TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 9 °C Sunday 19 May, 2013

Lighthouse Cinema to close with the loss of 20 jobs

Co-founder says they knew the rent on the cinema would be doubled, but that the failure to develop the Smithfield area made business impossible.

Seats to remain empty at the Lighthouse cinema in Smithfield
Seats to remain empty at the Lighthouse cinema in Smithfield

THE LIGHTHOUSE CINEMA in Smithfield, Dublin has failed in its attempts to remain open.

The High Court has heard today that the lease on the building proved unrealistic after a doubling of its annual rent.

However, Lighthouse co-founder Maretta Dillon told TheJournal.ie today that the company knew the rent would be increasing from €100,000 to €200,000 after signing a lease to that effect in 2007. The Irish Times reports that the landlord, John Flynn, claims he had to raise the rent in order to pay NAMA.

Dillon says those behind the Lighthouse envisaged a different future for the locale:

We signed at a time when the landlord promised that the cinema would the based in a very specific type of environment. But Smithfield Square was never developed and the scope of the area was never realised.

Dillon says that she is very disappointed that efforts to reach a settlement with the landlord, John Flynn, have been unsuccessful, and that she is amazed that “neither the landlord nor, according to the landlord, NAMA were prepared to accept our circumstances in the current climate”. The company which runs the Lighthouse has now been liquidated.

Twenty jobs will be lost with the cinema’s closure, and Dillon has commended their work and called them a “great resource”. She has also praised the public’s efforts to keep the Lighthouse open, saying that the support was almost “the best thing about it some respects”. Facebook groups appeared calling for the facility to be saved, while local TD Joe Costello said that the closing of the cinema would turn the Smithfield area into “a ghost town“.

Local resident and Lighthouse customer and campaigner Sarah Cahill told TheJournal.ie:

Smithfield is now a ghost town thanks to crippling rents. Local people adore the Lighthouse. It is the only project under the Heritage Area Rejuvenation Project that materialised and is a massive loss to the community. It must re-open.

Read next:

Comments (35 Comments)

  • Very annoying to witness the Lighthouse disappearing yet again! We should be preserving our culture in these difficult times.

    Reply
  • It was actually cheaper for a student ticket in the Lighthouse than in Cineworld. Pity that wasn’t better advertised. Also, what’s the point in raising the rent to pay NAMA if nobody else will now lease the premises? There are a lot of vacant buildings in that area. It’s a shame this will undoubtedly be another one.

    Reply
  • Disgraceful. The reason the rent has doubled is because NAMA values a property by it’s rental value over a year. The higher the rent – the higher the valuation by NAMA and therefore the higher the right off for the owners. It’s happening all over the country. Pure Greed.

    Reply
  • This is a crying shame and a huge loss. R.I.P.

    Reply
  • If we only make space in the city for businesses that can turn a large profit we would have no public amenities. There is a value to something like The Lighthouse Cinema that goes beyond a money making venture. It provides a civic / cultural space for people to meet, interact in their local area, and to show films that might not be able to get a bigger release. It helps to knit community together and has social value beyond it’s monetary value.
    It’s such a shame to see one of the few public meeting places in Smithfield that did come to fruition to close down. I mean if they put in a Spar that makes a profit that’s hardly a win for the area, although it could qualify as a non-failed business. But do we want to see a Spar / TK Max or car park in every cinema, theatre, book store in the city that can’t make a big profit? I don’t want to live in that city.

    Reply
  • Bob Go 15/04/11 #

    Such a shame. Smithfield had such high potential.

    Reply
  • There’s something particularly obnoxious about the comments here along the lines of “it was a business, it failed.” The logic behind that line of thinking essentially amounts to saying that there is no social good beyond the market. So what value are we to put on parks, or green belts, or listed buildings, or city council bike schemes, or municipal art galleries, or any of the other things which make life in a city more pleasant but which cost rather than make money?

    There’s nobody unaware of the fact that the Lighthouse was a commercial entity and that it failed. What exactly does repeating something so trite add to a discussion? People who enjoy independent cinema have lost a major resource, why would their knowledge of market forces in any way effect their loss or their opinion? I don’t care for a second if the owners of my favourite cafe or restaurant or theatre get rich or not, I only have an opinion on such facilities as social resources. If a restaurant I like shuts down, I don’t decide that my opinion of the place was wrong because the ultimate arbiter of value, the market, has spoken.

    Reply
  • As is, times must be tough for the Cineworld’s and Omniplexes of this world given that people can now have projectors/HD TV etc in their own homes. Cinema going is expensive and there’s more of a tendency to stay home in the current climate.

    An art house cinema is never going to have queues out the door in general. Given the downturn, of course it’ll impact that type of business more.

    They should have advertised more and some mainstream stuff as well, get the bums on seats for the odd crappy blockbuster and use that to subsidise the more arty stuff.

    Reply
  • Ben- Thats very unfair to say it was elitist,
    I live nearby and we’ve been to many movies there (cheaper than the rip off superchains) exhibitions adn talks, there is always a lovely atmosphere there and around, the buzz in the cafe and the staff are really really nice (not snatching tickets and grunting at you like in the big ones)
    It is a gorgeous space and goes to show once again that GREEDY property developers that write in a price increase into a lease in 2007 knew the crash was coming and were prepared to do anything to cover their own asses and not care about anyone they affected.
    Disgusted!

    Reply
    • Who (knowingly) signs a lease in 2007 with the condition of increase of 100% rates? It’s a business. It amounts to poor business sense.
      They must have thought they could turn a large enough wedge to cover it. They didn’t. Simple maths.

      Reply
    • I grew up in Stoneybatter. I don’t think the Lighthouse was elitist per se, but they never did enough to advertise or popularise the place. For example, they never put their listings in the Evening Herald, probably the most popular paper among the local population. Why not?

      Also, their signage was a joke – it’s hard to find even when you know it’s there.

      They never flyered the local area or did any kind of outreach to local residents.

      Also, their programming was very hit-and-miss. Would it have killed them to show classic films regularly, or run themed series like the IFI’s horrorthon?

      I guess the answer is yes. That said, I will miss it sorely and still think the rent increase was outrageous. The LIghthouse was one of the few positive cultural developments to happen in the area in the past 40 years.

      Reply
  • Ben – it didn’t fail, it was forced to wind up. And it is an arthouse cinema by condition of the planning permission.

    Reply
    • Wound down due to the fact that money coming in didn’t match money going out.
      Yes and in my opinion such a development would be classed as elitist.

      It’s a business not a charitable organisation so it’s purpose is to turn a profit, it didn’t.

      Sad for the job loses but don’t understand half the ongoing commentary about its demise when in reality people went only now and then.

      Reply
    • No, wound down due to the fact that its landlord was seeking an untenable level of rent in the context of the failed development that is Smithfield.

      And there is nothing “elitist” about promoting and encouraging independent cinema, and Irish cinema in particular, which is what the Lighthouse sought to do. There are twenty-three screens showing mainstream releases in Dublin city centre – isn’t that enough?

      Reply
    • The report says that when they signed the contract in 07 they knew the rent was going to double. So they though they would have the turnover to manage this rent, turns out they don’t hence why its a failed business.

      Surely you can’t blame the landlord here, they sign the contracts knowing exactly what the rent would be it seems.

      Reply
    • They couldn’t pay the AGREED rates that they entered a contract into.

      All mainstream cinemas struggle with numbers. From charging too much or living in a generation where people rely on the internet to view films.
      It catered for a very small clientelle. The IFI seems to be doing well over the years and it had a similar target Market.

      Reply
    • When I moved to the area in 2007, there were planning applications on the doors of every unit on the south end of the Fusano-developed side of Smithfield. Only one of those – a bookies’ – materialised; the rest remain empty.

      Given that, failing State intervention, the Lighthouse building is now likely to remain dormant for some time, a complete unwillingness to negotiate on rents seems like an extremely foolish move.

      Reply
    • Yeah that’s right Ben – the arts – it’s all about them elitists, all you and me have to cling onto are guns and religion. Freedom fries!!!!

      Reply
  • It’s worth also noting the philistine resentment of anything involving art from some of the comments here.

    Reply
    • Personally I have a fondness for various art forms,its artists and other spoofers that I object to subsidising in any shape or form.Are yu seriously suggesting that the general public give you the money to go to the pictures?

      Reply
    • Presumably, Jude, you are also in favour of closing down state and municipal art galleries, all museums and any theatres that receive subsidies. But really, why stop there with your boorishness? Why should the state pay for you to go to the park? What a waste of money. In fact, why should the state subsidise anything, when, at least in the rather naive opinion of some of the dullards on this thread, the market will decide what’s of value and what isn’t?

      Of course, then you really will get “elitism” as we return to an age when all art was the preserve of the wealthy, all artists merely servants of a rich patron. And by applying the same logic you won’t have any public spaces or parks or any facilities at all which don’t make money. I’m sure that there are a few people so completely without broader interests that a city consisting entirely of retail outlets wouldn’t bother them. I suspect that they are in the minority though.

      Reply
    • What a presumptuous person you are. The parks and libraries are open to one and all . Your “art” cinema was not. I don’t recall any uproar when the Phoenix on the upper quays closed. Like I said it is “artists” and other spoofers that I object to subsidising.

      Reply
    • I’m not remotely presumptious, Jude, just tired of dealing with fools who present the workings of market forces as some higher good which can alone determine the importance or utility of social facilities. And equally tired of dealing with proud philistines who seem to regard subsidies for art or facilities for the enjoyment of art as some kind of outrage.

      Your objection to what you sneeringly describe as the state paying for people to go to the pictures is no different in principle from an objection to the state paying for people to go to parks. Or museums. Or theatres. Or libraries. The state in all of these cases, and many more, subsidises certain facilities which market forces would otherwise obliterate.

      The state subsidised a cinema devoted to showing independent films and in so doing made them available to the general public at a reasonable cost. Don’t pretend for a moment that you would be fine with that if the state raised its subsidy so much that admittance would be free. You would be here squealing all the louder about the waste of money.

      Reply
    • “subsidies for art or facilities for the enjoyment of art as some kind of outrage.”

      Did I mention spoofers?

      Reply
  • Ben, clearly a populist, thinks we should all have to watch what’s on at the multiplexes and to hell with subsidising the arts. In pure economic terms 20 unemployed and lost trade to the few remaining businesses in Smithfield would exceed the sum reequired to keep it open. It’s winding up means another reason for going to Smithfield is gone. Oh well, there’s always the horse fair!

    Reply
    • I am a realist.

      If people USED the cinema as much as they liked the idea of having it there they would have made enough money to cover the contract they WILLINGLY went into. Fact.

      As a business it failed. Fact! Put the blame on Smithfield, landlord, Celtic tiger, recession, not enough advertising hell blame Fianna Fáil if you want, it doesn’t take away from the fact that as a business venture it failed.
      You want me to say its a sad day? Want me to say RIP?

      It’s a cinema that signed an agreement it couldn’t honour so had to close.

      Reply
    • Wow Ben, it wasn’t until you started using caps that it all made sense. You are so very right in all this.

      Reply
  • The cinema should have been more focused on getting bums on seats. It was a business after all, albeit a rather elitist one.

    Don’t understand the online outrage. It is a cinema. It failed.

    Reply
  • Ben is right .As for subsidising art why should we? So some twat can live a lazy existence daubing canvas or otherwise indulging themselves?

    Reply

Add New Comment