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. 

Arts Centre not gifted for heritage says Vice-Chancellor!

The Vice-Chancellor of the University, Dr Rod Carr stated in the Press of July 3rd that the University  did not gift the buildings to be a heritage site or a museum of neo-Gothic architecture.  No-one is claiming museum status for the site, but its heritage status is undeniable, recognised both in the City Plan and by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Whether the University deemed it a heritage site is ultimately irrelevant because it is not up to it to determine that status, but of course the claim that it was not gifted for this reason is in fact a nonsense and is clearly intended to ease its path to gaining approval for the new building. It is unthinkable that the University would have gifted such a huge capital asset had it not recognised the strong public interest in protecting the buildings.  The reality is that an Arts Centre was conceived as an appropriate means of providing a new use for the buildings which would allow them to be preserved.  Dr Carr's attempt to now place a different gloss on this very generous gift to the people of Canterbury and New Zealand does him and his institution no credit and raises serious doubts as to the ability of the current university leadership to make a sound and unbiased judgement as to whether the proposed new building does indeed complement the existing heritage structures.