An excellent analysis demonstrating the many flaws of an elitist and discriminatory development plan. During my most recent visit to the Regent on 24/10, I was looking at the architecture and my conviction that we must NOT let this unique structure disappear at the hands of rapacious developers strengthened further. I’ve lodged an objection and hope it has plenty of company. If I hear the excuse “people prefer suburban multiplexes” once more, I’ll scream. Not everybody drives and, even if public transport allowed it, the only way I’d attend such a venue particularly at night or on weekends would be with a SWAT team for backup. Their claustrophobic shoeboxes are loathsome. Comment has been made that the Regent doesn’t make money. So what? Isn’t the pursuit of profit at any cost part of the reason the global economy is now swirling down the S bend? Some things are more important. Who’s to say patronage wouldn’t increase with a fresh approach to attracting customers? Another skyscraper is of zero benefit to the general public and we definitely don’t need more shops (been through Broadway lately?). Office rentals would be cheaper away from the inner city. It’s clearly development for its own sake. I doubt they’ve considered the consequent job losses and overall decline in CBD business when people seek to escape the noise and pollution of lengthy construction as quickly as possible. The traffic in Elizabeth Street is already a nightmare – this would only worsen it. The diminution of CBD cinemas substantially lessens the opportunity to see Australian film and endangers the film festival. Everyone knows the Regent’s location. Having to navigate to a new and unfamiliar festival site may deter many potential attendees. If it’s unable to be converted to a large capacity live theatre, it should be left as is with efforts made by the proprietors to improve its SOP (e.g. change the schedule more often and have enticements such as “see X film and go in the draw for Y prize” etc). The replacement facilities as proposed would be laughable were they not so ghastly. The politicians and developers obviously have a very low opinion of the public’s intelligence.
Reply
On Facebook
There are several "Save the Regent" groups on Facebook, including the one officially affiliated with this site, here, and this one. Together, they have more than 18,000 members.
Fact and fiction
An excellent analysis demonstrating the many flaws of an elitist and discriminatory development plan. During my most recent visit to the Regent on 24/10, I was looking at the architecture and my conviction that we must NOT let this unique structure disappear at the hands of rapacious developers strengthened further. I’ve lodged an objection and hope it has plenty of company. If I hear the excuse “people prefer suburban multiplexes” once more, I’ll scream. Not everybody drives and, even if public transport allowed it, the only way I’d attend such a venue particularly at night or on weekends would be with a SWAT team for backup. Their claustrophobic shoeboxes are loathsome. Comment has been made that the Regent doesn’t make money. So what? Isn’t the pursuit of profit at any cost part of the reason the global economy is now swirling down the S bend? Some things are more important. Who’s to say patronage wouldn’t increase with a fresh approach to attracting customers? Another skyscraper is of zero benefit to the general public and we definitely don’t need more shops (been through Broadway lately?). Office rentals would be cheaper away from the inner city. It’s clearly development for its own sake. I doubt they’ve considered the consequent job losses and overall decline in CBD business when people seek to escape the noise and pollution of lengthy construction as quickly as possible. The traffic in Elizabeth Street is already a nightmare – this would only worsen it. The diminution of CBD cinemas substantially lessens the opportunity to see Australian film and endangers the film festival. Everyone knows the Regent’s location. Having to navigate to a new and unfamiliar festival site may deter many potential attendees. If it’s unable to be converted to a large capacity live theatre, it should be left as is with efforts made by the proprietors to improve its SOP (e.g. change the schedule more often and have enticements such as “see X film and go in the draw for Y prize” etc). The replacement facilities as proposed would be laughable were they not so ghastly. The politicians and developers obviously have a very low opinion of the public’s intelligence.