Art Gallery

Press, 11 October 1988, Page 20

Art Gallery

Sir, —Having seen the wonderfully imaginative recycling of Ivey Hall at Lincoln College (cost $4.5M), I am sure something could be done to save the Government Building in the Square. I recently wandered around inside after having admired its imposing facade for years. I found what must be the last grand staircase in Christchurch, beautifully decorative door surrounds, softly coloured stainedglass windows, high ceilings; inshort, light, warmth and beauty. I could certainly imagine it being a gracious setting for the Art Gallery. Could a compromise be reached in the new Art Gallery debate? The old Government Building housing New Zealand art works from the McDougall collection, and current New Zealand artists working therein would make it a living art gallery accessible to more people. Your paper occupies one of the last historic buildings in the Square. Could you become active in saving this building? I suggest that your readers visit the Government Buildings before they, too, disappear. If Paris can reconstitute the Quay d’Orsay to become another art gallery surely we can do the same with our Government Building. — Yours, etc., E. FAY HALLIDAY. October 5, 1988.

Sir, —Any proposal to place a new building on the site of the Youth Hostel in Rolleston

Avenue should recognise the importance of that site in relation to the Museum and the Arts Centre. Those three sets of buildings have a harmony of style and a similarity of height which contributes to the unity of that corner. Such visual unity is rare in New Zealand cities. In old German towns there are regulations governing the style and height of buildings which are to be placed in the vicinity of old buildings of historic worth. The City Council should understand that the Worcester Street corner of Rolleston Avenue deserves special protection. Surely our Art Gallery authorities are aware that artistic sensibilities are not confined to the appreciation of gallery collections, but respond also to the visual effects of the surroundings which we create. Tall buildings in that area will proclaim artistic and historic insensitivity. Other sites could be considered. — Yours, etc., VALERIE HEINZ. October 6, 1988.

Sir, —I, too, would like to protest at the proposed building of a four-storey art gallery on the Worcester Street site opposite the museum. I agree with the comments of P. Beaven and Jocelyn Allison in their recent letters. The splendid Government Building in the Square, renovated as an art gallery, and linked by a Worcester Street boulevard to the museum, as proposed by Jocelyn Allison, deserves serious consideration. What an asset to the Square and to the city. I feel the citizens of Christchurch should support forward and imaginative people if they want to save the character of this city. I, for one, intend to vote out a council that proposes such shortsighted and expensive schemes. — Yours, etc., NANCY CLEGG. October 8,1988.

Sir,—There seems to be no substantial argument against the need for a new art gallery in Christchurch, with emphasis on the word “new.” Should the council and its advisers decide on the Worcester Street car park and adjacent properties, so be it. The continual dragging of what seems to be a large red herring into the debate, in the form of the Government Building in Cathedral Square, has so little to do with art galleries that it might equally be argued that turning that building into apartments for the elderly and confused would serve the double function of preserving the facade and replace any dwellings lost in the development of the Worcester Street site. — Yours, etc., G. T. MOFFITT. October 6, 1988.

Sir,—After reading the letters of Peter Beaven and Jocelyn Allison (October 6) regarding their preference, once again, for the proposed new gallery site in Cathedral Square, I was reminded that, while they both originally plugged for this site, at a forum following the annual general meeting of the Friends of the Gallery in March of this year, Peter Beaven announced to one and all that he had changed his mind and now agreed that the proposed Rolleston Avenue site was the best place for the new gallery. — Yours, etc., PETER J. LOW. October 6, 1988,

[Peter Beave and Jocelyn Allison reply: “The reason we stated clearly forum for a

new art gallery that the better site for a new building was the Youth Hostel corner and that the project should be a proper architectural competition was to allow the argument to go forward and the facts to emerge. Like many others, we had earlier searched the city centre for a site, but the huge area required, the high cost of land and the simple unavailability of any real alternative to the Youth Hostel corner made us state that it was the best for a new building. At that time to bring up again our known preference for the Government Building may have created a damaging confrontation. More important was to support research into the Youth Hostel corner, let the concept go forward and allow John Coley to offer his choice. Now we see a huge building which would destroy the existing intimate character of the area and severely lessen its designated role for housing. Added to this, the cost is at least double that of renovating the Government Building. We know also that the Government Building is available now. The classical building in the Square could be beautifully refurbished, as was the Art Gallery in Auckland. A perfect example and model for us to understand.]