Ness #11: A little over simplistic, perhaps?

Your logic makes a couple of rather large assumptions: firstly, that these places didn't have adequate insurance cover. They may well have, but have plans for an improved rebuild and require extra funding; a good thing for Christchurch's arts community. This also hinges on the insurance companies doing exactly as they promise, which is a spectacularly assumption.

You also write as if these social institutions are just another business; and should thus be subject to the ruthlessness of free market forces. I'd have to disagree whole-heartedly on this point. The arts throughout history has been financially propped up by patrons; if the mayoral office wishes to continue this tradition, thus ensuring the continuity of Christchurch's until-recently thriving theatre scene, I would applaud the decision.

"Insurance should cover it" is rather out of touch with reality. Even pre-quake it was not possible to get full-replacement insurance on older buildings. Judging from the checklist we faced with our similar-era house, Rep would have been discounted for having some electrical cabling still in metal conduit, and heaven-knows what else. Should they have spent a million dollars upgrading just to meet the requirements for full-replacement insurance? Also, the cost of managed deconstruction and then full demolition has already come out of their insurance.

The society's own use of the theatre accounted for less than half its performance dates - it was an affordable (Much more affordable than the James Hay) handy-sized venue for many community activities. Yet theatres built primarily as community facilities seldom suit active societies well, and somehow always end up much more expensive to run (and hire) than venues owned by a society.

http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/Heritage/Publications/ChristchurchCityCouncil/ArchitecturalHeritage/LegacyofThomasEdmonds/LegacyofThomasEdmonds.pdf

Thank you Christchurch Library for this amazing booklet. And how sad it is to see so many of those buildings demolished.

Really simple - their insurance should cover it. If it cant or wont (or they dont have it) then the theatre needs to look to itself as to why this is not happening. Seems as though it was uninsured - in which case it was a risk they took to save funds!!

#7 I guess some of them were underinsured.

What else do you expect from a dysfunctional council? No shortage of cash for giving a glorified town clerk a massive pay rise. The main problem? The council are really only interested in cheap rubbish catering for the masses, when a project that involves a bit of culture and is more constructive comes along, it doesn't qualify.

The 3.25 million wasn't for a social institution, it was for a building. There's a huge difference.

Riccarton Players also lost their building. $3m to them too? Rep may have to lower its sights a little. .

I've been active in recreational theatre all my life and would love to see Rep continue to entertain Christchurch audiences, but granting over $3m to a single recreational organisation for a building is far too much. $500 000 or so would be much more reasonable and, in my eyes anyway, still generous.

Would somebody mind explaining to me why these buildings need funding if they have insurance?

Apart from the size of the grant sought and the CCP, one would have assumed that this would have met the terms of funding well before sotrage sheds for "Assets" as opposed to Infrastructure.

It appears there is a disparity in how applications are viewed, when you see that a request to fund storage was recommended for declining as it did not meet the criteria, yet the storage sheds for Trams was recommended to be approved. The trams themselves are not infrasturcture but "assets" that run on the infrastructure. Maybe the terms of the deed have already been stretched?

How can all those other arts venues get money but the rep can't? That doesn't add up, what makes them not suitable when the others are? It makes you wonder, people donated millions and millions of dollars to the Red Cross and the mayoral fund and all that. Where's it all gone? There doesn't seem to be a lot of transperancy about what's happened to all this cash.