Help save the Govanhill Picture House!

Moderators: John, Sharon, Fossil, Lucky Poet, crusty_bint, Jazza, dazza

Postby crusty_bint » Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:26 am

Thats great news Nodrog! Pat on the back everyone!

But... I have to question if it's really worth objecting to this proposal again. i understand your questioning the massing in relation to the existing (to be retained) facade, but given that it is bounded by 4storey tenements on all sides, is it really so innapropriate?

You can't tell too much from just a snap of a plan but i have to admit it doesn't look great, but then I'm not sure how convincing anything would look incorporated into a egypto-moghul-esque entrance portico (as much as I love the thing!).

I think the objective you set yourself to save this portion of the building has been fulfilled and it might undermine your position to (what will likely be perceived as) nit-pick (not my perception of course!)

Sorry to be negative like that, i hope you understand what I mean and that you've not taken offence. I wont cast dispersions by I'd hate to see another fire or similar :?

Anyway, job well done! Good on you :D

Crusty
here i go, it's coming for me through the trees
crusty_bint
-
-
 
Posts: 4412
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:52 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby johnnyanglia » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:43 am

Hi Crusty, I can appreciate where you are coming from. When i started my conservation course 6 years ago i firmly believed that everything should be preserved in aspic. I quickly discovered that a capitalist society has little room for aesthetics for aesthetics sake, therefore compromise in a lot of circumstances is the only option. However compromise at any cost is not an option. I firmly believe that any proposal for the Govanhill picture house should be built utilising the volume of the existing building. The proposal is a ghastly monstrosity, was the architect blind ?. I would not want to see that building on a long vacant gapsite let alone replacing a building of architectural merit. If the proposal was given the go ahead(which i hope it does not get)i would rather advocate the removal of existing features for safe storage rather than have them sullied by the proposed monstrosity. I sometimes wonder what the planning department is up to with the city's brilliant built heritage. I think Glasgow should be awarded "European city of destruction 2007". I firmly believe that we have got to draw the line somewhere and this proposal has well and truly overstepped the mark.
johnnyanglia
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 12:29 am

Postby nodrog » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:15 am

Hi Crusty - no offence taken! Healthy debate about such things is good. :)

These are valid points; the revised plans are far better than what was proposed before. They could still be better though; if a better designed new building results from the nit-picking than we'd have had otherwise, is that not worth sticking our two cents in about?

The massing in itself is one thing; the other is that the current building line is not respected - the entrance portico currently sticks out, with the rest of the building set back, so you really notice it. The plans have two large wings on either side of the entrance, coming almost as far forward as it; so the retained portion would be almost subsumed.

However the most frustrating point is that the building shouldn't need to be demolished at all; I know of two different approaches that have been made to the owners by groups that want to use the building in its current form. There's a lot more money to be made from the site by sticking flats on it though of course.

There's also a big gap site right behind the cinema [which has sat empty since another cinema was demolished there in the 80s!] - my feeling is we should be filling in the gap sites before we start demolishing our listed buildings for flats...

Nodrog
"I'd just move on to the 'hot-air ballooning vigilante' stage of my career earlier than planned"

www.scottishcinemas.org.uk
www.twitter.com/scottishcinemas
User avatar
nodrog
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:37 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby Socceroo » Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:56 pm

That is good news nodrog that you have had some success. However, like Crusty i would suggest that is about as far as it should be taken.

The proposals for the flats are not the worst i've seen. The drawings are not too clear but i would say they would be a lot better if they lost a floor. However, if they lose a floor then they are likely not to be viable for the developer.

The Govanhill area could do with some new development and the fact that you have through your efforts managed to secure the retention of the main feature of the building is admirable.

Is there anything of the remainder of the building which is worth saving? And i don't mean this in an inflammatory way - i am not familiar with the other elevations of the building other than the striking Portico and coloured bands etc on the main front elevation.

I would suggest that unless the market completely declines and for no other reason than that, then these flats are likely to get built. The Council and indeed Historic Scotland will take the view that the developer has made enough concessions in that they have incorporated the main features of the building.
User avatar
Socceroo
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:51 pm
Location: Mount Flo, Glasgow

Postby gap74 » Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:03 pm

There are a couple of issues here which I have problems with regarding this proposal. I agree that this is an area in need of some investment, but don't think that just cos someone comes along and offers to build flats in it should mean that the appropriate rules and procedures should be overlooked.

Both Historic Scotland and GCC have guidelines which state that the complete or partial demolition of a listed building should only be considered when it's condition, it's lack of a re-use and its importance are taken into account. Recent applications regarding the Old Athenaeum in Buchanan St and the Kingsway in Cathcart both had information on at least the former two considerations. This application has nothing, just a set of plans. Both of these other properties were extensively marketed, with no interest from people willing to take on the buildings for uses which would preserve them as they were.

We know from objection letters that some groups do have an interest in this building without wishing to demolish the larger part of it. So why should these proposals not be at least investigated? As mentioned, there is an adjacent gapsite, and many others in the area, which should surely be the first target for any largeish developments such as this?

From what we know, little remains of the interior. It never had a balcony, only a raised bleacher-style area at the rear of the auditorium, which appears to have been removed and the entire auditorium divided horizontally to provide an additional floor. Hopefully we'll get a chance to investigate further before anything happens, though! Regardless, the listing still covers the whole building, so I'd expect at least a report on its condition and surviving features before councillors were in a position to make a fully informed decision. Yet I'll bet no one at planning have the faintest idea of its historical context, at least not before we wrote to them to tell them! Egyptian style cinemas are very rare, with only one surviving example elsewhere in the UK, which Govanhill pre-dates.

So let's say they get their permission to build flats, which I'm in no doubt they will. Where are the community facilities which the people living there will use? Or, since the new plans incorporate a 50-space underground car park, will they just drive to retail parks, leisure centres and, ironically, cinemas, which is what we're all being told not to do? This building would make an ideal and iconic community facility of some sort which would be at least some small effort at the attempts to reunite communities.

Nodrog and I recently visited London, were older cinemas have been retained in many instances, regardless of a bleak outlook, in the hope that future less destructive uses would come along. And in many cases they have, albeit thanks in some to a strong minority church culture we don't have up here. Can we be entirely sure such uses won't come along to save Scottish examples at some future point?

More later, must dash back to work!
User avatar
gap74
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1531
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:33 am

Postby wee nugget » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:57 pm

*yawn
Why keep flogging a dead horse? The building by the looks of it needs to be demolished. Your wasting the developers time and money. I’m sure that time in committee must cost a bit as well which will no doubt be added to our council tax.
Get over it.
The fronts being kept what more do you want? A statue of Betty Grable in the reception area
User avatar
wee nugget
Busy bunny
Busy bunny
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:22 pm

Postby Dexter St. Clair » Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:29 am

Now there's a good idea.

Image

So right auldyin let the younger readers know who World War II pin up Betty Grable was.


You may wish to put her in Wid Ye but don't disgrace your lunch club by going over the top with your fantasies.
User avatar
Dexter St. Clair
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 6255
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:54 pm

Postby gap74 » Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:35 am

wee nugget wrote:*yawn
Why keep flogging a dead horse? The building by the looks of it needs to be demolished.


As did nearly every building in Glasgow in the 60s and 70s, and look what happened when someone thought to spruce them up...

wee nugget wrote:Your wasting the developers time and money.


Ha-ha, am I supposed to feel bad about that? My heart bleeds, I'm sure they are just as concerned about the welfare and financial well-being of the good people of Govanhill....

wee nugget wrote:I’m sure that time in committee must cost a bit as well which will no doubt be added to our council tax.
Get over it.
The fronts being kept what more do you want? A statue of Betty Grable in the reception area


Since this is bound to be passed with about ten minutes of non-debate, then probably not. Besides, most of the decision-making and to-ing and fro-ing is done by the planning officers beforehand, and if no-one argued with any applications then they'd all be out of a job, so I'm sure they're pretty grateful really that we give them something to do!

All we're arguing for really is that a listed building shouldn't be largely demolished, cos there's a chance that it can be taken on and re-used without losing the auditorium block. If yet another B-listed structure falls to "luxury" flats behind a retained facade, another wee bit of my faith in the listing process goes, since it starts to look pretty pointless....

If you really think decrepit structures should just be flattened, you ain't gonna find much to interest you on these here forums, I'm afraid!
User avatar
gap74
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1531
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:33 am

Postby Linda » Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:25 pm

Here in Canada, people are saddened by the fact that the ethos seems to be, "if it is more than 30 years old ,flatten it and build something new" (That is me a goner! ::): ) There is a general feeling that the UK is so beautiful partly due to the preserved architecture.

Demolition and rebuilding doesn't address the problem of regenerating an area in itself as you just end up with more modern, decrepit and, might I add, poorly built condemned structures. Canadians would love to see some of their heritage preserved. Graveyards have been built on, houses of historical importance demolished and all manner of interesting buildings wiped out so I am thrilled to see you all working at preservation.

Fantastic cinema website btw and those photos of the inside of a cinema/theatre with the bill posters still intact...wow 8O. That was on another thread...sorry can't remember which one. Anyway, I think you are doing a great job and following your passion. :D

Linda
User avatar
Linda
First Stripe
First Stripe
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:20 pm
Location: Canada

Postby nodrog » Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:00 pm

I know some folks on here think we're still flogging a dead horse on this one, and while we respect your opinion, I'm afraid we don't agree.

Other folks, such as the Scottish Civic Trust, the AHSS, the 20th Century Society and even an international bunch called DoCoMoMo are on side, and we've just released a press release on the subject...

Proposed Development to Ruin Unique Glasgow Cinema [PDF file]

http://www.ctascotland.org.uk/press.html

Image
Last edited by nodrog on Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I'd just move on to the 'hot-air ballooning vigilante' stage of my career earlier than planned"

www.scottishcinemas.org.uk
www.twitter.com/scottishcinemas
User avatar
nodrog
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:37 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby nodrog » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:10 pm

Coverage in today's Evening Times:

Call to save old cinema
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5059507.html

(be sure to vote in their online poll - 'Are we doing enough to protect historic buildings?' !)
"I'd just move on to the 'hot-air ballooning vigilante' stage of my career earlier than planned"

www.scottishcinemas.org.uk
www.twitter.com/scottishcinemas
User avatar
nodrog
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:37 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby AlanM » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:17 pm

Vote cast!

Hope these 'developers' can be beaten back on this one as it is a fantastic building and deserves so much more.

Alan
Who needs a six pack....when you've got a keg!!!
Image
User avatar
AlanM
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:59 am
Location: Knightswood

Postby johnnyanglia » Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:31 pm

Congratulations on the excellent press release Nodrog !
johnnyanglia
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 12:29 am

Postby nodrog » Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:41 am

...and the results from the Evening Times online poll are in:

"Yesterday only 30% of voters said our historic buildings should be saved."


8O
"I'd just move on to the 'hot-air ballooning vigilante' stage of my career earlier than planned"

www.scottishcinemas.org.uk
www.twitter.com/scottishcinemas
User avatar
nodrog
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:37 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby Sharon » Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:44 am

I guess the highly scientific poll did the rounds of the developers mailing lists ;)

incredibly un-user friendly poll, if you din't have your glasses on who knows what you were clicking on!
User avatar
Sharon
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7486
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2002 11:30 am
Location: Galloway

PreviousNext

Return to Glasgow Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron