Kim Hill interview with Dr Carr

In a recent interview on National Radio with Kim Hill, Dr Carr stated that the music school proposal has "stirred up a few people" whom he claims "repeat the same arguments numerous times and shrieking louder doesn't make them better or different arguments."

Leaving aside for the moment the false claim that only a "few" people are concerned, I find the accusation that the same arguments are repeated numerous times somewhat ironic given the constant refrain by supporters of the proposal that it will bring vitality to the centre city and only a music school at the Arts Centre could attract talented musician and teachers to the city. Not a shred of evidence is presented to back up these claims.

If repeating arguments doesn't make them better or different, it is also the case, as Dr Carr would do well to remember, that constant repetition of misleading information and half-truths does not make them any more true.

Lets examine a couple of examples. First is the assertion that the delay in developing a new building for the New Zealand School of Music gives Canterbury an opportunity to claim a leading position as New Zealand's premier classical music educator. In his submission to the Council consultation process Dr Carr continued to make this claim, despite an earlier corrective letter to the Press from Victoria University in response to the publication of misleading information about the status of the New Zealand School of Music in the series of advertisements promoting the Conservatorium which appeared in the Press. During the consultation process we heard unequivocal evidence from secondary school music teachers that serious students of music aspire to go to the New Zealand School of Music. It is recognised as the premier institution. To be an effective conservatorium, there would need to be a large increase in numbers of both staff and students. Yet we heard evidence that numbers of music students have been declining over the past several years. 

A report commissioned at the end of 2008 by the music departments of the South Island tertiary institutions to assess likely enrollments in 2009 did not provide much comfort. Over 50% of relevant schools responded, which according to the authors was enough to give a good relationship between music study in senior high school and university. The survey showed that only around 35 % of students taking music at high school intended to continue with some music study at tertiary level. When questioned about choice of university, it was clear that the majority planned to attend their local university ( around 17 students in the case of Canterbury) Unless 2008 was a completely aberrant year, the findings of this report, which was not disclosed, would have provided the Council with a much more reliable estimate of likely future music school numbers than the grandiose and unrealistic aspiration for 500 students put forward by the university. 

The financial officer of the University confirmed at the consultation that the music department is currently cross-subsidised by the whole university. It is therefore in no position to increase staffing to the sort of breadth which might begin to attract more students. Furthermore, Dr Carr is already on record as saying that the university currently has more students than its receives funding for. An increase in music students would place further financial strains upon the university, unless any increase in numbers is met by full fee-paying students. However, it is risky to count on this when the department is not the first choice within New Zealand and they would be competing with not only other institutions within  New Zealand but also internationally. The survey of South Island students made it clear that facilities were not a prominent factor in choice of institution and it is equally unlikely to be a major factor with full fee-paying students.

Dr Carr was also economical with the truth during the interview when he claimed, once again, that an opinion survey commissioned by the University, carried out in August, shows 60% of people are not opposed to the location of the Conservatorium at the Arts Centre. What the survey actually found was that overall 37% of those surveyed supported it, 34% opposed it and the remaining 29% were sitting on the fence, with a margin of error of +4.4% at the 95 % confidence level. He completely failed to mention that when the respondents were asked specifically how strongly they supported or opposed the location, 36% were opposed , while only 31% were in support. The strength of opposition was stronger than the strength of support (16% strongly opposed 8% strongly supportive). This was an on-line survey of 500 people, of whom at best 37% or 185 people supported the proposal. No images were shown and the information given was minimal. The 40 % who had not heard about the proposal were given the following statement and then asked to comment.

"The Christchurch City Council is considering building a national Conservatorium of music building at the Christchurch Arts Centre at a site on Hereford St currently used for car parking. The University of Canterbury would lease the building off the Council and pay back all the construction costs though lease payments."

Even back in August, the claim that the survey showed a majority either supported or were open to the proposal was dubious. Not desiring to commit one way or another based on limited information is different from being 'open' to a proposal. However, events since August make the claim entirely unacceptable now. As public knowledge about the proposal has grown, so has the opposition. Over 4000 petitions have been collected. Of the 506 submissions to the Council consultation process, 475 or 94% were opposed and only 6% in support. Similarly, of the 215 submissions on the resource management process, 86% are in opposition.  Even the editor of the Press, in a recent editorial supporting the decision of the Council to fund the proposal, admitted that letters in opposition far-outweighed those in support. 

There is a groundswell of opposition which Dr Carr cannot be ignorant of and which he needs to acknowledge. It is no good saying that the university is engaged in a conversation with the city when it only wants to converse with those who share its views.

A Bedtime Story - A Cautionary Canterbury Tale.

A Heritage Alert reader has submitted the following Canterbury Tale or should I say a "Grimm" tale.

Canterbury University had a problem.  Their music school was too small and too noisy and run down. It lacked modern facilities for its performance students and it needed a new home.  There was plenty of space to build a new school and conservatorium  on their very own land at Ilam, but the Tertiary Education Grants Board could not provide enough funds for the new music school as well as all the other projects on the University’s wish list.

Meanwhile, the Arts Centre Trust Board also had a problem: how nice it would be to have an easy source of money to help pay for its programmes and maintain its heritage buildings! Thus the Chairman had a bright idea to offer its Hereford Street car-park site to the University in return for 50 years of rental income.

The University said “Yes please and thank you very much and we’d like other space in your buildings too, because the car-park site isn’t really big enough for us”.

The Arts Centre Trust Board said “No problem. We will get rid of some pesky little church mice tenants to make space available to such a prestigious and trustworthy tenant”. This enabled the Board to all breath a sigh of relief that  they would not have to work so hard to get money from other places for the Arts Centre.

Now the University had no money to build its new piece of music school.  So cunningly and between the mayoral office and the Vice Chancellors office a deal with the Christchurch City Council was hatched where they would rent the land and build the building for the University.  The City’s C.E.O. Captain Marryatt,  his staff, accountants and lawyers met the Mayor, Commander Parker. Behind closed doors they nutted out a scheme to be both developer and the landlord to the University, and then for a minimum rent the Arts Centre Trust Board would  play the part of landlord to the Christchurch City Council.

The University was pleased to know it would get its Conservatorium much sooner than if it stayed at Ilam and built on its own land. The Vice Chancellor, a previous business man and accountant, told everyone “This is great and to make sure no-one opposes us, we will drop our already approved architectural plans from the 1990s for Ilam, and go with the noted architect Sir Miles Warren’s design for the proposed building. Our P.R. experts will write a lovely story about the Arts Centre being our Spiritual Home, we can talk about ‘Town and gown’ and our music staff will be pleased to have fine new facilities. It will also sound high class if we rebrand the music department as a National Conservatorium. The students will just have to lump carting their instruments and themselves between Ilam and the CBD, finding places to park their cars and then take their instruments up to the first floor.  Everything will be hunky-dory!”

The Mayor’s Office supported the Vice Chancellor and helped by getting business men to wax lyrical in The Press about the idea of Town and Gown and how much a handful of about a hundred or so students would revitalize the city centre. The CPIT already have helped in the east with their 15,000 students spending their student loans. There may even have been mention of how getting the City Council’s foot in the door on such a valuable city centre site as the Arts Centre might in time reap great benefits not only as a car park but also further accommodation for City Hall in the very next block, (but this was not noised abroad!).

Current tenants of the Arts Centre, whose hard work and renovations of the old stone premises had given the city centre a much admired vitality over the years, got wind of what their Trust Board was up to – especially when their new rent demands came in complete with gagging clauses so they never disagreed with their land lord in public.  They then began to question the principle of having a bulky great university building, with access denied to most Christchurch citizens, in a key area of the precious little spare space left for future Arts Centre development. This seemed very unwise.

Ripples of alarm and discontent began to spread, John Simpson, Arts Centre Trust Board chairman ( and former University Councillor) decreed that anyone who was against the idea was biased and had a conflict of interest.  He went further and applied this to his dissenting Board members (now all appointed, no longer freely elected), excluding them from debates, votes and even from attending Board meetings. Out at Ilam, the University  Council held their meetings on the topic in committee and the minutes were never available to inquiring reporters.  In Tuam Street, after considerable public pressure to bring things out into the open, the Christchurch City Council agreed to have a special public consultation on the matter, not on the principles at stake or the wisdom of the project, only on the financial aspects.

Although the three entities involved are all funded by the public purse, not one has had the grace or wit to think past present matters of accountancy and can it be achieved without telling anyone. The University  used  what it calls, its “spiritual” right to occupy Arts Centre land, totally ignoring the “spiritual” rights of all Christchurch citizens to whom Norman Kirk and his government gifted the site to be used as an Arts Centre.  The Arts Centre Trust Board used financial expediency as an excuse to save it the trouble of  keeping the vision of the Arts Centre Founders intact.  The Mayor and many of his Councillors behaved like foxes in a hen-house to get control over a prime piece of real estate.

So, how does the story end?  How does the Arts Centre Trust Board limit the damage done to the Arts Centre by allowing the University and the Christchurch City Council to occupy any part of its valuable site? Unfortunately, when commercial interests and developers join hands with City Hall and City Hall joins hands with the academic Ivory Tower, the values that built our Arts Centre to enrich the lives of citizens and visitors alike, get thrown on the scrap heap. The needs of ordinary people to participate democratically can go to hell in a handcart.  If one of the three bodies in this unholy alliance does not stop holding hands, the only music to come out of this story will be the death knell at the funeral of our Arts Centre.

Anon. 12.09.09

 

 

Naming Games

It appears from the resource consent application, that the Arts Centre has undergone a name change.  It is no longer referred to as the Arts Centre or the Arts Centre of Christchurch but the Arts Centre Campus.  Who authorised this change?  Is it an Arts Centre Trust Board policy? Where was the public discussion of the issue?   I wonder how the non-university tenants of the site feel about this name and were they consulted?   Does the Trust Board really want the Arts Centre to be seen as an outpost of the University, as the name suggests?  Taken alongside the claim which has been made and not refuted,  that the University has been granted first option on areas which become vacant within the complex, it strongly suggests a desire on the part of the University to reclaim the site, aided and abetted by Arts Centre management.  

This impression is reinforced by the recent renaming of the Great Hall as the College Hall. This of course, was its original function and not surprisingly Mountfort's plans give it this rather prosaic name.  The architectural model Mountfort was calling upon was the Medieval Great Hall and the building has long been known by this name.  Why the sudden change as evidenced in a recent Arts Centre advertisement?  It makes no sense today.  We no longer have colleges of a single University of New Zealand.   It looks like an attempt to downgrade the status of the building, which, let us not forget,  also contains an important war memorial window.  College Hall does not have the same resonance as the Great Hall, which is entirely  consistent with the apparent aim of the Music School building to subvert the heirarchy of the site, as I have pointed out in an earlier discussion.

All in all these changes are not reassuring. Added to the name changes, we have the recent, non-notified subdivision of the site, which allows the University to make the spurious claim that there are no heritage buildings on the proposed music school site, because these will now be on separate titles.  It is easy to see the subdivision as a precursor to further redevelopment on other separate titles.  A picture is beginning to build up of a Board and management which is intent on completely changing the nature of the Arts Centre as originally conceived.  If this is necessary in order to protect the heritage buildings, then they have totally failed to bring the public on side.  The Board and management of the Centre act secretively. They dismiss the legitimate concerns of those who value the Arts Centre.  Tenants complain of poor and disrespectful treatment by managment and unwillingness on the part of the Board to listen to their concerns and now we learn that their rental agreements are to contain a gagging clause. We also hear that many existing tenants including music teachers, and many community groups which have formerly used rooms at the Arts Centre,  have been pushed out by excessive rent increases or hire charges. Even the University itself has mentioned the high costs of hiring the Great Hall as one reason for a decline of concerts at the Arts Centre.

Does this drive to force out the smaller tenants alongside the renaming campaign signal that the  Trust Board  is aiming in the longer term to have just one large institutional tenant, the University, with the exception, perhaps, of the Court Theatre, for they would surely not be so foolish as to  try to push that out?  Or does it plan to go even further, and transfer control to another entity?

Car Parking Questions.

At various times we have been told there will be 78 car parks associated with the music school site and that the Council would have 40 of these.  Now it seems there will only be 41 parks, directly under the building.  The area under the quadrangle contains no parking spaces according to the plans lodged with the Resource Consent Application. The exits from the parking area appear to be internal even though a ground plan shown on the University website indicated a basement exit close to the Court Theatre building.  Where, then, are the mysterious parks for the council to go? Have they been abandoned or will they be in the space under the quadrangle? If they are to go there, they would surely need to be constructed at the same time. Can we be given an assurance that if a car park is to go under the quadrangle any resource consent will be notified?

The car park also raises equity issues. Where will existing tenants with parking spaces in this area be  able to park? Will they receive rent adjustments to reflect lack of associated parking if that is the consequence of this building? And what of staff and students of the university? Given that most of them will be travelling between the Arts Centre and the campus, will the usual campus parking fee cover both locations? If not, this imposes an extra costs on the staff and students of the school. On the other hand, if it does, then other staff and students of the university are being asked to subsidise the construction  of a very expensive underground car park.

Playing with numbers

The University keeps telling us that the School of Music currently has 300 students ( or 119.4 EFTS).  This is completely misleading.  We have also been told that the stage 1 will continue to be taught at the university and anyone who has any familiarity at all with universities, knows that stage one courses have by far the greatest numbers of students. At a recent public meeting, Professor Strongman stated that the number of students studying at the conservatorium would be between 14 and 200, but probably nearer 200.  Are we really expected to believe that the University cannot provide  more accurate figures?   I find it astonishing that a University official can stand up in public and expect people to accept such a  statement. Their reluctance to reveal the current number of performance students strongly suggests that the numbers are not particularly favourable.  If  the City Council is being asked to finance the building based on the life the students will bring then the public surely has a right to know.  (It is perhaps worth noting here that CPIT has  230 EFTS in its music programme, yet where do we hear this department extolled for the vitality it brings to the city?)

A review report on the Music School in 2006 (available on the University website) showed that of 618 total students, only 250 or 40% were enrolled at stage 2 or above. The first thing to note is that between the date of the report and  now,  the total roll has approximately halved. Second, if we assume a similar attrition rate beyond  stage 1, then current enrollment for Stage 2 and above are likely to be around 120 students rather than 200.  Not all progressing students will be performance students and it is likely that purely academic courses such as music history will continue to be timetabled at Ilam.  Of course, it also needs  to be remembered that class sizes will be small so that at any given point in the day, the actual number of students present at the Arts Centre will be much fewer than the total roll.  In  2006, when as already noted the roll was greater than the 500 students they are aiming for, the average class size was only 10 students.  This dropped to an average of 6 students for courses above stage 1.  The largest class recorded above stage 1 level had 25 students.  It is time for the University to stop prevaricating and provide the public with the precise figures on numbers currently enrolled in performance programmes.  

The aim to create a "thriving programme in performance music with 500 students and 35 fulltime staff" (The Press, 29 /9/09)  is interesting, because earlier in the debate about the proposal, Dr Rodd Carr stated in a television  interview with Mike Yardley, that the University already has 550 more students enrolled than it is funded for by Government. The current funding regime is not likely to change in the foreseeable future.  Dr Carr observed  in  The Press  (29/9/09) that the tertiary sector is facing "the very real likelihood of minimal funding increases in the short to medium term".  I understand from sources within the University that in response to the funding situation, departments have been told that next year they will be charged $5000 for each student above a stipulated maximum. Unless Music is to be exempted from this requirement, student numbers are unlikely to change greatly from what they are at present.  If Music is to be encouraged to grow, could the University inform us which programmes are to be cut to allow for this increase?

Misleading images?

                                
Professor Ken Strongman, Assistant Vice-Chancellor ( Government and Community Relations) at the University of Canterbury stated in The Press (8/9/09) that a misleading image is being reproduced which is known to be no longer representative of the proposed building (see above). A new image was submitted which is said to reflect the street profile and incorporate refinements resulting from consultations with the Historic Places Trust.

This is rather strange because apart from the fact the new image is a perspective drawing and also shows the heritage buildings to the west along Hereford Street, it clearly incorporates no change to the design from what can be seen in an elevation of the Hereford Street facade, which has been displayed on the University website since June.  

 

It would therefore be very interesting to hear from Professor Strongman exactly what recent changes and refinements have been made to the design as a result of discussions with the Historic Places Trust, because they are certainly not evident.  We  know from the public meeting held at the Employers' Chamber of Commerce that the central stairwell and the elevation at the Dux De Lux end, as seen above, were modified as a result of discussions with the Historic Places Trust before the plans were presented to the public. (The previous design has never been made public.)

What is very clear is that the "new view" is a totally misleading one.  No-one will ever see this view unless all the buildings between Hereford St and Cashel St ( or even as far as Cambridge Terrace) are removed.  I defy anyone to stand on Hereford St and see the view as presented here.  The building will appear much larger and more dominating and the buildings to either side will only be able to be viewed obliquely   On the other hand the view which Professor Strongman claims is misleading is an accurate portrayal of the oblique view anyone will see walking down Hereford St from the Botanic Gardens end.  The accuracy of the view was challenged by the University when it was first made public, but the architects confirmed that it was indeed an accurate representation.  Though there is nothing about the "new drawing" to suggest the plans have changed in any way, if they have, then let us see them presented from the same angle as the disputed drawing.  It should be noted that this same view is still seen in the flyover video presented by the University on its website.  The flyover in itself is misleading because for much of its duration it represents the building from a birds-eye perspective rather than a pedestrian perspective and therefore downplays the scale of the building.  (For some reason the elevation and the perspective have a small dormer to the left of the tower which does not appear in either the flyover or the  South-west perspective, but this discrepancy has been present from the outset.)  We await with interest Professor Strongman's further elucidation as to the nature of the changes.

Capturing the passing crowd

The University in its publicity makes a great deal of the 800,000 visits made to the Canterbury Museum  and surrounding area each year by out-of-town visitors. We are  told  it is this passing crowd, as much as the citizens of Christchurch, that they want to expose to the talent within the music programme.  Apparently, this would not be possible with a building anywhere other than the Arts Centre.

In reality, turning the passing crowd into a fee paying audience is far easier said than done, as Elric Hooper, with years of experience in trying to achieve that for the Court Theatre,  can attest.  By and large theatre and concert performances do not capture an impulse audience.  The best way to display the talent within the school would surely be to provide performances in as wide a range of venues as possible, preferably for no charge or only a nominal charge.  The very successful National School of Music has a no charge policy for the majority of its concerts and it performs at a range of venues throughout Wellington.  The Music School does not need to build a costly auditorium at the Arts Centre to showcase the talent of their students within the cultural precinct.  Numerous potential performance venues exist, of varied size, acoustics and atmosphere. The possibilities are only limited by lack of imagination.

The first and most obvious one is the Great Hall. As the original home of the university and an outstanding heritage building, it surely has the gravitas Mr Carr desires.  A new auditorium at the Arts centre would directly compete with this venue, reducing the income stream for the Arts Centre Trust Board.  A second option, one entailing no additional cost to the University, would be the use of the SOFA gallery for intimate recitals or chamber concerts.  This would allow the audience to experience the talents of the Fine Arts Department at the same time.  In spring and summer outdoor concerts could be held in the quandrangles with the musicians seated under the arcading.   The Southern Ballet Theatre might also be willing to hire out its small and very intimate venue from time to time.  

What about an occasional concert in the McDougall Art Gallery?  That would certainly showcase the talent of the university to the passing crowd intent on making their way to the Museum and Botanic Gardens.  In the daffodil season,  performances in the Band Rotunda could add to the atmosphere for all those tourists who go to admire the daffodils in bloom.  The new visitor centre for the Gardens might provide another location.  The shelter near the childrens' playground  area could provide an opportunity to introduce music to young people. 

It has previously been noted that the atrium of the Art Gallery provides a wonderful opportunity to perform to a captive audience and there is also precedent for using the gallery spaces.  In addition there is a small auditorium.  From time to time COCA is also used for performances and this could provide another possible venue with mutual benefit to the gallery and the Music School.  A little further afield, but still within the cultural precinct, both the Provincial Buildings and the Cathedral offer further possibilities. Still within the Central City but beyond the cultural precinct there are of course places such as the Music Centre,  the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament, St Michaels and All Angels in addition to obvious venues such as the James Hay Theatre for more formal concerts or opera performances.  In reality, there are innumerable possibilities for bringing the vibrancy and talent of the music students to the centre city while still locating the music building on campus. All that is needed is the will to do so.