The local newspaper the Press has recently published several articles (here, here, and here) arguing why it is in the best interests of the city to demolish the Town Hall and put the insurance money into a new arts precinct. I think this is a very misinformed view that seems to be based almost entirely on information from press releases from the office of Gerry Brownlee. I’d ask that if The Press is going to weigh in with a strong editorial position on the city, they should, at the least, do their homework. This article argues the case against a new large arts precinct.
[I would like to compare the editorialising of the Press to a recent article in the NZ Herald about the St. James building in Auckland. It consists of actual research, interviews, and factual information.]
In my view any decision to demolish the Christchurch Town Hall is more than likely to lead to a new development that will: A. take longer to build than it will to repair the current Town Hall, B. be more expensive, and C. be of a lower quality.
Before explaining these a little bit of background:
In the middle of 2012 the government launched its blueprint for the city, and one of the anchor projects in this blueprint was a new arts precinct. This precinct was based on an assumption that the Town Hall was unrepairable, and that the $70 million dollars of insurance money from this should go to the new arts precinct.
In November last year the Christchurch City Council was asked to vote on whether they would pay for the full repair of the building which was estimated to be around $127 million dollars. After some public discussion and lobbying by groups (including one I am part of) who argued for the unique heritage, arts, and civic values of the building, the council voted unanimously (!) to pay for the full repair. The decision was based on overwhelming support for the retention of the building in the public submission for council city plan.
The Minister in charge of Earthquake Reconstruction, Gerry Brownlee, was obviously unhappy with the decision and said all sorts of half-truths to undermine the decision (which I have previously commented on here and here). In the large cost-sharing agreement between the council and CERA that was announced in July, the Town Hall and the Arts Precinct have been passed from CERA to the Council to develop (with ultimate approval from the Minister).
A short time after this cost sharing agreement the Council ran a full public meeting about the Town Hall and the Arts Precinct outlining the work they have been doing and their recommendations. On Tuesday the 14th of August the plans and costings for the new recommendations were made public and presented to the elected councillors. The recommendation is that the Christchurch Town Hall is fully repaired at a cost of around $127.5 million which includes large contingencies, and around $40 million to be spent on a new arts precinct to house space for the CSO, new Court Theatre, and the Christchurch Centre for Music.
Contrary to some commentary there has been very clear decision-making about this from the Councils position. In November last year they voted, based on popular support and expert opinion, to keep the building. This year staff members and consultants have been working on: A. what needs repairing, B. what needs upgrading. C. how long it will take, and D. How much this will cost.
A ‘final’ vote will be made by council on the 29th of this August to pick which option to proceed with.
All this information can be downloaded here from the council. [full status of Christchurch Town Hall and Arts Precinct Projects]
I would like to make a note comparing the clarity and rigour of this process with the complete opacity of the other CERA led projects. We don’t even know the brief for the other projects like the public river park, the convention centre, or the stadium.
To explain my claim that demolishing the Town Hall and replacing it with anew precinct will lead to a slower, more expensive, and lower quality outcome here is a better explanation:
Note: The following points are made on some assumption that if we are going to knock down a world-class building we need to replace it with something of equivalent quality. I have based my comparison on recent world-class concert halls. We currently have an internationally recognized venue (with full repair plan and money set aside to pay for it) so it’s fair to compare to the equivalent contemporary projects. (I’d be interested to see any examples that provide counter arguments.)
A. The executive director of the CSO Richard Ballantyne was in the paper this week stating that the 4-year repair is too long and will affect the running of the CSO. Does he really think a new arts precinct, for which the land is not even purchased and the brief isn’t even written yet will be ready in less than four years? History doesn’t support him.
- The Christchurch Town Hall itself was built on time and under budget and took 6 years from Warren and Mahoney winning the competition till opening. It opened in 1972.
- The Copenhagen Concert Hall is smaller than the Town Hall and took 6 years to construct. (From start of construction, so doesn’t include the long design and pre-construction processes). This building opened in 2009.
- The Disney Concert Hall in L.A took 15 years to construct. (The car-park alone cost $110 million and took 9 years!) The building was constructed between 1999 and 2003.
- The Casa Da Musica in Lisbon by OMA took 6 years from the announcement of the winner of the design competition, and was opened in 2005.
These examples illustrate that it is naïve to think we can have a new world-class facility within four years. Especially when this is going to be happening in the middle the biggest building boom in NZ history.
B. $160 million dollars sounds like a lot of money. It is a lot of money. It really is a lot of money. $127.5 million to fix a building is a lot of money. But the critical point that needs to be stressed here is that $160 million isn’t much for a world-class facility to be constructed (esp. in the middle of a construction boom). The costs for the buildings mentioned above are: Copenhagen Concert Hall (which is smaller than the Town Hall) was US$300 million dollars, the Disney Concert Hall was US$274 million, and the Casa Da Mucisa cost 500 milllion euros (the amount it went over budget was the total amount we would have to build a new building). The idea that we can get a facility anywhere near the class of what we have already for this money is deeply questionable. Demolishing a great building and then trying to quickly and cheaply get a new facility up and running is recipe for cultural ruin.
The CERA led campaign to demolish the Town Hall frequently states that the ground quality below the Town Hall is ‘the worst in the city’. It did suffer from lateral spread and this has damaged the building. However the proposed site of the new arts precinct is in worse condition and will be an expensive exercise to build there. The engineers have come up with an injection method which will stabilise the ground and bring the building up to 100% of contemporary code.
C. There is a commonly used project management rule of thumb that a project can be delivered quickly, cheaply, and to a high quality, but that you can only get one or two of these aspects, not all three. The task of managing a project is to pick the most appropriate factors (after the quakes, speed was obviously the most important factor). Given the obvious need to get good quality venues into the city, speed is important, and given that we have only $160 million to spend on a building, budget is a problem. This leaves the obvious conclusion that quality will be the first victim of this process. Given that we have a quality building already in the city it seems obvious that demolishing an existing project is not wise. (And that’s not even accounting for the important heritage and civic value of the building).
The Town Hall was innovative when it was built in 1972. It is an exemplary building of a global architectural movement. The acoustics were the first of its kind and have been copied around the world. It is an award winning, internationally recognized, and important building. You might think it is ugly. That’s fine. It has more international status than any other building in the country. The new plans developed by the firm Warren and Mahoney, in conjunction with the original architects, upgrades the building to all new fire, services, and earthquake codes. Problems such as the back stage entry and accessibility will be fixed with new extensions and interventions. This is not just a repair but a major upgrade of the building. Buildings age and the demands on them change with time, so the opportunity to spend substantial sums adapting this building for another 50 or 100 years of use is a great one. In my mind the question should not be whether we demolish and start again, but how to best adapt the Town Hall for future use.
It is easy to put up a nice argument and say we can have our old tired Town Hall or a new shiny arts precinct. But its more accurate to say we can have a repaired, refurbished, modernized Town Hall that we know is a world class facility, or we can take a huge risk of hoping for some design and construction miracle to deliver something quickly with little money of the same quality.
The whole mantra of this reconstruction is that we are building for future generations, and this means we have to be prudent and wise with our decisions and not make big risky gambles.
Note: My last comment would be that we should now turn our attention to making sure the smaller $40 million dollar arts precinct fulfills its potential. We need to make sure that it is a public facility that supports the arts across the whole city. I worry that it is becoming home to a few large organisations and won’t support a wider accessibility to arts. The brief for this new centre is based off an audit done by CCDU in secret that is not publically available. So we are making $40 million dollar decisions on information citizens can’t access. It’s crazy.
The CCDU have actually done a bit of a dirty job with the arts precinct, and given them a bit of land south of the river between Gloucester and Armagh to use for this project. The land north of Armagh would have been much better in my opinion. It would have had north facing river frontage, be next to Victoria Square, which will be something of a cultural centre, and would be next to the Town Hall. Again, this is the type of strange decision-making happening in this city. Major urban planning decisions being made by an organisation with no public accountability.
Perhaps the Press should be concentrating on the radical lack of public input into urban planning in this city rather than lobbying for the demolition of our cultural heritage?
- We need a proper audit of the arts needs of the city to see what the city needs and how the council can best assist that with facilities.
- The function of James Hay theatre should be reviewed and perhaps requires a radically different design that offers more variety and easy reconfiguration.
- The CCC should be lobbying CERA to get the piece of land next to the river so the arts precinct can be close to the Town Hall and designed around the river.