Tower and gondola

Press, 3 December 1987, Page 50

Tower and gondola

Sir,—Messrs J. Tulloch and P. Yeoman comment on the lack of man-made tourist attractions in Christchurch (November 30). Living in a pleasant environment is more important to me than churning up our natural areas for a few extra tourism dollars. We only have to look at our class structure in Christchurch to real-

ise who really benefits from these enterprises. Tourism and the natural environment need not be in conflict when, in fact, tourism in New Zealand is very much dependent on the condition of our natural environment We can plan to cater for tourism without sacrificing our city’s natural areas or being subjected to the resulting eyesores. Let us face it now, that every other city is getting a gondola, who is going to want one in Christchurch anyhow? — Yours, etc., D. K. ZANDERS. December 1, 1987. Sir,—Mr Sutton (December 2) may not have been there to hear, but at a public meeting in Heathcote when Mr P. Yeoman showed films and explained the gondola proposal, I spoke, saying that the Summit Road could be seen to be a scar on the Port Hills. The Summit Road Society has encouraged planting and the old No. 5 Scheme provided employment Walking tracks may well be preferable to a road. As a supporter of the gondola, but not of a tower in Victoria Square, the operating of punts and their environmental impact cannot be compared with the obtrusive, incompatible proposed tower in Victoria Square. Peter Beaven’s proposal, however, for a tower at New Brighton should give a lift to that area. The Victoria Square developers’ punt for a tower should be caught and either kicked to another (commercial) site or to “touch” in the form of the coastline to the east — Yours, etc., J. R. ALLISON. December 2, 1987.