Dear Juwiz,
I too walk on the graveled area and yes it is big. I love the park. Like you I was against the rebuilding UNTIL I went to the exhibition. What did you think to it? I though it was well presented and after meeting the architect I changed my mind. The plans are well thought out.
Like many i'd like to see the palace built. It gave the area it's name. As for building in a park, many parks have buildings in them. Hyde Park has, Regents Park has, Greenwich Park has, Hampstead Heath has. Parks are more than just a patch of grass surrounded by trees.
They are recreational spaces, with different areas, buildings, things to do, playgrounds for rich, young, old, poor, they educate and stimulate. They are the lungs of London.
The new Crystal Palace building stops none of that. This isn't just any building. It's a restoration of what was already there. It's a focal point. and importantly it may rejuvinate the whole area and pay for the rejuvination of the park itself which is a problem as Bromley can't fund it and the LDA cant either.
The Crystal palace would be a viable commercial concern And you won't have to build housing on the park, which otherwise you will have to do to raise £12 million to refurbish the park.
So whatever way you look at it you will have building.
Cheap housing or a new Crystal Palace.
Your choice. I know what mine is.
Exhibition on Rebuilding Crystal Palace NOW ON
-
John Greatrex
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 5 Mar 2008 21:41
- Location: SE19
The Crystal Palace Corner
Dear Ritchie
For further information about THE CRYSTAL PALACE CORNER if you go to http://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org and scroll down to my January 2008 Corner update it shows some photos of what was and what is to be!
Thanks for the inquiry
John Greatrex
MD Great Exhibitions Ltd
For further information about THE CRYSTAL PALACE CORNER if you go to http://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org and scroll down to my January 2008 Corner update it shows some photos of what was and what is to be!
Thanks for the inquiry
John Greatrex
MD Great Exhibitions Ltd
I will make sure I'm there for the all important baptism... looking forward to seeing your dream come true! Let's hope the gods are watching over Sydenham Hill.Dear leenewhamleenewham wrote: The Crystal palace would be a viable commercial concern .
I think all you need to know is summed up by the words 'commercial concern'.
The rebuilt Crystal palace could be the most brilliant bit of architecture in the world and it wouldn't change my opinion. It would be a COMMERCIAL building built on PUBLIC land, which is completely unacceptable.
The LDA's proposed options of building housing is less than ideal, but its only being considered in the first place as a last ditch option to fund improvements to the park and built on land that's currently inaccessibly to park users as it is. Obviousy in an ideal world there'd be none at all, but I'd much rather that a small amount of unobtrusive housing was built in a couple of small patches than a whopping big 'palace' (for what purpose?) stuck in the prime spot at the top of the hill.
The difference with the 'rebuilding of the palace' idea is that it makes a building central to the park, taking up the best bit of the park as far as I'm concerned, and where the lovely views are. And the fact that its a private initiative would worry me big time.
Anyway - I'm sure its not going to happen thankfully.
In the mean time I must say I like the sound of 'The Crystal Palace Corner'. Lovely idea. Well done guys.
Juwiz, please call me Lee 
You don't worry about my second name 
.
The original crystal palace was a commercial concern. It paid for most of the museums we now enjoy in london!
Buildings have to pay their way. So of course it will be a commercial concern, it has to pay for itself. However it will be run as a charity which will help secure the future of the park. It wont be used to help fat cats get richer if that's what you are worried about. it will have a viewing gallery at the top to give even better views of the area. And the Public get to say what's in it.
Did you go to the exhibitions about it? I get the impression you didn't.
If you have made up your mind, you have made up your mind. That's fine. I'm just trying to put some of the facts in place here.
I agree that the corner they have built is a really good idea. I just hope they add lots more bits to it
You don't worry about my second name .The original crystal palace was a commercial concern. It paid for most of the museums we now enjoy in london!
Buildings have to pay their way. So of course it will be a commercial concern, it has to pay for itself. However it will be run as a charity which will help secure the future of the park. It wont be used to help fat cats get richer if that's what you are worried about. it will have a viewing gallery at the top to give even better views of the area. And the Public get to say what's in it.
Did you go to the exhibitions about it? I get the impression you didn't.
If you have made up your mind, you have made up your mind. That's fine. I'm just trying to put some of the facts in place here.
I agree that the corner they have built is a really good idea. I just hope they add lots more bits to it
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
Ray Hall's original plans for rebuilding the Crystal Palace were first presented in 1999 when he proposed that the building should be erected on Blackheath as part of the millennium celebrations. The scheme was greeted with a chorus of disbelief and derision from local residents. It was described variously as "utterly daft" and "Mr Hall's ... private fantasy". Somebody wrote to the NewsShopper that: "The heath belongs to the people -- not to Mr Hall and his money-grabbing cronies (sorry -- "sponsors")."
Another suggested, rather snobbishly, that Ray Hall would be better advised to turn his attention to the original site for his project, as good taste and architectural integrity would be less important to people in this part of the borough than to the residents of Blackheath. He clearly took that advice.
Anyway, we already have a replica of the original building in this part of London; those who want to get of sense of what the proposed building might look like should go and study the Homebase store at Southend, a deliberate imitation of the original.
Another suggested, rather snobbishly, that Ray Hall would be better advised to turn his attention to the original site for his project, as good taste and architectural integrity would be less important to people in this part of the borough than to the residents of Blackheath. He clearly took that advice.
Anyway, we already have a replica of the original building in this part of London; those who want to get of sense of what the proposed building might look like should go and study the Homebase store at Southend, a deliberate imitation of the original.
But Lee, the cost of this new building (according to the newpaper article above) will be £220m, three times the amount that LDA propose to raise for their scheme.
How on earth would you raise that sort of money without turning the building into either a shopping mall or housing complex?
We are living in the 21st century. Whilst millions flocked to see concerts and exhibitions at the original Crystal Palace in the late nineteenth century, by the beginning of the twentieth century the CP was a white elephant with empty seats at concerts and real concern amongst owners about what on earth they were going to do with the building. There is simply no desire for suburban "wonderpalaces" today. Talk to the developers and architects who, in the 1990s, refurbished Alexandra Palace in north London hoping that the new building would atttract exhibitions or expand as an art gallery or civic centre - this sadly failed completely. Or look at the Millennium Dome - great building, great integrated transport system - but it's only recent found a long-term purpose.
This scheme is the Crystal Palace version of Bluewater. I've no doubt it may have an authentic roof but it still doesn't stop it being a shopping mall.
Come clean - you admit it needs to be commercial. What exactly do you mean? If it is going to be a shopping complex, why should this work when the Bell Green site lies empty. And how on earth is a shopping mall going to revitalise the area?
How on earth would you raise that sort of money without turning the building into either a shopping mall or housing complex?
We are living in the 21st century. Whilst millions flocked to see concerts and exhibitions at the original Crystal Palace in the late nineteenth century, by the beginning of the twentieth century the CP was a white elephant with empty seats at concerts and real concern amongst owners about what on earth they were going to do with the building. There is simply no desire for suburban "wonderpalaces" today. Talk to the developers and architects who, in the 1990s, refurbished Alexandra Palace in north London hoping that the new building would atttract exhibitions or expand as an art gallery or civic centre - this sadly failed completely. Or look at the Millennium Dome - great building, great integrated transport system - but it's only recent found a long-term purpose.
This scheme is the Crystal Palace version of Bluewater. I've no doubt it may have an authentic roof but it still doesn't stop it being a shopping mall.
Come clean - you admit it needs to be commercial. What exactly do you mean? If it is going to be a shopping complex, why should this work when the Bell Green site lies empty. And how on earth is a shopping mall going to revitalise the area?
-
Lillylocks
- Posts: 13
- Joined: 3 Jun 2007 17:59
- Location: Bromley
Ok, Pat, I'll see if I can clarify some details for you.
The Blackheath venue was always going to be temporary - but surely you would know this?
Mr Hall and the good people of Crystal Palace would not have wanted to waste such an iconic monument on the ungrateful people (snobs) of Blackheath.
Another suggested, rather snobbishly, that Ray Hall would be better advised to turn his attention to the original site for his project, as good taste and architectural integrity would be less important to people in this part of the borough than to the residents of Blackheath. He clearly took that advice.Ray Hall's original plans for rebuilding the Crystal Palace were first presented in 1999 when he proposed that the building should be erected on Blackheath as part of the millennium celebrations. The scheme was greeted with a chorus of disbelief and derision from local residents. It was described variously as "utterly daft" and "Mr Hall's ... private fantasy". Somebody wrote to the News Shopper that: "The heath belongs to the people -- not to Mr Hall and his money-grabbing cronies (sorry -- "sponsors")."
In actual fact, Mr Ray Hall's proposal to build the Crystal Palace on Blackheath was far from being a 'money grabbing' exercise. It was in fact a charitable project to celebrate the millennium by generating funding for children of the world. He hardly deserves the bitter, twisted and vitriolic description that you offered.
The Blackheath venue was always going to be temporary - but surely you would know this?
Mr Hall and the good people of Crystal Palace would not have wanted to waste such an iconic monument on the ungrateful people (snobs) of Blackheath.
Anyway, we already have a replica of the original building in this part of London; those who want to get of sense of what the proposed building might look like should go and study the Homebase store at Southend, a deliberate imitation of the original.
The Homebase store - one must pressume you mean Catford and not Southend? I find small inaccuracies of this nature highly annoying. And here's another one. Replica of the Crystal Palace? I have taken the trouble to look up the true definition of the word in the OED for you, in order to demonstrate the silliness of your claim.
Replica - 1. a duplicate of a work made by the original artist
2. a facsimile, an exact copy
Homebase a replica of the Palace? I hardly think so!!!
Mr Ray Hall, has out of the most philanthropic of intentions, pulled together a package which will provide South London with a landmark attraction that will provide leisure and entertainment, jobs, heritage and on-going funding for the park. He has also arranged £265M private investment to make this happen. The building itself will be of the iconic design associated with the Crystal Palace and will be of a standard akin to Covent Garden Opera House extension. Some may not want to see a Crystal Palace, but Mr Hall does not deserve ridicule or derision, and to call him 'money grabbing' when he will not be making any money from the scheme, shows a general ignorance of the facts.
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
Flattering as it is to be mistaken for Pat, I always post under my own name.Lillylocks wrote:Ok, Pat, I'll see if I can clarify some details for you.
No, I mean the Homebase at Southend Village, by the Southend pond, opposite the Southend Chapel, on the Bromley Road.The Homebase store - one must pressume you mean Catford and not Southend? I find small inaccuracies of this nature highly annoying.
Perhaps "replica" was too kind a word, but one of the earliest quotes in my edition of the OED (the complete multi-volume one) refers to "an ill-done replica" which I think is a good enough description of the building.And here's another one. Replica of the Crystal Palace? I have taken the trouble to look up the true definition of the word in the OED for you, in order to demonstrate the silliness of your claim.
Replica - 1. a duplicate of a work made by the original artist
2. a facsimile, an exact copy
If you look carefully at what I wrote you will see that most of the disparaging comments were in quotation marks; they were the quotes of local people, made at the time and published in the local press. This includes the reference to "money-grabbing sponsors" which was from the NewsShopper of 13 Feb 1999.
Steve if you mean Southend Village, you should say so! and if you repeat nasty stuff about someone even if some other person said it, you are just as responsible, more cowardly even than if you said it yorself. You answer this and that but you duck and dive the main issue that you are personaly attacking a really nice guy who wants to help children cos you dont like the building he wants to build. You hint that the building would look like Homebase when you don't even know. How could you. His idea is great and You is way to negative.
[/quote]
It would be a COMMERCIAL building built on PUBLIC land, which is completely unacceptable.
[/quote]
Excuse me, but what do you think the original Crystal Palace was? The park was established for the purpose of housing the Crystal Palace and its exhibition - a commercial (and very successful) enterprise!
This is truly an imaginative and exciting vision for the future of Crystal Palace Park, rather than the uninspired ideas currently proposed by the LDA.
It would be a COMMERCIAL building built on PUBLIC land, which is completely unacceptable.
[/quote]
Excuse me, but what do you think the original Crystal Palace was? The park was established for the purpose of housing the Crystal Palace and its exhibition - a commercial (and very successful) enterprise!
This is truly an imaginative and exciting vision for the future of Crystal Palace Park, rather than the uninspired ideas currently proposed by the LDA.
Can I just ask for folks to cool it on this one. Architecture is a passionate art. No problem with people saying RH's proposition is great or rubbish. Though it helps if people say why.
But whether RH himself or those for and against the project are nice or bad guys doesn't make the idea better or worse. So lay off the personal attacks please and focus on the building and other plans.
Cheers,
Admin
But whether RH himself or those for and against the project are nice or bad guys doesn't make the idea better or worse. So lay off the personal attacks please and focus on the building and other plans.
Cheers,
Admin
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
I said: "...in this part of London ... at Southend". I assumed that was enough.outcast wrote:Steve if you mean Southend Village, you should say so!
I mentioned those quotes, all in the public domain, to show the strength of feeling amongst opponents of the scheme in Blackheath. At the time I had no particular views about that scheme....if you repeat nasty stuff about someone even if some other person said it, you are just as responsible, more cowardly even than if you said it yorself.
No, I'm not. I met Ray several times many years ago, and I wouldn't disagree with your description. I simply have very serious doubts about the whole project, and do not feel that the case for it has been very well made....you duck and dive the main issue that you are personaly attacking a really nice guy...
thumbs up for the idea of a small scale replica!
I think such a landmark would be a fitting tribute to the former grand Crystal Palace; as a small replica, It would not overdominate the park but be a nice focal point at the top of it; the commercial aspect does not bother me; the original Crystal palalce was a private venture. As long as it offers quality retail/services (for exemple not a multiplex cinema but a picture house like the ritzy or chapham picture house); furthermore it will allow the regeneration of the rest of the park... also if it is done right it could attract more business for the triangle who needs it. The development of public transport in the area should cope with this new attraction; I like the idea of a building that would more generate more electricity than it uses. Also the overhanging charity would make sure the inerest of the local community is heard and not just the private investors.
I also like the idea of the 360 deg viewing platform what a sight it would be!!!
This Park is big enough to satisfy everyone..the nature lovers, the nostalgia lovers and the ones looking for more entertainment.
Congrats to the team who has organised the exhibition, this plan could satisfy everyone so let's get together and work together!
Nicolas
I also like the idea of the 360 deg viewing platform what a sight it would be!!!
This Park is big enough to satisfy everyone..the nature lovers, the nostalgia lovers and the ones looking for more entertainment.
Congrats to the team who has organised the exhibition, this plan could satisfy everyone so let's get together and work together!
Nicolas
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
In a quieter and more reflective corner of this thread John Greatrex has told us about the Crystal Palace Corner, the imminent restoration of a small part of the original Crystal Palace (which is, as he says, no pastiche). For those who genuinely care about the original building this is very exciting.
Sylvester – I am fully aware that the original Crystal Palace was a commercial venture. That doesn't make it okay to have a commercial venture in the park now though does it?Sylvester wrote:
Excuse me, but what do you think the original Crystal Palace was? The park was established for the purpose of housing the Crystal Palace and its exhibition - a commercial (and very successful) enterprise!
This is truly an imaginative and exciting vision for the future of Crystal Palace Park, rather than the uninspired ideas currently proposed by the LDA.
In Victorian times they also had young children going up chimneys to clean them, but I don't think we want to bring that back now do we? Not everything about the past is so great that it needs to be recreated. The point about history is to learn from it, not replicate it.
The area we live in is vastly more built-up than it was back then and green spaces are essential. All I am asking is that we keep them as green spaces and resist the urge to build over them.
Besides which trees cost a lot less in upkeep than glass palaces.
rebuilding the Crystal Palace
I understand people's desire to protect wildlife. God knows we are losing green space all over the place and wildlife deserves regard. However I feel that in this instance there are many factors that change this issue from simply being black and white. (Or should I say green).
We should as I say consider wildlife but when are we going to consider our young people. This area of London has nothing for them. The park is a wonderful place for them when they are young enough to go with their mum or dad but as they become teenagers the park becomes a different place where they are likely to be robbed or bullied. There is no organised play for them, no facilities and no policing.
When they go to Croydon or Bromley they have to come home pretty much as soon as they arrive in order to be home in good time.
When they get older, perhaps want to take someone out, they have to take a bus into town - not a particularly safe option these days. I have done my share of sitting at home worrying as my 16 year old travelled back from Croydon at 11pm. Then when they get to working age, there are no local jobs for them.
Having a Crystal Palace would provide good entertainment for families, older children and adults.
Quite a lot of the posts on here have been very negative and often without any foundation in fact. I would therefore and with your indulgence like to try to put a more positive case take on it.
Design - I can't for the like of me understand this Homebase thing. Just because someone builds an ugly building with a window that vaguely resembles the window of the Crystal Palace why do people assume that a new Crystal Palace would look like Homebase! Why not like the Covent Garden Opera House version?
Content - People state that there is no information about content and then go on to say that it will certainly end up as a shopping mall! Those who went to the exhibition will realise that it will not be a shopping mal or a clip joint or gin palace!
Apparently, public consultation on the content has already started but we were told about some of the things on offer. There could be an Edwardian fun fair for the young children, Jules Verne's lost world - a journey through deserts, jungles, oceans - cinema, skiing, Climbing wall for the older children, concert hall for shows, concerts and exhibitions and a Heritage Destination based on the glorious history of the Crystal Palace.
The Idea is to sqeeze a profit out of every bit of open space.
On the contrary. The park is in trouble. Doing nothing is not an option. The park costs 2 mill just to keep it as it is now. Without a commercial driver, it will simply decline further and another generation of children will not connect with nature.
The object of the Crystal Palace is to make enough money to provide ongoing funding for the park so that we can make it a park that is used and that people can be proud of. We could see the balustrades restored properly and the park once again teaming with life and vitality. I think it would be wonderful to take the family to see the dinosaurs, go on the boats and then walk up past the farm to the Crystal Palace. People would stay in the hotel just to spend a holiday in Crystal Palace sampling the local shops and cafes.
We can put up with the damaged statuary and the lack of facilities. We can go on enjoying the solitude of an underused park or we can say that we will get the children back into the park and off the streets; that we will put Crystal Palace back on the map, a place to be proud of.
Nature is a wonderful grounding agent for young people. As another poster said, there is space in the park for everyone. The wildlife has another 70 acres of park to enjoy. Let's give a bit for the thousands of people who would like to see the Crystal Palace with all it offers. I guess that 's it really. Let's be democratic about it. The new Crystal Palace will be run under a Charitable Trust which will include members from the landowners and the local community. It will connect the town to the park, provide excellent entertainment and over a thousand jobs.
The best thing about it is that it won't cost us a penny. £265mill private investment is secured. So please no more flippant or ill informed comments, just reason and proper consideration. We should stop thinking about what is best for us and consider what is best for the community. Don't get me wrong - if you really think that the park the way it is is good for the community and you can think of a way of coming up with the 2mill a year then I am in no way knocking you. I only take issue with those who want the park how they want it and don't care about others.
It will not be the commercial monster that has been painted here. For example, the Central barrel vault will house an awesome wintergarden that will entice people through to the park and provide a wonderful indoor space to sit, have a cofee, view the galleries etc. The whole building will overlook the top part of the park making it a safe area for children to play and people to pic nic, walk or jog etc.
As I say, I do not aim to convince anyone with my writing only to put the positive side because there really is such a very positive case to be made.
We should as I say consider wildlife but when are we going to consider our young people. This area of London has nothing for them. The park is a wonderful place for them when they are young enough to go with their mum or dad but as they become teenagers the park becomes a different place where they are likely to be robbed or bullied. There is no organised play for them, no facilities and no policing.
When they go to Croydon or Bromley they have to come home pretty much as soon as they arrive in order to be home in good time.
When they get older, perhaps want to take someone out, they have to take a bus into town - not a particularly safe option these days. I have done my share of sitting at home worrying as my 16 year old travelled back from Croydon at 11pm. Then when they get to working age, there are no local jobs for them.
Having a Crystal Palace would provide good entertainment for families, older children and adults.
Quite a lot of the posts on here have been very negative and often without any foundation in fact. I would therefore and with your indulgence like to try to put a more positive case take on it.
Design - I can't for the like of me understand this Homebase thing. Just because someone builds an ugly building with a window that vaguely resembles the window of the Crystal Palace why do people assume that a new Crystal Palace would look like Homebase! Why not like the Covent Garden Opera House version?
Content - People state that there is no information about content and then go on to say that it will certainly end up as a shopping mall! Those who went to the exhibition will realise that it will not be a shopping mal or a clip joint or gin palace!
Apparently, public consultation on the content has already started but we were told about some of the things on offer. There could be an Edwardian fun fair for the young children, Jules Verne's lost world - a journey through deserts, jungles, oceans - cinema, skiing, Climbing wall for the older children, concert hall for shows, concerts and exhibitions and a Heritage Destination based on the glorious history of the Crystal Palace.
The Idea is to sqeeze a profit out of every bit of open space.
On the contrary. The park is in trouble. Doing nothing is not an option. The park costs 2 mill just to keep it as it is now. Without a commercial driver, it will simply decline further and another generation of children will not connect with nature.
The object of the Crystal Palace is to make enough money to provide ongoing funding for the park so that we can make it a park that is used and that people can be proud of. We could see the balustrades restored properly and the park once again teaming with life and vitality. I think it would be wonderful to take the family to see the dinosaurs, go on the boats and then walk up past the farm to the Crystal Palace. People would stay in the hotel just to spend a holiday in Crystal Palace sampling the local shops and cafes.
We can put up with the damaged statuary and the lack of facilities. We can go on enjoying the solitude of an underused park or we can say that we will get the children back into the park and off the streets; that we will put Crystal Palace back on the map, a place to be proud of.
Nature is a wonderful grounding agent for young people. As another poster said, there is space in the park for everyone. The wildlife has another 70 acres of park to enjoy. Let's give a bit for the thousands of people who would like to see the Crystal Palace with all it offers. I guess that 's it really. Let's be democratic about it. The new Crystal Palace will be run under a Charitable Trust which will include members from the landowners and the local community. It will connect the town to the park, provide excellent entertainment and over a thousand jobs.
The best thing about it is that it won't cost us a penny. £265mill private investment is secured. So please no more flippant or ill informed comments, just reason and proper consideration. We should stop thinking about what is best for us and consider what is best for the community. Don't get me wrong - if you really think that the park the way it is is good for the community and you can think of a way of coming up with the 2mill a year then I am in no way knocking you. I only take issue with those who want the park how they want it and don't care about others.
It will not be the commercial monster that has been painted here. For example, the Central barrel vault will house an awesome wintergarden that will entice people through to the park and provide a wonderful indoor space to sit, have a cofee, view the galleries etc. The whole building will overlook the top part of the park making it a safe area for children to play and people to pic nic, walk or jog etc.
As I say, I do not aim to convince anyone with my writing only to put the positive side because there really is such a very positive case to be made.