The Star. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1921. THE SYMBOLISM OF THE BRIDGE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17382, 10 November 1924, Page 6

The Star. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1921. THE SYMBOLISM OF THE BRIDGE.

lime has softened the sense of personal loss that was associated so acutely with Armistice Day in the minds of the, people six years ago, and those who will take part in to-morrow s observance of the day will find time for reflection on tlie significance of the anniversary as it affects New Zealand. It is appropriate that the opening of the Bridge of Remembrance and Memorial Arch should take place on Armistice Day, and (he city can congratulate itself on the completion of a memorial rich in symbolism, but in no sense ostentations or vainglorious. It stands almost at the gateway of the barracks from which every draft of Canterbury men marched outwards across the old bridge for service in foreign fields. It stands as a permanent memorial in the path of every light-hearted participant in Canterbury’s “ Carnival Week ” —a memorial not only of the tremendous sacrifice that was made by every man who answered the call of King and country, but a permanent reminder of the fact that with the Great War New Zealand grew suddenly into nationhood. The call took tens of thousands of young fellows abroad, and gave them an outlook that they were never likely to have got under any other conditions. There was not the light-heartedness that marked the departure of earlier contingents for South Africa, hut rather a grim underlying seriousness, however well it may have been hidden by cheery “ good-byes.” And New Zealand, as a nation, and as a combatant in a great war, is living in a new atmosphere, and with a more serious outlook. The Bridge of Remembrance, over which men who fought in the Great War will cross and re-cross to-morrow,*is symbolical of that new nationhood which was so gloriously bought on every fighting front.

" J lands off the reserves ” might very well be the motto of the Christchurch Domains Board, considering the constant attempts that arc made to secure land from the parks for purposes other than those for which it was set aside. Just recently the Hospital Board has secured the right, most improperly, through a clause in Ihc Wasliing-up Bill, to erect a nurses' home on a portion of the domain hitherto reserved for other purposes, and although it is doubtful whether the project will he gone on with, in view of the damp situation and the unsuitability of the riverbank for heavy foundations, this little “ steal ” shows how jealously the Domains Board must guard its reserves. Now comes a proposal to build an art gallery in the domain, the suggestion emanating from a gentleman who takes the view that the domain, “ with its beautiful vistas of lawns, walks, flowers and trees, furnishes the proper setting for an art gallery.” This sounds like putting the cart before the horse, or at any rate inverting the natural order of things, for while a building, beautiful or unsightly, may he softened and toned down by a natural setting, there is no ground whatever for the claim that lawns, walks, flowers and frees will gain anything by architectural embellishment. And art galleries must have metalled roadways leading to them; and electric poles and wires for the lighting entailed by annual exhibitions and late nights; ancl sleeping and cooking quarters, and many other appointments that make them quite out of place within the borders of a park or gardens; not to mention the inconvenience of visiting them during wet weather. It is to be hoped that the Domains Board will set its face against this latest proposal, and that it will he allowed, quietly, to drop.