Colchester's former Odeon "under offer" (From Gazette)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting GAZETTE NEWS to 80360, or email
Colchester's former Odeon "under offer"
5:50pm Wednesday 21st November 2012 in News
Bid: Ewan Dodds, of Whybrow, confirms a bid has been received for the former Odeon
A POTENTIAL buyer has finally come forward for Colchester’s old Odeon.
An offer was put in for the former cinema, on Crouch Street, this week after standing empty for ten years.
Ewan Dodds, managing director of Whybrow, which is marketing the building, said: “This is something we have been working on for a while."
See Thursday's Gazette for the full story.
Comments(27)
Boris
says...
5:59pm Wed 21 Nov 12
SOMETHING2SAY
says...
6:45pm Wed 21 Nov 12
hughie-s
says...
8:28pm Wed 21 Nov 12
mirokou
says...
10:59pm Wed 21 Nov 12
hughie-s wrote:Well said.
It's going to be a Tesco, there's not one within 200 yards.
Colchester Britains oldest record town and most prolific Tesco within 1 3 square miles. Actually there's a thought Colchester Castle, turn it into Tesco and increase the visitors ..genius.
Boris
says...
11:16pm Wed 21 Nov 12
Blame the greedy owner for setting such a high price that any project, to be viable, has to be for something gross and probably far uglier than the sad old cinema.
Simon Taylor
says...
12:58am Thu 22 Nov 12
Sdapeze
says...
10:18am Thu 22 Nov 12
Smouldering Ewok
says...
10:58am Thu 22 Nov 12
We have far too many phone shops, hairdressers, take away's, bars and nightclubs already.
Good luck with the planning permission.
Joker50
says...
11:30am Thu 22 Nov 12
Bert_Stimpson
says...
2:46pm Thu 22 Nov 12
Then again, I doubt anyone in the private sector would be stupid enough to embark on a project like that...
wellnow
says...
3:19pm Thu 22 Nov 12
Boris
says...
10:39pm Thu 22 Nov 12
Sdapeze wrote:We need Dorian to explain to you, Sdapeze, about the heritage aspects of the good old Odeon, or Regal as it used to be called. He has done so in the last, but you evidently don't remember.
I will watch with interest. My hope is that the eyesore is demolished and a nice row of shops with dwellings above will be the outcome. It has no heritage value as far as I can see. It is outside the heritage core so there should be some freedom in planning. But then you are dealing with the mentality of the sort of people who ensured that Jumbo remains a decaying eyesore.
Not sure what you mean about Jumbo. If it is an eyesore (which it isn't, except at ground level) that is down to the owner, who has failed to maintain it properly as befits an exceptionally important listed building.
Patman99
says...
11:16pm Thu 22 Nov 12
Wonder if the 'interested party' is a middleman purchasing the place on behalf of another company with a contract in place to immediately sell it to said company with the covenant stopping the use of the building as a cinema (or if not legally possible, the addition of a new covenant allowing the use of the building 'for the showing of moving pictures with sound') ?. After all, that's what happened when Focus sold their old store in Andrews Avenue. Sold with covenant preventing retail of small electrical and DIY items, bought by middleman, sold to Glyn Webb with covenant removed.
wormshero
says...
9:02am Fri 23 Nov 12
Fact is not playing Colchester isn't going to be a major issue for the majority of bands as most fans will travel the relatively short distance to London. Maybe if we can demonstrate there are people here who want such things and that there will always be a good size crowd then in future that'll change and more bands will come, but frankly at the moment I'm impressed by the amount who come here already! (And I hate to take a pessimistic view, especially as someone who occasionally books bands to play Colchester, but that's just the way I see it)
romantic
says...
11:07am Fri 23 Nov 12
I´m sure Colchester would benefit from a new theatre there, or even a cinema alternative to the Odeon, but not sure if either would be viable.
I´d rather see it occupied and used than sitting slowly decaying away.
thecapedcrusader69
says...
11:51am Fri 23 Nov 12
6079 Smith W
says...
6:01pm Fri 23 Nov 12
Boris wrote:Yet another Sdapeze U-turn (he is rather like the government, though unlike the government nobody should get wound up by this). He might as well write his comments on water.
Sdapeze wrote:We need Dorian to explain to you, Sdapeze, about the heritage aspects of the good old Odeon, or Regal as it used to be called. He has done so in the last, but you evidently don't remember.
I will watch with interest. My hope is that the eyesore is demolished and a nice row of shops with dwellings above will be the outcome. It has no heritage value as far as I can see. It is outside the heritage core so there should be some freedom in planning. But then you are dealing with the mentality of the sort of people who ensured that Jumbo remains a decaying eyesore.
Not sure what you mean about Jumbo. If it is an eyesore (which it isn't, except at ground level) that is down to the owner, who has failed to maintain it properly as befits an exceptionally important listed building.
Sdapeze
says...
6:29pm Sat 24 Nov 12
sandgronun64
says...
12:39pm Sun 25 Nov 12
Sdapeze wrote:Sapeze - What a strange and contradictory fellow you are. You claim to have history as your passion yet refuse to see how this evolves in a current context. There is much history, worthy of protection that doesn't hark from the rather over-romanticised pages of school textbooks and efforts of period dramas to create the verisimilitude of a world long-gone that we feel we could just 'step into'.
Sorry Anna but I don't see any heritage value in the building. Dorian Kelly has made a very good case for its preservation, but I just don't see it happening. If it could be viable as a cinema, with its original awning signage, then I would fight for its protection. However, I cannot see anybody spending money on such a venture. I don't think another nightclub is viable either. Again, if it were to retain its frontage, I would be happy with that, as long as it was maintained properly. But why would anybody want to do that? So I take, what I think is, a pragmatic view and bend towards a total rebuild to a modern yet architectually appealing edifice. We shall see. They still have to get past the planning process and the dinosaurs.
Just because this building cannot act as a backdrop for a lot of grown men, parading round in (slightly ridiculous) costumes, pretending to be (like) the 'hardened warriors of a bygone age' does not mean that it does not represent an aspect of the towns, continually evolving historical character.
Our town is what it is; not what people think it ought to be. This fact often escapes those that seek to gentrify/profiteer via their (often self-indulgent) investment on account of council officers that seemingly allow any private investment a clear path through the planning controls.
Why do you think then, that any planning proposal for this site will not get through; if not on the first submission, then on appeal? It seems to have been a repeating pattern in recent years within the borough.
Now, if there were a proposal for some kind of modern, interactive museum site - a museum of urban culture would be my suggestion - then whilst I am sure many would be more sympathetic to its cause, it would still be subject to the same planning restrictions in terms of the finished building. The use it seems is not considered, nor is the effect of diluting limited amounts of trade in the town centre - within or without the 'heritage core.' The shape of the building is not the real issue then, rather what it will bring to the town. This I fear is the oft missed issue within the current plans for the regeneration of Colchester.
If the final use were at least to be something to bring tourists into town, and more importantly, give them something to do when they are here, particularly when the weather is poor, then this would warrant significant investment and would help to boost business.
No doubt it will become another clone shop/restaurant/drin
king establishment though, and further dilute the already struggling trade to the multitude of these already in existence in the town!
Sdapeze
says...
3:55pm Sun 25 Nov 12
sandgronun64
says...
4:58pm Sun 25 Nov 12
I wasn't aware that my comments had seemed so gushing or emotional but at least we 'almost' agree on something!
jut1972
says...
6:51pm Sun 25 Nov 12
Wouldnt care what its turned into, anything is better than an empty decaying eyesore.
Sdapeze
says...
10:13pm Sun 25 Nov 12
sandgronun64
says...
10:48pm Sun 25 Nov 12
Sdapeze wrote:Hindsight?
I did mean effusive but couldn't be arsed to go back and correct myself. Condescending may have been a better word with hindsight. Whatever the word, the building is an eyesore and if it is to stay as a testament to the past then it should look good. Otherwise demolish it.
As I said you do seem to display have a rather contradictory (and now add to that changeable) attitude.
In what way were my original comments condescending though?
Can you honestly point out a series of tourist grabbing attractions in Colchester (now that is) that will bring people to the town for more than an afternoon or evening?
People can eat or drink anywhere, and are hardly likely to go away for the weekend to get their hair done, buy something from a charity shop and ... oh yeah ... go and see some museums where the exhibits are actually reminiscent of thoughts on museum interpretation circa 1990.
Colchester needs to get real if it is serious in its bid to reinvent (yes reinvent) itself as a tourist destination.
If I 'condescended', it was to compare tourism in Colchester with the extremely fine examples I see elsewhere, in the UK, Europe and internationally on a regular basis.
Sorry if I offended your 'status' as a local historian. I tug my forelock and humbly ask your forgiveness.
How do you think we'll get people to visit though? Firstsite (ironically frequently called 'hindsight'), the stunning array of interactive museums, filled with modern innovation.
I took my children into hindsight recently and spent the whole time telling them they couldn't touch things. Great family fun. We stayed around for literally minutes in this high-brow emporium of artistic enlightenment.
You always claim to have the answer. Please illuminate me in my apparent ignorance.
Sdapeze
says...
1:24pm Mon 26 Nov 12
Reginald47
says...
11:25am Wed 28 Nov 12
co4 says...
5:58pm Wed 21 Nov 12