Park queries?

[1234567890]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/55813958@N02/5485665004/


Does any one know what is happening to this building on the dreamland site?

this building would make a great cafe /ice cream shop.

looks art deco.

[Nick]

The old buffet building is likely to be excluded from the project as it sits on the enabling land. Shame, because it is a nice building.

[vann98]

Such a pity. Loved the look of the building, well before it became slightly vandalised and derelict. Would have loved to see it back up and running looking new. Is'nt it a listed building as it was built before 1940?

Speaking of listed structures how do the old sanger's managerie cages fit into the new dreamland?

[Nick]

In my view, listed building consent will be needed to demolish the buffet building, but a view could be taken that it wasn't part of the curtilage of the Scenic Railway.

The cages do form part of the plans. We are currently looking at them forming part of an attractive 'garden' area on the higher ground.

[vann98]

I suppose it has not been confirmed if the old buffet building will definitely be demolished?
In my opinion I would have it stay, but I suppose if it is not on the project land then there is no point in keeping it hanging around abandoned.

One other thing which has been concerning me for a long time now is park security.
When Dreamland reopens it will obviously not be open to the public at night and off seasons. Will the park follow an 'Adventure Island' fencing style approach or will some sort of "tree barrier" be put up to avoid guests sneaking into the park at night etc?
It just seems like quite a big factor to think about as I seriously can't imagine the park being enclosed in those metal security fences which are up at the moment which prevent people accessing the park or the scenic.

[Nick]

The park willneed to be secured at night, but we are looking at ways of doing this sensitively so we don't destroy the experience. Adventure Island is a good example of a park that has secured itself without looking like an industrial estate.

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

Dogs. Killer dogs.

Oh, and patrolling robots with laser guns.
Can't forget robots.

[vince69619]

Is this any use? It's sitting in the corner of my lounge...



Vince.

[porterm]

I think it would be great to re-establish the former buffet building (I believe it had a unique decorative over-lit ceiling). Hopefully the tide could turn our way to capture more land for the relaunched Dreamland project. Just waiting for that lotto win to live the dream people!

I find it quite disturbing, however, with the sight of all that building work to the rear of the former park boundary where I think the River Caves once proudly sat. If that's residential property I for one would not want to back onto an amusement park, no matter how enthused I was about these facilities.

Martin

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

I can't believe they want people to move here when their already aren't enough jobs.

Be funny to see all these properties built and end up sitting empty because nobody wants to buy them.

[vann98]

It is a stupid place for residential houses.
Its is a terrible idea to build houses next to a amusement park, even if there are no white knuckle coasters. Many a park have suffered from complaints about the noise level coming from the park. Besides having houses so close may make it look a bit...peculiar? Houses are not the best backdrop for a park.

[Nick]

But houses re the current backdrop for Dreamland. All the way down its eastern boundary.

[Vince, Charlie and Sam]

Personally, I would support a 50/50 split so they can get on with what they want to do and we can get on with what we want to do.

If TDC and MTCRC can't agree to this, then it is going to drag on forever.

[Peet]

It's no problem at Blackpool. And the residents won't be able to reasonably complain if they move into a new house build next to a 100 year old amusement park.

[porterm]

I think what I was really referring to was the new residential property's very close proximity to the former park rear boundary, aside from any new, or yet to be developed residential properties on the site. I agree that Blackpool has no real problem as its residential properties are away from the actual park boundary, and that park has resided there for a very long time.

I am just pre-empting future residential noise concerns from any potential new on-site property owner/tenants. I tend to agree with van98 that amusements and residential do not mix well. I'm not trying to stir up any trouble, but I do have some serious reservations on this topic as I'd hate to see this issue raising its ugly head once Dreamland is in full swing again.

I cannot actually think of any amusement/theme park where residential property co-habitates so closely as seems to be envisaged for the new Dreamland. I think there was a park, Bakken, in Denmark whose manager or Scenic Railway operator used to live behind/within the actual ride structure. That would surely be an exception though I feel.

Martin

PS I believe Jim Douglas Jr's comment below was quite apt really.