Fresh Controversy Over Square Aroused In City.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18785, 14 June 1929, Page 11

Fresh Controversy Over Square Aroused In City.

SUGGESTED SETTLEMENT OF SHELTER PROBLEM NOT FAVOURABLY RECEIVED.

THE suggested scheme for a new lay-out in Cathedral Square, which was unanimously agreed upon at a conference of the interested parties yesterday, as a reasonable basis of settlement of the position created by the recent judgment of the Supreme Court, appears likely to arouse a fresh storm of controversy in the city.

The scheme is in the nature of a compromise and, according to the representatives who attended the conference, it was adopted with the idea of securing agreement among the parties concerned. In the meantime, however, it is purely suggestive and will not be binding unless the bodies represented at the conference endorse it. The Save the Square Committee will meet this afternoon for the purpose of discussing the proposals, the Tramway Board on Monday next, and the City Council on Monday, June 24. The proposals agreed upon by the to the church people, and would not conference are as follows: result in any appreciable improvement fin the traffic arrangements.

(1) The present tramway shelter to be dispensed with, and provision made for erecting a shelter, according to plans submitted, on the Colombo Street highway, the structure to be about ten feet high, this to be the only building erected in the Square. (2) The present men’s and women’s conveniences to be amalgamated, in order to provide more adequate accommodation for men, entirely new provision to be made for women. Under this scheme, there will be a roadway twenty-eight feet wide in front of the Cathedral; west of that roadway a shelter; west of that shelter two lines of trams, one to take tramcars going one way, and the other to taice tramcars going the other way; west of the tram lines another shelter; west of that shelter a roadway twenty-eight feet wide; and then the Godley statue site. Dr Thacker's ’Phone Busy. “My telephone has been going all the morning since about eight o’clock, and I’ve told the people who have rung me up that the proposal that has gone forth to the public is only a suggested basis of solution,” said the Deputy-Mayor (Dr Thacker), who attended yesterday’s conference as a representative of the Save the Square Committee. The City Council’s representatives, he added, felt that if the present conveniences were to be taken away they must be replaced in some shape or form. The suggested solution provided for two systems of one-way traffic, one for south-bound traffic and the other for north-bound traffic. “As far as I am personally concerned, I stand where I have always stood, namely, for the complete eradication of all the trespassers in the Square, including the tram rails. “First, I would order out the trailers and stop the shunting that goes on, but I realise that these reforms have got to be carried out gradually so as to cause the least inconvenience to the public. It must be recognised, of course, that the trams are the people’s motor-cars.” Dr Thacker explained that once the Godley site was cleared the Save the Square Committee had no jurisdiction in the matter, which then had to be settled as between the City Council and the Tramway Board. “I think the whole idea is a tragedy,” said Mr F. R. Cooke, chairman of the Works Committee of the City Council, when asked for his comments. Me said that perhaps he should not say anything till he had seen the plans, but from the description given in the papers it appeared to be a case of pandering to the old mind, and he could not detect anything sensible in the scheme. “I favour taking a referendum of the citizens on the council’s original scheme, which was infinitely better than this compromise scheme,” Mr Cooke added. Mr W. H. Winsor, a former member of the City Council, also condemned the scheme, lock, stock and barrel. “What on earth are they going to do with this plot when they get the shelter away?” he asked. “I can’t see any good in keeping the present lawn with its iron railing fence around it,” Mr ‘Winsor added. “It would be far better to flatten it out and let the public use it as a place of assembly tor which it has always been intended.” Mr Winsor also considered that the erection of two shelters so close to the front of the Cathedral was an insult

Council Wanted Shelters. Mr D. G. Sullivan, M.P. (chairman of the Finance Committee of the City Council), who represented the council at yesterday’s conference, made it clear this morning that it was the City Council which had asked for the provision of the tram shelters. “Statements have been made in the newspapers assuming that the proposal for the erection of tram shelters on the Colombo Street highway in Cathedral Square (in substitution for the present tram shelter), was made by Mr J. A. Flesher and his colleagues representing the Tramway Board. “This assumption is not correct,” said Mr Sullivan. “The necessity for some form of shelter for tramway passengers was raised by the representatives of the City Council, although the plans submitted by the City Engineer were adopted unanimously by the delegates.” Mr J. A. Flesher, chairman of the Tramway Board, and a member of both the City Council and the Save the Square Committee, said he had no comment to make upon the new scheme until the meeting of the Tramway Board next Monday. Doesn’t Like It. Disapproval of the scheme was expressed by Archbishop Julius. “I don’t like it a bit,” he said. “I think it would be worse than the present position. It looks as if they are trying to get out of using the Godley reserve by cramming everything in front of it. Of course that is only my personal view.” Dean Julius said he would prefer to have the shelter on either side of the Cathedral, thus leaving the whole space in front of the Cathedral open. The new scheme, from what he had heard of it, did not appeal to him at all. With regard to the Godley statue, Dean Julius said that the Cathedral authorities simply gave it hospitality, when they allowed it to be placed in the Cathedral grounds. They were quite willing to restore it to its proper site once the present shelter was moved away. Mr W. Machin, a member of the Save the Square Committee, expressed the view that the new scheme would result in a great improvement in the control of traffic.

The decision of the conference, he said, would make it possible to restore the Godley statue to its original site, although that matter was not discussed. 'The proposal was to erect the women’s conveniences and rest room at the side of the Square, leaving the whole of the present underground conveniences for men. The Sumner and Riccarton trams would not be affected by the change. “XJnstates manlike.” “I have not given the matter a great deal of thought, but my first impressions are that the whole scheme is unstatesmanlike and petty,” said Mr F. W. Johnston, a prominent motorist. “It seems to me that it will be worse than it is at present,” he added. “Personally, I'm not a churchman, but I think it quite out of place to build a big tramway station right at the door of the Cathedral. How would the Mayor like such an edifice put up in front of the new church he is to have built? I don’t iike the idea of building any of these things on the road. If we must have them, let us run the trams round the back of the Cathedral. We should think of the future as well as the present in regard to traffic matters.”