Die Leute sind dumm

Well, since diving into the depths of the Splash Centre cast some light on the potential cost to ratepayers of that particular Mayoral wet dream, let's see if we can't get some idea of what's happening with the Heart of the City the same way. Since efforts to get Council to explain where $30,000 of our rates went have so far produced nought in the way of information, we'll take a look through the LawsWatch library:

---

Announced with a grand fanfare. The withdrawal of central government funding is not an unmitigated stuff-up, it's a "unique opportunity"...

THE 'HEART' PROJECT - A REAL SOLUTION - 20 December 2004
by Mayor Michael Laws

The decision of the government to withdraw funding from the Sarjeant extension presents our Council with a unique opportunity. The chance to get it right. To provide a solution that not only embraces the gallery but also the library, museum, War Memorial Hall and forecourt.

Out of these particular extension ashes will rise a stronger and more striking phoenix. The 'Heart of Wanganui' project gives us the chance to address all the above issues, plus deal with the outstanding needs of the Sarjeant Art Gallery. And anyone who listened to Unitec's School of Architecture head Tony van Raat last week would realise the narrow escape that we've all had. We unanimously voted $30,000 to draw up 'Heart of Wanganui' concept plans, and have asked Mr Van Raat to play a leading role in the project. We are very fortunate to have access to his services – for just a small honorarium, we get to have one of New Zealand's leading architectural academics advising us on our city's future development.

---

In February, we're told concepts and drawings from the group of five architects will be in our eager hands by March of this year...

HEART OF WANGANUI UPDATE - 28 February 2005
by Mayor Michael Laws

Five of New Zealand's finest architects, co-ordinated by Unitec architecture head (and Wanganui old boy) Tony van Raat, have met with all the key stakeholders to discuss the requirements of the Heart project. They expect to present concepts and drawings to both the council and the people of Wanganui by late March.

It is a very exciting idea - this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to revitalise the city's civic and cultural amenities. The Sarjeant, Alexander and Davis libraries, Museum, War Memorial Hall, veterans' steps and War Memorial forecourt are all part of this brief.

---

There's some murmurings in the Chron in early March... a report featuring "something for each of the institutions" would be available by the end of March...

WANGANUI CHRONICLE - 5 March 2005 (edited for length)

HEART OF CITY Bouquets, brickbats for city's cultural buildings
by Laurel Stowell

Wanganui's city centre is spectacular but its museum building is a dog and its revamped Majestic Square blocks access to its cultural heart, architect Tony van Raat says.

Mr van Raat has been hired to advise Wanganui District Council on architecture and urban planning matters relevant to the new "heart of Wanganui" project.

He said the brief was flexible and his team included four of New Zealand's best known architects: Ian Athfield, David Mitchell, Patrick Clifford and Pete Bossley - men at the height of their powers. They were in Wanganui for two days in early February, listening to stakeholders and having workshops...

The Queen's Park buildings that were at the heart of the "heart" project were a mixed bag. The Wanganui War Memorial Hall was first-class and one of the best of its kind, as was the Sarjeant Gallery. The Alexander library was second-class but still very good...

Mr van Raat said there would be something for each of the institutions in the report the architects were preparing. It would be finished by the end of March and would offer council sketches and a range of options.

Council would decide which direction to take, and detailed plans could be prepared after that. The report would make recommendations about a tram route, a visitors' centre location and how to preserve a good collection of heritage buildings...

---

Of course the issues identified by the architects were nothing new. Council had the details at least four months earlier...

COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2004

Audit and Administration Committee- 6 December 2004

"Heart of Wanganui" Revitalisation Project

Background

At the Council's meeting held on 29 November 2004, the Council resolved: That a further report be brought back to the Strategy Committee on the future development of Queens Park.

• Accommodation Issues
• District Library

There are several issues related to the District Library which can be broadly categorised into the following:

• Additional 1,000 square metres of publicly accessible collection space making a total floor space requirement of approximately 3,000 square metres.
• Being closer to Victoria Avenue and the community.

• Sarjeant Gallery

There are several issues related to the Sarjeant Gallery which can be broadly categorised into the following:

• Services and spaces required but not presently provided:

• Additional environmentally suitable exhibition space - 660 square metres.

  Lecture Theatre - 100 square metres.

  Catering facilities within the Sarjeant Gallery - 30 square metres.

  Accessible public toilets in the Sarjeant (compliance) - 26 square metres.

  Access into and around the building (compliance).

  Adequate fire/smoke detection system and emergency lighting (compliance).

Public services that would enhance the visitor experience:

• Cafe - 100 square metres.
• Retail outlet - 50 square metres.

• Whanganui Regional Museum

There are several issues related to the museum buildings which can be broadly categorised into the following:

• Internal building environment - staff welfare and collection
  management.
• Access - Facade and internal layout needs to be more customer
  friendly.
• Security and safety - collection and public safety.
• Museum services - separate access to Davis Lecture Theatre and
  catering facilities.
• Museum collection and displays - better integration of the
  museum buildings.
• Additional accessible toilets (compliance).

Landscape Design Issues

The full reports from the cultural facilities' managers on the building issues pertaining to their activity are tabled.

Timeline

It will take a great deal of work to examine all the issues and options in detail and involve all the key stakeholders.

Depending on the scale of the project and the funding to resolve the issues, any changes to the funding identified in the Long-term Council Community Plan (LTCCP) are best made through the annual planning process, which commences early in 2005 for implementation on 1 July 2005.

If the Council chooses not to utilise the Annual Planning process the Council may need to undertake a Special Consultative Process which may be more time consuming, costly and may not link easily with its existing financial planning process. Subject to the necessary funding being allocated work can commence immediately examining in detail the issues and options on how to deliver the outcomes required.

Proposal

One very conceptual option, which has been suggested as a starting point for the process is based loosely on the proposals made in the 1995 Queens Park Accommodation Study and the 1998 War Memorial Hall Report, i.e:

• Relocate the District Library into the main hall of the War Memorial Hall.
• Relocate the Visitor Information Centre under the breezeway at the War Memorial Hall.
• Centralise and relocate the fragmented District Archives into the former Alexander Library building.
• Extend the Regional Museum towards the War Memorial Hall Forecourt.
• Landscape the War Memorial Hall forecourt to link with the Majestic Square landscaping.
• Relocate the Sarjeant Gallery collection storage and educational facilities into the former Davis Library building.

Aside from solving the cultural facilities accommodation issues the main aim of the proposal is to breath life in to the heart of the city by reinvigorating the War Memorial Hall and the forecourt.

The proposal while not purporting to have addressed all the issues at this stage such as car parking for the new library users or the funding for the project it is a useful starting point to gauge the Council and community's views on it.

Concept Plans

To date the success or otherwise of any public project has been the ability to capture the public's imagination and to get their buy in to the project from the start. Capturing the public's imagination is best achieved by having an architect draw up their solution to the problem. This way the public can easily see the outcomes and the problem solving that has gone into the design.

One way to progress this is to commission one or more architect(s) to produce a plan of Queens Park showing how they propose to resolve all the issues. There are several local and national architects and designers who can deliver stunning designs based on the above concept.

An alternative way would be to have a public competition in which the architectural community are invited to enter and submit their respective solutions for assessment.

Both the both methods of engaging the architectural community have their benefits and risks. In this instance if the Council wants to ensure they have sought all the possible permutations and with some creative flair then a public competition is possibly the way forward. However, if the Council wants an achievable outcome while fostering a relationship with local and or national architect(s) then commissioning them directly is possibly the way forward. Overall, Wanganui will benefit overall from their strategic approach to the issues, their creative thinking and hopefully the creative solutions that flow from that process.

Funding

No matter which way the Council commissions an architect(s) the scale of the problem will require serious consideration of the issues before a solution can be proffered.

Funding for commissioning architects has not been budgeted for in the 2004/05 Annual Plan. However, as the Sarjeant Gallery new building project is on hold and the solution sought will progress the gallery problems along with the others the Council may wish to consider using the $20,000 Capital Funding identified for the Sarjeant Gallery extension resource consent in 2004/05 and that identified in future years. At this stage it is envisaged that $30,000 would be sufficient to commission one or more architects to provide the concept plans to be used as the basis for public consultation.

Summary

The proposal for revitalising what is effectively the "heart of Wanganui" has merit. The questions of whether it is the right choice for each of the facilities or best way forward overall and how will it be funded and in what order have yet to be determined.

To date the success or otherwise of any public project has been the ability to capture the public's imagination. To do this requires an early buy from the public to any proposed changes, this can be best progressed by having architectural drawings to illustrate the approach.

The way in which the Council commissions the architectural community can be not only a means to providing a solution to the issues but to raise Wanganui's profile. Commissioning an architect(s) will require funding of around $30,000 which can be found from the Sarjeant Gallery extension Capital funding in 2004/05 and future years.

Once the concept plans have been produced the public reaction to the project and solutions can be sought. This will give the Council an early indication of the public buy in and likely issues which will help the 2005/06 annual planning process by identifying any changes required to the LTCCP."

Colin Whitlock, Chief Executive Officer, reported as follows:

"Mr Anthony van Raat, a Registered Architect and Head of School of the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture at the Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, has been introduced as a person who could assist the Council in overseeing architectural design.

Mr van Raat, whose Curriculum Vitae is tabled, was brought up and educated in Wanganui and retains a keen interest in the development of his hometown. He is prepared to undertake this role for a modest honorarium of $3,000 plus expenses. He would also be able to make available postgraduate students from Unitec. It is not his wish to be directly involved in the preparation of a design or perspective but to assist the Council in arranging for these to be submitted and in their evaluation.

If his engagement is supported, then Mr van Raat would be available to attend the Strategy Committee on Wednesday, 15 December and to address the Council on his proposals. This is a generous offer from a former Wanganui resident. It is considered that it is an opportunity that will enable input in the Heart of Wanganui Project and other projects when architectural input is required."

Discussion

In discussion, noting a comment by Cr Dahya, Mr Whitlock explained that a Mr Reid had, in the last Council's term, developed a proposal for Queens Park landscaping redevelopment and then brought it to the Council. Mr van Raat, however, had asked the Council if it was interested in him providing a proposal for the redevelopment of Queens Park in its entirety.

Cr Higgie said she understood that whilst Mr van Raat was a registered and qualified architect, he was not practicing and cautioned there was a need to recognise that he may not have "hands on" experience. It was generally agreed that the recommendations to the Committee should be referred, together with the report, to the Strategy Committee's meeting to be held on 15 December 2004, at which Mr van Raat would be invited to make his presentation.

Committee's Recommendation

Proposed by Mayor Laws, seconded by Cr McGregor:
THAT Mr AC van Raat be engaged as advisor on architectural matters on the basis as
outlined in the report above.
Proposed by Mayor Laws, seconded by Cr McKinnon:
THAT Item 4: "City Heart" Revitalisation Project, be referred to the Strategy Committee's
meeting to be held on 15 December 2004 at which Mr van Raat would be invited to make
his presentation.

CARRIED

---

So, the Audit and Administration Committee duly considered the matter...

STRATEGY COMMITTEE 15 December 2004

"Heart of Wanganui" Revitalisation Project

Keith Hindson, Recreation and Culture Manager, reported as follows:

"Purpose of the Report

Significance Policy Statement - This item has the potential to be significant if the Council decides to approve the "Heart of Wanganui" project to revitalise Queens Park and the cultural facilities as it may require a re view of the LTCCP funding.

Tony Van Raat, Head of School of the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture at the Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, will present a conceptual analysis of the nature of the City and make specific comments on: the Sarjeant Gallery, the District Library complex, the War Memorial Hall forecourt, the Whanganui Regional Museum (and the waka) and Victoria Avenue, etc. He will then outline his proposal for obtaining design solutions to the problems and the opportunities presented by these buildings or spaces. Mr Van Raat will answer any questions arising from his presentation.

This report examines the accommodation issues for each of the Queens Park Cultural facilities and proposes a very conceptual option on how it may be resolved.

Background

This report was presented to the Audit and Administration Committee's meeting held on 6 December 2004. The Committee recommended:
That the "Heart of Wanganui" Revitalisation Project report be referred to the Strategy Committee's meeting to be held on 15 December 2004.

(Hindson's report, as presented to Council above, is then repeated - Issues, Landscape Design Issues, Timeline, Proposal, Concept Plans, Funding and Summary)

Discussion

The Chairman welcomed Mr Tony van Raat to the meeting and invited him to present his proposal for Queens Park.

Mr Van Raat briefly established his professional credentials and explained his personal interest in Wanganui. Mr Van Raat commented on the building components of Queens Park and their physical and social inter-relationship.

Mr Van Raat emphasised that, in his view, the Warren and Mahoney proposal for extending the Sarjeant Gallery was not the optimal solution to the Sarjeant Gallery's problems, and that the solution would be found through an overall design based on urban planning principles. Mr Van Raat noted his preference for compiling a short list of four or five of the best architects in New Zealand, inviting their co-operation in an urban planning proposition for Queens Park and giving them two days together to develop an outline plan. From this outline plan, architectural propositions could be defined.

In response to questions Mr Van Raat said architects were used to working within the constraints of lack of funding. This was addressed not by less design, but by taking more time.

Committee's Recommendations
Proposed by Mayor Laws, seconded by Cr Stevens:
THAT $30,000 for the production of "Heart of Wanganui" concept plans be funded from the Sarjeant Gallery Extension Capital funding identified in the Long-term Council Community Plan in 2004/05 and 2005/06
AND THAT Mr Tony Van Raat be thanked
AND FURTHER THAT Mr van Raat be asked to compile a list of suitable architects to assess their contribution for a joint design project for the "Heart of Wanganui" project
AND FURTHER THAT Mr van Raat brief the selected architects accordingly in consultation with the Council and related stakeholders.

Cr Westwood suggested that rather than funding from Capital, each Queens Park activity group be asked for an equal contribution.

Proposed by Cr Westwood, seconded by Cr Bullock:
THAT the motion's first clause be amended to:
THAT $30,000 for the production of the "Heart of Wanganui" concept plans be funded from contributions from the Queens Park activities budgets to progress the concept plan.
The amendment was put:
CARRIED
The substantive motion was put:
CARRIED
ACTION: Keith Hindson
Mayor Laws left the meeting at 5.30pm

---

Then back it went...

COUNCIL MINUTES - December 2004

Item 4: "Heart of Wanganui" Revitalisation Project Keith Hindson, Recreation and Culture Manager, further reported as follows:

"At the Strategy Committee meeting held on 15 December 2004 the Committee asked the four Cultural Facility Managers if their respective 2004/05 budgets would be able to fund 25%, i.e. $7,500, of the total cost of producing concept plans for the "Heart of Wanganui" Revitalisation Project.

All the managers confirm that they will fund their portion of the concept plan production i.e. $7,500, as they believe the project is in their joint interest."

Tony van Raat, Consultant Architect, provided an update report on the "Heart of Wanganui" Project.

Discussion

Mr van Raat reported on the workshop at which five leading New Zealand architects considered how to address the Queens Park institutions through the "Heart of Wanganui" Project. The information from the workshops is now being worked on and a report will be available for the Council on 8 April 2005. The report will cover various issues including access to Queens Park from the south, the location of the iSite Information Centre, the route for the refurbished tram and the relationship of the Queens Park buildings cluster with the precinct of Majestic Square and Victoria Avenue.

Mr van Raat expected that after the report had been delivered to the Council this commission would be complete and the Council would then decide how to proceed. He expected some proposals might be chosen to have further consideration.

Mr van Raat said personally he found the workshop a very useful exercise taking a fresh look at the City in a very authoritative way with the specific concerns of stakeholders as well as a wider City interest considered. In response to a question Mr van Raat said the report to the Council on 8 April would include indicative and conceptual drawings.

The Mayor thanked Mr van Raat for his presentation and said he wished to publicly acknowledge the contribution Mr van Raat had made to the "Heart of Wanganui" Project.

Committee's Recommendation
Proposed by the Chairman, seconded by Cr McGregor:
THAT the report be received.
AND THAT Tony van Raat be thanked for his presentation.
CARRIED

So, with bated breath the public gallery (and the rest of Wanganui) waited to hear what was to happen. Uh oh....

MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Proposed by the Chairman, seconded by Cr McKinnon:

THAT the public be excluded for the duration of the discussion of Item 12: Presentation of Building Projects in Wanganui, Item 13: Capital Works Project Timing and Item 14: Chief Executive Officer's Report, to enable the Council to carry out negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) without prejudice or disadvantage and to protect the privacy of individuals in accordance with Sections 48(1)(a)(i), 7(2)(a) and 7(2)(i) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

AND THAT Mr Tony van Raat, Consultant Architect, be allowed to remain in the meeting for Item 12: Presentation of Building Projects in Wanganui only, after the public has been excluded to provide Elected Members professional information.

Discussion

Cr Dahya questioned the need for the public to be excluded. Mayor Laws explained that Items 12: Presentation on Building Projects in Wanganui and Item 13: Capital Works Project Timing, contained a level of commercial activity and that the privacy of an absent third party would be compromised if that matter was heard in open meeting. Councillors accepted Mayor Laws explanation. Mayor Laws noted that he was willing to release any information that the Committee approved for release following the meeting.

---

So the we weren't allowed to know anything in December. March came and went. A Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act request from LawsWatch met with the response that the peasants of Wanganui wouldn't be able to understand.

So, what's happened so far:

• We lost government funding for the Sarjeant extension. This was, however, an "opportunity" according to the Diva, as it meant we could develop a comprehensive Master Plan.
• Albert Speer... sorry, Tony van Raat, was then brought in amidst much fanfare. For a mere $30,000 he and four other architects would come up with a concept plan.
• The $30,000 was to come from funding earmarked for the Sarjeant Gallery extension resource consent in 2004/05.
• An amendment proposed by Cr Westwood saw the source of funds changed to an equal contribution from each Queens Park activity group - i.e. $7,500 each.
• Council's own officers advise it that "the success or otherwise of any public project has been the ability to capture the public's imagination and to get their buy in to the project from the start".
• Mr van Raat, Council's primary adviser on the project, suggested back in December 2004 that the way forward was to "compiling a short list of four or five of the best architects in New Zealand, inviting their co-operation in an urban planning proposition for Queens Park and giving them two days together to develop an outline plan".
• Workshops were held at which five architects considered the options, the outcome of which would be available to Council on 8 April 2005 and would "include indicative and conceptual drawings". That would mark the end of Mr van Raat's involvement in the project, and Council would, he presumed, go on to choose some proposals for further consideration.
• Further discussion then took place behind closed doors, in order to protect "the privacy of an absent third party".

Since then, with echoes of Edgar Allen Poe, the Heart seems to have been buried beneath the Mayoral office floor.

The concept plans won't be released, Council has told LawsWatch. Whatever emerged on 8 April, despite being a synthesis of the architects' professional opinions and public input gathered back in February, is too arcane and complex for the simple folk of Wanganui to understand.

So here's a few other things we don't understand either:

1. Smallest point first. Whitlock's report says that for all his hard work, Mr van Raat received $3,000. The concept plan budget was ten times that. Is Whitlock's figure a typo, and va Raat actually received $30,000? Was $27,000 spent on expenses? Did the other four architects involved get some of it? None of these suggestions, if true, would be an improper use of the money. But it'd be nice to know how it was spent.
2. What did we get for our $30,000, paid for from the already tight budgets of four public amenities? And why can't the public see? Some us might even be architects. Or engineers. Or have some sort of education. And thus be able to understand. And we could help the simple folk come to grips with it. "That's a building... and that thing there's a tree..."
3. What of the Diva's plan to turn the Memorial Hall into a library? It's Historic Places Trust listed and a change of use application would open the proverbial can of worms, with huge spending needed to bring it up to standard.
4. What was so commercially sensitive that it had to be held in committee? And who's this "third party" that sems to already be involved, even though supposedly no work has been commissioned?
5. While we're on the topic - and with no disrespect to Mr van Raat, who is no doubt a very fine architectural expert - how did he get the job of advising Council, amidst much Mayoral back-slapping, without going through any competitive process?
6. No budget for the Heart project has been set, so how could the architects produc any sort of worthwhile concepts with no indication of how much money could be spent?
7. Come to that, why haven't ratepayers been told how much the Diva is prepared to spend on this project?

Could it be that the architects whom Mr van Raat brought to Wanganui, including Patrick Clifford and Ian Athfield, apparently didn't buy into the Diva's instructions?

Parallels with the Hitler/Speer meister plan for the Heart of Berlin being developed to the glory of the Third Reich seem unavoidable. Perhaps the Mayoral dunny was slated for demolition to make way for a "Banana Bunker"? Whatever is going on, the Fuhrer bunker on Guyton Street certainly isn't telling us volks.

Update 9.20pm: We've made a correction to this post. It was the Administration Committee, not the Strategy Committee, which went into public excluded mode to consider the Heart project. Our apologies for this inadvertent transposition. Some strange characters which had appeared in place of quotation marks, dashes etc have also been (hopefully) fixed.

Comments on this post are now closed.