Last-minute plea to save historic Glasgow Vouge cinema
The group, working to preserve and celebrate Art Deco architecture and design, urged decision-makers not to pull down the site but instead retain it.
In a letter, they also argued the demolition would "permanently erase a historic local landmark that is an icon for the neighbourhood, the local culture and a representation of architectural history that encapsulates an important cinema."
(Image: Pictures of the former Vogue Cinema on Balmore Road, Glasgow. Images taken by Gordon Terris, Newsque) (Image: Pictures of the former Vogue Cinema on Balmore Road, Glasgow. Images taken by Gordon Terris, Newsque)
The document added: "The cinema was built by James McKissak an eminent architect who is well recognised for his design of several cinemas in the style moderne, particularly in Glasgow and Edinburgh, that lent the name 'cinema city' to Glasgow."
The Balmore Road building's fate will be decided on Friday this week by a government official.
At a meeting in late March, representatives of Historic Environment Scotland (HES), Glasgow City Council and site owner Allied Vehicles discussed the case, which is now with the Scottish Government's planning and environmental appeals division.
(Image: Images taken by Colin Mearns, Newsquest)
READ NEXT: Date set for final decision on Glasgow Vogue cinema's fate
Glasgow residents torn over former Vogue cinema demolition
Initially, the cinema was earmarked to be knocked down in 2023 but the council issued a building preservation notice in January 2024.
Then, it was given legal protection after HES listed it as a building of special historical and architectural interest last June.
In September last year, Allied Vehicles submitted an appeal, arguing that the structure should be pulled down despite its status.
We previously reported that locals were divided about the plans for the C-listed structure and a petition to save it was signed by 3764 people.
Many recalled fond memories of watching films there, some, however, argued it's an eyesore that would just rot away without intervention.
Formerly a cinema and bingo hall, the Vogue was erected in 1933.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
Consent for gigantic wind farm is an ironic act of ecocide
The irony is that Holyrood is contemplating the introduction of an ecocide bill – at the very time the [[Scottish Government]] is complicit in ecocide committed by renewable energy companies on an ever-expanding scale. We note 'SSE Renewables will have to provide a plan to counter any impact the wind farm may have on seabirds', but this is thin gruel, especially as SSE is quoted as admitting in its own environmental impact assessment that more than 31,000 bird collisions are estimated during its lifespan. READ MORE: Scottish crew 'excluded from Spider Man 4 filming' What will its proposed 'mitigation' provide? It is to be hoped it will be something better than the farcically inappropriate plans that Equinor has put in place to construct an inappropriately sited nesting habitat for Arctic Terns hundreds of miles from its proposed massive wind farm extension off the coast of Norfolk. Whatever it is, it is difficult to see how it can provide more than a small sticking plaster for an act of ecocide. The Scottish Government may well have shot itself in the foot here. People who would not normally object to a wind farm are sickened by this decision. The sleeping giant of Joe Public has awakened. Aileen Jackson Scotland Against Spin, Uplawmoor THE story about House of Lords peers warning UK recognition of Palestine may 'breach international law' (Jul 31) is revealing, not just for what it says about Westminster, but for what it exposes about Scotland's position. The peers cite the Montevideo Convention, claiming Palestine doesn't qualify as a state because it lacks a defined territory, unified government and full diplomatic capacity. This argument is flawed because the UK never signed the convention — it's a regional treaty drafted in 1933 by US states, not global law – and even if you accept it as a standard, it backfires spectacularly when applied to Scotland. Let's test the same criteria: Permanent population? Scotland has that; Defined territory? Clearly; Functioning government? We've had one for over 20 years, with its own legal system, civil service, and tax powers. Capacity for foreign relations? Scotland already hosts consulates and conducts international outreach, and could expand that overnight. By any serious standard, Scotland meets the Montevideo criteria more fully than [[Palestine]], Kosovo at the time of recognition, or even Israel in 1948. So why are we still being told we must wait for a Section 30 order from [[Westminster]] to hold an independence referendum — and why are the SNP still building their entire strategy around asking for one? John Swinney says a vote for the [[SNP]] in 2026 will be a vote for independence. But what comes after that? Nothing. Because the leadership still refuses to act without permission. The Supreme Court didn't say independence is illegal – it said [[Holyrood]] doesn't have the power under UK law to legislate for a referendum. That's a political dead end, not a legal one. Recognition doesn't begin with external approval, it begins with internal control. That's how Estonia, Ireland, Kosovo, and countless others did it. They asserted the fact of statehood, governed as such, and forced recognition by acting like a state. That's how international law actually works. The real reason Scotland isn't independent isn't legal, it's psychological. Our leaders won't cross the line. They keep asking Westminster to validate our democracy instead of enforcing it. They quote laws they never intend to test. And they call that strategy. So yes, the peers' letter is cynical and legally thin. But it also hands us a mirror. Because if the UK can consider recognising Palestine under the Montevideo Convention, then the only thing stopping Scotland is the lack of a leadership willing to act on what we already are. James Murphy Bute THE claims by a group of peers in the House of Lords that UK recognition of Palestine could 'breach international law' warrant scrutiny. These assertions are based on a rigid interpretation of the Montevideo Convention and a selective reading of legal principles and risk politicising law rather than defending it. A clear-eyed examination reveals that such recognition remains well within the bounds of international legality and reflects long-standing norms of state practice. The UK is not a signatory to the Montevideo Convention of 1933 and state recognition in international law has always been as much a political act as a legal one. Numerous recognitions have occurred over the years, including Kosovo and South Sudan, despite contested claims to defined territory or unified governance. Recognition of states remains a sovereign prerogative. As confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its 2010 advisory opinion on Kosovo, international law does not prohibit declarations of independence or third-party recognition, even in complex or disputed circumstances. Recognition by the UK would not constitute a breach of international law but rather an exercise of lawful foreign policy discretion. (Image: Jonathan Brady) More than 135 UN member states have recognised Palestine and in 2012 the UN General Assembly granted Palestine non-member observer state status. These actions underscore the fact that recognition of Palestinian statehood is neither novel nor legally exceptional. If such recognition were truly contrary to international law, it would have triggered challenges in international courts – none have materialised. It is time to move beyond legal obfuscation and act in pursuit of a just and lasting peace. Peter Macari Aberdeen
Glasgow Times
5 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Spider-Man fans flock to Glasgow as filming begins
Bothwell Street has temporarily been given a new look with American flags and Manhattan road signs appearing in the area. (Image: GordonTerris/Herald&Times) (Image: GordonTerris/Herald&Times) It comes as filming for Spider-Man: Brand New Day begins on August 1 on the city centre road. Our photographer went down to Bothwell Street to capture some of the action. Fans of the Marvel comic character were snapped taking selfies with the set. READ NEXT: 'Spider-man' spotted in Glasgow as area turns into New York (Image: GordonTerris/Herald&Times) Seven-year-old Eli Sanderson and dad David (Image: GordonTerris/Herald&Times) (Image: GordonTerris/Herald&Times) Spider-Man: Brand New Day will star Tom Holland as Peter Parker, as well as Zendaya as MJ. It is expected to be released in 2026 and is being directed by Destin Daniel Cretton. The adventure movie picks up after the dramatic conclusion of No Way Home, where Peter Parker sacrificed his identity to save those he loves. (Image: GordonTerris/Herald&Times) (Image: GordonTerris/Herald&Times) (Image: GordonTerris/Herald&Times) READ NEXT: Over 50 Glasgow streets to close as Spiderman filming begins today Crews continue to build parts of the set on Friday. A huge number of New York City Police Department (NYPD) vehicles, as well as yellow taxi cabs, have been spotted on the street alongside food vendor stalls. Nearly 60 roads will be shut in the city centre to allow for filming. (Image: GordonTerris/Herald&Times) (Image: GordonTerris/Herald&Times) Glasgow City Council confirmed that traffic diversions will be in place. The local authority also warned that bus and taxi lanes will be impacted. Drivers are being warned that delays and congestion are expected, particularly around key commuter routes. During shooting, which is reportedly set to last around two weeks, a prohibition of pedestrian movements will also be enforced.
The National
8 hours ago
- The National
Sandie Peggie 'racist' remarks shouldn't be conflated with point of tribunal
We previously told how Peggie, a nurse, allegedly told colleagues that she 'wanted to post bacon through the letterbox of a mosque' during the ongoing tribunal against NHS Fife. The Scottish Labour leader, who has publicly supported Peggie, told the Daily Record on Thursday that the comments were 'horrific'. Asked by The National if he regretted publicly supporting Peggie now the remarks had come to light, Sarwar insisted that he supported the 'primacy of the Equality Act'. READ MORE: Revealed: The full text of SNP's independence strategy Peggie was suspended after she complained about having to share a changing room with transgender medic Dr Beth Upton at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, [[Fife]], on Christmas Eve 2023. Allegations were made during the tribunal regarding Peggie's comments relating to mosques, as well as racist jokes she had shared in a work group chat about flooding that killed thousands in Pakistan. Peggie denied the remarks in relation to mosques, but said the joke about the floods were sent in 'dark humour' to friends. Asked if he regretted supporting Peggie (below) following the revelations, Sarwar told The National: 'I think there should not be a conflation on saying that we support the protection of the Equality Act, the primacy of the Equality Act, and the protection of single sex spaces based on biological sex. (Image: Andrew Milligan/PA Wire) 'That is our position and remains our position. At the same time, we have to call out racism or any other form of prejudice, and that's exactly what we have done. 'We think the Scottish Government and NHS boards should be complying with the Equality Act. Should be urgently complying with the Equality Act whilst, and this is not inconsistent, whilst also calling out prejudice.' Pushed on if that meant he didn't regret publicly supporting Peggie, he said: 'I have zero regret in saying that we have to support the Equality Act, the primacy of the Equality Act and protecting single sex spaces based on biological sex. 'And I also continue to call out any form of racism or prejudice, as was demonstrated in those comments that have been attributed.' READ MORE: 43 SNP branches back challenge to John Swinney's independence strategy After Dr Upton made an allegation of bullying and harassment, citing concerns about 'patient care', Peggie was placed on special leave. She then lodged a claim against NHS Fife and Dr Upton, citing the Equality Act 2010, including sexual harassment; harassment related to a protected belief; indirect discrimination; and victimisation. The tribunal has become a flash point for gender-critical campaigners and anti-trans groups, particularly following the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman earlier this year. And now, For Women Scotland, who brought the case against the Scottish Government in relation to the definition of the Equality Act to the Supreme Court, have been granted permission to lodge a written intervention.
