-
-
Latest Discussions
-
Of course the minimum 'lost time' for normal Rye users is actually the fat end of 3 weeks, once set up and strike is taken into account, and before any necessary recovery time is additionally added in. And that's normally during the summer period (this June is exceptional) when you might be expecting to take most benefit of a park. What I think is also objected to is the opacity of the whole arrangement - is this actually, once fully costed, in fact profitable for Southwark? If so where are these profits distributed (and if not where are the costs taken)? Are the Organisers charged for 3 days use or 3 weeks (or however long it takes)? Claiming 'commercial confidentiality' is not really acceptable when one party is a public body with public responsibilities for proper management. At the least the profit and loss issue of operating as an event landlord should be disclosed, even when the actual charges were kept confidential. If the council cannot be open and honest about its dealings (or chooses not to be) it starts to beg a cascade of questions. Knowing they made £1000 profit (or £1000 loss) does not breach confidentiality when the base figures aren't disclosed, but it does tell us whether the disruption to council tax payers was worthwhile in the grander scheme of things. -
By first mate · Posted
And the Brockwell Park model is exactly what Southwark Council have in mind , if they can get away with it. As to the observation that festival- goers also like to have an event in 'pretty' surroundings; I am sure they do, why wouldn't they. It also arguably makes that event even more saleable/profitable. But the inherent contradiction that the event they attend then removes degrees of prettiness for others, not only during the event but for weeks afterwards, cannot be denied either. -
By Earl Aelfheah · Posted
At least it's only 3 days. Brockwell Park seems to have been properly taken over for weeks on end. -
I think it's been said before that the organisers, and maybe the council feel that the dipped area where the event is held offers better acoustic protection. And it's also prettier - even people who dance to repetitive beats like to do so somewhere nice 🙂 Is there a legal/administrative issue around fencing off Common land that makes it easier to have it in the Park? I know they hold events on Clapham Common so that might suggest not... just wondering?? It's a very reasonable question about the evident correlation between more festivals and the diminishing number of nightclubs and music venues; it may be a factor but def not the only one. Gentrification and repopulation across inner and central London has caused problems around licensing and also meant that businesses that that rely on 5-6 hours of trade 3/4 nights a week struggle to compete economically in revitalised neighbourhoods.
-
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.