Marino Hall Design consultation

City of Marion has committed to investing approximately $5M in a New Marino Community Hall.

 
In Summary
On 23 September Council launched 6 week community consultation on the above closing on 30 October. This was following the release of the Council’s high level Feasibility Report  at a recent Council meeting.
 
City of Marion has committed to investing approx $5M in a new Marino Community Hall rather than adaptive reuse of the existing. It was not possible to hold a public meeting with Council to understand the proposal better, so please take time to review the information provided.

The Association supports the proposal in principle subject to more details and stakeholder engagement, such as:

• The rationale for new build over adaptive reuse, given the local "attachment" to the Hall 
• how the hall can continue to operate during the potential 12 month construction process, for the many vital users of the Hall. 
• how it will fully accommodate the current users in the new facility
• how it will facilitate multiple new users simultaneously using the hall
• how the new facility will be managed on completion to maintain the important affordability
• how the split level impacts of the design can be resolved eg dual access kitchen?
• how the Council will engage with the key stakeholders in a more partnership approach to the important design and operational model development
• how the Council will communicate with the community on progress and key milestones
• how the roof garden will be allowed for in the future (not in budget)

Please go and have your say and read on for more information.

Background 

On 23 September Council launched 6 week community consultation on the above closing on 30 October. This was following the release of the Council’s high level Feasibility Report Reference SGC200729R01 at a recent Council meeting which sought Council’s endorsement of the following:
 
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:

1. Notes the feasibility report completed by Studio Nine.
2. Endorses Option 2 for a full redevelopment of Marino Hall and commits $2.5 million(50%) to the project subject to receiving a matching external funding commitment.
3. Endorses to proceed to further refine the endorsed proposal and undertake stakeholder consultation, with consultancy fees capped at $18,000.

 
The 5049 Coastal Community Association is an active supporter of the MHMC (Marino Community Hall Management Committee) including volunteering to help facilitate activities and improvements to the hall. We were pleased that, in response to the continuing activation improvements by the MCHMC, Council committed to a feasibility process on refurbishment or replacement of the Hall to better serve the community.
 
We participated actively in the first part of that process in 2019 with Council-led community ideas consultation on the back of an Association-sponsored survey in 2018. There has been little or no feedback on the 2019 process, for example, no “what we heard and next steps report”.  With such community initiatives it is essential to keep the community informed and engaged even if there has been a delay. No news is never good news on these things. It erodes goodwill and devalues the process.
 
Whilst we were aware that the matter was progressing over the last 8 months, no details were shared, beyond encouragements and repeated mention of the feasibility study and potential investment values of 2 options. All were very positive, but there has been no further meaningful engagement with the key stakeholder MHMC, as a key stakeholder/partner in the process.
 
In the intervening period, the MHMC have continued to energetically manage and develop the Hall programs for the community. They have facilitated the following improvements and enhancements to the Hall facilities working closely with Council to ensure the improvements are capable of transferring into the major project.

• New Cafe in the Foyer-grant from Nicolle Flint & MHMC funds
• New Flexible Stage system, lighting, chairs and storage area – grant from David Speirs
• Small Hall structural repairs –CoM funding
• New Logo and branding – MHMC

 
It was hoped to have a public meeting at the Hall during the consultation so we could invite Council to explain the designs and the process, but unfortunately it was not possible. We are assured that this is only the beginning of engagement and after this consultation there will be further opportunities for key stakeholders (undefined?) to influence the outcome during detailed design.

Review of July 2020 Feasibility Options Report and the Making Marion website content

We have undertaken a high level review of the above report and the preferred new build option in particular.

There are several positives in the report:

• Many of the aspirations and facilities have been incorporated
• Some of the overriding criteria are consistent with many of the key stakeholder’s views
• It represents a significant investment and commitment to the provision of a Community Hall
• Noting that it provides a different offering to other Community Centres in the area i.e. not a standard model.
• The recognition of the need to be simple, residential in scale, accessible, open, welcoming and “beach side” in aesthetic. Consistent with the rural aesthetic and low key image.

 
There are several key aspects of the proposal that challenge the expectations from 2018/19:

• The MHMC have not been consulted during this Feasibility Study despite our understanding and expectation that this would be a partnership between Council and the community. It was made clear in the earlier consultation that the project would not deliver a “Community Centre” managed and run by Council but would be a shared model. As such it is disappointing that MHMC were not included in the consultation. Here is an extract from the council’s report “We have conducted the consultation and meetings via Zoom and sent presentations and drawings via email.” This clearly didn’t include MHMC.
• There is no reference to the detailed “what we heard report “from which the community input has been summarised. There is only a simple list of inputs from 2019 here without any attempt to develop a brief or analyse the content. 
• There is no reference to a Transition Plan during construction. It is essential that operations continue during the process. The impact of closing the facility for 12+ months and consequent loss of momentum and facilities would most likely lead to a loss of users as they go elsewhere and potentially will not return. This is particularly relevant to the new theatre group who has only started at the hall in July 2020. Surely this should be a “Guiding Principle” or included in “Key Project Drivers”.  If not, what is the strategy to manage the transition? This has subsequently been covered in the FAQ on council’s website with no details and no budget allocation.  The current proposal would require the hall to be demolished and services relocated so that the new facility could be built. The current budget does not include for relocation costs or any temporary facilities to continue to operate during construction.
• There is no supporting Business/Operations Plan to evaluate the return on investment, so it is unclear how the new facility will be managed in its new form. Any operational modeling should clearly involve the MHMC if they are to continue their good work and be part of the governance and management structure. It is essential to understand the value of the investment and future running costs.
• The design layout and report do not appear to take into account the use of the hall as a flexible performance space given that recent investment in flexible staging system was undertaken on the basis that it would transfer into the new facilities? We understand that at a recent meeting with the MCHMC that Council have confirmed this aspect will be addressed in the final design
• There is no flexible office space/admin resource in the current concepts. This is considered essential for a multi-use facility, for on site management and potential share space/ skills training.
• The cost plan is potentially optimistic in some areas and there are significant exclusions which would need to be accounted for in the final scheme. Eg sustainability measures, contingencies, staging and transition planning.
• The comparison between the 2 options in the Council’s report is superficial and not a realistic and thorough appraisal. It should show comparison to the existing ie “do nothing option” to give a clear evaluation of the cost benefits and advantages of the preferred option in supporting and enhancing existing loyal users and encourage other users through flexible programming via the multipurpose spaces. It should also measure social capital in the appraisal.
• Accessibility seems to focus on Car Parking and doesn’t address broader access requirements such as service delivery, public transport, bikes, walking, pick up and drop off.
• No mention of commercial spaces or residential options to help fund the development
• Site landscaping/paving development needs to explore access to outdoor spaces
• No detail on the next steps for the project

Concept design appraisal 
From the report Council selected the more expensive new build option based on the fact that the cost differential between the adaptive reuse and new build option was not significant; and the long term value of a new building would be in its opportunity to address some of the shortcomings and risks associated with retention and adaptation.
 
The following review of the New Build option is preliminary and reflects the time available for this review. Many are resolvable through the next stage of design development. However, some are fundamental to signing off on a realistic budget. A further round of more inclusive consultation with key stakeholders and managers of the facility should be undertaken in the next stage to ensure that when it goes back to the community it is well received and the final outcome is truly “owned” by the community it serves.
 
Plans – New Build
Addresses the street well and provides more open welcoming impact. Gives the opportunity to get the optimum facility by reorientation of the footprint in an E-W direction. Note the following:

• Does open up the corner of the building and café to the outside - a key aspect of activation. Café has no outside deck. Has access from the concourse so is more integrated.
• Access is elevated via steps or a long external side ramp which is not ideal from an equity point of view and will need to have weather protection (a modest lift alongside the steps would be better and possibly cheaper- although only one at a time?)
• Difficult to assess how successful the design resolution is in terms of streetscaping as it is difficult to see it in context  against existing buildings.  Overall it appears to be simple, small scale with sympathetic materials.
• Not sure how the kitchen serves outside and there is a problem with the dual access between the split levels. It appears it can only serve one level?
• Not sure how the car park is to be used for activities…. temporary shade etc.
• No external storage.
• The location of the storage on the northern side is not universally accessible and removes the opportunity for passive solar gain.
• No storage for Hall 2 and there is no independent access to central storage, essential for multiple use.
• Workshop needs external access and outside activity space.
• Upper level space – storage plus option for dumb waiter from kitchen to external servery?? Shade …. not in costings.
• Unclear on the ceiling height, the volume and character of the main hall(s) space and impact on the performance space requirements for rigging etc. which is critical.
• ESD – no modeling and limited take up. Seems very traditional in heating and cooling no specific allowance for natural ventilation etc.
• Site infrastructure – no mention of the sewer issue?
• AV – no mention, no allowance
• Data management facilities – silent on that.
• Augmented hearing loops not mentioned.
• Multiple entrances essential for this design but has management and security implications.
• FF&E. ( Loose furniture, fittings and equipment allowance)
• No stormwater capture.