My first time here, so I apologise for any cock ups or splling typos.
Hey user100, you quoted a lot of stuff from the cp foundation site and all that, but where does it say it was a white elephant, because it never did. Thats what you think, and according to my old man, he reckons that statement is subjective not a fact. I reckon he's right mate. If your quoting a lot of facts you can't go and stick something like that in.
My old nan saw the palace burn down when she was 19 and she reckons the country went into mourning for it. Theres nothing like that now is there?
Say "No!" to housing on Crystal Palace Park
BigJim, I was quoting that source to show that it was multi-storied.
In doing so, I discovered that the CP was a costly enterprise to run, had huge debts which the business could not pay off, and only made a small profit if any each year.
So yes, in my opinion it was a white elephant:
'A rare, expensive possession that is a financial burden to maintain.'
But you are right, I am being subjective. I didn't mean to imply the website said it was a white elephant, it's just the conclusion I draw from the evidence on that site, I should have been a bit clearer on that.
Anyway, white elephant or not, that's not to say it was not a beautiful and important building - it was a crying shame when it burnt down.
No offence intended in any case.
Interesting to hear what your Nan had to say about it. You are right, there is nothing quite like it now.
In doing so, I discovered that the CP was a costly enterprise to run, had huge debts which the business could not pay off, and only made a small profit if any each year.
So yes, in my opinion it was a white elephant:
'A rare, expensive possession that is a financial burden to maintain.'
But you are right, I am being subjective. I didn't mean to imply the website said it was a white elephant, it's just the conclusion I draw from the evidence on that site, I should have been a bit clearer on that.
Anyway, white elephant or not, that's not to say it was not a beautiful and important building - it was a crying shame when it burnt down.
No offence intended in any case.
Interesting to hear what your Nan had to say about it. You are right, there is nothing quite like it now.
Top bloke user100! I'd like to see the old gaff back again, mind you not that I saw it the first time if you know what I mean? I'm not that blooming old. But it'd be great to have something on that site, and something important and not some ruddy great cinema complex either.
Anyway, have a good weekend one and all cos I'm off for a round of golf.
Anyway, have a good weekend one and all cos I'm off for a round of golf.
-
Marion Wood
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 17:11
- Location: Forest Hill
Say "No!" to housing on Crystal Palace Park
I will accept that some participants in the recent CPP consultation workshop may have behaved in a manner others found very objectionable. I also accept this minority may have included some people known to be members of one of the local community associations. It is part of the role of the workshop’s facilitator to ensure that ground rules are followed. Why was this control not exercised?
I am not a member of the Crystal Palace Community Association but I do share CPCA concerns that no source of funding for park improvements has been put forward by the London Development Agency other than selling off land for luxury homes. Should they be built, even if technically they are not on Metropolitan Open Land, they will impact adversely on Crystal Palace Park and the surrounding areas.
If my being against the previously proposed commercial development and multiplex cinema and now one of the 7000 people who signed the petition against the current private housing plans makes me as a dissfunctional manace, so be it. I am in good company. Objectors like me are simply expressing our view, an opinion commonly shared by many more local people than the “London Development Agency as the cavalry” one expressed on this forum.
I am not a member of the Crystal Palace Community Association but I do share CPCA concerns that no source of funding for park improvements has been put forward by the London Development Agency other than selling off land for luxury homes. Should they be built, even if technically they are not on Metropolitan Open Land, they will impact adversely on Crystal Palace Park and the surrounding areas.
If my being against the previously proposed commercial development and multiplex cinema and now one of the 7000 people who signed the petition against the current private housing plans makes me as a dissfunctional manace, so be it. I am in good company. Objectors like me are simply expressing our view, an opinion commonly shared by many more local people than the “London Development Agency as the cavalry” one expressed on this forum.
-
Muddy Waters
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 17:05
In a free and open discussion everyone should be able to state their views and expect to have them respected, even by those who may strongly disagree. Those who have not come to a decision should be able to listen to well reasoned debate from all sides in order to make up their own minds.
The problem with the meeting on 1 June was the fact that an open public meeting, one to which local residents had been invited, and not a meeting for just those who are regular attendees at the long running Dialogue process, was hijacked by what appeared to be an organised vociferous group of people who would not let the organisers engage in discussion with the local residents.
As someone who is presumably well informed about what the LDA and the Masterplanners are proposing for the park you have come to your strongly held views about housing, to which you are fully entitled.
I have yet to make up my mind. The 1 June meeting would have been an opportunity for me to listen to the various arguments and become better informed. And there were a good number of local residents present who came along for this purpose, a number of whom left because of the behaviour of this rentacrowd.
What I have seen is a draft Masterplan which in the main will, in my personal opinion, give us back a park of which to be proud. and this comes through the offices of the LDA. I see nothing on the horizon from Bromley Council to give me any confidence about the future of Crystal Palace Park if it remains under their management.
In fact I understood from some information which did come out from the 1 June meeting that Bromley have been underfunding management of the park over the past few years by something like £1m per annum.
Housing aside (it is an issue which will need resolving either before the Masterplan goes to Bromley for planning permission in the autumn, or as part of the actual decision process) I strongly welcome what I have seen from the LDA.
The problem with the meeting on 1 June was the fact that an open public meeting, one to which local residents had been invited, and not a meeting for just those who are regular attendees at the long running Dialogue process, was hijacked by what appeared to be an organised vociferous group of people who would not let the organisers engage in discussion with the local residents.
As someone who is presumably well informed about what the LDA and the Masterplanners are proposing for the park you have come to your strongly held views about housing, to which you are fully entitled.
I have yet to make up my mind. The 1 June meeting would have been an opportunity for me to listen to the various arguments and become better informed. And there were a good number of local residents present who came along for this purpose, a number of whom left because of the behaviour of this rentacrowd.
What I have seen is a draft Masterplan which in the main will, in my personal opinion, give us back a park of which to be proud. and this comes through the offices of the LDA. I see nothing on the horizon from Bromley Council to give me any confidence about the future of Crystal Palace Park if it remains under their management.
In fact I understood from some information which did come out from the 1 June meeting that Bromley have been underfunding management of the park over the past few years by something like £1m per annum.
Housing aside (it is an issue which will need resolving either before the Masterplan goes to Bromley for planning permission in the autumn, or as part of the actual decision process) I strongly welcome what I have seen from the LDA.
farm
One thing that the LDA did manage to organise well was Capel Manor coming to the park. Capel Manor are a most prestigious organisation and I was impressed and proud that they were considering our park as a further branch of their splendid organisation. As we know the CPCA managed to halt Capel Manor before but I thought that that had been overcome and the farm would open as planned in September.
I now learn that it has been stopped again and Capel may be forced to submit another planning application thus making it almost impossible to open in time for the children's holidays. Does anybody know what the CPCA's problem is with this wonderful organisation and why they feel the need to spoil everything good that's happening in the area even when the community that they claim to represent wants it.
I now learn that it has been stopped again and Capel may be forced to submit another planning application thus making it almost impossible to open in time for the children's holidays. Does anybody know what the CPCA's problem is with this wonderful organisation and why they feel the need to spoil everything good that's happening in the area even when the community that they claim to represent wants it.
-
Pat Trembath
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 10:54
I, too, have heard this news.
Not only were (hopefully, still are) Capel Manor College to provide us with a farm open to local people, they were also were (hopefully, still are) going to provide young local people with the opportunity to gain nationally recognised qualifications for animal husbandry, horticulture and arboriculture. Applications have already been received for courses due to start in September.
I cant quite work out the mentality of some of the nimbys in this area.
Admin, on 4 June in this thread, you said you were going to write a fuller article on matters arising from meeting of 1 June. Three weeks on have you gathered all the information you needed to carry out this task?
Not only were (hopefully, still are) Capel Manor College to provide us with a farm open to local people, they were also were (hopefully, still are) going to provide young local people with the opportunity to gain nationally recognised qualifications for animal husbandry, horticulture and arboriculture. Applications have already been received for courses due to start in September.
I cant quite work out the mentality of some of the nimbys in this area.
Admin, on 4 June in this thread, you said you were going to write a fuller article on matters arising from meeting of 1 June. Three weeks on have you gathered all the information you needed to carry out this task?
-
tulse hill terry
- Posts: 686
- Joined: 25 Jun 2007 01:33
- Location: sarf lunnen
I too feel that Crystal Palace Park is a park of historic importance, and of local, national and international interest.
I too would be delighted if the Crystal Palace building was rebuilt in it's entirety, but I feel like much in the park that it has been left too late, and the last 71 years of intensive redevelopment in the area has left what seems the majority of local residents desperate to protect what green space is left.
Admittedly not readily availiable to the general public, there is mentioned in the last of the guidebooks to the Crystal Palace, annual statements from the chairman Sir Henry Buckland regarding the large sums of money taken at the door, and also spent on a huge programme of restoration of the building, all this in a depression and and as Sir Henry states, for a publicly owned building, without any subsidy of any kind.
Think on that anyone who believes that the Crystal Palace was a "white elephant" when it burnt down.
I attended a recent meeting held by the LDA, and yes there were heated statements from several individuals.
I did find the LDA's presentation cursory, with housing presented as issue before the need for re-landscaping. I sensed a lot of frustration fom people who hadn't recieved what they felt were adequate answers in previous meetings.
I was appalled at the low turnout, considering the amount of people who must live nearby, and I left feeling that however unrepresentative the LDA's final proposals for the park are, perhaps us Londoners as a whole will get what we deserve.
The debate in this kind of situation will therefore be left to the same individuals. How many thousands of people have had years to reflect and develop passionationately held beliefs about what the fate of Crystal Palace Park should be. Perhaps the LDA needs to have many more meetings that it presently holds to untangle these conflicting ideas.
I too would be delighted if the Crystal Palace building was rebuilt in it's entirety, but I feel like much in the park that it has been left too late, and the last 71 years of intensive redevelopment in the area has left what seems the majority of local residents desperate to protect what green space is left.
Admittedly not readily availiable to the general public, there is mentioned in the last of the guidebooks to the Crystal Palace, annual statements from the chairman Sir Henry Buckland regarding the large sums of money taken at the door, and also spent on a huge programme of restoration of the building, all this in a depression and and as Sir Henry states, for a publicly owned building, without any subsidy of any kind.
Think on that anyone who believes that the Crystal Palace was a "white elephant" when it burnt down.
I attended a recent meeting held by the LDA, and yes there were heated statements from several individuals.
I did find the LDA's presentation cursory, with housing presented as issue before the need for re-landscaping. I sensed a lot of frustration fom people who hadn't recieved what they felt were adequate answers in previous meetings.
I was appalled at the low turnout, considering the amount of people who must live nearby, and I left feeling that however unrepresentative the LDA's final proposals for the park are, perhaps us Londoners as a whole will get what we deserve.
The debate in this kind of situation will therefore be left to the same individuals. How many thousands of people have had years to reflect and develop passionationately held beliefs about what the fate of Crystal Palace Park should be. Perhaps the LDA needs to have many more meetings that it presently holds to untangle these conflicting ideas.
-
Lillylocks
- Posts: 13
- Joined: 3 Jun 2007 17:59
- Location: Bromley
Tulse Hill Terry - Agree with many of your ideas but the last thing we need now is for the "LDA to have many more meetings" as you suggest.
We've had a long and expensive public consultation and dozens of meetings, stetching over nearly four years. Unfortunately, those meetings are now totally dominated by one particular group who use any tactic to scare off opposition to their views. That, in large part, is why so few "ordinary" people now attend any consultation meetings. By the way, the rebuilding of the CP has already been rejected on our behalf by "the group" not because of its economic viability but for one simple reason - it's a building on green space!!
The latest undemocratic trick of "the group", incidentally, is to threaten legal action against me and others on this website in the latest edition of their magazine. And if you think this is a joke, they've shut down opposition in the same way before with great success.
We've had the discussion. Let's now proceed to a decision by Bromley Council, hopefully in favour of the LDA proposals. And let us hope that the Children's Zoo, once again put on hold by the opposition of a "particular group" can also re-open soon.
We've had a long and expensive public consultation and dozens of meetings, stetching over nearly four years. Unfortunately, those meetings are now totally dominated by one particular group who use any tactic to scare off opposition to their views. That, in large part, is why so few "ordinary" people now attend any consultation meetings. By the way, the rebuilding of the CP has already been rejected on our behalf by "the group" not because of its economic viability but for one simple reason - it's a building on green space!!
The latest undemocratic trick of "the group", incidentally, is to threaten legal action against me and others on this website in the latest edition of their magazine. And if you think this is a joke, they've shut down opposition in the same way before with great success.
We've had the discussion. Let's now proceed to a decision by Bromley Council, hopefully in favour of the LDA proposals. And let us hope that the Children's Zoo, once again put on hold by the opposition of a "particular group" can also re-open soon.
The CPCA Newsletter has published a strongly worded article criticising this website and some members of the Sydenham Town Forum. The article contains inaccuracies, misleading statements and misconceptions which may mislead its membership.
Judge for yourself. You can read the full unedited CPCA article at:
http://www.sydenham.org.uk/comment_cpca ... r_foe.html
My response is at:
http://www.sydenham.org.uk/comment_cpca ... ponse.html
I would ask that anyone who responds should do so with care and respect. While constructive criticism is welcome here, please let's keep abuse well at bay.
Admin
Judge for yourself. You can read the full unedited CPCA article at:
http://www.sydenham.org.uk/comment_cpca ... r_foe.html
My response is at:
http://www.sydenham.org.uk/comment_cpca ... ponse.html
I would ask that anyone who responds should do so with care and respect. While constructive criticism is welcome here, please let's keep abuse well at bay.
Admin
CPCA
I have just heard that my posting has been taken off at the insistance of the CPCA. I am amazed that my words have had such a dramatic affect on them but am at the same time thrilled to be the cause of their discontent for a change. It is usually them upsetting me! Thank you moderator, you have made my day!
I have to say I am shocked by what I have just read. I personally do not have any opinions about the park - call me shallow - sorry. However, I believe in freedom of speech and cannot believe that a forum can be censored in this way (with the exception of inciting hatred in the case of terrorism of course).
Please let me clarify. It was my reluctant decision to remove the posting. I take full responsibility.
CPCA identified this particular posting of outcast as defamatory. That is their opinion, not mine. But defamation has legal implications. I don't have the resources to determine whether outcast's posting is legal or not. Hence I must apply the precautionary principle given that CPCA appears to have a litigious reputation and is there a veiled threat at the end of their article?
Oh how I wish I and the CPCA were as brave as Voltaire "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Admin
CPCA identified this particular posting of outcast as defamatory. That is their opinion, not mine. But defamation has legal implications. I don't have the resources to determine whether outcast's posting is legal or not. Hence I must apply the precautionary principle given that CPCA appears to have a litigious reputation and is there a veiled threat at the end of their article?
Oh how I wish I and the CPCA were as brave as Voltaire "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Admin
Here is an organisation that will do anything to snuff out opposition to their views. And I mean anything.
It's little wonder that they want to find out the names of those who write in opposition to their views and activities. Once they discover your name and telephone number, your phone barely stops ringing - as has happened to me over the past few weeks.
This website is not alone in suffering from the activities of "the group". Please read the link below and see what members of the virtual Norwood forum have to say:
http://www.virtualnorwood.com/forum/ind ... topic=4035
It's little wonder that they want to find out the names of those who write in opposition to their views and activities. Once they discover your name and telephone number, your phone barely stops ringing - as has happened to me over the past few weeks.
This website is not alone in suffering from the activities of "the group". Please read the link below and see what members of the virtual Norwood forum have to say:
http://www.virtualnorwood.com/forum/ind ... topic=4035
You can pop all you like - I don't sue!KateM wrote:I wasn't meaning to have a pop at you Admin!
Actually the reason I changed my mind about Outcast's post was reading this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1183394
More frightening than the CPCA. It really suggests that almost any 'robust criticism' however justified, puts you at risk to somebody rich enough to sue, or just threaten. Free speech is a rough game - but if you make it subject to right of reply - it can work. Perhaps I should relocate to the US where we would get none of this nonsense.
Thankfully most people can take flack without threatening litigation. Calling the Sydenham Society a bunch of middle class pansies might lose you out on a free round at The Dolphin. But that's as bad as it gets - I hope!
Admin
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
On a point of fact, the CPCA article ridiculed eaglesman for suggesting, on the News Shopper website, that the Crystal Palace was built: "using proceeds from the sale of land on fringes for housing [...] all those grand old Victorian piles on Crystal Palace Park Road".
The CPCA response was that: "The land which was sold to a local builder, years after the death of Paxton, was to raise money for the ailing Crystal Palace Company, and the Park was certainly not built from these proceeds".
In fact, eaglesman only erred in terms of scale and the precise location. The site bought by the CP Company in 1852 included the huge triangle of land bordered today by Crystal Palace Park Road, Lawrie Park Road and extended almost to Westwood Hill. It was sold for development precisely to raise money for the Crystal Palace.
The CPCA response was that: "The land which was sold to a local builder, years after the death of Paxton, was to raise money for the ailing Crystal Palace Company, and the Park was certainly not built from these proceeds".
In fact, eaglesman only erred in terms of scale and the precise location. The site bought by the CP Company in 1852 included the huge triangle of land bordered today by Crystal Palace Park Road, Lawrie Park Road and extended almost to Westwood Hill. It was sold for development precisely to raise money for the Crystal Palace.
Thank you for that though I find it rather dissappointing that we now not only have to watch what we say about the CPCA we also have to get our facts 100% correct as well. It's hard enough to get people to post as it is. How many will be too wary to post comments now. Maybe the CPCA's exhaulted leader should consider writing a little booklet, maybe red in colour, guiding us on what to say and think and how to behave in their esteemed company.
Having just read the CPCA attack on this forum and certain posters I am amazed they can still claim to be a representative group? My only experience of this group was when I was yelled at leaving Sainsburys in Penge once, the LDA had a display of there proposal inthe foyer and as I left I was confronted by some folks wanting me to sign a petition against; I declined saying it was too early to decide and was shouted at ! Every one has a right to an opinion and if some differ that should be respected but not in a close minded way. CPCA, if I have said anything worthy of litagation let me know and I will give you my details and my lawyers, which I would not understand being necessary, I am sure no one could possibly be that confrontational over a public interest /community debate ?