Firstsite's first year: 172,000 visitors but £1.24million subsidy (From Gazette)

Excellent news. This is a true community project, unlike the stadium that was bought at public expense for a private limited company. I have visited and used the facilities of Firstsite on many occasions and it will be truly splendid when they finally get rid of that horrible bus station and finish the project properly.

Who is funding the £1.24m then?Presumably a big chunk from us the council tax payers of Colchester!

However, totally agree with your comments Sdapeze about the stadium, whatever next, CBC funding the next Tesco?

172,000 that's less than half of the predicted visitor numbers.

'' a popular and commercial success' ..how on earth can a subsidy equivelent to every person who walks through the door of over £7 can be considered a commercial success. I have absoultely no faith in the visitor numbers as there is no apparent check. If they installed turnstiles and actually counted numbers it would be more believable. How many people just pop in to look in the shop, pop in and see how little art space there is , or pop in for a coffee.

Without seeing the accounts in detail it is difficult to comment but is the £1.2m subsidy after paying back the £27m it cost to build or has that just been written off ?

'' a popular and commercial success' ..how on earth can a subsidy equivelent to every person who walks through the door of over £7 can be considered a commercial success. I have absoultely no faith in the visitor numbers as there is no apparent check. If they installed turnstiles and actually counted numbers it would be more believable. How many people just pop in to look in the shop, pop in and see how little art space there is , or pop in for a coffee.

Without seeing the accounts in detail it is difficult to comment but is the £1.2m subsidy after paying back the £27m it cost to build or has that just been written off ?

Sdapeze wrote:
Excellent news. This is a true community project, unlike the stadium that was bought at public expense for a private limited company. I have visited and used the facilities of Firstsite on many occasions and it will be truly splendid when they finally get rid of that horrible bus station and finish the project properly.

I am in favour of the VAF and the football ground. But can't work out how you can slag the ground off. Firstsite is also a private company in a public building.

Some facts though.

VAF £10m over budget 3 years late, funded by the public purse and subsidy of £1.2M pa.

WHCS on budget and time, funded by public purse, football league and CUFC. No on going costs to the council but an annual rental income of £300,000. So the council built it, own it and make money from it. Sounds like good business sense. Also freed up prime housing land in town. Lots of events there for the community,

Sdapeze wrote:
Excellent news. This is a true community project, unlike the stadium that was bought at public expense for a private limited company. I have visited and used the facilities of Firstsite on many occasions and it will be truly splendid when they finally get rid of that horrible bus station and finish the project properly.

I am in favour of the VAF and the football ground. But can't work out how you can slag the ground off. Firstsite is also a private company in a public building.

Some facts though.

VAF £10m over budget 3 years late, funded by the public purse and subsidy of £1.2M pa.

WHCS on budget and time, funded by public purse, football league and CUFC. No on going costs to the council but an annual rental income of £300,000. So the council built it, own it and make money from it. Sounds like good business sense. Also freed up prime housing land in town. Lots of events there for the community,

TheCaptain wrote:

Sdapeze wrote:
Excellent news. This is a true community project, unlike the stadium that was bought at public expense for a private limited company. I have visited and used the facilities of Firstsite on many occasions and it will be truly splendid when they finally get rid of that horrible bus station and finish the project properly.

I am in favour of the VAF and the football ground. But can't work out how you can slag the ground off. Firstsite is also a private company in a public building.

Some facts though.

VAF £10m over budget 3 years late, funded by the public purse and subsidy of £1.2M pa.

WHCS on budget and time, funded by public purse, football league and CUFC. No on going costs to the council but an annual rental income of £300,000. So the council built it, own it and make money from it. Sounds like good business sense. Also freed up prime housing land in town. Lots of events there for the community,

No ongoing costs, good business sense?

Of course you forgot to mention the rent Col U pay to CBC (£300,000pa) is barely sufficient to furnish the £8,000,000 loan CBC took out to build the stadium in the first place which actually cost £14,000,000 to build.

CUFC did not contribute to the build with the remainder of the £14m coming mainly from sports grants. Also all income from events held there and parking fees for match day parking go to the club and not to the council.

The question is with ever reducing attendance at the Stadium how long will it be before they are looking for a rent reduction and a bale out?

172,000 people in a year?

That's over 500 a day, has someone made this up?

jim_bo wrote:
172,000 people in a year?

That's over 500 a day, has someone made this up?

Yes ,,,,, allegedly

Firstsite certainly loaded the figures during their tenure at The Minories.

We have a family friend working in the building now ( VAF ) and she was saying that on some days virtually no one at all comes in for hours at a time.

The visitor projection that Firstsite 'sold' to the council many years ago now was actually 500,000 a year!

The Gazette should ask the card players who sit outside Firstsite how many people are coming in an hour and it would soon become apparent that there are nowhere near 500 a day visiting the facility now.

It is my belief that fewer visitors will come through the doors in 2013 than were claimed by Firstsite in The Minories in their final year of occupancy.

Little wonder that most of those who sold the council a line have walked off into the sunset.

I have visited each exhibition and will continue to do so, but in my opinion Firstsite has failed to make a telling impact.

Something else if I may.

Our 'friend' worked at a gallery in the midlands a few years ago.

This gallery claimed around 400 visitors a day but when a check was carried out it was found that almost half of this figure was made up of the staff coming in and out of the building during the day and deliveries being made.

The real figure for visitors was later found to be half of that claimed.

So with Firstsite staff coming in and out of the building on a regular basis the 'counter' could quite easily inflate the stats by 150 a day or so.

Just a thought.

Something else The Gazette may wish to look into.

Firstsite is there to be used. Use it and quit whining. It is a facility that we can be proud of and is a true public community building. Now all we need to do is make our museums free too! If they can do it in London and Birmingham, why not in Colchester? Don't we want visitors?

Why would the gazette look into false visitor numbers.

That would mean their cut and paste journalists would have to do real work.

For a site that is free, it's a really poor show. If Colchester High Street only managed to achieve those figures it would be goodnight Vienna. Whenever I have visited the VAF (call it firstsite if you will) it's only to use the splendid toilets. Having said that, it's all money down the train for the tax payer.

Sdapeze wrote:
Firstsite is there to be used. Use it and quit whining. It is a facility that we can be proud of and is a true public community building. Now all we need to do is make our museums free too! If they can do it in London and Birmingham, why not in Colchester? Don't we want visitors?

Another good post from Sdapeze. We obviously have an 'uncultured' element in Colchester. I guess they would love to see FirstSite transformed in another McDonalds, another supermarket, tattoo parlour.... and resemble all the other **** places in the world. Holly Trees would make a nice Domono's Pizza outlet. I can see the neon signs now! Cowdray Crescent would make an ideal drive-in, complete with all the white vans. Cant wait!

Thank you ....but we are not an uncultured lot, many posters on here have issues with the cost of the facility and most importantly the lack of openess about the performance of the operatng company in both financial and cultural terms . Given such a huge investment the space allocated to displays or exhibitions is pitiful and the quality of art has been very poor.
In such difficult financial times it is incumbent on any group that has access to public funds to maximise the value from those funds and be accountable when, in the eyes of many, the project is not meeting the targets set.

Say It As It Is OK? wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:

Sdapeze wrote:
Excellent news. This is a true community project, unlike the stadium that was bought at public expense for a private limited company. I have visited and used the facilities of Firstsite on many occasions and it will be truly splendid when they finally get rid of that horrible bus station and finish the project properly.

I am in favour of the VAF and the football ground. But can't work out how you can slag the ground off. Firstsite is also a private company in a public building.

Some facts though.

VAF £10m over budget 3 years late, funded by the public purse and subsidy of £1.2M pa.

WHCS on budget and time, funded by public purse, football league and CUFC. No on going costs to the council but an annual rental income of £300,000. So the council built it, own it and make money from it. Sounds like good business sense. Also freed up prime housing land in town. Lots of events there for the community,

No ongoing costs, good business sense?

Of course you forgot to mention the rent Col U pay to CBC (£300,000pa) is barely sufficient to furnish the £8,000,000 loan CBC took out to build the stadium in the first place which actually cost £14,000,000 to build.

CUFC did not contribute to the build with the remainder of the £14m coming mainly from sports grants. Also all income from events held there and parking fees for match day parking go to the club and not to the council.

The question is with ever reducing attendance at the Stadium how long will it be before they are looking for a rent reduction and a bale out?

Not the building costs but that paid to fit the stadium out. Seating etc etc

Say It As It Is OK? wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:

Sdapeze wrote:
Excellent news. This is a true community project, unlike the stadium that was bought at public expense for a private limited company. I have visited and used the facilities of Firstsite on many occasions and it will be truly splendid when they finally get rid of that horrible bus station and finish the project properly.

I am in favour of the VAF and the football ground. But can't work out how you can slag the ground off. Firstsite is also a private company in a public building.

Some facts though.

VAF £10m over budget 3 years late, funded by the public purse and subsidy of £1.2M pa.

WHCS on budget and time, funded by public purse, football league and CUFC. No on going costs to the council but an annual rental income of £300,000. So the council built it, own it and make money from it. Sounds like good business sense. Also freed up prime housing land in town. Lots of events there for the community,

No ongoing costs, good business sense?

Of course you forgot to mention the rent Col U pay to CBC (£300,000pa) is barely sufficient to furnish the £8,000,000 loan CBC took out to build the stadium in the first place which actually cost £14,000,000 to build.

CUFC did not contribute to the build with the remainder of the £14m coming mainly from sports grants. Also all income from events held there and parking fees for match day parking go to the club and not to the council.

The question is with ever reducing attendance at the Stadium how long will it be before they are looking for a rent reduction and a bale out?

Not the building costs but that paid to fit the stadium out. Seating etc etc

I also thought that the club were financing the loan on top of the rental costs. This could be wrong though.

Firsts*ite is a joke and the Golden Turd is a complete failure. Sure, you can polish a turd (and make up some visitor numbers), but a turd is still a turd at the end of the day. Close it. Sell it. The Council know that the project has been an ongoing disaster since day 1. It's a case of Emperor's New Clothes that none of them will stand up and admit what everyone else knows.

TheCaptain wrote:
I also thought that the club were financing the loan on top of the rental costs. This could be wrong though.

The £8m loan CBC took out was, I am led to believe, a preferential local authority mortgage over 30 years and the club is not tied into any agreement other than to pay rent. Any default will fall back on council tax payers.

Say It As It Is OK? wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:
I also thought that the club were financing the loan on top of the rental costs. This could be wrong though.

The £8m loan CBC took out was, I am led to believe, a preferential local authority mortgage over 30 years and the club is not tied into any agreement other than to pay rent. Any default will fall back on council tax payers.

Dont forget that the sale of layer road income will also offset some of the investment

Goonerboy wrote:

Say It As It Is OK? wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:
I also thought that the club were financing the loan on top of the rental costs. This could be wrong though.

The £8m loan CBC took out was, I am led to believe, a preferential local authority mortgage over 30 years and the club is not tied into any agreement other than to pay rent. Any default will fall back on council tax payers.

Dont forget that the sale of layer road income will also offset some of the investment

You are correct but Layer Road went for much less than originally budgeted for so any shortfall will not be realised. But remember Layer Road had already been in CBC ownership for years.

I've been following the VAF story from the beginning. I went to a talk by the architect and was very excited by the project. I visited in the opening week - but haven't been back. It seems the enterprise and enthusiasm by the stakeholders in the VAF ended as soon as the doors opened. Seen from either East Hill or through the alley on Queen Street the building looks very forlorn. There's no indication of what it is or what's going on behind the enormous glass frontage. The only sign pointing in it's general direction says 'Lewis Gardens'. Walk around town and you wouldn't know there's an arts facility in the town. There's no poster advertising or press ads. The space outside the building is now a hang-out for teenagers. The steps down to the bus station blackened by rubbers skateboard wheels. There's the first signs of graffiti appearing on the thin gold cladding…

Compare this to the Hepworth Wakefield - a stunning building designed by a British architect and short-listed for the RIBA Stirling prize.

I have been to Firstsite lots of times and I really like it. Good lectures, a recent excellent concert and a super 3 course meal for under £14 per head. (Thanks to restaurant manager Tom and his efficient staff) I have also been to the football stadium (once)but the foul mouthed riff raff slob I found next to me put me off ever going back.

I go to the VAF every month as that is where Colchester Film Society shows its films. Yes, there are lectures, concerts etc. The only thing utterly lacking is art, in the sense of paintings, sculptures etc which are worth looking at and which stimulate the mind.
People who claim that the VAF is a place for cultured people are themselves uncultured, for they see no difference between mediocre tat and the real thing.

The VAF does need to be highlighted a lot more if we want to get more people in.

I would take the reported visitor numbers with a big pinch of salt. Back when they came up with the visitor numbers to the Minories on which future projections were based, a lot of those counted were going straight through to the cafe or using it as a short cut. I know people there and if they´re getting these numbers, they must be sneaking in while nobody is looking.

However, as the thing is built using our money via one route or another, we need to make it work. It is true what was said above, that you can be in town and have no idea it is there. And when the bus station closes, that will be even more the case. I've had a couple of people visit from overseas who thought that the VAF was part of the bus station!

They do need to be marketing the place a lot more, but of course, it also has to have things in that people will want to see!

The truth is that the project has been run from day one by a little clique of people who believe that anybody who questions any aspect of the project is a philistine, uncultured, however you want to phrase it. They may reach the conclusion that low visitor figures are a good thing because it means that they have not "dumbed things down", or "gone populist"!

The brutal reality is that the VAF is not pulling in the numbers projected and rather than glossing this over, they should welcome input from the people of the area.

The other brutal reality is that the exhibitions so far have not been especially inspiring. But of course, by saying that, I have now identified myself as a cultural vacuum who could not possibly know anything about art or culture.

The likelihood is that in 3 or 4 years time, it will be a conference centre, snapped up nice and cheap by a lucky company somewhere who will be able to make a nice profit from it.

Well, good to see that the people commenting on this story can (on the whole) stick with it and not pretend it is about something else.

Some however, just can't seem to concentrate for long enough to realise that this is a story about the outrageous on-going cost of the VAF.

It is not about the football stadium. Whether you like the community stadium or not, this story is about the VAF and that is the issue that commenters should focus on.

I notice that sdapeze once again, started this confusion. To the slightly confused sdapeze then, you appear to wish to convey a message, suggesting that the VAF site is morally right. Perhaps that would be true, if it did not cost a little over £7.20 PER VISITOR in its first year. This figure - outrageous in itself - is all the more so, given that many of these visitors will have been drawn to enter the site, purely out of curiosity; it having been the subject of such debate and taking five years to complete. Next year’s figures will likely be lower. This is borne out by other, much larger (and better thought out/marketed) attractions such as e.g. the Eden Project in St Austel, where initial visitor highs tailed off somewhat after the first year.

As for the status of its being a private company, many ticketed events take place there, including theatre events. The average ticket price falls between £15 and £25. Compare that with the Mercury Theatre where the upper end cost is £22.50 if you will. Premium cost tickets, not exactly cheap catering and corporate hosting for events, and still it costs £7.20 for every visitor that crosses the threshold!

As for the comment that it is "...a true public community building." well! Words almost fail me. You truly are in a bubble sdapeze.

Thank-you though to romantic, (and others) who did add some sense to the debate. Of course we are stuck with it and a use (that pays its way) will ultimately need to be found for the site. We do need to learn lessons from this whole affair though. If you think the thing is of national importance and universally acclaimed though, there is an interesting article late last year in the Guardian/Observer website relating to the architecture and suitability of the site as an art gallery. To read it go to:

www.guardian.co.uk/a
rtanddesign/2011/sep
/17/rafael-vinoly-fi
rstsite-colchester-r
eview

As for the comments regarding culture from some, it merely underlines the fact that the whole premise for this 'huge metallic folly' is the product of an elitist few, whose self-aggrandizing could have been tolerated by all, had the VAF not been paid for by those least likely to want to use it. Making derisory comments about the majority of people, simply to try and elevate your own minority beliefs, is in itself arguably the greatest folly - one ultimately more prodigious than the 'Golden Banana' itself.