Are any more consultation meetings planned? Yes, the rentamob sound awful, but I would have liked to attend last Friday but couldn't make it.
I have to admit to not being wildly ecstatic about building houses in the park, but it could well be a price worth paying for some much-needed and long overdue redevelopment and I would like to know more and to feed my views into the process.
Say "No!" to housing on Crystal Palace Park
I have removed this post as CPCA allege it was defamatory. See their article here: http://www.sydenham.org.uk/comment_cpca ... r_foe.html
Admin (04/07/07)
Admin (04/07/07)
I have been following with interest The proposal to build a new Crystal Palace. Many like myself, feel that It would be a beautiful tribute to the heritage of the site while at the same time providing jobs, entertainment and ongoing funding for the park. This seems much more sensible than a one off cash injection from the housing.
Outcast, I too was shocked that the community association stopped the farm which was overwhelmingly popular in the public consultation. I suppose they will rob me of the chance of seeing the new Crystal Palace as well.
Outcast, I too was shocked that the community association stopped the farm which was overwhelmingly popular in the public consultation. I suppose they will rob me of the chance of seeing the new Crystal Palace as well.
I too attended the first part of Friday's session, mainly to learn how the master plan was developing. I have to say that I was greatly impressed by the LDA's proposals, and sickened by the rent-a-mob mentality of the opponents.
The LDA had clearly gone to great lengths to incorporate many of the suggestions from our previous meetings, and also to explain just how expensive it is to renovate the park. How can anyone possibly object to proposals to remove the car parks and fences, restore and improve the terraces, restore the boating lake, fix the cricket pitch, and improve the park perimeters?
I just can't get my head round the mentality of the LDA's opponents. They were against any housing, yet also against the plans to relocate the caravan clubs out of the park - which would free up land currently used for housing, and increase the overall size of the public park! Where on earth is the coherence of their position?
I sincerely hope the LDA see the vocal minority for what they are - representatives of no-one but themselves.
The LDA had clearly gone to great lengths to incorporate many of the suggestions from our previous meetings, and also to explain just how expensive it is to renovate the park. How can anyone possibly object to proposals to remove the car parks and fences, restore and improve the terraces, restore the boating lake, fix the cricket pitch, and improve the park perimeters?
I just can't get my head round the mentality of the LDA's opponents. They were against any housing, yet also against the plans to relocate the caravan clubs out of the park - which would free up land currently used for housing, and increase the overall size of the public park! Where on earth is the coherence of their position?
I sincerely hope the LDA see the vocal minority for what they are - representatives of no-one but themselves.
Well said and there you have it. Inconsistent and hypocritical. They rant and rave about any inch of parkland being lost to development and yet, they do, as you say, want the caravan club to stay. The caravan club pays a small amount for a lot of park land and yet the CPCA wants it to stay!. The farm however, that would bring enjoyment to every child in the area must go!
I was told by someone at the meeting that their Chairman, John Payne had been part of a consortium which had its own large developmet proposal for the top site. They said that it was only when it became clear that the LDA was not going to include the consortium's development that the CPCA left the dialogue process.
It seems that the CPCA is very selective when it comes to their no building on any piece of the park!!
I was told by someone at the meeting that their Chairman, John Payne had been part of a consortium which had its own large developmet proposal for the top site. They said that it was only when it became clear that the LDA was not going to include the consortium's development that the CPCA left the dialogue process.
It seems that the CPCA is very selective when it comes to their no building on any piece of the park!!
Scally, I too would love to see Paxton's masterpiece back home. When it burnt down in 36 the world cried and a void was formed which has never since been filled. Maybe it is time to see its splendour again and have somewhere to go and see a concert or show into the bargain.
I would love to see life on the Parade again with splendid fountains and gardens parkside. With so many job opportunities maybe it would help to stave off the youth crime problems in the area. Presently the young people have nowhere much to go except pubs.
The LDA do not seem to have any real funding in place except the prodeeds from the sale of land for housing. I was interested to hear that the new Palace may fund the running of the park. (which I guess would effectively become 'the grounds' once more) Does anyone know how that funding process would work?
Other questions:
What will go inside?
How much funding does it have?
Why was it not included in the LDA consultation?
Has planning application gone in? and who to?
Who is proposing it?
I would love to see life on the Parade again with splendid fountains and gardens parkside. With so many job opportunities maybe it would help to stave off the youth crime problems in the area. Presently the young people have nowhere much to go except pubs.
The LDA do not seem to have any real funding in place except the prodeeds from the sale of land for housing. I was interested to hear that the new Palace may fund the running of the park. (which I guess would effectively become 'the grounds' once more) Does anyone know how that funding process would work?
Other questions:
What will go inside?
How much funding does it have?
Why was it not included in the LDA consultation?
Has planning application gone in? and who to?
Who is proposing it?
I was at last Friday's meeting and could see how high passions ran. Please can we not repeat the process here.
You are very welcome and encouraged, to comment on the meeting as to the facts of what occurred and your viewpoints on the policies at issue. But can we be very boring and leave out any name calling or anything that could be taken as abuse. Play the ball not the man (sorry ladies:)
I hope to publish a front page article on the workshop when I have gathered sufficient material from all sides.
Admin
You are very welcome and encouraged, to comment on the meeting as to the facts of what occurred and your viewpoints on the policies at issue. But can we be very boring and leave out any name calling or anything that could be taken as abuse. Play the ball not the man (sorry ladies:)
I hope to publish a front page article on the workshop when I have gathered sufficient material from all sides.
Admin
Whilst in principle I would love to see the Crystal Palace restored, I don't actually think it is what is needed.
The proposals I have seen suggest it would be used as a conference/exhibition/events space. I would imagine anything on the scale proposed (even if only the fraction of the size of the original) would, to be successful, need massive amounts of parking, hotel accommodation, create local transport problems etc without really contributing anything to the local area.
People keep talking like bringing big events to the park would be a good thing, but when we had Coldplay in the park a couple of years ago most people seemed to be complaining about the noise, disruption to trains, etc etc.
Personally I don't think you can recreate history and I think the Palace was lost in the fire and we have to move on.l
The proposals I have seen suggest it would be used as a conference/exhibition/events space. I would imagine anything on the scale proposed (even if only the fraction of the size of the original) would, to be successful, need massive amounts of parking, hotel accommodation, create local transport problems etc without really contributing anything to the local area.
People keep talking like bringing big events to the park would be a good thing, but when we had Coldplay in the park a couple of years ago most people seemed to be complaining about the noise, disruption to trains, etc etc.
Personally I don't think you can recreate history and I think the Palace was lost in the fire and we have to move on.l
-
Marion Wood
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 17:11
- Location: Forest Hill
Having studied the information provided on the CPCA website and after re-reading all Sydenham Town postings about this topic, I remain opposed to the LDA proposals for private blocks of flats to be built on publicly owned open green space.
I am disappointed by the tone and nature of some of the more personal remarks in recent postings regarding the community association and its chairman. With reference to Rent a Mob tactics at public meetings, it strikes me that these may be exactly what they are. The question is who is doing the hiring?
I am disappointed by the tone and nature of some of the more personal remarks in recent postings regarding the community association and its chairman. With reference to Rent a Mob tactics at public meetings, it strikes me that these may be exactly what they are. The question is who is doing the hiring?
Marion - I'm very unclear about your comment: "Who is doing the hiring?"
You are surely not suggesting that the people at the meeting acting in this fashion are not all long-term members of one particular group. Which they are. Or that they are being provoked into behaving in an undemocratic and indimidating fashion? Which they aren't. Or that they've been "hired in" by some sinister outside body to undermine the CPCA? This is fantasy world stuff!
Whatever your views on housing on the site, there is simply no excuse for trying to block other people's opinions by intimidation and heckling.
You are surely not suggesting that the people at the meeting acting in this fashion are not all long-term members of one particular group. Which they are. Or that they are being provoked into behaving in an undemocratic and indimidating fashion? Which they aren't. Or that they've been "hired in" by some sinister outside body to undermine the CPCA? This is fantasy world stuff!
Whatever your views on housing on the site, there is simply no excuse for trying to block other people's opinions by intimidation and heckling.
They're no longer planning to build on open parkland. They're planning to build on a quarter of the existing caravan park site, and return the rest of it to open park. A net increase of open park of three acres.
The other bit of housing will either be on the site of an existing park-keepers house down at the sydenham entrance, or on the site of rather ugly tool shed (I forget which). If I'm reading my local history correctly, that part of the site previously had housing on it anyway, until it was bombed during WW2. The rest of that road has housing along it's entire boundary with the park.
As the LDA are at great pains to point of, none of the proposed housing sites are on areas of the park that the public has access to, or will miss.
I walk across the park every day. I use the (extremely tatty) sports centre three times a week. That is why I am interested in the park's future. I am not in the pay of the LDA. I just happen to agree with what they're doing, and will continue to support it at public meetings and planning committees.
The other bit of housing will either be on the site of an existing park-keepers house down at the sydenham entrance, or on the site of rather ugly tool shed (I forget which). If I'm reading my local history correctly, that part of the site previously had housing on it anyway, until it was bombed during WW2. The rest of that road has housing along it's entire boundary with the park.
As the LDA are at great pains to point of, none of the proposed housing sites are on areas of the park that the public has access to, or will miss.
I walk across the park every day. I use the (extremely tatty) sports centre three times a week. That is why I am interested in the park's future. I am not in the pay of the LDA. I just happen to agree with what they're doing, and will continue to support it at public meetings and planning committees.
Having only very recently joined the forum it has taken a little while to catch up with the issues being discussed about Crystal Palace Park. Having now read the many posted comments my present feelings are that while building on park space is wrong in principle, reality means that if the park is to be taken under proper care (and Bromley has shown how inept it is in this regard) the present proposals are probably a reasonable compromise. As has also been said appropriate landscaping is essential.
It seems as if the disruptive element at the June 1st meeting I mentioned in my previous message might have been from the CPCA - if so, please would they desist - they will not gain support for their views if they continue to behave in this way.
Crystal Palace Park is a site of considerable historical importance. It is most unfortunate that it has been without adequate support from local and national authorities for so long. Please let us try and find a way to redress the balance and have a sustainable system for the improvement and maintenance of this national treasure.
It seems as if the disruptive element at the June 1st meeting I mentioned in my previous message might have been from the CPCA - if so, please would they desist - they will not gain support for their views if they continue to behave in this way.
Crystal Palace Park is a site of considerable historical importance. It is most unfortunate that it has been without adequate support from local and national authorities for so long. Please let us try and find a way to redress the balance and have a sustainable system for the improvement and maintenance of this national treasure.
-
Lillylocks
- Posts: 13
- Joined: 3 Jun 2007 17:59
- Location: Bromley
The Crystal Palace
I absolutely agree with you, Scally. I think building a new Palace is the answer. Something that will bring money and pride back into the area. It worked before for heaven's sake! Slicing off bits of parkland for bricks and mortar won't bring in the money that is needed on a long term basis.scally wrote:I have been following with interest The proposal to build a new Crystal Palace. Many like myself, feel that It would be a beautiful tribute to the heritage of the site while at the same time providing jobs, entertainment and ongoing funding for the park. This seems much more sensible than a one off cash injection from the housing.
Outcast, I too was shocked that the community association stopped the farm which was overwhelmingly popular in the public consultation. I suppose they will rob me of the chance of seeing the new Crystal Palace as well.
Speaking of meetings - I went to my first one last month, to see the MasterPlan of the park. Next time, Outcast, I'll bring along a shield and cattle prod!
-
Lillylocks
- Posts: 13
- Joined: 3 Jun 2007 17:59
- Location: Bromley
multistoried Crystal Palace
Two words stick out in that short and veeeery sweet little paragraph - multistory and entertainment I think you'll find that the Crystal Palace was neither multistoried, nor totally given over to entertainment. Education played a bit of a role back then toodickp wrote:can you imagine their reaction if the LDA decided to put a huge multistory entertainment complex on the top site. You know, a bit like the Cyrstal Palace!
[/b]-
Muddy Waters
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 17:05
Entertainment aside - the Royal Albert Hall and St Paul's Cathedral are not multistoried either! Building even a one third size of the original Crystal Palace (which I believe is the idea put forward) on the highest ridge of south London would have some impact I would suggest.
Apart from dominating the skyline what about light pollution? And what would it be used for? Build a box around its contents, dont build the box first - we should have learned that lesson from the Millennium Dome fiasco. Also servicing such a building would cause considerable traffic problems with the Triangle one-way system with its Victorian narrow streets.
Finally, as I recall, there was a public inquiry about 3 years ago which came down in favour of the "top-site" being designated Metropolitan Open Land for the purposes of planning and not land that was "derelict and suitable for development" - I think that was Bromley's excuse for approving the development of the multiplex.
Apart from dominating the skyline what about light pollution? And what would it be used for? Build a box around its contents, dont build the box first - we should have learned that lesson from the Millennium Dome fiasco. Also servicing such a building would cause considerable traffic problems with the Triangle one-way system with its Victorian narrow streets.
Finally, as I recall, there was a public inquiry about 3 years ago which came down in favour of the "top-site" being designated Metropolitan Open Land for the purposes of planning and not land that was "derelict and suitable for development" - I think that was Bromley's excuse for approving the development of the multiplex.
According to the Crystal Palace Foundation (http://www.crystalpalacefoundation.org.uk/)
the Palace was indeed multi-storied.
And a white elephant.
'Considerable extra work and material was required to construct the new building [at Sydenham]. It had five storeys instead of the original three and, because of the additional length, north and south transepts were added to the centre or main transept to give balance the building. The floor area was nearly half as much again as the original. The original building in Hyde Park was constructed for little more than £150,000 (over 7.5 million today) but the much-enlarged Sydenham building, combined with the huge expenditure required on the grounds, all but used up the original £500,000 before the building was even half finished. The balance was raised with various share issues and resulted in a final bill of nearly £1,300,000 (over £50.5 million today) - some £800,000 (over £40 million today) over budget! In the 82 years of its life the Crystal Palace never shook off this debt or the resultant problems and only rarely made the very smallest of profits.'
Interesting.
the Palace was indeed multi-storied.
And a white elephant.
'Considerable extra work and material was required to construct the new building [at Sydenham]. It had five storeys instead of the original three and, because of the additional length, north and south transepts were added to the centre or main transept to give balance the building. The floor area was nearly half as much again as the original. The original building in Hyde Park was constructed for little more than £150,000 (over 7.5 million today) but the much-enlarged Sydenham building, combined with the huge expenditure required on the grounds, all but used up the original £500,000 before the building was even half finished. The balance was raised with various share issues and resulted in a final bill of nearly £1,300,000 (over £50.5 million today) - some £800,000 (over £40 million today) over budget! In the 82 years of its life the Crystal Palace never shook off this debt or the resultant problems and only rarely made the very smallest of profits.'
Interesting.
-
Muddy Waters
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 17:05
I stand corrected - I was only thinking about the central transcept - User 100, you are right the original Crystal Palace was a galleried building.
It also was, as you say, short of capital to fund itself and then short of revenue to sustain itself - something those should consider who want to rebuild something similar, albeit smaller in scale. The last thing this area needs is a huge white elephant.
Aside from its internal construction and the questions of skyline dominance of any new large building, light pollution, its use and the need for servicing, the matter of building on the top-site, designated Metropolitan Open Land, remains.
It also was, as you say, short of capital to fund itself and then short of revenue to sustain itself - something those should consider who want to rebuild something similar, albeit smaller in scale. The last thing this area needs is a huge white elephant.
Aside from its internal construction and the questions of skyline dominance of any new large building, light pollution, its use and the need for servicing, the matter of building on the top-site, designated Metropolitan Open Land, remains.