Joyland Books

Dan Anderson of town regeneration consultants Tribal, stressed the need for whatever is created to be for the people of the Isle, more than tourists. "Financially, one resident is equal to 2,500 tourists"

Is that correct? Or is it a 'Bobism'?
Using that as a basis, for Margates population(60,000 approx) it means that this financially equates to 150 million tourists, right?
It also values tourism down at around only 4% of the economy. I thought it was around 20%.

I don't really know by what yardstick they use to accurately measure the value of tourism, all I know is that it expands way beyond just the 'hotel industry'.

I also cannot see how you can completely separate tourism from the attractiveness of a town. I imagine that many of Margates residents were not actually been born there and were attracted to live there at some point in the past (many of them during it's heyday I expect).

OK so it may be important to attract more 'money men' to live/work in Margate but they have got a hell of a lot of work to do around the seafront area.

The Council and the Developers should be doing more towards creating or maintaining SOME sort of tourist attractions. Many have disappeared recently (ie the Margate Caves). OK, it may not be their priority number one, but to turn your back completely on your tourist industry (which they appear to be doing) just appears to be very foolish to me.

Well in my experience consultants who are paid by developers often say what the developer needs them to say.

Who is in this case Tribal working for?

And what expertise has this consultant?

It seems a very generalized statement.
It is difficult to know exactly what is meant by it.

On second reading - I think that what he was really trying to say is that
for every person they build a house for on the site, is financially equivalent to 2,500 theme park customers.

Although it is not worded in these terms.

I had a long chat with Dan Anderson at the Consultation.

He was very professional, talented and undoubtedly a nice guy but very limited in his knowledge of what British people expect from an British Coastal Resort. He was convinced that Margate could feasibly operate as a commuter town for people working in London, noting the high-speed rail-link as an obvious “hook” to bring people in the area – a ridiculous concept.

He struggled to answer basic questions such as what people want from an average day out to the seaside and had no in-depth knowledge of neighbouring resorts such as Whitstable, Herne Bay, Broadstairs, Ramsgate etc. which was quite disturbing.

The only way to gauge what people want and to get a real feel for an area is to actually live here for a certain period of time and these wealthy, ignorant, narrow-minded people prefer reams of badly organised facts and figures as opposed to feeling what it’s like to be an actual resident.

Nobody with such little knowledge should have so much power over a town.

There shouldn't be any question of wether Dreamland is for the locals or tourists.

Margate is seaside, so it makes sense to attract tourists.
That said, there's no reason that Dreamland, restored with parklike greenspace and a couple large points of entry, one seaside, one townside, couldn't be just as atteactive to both sets of people. Plenty to do for a half day or evening for out of towners, and enough cafes and going's-on to be attractive as a lunch, snack, or dinner place for the locals.
Ditto the seafront (which needs a facelift something fierce).

This is not a difficult or unrealistic concept and I don't know why local government can't see that.

Incidently, how many homes are they planning on building?
DaveD you guessed it may be 10-15% of the site. (2 acres approx?)
How many do you think they can build on 2 acres and will so few homes really make such a massive difference to the economy?

Also they cannot really put MAJOR retail on the site without effecting the multitude of tiny businesses that make up so much of the local economy.
Even the Council recognize this!

In Margate, it is as if they want to scrap the existing attractions they currently have and start from scratch, instead of utilizing them and adding new ones.

Instead of shrinking Dreamland, all those shabby storefronts should be either rehabilitated, or bulldozed and that land made a part of Dreamland, which should incorporate some retail and plenty of eateries.

There's already too much housing and not enough work in Margate.
Building is only a temporary solution. Once built, what do the new inhabitants do, and where is the income then?

ricardobugsy wrote:Incidently, how many homes are they planning on building?
DaveD you guessed it may be 10-15% of the site. (2 acres approx?)
How many do you think they can build on 2 acres and will so few homes really make such a massive difference to the economy?

you would be suprized (or not) just how many homes you could fit in to a two acre site the fad of cramming as many small one or two no garden homes is at epidemic levels right now its how developers make thier money.

Completely agree Rowbot, you’re bang on.

I have absolutely no doubt that is what they have in mind, the main reason being is that they could generate a great deal of money from the upper levels with partial or full sea views. 2 acres would still generate huge returns.


Dave D

Point taken.
I just wasn't sure that they had emphasized the fact that it would all be high-rise apartments.

On second reading - I think that what he was really trying to say is that
for every person they build a house for on the site, is financially equivalent to 2,500 theme park customers

I think that means that instant profit for Waterbridge would come from the sale of the houses, rather than individual visitor spend, it's got nothing really to do with the long term economy of the site and the area.


Density is all very well - but parking will require space!

It is almost as if they are saying that tourists are not welcome, as they create a burden on the community - contributing very little to the economy and creating traffic congestion.

What about Margates high numbers asylum seekers and unemployed?
They contribute next to nothing to the local economy.
Maybe if more was invested in the tourism industry, they could create some jobs and opportunities for these people and help them on the ladder.

Well - that's what consultants paid for by a developer tend to do!

He who pays the piper etc...

ricardobugsy wrote:

Dan Anderson of town regeneration consultants Tribal, stressed the need for whatever is created to be for the people of the Isle, more than tourists. "Financially, one resident is equal to 2,500 tourists"

Is that correct? Or is it a 'Bobism'?
Using that as a basis, for Margates population(60,000 approx) it means that this financially equates to 150 million tourists, right?
It also values tourism down at around only 4% of the economy. I thought it was around 20%.

I don't really know by what yardstick they use to accurately measure the value of tourism, all I know is that it expands way beyond just the 'hotel industry'.

I also cannot see how you can completely separate tourism from the attractiveness of a town. I imagine that many of Margates residents were not actually been born there and were attracted to live there at some point in the past (many of them during it's heyday I expect).

OK so it may be important to attract more 'money men' to live/work in Margate but they have got a hell of a lot of work to do around the seafront area.

The Council and the Developers should be doing more towards creating or maintaining SOME sort of tourist attractions. Many have disappeared recently (ie the Margate Caves). OK, it may not be their priority number one, but to turn your back completely on your tourist industry (which they appear to be doing) just appears to be very foolish to me.

That is the generally accepted figure used for planing purposes for UK seaside resorts. The benefit to an area of an increase inlocal residents has a much higher benefit to an area then day trippers & holidaymakers.
The potential of Margate to become a commuter town has great potential. It would dramatically improve Margate. One has only to look at a resort such as Brighton to see just how great that potential is. Margate is not that much further away from London and is well within what is regarded as commuting distance. The arrival of the High Speed line will be just the catalyst that is needed. A lot of what is needed to smarten Margate town centr up is cosmetic rather then major. Arlington tower is perhaps the biggest problem. The only real soloution is demolition

Bob wrote:That is the generally accepted figure used for planing purposes for UK seaside resorts.

Bob, can you provide me with a reference for that generally accepted figure please?