City tower

Press, 3 December 1987, Page 16

City tower

Sir, — If Jamie Tulloch is so concerned with the lack of tourist attractions in Christchurch why will his company not consider siting the tourist tower anywhere other than Victoria Square? It seems to me that it is

not “progress” in tourism that most people oppose but the arrogance of the company to use public land that was never, at any stage, offered or available for private development. In the light of such a limited proposal, that the tower will not be built on any other site, Mr Tulloch’s claim for creation of jobs and tourists’ wants, holds little credence if not all possible locations are considered. —Yours, etc. P. M. GEANGE. November 30, 1987. Sir,—Whether or not some tourists will hope for more manmade attractions before viewing Christchurch favourably — and we read that 80 per cent are satisfied with what they already find — there is no logic in taking from comments such as in Monday’s front page article the assumption that a tower in Victoria Square is what we need. The Port Hills gondola would be light, airy, romantic and well situated. The tower is a fairground excrescence which belongs anywhere but in the heart of the city. More power to the practical man who would put a carpark under Victoria Square before it is redeveloped. No “clobbering machine” has emerged to oppose that bit of civic common sense. One might wonder if an expensive gondola in Picton would have any greater chance of finding the traffic to pay the charges than would a monorail in Christchurch — but then it is probably not our concern. The promoter is risking his own money on his own land, and will earn Picton’s gratitude.—Yours, etc., P. D. DUNBAR. November 30, 1987. Sir,—When the tower for Victoria Square was first proposed there was a large protest against it for overwhelming and destroying Christchurch’s basic character. This was followed by arguments back and forth. The letters to the Editor on the subject have died down, but a strange thing has happened. When Mr Peter Beaven came up with a differently designed tower for New Brighton I expected an enormous reaction from both sides against this proposal. First from the opponents of the Victoria Square tower who would see this as a stab in the back while they were resting after an apparently successful opposition campaign against the first tower proposal, and second from the supporters of the Victoria Square tower who would see a tower at New Brighton as a threat to acceptance of the idea that their plan was the only one available. So where are all your correspondents? Are they all resigned to a Victoria Square tower?—Yours, etc., P. M. WILLIAMS. November 30, 1987. Sir,—lnstead of knocking the people of Christchurch, Messrs Yeoman and Tulloch should follow the example of the Picton gondola developer who is prepared to take a chance using his owikland. More power to him! If

Christchurch developers did the same, and stopped homing in on public land, they would find any “antagonism” easier to overcome. When they insist on trying to cash in on the availability of cheap public land they must expect determined opposition. We can stop them for good by vigorously opposing District Scheme Change No. 17 for Victoria Square. Big business has all the publicity cards stacked in its favour. The emotive claptrap about bored tourists is just camouflage to cover the alienation of land which belongs to all of us. Eighty-three per cent of the tourists think we are doing fine! If stimulating the 17 per cent minority is so urgent, the developers should be looking for private land where they can go ahead right now.—Yours, etc., ANN LEWIS. November 30, 1987. Sir,—We have been warned. The front page headline (November 30), is timely. While many Cantabrians are clobbering the proposed city tower the people of Picton, Queenstown and Tauranga are energetically and happily working towards putting those towns on the map and providing jobs; even enlarging their vaults to cope with the additional dollars and yen will require extra workers. If Christchurch is to play its part in what will soon be New Zealand’s most lucrative and job intensive industry it must diversify its “tourist magnets.” Queenstown has approximately 75 restaurants, most with magnificent views. Christchurch’s answer to this must be a revolving restaurant in the Victoria Square tower. Unless we disregard the feet-dragging, negative-thinking conservatives and act on the proposals of “get-up-and-go” innovators such as Mr Tulloch, Cr Wright and Mr Yeoman, Christchurch will be doomed to “that dull and boring rest day place.”—Yours, etc., J. K. MOIR. November 30, 1987.

Sir, —The proposed change in the council’s scheme for Victoria Square does not increase the actual space of the square but is a change in land use and title only. It will not minimise the objectionable and oppressive effect of the tower on Victoria Square on the Armagh-Colombo Street intersection nor the alien aspect it introduces to the city s skyline. The tower design, hamstrung architecturally by the proposed site, is of a monstrous stack, a gimmick, selling to the transient tourist an immediate view of acres of iron roofing, which most residents would prefer to ignore. The number of Christchurch citizens who use the Colombo-Armagh Street corner daily far exceeds the number of tourists likely to use tower daily, yet the former will experience permanently the doom and gloom of the presence of the tower. Opposition to the councils change of scheme is essential. — ’"""•ft. S. FINDLAY. Novembers, 1987.