Court Theatre, Andromeda: Why can’t we have both?
There is a simple solution to the deadlock over Christchurch’s performing arts precinct – money.
A total of $34 million to be exact. For that much more, central Christchurch would get a new state-ofthe-art Court Theatre and Andromeda, a performing arts facility with a 400-seat theatre, a 150-seat fringe venue, an outdoor performance area and shared office space for professional theatre companies.
It is a relatively small amount of money. About seven per cent of the $496m budget for a proposed covered stadium in central Christchurch.
Sadly, outgoing Court Theatre chief executive Philip Aldridge and Christchurch theatre producer Michael Bell are right now engaged in a public battle to be the first built on the proposed performing arts precinct site on the corner of Gloucester and Colombo streets. The precinct has Christchurch City Council funding of $30m, which is not enough to build both the $45 million Court Theatre and the $19m Andromeda.
Aldridge argues the Court Theatre should be built first because it has a proven track record of attracting audiences and would help spur the rebuild by drawing people to the city centre. He said about 150,000 people attend the Court Theatre every year and a new facility in central Christchurch would ‘‘activate the whole area’’.
The Court‘s current premises in a former Addington warehouse have attracted a whole new audience for the company, but the facility was only built as a life raft after the earthquakes. Court staff work in portable offices in the back of the warehouse, many of which get very little natural light. The Court’s edgier partner company, The Forge, has no dedicated space in the building.
Bell argues that Andromeda would be
OPINION:
a cheaper way to attract crowds back to the city centre and provide a muchneeded home for Christchurch’s theatre producers and performers. Theatre talent is leaving Christchurch because the city does not have the right venues for them to flourish. Andromeda would give them a home to build work and audiences in the city.
Both men are right. The city needs both of their proposals. It should not be a choice between the two. In short – why can’t we have both?
It is unfair to make the city’s arts leaders fight over funding scraps while there is an obvious source of money that would solve the problem.
In August last year, then Labour Party leader Jacinda Ardern came to Christchurch to make a major campaign pledge. If elected, she promised to establish a $300 million fund for rebuild projects nominated by the community. She said the community would decide what the money could be spent on and suggested the residential red zone, a stadium or infrastructure repair as possible options.
‘‘We’ve created a fund here that you can make a decision around what your priorities are,’’ she said.
‘‘There might be things that aren’t even on the table now that council wants to look at.’’
Since the Labour Party formed a coalition, the fund proposal has become a Government budget bid.
It has been mooted that the fund could be used to help pay for the proposed stadium. The council’s long term plan budgeted $253m for the proposed stadium, leaving a shortfall of $243m for the $496m project. Rebuild minister Megan Woods announced this week that the Government would develop a business case for the proposed stadium.
Even if the Government fund was used to cover the entire stadium funding shortfall, there would still be $57 million left over for other projects. More than enough to ensure the performing arts precinct happens in a timely manner.
If a sports stadium, which could be empty for most of its life, can potentially attract hundreds of millions of dollars in public money, then surely a city facility that would genuinely bring regular crowds back to the city deserves a small morsel from the proposed rebuild fund.
In one simple move, the public battle, delays and funding problems swirling around the project could be swept away and the city would get the performing arts precinct it deserves.