The Millennium Dome Project - Research Paper Example

The Millennium Dome Project The Opening The Millennium Dome is one of the tourist attractions in Europe aside from Euro Disney and Legoland, and one of the world’s largest attractions. It was opened by the Queen on the night of December 31, 1999 at a televised party. The party was highlighted by the singing of Robert Burns’s “Auld Lang Syne”, and led by Queen Elizabeth II and Prime Minister Tony Blair. Jones (2005, p. 183) describes this momentous event: It was an astonishing sight for those watching the broadcast as the Queen gamely held Blair’s hand and attempted to keep his enthusiasm in check, in sync with the traditional melody. Blair was trying to rescue the Millennium Dome, which, far from being the built representation of his reforming, forward-looking, government – “Cool Britannia” replacing “Rule Britannia” (that looked back to the time of the British Empire) – was rapidly becoming a political and financial scandal. That very evening was a disaster: thousands of guests were still stuck in lines at security checkpoints at Stratford Tube Station when the midnight hour struck and for those who made it to the Dome the champagne ran out!” The Project It was built on a 300-acre land overlooking the River Thames. The Dome measures 320 meters in diameter, and reaches a height of 50 meters at its center; it was created to lure tourists to London. The costs for the Dome reached 758 million pounds (or more than $1.2 billion). The Dome was destined to be a failure. It carried the slogan “Time to make a difference”, which was heavily criticized by the press, and the citizens of London were asking, “What difference will it make?” Many however were looking forward to its opening for it certainly was making history. The Millennium Dome, Richard Rogers’s architecture. Photo by Ian Britton (FreeFoto.com) SOURCE: The Architecture of England, Scotland, and Wales, by Nigel R. Jones (2005, p. 183) It was designed to attract tourists to London, help regenerate the depressed Greenwich borough provide a showcase for UK designs and companies and reinforce London’s image as a dynamic international city. (Swarbrooke, 2002, p. 345) At the time of the Dome project, there were many other similar projects envisioned and already started by the Government as an outcome of the global economic and cultural changes. In the post industrial city, economic survival depends upon growth in the service sector. (Thornley, 2000, p. 689) The Millennium Commission was set up to decide the allocation and announced on 28 July 1996 that the Dome would take place on the Greenwich peninsula in London. The big bulk of the money came from the National Lottery when Prime Minister John Major and his Conservative Party decided to open it for a year’s exhibition, after which it had to be sold to any interested private bidder. The financial problems continued throughout its year of operation in 2000, and after it closed it proved very difficult to find new uses for the site. The architect who worked on the Dome was Richard Rogers. His expertise worked on a design to house the exhibition. The original site was bought from British Gas by English Partnerships. The Dome site occupied 130-180 acres of the 295 acre peninsula. One of the criticisms for the project was that the money could have been used in other better ways. But the government pursued it on five conditions: ‘there would be no extra burden on the public purse; its content would inspire; it would be a national event; it would provide a lasting legacy; and the project management would be strengthened.’ The responsibility on management was put on the New Millennium Experience Company under a government minister as the single shareholder. The controversy continued until its operations. (Thornley, 2000, p. 694) The Dome received 6.5 million visitors in 2000 far more than any other UK paid entry attraction and it was second only to Euro Disney in Paris as a leisure tourism attraction in terms of visitor numbers. It also gained 88 per cent visitor satisfaction rating (MORI, 2001, cited in Swarbrooke, 2002, p. 345). Survey Analysis A sample of current undergraduate students was interviewed about the Millennium Dome and provided the following comments. People were put off visiting the Dome by the adverse media coverage that made it ‘un-cool’ to visit the attraction. In other words, there was already negative publicity made by the media, so that many were perceived to have negative ideas about the Dome. There was total lack of strategic planning for this huge project that it was perceived to be a failure from the start. Some said that Government should perhaps steer clear of high profile involvement in attraction projects because this can lead to them being ‘political footballs’. The project was tainted with political maneuvering from the political parties that Government should have initiated a clear programme of actions that would make the project focused on the right direction. Location is clearly important and this can lead to a conflict between the desire to stimulate tourism in deprived areas and the fact that tourists generally like to visit places which have a strong positive image and/or are established tourist ‘destinations’. The question is: was the Greenwich peninsula the right location? We can agree to the choice of location but the other prevailing circumstances led to it being the wrong place. Why? There was lack of study and implementation on so many issues. Another comment is that people visit attractions more for entertainment than for education; they want to be stimulated and excited but not lectured. And there times in the opening that the people felt they were not there for recreation what with all the hustles that had been going on since coming to the site. Planning needs to take account of the need to avoid ‘bottlenecks’ which lead to excessive queuing as this reduces customer satisfaction levels. Trying to encourage visitors to use public transport for the sake of the environment is a good idea but if things are made too difficult for car drivers, in a country where up to 80 per cent of leisure trips are made by car, visitor numbers will suffer. An attraction which is a national project should make every effort to attract people from all parts of the country, as the Dome was perceived to have made little real attempt to attract people from Northern England, Scotland and Wales. One comment is that the use of money gathered from a lottery or taxation for supporting leisure projects is a very sensitive issue as many people think it would be better spent on housing, health and education. Gaining sponsorship and private sector investment is a specialized and difficult task which should not be underestimated. Finally, the Dome was perceived as a failure because 12 million visitors were predicted but only 6.5 million actually arrived. This is a huge achievement for a new temporary attraction but it is not seen as such when 12 million were predicted. Business plans are often overoptimistic because of the need to raise funding, but this over optimism creates unrealistic expectations that result in negative press coverage and even lower visitor numbers. This vicious circle has to be broken or many other attractions will be perceived as ‘failures’ when they may be successful. (Swarbrooke, 2002, p. 345) Visitors of the Millennium Dome listed their recommendations, saying that management could quickly institute to deal with many of the aspects of visitor dissatisfaction. These recommendations were for pre-entry through exit. (Hemmington et al., 2005, p. 515): But the visitors had no problem with the concept of the Millennium Dome itself. Studies have shown that the concept of the zones being designed by companies with a background in the live event industry using interactive displays was very successful and could tell the story of a brand (Rines, 2000, cited in Hemmington et al., 2005, p. 416). Visitors suggested that more attention should be paid to the detail of the experience, particularly those about rest points and other functional aspects of the experience. There was also a desire on the part of the visitors to engage effectively and meaningfully with the experience. These include the desire for more time, the need for better information, and the desire for more detailed descriptions of each of the zones. Visitors’ satisfaction would improve if there were a closer match between the marketing expectations and the reality of the experience. The marketing initiative should have emphasised the Millennium Dome as a very good day out that is fun and interesting – but ‘not one amazing day’. Some of the visitors, with inflated expectations fuelled by the Millennium Dome marketing campaign, were looking for the highest comparison standards to be fulfilled – and were often, although not invariably, less than satisfied. One of the lessons learned from the Millennium Dome experience is that aspects that relate to visitor well-being and the functional parts of the experience have to be addressed first before anything else. Other negative criticisms that generated controversies were that in terms of accessibility, the site had considerable disadvantages, i.e. the Greenwich peninsula was an inaccessible location. This was because the river blocked access on three sides. Road access was poor from all directions but in particular from the north through a notorious bottleneck – the Blackwall tunnel. Another one was the existing public transport which was very poor. The original plan was to attract 12 million people during the year 2000, and when the Millennium Commission decided on the site, they were looking for a public transport that could handle 100,000 visitors daily. However, there was lack of cooperation between the London Underground and the Millennium Experience Company. The Company was preoccupied with the transportation problem of the Dome only during the duration of the Dome’s operation, 2000, but London Underground believed it was to provide service beyond that time. In other words, helping the New Millennium Experience was only secondary in their objective. (House of Commons, 1997b: 80, cited in Thornley, 2000, p. 694) Moreover, the only cars to be allowed on the site were to be for the disabled and the VIPs, and there would be some provision for coach parking. Relying on public transport was the solution for sustainable transport. But then families from outside London who owned a car found it difficult to find a parking area on the site or nearby where special parking restrictions were in place. The car park issue was still a debatable one between the Millennium Experience Company and London Underground even one year before the opening of the Dome. (House of Commons, 1999a: viii, cited in Thornley, 2000, p. 695) A lot of planning had to take place for the traffic congestion to take ease, including the issue of the car park, but planning need a lot of time – and there was not enough time to do it. The planning stage revealed a disorganized the project: it was not perceived to produce a wholesome programme for the general public. It became complicated when the Millennium Dome was placed under three different ministers, namely: the Minister of Culture, Media and Sport who was in charge of the Millennium Commission and therefore the financial aspects; the Minister for Environment Transport and the Regions who was responsible for most of the transport agencies; and the special minister who was responsible for the Millennium Experience Company and the fulfillment of the project. The slow progress in the planning stage was due to the difficulty in the management of the different transport agencies. (Thornley, 2000, p. 685) Further complications ensued when in 1998, two new bodies were set up to try and deal with the problem on the transport bodies. The Millennium Access Infrastructure Group was set up within the DETR to integrate the major transport infrastructure projects. Another body, the Millennium Access Steering Group, was tasked for broader coordination and this was chaired by the Minister for Transport in London, Glenda Jackson, thereby absorbing the first group. The second group included London Transport Limited, the Millennium Experience Company, London Transport Buses and the Association of London Governments. The transport strategy which involved integration of a wide variety of different modes of transport was a major task. But there was difficulty in achieving this because of the multiplicity of agencies with their different responsibilities and clients. Community involvement Community involvement was necessary from the start, as it was a priority by the new government. But then the development of the project was cloaked in secrecy because of its being a ‘high-risk commercial venture’ (House of Commons, 1997a: xxvi, cited in Thornley, 2000, p. 696), so community involvement was not attained. The committee had recommended that the company should hold an annual public meeting in Greenwich, but this was not the case. What they did was to rely on visitors’ centre and occasional meetings with community representatives. The purpose for which the Dome was built was merely for the 2000 celebration and there was no plan of extending it. The construction also brought a polluted environment. One of the lessons learned from the Millennium Dome is integrating a transport system for such a huge project. A careful and long planning is needed for such a project to bring together the variety of agencies involved with their own interests and priorities. The different agencies and companies with their distinct interests were difficult to reconcile for one simple goal of servicing the public in that one huge undertaking. Moreover, the aim of the Government and of the agencies concerned became apparent from the start – that the Millennium Dome was to be operational only for the millennium celebration, the year 2000. It was not for a long-term project. Other loopholes in the project included the lack of planning in the actual construction itself. The environmental degradation was not properly addressed, instead it left an imprint that told of how it was a failed project. Conclusion Many opportunities were lost in this project. Considering the relationship to surrounding areas and other developments over the longer term, a lot of opportunities could have been beneficial to the people. The area in Greenwich could have become a commercial area with jobs and small business sprouting, but this did not happen. The public or the surrounding communities were excluded and were not involved in the activities and the small businesses that should have been created out of it. The Observer (cited in Thornley, 2000) said that “a major requirement in the Blair government is to show in practice how it will fulfil its claim to be able to marry market efficiency and social justice. There is some way to go before the goals of transparency in decision-making, community involvement and consensual coordinated policy can be achieved.” The Dome could have been an opportunity for the Government and the community to make it an image-generating icon for the promotion of London. But there could be something wrong with Blair’s way, which is “to resolve the seemingly irresolvable and to be able to combine differences that in his view the forces of economic globalization are inevitable and that the country must adapt if it is to survive” (Thornley, 2000, p. p 698). The community and the Government were the losers for this type of project – a huge and ambitious project in which the UK could have shown to the world that it is coping with the global economy. But due to the lack of planning and lack of cohesive efforts, it failed. Reference Grumet, T., 1999. London’s Millennium Dome. London: Hearst Magazine. Vol. 176, No. 12. ISSN 0032-4558. Hemmington, N. et al., 2005. “Satisfying the basics: reflections from a consumer perspective of attractions management at the millennium dome, London”, International Journal of Tourism Research, 7, 1-10. In Clive L. Morley (Ed.). Managing Tourism Firms. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Jones, N., 2005. Architecture of England, Scotland, and Wales. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group Inc. Swarbrooke, J., 2002. The development and management of visitor attractions. London: Elsevier Science. Thornley, A., 2000. Dome alone: London’s millennium project and the strategic planning deficit. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Volume 24.3, September 2000. Read More