Crystal Palace stadium re-development?

[Hill Dweller]

Think I'm done with trying to have a civilised discussion here.
Still harping on about the swimming pool being underneath the stadium... sheesh.
Brick wall.

Yes quite pet; toodle oooh

[The Commander]

The limited risk for these 'chancers' is the millions that they have already put into the club. Limitless profits - ha! It's a football club. Even Chelsea made a £50m loss last year. Limited risk is done because it encourages entrepreneurial ventures, which is good for the economy and the country. As a society we encourage people to set up business via limiting the liabilities and recognising the company as a separate entity to the people that have set it up. In return we force the companies to submit annual accounts to keep track of what they are up to.

Even more worrying then. When questioned about where the money was coming from Mr. P ( & that is not P for Philanthropy) said Phase 1 would cost £50million for the 25,000 seater stadium and aquatic centre. He called it a budgetary fugure as would depend on what they have in it and the cost of buildings materials. He also said that having viewed a number of stadiums this was at the higher end.
Funding would be provided through:
Naming Rights
Sale and development of Selhurst park - principle funding source
Debenture seats
Shareholder funders
Third party investment - perhaps a small borrowing requirement

They will be chasing revenue streams, other than the loss making football, for the stadium to make it commercially viable, and will need to satisfy their investors. Don't think there will be much in the pot to fund the masterplan after the needs of the business have been sated.

Still my view that this scheme is a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

[Hill Dweller]

My concern's for suppliers and employees as they are always the ones that suffer when chancers' dreams burst. Have seen it roll down the line from Ltds to small companies to their suppliers and right down to the smallest smallest company .... ad infinitum.

Wishing entrepreneurs well is one thing but not, as so often happens, at others' cost.

Spurs' plan is reaping even more knocking from all sides.
None of this will impact me very much, I'm safely at a distance and also not 'under' Bromley but I hate the idea of Britons even considering such wanton wastefulness.


TGIFnight, have a good one all.

[Hill Dweller]

Very good news at the first stage of the Heritage Committee's decision process ......


< the face till the next two stages are in the bag

[Syd_Stone]

Last week on the BBC's local football programme 'Late Kick-Off', CPFC director Steve Parrish was interviewed about the impact of the Olympic Stadium decision on CPFC's own plans.

If you consider the ideas woolly already, you might think them even less realistic after hearing Parrish suggest a) a permanently covered stadium, and b) a pitch which can be slipped out of the stadium to help the grass grow. These are literally fantastic ideas, the only precedent for which is in Japan (England won their 2002 World Cup match against Argentina in such a stadium). Parrish conceded that these extra would add considerably to the cost of the project, but he wasn't going to speculate on how much. All this suggests to me that the plans really are at nothing more than 'idea' stage. If you're an 'anti', I wouldn't be losing too much sleep just now.

As an exercise, I fired up Google Maps and took a few shots of existing, recently built football stadiums of the size being considered for the park. (All the pictures were taken from the same distance above ground level). Forgive the terrible Photoshopping, but the results are below:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27897127@N08/

I'm surprised at how perfectly feasible it would be to fit a decent, modern stadium onto the site. Grounds designed purely for football have much less of a footprint than their athletics equivalent, but I'm still surprised that something as elegant as Man City's ground could fit. As for the Sapporo concept? That's nothing like as simple.

I'm not looking to open old debates about cars, transport and cynical business plans, but I did think people might be interested in what the thing could look like. Er, enjoy?

[Duke of Clarence]

In a pitch to the CP Chamber of Commerce last week Steve Parish spoke about the stadium being a public transport stadium but that they were looking into implementing CPZs over a 2 mile radius. This will effect 5 boroughs and thousands of residents. Also roads around the park will have to be closed on event days to ensure they are safe for large crowds of pedestrians. Some roads will be closed until the end of day on a "just in case basis" for emergency vehcile access.

Here's what happens around Emirates:

from http://www.arsenal.c...rrangements.pdf

Before the event
Two hours before
If you live in the area and have a vehicle, when you
display your special permit, you will have access to
most streets while supporters begin to arrive. However,
to make sure everyone is safe, the Metropolitan Police
Service will close parts of Hornsey Road and Benwell
Road nearest the stadium. They will also close part of
Gillespie Road outside Arsenal tube station while
people arrive. Residents will be able to access Citizen
Road via Lowman Road.
One hour before
This is the busiest time before an event when most
people arrive. Supporters will be directed to walk
along Hornsey Road, Benwell Road, Gillespie Road
and Drayton Park. For an hour before the event, until
15 minutes after its start, only emergency service
vehicles will have access to these roads.
During the event
While the event is on, the police will reopen all roads
except Queensland Road and parts of Benwell Road
and Hornsey Road. This is necessary in case the
stadium needs to be evacuated in an emergency.
After the event
After the event, the streets immediately around the
ground are at their busiest as everyone leaves the
stadium. 15 minutes before the end of the event, the
Metropolitan Police Service will close the same roads
as before the event and will also close Palmer Place,
Prah Road and the northern part of St Thomas’s
Road near Finsbury Park station.

What a carry on and at what cost to the public purse?

The other noise coming from the CPFC2010 chat rooms is that the relocation will regenerate the "run down" area known as Sydenahm. I am at a loss to understand the logic behind this claim. The only thing that I can see the relocation bringing for Sydenham High Street is "de" not "re" generation; enforced CPZs and large crowds passing through on the way to and from the match. Not sure how this will regenerate the high street economy on a key trading day.

[Robin Orton]

I've only just had a proper look at this thread, and was alarmed to read about the possibility of a CPZ being introduced covering up to two miles of the proposed stadium, including most of Sydenham. (My house seems to be more or less exactly on the two mile circle.) Having a brother-in-law who lives near the Arsenal ground, I have a good idea of what a burden this would be for residents. Is there anyone who could kindly give newcomers to this discussion like me a quick rundown on a. just how likely this is to happen and b. when do we need to start making a fuss, and to whom? I'd really find this very helpful and perhaps others would too.

[Duke of Clarence]

Hi Robin,

From the onset it appears as though CPFC2010's hand was forced due to the posturing for the Olympic Stadium. The plans and proposal were rushed out but press reports and subsequent interviews with Steve Parish reveal that this was no knee jerk reaction. Talks with the LDA, Bromley and Croydon Councils have been taking place for some time. So far all the right supportive noises have been made, the Mayor, Jim Dowd MP, and at least one local councillor Peter Fookes, Penge and Cator Ward, have been supporting the proposal without consulting their constituents.

The following is from one of first press releases back in January http://www.streathamguardian.co.uk/news ... w_stadium/

Stephen Carr, the leader of Bromley Council said: "Crystal Palace football Club have spoken to us and we are interested in their proposal to relocate the club to Crystal Palace park. These are potentially exciting times for Crystal Palace park and of course, we would need to look very carefully at the merits of any proposal. These fresh visionary ideas are welcome and ultimately, we want to improve the park and wider area and any viable plan to improve the park could have a positive impact on the locality and secure a brighter future. Of course, we will consider all proposals on their merits and would be subject to the planning permission in the usual way."

Jon Rouse, CEO of Croydon Council said: "Croydon Council wants to see Crystal Palace Football Club thrive on and off the pitch. While we would be sad to see the club leave the borough we will actively support a move to the National Sports Centre site if that is what is judged by owners and fans to be in the best interests of the club."

No mention of the best interests of Selhurst. Selhurst, South Norwood and Thornton Heath High in particular, have been shaped by their proximity to the stadium. The shops and businesses that thrive are the ones that adapt to the needs of stadium footfall and traffic. I find it strange that the CEO of Croydon Council is supporting a proposal that will damage the economy of two of the borough's town centres.

No mention either of what might be in the interests of Crystal Palace Park and the surrounding environs. Although CPFC2010 have this covered with the regeneration of the NSC site in return for building their 40K capacity stadium, hotel, corporate and retail comples on MOL.The bright blue stadium will be twice the height of the NSC.

The impact on the park will be damaging. Not only will it loose land to CPFC but it will become the only feeder route to the stadium. A 40K capacity crowd would see up to 80,000 pedestrian journeys in a 4 hour time period.

There are many planning obstacles. Last time CPFC applied to move to the park their application was turned down on 11 planning gounds. Traffic and parking being one of them. The latest idea to present the application as a "public transport" stadium is the result of some creative thinking but it doesn't add up, why the need for CPZs if everyone's coming by PT? No the reality is most will come by PT but thousands will still come by car. The CPZs create satelite parking zones. Not nice for those who live on the zone's boundaries.

I have already registered my many concerns with my Ward Cllrs. I also wrote to Cllr Fookes and Malcolm WicksMP who had been reported as supporting the move. Malcolm Wicks wrote back to say he was not taking a position on the proposal until further details were available. Cllr Fookes said he welcomed it but would be consulting his constituents. More recently I wrote to Councillor Teresa O’Neill the newly appointed Mayor's advisor to outer boroughs. It is important that those who are supporting this without consulting their constituents are challenged and the "no thanks" vote is registered.

[Syd_Stone]

Duke, thanks for the useful intelligence on the size of the stadium. I figured twice the height, so it's good to have someone confirm that. I'm no engineer, but I'd certainly understand if the project cost went sky high (if you pardon the pun) at the prospect of digging down to reduce the overall environmental impact.

[Robin Orton]

Thanks for this update, Your Royal Highness. What you say about planning sounds reassuring, but, as you suggest, there's the political aspect as well. If Sydenham (i.e. the Lewisham bit) is at risk of being affected to the extent stated in this thread, one would expect people in Lewisham council , as well as Bromley and Croydon, to be thinking about the issue. I wonder whether any of the Sydenham or Forest Hill ward councillors have been approached or expressed a view? And what about Jim Dowd? Or the Sydenham Society?

[Duke of Clarence]

Syd, Roy, glad to be of service! I did mention in my previous lengthy (sorry) post that Jim Dowd thinks it's a great idea. Well he would behind closed doors with the CPFC2010 consortium. Jim's a football fan (not sure if Palace are his team) and Cllr Fookes is a lifelong CPFC fan.

When I emailed Cllr Fookes I raised this as a conflict of interest that should prevent him from sitting on Bromley's planning committee were this to proposal to get that far. Be good if others do the same. Cllr Fookes supported the first multiplex and thinks the best way to fund parks is through commercial development. In other words get shot of them ie turn them into real esate, failing that The Purley Way...

Good idea to contact the Sydenham Society, they could alert their members because with political support snowballing we need to get active to stop the maddness.
DoC

[Hill Dweller]

The fact that Lewisham and Croydon will enjoy the stealth tax via residents' parking permits should have no influence on what Bromley decide to do about this scheme (except that it's always been obvious that it's the only possible reason for Bromley supporting it).


Having had a re-peek through the thread I noticed someone whingeing about my whingeing about a subterranean pool.
Let's ignore that it will necessitate vast excavations for a moment but it's also quite funny that any sports fan would think it acceptable when (topic changes alert)
a few months ago people were complaining about a pool oop north having its lower windows covered with opaque film
the existing Pool has only recently been closed for months and reopened after full refurbishment.

.

[Robin Orton]

The Duke of Clarence said

I did mention in my previous lengthy (sorry) post that Jim Dowd thinks it's a great idea.

Indeed; apologies for missing that. I'm not sure whether he reads this forum. Has anyone written to him about it? I'm wondering whether I might drop him a line myself, although it would probably be more effective if someone who knew the background better did so.

[Duke of Clarence]

OK here's a copy of my email to Teresa O'Neill, feel free to copy and send to relevant Cllrs/MPs etc:


Sent: 15 February 2011 17:21
To: Councillor O'Neill, Teresa - Leader of the Council
Subject: CPFC2010's proposal for Crystal Palace Pakr

Dear Cllr O'Neill,

I am contacting to you in your role as outer London advisor to the Mayor to bring to your attention the emerging proposal by CPFC2010 to build a 40,000 capacity stadium for Crystal Palace Football Club along with hotel, commerce, corporate and retail facilities in Crystal Palace Park.

A planning application is yet to be lodged but the details released so far are alarming. In 2006 CPFC put forward a similar proposal but LDA said the size of the venue, it's parking requirements and match day crowds meant it was unlikely Crystal Palace Park could accommodate the club. There have been no changes to the surrounding roads and infra strucutre since 2006 yet the new proposal aims to build a stadium with twice the capacity and for it to be shared with a rugby club and used for other sporting fixtures as well as large scale music events and conferences. This is a private business enterprise to be run on Metropolitan Open Ground in a grade ll* listed heritage park.

The impact of the scale of this proposal will affect not just the park but the character and quality of life in the surrounding environs. All main approach routes into Crystal Palace are single lane carriageways and at the weekends the area is often in gridlock due to the smaller events that currently occur in the park and with visitors that use the town centre. It is difficult to imagine how the thousands of extra vehicles a 40,000 capacity event can attract will be accomodated and this is exacerbated by the plans put forward by CPFC2010 that show large parts of the existing car parks are to be grassed over. A stadium with more than double the capacity with reduced stadium parking appears to me to be ill thought out and is in conflict with the approved Masterplan.

I looked into the travel plans and car use figures for Selhurst Park and the most recent show that only 20% of CPFC fans come by car. In a crowd of 20,000 crowd 4,000 will arrive by car. Even if each person shares a car a 20,000 crowd will bring at least 2,000 extra vehicles. The average car is 4m long, 2,000 x 4m = 8,000m. Two thousand cars need a minimum of 8k of road space to park on. My mind boggles!

The impact of this proposal on the park is also worying. It seems likely from what's emerged already that each weekend the stadium will hold at least one large scale event. The weekend is also the time many peole chose to use the park. On events days there will be times when the entire park becomes a feeder route for the stadium and it doesn't matter what form of transport, or where they have parked, pre and post match up to 40,000 people will need to pass through the park to access the stadium. That could be 80,000 over a four hour period.

There are many other issues such as the LDA Masterplan, sale/lease of MOL to private consortium, the impact on the Upper Norwood conservation area that do not appear to have been considered by CPFC2010. The consortium has spoken publicly about how they want a better environment for fans to come and watch the club. CPFC2010 operate road closures and CPZs around their current stadium. It is highly likley that these will be needed but on a much larger scale were they to relocate. The impact of CPZs on the local economy would be most damaging especially on key trading days.

I understand that Boris has spoken of his support for this move and I'm wondering how he expects the area to facillitate such massive influx of numbers on such a frequent basis. I note that during the Masterplan consultation the vision for inclusion of a CPFC football stadium did not arise. If the Mayor's ambitons for this historical park were for it to host major events of the proposed scale and frequency why did he pull the tramlink extension 2 years ago? Many people in the surrounding areas of Crystal Palace, Sydenham, Penge and Annerley feel bitterly let down to hear that the Mayor is supporting the CPFC2010 proposal.

I hope that you can urge Boris to look at this in more detail and to take on board the needs of the surrounding nejghbourhoods and park as well as CPFC and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this proposal.

Kind regards

[ALIB]

Likewise, according to the macroscopic poll in the STF, most people are supportive of the outline idea of CPFC moving to CPP. You can email Boris directly, your local MPs and Councillors to give your initial positive thoughts

Dear ...........

I am contacting to you in your role as ............. to bring to your attention the emerging proposal by CPFC2010 to redevelop an existing stadium into a 40,000 capacity stadium for Crystal Palace Football Club along with associated hotel, commerce, corporate and retail facilities in Crystal Palace Park.

A planning application is yet to be lodged but the infrequent events the Park currently hosts, highlights it's excellent public transport links and its capability and potential for hosting more regular events and the potential benefits it can bring to the local area, especially in terms of stimulating the economy.

I understand that Boris has spoken of his support for this move and I endorse his comments.

I hope that you can ask Boris to look at this as more details emerge and to take on board the needs of the surrounding nejghbourhoods and park as well as CPFC and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this proposal.

Kind regards

[ALIB]

Syd, Roy, glad to be of service! I did mention in my previous lengthy (sorry) post that Jim Dowd thinks it's a great idea. Well he would behind closed doors with the CPFC2010 consortium. Jim's a football fan (not sure if Palace are his team) and Cllr Fookes is a lifelong CPFC fan.

When I emailed Cllr Fookes I raised this as a conflict of interest that should prevent him from sitting on Bromley's planning committee were this to proposal to get that far. Be good if others do the same. Cllr Fookes supported the first multiplex and thinks the best way to fund parks is through commercial development. In other words get shot of them ie turn them into real esate, failing that The Purley Way...

Good idea to contact the Sydenham Society, they could alert their members because with political support snowballing we need to get active to stop the maddness.
DoC

Whilst the potential Planning Application is not within the territory of The Sydenham Society, it will obviously impact some of their members.

However, you mustn't automatically assume they the Sydenham Society will object to the Planning Application. The Syd Soc are a progressive group who judge each proposed development on its merits and may actually agree with a well-thought Planning Application

[dickp]

The proposal has been discussed (ad nauseum) on the Virtual Norwood forum.

Although I am in favour of the proposal, I decided to ask the local councillors (some of whom post regularly on the site) to state their own - provisional - views on the idea, ahead of the local elections. So both sides could hold them to account for their positions.

Silence.

Funny that, considering there are arguments (and voters) on both sides of the debate.

[Hill Dweller]

However, you mustn't automatically assume they the Sydenham Society will object to the Planning Application. The Syd Soc are a progressive group who judge each proposed development on its merits and may actually agree with a well-thought Planning Application

The fact that a majority on this thread disagree with the (apparent) possibility doesn't signify any lack of progressiveness here.

The ability to remember that this is about changes proposed for public land, financed for over a century by the public and for them, is important.

The fact that the proposals are as yet not funded yet are being spoken of positively with Councils is worrying; mainly (for me) because WHEN the project goes belly up (if it starts) the company that 'own' it can walk away and leave the mess in our park.

The fact that the vote that used to sit at the top of Pg 1 had more voters than contributors to the thread suggested (to me) that footie fans were being rounded up on other forums and visiting here merely to vote without expressing their 'why'.


Late edit: However, Alib, if your para was TiC, excuse me not recognising it as such (I had a similar experience the other day ).

[Robin Orton]

I expect I could find this out for myself if I ploughed back through this thread, but can anyone advise me as to who will take the final decision as to whether, on planning grounds, the scheme should go ahead: Bromley or the Mayor of London? If the former, what's the point of lobbying Boris? Or is this one of the areas where in practice his view will largely determine the matter, even though he may have no formal locus? If not, is there anyone else whose views may, in political terms, carry a lot of weight?

[Hill Dweller]

Since I mentioned the likelihood of RPP fees and meters (based on the experience of friends who live some distance away from chelsea and Fulham grounds) a poster has threaded about yet another questionnaire they've received from Bromley Council. They've now been canvassed three times for support for RPPs and such machines.

I can't understand why any Council would honestly support the scheme.
All three concerned would gain from metered parking.
I don't know the background of why/how Bromley acquired total responsibility/ownership of the park, whether they fought for or against it.
I don't see what it has to do with Boris, especially now that West Ham have won re the Olympics site and so any prettyfying of CPP's athletics stadium to international standards won't be as necessary.
Perhaps he was just asked for and gave his opinion?

.

.