Goodbye Television Centre

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/lat...c-goodbye.html

Next month is the last month from which the BBC will broadcast from Television Centre. There will be a last broadcast called 'Goodbye Television Centre' which will show highlights and comments from people who've made their shows and careers there. Comic Relief will be the last entertainment program made there and the resignation of the Pope will the last live news event.

Some of the people on the special:

Sir David Attenborough
Penelope Keith
Ronnie Corbett
Sir Michael Parkinson
Jeremy Paxman
Noel Edmonds
Sir Terry Wogan
Mark Lawson
Sir David Jason
Zoe Ball
Philip Schofield
Gary Lineker
Chris Hollins
Bob Harris
Fiona Bruce

I still think it was a bad idea to leave it. There isn't a problem with moving more activities around the country and in Salford but moving some of them, especially live programs, was very stupid. As expected BBC Breakfast and some of the radio programs like 5 Live which broadcast from Manchester have struggled more to get guests because whilst you can move presenters and technology up north that doesn't mean the guests will move with you. Instead they just use video or audio links back to London.

Worse though is just chucking away the history involved. It's nice that big live events come 'live from BBC Television Centre'. When there are General Election nights the idea of it coming from the same place as it has for the last 50 years is nice. The traditional fireworks and stuff from Comic Relief or Children in Need that have Television centre as a back drop. When new comics are creating new shows in the same halls where Monty Python made their shows.

You can modernise the organisation and the facilities but you don't need to lose everything, it's nice to have some sense of history rooted in the location or building. We wouldn't really think of moving Parliament to some new, modern, glass building (although I guess we probably would ).

I think you need to extract your head from your metropolitan bottom, dear boy.

Parliament is hardly comparable, Westminster Hall is almost 1,000 years old which does set TVC's magnificent half-century in a bit of context. Though in point of fact, Westminster Hall is no longer used for the principal business of Parliament and many MPs and committee meetings don't even use the 'newer' (19th century) parts of the Palace of Westminster, making use of the new building over the road, Portcullis House. So even our most venerable institutions, those with properly old buildings, aren't averse to moving on to something newer and more fit for purpose when appropriate.

TVC is a very specific building in terms of its design purpose. It was made to facilitate TV production as it was understood when TV production was a new art form. Things have changed in ways that those pioneers could not have imagined. It may not be the nostalgic option, but abandoning TVC is certainly the correct option for a publicly funded body with an obligation to make best use of its resources.

And on that point, the move to Salford and the expansion of BBC facilities all over the UK is likewise exactly the right approach for a body that collects money from the public. Where the BBC spends those funds is of great importance; every since its inception it has been drawing money from parts of the UK economy that can ill afford it and splurging it about in one of the wealthiest cities on Earth. The UK is in both administrative and cultural terms a highly centralised place and it requires a major effort by an organisation like the BBC, which reaches into both spheres, to help redress the balance.

London to Manchester is not far at all, neither by train or by air and, eventually, HS2 will close the gap still further. The only real gap is in the minds of the metropolitan numpties who think riding a tube train to its terminus is a grand adventure.

You know, this reminds me of when I lived dahn sahth, and watched BBC London run a news report moaning at how two London clubs' fans had to travel UP NORTH, USING THE M1 *AND* THE M6 to Old Trafford for an FA Cup semi final early one Saturday morning. All this was done with a completely straight face and not a trace of irony nor any acknowledgement that northern teams' fans have been getting up early for trips to the grotty London suburb that hosts our national stadium for decades without complaint.

[Osem]

My eldest was invited by a contact to visit the new Broadcasting House in London recently. Oddly enough he said it didn't seem very austere.

Originally Posted by Chris

I think you need to extract your head from your metropolitan bottom, dear boy.

Like I said I don't see the problem with moving shows across and around the country. I don't mind things moving to Salford and the BBC being all over the country. I just want them to keep something, especially some of the big events, at Television Centre.

Parliament is hardly comparable, Westminster Hall is almost 1,000 years old which does set TVC's magnificent half-century in a bit of context. Though in point of fact, Westminster Hall is no longer used for the principal business of Parliament and many MPs and committee meetings don't even use the 'newer' (19th century) parts of the Palace of Westminster, making use of the new building over the road, Portcullis House. So even our most venerable institutions, those with properly old buildings, aren't averse to moving on to something newer and more fit for purpose when appropriate.

In television terms Television centre is pretty historic. It may be only 50 years but television isn't much older and Television centre has amassed quite a lot of history in that time. Parliament isn't adverse to moving to something newer and I am not advocating the BBC don't do the same, but as Parliament keeps it's historic building for some functions I think the BBC should do the same. The BBC becomes broader and less centralised but it keeps it's historic building for some functions.

TVC is a very specific building in terms of its design purpose. It was made to facilitate TV production as it was understood when TV production was a new art form. Things have changed in ways that those pioneers could not have imagined. It may not be the nostalgic option, but abandoning TVC is certainly the correct option for a publicly funded body with an obligation to make best use of its resources.

You can modernise the inside. There doesn't appear to be much barrier to filming there as we've had new programs broadcasting from there recently. HD and everything. Really the famous outside and the location is what should remain.

London to Manchester is not far at all, neither by train or by air and, eventually, HS2 will close the gap still further. The only real gap is in the minds of the metropolitan numpties who think riding a tube train to its terminus is a grand adventure.

It's not that far no but it is a bit too far for early morning programs. Guests either have to come in from video link, go up the night before or drive from early in the morning. Before guests would need a taxi or tube train they now need that to get to Euston, 2 hours to get to Manchester, and then off to Salford.

We do have Broadcasting House still thankfully.

You know, this reminds me of when I lived dahn sahth, and watched BBC London run a news report moaning at how two London clubs' fans had to travel UP NORTH, USING THE M1 *AND* THE M6 to Old Trafford for an FA Cup semi final early one Saturday morning. All this was done with a completely straight face and not a trace of irony nor any acknowledgement that northern teams' fans have been getting up early for trips to the grotty London suburb that hosts our national stadium for decades without complaint.

Sky have changed a lot of this but games that aren't televised do take into account these issues most of the time. I.E A game in London involving Newcastle would be a 3pm unless it was on TV. The problem is when a televised game, say 12.45pm, involves two teams far from each other. Every football fan moans about this.

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Chris

I think you need to extract your head from your metropolitan bottom, dear boy.

snip

I think it's rather you who needs to extract his head from your bottom,dear boy.

A someone who works in Film and Tv and knows lots of people to me and other's this was nothing but a Labour vanity project... get people up North to feel the love as well.... whatever that is worth (votes,I guess).

To say a quick drive up North is nothing is complete ignorance,sorry Chris. To people in the media,or celebrities,VIP's or whatever time is EVERYTHING. The schedules can be so packed that the difference between agreeing to a flying visit or a talk show can very much hinge on accessibility. In and out is the name of the game,in an 18 hour day a few hours do matter a lot.

London is one of four Alpha world cities and that's where the BBC belongs,not in bleeding Salford,sorry.... what a pit to put the studio in. This move is/was unpopular within the BBC and I'm not the only one to think it was a mistake.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chris

London to Manchester is not far at all, neither by train or by air

They'll be in a car.
about 3.5 long hours.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Will21st

I think it's rather you who needs to extract his head from your bottom,dear boy.

A someone who works in Film and Tv and knows lots of people to me and other's this was nothing but a Labour vanity project... get people up North to feel the love as well.... whatever that is worth (votes,I guess).

To say a quick drive up North is nothing is complete ignorance,sorry Chris. To people in the media,or celebrities,VIP's or whatever time is EVERYTHING. The schedules can be so packed that the difference between agreeing to a flying visit or a talk show can very much hinge on accessibility. In and out is the name of the game,in an 18 hour day a few hours do matter a lot.

London is one of four Alpha world cities and that's where the BBC belongs,not in bleeding Salford,sorry.... what a pit to put the studio in. This move is/was unpopular within the BBC and I'm not the only one to think it was a mistake.

Buying votes with public sector jobs, now that's a novel idea...

Originally Posted by Will21st

I think it's rather you who needs to extract his head from your bottom,dear boy.

A someone who works in Film and Tv and knows lots of people to me and other's this was nothing but a Labour vanity project... get people up North to feel the love as well.... whatever that is worth (votes,I guess).

To say a quick drive up North is nothing is complete ignorance,sorry Chris. To people in the media,or celebrities,VIP's or whatever time is EVERYTHING. The schedules can be so packed that the difference between agreeing to a flying visit or a talk show can very much hinge on accessibility. In and out is the name of the game,in an 18 hour day a few hours do matter a lot.

London is one of four Alpha world cities and that's where the BBC belongs,not in bleeding Salford,sorry.... what a pit to put the studio in. This move is/was unpopular within the BBC and I'm not the only one to think it was a mistake.

Well, if we're having a p*ing contest ... I know a number of people in film & TV myself. At least three of them have had national TV or radio credits in the last 6 months. One of them has a Bafta on his bookshelf.

It's nothing to do with who we know and what we do for a living though, is it? The BBC is part of the national infrastructure, and as such the issues at play are not confined to the business of TV and radio production.

ITV moved This Morning out of its original studio in Liverpool because of the well-understood difficulties of getting slebs out of London on a weekday morning. Oddly enough, however, the industry does not seem to have a comparable problem in the USA, where the traditional centres of film and TV production are separated by almost 2,500 miles and three time zones.

The issue of people not wanting to travel out of London is a cultural one, caused by the issue you identify - London is a world city, which unfortunately means it eclipses everywhere else in the UK by some degree. What the move to Salford challenges is the notion that just because London is a world city, everything of importance must take place in it, or as near it as possible (in fact, Salford *is* very near it - have you looked at a map of the British Isles lately, and preferably not the BBC weather map which skews the view so the southeast looks about twice the size as the north?).

As a publicly-funded broadcaster, and one of the biggest broadcasters in the entire world, the BBC is in a position to challenge this metropolitan media laziness. The BBC is bigger than any of them, and it provides an unbeatable platform for their opinions, projects, vanity, whatever. Build it, and they'll come. They have no choice. It may take a while, but thanks to the licence fee the BBC has the luxury of time. Our whole economy needs rebalancing away from the southeast, and moving chunks of the BBC a stone's throw further up the island is an important contribution to that.

Originally Posted by Chris

One of them has a Bafta on his bookshelf.

Is it his?

ITV moved This Morning out of its original studio in Liverpool because of the well-understood difficulties of getting slebs out of London on a weekday morning. Oddly enough, however, the industry does not seem to have a comparable problem in the USA, where the traditional centres of film and TV production are separated by almost 2,500 miles and three time zones.

Live shows in America tend to broadcast from the two major media cities in America. New York and LA. Although political shows tend to broadcast from Washington even though their news networks will broadcast from New York.

Morning shows like Good Morning America or Today broadcast from New York where it's easier to get guests (and because they can then put the same show on a tape delay for the west coast). They haven't moved those shows up to Boston. They put them in what is the biggest city on the East coast.

The evening shows such as Leno or Letterman broadcast from either New York or LA. Again they've chosen places where their prospective guests are likely to be rather than requiring them to make a detour from their promotional tours or homes to get to the studio. Their guests are promoting something and knock off several shows in a few days.

As a publicly-funded broadcaster, and one of the biggest broadcasters in the entire world, the BBC is in a position to challenge this metropolitan media laziness. The BBC is bigger than any of them, and it provides an unbeatable platform for their opinions, projects, vanity, whatever. Build it, and they'll come. They have no choice. It may take a while, but thanks to the licence fee the BBC has the luxury of time. Our whole economy needs rebalancing away from the southeast, and moving chunks of the BBC a stone's throw further up the island is an important contribution to that.

Moving some shows up the island is fine. Doctor Who is Cardiff, Match of the Day in Salford, Strictly Come Dancing in Salford. It's all good. That is a good attempt to distribute activity across the UK. We don't need to take so many shows out of London however and news and live shows are examples of shows that work better if broadcasting from the Capital.

London is where a lot of the guests are and it's the wrong way around to move the shows presuming that the media and political organisations and structure will move with them. The shows need to go where the people are not the other way around. A good example is when American media figures come over, they fly in, attend their premier or whatever, then go right to the studio talk show thing in the even (Jonathan Ross, Graham Norton), spend the next day doing the radio tour, and then fly back/off to America.

[Osem]

What you mean all those international mega-stars aren't too keen to jump on a train to Salford for a 5 or 10 minute interview?

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Chris

Well, if we're having a p*ing contest ... I know a number of people in film & TV myself. At least three of them have had national TV or radio credits in the last 6 months. One of them has a Bafta on his bookshelf.

and some of the people I know have Academy Awards on their bookshelves.... so what? I could go on and on and rattle down whom I know and have worked with,but I won't. You'd only lose that p-contest.

Originally Posted by Chris

It's nothing to do with who we know and what we do for a living though, is it? The BBC is part of the national infrastructure, and as such the issues at play are not confined to the business of TV and radio production.

The BBC is a major player in the Entertainment World and respected everywhere. London is only second in the World when it comes Film and Tv Post-Production and FX Houses. All the Major Studios have offices there. I know a lot of big players in Tinsel-town have agents there. It is only natural that the BBC is in London,where else would they be?

and it being part of the National Infrastructure.... well,you don't build a massive Airport in the very North of Scotland so they get a bit of infrastructure too,do you?

London is one of the Entertainment Industry hubs in the world,why would the BBC not be there?

Originally Posted by Chris

ITV moved This Morning out of its original studio in Liverpool because of the well-understood difficulties of getting slebs out of London on a weekday morning. Oddly enough, however, the industry does not seem to have a comparable problem in the USA, where the traditional centres of film and TV production are separated by almost 2,500 miles and three time zones.

No, NYC=Tv//LA=Film,although that is slowly changing with more Film coming to NYC and New England due to tax incentives and other investment.

Anyway you're comparing Apples and Oranges,since NYC and LA are both World Class Cities,accessible and second homes to most of the players in the Industry anyway. Heck,I know a good few up and coming UK actors who flit between NYC/LA and London all the time.

Originally Posted by Chris

The issue of people not wanting to travel out of London is a cultural one, caused by the issue you identify - London is a world city, which unfortunately means it eclipses everywhere else in the UK by some degree. What the move to Salford challenges is the notion that just because London is a world city, everything of importance must take place in it, or as near it as possible (in fact, Salford *is* very near it - have you looked at a map of the British Isles lately, and preferably not the BBC weather map which skews the view so the southeast looks about twice the size as the north?).

No need to be condescending Chris,I know where Salford is on the British Isles and how far it is from London.
Tell you what though,have you ever had a look on the Entertainment Industry Map? I'm looking right now,can't find Salford though...

this has nothing to do with North/South divides.London is one of the Nerve centres of the Industry,and that won't change by moving the BBC to Salford.... it's just a fact of life.

Originally Posted by Chris

As a publicly-funded broadcaster, and one of the biggest broadcasters in the entire world, the BBC is in a position to challenge this metropolitan media laziness. The BBC is bigger than any of them, and it provides an unbeatable platform for their opinions, projects, vanity, whatever. Build it, and they'll come. They have no choice. It may take a while, but thanks to the licence fee the BBC has the luxury of time. Our whole economy needs rebalancing away from the southeast, and moving chunks of the BBC a stone's throw further up the island is an important contribution to that.

Hm,I thought you were fiscally prudent,yet now you brag about how much money the Beeb has to throw away? Bigger than any of them? Yeah,thanks to all our money,so please let them be careful!

They'll come?Who''ll come? This reminds of the thread where you were convincing yourself that 3D won't be a success until the BBC said so.... it worked out anyway.

I agree that Infrastructure should be more evenly distributed,however the BBC isn't the centre of the entertainment world.... London is one of them. The Beeb has moved away from it and that's a shame.It needs to be at the pulse of Entertainment,Culture and World News,not on the fringes.

Or do you believe that everyone will pack up and move to Salford too cause the BBC is there?
The only reason the BBC moved is because the Labour government said so and Hazel Blears wanted that triumph for her constituents. Complete and utter tosh that move was,and no,they won't come ( at least not all of them) .

Originally Posted by Will21st

and some of the people I know have Academy Awards on their bookshelves.... so what? I could go on and on and rattle down whom I know and have worked with,but I won't. You'd only lose that p-contest.

So, you were the one who (erroneously) suggested that your view is correct, simply because of who your friends are and where you work: "As someone who works in film and TV ... ", remember?

I'm delighted you work with so many illustrious people. It still doesn't change the facts.

The BBC is a major player in the Entertainment World and respected everywhere. London is only second in the World when it comes Film and Tv Post-Production and FX Houses. All the Major Studios have offices there. I know a lot of big players in Tinsel-town have agents there. It is only natural that the BBC is in London,where else would they be?

There's not much point repeating myself, is there? We agree that London is a major centre, both in terms of creative industry and also as a city in its own right. You can make a list as long as your arm, it doesn't address the point I'm making, which is where your experience and contacts are letting you down a bit ...

and it being part of the National Infrastructure.... well,you don't build a massive Airport in the very North of Scotland so they get a bit of infrastructure too,do you?

... because, as this ^ shows, you clearly don't understand that different kinds of infrastructure have different kinds of restriction on where they can be put.

London is one of the Entertainment Industry hubs in the world,why would the BBC not be there?

The BBC is there. It is also in Salford, Cardiff, Glasgow, Bristol and who knows where else. Spreading around those things that can be spread around, and keeping Graham Norton in London so the Hollywood A-list, the ones who genuinely can't make the trip north for whatever reason (or won't, and are influential enough to insist), can be interviewed in a cosy studio on the south bank. Though not a studio owned by the BBC, ironically.

No, NYC=Tv//LA=Film,

Yes. Exactly what I said. I'm sorry if the phrase "the traditional centres of film and TV production are separated by almost 2,500 miles and three time zones." wasn't sufficiently clear for someone in the know. There is in fact about 2,500 miles between LA and NYC. And three time zones. I took the trouble to check, rather than just hitting 'reply' and thrashing my keyboard.

although that is slowly changing with more Film coming to NYC and New England due to tax incentives and other investment.

Seriously? And they're not worried that the talent won't travel?

Anyway you're comparing Apples and Oranges,since NYC and LA are both World Class Cities,accessible and second homes to most of the players in the Industry anyway. Heck,I know a good few up and coming UK actors who flit between NYC/LA and London all the time.

No need to be condescending Chris,I know where Salford is on the British Isles and how far it is from London.
Tell you what though,have you ever had a look on the Entertainment Industry Map? I'm looking right now,can't find Salford though...

this has nothing to do with North/South divides.London is one of the Nerve centres of the Industry,and that won't change by moving the BBC to Salford.... it's just a fact of life.

The BBC hasn't moved. Some BBC departments have moved. The BBC obviously believes they can function that way and that sufficient talent can be attracted to Media City to make it viable. I don't think the whingeing from those who would prefer all their employment prospects to be a short walk from any given tube station is a surprise, and I'm confident that in a few years' everyone will be just getting on with it and not moaning. Not quite as much, anyway.

Hm,I thought you were fiscally prudent,yet now you brag about how much money the Beeb has to throw away? Bigger than any of them? Yeah,thanks to all our money,so please let them be careful!

Um, who's bragging? The BBC's guaranteed income, due to the licence fee, is a fact. Pointing it out is a means of contributing useful facts to a debate. You may be taking this a bit too personally. Have you lost any work as a result of the move of certain departments to Salford?

They'll come?Who''ll come? This reminds of the thread where you were convincing yourself that 3D won't be a success until the BBC said so.... it worked out anyway.

Crumbs ... you really are taking this personally, aren't you? What else is in your dossier of "Chris Things Said That Made Me Cross" ... ?

About 100,000 people out of 27 million watched the Olympic opening ceremony in 3D. Sky has about 250,000 3D subscribers, out of a total 10 million connected homes. Meanwhile there are something like 1.3 million 3D-ready TVs already installed around the UK. Based on this, I'm puzzled as to your defintion of "it worked out". My contention is still that 3D will not become mainstream in the UK until a truly major, respected player starts pushing it. Oh, hang on, that's the BBC, isn't it ...

I agree that Infrastructure should be more evenly distributed,however the BBC isn't the centre of the entertainment world.... London is one of them. The Beeb has moved away from it and that's a shame.It needs to be at the pulse of Entertainment,Culture and World News,not on the fringes.

Or do you believe that everyone will pack up and move to Salford too cause the BBC is there?
The only reason the BBC moved is because the Labour government said so and Hazel Blears wanted that triumph for her constituents. Complete and utter tosh that move was,and no,they won't come ( at least not all of them) .

Some already have, some haven't. Good luck to them all. Only time will tell exactly how successful the move will turn out to have been, but I'm happy to stand by my prediction that in 10 years everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about.

I'd only care if my licence fee was going to be reduced as a result which it isn't we're all in this together.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

I'd only care if my licence fee was going to be reduced as a result which it isn't we're all in this together.

It has been - it was fixed at £145.50 in 2010 and may not increase before 2016. Inflation has been eroding the value of that cash amount and will continue to do so. So far, the fee is worth about £7 less in real terms than it was in 2010.

I think if a few more of the major institutions moved around the country then there wouldn't be such a north south divide ,the cost of living between north and south may even a bit as well.
I also think that we are too attached to historic buildings like the BBC Center ,pull it down and build a modern city with modern buildings