Slim margin in favour of tower

Press, 25 September 1987, Page 5

Slim margin in favour of tower

The Canterbury Promotion Council’s stance on the proposed tower in Victoria Square has not been decided, but support for the proposal was shown at a meeting on Wednesday evening. More than 100 guests and members attended the meeting and a vote was taken to gauge support. Of the 96 who voted, 48 supported the existing proposal, 32 were against it, and 16 abstained; The chief executive of the Canterbury Promotion Council, Mr Bruce Dunstan, said the meeting was intended to air the issues involved.

The meeting was addressed by Mr Jamie Tulloch, a director of Tourist Towers, Ltd, Mr David Sheppard, representing the Canterbury branch of Institute of Architects, and Mr Don Meldrum, a consultant on tourism. Mr Tulloch told the meeting that public opinion on the tower proposal could not be judged accurately from letters to the editor, opinions of architects, and the audiences at meetings such as the present. Dr Newell Grenfell, a market researcher, said that a representative scientific opinion survey should be taken to gauge public opinion.

Mr Tulloch said town planners, and not the public, should decide whether the Victoria Square tower went ahead.

Mr David Sheppard said that the Victoria Square Advisory Committee was disappointed that the Christchurch City Council had sought the committee’s advice only concerning the siting of the tower in the square.

He said the council had excluded any debate at all on whether it should be sited in this location.

The Victoria Square Advisory Committee recommended that the Christchurch City Council get further advice on parking and service matters and the potential visual and psychological effects of the tower before proceeding.

Mr Meldrum said he had found it difficult to find support from within the tourist industry for the theory that a tower could persuade either tourists or tour operators to visit Christchurch. He said research seemed to show that the main visitors to the tower would be local residents and domestic visitors.

Tour operators had generally agreed that any new attraction added to the choices tourists had. If the tower was there, some would use it, said Mr Meldrum.

With the changing patterns of domestic and international tourism it was not possible to predict what the effect of the tower would be until it was built, Mr Meldrum said.