But, if the proposals were to go ahead, there would actually be a greater area of park land at the end of it - so where's the problem ? As previously posted, none of the proposed developments look like they would affect any of the vistas. The development at the 'top' of the park, where the campsite is, would be a great improvement to a run down area - the same goes for the proposed development at the Upper Norwood Gate. Even the proposals for Sydenham Gate would hardly affect an area of great natural beauty - there are already some pretty ordinary buildings there.
Given that the plans would also mean the removal of the ugliest building in the park - the NSC - it appears that some would like to have their cake, as well as eat it.
If someone would give me a coherent arguement against - other than they just dont like the idea of it - then I am keen to hear it.
Future of National Sports Centre and Crystal Palace Park
I think there are two schools of thought on this – the idealists and the pragmatists.
The idealists are thinking about the wider principles at stake, not just for CPP today, but for the future and for other parkland.
The pragmatists are focussing on the offer that is on the table for CPP and weighing up the pros and cons.
I have every sympathy with the idealists viewpoint. However, I fall more into the pragmatists camp myself, and within that I see more pros than cons with the current proposals.
Whether you like it or not developments of this kind are increasingly held up to a yardstick of commercial viability. I’m not entirely happy with this principle, but there again its not as though there are vats of public money lying around just waiting to be poured into a project like this.
In my opinion if you accept the context in which funding needs to be generated for the development, I think the deal for the park looks excellent. If in any doubt, compare it to the last offer on the table – the multiplex.
My concern is if we oppose the developments based on the principle of the thing, we may end up with nothing.
The idealists are thinking about the wider principles at stake, not just for CPP today, but for the future and for other parkland.
The pragmatists are focussing on the offer that is on the table for CPP and weighing up the pros and cons.
I have every sympathy with the idealists viewpoint. However, I fall more into the pragmatists camp myself, and within that I see more pros than cons with the current proposals.
Whether you like it or not developments of this kind are increasingly held up to a yardstick of commercial viability. I’m not entirely happy with this principle, but there again its not as though there are vats of public money lying around just waiting to be poured into a project like this.
In my opinion if you accept the context in which funding needs to be generated for the development, I think the deal for the park looks excellent. If in any doubt, compare it to the last offer on the table – the multiplex.
My concern is if we oppose the developments based on the principle of the thing, we may end up with nothing.
-
stone-penge
- Posts: 292
- Joined: 5 Nov 2004 14:40
- Location: Newlands park
I 'd like to know of any other park in London that has sold off its land to fund renovation.Weeble wrote: Whether you like it or not developments of this kind are increasingly held up to a yardstick of commercial viability. I’m not entirely happy with this principle, but there again its not as though there are vats of public money lying around just waiting to be poured into a project like this.
In my opinion if you accept the context in which funding needs to be generated for the development, I think the deal for the park looks excellent. If in any doubt, compare it to the last offer on the table – the multiplex.
According to the CPCA it would be the first in the country. It would set a national precedent and is, in itself a crucial decision, notwithstanding the particular benefits to this community.stone-penge wrote:I 'd like to know of any other park in London that has sold off its land to fund renovation.
Which is while I agree with Weeble that there is, and maybe should be, a conflict between idealists and pragmatists - but should we all not be idealists until the pragmatic benefits are reasonably certain?
Pat Trembath said these were ideas not plans. That conflicts with what was said at the Tent. These are the outlines going to Bromley according to the rep I spoke with - and as Bell Green demonstrates and Pat can testify - outlines can be a problem in later years.
Maybe I was misinformed - but my position is that there is no business plan on the table, no firm costings. Little more than artistic impressions. Fishcox likes them, I don't - but either way are they not an insubstantial base for such an important decision? Could we be giving a blank cheque for the LDA if we choose pragmatism over idealism at this stage?
Stuart
I also bet there isnt another park in the country where land can be sold off for development, and the park still ends up with more open acreage than it had before.
If the park were to end up substantially smaller then I too would not be happy. If the buildings looked particularly out of place, I too would not be happy. If the buildings were to spoil any particularly beautiful parts of the park, I too would not be happy. It wont, they dont, and they wont.
If the figures at the tent are correct, which I would assume they are, then there was (on Saturday) a figure of about 75% who 'generally approved' of the proposals for the park, and, if my memory serves, just about 10% who disapproved.
As Weeble says, we could end up with nothing at the end of this process, if that happens, then I shall be joining the Flat Earth Society.
If the park were to end up substantially smaller then I too would not be happy. If the buildings looked particularly out of place, I too would not be happy. If the buildings were to spoil any particularly beautiful parts of the park, I too would not be happy. It wont, they dont, and they wont.
If the figures at the tent are correct, which I would assume they are, then there was (on Saturday) a figure of about 75% who 'generally approved' of the proposals for the park, and, if my memory serves, just about 10% who disapproved.
As Weeble says, we could end up with nothing at the end of this process, if that happens, then I shall be joining the Flat Earth Society.
As an addendum to my last post, I saw the map in the LDA tent, where visitors were to add a dot, to show where they had come from. I do not know if this was wiped clean when the tent moved to its site at the Upper Norwood Gate, but there was a dearth of blue dots in the whole of the Sydenham area.
In the whole of the Westwood Hill/Lawrie Park Road/Crystal Palace Park Road triangle, for instance, there could have been no more than ten blue dots.
In the whole of the Westwood Hill/Lawrie Park Road/Crystal Palace Park Road triangle, for instance, there could have been no more than ten blue dots.
-
stone-penge
- Posts: 292
- Joined: 5 Nov 2004 14:40
- Location: Newlands park
Fishcox .First off the only new bits of the park will be those areas that have been closed off to public access anyway apart from the camping ground.
Secondly we have no idea as to how the building will look save for a artists impression the size of a postage stamp so how you have knowledge that they won't spoil the park I don't know.
The LDA has not stated that the housing development is a ' take it or leave it 'offer, as far as I understand.
The development will only net in 12-15 million quid is that to be spent on the park? or fund the NSC?
Secondly we have no idea as to how the building will look save for a artists impression the size of a postage stamp so how you have knowledge that they won't spoil the park I don't know.
The LDA has not stated that the housing development is a ' take it or leave it 'offer, as far as I understand.
The development will only net in 12-15 million quid is that to be spent on the park? or fund the NSC?
I dont understand the problem, really. Does it matter where the extra park space is coming from ? The fact that it is being reclaimed doesnt make a scrap of difference - it is still adding to the available green space.
You are partially right, in that I am making assumptions that the new buildings will not spoil the park, on the basis of some thumbnail sketches.
However, I am also taking the view that, in the areas where they intend to build, there is nothing to actually 'spoil'. The buildings that they will replace, or the areas they will fill, can hardly be described as 'much loved' or 'areas of great natural beauty' can they ?
Sydenham Gate has a dull, uninspiring house - and that is the most positive thing in that area. There is also the car park, an old one o'clock club building, and the building for emergency service vehicles, oth of which are, i think, made of the wondrous and mystical material called breeze block. Heavens knows what would become of the area, if we were to lose such architectural gems.
The caravan park and the rest of the proposed building land at the 'top' of the park, is also an area it is impossible to spoil. If it was developed, how I would miss the smashed up telephone booth, and the empty cans of Tennants lager which litter that area. The same goes for the Upper Norwood development.
When we had visited the LDA tent on Saturday, I took the boy to the 'fun' fair (an oxymoron, if there ever was one). Within five minutes, I was looking for a 'Hit the Bell -Win a Prozac Tablet' stall. If the new development had no effect, other than preventing such a dreadful set up, they should start building tomorrow.
Strangely enough, what nobody seems to have picked up on, is whether anybody would buy a property i) in the shadow of one of the tallest uninhabited structures in Europe or ii) within earshot of fifty diesel engines and squealing bus brakes 24/7.
Stone Penge, I am certain you have seen these areas as they are, and can have no worries about them being 'spoiled'.
Then stand at the brow of the hill, above the childrens playground, and look at the NSC, in all its glory. Look at the disused turnstiles, the concrete walkway, and the service road; evidence, if it was ever needed, that the architects of the fifties and the sixties, did more damage to this country, than the Luftwaffe could ever have done.
Then please post another reply, reiterating that the proposals are a bad idea.
You are partially right, in that I am making assumptions that the new buildings will not spoil the park, on the basis of some thumbnail sketches.
However, I am also taking the view that, in the areas where they intend to build, there is nothing to actually 'spoil'. The buildings that they will replace, or the areas they will fill, can hardly be described as 'much loved' or 'areas of great natural beauty' can they ?
Sydenham Gate has a dull, uninspiring house - and that is the most positive thing in that area. There is also the car park, an old one o'clock club building, and the building for emergency service vehicles, oth of which are, i think, made of the wondrous and mystical material called breeze block. Heavens knows what would become of the area, if we were to lose such architectural gems.
The caravan park and the rest of the proposed building land at the 'top' of the park, is also an area it is impossible to spoil. If it was developed, how I would miss the smashed up telephone booth, and the empty cans of Tennants lager which litter that area. The same goes for the Upper Norwood development.
When we had visited the LDA tent on Saturday, I took the boy to the 'fun' fair (an oxymoron, if there ever was one). Within five minutes, I was looking for a 'Hit the Bell -Win a Prozac Tablet' stall. If the new development had no effect, other than preventing such a dreadful set up, they should start building tomorrow.
Strangely enough, what nobody seems to have picked up on, is whether anybody would buy a property i) in the shadow of one of the tallest uninhabited structures in Europe or ii) within earshot of fifty diesel engines and squealing bus brakes 24/7.
Stone Penge, I am certain you have seen these areas as they are, and can have no worries about them being 'spoiled'.
Then stand at the brow of the hill, above the childrens playground, and look at the NSC, in all its glory. Look at the disused turnstiles, the concrete walkway, and the service road; evidence, if it was ever needed, that the architects of the fifties and the sixties, did more damage to this country, than the Luftwaffe could ever have done.
Then please post another reply, reiterating that the proposals are a bad idea.
I think part of the problem Fishcox is that we are starting from different positions. The 'dull uninspiring house' was hidden behind a beautiful garden, the car park is a large area already taken out of parkland only a few years ago, there was a play park where kids could really enjoy exciting play... I could go on.fishcox wrote:Sydenham Gate has a dull, uninspiring house - and that is the most positive thing in that area. There is also the car park, an old one o'clock club building, and the building for emergency service vehicles, oth of which are, i think, made of the wondrous and mystical material called breeze block. Heavens knows what would become of the area, if we were to lose such architectural gems.
I thought the objective was, at least, to get back to a pre-Bromley level of pleasure & facility in the Park. You don't appear to have that aspiration, but to support/expand Bromley's destruction of the Sydenham Gate parkland.
I do support the relocation of the NSC Pool complex, that really would open up the park. If the LDA says the *only* way that can be achieved is by further removing parkland at Sydenham Gate then one has to balance it. But I think you are giving away something for nothing at the moment.
What will the Sydenham Gate money buy? Is it to subsidise the Sport England development? I don't know. The exhibition didn't appear to provide an answer.
Stuart
-
Illuminance
- Posts: 84
- Joined: 14 Mar 2005 16:49
- Location: Tunbridge Wells
I'm in agreement with Fishcox; if we're going to end up with more open land after the redevelopment then whats the problem?
Section 6.3.22 of the CPP Planning Framework (Sydenham Gateway bit) states "an option for the provision of high quality villa style development along Crystal Palace Park Road which, in footprint,scale and disposition, would be equivalent to the existing Paxton Villas" ie: sympathetic 'infill' sites.
These existing villas were built and sold from parkland in the 1860's to finance the Park. So was most of Thicket Road in 1871 and Ledrington Road in 1883. Kinda history repeating itself.
Seems like the LDA has actually put some thought into this project - remember, we might have had a UCI, burger joint and car park built there not so long ago.
Fishcox - there were lots of blue dots around Lawrie Park/Penge East area when the tent was at the Penge gate
Section 6.3.22 of the CPP Planning Framework (Sydenham Gateway bit) states "an option for the provision of high quality villa style development along Crystal Palace Park Road which, in footprint,scale and disposition, would be equivalent to the existing Paxton Villas" ie: sympathetic 'infill' sites.
These existing villas were built and sold from parkland in the 1860's to finance the Park. So was most of Thicket Road in 1871 and Ledrington Road in 1883. Kinda history repeating itself.
Seems like the LDA has actually put some thought into this project - remember, we might have had a UCI, burger joint and car park built there not so long ago.
Fishcox - there were lots of blue dots around Lawrie Park/Penge East area when the tent was at the Penge gate
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
The CPCA, who have been quoted several times in this thread, are misleading on at least two points. Their leaflets refer to "the sale of public parkland" setting "a dangerous precedent".
Illuminance is absolutely right. The sites proposed for development by the LDA were all originally leased and developed some 130 years ago. Over the years parts of these sites have become vacant as a result of bombing and demolition, but using this land to help sustain the park is simply following a precedent, not setting one.
Secondly, the LDA does not own the park so cannot sell it (they have issued statements to this effect). Whatever developments go ahead, the land will remain the property of the London Borough of Bromley.
Of greater concern, surely, is the quality of any new building. The phrase "Paxton-style villas" is ominous, and suggests they are thinking of a pastiche. Indeed, the phrase is meaningless, as Paxton had nothing whatsoever to do with the extraordinary range of houses in Crystal Palace Park Road. They were the work of John Norton, architect of Tyntesfield, who lived in one of them.
Illuminance is absolutely right. The sites proposed for development by the LDA were all originally leased and developed some 130 years ago. Over the years parts of these sites have become vacant as a result of bombing and demolition, but using this land to help sustain the park is simply following a precedent, not setting one.
Secondly, the LDA does not own the park so cannot sell it (they have issued statements to this effect). Whatever developments go ahead, the land will remain the property of the London Borough of Bromley.
Of greater concern, surely, is the quality of any new building. The phrase "Paxton-style villas" is ominous, and suggests they are thinking of a pastiche. Indeed, the phrase is meaningless, as Paxton had nothing whatsoever to do with the extraordinary range of houses in Crystal Palace Park Road. They were the work of John Norton, architect of Tyntesfield, who lived in one of them.
I use the crystal palace pool most days, which I access via the uninspiring Lawrie Park Gate. Inside, the pool is a dilapidated embarrassment of a facility. Externally, the entire existing complex is a scar on the park. In fact, the whole centre of the park from the terraces downward is an incoherent jumble of concrete and tarmac.
If flogging off a few acres of essentially Brownfield land is the price we have to pay to give us a restored park, an increased amount of parkland, and an elegant and efficient new sport complex, so be it.
I just don’t understand the mindset of the intellectual purists who oppose this development. It’s perfectly clear that there is no £100 million pot of gold to give us a new park for free. But it seems that they’d rather live with the current state of dilapidation rather than sacrifice their “no building” principles.
If flogging off a few acres of essentially Brownfield land is the price we have to pay to give us a restored park, an increased amount of parkland, and an elegant and efficient new sport complex, so be it.
I just don’t understand the mindset of the intellectual purists who oppose this development. It’s perfectly clear that there is no £100 million pot of gold to give us a new park for free. But it seems that they’d rather live with the current state of dilapidation rather than sacrifice their “no building” principles.
I guess the opposers perceived that this is the 'thin end of the wedge' - that if we don't express disquiet at the plans to build on the park, both here in the future, and in other areas, this will be perceived as something that is 'publicly acceptable'.
So on the one hand I fully support people who are making the effort to express their concerns.
However, I do think we really, really can't afford to turn our back on this opportunity. Making it clear we don't like the proposals for building on the park is one thing, and perhaps begrudging acceptance of the idea. However, if this stalls, or even stops, the whole process, it would be a massive missed opportunity for the area.
I'm a bit concerned that if the new sports facilities are to be of any use for Olympics training etc, then things really do need to get moving - ie the process can't afford to be stalled. To miss out on an Olympics use may impact funding (I don't know - I don't think the means of funding are clear at the moment), which could affect the whole proposal.
So on the one hand I fully support people who are making the effort to express their concerns.
However, I do think we really, really can't afford to turn our back on this opportunity. Making it clear we don't like the proposals for building on the park is one thing, and perhaps begrudging acceptance of the idea. However, if this stalls, or even stops, the whole process, it would be a massive missed opportunity for the area.
I'm a bit concerned that if the new sports facilities are to be of any use for Olympics training etc, then things really do need to get moving - ie the process can't afford to be stalled. To miss out on an Olympics use may impact funding (I don't know - I don't think the means of funding are clear at the moment), which could affect the whole proposal.