By Rod Mitchell
In September last year, the Council, with much fanfare, announced that they were looking to build a 5,000-seating music venue on the St Kilda Triangle site. Pop up lighting costing over $50,000 was installed in Acland Street for a few months reminding all of us, that St Kilda was once a centre of cutting-edge music. As a former Goanna band “groupie”, I can contest to those great times. Yes, the 80's was a great time for music in St Kilda, but like all things, it came to an end.
The idea that we can “remake” St Kilda as the pivot of Victoria’s music scene is a bit like the MAGA philosophy. Making St Kilda Great Again asks more questions than it answers. Was the past music scene, the core of what made St Kilda such a go to destination or was it much more back then; the vibrant retail strips and a far gentler eclectic crowd than what our high streets offer today? Will a revitalised music scene create more social issues for St Kilda residents and what if any impact will it have on our struggling retail precincts? Where is the master plan for all of this in the rush to be seen to be doing something?
The underlying problem with the proposed music venue on the St Kilda Triangle site is not just resting on blind faith that the CoPP has the competencies and skill sets to deliver on such a proposal. It goes far deeper, to process, public support, funding mechanisms and financial viability.
Process:
- The process surrounding the announcement of the redevelopment proposal did not come after an initial public consultation period with the public that includes rate payers who may have to tip in through rate increases to assist in funding the proposed music venue. Public consultation would come only after the CoPP announcement.
There was also no consultation before the announcement on whether the State Government would be interested in funding and or to what extent they could contribute to the Triangle redevelopment. Usually, major potential funders would be identified and initial informal discussions on whether there would be substantive interest in funding such a proposal would commence before making public announcements. Instead, we got the “song and dance bit”, but with no realistic expectation whether funding would even be available.
- The other part of the process is in the design element which is also linked to cost and financial viability. The City of Port Phillip is littered with poor design. In the Triangle project, a few schematics have been “thrown around”, but all fall short on what could be described as award winning and a construction that would be admired within the St Kilda landscape, 100 years from now. For example, we have Luna Park and the Palais which are Victorian icons. To complete the St Kilda Triangle, another icon is required. Icons cost money, especially when you need bold vision to incorporate the redevelopment over Jaka Blvd right to the water’s edge. I am not convinced that the CoPP has a grand vision. My fear is that in 20 years post construction, the word “eyesore” or phrases like “we need to rejuvenate the site” will increasingly become part of the St Kilda conversation once again.
Public Support:
- Post the announcement of the CoPP’s plans, public engagement commenced. Public engagement is always tricky, because results tend to be always skewed. That is:
- Older residents are not as agile at using online portals to voice their support or concerns as younger tech oriented residents.
- Ratepayers who inevitably are “liable” to foot the bill for these projects tend to be outweighed by non-ratepayers (renters) who are usually, in favour of these “no cost to them” types of venues.
- Rate payers in other areas of Port Philip may not want the project because it does not directly support where they live.
- Business houses and residents closer to the live music venue who may see this activity as either disrupting their businesses or the loss of amenity viewed by nearby residents. Think restaurants along the foreshore and residents along the St Kilda Esplanade.
- And finally, a lot of non-residents using the online portals to voice their views in the positive, irrespective of the fact they do not live in the City of Port Phillip.
- The concern is why did the Council announce these proposals without major feedback from the residents beforehand? What alternatives have been missed in this irregular process? Once again, you cannot help but conclude that Council is driving an agenda without first taking the community along with them. Are shades of the Acland Street mall fiasco now reoccurring in the St Kilda triangle push?
Funding:
- The most logical funder in any partnership would be the State Government. Unfortunately, the State government is now debt strapped and focussed on the Suburban Rail Link as well as meeting hefty increases in interest payments on exiting public debt. It is highly doubtful that the State will fund this proposed project considering its own current financial difficulties.
Financial Viability:
- Usually with such a major project, there would be some idea of market demand for such a venue. It needs more than just a statement that the proposed venue would become the new Festival Hall!
- Financial viability is something the Council antenna has been sorely lacking on. Cost of living pressures are currently causing a lot of difficulties, especially for renters. The post Covid-19 environment has played havoc on the live entertainment industry. Just Google live venues and you will find multiple stories of the lack of financial viability and other challenges that the industry faces such as:
- "The venues need support. With all costs going up and spend per head going down, that is not a healthy equation," says James Power, Social State's co-founder and co-owner.
- Rapidly increasing overheads, such as rocketing public liability insurance costs for both venues and festivals alike, affect the viability of such events.- the Conversation
And considering the plethora of negative news about the viability of live music venues in the media well before the CoPP announcement, surely this should have been considered before any public announcement and subsequent advertising expense undertaken by the CoPP?
And then we need to ask:
- Have we not a large supply of music venues already in Melbourne and even in the City of Port Phillip?
- Could the proposed Triangle project become a long-term commercial liability, with the CoPP not only expending scarce rate payer revenue to assist keeping the doors open, but also its share of the build cost? Financial liabilities could occur irrespective of whether the CoPP offloads partial liability through long term contracts with venue operators. Even venue operators are not going to pay handsomely for a contract to manage a music venue if there are tight profit margins with falling demand and an increasing recurrent cost structure.
- Cost of construction has over the past few years skyrocketed by 50% or more. Is this proposal in any form affordable and if we use the State Government’s big build as any guide, what certainty of cost control is there in any build?
- Should the CoPP be investing in a project that may only be open a few nights a week rather than an investment that is accessible to the broader community every day?
In summary:
The CoPP appears to have made a large news splash with self-promotion, supported by bullish statements from at least one Councillor, without the realism and detailed work to support such a music venue proposal. In my St Kilda Triangle article Iast November I stated:
“The latest Triangle redevelopment proposal appeared just over a year before the next Council elections got underway. The cynic could argue that this is the perfect election platform, “Vote us back to continue the redevelopment of the St Kilda triangle”.
However, it looks like the music venue idea on the St Kilda triangle site is firming up as one former Councillor said some years back as “a place where ideas come to die.”
Another former Councillor recently described it as a “Folly.”
In 2014 (yes 10 years ago), Councillor Bond slammed fellow councillors over delays and waste surrounding the development of the St Kilda Triangle. Maybe in 2024, Councillor Bond as a supporter of the current Triangle proposal, could tell us what it has now cost rate payers? If not, can someone else in Council please tell us how much the latest dip into the St Kilda Bermuda Triangle has cost the rate payers of Port Phillip?
And if the project is looking increasingly unfeasible, will someone in Council stand up and say so, or is the policy setting now, “say little and hopefully the punters will also”?
