236
One correspondent devoted his letter to reasons why the park scheme was useless. He explained that had he been at the meeting: "I might have been tempted to abandon my customary reserve and lift up my voice to protest." As an alternative, he was presenting his views in the correspondence column.
He objected to labelling the scheme a park: “A park without trees is an anachronism." But given the fact that it would be a vast lawn where cricket, football, and tennis could be played, the question remained as to who would use it.
In the writer's opinion, "not the gilded youth of our gay city," why travel to Happy Valley when the cricket ground (now Chater Park across from the Hilton Hotel) was within steps of their offices? Furthermore, next to the cricket ground at the seaside was the Victoria Recreation Club with a gymnasium, facilities for swimming and boating, and, perhaps the greatest competitor to Happy Valley, "the seductions of the Boathouse bar."
He did concede that the ground at Happy Valley might be used for the occasional game of football, but otherwise it was not likely to pull sportsmen away from their more convenient facilities in Central. Otherwise, what one could expect to see at play in Happy Valley was "a handful of European schoolboys and a few ragamuffins of the lower order of Chinese.”
The ground would hardly see the swirling skirts of females playing games. In the first place, a genteel lady would not disport herself on a public playing field. And in the second place, they had had since 1884 their own Recreation Club on the Peak Road as well as the lawns of their own homes for games of tennis and croquet.
Use of the proposed park by Chinese could be ruled out because, in the opinion of the writer, "they are not a playing people as playing people are known in the West." The sporting activity of Europeans appeared to the Chinese to be undignified and not in keeping with propriety.
Anyone who would expect to find “young Chinese gentlemen
236
One correspondent devoted his letter to reasons why the park scheme was useless. He explained that had he been at the meeting: "I might have been tempted to abandon my customary reserve and lift up my voice to protest." As an alternative he was present- ing his views in the correspondence column.
He objected to labelling the scheme a park: “A park without trees is an anachronism." But given the fact that it would be a vast lawn where cricket, football and tennis could be played, the ques- tion remained as to who would use it.
In the writer's opinion, "not the gilded youth of our gay city," why travel to Happy Valley when the cricket ground (now Chater Park across from the Hilton Hotel) was within steps of their of fices? Furthermore, next to the cricket ground at the seaside was the Victoria Recreation Club with a gymnasium, facilities for swimming and boating, and, perhaps the greatest competitor to Happy Valley, "the seductions of the Boathouse bar,"
He did concede that the ground at Happy Valley might be used for the occasional game of football, but otherwise it was not likely to pull sportsmen away from their more convenient facilities in Central. Otherwise what one could expect to see at play in Happy Valley was "a handful of European schoolboys and a few raga- muffins of the lower order of Chinese.”
The ground would hardly see the swirling skirts of females play- ing games. In the first place, a genteel lady would not disport herself on a public playing field. And in the second place, they had had since 1884 their own Recreation Club on the Peak Road as well as the lawns of their own homes for games of tennis and croquet.
Use of the proposed park by Chinese could be ruled out be- cause, in the opinion of the writer, "they are not a playing people as playing people are known in the West." The sporting activity of Europeans appeared to the Chinese to be undignified and not in keeping with propriety.
Anyone who would expect to find “young Chinese gentlemen
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.