Good discussion on the detail of the development brochure, so I have researched this some more. It seems to me that some people are being unwittingly misled by poor press statements. Statements in the news headlines like “
Plans to build a replica of the Crystal Palace” are simply wrong, based on what Arup have said in the brochure. Arup have not stated in their launch brochure they will rebuild a replica Palace. What they did say was the “
palace will replicate the size and scale of the original”. Note, they are
not saying they will replicate the original
outline and
footprint (these two aspects are left only to be “
similar”). This new building is not, nor is intended to be a replica and rebuild of the original details inside, nor a replica of the original outside outline, nor the replica of the original details in the Park as far the brochure goes. Arup have been very precise in their media communications. My observations on the carefully used words in the Media prospectus:
http://www.thelondoncrystalpalace.com/ below:
“
Replica”. Used once in the prospectus to state:
“
palace will replicate the size and scale of the original”
“
Recreate”: Note, the word is not being used to confirm recreating any specific original details, instead it only used as in:
“
My intention is to recreate the Palace…”
“
…recreation of a major attraction for London”
“
Original”. Used with vague and woolly adjectives as
“
reflects Paxton’s original design”,
“
guided by the internal spatial qualities of the original palace”,
“
a translucent and delicate structure similar to the original building”
“
Heritage”. Used with vague and woolly adjectives as:
“
design solutions that are responsive to the surrounding heritage landscape”,
“
Design is carefully considered and responds to the site’s heritage and context”
“
Rebuild”. Used in simple statements of:
“
This proposal is to rebuild the Crystal Palace”
In other sentences the new construction is just a “building” as in “
The new building in itself will be an attraction for the public”
There are no specific original building detailing that are said to be, or are being considered, to be “rebuilt”.
Indeed, what is repeated, is calling the new main building the “
new crystal palace development”.
“
Restored”. Used as a woolly word. May mean if an existing relic is already in the Park it could be “restored”. Or used as reference to nostalgia and what “local people” want as in:
“
there is still a great love and admiration for the park amongst local people – and Londoners – many of whom are keen to see it restored to its former glory”
“
this proposal is to rebuild the crystal palace on the ‘top site’ and to restore and upgrade the park to match the spirit and form of the original design.”
“
The Park will be restored In line with the approved Masterplan to create a Modern 21st century park of national importance which reflects Joseph Paxton’s original ideas…”
Or, as in “
This project - the Palace and restoration of the whole park”.
“
The site is an important heritage asset and includes a number of listed structures; these features will be celebrated and enhanced as part of this proposal.”
“
Reinstated”. Used once as a woolly word for the “Paxton Axis
Reinstated” . Note. This was originally called the “Grand Centre Walkway”. Fascinating, it is now renamed as just an “axis”. So, this “reinstated” may mean this “Centre Walkway” may not be in the exactly the same line/orientations as before. This is significant. As “
current constraints of the site such as the television mast” means the new building is physically impossible to be in same location as the original (as the Palace had its North Transept spot on the site of the current Mast). Meaning. If a new building is instead “slotted” in next to the Mast, it cannot line up centrally with the original (and remaining) Grand Centre Walkway. Yet, the original Palace design and heritage was its relationship with the Park, and how the main building’s Central Transept and the two Wings did align centrally with the Grand Centre Walkway.
“
Nature”. “
As in The nature of the new building lends itself” probably means something radical is changing that is changing the status quo at the site and impacting locally (e.g need for Controlled Parking Zones around the site in local boundary streets and Wards). Or woolly as in “
respond sensitively to the site’s characteristics, including its designation as Metropolitan open land and nature conservation value”
For example… it says the “Restored Italian Terrace” (Pg4) and illustrated in the “Vision”. Seems nothing like the original to me, with none of the original fountains being “rebuilt” as a similar shape or design. Just an area ideal for Hyde Park style open events and concerts for “One-off events in the park” to create “business opportunities”.
I am concerned the draft “Design Principles” do not consider: upper maximum internal cubic feet capacity, car park size requirements, internal person capacity, or event sizes (eg. if Terrace grounds or internal auditoriums used for mass public events like now regularly at Hyde Park or internally at O2 Arena events), or provide size apportionment of internal spaces for “gallery” or offices or “sales units” etc? Isn’t agreeing the function and scale of use of the building of equal importance as the overall external “design”?
So, what is the scale of this potential building? Please see attached draft outline, assuming a new building is close to the same overall width of the Central Transept, and fits inside of the Mast (red). As you see, it is comparable to whole of the Triangle under one roof (blue). Yet this is smaller than the original (outside wings in dotted yellow lines).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/105322885@N06/10257977765/
Note, developers want to build up to 6 storeys. The original Palace was 5 storeys from the main ground floor up (on Parade road side). The basement floor was needed to accommodate the then original hill slope, and so had a relatively narrower public gallery running along the garden side. As the Top Site has now had significant amount of infill that has levelled much of the original building’s footprint, how can a new building be of “six” storeys on the Parade side?
I assume the “replacement” car park has to be at least 3000 space. I will double check, but I have seen reported the current car park at Crystal Palace can be up to 3000 spaces to cater for “special events”. So I doubt if the area can be remodelled with less parking to sustain current range of activities, otherwise local side streets will be overwhelmed at large events.
But Arup have stated that house prices will potentially go up due to his proposal, and now re-stated by Bromley to their Executive:
http://cds.bromley.g....aspx?IId=25513
3.17 Arup’s estimate the following additional benefits: The new Palace and the restoration of the park would potentially yield benefits in its surrounding areas by increasing the attractiveness of neighbourhoods, adding value to commercial and residential properties and attracting increased investment.
Why? Heavy and more near grid locked traffic for longer periods, unable to park locally on side streets, and likely controlled parking zones, regular large crowds going to possibly 02 Arena size events means possibly regular huge concentration of public trips entering/leaving at key times. A monolithic sized building, with the (current) potential for a “theme park” attractions or a mass public entertainment venue, why would house prices be higher value?
I believe transport concerns are as important now as they were in 1865 when about 2m visitors were visiting per year to the Palace (although the busiest station was probably the (current) Low Level Station, and not the "new" High Level Station that opened in 1865).
Indeed, Bromley Council are already saying:
http://cds.bromley.g....aspx?IId=25513
3.18 The Palace and park proposals would form a new visitor attraction potentially generating a significant number of new trips. …. it would be important to ensure that these trips do not place unsustainable pressures on the transport network. Transport concerns are of critical importance, both locally and regionally, and these will need to be properly addressed. … Minimising the impact of the development on the local road network would also need to be an important part of the proposal.
3.21 On the assumption that the proposal progresses, there are a number of planning, legal and technical issues which would need to be resolved… As the land is classified as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), ‘very special circumstances’ would need to be clearly identified to justify the proposal. Furthermore, an application of this type would effectively require GLA approval and possibly also Government approval. In addition, the 1990 Crystal Palace Act would need to be amended.
Members are recommended: 2.1 To agree, subject to Members’ consideration of legal and procurement matters outlined in a separate Part 2 report, to grant ZhongRong International (Group) Limited an exclusivity agreement for a period of sixteen months (until 1st February 2015) to allow for further negotiations to establish whether an acceptable scheme can be developed.
So, just how can the design and supplier of this building and use of MOL park land be agreed, when the function, scale, and intended use are not pre-agreed, and outside of scope of the Masterplan as far I can tell.
SE19
