Support for suggested shifting of site

Press, 18 March 1988, Page 10

Support for suggested shifting of site

By

DAVID CLARKSON

I | A suggestion that the observation tower site should be shifted to City Council-owned land in Tuam Street has received strong backing from the Protec Victoria Square Society. i I

. A spokeswoman for the society, I Mrs Ann Lewis, said he Tuam Street site “could be a very satisfactory solution to a very difficult' problem.” The i suggestion had been put to the tower hearipg) by Mr Robert Livingstone, a Christchurch property consultant, valuer, auctioneer and real estate agent. Mr Livingstone is overseas, but his submission was read to this panel. HeJ said he had discussed | the alternative with|several city councillors.

Ort the Tuam Street site, close to the Civic Offices, the tower would comply with, the zoning of the land and would be an important future financial benefit to the city, he said. “By (contrast, a tower erected south of Cathedral .Square, would blend into a background of the Cashmere Hills and so would not be offensive or out of character,” Mr Livingstone said. "Importantly also; there woul’d not then be the tower shadow over Cathedral Square." Tlie site would not have Square’s problems of access traffic, and space.! It would complement j the large Civic Offices building. It would also mean tourjsts' would be drawn through the commercial area of the city to visit the jtower. Mrs Lewis said yesterday.) “In view of the traffic and parking problems associated with the Victoria Square site, which have been identified by previous witnesses, if it is considered essential that this! tower be built, and built on council-owned land. I would strongly support) the alternative site suggested by Mr Livingstone. "I believe the reasons he gives for the use of the Tudm Street car-park site are| valid. and, as I understand lit from his submission, the land in question is already zoned correctly

for this type of development. "A tower in this location would have easy access from both Tuam Street and St Asaph Street and would not in any way detract from other smaller landmarks in the cityj such as Christchurch Cathedral. “The siting of a tower and'associated landscaped car-parking in this • area could well significantly improve the surroundings of the Civic Offices. In my view 7 this could be a very satisfactory solution to a very difficult problem,”

she said. The commissioners were shown composite slides of the tower, as if viewed from points around the city, and from Edgeware. The slides had been produced by Mr Ross Gray, head of the art department at Cashmere High School. He said he believed the tower would have a destructive effect on Victoria Square and the character of the Christchurch skyline. The tower meant “the visual pollution of Christchurch on a completely unprecedented and unacceptable scale. “The proposal to include a tower in such a valued open space is extremely ill-considered.” ’ It was in conflict with the intimate human scale of • Victoria Square, and, would have a "crushing" effect on the square and the well-being of its users, he said. Although the tower was not huge by world standards. in comparison with its environment it was gigantic. It would be 90 times the height of a pedestrian, 12 times the height of the square's trees, between four and 10 times the height of adjoining buildings, and 2 l /2 times the height of the Cathedral, he said. Mr David Kelly, a spokesman for the neighbourhood support group in Beveridge Street, inside the four avenues, said

Victoria Square was re-) garded as a local park for) residents of the area. It) had to be protected for all 1 Christchurch citizens.

The loss of open space was a one-way process, he said. |

Building of the tower would mean! a serious loss of amenity value in Victoria Square. Almost a fifth of the’square’s area on that side of the Avon River -would be lost, and the square would be squeezed between the tower and the Parkroyal Hotel, Mr Kelly said. j ) , I

Mrs Diana Ross, of Halswell, said the tower was needed to promote tourism and jobs in Christchurch, and she saw Victoria Square as a good site for it.

“Support this tower to save our city. Don’t let this chance slip away,” she told the commissioners.

Mr John Lucas, speaking on behalf of six objectors, said Victoria Square should be valued along with the city's other) squares, parks and riverbanks to balance the everincreasing mass of'inner-) city buildings. “The value of these open spaces is even more obvious when compared with the south end of the city,” he said. The tower building would decrease the amount of perceived open space in the square, and the scheme would increase traffic density and parking problems in the area.

A land development consultant appearing on behalf of March Construction, Ltd, Mr Ronald Bodger, said the company sought the inclusion of an underground parking building in the Recreation Development 2 Zone proposed for Victoria Square. The company had excavated many inner-city sites in recent years and was confident that ah underground structure could be economically built before the landscaping was laid out, he said.

! The company had no firm view on- the tower, Mr Bodger said.

■ Miss Valerie Heinz, an artist, said she used Victoria Square at least twice a ) week, and sometimes made drawings there. j “Victoria Square is a space which has always been a welcome relief from the commercial activity and the heavier traffic of the surrounding inner-city streets,” she said..

“The placing of a tower in Victoria Square would alter its character irrevocably. A tower by definition is meant to dominate. It could not be ignored. From most vantage points it would block the view and it would break the sense of space,” she said.

The ancillary uses which would be operating from the building were already available in the near vicinity.

Mrs Lewis also commented on the underground car-park suggestion, saying Victoria 'Square would take many years to recover from the project, and she doubted large trees would be able ito prosper with so much concrete beneath them.

I “I really can’t see why we should allow the whole of Victoria Square to be dug up just to ensure that commercial developers don’t have to worry too much about providing parking,” she said. Mr Lloyd Markwick, of St Albans, said an "open sky feeling” was part of Christchurch’s character.

"This light and sun and cloud formations are vital to a city such as Christchurch,” he said.

The tower would signify the beginning of unnecessary, unwanted, and ugly intrusion into the skyline. Mrs Colleen Campbell, of Papanui, said the tower would look a monstrosity. "I have been up other towers and I have not been impressed. Tourists won’t come to Christchurch or stay any longer in our city because we have a tower. They will

stay because Christchun is different from otk cities.”

Christchurch i had the endearing qualities of being slow, quaint, and rather old-fashioned, she said. ) i f “It is essential that Victoria Square be retained as a lovely, green area 'of tranquility,” Mrs Campbell said. Mrs Merle Gregor, of Bishopdale, a Protect Victoria Square Society member, said her objection was based on the need 'to preserve green open space in the city. I The siting of (the Parkroyal Hotel had beenl a disaster, she said. I i The tower would take up too much (Of the reserve, would add to the enclosing and confining atmosphere, and spoil the effect of the Town Hall.

' An inner-city resident, Mrs Katherine Hyndman, said the Parkroyal Hotel had overpowered the. dignified, restrained atmosphere of the Town Hall. “Victoria Square should remain as it is, an asset) to the city, with open spaces, green grass and beautiful flowers,” she said. I

A spokesman for the Queen Elizabeth 111 Park Environmental j Action Association, Mr i Graham Goodliffe, said the association was very concerned about the proposed use of public land for private exploitation by an entrepreneur.

It was worried that the council might later look at other public open spaces in the city for similar projects, he said.

Mrs Diane Denson, of Hillsborough, said that in five years numerous office blocks could border Victoria Square. If the developers wished to build a tower, there were alternative sites available close bv.

A Christchurch City councillor, Mrs Ruby Fowler, said she was concerned that the zoning change could lead to a proliferation of buildings on other green spaces' or squares in Christchurch.

Christchurch City Council has appointed three commissioners to hear objections and submissions to its proposed City Plan change number 17, for the redevelopment of Victoria Square. The change would create a recreation development 2 zone incorporating an observation tower and proposed rearrangement of reserve land in the square.

The land is now zoned Recreation 1, which provides for passive recreation and rules out organised sports and large buildings.

In 1985 the council adopted a redevelopment plan for the square including a proposed building for public toilets, tearoom and ah information booth, a paved area for market stalls and outdoor displays, and an area providing 21) car parks. That plan may also have needed a District Scheme change. In February 1987, a proposal to build an observation tower on the south-eastern corner of the square was presented to the council by Tourist Towers, Ltd.

In April, the council supported the proposal in principle, and granted the company a four-month option over the site to develop the proposal. It also asked for design work for the whole of the square. When amended plans were prepared, the council decided in August to approve the proposal as the landower, and to initiate change number 17 to the City Plan.

A month later the council rescinded its approval as landowner, but continued with change number 17. The change was publicly notified on August 25, and renotified on September 29 after a motion for its withdrawal was resolved.

A total of 1204 objections and submissions to the change were received. These included 1021 objections opposing the change, 182 submissions supporting the change, and a submission from the Canterbury Promotion Council setting out factors in favour of and against the change.

The three commissioners are Sir Ciinton Roper, Dame Ann Hercus, and Mr Ken Nairn.