Mareel - Cinema & Music Venue

[Pooks]

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

Thanks for the replies. My worries aren't with the original build cost of the new venue but the ongoing costs. I feel that the space used for a cinema could be better used for other projects. I am in no way an expert on cinemas but know that for them to be worthwhile need a very good sound system which I believe the Garrison has spent a lot of money on in the past few years. To actually get the license to show new release films I believe costs an arm and a leg. This would obviously have to be an ongoing thing. People aren't going to go unless they are getting to see new releases. New releases cost money.

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

Bridder it is

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

I was purely meaning that it would be hugely discounted compared to the costs associated with other Recording Studios. If there is somewhere available that people can go to without resorting to heading Sooth then it is obviously saving costs. I personally don't know what facilities are available in Shetland at the moment.

 

Partly planned partly great idea - keep them coming

 

Good to hear it.

[Guest Anonymous]

i think we have heard a lot on how the atrs trust thinks they will run the music bit of the new venue.

 

id like to hear more about the cinema bit, for example are they going to actualy get new films - unlike the dead loss place in orkney and the westeren isles whare they only show old films - a problem that the old north star had before they eventualy gave up.

 

i belive they have not thought how they will get films, if at all.

 

why has noone taken note of the numbers the other cinemas have and how the Garrison works and how many people turn up the the film club art films - i heard it was usualy 40 ish per month - hardly enought to pay the cleaner,

 

so can anyone at the arts trust help with this information, thats if 1, you know and 2, if you have a job after 1 April

[Guest Anonymous]

I don’t want to play message ping-pong here Davie but despite the public meetings which have been held, I still have to disagree that the Shetland public have been given a suitable forum in which to express their views on this – again this may be one we have to agree to disagree on.

 

I certainly accept that people’s opinions should be based on facts and not hearsay but I don’t think it should be assumed that just because people don’t attend or speak out at public meetings or through the letters page of the Shetland Times that they don’t have an opinion or are in favour of the new venue. Not everyone is a confident public speaker or likes to express themselves publicly and in Shetland that is especially so. As approachable a chap as I’m sure you are, many people do feel intimidated about making their opinions in the presence of people who they perceive to be more articulate or knowledgeable about the subject - which could explain why you haven’t been approached by many opponents to this. There may be many reasons why folk haven’t attended meetings or written letters, that they have mobility or transport problems, family, time or work commitments, that they feel they can’t express what they think in writing or by standing up in front of people or whatever. As I said in my last post, the bottom line is that a lot of public money is being spent here which everyone should feel that they can express their opinions about – anonymously if that’s what they feel most comfortable with. Some people think £80,000 a year plus the capital spend is money well spent on this while others don’t and I don’t think that that’s up for any of us to challenge, whatever side of the argument we’re on. If I felt that last weeks decision accurately reflected the views of the wider public then I really wouldn’t have an issue with this. All I’m really saying here is that I don’t think the public meetings, the letters page of the paper or even the 12 to 7 vote last week accurately reflects the strength of opposition there is out there to this.

 

I agree that elected members are there to make decisions on our behalf and that referendums should be used infrequently but I do think it would have been appropriate in this case given the amount of public feeling there is. Certainly it would have to be done carefully. If a household referendum is done for example, you would need to make sure that the views of everyone (in this case, its possible that many teenagers would be supportive of the venue whilst their parents may not) are heard. I also think that including factual information with a referendum would have been a good opportunity to expel some of the myths there is about this – much of what you have said on here about (for example) alternatives which have been investigated but ruled out is news to me and I don’t think that’s been properly conveyed in the public domain. I also have to disagree about the time and cost implications of a referendum – this topic has been discussed for years and we are looking at spending £7 million and £80,000 a year on top of that to run this place after all!

 

If supporters of this are to believe that the decision reflects the majority view and it’s done properly, nobody should have any fear in a referendum being carried out.

[Guest Anonymous]

Can Marvin & Davie no try the phone!!

[DavieG]

 

quote]

 

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.

 

Actually Marvin I'm not so sure. Lets look at current provision and related costs, all of which are in the public domain, and all of which have some relevance to the proposed new facility and 'moving on' if not avoiding duplication of service - another worry.

 

It would appear that its not the capital (building) spend that concerns most folk but the £80,000 per annum or whatever it takes to run it. Lets looks at existing community related costs first as they currently stand or stood before current changes, to the best of my knowledge anyway, in terms of the local 'purse':

 

Islesburgh - £1m per annum

SRT - £2.4m per annum

SAT £450k per annum

Amenity Trust ?

New Museum £1m

 

Its really only the first three that matter in this instance (although you could argue otherwise - they are all public 'services' in that respect that are there for the community benefit (both local and visitor related) and quality of life in Shetland.

 

Its very possible that some of the serivces these Trusts etc currently provide, funded remember from the public purse, could be devolved or consolidated into to the proposed new facility and be delivered in a different way in that respect. I would imagine they all currently have some publicly funded budget applied to them for providing something that the new facility might take over from them, so this could be 'saved' and applied to the new budget of the proposed facility thus costing no more or even making a further saving

 

For instance I personally can see no real need for a Music Development Officer, as the post currently stands, once the new service structure is in place. The job might still well be done, but from there, possibly through a variety of necessary posts rather than through a seperate one within the new Arts Development Agency - so there's one saving for you right away. Yes I could currently be working myself out of a job but so be it if its for the better - no sympathy or "oh diddiums" required - but that would be for others to decide nearer the time not me.

 

If we rationalised other cultural services in this way we could even show a net saving overall, so the £80,000 per year or whatever would be irrelevant or not an additional spend to what exists at present. Heavens you might even incorporate the whole of what is currently SAT into the structure and suddenly you are 'saving' even more.

 

Its really about what you value. Remember ALL our major events, which we quite rightly prize so much, and deliver on so many beneficial fronts, both social and economic, are already funded to some extent from our local public purse and who in their right mind would now want to lose the Folk Festival, the Accordion and Fiddle Festival, Blues Festival or whatever. All bring so much to Shetland in general over and above fantastic and high quality entertainment - extra private bar takes, taxi hires, fish suppers, meals out prior to or following events and they only get what they take on the door etc.

 

Without public help its very unlikely they would happen and how much would we miss them?

 

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.

 

That's Shetland for you - but we are working on it

 

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.....

 

I've seen it for myself.....and possibly in the most unlikely of areas - no disrespect to the wonderful people there.

 

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.

 

Not disagreeing at all. That's why I'm reminding everyone that this project is still 3 - 4 years away and if we work together on this with the private sector its just possible we could come up with acceptable soloutions as has been achieved elsewhere - possibly a complimentary programme rather than a conflictory one. i.e. DJ in the North Star on a Saturday night - something entirely different in the proposed public facility, possibly even for under 18's if its not driven by profit alone. We already work well together on co-promoting certain programmes so why not look at extending this rather than all going our seperate ways?

 

Another point is that what exactly will the private sector be providing if we are limited to this aspect in future, especially if travel costs etc continue to sprial? Alan has done, and is continuing to do, a sterling job at the NS but lets face it the programme is very different and much more limited today from when it started (more DJ's - less live bands from what I can see) in terms of the range of acts now coming here and Jeff (who also did a fantastic job under difficult circumstances) had his first band here for a long time this weekend and that was really just for a stag do.

 

The private sector is volatile, at time erratic in this way and quite correctly driven by the need to show a profit (thereby limiting the variety of music on offer) and we think a more sustainable method of providing a music or culture related programme for everybody in the community has to be looked at possibly in partnership with them.

 

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.

 

Fair point again. But a recording studio in the venue would be able to record live events, be used for the educational purposes already provided in the building, again in conjunction with live event rather than working in isolation.

 

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.

 

It might be worth looking at what was done in this respect in the main feasibility study before we shoot off and do it again

 

And finally as regards private hire - yes the intention would be that anyone could hire it to do their own promotions in, either local or external promoters - as happens with all publicly supported venues on the mainland or wherever. [/b]

[DavieG]

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

 

The venue AND the recording studio would both be avialable for private hire in this respect but here again costs could be complimentary and not conflictory. At a guess I would imagine the NS would be able to be cheaper to hire in general.

[Guest Anonymous]

The argument that Shetland has a body of loss making concerns on the go already - so why not lump in another? is patently ridiculous and doesn't deserve any further discussion.

 

Also Davey, your earlier argument that expenditure on the CMV can't be directly compared to infrastructure projects such as the Bressay Bridge and that the cost of one shouldn't impact on the building of the other is oversimplistic. At the end of the day, budget hopping and virements notwithstanding - we're talking about a global budget. If the totality of public spending is too high, the possibility that essential projects (infrastructure, economic development, transport, etc) could be cancelled to finance new toys for lerwick is a risk that, quite simply, should not be countanenced.

 

As far as public consultation is concerned - personally I think this project, weighty though it is, isn't significant enough for a full blown referendum. The original consultation though (Ron Inglis' effort circa 99) was a joke. I attended one meeting where I was one of three. That was the total consultation for the North Isles (a regatta night as I recall) but it was deemed enough for Ron to return an enthusiastic thumbs up from that quarter. I cna't speak for the other meetings but with the possible exeption of the Lerwick one, I'm led to believe attendance was similarly poor. In terms of demonstrating public support, we're going to have to do better.

[DavieG]

As far as i know Islesburgh will still run the Garrison but it will be programed by the new Arts Agency, the islesburgh trust will eventualy close and the trust duties will all be done by the council (but its the same people) - apart from that Islesburgh will remain unchanged.

 

The Garrison as a building for maintenance etc will be managed by the council but the programming will be done by the new Agency. The Islesburgh Trust as is will no longer exist and will now be the remit of the Council. All its functions will be managed by Community Services except the previous arts and tourism remit which will be taken over so to speak by the new Arts Agency. As you say apart from the behind the scenes stuff, with associated cost savings I am told, the function(s) remain unchanged

 

 

The Arts Trust will close down on 31 April and the new Arts Agency will start in 1st April - note this is not just a name change, and the trust staff members are only talking at present as Arts Trust staff (or palls) - when the new bosses take over they (the staff and friends) may have to change that views to the new agency policies

 

Correct

 

 

 

So, after April the Arts Agency will be programming the Garrison - so lets see what a good job - or a mess they make of it, personely i think we will see no odds

 

Lets hope so

 

The buildings will be owned by the council but managed by Islesburgh - so no change there, infact its just going back 10 years the way it all started before the Islesburgh trust took over from the council.

 

now correct me is in wrong

 

Pretty much as I personally understand it

[DavieG]

THERE WAS 93 ON THE COUNTER !!

 

Not disputing it for a minute, thanks for that

[DavieG]

[

 

Whatever it is allegedly costing the council to build, does anyone really believe it won't go over budget? Also, according to the figures in the ST on friday, a loss of 80K per annum appears to be based on at least 74,800 paying customers, a lot for a population of 22,000. Can anyone put a figure on how much other places (clickimin etc) will lose?

 

Clickimin would not lose anything as far as I know from this. But not sure if you mean how much do they lose (so to speak) financially each year. As to 74,000 paying customers for a population of 22,000 would you believe that the statistics for the combined sports centres and swimming pools around Shetland show a usage of over 600,000 per annum?

[DavieG]

 

Thanks for the replies. My worries aren't with the original build cost of the new venue but the ongoing costs. I feel that the space used for a cinema could be better used for other projects. I am in no way an expert on cinemas but know that for them to be worthwhile need a very good sound system which I believe the Garrison has spent a lot of money on in the past few years. To actually get the license to show new release films I believe costs an arm and a leg. This would obviously have to be an ongoing thing. People aren't going to go unless they are getting to see new releases. New releases cost money.

 

Not sure to be honest about this one to be honest as I am not directly involved with the cinema element but I'v heard it said at the steering group that they do not envisage a problem in this respect. Obviously the sound system in the Garrison is very good but it is used for other things over and above films

 

 

I was purely meaning that it would be hugely discounted compared to the costs associated with other Recording Studios. If there is somewhere available that people can go to without resorting to heading Sooth then it is obviously saving costs. I personally don't know what facilities are available in Shetland at the moment.

 

Got you. Lots of good stuff but all home based, but as I say nothing wrong with that given what Marvin, Stevie Hook and JJ have been turning out. The demand has always been for a good and regularly available 'room' or space to have for recording but this has proved almost impossible to find at reasonable prices.

 

Given how the price and amount of the actual stuff required has come down over they years it seems a pity not to have some equipment in there too as well as just the space. To not have this would mean that any recording engineers would have to lug their stuff out and in all the time - better if we could make it affordable for them to use on site. Just my thoughts but they may disgaree.

 

The actual design of a studio has been costed but nothing is agreed here yet or set in tablets of stone - we were only too well aware of the potential for public v private conflict too and this will be discussed with them nearer the time. That said Stevie Hook is on the steering group of this project and is a very vocal supporter.

[Marvin]

Can Marvin & Davie no try the phone!!

 

Ha, ha......

 

Me and Davie have had long discussions on this. The reason why we are continuing this debate for everybody to read on this forum is partly because I (and perhaps we) think that this board is now one of the best forums for information. If anybody wants to know more about the venue then the pages of this thread is a pretty good information source. It has opened the debate and opinions are being expressed. As a previous poster said, not everybody is confident enough to ask questions at public meetings. I think this thread has gone a long way to answering many questions that the Shetland public wanted to ask....

 

Surely you can't be requesting that me and Davie don't continue with posting on the thread? (no matter how long-winded the responses).

 

Cheers

 

Marvin

[McFly]

Surely you can't be requesting that me and Davie don't continue with posting on the thread? (no matter how long-winded the responses).

 

I sincerely hope nobody is suggesting that.

 

I've learned a huge amount about both sides of the argument from this thread, and I think it can only be a good thing that these things are discussed openly.

 

Go for it Marvin and Davie. Is there anyone else people would like to hear from that we could persuade to get signed up and involved in the discussion here?

[DavieG]

I don’t want to play message ping-pong here Davie but despite the public meetings which have been held, I still have to disagree that the Shetland public have been given a suitable forum in which to express their views on this – again this may be one we have to agree to disagree on.

 

Afraid so

 

I certainly accept that people’s opinions should be based on facts and not hearsay but I don’t think it should be assumed that just because people don’t attend or speak out at public meetings or through the letters page of the Shetland Times that they don’t have an opinion or are in favour of the new venue.

 

Agreed again of course, but to be taken seriously they have to be in some kind of formal format

 

 

Not everyone is a confident public speaker or likes to express themselves publicly and in Shetland that is especially so. As approachable a chap as I’m sure you are, many people do feel intimidated about making their opinions in the presence of people who they perceive to be more articulate or knowledgeable about the subject - which could explain why you haven’t been approached by many opponents to this.

 

Well if they feel strongly enough.........and we really cant take that as an official indicator of the anti lobby

 

 

There may be many reasons why folk haven’t attended meetings or written letters, that they have mobility or transport problems, family, time or work commitments, that they feel they can’t express what they think in writing or by standing up in front of people or whatever.

Sure, but this project has been on the go for years now

 

 

As I said in my last post, the bottom line is that a lot of public money is being spent here which everyone should feel that they can express their opinions about

 

Granted and I am simply trying to show how its being spent and the benefits I / we believe that could come from it.

 

 

– anonymously if that’s what they feel most comfortable with.

 

Sure its a democracy in all senses of the word and everyone's opinions count but nowhere does anyone take those who anonymously correspondance seriously I'm afraid - just a fact and too many potential misuses I'm afraid.

 

If they are firghtend for any reason to speak up for themselves as individuals and there are so many of the "silent majority" out there as everyone says, why have they not formed public protest groups or whatever and find someone who can speak for them as a whole? - I just wish this had happened earlier in the process as we've been on the go for years with this project and there have been well advertised public meetings, council forums, articles in the paper, stuff on the radio (including Speakeasy's etc) To be fair we have tried............

 

 

Some people think £80,000 a year plus the capital spend is money well spent on this while others don’t and I don’t think that that’s up for any of us to challenge, whatever side of the argument we’re on. If I felt that last weeks decision accurately reflected the views of the wider public then I really wouldn’t have an issue with this. All I’m really saying here is that I don’t think the public meetings, the letters page of the paper or even the 12 to 7 vote last week accurately reflects the strength of opposition there is out there to this.

 

Fair enough

 

I agree that elected members are there to make decisions on our behalf and that referendums should be used infrequently but I do think it would have been appropriate in this case given the amount of public feeling there is.

 

To be honest this is the first we have known about the supposed size of the so called anti lobby but as i say we have still not publicly seen a massive amount of evidence of this. Hearsay is not enough I'm afraid

 

 

I also think that including factual information with a referendum would have been a good opportunity to expel some of the myths there is about this

 

As I say this week was the first we heard of it

 

 

much of what you have said on here about (for example) alternatives which have been investigated but ruled out is news to me and I don’t think that’s been properly conveyed in the public domain.

 

Well we've tried I can assure you

 

 

I also have to disagree about the time and cost implications of a referendum – this topic has been discussed for years and we are looking at spending £7 million and £80,000 a year on top of that to run this place after all!

 

£7m yes but only ( I say only its still I lot of money I know) £5m from the local purse. Remember £2.2m (at least) is coming from outside Shetland and we may even get further revenue funding from outside Shetland to run the additional programme - such an option exists via the Scottish Arts Council. The SIC are only looking at the worse case scenario from their perspective as things stand. And earlier in this thread I have suggested how we could balance other books (some of them internal) so that the £80,000 is not necessarily an additional spend and no additional net cost to the public purse may be necessary to secure this 'service'

 

Referendums? How about the Bressay bridge at £19m (plenty of opposition there too) or the new Anderson High School at £30+ million - a lot of folk wanted the old building refurbished rather than a new build, but thankfully (and this is only my personal opinion) they did not go for that option.

 

If supporters of this are to believe that the decision reflects the majority view and it’s done properly, nobody should have any fear in a referendum being carried out.

 

Sure, fine if its a clear YES. But what if it was inconclusive? What also if it were slightly or even largely against, would we not build it thereby discounting the views of the obvious thousands of supporters who would be possible audiences and make the thing work for us, rather than those who would claim they would never to use it - but just might go when the time came.

 

And what would be the time-scale a referendum would cover? If in the future demand continued (and of course there would STILL be those against it) would we have to have another and another.....somebody has got to get off the fence and make an informed decision one way or the other at some point, thats what we pay our councillors for like it or not. You will always have an anti lobby for everything in Shetland whatever the subject.

[DavieG]

Can Marvin & Davie no try the phone!!

 

Sure - but then you would claim you would not know whats going on again