Mareel - Cinema & Music Venue

[Guest Anonymous]

Well me and me pals have just watched the Jonny Cash film "walk the line" in me hoose with a few cans . We are now off to watch the Celtic game at the Star. We are all in agreement that if the venue was built we would still be doing exactly the same!

[JVRTENNENTS]

Well me and me pals have just watched the Jonny Cash film "walk the line" in me hoose with a few cans . We are now off to watch the Celtic game at the Star. We are all in agreement that if the venue was built we would still be doing exactly the same!

 

Come on da Hoops, I`ll be dere 2

[JustMe]

THE NIXT COONCIL MIGHT OWERTURN IT ONYWE WANCE IF YON FOOLS ARE OUSTED IN 2007

 

But if this lot sign contracts first that could end up costing a fortune.

[DavieG]

Wow - Lots more great debate everybody. It would probably take pages to cover all this but I will try and cover many of the salient points. I should point out that I am by no means a cinema expert and have not really been involved in this aspect either as part of the project team or steering group - I'm there as a music rep - there are others on the team in repsect of the cinema - but I wll throw in what I do know from them or just some thoughts of my own as an individual.

 

Can I just add re the public consultation issue - this project has been subject to more consultation, public meetings, feasibility studies etc etc than any other in council or indeed local history. The fact that many of these took place a while back may have eroded them from certain memories but they did take place. Things of this magnitude (although not massive in the bigger picture) do move slow but if we had to re-consult every time there was some delay we would go round and round in circles. Anyway consultation should be an ongoing and two way process so in truth we still are and this debate still forms part of that.

 

Since the culmination of that process, the protracted one of getting it through the council and working with the lottery people to get funding has been ongoing and so it might seem that now things are up and running in this respect, the project has come out of the blue - far from it.

 

As I said at Wennesday's meeting we would have welcomed meetings with SLTA at any time during this process, but given members of the licensed trade made no comments at the two public meetings they attended in Lerwick (there were a number of other public meetings in all rural districts including the northern isles) and most certainly and subsequently they did not get in touch with me, either formally or informally I, for one assumed they were comfortable with the process - but there you go.

 

Now to alll your points and concerns Marvin

 

Guilty as charged re the Arts Trust 'delegation' - I forgot about Richard. That does indeed make three (although Caroline is a elected public member of the steering group - not chosen by the Arts Trust to be involved) and could be surmised to be a 'delegation' I suppose. Less than 3% of the number said to be attending the meeting though for those who like to quote stats. Not sure they were as many as 90 by the way but I may be wrong. Lets not get pedantic though.

 

Let me put one thing right. Iselsburgh will NOT be run by the new Arts Development Agency after the 1st of April. The operation of the building will revert to the Council with the Community Services section taking over the remit for Islesburghs recent revised indenpendant remit of youth and community services etc. Only their current arts and tourism remit, not the building, will be handed over to the new ADA and along with it this element comes the Garrison Theatre. Islesburgh will remain as a public facility operated by the Council to the best of my knowledge.

 

At the outset of this process of feasibility studies etc all the current and potentially availability facilities were looked at with a view as to whether they could deliver the new 'desires' demanded by a large number of the general public (including a cinema, recording studio, rehearsal space, education functions, outreach programmes etc etc) and although all were found to deliver or have some potential to some extent in their existing capacity major gaps in service provision and overall quality of service set against upgrade and ongoing running cost were highlighted - far too many to go into here - but they do exist in public reports. It was subsequntly agreed that effort and expenditure would be much better aimed at a new integrated facility - see again the Clickimin Centre for a benchmark, rather than a number of indenpendant facilites that also might not work so well together or in isolation.

 

Given that, whatever we did in this respect, there would STILL be demands for a seperately purpose built cineman or music venue at a substantial cost in their own right it was agreed that the then seperate cinema and music venue plans be brough together to offer best value and deliver the best integrated service to the community. It would also mean having just one complete set of services, limiting things such as staffing needs, rates, facilities (toilets etc etc) and.... well I could go on.

 

 

Over and above that several local existing service providers in the private sector were spoken to as regards their plans for the future in an attempt to guage if they intended to provide upgraded or new facilities that would address the public demand, including potentially non-profit making elements such as a recording studio or rehearsal space. I do not want to betray any confidences here but some of the meetings did not last long I can assure you.

 

Even if they had given a positive indication this would still have left important issues such as education, training, rural outreach issues etc etc that they most certainly would not have taken into the commercial sector.

 

Fusion in Orkney looked at this and decided to drop all the 'developmental' elements in favour or a purely commercial, high quality performance venue - which of course does make a healthy return and positively impace on other businesses in the surrounding area.

 

Islesburgh is a great facility but in reality its strongest service in this particular and a physical context is it provides general rooms for hire for community purposes among other things. The biggest room for performance (room 16) only holds 140 people when set out concert style and has a certain amount of production limitations as many agree. Serious limitations I'm afraid although it still has a important role to play in other aspects.

 

Other rooms are fairly small, although as I say they offer a crucial community hire service. Given the 'acoustics' in the building music is a very disruptive element when other rooms are hired out for other quieter reasons as many of us have found out.

 

Such is its popularity I often have difficulty hiring rooms there for any purpose let alone performance. If we were to build music functions into the existing building i.e. a recording studio we would simply move the demand for general hire rooms elsewhere - nothing much to be gained by that - and again a music related element would be a 'cuckoo' in someone else's nest as has been the case for so many years till now. Quite successfully I may add, in terms of turning out good quality musicians, but times do inevitably move on and should we not look at unique facilities for such an imporant element of our local culture and economy?

 

After 1st April the SIC will also still require the Islesburgh building to deliver their vital community and youth programmes so it will still be incredibly well utilised.

 

Islesburgh House acts as a hostel for a large part of the year so no discussion required there.

 

We may be talking a bit at crossed purposes about "fragmentation" here. By that I meant, not Islesburgh and the Garrison, but taking on, refurbishing and running a number of OTHER disused buidlings i.e. the old gym in Kind Harlad St and the old squash courts at the back of Islesburgh for say musical purposes as some have suggested would be a good and cheaper (if uncosted) option. Maybe this SHOULD be accurately costed against the new facility (although as I say with old buildings you tend to uncover a lot of expensive 'surprises' you cannot account for simply by having an initial look and putting an estimated cost on a refurb) - not for me to say but I suspect we would not be looking at a massive amount of cost difference. Any estimated cost for refurb would largely be a guess given these unknows.

 

This option was also looked at by those carrying out the very first major feasibility study into the C&MV study and quickly discounted. This was due to their lack of general suitability, the cost of refurbishing them (usually more than any initial estimates when you find hidden 'extra's' - remember this happend to Islesburgh itself recently during a refurbishment) the cost of running them all indenpendantly or as 'additionals' by whoever.

 

Again it was felt that bringing all these new initiatives (music and cinema related ones) together under one high quailty roof to attract the widest possibly usage was the most desirable option both from an operational and cost related viewpoint.

 

The Garrison. Well a bit more difficult I am the first to agree. A good facility it may well be but lets be honest it also has its limitations both functionally and socially. There appears to be no chance of adding any further service facilities to the building so what you have is....well what you've got for the future I'm afraid.

 

It is a box and a sit down, concert style only, facility with no additional social amenities to speak off. In fact it is a basic theatre and is best suited only for this purpose. Its very much a come in - sit down - watch the show - and leave again facility. Fine for some of course but times have moved on and the general demand is for a much wider range of support services when you are having a night out in a building (not everyone wants to go to the pub before and after - although many thankfully do - and how about famillies?), and there is clear dissatisfaction in this respect - let alone the rake of the seating and its comfortability factor (not something that bothers me too much personally I should add - although better seats would be great)

 

Whenever you have dissatisfaction this is likely to grow rather than go away and as time goes on and other amenities improve these voices will inevitably grow. Another reason why a new facility is being demanded and now planned in this respect.

 

I imagine all would agree that you can only successfully house a specific kind of music performance in such a facility leaving a lot more that are not fit for purpose - and you try hiring the Clickimin Centre when you actually want it - well done for their usage levels is all I can say.

 

Also the Garrison only seats 280 at best. Ideal you might think and it often is. But think on.......Production costs continually rise which means, that, in limited seating venues, ticket costs have to rise in line with this (or you have to get money to subsidise them) and boy do I get complaints when we put up ticket prices or worse still people stay away.

 

If these costs escalate then people on lower incomes, families and older or younger people MAY be excluded, especially if EVERYTHING is just run for profit as some seem to suggest it should be in the cultural sector. We still have to ensure bums on seats of course but making this cost effective, possibly with higher numbers of people attending events, is a way forward. More people (especially drawn from those not choosing to go out at present) = lower costs or more profits or course.

 

Careful programming between any new facility and the theatre will be the key. i.e. music in one - drama in another - or whatever. Then remember there are times of the year the facility is not available at all. The Garrison is hardly available during November and December during panto time and the same for an extended period during the drama festival to name but two. Should everything else stop at this time? As I say you try and get another similar venue when you want it!!!!

 

Then there are the productions that simply can't fit into the Garrison production wise. Any new facility could extend the range of events on offer in the bigger arena.

 

As I say I am not experienced in the cinema issue (others are though) and to quote a 9% drop over one year as being indicative MAY be misleading. (other figures tell us a different story in this respect apparently) Statistics often fluctuate and it would be better to see if this is a continuing trend rather than just take one isloated instance. I remember they said that being able to record from the TV and buy pre-recorded videos was going to kill cinema in the early 80's and.....well lets face it that didn't happen. Then how about when TV came itself - that was going to kill EVERYTHING. Thank god nobody developing any social amenity at the time listened to that particular argument.

 

Sure there are increasingly new and exciting home related options in this respect but I think its likely that people will still want to have a night out now and again and they will demand increasingly high quality services comparitive with other areas to do so. Standing still is not an option or they WILL chose to stay home and many are doing so already apparently. Do we just sit back and do nothing about this trend?

 

Then we have quoted a relatively small % decrease in the usage of the Garrison for films since it started. Again I'm no expert but I would have expected this to be the case. Of course you will always have a drop off with anything after the initial novelty value wears off. Its reacting to that and keeping things fresh for your customers that's the challenge.

 

But has anyone measured why this has actually happened or have they, as the SLTA indicated at Wednesday's meeting, just assumed it's because people dont want to watch films any more.

 

Here are some other thoughts for what they are worth:

 

(A) The novelty wears off to some extend as I have said. Does this mean that everyone has to suffer becasue a few dont attend any more or less regularly?

 

( We hear it said often enough - so is it possible that some people are not happy with the service or comfortability of the Garrsion and limit their visits because of this?

 

© Does the fact that all the films are shown in a packed together block over one extended weekend a month have a bearing on attendance. Would figures increase if they were to be spread out a bit?

 

I dont have the answers I'm afraid but I simply dont think we should naturally assume its because nobody wants to watch films anymore.

 

As to monitoring the performance and success or otherwise of other 'art' related facilities - I'm all for that. But three questions:

 

(A) Do they have clear relation to Shetland? Remember even Orkney feels we are very different in our social trends to them - we are seen as much more positive I should add - so even a measurement there might not necessarily give us the answers we need, although they have indicated increased general trade due to Fusion opening which is positive.

 

and

 

( What do we do in the meantime - just sit back and wait?

 

© Is it not better to consider things from our own perspective and needs rather than totally rely on what others are doing and what works (or not as the case may be) there rather than here.

 

Sorry for the long winded reply as always but these are MASSIVE and complex issues. I am sure we will be able to discuss them even more fully and openly when you attend our first steering group meeting Marvin.

 

Finally I know only too well of your commitment and support for music in Shetland as you well know mine, and I can assure you its invaluable and much appreciated by many. I hope none of the two of us would do anything to jeopordise such a treasure.

[DavieG]

I think the problem is that there has been a lack of consultation with the general public with what they actually want. This current topic regards the new Cinema/Music venue.

 

Hope I've answered that one already

 

In my opinion this is a waste of money from the offset. The cinema side of things should be thrown out...at least in the meantime.

 

After saying all that, I don't think the entire project is a bad idea. I just think it should be focused in a different direction. I am interested to hear whether DavieG's opinions are in agreement with mine or not.

 

Number 1: Ditch the cinema plans

Number 2: Focus more on the expansion of Shetland's music industry

Number 3: Provide a decent venue that people will want to visit

 

If we build purely a music centre (or vice versa) it will still nearly cost almost much as a combined unit believe it or not. And (No3) that's the very reason why a good quality builiding is required

 

I would like to see a building that can provide a stage for a band to play on and sound like they should sound. I would like to see a commitment to the development of Shetland bands/Artists and somewhere that they can easily go for help on how to progress their careers.

 

Amen to that and yes that's our aim too brother (or sister)

 

Instead of a cinema why not incorporate a dedicated recording studio that local musicians can use for a hugely discounted cost compared to other alternatives? Surely if there was a way for the local musicians to easily gain an outlet for their music at a low cost they would jump at the chance? This would bring in revenue as well as enhancing the new music venue and promoting local bands.

 

Planned as part of this development Mind you, you say you want to save public money and then want "huge discounts" well I'm afraid somebody's got to pay for it

 

Another option to be considered is somewhere that school children can go to learn about music. We have the new museum, why not create a dedicated Shetland Music Museum? A good example of this is the Stratosphere in Aberdeen. I took my little boy there last year, cost me a fair bit to get in (2 adults, 1 child) and, although interesting, had very little in terms of enjoyment. Why not have somewhere that collates the history of Shetland music and shows it off proudly? The tourists would love it. Money would be coming out of the SIC's ears and before you know it we would have a floating cinema from Bressay to Unst.

 

Partly planned partly great idea - keep them coming

 

There are many options available to the SIC to gain revenue from this new venture but I fear the cinema is not one of them.

 

As I say we would still have to pay a substantial sum for a stand alone venue so the dual unit was seen as the best option.

 

Well argued and we dont appear to be too far apart

[DavieG]

 

As we all know, the Council really have a notorious reputation in Shetland for wasting money and lets face it, a pretty poor public image overall. I understand that the running costs of this won’t come from the same pot as the day to day running of other Council services but many people don’t see it that way and I am really concerned about the message this is sending out. Assuming that the issue of school closures is going to resurface again (which I would add I supported last time round) I would find it very difficult if I lived in one of the affected communities to accept that its ok for the Council to spend money on this with one hand yet say it doesn’t have enough money to run schools with the other. I can almost guarantee that I will be a rich man if I get a pound for every time Cinema and Music Venue is mentioned in the inevitable forthcoming debate about school closures. Not only that, but assuming that those places most likely to be affected by school closures are furthest from Lerwick (despite your proposals for outreach work) they are bound to feel that the venue will be of more benefit to people in the town than to them. All in all, I just don’t think it’s a good message to be sending out, that’s all. I know education and getting the facts over to people would help to a point but I just don’t think spending as much money on something we don’t ‘need’ is going to help the Council’s cause to convince people that it is serious about making sensible decisions about its spending.

 

This is a very emotive subject and I have no wish to comment on proposed or potential school closures - thats for another debate and other areas of the public sector if it happens. However you are right it is the persception that is the problem - and who doesn't have sympathies when this kind of thing is threatened.

 

However money for this DOES come from a very different pot (thats just the reality of public budgets whether local or national) whatever anyone likes to think or sad as the outcome may be. What you must do is make a very reasoned argument for retaining any existing public service not just choose to maintain the status quo whatever the issue. Things do change for better or worse but we should equally not seek to stand still because they do - as one correpondant put it this week "to stagnate is to die".

 

The other thing I wanted to comment on was consultation. Now firstly, I accept that we live in a democracy and that if the majority of Councillors vote for this then it should go ahead. However, I still think that there is a huge but silent majority of people in Shetland who are opposed to this but haven’t been given a suitable opportunity to make their views known.

 

Sorry but I cant agree. There were public meetings held all over Shetland and many were not that well attended although very well advertised, and I can assure you most of those who attended were supporters of the project. It has also had regular coverage on Radio Shetland and in the Shetland Times over an extended period. The "huge but silent majority" as you put it did not appear at those meetings or following reports in the paper or whatver, nor did they appear in the Garrison on Wednesday night - again a very well advertised event.

 

I would have supported an anonymous postal referendum (accompanied by factual information addressing the questions people are likely to ask) as suggested by Councillor Jim Irvine.

 

I dont think anything that's anonymous does anyone any favours and in terms of credibility it cannnot be taken too seriously I'm afriad. If you have the strength of your convictions let them and who you are be known - through the public letters page of the paper or however. If you choose to be anyonomous I would assume you are either embarrassed by your arguement or dont have the strength of your convictions.

 

A referendum might seem like a fair way but then you have to undertake another major publicity campaign from both sides not to mention the time and significant cost its takes to do that. As I say it might seem like a good idea but in a local democracy if we had to do that every time a decision was taken on a major capital or revenue spend that didn't attract outright support we would never get anything done and why have councillors to represent the general view of the community and take decisions on them. As they said at the council services committee meeting on Thursday this has generated more comment to them as any other subject so I can only assume its not all been negative.

[DavieG]

I agree with you totally. I have read in the Shetland Times that Davie intends to bring up 6 dj's per year,will they play on a Saturday? if so thats unfair to Alan Mcleod etc. and no wonder there complaining. I think Al took up 12 last year am I right Mac?

 

Fair comment but the business plan is only a costed "suggestion" at the moment. Three or four years down the line things could be very different and who knows what the best programme might be. It would be up to those operating the venue what it would actually be, nothing is set in tablets of stone, and it should be possible to work with another venue to put on alternative programmes to attract a different audience.

 

For instance the venue could equally have a jazz or country music night on a Saturday night when the North Star has a DJ (of which there are varioius types anyway) And who actually said that any DJ in the venue would be on a Saturday night (the only night the North Star is usually open remember) it could be any night, although Saturday would of course be more attractive. The venue could of course have a DJ if the North Star had a live band - potentially different audiences!!!

 

It would be good to look at working together on this on so that we could offer an alternative programme and everyone would gain

 

PS And it won't be me who will be bringing them up anyway

[DavieG]

We wir spikin aboot dis issue inda grub hut a friday an not wan o wis agreed dat it wis a guid idea.

How can you justify it whin afore the thing is built its predicted dat its goin tae loss 80 grand a year! I think councillors and supporters should look at da economics o it and agree dat it cant possibly pay for its self.

Bit dis is joost shetland fir you instead o tryin tae cut costs by using an existing building dey hiv ta big a brand new wan for ower 7 million!!

 

Fair comment again. We keep hearing that this particular initiative MUST pay for itself. But regarding the deficit some folk (a lot of musicians among them) wonder why this canna be seen as a 'service' to the community as well as everything else the council choose to fund to impove the quality of life here and try to keep folk in the community and attract new folk into it.

 

Imagine if this facility wis to encourage just one person to stay in Shetland that would have otherwise left. How much would that be worth socially and economically - then multiply from there.

 

It might not pay for itself directly but its clear a lot more money wid be spent throughout the commuity if it were built i.e. drinks in other pubs, meals out, fish suppers, taxis, hotel rooms for visiting artists etc etc. Its not just the money that comes through the actual door you have to consider

 

Everybody complains about the cost of getting on and aff the island to the more we can do here for all age groups the better I wid think.

 

I am sure just about everyone could come up with a suggested £80,000 saving from other sources that would allow this initiative to happen without any added net cost to the public purse. What do you value more?

[DavieG]

Re: the comment that the new venue will be taking up DJ's. Surely if public money is to be used to provide an arts venue the venue should put on events that cannot be provided by the commercial sector.

 

Thats the plan

 

Also why do they keep saying that having a 600 standing room venue will allow them to take up bigger bands from south - you would think that public demand for tickets for a big band would mean that Clickimin would have to be used - such as for Billy Connelly - they tried to have that in the Garrison and it had to be moved due to demand.

 

True but not all bigger bands have the draw to fill the Clickimin. Some bigger bands sell say only 200 tickets south - although we often tend to do better up here. You also cant just get bigger name bands off the shelf when you want them either you often have to take the dates the offer and you try getting the Clickimin when you want it - they have a pretty booked up calendar. The biggest bands would still have to go to the CC but if you consider the costs for hiring that venue I have to sell around 200 tickets at £10 a time just to cover the cost of the venue - then there's the band fees, travel accommodation, production costs (sound and lighting) marketing etc etc.

 

Sorry not even some 'bigger bands' can make that one pay or lose even a reasonable amount.

 

Last point can anyone remember the private initiative around 10 years ago to build a cinema at the DITT site - I think it was Thulium Leisure. I seem to think the SIC refused them planning.

 

Cant recall all the outs and in but I do know that the lottery turned them down regarding their business plan although again I dont know the details. It was certainly a valient attempt though. They (the lottery) have accepted the one for the new venue though hence the offer of £2.2m

[JAStewart]

What about doing something with that huge unused building opposite the harbour, between The Voxhall garage and Shetland Hotel?

 

http://www.lerwick2.shetland.co.uk/lerwick/lcm004/065_3.html

 

 

This is an old photo (circa 2001!) but you can see it there, thats the one I mean.

[DavieG]

How wid it attract bigger bands whin da Clickimin can hold aboot a thosand folk If I wis in a band and we hed da choice o playin in front o 1000 or 600 folk I ken whit option I wid go we. Big bands dunna come up here cis o da costs and da travellin obviously you git the odd 1 or 2 big bands cumin up lik Idlewild an Ocean Colour Scene bit generally Shetland is no an option!!

 

Orkney having Fusion has certainly attracted a lot more to Kirkwall that's for sure and the promoters (me, Alan, Jeff Ampleford whaever) meet the costs of course, not the bands or their agents. They just quote a fee and we do the rest. If you canna afford them, and the additional costs, they winna or canna come - that's whit we are trying to change.

 

I wish every band could attract 1000, it's sometimes not a case of choice though, it's whit they can realistically attract. Some bands might attract a potential audience of only 600 at best then the Clickimin is a very risky option financially indeed. Or else you have to push up tickets costs of course and then we get "HOW MUCH"????? - we canna win and you canna have it both ways.

 

The North Star can hold 380 or so, but even making Ocean Colour Scene pay with audiences o that size is a real job I can tell you and I had to bid them doon or it wid not have happened at all - just happens they WANTED to come or we would have lost them.

 

600 - 700 is the figure that represents the best potential for meeting costs and cutting down the need for additional public money to pay those costs. We ken we canna get that all the time of course but hopefully the more successful events will help subsidise the less successful or those that will only attract limited audiences anyway. Its not an exact science I'm afraid and audiences will vary - its our job to discuss fees and costs then see if we can make things even remotely pay.

 

The sad news is if you want stuff that pays for itself in Shetland you will have very little from south or potentially nothing at all. Do you want to just live on a musical diet of tribute bands or DJ's and even they lose money at times.

 

We are also goverend by outside forces of course. When BA did their recent fare rise our transport costs for taking bands to Shetland rose by 80% and made them less viable again at a stroke.

 

Take the boat? Good idea but then bands have to spend two night travelling and if they are here for the crack that might be ok with them. If they are a bigger band on tour or with lots o dates to do then they want paid for lost time - so you canna win in Shetland.

[DavieG]

What about doing something with that huge unused building opposite the harbour, between The Voxhall garage and Shetland Hotel?

 

http://www.lerwick2.shetland.co.uk/lerwick/lcm004/065_3.html

 

 

This is an old photo (circa 2001!) but you can see it there, thats the one I mean.

 

Judane's old factory.....Looked at this years ago. Very poor structural condition, especially the roof (probably worse now) located in the middle of a quiet resedential area with a predominence of elderly folk (the old north road) no car parking space, build on a cliff face, adjacent to one of the busiest roads in Shetland......need I go on.

 

And someone was frightened of fallling in the water.

 

Not everything is as it seems.

[Marvin]

Now to alll your points and concerns Marvin

 

Guilty as charged re the Arts Trust 'delegation' - I forgot about Richard. That does indeed make three (although Caroline is a elected public member of the steering group - not chosen by the Arts Trust to be involved) and could be surmised to be a 'delegation' I suppose.

 

Yeah, I wis just having a bit of fun with you. As I said in my last post, I was demonstrating that the turnout was low.

 

Let me put one thing right. Iselsburgh will NOT be run by the new Arts Development Agency after the 1st of April. The operation of the building will revert to the Council with the Community Services section taking over the remit for Islesburghs recent revised independent remit of youth and community services etc. Only their current arts and tourism remit, not the building, will be handed over to the new ADA and along with it this element comes the Garrison Theatre. Islesburgh will remain as a public facility operated by the Council to the best of my knowledge.

 

Yes, I wasn't implying that the new arts agency would be taking over the whole of the Islesburgh Centre and its many functions. What I'm saying is that the new venue wouldn't reduce the number of people working within an already fragmented public sector in relation to the Arts i.e. its not going to solve the problem, only ease it.

 

 

 

At the outset of this process of feasibility studies etc all the current and potentially availability facilities were looked at with a view as to whether they could deliver the new 'desires' demanded by a large number of the general public (including a cinema, recording studio, rehearsal space, education functions, outreach programmes etc etc) and although all were found to deliver or have some potential to some extent in their existing capacity major gaps in service provision and overall quality of service set against upgrade and ongoing running cost were highlighted - far too many to go into here - but they do exist in public reports. It was subsequntly agreed that effort and expenditure would be much better aimed at a new integrated facility - see again the Clickimin Centre for a benchmark, rather than a number of indenpendant facilites that also might not work so well together or in isolation.

 

Its this 'desires' that worries me a bit though. The expectation within Shetland is always higher than everywhere else and the presumption is that the Council will pay for it. I'm straying in to business theory here, but in a small community with such a high level of dependency on the Council, private business does not flourish.

 

For instance, take for example Neil Stevenson's investment in Fusion in Orkney. Would Neil Stevenson make a similar investment in Shetland today?...no chance....not with the chance that the Council is going to build a £7m venue at the North Ness.

 

On the flipside of that though....(to give a balanced view)....Gateshead. Now this is a bit of tricky thing to explain but in Gateshead the local council was faced with an area of heavy industry that was dieing out. Instead of taking the decision to invest in companies (as the SIC did), they chose to sponsor and invest in the arts. They built The Sage and put public art everywhere (Angel of the North etc). This seems pretty alternative thinking and on the outside looks like hippyesque claptrap but it worked. The aim was to provide a stimulating environment which the creative and for want of a better word 'clever' people wanted to live. This is a bizarre theory but if you look at Gateshead today is a testament that it works. Industry and business is booming.....

 

Over and above that several local existing service providers in the private sector were spoken to as regards their plans for the future in an attempt to guage if they intended to provide upgraded or new facilities that would address the public demand, including potentially non-profit making elements such as a recording studio or rehearsal space. I do not want to betray any confidences here but some of the meetings did not last long I can assure you.

 

Even if they had given a positive indication this would still have left important issues such as education, training, rural outreach issues etc etc that they most certainly would not have taken into the commercial sector.

 

No local business is going to provide loss making services. I agree that a large percentage of the venue project is to deliver things that couldn't and wouldn't happen in the private sector. The thing is though; the remaining percentage is things that would happen at the North Star which to me is unfair and anti-competitive. It’s a tightrope and not an easy situation for anybody.

 

We may be talking a bit at crossed purposes about "fragmentation" here. By that I meant, not Islesburgh and the Garrison, but taking on, refurbishing and running a number of OTHER disused buidlings i.e. the old gym in Kind Harlad St and the old squash courts at the back of Islesburgh for say musical purposes as some have suggested would be a good and cheaper (if uncosted) option. Maybe this SHOULD be accurately costed against the new facility (although as I say with old buildings you tend to uncover a lot of expensive 'surprises' you cannot account for simply by having an initial look and putting an estimated cost on a refurb) - not for me to say but I suspect we would not be looking at a massive amount of cost difference. Any estimated cost for refurb would largely be a guess given these unknows.

 

I agree that redevelopment of old building can be problematic but I still think it should be looked at. Take for instance recording studios...I might be wrong but nearly all the successful recording studios in the UK are in converted buildings. I'm not disageeing with you Davie, I just think it has to be looked at even if the result is only used as proof that the new venue needed to be built. At worst it would be a valuable PR execise.

 

 

Again it was felt that bringing all these new initiatives (music and cinema related ones) together under one high quality roof to attract the widest possibly usage was the most desirable option both from an operational and cost related viewpoint.

 

I have no doubt that putting it all under one roof and providing an extremely high quality building (and service) is the best solution for delivery of the aims and objectives. I'm just not as convinced that it wont impact on businesses and it might be worth looking at the alternatives.

 

 

 

Whenever you have dissatisfaction this is likely to grow rather than go away and as time goes on and other amenities improve these voices will inevitably grow. Another reason why a new facility is being demanded and now planned in this respect.

 

Agreed and to use this argument the other way around it is also a reason to look at the alternatives. There seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction about the new venue so doing the exercise of looking at the alternatives will be a vital element of 'selling' the new venue to the public.

 

I imagine all would agree that you can only successfully house a specific kind of music performance in such a facility leaving a lot more that are not fit for purpose - and you try hiring the Clickimin Centre when you actually want it - well done for their usage levels is all I can say.

 

I'm going to leave reasoned debate for a moment and go with personal opinion - The Clickimin is a hellish place to do music in. It costs too much (cheaper to hire the Armadillo in central Glasgow for instance) and the place just does not want the business.

 

 

 

As to monitoring the performance and success or otherwise of other 'art' related facilities - I'm all for that. But three questions:

 

(A) Do they have clear relation to Shetland? Remember even Orkney feels we are very different in our social trends to them - we are seen as much more positive I should add - so even a measurement there might not necessarily give us the answers we need, although they have indicated increased general trade due to Fusion opening which is positive.

 

and

 

( What do we do in the meantime - just sit back and wait?

 

© Is it not better to consider things from our own perspective and needs rather than totally rely on what others are doing and what works (or not as the case may be) there rather than here.

 

I agree with those points. It wasn't a loaded question, I was just interested in whether or not a parallel could be drawn. I'm not saying we should wait.

 

Sorry for the long winded reply as always but these are MASSIVE and complex issues. I am sure we will be able to discuss them even more fully and openly when you attend our first steering group meeting Marvin.

 

Dats aa right Davie.......

 

I'm looking forward to the first meeting.....

 

 

Finally I know only too well of your commitment and support for music in Shetland as you well know mine, and I can assure you its invaluable and much appreciated by many. I hope none of the two of us would do anything to jeopordise such a treasure.

 

I think that's a given.

 

Cheers

 

Marvin

[Marvin]

Fair comment but the business plan is only a costed "suggestion" at the moment. Three or four years down the line things could be very different and who knows what the best programme might be. It would be up to those operating the venue what it would actually be, nothing is set in tablets of stone, and it should be possible to work with another venue to put on alternative programmes to attract a different audience.

 

Davie,

 

Just a quick question. How much of the gigs that will take place in the new venue be instigated by the Venue (and/or Arts Trust) and how much is likely to come from private promotors? Has that been looked at....?

 

To explain my question further.... Will the manager of the venue be expected to book and provide the entertainment or will the venue be available to hire?

 

The reason I ask is that somebody asked me if I was not a bit annoyed that the venue would have a recording studio in it seeing as I had invested large sums in my own studio. I said no because I will always be able to undercut the new venue because I don't have the overheads. The same might be the case for the venue. The North Star will always be cheaper for a promotor to hire because the overheads will be less. If however, the hire price of the new venue is going to be subsidised then that will certainly be anti-competative.......just a thought (and another complication!).....I think I'm going to stop posting shortly...my keyboard is beginning to complain

[DavieG]

Just had a phone call as well on the subject of possible school closures v's the proposed cinema and music venue project, and although the issues are by no means related perhaps I SHOULD attempt to make the position clear.

 

I am disappointed that once again an association is being made in this context, as indeed it was at the SLTA meeting in the Garrison on Wednesday night It's almost a "how can you smile when someone is dying" allegation. Its also uphelpful to both parites to set a project v's issues arguement going when the two do not formally relate and can only cloud the real issues and arguements.

 

As I have said before they do not relate. although some have the persception that Shetland should not continue with projects such as these when belief exists that certain other unrelated amenities and serivces are threatened. I see no other public project being singled out in this particular fashion of course, but so be it.

 

Personally speaking I am not in favour of any school closures where their continued existence can be justified, although I would have personally thought the argement should be about access and quality of education not the actual number of schools it takes to provide it - but that is for someone else to decide not me and just a personal thought.

 

I have served on school boards in a voluntary capacity so have had direct experience of both ends of the arguement. Additionally, through the music development project, I do a great deal of work in direct partnership with the education sector throughout Shetland so I would like to think I know where my own thoughts and priorities lie in this respect.

 

Good education provision is vital for music development too, and we can all see the results via the number of terrific young musicians coming through the system - thats the only instance where this argument can be related and they do not conflict. To the best of my knowledge we also have widespread support for the Cinema and Music Centre plan from this particular sector

 

If I though for one moment that even one school, or any other vital amenity for that matter, that had full justification for staying open, were threatened or worst still required to close to fund even a percentage of a project like this I would not be supporting it - in fact personal morals dictate that I would be the first to pull out from supporting it

 

The fact of the matter is the two are not related whatever some happen to believe. Even if this money, especially the capital expenditure element, were saved tomorrow, it would or could not be used to fund schools to stay open - that would have to come from a very different budget, believe it or not. This is true in both a national and local funding context.

 

I am sure if the time comes any schools involved will make a very good business case for thier continued survival and good luck to them too. If however the opposite happens, and we all have emotions and sympathies in this direction, then lets hope it is for sound and demonstrable reasons and most importantly any young folk involved are not adversely affected by any changes within the educational system.

 

Things do move on and things change, good and bad alike, but as a community we cannot afford to stand still or argue that the status quo be maintained at all costs and at all times whatever the subject

 

Finally I also have direct assurance than any revenue deficit the venue may run at (and remember the business plan still shows a potential profit may be made in best case scenario) will NOT be funded from our local education budget.

 

Hope this makes things a bit clearer at least