Mareel - Cinema & Music Venue

[Guest Anonymous]

I think its very unfair to say anyone is afraid of holding a referendum. I have pointed out what I think would be the weaknesses of such an approach earllier in this thread. For instance if say the majority voted no but still 8000 (arbitary figure) voted yes - that would still be a pretty healthy audience potential and I am sure other would change their mind at a later date. Under such circumstances would you not build it simply because the majorityh said no - it would all get very confusing. My personal thought only.

 

Good to see that you have such a fine grasp of democratic principles.

 

No doubt the new busines plan, based on 8000 people and not the entire populaion, wuld still only show a minimal 'loss'

[Guest Anonymous]

Just to let eveyone know.

 

Myself and Ian Johnston of Grays have spoken today and we fully understand and I hope appreciate each others positions on this one.

 

We (possibly the project team or whoever) will be meeting with him in due course to look at the process or potential of complimentary programming for BOTH venues - although that in respect of the proposed facility is still a long way off 3 - 4 years as I say.

 

Just thought that knowing this fact might save a lot of un-necessary postings thats all.

 

I wonder where that leaves the rest of the SLTA

 

I wonder if I am alone in spotting a trend here?

Marvin invited to join the steering committee and now this

[petergear]

I'm a supporter of the project, although I know It'll probably never break even the amount of money spent to keep the venue afloat will be small compared to other amenities such as Lesiure Centres, also (this just came into my head) does Dale Golf club not receive well over £100000 per year?, maybe I'm wrong, If that kind of money can be spent on golf surely it can be spent on a music venue, I don't have anything against golf particularly but I think its a decent example.

 

Whit's dat? Investment in the music industry and Shetland's future more worthwhile than GIRSECUTTING??! Ower my dead body

 

[DavieG]

There was some statistic regarding the amount of people who would use the cinema in the last paper, I think it was from a questionnaire. I think the entire population of Shetland should be asked because I don't remember being asked what I thought.

 

Obviously it would hahave been impossible to ask everyone individually (I think I have given you my thoughts on where a referendum would prove largely inconclusive whatever the outcome) all you can do is hold public meetings, or use other public means to get you message across.

 

If folk do not choose to come to them (and i reiterate they were very well advertised - adverts in the S Times, posters and announcements on Radio Shetland etc) or write in profusion to the paper or whatever then there's not much can be done in this respect.

[DavieG]

I've been keeping an eye on this debate for a while but I've not read all 20 pages.

 

 

Davie, you might be able to answer this?, I think somewhere on one of these 20 pages someone said that the venue would not damage the pubs profits because the type of music that the venue would cater for would be different to what is currently on in your average pub, I was a bit worried by this but surely every genre of music will have access to the new venue, there would be an uproar if it weren't the case. I'll try and find the post that gave me that impression.

 

Dont think this is entirely accurate Kevin and have never been in a formal discussion in this respect. Obviously it will cover all genres and their many musical sub-divisions, if only to offer this to members of our community who either cannot or do not for whatever reason use the pub as their primary or singular means of entertainment.

 

What I did say though, and I firmly believe, is that this venue is highly unlikely to replace the traditional sessions in pubs, by enlarge the mainstay of the pub scene, not only here but nationally as well. There may be a cry from tourists or locals for a more 'formal' musical service of all kinds, but generally the tourists are still incredibly interested in our 'informal' traditional music pub scene and rate the current programme offered by pubs, and the quality of the musicians, extremely highly and of great importance in their customer feedback to the tourist office. Assisting our musicians, especially the traditional sector, to develop via our current edcucation service and this proposed facility can only further strengthen that quality.

 

Equally I dont believe that this venue will totally replace the music in pub scene in other aspects either, including the contemporary scene. There is no evidence of this in other similar or semi-similar areas. The venue can only offer more or less one event on whatever evening (and it may not be 'contemporary music' or even for over 18's at all), so there will still be room for pub entertainment into the bargain as happens elsewhere and there will always be those that prefer this service to going to more formal events, especially as it is usually free into the bargain.

 

It must be remebered that pubs also compete against each other and music is often utilised in this respect. Additionally they often compete to such an extent that they have over the years, and certainly recently, objected to new commercial licensed premises being created, certainly in the town at least. So its not always a united front as protrayed at present with regard to this development.

 

Equally not all the current license holders are against this development. It should be noted that not all members of the SLTA attended the meeting in the Garrison for whatever reason. However I do know for a fact of some who are either open minded about this development or are supporters of it, and see potential benefits for themselves in this - a number of which have been highlighted earlier in this thread.

 

 

About the studio and rehersal rooms, It is a facility that has been sorely missed in my 7 years of being involved in the music scene, that is about to change/ has changed (I'll make a new thread about that in the Music section). Hopefully our studio in Wethersta will be able to complement the new studios if they go ahead, if they don't go ahead then I beleive a very small amount of investment (compared to what a new studio would cost) would see our studio being a very good facility.

 

This is a very relevant point. There are of course many 'shifting sands' across the community in terms of what the proposed development will or will not finally offer, especially given the duration of the project to date.

 

Some elements that had no representation in the community at the time these plans started have moved on, and continue to do so, in both private / commercial and public terms. Factors such as these will all have to be taken into account if, or when, the buildiing actually reaches the planning and construction phase - remember this is still some time away and nothing is, or indeed can be, set in tablets of stone at this particular time, in fine detail at least. However we still have to give some solid plans, in outline at least, to the lead consultants and architects that will work on the project - a bit of a cleft stick really.

 

This will, however, be fully equated and debated during that particular part of the process, if we reach there of course, and is probably best done directly with all those that have a particular interest rather than through forums such as this. The public will of course be kept informed of ongoing development s in every respect.

 

When this started out, and ongoing since of course, the 'content' of the proposed facility was aimed at plugging a number of perceived gaps in our local music infrastructure that musicians, other inidviduals active in the local music scene, and the public in general, perceived to exist. And yes I did do consultation on this - if again possibly not with everyone that had an interest at the time or indeed since. Suffice to say I did speak to a lot of poeple though and was also advised by my Music Development Project steering group - drawn from all sectors of the local music scene (a different one to the venue steering group). Oh if only we had the time to consult consistently with everyone.. However, as you will note from this site, my door is always open on this issue.

 

Lack of good quality recording facilities were continaully brought to my attention. Of course things have moved on, and you have now become a directly interested party and, as you already know, I really welcome that fact.

 

Working together to make this complementary if we can will be crucial. And of course there are others, more or less working from home in this respect, who also have a vested / commercial interest in this element that must be consulted as well - although a number are supporters of this project I should add.

 

The demand has often been for a good quality 'space' to record in rather than a studio as such, possibly with 'users' taking in their own equipment into such a space. As I say this element is continually shifting, so the specifics of any provison in the facility will have to be fully considered nearer the time, involving all those at that time who have an official interest and, if provided, these elements will have to be flexible enough to take account of changes in the future too.

 

Obviously it would be highly desirable to have something there with regard to a recording 'studio' of some kind, given the developmental and educational aspect of this facility i.e. recording young bands musicians who are practising or whatever, running training courses / night-classes etc, supporting additional school work in a practical environment rather than a purely academic one, recording live gigs promoted in the venue and of course Shetland college and the UHI (University of the Highlands and Islands) are potentially interested in using the facility to offer formal music courses in Shetland in the future. Such a provision might not even have 'commercial' connotations at all, but as i say this will be fully debated during the planning phase with all interested parties, especially given the fact it might be possible for service providers such as yourselves to offer this service to some extent as well - if, at the time, you were to have a 'full-time' working studio to offer.

 

Equally, as you are well aware, this is a rapidly changing market in terms of the technology itself and the continually reducing costs associated with that, so all this will also have to be taken into account in that respect and nearer the time when we have a much clearer picture.

 

Rest assured you and your facility will have a major role to play both now and as far as I am concerned well into the future too.

[DavieG]

Just to let eveyone know.

 

Myself and Ian Johnston of Grays have spoken today and we fully understand and I hope appreciate each others positions on this one.

 

We (possibly the project team or whoever) will be meeting with him in due course to look at the process or potential of complimentary programming for BOTH venues - although that in respect of the proposed facility is still a long way off 3 - 4 years as I say.

 

Just thought that knowing this fact might save a lot of un-necessary postings thats all.

 

I wonder where that leaves the rest of the SLTA

 

I wonder if I am alone in spotting a trend here?

Marvin invited to join the steering committee and now this

 

There is no trend (or perhaps conspiracy) as you put it. Full, open and formal discssions can and will be held with all interested parties in this respect - please dont try and put a different slant on this for whatever purpose.

 

Again anonoymous approaches such as this are far from helpful.

[DavieG]

Just to let eveyone know.

 

Myself and Ian Johnston of Grays have spoken today and we fully understand and I hope appreciate each others positions on this one.

 

We (possibly the project team or whoever) will be meeting with him in due course to look at the process or potential of complimentary programming for BOTH venues - although that in respect of the proposed facility is still a long way off 3 - 4 years as I say.

 

Just thought that knowing this fact might save a lot of un-necessary postings thats all.

 

I wonder where that leaves the rest of the SLTA

 

I wonder if I am alone in spotting a trend here?

Marvin invited to join the steering committee and now this

 

By the way the steering committee does not represent their own position(s) in this respect. Anyone is at liberty to put a valid point to them, me or whoever to bring to the debate at any time - positive or negative. I wish we could have everyone who had a vested interest directly represented in the group but that would just become too big and difficult to manage. This does not mean we dont listen to everyone who has a formal or valid arguement - far from it!!!!

 

True most of the representation on the committee is there to take the project forward. It was formed following the public meetings / consultation in this respect, given that no formal or major amount of objections were raised during this process. That in no way suggests that there cannot be representation from anyone who has a 'formal' objection stance on this issue.

 

Also you will note all Iain and myself discussed was an 'informal' opportunity (not necessarily limited to the two of us) to look at the potential for a complementary programming option between the proposed venue and the North Star - a venue continually singled out in this thread - based on the existing business plan, to see if common ground could be found in that particular respect. We both believe this could be an option and simply wish to explore it further in that particular respect.

 

This of course in no way either hampers or negates other more formal discussions taking place with all officially interested parties.

 

Discussions are ongoing as we speak in this respect and the public will be officially informed shortly.

[Marvin]

I wonder where that leaves the rest of the SLTA

 

I wonder if I am alone in spotting a trend here?

Marvin invited to join the steering committee and now this

 

I'm not following what you mean? Can you explain your point further please.

 

Cheers

 

Marvin

[NewMagnie]

I think its very unfair to say anyone is afraid of holding a referendum. I have pointed out what I think would be the weaknesses of such an approach earllier in this thread. For instance if say the majority voted no but still 8000 (arbitary figure) voted yes - that would still be a pretty healthy audience potential and I am sure other would change their mind at a later date. Under such circumstances would you not build it simply because the majorityh said no - it would all get very confusing. My personal thought only.

 

Good to see that you have such a fine grasp of democratic principles.

 

No doubt the new busines plan, based on 8000 people and not the entire populaion, wuld still only show a minimal 'loss'

 

I'm really starting to feel for Davey here - answering these queries looks like its starting to become a full time job.

 

This is a worrying point though: There seems to be a growing demand for more public consultation on this but a prominent member of the steering group is publically saying that even if the majority of the population done't want it - it should be built regardless.

 

The issue at hand here is not whether the '8000' would form enough of a critical mass to sustain the thing but whether the remaining '14000' wanted their money spent this way.

 

No disparagement intended but those promoting the project seem to have a very poor grasp of Community Engagement principles.

[DavieG]

I wish we could have everyone who had a vested interest directly represented in the group but that would just become too big and difficult to manage.

 

Finally I should point out that not everyone with a vested interest from the pro-venue 'camp' is also represented on this steering group, again far from it.

 

However we do try to have the widest possible representation i.e. members with a wide knowledge of the issues - community wide - and seek to address and discuss the widest range of associated topics possible - both for and against. This is vital to try and achieve a complementary balance and simply get things right for all concerned. Remember we / they all live in this community too and, yes, are ratepayers too.

 

Had we been made aware, at an earlier date, of a formal or significant objection from specific or official source(s) I can asssure you they, or at very least their views, would have been formally represented had we known who they were at that time.

[DavieG]

[

 

 

T

his is a worrying point though: There seems to be a growing demand for more public consultation on this but a prominent member of the steering group is publically saying that even if the majority of the population done't want it - it should be built regardless.

 

Not what i am saying at all. All I did say, and it was only a general point not a given fact, is that if say an arbitary figure of 8000 were for the venue it could possible be argued that their support would be enough to make the thing viable in whatever respect, not necessarily financial - but this element has been covered many times in this thread.

[Marvin]

I’ve been thinking regarding the question of competition and how the new venue will affect private business…

 

Most of my thinking was on the lines of what happened with Shetland Seafish…(I’ll not bore you with details, but..) The EU gave the Council a rap over the knuckles for investing in Shetland Seafish because it gave one company an upper hand in the market. In effect they deemed that the investment was illegal do to it being ant-competitive. I thought investment in the Venue might be deemed the same but it turns out that the particular anti-competitive law relates to fisheries only.

 

The other thing that I was considering was ‘displacement’. To cut a long story short, when looking for investment from Shetland Enterprise they gauge projects against the effect on other businesses i.e. if the grant award will give an upper hand to one company in the market over another then they don’t assist the company. I thought this ‘displacement’ was a legal requirement but it turns out that it is an HIE rule so it only applies to enterprise companies (SEC etc).

 

I am no lawyer (obviously) but I think some of my original assumptions were wrong in a legal sense. Rules and laws on anti-competitive actions by the Coucil may still exist and the question is still relative on an ethical front (should the council investment be made if it is going to impact on local privately owned businesses?). I still think it needs to be looked at and sorted out once and for all for both sides so that they know what they are dealing with….

 

As I said in a previous post – would Neil Stevenson or anybody else invest in a music venue/nightclub in Shetland today? Probably not with the venue being planned. To me that does create a good environment for economic development. However, a lot of this is theoretical.

 

That said however, it looks like there has been some progress towards finding some middle ground (good to see you on the forum Iain).

 

On the role of the Venue and the facilities on offer I can’t see anybody having an argument with it. It will be a superb facility and will ensure that in the future music will play an even bigger role in the economic future of Shetland.

[Marvin]

Moving away from the reasoned ethical debate for a moment - I can’t see any need for a cinema because I don’t particularly like going out to see a film. I’m not going to campaign against it though because I’m prepared to believe that others do and will want to use it. I do think that including it has caused an unnecessary distraction when surely the main reason for the build is the music venue (i'm sure others would disagree). The venue will provide a high class music venue for showcasing and developing Shetland’s talent which is arguably worth the large investment…..the cinema will provide (at best) a decent venue for showing Hollywood’s films…… Could the main venue hall not be dual purpose?

[Njugle]

Could the main venue hall not be dual purpose?

 

A highly reasonable argument. Value for money. The same acoustic engineering that will give us such a great musical experience would give a similarly great cinema experience.

 

Also, referring back to another point Davy has touched on. I think any speculation on the recording facilities should be regarded as 'providing a space', as any mention of providing equipment will open the floodgates to a 100k+ minimum overspend on the budget as everybody will want 'the best of gear' when an acoustically engineered space in which to use existing or privately owned equipment is perfectly adequate.

[madcow]

Could the main venue hall not be dual purpose?

 

A highly reasonable argument. Value for money. The same acoustic engineering that will give us such a great musical experience would give a similarly great cinema experience.

 

Also, referring back to another point Davy has touched on. I think any speculation on the recording facilities should be regarded as 'providing a space', as any mention of providing equipment will open the floodgates to a 100k+ minimum overspend on the budget as everybody will want 'the best of gear' when an acoustically engineered space in which to use existing or privately owned equipment is perfectly adequate.

 

I think it would be the Dolby Surround Sound system that would give a great cinema experience, not the acoustics of the room. Will the main venue hall be equipped with this, as well as the cinema area? Adds a few more quid to the bill if its to be installed in both areas.