Submission
9 year plan feedback
Should we remove 231 Stuart Street (formerly the Fortune Theatre) from the list of strategic assets in the DCC Significance and Engagement policy?
Yes, remove 231 Stuart Street from the list of strategic assets (this is our preferred option)
Do you have any comments about 231 Stuart Street?
All of the profits from the sale must be ring-fenced exclusively for theatre performance infrastructure.
As 231 Stuart St is a heritage grade 1 structure, it’s appropriate that these profits go towards the preservation and development of a performance space in another heritage grade 1 building which has a viable and sustainable performing arts business plan - the Athenaeum.
Public/private partnership isnt my preferred option, but it seems like Dunedin hasn't got enough money to float projects alone.
The resulting asset will need a legal framework to account for all future scenarios, which clearly defines the city investment as a stakeholder in the building and protects public investment in future decades. It would need to provide more of a return in the event of a sale of the asset that just 'first right of refusal' to buy, i.e. Taxpayers investment makes us partners and the full investment adjusted to inflation would need to be paid out from any sale before the owner revcived profits from that sale, or somthign of the sort.
The plan of a small theatre venue up top with a music venue underneath is a great option, provided the DCC undestands that it will only be suitable as a SMALL FINGE venue (which is needed) and will not fill the mid sized venue gap, but it's a lot better than nothing, and will put Dunedin on the touring map with an asset ciparabe to Wellington's Bats and Christchurch Little Andromeda etc.
If DCC isn't going to develop the ‘Sammys’ site into a music venue and music hub - which would be ideal but maybe ins't affordable - this should also be sold and any profits channeled into the creation of the proposed music venue in the basement of the Athenaeum space.
Any consideration of further investment into the Mayfair building is mistaken. It is fundamentally unfit as a 21st century performing arts venue and for almost all of the same reasons that 231 Stuart Street needs to be sold, it too needs to be let go.
Should we charge an entry fee of $20 (incl. GST) for international visitors aged 16 and over, at Toitū and Dunedin Public Art Gallery?
Yes, introduce an entry fee of $20 (incl. GST) (this is our preferred option)
Do you have any comments about the entry fee for international visitors?
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
I want councillors to be honest about the dire state of the performing Arts in this city, and their own lack of investment into the performing arts.
The DCC's own Arts and Culture strategy has been so resoundingly ignored by councillors and high level DCC decision making it now reads like gaslighting propaganda:
"Dunedin is one of the world’s great small cities for arts and culture, offering the cultural life of a much larger place"
“...position Dunedin as one of the world’s great small cities for arts and culture, where creativity is fully integrated into the city’s identity and recognised as essential to our future success.”
“ ‘Spaces to skite about’ - Foster a creative physical environment, chock full of exciting public art, festivals and events”
Numerous performing arts venues have been closed or literally knocked down in the last 8 years, the Fortune, The Oriental, Sammy’s etc.
Small fringe venue The Athenaeum is entirely dependent on the work of two people at extreme risk of burnout.
There’s no decent mid-sized venue currently. By the next Dunedin Arts Festival there will be none at all.
The Mayfair is falling down and was never suitable in the first place.
The Playhouse will need to be closed within 24 months due to genuine safety concerns.
The only theatre spaces without direct threat are The Regent (massive) and University owned Allen Hall (small) which is booked with student work most of the year.
Does this sound like “...one of the world's great small cities for arts and culture…. with spaces to skite about?”
The currently proposed allocation of an additional $2million to the existing stadium budget for ‘event attraction’ adds insult to injury.
Yes, the stadium has to make money but in the context of the cuts- the removal of the $17m funds for a new theatre, The closure of Propect Park Productions in Dunedin, the closure of Natural History Unit, and the cutting of operational funds to Te Whare o Rukutia - the approach of pouring more money to chase the ‘destination’ big events can only lead to futher resentments and departures of locally based producers.
The Theatre community has been playing nicely and patiently with DCC for years and have gotten exactly nothing for it. Where is the Ōtepoti Theatre Action Plan? Why only for our music whanau?
This council seems to only react to bad news stories. If we resort to shouting in the ODT will money suddenly appear for Te Whare o Rukutia to stay open? If we put pictures of children crying outside the Playhouse will the DCC suddenly move? How reductive.
I’m asking for honesty and clarity of strategy.
If it’s the council's position that Dunedin does not have the population and money to have resourced theatres, now or in the future, please have the backbone to make that position public.
Remove the jargon and rhetoric from your documents.
Replace ‘aspirational’ with ‘practical’
Scrap the vision of ‘One of the world’s great small cities for arts and culture’ and replace it with ‘One of the worlds most secure small cities’ or ‘New Zealands most livable city’ or ‘Doing the basics the best’ or however you want to spin it. It could work.
It could also work to focus on investment in people rather than infrastrucure, working with local producers and artists to ensure they have access to operational funds and self-directed incubator projects over long-term timeframes. This won't result in excting performances for locals, but could result in sustainable models for creatives to stay living in Dunedin and take work out to NZ from here.
What definitely doesn’t work is setting out priorities and strategies that councillors have no interest in, or obligation to support.
I can potentially pivot my business model to work within clear parameters, adapting to what the city will and won’t be investing in.
I can move to online work, or into the music space, or the gaming industry if that’s what the city is banking on.
I can move into visual arts or literary spaces if that's what works here. I can plan to spend more time away for work, or I can plan to sell my house and leave.
What I can’t do is watch more of my collegues burn out, or tolerate any more of my time being wasted by meetings that lead to nothing because of a lack of leadership buy-in.
Local Water Done Well feedback
Which water services delivery model do you support?
Why did you choose this option?
Do you have any other feedback related to the proposed water services delivery models?
Supporting information
No associated documents with this submission.
Submitter
Submission id number: 1132363
Submitter name:
Rosella Hart
Organisation