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.