Sunday, May 2, 2010

More changes at the Arts Centre

The Arts Centre Trust Board seems determined to change the Arts Centre as we know it.  The latest announcement is the news that stall holders have been told they must move from market square within six months to make way for car parking.  It was always obvious that if the music school was given the go-ahead, some stallholders and the food vendors would have to move.  It was also clear that if the Board proceeded with plans for underground parking beneath Market Square, the market would need to move while construction took place. However, it came as a surprise to stallholders to be told that the move would be permanent. They were equally surprised at the timing of the notice, given the fact that we are still awaiting the outcome of the resource consent hearing and even if the decision favours the Trust Board, opponents have indicated that they will appeal.

The reason for the rush remains unclear, in spite of Director Ken Franklin's explanation that the move was not just about the music school but was "part of a broader plan to build an underground carpark and free up the market square for events". What sort of events they have in mind has not been explained. There is not even an active resource consent application for an additional underground car park as far as anyone is aware. 

Of course, mention of car parking under market square, immediately brings us back to the issue of the mysteriously disappearing underground car parking spaces for the Council, which were withdrawn prior to the commencement of the resource consent hearing.  Yet these parks were part of the Council's funding agreement.  It is difficult not to be cynical and expect that additional car parking will be authorised in a non-notified resource consent as soon as the music school gets the go ahead,  so that the Hereford St car park entrance will be available for the extended site under both market square and the new "3rd quadrangle."    

Logically, construction of car parks under the quadrangle would have to take place at the same time as the music school construction (even if construction of the market square portion takes place at a later date).  Any other scenario would be completely disruptive to the functioning of the music school.  Perhaps the Arts Centre has abandoned its plans to include car parks under the new quadrangle area, but this seems most unlikely. On the other hand, the likelihood of a separate publicly notified resource consent application for car park construction in the quadrangle also seems improbable as that would cause further delays in completion of  the music school, which the university has repeatedly stated to be a matter of urgency.  I hope my cynicism is unjustified, because if  a non-notified consent were granted  and building of part or all of an extended car park proceeded at the same time as the music school, it would represent a gross abuse of process.

Underground car parking aside, it seems that at least for the duration of the music school construction the car parking desert which so offends supporters of the music school, will be shifted to the much more prominent market square part of the Arts Centre.

And what of the market itself.  That is to be shut away in the north and south quadrangles, where stall holders will have great difficulty in getting goods to and from their stalls.  Long term stallholders remember the difficulties they faced when the market was located here and have no desire to return to this part of the Arts Centre. One could almost think that this is just a clever ploy to encourage stall holders to give up on the site.  Perhaps the market does not suit the Arts Centre's re-branded creativity works image with its emphasis on the Arts Centre as a place "where people can turn creative skills and talents into successful, unique, innovative business" and its  aim to attract "new high quality creative industry tenants". 

The market was moved from the North and South Quadrangles on sound conservation grounds, so that the buildings and the spaces defined by the buildings can be appreciated.  It is a backward step to return it there. It would be interesting to know what sort of "events" are intended to take place in market square which would justify permanent removal of the market from this part of the Arts Centre.

The Stall holders have organised  a petition against the move which can be downloaded from the Save our Craft Market website . Click here for a link.

  


  

6 comments:

Early Canterbury Photography said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Early Canterbury Photography said...

Can the "Trustees" of our Arts Centre not make up their minds? First they are trying to tell us in their opinion there are better things to be done with the carpark and now they want to build another one on the other side of the site!

You make an interesting observation that perhaps the current activities on the site aren't good enough for the "Trustees" and they are looking to re-brand the whole site as elitist and upmarket.

Currently for tourists there's a path to follow when exploring the city on foot, from the Cathedral Square, down Worcester Boulevard, to the Art Gallery, then the Market and Arts Centre buildings and on to the Museum and Gardens. If the Market is move out of sight, some tourists would not venture beyond the Art Gallery and miss the other attractions.

Liz Gordon said...

Now that we have won this fantastic victory, this is the next issue to tackle. What kind of mind is it that thinks it is a good idea to sweep away the vibrant stalls into a sunless corner and replace that public area at the heart of Christchurch with a car park? Why is the Arts Centre in such poor shape financially? Can other agencies - the Council, the government, others, help with the cost of strengthening these heritage buildings? Is the site being well and efficiently managed? I know that SOAC has done some work on the accounts. It would be great if this organisation could take the lead in SAVING market square. I am happy to help if I can.

Peter Wally said...

Yeah,the SOAc should take over the Arts Centre as a whole and Liz Gordon could be the director ,assisted by Dame Hercus and Richard Sinke .
Then things would shape up in Christchurch finally with true excellence leading the path.
The Arts Centre board should be sacked and I would go one step further and get rid of the University's dealings there.The SOFA gallery can be used better and who needs those concerts at the Great Hall anyway ?They can exhibit at Ilam ,together with the Musicians performing there.
That's where they belong.
Our tourists don't need the UC there or classical music,they come to New Zealand to see the stunning landscape and the beautiful Arts Centre.

Anonymous said...

That sounds too extreme to me.
I believe the SOAC should make a case for the stall holders, but I cannot see what this has to do with classical music.
The SOAC has fought an admirable campaign so far and it was quite right to fight against the music school and its representatives,nobody needs them
really anyway. But the SOFA gallery does not need a major change,unless a more profitable option comes up,In that case I would also advocate the dismissal of the University and its dealings from the Arts Centre.
Thinking a bit further here: if one considers the enormous cost to the taxpayer who actually needs this university in Christchurch ?
Maybe the SOAC should look into that and start a campaign: STUC "Stop the University of Canterbury".I would support them,they are representing common sense after all.

Michael Endres said...

I wholeheartedly recommend Mr.Wally and Anonymous for a "concerned citizen reward" reading their unique statements.
They both seem to be invaluable members for the SOAC 's future battles.
"STUC" is a particularly splendid idea ,I can actually see it gather momentum here in Canterbury.Let the people decide !
After all : the earth is flat, isn't it ?