SAFC at Glenside

[stumpjumper]

There are several steps in considering what to do at Glenside.

One of the reasons for the Glenside Hospital site containing so much open space is because open space was/is believed conducive to the recovery of the mentally ill.

Presumably, the status quo is to be disturbed either because there is an economic need to cash in the land or the pressure for land is such that some has to be carved off.

If the mental health facility is to stay at Glenside, then a decision has to be made as to how much open space will remain with the hospital.

The fate of the existing 19th and 20th century buildings is also in question. These buildings are generally cellular, and would support conversion to housing.

Whether and how much additional housing should be built, or what other uses the land should be put to, is the next question. More housing, more shopping or road widening all have a claim.

Relocation of the the Premier's SA Film Corp from a former aircraft factory at Hendon to the solid masonry cellular Glenside Hospital buildings? The largest space is the single level dining room - about 7m x 15m.

WTF??? Is Hendon a bit slummy for the Film Corp luvvies, or what?

At a time when money is short, we are told, the film Corp needs to relocate to brand new premises.

Where is the business plan supporting that?

Has the Film Corp been doing so well that such expenditure is warranted to enable it to move to the 'next level'?

In short, why? A new home for the Film Corp is not the obvious choice for surplus Glenside land.

Can anyone advise why spending millions on relocating the Film Corp to Glenside makes sense?

[stumpjumper]

I'm with you, adam73837. If the space is not needed for the amenity of the patients (I assume that people who know have made that decision) then redevelopment seems ok. Expand the supermarket. Fix the intersection. Convert some buildings to housing and maybe build some morem while creating some publicly accessible green space.

But move the Film Corp with its requirements for big interior volumes to the least suitable set of buildings in town?

Sounds expensive and hard to justify in these tough times.

Please explain, is all I ask.

[Will]

The reason why Glenside has extensive open space was that at the time the hospital was developed (in the 19th century) not a lot was known about mental health. Indeed, at the time it was thought that open space, sea breezes and nice smells could cure mental illnesses. Now we know better, and understand that many mental illnesses are actually caused by a mixture of genetic and environemntal factors which lead to alterations in brain chemistry. As such, open spaces are not required for the treatment of the mentally ill. What the mentally ill need is access to modern mental health institutions.

I have been to see patients at Glenside, and the current facilitites are old and tired. If the development of modern facilities requires the selling of surplus open space or the development of a 10 level building, then so be it.

[stumpjumper]

Thanks Will. Your post supports the reduction in area and rebuilding with modern facilities of the mental health facility.

You haven't addressed the question of the business case for the expensive relocation of SAFC to a site which appears so unsuitable for it. Some of the more recent Port Adelaide wool stores, for example, would seem to be a better bet (eg the 1930's Dalgety's store), or the vast railway engineering buildings at Islington, and I ask again what is so wrong with SAFC's present site at the former aircraft factories at Hendon?

[monotonehell]

Thanks Will. Your post supports the reduction in area and rebuilding with modern facilities of the mental health facility.

You haven't addressed the question of the business case for the expensive relocation of SAFC to a site which appears so unsuitable for it. Some of the more recent Port Adelaide wool stores, for example, would seem to be a better bet (eg the 1930's Dalgety's store), or the vast railway engineering buildings at Islington, and I ask again what is so wrong with SAFC's present site at the former aircraft factories at Hendon?

Your question assumes that the SAFC makes movies and thus requires the facilities for sound stages. I'm not sure about this but I thought that they were more of an administrative body, with need for office space not sound stages. They decide which actual film makers get funding and so forth do they not?

Okay maybe I should do some research before I open my big mouth.
From their web site:

Function

Since our inception in 1972, the SAFC has formed a vital part of South Australia’s cultural and economic life. Our role changed substantially in 1994 when the SAFC ceased production to become a film support body and lead agency in South Australia for the promotion, stimulation and development of the film industry.

The core functions of the SAFC are to foster the creation and delivery of critically acclaimed and commercially successful ideas, moving images and sound for any viewing medium; to support the SA screen industry in a dynamic and responsive manner and to optimise opportunities for production & post-production in this state.
The SAFC core activities include:

* Screen practitioner development and support.
* Script and project development.
* Production investment funding, cash flow loans and incentives.
* Operation of production and post-production facilities.
* Marketing of SA as a viable shooting location and the expertise of South Australian facilities and crew to both domestic and international markets. This includes offering a free and confidential locations service and production liaison for projects looking to shoot in SA.

And

Sound stages

Sound stage 1 – 30 x 16 x 5.1 m (100 x 53 x 17 ft)
Can be acoustically treated to accommodate full orchestral recordings.
Sound stage 2 – 23 x 16 x 5.1 m (80 x 53 x 17 ft) with cyclorama
Production offices

A range of suite sizes, all air conditioned with phone, fax and reception support. Located adjacent to sound stages and other production facilities.
Art department

One large space and a props store. The sound stages can be hired for set builds.
Wardrobe

Two large spaces and a laundry with dyeing vat and drying room.

Hrmmmz...

[Vee]

I look forward to the imminent? re-development of the Frewville Shopping Centre as part of the Glenside re-development. This has been on the drawing boards for a long time! This re-development is sorely needed. Derelict shops line Glen Osmond Rd awaiting demolition. Opportunities exist to improve traffic flow in the vicinity of Glen Osmond/Fullarton Rd. as part of this re-development.

Frewville with its major tenant, Foodland, is an important retail service in this area. Its location on Glen Osmond Rd makes it ideal for locals as well as through flow traffic heading towards the hills. It provides a viable and Independent alternative to the Coles - dominated Burnside Shopping Centre. (Essential for competition and folk who prefer to support 'Independents' in retailing.)

The Glenside site should be a creative mix of open space and stormwater retention/wetland and heritage buildings, retail re-development and some residential development at medium to high densities. I like the idea of a new iconic home for the AFC but I'm not wedded to it. Likewise, rebuilding a multilevel mental health facility on a small footprint on site.

This Glenside re-development area should contribute to the just released 30 year Adelaide Plan with its targets for new (and some affordable) housing in the eastern suburbs. A mini TOD? Higher populations and higher densities in this area would create increased demand for improved public transport services and cycling paths to service the eastern suburbs, which are largely ignored in the provision of new public transport options in the 30 year plan.

[stumpjumper]

SAFC

In particular, the development of the new Adelaide Film and Screen Centre will provide not only a new physical home for the SAFC, but a centre for local practitioners, not to mention state-of-the-art production and post-production facilities that will provide the structural underpinning for the industry for the next thirty years. You can read about the latest developments regarding the Centre on this site.

- Richard Harris, CEO SAFC

I looked at the SAFC website too, and while it seems plain that SAFC proposes a large bureaucracy to facilitate film-making, the section on production indicates a pretty strong production facility as well.

Then there's the housing of a lot of associated, film related businesses -

In particular, the development of the new Adelaide Film and Screen Centre will provide not only a new physical home for the SAFC, but a centre for local practitioners, not to mention state-of-the-art production and post-production facilities that will provide the structural underpinning for the industry for the next thirty years. You can read about the latest developments regarding the Centre on this site.

Can you imagine the networking that will go on in 'frames' or 'outtakes' or whatever quirky name they'll have for the taxpayer-subsidised in-house cafe?

Don't forget too, that media-obsessed Premier Mike Rann has to house his own substantial government film unit, a growing operation on which much of his success depends.

Again, I'm surprised at how close to the chest the government is playing this. The Minister for the Arts who is directly responsible for SAFC is Premier Rann, with a young actress wife and a declared fascination with films - and someone not normally noted for hiding his light under a bushel.

Could it be that the grand, new, relocated Adelaide Film and Screen Centre is one of those personal projects indulged in by leaders once they are secure in power, in this case kept quiet because with Treasurer Foley roaming around 'cutting government expense to the bone', the less than necessary creation of a mega-million dollar, tax-payer funded, iconic fantasyland for a bunch of not very successful, provincial film makers might not hit the spot with the electorate?

[stumpjumper]

Interesting developments.

There is a lot of spin (putting it very politely) surrounding this issue, intended it seems to 'hide' the construction of the Film Hub. What is happening is that the government is spending $5 million moving the mental health administration from its present quarters into new temporary quarters. They will have to be moved again when their new facility is built.

The problem is that the government's public statements imply that the mental health adminstration staff are being moved because their new building is underway. That is not why they are being moved. They are being moved so that work can begin on the Film Hub.

My question is: Why not build the new hospital first, move the staff once, into it, then build the Film Hub, saving $5 million and saving the mental health patients the dislocation?

The answer from the Premier's office is that the SAFC lease ends on June 30 2011 and the have to move. This is incorrect. I have spoken to Jones Lang Lasalle, the managing agents for the Hendon premises, who advise that there is no pressure at all on SAFC to leave, and there is no new tenant or other plan for the SAFC premises.

So, why 'double-handle' the mental health staff? Project Management 101 would tell you that you would schedule the hospital construction first, then move the people into it, then build the Film Hub in the newly vacated space.

There is no commercial or other reason to do it backwards, wasting $5 million and unnecessarily dislocating the mental facility staff and patients. Surely a government which is cutting costs to the bone would do it the cheaper way?

After all, the needs of the mental health patients are absolutely paramount in this, according to the government.

Glenside Campus Redevelopment Master Plan April 2008:

"There has been a misconception that the introduction of
retail, residential and commercial uses on to the site is simply
about deriving income. The income is merely a secondary
benefit. These uses are primarily about integration of everyday
community activities with the provision of mental health
and substance abuse services – consistent with best practice
developments in the United Kingdom and Europe. The Glenside
Campus is a health facility site and the introduction of these
uses is to support the clinical outcomes of the health facility."

A joint press release dated 10th Dec 08 from Mike Rann and the Mental Health Minister Lomax-Smith describes the work to provide temporary accommodation for the mental health administration, but it does not state the reason for the temporary move - the unnecessarily scheduled construction of the Film Hub. It's an interesting piece of official untruth:

"Glenside Campus will remain fully operational when construction work starts on SA’s new $130+ million mental health and substance abuse hospital in 2009.

Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Jane Lomax Smith says the SA Health Department has produced a plan to enable a temporary movement of existing services to other parts of the Campus.

This will allow services to continue while construction of the 129-bed state-of-the-art health complex at Glenside takes place.

“The SA Health plan maps out the transition of health services and shows how the site will be prepared for the hospital development while remaining fully operational,” Dr Lomax-Smith says.

“Health services will continue to be provided at their current standard on site while work begins on the new health facilities, improved open space and site-wide infrastructure.

“This is a complex but common practice during health redevelopments of this scale.

“The cost of the transition phase is around $5 million and is expected to start in early 2009. A significant investment was required to ensure patients continue to have a safe and secure environment during the building works.

“I would like to take this opportunity to thank patients, carers and clinical staff who have been involved in the careful planning of the temporary moves.

[stumpjumper]

Regarding the sound stages etc to be built for the film hub, from a Premier's Dept document (my coloured emphases):

The heritage-listed main administration (‘clock tower’) building will be upgraded to accommodate the Film Corporation as well as other film and cultural tenants with new customised buildings behind.

From Premier Rann's press release dated 22nd July 2009: (note metre heights)

A defined film precinct to the east of (ie behind) the clock tower building will include:
two sound stages of 400 and 1000 square metres in area (1 to 3 standard housing allotments in ground area) and 15 – 17 metres (5 - 6 storeys) in height;
production facilities of 1,234 square metres (offices, art department, wardrobe and dressing rooms); and
post-production facilities of 684 square metres over two levels (editing suites and sound studios, screening and mixing theatres).

[stumpjumper]

These facilities are for an organisation which has not made a feature film for 29 years (it only made 6):

Picnic at Hanging Rock (feature film – 1975)
Sunday Too Far Away (feature film – 1975)
Storm Boy (feature film – 1976)
Breaker Morant (feature film – 1979)
Money Movers (feature film – 1979)
The Club (feature film – 1980)

and has not produced a feature for 22 years:

Robbery Under Arms (television program – 1985)
The Shiralee (television program – 1987)

In fact, SAFC earns just over $1 million per year: about $500,000 from interest on its accrued capital, $250,000 from subletting its space and most of the rest from renting out films it owns. This much is clear from its last annual report. It loses about $5 million per year, which is reimbursed by the Premier's Department as the 'cost of earnings'.

As a business, it is losing money hand over fist. Yet it is to be rewarded, in these tough times, with $43 million of palatial new administration offices and state of the art production facilities, in a location which does not need any sort of economic stimulus.

Apart from the fundamental question of why do it?, there are other sites which seem more deserving: Port Adelaide (the woolstore precinct, for example), or the West End of the city. Why Glenside?

[stumpjumper]

I'm talking to myself here!

Just to confirm, monotonehell, that the building dimensions you quoted are misleading (not your fault, they originated with the Premier's Dept and numeracy isn't a qualification there).

The true area of new buildings for the sound stages rather than the areas of 368sqm and 480sqm (total 848sqm) given are 400sqm and 1000sqm (total 1400sqm) plus another 1800sqm of new construction.

Here are the incorrect dimensions monotonehell was given:

Sound stage 1 – 30 x 16 x 5.1 m (100 x 53 x 17 ft)
Can be acoustically treated to accommodate full orchestral recordings.
Sound stage 2 – 23 x 16 x 5.1 m (80 x 53 x 17 ft) with cyclorama

It's becoming clear that this project is being driven by a couple of people who have, in my view, Walter Mitty style dreams of being movie moguls.

Considering that the performance of SAFC as a business has been steadily worsening and that it has a very low status in the Australian film world, it is not surprising that its executives harbour dreams of being more important than they are - important enough to build a $43 million facility at public cost on an earned income of only a few hundred thousand per year and after losing $5 million per year every year for the last five years at least.

Furthermore, the proposal uses a very inefficient schedule that will cost at least an unnecessary $5 million.

Basically, the film hub part of project is a private vanity at public expense and is a waste of money. If there is a compelling business case for the project, why is the 'Business Case' prepared apparently by ArtsSA publicly available? And who assessed the report, since it was effectively prepared by the beneficiary?

[Omicron]

In fact, SAFC earns just over $1 million per year: about $500,000 from interest on its accrued capital, $250,000 from subletting its space and most of the rest from renting out films it owns. This much is clear from its last annual report. It loses about $5 million per year, which is reimbursed by the Premier's Department as the 'cost of earnings'.

Ouch. Cost/benefit on spending tens of millions on a new headquarters for an organisation that only turns over one million?

[stumpjumper]

SAFC 2007-8 Annual Report: http://www.safilm.com.au/Content.aspx?p=59

You have to wonder how the whole project can be justified considering Foley is ruthlessly slashing costs. (Advertiser, February 06, 2009: 'Government departments are being ordered to "cut to the bone" as the Treasurer Kevin Foley grapples with a huge shortfall in revenue to the state from the GST.')

I'm trying to get a copy of the fabled Business Case for the SAFC move. As I mentioned I've been told that it's 'commercial-in-confidence' and that it's 'FOI only'.

From the latest annual report:

Total income 07-08: $1,123,000 (Film distribution returns $224,000, Interest on accrued capital $551,000, Studio hire $278,000, Other income $70,000)

Total expenses 07-08: $6,054,000 (of which ‘staff benefits’ for the 24 staff comprise $1,144,000)

Loss: $4,931,000 (called ‘cost of providing service’ and made up by a government grant)

Cashflow in for 08 ($1,747,000) was 23% less than the year before ($2,261,000)

Rent for the Hendon premises for 08 was $195,000 and the cleaning contract was $42,000 (22% of rent)

I’m cross-referencing the various SAFC grants. It’s interesting that the outgoing CEO from 07 picked up $298,000 in film grants and $5,625 in expenses for the following year. Naturally, there is a note to say that while the CEO was a member of the board that approved the grants, she did not participate in the approval process. Otherwise, there’s a pattern emerging of a core group each of whom receives multiple grants year after year.

It’s an interesting process especially in light of the supposed cost cutting.

Further on that, I would query why the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse has her own fully fledged major building project office. In an era of supposedly shared capacities, why isn’t there a single entity responsible for managing government building projects – we could call it the Public Buildings Department.

Anyway, I’m continuing my digging around. It’s not even easy to find out who is actually driving this project. For a while, it seemed to be the Premier himself, but as the negative press builds, the line from the Premier’s office is that it’s nothing to do with them, it’s ArtsSA which is driving it all.

On we go.

[how_good_is_he]

Ok Stumpjumper we accept that EVERYTHING the govt has its hand is corrupt - Port Adelaide, Cheltenham, Glenside, Clipsal blah, blah, blah.

Just accept they are all crooks and get over it as I think most people on this forum couldn't give a shit.

[stumpjumper]

hgih, a few facts.

I have worked over the years with the SA government's SACON and Asset Management departments, and can say that from my experience most of the government's building operations are well conducted.

Governments manage taxpayers' money, and have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer to protect the public investment and to deal honestly. This is especially necessary when the government is involved in projects where not only taxpayers' money is concerned, but there is investment from individuals.

In South Australia over the last decade or so there has grown a culture at government level which either ignores, condones or at worst promotes bad business practices. In extreme cases these practices, to my certain knowledge, are deliberately covered up.

We are all different. You may be prepared to put up with dodgy behaviour because you are so keen on the product. I'm keen on the product too, but not at the price of people being ripped off. Even then, if you want to invest in some scheme, and you lose money, that's fine. Your bad choice.

But if the government risks your money, then loses it by poor or corrupt management, then even you would probably be concerned.

The projects I have objected to on this forum I believe involve questionable activity by the government. Not the Labor or Liberal government, but any government.

Look at a few projects.

Makris' 88 O'Connell St development. Makris has approval under the City of Adelaide Development Plan plus a few extra stories, but wants more. The project will never get Major Project status, says the Minister for the City of Adelaide. A month later, Makris pays several hundred thousand dollars to the government as a donation, then the project is given Major Project status. The local community is cut out of the planning process and the government shuts up.

The government is effectively a partner in the Newport Quays development. It would take a book to cover the concerns in this development, which appears unbalanced and favours the short term interests of the developer above all else. The situation can be described as the government and the developers versus the public interest.

The Glenside development appears to not be about mental health at all. It is about raising money and building am expensive facility for a film outfit that can be fairly described as badly managed, ineffective, loss-making and of low priority in these difficult times. Certainly not the people you would build a multi-million dollar new facility. SA Film Corp's directors pick up hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, travelling all over the world at public expense yet the whole organisation produces little more income than a suburban deli, and gets a government subsidy of nearly six million per year to achieve even that. The business case supporting this move is unavailable.

The Victoria Park development promoted by Kevin Foley is another example. The Cheltenham debacle is another.

The common factors are government involvement, public funds, and secrecy. A little digging reveals that again and again private interests are given a higher priority than the interests of the public who fund the projects.

No government in the world could go to its electors with that proposition.

Since 2005, I have been going on about possible government corruption in these projects. I'm not the only one. More and more people are becoming aware of the questionable role of the government and its friends in these projects. Check the blogs, hgih, and the leyyers to the editor. Check the interstate press. There is a substantial move for more transparency - for an independent commission against corruption.

Premier Rann's response is to look wounded and say: 'But we disclose everything!'

I say that is a lie. Why not disclose the business plan for moving the SA Film Corp? Why not explain why the Port Adelaide timber boat industry was destroyed?

The government elite and their friends are living very well on these projects whether they succeed or fail, while the taxpayers who are funding the projects are treated like mushrooms.

I'm not anti-development. I'm anti-corruption - and in favour of the openness that the government's leaders - Rann, Foley and Conlon - are not giving us.

Why are these guys so against an ICAC? If we do not get one, the Rann, Foley, Conlon years may be remembered more for dodgy projects in which millions of taxpayers' funds have been lost rather than for the good work they have done. They are in part risk managers, and their job in that respect is to reduce public risk, not to load the risk from the private participants onto the public pocket.

The Rann government should cut its close ties with the property industry. The state can still develop without (rude phrase) of the property industry. Government ministers should realise that they are there to represent the public interest, not the property industry or their personal aspirations to become property millionaires.

Property developers are not evil, but their game is profit and they play hardball. I know, spent 15 years in that industry. The property industry does not exist for public benefit and it will try to woo any government, Labor, Liberal or whatever, but that's no reason for our government ministers to be patsies for them.

That's it, hgih. I believe in what I'm doing. I think things could be done better.