On 11 Oct 2008 at 11:46am Local resident wrote:
The HQ gallery has just applied for permission to convert to office use. Does this mean the local developer/committed art lover who owns it is in trouble?
On 11 Oct 2008 at 3:09pm Local wrote:
The gallery was presumably the section 160 'community benefit' that the developer promised when putting in the original planning application. Was there a little scam going on here? It wouldn't surprise me.
On 11 Oct 2008 at 3:16pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I'd be very peed off I was a neighbour. It must be nice and quiet living next door to that gallery, I've never seen anyone go in there.
On 11 Oct 2008 at 6:28pm Smiler wrote:
Surprise surprise NOT.
The community benefit scam strikes again
On 12 Oct 2008 at 12:54am Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
Ultimately it does not matter what local opinion is, - LDC will over-ride local opinion (every time)
On 12 Oct 2008 at 8:52am terry Lesser wrote:
Of course the gallery was a sop. It amazes me that anyone thought different. Personally I'm surprised this application hasn't come sooner.
On 12 Oct 2008 at 2:44pm Local Artist wrote:
The Curator there once said my work wasn't good enough to exhibit there!
On 12 Oct 2008 at 3:48pm Teen Spirit wrote:
I always though that the HQ gallery was a bit pretentious and that the art work featured has always been more about the price than the actual work itself, which also in my opinion has never been perticually striking. Some of the work looks like something I could have done on my computer using pain. So its not like we are losing something of cultural importance, even though the offices wont provide much of a cultural experience either. I'm also sure that the owner of the gallery wont lose that much monery as i have never seen anyone go in there either, and everyone sells online these days anyway.
On 12 Oct 2008 at 5:38pm Jester Thomson wrote:
The last time I went in there the galley owner almost spat in my eye 'cos I asked him how business was (no-one else in there and no little stickers on any pictures) - he was a right arse so I hope he looses his shirt!
On 12 Oct 2008 at 5:52pm Local wrote:
Staff haven't been paid regularly for months. They have to keep asking. Draw your own conclusions.
On 12 Oct 2008 at 8:52pm The Tooth Fairy wrote:
Sop indeed it was. Constructed in such a way to suit various other uses (wait for permission for residential in near future) and free hold held by developer (guess who). Add to this massive rent charged (300 a week apparently) and sit back and wait for gallery to fail. Still, at least we had a community resource all be it for a very short space of time. Lewes needs art galleries, and not community halls for gods sake.
On 13 Oct 2008 at 9:22am sashimi wrote:
This is such a vile building. It should be granted permission to convert to a public lavatory because that's what it looks like.
On 13 Oct 2008 at 10:38am Lewes Laugher wrote:
And anyone who believes the stories Angel are telling about what would be in the proposed Phoenix development - cinema etc - will in the end be just as disappointed (just look at what they did with the Jam Factory development in London). Still, I'm sure LDC will believe anything they're told.
On 13 Oct 2008 at 11:05am Interested wrote:
Where exactly is this little gallery please?
On 13 Oct 2008 at 1:38pm Mystic Mog wrote:
Surprised that the gallery has lasted that long before becoming what, it seemed, it was always intended to be. Went to a couple of nice exhibitions, Billy Childsih was good. However the location is a bit secret squirrel.
On 21 Oct 2008 at 10:27pm Queen Vicc wrote:
I live on St John Street. Apparently it's just the top floor, the ground floor would remain a gallery. The galary director said in the Express that it was difficult for an artist t fill both floors and that one would do. Ummm.. why not stage two exhibitions at once? Double the chances of selling something. It's easy - one artist upstairs, the other downstairs, twice the appeal for visitors.
Am I missing something? Is she? Hve I just solved the problem?!