Crystal Palace stadium re-development?

[Syd_Stone]

The entire infrastructure of Crystal Palace Park was designed around regular attendances for large events at the original Palace. With the exception of the station that used to be on Crystal Palace Parade, it's all still there – Crystal Palace station, Penge West, Penge East, the bus terminus. In fact, were this project to go ahead we'd see Crystal Palace FC's reputation as the most difficult ground to get to in London entirely reversed. Palace would be one of the easiest grounds to get in and out of.

The size of Crystal Palace station is ideal for dealing with crowds - again, that's why it's the size it is. They've done well in refurbishing it, although the fact that it still doesn't open into the original ticket hall is baffling. That would surely change were CPFC to move in.

So, public transport - big tick. Cars would be a problem, but it's too early to say how much of one. Apart from the obvious — people who currently drive to Selhurst taking the public transport option for the new ground — Is the Crystal Palace Grand Prix meeting such a nightmare? I used to live in Thicket Road. When concerts were held in the current stadium (Bruce Springsteen and Coldplay come to mind), I was surprised at how contained the noise and audience was. Fans can dissipate onto the various public transport networks far more quickly and efficiently from Crystal Palace than, say, Arsenal or Spurs. And remember, there'd be a maximum of 30 fixtures in a year — considerably less than one a week.

I play five-a-side on the artificial pitch next to the stadium. Each week, I look up at it in wonder — it's a scandal that such a prime stadium site is so criminally underused.

[dickp]

So...the semi-derelict stadium site is much better used, we get a brand new pool, and the existing ugly car parks dug up and grassed over. We might even get a restored entrance for Crystal Palace station.

All that needs to happen now is that we flog off the caravan site for housing (to pay for the tower removal and sunken gardens built) - and maybe some lottery funding to get the terraces sorted out.

That would be around 80 per cent of the master plan delivered in the middle of a recession, with almost no public money needed.

What's not to like? I can live with the noise and traffic for a few hours every few weekends.

[Voyageur]

The park needs a bit of money spent on it, but (in my opinion) not at the expense of having hoards of football fans tramping through it and the surrounding areas on a regular basis. Given he choice I would rather the park remained as it is.

I quite like the masterplan idea though, and would probably back that.

[Syd_Stone]

Is one match every week and a half "regular"? They'd doubtless use it for other fixtures and concerts, of course, but that's still unlikely to average more than one event a week.

[Voyageur]

Is one match every week and a half "regular"? They'd doubtless use it for other fixtures and concerts, of course, but that's still unlikely to average more than one event a week.

That's pretty regular to me

[Marathon]

I wonder whether any of those who are objecting to the site being used by CPFC have ever been to a football match? I'm a Chelsea fan and Havingbeen a regular at Stamford Bridge I am always amazed at how quickly 42,000 supporters can disappear from the Fulham Road. And that is through just one tube station and the bus network. The transport network around the park seems to offer far more capacity for the fewer supporters that would be attracted by Palace. The impact on the general public would be minimal I'd say and like those travelling around Highbury or West Ham or Tottenham on a Saturday, trains and buses would undoubtedly be busier but I'm sure most people would be able to cope. It's not like it would last all day? What happens when one team loses? probably the same as every other set of fans leaving grounds up and down the country, they go home without vandalising the joint. Supporters behaviour has changed substantially since the bad days of the seventies and eighties. Some people still seem to want believe that there is widespread hooliganism/rowdiness/drunkenness, particularly if it justifies their arguments. most supporters will just want to get home after a game.


Davegr - I would be more than happy to live next to the stadium. Indeed I looked at houses in the vicinity of Selhurst Park prior to finally settling in Sydenham. Residents and shoppers on the Fulham Road seem to be able to cope with 42,000 fans descending on them on matchdays so I'm sure those wishing to enjoy the park will continue to be able to do so.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Wing]

Some residents fear that the park will be closed to the general public on football days. Provisions will be made to ensure this won't happen. Maybe we can follow the example of the KC Stadium in Hull which is located within a public park. I was there two years ago to watch a game and remembered the park was open as usual to the general public.

On the artist impression of the new CP stadium some noticed there isn't carparking for the club's directors/staff, home and visiting footballers etc. Probably, there is going to be an underground carpark of some sort.

If the CP move does go ahead planning consultation will take another 12 months and hopefully we know more by then.

[leenewham]

The park coped with 100,000 football fans back when the FA was held there.
It coped when Coldplay played there (and other bands).
It coped when they had concerts there in the 70's garden parties. The likes of Elvis Costello, Pink Floyds etc played there.http://www.ukrockfestivals.com/Garden-party-71.html
It coped when they had athletics meetings.
It copes on Bonfire night for the fireworks.
It copes when they have various events such as cycling.
And it coped when it was the Crystal Palace.

Football seems to be a lot more subdued than it was years ago. Growing up Nottingham I remember feeling frightened when there were games, but I was only 4!

If it helps improve the park, then go for it.

Or we could have dozens of expensive consultations, consultations about the consultations, delay it for decades and nothing will happen. Like usual.

[stuart]

I wonder whether any of those who are objecting to the site being used by CPFC have ever been to a football match? I'm a Chelsea fan ...

A very avid football fan here - until I went to Chelsea. But that's another story.

The issue here is that the park is devoted to sport and leisure. If CPFC can add to that then I don't have a problem. The Spurs proposal would do just that (although West Ham supporters might not agree). It isn't about redevelopment of the Park which many of us would welcome. Its that the Park is enhanced and we get more sport and people can enjoy this valuable public green space.

More sport doesn't mean depriving hundreds (thousands) of sports people for the sake of 22 professionals. It really is up to CPFC to convince us of this and why we should sacrifice our space when they already have a ground that they seldom fill.

They have a hard sell. I worry they are not really selling but going behind our backs to do deals with Bromley who, of course, don't represent most Park users but were lumbered with the costs in one the nastiest bit of tribal politics of recent years.

Stuart

[Wing]

If West Ham Utd win the bid for the Olympic Stadium the NSC will be redundant. So for people who don't want CPFC to move there what other viable redevelopment options are there ? Bromley Council has to spend a fortune maintaining it even if it is used once or twice a year. One option is to leave it as it is unused and let dilapidate and become an eyesore.

I am sure if the CPFC move does materialise the new stadium will, besides football, be used for concerts, conferences, rugby maybe, special events etc.

[ALIB]

CPFC have been planning this for a while. They just felt with the decision being made about the Olympic stadium, that they had to show their hand before the details have been completed.

Below is a link to CPFC's outline proposals


http://www.cpfc.co.uk/page/News/0,,1032 ... 69,00.html

Their plans are for the improvement of the wider park and seem impressive. Separate athletics track, hotel, terrace improvements. . . .

[Duke of Clarence]

here's more detail:

* The main income will be generated rom the use of the football club
* Second sports team to be investigated, rugby union etc. (11 league home matches if a union Premiership club, plus various cup competitions; if rugby league then that's a summer sport)
* Unique parkland setting, ideal for summer concerts
* Non match-day hospitality
* Advertising
* Hotel
* Elite sports academy (football pitches are not generally allowed general use outside of match days - so more buildings/space taken up)
* Other opportunities being explored

The points made about the park being built for and able to cope with large events are valid. However these large events have only ever occured on an occasional basis. Regular weekend crowds of 20,000 to 40,000 descending on the area will impact negatively on the surrounding areas. Public transport hubs will be swamped pre and post matches and concerts and we all how quickly the Triangle OWS and the Sydenham High Street can become gridlocked.

Saturday is a key trading day for town centres and whilst the pubs & fast food shops will no doubt benefit from customers there are many other independent shops and businesses that will loose weekend trade as customers chose to avoid the area on match days. Some of those businesses rely on weekend trade.

A well used 15,000 capacity sporting venue in the park is an entirley different prospect to a 40,000 capcity stadium. Music concerts would be great but not weekly. The only winners in this scenario are the CPFC and it's members. So far there are plans to knock down the recently revamped (£10m) sports centre to build another sports centre and to replace the international athletics track with a community sports track but no plans for park improvements and they are getting rid of the existing car parks that made crowds of 15,000 do-able yet introducing a venue with almost treble the capacity.

[Hill Dweller]

More VERY salient points Duchess.

It's looking as if, for the mere coincidence of its name and the labourers that comprised the first amateur team, the club was bought with the cynical intention all along to use its name as the 'reason' to move on the park.

ie: Buying the footie club was more about other business than about saving it itself, I don't think investors would make such a purchase unless they had assurances under their belt that their plan would be allowed.

An acquaintance who's a Police Officer tells me there's very little trouble from fans leaving Selhurst Park the area's not exactly full of place glass windows as CP station now is, fabulous wrought iron, palatial tall tunnels or the nearby remains of lovely sad-looking statuary.

Re the 'point' about the area having been established to accommodate large crowds I think not, certainly in comparison to footie crowds .... I don't have nouse about the frequency of trains or buses to it late-19C but we do know well that the area itself was a very prosperous one. I doubt the hoi polloi were encouraged to visit and it went bankrupt pdq.

Ally Pally area's so lucky to still have its namesake but that soon became redundant as the venue for trade shows I used to visit there, just not expandable enough.

NIMBY? It isn't all that close to me but I would finally find myself un-envious of those people in those fabulous villas at the south side ......

[Hill Dweller]

by Marathon » 21 Jan 2011 01:32


Does The Shed have only one direction for access or leaving?


BTW, re FB station
...... 21 May 2008, the station was the scene of riots following Chelsea's defeat by Manchester United in the Champions League Final



.

[Syd_Stone]

Hill Dweller: Re the point about the area being established to accommodate large crowds. Sorry, but it was. Crystal Palace used to host the FA Cup final. Attendances varied between 60,000 and, would you believe, 120,000. Of course the park was established for large crowds. That's why Upper Norwood is the size it is. That's why they were able to play the FA Cup final in the Crystal Palace grounds. The park and its public transport infrastructure was designed in the 19th century for just that purpose.

Duke of Clarence: a shame you assume that the potential extra trade in the area will be confined to pubs and fast food shops; I'd argue that the other traders would see a net gain. Also, Upper Street in Islington somehow manages to survive its proximity to Arsenal.

The issue with the stadium is how deep they would dig down to ensure that the new canopy isn't that much higher than the current Jubilee stand. In that regard, I understand your point about the Thicket Road houses. Assuming they do dig down, the overall footprint of the ground will be very similar to the current stadium (remember it'd be for football only, so it won't be any wider than the current athletics stadium). Also, the canopy in the picture suggests that, if anything, there'll be less noise than you get from the current athletics / concert meetings.

[Hill Dweller]

Hi Syd ....... brrrrrrr it's cold again today.

I really don't see any point in comparing our area with those north of the river that have more frequent travel service c/o Tube lines, plus longer trains anyway than our own.

I don't 'get' the moan somewhere about access to Selhurst Park. The only difficult method is that taken by drivers (of the type that have something they call a 'principle' about public transport).
Selhurst Park is very well served by trains, by Overground, by buses and ooooh la lah, a bit of by foot.

Something that hasn't been mentioned is residents' parking; I have friends with a house just off Fulham Palace Rd, some way from their nearest footie club but in the last ten years their area's been hit with Residents' Parking Permit fees and 18/7 meters in between as the only way for locals to be able to park near their home several times a week.

It always feels spoil-sport-ish to be against something that is about entertainment but this isn't. It all sounds like a business transaction which the buyers could have had unauthorised assurances about before buying.

This isn't like the Wembley situation and definitely not like the Fulham Road one, Aaronovitch doesn't need to cushion his investment with the same sweeteners that Penge and Norwood would.

[Hill Dweller]

Oooops, think I got an oligarch confused with my favourite journalist there


.

[Syd_Stone]

Evening Hill Dweller,

1) Agreed. It is a bit parky.

2) Public transport. Well, I guess the length of trains *might* be an issue, but it's the number of trains they'd have to look at. IMHO the new Overground trains are perfect for dealing with decanting large crowds.

2) I certainly don't accept that north London is better served because it has the tube. Tottenham Hotspur is an absolute pig to get to by train, and Fulham is not exactly close to the tube either. Whereas Palace Park is served:

a) From London Victoria and Bromley via Penge East
b) From Islington and Croydon via Crystal Palace, Penge West and Anerley.

All of which are no more than ten minutes' walk once you're off the train (it takes upwards of half an hour to walk to a station at Spurs, and at least 20 minutes at Fulham).

A quick look at the map shows me that Crystal Palace, Penge West and Penge East are closer to the NSC stadium than either Norwood Junction or Thornton Heath are to Selhurst Park.

(Also, did I mention the bus terminus with umpteen routes in from Brixton, Bromley, Beckenham, Catford etc.?)

3) Agreed about residents' parking, I can see it being an issue. But whichever the ground is in your example (and it's either Fulham or Chelsea), it's been there plenty longer than ten years. Both clubs have been at their grounds for at least a century. The introduction of residents' parking is a separate issue.

4) Can't comment on the business transaction, but can say that it's pretty obviously about entertainment. Here's a perfectly viable and relatively park-friendly way of breathing life into the area.

[Hill Dweller]

Marks usually have a purpose but I'm not sure of what the asterisks can mean. Trains are trains, they're not 'trains' / *trains* so I'm puzzled re what's supposedly signified.
Our locla/stopping trains are generally not standard length and they are also not prioritised on tracks, frequencies are dicated by the through trains. All the London Bridge/overground stations have much slower services than those from Norwood Jtn.

I'm sure the residents on the east side, towards Penge East would be overjoyed for their roads to be the funnel leading to it.

Do you actually use public transport much? It doesn't sound as if so.

However, opinion opinion opinion etc.
IF any of the relevant councils have given the nod for all this before the sale/purchase happened I'm sure it will come out and I feel sorry for those residents whose parking needs are going to become a new income stream by stealth.

.

[Rachael]

Asterisks are used for emphasis or to imply italics if you are posting from a device that doesn't let you format text.