People’s Market the Arts Hub.
-
Posts
-
The Hub given the ok to go forward to Phase 2 by a unanimous vote. Two Councillors, Cllr R. Skelland and Cllr D. Davies asked for clarifications as they had reservations about the scheme. Unfortunately they were not allowed a vote. We were told the Oriel Gallery had 17,000 visitors per year.I wouldn’t mind betting 16,500 of them also visited the library at the same visit.They expect 50,000 visitors in the new complex.If you were to put this plan to a private business person to get involved into funding this business,you would not in my opinion get any response.If these Councillors were using their own money to fund it,Phase 2 would not happen. Why waste ratepayers money?
The one good thing about web casting is you can watch from the comfort of your home sitting through a meeting of over 4 hours would be horrendous which is probably why so many non Executive members seem to have left before the end.
It is right to say that very large numbers of visitors to the existing gallery are primarily going to the library. Like any venue though the number of visitors is proportionate to the type of attraction. What will they have in the new gallery that will attract ‘non arty’ people to the venue.
In response to the question from Clr Davies about establishing an Arts Trust Clr Jones replied that this will be done once all the work has been completed. Surely if a Trust is to be formed they should be in at the beginning helping design and more importantly encourage existing arts orgs to ‘buy in’ to the concept. Why is he afraid of bringing in members from the community to assist in the project at concept and development — is he afraid that their knowledge base will be to great.The Council think they will get 50,000 visitors in the first year and 100,000 per year after that. So if they only get 17,000 now they are setting a massive challenge for the proposed Management Trust to achieve a 500% increase in footfall! Hopefully the financial viability will be based on a far more realistic number of visitors or the project could be doomed from the start.
The % increase is actually a lot higher if you drill into the existing figure and just look at how many people just go to the gallery..
As most arts gallery’s will be free to enter it does not matter how high the footfall is if they are not spenders.
This is an over ambitious target to get the project pushed through — on what other centre have these figures been basedMy eyebrow also raised when I heard that figure of 17,000 visitors to the Oriel. That’s getting on for 60 visitors a day. I’d suggest that this figure has been creatively combined with figures for the library.
I caught most of the Arts Hub debate. What particularly stood out for me was the continual references to ‘evidence’, ‘recommendations’ and ‘feasibility studies’. Browsing the rest of the agenda topics, there are many areas where it’s perfectly reasonable to refer to 3rd party evidence, be it council officers, consultants or others. This topic however is where judgement, instinct and common sense is required – councillors are not elected to be a faceless jury acting upon evidence of others.
My ‘judgement’ would be that we have an existing gallery with low footfall and little or no income generation. It does however have decent amount of passing footfall due to the adjacent library and has a large visitor potential from the council offices and colleges nearby to potentially sustain any small developments – such as café/gallery or evening bar as proposed for the peoples market.
As Alun points out, the Peoples Market, and adjacent units, are experiencing a slow death as traders move elsewhere in search of more competitive rents and increased footfall. Efforts would be better placed in reversing this trend and maximising the potential of the current layout.
Combining two underperforming and poorly managed sectors on the speculation that footfall and spend will increase considerably should go against the judgement and common sense of most rational people.
@Adam 17751 wrote:
My eyebrow also raised when I heard that figure of 17,000 visitors to the Oriel. That’s getting on for 60 visitors a day. I’d suggest that this figure has been creatively combined with figures for the library.
I caught most of the Arts Hub debate. What particularly stood out for me was the continual references to ‘evidence’, ‘recommendations’ and ‘feasibility studies’. Browsing the rest of the agenda topics, there are many areas where it’s perfectly reasonable to refer to 3rd party evidence, be it council officers, consultants or others. This topic however is where judgement, instinct and common sense is required – councillors are not elected to be a faceless jury acting upon evidence of others.
My ‘judgement’ would be that we have an existing gallery with low footfall and little or no income generation. It does however have decent amount of passing footfall due to the adjacent library and has a large visitor potential from the council offices and colleges nearby to potentially sustain any small developments – such as café/gallery or evening bar as proposed for the peoples market.
As Alun points out, the Peoples Market, and adjacent units, are experiencing a slow death as traders move elsewhere in search of more competitive rents and increased footfall. Efforts would be better placed in reversing this trend and maximising the potential of the current layout.
Combining two underperforming and poorly managed sectors on the speculation that footfall and spend will increase considerably should go against the judgement and common sense of most rational people.
I totally agree.
I am confused by the figures given out for the number of stalls in the Peoples Market that would be lost to the HUB.
When the market was built it had a capacity of 58 stalls, this figure is quoted in the Quarterbridge Report, on the Council website, and in Council reports.
At the meeting yesterday we are advised that 14 stalls would be lost to the new development, and that at present there are 9 vacant stalls, and 9 stalls used by flexi tenants.
If these figures are correct 9 vacant plus 9 flexi total 18,would leave the market with 40 stalls occupied. There would then be the need to close 5 of the flexi stalls to accommodate the HUB.
I do not believe that there are 40 stalls occupied in the market. I believe that the area that stalls once occupied down the left hand side of the market in the xmas grotto area, will be on top of the 14.These have obviously been left unlet for the past two years in readiness for the HUB.
I believe the number of stalls lost to the HUB to be in the region of 24/28.
The report has a total absence of partners apart from Coleg Cambria and Glyndwr– what about all of the so called community organisation that are supposed to be interested- why have they not been listed?
People bring people without these organisations being fully on board now – without the engagement this idea is dead in the water.
Is there a people counter at the Oriel or are the figures from the Library counting system?How about they talk to the two lads who set up Un Deg Un. As far as i can see they have done on a shoe string exactly what the council want to do in the peoples market.. Just think what they could do with the sort of money the council is going to throw down the drain..
grumpyom – would make perfect sense – problem is that officers and Council Members won’t want to work with people who have enthusiasm and knowledge far superior to what is in the Council. David Gray one of the people you mention is an entrepreneur who will take risks but also works with people– he may head something up but the success is the partnership..
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
