The Importance of Being Tourist
One of our diligent researchers has noticed the Visitor's Centre building's relative size compared to that main leisure activity envisioned for us. Bear in mind the Visitor's Centre building is likely to have at least 3 uses (quote HS) and possibly as many as 5...so don't lose sight of that when you see this montage below. We've shown the relevant part of the plan, and then taken a copy of the building "housing" the Centre and superimposed it onto the superstore.
Click on this image for a bigger picture
Use the browser's "back" button to return here.
As you can see, the whole building appears to be less than one-sixth of the area of the supermarket. The Visitor's Centre part is (and I estimate) approximately one-tenth of it. Interestingly, the Visitors Centre just about fits into the hatched area shown between the supermarket and the DIY store which, on one of Terry Dinham's earlier plans, is shown as "possible area for expansion".
Sustrans and "other Community Facilities" - even less; at 85 square metres (approximately 900 square feet, or a room 30 foot a side), this is the bit where we have cyclists, and.... and .....?
Suggested name for the Visitors Centre: the Tardis Visitors Centre!
So, tourist or shopper Algy? Because there's next to no community facility.
posted by archmaster @ 5:36 pm
4 Comments:
The footprint of the Visitors Centre takes up 480 sq m. That of the Sustrans cycle terminal 85 sq ft.
The consultants estimated that to be viable the Visitors Centre (EXCLUDING other uses) would need to be 1500 sq m - or 4 - 5 storeys high on this map.
More to the point - will you actually SEE the Visitors Centre if it is dwarfed by a supermarket ten times its size>
Also, the "tourist" choice I'm defining is the day trip type, so aside from nearby accommodation problems, the carpark provision may well preclude them doing anything more than a quick tour of the visitors centre, a quick run round the megamarsh, packet of biscuits from Tesco (profits to shareholders, not local economy) and then home.
Ecologically, we'll see a rise in fuel-miles to properly visit this area. With green taxes increasing, this concept of "stay 10 miles away, tour area, go back 10 miles" is backward thinking.
So the real thrust is shipping people in, give them something to do (shop) and kill off Seaton as a Jurassic gateway, it's just a suburban deadzone.
An excellent point and very well made. We can expect a visitor centre which roughly corresponds to a meat and fish counter.
Perhaps it's time to reconsider whether this is the right place for a Visitor Centre at all. There is a splendid site overlooking the harbour with magnificent views of the coastline to be interpreted. When this idea was explored in the past it was rubbished by consultants because it would be much too far for the public to walk. I'm not convinced. The type of visitor Seaton is ideally situated to attract is someone with a passion for the natural world and this sort of person is not likely to be afraid of walking 200-300 metres especially if the attraction is strong enough.
The present proposals put the (much diminished) centre on the fringe of a dismal retail area with some of Devon's most undistinguished buildings blocking any possibility of seeing the coast under interpretation. Nowhere else along the Jurassic coast is there a proposal for a centre which lacks any view of the coastline it is designed to interpret. Why should Seaton have to be content with such a ruinous location?
if you look at the latest planning documents there is one that shows the square - and the visitors centre does seem to be intended to have several floors. So the disbaled won't get to much of it then as lifts are expensive to run.
Post a Comment
<< Home