OPPOSITION TO GARDENS SITE FOR ART GALLERY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18897, 23 October 1929, Page 4

OPPOSITION TO GARDENS SITE FOR ART GALLERY.

PUBLIC MEETING SENDS PROTEST TO MINISTER. A public meeting of persons specially interested in the question of organising opposition to the vesting of the land in the Botanic Gardens on which the curator’s house stands, as the site for the new Art Gallery, was held in the office of Mr W. H. Winsor last night, and was attended by about twenty people, including a number of ladies. After fully discussing the question it was decided unanimously, on the motion of Mr Winsor, seconded by Mr H. G. Ell, to telegraph the following resolution to the Minister of Lands* the Hon G. W. Forbes, in time for the conference to be held at Wellington today of those interested in the proposed legislation:— As a large number of the public of Christchurch are opposed to anv further encroachments by buildings in the Domain this public meeting respectfully requests that an opportunity be afforded them to make a protest against the proposed inclusion of the proposed clause in the “Washing-Up” Bill. We would further urge that the method of procedure has not afforded the public of Christchurch any opportunity of protesting. This meeting while protesting against the Domain Gardens, site is prepared to do all that is possible to assist in securing a suitable site for such a magnificent gift. MUCH SUPPORT RECEIVED. Mr Winsor, who was voted to the chair, said that the idea of holding the meeting was to get together a few of those interested in preventing the alienation of the reserves or any part of them from the purposes for which they were meant to be used. That was his purpose in agitating in the way he had done through the Builders’ Association. He had been immensely encouraged by the support he had received from a number of others, among whom were Mr Ell.

It appeared that the Domains Board and the City Council appeared to be desirous of taking a part of the Gar dens without first consulting the people who owned it. “That’s the great tragedy in our minds,” he added, “that the people were not consulted. As the people were not consulted the only thing they could do was to write to the local members of Parliament ask ing their advice and their views regarding the alienation of ths site for the purpose of the Art Gallery. He had called the meeting so that those interested could hear what the members of Parliament had to say so that they could decide whether to go further in the matter or give up the agitation. A lady: Oh! Don’t give it up.

Mr Winsor said that he was putting it to the meeting. He did not think that it was necessary that the question of an alternative site should enter into the discussion at that stage. At the same time most of them were in the position of fancying a site and agitating for it if they wished to do so. As far as they were concerned the actual site determined upon, if the one in the Gardens was refused, did not concern them that night. He thought they should concentrate on preventing the proposed legislation being passed That was their last opportunity of approaching the Minister of Lands in the hope of influencing him to such an extent that he would refuse to allow the clause to be included in the “ WashingUp " Bill. If they confined themselves to that aspect of the matter he thought they would do ’more good than they would by going over the whole of the rights and wrongs of the case. If they succeeded in convincing the Minister that there was a strong body of public opinion opposed to the proposition the clause would probably be blocked this session. VIEWS OF M.P.’S. Mr Winsor said he had written to most of the local members of Parliament and had received a number of replies, one or two of which, however, were of a private nature. Mr H. T. Armstrong replied: “I’m getting fed up with the whole thing. I certainly object to Mr Young's house being removed, which I think would be nothing short of a crime. If the Art Gallery is t<f be built in Ilagley Park at all, I cannot see much wrong with the site they have a right to at the present time. I understand that the Minister of Lands is calling a conference of the parties concerned and till after that I do not feel like committing myself.” Mr H. S. S. Kyle said that he was opposed to the filching away of the people’s heritage. He advised Mr Winsor to organise his forces to oppose the present proposition. Mr R. W. Hawke wrote stating that the Domain site, if no other was available, would have his approval. He thought the suggested site in Montreal Street would be suitable for the purpose. , Mr 11. Holland said he thought the city should ha\’e risen to the occasion and bought a suitable site long ago. For the donor’s sake he hoped finality had been reached. “ I do think, he added, “that better sites could have been secured and would have been secured but for the actions of one The Hon L. M. Isitt wrote:— I am strongly opposed to the shameful waste involved in the pulling down of JUt Young’s house. Regarding occupying some of the park ground, I am not sur e that against that you have not to calculate the enjoyment many visitors to the ground would find in seeing the pictures and statuary, many of whom would probably never visit the galler> if they had to make a special visit to it, but who, going, would discover an appreciation that they did not know they possessed. I shall certainly oppose the Young site if I get a chance in the Legislative Council. “A REFLECTION ON MR McDOU GALL.

Mr Ell said that he had written letters to the newspapers condemning the site, because he felt that public opinion was against it. _ He thought also that it was a reflection on Mr K E. McDougall to place the Art Galiery on a site which a large section of the public did not want to see used He felt that if the site were used there would be nothing but pain and worry for Mr McDougall in the years to come. However, he agreed with the Mayor that the only alternative site that should be used must be a really magnificent one in keeping with the spirit which prompted Mr McDougall s very generous gift. Mr Ell said he was very strongly opposed to any further encroachment on the public domains.

The proposed situation of the gallery was going to be a detriment to the sick people lying in the Christchurch Hospital who were able to look over the beautiful gardens. It was because he felt that Mr McDougall should be honoured with the most magnificent site for his gallery that he felt that the handsomest site that could be found should be purchased. He considered that the meeting should be prepared to associate itself with any public effort for the acquisition of anothei site. (Applause.) Mr W. P. Glue said he thought the meeting should be prepared to consider alternative sites that evening. Mr Winsor said that he had referred to the Montreal site as a suitable site, but he did not want to fall foul of those who favoured other sites. Mr EH said that the meeting could not decide upon a site.

Mr Winsor said the site he had personally suggested was one between Worcester and Gloucester Streets, in Montreal Street. It had a frontage of five chains to Montreal Street, and was about two chains deep.

Mr J. Lorrimer said he thought most of those present were in favour of the proposed site being blocked. Therefore the most important matter to do was to get a telegram sent off to the Minister of Lands without delay. “OPPOSED BY WORKERS.”

A man who described himself as just a working man, said he was satisfied that most of the working people who visited the Gardens were strongly against the Art Gallery being erected on the proposed site. He considered that the present council was making a mess of things in the way it was giving away portions of the reserves. Mr Winsor said that as an ex-City Councillor he could quite understand the attitude of the council in agreeing to accept the site in the Gardens. By taking the site the council had saved quite a lot of money and it could hardly be blamed for that, because it was so strongly criticised for increasing the rates.

A lady remarked that the building would be no good because it was to be placed so near the river. It was said that it would cost a great deal to keep the building heated and that the pictures would be affected by mildew A man asked Mr Winsor if he could state what Mr McDougail’s wishes were in regard to the matter. Air Winsor said that Mr McDougall had never publicly expressed his views, although it was hardly likely that he would object to placing the building in the Gardens because of its beautiful setting.

In reply to another question Mr Winsor said he thought that an area of three-quarters of an acre or an acre of land would be required to set the gal lery off properly. Mr L. J. Wilkins said that in shifting the curator’s house to another site in the Domain there would be another en croachment on the reserve. He considered that it would be a sacrilege to block the view' at present obtained ol the Gardens.

Mr Lorrimer: It’s sheer vandalism. Mr Winsor suggested that those in the room should _ send private telegrams to the Minister the following day expressing their objections to the site. The motion was then carried unani mously. On the motion of Mr Ell it was de cided that those present constitute themselves a committee to secure a new site for the Art Gallery, with power to add to their numbers.