Glamping...how many

[gooner1990]

12 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

its the onsite stuff that frustrates me more .... not sure how much thats increased since the superfence but that hoarded off area near the JP this year was ridiculous and general camping seemed much tighter 

Agree with this, our usual spot was also lost to a much expanded Arcadia crew camp.

As Skip says, different 'accommodation options' leads to different clientele, which in turn brings different wants/expectations and therefore a different vibe overall and experiences for people. 

Don't also forget that as you get older newer generations bring in their own idea of what's fun etc, which may not be what you prefer yourself.

At the end of the day you have to ask yourself 'can I still enjoy Glastonbury in 2024 without grumbling that its not like it was in the1985-2000 incarnation' (pre-super fence).  If the answer is no then its probably time to give it up.

 

[stuie]

4 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Not really.

There are still plenty of these people about, but not in the large convoys of the 80's/early 90's. Loads of those people have "settled down", but are still living in the same way and many of them still do a festival circuit, but it's a very different one.

I'm not aware of any free festival scene as such, but there is still a free party/rave scene.

People who were involved in the traveling communities of the 80's/90's still form the backbone of several areas a the festival, most notably: Shangri-La, Unfairground, Green Futures, Healing Fields and Craft Field.

I wish I could go back in time just to experience one year of the festival back then.  It sounds edgy and a bit scary to be honest. But... we're never going back to open selling of drugs on market stalls or having 500k people on the farm, so I'm not sure that glamping fields outside the fence do anything to harm the vibe.

[Skip997]

3 minutes ago, Supernintendo Chalmers said:

Ah, so you were there in 1990? That must have been fun

I had a terrible time TBH. Crossing the travelers field wasn't a good experience of you weren't "one of them", by which I mean the "brew crew". There was a "dark atmosphere" at that end of site, although mates who managed to see the rest of the festival tell me it was fantastic.

It was so bad (IMO) that I swore I'd never attend again, and didn't until 1994.

I actually missed the "riot" as I escaped early on the Monday morning.

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, stuie said:

I wish I could go back in time just to experience one year of the festival back then.  It sounds edgy and a bit scary to be honest. But... we're never going back to open selling of drugs on market stalls or having 500k people on the farm, so I'm not sure that glamping fields outside the fence do anything to harm the vibe.

tbh im the opposite ... I quite like sanitised version and not quite sure id have coped with the fear of tents being robbed and the anarchy back then but do agree that the creativity and people being able to provide / be the entertainment has been lost 

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

Just now, Skip997 said:

I had a terrible time TBH. Crossing the travelers field wasn't a good experience of you weren't "one of them", by which I mean the "brew crew". There was a "dark atmosphere" at that end of site, although mates who managed to see the rest of the festival tell me it was fantastic.

It was so bad (IMO) that I swore I'd never attend again, and didn't until 1994.

I actually missed the "riot" as I escaped early on the Monday morning.

This is really interesting! We should create a thread for stories like this. Not one to break out into a debate of if the festival used to be better, etc, just genuine stories from all years like this. Almost putting a history of the festival together from the people who were there. I feel like some of the documentaries skirt across a lot of the really interesting stuff or don't address them at all

[Skip997]

5 minutes ago, Superscally said:

I'd rather it didn't appeal to those that wouldn't go otherwise ta...definitely changing the vibe. People are kidding themselves if they think otherwise 

Not talking about accessible campsites btw...

Out of reactions

This post is spot on.

[Ayrshire Chris]

21 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

its the onsite stuff that frustrates me more .... not sure how much thats increased since the superfence but that hoarded off area near the JP this year was ridiculous and general camping seemed much tighter 

Agree with that, walking from Woodsies to gate A there’s a huge fenced off area, well stewarded, for what I think is hospitality . Sure  it was larger this year. Although we now do WV I would hate to think general camping, what defines the festival, gets squeezed. 

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

24 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

its the onsite stuff that frustrates me more .... not sure how much thats increased since the superfence but that hoarded off area near the JP this year was ridiculous and general camping seemed much tighter 

Keeping it on topic, imagine how rammed it would be if the glamping sites didn't exist? How many more campers are we trying to shoehorn back inside the fence? 1000? 2000? 5000?

[Skip997]

Just now, Supernintendo Chalmers said:

This is really interesting! We should create a thread for stories like this. Not one to break out into a debate of if the festival used to be better, etc, just genuine stories from all years like this. Almost putting a history of the festival together from the people who were there. I feel like some of the documentaries skirt across a lot of the really interesting stuff or don't address them at all

I'd be more than happy to see a thread like this.

I feel a lot of people could benefit from seeing where the festival came from and how it's developed.

A interesting aspect is how the various UK "counter culture" movements have shaped the event.

[DeanoL]

5 minutes ago, Superscally said:

I'd rather it didn't appeal to those that wouldn't go otherwise ta...definitely changing the vibe. People are kidding themselves if they think otherwise 

Not talking about accessible campsites btw...

Why not?

The whole boom in glamping in the past 5-10 years hasn't been caused by the festival getting more appealing to the middle class, that all happened 2003-2015. In recent years it's folks getting older and not being able or willing to hack it in general camping so doing glamping or campervans so they can keep going.

There are plenty of people who are not disabled in any way defined by law, but are not capable of carrying a tent and supplies for five days a couple of miles, which is the requirement for general camping at Glastonbury these days. Back problems abound which mean people can't sleep on a blow-up mattress but are otherwise physically fit... 

There's a massive gap between "legally disabled" and "not physically capable of doing Glastonbury" in which an increasing number of people live. I don't really get the idea of excluding one group and not the other.

[stuie]

7 minutes ago, Superscally said:

I'd rather it didn't appeal to those that wouldn't go otherwise ta...definitely changing the vibe. People are kidding themselves if they think otherwise 

Not talking about accessible campsites btw...

Some of those people are the same ones as before, just 20 years older and wanting a bit more comfort. 

Where would you draw the line?  Campervans OK?  Pre-erected camping - after all it's still just people in tents.

Like has already been said, some of the demographics that used to attend don't even exist anymore.   Times change! 

 

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, Supernintendo Chalmers said:

Keeping it on topic, imagine how rammed it would be if the glamping sites didn't exist? How many more campers are we trying to shoehorn back inside the fence? 1000? 2000? 5000?

and the rest if we include worthy view / sticklinch as Glamping  .... and yes I know its basically a pre pitched tent .... where's that space gone ? !!

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

6 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

I'd be more than happy to see a thread like this.

I feel a lot of people could benefit from seeing where the festival came from and how it's developed.

A interesting aspect is how the various UK "counter culture" movements have shaped the event.

100%. I'm on it 

[stuie]

17 minutes ago, Superscally said:

I'd rather it didn't appeal to those that wouldn't go otherwise ta...definitely changing the vibe. People are kidding themselves if they think otherwise 

Not talking about accessible campsites btw...

 

11 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Out of reactions

This post is spot on.

Skip, are you not one of these people?  Same as me.  If it wasn't for your van, you may not go anymore.  Van life is glamping, absolutely no different to all these other people you're against coming.

 

[DeanoL]

6 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

tbh im the opposite ... I quite like sanitised version and not quite sure id have coped with the fear of tents being robbed and the anarchy back then but do agree that the creativity and people being able to provide / be the entertainment has been lost 

I think in the early days the festival did well by taking those that had provided the entertainment and making it official, giving them places like Shangri-La and the Greenfields and such. 

The problem is that this then becomes stuck in place. There's no opportunity for competition, so things get stale and dull. No competition between groups to provide the best place to hang out late at night, so no need to innovate. No opportunity for someone to rock up and just do something, so no opportunity for the festival to see that and then adopt it and make it official. We are essentially stuck with the same group of people running that stuff as from 2005, which absolutely wouldn't be the case had it remained "open". 

I mean, they do a good job, and I agree I prefer it this way, that level of anarchy is too much for me, but I do wish the festival had more space for new creative endeavours. They brought Shangri-La and Arcadia to the world, but they're never going to find the next Shangri-La or Arcadia.

(At least when SL had the micro-venues they took open submissions for ideas, but that's gone now too)

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, stuie said:

 

Skip, are you not one of these people?  Same as me.  If it wasn't for your van, you may not go anymore.  Van life is glamping, absolutely no different to all these other people you're against coming.

 

Maybe

But I was still in a tent in 2019.

[Avalon_Fields]

It's not so much glamping as such, it's the growth in glamping year on year that concerns me. Is the festival benefitting enough (financially or culturally) from the off-site glamping sites? Are we reaching a tipping point in losing the character of the place?

[Skip997]

Just now, Avalon_Fields said:

It's not so much glamping as such, it's the growth in glamping year on year that concerns me. Is the festival benefitting enough (financially or culturally) from the off-site glamping sites? Are we reaching a tipping point in losing the character of the place?

I think we're safe while Michael is still alive and involved.

After that I'm not so sure.

[DeanoL]

3 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Maybe

But I was still in a tent in 2019.

I also think what's interesting about your story is that, had everything remained open, unofficial and anarchic like it used to, you probably wouldn't still be going either. The group you belong to would have moved on, either voluntarily, or being usurped by other groups either out-competing you or indeed through actual straight-up conflict.

I can certainly see how that can create a more interesting and dynamic festival for the punter, but there would have been a far, far greater turnover among those actually running things had the festival not stepped in, put a big fence up, and decided some groups were in, and others were not.

[stuie]

5 minutes ago, Avalon_Fields said:

It's not so much glamping as such, it's the growth in glamping year on year that concerns me. Is the festival benefitting enough (financially or culturally) from the off-site glamping sites? Are we reaching a tipping point in losing the character of the place?

The off-site glamping isn't under the control of the festival so they don't benefit from it financially. 

Other than when they buy the land, like they did with Worthy View. 

[CaledonianGonzo]

I assume the neighboring farms all now turn a profit which helps keep them sweet in terms of the festival's continued existence

[Skip997]

5 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

I assume the neighboring farms all now turn a profit which helps keep them sweet in terms of the festival's continued existence

The huge contribution to the local economy is a massive factor in why the festival is still going and will continue, it extends far beyond the glamping on neighboring farms.

On a small level I know plenty of people whose main annual income comes from being involved with the festival.

[stuie]

8 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

I assume the neighboring farms all now turn a profit which helps keep them sweet in terms of the festival's continued existence

Yes that’s correct. Even Anne Goode’s land with the giant white cross she erected because the festival goers were satanists is now glamping run by her daughter. Anne was one of Michael’s fiercest opponents! 

[CaledonianGonzo]

So thank god for the glamping then. No yurts with helipads and access to a hyperbaric chamber, no festival.

[Avalon_Fields]

So it seems the neighbouring farms and land owners exert great power and influence, with the festival relatively impotent. So they’re driving the glamping expansion and consequently changing the festival in a major way.