Top storiesNew ZealandPoliticsBusinessEntertainmentSportsWorld

Why has Environment Canterbury spent $8m on two heritage buildings?

Thursday, 26 June 2025

The ornate facade of the Odeon Theatre on Tuam St has been propped and covered.
The ornate facade of the Odeon Theatre on Tuam St has been propped and covered.

OPINION: Environment Canterbury has decided to sell the quake-damaged former Odeon Theatre (pictured above, wrapped in white).

The decision is long overdue with the heritage building costing regional ratepayers up to $400,000 a year.

The Odeon Theatre, left, and Lawrie and Wilson building, in central Christchurch.
The Odeon Theatre, left, and Lawrie and Wilson building, in central Christchurch.

In all, ECan has spent an eye-watering $8 million on the Odeon, and neighbouring Lawrie and Wilson building, an extraordinary sum for an authority which should be focused on natural resources (land, water, air).

The reasons it has given for getting into heritage restoration are wholly unconvincing, as is the decision to keep the smaller Lawrie and Wilson building.

The 40 staff using it for offices can surely squeeze into ECan's five-storey, 7000 square metre building next door.

The Odeon Theatre behind a wall of shipping containers in 2023.
The Odeon Theatre behind a wall of shipping containers in 2023.

ECan gave its reasons for the original purchase as controlling development around its headquarters next door, preserving options for future developments and staff accommodation, and preserving significant heritage buildings. It also wanted to create an “environmental precinct” bringing together Canterbury’s environmental organisations in one place.

It spent $2.2m strengthening and restoring the Lawrie and Wilson building next to the Odeon to accommodate the 40 staff.

However, I give Environment Canterbury credit on another matter.

It is a no brainer that public transport in Greater Christchurch should be managed by a single organisation, as suggested by Environment Canterbury (ECan) yesterday.

Currently, the regional council manages the buses while the city council oversees infrastructure making coordination and budget setting complex and inefficient.

Having a standalone body focused on running public transport would surely improve outcomes, though such a model has been criticised in Auckland for its lack of democratic accountability.

Please share your thoughts or story ideas with me kamala.hayman@press.co.nz