Lessons from the quake

The devastating quake which hit Christchurch and large parts of rural Canterbury has demonstrated how unprepared the New Zealand Historic Places Trust has been to deal with the emergency. Local staff members are being worked off their feet to help with assessment of damage to heritage buildings, but with the best will in the world they cannot cover enough ground.  They  simply do not have enough manpower to deal with the scale of the damage.

What has become very clear is that the NZHPT, as the lead heritage agency in the country, should have had an earthquake contingency plan in place.  Such a plan should include provision for an emergency team that can be called in to assist with assessments of earthquake damage.  The team would be drawn from a list of engineers sympathetic to heritage buildings, heritage architects, archaeologists, stained glass conservators,  earth building specialists,  and skilled heritage stone masons, to name just some of the obvious  skills likely to be required. It is important that the list of skilled people able to form an emergency team should be drawn from across the country so that no matter where a quake hits, there will always be people available somewhere .

What would have happened if members of the local staff had been incapacitated by the quake? How soon would we have seen an HPT presence here.  As it is, buildings are being lost because there are not enough heritage consultants on the ground to assist property owners to make informed decisions about the prospects of retaining buildings.  It is now a week after the event, and no-one from head office has been near the city.  It is apparently being viewed as a purely regional issue, despite that fact that a high number of Category 1 buildings (and therefore buildings of national significance) have been damaged in the quake.  

In stark contrast to the absence of any comments from the CEO of NZHPT,  ICOMOS New Zealand issued a Press Release soon after the quake, urging caution before taking the decision to demolish any damaged heritage buildings.  Since then emails of solidarity and support have been received from members of the heritage community around the globe.  It is clear that the world is watching to see how we deal with our heritage after this natural disaster, and I am afraid that the response of the NZHPT will be found wanting. 

I hope before another major quake hits somewhere in New Zealand, NZHPT will have addressed the shortcomings of its response to this event and that it will have in place national and regional emergency plans so that it is in a position to step in and help immediately with all the manpower necessary to adequately cover the affected area.

The recent announcement that Jen Crawford  has been appointed to the Arts Centre Trust Board was both surprising and disturbing.  Those who were involved in the recent resource management hearings will be aware that she was the lawyer representing the applicants for the proposed music school. Her appointment has all the appearance of stacking the Board with yet another member who will promote the pro-development stance it has adopted over recent years.   Given all the bad publicity the Board has received since the music school proposal was made public, it would have been a smart move on their part to appoint someone with impeccable heritage credentials.  The Board is full of business and development oriented members but conspicuously lacks anyone who brings substantial heritage expertise to the boardroom.  That is one reason why they so completely failed to foresee the great groundswell of public opposition to placing additional buildings on the site.

Public statements by Director Ken Franklin since the music school was turned down indicate that development is still very much on their agenda. The Board may be chastened by defeat but they evidently remain unchanged in their determination to develop the vacant sites.  They prefer to consider the opposition as coming from a small, implacable group intent upon derailing their plans by fair means or foul. But in the end the decision was based firmly on the requirements of the City Plan.  If they continue to ignore the widespread public desire to keep the heritage buildings free from modern intrusions and retain the open space which allows the buildings to breathe and be seen clearly, they are setting themselves up for further battles. The public has clearly indicated a desire for greater involvement in decisions being made for the future of our Arts Centre. So it is not reassuring to be told that it would be a year to eighteen months before  “any announcements”  are made concerning new plans for the site.  There is no suggestion here that the Board intends to consult with the public.   

It is interesting to note that when Ken Franklin’s appointment as director was announced he stated: “We must earn the support of the people of Canterbury......To build community confidence we will operate with transparency, providing insight into our intentions, encouraging open debate…”    It is difficult to reconcile these words with the music school debacle where debate was stifled on the Board, leading to resignation of one member, where citizens collecting petitions against the proposal were threatened with trespass notice and where public interest groups opposing the plans are said to have subjected the Arts Centre to unprecedented  attack.. " Far from being open and transparent, Mr Franklin and the Board adopted a seige mentality and unless this changes it does not bode well for the future of the Arts Centre. Unfortunately the recent public skirmishes with the stall holders, who feel bullied and threatened, indicates that the Board have a long way to go to restore any public confidence in their administration.

 

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.

  

  

Arts Centre related blogs

I recently came across an excellent blog on the history of the Arts Centre. Anyone who has a general interest in the Arts Centre should certainly visit the site, which includes newspaper articles about the buildings from the Star in the 1870s and 1880s.  Click here  

Also visit Canterbury Heritage  for another perspective.  This blog, like the previous one, will be of general interest to anyone who is keen on learning more about some of the more obscure aspects of Canterbury history. 

Some strongly expressed opinions against the Music School proposal can be found on Against the Current.