Additional Agenda of Opera House & Arts Precinct Subcommittee Meeting

File Ref: 17/1321

REPORT TO: Opera House & Arts Precinct Subcommittee

MEETING DATE: Thursday 7 December 2017

FROM: Project Manager

Ansonica Botha

SUBJECT: Plaza Redevelopment Update

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Committee on the preferred option for the roof design shape for the Hawke’s Bay Opera House Plaza (the Plaza) Redevelopment project.

1.2 This proposal arises from the project identified in the Council’s decision to proceed with the redevelopment of the Plaza area to improve the existing facility in order to attract more frequent events.

1.3 The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.4 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to enable the provision of good quality community infrastructure providing recreational and cultural opportunities that meet the needs of our current and future community.

1.5 This report concludes by recommending:

1.5.1 That Option 1: Traditional Roof be accepted as the preferred option for the Plaza roof.

1.5.2 That Council approve Option 1: Traditional Roof be progressed to the detailed design phase.

1.5.3 That Council approve for the Tenders Subcommittee to consider the final detailed designs and cost estimate and determine whether construction can proceed.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 At the Council meeting held on 22 June 2017 Council approved the following recommendation (Part “C”) under Item 11 “Plaza Redevelopment”:

C) That the Committee approve a total budget of $2.50 million including public donations/fundraising to enable the construction of the proposed Plaza development.”

2.2 At the Council meeting held on 13 July 2017 Council approved the following recommendation (Part “B”) under Item 14 “Plaza Redevelopment”:

B) That the Committee adopt the recommendations of the concept plan Option 2: Dome Timber Diagrid & ETFE Roof to be progressed through the detailed design phase and be reported back prior to going to the construction phase”.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 Marshall Day Acoustics was engaged to prepare a preliminary design report on the acoustic properties of Option 2: Dome Timber Diagrid & ETFE Roof.

3.2 The report found that the proposed design would not meet the district plan requirements in terms for events that use amplified sound equipment. This relates to noise outwards of the Plaza.

3.3 To limit outgoing noise levels the ETFE panels in the roof needs to be replaced with solid panels to form a fully closed roof.

3.4 A fully closed roof is substantially heavier than the light-weight ETFE roof and therefore the size of the members that form the structure needs to be increased. This applies to the laminated timber supports, the rafters and the steel members in the roof.

3.5 The additional weight of the roof plus the increased weight of the structural supports require an increase in seize and depth of the foundations to meet the increased load demand.

3.6 To meet the acoustic standards the double glazing of the front façade will also need to be thicker and two entry lobbies will be required to avoid noise exiting the building when the main doors are open.

3.7 Gemco Construction Ltd, as part of Early Contractor Involvement, has prepared a preliminary estimate to determine the cost implications. They have estimated the construction costs at $3.4 million. This exceeds the construction budget of $2.5 million that has been approved by Council.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 Council has three options to consider:

· Option 1 – Adopt Option 1 (Recommended option): Traditional Roof and progress this option

· Option 2 – Proceed with detailed of Option 2: Dome Timber Diagrid & ETFE Roof and increase the construction budget to $3.4 million.

· Option 3 – Consider other roof options.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 The issue of significance has been assessed in terms of Council’s Significance Policy and in particular the thresholds and criteria contained within this policy. This issue does not trigger any of the financial thresholds or satisfies any criteria of significance in this policy at this time.

5.2 The Redevelopment of the Plaza is of particular importance to the community and reference and usage of previous community consultation and the current Council and community plans have been used to inform the conceptual design.

5.3 Discussions have been held with Opera House staff, Opera House Project Control Group and Opera House Development Working Group to develop an understanding of the community needs at the Plaza. The Plans have been developed as a clear desire to respond to the facility’s users groups and the wider community’s aspirations.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1 Option 1 (Recommended option):

6.1.1 Gemco has indicated that it is possible to construct a simple traditional roof typology and stay within the construction budget of $2.5 million.

6.1.2 No internal gutters will be required for this option.

6.1.3 With a traditional roof typology the same acoustic characteristics (that meet the requirements of the District Plan) are achievable regardless of the form of the roof shape.

6.1.4 While the approach suggested would not provide a particularly unconventional design, Officers are of the view that the functional requirements can still be met and that the finished building will be aesthetically pleasing. This proposal will also address the concerns raised regarding acoustics and drainage.

6.2 Option 2:

6.2.1 ETFE was considered as a roof material because of its light weight and the ability to still have natural daylight in the facility.

6.2.2 Unfortunately the nature of the material means that it is very permeable to sounds both inwards and outwards. The outwards sound, in the case of amplified events, would breach the District Plan requirements.

6.2.3 As presented to Council on 26 October 2017, there is no way to eliminate internal gutters with the dome shape. It was proposed that this risk be managed by robust design measures.

6.2.4 Replacing the ETFE roof with a solid roof would require a construction budget of $3.4 million.

6.3 Option 3:

6.3.1 Two other roof shapes were proposed at the Council meeting held on 22 June 2017, namely a Folded Timer Diagrid Roof and Saddle Form Roof.

6.3.2 It is not considered that the construction of these roof shapes would be achievable within the approved construction budget.

6.3.3 It is also not recommended that other roof shapes be considered at this stage, as it is not considered that an alternative roof shape will provide sufficient benefits to alter the recommended option.

7.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1 Option 1 is the preferred option.

7.2 A traditional roof shape will enable the redevelopment to be completed within the $2.5 million construction budget.

7.3 Although a traditional roof is not perceived to be a special design, the Project Control Group considers that delivering a facility that meets the functional requirements within the allocated construction budget to be a higher priority.

7.4 Care will be taken to make the internal space special and inviting to the facility users.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Project Manager titled “Plaza Redevelopment Update” dated 7/12/2017 be received.

B) That the Opera House & Arts Precinct Subcommittee having considered the Officer’s further report as envisaged by the Council resolution of 13 July 2017, recommend to the Council:

(i) That a Traditional Roof approach be accepted as the preferred option for the Plaza roof, and;

(ii) That the Traditional Roof approach be progressed to the detailed design phase, and;

(iii) That the Tenders Subcommittee consider the final cost estimate and determine whether construction can proceed.

With the reasons being:

That the proposed ETFE design would not provide a suitable acoustic environment and would not enable the acoustic requirements of the District Plan to be met.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Hastings District Council

Lyndon Road East, Hastings