Editorial: A sensible deal

OPINION: Since it was announced in June, the proposal by the University of Canterbury to build a conservatorium of music at the Arts Centre has generated a huge amount of discussion.

The university and the Christchurch City Council have worked hard to explain and justify the reasons for the proposal, the design of the building intended to be put on the site, and the financing of it. Opposition has been vocal. Of the submissions the council has received during the consultation process, 475 oppose the proposal and 31 support it. Letters to the editor have also been heavily against, but if a survey commissioned by the university is an accurate reflection of wider opinion, a majority of Christchurch people who have a view one way or the other on the matter support it.

Despite the wilder flights of rhetoric indulged in by some opponents, the opposition has not been able to show any significant flaws in the proposal, with perhaps the exception being the size of the building itself, including the need for an auditorium. The many arguments in favour make the decision by the city council yesterday, to support its part in financing the plan, an important and welcome step forward in getting it under way.

Most of the criticism has focused on the financing arrangements and the proposed building. The deal the university has made with the council is an unusual one but it appears to have benefits for all parties involved. It is certainly far sounder than some of the deals the council has entered into in recent years, which seem to be characterised by the risk of large losses for little perceptible gain.

Under this proposal, the Arts Centre would lease the site to the council, which would borrow money – about $24.3 million – to build the music centre. The university would, in turn, sign a long-term lease for the building which would cover the council's borrowing and lease expenses.

This produces a benefit for the Arts Centre in the form of an income-producing building, which it could not afford itself, instead of the sterile car-parking space that is there now. It gives the university a facility financed at the favourable rates the council can obtain. At a time when university budgets are under severe constraint, any opportunity that enables the institution to grow without jeopardising the financing of its fundamental function of teaching and research must be taken.

The arrangement also has the great benefit of furthering one of the council's aims of regenerating the inner city while involving no cost to ratepayers. Added to these is the less tangible but nonetheless real benefit of returning at least a small element of the university to the central city.

As to the building itself, many critics attacked it as out of keeping with the architecture of the rest of the Arts Centre. That notion is severely undermined by the fact that, after carefully considering the matter and after some modifications were made to the original plans, the Historic Places Trust has said it supports the idea.

If anything, perhaps the architectural concepts are too cautious. Cities like Barcelona, and even Melbourne, trade on dramatic additions to their streetscape. The issues over the building will now be debated through the resource consent process, and modifications may be necessary. But the financing hurdle has been rightly cleared.