group had been linked to support of the proposal through council statements and publicity. “The group had remained neutral but it was

regrettable that the council did not allow it to take a wider look at implications of the tower proposal since it was widely involved in the initial 1985 Victoria Square project,” he said. A Christchurch archi- • tect and member of the Civic Trust, Mr Peter Seven, opposed the proposal and decried the tower as a concrete trilogy which would detract from the spirit of Christchurch. “I think it has only gone this far because people want something to happen here but the tower would not be significant for the city,” he said. “If we don’t do something about it soon it may get to the stage where we will have to pull our hands out of our pockets and pull it down.”