The Save the Futurist campaign is out on exercise and continues to raise more column inches than Vitrovius.
As the Futuristas news continues to flow, following a Save the Futurist meeting at YMCA the further development of a publicity campaign funded by the public to the tune of £2k, with a future meeting planned for the new year (5th January) some restoration of order is required. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52wis_sLT1I
Claims at the YMCA meeting that the Council should hand over the keys and the Save The Futurist campaigners could restore the Theatre to its former glory for the princely sum of £4mil reserved by Council to develop the asset were met with raptuous applause.... especially by a few.
On commenting that the refurbishment of the Futurist would cost closer to £20mil ... fag packet stuff ... with yet another head chewing on the table ... one wonders how thick set you have to be to get elected. No time for vitriollics.
Of the £4mil to 'develop' the land, as expressed by Council officers many times, including stabilisation works has been translated by the StF's as the cost to redevelop, refurbish and reopen the Futurist. Any breakdowns of the translated sums can be found in the StF's most recent business case, ooh argh the three R;s: http://qalypso.co.uk/sites/default/files/articleFiles/Futurist_Business_...
Full of theatricals & stuff but the bottom line was the Council would give the StF's the site and 2000 seats would be sold at £2k to raise the £4mil... so by erm, my reckoning that's £8mil ball park. Add in the design & development changes recently required by StF for feasibility and viability (stage access, frontal lobes etc), improvements to air conditioning, heating, IT and utility upgrading, surveys, fees, finance etc etc... a good guestimate of minimum £20mil I thought well rounded. With over 4000 FB friends on their website thats about £5k ea.
Ah, so ... says one of the thick set twin hatted; "that is just your 'opinion!!!". I was tempted to ask how wrong I was? But declined. Yawn ...
OK, so, don't take my word for it; here is one prepared earlier: Mark Rothbury 9th June 2010 : Mark Rothery presentation 11am.pdf
Option 1 Refurbishment of existing Futurist and
2008 Cost: £9.06m
2010 Cost: £7.7m
Option 2 Refurbishment of Existing Futurist
Building, Redevelopment of the Mermaid Building
and the Development of Offices or Residential
2008 Cost £27m
2010 Cost £15.5m
l Development Subsidy Required
l Does not include annual theatre operator subsidy
l Assumption of rental income being £608,873
l No additional building stabilisation or structural works included
Option 3 Cut Cliff Face back to King Street and redevelop a
new theatre including offices or residential dwellings together
with a nightclub, retail and three floors of bars/restaurants.
2008 Cost £54.9m
2010 Cost £30.8
l Development subsidy relates only to new theatre element of the Development
l Does not take into account any annual ongoing theatre subsidy to the Development or an
annual rental liability assumed to be £430,604 pa.
l No current market demand for office space
As the future of the Futurist is turning into a political football, lets take a rewind to http://democracy.scarborough.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=27625
"Councillor Mrs Jefferson began by thanking all those local residents who had signed the petition which had to surpass 5000 in number to trigger this debate at full Council. She also referred to the support for the retention of the Futurist Theatre from the local tourism and hospitality industry, the Theatres Trust, and national media; the theatre’s potential to host lucrative touring shows from the West End which could also involve local young people; the theatre’s capacity to accommodate opera and ballet, and to become a venue for visitors in wet weather. Councillor Mrs Jefferson maintained that the theatre could become sustainable by the construction of apartments above and around the building, the provision of a bar and restaurant on site, and by establishing an Art, Theatrical and Creative Industries College and venue for the town’s heritage groups. She saw a restored and adapted theatre within an iconic building housing these other facilities and attractions as a unique opportunity to make the town the envy of every other coastal resort in the country. Councillor Mrs Jefferson also sought further information on recent bids to take over and run the Futurist Theatre which she understood had been rejected by the Council, and asked how the Council would respond to the restrictive covenant which she understood had been placed on the site by Mr William Catlin. In conclusion, Councillor Mrs Jefferson requested that the Joint Venture Board consider the requests and proposals detailed within the petition at its next meeting. Before the Cabinet Member for Tourism and Culture responded, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Fox first provided an update on the matter of the restrictive covenant on the site. Members were advised that this was not a true restrictive covenant since it related to a concrete slab and not the land itself, and did not restrict the Council’s use of the land conveyed to it. The clause referred to the consent of Catlins Entertainments Limited which became Futurist Enterprises Limited. This company was dissolved in 1989. Assuming that the benefit of the clause had not been assigned in any ... view the full minutes text for item 6a "Councillor Derek Bastiman confirmed that the Council had offered to provide support to the People’s Trust in 2010, but the offer had not been accepted. "
Perhaps £20mil was a tad conservative...
Geological Experts? The Geological Report is part of the package that the developer is paying for but hey ho it is discussed here with Cllr Murphy:
Confusing? OK lets introduce Site A :-) The plans to develop the Futurist were mixed in with the Town Hall with options given :
So, erm add in the £3mil Council have secured to get to one development site and thats £7mil of asset to be handed over before the StF's begin. Ya don't spose ... nah course they wouldn't. SBC have no money. Only other peoples, bit like the StF's really ... except of course the StF's want to install their own regime .. erm, I mean Trust. Anyhoos a mutual exchange with HCA for site A is more likely than SBC handing out heads on a plate.
Mind a calculated guess would suggest .... square pegs? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJP9o4BEziI
Fact is, until the 'developer', Flamingo Land, puts the proposal on the table to be considered 'tis all goose.
"Vitruvius believed that an architect should focus on three central themes when preparing a design for a building: firmitas (strength), utilitas (functionality), and venustas (beauty)."
Romans eh? ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcrToyMDCkI
"THE foundations of these works should be dug out of the solid ground, if it can be found, and carried down into solid ground as far as the magnitude of the work shall seem to require, and the whole substructure should be as solid as it can possibly be laid. Above ground, let walls be laid under the columns, thicker by one half than the columns are to be, so that the lower may be stronger than the higher. Hence they are called “stereobates”; for they take the load. And the projections of the bases should not extend beyond this solid foundation. The wall-thickness is similarly to be preserved above ground likewise, and the intervals between these walls should be vaulted over, or filled with earth rammed down hard, to keep the walls well apart."
Explore. Examine. Engage ... Execute.