« Previous | Main | Next »

A peek inside 5 live's new HQ

Post categories:

Nigel Smith Nigel Smith | 14:35 UK time, Tuesday, 21 December 2010

Tram to Media City

You may have seen the news last week that we are going to have some new neighbours when 5 live moves to MediaCityUK in Salford next year, so depending on which window they look out from 5 live staff will have a view of either Old Trafford or the set of Coronation Street.

The exterior work on the BBC's buildings in Salford is complete and now they are being prepared for teams to move in and start work. The first 5 live teams will start broadcasting from Salford next September and it's hoped that the whole station will have moved there by the end of November 2011.

At the moment 5 live is spread over four floors in Television Centre. In Salford the station will be housed together on one floor for the first time. Here are some photos of how our new studios and offices are taking shape.

Quay House

Quay House - 5 live's new home is on the first floor

Inside Quay House

Inside Quay House

5 live studio, Salford

One of 5 live's new studios

Exterior of studios

Outside the studios. This space will eventually be full of desks!

As work continues and the move gets closer we'll post more photos and information on the 5 live blog.

Related Links
BBC North - more details and how to apply for jobs
MediaCItyUK - 5 live's new home in Salford

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    Yeah, some Media City - £1,000,000,000 of our money buys you a tenement in the middle of nowhere - to appease New Labour, occupied by a soap and the runt of the BBC. A bargain!

  • Comment number 2.

    @Welcome2theMachine - it's disappointing that you think 5 live and our world-renowned Childrens and Sport departments represent the "runt" of the BBC. You can find out more about all the departments moving to Salford on the BBC North website.

    Regarding the financials, BBC North remains on time and within budget. The cost of the move to MediaCityUK is approx £200m. This figure includes the cost of the transition project, relocation and redundancy packages for staff, fit out of the buildings and the installation of new digital technology. The National Audit Office Report on the BBC’s Estates Projects (February 2010) published a total cost of the project as £877m – the 20-year running costs of the five departments moving to Salford Quays, including lease costs, ongoing operational and technology costs. This still represents better value for money than keeping the departments in London/relocating elsewhere as the BBC’s costs at MediaCityUK recognise significant savings from sharing studios, phasing out London Weighting, occupying energy-efficient buildings and selling existing properties.

  • Comment number 3.

    It is true to say that most of the public are not happy with this expenditure and I have yet to read how some programmes will be able to compete with rivals when the production and presenters are marooned in Salford - granted that is a tv question but nevertheless if you can do remote radio interviews from Millbank and various satellite studios around the country, why so much money was spent on this needless piece of whatever is beyond me and many thousands of others, some of whom face terrible cuts in their living standards whilst some of your colleagues will be getting ridiculous payouts for redundancy and cost of living expenses whilst their own families stay down in London. This point of view will run and run.

    Whilst I have been swanning round Australia I can tell you I have heard so many wonderful programmes on local ABC networks that coming back to hearing, for example, Gabby Logan haranguing the Transport Minister yesterday in a very disrespectful and unprofessional way made me wish that the BBC would listen to the points of view of your consumers instead of telling us what you have decided is best for us. This goes for our view on the Salford move just as much as viewpoints on some of your presenters.

  • Comment number 4.

    £877million you say for Salford. Chuck-in "unforseen factors" , inflation, dithering and changes of use for the building, delays, new depts. (breakfast) moving or architects (as in Glasgow) etc. and it won't be far short of the billion I mentioned.

    Then there's another billion plus for Broadcasting House in London (a building the BBC already owned), hundreds of millions on Cardiff and Glasgow and as Carrie mentioned - the living expenses, rents etc. that will be paid for reluctant staff to semi relocate.

    At a time of almost unprecedented cut-backs and austerity is this the best use of public money?

    And when you tweeted "just off to hear more BBC propaganda about Salford" were you being ironic like VD when she shouted "No" on hearing of Salford or have you had your views altered?

  • Comment number 5.

    @Welcome2theMachine - I did not Tweet "Just off to hear more BBC propaganda about Salford". The tweet your refer to said, "About to watch the BBC North propaganda DVD". To repeat my reply when asked about this before, "my tongue was firmly in my cheek". I'm sure you've watched corporate videos before and many have an air of gilding the lily about them. I should also add that I was watching the DVD at home, in my own time, rather than at an organised BBC staff session.


  • Comment number 6.

    Nigel; this seems to have hit a raw nerve. 3 blogs ... two replies?

  • Comment number 7.

    I apologise for misquoting (you) but - the song remains the same - yes I've watched many corporate 'shows', many @ the BBC (with michael Jackson(then at 2), Lush, Lambert, Root etc.) but never believed them; it's just that now, you can't say or tweet (especially @ the BBC) what one what really thinks - and that's a problem

  • Comment number 8.

    Nigel, it does seem you've become the chief apologist for the BBC in recent days -- and on the 'night before Christmas' this post is sneaked out when you promised this post weeks ago. Hmm.

    The fact this ridiculous waste of money seems completely lost on you -- moving to Salford, a move masterminded by Ms Blears (MP for Salford and Eccles) was a political decision first and foremost.

    Let's not forget not one more minute of programming will be produced -- and in fact many millions of could-have-been-programming-funds are being squandered with this move.

    Oh, and how can we forget the £1900 a month on living expenses that may be lavished on every BBC employee that choses to move north?

    Or the fact that Sport is moving and the very next year London has the Olympics.

    Or the fact that the station has lost some great talent because they dont want to move north.

    Or the fact that the Controller believes in the process so much he's not evening moving to Machester.

    I suppose that it is on budget (despite the fact that it is a massive waste of our money) is newsworthy as the BBC does not have a good history with building renovations coming in on budget.

    You did omit to say it isn't on schedule though... and one does wonder if it will also not end up on budget.

    This collossal waste and will not improve the output.

  • Comment number 9.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 10.

    All very interesting indeed.

    However I would like to object to the advertising of personal websites and blogs on a BBC website when it is impossible for those with no BBC connections to sign in on a BBC page with a name linked to a website.

    If that sounds incomprehensible, could I explain that a relative of mine writes an incredibly funny sports blog which is followed by several hundred people and gets hundreds of hits a week from all over the world, yet in trying to establish an identity in order to join in and write on one of the 606 sites, the person is blocked because of the blog connection being recognised and then turned down.

    One rule..........



  • Comment number 11.

    Carrie - below each comment, there is a link which you can click on if you think the rules have been broken. The blog moderators then decide whether to uphold your complaint. The 5 live Interactive team doesn't have any influence over this process, because the moderators operate independently from us. It's one rule, or one set of rules, for everyone.

  • Comment number 12.

    But I see nothing to complain about in the above posting to warrant me clicking on it to draw the mods attention. I don't see anything to worry about even in the efforts to use the main name of a blog as the sign in for a 606 identity. As you say, it is up to someone who doesn't like it to complain, yet the mechanics of creating a 606 identity obviously have a search engine of some kind that throws up the blog address with its www. address. So if it isn't used on here, why is it used on 606 when someone tries to register?

    Not being mithering Hasit, just curious, and I appreciate your post.

  • Comment number 13.

    Carrie - let me get this straight, so I can try and get an answer for you. Is your relative trying to use their website address as their user ID? And if so, has this name been rejected, specifically for that reason?

    I just had a look at the 606 site's House Rules, and one of them states: 'contributor names will be failed if they contain website or email addresses.' So, even if it's funny and popular private blog that does no harm in the eyes of its readers, it's against 606's rules to use the name as an ID.

  • Comment number 14.

    It is just the name that appears after www. and before .com. It was not accepted. It is a harmless and totally fun blog about cricket but the name was turned down. Thanks Hasit.

 

More from this blog...

Categories

These are some of the popular topics this blog covers.

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.