DUBIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20005, 24 January 1927, Page 6

DUBIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS.

There appears to be little reason to congratulate the Reserves Committee of the City Council upon its recommendations respecting the placing of a building at the south-western corner of the Queen’s Gardens. The committee’s conclusions are, indeed, somewhat surprising as a sequel to the discussion that has taken place over the not unimportant question of the provision of a women’s rest room and creche. There has been a difference of opinion respecting the suitability of the site at the Queen’s Gardens'" for the purposes of a women’s rest room, but, if only for the reason of the difficulty presented in the heavy traffic which continually passes that way, it should be sufficiently apparent that the position is not an ideal one for the purpose. It may be that another site is not discoverable, and certainly sufficient time has been allowed to lapse for the consideration of possible alternatives. But if the rest room is to be placed at the corner of the Queen’s Gardens—and that is the conclusion which must be drawn from the report of the Reserves Committee—it is on that account all the more difficult to appreciate the wisdom of the committee’s proposals as a whole. At the present time the site holds a structure which can scarcely be described as other than objectionable. The idea was to remove this and utilise the site for the women’s rest room. But the report of the Reserves Committee indicates the introduction of a new factor in the case. The committee favours the adoption of a plan for a building providing accommodation for both men and women. The details of the design of this projected building may be perfectly interesting, but they represent at the moment a secondary consideration. The report shows that tenders have even been invited for the construction of a building on the lines indicated. But it may be suggested to the City Council that it should not hastily accept the recommendations that are to come before it. If the women’s rest room is to be placed on the site at the Queen’s Gardens, that should surely constitute an argument for the using of the site for that purpose only. There is no apparent reason why the removal of the present convenience for men should be regarded as entailing the need for fresh provision of accommodation of that kind in the same locality. It is rather unlikely that there would have been any strong advocacy of the utilisation of the site for a women’s rest room if it had been understood that a compromise of the kind that is now suggested would be seriously recommended. The proposals submitted are not happy in the regard they show for the fitness ol things. And the site will be rendered less ideal than ever for a rest room for women if the recommendation to make use of it for another purpose as well is carried out. The question of environment is by no means of negligible importance in relation to the establishment of a women’s rest room and creche.