Wireless Sights.

13»

Comments

  • @joust "I want to see that the events happen and the park thrives." The park thriving and events happening (at least on this scale) are mutually exclusive.
  • I don't think so.
    Large groups coming together to enjoy music is an excellent use of a park
  • @joust , it's a wilful ABuse of the park!

    Except for the obvious commercial interest, what's so special about "Large groups coming together"? Is it some sort of primitive tribal instinct, or a pathetically juvenile fuzzy feeling of togetherness? Is that the trivial reason why the commercially disinterested think the rest of us have to suffer these events?

    When music is imposed on me, however excellent someone else might think it is, it isn't music at all; it's just nuisance noise. Perhaps if the crowd were smaller, the noise wouldn't have to be so loud.
  • @joust it'd not the large groups coming together to enjoy music, it's everything around them and what they bring that makes life unpleasant (to greater and lesser degrees) for literally thousands of people who live near and/or use the park. For instance;
    - large sections of the park closed off for weeks (in a pretty ugly way at that)
    - the park suffering degradation due to intensive use (hardly thriving)
    - huge amounts of litter
    - very busy stations and streets
    - noise
    - public order offences such a fighting, public urination, drug dealing, etc

    In return, seemingly no benefit to residents and park users. Yes, there is money, but the council simply uses that to reduce the parks budget, so I don't think there is a net increase in park funding.
  • The events provide all of the parks budget.
  • It provides parks budget that the council would otherwise be providing. It does not provide ADDITIONAL funding over and above what the council would have spent had the concert not happened. It just replaces what the council would have spent. As money is fungible, it effectively simply goes towards the overall council budget with no net benefit to the park and its users.
  • Would the council otherwise be providing £1.3m?
    Maybe they would only be providing £500k?

    I have no idea. All I know is that all the money FP raises gets spent on FP. And that I think the park should be used for big events.
  • I thought the comments on the Haringay site about staffing should help a lot.

    Also noteworthy here is an increased investment in staffing. According to the council's response, this will include the establishment of a dedicated Park Manager, two Park Rangers, a team of 5.5 Park Keepers dealing with bin emptying and litter picking in the park and dedicated Project Officer to implement the improvements. The Park Manager, Park Rangers and expanded Park Keeper team will be in place before the spring. The Project Officer is now in post.
  • Thanks Ali, thats interesting.

    I remember talking to a park keeper in Hackney a few years ago. He said he was the only guy covering a few parks and it was a struggle. So this sounds like quite a good number of people.
  • I'll believe it when I see it, but that would indeed make a marked difference to the quality of the park, and provide the sort of tangible benefit that is otherwise lacking when it comes to the trade-off between nuisance and money.
  • Lets hope it happens Rattle.

    Looking at the budget in the table on the Haringay site the Staffing costs for Park keepers etc are £88k 18/19 and rise to £185k 19/20.
  • 'Will include'?
    They've been pimping the Park out for years now, and I go back to Madstock and the Fleadh. Surely the Park Keepers should be there already.
  • There was a team of park keepers in FP way back when - then budget cuts dropped that to one (Leroy, I think) with some support from a roving team who covered all the parks in the borough. Leroy was (and probably still is!) a lovely chap, but 1 man can't cover 115 acres adequately with such limited assistance. Glad to hear they're intending to hire more keepers.
  • Council budget cuts fashioned by Government austerity cuts
  • Just seen this published via Twitter. Makes a VERY good read.
  • I thought the following tweets put forward by tom@tgraham deserved a bigger audience given the work he has put into compiling them. I reproduce them here with his permission. They make interesting reading for those who have been following the debate about events in Finsbury Park.


    Haringey paid for an economic impact assessment of the various festivals in Finsbury Park. If you cannot sleep check it out here (bit.ly/2OSIBfd). @haringeycouncil were a little bit coy about releasing.

    In 2018, 306,097 people visited festivals in the park. Only 8% of attendees live in Haringey, 33% elsewhere in London and 55% from the rest of UK. (These events are not a 'local' or 'community' cultural event put on for people living nearby).

    84% of visitors came on public transport (tube / train / bus). No wonder Finsbury Park is so popular with event companies - how many other big public spaces are so well connected?

    On average, event goers spend a total of £172pp ex. tickets (!). The bulk of that is spent in the festival - £90 - going to the organisers @slamminevents and @LiveNationUK. £72pp is spent elsewhere in London, and a measly £9.73pp spent in Harginey. (Bravo for local businesses).

    Punters spent c.£38m on the events (£27m in the festivals, c£11m of ticket sales). @haringeycouncil said income from the events for (ab)using the park each year is c£1.1m. That's what - only about 2.5% of organiser revenue? (Why is the council not getting a better deal?)

    Festival goers also spent money elsewhere in London - about £21m. BUT only £2.9m was spent in Haringey. Local biz did note this increase in turn over but most money went to pubs. (The borough is feeling the pain but not capturing a broad based economic return for it).

    The survey talks about job creation. It recons at peak c. 3k people work on big events, with c 19,000 man days of effort across all of them. Sounds a lot until you annualise it to ... 9 people's jobs. And the bulk of that work is short term contract security / bar work.

    The @FourthStreetUK report is diligent. 2 simple conclusions for me. 1/ Festivals can have positive economic impacts BUT Haringey isn't seeing them. 2/ Events companies are making serious money (OK) but councils are failing to capture a sensible share to offset the local impact.

    So what: The council should reduce the size & frequency of events, & confidently demand more cash for the pleasure of leasing our lovely public space. I sympathise with council budget cuts & that Nice Things Cost Money... but income can still be made through more delicate use.

    I'd welcome any comments from @haringeycouncil or @kirstenhearn (who was kind enough to discuss the topic briefly recently). fyi @andrewsmithwest and @danhancox and @islingtongztte. Forgive in advance any misinterpretations of the report.
Sign In or Register to comment.