Sammy's venue set for a comeback

Sammy's building in Crawford St, Dunedin. Photo: ODT files
Sammy's building in Crawford St, Dunedin. Photo: ODT files
Dunedin venue Sammy's is set to make a comeback with a new name and the financial backing of the Dunedin City Council.

Councillors yesterday gave unanimous support to a plan that could result in the venue being added to the stable of Dunedin Venues Management Ltd (DVML).

That support came despite concerns from some councillors about the potential multimillion-dollar cost.

The council's community and culture committee also decided any decision on the exact use of the venue will not be made until the public has had its stay.

In February, the council announced it had bought the 121-year-old building for $128,000.

The decision was made by staff, under delegated responsibility chief executive Sue Bidrose has to spend up to $500,000 on property.

A report to the committee said the city had for some time recognised a market gap for a 500-800 capacity performing arts venue.

There was a strong desire among Dunedin artists, musicians and audiences for the continued use of the building, which was a ''key location'' in the warehouse precinct.

The building was ''in average condition'' and needed some money to make it secure and watertight.

The report included a recommendated option the council undertake a full assessment of the building, begin community engagement on future use and develop longer-term options for council consideration.

During discussion, Cr David Benson-Pope suggested a new name would be needed ''for a facility that is going to be very important in future''.

Cr Lee Vandervis noted the building had been bought without councillor input, and asked about the potential cost of the project.

Strategy and governance general manager Sandy Graham told him there would be a $650,000 cost for some seismic strengthening work, weatherproofing, electrical safety and security to get the building fit for public use.

Last night she said that money would not be spent until the future use of the building was known.

There had been minor repair work costing about $20,000 holding costs, and public consultation could cost $20,000, although that was a ''generous'' estimate.

Cr Andrew Whiley asked why the building was bought by the council, when other buildings in the precinct had been successfully developed privately.

Ms Graham said there was a possibility the building would be demolished.

Cr Rachel Elder asked if staff had discussed the project with DVML, and was told they had.

Ms Graham said while a cost-benefit analysis had not yet been done, the council-owned company saw a role for Sammy's in its suite of venues.

Mayor Dave Cull moved the recommended option.

He said the building could have been ''levelled and become a car park''.

''Given what's been developed in Vogel St, that would be a great shame.''

It was ''very fortunate'' Dr Bidrose had used her delegated authority.

''I can say without fear of being wrong we got this property for considerably less than had it been on the open market.''

The council now had control of, and was preserving, a building ''very dear to a tremendous range of people in the arts, heritage and performance sector of the community''.

Cr Vandervis said Sammy's was ''a unique building with a truly unique history''.

He said the venue would be difficult to run at a profit and would need to be run by the council along the same lines as Dunedin Railways.

He said it was time for the council to open its wallet.

Mr Cull's motion was carried unanimously.

Community engagement is expected to be completed, and a report brought back to the council, by the end of the year.

david.loughrey@odt.co.nz

 

Comments

Maybe the councillors would have agreed to buy Sammy's if the proposition had been put before them. However, restricting staff decision-making about buying property to $500,000 and then staff buying a building that requires another "$650,000 cost for some seismic strengthening work, weatherproofing, electrical safety and security to get the building fit for public use." seems to me to make a nonsense of the original limitation on expenditure on property without governance input.

There still remains the somewhat questionable practice where DCC actively worked to close the business and venue down under alcohol "strategy" and then buys the venue at a seriously discounted rate.

 

Advertisement