If you follow this link:
http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/CouncilAndDe ... HillPools/
you will be able to see the 3 options which have been worked up by Lewisham for the redevelopment of Forest Hill Pools. All 3 involve the demolition of Louise House and the existing pools building.
Scroll down the page and click on the blue lines of text for images relating to Options 1, 2 and 3.
At the foot of the page is a blue line inviting comments.
Annabel McLaren, Sydenham Society
Forest Hill Pools consultation
-
annabel mclaren
- Posts: 115
- Joined: 1 Oct 2004 19:55
- Location: thorpes
nice one lewisham council
concise and to the point - and each one of the options looks better than the current outdated building.
i know there will be a load of people who dislike change, and would hate to see the present building demolished, but could someone please tell me what is so good about the present building, other than the fact it is 'old'?
concise and to the point - and each one of the options looks better than the current outdated building.
i know there will be a load of people who dislike change, and would hate to see the present building demolished, but could someone please tell me what is so good about the present building, other than the fact it is 'old'?
Its good to be able to see the options now, at long last. Option 3 does seem abit over bearing on the road though, with the new taller residential block. LIke the idea of the town square, although it does seem a wasted opportunity not to have proposed it on the opposing side, so that it linked into the front of the library...that would have made a really good community space.
On the issue of the existing buildings. I know what Fishcox is saying; there is not always a necessary point in retaining buildings for the sake of it (look around London, it has constantly evolved with building replacing buildings all the time). However, the issue here more is that the area does not have that many decorative older buildings, or ones which have a civic value, such as the trio of existing buildings on the site (including the library). So many times in the past have we demolished what we then considered redundant buildings only to replace them with an inferior quality building, then 20 years down the line we regret it. However, we also need to appreciate that buildings also have only a limited shelf life, and is it viable to adapt them for present day use? Anyway, its over to you guys to make that decision!
On the issue of the existing buildings. I know what Fishcox is saying; there is not always a necessary point in retaining buildings for the sake of it (look around London, it has constantly evolved with building replacing buildings all the time). However, the issue here more is that the area does not have that many decorative older buildings, or ones which have a civic value, such as the trio of existing buildings on the site (including the library). So many times in the past have we demolished what we then considered redundant buildings only to replace them with an inferior quality building, then 20 years down the line we regret it. However, we also need to appreciate that buildings also have only a limited shelf life, and is it viable to adapt them for present day use? Anyway, its over to you guys to make that decision!
-
Muddy Waters
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 17:05
Surely one question is will this ever be built? Is there a developer standing in the wings ready to buy into this scheme? Yet more flats in Forest Hill?
Have to say on first sight this scheme looks like a mighty bulky building. If the architecture is wrong it will be a dominant monster on Dartmouth Road.
Computerised drawings show these ideas off to their (Lewisham's)best advantage. Did anyone see Salcombe House look so beautiful? And do I spy a tree on the pavement outside Provender?
Have to say on first sight this scheme looks like a mighty bulky building. If the architecture is wrong it will be a dominant monster on Dartmouth Road.
Computerised drawings show these ideas off to their (Lewisham's)best advantage. Did anyone see Salcombe House look so beautiful? And do I spy a tree on the pavement outside Provender?
-
castiron73
- Posts: 132
- Joined: 24 Oct 2006 10:05
- Location: Sydenham Thorpes
In that poster, I think the modern pool building looks good, the flats look like an invading Martian.
If you must flog land to pay for it why does no one ever propose decent-sized family homes in these developments. Build three/four bed homes with private gardens for children to play in. No one wants more flats.
If you must flog land to pay for it why does no one ever propose decent-sized family homes in these developments. Build three/four bed homes with private gardens for children to play in. No one wants more flats.
Castiron - You raise a very good point.
Throughout the last ten days we have been met with news that all major builders are in serious debt and are shedding jobs. All of these companies say that they won't start any significant new domestic projects and that flats are "impossible to shift".
Much of the problem in building blocks of flats is that first time buyers are now faced with a "mortgage famine". The days of 100 per cent and even 120 per cent mortgages are gone; lenders now usually want first-time buyers to come up with a ten per cent deposit. And first time buyers with £20-£25,000 in cash are few and far between!
Forest Hill is already full of one and two bedroom flats - and there are more on their way either side of the station. Berkeley Homes will only get rid of the flats in the Centrale development by heavy discounting.
In these circumstances, why should any building company take on the proposition that is being presented to them by LBL? The figures simply don't make sense in a falling housing market. If you have to cut £50,000 of the price of each flat, this means £2.5m- £3m less profit - and bang goes the whole scheme.
The only way forward is to think of a more "upmarket" development incorporating larger flats and family homes into the existing facades which will appeal to buyers moving up from a small flat.
But even this approach is going to be difficult. The figures simply don't add up as they did six months ago.
Throughout the last ten days we have been met with news that all major builders are in serious debt and are shedding jobs. All of these companies say that they won't start any significant new domestic projects and that flats are "impossible to shift".
Much of the problem in building blocks of flats is that first time buyers are now faced with a "mortgage famine". The days of 100 per cent and even 120 per cent mortgages are gone; lenders now usually want first-time buyers to come up with a ten per cent deposit. And first time buyers with £20-£25,000 in cash are few and far between!
Forest Hill is already full of one and two bedroom flats - and there are more on their way either side of the station. Berkeley Homes will only get rid of the flats in the Centrale development by heavy discounting.
In these circumstances, why should any building company take on the proposition that is being presented to them by LBL? The figures simply don't make sense in a falling housing market. If you have to cut £50,000 of the price of each flat, this means £2.5m- £3m less profit - and bang goes the whole scheme.
The only way forward is to think of a more "upmarket" development incorporating larger flats and family homes into the existing facades which will appeal to buyers moving up from a small flat.
But even this approach is going to be difficult. The figures simply don't add up as they did six months ago.
lee
the pictures of the old building are as misleading as the pictures of the proposed.
put some pictures up of how it looks now (front and rear) and that gives us an idea of what we now have (not what we had 100 years ago).
i am all for saving buildings of any architectural importance, but we must remember that this is a swimming pool, which is supposed to provide facilities for us and our kids to swim.
i could not take my kids to the current building to swim - it was disgusting.
the pictures of the old building are as misleading as the pictures of the proposed.
put some pictures up of how it looks now (front and rear) and that gives us an idea of what we now have (not what we had 100 years ago).
i am all for saving buildings of any architectural importance, but we must remember that this is a swimming pool, which is supposed to provide facilities for us and our kids to swim.
i could not take my kids to the current building to swim - it was disgusting.
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
The "Forest Hill Pools Historical Survey" is an interesting, comprehensive document (although with one or two errors). This quote, particularly, caught my attention:
This is rather convoluted, but I think what they are saying is that as Louise House is to be demolished there is no reason to preserve any part of the pools. However it also implies that if Louise House were not to be demolished then the pools would have a "raison d'etre", a view with which I agree.
I don't know what they mean by "the different character of the buildings across the road". The fact is that we have, on both sides of this part of Dartmouth Road, a delightful group of Victorian civic buildings, shops and villas, each of which complements the others.
I read today that the old Ladywell Pools, by the same architect as FH Pools and listed Grade II, has just been added to English Heritages's list of Buildings at Risk. Our local authority really does seem to have difficulty caring for its old buildings.
"Consideration might, however, be given to the retention and repair of the principal elevation insofar as it contributes to the late 19th century character of the street, along with Louise House, the library, and Sydenham School just up the road.
Noting, however, that Louise House also by Aldwinckle is intended to be demolished, and the different character of buildings across the road, if there is currently any group value, it could certainly become diluted. It would therefore be difficult to sustain an argument for the retention of the principal elevation, whose setting and raison d'etre would be lost."
This is rather convoluted, but I think what they are saying is that as Louise House is to be demolished there is no reason to preserve any part of the pools. However it also implies that if Louise House were not to be demolished then the pools would have a "raison d'etre", a view with which I agree.
I don't know what they mean by "the different character of the buildings across the road". The fact is that we have, on both sides of this part of Dartmouth Road, a delightful group of Victorian civic buildings, shops and villas, each of which complements the others.
I read today that the old Ladywell Pools, by the same architect as FH Pools and listed Grade II, has just been added to English Heritages's list of Buildings at Risk. Our local authority really does seem to have difficulty caring for its old buildings.
Last edited by Steve Grindlay on 16 Jul 2008 06:19, edited 1 time in total.
forest hill pools
I agree about the flat building. There are too many flats in my opinion. Even if people can afford to buy them, when they want to move up the ladder there are fewer and fewer houses available because of the recent conversion addiction (to make more money for developers, I know).
To sustain a community we need to ensure there are enough houses for families, because ultimately that is what families want. Otherwise more and more will be forced to leave the area.
I think it is a bigger problem in Forest Hill than here though.
To sustain a community we need to ensure there are enough houses for families, because ultimately that is what families want. Otherwise more and more will be forced to leave the area.
I think it is a bigger problem in Forest Hill than here though.
-
Tim Walder
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 4 Jun 2008 21:13
- Location: Forest Hill
The first stage of our campaign "No Demolition Without Designs" is now complete (and that petition is now closed). The Council has undertaken not to demolish before September. During the course of the campaign we obtained signatures from 951 people. Thank you to everyone who gave their support, we seem to have won at least a small breathing space.
However, all of the Council's published designs involve demolition of all of the heritage buildings on the site. A new campaign, "Save the Face of Forest Hill", is being launched with the aim of preventing the Council from demolishing Louise House and the Superintendent's Block of the Pools at all: they should be included in plans for the new pools.
To express your support, please visit http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/sav ... -hill.html
Thank you.
However, all of the Council's published designs involve demolition of all of the heritage buildings on the site. A new campaign, "Save the Face of Forest Hill", is being launched with the aim of preventing the Council from demolishing Louise House and the Superintendent's Block of the Pools at all: they should be included in plans for the new pools.
To express your support, please visit http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/sav ... -hill.html
Thank you.
Last edited by Tim Walder on 16 Jul 2008 13:26, edited 1 time in total.
-
Tim Walder
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 4 Jun 2008 21:13
- Location: Forest Hill
Petition to Save the Face of Forest Hill
The Council's consultation on this is taking place between 3pm and 7pm on Friday 18th July and between 9am and 2pm on Saturday 19th July in Forest Hill Town Centre (i.e. in front of the train station).
Save the Face of Forest Hill are looking for people to help with petition signing. The petition can also be found at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/sav ... -hill.html
If you can help, please send me a private message.
Tim Walder
Save the Face of Forest Hill are looking for people to help with petition signing. The petition can also be found at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/sav ... -hill.html
If you can help, please send me a private message.
Tim Walder
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
I'm just off to do a stint in the station car-park, behind the public loos, with a petition that says:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/sav ... -hill.html
For those who may be unaware, here again is a summary of the historic background of the whole site which I hope explains why I and others believe we have something unique in Forest Hill which should be cherished and preserved:
Holy Trinity Schools (1874), Forest Hill Pools (1885), Girls' Industrial Home (Louise House, 1890) and Forest Hill Library (1901) were built on a single large field, known as glebe land, that was awarded to the Vicar of Lewisham on the enclosure of Sydenham Common, in 1819. "Enclosure", incidentally, was a device by which those who already owned land in the parish were awarded plots of ancient common land which they fenced, to keep out "trespassers". The losers were those who owned no land, but had managed to scrape a living from the common.
This field, popularly known as Vicar's Field, was let by the vicar as allotments to those who had lost their right to graze animals, gather wood, catch game etc. on the common. Over time, and in response to pressure from local groups, the vicar made parts of this large field available for purposes that were considered socially valuable.
The four buildings that cover the Dartmouth Road frontage of this field offer a vivid picture of late Victorian social attitudes: the schools offered education, particularly in the principles of the Established Church; the pools offered cleanliness (people brought their washing to be cleaned in the laundry in the basement, and there were private slipper baths) and healthy exercise; the Industrial Home gave training to "the deserving poor" to keep them from a life of crime and, of course, there was the library. In both the school and the pools the sexes were kept firmly apart. Boys and girls attending the school had separate entrances, playgrounds and classrooms. The pools also had separate male and female entrances, with separate ticket offices, pools and slipper baths for first and second class swimmers. Much of the evidence for these social divisions still survives in the pools, and would be lost with total demolition.
Two of these buildings (the school and library) are listed grade two and two may soon be demolished. I believe that such a well preserved group of buildings which, until recently, were all still used for their original or similar functions, is unique in London, if not the country and they should be preserved intact.
People who agree with these sentiments are welcome to come and sign and, perhaps, discuss why some of us believe that these buildings are worth saving. Alternatively, you can sign online at:We, the undersigned, reject options 1, 2 and 3 of the Council's proposed designs. We wish to see the retention of the Pool's frontage block (the Superintendent's House) and Louise House and demand that these significant local landmark buildings be retained as part of the new pools complex.
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/sav ... -hill.html
For those who may be unaware, here again is a summary of the historic background of the whole site which I hope explains why I and others believe we have something unique in Forest Hill which should be cherished and preserved:
Holy Trinity Schools (1874), Forest Hill Pools (1885), Girls' Industrial Home (Louise House, 1890) and Forest Hill Library (1901) were built on a single large field, known as glebe land, that was awarded to the Vicar of Lewisham on the enclosure of Sydenham Common, in 1819. "Enclosure", incidentally, was a device by which those who already owned land in the parish were awarded plots of ancient common land which they fenced, to keep out "trespassers". The losers were those who owned no land, but had managed to scrape a living from the common.
This field, popularly known as Vicar's Field, was let by the vicar as allotments to those who had lost their right to graze animals, gather wood, catch game etc. on the common. Over time, and in response to pressure from local groups, the vicar made parts of this large field available for purposes that were considered socially valuable.
The four buildings that cover the Dartmouth Road frontage of this field offer a vivid picture of late Victorian social attitudes: the schools offered education, particularly in the principles of the Established Church; the pools offered cleanliness (people brought their washing to be cleaned in the laundry in the basement, and there were private slipper baths) and healthy exercise; the Industrial Home gave training to "the deserving poor" to keep them from a life of crime and, of course, there was the library. In both the school and the pools the sexes were kept firmly apart. Boys and girls attending the school had separate entrances, playgrounds and classrooms. The pools also had separate male and female entrances, with separate ticket offices, pools and slipper baths for first and second class swimmers. Much of the evidence for these social divisions still survives in the pools, and would be lost with total demolition.
Two of these buildings (the school and library) are listed grade two and two may soon be demolished. I believe that such a well preserved group of buildings which, until recently, were all still used for their original or similar functions, is unique in London, if not the country and they should be preserved intact.
-
Pat Trembath
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 10:54
The lacklustre "public consultation" continues. Following a number of reports of non-delivery of leaflets throughout the SE23/26 area - those that were delivered were folded in half with the text inside, and not a very eye-catching text when read.
The public exhibition last Friday and Saturday was tucked away, almost apologetically, in the far corner of Forest Hill station forecourt. This exhibition is due to be followed by an exhibition in Forest Hill Library from 21 July to 8 August.
There is no exhibition. The display in the Library is very limited with a notice announcing: "The public exhibition ... has been delayed due to supplier failure. A reduced exhibition is on display."
Local residents are being short changed by Lewisham in this so called public consultation exercise on a matter which could change the face of Forest Hill for the worse, either by the loss of Victorian heritage buildings or by the development of an overpowering building dominating the local streetscape.
The public exhibition last Friday and Saturday was tucked away, almost apologetically, in the far corner of Forest Hill station forecourt. This exhibition is due to be followed by an exhibition in Forest Hill Library from 21 July to 8 August.
There is no exhibition. The display in the Library is very limited with a notice announcing: "The public exhibition ... has been delayed due to supplier failure. A reduced exhibition is on display."
Local residents are being short changed by Lewisham in this so called public consultation exercise on a matter which could change the face of Forest Hill for the worse, either by the loss of Victorian heritage buildings or by the development of an overpowering building dominating the local streetscape.
The Lewisham leaflet advertising last Friday's event was delivered to my house yesterday. Must put some diesel in that old blue telephone box and go see.
For the less fortunate souls - Lewisham Council advised me that they will have a 'human' at Forest Hill Library 5-7pm Thursday to answer questions.
Admin
For the less fortunate souls - Lewisham Council advised me that they will have a 'human' at Forest Hill Library 5-7pm Thursday to answer questions.
Admin