Barry Island Face Closure

Joyland Books is the home of themagiceye, the world's best loved amusement park history website. Discuss amusement parks past and present in themagiceye's very own forum.

Moderator: dave771

Barry Island Face Closure

Postby Bob » 22 May 2007, 11:18

Barry Island Amusement Park is the latest to run into financial difficulties and is faccing closure

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6679749.stm
Bob
 
Posts: 509
Joined: 30 Nov 2003, 21:21

Postby EAS » 22 May 2007, 11:41

Or possibly not?

Maybe it just needs a revamp.


http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread. ... 0522124028


Bob - why do you bother with this campaign of total negativity?
User avatar
EAS
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 09:09
Location: North

Postby porterm » 22 May 2007, 23:42

I do hope that Barry's Pleasure Park survives, especially as we're all supposed to be reverting to holidaying back in the UK from now on. (If you believe the media stating how we're all suddenly now much more concerned about our personal "carbon footprints" and the average family's dwindling disposable income). Maybe they should not have demolished the old Butlin's holiday centre opposite the park.

I wondered if anypne else had noticed the somewhat irony of this park's supposed downfall though; the fact that its parent discount store chain had got into trading difficulties, therefore affecting the amusement park's wellbeing. I remember how retail was banded about as this century's apparent miracle moneyspinner with regards to Dreamland's redevelopment. I just thought it somewhat amusing (without being disrespectful) that in Barry's instance it appears to be the fly in the ointment so to speak.

Barry's Pleasure Park surely needs some heavy financial investment to really give it a fighting chance of survival I suppose in today's harsher climate, however being a seaside park I reckon it could still tick over if it caters to the correct audience. Maybe that should be the younger patrons.

Martin

PS I remember holidaying in the Butlin's centre around Summer 1973 as a child with my family. I never forget my sister and I attempting to enter the haunted (crazy cottage type building I think). I remember reading a sign outside pledging no refunds for guests who could not complete the experience. I felt a real wimp but we both didn't fancy going in much further than the entrance; I think it also had some loud eerie noises too!

PPS The old Scenic Railway was still standing, but not operational, I recall, standing majestically, with its blue "mountain" surfaces glistening in the light right across the back perimeter of the park. I remember thinking how the place seemed to slightly resemble the former Battersea Funfair, but on a slightly smaller scale. Sadly that park's Big Dipper scenic railway had just had its fatal crash about a year before.
porterm
 
Posts: 732
Joined: 10 Feb 2003, 03:13
Location: Maidstone, Kent

Postby bluea61 » 23 May 2007, 10:20

I agree, it does seem ironic that the lack of trade in shops is causing the lak of investment in the Amusement Park.

Perhaps the parcels of land being leased out will hopefully bring some good new rides to Barry Island. I hope so as I'm visiting soon.

See people do holiday in th UK!!
Steve
bluea61
 
Posts: 52
Joined: 12 Nov 2006, 15:39

Postby furie » 23 May 2007, 11:13

I think Barry, along with Porth Cawl, Rhyl and others have just spent too long sitting on their backsides complaining about lack of trade, but never doing anything.

This is at a council level, rather than the parks. When you visit these places and see a run down, poorly equipped amusement park, you don't think well of either the park or the town. You end up in a case of ever decreasing circles.

The councils have to support the parks, and to help them survive. In Rhyl it was to stop the junkies from moving into the area around the park, and to concentrate there, rather than on a several million pound monorail which has never run (well, it ran... out of money and is now a monument to !*@% poor planning).

I've never been to Barry, so can't really comment, but surely the tourist officials are the people who should be getting the people there. Is it a case of "if we build an Asda, people will come"? Because that's not how the successful resorts have re-marketted themselves (Skegness, Southend, Brighton).

Blackpool is seeing holiday visitors drop massively. Why? Well, they re-branded as a destination for clubbers and hen/stag parties. Now they wonder why families no longer wish to visit the vomit strewn streets.

People want to go to the seaside, but they expect a certain level of standards. They want rides which look in good condition. They want tidy seafronts with curious little things to attract them Punch and Judy is still massively popular with kids, why replace them with a concrete and steel statue depicting the struggle of the sea against the land (or some other BS)? Regeneration is good, but not at the expense of the things that brought people there. It needs to be clean, tidy and friendly, but interesting too.

Some councils seem to understand this and embrace and encourage their past, others are just sadly misguided.
Furie and the lop-eared lagomorphs of Lucifer
Image
Failed to Save the Cyclone :(
furie
 
Posts: 174
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 14:03

Postby Bob » 24 May 2007, 05:43

furie wrote:I think Barry, along with Porth Cawl, Rhyl and others have just spent too long sitting on their backsides complaining about lack of trade, but never doing anything.

This is at a council level, rather than the parks. When you visit these places and see a run down, poorly equipped amusement park, you don't think well of either the park or the town. You end up in a case of ever decreasing circles.

The councils have to support the parks, and to help them survive. In Rhyl it was to stop the junkies from moving into the area around the park, and to concentrate there, rather than on a several million pound monorail which has never run (well, it ran... out of money and is now a monument to !*@% poor planning).

I've never been to Barry, so can't really comment, but surely the tourist officials are the people who should be getting the people there. Is it a case of "if we build an Asda, people will come"? Because that's not how the successful resorts have re-marketted themselves (Skegness, Southend, Brighton).

Blackpool is seeing holiday visitors drop massively. Why? Well, they re-branded as a destination for clubbers and hen/stag parties. Now they wonder why families no longer wish to visit the vomit strewn streets.

People want to go to the seaside, but they expect a certain level of standards. They want rides which look in good condition. They want tidy seafronts with curious little things to attract them Punch and Judy is still massively popular with kids, why replace them with a concrete and steel statue depicting the struggle of the sea against the land (or some other BS)? Regeneration is good, but not at the expense of the things that brought people there. It needs to be clean, tidy and friendly, but interesting too.

Some councils seem to understand this and embrace and encourage their past, others are just sadly misguided.


Unfortunately Councils waste money rather than spend it sensibly. Whilst they claim they have no money they have money to spend on white elephant schemes such as the 3 claimed iconic gateway symbols. A bargain at £18 Million for the three. Well that the claimed cost. Allowing for the usual cost overruns that likely to become about £40 Million.
Whilst I do not expect money to be directly invested in businesses that sort of money could dramatically improve the general appearance of these rundown resorts.

One thing that has never been tried is a centre Parks type facility at a coastal resort coupled with traditional seaside facilities
Bob
 
Posts: 509
Joined: 30 Nov 2003, 21:21

Postby EAS » 24 May 2007, 06:52

'Unfortunately Councils waste money rather than spend it sensibly.'

Well if my council was wasting my money I think I'd be reporting it to the Audit Commission, discussing it with my MP, and making a major fuss in the local press. Mostly my local authority spends its cash on the services which it has to provide by law.

Please expand on the three iconic gateway symbols and why you think the 'usual overruns' will more than double the costs? I assume you have raised this issue with the council concerned?

No, a council cannot invest in a business. It also has a restricted range of what it is lawfully allowed to spend its (our) money on. Many schemes which have got cash spent on them come from pots of money which are external and cannot be spent on other things, such as arts funding. The cash for a sculpture might come from an arts council grant, it can't be used to fix the holes in the road.
User avatar
EAS
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 09:09
Location: North

Postby bluea61 » 24 May 2007, 07:12

I don't wish to agree with Bob but he does have a fair point about councils wasting money. Take for instance the Spinnaker Tower in Portsmouth:

"The project was massively over budget, with an overall cost of £35.6 million for the tower alone. Taxpayers were not meant to fund the tower, but Portsmouth City Council eventually contributed £11.1 million towards the construction." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinnaker_Tower

Despite the waste of taxpayers money it is an excellent icon for Portsmouth and is worth visiting in my opinion. [/url]
Steve
bluea61
 
Posts: 52
Joined: 12 Nov 2006, 15:39

Postby EAS » 24 May 2007, 08:30

Funding is a complex issue. Was this a 'waste' of taxpayers money? Where did the extra money eventully come from? Directly from taxation? Was an extra tax levied on the residents of Portsmouth? And as the tower is now built and you think it an excellent icon for Portsmouth and worth visiting then the cash surely cannot have been wasted?

Yes, thing can go over budget - I assume that the original idea wasn't that it should. I presume that once the thing had been started it would have been an even larger waste to abandon it.

One person's waste of money isn't always that to someone else.
User avatar
EAS
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 09:09
Location: North

Postby bluea61 » 24 May 2007, 13:34

I guess your right really it is a bit contradictory what I said, and hell I felt weird siding with Bob.

On one hand it could be seen as a waste of money as it could have been spent on other things, but on the other hand as I said it is a real icon for Portsmouth.

I think the point I was trying to make is the papers portrayed the Council as naive when agreeing the contract. Something along the lines of there was a loophole in the contract forcing the public money to be spent.

I'll stop digging now!
Steve
bluea61
 
Posts: 52
Joined: 12 Nov 2006, 15:39

Postby EAS » 24 May 2007, 13:42

Well, here's Marcus's Times article from 12005 - looks as though it is proving a success and drawing people in to the town:

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/l ... 555272.ece

Properly marketed, I'm sure the Scenic could be Margate's great draw... more fun to me that a view from a tower!
User avatar
EAS
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 09:09
Location: North

Postby Bob » 24 May 2007, 18:02

EAS wrote:Well, here's Marcus's Times article from 12005 - looks as though it is proving a success and drawing people in to the town:

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/l ... 555272.ece

Properly marketed, I'm sure the Scenic could be Margate's great draw... more fun to me that a view from a tower!


A somewhat imaginative interpretation of that bit of PR hype. There are no facts at all in your interpretation of that article to conclude it is attracting people to the town.
Bob
 
Posts: 509
Joined: 30 Nov 2003, 21:21

Postby EAS » 24 May 2007, 19:04

Are you suggesting that The Times Architecture Correspondent was wrong then? As he is free to comment on anything he wished I can't see that it can be described as 'PR hype' really.

Do point out the flaws in his article, he'll be very interested... and amused.

Actually Bob I was referring in the 'drawing people to the town' not to that 2005 article but to another post suggesting it is an icon.

Have you the facts and figures then to say the Tower isn't a draw? Something I can check with the local authority?

http://www.icons.org.uk/nom/nominations ... er=reverse

http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/nighth ... tower.html

http://www.scottwilson.com/Default.aspx?page=9865

http://www.halcrow.com/html/news/07_apr_spinnaker.htm

http://www.rics.org/AboutRICS/Awards/RI ... 062006.htm



Spinnaker Tower First Anniversary
16 October 2006

Scott Wilson, Design Engineers of Spinnaker Tower, Help Celebrate First Anniversary

Portsmouth’s iconic Spinnaker Tower is celebrating its first birthday on Wednesday 18th October 2006. Scott Wilson’s John Tubman – principle design engineer of Spinnaker, has been invited to the anniversary event to help celebrate.

“I am delighted to be invited to the anniversary party for the Spinnaker. The tower proved to be a unique and interesting project and an exciting challenge for us,” says John Tubman, Project Director for leading consultancy group Scott Wilson, who were the structural designer and lead consultant. “A number of issues had to be considered. The 170m tower stands on a relatively small site beside Gunwarf Quays with limited location access which made construction complicated and very much dictated the structural design. Also factors such as wind and weather fatigue on the structure, possible movement caused by the weather (which can really affect visitor perception) and the potential impacts from shipping all had to be taken in to consideration. We are very proud it has been so popular with visitors.”

The tower, which provides visitors with spectacular views across Portsmouth Harbour, The Solent and Isle of Wight has seen almost 600,000 visitors during its first year and is proving to be a popular local attraction as well as a landmark for the surrounding area.

Inspiration for the tower came from the shape of a ship’s sail (which gives the tower its name) and is a landmark to shipping arriving in the port. As the tallest publicly accessible structure in the UK the tower uses an A-frame structure of reinforced concrete and two large curved steel box girders which start at ground level and rise to intersect as they pass between the legs giving the spinnaker shape.



What a little ray of sunshine Bob is isn't he? Bet he's a wow down the pub.

What do you get out of trolling Bob?
User avatar
EAS
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 09:09
Location: North


Return to themagiceye: Amusement Parks Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

cron