You need good reason to change your mind, writes Dunedin City Councillor Dave Cull. He explains here why he changed his mind over the proposed Town Hall upgrade.
The Town Hall complex has exercised city councillors' minds lately, and several of us have been challenged about our change of mind on the upgrade proposal.
Fair enough. Only the pig-headed or unthinking never change their views, but you need good reasons.
One recent challenge came from a respected acquaintance of mine, a retired professional energetically involved in community affairs.
‘‘With my accountant's hat on,'' he said, ‘‘how can you justify such expenditure?
‘‘What's behind your flip-flop on the clip-on?''
Good question, and to the point, and he did not even have to descend to accusing me of submitting to management mind capture. Turned out, he had not heard about half the things I told him. But six months ago, neither had I.
There are several aspects to the Town Hall upgrade. I do not recall seeing them presented holistically, and the officially quoted costs seemed at times to omit parts of the project. The end result was that only one facet of the development was highlighted at a time, and some critics' estimates of final costings turned out more accurate than official ones.
Not very convincing to ratepayers faced with funding the project. Opponents of the proposal come from a variety of positions: excessive cost to ratepayers, an unnecessary folly, an excrescence on an historical building; and the combo pack, an unnecessary, foolish and expensive excrescence.
In the main, I agreed.
So what had I learned since peering under city hall rocks? First, how is the Town Hall/Dunedin Centre used and funded? Dunedinites use our main community complex a lot.
In 2007, there were 381 events staged in the complex over 439 event days. Most were largely local; the rest were shows from out of town, conferences and the like.
The fees charged for events do not cover the costs of running the complex. Ratepayers subsidise the operation. The fees charged for local groups using the facility are kept reasonably low.
Conferences and performances pay a full market rate. As the costs of operating the complex are pretty constant whatever happens in it, without revenue from conferences and performances, local users and/or ratepayers would have to pay more to cover those costs.
What needs to be done to the complex? The first need is functional. The inadequacy of crush spaces serving the Town Hall and the Glenroy is obvious to anyone attending an event that's more than half full. Crush space is the interior mingling space immediately outside a venue. As well as registration and/or ticketing, contemporary events often include drinks, nibbles or meals. The current spaces do not allow comfortable intermission mingling, let alone anything else.
The Glenroy is particularly bad, as the only toilets are on the mezzanine floor. For anyone disabled or elderly, it's a major expedition. And do not expect the lifts to help. The one lift serves both the public and the kitchen.
When the Town Hall and Glenroy are running separate functions, the congestion at the lift is worse than in the loos.
The entire complex is sometimes used for one large event: like a conference. Conferences are not the main use for the complex, or the proposed atrium either, but they are an important secondary use of the Town Hall complex, since they subsidise its operating costs.
But try to find your way from one part of the complex to another. It's a labyrinth of passages, blind alleys and stairs on several levels. If the place is to be used in a coherent manner, access into and between the two auditoriums needs to be unified.
The more pressing need is for a regulatory upgrade, and in fact, we have no choice. It has to be done and includes upgraded fire egress and alarms, maintenance access, and health and safety measures.
Much of that is driven by tougher central government regulations. Ignore them, and numbers using the complex will be restricted and the city could be held liable in the event of a preventable tragedy.
That said, disabled access does not comply with 10-year-old regulations, let alone today's. The cost of a full regulatory upgrade is around $22 million, but it provides no solution to the functional problems.
Incidentally, all current figures quoted are estimates, and could be 20% up or down. The $22 million is about half the figure projected for the entire project. What's the rest? Clearly, a good chunk is for the proposed atrium, but as much would be spent on new load-in facilities, lifts, toilets, improved kitchen access, new carpets, redecoration and possibly air conditioning.
What would the atrium provide? Enlarged crush space for the Town Hall and Glenroy, three levels of new space and much improved and unified entry into, and access between the two auditoriums.
The main objections are on aesthetic and historic grounds. The area into which it would intrude is surrounded by the Town Hall, Municipal Chambers and St Paul's Cathedral, all valued as classics.
Valued even more is the space between them: Harrop St, and the view from Moray Place through the Octagon to First Church's spire.
With an atrium that would change, but would it be hugely worse? Additionally, the atrium would offer superb new vistas.
Nevertheless, critics of the proposal insist that functional problems be addressed within the existing footprint of the complex - an excellent idea, if only because it should be cheaper.
Several years of design angst have produced 12 options but the only ones that address that issue include an atrium. Critics insist the integrity of the Harrop St precinct is overwhelmingly important.
But should future functionality always be hostage to yesterday's architecture?
The dictum that historic buildings should have a use surely extends to the quality of that use, too.
What are the options?
1. Do the $22 million regulatory upgrade and nothing else. The complex continues to be used as is. The functional problems remain and compromise the complex's ability to host conferences. Dunedin loses niche appeal catering for academic conferences of 180 to 300. Revenue falls, and the cost to local users and/or ratepayers rises. Economic flow-on benefits from conferences are lost to the city.
2. Choose an option using some of the library or the Hungry Frenchman Restaurant. Harrop St preserved but auditoriums are unco-ordinated. Many functional issues remain. Conference revenue declines. Costs approach the atrium options. Rates rise.
3. Do the regulatory upgrade and add an atrium. Regulatory and functional issues are both addressed, though at a cost to perceived historic aesthetics. Independent analyses predict that most of the atrium cost would be serviced by extra conference revenue. So ratepayers' debt servicing costs should be little more than the regulatory upgrade option. We have a much more usable and future-proofed Town Hall complex.
4. A new proposal addresses compliance and functionality and preserves Harrop St. The council is seeking a peer review of the current proposal. Perhaps critics have a constructive alternative. I would be most receptive if they do.
I am for 3 or 4. Given the right evidence, I am prepared to change my mind again.
