[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Houses built in Crystal palace park?
Houses built in Crystal palace park?
Apparently the courts have said yes to the developers, should this be allowed? What do you think?
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
-
Duke of Clarence
- Posts: 247
- Joined: 27 May 2010 09:02
- Location: over the hill
Re: Houses built in Crystal palace park?
What a stitch up!Annie. wrote:Apparently the courts have said yes to the developers, should this be allowed? What do you think?
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Mr Justice Kieth attributed the thrust of the challenge to the impact on bats! This was clearly not the case but he was swayed by the fact the plan is backed by Bromley, the Major and English Heritage - I would have thought that was every reason to quash it.
So CPP will be parcelled up and sold off to seed fund the £100m+ Masterplan. In the current market the land value is around £5m. The permission is for three estates of 60 units.
Given the fact that London's population is expected to increase by 1m in next 20 years http://data.london.gov.uk/documents/foc ... ousing.pdf and we've already run out of space to build, i guess CPP is just the first of many parks that will be needed to meet the demand for housing
Re: Houses built in Crystal palace park?
This is a disgrace. Seems same as Sydenham / Dulwich woods where they manage to build a few houses every few years.
If the population has to increase then our green spaces even more important.
This should be opposed by every legal means possible.
If the population has to increase then our green spaces even more important.
This should be opposed by every legal means possible.
Re: Houses built in Crystal palace park?
Agreed. Do you want higher rise housing on currently developed land, or more crowded rooms?Eagle wrote: If the population has to increase then our green spaces even more important.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Re: Houses built in Crystal palace park?
Neither Tim
A halt to the continued rise in London and the south east's population increase.
A large city like London only tolerable with lots of green areas. The South East is a water deficient area ( I guess you are laughing because of current downpours ).
Where are the jobs in S E London for the additional folk , or indeed the folk already here. No large scale industry will come to a large built up area. They need good road links.
It was a good idea for instance suggesting the long term unemployed move to places like Walsall . Their benefits would go further there.
Thanks God for our Victorian ancestors who left us with these great green spaces and also incidently lovely and sturdy Victorian housing which are 60's planners did their best to destroy.
A halt to the continued rise in London and the south east's population increase.
A large city like London only tolerable with lots of green areas. The South East is a water deficient area ( I guess you are laughing because of current downpours ).
Where are the jobs in S E London for the additional folk , or indeed the folk already here. No large scale industry will come to a large built up area. They need good road links.
It was a good idea for instance suggesting the long term unemployed move to places like Walsall . Their benefits would go further there.
Thanks God for our Victorian ancestors who left us with these great green spaces and also incidently lovely and sturdy Victorian housing which are 60's planners did their best to destroy.
Re: Houses built in Crystal palace park?
Is this housing in the park or in the caravan park?
From my understanding they were building on the site of the caravan park, which was once Rockhills, a house. They aren't actually making the park any smaller are they?
The rather beautiful Victorian housing around the edges of the park are actually in the park and were built to help fund it. The park has always had buildings in it, not just the Crystal Palace.
Building on green land, part of a park, reducing it's size is wrong. But I'm not sure this is the case here. Can anyone clarify?
From my understanding they were building on the site of the caravan park, which was once Rockhills, a house. They aren't actually making the park any smaller are they?
The rather beautiful Victorian housing around the edges of the park are actually in the park and were built to help fund it. The park has always had buildings in it, not just the Crystal Palace.
Building on green land, part of a park, reducing it's size is wrong. But I'm not sure this is the case here. Can anyone clarify?
Re: Houses built in Crystal palace park?
Sorry Lee if you are correct then I broadly accept the devolpment, but a pity could not be a camp site , one is needed in the London area.
Re: Houses built in Crystal palace park?
High rise housing on brownfield sites (real brownfield sites) is certainly a good solution. That is part of how Lewisham intends to increase housing stock in the north of Lewisham over the next 20 years or so.Tim Lund wrote:Do you want higher rise housing on currently developed land, or more crowded rooms?
New builds continue to have smaller rooms than equivalent new builds in other countries, so that is also part of the solution, whether we like it or not.
Another solution is to regenerate northern cities where land prices are lower and housing is not in such high demand. Most of the immigration to London continues to be internal migration, not from overseas. If there was not such a gap between London and the rest of Britain, then London would not be so overcrowded.
But if London is to continue to increase then what is required is to develop the Thames corridor even faster than is currently happening and to consider moving the Green Belt in some places so that London has room to expand and other areas can be protected. Successful cities always expand, and London has more opportunity for this than many cities. But the solution is not to impose urban densities on suburban areas that do not have the infrastructure necessary to operate and provide a positive standard of living.
On the specific issue of Crystal Palace, I was under the impression (possibly from a previous scheme) that although some land would be lost to housing, in other areas the parkland would be expanded, particularly at the top of the park. There is already a lot of this park with high rise flats, sports complex, car parks, caravan park, television transmitters, and historic foundations of an enormous structure once erected here. With sensible landscaping it should be possible to build some housing and yet still end up with more green space in this excellent park.
Re: Houses built in Crystal palace park?
I might be wrong,but I thought the build was at the top end of the park near the parade?
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Re: Houses built in Crystal palace park?
No, that plan was withdrawn yonks ago. I believe they are talking about the caravan park.
When built, the houses will occupy less space than the caravan park, whose lease will shortly expire. The unused land will be returned to parkland. The money raised will be ring-fenced to fund park improvements.
So we'll end up with more park (land) and a better park. Albeit without a caravan park. Which probably had no place being in a park in the first place.
I can live with that.
When built, the houses will occupy less space than the caravan park, whose lease will shortly expire. The unused land will be returned to parkland. The money raised will be ring-fenced to fund park improvements.
So we'll end up with more park (land) and a better park. Albeit without a caravan park. Which probably had no place being in a park in the first place.
I can live with that.
Re: Houses built in Crystal palace park?
Dickp…WE AGREE!
Finally!
There does seem to be a knee jerk ration to this. They do seem to be building in a caravan park. The main word there is 'caravan' which everyone seems to have ignored!
I hope they celebrate the fact that one of the most important buildings ever created was at the top of the park. I also hope that the architecture of the flats built is fitting and of decent quality and design.
Finally!
There does seem to be a knee jerk ration to this. They do seem to be building in a caravan park. The main word there is 'caravan' which everyone seems to have ignored!
I hope they celebrate the fact that one of the most important buildings ever created was at the top of the park. I also hope that the architecture of the flats built is fitting and of decent quality and design.
Re: Houses built in Crystal palace park?
Yes, the word "caravan park" and "park land" can provoke very different reactions in people, when asked for their reactions on building on a "park".
Another central idea of this plan is to remove disused, or under-used, car parks, and return them to (yet more) park. That's park LAND, not caravan park or car park.
Some of us can tell the difference...
Another central idea of this plan is to remove disused, or under-used, car parks, and return them to (yet more) park. That's park LAND, not caravan park or car park.
Some of us can tell the difference...
-
Duke of Clarence
- Posts: 247
- Joined: 27 May 2010 09:02
- Location: over the hill
Re: Houses built in Crystal palace park?
We're not talking about a few houses being built on the caravan club site tucked away behind trees are we DickP?
The planning permission is for 180 housing units to be built on the Rockhills and Sydenham Gate areas. And whilst much was made about the fact that the 90 units on Rockhills would take up an acre less parkland than the caravan club, not a lot was made about the fact that this will be a high rise block. Note to DickP - the caravan club is built on parkland, the land for sale is parkland and according to the masterplan:
"The new permanent residential areas proposed at Rockhills and the Sydenham would provide up to 180 residential apartments in an area where there is a need for housing. Given the relatively small number of people who would live in the new residential development, there would be no significant impacts on the demand for school places or doctors."
Let's say the average sized unit is 3 bed. Lets say the average occupancy of each unit is 3. 180x 3 = 540 people. The surrounding schools are full. Don't know about Sydenham GP surgeries but the CP ones are maxed out. How can such bold assumptions be made? The needs of the future residents' well being and education are dismissed in the same lofty manner as the legal challenge. And whilst DickP may be happy to live with that not sure how the incoming residents will enjoy the jockeying for position on the GP's and schools' waiting lists.
And yes parts of the park that are currently hardstanding will be turfed over to compensate for the loss of green space to the housing but that doesn't come as a freebe, it's a costly process. The Italian Terraces are also going to be dug up and replaced with sunken ornamental gardens. Nice if you like that sort of thing but not only does this remove one of the best features of the terraces - the fabulous views - it also costs the earth. And at even greater cost the established trees that flank the slope of the Terraces will be felled to make way for a couple of green houses.
As for the ring fenced revenue it wasn't predicted to go far in the first place. £5m to seed fund a £67m refurb. However the current economic climate has seen the land value plummet and the cost of implementing the Masterplan shoot from £67m to over £100m. Burgess, Brockwell, Dulwich and Battersea Parks have all received public funding without having to forfeit sections for sale.
As the revenue from sale of parkland will be swallowed up pdq - how will the hugley increased anual maintenance bill for CPP be met? Money don't grow on trees...
The planning permission is for 180 housing units to be built on the Rockhills and Sydenham Gate areas. And whilst much was made about the fact that the 90 units on Rockhills would take up an acre less parkland than the caravan club, not a lot was made about the fact that this will be a high rise block. Note to DickP - the caravan club is built on parkland, the land for sale is parkland and according to the masterplan:
"The new permanent residential areas proposed at Rockhills and the Sydenham would provide up to 180 residential apartments in an area where there is a need for housing. Given the relatively small number of people who would live in the new residential development, there would be no significant impacts on the demand for school places or doctors."
Let's say the average sized unit is 3 bed. Lets say the average occupancy of each unit is 3. 180x 3 = 540 people. The surrounding schools are full. Don't know about Sydenham GP surgeries but the CP ones are maxed out. How can such bold assumptions be made? The needs of the future residents' well being and education are dismissed in the same lofty manner as the legal challenge. And whilst DickP may be happy to live with that not sure how the incoming residents will enjoy the jockeying for position on the GP's and schools' waiting lists.
And yes parts of the park that are currently hardstanding will be turfed over to compensate for the loss of green space to the housing but that doesn't come as a freebe, it's a costly process. The Italian Terraces are also going to be dug up and replaced with sunken ornamental gardens. Nice if you like that sort of thing but not only does this remove one of the best features of the terraces - the fabulous views - it also costs the earth. And at even greater cost the established trees that flank the slope of the Terraces will be felled to make way for a couple of green houses.
As for the ring fenced revenue it wasn't predicted to go far in the first place. £5m to seed fund a £67m refurb. However the current economic climate has seen the land value plummet and the cost of implementing the Masterplan shoot from £67m to over £100m. Burgess, Brockwell, Dulwich and Battersea Parks have all received public funding without having to forfeit sections for sale.
As the revenue from sale of parkland will be swallowed up pdq - how will the hugley increased anual maintenance bill for CPP be met? Money don't grow on trees...
Re: Houses built in Crystal palace park?
Neither (plants tongue firmly in cheek while inserting key in Tim's back) build on the allotments, I say. Far more people benefit from parks and open space than the few with allotments.Tim Lund wrote:[
Do you want higher rise housing on currently developed land, or more crowded rooms?
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
-
14BradfordRoad
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: 8 Oct 2011 23:22
- Location: Somewhere over the rainbow..
Re: Houses built in Crystal palace park?
Touche'marymck wrote:Neither (plants tongue firmly in cheek while inserting key in Tim's back) build on the allotments, I say. Far more people benefit from parks and open space than the few with allotments.Tim Lund wrote:[
Do you want higher rise housing on currently developed land, or more crowded rooms?
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Executed with style Mary..
Re: Houses built in Crystal palace park?
Does anyone have any evidence of the developments?
Are there any designs of the flats?
Any pictures?
How can we simply say 'you can't build on a caravan park (which was Joseph Paxtons House, Rockhills which you can see here the the far left of the picture, so they are building flats on the site of a house as they have all down the side of the park!).
http://www.beckenhamhistory.co.uk/fromthetower.jpg
More images here;
http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic. ... =10&t=2050
There are already a lot of houses in Crystal Palace Park including a hi rise block next to the sports stadium right in the middle of it not to mention the beautiful villas seen on the image I posted a link to.
In 1968 there was a proposal to demolish the houses on Crystal Palace Park Road and absorb the land back into the park.
There is also a bus station in the park, a TV mast, part of it is now Thames Water, another part a zoo, various awful concrete buildings that are bricked up and unused. I wonder if the objectors to the housing have actually been in the park post 1936?
I love the park and the Palace, but we have to be realistic about development and conservation. Most of all I'd love the park to acknowledge the fact that it once had one of the most important buildings ever constructed in it. Then we can turn Mr Paxtons bust around so he doesn't look so ashamed.
Are there any designs of the flats?
Any pictures?
How can we simply say 'you can't build on a caravan park (which was Joseph Paxtons House, Rockhills which you can see here the the far left of the picture, so they are building flats on the site of a house as they have all down the side of the park!).
http://www.beckenhamhistory.co.uk/fromthetower.jpg
More images here;
http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic. ... =10&t=2050
There are already a lot of houses in Crystal Palace Park including a hi rise block next to the sports stadium right in the middle of it not to mention the beautiful villas seen on the image I posted a link to.
In 1968 there was a proposal to demolish the houses on Crystal Palace Park Road and absorb the land back into the park.
There is also a bus station in the park, a TV mast, part of it is now Thames Water, another part a zoo, various awful concrete buildings that are bricked up and unused. I wonder if the objectors to the housing have actually been in the park post 1936?
I love the park and the Palace, but we have to be realistic about development and conservation. Most of all I'd love the park to acknowledge the fact that it once had one of the most important buildings ever constructed in it. Then we can turn Mr Paxtons bust around so he doesn't look so ashamed.
Re: Houses built in Crystal palace park?
Lee, you're not suggesting people should check their facts before giving their opinion? It would be an awfully quiet forum if we did!
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Re: Houses built in Crystal palace park?
Which is why I'm proud of our allotments having Open Days twice a year, having our site - and shop - open pretty well every Sunday, hosting BBQs for groups such as Practical Action SE London, and our volunteers who host school parties coming round various times over the summer. Otherwise, I'll admit the public benefit of allotments is moot. And of course there is clearly even less public benefit in over grown, unwanted back gardens.marymck wrote:Neither (plants tongue firmly in cheek while inserting key in Tim's back) build on the allotments, I say. Far more people benefit from parks and open space than the few with allotments.Tim Lund wrote:[
Do you want higher rise housing on currently developed land, or more crowded rooms?
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
But my main concern is to protect open space.
-
Duke of Clarence
- Posts: 247
- Joined: 27 May 2010 09:02
- Location: over the hill
Re: Houses built in Crystal palace park?
Leave Paxton's bust out of this Lee!
As there are no planning applications, yet, there are no relevant drawings but we do have numbers. 90 housing units on each site. There are drawings of what the units could look like here http://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org/Ma ... rnbook.pdf Nasty or nice - you decide! This is how the Rockhills Gate development is described
"This new residential development will frame the Park at its
north-west-corner, creating more public space and a new
entrance gateway.
The buildings which will step down towards the east and
into the Park are arranged around two partially enclosed
garden courts, allowing the landscape to permeate the built
structure and create framed views of the Park from the
Westwood Hill."
And the Sydenham Gate description:
"This residential development is designed to continue the
rhythm of the Park boundary and will respect the scale
and character of existing buildings."
The high rise housing Lee refers to is not residential and was built as part of the NSC complex to be used for stadium contestants, moreover the fact that large sections of the park are already built on is a strange reason to support further develppment. I would have thought the more densley populated an area becomes the more value is placed on it's parkland - value as in well being not financial - unfortunatley there is a view that unlkike other parks CPP is prime real estate.
Nowt so queer as ...
As there are no planning applications, yet, there are no relevant drawings but we do have numbers. 90 housing units on each site. There are drawings of what the units could look like here http://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org/Ma ... rnbook.pdf Nasty or nice - you decide! This is how the Rockhills Gate development is described
"This new residential development will frame the Park at its
north-west-corner, creating more public space and a new
entrance gateway.
The buildings which will step down towards the east and
into the Park are arranged around two partially enclosed
garden courts, allowing the landscape to permeate the built
structure and create framed views of the Park from the
Westwood Hill."
And the Sydenham Gate description:
"This residential development is designed to continue the
rhythm of the Park boundary and will respect the scale
and character of existing buildings."
The high rise housing Lee refers to is not residential and was built as part of the NSC complex to be used for stadium contestants, moreover the fact that large sections of the park are already built on is a strange reason to support further develppment. I would have thought the more densley populated an area becomes the more value is placed on it's parkland - value as in well being not financial - unfortunatley there is a view that unlkike other parks CPP is prime real estate.
Nowt so queer as ...