Dreadful. There’s enough public garden type spaces around the area already.
Living Coasts (Closed) Living Coasts News
- Thread starter Trigger
- Start date
Gigit
Well-Known Member
To be fair to the Council, this money was not available last year when the future of Living Coasts was being decided. It has recently been granted by the Government to help regenerate the Bay's godforsaken town centres.
Ah right, maybe I was a bit harsh back there. Fact remains, they’ve allowed something (unique in the U.K.) to go down the pan.
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
It is always difficult to decide why one set of circumstances and/or organisation is demanding of public subsidy or not; and Government in the UK does not have a great track-record. Given the several failed attempts at an attraction on the site, it is understandable that the Council did not want to get involved.
As most town centres in the UK were 'godforsaken' already pre-Covid, the Council is fortunate to have been granted some of our money, to help with theirs.
As most town centres in the UK were 'godforsaken' already pre-Covid, the Council is fortunate to have been granted some of our money, to help with theirs.
R E Pennell
New Member
Dear me - keep politics out of it! Why should any Government (whichever party it is) or local Council for that matter stick it's hand in it's pocket to subsidise a loss making enterprise.
You can paint the picture however you like but the bottom line is it was losing money hand over fist because it couldn't attract enough visitors. No one likes to see Zoos or any other business for that matter fail but there isn't a bottomless pit of cash to keep propping up loss making companies
Dear me - it is politics.
There are dozens of reasons why governments subsidise loss-making enterprises, particularly in current circumstances. But they must only do it for good and proper reasons. If any one says 'keep politics out of it' when the actions of of local or national government are questioned I get very suspicious.
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
You are right Gentle Lemur. Much of the leisure 'industry' in the UK, be it sport, the arts, many museums etc are loss-making if not subsidised in some way from our taxes. Having said that, as I said above, it is easy to understand the Councils hesitation, given the history of the site...
Had Living Coasts been a Sealife centre it would have charged the standard £20plus per adult. It was much better than any of that company's sites I have been to. I think the only hope is if Sealife buy it to be honest as their media machine may be able to make it viable at £25 per head.
The problem is it would be too expensive for the council to run, most council owned zoos are very cheap to enter, but the running costs = Sealife prices
The problem is it would be too expensive for the council to run, most council owned zoos are very cheap to enter, but the running costs = Sealife prices
I do wonder how many people went to LC, and then spent money elsewhere on the seafront as part of their day out. There’s one person sat here who won’t be back in a hurry.
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
The problem so far as I can see it, is that the modern public is not very interested in birds, whoever owns the collection - penquins and flamingos excepted perhaps. Did LC not have a reputation amongst the public as 'being just birds'?
At Hamerton we had to add the White Tigers to shake off that (undeserved) reputation...
Current SeaLifes do have the added benefit of being dry, warm and indoors; important in a (normal) English summer...
People go to Birdland, but then that’s in a tourist hotspot.
A lot of Weymouth Sealife is outdoors, and living coasts was better, though I do accept your point to an extent.
From memory Weymouth sealife consists of about 6-8 internal/undercover aquarium units which forms the major part of the site. Outdoor areas are penguins, seals(?)= I think that's it. LC was modelled on Bristol's exhibit 'Seals and Coasts'( or was it vice versa). It is more outdoors.
Last edited:
'Modern public' seems to be very selective in its animal preferences, particularly anything 'cute' or that has a ' comical personality', and usually media-influenced. The more humanlike, the better. In the past before these influences were in force, they seemed far more prepared to view all animals for what they were.
Last edited:
I went there in the summer. I noticed how visitors were crowded around the Penguin display( which includes 'the only Kings in England') but were thin in number everywhere else.
Certainly an asco outdoor exhibit and I thought there was more, I may be wrong, it is over 10 years since I went and I had no desire to rush back until the Little blue penguin arrived! It was typical sealife overpriced hype!
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
B-o-t-W attracts many people in its own right, so Birdland makes a tenuous comparison. I have not visited the 'new' one. though our bird staff liked it. On it's web-site much is made of the dinosaurs, so even in a tourist hot-spot it is still not perceived by its visitors as 'just birds'...
Bird Paradise in Hayle, re-named itself to remove 'Bird' from the title,and has a major play-barn and pub too.
Bird World has stuck with its name, but has a large childrens farm I think. Again I'm not sure how it now compares with the old days...
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
I've only been to Hunstanton, and that was wholly indoors. Many years ago now, so it too may have had to broaden the appeal with penguins, otters and seals...?
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
Without penguins, the only birds we have which people actually stop to look at for long enough to cause bottlenecks this year, are the flamingos - especially when hand-reared youngsters were up at the fence saying 'hello'... Judging by our gift-shop sales, they are pretty 'in' at the moment.