Top storiesNew ZealandPoliticsBusinessEntertainmentSportsWorld

Arts Centre rejects offer to restore Dux de Lux in exchange for 50 years' free rent

Friday, 19 August 2022

The former Dux de Lux building is owned by the Christchurch Arts Centre and has been derelict for over a decade.
The former Dux de Lux building is owned by the Christchurch Arts Centre and has been derelict for over a decade.

The Dux de Lux pub could sit derelict for many more years after Christchurch’s Arts Centre rejected a plan to restore and reopen the venue.

A team including Dux founder Richard Sinke, a leading Christchurch developer, a property investor and a fundraising expert, offered to raise $9.5 million to restore the derelict building.

In exchange, they asked the Arts Centre to waive rent for the restored building for 50 years.

The Arts Centre Trust Board rejected the plan because it did not want to tie up the building – which has been sitting empty since the 2011 Canterbury earthquakes – for 50 years without any revenue. The Arts Centre has no plans or funding to restore the Dux building itself.

Dux de Lux founder Richard Sinke was initially excited his pub in the Arts Centre could finally be restored.
Dux de Lux founder Richard Sinke was initially excited his pub in the Arts Centre could finally be restored.

**READ MORE:

* 'The people's pub' - plan to restore beloved Dux de Lux in Christchurch Arts Centre

* Historic buildings to be transformed into health technology centre, as Arts Centre restoration comes to a close

The Dux de Lux courtyard before the Canterbury earthquakes badly damaged the building in 2011.
The Dux de Lux courtyard before the Canterbury earthquakes badly damaged the building in 2011.

* Places of The 03: Throwing soy sausages and electronica - nights at the former Dux de Lux

**

Social enterprise expert James Stewart of Gemelli Consulting, who is part of the would-be restoration team, said the rejection “surprised and frustrated” him.

A view of the courtyard in 2010 looking west towards the rest of the Christchurch Arts Centre.
A view of the courtyard in 2010 looking west towards the rest of the Christchurch Arts Centre.

“It is sad. We have an emotional attachment to the Dux. We were looking forward to seeing the place up and running again.

“It would save them money because they are paying rates and security for the building at the moment, which we would take on.

The popular Dux de Lux bar could be restored after being derelict for over a decade. (Video created March 11, 2022)

“Their alternative is to do nothing. We are utterly baffled why they would want to do nothing and incur costs for the Arts Centre and not reactivate the site.”

The Dux de Lux, which opened in 1978, was much-loved for its sunny, sheltered courtyard, microbrewery, live music and food.

The restoration team also includes developer Shaun Stockman, who has specialised in restoring Christchurch heritage buildings, and property investor Tim Weston, who restored the Britten Stables with his wife Isabelle Weston.

Arts Centre chief executive Philip Aldridge said they needed revenue and could not waive rent for 50 years.

The Dux de Lux in May 1982.
The Dux de Lux in May 1982.

“The trustees are not in a position to tie up an asset for 50 years.”

As a charitable trust, the Arts Centre has benefited from substantial capital grants for earthquake restoration, but receives no ongoing operational funding.

“It is financially dependent on rent from tenancies. The trustees cannot therefore commit an asset to a tenant for as long as 50 years without receiving some form of rent.”

Under the proposal, the Dux would start paying rent after 50 years, or the Arts Centre could repay the capital investment at any point during the five decades and revert to a commercial lease.

Dux founder Richard Sinke said they needed 50 years without rent to be able to pay back potential investors after such a large restoration spend on the building.

“[The Arts Centre] couldn’t see that it was a huge amount of capital to raise at our risk and not theirs,’’ he said.

“They offered 25 years, but it wasn’t viable. It wouldn’t pay back the investment in 25 years. We would pay back investors over 50 years, but they found that too long.

“It is sad. The building will just sit there decaying now.”