Chinese Garden visitors well down

I thought the Chinese Garden was already being marketed as a tourist attraction. I'd be surprised if it wasn't- till now. What's new? Different 'marketing strategies' maybe, but what else can this conceivably entail?

By 'improving the visitor experience', what can this mean? I'm stumped. You pay at the door, walk in a circle, more or less, look, sit, contemplate and leave. It's that simple. Like any walk in any garden- except the Botanical Gardens are free and better value.

The Chinese gardens are a wonderful addition to the stark Scottish vibe around the town just a little bit of imagination is all it needs - like your next board meeting - how about having it in the zen surroundings of the Chinese gardens.

It is a proven fact in business that meetings are way more productive when conducted in serene surroundings rather than a stiffened boardroom. Introduce your fellow colleagues that come down from the north to the diversity of our city. Have tapas nights within the confines of the gardens - hell, "asia in a bowl" nite (rice or noodle after 5pm).

There are a host of wonderful social and business activites that could happen in that space and reasonable fees I am sure could be negotiated. All it needs is a little imagination.

Hiring someone from the Human Resources department to revive a dead duck - typical council employment strategy. The tourism industry needs real marketing expertise.

Why does the Chinese Garden need a manager at all? As for dedicated gardeners, why can't they be absorbed into the Parks and Gardens Dept., or whatever it is called now, this would allow a more flexible workforce to be called on when and if required.

I remember when the plan for the Chinese Garden was first introduced as a "gift" from the Chinese people to the the city of Dunedin. It was strongly denied that there would ever be an entry fee let alone being a burden on ratepayers. There was a lot of rhetorical talk from the mayor and supporters at that time and any oppositions or questioning resulted in ridicule or no answer at all. Initially the garden was set to cost 350 to 500 thousand, there was big talk why it would not cost more than that.
Well, the rest is history, go to the library and bring up all the reports on the Chinese Garden going back five years and then you will see how we have been duped. It ended up costing millions and taking multiple trips at the ratepayers' expense in a recession. I suspect that a lot went down behind closed doors and it had nothing to do with the kiwi Chinese. Did they really think the people of Dunedin would forget? If you think different, you should go to the library and read up on the history of the garden.

Why would anyone who has travelled from overseas bother seeing a Chinese garden in Dunedin? It's not like it is unique to Dunedin, and that is why tourists travel. The Otago Peninsula, and the quaint city feel is unique. So yet another poorly researched white elephant. Let's see how the stadium goes once the excitement is over and the reality of how expensive it will cost to watch anything there. Makes Sky TV all the more economical.

Who cares if numbers are down? The world is down, Dunedin is part of the world. Surely there are some things that can not be quantified in money terms. The Chinese have been in Otago since the gold rush days and there needs to be recognition of the Chinese culture within our province.

We should have had it years ago. The stadium, well that is another matter.

Crickey. Reading these comments, I am reminded of one of the sayings of the former US Vice-President, Spiro Agnew -- what ever his numerous other faiings (and there were several), he did have a way with words. Consider this one: 'nattering nabobs of negativism'.

Apologies for typo in previous post - break even was 50,000; not 500,000. 50,000 or around 1000 paying visitors a week was never going to be attainable. A little research would have told them that. I estimate that when the initial curiosity settles, numbers will be less than 400 per week, or an annual total of 20,000.

Yet another white elephant to chalk up to Chin and Co. He's collecting them like charms for a bracelet. I'm sure the stadium will complete the set. That'll be the best of the lot. And of course the good old bottomless pit of ratepayer money will forever be required to cover his failures. I object to the high fee charged to enter the Gardens, so I have not bothered. I pay enough for it already.

Could the ODT please find out and publish the "bottom line" figures for these DCC ventures? How much of a loss is Mr Chin's Chinese Garden making? When this "vision" was unveiled we ratepayers could see that it would never break even, and that we would be paying for the garden every year for the foreseeable future. That's why many ratepayers made submissions to the Annual Plan asking that it not go ahead. Do you remember? One year we were told that we would have a chance to make submissions later. The next year, we were told that our submissions to the Annual Plan were too late. Mr Chin had signed the Heads of Agreement contract already, without public consultation. Exactly the same technique was used later to push through the Stadium of Stupid. No doubt the DCC will avoid giving us the bottom line annual losses on that sad venture as well.

Why is it a requirement that some council areas must pay their way, and others don't have to?
What is the difference between the Chinese Gardens and the Art Gallery, Museum or Library? If everything became user pays, then no one would go anywhere and low visitor numbers would be reported for all council facilities.
Who would pay $10 a visit to go to the library, or $500 a year for membership to the art gallery? Imagine having to pay to visit the gardens, or walk the Pineapple Track.

I've avoided the Chinese Gardens for only one reason: I'm not prepared to pay for it.

Well, why should I? I don't have to pay to enter any other public garden in the city (that I know of, at least). T

he ODT poll is currently standing at 61% not having visited, and I suspect the reason is much the same for most people. How much money could the city have saved by using local materials and labour (bolstering our own economy in the process)?

We could have had an authentic Chinese-style garden at a fraction of the cost, and who would notice the difference? Oh yes, of course, Mr Chin would. And he's apparently the only person in the city who matters.

I'd go, but they charge an exorbitant entry fee. After paying for a substantial part of the Gardens as a rate-payer I don't mind paying a small entry fee if that's the only way it can afford operating and maintence. But for the fee asked, forget it. Not when I've already paid.

As a frequent visitor to the Chinese Garden, I wonder why it is that there is now the view that it must be commercially pushed in order to boost visitor numbers. You cannot coerce people to visit these type of places. People go because they want to, or not. I go because I enjoy the ambience. I revel in the peacefulness, and the craftsmanship in the construction. It is a place of quiet and rest, and like the Botanical Gardens does not need commercial prompting. Just leave it be, and let those so inclined enjoy and others not be pestered. I am sure the originators of these types of places had no thoughts of commercialism when they evolved.

So the Chinese gardens are not drawing the necessary numbers to cover costs. How unsuprising. The only thing to do with this 'attraction' is to immediately find an alternative use for the structure. One that can be run at minimal cost. As it is there is nothing to attract the necessary numbers which from memory was 500,000 ticket sales a year. It's not making the grade now, and as word of mouth spreads, numbers will fall further. It's a white elephant. Let's hope the council has the courage to cut our losses and abandon this failed venture.