Picture Palace Campaign for Crystal Palace

[Bizzy]

annaj wrote:

> That does sound harsh Bizzy, particularly when I suspect you have your own agenda

Bloody Nora...Care to elaborate? - you do make it sound quite sinister :))

louisiana Wrote:

>And you're handing them out, eh?

Can be arranged. JK - was said in jest, apologies if I have caused offence to anyone.

> You care: you raised the issue of their capacity

> for payment for the site. To me it's neither here

> no there how much money they have. (If people want

> to give them money, that's their business.)

No. I was merely stating that the Church owns the building, not who has the most money. As you said before, this is not a competition.

> This is about a *cinema building* that has got

> tired on the outside but that is still capable of

> reverting to its former function for this

> neighbourhood. Have you checked out the history on

> the interior?

Yes. The Church could still use the building without altering any of the prominent existing features.

> Do you like movies? Do you like the 'cinema

> experience'? Do you know anything about what some

> 'cinemas' do these days?

I recently worked on a fit out of a Cinema (inception to completion). Sadly, I know oh so well the emphasis placed on the "cinema experience". Yes, I do like movies - do you?

> A range of projects elsewhere, such as a ?3m

> project with umpteen buildings and *substantially*

> more land. Nothing to do with this part of town.

> Or this town indeed.

It's always good to hear construction projects are on the go.

> Indeed. And there are many ways to fail too. As some developers have found out.

Developers yes - starting from scratch, this is a change of use application.

[Bizzy]

louisiana Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> By the way Bizzy, it would be really nice to see

> you posting on EDF about something unrelated to:

> gods of any variety, religion, churches, the

> trouble with atheists, the Alpha Course.... There

> must be other things that interest you? There is a

> whole wide world out there.

Thanks for your concern. I only comment on things I can contribute to. There are many wonderful subjects on this forum - however, I refrain from commenting on such things for two reasons. 1) I don't know what it's about and, 2) I don't want to know what it's about. You may wonder what my contribution is on this thread - I do like to challenge people when I don't think they have thought things through completly. It also gives others viewing the thread another view. For the record, I don't have issues with Gods, religions or Atheists ;-)

[Keef]

Did all you people kick off when the Wetherspoons opened in Forest Hill, or was that okay because it wasn't a church?

[louisiana]

Bizzy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Louisiana, this may sound harsh but, you need a

> good clout.

I never cease to be surprised by the number of people who seem to be associated with religion of various kinds who so quickly begin to 'talk in violence' (or worse).

You will not convince people of anything by threatening to hit them, either in the offline or online worlds.

But let that pass this time.

Ever heard of 'non-violent communication'? It's a really interesting technique that I've only recently come across.

[annaj]

Did all you people kick off when the Wetherspoons opened in Forest Hill, or was that okay because it wasn't a church?

Oh come on Keef, this isn't about being anti-church, it's about wanting an independent cinema in a restored art deco builidng.

I was fairly new to the area when the Weatherspoons opened. I was aware of it and thought it was a terrible shame that that lovely building wasn't being restored back to a cinema, but by the time I became aware of it the conversion was already underway and, if I'm honest, I was less aware of local issues and it never occured to me that I could've done anything about it. If there had been a well publicised campaign, like this one, and an independent cinema interested in taking it on, as there is here, I'd have totally supported it.

[louisiana]

Bizzy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> annaj wrote:

> > That does sound harsh Bizzy, particularly when I

> suspect you have your own agenda

>

> Bloody Nora...Care to elaborate? - you do make it

> sound quite sinister :))

>

>

> louisiana Wrote:

>

> >And you're handing them out, eh?

>

> Can be arranged. JK - was said in jest, apologies

> if I have caused offence to anyone.

>

> > You care: you raised the issue of their

> capacity

> > for payment for the site. To me it's neither

> here

> > no there how much money they have. (If people

> want

> > to give them money, that's their business.)

>

> No. I was merely stating that the Church owns the

> building, not who has the most money. As you said

> before, this is not a competition.

>

> > This is about a *cinema building* that has got

> > tired on the outside but that is still capable

> of

> > reverting to its former function for this

> > neighbourhood. Have you checked out the history

> on

> > the interior?

>

> Yes. The Church could still use the building

> without altering any of the prominent existing

> features.

So annaj's suspicion is correct.

>

> > Do you like movies? Do you like the 'cinema

> > experience'? Do you know anything about what

> some

> > 'cinemas' do these days?

>

> I recently worked on a fit out of a Cinema

> (inception to completion). Sadly, I know oh so

> well the emphasis placed on the "cinema

> experience".

I think you are referring to an entirely different kind of cinema.

Yes, I do like movies - do you?

Indeed. I have been known to go to the cinema more than three times a week. I almost lived in the Odeon Tottenham Court Road at one time (displacement activity for studying).

>

>

> > A range of projects elsewhere, such as a ?3m

> > project with umpteen buildings and

> *substantially*

> > more land. Nothing to do with this part of

> town.

> > Or this town indeed.

>

> It's always good to hear construction projects are

> on the go.

>

>

> > Indeed. And there are many ways to fail too. As

> some developers have found out.

>

> Developers yes - starting from scratch, this is a

> change of use application.

Developers often take over existing buildings, remodel or not, convert or not, apply for extensions/change of use/whatever. Many developers do nothing else.

As you will know, it all comes under *exactly* the same government and local authority planning regime, namely Planning Control and Planning Enforcement and the national Use Class system.

[louisiana]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Did all you people kick off when the Wetherspoons

> opened in Forest Hill, or was that okay because it

> wasn't a church?

The old cinema in forest hill was already a wetherspoons

When I moved back to ED in 02.As I recall there was a religious group that chanted and prayed outside,when it was still a bingo.lots of women in blue headscarves. Very entertaining.

I am neither a fan of bingo or of wetherspoons.but I am a huge fan of the Duke of York's in Brighton, which is what a good cinema should be.

I suspect a lot of people who live around here now didn't then.

[Applespider]

I think the Capitol in Forest Hill had sat empty for some time before Wetherspoon's spent some cash on it and opened it up again. And I do believe there was some discussion on se23.com about whether it was a good idea and how people would much rather it was a cinema - even though I don't believe there was any interest back then from any cinema group. Bits of the old cinema are still there though - occasionally, the Capitol takes 'tours' up to the balcony to the old projection room and fold-up seats.

However, presumably the church's offer was better than the cinema company's to Gala - and there's no guarantee that even if change of use isn't agreed, that the church won't just hang onto the building while they tweak the application every few months. Is being used as a church better than being empty and falling into disrepair?

Having said that I have a definite soft spot for old cinemas and since I'm far more likely to use a cinema than a church, I'd like to see the campaign succeed. There are lots of large but less interesting buildings that can house congregations.

[Keef]

Anna, I'd like a new cinema too, but from where I'm reading, some posts on here seem more concerned about the church factor than anything else.

[Keef]

Applespider, perhaps you're right, but I thought the Capitol went more or less straight from bingo to pub, didn't think it was empty for long.

[Bizzy]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Anna, I'd like a new cinema too, but from where

> I'm reading, some posts on here seem more

> concerned about the church factor than anything

> else.

Got it in one. That pretty much sums it all up.

Louisiana: I hope your efforts are rewarded as you seem so passionate about a Church treading on your cycle routes. I'm not a violent person - i'm pretty sure you know it was said as a joke, yet you've turned it into something childish. Come to think of it, you've used the same tactics in your mini pledge campaign.

[louisiana]

Bizzy

You'll notice *someone else* jumped in *not* interpreting your comment to me about clouting me as a joke. 'Clout' is a marvellous Anglo-Saxon word, but umm quite physical. ::o You came across as very serious in that post, and there was no smiley or similar anywhere. :) Like that. To aid understanding/interpretation. But as I said before, let's just put it to one side.

As others have said on this thread, "There are lots of large but less interesting buildings that can house congregations". Some churches even build their own. Many, many take over existing church buildings when those congregations are no more or where church assets need to be realised. (That means no planning/change of use class is required.) But there are not many lovely old cinema buildings. So many old cinemas been demolished (in ED included).

It would be nice to see a a classic old cinema building preserved as a cinema, and it would be nice to see such a building open to all, seven days a week. That is what Picturehouse cinemas do. They also offer a place for people to meet, film screenings for mothers with babies and very young children (and all the social benefits of that for mothers with young children - I hate seeing the whole 'mothers with their young children meet in the pub' thing), the opportunity to screen shorts etc. for local/new film-makers, non-film events, film-related speakers such as film directors, and so much more.

I think a development into just about any other use I can think of (including a chain pub) would not offer the same benefits to the local community. I am also strongly against the onward march of large chain retail stores that take the heart out of communities (and which I've often posted about on this forum over the last three years). Pual Kingsnorth has written a good book about this.

But that's my view and you may have quite different views. That's life. We are each free to have our own opinion, and to express it.

The pledge was successful yesterday, within 48 hours of launching (with more pledgees than required), which is something of a record I understand, and it still has some weeks left to run. So there's some evidence I'm not the only one who is thinking along these lines. (Some pledges don't succeed even after months of being up there.)

No doubt we'll each work towards achieving our objectives. Involving ourselves in how our communities and neighbourhoods grow and develop is something I think everyone should do. It's the sign of a healthy society. It's when people *don't* take an interest that we need to worry.

And it is to encourage such community involvement that local authorities have a Statement of Community Involvement (in planning policy and planning control)

[Bizzy]

There are more people out there thinking like you? Scary :(

That *someone else* you refer to is probably holding some animosity from a previous thread.

My participation in this thread was a sign of a healthy society - not your unilateral, them vs us campaign.

What's wrong with building a new cinema that will facilitate the needs of a modern cinema? If the Picturehouse really want to open a cinema in the area, I?m sure they will find a way with all this support.

I can't figure out what objecting to the proposed change of use will achieve. What will you cinema supporters do if the Church holds onto the building and tweaks their application as mentioned before? This could take years.

[Huguenot]

"I can't figure out what objecting to the proposed change of use will achieve. What will you cinema supporters do if the Church holds onto the building and tweaks their application as mentioned before? This could take years."

Ooooh, the old 'we are relentless' method ;-)

Nicely employed but a bit obvious.

I'm glad that Lousiana's doing less Fisking, which always impoverishes debate - but Bizzy's older auntie 'pat on the head' approach makes me gag.

Personally, since I see religion as a political movement, I see the acquisition of more public places to exercise their despicable rituals as a frighteningly virulent rampage perpetrated on the sick and the thick.

If promoting its use as a cinema is a way to impede it, then it's a battle well fought. Forever.

[Bizzy]

Huguenot

Still doesn't answer my question. The objection gang are showing signs of "If we can't have it, a Church certainly can't have it". IF the benefits of an independent cinema were that great, they would find another site. Most of the objections are much like yours; they couldn't care less about the local benefits of having a cinema, but care much about opposing a Church.

If you want to make sweeping generalisations about the wellbeing and intelligence of a religious congregation, I suggest you start another thread. If you have nothing relevant to say, be a gentlemen and keep your comments to yourself ;-)

What might "Fisking" be anyway? :-S

[LordshipLovely]

Re Multiplex versus Picturehouse

I think the Picturehouses do cater for a wide audience. Of the big blockbusters, Brixton's currently showing Bruno, Harry Potter and Ice Age. I don't think they would be alienating anyone if they were to open one in CP.

LLx

[Huguenot]

Quite right Bizzy, quite right.

All the economic liberalism that we cherish would suggest that we should let the market take its course and a church it should be.

But as it happens we don't let the market take its course very often, we temper that with the long term health of our communities from an enlightened standpoint. Hence planning laws.

My view (and possibly others) would consent to religion as an acceptable a secondary pastime. Have your fun and good luck to you.

However, the renewed vigour of evangelical churches demands the opposite: it would not be inappropriate to say that these churches feel that religion should be the core of our lives, and that the medieval and arbitrary regulations the church imposes should dictate our every activity.

I consider those affiliated to religions as victims of a ruthless, pervasive tyranny.

Hence granting planning permission to petty local despots for a campaign office is entirely against the long term health of our communities.

Its use as a cinema is subject to economic realities, and hence a bit of a red herring. Saying it should be a cinema is whistling in the wind.

However, saying it should not be a church is quite within the rights of the community.

[Bizzy]

Points noted.

So you're saying the whole cinema idea is a blanket for the real cause which is specifically to stop the Church from moving in? We're getting somewhere now. So tell me, why doesn?t the objection brigade drop the cinema idea and rename their cause as something like "Stop the Church from moving in" rather than the ?Picture Palace Campaign?? It?s a bit misleading don?t you think?

[Huguenot]

There's always a possibility that the whole thing is a cover, but I don't think that's likely.

The fact that I would run such a campaign doesn't speak for the motives of others. Besides, I'm quite open about it, and I imagine that others who shared my views would be open also. It's only those who practice deception that suspect it in others. Hence in somewhere as fraudulent as a church, I imagine you'd see it everywhere.

I guess that the majority of those who support a cinema just support a cinema. It's romantic, and delivers commercial benefit for the whole community by building associated businesses.

I think the cinema vs church thing has only blown up because a church is trying to hypothetically 'take something away' from the community to serve their own nefarious purpose.

If it had been a pound shop, there'd be a cinema vs pound shop debate.

[Cassius]

Bizzy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I'm certain this alternative cinema will have a

> certain audience - a cinema like the Multiplex

> would serve the local area in a broader way with

> films such as Hannah Montana and Geforce rather

> than Coco Channel (wrong spelling eh?).

But surely ANY cinema would serve a larger audience than one church would? After all cinemas are open to all, no matter what religion you follow or not. If it is an original Art Deco cinema it would be fantastic to have it restored and to appreciate it when going to watch a film. If it was an evangelical church then I, and most of the people I know, would feel uncomfortable going inside just to look at the architecture and decor.

I do however find it slightly ironic to see a campaign supporting the opening of a cinema in CP when it wasn't that long ago that I was amongst those marching from Leicester Square to Downing Street to PREVENT a UCI Multiplex opening.

[JonathanM]

I can assure you that the Cinema Campaign is entirely sincere in its wish to return the building to the purpose for which it was originally intended. Surely it is not so difficult understand the distinction between the support for the restoration of an on street purpose built cinema and opposition to a massive Multiplex built on public park land?

[Bizzy]

You won't see much with the lights off :))

Depends on how big the congregation of a Church is. Much like a cinema, a Church is open to all (or at least it should be). There is also the chance that local residents may visit the Church.

"If it was an evangelical church then I, and most of the people I know, would feel uncomfortable going inside just to look at the architecture and decor."

That's the exact opposite of me. You see, myself and most of the people I know, would feel comfortable going inside ANY building, be it religious or social if we really wanted to marvel at the architecture and decor.

[louisiana]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "I can't figure out what objecting to the proposed

> change of use will achieve. What will you cinema

> supporters do if the Church holds onto the

> building and tweaks their application as mentioned

> before? This could take years."

>

> Ooooh, the old 'we are relentless' method ;-)

>

> Nicely employed but a bit obvious.

>

> I'm glad that Lousiana's doing less Fisking, which

> always impoverishes debate - but Bizzy's older

> auntie 'pat on the head' approach makes me gag.

And you accuse me of fisking!?

>

> Personally, since I see religion as a political

> movement, I see the acquisition of more public

> places to exercise their despicable rituals as a

> frighteningly virulent rampage perpetrated on the

> sick and the thick.

Fisk away

>

> If promoting its use as a cinema is a way to

> impede it, then it's a battle well fought.

> Forever.

[louisiana]

Bizzy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Huguenot

>

> Still doesn't answer my question. The objection

> gang are showing signs of "If we can't have it, a

> Church certainly can't have it". IF the benefits

> of an independent cinema were that great, they

> would find another site. Most of the objections

> are much like yours; they couldn't care less about

> the local benefits of having a cinema, but care

> much about opposing a Church.

Bizzy, you are making it up as you go along. To suit yourself.

We care immensely about a cinema.

Your view is *if we can't have a church* - and that's we, as you are definitely part of that campaign - *then it'll be shut*.

Just wait and find out!! You may be surprised at what happens. You are very 'glass half empty'. We are not.

>

> If you want to make sweeping generalisations about

> the wellbeing and intelligence of a religious

> congregation, I suggest you start another thread.

> If you have nothing relevant to say, be a

> gentlemen and keep your comments to yourself ;-)

>

> What might "Fisking" be anyway? :-S

Google is your friend.

(But I know you are not interested in the world around you. You have said as much. Sad.)

[louisiana]

Bizzy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You won't see much with the lights off :))

>

> Depends on how big the congregation of a Church

> is. Much like a cinema, a Church is open to all

> (or at least it should be).

I hear from the KICC spokesman via the local rag that the church would be open 1.5 days per week, on Tuesday, and on Sunday:

http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/latestnews/South-Norwood-church-reveals-plans-Gala-Bingo-Hall/article-1132136-detail/article.html

A cinema would be open 7 days per week.

There is also the

> chance that local residents may visit the Church.

>

> "If it was an evangelical church then I, and most

> of the people I know, would feel uncomfortable

> going inside just to look at the architecture and

> decor."

>

> That's the exact opposite of me. You see, myself

> and most of the people I know, would feel

> comfortable going inside ANY building, be it

> religious or social if we really wanted to marvel

> at the architecture and decor.