City tower

Press, 11 June 1987, Page 12

City tower

Sir,—Tourists do not come to Christchurch to play “Snap”; like 80-peep’s sheep, they leave their (bigger and better) towers behind them! Our image, is not Tokyo or New York. It is. majestic mountains (not majestic towers), weatherboard homes (not-piecemeal international development), dodging rocks while white-water rafting (not dodging taxis in heavy traffic), Christchurch is green areas, old bridges, willows on the river, eccentrics in the Square, the Arts Centre, street blocks of Victorian houses, thoughtful use of resources (the Edmonds band rotunda restaurant). Christchurch is the “Garden City” not a metropolis. It should not compete with big city features. New York does not have the Port Hills. New Yorkers have to climb towers — poor things! — Yours, etc.,

C. F. LAWTON. June 5, 1987.

Sir,—Not content with a sterile and characterless Cathedral Square, the ugly treatment around the base of the Bridge of Remembrance, the ruination of the once lovely Bishopscourt grounds, not to mention the proliferation of glass and concrete monoliths, it appears the authorities are now ready to deliver the coup de grace — an oppressive and unnecessary tower which will stand as a symbol of stupidity. No doubt Hagley Park is next on the hit list. The city forefathers who so carefully beautified Christchurch will be turning in their vandalised graves. — Yours, etc., PETER CHAPMAN. June 6, 1987.