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.

Money squandered to no effect

The large advertisement in the Press today (19 December 2009) asking people to view the model  of the proposed Music School building at the Art Gallery, prompts me to ask just how much the University is spending on continuing to promote a cause which the overwhelming majority of Christchurch residents have proclaimed loudly and clearly that they do not want on this site. Today's advertisement is only one of several large advertisements which have appeared in the Press in recent days.  Earlier in the campaign the university also ran a series of large scale advertisements.  Added to this are the glossy brochures, the question and answer handouts and the large colour posters appearing in various locations around the city.  The model itself can't have come cheaply  The promotional bill for this project must be starting to reach a sizable sum by now.   Nor should we forget the cost of all the staff time that has been diverted from productive teaching and research roles to writing submissions and sitting in at Council consultation hearings. On top of that, of course, are the fees for the architects, growing by the minute as plans are changed and designs resubmitted. Then there are the fees for all the other consultants including resource management planners, engineers, heritage consultants and lawyers. Expenses will grow dramatically when  legal hearings begin.  Many of these consultants would have been unnecessary for a building at Ilam and if resource consent is not granted a whole new set of expenses will be incurred to redesign on campus. Rumour has it that the University has already spent $1.25 million, with nothing to show for it.  The tragedy is that the much needed new music building could already be well underway by now if the University had chosen the logical course of building at Ilam.  The money frittered away in the attempt to impose a building where it is not wanted could have been spent on ensuring that a truly inspirational design was developed for a music school combined with a multi-use performing arts centre on campus, which would enrich the lives of all students and be of benefit to the whole of Christchurch.

Disharmony in the city.

Events relating to the proposed music school are heating up. First there was the announcement by the applicants that they were delaying the resource consent until February out of concern for the opposition, to give them adequate time to prepare their case. Not very convincing, considering that the filing of the resource consent application had been timed to maximise inconvenience to opponents. Submissions would have fallen due while the Council consultation hearing was still taking place, if they hadn't, in their haste, overlooked the fact that they were lodging the application in the name of a Joint Venture which did not at that stage legally exist. As a consequence it had to be resubmitted. Aside from the pressure placed upon opponents by this untimely application, the very fact that it was lodged well in advance of the Council's final decision on funding suggests that the applicants knew something that submitters opposed to the proposal did not know.

Just incidentally, it was stated that the applicants were using the delay to deal with some of the issues raised by opponents in regard to the design. The new-found concern for the opposition was quickly revealed as nothing more than spin because word soon got about that the Council's own heritage consultant had been less than impressed with the building. As a face saving tactic it might almost have worked except that there is clearly more than one leaky institution in this city.


The Council became distinctly tetchy over inquiries into the Vines report. Depending on which Council officer was spoken to, the report was described as incomplete, a draft only, or containing misleading information. Queries as to whether it had been passed to the applicants were vigorously denied, but I doubt that many observers believed this. Claims under the Offical Information Act have so far failed to extract a copy of the report.


However, if word of the Vines report caused a stir, it paled into insignificance compared with the reaction to the announcement on Saturday that SOAC has filed for an interim injunction to delay the resource consent hearings until the issue of the correct interpretation of the Trust deed could be decided by the High Court. At first the University tried to pass it off as a publicity stunt ( an expensive one, it would have to be said, if it involves lawyers fees!) However, once the documents were received cries of publicity stunt were quickly replaced by yells of foul play. The Arts Centre spoke darkly of betrayal and an attempt by SOAC to prevent all but a select few from having a say on the building.


We are asked to believe that a legitimate legal process intended to clarify for once and for all the true extent of the Board's powers is in some way an abuse of process. It is not this action which is denying others their right to be heard. The reality is that the groundswell of people opposed to the developments are the ones who have been denied a real right to be heard. A resource consent hearing is no substitute for a public consultation around the long term plans and policy directions for the Arts Centre. From the outset, opponents of the scheme have argued that a full and wide-ranging public discussion about the future of the arts centre should take place before any sort of development is approved. Our requests have been thwarted at every turn. The consultation was limited to the issue of finance, because, we were told, other issues would be dealt with in the resource consent process. That is simply not true. Resource consent hearings are defined by the nature of the applicants proposal and are restricted to a limited range of issues around the city plan.


What are the documents which have led to accusations of betrayal. It appears from the Press that they include minutes and financial details. Let us not forget we are dealing here with a charitable trust which administers the buildings for the people of Christchurch and New Zealand. You would expect many financial details to be open to public scrutiny in the annual reports of the Board. It is also difficult to see why the minutes of a charity administered in the public interest should be confidential. After all, they are highly unlikely to contain the sort of information which has a legitimate claim to confidentiality such as the lease agreements between the Arts Centre and any tenants. The role of the Board is in formulating policy and this should be open to public scrutiny.


The reaction of the Board suggests that they do indeed have something to hide. Rumours of bullying and muzzling Board members who disagree with the views of the inner cabal suggest that this is a Board which has problems. There is also a strong suggestion that huge sums of money have been squandered on various development projects that have never come to fruition (and probably should never have been contemplated). Rumour also surrounds the chairman of the board, John Simpson, whom it appears may have undeclared conflicts of interest on account of a continuing role on a subcommittee of the University Council.


The further unfolding of this saga will be awaited with interest.

Archive of radio and television interviews

25 August 2009  

Mike Yardley Interview With Dr Rod Carr  Part 1 . 

General discussion on the University.

Mike Yardley Interview with Dr Rod Carr.

Part 2  The Music Conservatorium.

Interview with Rod Carr  Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUeJJ7OAbac

October 12  2009  

Mike Yardley interview with Richard Sinke and Elric Hooper  

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNtnKU5MfNs

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_HkaaysMWc&feature=related

Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2RoqX4PNko&feature=related

19 October 2009

Mike Yardley Interview with Ken Franklin, Director of the Arts Centre 

Parts 1 & 2

Ken Franklin Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo_cWFMg_T8

20 Nov 2009

Mike Yardley speaks to Councillor Yani Johansen on the consultation process 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIAi4W3oqJY

28 Nov 2009

Kim Hill speaks to Rod Carr

http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/sat/sat-20091121-0840-Rod_Carr_revenue_in_Canterbury-048.mp3

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?