Town hall repair Page 1 / 2

captaingraham, Jun 12, 3:26am
Cost 127.5 mill. I say more like 170mill by the time it's all done. What's your guess. A chocky fish for the winner

bligh, Jun 12, 3:34am
200 mil. nobody knows the land its sitting on.

mggd, Jun 12, 3:43am
240m or more. Right beside the river, no good for development in town. Has there been a feasibility study done to see if it can even be made stable? or will they blunder along for a couple of years then decide it cant be made safe?

gman35, Jun 12, 5:21am
So we know some sort of Geotech. work has been done firstly to ascertain the land for the building is OK ?

ryanm2, Jun 12, 5:46am
Great - a whole bunch of old fuddy duddies got to save their precious crappy looking town hall, which is going to be a burden for all future rate payers.

jessebird, Jun 12, 8:39am
Pull it down, its a waste of money.

pandai, Jun 12, 9:17am
The insurance payout of nearly $70 million will ONLY be available to the council if they pursue full repair. This is not an opportunity that will be available again. The town hall is a public space which has been, and should continue, to be enjoyed by many. We have not had the chance to rescue much of our heritage in Christchurch and it's great to be able to save this one building and its performance spaces when we have lost so much else.

dannyboy24, Jun 12, 9:40am
No im sure they haven't taken that into account at all. my god man you should mention it to them before they start!

fimeister, Jun 12, 9:44am
So a town hall and convention center. We totally need both.

pandai, Jun 12, 10:04am
It's not like the convention center is being paid for by the Council.

And, deciding not to do anything with the Town Hall only leaves the CCC about $40m better off. It's not like they would be saving $127m by choosing not to do it.

brightlights60, Jun 12, 10:18am
Hubby is a sparky. He has been in there since the quakes and says it is absolutely rooted (to use his expression). And its not quite "heritage" yet. Its what they call "future heritage" which means its fairly naff 70's stuff that has not quite come back and not old enough to be attractive. They have already spent millions to stabilize it and flaffing around remove hinges and "fittings" because "they will become heritage at some point". Talk about a complete and utter waste of money. Don't get me wrong, I did like it, but I think it did its dash and was pretty dated and blergh. We need a new one at around a third of the cost. For a council having to come up with $1B shortfall, this is a really bad decision.

captaingraham, Jun 12, 10:36am
Broken into many pieces, sinking, sliding into the water and sitting on very unstable ground. Sound familiar. I'm talking about my house which was red zoned and demo'd. If it was good enough for 6000 odd houses it should also be good enough for the Town Hall.

gman35, Jun 12, 8:09pm
OK I get your sarcasm , I mean is the land REALLY ok, as in for future earthquakes there is no chance of being more damaged than any other part of town, riversides aren't exactly top of list for sites for other buildings and many others have said "it could be problematic years after it is fixed".

pandai, Jun 12, 10:32pm
The ground underneath the Town Hall is probably one of the most studied bits of land in town. it's not like there isn't a plan to remediate it.

trade4us2, Jun 12, 11:20pm
I don't see any steel reinforcing in the concrete slab, which is why it would crack. However, that makes it easier to jackhammer out and pour a new slab. That would cost a few million at most.

billsmith, Jun 12, 11:34pm
You just need to stand in Victoria Sq and look over the Avon at the Town Hall and you will see how shaken up it was. I hope they have got their costings correct. I see a massive over-run coming.

cassina1, Jun 12, 11:38pm
If it goes over budget it should be those that support it who should be made to pay the difference. Then I wonder what level of support it would have then.

nzoomed, Jun 13, 12:28am
Me thinks its better to spend the money on saving a heritage building such as the cathedral.
Its a no brainer really.

martin11, Jun 13, 1:57am
The town hall is the CCC building , the Cathedral is the Anglican church building the Council have no say in restoring it as they do not own it .

shannie1998, Jun 13, 3:08am
Unfortunately the insurance money on the Town Hall comes with pretty tough terms and conditions.

If the Council don't restore the Town Hall or choose to demolish it they would forfeit approximately 60% of the insurance money.

The money was never really go to be available for anything else.

nzoomed, Jun 13, 3:19am
True, but in the wider publics interest i feel there would be some support for the council to put funds towards it since its a landmark of the city and a protected heritage building. It would throw alot of weight to convince them to restore it too if they didnt have to cough up with the money.

fimeister, Jun 13, 4:13am
Are you serious? Why would a city the size of Christchurch need so many large venues? Long-term they would all end up competing and undercutting each other and running at a loss. We need to think beyond individual buildings. 'Christchurch - the city with heaps of space for hire'. Good one.

pandai, Jun 13, 4:23am
Realistically both venues would be managed by the same company - vbase. There would be no undercutting, and making a profit is not the point - it is a public venue after all. And don't forget that having these spaces available for hire will also draw business to Christchurch. It's not as if the previous iterations sat around unused.

But on your last point. I do agree that Christchurch is becoming a city that doesn't have a lot going for it.

fimeister, Jun 13, 7:41am
I completely disagree with you that 'public' venues don't need to make money. Why do you think both Dunedin and Christchurch City Council's are in the financial messes they are in?

pandai, Jun 13, 8:33am
It's fairly obvious why CCC is up the financial creek.

One of these venues will be free.

Insurance payouts will cover a significant portion of the other.

Events at both have the potential to bring economic activity to the region. New Zealand is a nice place to hold an international conference, after all.

Indirect benefits are an enormous attraction.

Do you expect the Council to make a return on all its investments in capital?

Share this thread

Buy me a coffee :)Buy me a coffee :)