Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

£9OO FOR CLOCK TOWER

GOVERNMENT’S ESTIMATE DEPARTMENT .CANNOT HELP COMMITTEE ASKED FOR REPORT It Trill cost £OOO to replace the Gisborne Post Office clock tower as an earthquake resisting structure and installing the clock therein, but the Government cannot undertake the work. This fact was intimated to the Borough Council last night in a letter from the Postmaster-General, the Hon. Adam Hamilton.

A further letter from a commercial firm proposed a system of chiming, with synchronising dials, and the council decided to refer the matter to the works and finance committee for a report. The Minister wrote: “Adverting to my letter concerning the clock tower which was recently removed from the Post Office building at Gisborne, I have now to inform you that the Public Works Department estimates at £9OO the cost of constructing an earth-quake-proof tower and installing the clock therein.

“The estimate provides for the erection of a light steel tower running up from the ground inside the brickwork, comprising the lower portion of the former tower, and for the clock faces to be approximately 4ft. lower than previously. The existing brickwork is not considered stable enough to carry the weight of the new tower. “In view of the large expenditure involved and the fact that the department’s finances are not in a position to meet such an expenditure, and as the provision of a public clock is considered not to bo the function of the Post and Telegraph Department, I regret that the proposal could be agreed to only on the condition that my department is relieved of the cost.”

The Mayor, Mr D. W. Coleman, M.P., said lie had interviewed the Minister, who said there was no possible hope for the reinstatement of the tower at the department’s expense. The Hamilton clock tower had been taken down, although there was no earthquake there, and that was not to bo reinstated by the department funds. A Wellington firm suggested that the present bells, worth about £SOO today, could be utilised by erection in a low tower at any part of the town where there would be no earthquake risk. Drum clocks could be. placed in the most advantageous points in the main street to be controlled and synchronised by one master clock. Thus, the dials would bo in the business area and the chimes in any other available situation. This system, it was reported, was decided on by the Wanganui City Council after careful consideration. The approximate cost of such a system would bo: Electrical chiming and striking mechanism, £277 12s 6d; master clock, £27 15s; doublefaced drum clock with 3Gin. dials, £55 4s each.

“Should you decide to build another clock tower,” the letter added, “we recommend an electrical turret movement to replace the present gravity movement, and the low cost of maintaining the same would soon repay the initial cost, and a greater degree of accuracy is guaranteed than is possible with the old gravity movement. With the electric clock, there is no periodical winding required and no provision need be made in the tower for the dropping of weights. Existing dials, hands and motion wheels could bo utilised. Should the first proposal be entertained, it would not be. a costly matter to later move the striking and chiming mechanism and the bells into a tower, when finance is available to build one.”

The matter, on the Mayor’s motion, was referred to the works and finance committees to submit a scheme.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19321207.2.18

Bibliographic details

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 17956, 7 December 1932, Page 4

Word Count
576

£900 FOR CLOCK TOWER Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 17956, 7 December 1932, Page 4

£900 FOR CLOCK TOWER Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 17956, 7 December 1932, Page 4