Walking by the sea

Source A: an original contemporary non-fiction-style account.

I used to dismiss the seaside promenade as a place for people who wanted a view without a proper walk. Then an ankle injury reduced my usual coastal route to an ambition. On the promenade I could stop, turn back easily and remain close to transport. The sea did not become less worth seeing because the ground beneath me was level.

There were cafés and railings, dogs and mobility scooters, conversations I could not avoid hearing. I missed the solitude of the rough path, but I began to question why I had treated difficulty as proof of a more authentic experience. Access did not spoil the coast; it changed who could share it. When my ankle recovered, I returned to longer walks. I also returned to the promenade with my neighbour, who could not manage those paths. There was room in my idea of the seaside for both journeys.

Source B: an original letter in a nineteenth-century voice. This is a period-voice simulation, not an archival document.

Dear Cousin, the new promenade is much admired, and I grant that it makes the shore available to those unable to cross the rough ground. Yet I cannot admire every change made in the name of improvement. The line of shops has advanced so close to the water that one may travel half the frontage hearing more advertisements than waves.

I do not ask that visitors be denied seats, shelter or refreshments. My objection is to the assumption that every open view requires another opportunity to purchase something beside it. A level path is a convenience; a continuous row of stalls is a different proposal. We ought to distinguish them before calling the whole arrangement progress. Let the promenade welcome more people without insisting that the sea must compete for attention with every trader's sign. It is already a considerable attraction, and has managed this without a printed announcement.

Refer to the whole of both sources. Compare the writers’ perspectives on developed seaside promenades and how they convey those perspectives. Support your comparison with evidence from both sources.