City tower

Press, 25 September 1987, Page 18

City tower

Sir,—l predict that some day a North Island journalist will record one of the following statements: ‘‘ln September, 1985, Canterbury lost the Ranfurly Shield to Auckland; in September, 1987, Canterbury lost the Tulloch Tower to Auckland.” Or, “The tourist tower which has done so much for North Island tourism In general, and for Rotorua In particular, was a few years earlier rejected by Chrlschurch.” The enterprising, imaginative, innovative, forward-looking Tourist Towers, Ltd, with the capacity for aggressive marketing, deserves to succeed. I wish Jamie Tulloch and his company well. — Yours, etc., J. K. MOIR. September 23, 1987.

Sir,—The change of heart of some “City Fathers” (and “Mothers”) has turned Jamie’s Joy into Tulloch’s Trauma. But all need not be lost. The building on the south-east corner of Colombo and Armagh Streets, diagonally opposite the hotly debated site was recently sold by tender for redevelopment. If those entrusted with this project were to lease the air space above their building as the site for the tower, then many more people could be kept happy. The tower would still be line-ahead above the Park Royal for visitors approaching down Victoria Street; the grass of Victoria Square would stay green and the city would still have a facility unique in New Zealand. The leasing of air space above another development is surely a compromise solution worth considering. — Yours, etc., A. M. SIMSON. September 23, 1987.

Sir,—l consider that the tower developers’ survey figures have no credibility unless the developers make public the actual questions asked in the survey. The architects’ survey, asking whether a tower was wanted in Victoria Square, in Christchurch

anywhere, or not at all, gave a clear indication of the respondents’ views. The developers appear to be using the survey results to create a misleading impression of public opinion. The developers’ spokesman has also questioned why the prospect of re-election of city councillors should hinge on whether they support the tower or not. Surely the voters’ opinion is the ultimate judgment in a democracy. The local body election appears to be the only avenue for the citizens of Christchurch to truly indicate what they want for the city. — Yours, etc., lAN CONNOR September 23,1987.

Sir,—After all the hours of discussion, claims and counterclaims that have raged over the tower for Victoria Square, maybe it is time for new ideas to come forward as alternative attractions for this area. My suggestion therefore, is that we immortalise our city councillors by having stone statues made of them. These statues could be placed in a circle and each could have its feet and head buried in sand. The children of our city using Victoria Square as a playground could then either play leap-frog over them, or "guess the councillor” around them. If we wish to keep our English image, we could promote the statues as “The Stone Hedges of Christchurch.” — Yours, etc., W. E. LAPSLIE. September 23,1987.