All this rubbish about the studios being analogue and the site not fit for purpose/white elephant is nonsense.
As I've said before, the studios were perfectly fine, (although probably a few too many for what the BBC need now) the problem was the rest of the building. A lot of it was outdated and not fit for purpose because the purpose for which it was built has gone. There were large parts of it empty for years because departments found other more modern buildings and office space better for them - people were always complaining about those doughnut offices!
The age of the large TV factory is no more, not only is the industry more fragmented these days but you just don't need big as many big technical areas any more. The
VT area mentioned earlier is a great example - a whole stage of
TVC was built for it and it's obsolete. Servers in data centres and desktop editing is how it's done now. Apart from CCA, which was long overdue a refit, the central wedge had been empty for 12 years, because it just wasn't flexible enough.
If the BBC had retained it they would have had to have made big changes to the building, possibly selling parts of the site. One disadvantage TVC had was that unlike some other studios where the site was split and part sold off, the studios weren't in a separate part of the site
If they'd have accommodated what ended up at Broadcasting House they'd have had to have built something new there.
It could be argued that the BBC were quite forward thinking. The next big thing is, apparently, virtualisation - putting all the technology in a data centre and operating it remotely from anywhere. The performers can be in TC1, the director in Scotland, sound mixer at home in Kent and the programme recorded onto a server in Birmingham.
(sorry I added that last paragraph as an edit but it seems to have posted the whole thing again)
Last edited by Inspector Sands on 7 March 2016 9:15am