Comment 97238

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted January 27, 2014 at 18:03:54 in reply to Comment 97237

In fact the market had to be renovated to meet current health and safety standards (e.g. washing facilities). There were also other heating, accessibility, truck off-loading and utilities issues. So, a major renovation was necessary to meet current building standards, but opinions differ on whether the "feel" of the market is better or worse than before. Obviously, a move is disruptive, but a similar renovation to the Art Gallery did lead to a huge re-birth (despite the fact the Art Gallery was actually closed completely for a couple of years).

It has to be recognized, though, that the stall holders themselves were constantly complaining about the state of the market facilities before the renovation (and they complained when they had to move, when they had to move back and about the renovation itself once they set up in the new space). And most long-standing stallholders simply moved their old stands and equipment back into the new space, and did nothing to try to improve the quality and selection of what they offered they meet demand and changing tastes.

One interesting fact, reported in the Spec, is that although stallholders are complaining about less business, actual surveys showed that the number of people going through the market doors is about the same as it was before the renovation. Although it would be preferable to have had a big increase, the fact that the same number of people are buying less suggests that it is what's on offer, rather than the building, that is the main problem.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-01-27 18:08:52

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools