Glamping - overprovisioned?

[Purple aki squat]

"10 minute walk"

Its 1.8 miles.

Nearer two hours at night.

[Migraine]

Included in the price is a map, a compass, a whistle and a distress flare.

[frostypaw]

Worse when the missus wants to go back to wee.

[kirstylaa]

39 bought!! Ysgyrn Dafydd!! Why would you want to "escape the madness of the festival"? Isn't the madness the whole point? Plus, I can guarantee that's no 10 minute walk.......

Must agree.

If you aren't uncomfortable, achy or lusting after a toilet without excrement on the seat, you aren't festivaling properly. In my mind. I understand for older campers who've earned their comforts however.

[Woffy]

I once slept drunk in a big capsized pedal bin like that as a student and it cost me fuck all. Apart from the price of the bottle of tequila.

[LondonTom]

Brilliant

 

I hope it goes completely tits up after this years festival.

 

(Apart from the distance, I guess £400 is in the reasonable area like someone else said for those who are staying in nearby B&Bs/Hotels anyway..)

[Bubblecup]

The more people glamping the less people in the main campsites, surely that's got to be a good thing?
I'm not sure why people are so down on it, yes they are spending more money on a few luxuries but it's their money to spend.  They still have to get a general admission ticket for the main part and then trek on and off site each day.  Most of the campsite are so crowded that surely the off site options only improve things for those on site whilst causing no harm to anyone?

[bamber]

It's a long way, down hill on the way in, It must be an hour, up hill, from Shangri-La at 4am. Fuck that.

[fur_q]

Drove past this place on the way out, must have been nearly 2 miles from gate A and looked like the type of prison you'd expect to see in Texas, can't think who would pay to stay there.

[ThomThomDrum]

Was chatting to people at Williams Green one night who were using this "hotel" and they said they were getting shuttled from Gate A so no walk at all. They seemed to love it, but im still very cynical about it all.

 

In fact, the grotesque amount of glamping and hospitality camping really bugs the crap out of me these days for whatever reason

[russycarps]

The more people glamping the less people in the main campsites, surely that's got to be a good thing?

I'm not sure why people are so down on it, yes they are spending more money on a few luxuries but it's their money to spend.  They still have to get a general admission ticket for the main part and then trek on and off site each day.  Most of the campsite are so crowded that surely the off site options only improve things for those on site whilst causing no harm to anyone?

 

 

Because these sorts of people tend to be insufferable turds. The more of them that come to the festival, the shitter it will be.

[Pinhead]

And the proliferation of the external glamping organisations is arguably a lead contributing threat that the festival faces for the future.

[Quark]

And the proliferation of the external glamping organisations is arguably a lead contributing threat that the festival faces for the future.

How so?  Not disagreeing (yet) but don't understand the logic of that one

[MoilyX]

And the proliferation of the external glamping organisations is arguably a lead contributing threat that the festival faces for the future.

 

Surely it's the opposite, no?

[frostypaw]

How so? Not disagreeing (yet) but don't understand the logic of that one

Because the more the owners think they can squeeze from the festival and the festivalgoers the more they will...

The Eavis's might be moral enough to try and keep the ticket price down - doubt these arses would care less if he ended up having to chuck an extra 50 on to cover their demands - from this stuff they know people have the money to spare

If everyone gave them the fuck off and made it clear the festival wasn't for abusing things would be better

[Adster]

I guess the logic is that surrounding farmers can make a lot more money renting fields to glamping companies than to the festival itself (eg East 22), so contributing to the cost/hassle Michael is having with the neighbours.

[Quark]

Because the more the owners think they can squeeze from the festival and the festivalgoers the more they will...

The Eavis's might be moral enough to try and keep the ticket price down - doubt these arses would care less if he ended up having to chuck an extra 50 on to cover their demands - from this stuff they know people have the money to spare

If everyone gave them the fuck off and made it clear the festival wasn't for abusing things would be better

Ah, with you.  Landowners see people willing to part with an extra squillion quid not to put up their own tent, think "aha, these festival types have money to burn" and whack up the hire cost of the land top the Eavii, resulting in knock on ticket prices?

 

So Eavis would either have to up the ticket price, or rent less land and scale down the fest?

 

See the point.  I was thinking in terms of licence, water pollution etc.

[Pinhead]

Basically the surrounding landowners realise they can make a shedload from running their own glamping operations. This then means that they go back to Michael and say they want more money in rent this year if he wants to use the land for the festival again. If he refuses this extortion then they run a glamping operation as threatened and there is another big hole in the festival site where there used to be a crew or parking area. As time goes on, more holes appear and the site becomes harder to organise as the land becomes scarcer and less joined up. Then they start talking about moving the festival (which is the same as ending it to me, but that's another discussion).....

[mungo57]

The only form of clamping I would do is rent a tipi as a one off if I came into money or use a campervan. I prefer slumming it in a tent! Even when the other half's dad uses his camper I sleep in a tent along side when I could fit in! Far far too much glamping for me

[Purple aki squat]

There's way too much of this glamping shit now.

If you can't handle a few nights slumming it in a normal tent surrounded by the festival itself then you're in the wrong place. This is proven true as the atmosphere is diluted more each year as more people are attracted to attend due to glamping.

My thoughts anyway

[ThomThomDrum]

................As time goes on, more holes appear and the site becomes harder to organise as the land becomes scarcer and less joined up. Then they start talking about moving the festival (which is the same as ending it to me, but that's another discussion).....

 

TBF I dont think it is another discussion. If the threat of moving the festival is to be taken as a real threat then the blame for such a looming idea surely is shared (if not lying squarely at the feet of) such glamp sites...............the demand for which comes from Glastonbury being a modern day bucket list destination for Joe Public and the masses. That in turn can be seen to be a result of the massive Beeb exposure the public have witnessed via the google box over the last decade.............

 

Things that some think are good for the fest may be in reality killing it dead on top of the whole ruining the "old vibe" thing many believe them responsible for.............

 

Its a progressive death by 1000 cuts....................

 

If they truly have to consider moving (or some other drastic option) then it is dead.................

[Quark]

Death or evolution?  Weren't similar things said when they started with the superfence?

 

Not saying that the growth in glamping isn't a bad thing (if you can't cope for 3-5 days then is it really for you?), but surely all of this has been driven by how the festival has had to change in order to keep its licence and survive in the form it has?

 

Also wouldn't place quite as much blame on the beeb.  The worst thing for me is the general media obsession with celebrity, and the images of beautiful people looking immaculate while everyone else around them looks like extras from Braveheart.  Think of all the bloody shite magazines rattling on about festival chic and shit like that.

 

That's far more dangerous IMO.

EDIT: I should clarify that I'm more than happy to survive 5 days on babywipes, dry shower gel and mouthwash.  And glamping is bullshit.  Just to avoid confusion

Edited July 7, 2015 by Quark

[stuartbert two hats]

Not saying that the growth in glamping isn't a bad thing (if you can't cope for 3-5 days then is it really for you?), but surely all of this has been driven by how the festival has had to change in order to keep its licence and survive in the form it has?

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the glamping is a necessary prerequisite for the survival of the festival. If so, I disagree.

I don't think the glamping is in response to an existential threat to the festival, quite the opposite - it's in response to the rude health of the festival, its popularity and stability (10 year license granted in 2013). To put it another way, the festival could happily survive without the glamping, but the glamping could not survive without a (prosperous) festival.

If you're saying it's an inevitable consequence of the festival being more mainstream these days, then I partially disagree. Yes, given the current situation with the neighbours, it's pretty inevitable. However, if they really do push forwards with finding a new, less contested location then I'd expect to see far less glamping surrounding the new site.

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

Farmers in making money through diversification. Shock.

Probably all vote Tory too.

[Quark]

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the glamping is a necessary prerequisite for the survival of the festival. If so, I disagree.

I don't think the glamping is in response to an existential threat to the festival, quite the opposite - it's in response to the rude health of the festival, its popularity and stability (10 year license granted in 2013). To put it another way, the festival could happily survive without the glamping, but the glamping could not survive without a (prosperous) festival.

If you're saying it's an inevitable consequence of the festival being more mainstream these days, then I partially disagree. Yes, given the current situation with the neighbours, it's pretty inevitable. However, if they really do push forwards with finding a new, less contested location then I'd expect to see far less glamping surrounding the new site.

Not at all necessary, no.  If the tipis, WV and all of the other options were removed it would still sell out in half an hour on T-day.  And everyone there would still love it.

 

I do think it's driven by the mainstream appeal of the festival though.  Like any product (and when it boils down to it that's what GF is), the manufacturers have looked at their market and listened for what people want, and "improved" it accordingly.  People moaned (maybe not the right word?) about not being able to shower for 5 days, so they started with the solar powered showers in Greenpeace.  The queues for those were massive, so the logical progression was separate showers.  But if they were open to everyone then they'd be crowded with massive queues and loads of other issues.  And it progresses from there.

 

Likewise with all the bloody fashion / lifestyle magazines.  "Here's the Top 10 Looks for Festival Season" - do me a feckin' favour.  But as it becomes more mainstream, that's what the demand is.

 

I have no idea what the answer is.  I think the Eavii could do a lot worse than get rid of WV and the tipis, but that's my opinion.