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.