Money squandered to no effect

The large advertisement in the Press today (19 December 2009) asking people to view the model  of the proposed Music School building at the Art Gallery, prompts me to ask just how much the University is spending on continuing to promote a cause which the overwhelming majority of Christchurch residents have proclaimed loudly and clearly that they do not want on this site. Today's advertisement is only one of several large advertisements which have appeared in the Press in recent days.  Earlier in the campaign the university also ran a series of large scale advertisements.  Added to this are the glossy brochures, the question and answer handouts and the large colour posters appearing in various locations around the city.  The model itself can't have come cheaply  The promotional bill for this project must be starting to reach a sizable sum by now.   Nor should we forget the cost of all the staff time that has been diverted from productive teaching and research roles to writing submissions and sitting in at Council consultation hearings. On top of that, of course, are the fees for the architects, growing by the minute as plans are changed and designs resubmitted. Then there are the fees for all the other consultants including resource management planners, engineers, heritage consultants and lawyers. Expenses will grow dramatically when  legal hearings begin.  Many of these consultants would have been unnecessary for a building at Ilam and if resource consent is not granted a whole new set of expenses will be incurred to redesign on campus. Rumour has it that the University has already spent $1.25 million, with nothing to show for it.  The tragedy is that the much needed new music building could already be well underway by now if the University had chosen the logical course of building at Ilam.  The money frittered away in the attempt to impose a building where it is not wanted could have been spent on ensuring that a truly inspirational design was developed for a music school combined with a multi-use performing arts centre on campus, which would enrich the lives of all students and be of benefit to the whole of Christchurch.

Disharmony in the city.

Events relating to the proposed music school are heating up. First there was the announcement by the applicants that they were delaying the resource consent until February out of concern for the opposition, to give them adequate time to prepare their case. Not very convincing, considering that the filing of the resource consent application had been timed to maximise inconvenience to opponents. Submissions would have fallen due while the Council consultation hearing was still taking place, if they hadn't, in their haste, overlooked the fact that they were lodging the application in the name of a Joint Venture which did not at that stage legally exist. As a consequence it had to be resubmitted. Aside from the pressure placed upon opponents by this untimely application, the very fact that it was lodged well in advance of the Council's final decision on funding suggests that the applicants knew something that submitters opposed to the proposal did not know.

Just incidentally, it was stated that the applicants were using the delay to deal with some of the issues raised by opponents in regard to the design. The new-found concern for the opposition was quickly revealed as nothing more than spin because word soon got about that the Council's own heritage consultant had been less than impressed with the building. As a face saving tactic it might almost have worked except that there is clearly more than one leaky institution in this city.


The Council became distinctly tetchy over inquiries into the Vines report. Depending on which Council officer was spoken to, the report was described as incomplete, a draft only, or containing misleading information. Queries as to whether it had been passed to the applicants were vigorously denied, but I doubt that many observers believed this. Claims under the Offical Information Act have so far failed to extract a copy of the report.


However, if word of the Vines report caused a stir, it paled into insignificance compared with the reaction to the announcement on Saturday that SOAC has filed for an interim injunction to delay the resource consent hearings until the issue of the correct interpretation of the Trust deed could be decided by the High Court. At first the University tried to pass it off as a publicity stunt ( an expensive one, it would have to be said, if it involves lawyers fees!) However, once the documents were received cries of publicity stunt were quickly replaced by yells of foul play. The Arts Centre spoke darkly of betrayal and an attempt by SOAC to prevent all but a select few from having a say on the building.


We are asked to believe that a legitimate legal process intended to clarify for once and for all the true extent of the Board's powers is in some way an abuse of process. It is not this action which is denying others their right to be heard. The reality is that the groundswell of people opposed to the developments are the ones who have been denied a real right to be heard. A resource consent hearing is no substitute for a public consultation around the long term plans and policy directions for the Arts Centre. From the outset, opponents of the scheme have argued that a full and wide-ranging public discussion about the future of the arts centre should take place before any sort of development is approved. Our requests have been thwarted at every turn. The consultation was limited to the issue of finance, because, we were told, other issues would be dealt with in the resource consent process. That is simply not true. Resource consent hearings are defined by the nature of the applicants proposal and are restricted to a limited range of issues around the city plan.


What are the documents which have led to accusations of betrayal. It appears from the Press that they include minutes and financial details. Let us not forget we are dealing here with a charitable trust which administers the buildings for the people of Christchurch and New Zealand. You would expect many financial details to be open to public scrutiny in the annual reports of the Board. It is also difficult to see why the minutes of a charity administered in the public interest should be confidential. After all, they are highly unlikely to contain the sort of information which has a legitimate claim to confidentiality such as the lease agreements between the Arts Centre and any tenants. The role of the Board is in formulating policy and this should be open to public scrutiny.


The reaction of the Board suggests that they do indeed have something to hide. Rumours of bullying and muzzling Board members who disagree with the views of the inner cabal suggest that this is a Board which has problems. There is also a strong suggestion that huge sums of money have been squandered on various development projects that have never come to fruition (and probably should never have been contemplated). Rumour also surrounds the chairman of the board, John Simpson, whom it appears may have undeclared conflicts of interest on account of a continuing role on a subcommittee of the University Council.


The further unfolding of this saga will be awaited with interest.

Archive of radio and television interviews

25 August 2009  

Mike Yardley Interview With Dr Rod Carr  Part 1 . 

General discussion on the University.

Mike Yardley Interview with Dr Rod Carr.

Part 2  The Music Conservatorium.

Interview with Rod Carr  Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUeJJ7OAbac

October 12  2009  

Mike Yardley interview with Richard Sinke and Elric Hooper  

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNtnKU5MfNs

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_HkaaysMWc&feature=related

Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2RoqX4PNko&feature=related

19 October 2009

Mike Yardley Interview with Ken Franklin, Director of the Arts Centre 

Parts 1 & 2

Ken Franklin Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo_cWFMg_T8

20 Nov 2009

Mike Yardley speaks to Councillor Yani Johansen on the consultation process 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIAi4W3oqJY

28 Nov 2009

Kim Hill speaks to Rod Carr

http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/sat/sat-20091121-0840-Rod_Carr_revenue_in_Canterbury-048.mp3

Kim Hill interview with Dr Carr

In a recent interview on National Radio with Kim Hill, Dr Carr stated that the music school proposal has "stirred up a few people" whom he claims "repeat the same arguments numerous times and shrieking louder doesn't make them better or different arguments."

Leaving aside for the moment the false claim that only a "few" people are concerned, I find the accusation that the same arguments are repeated numerous times somewhat ironic given the constant refrain by supporters of the proposal that it will bring vitality to the centre city and only a music school at the Arts Centre could attract talented musician and teachers to the city. Not a shred of evidence is presented to back up these claims.

If repeating arguments doesn't make them better or different, it is also the case, as Dr Carr would do well to remember, that constant repetition of misleading information and half-truths does not make them any more true.

Lets examine a couple of examples. First is the assertion that the delay in developing a new building for the New Zealand School of Music gives Canterbury an opportunity to claim a leading position as New Zealand's premier classical music educator. In his submission to the Council consultation process Dr Carr continued to make this claim, despite an earlier corrective letter to the Press from Victoria University in response to the publication of misleading information about the status of the New Zealand School of Music in the series of advertisements promoting the Conservatorium which appeared in the Press. During the consultation process we heard unequivocal evidence from secondary school music teachers that serious students of music aspire to go to the New Zealand School of Music. It is recognised as the premier institution. To be an effective conservatorium, there would need to be a large increase in numbers of both staff and students. Yet we heard evidence that numbers of music students have been declining over the past several years. 

A report commissioned at the end of 2008 by the music departments of the South Island tertiary institutions to assess likely enrollments in 2009 did not provide much comfort. Over 50% of relevant schools responded, which according to the authors was enough to give a good relationship between music study in senior high school and university. The survey showed that only around 35 % of students taking music at high school intended to continue with some music study at tertiary level. When questioned about choice of university, it was clear that the majority planned to attend their local university ( around 17 students in the case of Canterbury) Unless 2008 was a completely aberrant year, the findings of this report, which was not disclosed, would have provided the Council with a much more reliable estimate of likely future music school numbers than the grandiose and unrealistic aspiration for 500 students put forward by the university. 

The financial officer of the University confirmed at the consultation that the music department is currently cross-subsidised by the whole university. It is therefore in no position to increase staffing to the sort of breadth which might begin to attract more students. Furthermore, Dr Carr is already on record as saying that the university currently has more students than its receives funding for. An increase in music students would place further financial strains upon the university, unless any increase in numbers is met by full fee-paying students. However, it is risky to count on this when the department is not the first choice within New Zealand and they would be competing with not only other institutions within  New Zealand but also internationally. The survey of South Island students made it clear that facilities were not a prominent factor in choice of institution and it is equally unlikely to be a major factor with full fee-paying students.

Dr Carr was also economical with the truth during the interview when he claimed, once again, that an opinion survey commissioned by the University, carried out in August, shows 60% of people are not opposed to the location of the Conservatorium at the Arts Centre. What the survey actually found was that overall 37% of those surveyed supported it, 34% opposed it and the remaining 29% were sitting on the fence, with a margin of error of +4.4% at the 95 % confidence level. He completely failed to mention that when the respondents were asked specifically how strongly they supported or opposed the location, 36% were opposed , while only 31% were in support. The strength of opposition was stronger than the strength of support (16% strongly opposed 8% strongly supportive). This was an on-line survey of 500 people, of whom at best 37% or 185 people supported the proposal. No images were shown and the information given was minimal. The 40 % who had not heard about the proposal were given the following statement and then asked to comment.

"The Christchurch City Council is considering building a national Conservatorium of music building at the Christchurch Arts Centre at a site on Hereford St currently used for car parking. The University of Canterbury would lease the building off the Council and pay back all the construction costs though lease payments."

Even back in August, the claim that the survey showed a majority either supported or were open to the proposal was dubious. Not desiring to commit one way or another based on limited information is different from being 'open' to a proposal. However, events since August make the claim entirely unacceptable now. As public knowledge about the proposal has grown, so has the opposition. Over 4000 petitions have been collected. Of the 506 submissions to the Council consultation process, 475 or 94% were opposed and only 6% in support. Similarly, of the 215 submissions on the resource management process, 86% are in opposition.  Even the editor of the Press, in a recent editorial supporting the decision of the Council to fund the proposal, admitted that letters in opposition far-outweighed those in support. 

There is a groundswell of opposition which Dr Carr cannot be ignorant of and which he needs to acknowledge. It is no good saying that the university is engaged in a conversation with the city when it only wants to converse with those who share its views.

A Bedtime Story - A Cautionary Canterbury Tale.

A Heritage Alert reader has submitted the following Canterbury Tale or should I say a "Grimm" tale.

Canterbury University had a problem.  Their music school was too small and too noisy and run down. It lacked modern facilities for its performance students and it needed a new home.  There was plenty of space to build a new school and conservatorium  on their very own land at Ilam, but the Tertiary Education Grants Board could not provide enough funds for the new music school as well as all the other projects on the University’s wish list.

Meanwhile, the Arts Centre Trust Board also had a problem: how nice it would be to have an easy source of money to help pay for its programmes and maintain its heritage buildings! Thus the Chairman had a bright idea to offer its Hereford Street car-park site to the University in return for 50 years of rental income.

The University said “Yes please and thank you very much and we’d like other space in your buildings too, because the car-park site isn’t really big enough for us”.

The Arts Centre Trust Board said “No problem. We will get rid of some pesky little church mice tenants to make space available to such a prestigious and trustworthy tenant”. This enabled the Board to all breath a sigh of relief that  they would not have to work so hard to get money from other places for the Arts Centre.

Now the University had no money to build its new piece of music school.  So cunningly and between the mayoral office and the Vice Chancellors office a deal with the Christchurch City Council was hatched where they would rent the land and build the building for the University.  The City’s C.E.O. Captain Marryatt,  his staff, accountants and lawyers met the Mayor, Commander Parker. Behind closed doors they nutted out a scheme to be both developer and the landlord to the University, and then for a minimum rent the Arts Centre Trust Board would  play the part of landlord to the Christchurch City Council.

The University was pleased to know it would get its Conservatorium much sooner than if it stayed at Ilam and built on its own land. The Vice Chancellor, a previous business man and accountant, told everyone “This is great and to make sure no-one opposes us, we will drop our already approved architectural plans from the 1990s for Ilam, and go with the noted architect Sir Miles Warren’s design for the proposed building. Our P.R. experts will write a lovely story about the Arts Centre being our Spiritual Home, we can talk about ‘Town and gown’ and our music staff will be pleased to have fine new facilities. It will also sound high class if we rebrand the music department as a National Conservatorium. The students will just have to lump carting their instruments and themselves between Ilam and the CBD, finding places to park their cars and then take their instruments up to the first floor.  Everything will be hunky-dory!”

The Mayor’s Office supported the Vice Chancellor and helped by getting business men to wax lyrical in The Press about the idea of Town and Gown and how much a handful of about a hundred or so students would revitalize the city centre. The CPIT already have helped in the east with their 15,000 students spending their student loans. There may even have been mention of how getting the City Council’s foot in the door on such a valuable city centre site as the Arts Centre might in time reap great benefits not only as a car park but also further accommodation for City Hall in the very next block, (but this was not noised abroad!).

Current tenants of the Arts Centre, whose hard work and renovations of the old stone premises had given the city centre a much admired vitality over the years, got wind of what their Trust Board was up to – especially when their new rent demands came in complete with gagging clauses so they never disagreed with their land lord in public.  They then began to question the principle of having a bulky great university building, with access denied to most Christchurch citizens, in a key area of the precious little spare space left for future Arts Centre development. This seemed very unwise.

Ripples of alarm and discontent began to spread, John Simpson, Arts Centre Trust Board chairman ( and former University Councillor) decreed that anyone who was against the idea was biased and had a conflict of interest.  He went further and applied this to his dissenting Board members (now all appointed, no longer freely elected), excluding them from debates, votes and even from attending Board meetings. Out at Ilam, the University  Council held their meetings on the topic in committee and the minutes were never available to inquiring reporters.  In Tuam Street, after considerable public pressure to bring things out into the open, the Christchurch City Council agreed to have a special public consultation on the matter, not on the principles at stake or the wisdom of the project, only on the financial aspects.

Although the three entities involved are all funded by the public purse, not one has had the grace or wit to think past present matters of accountancy and can it be achieved without telling anyone. The University  used  what it calls, its “spiritual” right to occupy Arts Centre land, totally ignoring the “spiritual” rights of all Christchurch citizens to whom Norman Kirk and his government gifted the site to be used as an Arts Centre.  The Arts Centre Trust Board used financial expediency as an excuse to save it the trouble of  keeping the vision of the Arts Centre Founders intact.  The Mayor and many of his Councillors behaved like foxes in a hen-house to get control over a prime piece of real estate.

So, how does the story end?  How does the Arts Centre Trust Board limit the damage done to the Arts Centre by allowing the University and the Christchurch City Council to occupy any part of its valuable site? Unfortunately, when commercial interests and developers join hands with City Hall and City Hall joins hands with the academic Ivory Tower, the values that built our Arts Centre to enrich the lives of citizens and visitors alike, get thrown on the scrap heap. The needs of ordinary people to participate democratically can go to hell in a handcart.  If one of the three bodies in this unholy alliance does not stop holding hands, the only music to come out of this story will be the death knell at the funeral of our Arts Centre.

Anon. 12.09.09

 

 

Naming Games

It appears from the resource consent application, that the Arts Centre has undergone a name change.  It is no longer referred to as the Arts Centre or the Arts Centre of Christchurch but the Arts Centre Campus.  Who authorised this change?  Is it an Arts Centre Trust Board policy? Where was the public discussion of the issue?   I wonder how the non-university tenants of the site feel about this name and were they consulted?   Does the Trust Board really want the Arts Centre to be seen as an outpost of the University, as the name suggests?  Taken alongside the claim which has been made and not refuted,  that the University has been granted first option on areas which become vacant within the complex, it strongly suggests a desire on the part of the University to reclaim the site, aided and abetted by Arts Centre management.  

This impression is reinforced by the recent renaming of the Great Hall as the College Hall. This of course, was its original function and not surprisingly Mountfort's plans give it this rather prosaic name.  The architectural model Mountfort was calling upon was the Medieval Great Hall and the building has long been known by this name.  Why the sudden change as evidenced in a recent Arts Centre advertisement?  It makes no sense today.  We no longer have colleges of a single University of New Zealand.   It looks like an attempt to downgrade the status of the building, which, let us not forget,  also contains an important war memorial window.  College Hall does not have the same resonance as the Great Hall, which is entirely  consistent with the apparent aim of the Music School building to subvert the heirarchy of the site, as I have pointed out in an earlier discussion.

All in all these changes are not reassuring. Added to the name changes, we have the recent, non-notified subdivision of the site, which allows the University to make the spurious claim that there are no heritage buildings on the proposed music school site, because these will now be on separate titles.  It is easy to see the subdivision as a precursor to further redevelopment on other separate titles.  A picture is beginning to build up of a Board and management which is intent on completely changing the nature of the Arts Centre as originally conceived.  If this is necessary in order to protect the heritage buildings, then they have totally failed to bring the public on side.  The Board and management of the Centre act secretively. They dismiss the legitimate concerns of those who value the Arts Centre.  Tenants complain of poor and disrespectful treatment by managment and unwillingness on the part of the Board to listen to their concerns and now we learn that their rental agreements are to contain a gagging clause. We also hear that many existing tenants including music teachers, and many community groups which have formerly used rooms at the Arts Centre,  have been pushed out by excessive rent increases or hire charges. Even the University itself has mentioned the high costs of hiring the Great Hall as one reason for a decline of concerts at the Arts Centre.

Does this drive to force out the smaller tenants alongside the renaming campaign signal that the  Trust Board  is aiming in the longer term to have just one large institutional tenant, the University, with the exception, perhaps, of the Court Theatre, for they would surely not be so foolish as to  try to push that out?  Or does it plan to go even further, and transfer control to another entity?

Car Parking Questions.

At various times we have been told there will be 78 car parks associated with the music school site and that the Council would have 40 of these.  Now it seems there will only be 41 parks, directly under the building.  The area under the quadrangle contains no parking spaces according to the plans lodged with the Resource Consent Application. The exits from the parking area appear to be internal even though a ground plan shown on the University website indicated a basement exit close to the Court Theatre building.  Where, then, are the mysterious parks for the council to go? Have they been abandoned or will they be in the space under the quadrangle? If they are to go there, they would surely need to be constructed at the same time. Can we be given an assurance that if a car park is to go under the quadrangle any resource consent will be notified?

The car park also raises equity issues. Where will existing tenants with parking spaces in this area be  able to park? Will they receive rent adjustments to reflect lack of associated parking if that is the consequence of this building? And what of staff and students of the university? Given that most of them will be travelling between the Arts Centre and the campus, will the usual campus parking fee cover both locations? If not, this imposes an extra costs on the staff and students of the school. On the other hand, if it does, then other staff and students of the university are being asked to subsidise the construction  of a very expensive underground car park.

Playing with numbers

The University keeps telling us that the School of Music currently has 300 students ( or 119.4 EFTS).  This is completely misleading.  We have also been told that the stage 1 will continue to be taught at the university and anyone who has any familiarity at all with universities, knows that stage one courses have by far the greatest numbers of students. At a recent public meeting, Professor Strongman stated that the number of students studying at the conservatorium would be between 14 and 200, but probably nearer 200.  Are we really expected to believe that the University cannot provide  more accurate figures?   I find it astonishing that a University official can stand up in public and expect people to accept such a  statement. Their reluctance to reveal the current number of performance students strongly suggests that the numbers are not particularly favourable.  If  the City Council is being asked to finance the building based on the life the students will bring then the public surely has a right to know.  (It is perhaps worth noting here that CPIT has  230 EFTS in its music programme, yet where do we hear this department extolled for the vitality it brings to the city?)

A review report on the Music School in 2006 (available on the University website) showed that of 618 total students, only 250 or 40% were enrolled at stage 2 or above. The first thing to note is that between the date of the report and  now,  the total roll has approximately halved. Second, if we assume a similar attrition rate beyond  stage 1, then current enrollment for Stage 2 and above are likely to be around 120 students rather than 200.  Not all progressing students will be performance students and it is likely that purely academic courses such as music history will continue to be timetabled at Ilam.  Of course, it also needs  to be remembered that class sizes will be small so that at any given point in the day, the actual number of students present at the Arts Centre will be much fewer than the total roll.  In  2006, when as already noted the roll was greater than the 500 students they are aiming for, the average class size was only 10 students.  This dropped to an average of 6 students for courses above stage 1.  The largest class recorded above stage 1 level had 25 students.  It is time for the University to stop prevaricating and provide the public with the precise figures on numbers currently enrolled in performance programmes.  

The aim to create a "thriving programme in performance music with 500 students and 35 fulltime staff" (The Press, 29 /9/09)  is interesting, because earlier in the debate about the proposal, Dr Rodd Carr stated in a television  interview with Mike Yardley, that the University already has 550 more students enrolled than it is funded for by Government. The current funding regime is not likely to change in the foreseeable future.  Dr Carr observed  in  The Press  (29/9/09) that the tertiary sector is facing "the very real likelihood of minimal funding increases in the short to medium term".  I understand from sources within the University that in response to the funding situation, departments have been told that next year they will be charged $5000 for each student above a stipulated maximum. Unless Music is to be exempted from this requirement, student numbers are unlikely to change greatly from what they are at present.  If Music is to be encouraged to grow, could the University inform us which programmes are to be cut to allow for this increase?

Misleading images?

                                
Professor Ken Strongman, Assistant Vice-Chancellor ( Government and Community Relations) at the University of Canterbury stated in The Press (8/9/09) that a misleading image is being reproduced which is known to be no longer representative of the proposed building (see above). A new image was submitted which is said to reflect the street profile and incorporate refinements resulting from consultations with the Historic Places Trust.

This is rather strange because apart from the fact the new image is a perspective drawing and also shows the heritage buildings to the west along Hereford Street, it clearly incorporates no change to the design from what can be seen in an elevation of the Hereford Street facade, which has been displayed on the University website since June.  

 

It would therefore be very interesting to hear from Professor Strongman exactly what recent changes and refinements have been made to the design as a result of discussions with the Historic Places Trust, because they are certainly not evident.  We  know from the public meeting held at the Employers' Chamber of Commerce that the central stairwell and the elevation at the Dux De Lux end, as seen above, were modified as a result of discussions with the Historic Places Trust before the plans were presented to the public. (The previous design has never been made public.)

What is very clear is that the "new view" is a totally misleading one.  No-one will ever see this view unless all the buildings between Hereford St and Cashel St ( or even as far as Cambridge Terrace) are removed.  I defy anyone to stand on Hereford St and see the view as presented here.  The building will appear much larger and more dominating and the buildings to either side will only be able to be viewed obliquely   On the other hand the view which Professor Strongman claims is misleading is an accurate portrayal of the oblique view anyone will see walking down Hereford St from the Botanic Gardens end.  The accuracy of the view was challenged by the University when it was first made public, but the architects confirmed that it was indeed an accurate representation.  Though there is nothing about the "new drawing" to suggest the plans have changed in any way, if they have, then let us see them presented from the same angle as the disputed drawing.  It should be noted that this same view is still seen in the flyover video presented by the University on its website.  The flyover in itself is misleading because for much of its duration it represents the building from a birds-eye perspective rather than a pedestrian perspective and therefore downplays the scale of the building.  (For some reason the elevation and the perspective have a small dormer to the left of the tower which does not appear in either the flyover or the  South-west perspective, but this discrepancy has been present from the outset.)  We await with interest Professor Strongman's further elucidation as to the nature of the changes.

Capturing the passing crowd

The University in its publicity makes a great deal of the 800,000 visits made to the Canterbury Museum  and surrounding area each year by out-of-town visitors. We are  told  it is this passing crowd, as much as the citizens of Christchurch, that they want to expose to the talent within the music programme.  Apparently, this would not be possible with a building anywhere other than the Arts Centre.

In reality, turning the passing crowd into a fee paying audience is far easier said than done, as Elric Hooper, with years of experience in trying to achieve that for the Court Theatre,  can attest.  By and large theatre and concert performances do not capture an impulse audience.  The best way to display the talent within the school would surely be to provide performances in as wide a range of venues as possible, preferably for no charge or only a nominal charge.  The very successful National School of Music has a no charge policy for the majority of its concerts and it performs at a range of venues throughout Wellington.  The Music School does not need to build a costly auditorium at the Arts Centre to showcase the talent of their students within the cultural precinct.  Numerous potential performance venues exist, of varied size, acoustics and atmosphere. The possibilities are only limited by lack of imagination.

The first and most obvious one is the Great Hall. As the original home of the university and an outstanding heritage building, it surely has the gravitas Mr Carr desires.  A new auditorium at the Arts centre would directly compete with this venue, reducing the income stream for the Arts Centre Trust Board.  A second option, one entailing no additional cost to the University, would be the use of the SOFA gallery for intimate recitals or chamber concerts.  This would allow the audience to experience the talents of the Fine Arts Department at the same time.  In spring and summer outdoor concerts could be held in the quandrangles with the musicians seated under the arcading.   The Southern Ballet Theatre might also be willing to hire out its small and very intimate venue from time to time.  

What about an occasional concert in the McDougall Art Gallery?  That would certainly showcase the talent of the university to the passing crowd intent on making their way to the Museum and Botanic Gardens.  In the daffodil season,  performances in the Band Rotunda could add to the atmosphere for all those tourists who go to admire the daffodils in bloom.  The new visitor centre for the Gardens might provide another location.  The shelter near the childrens' playground  area could provide an opportunity to introduce music to young people. 

It has previously been noted that the atrium of the Art Gallery provides a wonderful opportunity to perform to a captive audience and there is also precedent for using the gallery spaces.  In addition there is a small auditorium.  From time to time COCA is also used for performances and this could provide another possible venue with mutual benefit to the gallery and the Music School.  A little further afield, but still within the cultural precinct, both the Provincial Buildings and the Cathedral offer further possibilities. Still within the Central City but beyond the cultural precinct there are of course places such as the Music Centre,  the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament, St Michaels and All Angels in addition to obvious venues such as the James Hay Theatre for more formal concerts or opera performances.  In reality, there are innumerable possibilities for bringing the vibrancy and talent of the music students to the centre city while still locating the music building on campus. All that is needed is the will to do so.

A response to Mr Ballantyne

I am sure that no-one would disagree with Mr Ballantyne's concern at the decline of the city centre and the need for greater commercial, social, and cultural activity to help ensure that derelict spaces are used more productively. Empty spaces blight too many areas of the city, particulary in the south-east quadrant. Yet it is difficult to see how introducing a new activity into an area which is already thriving and contains the majority of the special attractions referred to by Mr Ballantyne will have any significant spin-offs for the part of the city which has real need of revitalisation.  According to his own logic, if the School of Music is to return to the centre then it should be located somewhere in the vicinity of the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament and CPIT, the only two city attractions he lists where the surrounding areas can be said to have 'slipped'.   The Council's own policy documents all recognise the use of vacant space in this quarter of the inner city as a priority.  A location here would help build on the impetus already being provided by the very worthwhile lane developments, as well as being in proximity to the Jazz School with which the University Music Department has an association. Mr Ballantyne is surely not suggesting that the site of the proposed music school is derelict. The present carpark may not be the optimum use of the area but the space  allows the heritage buildings to breathe.  It is not essential or even desirable to fill the site with more buildings. The move to Ilam by the University saved the area from precisely this fate.  Had it stayed in town, the Arts Centre precinct would have been destroyed.  It is unfortunate that the University now seems intent on re-staking its claim to the site with emotive appeals about a return to its original home.   

Like other proponents of the scheme, Mr Ballantyne argues that the Conservatorium will be a major boost to the central city, socially and economically, adding positively to its life and vibrancy. He harks back to what he sees as a golden age of the 1950's when students and faculty added vitality to the life and commercial activity of the city. However, the number of students studying in town in 1956, before the first students began moving to Ilam, was 2480 (A History of the University of Canterbury 1873-1853).  Today there are in excess of 30 tertiary institutions (including language schools) operating within the central city and CPIT alone has 30 thousand students enrolled, though not all of these will be based at the main campus. Even if only half those enrolled are based on the town campus, it is clear that the combined number of tertiary students studying in the centre city must vastly exceed the numbers that studied at the University on its town site, yet the centre city is still in decline. The music school currently has 300 students according to the University, though we are told that some of the courses will continue to be held at Ilam. Therefore, perhaps only 175 to 200 students will be studying at the Arts Centre, but even allowing for 300, they are unlikely to have the significant impact imagined by promoters of the idea.  They all seem to be forgetting the term breaks and summer holidays in this rosy vision of bubbling life and vitality. But even in term time many will be practising for long hours.  Others will be dashing between the centre and Ilam to attend lectures on campus.  It is likely they will have even less time available than they have now to frequent the city.   In any event, the reality is that students have only limited discretionary spending power and one reason why so many of them are "invisible " to Mr Ballantyne is because they are busy working in their spare time to make ends meet. He is likely to encounter them as waiters and waitresses and baristas without recognising them as students. Dress codes have also changed over time so that students do not stand out so obviously.  The real reason for the decline of the inner city has nothing whatever to do with the move of the University to Ilam. The main reason is the proliferation and ever continuing expansion of the suburban shopping malls. The Council leaders, whose judgment Mr Ballantyne urges us to trust, have failed to control these developments, which have gradually sapped the life away from the centre.

It is possible to agree with Mr Ballantyne's view that the University has a public duty to be very much a part of the city and not an island, without supporting this particular project.  Indeed many members of the university already play such a role, contributing to public debate through the media, participating on Boards and Trusts, giving public lectures, performances or exhibitions, to give just a few examples.  It is certainly not necessary for the university to be physically located in the centre for members of the university community to fully participate in the life of the city. Indeed,  if staff (or for that matter students) are inclined to lead an isolated ivory tower existence, they can do it just as effectively behind the closed doors of a music conservatorium in the centre of town as they can at Ilam.

Opponents have been challenged to provide  alternatives which offer so many obvious benefits. For many of us the benefits seem far from obvious and vastly overstated, while the disadvantages are all conveniently ignored.   Has Mr Ballantyne or any other supporter paused to consider why the owner of the Dux de Lux should be so opposed to the project?  His opposition cannot be dismissed merely as that of a disgruntled business competitor.   If the proposal has all the benefits we are asked to believe then Mr Sinke's business is just the sort that could be expected to benefit from it and as a close neighbour and venue already popular with students and musicians he should be better placed to benefit than most.  Yet this astute and succesful businessman is concerned for the future viability of his business if the proposal goes ahead, not just during the inevitably disruptive stage of construction , but in the long term.

Any number of potential projects could bring greater benefits to the city without putting at risk those things which make the Arts Centre unique.  The concept of a National Museum of Architecture has been mentioned.  Here would be an opportunity for a genuine national institution which is not duplicated elsewhere. If the Council put its money into this rather than a music school which could and should be built at Ilam, it would do much more to enhance the city's cultural image.  The registry Extension at the Arts Centre would be one possible location. It has the advantage of close proximity to the Art Gallery, the Museum and Our City and is eminently in keeping  with the original concept of the Arts Centre.  Another possible location, more in keeping with the Council's revitalisation aims would  be a floor of the Tuam Street Civic building once it is vacated by the Council.  As a building of architectural interest in itself, it would be suitable and the interior could be readily adapted.  On the other hand a project of this nature could provide an ideal opportunity to sponsor a competition for the design of an iconic new building on one of the many vacant sites in the city south.  The University would have the opportunity to make a significant contribution to such a project by allowing more regular exhibition of the wonderful collection of architectural drawings held in the MacMillan Brown Library.  This could be a truly worthwhile partnership between the University and the City which would do more to attract tourists than a music conservatorium ever could.  What could possibly be attractive to tourists about a place of study?  Certainly, they might on occasion be attracted to performances, but as has been pointed out frequently, performances in the centre city are not dependent on a place of study in the centre.  In the past the music school has regularly performed in the city as well as on campus and should continue to do so regardless of where it is located.

Another potential alternative would be to build a student village on one of the many vacant areas south of Colombo Street in order to provide affordable inner city living for the thousands of students who already study in the centre at CPIT and other tertiary institutions.   Supporters of the music school believe it would attract students back to the centre to live,  but reasonable rental is the determining factor for where students live.   The creation of a student village might require some subsidy from the Council to keep rental at an affordable level, but it would meet the council's goals of increasing population in the centre and using vacant space.  The Council has shown no reluctance to subsidise more questionable ventures which support its aims for revitalisation.  A student village would surely do more to increase  vitality  than a building which will be under-utilised for large parts of the year and where students will be invisible (though perhaps not inaudible) for long periods in their practice rooms. During summer vacations rooms in the student village could  be rented to visitors to the city for a higher return, which would help to keep rents lower for students. It is a common practice all around the world for central city student housing to be rented to visitors outside term time.

Another more appropriate use of the Council's borrowing powers would be to facilitate the acquisition, seismic strengthening and restoration of the Odeon Theatre as a permanent home for the Christchurch Symphony  Orchestra,  Southern Opera and the various city choirs to rehearse and perform on suitable occasions.  This has an excellent acoustic, the fly towers necessary for a whole range of theatrical techniques and would provide the 400-500 seat capacity that Elric Hooper has identified  as lacking in the city.  The music school could stage its opera productions there. Not only would this be a more effective way of promoting and enhancing the strong musical traditions of the city, but it would also enhance the city's reputation for concern about its heritage buildings and would be fully consistent with its revitalisation policy documents.

I cannot share Mr Ballantynes confidence in the judgement of our city leaders, the University Council or the Arts Centre Trust Board.  All too often they have shown poor judgement. However,  I have faith that the citizens of this city, if given a genuine opportunity, are capable of coming up with many ideas for making it a better place to live and work.

Council Officer's Report: Analysis or Propaganda?

The report to Council on the University of Canterbury National Conservatorium of Music ( PDF downloadable from http://www.soac.org.nz/ccc-green-light.phpsee) makes disturbing reading and raises serious concerns about Council processes and the quality of the information on which its decision-making is based.  If we assume that the Council officer who prepared it was not incompetent,  then it appears it was either written under instruction to come up with the result wanted by the Council or that the officer knew the result required and wrote the report to fit.  It fails to address a number of important questions and is based on a whole series of unexamined assumptions. 

Is it a proper use of the the Council's borrowing capacity to fund a tertiary institution?

The report does not directly address this question.  It simply accepts that the project is beneficial and is aligned with certain council policies and glosses over the issue.  Yet it is important because the Council does not have unlimited borrowing power and it is also required by its liability management policy to keeps its borrowing within the limits needed to maintain its AA+ rating. Hence, there is an opportunity cost to any borrowing decision that is made, but nowhere in the report is this acknowledged. The report states that the University could fund the project itself. (para 8)  It has been explained elsewhere that one reason for involving the Council is because it can borrow more cheaply than the University.  But the fact that it can do so does not supply an answer to the question of whether it should do so, especially if borrowing to assist an institution able to fund itself  limits the Council's ability to borrow for some other project that might not only have greater and wider community value but also be fully dependent on Council funding, or if it prevents Council undertaking emergency borrowing without harm to its credit rating. The need for the recent $19.1 million  buy-out of a private waste disposal company to ensure the continued operation of the City's waste collections illustrates the importance of caution before committing to substantial borrowing for an institution that has the assets to be able to borrow elsewhere.

Many of the claims made for this project are highly contentious and a whole range of other potential projects could equally be described as beneficial and in alignment with Council policy. Before the question of whether the Council should borrow for this particular project can be validly answered there needs to be a much more rigorous discussion of any potential positives weighed against any potential negatives as well as an examination of whether the claimed benefits could be achieved equally well in ways that do not require Council borrowing.  There seems to be an underlying assumption in the report that the interests of the University and the Council are identical (see especially the Executive Summary), but that is not so.  The Council has much wider responsibilities and it needs to ensure its decision making reflects this.

The key reasons given in support amount to the following:

• Para 20 b  It 'will enhance the existing cultural activities in the area and the outcomes sought for the cultural well-being of the Council's district.'  (Curious wording, this.  You might expect city or inner city, but why Council's district?  Does this reflect a narrow interest in the Cultural 1 Zone with the imminent shift of Council Headquarters to this area?)  
• Para 31   It is aligned with the LTCCP  community outcomes of a city for recreation, fun and activity, a city for lifelong learning and an attractive and well-designed  city.
• Para 32  It is aligned with the direction set by the Central City Revitalisation project.  In particular: it adds visibility to the cultural precinct; it reconnects the historic town and gown link; it reinforces the centre as a place for creative young people; and it will assist in supporting more residential activity.
  
• Para 33  It will provide a basis for the Council to begin to address how it connects Ilam to the Central City and develop greater synergies between campus and downtown. 

No supporting evidence is provided for these statements.  There are many people in the city who believe that this project, rather than enhancing the existing cultural activities of the area, will, to the contrary,  have a directly harmful effect.  Given that performance students might well practise up to 5 hours a day, and that the Conservatorium will be an institutional building  closed to the public for most of the time,  claims that it will enliven the Cultural precinct seem distinctly spurious.  As a correspondent to The Press has correctly pointed out, the shift of up to 1000 Council workers nearby is likely to do much more to generate foot traffic and life in the area than this proposal ever could.  No-one would quarrel with the aim of seeing more performances by staff and students of the university in the cultural precinct but the Council and the University together could provide opportunities  for that to happen without needing to provide the place of study in the city. ( I have recently seen performances in the atrium of the Art Gallery, for example, and what about the forecourt of the new civic building when it is completed.) Further, if the City wishes to enhance performance opportunities in the Central City, it would be better to assist with creating an auditorium of the size and type currently lacking in the City, as identified by theatre expert, Elric Hooper, rather than backing the construction of yet another one of a size already well-catered for. There is no evidence that any attention has been paid to whether the auditorium will meet an actual need in the city and yet this is surely one of the obvious questions that the Council should be asking itself

The  statements in paragraphs 31 and 32 are equally unconvincing as a justification.  The features of the project which are said to align with the LTCCP would apply equally to a building on the campus. In addition there is widespread community disagreement with the opinion that the proposed building would contribute to an attractive, well-designed city.  No-one would argue with its visibility but that is unlikely to reflect credit on either the Council or the University. It is certainly insufficient justification for Council borrowing, as is the notion of reconnecting the historic Town and Gown link.  Besides, the University already has a visible presence at the Arts Centre in the SOFA Gallery, which is entirely in keeping with the aims of the Arts Centre and the desire expressed in the report to reinforce the city as a place for creative young people.  The shortcomings of the revitalisation claim have already been noted. Furthermore,  no justification is put forward for supporting revitalisation in a precinct which is thriving compared to the South of the City and the CPIT/Catholic Cathedral precincts which, according to the Council's own policy documents, are priority areas for redevelopment. The possibility that this project will assist in supporting residential development in the Central City is a very weak argument.  Students follow cheap rent and that is not to be found in the north-west side of the central city.  This argument might be more convincing if the music school were to be in the vicinity of CPIT and the Music Centre, where it would also assist in creating a concentrated hub of musical activity.

The statements made in paragraph 33 are a good illustration of the problems with this report. They put the cart before the horse. The council should be looking at the synergies it wants to achieve between campus and downtown before deciding the proposal is a good thing.  Any departure from the long standing policy to base teaching at Ilam, if that is felt to be desirable, needs be looked at as part of a wider discussion which examines the pros and cons of a move within the context of a range of issues, including the social and environmental impacts, zoning implications, whether there is room for further expansion and its potential impact on traffic and transport policy. Given the trend towards developing links between tertiary insitutions (the Canterbury Tertiary Alliance) it would make sense to concentrate the University's town activities in the area of CPIT (which already has links with the Music Department) to allow easier and more efficient transport links to be developed between Ilam and town and to enhance the opportunities for meaningful relationships between both insitutions to develop.  It would also enhance the relationship with the Music Centre, a major training ground for future students of the Conservatorium.  

Apart from the unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims made in justification of the project, there are several glaring areas of omission which should be examined before the Council is able to reach a sound determination concerning its involvement.

Planning Issues

If the Council is to consider funding and developing a building for another institution on land it doesn't own then surely before doing so it needs to satisfy itself first that the proposal complies with the requirements of its own city plan.  Planning Consultant Malcolm Douglass has argued that tertiary education is not a permitted use within Cultural 1 Zone so this proposal is  a non-complying use  There is no evidence whatever in the report that this issue has even been considered. Nor has any consideration been given as to whether the design is likely to comply with the planning provisions for the zone, including shading effects.  The views of the University and the design panel as to the compatibility of the building are taken completely at face value.  Obvious questions need to  be raised about the impact of the design on the heritage values of the site and even more importantly, any potential impact from the construction process upon the heritage fabric of the existing buildings.   One would expect the Councillors to require  some evaluation of these issues in the report and to decline to make any decision in the absence of such assessments.  It is simply not adequate to state (para 20b)  that the social and environmental impact is considered to be at a low level. Given the vehemently expressed public opposition to the proposal this statement is difficult to sustain.  As a consequence, one would also expect to see some discussion of potential resource management expenses and discussion as to who should bear such  costs.  The document is silent on all these issues.   Where are the reports from the planning section or the heritage section of the Council?

Risk assessment issues

In addition to the unexamined risks relating to impact on the heritage buildings and the potential costs of resource management referred to above, one might also have expected the report to consider matters such as the following:

• How vulnerable is the project to external factors such as changes in government policy for funding tertiary institutions, changing patterns of student demand for the courses offered, changing interest rates,  or possible cost overruns through delays or unexpected difficulties as a result of the sensitivity of the site?
• How viable is the concept of a National Conservatorium given the already successful New Zealand School of Music in Wellington? The letter from the Director of the School quoted in The Press (5/8/09) reveals clearly that the University has supplied misinformation in its public advertisements concerning the status of that institution.  This illustrates the need for the Council to appraise itself of all the relevant information needed to make the decision.  It cannot afford to rely solely on input from the institution that stands to benefit from its borrowing.
• If at some stage in the future the University decides it can no longer afford to support the music programme and a building in town, will the Council be left with a useful asset or will it be too purpose-designed for any alternative use? (Music is a resource intensive programme requiring high levels of one-on-one tuition and expensive facilities. It is has been indicated to University staff that the project will be cross-subsidised by the whole university. If the proposed Conservatorium fails to live up to expectations it will become an obvious candidate for future cost cutting exercises.)
• What are the implications for the Council if the University falls behind or defaults on its payments?
• What are the risks that the council will need to undertake further borrowing for unforeseen reasons which will cause it to exceed it borrowing ratio and so place its borrowing ratings at risk.  If the situation arises, is there provision to increase the rate charged to the university and what impact would that have on the viability of the project?

Supposing, after weighing all the issues carefully, it was felt that the Council should support this project, a position, which I would suggest is in fact untenable, a second equally vital question has been glossed over in the report.

Why should the Council set up a financial structure for  the development of this project which is in breach of its Liability Management Policy?

The Council's liability management policy requires loans to be recovered within a 30 year period but it is proposed in the report that this should be extended to a 50 year period "because the balance between repayment of the loan and the income required to meet that cost is best achieved by a 50 year term rather than a period of 30 years."   This is undoubtedly a desirable outcome for the University, but what are the consequences for the Council?  This is not examined in the report but at the very least it means that the delay in recovery of the debt will raise its borrowing ratio for longer and therefore impose yet another opportunity cost. It certainly does not assist the Council to maintain a prudent level of liquidity to meet planned and unforeseen cash requirements as required in its policy.  It seems very difficult to argue that the advantages to the City of this proposal are so compelling as to justify non-compliance with its policy.

Failure to properly examine the reasonably practicable options for achieving the objectives of the decision.

The report considers that the Council's obligation  under s. 77 of the Local Government Act 2002  to examine all practicable options for achieving the objective of the decision have been met. It identifies the only two reasonably practicable options as funding or not funding. In order to meet the requirements of the Act it is not adequate for the report merely to state that exercising the option not to fund would probably result in the new music school being built at Ilam.  The benefits and costs of that option also needed to be examined and the extent to which community outcomes etc. would be achieved should have been taken into account.  

It is also completely unsatisfactory to discuss only the recommended funding and development structure. A range of permutations are possible. These include the Council simply borrowing and leaving the University itself to lease from the Arts Centre and build the building; the Council borrowing and carrying out the development itself; as well as the chosen structure of using an existing Council Company, CBL, to carry out the development and lease the building to the university.  The report needed to examine the costs and benefits of all of these methods and any other possible structures.   Amongst the issues that should have been raised and evaluated were the legality of a 'subdivision"  resulting from lease of part of an allotment for a term of more than 35 years, what forms of security the Council has as a result of the various arrangements, given that neither it nor the University own the land, and the question of why the Council (or Council Company) should be an intermediary in a relationship between the University and the Arts Centre Trust Board  and the implications of taking on that role.  It is surely not the appropriate role of the Council  "to manage the ongoing relationship with The Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust. (para 8)

Failure to consider issues of prudent stewardship and effective use of its resources.

It is one of the obligations of a local authority to ensure prudent stewardship and efficient and effective use of its resources in the interests of its district and region. (s. 14 (1) (g) Local Government Act 2002.)  This report seems to have paid insufficient attention to this obligation or its own LTCCP outcome of managing public funds responsibly.  

One of the questions which has been totally ignored is whether it is prudent stewardship or efficient and effective use of Council resources to build at the Arts Centre when a music school could be built much less expensively on campus.  For example:

• There would be no need for to use the expensive materials required to fit in with the Arts Centre.
• Expensive monitoring to ensure there was no impact on the surrounding heritage buildings would not be required.
  
• An expensive underground carpark would not be needed.
  
• Resource management costs would be considerably reduced.
  
• There would be no need to pay a ground rental.
  
• Although it might still be desirable to build an auditorium of the capacity the city lacks (though this is not what is proposed at the Arts Centre), it would be unnecessary to build a library and the need for lecture spaces could be reduced by the use of  shared lecture rooms.
• The administrative and energy costs of a split campus would be avoided. 
  

Without taking these matters into account the Council can scarcely be said to have properly considered its obligations of stewardship and effective use of resources.

Given all the shortcomings of this report, it is disturbing that it should be accompanied by the advice that a formal consultative process is unnecessary because it would add nothing to the Council's understanding  of community views and those views will be taken into account during the resource management process.  This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of consultation.  

The LTCCP states that progress in achieving the outcome of a well governed city will be measured, among other things, by confidence in Council decision-making.  So long as the Council continues to make decisions on the sort of limited information and evaluations given in this report, then no-one is likely to feel great confidence in their decision-making.

In support of the plane trees

I am tired of hearing from those with a vested interest in the proposed music school about the boiler house and the dreary and windy car park with a southerly aspect. Whoever sits outside in Christchurch during a southerly anyway! And I know of no-one who is arguing for retention of the boiler house. Undoubtedly, the area has a rather neglected aspect at present and it would certainly benefit from improved landscaping. But proponents of the music school seem to imply that we only have a choice between their project and keeping the carpark as it is at present. That is patently absurd. There are many potential options but the response of the public reveals a widespread desire for retention of the site as open space. As John Dodgsun pointed out so eloquently in a letter to the Press, we need space to appreciate the heritage. This area has a long history as an open space. It was originally the playing fields for Christchurch Boys' High School. (See image above)

Today the space is beautifully enhanced by maturing plane trees. I love these trees and if they survive this proposal, maybe we can look forward to the day when they equal the splendour of the plane tree outside the Academy Cinema. Of course, this one is also intended to be removed to make way for the underground car park. What a crime! All tree lovers should be up in arms. (Note the absence of the big plane tree in the perspective! ) I am sure any competent landscape architect could create an inspiring urban space on the Hereford St site, using these trees as the backbone of the design. It should be possible to include sheltered seating areas while still retaining unobstructed views of the full glory of the heritage buildings from Hereford St.

Proponents of the building keep speaking of the long-awaited third quandrangle. Well I have lived in Christchurch a long time and it is only in the last couple of years that I have heard this idea being bandied about. The 2006 Arts Centre Trust Board Annual Report which announced its "creativity works" mentioned the possibility of a building on the Hereford St site and stated that this provided an "opportunity to create a third quadrangle in place of what can only be charitably described as our 'back yard'." The disparagement of the area has continued and an "opportunity" has in the mere space of two years become 'long-awaited'. It should be noted that this same report, which signalled a greater commercialization of the Arts Centre generated a huge public outcry.

The Vice-Chancellor attempts to reinforce the inevitability of the proposed change with his tendentious statement in his Press perspective article that the proposal "presents our community with a significant opportunity to contribute to a long overdue decision on the future of its cultural precinct." Can someone explain what this long overdue decision is? The Vice-Chancellor certainly doesn't. And when he speaks of community contribution, could it be that he is really referring to the financial contribution of the community through the involvement of the City Council, given his demonstrable unwillingness to actually listen to the the views of the public? (see previous blog)

At the recent public meeting, the Arts Centre Trust Board attempted to shore up the case for a building on the site by showing a drawing of building proposed for the site in the early 1920s. This was no more a sketch for a much-needed student association building and the Hereford St site was the only obvious area of vacant land where such a building could go. However, in 1926, the University purchased what is now the Dux-de-Lux and the problem was resolved. This does not establish a long-standing intent to build on the site. Throughout the University's long years of tenure following that, there is no evidence of firm plans for a building on the site. To the contrary, A History of the University of Canterbury 1873-1973 establishes clearly that before taking the decision to move to Ilam, the University's plans for expansion and development were to the north, across Worcester Boulevard. In any event, whether or not the University had planned to develop on the site is ultimately irrelevant. The only relevant questions are should there be a building on the site now, given its current status as an Arts Centre with Category 1 Heritage Buildings, and if the answer to that question is positive, then should it be this particular building? These are questions which should only be answered after first obtaining meaningful imput from the beneficiaries of the trust establishing the Arts Centre, the people of Christchurch and New Zealand.

Consultation Contradictions

Dr Carr has stated on several occasions in public that the University does not want to intrude where it is not wanted.   In a statement on the University website following the recent Council meeting he reiterated this point and went on to add  " it makes sense for the University to hear and understand the views of the community."

(http://www.comsdev.canterbury.ac.nz/news/2009/090723a.shtml) 

It is rather surprising, then, to read what he has to say in the very next paragraph:  

“I welcome clarification from Mayor Bob Parker that the Special Consultative Procedure is not about the development being located on the Arts Centre site or the design of the building but on the council’s role in funding the project.”

How can Mr Carr hope to understand the views of the community if he is pleased that the consultation will will limited to the role of the Council in financing it?   This comment together with the disparaging remarks he has made about those who do not share  his vision ( notwithstanding the fact that they include some highly qualified and knowledgeable citizens)  raises serious doubts about the sincerity of his desire to "hear and understand".  How many signatures on a petition would it take for Dr Carr and the University to recognise that Christchurch does not want this?  It is difficult to avoid the view that he is only concerned whether the City Council and the Arts Centre Trust Board welcome the proposal.  But both institutions have failed to canvass public opinion and the belated decision to allow comments to the Council on financial matters after the majority of Councillors have voted in favour of the proposal simply inspires the cynical view that it is a mere box-ticking exercise.  It in no way constitutes the thorough consultation called for in the public petition or by submitters to the Council meeting.

Rates neutrality of project queried.

Both the University and the City Council have been at pains to point out over and over that  the ratepayers will not have to pay for the proposed music building.  Let us examine that proposition a little more closely.  No doubt it is true that the university will repay the costs over time through its lease payments and to that extent, it will be rates neutral.  But if the Council is to be responsible for  borrowing the money and developing and owning the building through one of its companies, then it will need to seek the necessary resource consents.  The choice of this site  rather than at Ilam will, at the very least, involve the appointment of a Commissioner to hear the resource consents.  This will be a cost to the ratepayer.  If an Environment Court hearing becomes necessary, as seems certain given the depth of public opposition to the scheme,  the Council will inevitably be a party.  Here the costs could run into millions of dollars.  Will the lease agreement with the University provide for the recovery of these costs? All public statements have been silent on this issue.  If these costs are to be covered by the Council, then the ratepayer will be contributing  to the costs despite all assertions to the contrary.  If the University has agreed to cover the Council for any resource management expenses then it is surely acting in a fiscally irresponsible way with scarce tertiary funding resources by building in a location where resource management battles are inevitable.

That does not look good for the university when it has recently announced that undergraduate fees will rise by 5% in 2010 and student service fees will rise to $600 per student.

The proposal will also impact on ratepayers in another way.  Any borrowing undertaken by the Council for this project will have an opportunity cost because no institution has an unlimited capacity to borrow.  As a consequence borrowing for some other project of benefit to the community will simply not happen or will need to be funded directly from rates.  The Council has only just been through its long term council community plan hearing process which is designed to allow communities to contribute to decisions on the prioritization of spending. This project was not included.

National School of Music Alive and Well!

An advertisement in The Press (20 July 2009) poses the question: Isn't there already a National School of Music in Wellington? Dr Carr responds that the " joint venture between Massey and Victoria universities has been deferred until 2013, with the cost of its proposed building estimated to be about $60 million.  Our proposal is nowhere near as expensive and represents an opportunity for Canterbury to become a national leader in music education." What are we to make of the National School of Music website (www.nzsm.ac.nz) in that case? This  site (updated as recently as 10 July 2009) states that the National School of Music is a joint venture between Massey University and Victoria University of Wellington.  The list of staff reveals that the programme has an academic staff of 41,  a classical performance staff of 46 and a jazz performance staff of 25.  Contrast this with the 1o academic staff and 23 part-time staff at Canterbury (plus 11 associated jazz staff based at CPIT). The National School of Music has a very active programme of events which take place at one of the 10 regular performance venues on either the Massey or Victoria campuses as  well as in other parts of the city.  Clearly a single inner city performance venue has not been essential to the success of the school. 

It is obvious, then, that the answer in the advertisement is more than a little misleading.  The National School of Music has certainly run into difficulties with shifting to a new site on the Wellington waterfront.  One of the reasons has been public opposition to use of an important urban greenspace for the building. There is surely a warning for Canterbury University here, having opted for an even more sensitive and publicly loved site for its proposed building.   But can it seriously be argued that the delay in a new building for the National School of Music   represents an opportunity for Canterbury to become a national leader in music.  It would appear that it has well and truly missed the boat, with a national school in place and thriving, with the almost as strongly staffed school of Music at Auckland University already waiting in the wings as part of the National Institute of Creative Arts and Industries.

Could the real reason why the university is seeking funding for its building from the Council be because it knows it could never hope to establish the need for funding a National Conservatorium of Music with the Tertiary Education Commission?

Urban Design Panel Flawed

The University argues in an advertisement in The Press  (18 July) that the Music School building is suitable for the site because the plans have been approved by the Urban Design Panel, the Historic Places Trust, and the Arts Centre Trust Board.   The Arts Centre Trust Board is clearly not a disinterested party. 

The view of the Urban Design Panel should be treated with scepticism. This panel does not include a trained conservation architect or indeed anyone with conservation expertise.  This shortcoming has been pointed out to the City Council but nothing has been done to remedy the problem.

The approval of the Historic Places Trust also needs to be treated with caution. Because the New Zealand Historic Places Trust is so severely underfunded,  it cannot afford to become involved in too many expensive legal proceedings. Hence, it has a strongly embedded bureaucratic predisposition towards compromise. 

It is true that a presentation on the proposal was presented to the Civic Trust.  What is not mentioned is that the Trust has written a letter to the University and the Arts Centre Trust Board outlining its concerns about the building and has organised a public meeting to discuss these problems.

Cheaper to build on campus

It is claimed that building a new music school at the Arts Centre will cost no more than building at Ilam. This quite simply does not stack up. In order to build at the Arts Centre, the university is committing itself to pay a ground rental for as long as it uses the building.  This is not required on its own campus.  In addition, resource management costs will inevitably be much greater on this site, for while no-one is likely to object to what the university does on campus, many are passionately opposed to what is planned for the Arts Centre.  The cost of monitoring during construction of the building will also be much higher at the Arts Centre because of possible risk to the adjoining heritage buildings from vibration, changes to the water table or accidental damage by cranes or vehicles working on site.  

Then there is the issue of duplication of facilities though the construction of a new library, an auditorium and lecture spaces. Because the university has a policy of closing branch libraries, it is unlikely that a new building on campus would include provision for a library.  Common lecture spaces would also be able to be used. Most extravagant of all is the duplication of an auditorium.  The university already has a good 300 seat auditorium with sound acoustics at the former College of Education.   The Ngaio Marsh Theatre has a capacity of 435, though the acoustics are less satisfactory.  (Note that this theatre was designed by the same architect as that of the proposed new auditorium!)   The present music school also has a small performance area suitable for recitals and chamber music.  Profligate duplication of resources is socially irresponsible and will have to be paid for by someone.  There is no such thing as a free lunch as any economist will tell you.  The university should be setting an example of maximizing efficiency. A conservatorium does not need to have its own auditorium. Suitable venues can be hired according to need.

New Quadrangle Not needed

One of the benefits claimed for building the Music School on the Hereford St carpark site is the creation of a new sheltered quadrangle between the heritage buildings and the new building. The prospect of a new quadrangle has a superficial appeal until confronted with the reality of the new building which will overlook it. The watercolour which was illustrated in The Press downplays the sheer bulk of the building because it is viewed from an unnaturally high perspective. It also looks mainly towards the lower wing adjoining the Academy. The image above gives a more realistic view of how dominating the building will be.

No-one would deny that this part of the Arts Centre has suffered from lack of attention and would benefit from improved landscaping and the removal of the boiler house, but this proposal is not the correct solution.  A new quadrangle would come at the expense of the popular outdoor area of Dux de Lux, which would be overwhelmed by the bulk of the new building just a few metres away and be cast into shadow when the sun is low in the sky.  A building on the site would also be at the expense of the views of the heritage buildings from Hereford St.

Why is only one area of the city suitable for a Conservatorium?

The university believes that its vision of a National Conservatorium of Music will succeed at the Arts Centre but is less likely to succeed at Ilam because it would be difficult to attract staff of sufficient renown there. But whether the conservatorium is located on the Ilam campus or at the Arts Centre is surely not going to be the critical factor in attracting quality staff.  Most teachers of performance have performing careers themselves and New Zealand is a long way from the major centres of performance.  New Zealand academic salaries do not provide sufficient inducement to compensate for distance.  

However, if the university is successful in attracting the sort of staff they want and a central location is part of the inducement, on what grounds can it assert that only this one site will be sufficient attraction.  The area in the vicinity of the Odeon theatre, which would make an ideal performance venue, has a number of areas suitable for development as well as the advantage of proximity to CPIT and the Music Centre.  The developing lanes culture of this part of town surely offers the sort of urban lifestyle which it is claimed would be necessary to attract staff of sufficient calibre.   If the university's claim to wish to stimulate revitilization of the city is to be taken seriously, then this part of town is the very area which needs additional stimulus. The Arts Centre area already has a wide range of attractions which ensures its vitality. The belief that this site alone will do is essentially a vote of no confidence in the rest of the city

Music building in city centre not necessary

We are told that performance students need audiences. No-one would disagree with that.  The problem comes in being asked to believe that they will only have audiences if they are at the Arts Centre. Much is made of the 800 000 visits made each year to the Museum and surrounding area by out-of town visitors. This passing crowd, it is said, would only be exposed to the talent in the music programme with an auditorium in the Arts Centre. Setting aside the assumption that has been made that these people have the time and inclination to attend concerts, it is far from self- evident that they will only attend if the university has an auditorium of its own on the site. It is much more likely that the majority of such captured audiences will have been attracted to the site by the heritage  buildings and would far prefer a concert in the Great Hall. Music students do not need to study in the central city to perform there.  

By this logic,  Fine Arts students, who need spectators as much as music students need an audience,  should not only be displaying their works from time to time in the SOFA Gallery, but should have their studios relocated to the city.

By all means let us have more performances in the city at any of the many venues that are available, but do not pretend it is necessary to have a building in town in order to do so.

As to the reason why concerts on the campus are not well supported, the university need look no further than the increased work load on staff as a result of successive cuts to Liberal Arts programmes, and the introduction of an admission charge, no doubt in order to help meet the Music Department's contribution margin.