The Star. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1921. DEGRADING THE SQUARE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16582, 15 November 1921, Page 6

The Star. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1921. DEGRADING THE SQUARE.

It is to be hoped that there will be an emphatic protest against the decision of the majority of the City Council to erect a “ comfort station for the use of women and children on the grass plot formerly occupied by the Godley Statue* A “ comfort station ” is a euphonious name for rest rooms and sanitary conveniences. Few people will be disposed to quarrel with the Council for its intention to provide such a station, but thousands will wonder why the one site in the city which is almost hallowed ground should be appropriated for such a purpose. The Sanitary Committee of the Coun cil found that “the only suitable site available for the purpose was the block formerly occupied by the Godley Statue.’ * This is such a preposterous conclusion that the public can only he astounded that the committee make it unblushingly. The one inference that can be drawn is that the committee never troubled to inquire about other possible sites, nor attempted to explore any alternatives. We are opposed to the exploitation of the Square in the manner which is proposed, and we regard a good deal of the discussion at the City Council meeting last night as sentimental humbug. Many tears of the crocodile variety were shed over the hapless women and children who are too tired —or too lazy—to go any further than Cathedral Square for a rest after the arduous labour of shopping. Even the present City Council site, two minutes’ walk from the Square, is “ too far away.” The sensible suggestion of the President of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union that a room, on the ground floor in the shopping centre of the city should be obtained was dis missed as impossible, and the Council preferred to grab a free site and spend four thousand pounds. It is some time since a public body has given such strong evidence of its inability to handle a simple question, and of a determination to flout well-established public opinion in regard to buildings in Cathedral Square. Councillor Willsons description of the aesthetic attractions of the comfort station will leave many people unmoved. “ The four trees will remain,” he said, “ as well as the grass bank, and the roof of the rest house will project only three feet above the centre of the grass plot. The whole could be rocked in, and shrubs could be grown to hide the ventilators. The comfort of women and children was infinitely more important than the so-called beauty spot in Cathedral Square.” There is an unconvincing rhetorical touch about the concluding statement. The comfort of women and children, and even of men, should be to some extent the care of the city, but there is no reason or necessity why beauty spots should be sacrificed in the process. The Council could go north, south, east or west of Cathedral Square and find a suitable site for the comfort station, and we suggest that the committee should be spurred on to make further inquiries. Some of the councillors who supported the building of the comfort station did not hesitate to oppose tho erection of a memorial column in the Square, and it t 1 * difficult to understand their enthusiasm for the new proposal. We heartily endorse the protest made last night by the Deputy-Mayor (Council lor Flesher), and Councillors Williams and M’Kellar. The proposal should be resisted as strongly a 3 possible, and citizens who object to sacriligious hands being laid on a central beauty spot should make their voices heard. By all means let the Council provide a comfort station for women and children, but it is neither necessary noi desirable that it should outrage public sentiment in tho choice of the site.