OPW to lease out heritage sites

mocmo

The OPW are going to lease out some of our most famous heritage sites to private companies. This does not bode well, at best I can see inflated prices and dumbing down of the heritage, at worst real damage to the integrity and fabric of these sites. I wonder where the idea came from and what our most senior state archaeologists had to say about it? You have to hope they were strongly opposed to it and that they come out and say so publicly.

http://www.thejournal.ie/lease-heritage-sites-1190898-Nov2013/

slowburner

mocmo wrote: »

The OPW are going to lease out some of our most famous heritage sites to private companies. This does not bode well, at best I can see inflated prices and dumbing down of the heritage, at worst real damage to the integrity and fabric of these sites. I wonder where the idea came from and what our most senior state archaeologists had to say about it? You have to hope they were strongly opposed to it and that they come out and say so publicly.

http://www.thejournal.ie/lease-heritage-sites-1190898-Nov2013/

It's a difficult one.
Will heritage suffer or benefit?

cfuserkildare

This looks very bad,

Who will regulate or monitor these sites, will the importance of the lesser sites be downgraded then sold off?

This is just like the private clamping industry.

Bogus.

robp

cfuserkildare wrote: »

This looks very bad,

Who will regulate or monitor these sites, will the importance of the lesser sites be downgraded then sold off?

This is just like the private clamping industry.

Bogus.

I probably will offend someone here but the OPW has a terrible reputation amongst archaeologists for looking after archaeological sites.

mocmo

I have to admit my first instinct with this was very negative, but I read a few discussion on facebook about it last night where several people were suggesting that it may be a good thing and that similar schemes in the UK have turned out very well. I suppose it comes down to what exactly is going to be proposed / allowed and that is something that at this stage we don't know. Overall I my instinct is still negative but maybe I'll be proved wrong?

As for the OPW having a bad reputation, yes they do but thinking about it I actually don't know why. Is it based on so many important sites having nothing but a rusted 'fogra', or on sites whereby they have been deemed to have carried out poor work etc? This maybe another thread entirely but the question got me thinking....

googled eyes

If it's done like the UK where a portion of the entry fee goes to the national trust/ upkeep of the heritage sites it could be a good thing.

the_syco

May work out well. If it's a private company, they can dictate the opening days and hours, and thus cut out any days that are unprofitable. I'd imagine there'd be some red tape stopping public bodies doing this?

Also, as for the OPW's bad rep, I think it's as they buy something, and often leave it to rot, as opposed to actually opening it to the public, or fixing it up, etc.

A great idea. Why restore buildings, just to have them sit idle for 6 months of the year.

robp

the_syco wrote: »

May work out well. If it's a private company, they can dictate the opening days and hours, and thus cut out any days that are unprofitable. I'd imagine there'd be some red tape stopping public bodies doing this?

Also, as for the OPW's bad rep, I think it's as they buy something, and often leave it to rot, as opposed to actually opening it to the public, or fixing it up, etc.

They did some completely unjustifiable restorations on very very important sites. They seem to appreciate architecture but not archaeology ethics. In fairness it might have changed in the last few years but the cases I am talking about aren't very long ago. the issue about the rusty fograi is something I can forgive them for even though it may be a real issue. we have so many archaeological sites.

I'd like to see some analysis of where this lease idea has been done elsewhere, pros and cons.

DeepSleeper

I think this is a very bad idea. Take the case of Bunratty Castle as an example - restored via an agreement between Lord Gort, the OPW, Shannon Development and the Irish Tourist Board in the mid-twentieth century. Now managed by Shannon Heritage, a subsidiary of Shannon Development which is a semi-State company tasked with industrial development in the Shannon Region.

Shannon Heritage (actually Shannon Castle Banquets & Heritage Ltd) manage Bunratty Castle along with Dunguaire, Knappogue Castle, Craggaunowen Castle, King John's Castle in Limerick and a few other places. Total day visitor numbers at their sites were 343,517 in 2010 and 353,507 in 2011 with Bunratty making up the lion's share of these numbers (263,336 and 275,986 respectively). To these day-figures, you can add between 70,000 and 80,000 extra visitors to cover the evening banquets etc.

Gross profit appears to have been €6.5million for 2010 and €6.76million for 2011 (the turnover for these years was not disclosed in their Annual Return). They reported a loss in both years and wages, salaries and related costs in both these years amounted to €4.25million. So - Shannon Heritage manage a series of important heritage sites, attract lots of visitors to the Shannon Region and employ a whole range of people for both full-time and seasonal work - so where is the problem? Well, from an archaeological or historical point of view, what has Shannon Heritage contributed more generally? Bunratty is a great visitor attraction (I always advise visitors I meet to go there), but have we learned anything about the site in recent decades? Has Shannon Heritage supported research and publication on the sites in their care?

No - in fact Shannon Heritage have persistently declined to get involved with research projects, have stone-walled researchers who approach them, have failed to reply to letters from researchers, have ignored emails from university academics seeking access for their students, have shown no interest in innovative research projects which they could have taken an active role in at very little expense to themselves (less than €1500 in a case I know of). But then, you say, they have made small losses in recent years and they can't afford it ...

But it hasn't always been so ...

Shannon Heritage turnover before the economic downturn was €11.3m in 2004, €11.9m in 2005, €13.1m in 2006 and €13.3m in 2007 (leading to Gross Profits of €7.7m, €8.1m, €8.9m and €9m in these years and Profits after Taxation of €139,659, €196,458, €113,909 and €27,745 in the years 2004-07). In short, a lot of the money being generated at heritage sites operated by Shannon Heritage appears to be directed back to their parent company, Shannon Development, and little is spent on research on the sites they manage - they seem to believe that they know all there is to know about their sites, so why spend a cent on finding out stuff which could conflict with established site interpretations.

To see this from the other end, the accounts for Shannon Development list income from 'Tourism Activities' at €12.5m in 2004, €13m in 2005, €14.4m in 2006, €14.5m in 2007 and then list the 'Direct Cost of Sales - Tourism Activities' at €4m in 2004, €4.2m in 2005, €4.8m in 2006, €4.8m in 2007. That suggests to me that millions of euro generated from heritage sites in the Shannon Region are being spent on attracting tourists and encouraging industrial developments (both worthy causes - I suggest no wrongdoing here), but what amazing research could be undertaken if Shannon Heritage/Development were to dedicate just 1% or even 0.5% of the turnover from their heritage sites to be reinvested in research at those (and other) sites! In the years 2004-07, the SH turnover of €49.6m would have generated a research dividend (at 0.5%) of €248,000 or €496,000 at 1% ...

The problem here is twofold: Research and Money: I've always found the OPW to be helpful with research access and supportive of all types of projects, but Shannon Heritage are not interested in anything other than their paying customers. The OPW have good intentions, but they don't hold the aces in the Irish heritage pack - not Bunratty, not Blarney ... In fact they hold just 1 of the top 10 and just 5 of the top 20 fee-based visitor attractions in the country (in 2012). Think of the money Historic Scotland generate at Edinburgh Castle (1.2m visitors in 2010-11 bringing income of £11.56m) - some of this must flow out into the Scottish regions to pay for one or two guides at a whole range of small sites, whereas many heritage properties in the care of the OPW are not open to the public or are unmanned and poorly presented (no information signs etc). Some of also probably flows into research projects and heritage publications - Historic Scotland have a superb range of site guidebooks which are written by experts and are regularly updated.

The OPW could do a lot more and could do what they do a lot better ... if the funding was there. As it is, they provide affordable access to a wide range of sites and are as supportive as they can be of research projects - I don't see private operators with a strong commercial focus (like Shannon Heritage) taking a long-term view by keeping admission costs down, promoting research and welcoming new interpretations of their properties... these worthy approaches do not support short-term gain.

Maudi

Not only a bad bad idea.id call it illegal..the heritage of the country belongs to the people..the opw is overstepping its self in selling moneymaking rights to something it dosent actually own..are people really that blind and stupid that they would allow this.?.the opw cannot SELL heritage anymore...it DOSENT own it..everyone agrees they f..ked up and ruined the ancient monastic city of glendalough with run down burger joints and a car park in the MIDDLE of a monastic city..this im afraid to say is an example of the opw operates at their best..bunratty castle /newgrange are two more examples ..hold on..cliffs of moher..again opw at their best..jesus ..and i can only imagine when they "sell off " sites.(..to .i guarantee party members) how shoddly run they will be..however..they cant sell of sites privately so it wont happen..

Simon.d

There are so many sites that should be opened up to the public, and if this endeavour facilitates that I'm behind it.. From my perpective, I see little diference between a civil servant or a regulated contracted enterprise running a site.. What this new venture may also do is open up the oppurtunity for local council, and groups interested in the tourist foot-fall in a locality investing in otherwise closed down OPW sites, which methinks would be a good thing. A couple of castles around my locality could do with a bit of TLC and Attention, rather than a locked OPW gate..

Was in clonmacnoise recently, and have to say the catering facilities on site were of very poor quality, and very expensive... So to my mind, in that facility at least the OPW could be doing a lot better, in terms of service provision.. And methinks that if turning over scones (i.e. profit) was the fundamental concern of those running the catering there, the quality is likely to have been so much better (or the price at least someway reflective of the product on offer)...

robp

Simon.d wrote: »

There are so many sites that should be opened up to the public, and if this endeavour facilitates that I'm behind it.. From my perpective, I see little diference between a civil servant or a regulated contracted enterprise running a site.. What this new venture may also do is open up the oppurtunity for local council, and groups interested in the tourist foot-fall in a locality investing in otherwise closed down OPW sites, which methinks would be a good thing. A couple of castles around my locality could do with a bit of TLC and Attention, rather than a locked OPW gate..

Was in clonmacnoise recently, and have to say the catering facilities on site were of very poor quality, and very expensive... So to my mind, in that facility at least the OPW could be doing a lot better, in terms of service provision.. And methinks that if turning over scones (i.e. profit) was the fundamental concern of those running the catering there, the quality is likely to have been so much better (or the price at least someway reflective of the product on offer)...

I'd give it the thumbs right away if it was just about using sites that are unused at the moment but they seem to be keen to lease out big successful sites like Dublin and Kilkenny Castles.

Reader1937

Guessing from a business point of view, the OPW are looking for money. They have mentioned what they are going to do with the money, but quite vaguely. Always follow the money - like in the NRC. Anyway who is to say it was their idea - perhaps it was a business proposal that was accepted. If so it makes sense they would want the cherries.

Simon.d

robp wrote: »

I'd give it the thumbs right away if it was just about using sites that are unused at the moment but they seem to be keen to lease out big successful sites like Dublin and Kilkenny Castles.

I still don't see the problem, assuming that the OPW will properly manage those contracted in, and kick them out if any untoward practices were to emerge.. I look at Jerpoint Park as a shining example of what the private sector can do for heritage management, protection and promotion in this country...

cfuserkildare

Simon.d wrote: »

I still don't see the problem, assuming that the OPW will properly manage those contracted in, and kick them out if any untoward practices were to emerge.. I look at Jerpoint Park as a shining example of what the private sector can do for heritage management, protection and promotion in this country...

The private sector cannot manage a National Monument in the context that is required.
A National Monument cannot be run on a for-profit basis.
As regards the quote above, how long would it take for action to be taken if untoward practices were to emerge?
How much damage would be done in the time it takes for any response in this climate?

This is just so depressing and sad, because no matter what we say, it will happen anyway.