Proposal to rebuild the Crystal Palace

[JRobinson]

call me cycnical if you like but I wonder about the motivation behind this new proposal.
have some associates of ZR been buying up property in and around Crystal Palace recently?
is there going to be some catch/clause in the project that gives them some rights to land, which will go up astronomically in value once completed?
I personally don't believe for one second that this is just philanthropy - there has to be ulterior motive, probably cash related.
why else would they stump up millions to pay for a new build of CP, and agree to include all the previously agreed masterplan for the rest of the park? There has to be financial incentive somewhere... follow the money!

what were Boris and Dave doing in China recently? any connections there?
Doesn't China currently own the vast majority of US debt?
probably not related, but one has to think outside the box, and look at the long game, for the overall picture.

[Eagle]

What indeed is the relevance of US Debt.

Infact they own so much that infact the power is with the debtor , not the creditor.


What could be cynical about this venture.

[Tim Lund]

call me cycnical if you like but I wonder about the motivation behind this new proposal.
have some associates of ZR been buying up property in and around Crystal Palace recently?
is there going to be some catch/clause in the project that gives them some rights to land, which will go up astronomically in value once completed?
I personally don't believe for one second that this is just philanthropy - there has to be ulterior motive, probably cash related.
why else would they stump up millions to pay for a new build of CP, and agree to include all the previously agreed masterplan for the rest of the park? There has to be financial incentive somewhere... follow the money!

I don't believe for one second that this is just philanthropy either, but how much of what anyone does is just philanthropy? We all have mixed motives. Why do you go to work? Is it to get paid, meaning you can have a better standard of living, or is it just because you believe in the philanthropic benefits of what you do for the rest of society? I have no doubt, it's a mixture of the two. There's probably an element of looking for status and recognition, which for people like Mr Li will be very significant. It's quite likely, as with many overseas investors in the UK, it's about finding a base in a politically stable country - bad things can happen to over wealthy businessmen in places such as China and Russia.

Does this matter? To be cynical, isn't it more relevant to ask what's in it for us - a rebuilt Crystal Palace, and all the previous masterplan paid for, maybe even an extension of the Bakerloo line? To be more principled and idealistic - and these are not contradictory - might we not welcome the dynamism, cultural and economic vibrancy which comes from being part of an open global economy?

[michael]

why else would they stump up millions to pay for a new build of CP, and agree to include all the previously agreed masterplan for the rest of the park? There has to be financial incentive somewhere... follow the money!

Is it possible that exhibition centres in London are a growing industry which the super rich wish to be part of, just like football teams before them?
Excel centre is owned by Abu Dhabi National Exhibitions Company (the chairman is a sultan).
Earl's Court is owned by an Anglo-South African company, 12% owned by one man in South Africa.
The Millennium Dome is operated by a US company, Anschutz Entertainment Group.

So I don't think there is automatically any need to question the motivation of any individual or organisation rich enough to invest £500m in a world class exhibition venue in London - with more than a nod to the world's first Great Exhibition. It is probably a sound investment - much better than your average football club, and adds to the host of world class exhibition venues and conference centres in London.

[Sid Nam]

There is no mention anywhere of investment in highways and transport so I don't know where Tim gets the Tube extension info from. The statement from Arup claims that local roads and transport will cope with increased demand as most visits will occur outside of peak times or against peak flow. Jerome Frost, Arup Director, told people at last month's drop in session that if improvements were needed to public transport that the costs would have to be met from the public purse.

Until the details of exactly what is proposed for the building are given (how many arenas will there be and what capacity, how many expos will take place, how many exhibitions, how big is the hotel, what events will it host, how many offices will the trading floors have, how many retail units, restaurants and bars and how many people will be employed) it is impossible to predict how many journeys will be made or when they will be taken.

The park will become the grounds to this multi functional commercial complex and the philanthropic gift of funding the Masterplan so the public can enjoy the park is a soft soap/hard sell strategy. The client is not going to invest millions in 6* hotel and trading complex if it is set in neglected grounds. I bet once the ZRG have control of the land it will no longer be open to the public as unlike Bromley council the ZRG is not subject to UK law and has no obligation to the public.

[Tim Lund]

I believe that a public consultation will show exactly how local people feel on a range of complicated issues relating to the Crystal Palace proposals. Since the petition's aim is to increase community engagement (not just with self appointed community leaders) I have no reason to attack them publicly or privately, and I still don't quite understand why you do.

Is it elitist to suggest that, where there is a range of complicated issues, and a yay or nay is wanted within our lifetimes, it is possible that there can be too much community engagement? A case of the best being the enemy of the good?

As to why I attack this petition, it is because its very framing implies its organisers are relevant community leaders, and so should be listened to. They should not, because although initially what they ask for sounds reasonable, the underlying message is a completely BANANAs - "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything".

A friend, who will struggle to get to the planned drop in event, just emailed me about a contact who had told him "with smiling satisfaction that she had just signed a petition to stop a Hong Kong businessman building flats where the Palace was."

Where did she get that idea from? Who is spreading such misinformation? Who is bothered to contest it?

[Tim Lund]

There is no mention anywhere of investment in highways and transport so I don't know where Tim gets the Tube extension info from.

Michael. It may not be in the current proposal, but with this sort of thing, deals are always possible.

I bet once the ZRG have control of the land it will no longer be open to the public as unlike Bromley council the ZRG is not subject to UK law and has no obligation to the public.

What size bet would like on that? I'll offer you £1,000. PM me with your real name, and how to make contact if you are actually serious.

Operating outside the UK, I don't suppose ZRG is subject to English law, but are you seriously suggesting that with this project it would not be? Or is this just another manifestation of small mined xenophobia?

[michael]

Is it elitist to suggest that, where there is a range of complicated issues, and a yay or nay is wanted within our lifetimes, it is possible that there can be too much community engagement? A case of the best being the enemy of the good?

As to why I attack this petition, it is because its very framing implies its organisers are relevant community leaders, and so should be listened to. They should not, because although initially what they ask for sounds reasonable, the underlying message is a completely BANANAs - "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything".

Yes it is elitist. Local people should be listened to and may be able to have a positive input into a scheme of this nature, and after that the relevant planning authorities will make a decision based on the merits of the proposal.
And bananas is a poor representation of anybody's views and hardly helpful to the discussion.

[Sid Nam]

Well said Michael. I have done a quick google on Mr Lund who turns out to have been one of those "self appointed community voices" he finds so distasteful. I think that's where the bitterness in his comments stems from.

It would be more helpful if Mr Lund focused in setting out his reasons for supporting the ZRG proposal as opposed to attacking those that don't.

Here are some comments from within the industry from the BD online article http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/crystal- ... 11.article

Ralph Kent | 23 January 2014 10:38 am

Caroline Cole said: "the sheer complexity of the project might have deterred some practices from entering."

Yes. EIther that or moral integrity.

Unsuitable or offensive? REPORT THIS COMMENT


peter scott | 23 January 2014 10:46 am

'recreate it in a way that is faithful to the spirit of the original' - sounds like an oxymoron. Either it is faithful to the original, in which case it will be a re-creation, or not. What exactly is the 'spirit' of the original - when it is expressed in terms of 21st century construction techniques and regulations? I welcome the good intentions, but I dread the outcome.
Unsuitable or offensive? REPORT THIS COMMENT


Gil Gunderson | 23 January 2014 12:29 pm

I'd like to see some sort of investigation into whether Bromley council are allowed to hand over great swathes of public land to developers like this.

That's before one even gets into the appropriateness or otherwise of building a Westfield in SE19.
Unsuitable or offensive? REPORT THIS COMMENT


Robert Park | 23 January 2014 12:56 pm

This is likely to be one of the most controversial developments in London. Looking forward to seeing the residents of Crystal Palace occupying the trees and tunnels like they did in 1999.

Crystal Palace hasn't got a lot wrong with it - having spent a bit of time there recently, I think it is one of the most successful urban communities in London. I wonder what a development like this will do to change that balance? And just what are they planning to put in it? I've heard international conference centre?
Unsuitable or offensive? REPORT THIS COMMENT


SoupDragon | 23 January 2014 1:28 pm

To put it bluntly, this folly will pretty much rip the heart out of a thriving independent scene. As a CP resident, I'm sure I can say that most other locals are more than a bit pee'd off about this.

164 year old design for Hyde Park to be built in 2014 Crystal Palace by Chinese cash. What have we come to?

Here's a link to the petition questioning the disposal of Metropolitan Open Land that Bromley Council are being so hush-hush about.

http://tinyurl.com/oyomaah


Unsuitable or offensive? REPORT THIS COMMENT

Robert Nimmo | 23 January 2014 1:42 pm

'Sir' Joseph Paxton
Unsuitable or offensive? REPORT THIS COMMENT


Paul Vincent | 23 January 2014 10:21 pm

I am sick to death of Crystal Palace residents moaning about what is to me an INCREDIBLY exciting possibility for the future of the area.

I love Crystal Palace and I love the park and its unique and quirky atmosphere, but this chance to recapture or re imagine something long since lost is just magical. There will always be those who fight anything new, and it's saddening.

I for one am extremely excited and I hope these moaners don't drown out mine and many other local residents' voices of hope and excitement for this project.
Unsuitable or offensive? REPORT THIS COMMENT
Ralph Kent | 24 January 2014 11:03 am

@Paul. You do realise that this is that the nondescript claims of 'cultural centre' are likely to evolve very quickly into 'shopping centre', with all the usual suspects (Next, M&S, Zara, WHSmiths, Burger King, etc, etc)?

Simultaneously, a part of the park which is currently public will be annexed to private developers, and local independent traders - something that in large part defines the essence of Crystal Palace's village feel, will suffer from the ongoing relentless anonymisation of our High Streets.

But if that's what gets you 'extremely excited', who am I to rain on your parade?
Unsuitable or offensive? REPORT THIS COMMENT
Sarah Simpkin | 24 January 2014 11:55 am

@Paul "There will always be those who fight anything new, and it's saddening."

Privatisation of parkland, decimation of a close community of independent shops, lack of infrastructure to support its pompous scale, lack of effective consultation and dubious commercial proposition aside, I think one of the objections is that the Crystal Palace isn't 'new'.
Unsuitable or offensive? REPORT THIS COMMENT


Edward James | 24 January 2014 12:28 pm

Despite being a huge fan of the original structure, and well aware of its significance in terms of the development of iron framed buildings (e.g. it informed the design of many later railway station roofs including Paddington, York, Newcastle etc), and indeed its historical significance as the location of the Great Exhibition of 1851, I can't agree with the proposals.

I don't want to see the significance of the original structure subverted to some Chinese developer's grand plans for profit at the expense of an already thriving area. It would be an inauthentic corporate mess. The original building was designed to be a showcase for British engineering, and be an exhibition space for British companies. To have that significance turned into a bastardised, nondescript international 'cultural centre' and conference venue would be a crying shame.

Build something new if you must, but in this case the recreation of the past is not justified.
Unsuitable or offensive? REPORT THIS COMMENT

[Tim Lund]

Is it elitist to suggest that, where there is a range of complicated issues, and a yay or nay is wanted within our lifetimes, it is possible that there can be too much community engagement? A case of the best being the enemy of the good?

As to why I attack this petition, it is because its very framing implies its organisers are relevant community leaders, and so should be listened to. They should not, because although initially what they ask for sounds reasonable, the underlying message is a completely BANANAs - "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything".

Yes it is elitist. Local people should be listened to and may be able to have a positive input into a scheme of this nature, and after that the relevant planning authorities will make a decision based on the merits of the proposal.
And bananas is a poor representation of anybody's views and hardly helpful to the discussion.

The question I asked was whether it is possible that there can be too much community engagement, which is not to say that local people should not be listened to, or to suggest their input will not have a positive impact. Maybe Michael would understand the question better if he could imagine himself responsible for getting to a yay or nay on some proposal. Would there ever be circumstances in which he would want to wrap up the discussion?

[Tim Lund]

I have done a quick google on Mr Lund who turns out to have been one of those "self appointed community voices" he finds so distasteful. I think that's where the bitterness in his comments stems from.

It would be more helpful if Mr Lund focused in setting out his reasons for supporting the ZRG proposal as opposed to attacking those that don't.

Good googling. My status as a former "self appointed community voice" gives me an unparalleled insight into how this sort of process works, the types, and in some cases the actual individuals involved.

Sadly, I'm unable to find much by googling you, so please send me that PM, so we can meet up, and you will find just how embittered I am.

As to why I support proposals to reconstruct the Crystal Palace, what can I say other than I think it's a good idea? What do I mean by 'it'? Well, here's a link to the proposal, which begins

The ZhongRong Group is seeking to reconstruct the Crystal Palace in a way that is faithful to the original building and all its ingenuity, scale and magnificence. It will be a major new cultural asset for London, adding to the city’s global offer. As part of the project the ZhongRong Group will also fund the restoration of the wider park in line with the approved masterplan to create a modern 21st century park of national importance which reflects Paxton’s original ideas and responds to the needs and aspirations of local residents.

Obviously it's reasonable to ask how credible this is, since there have been many proposals over the years which have lacked credibility



but in this case, it seems we have a developer with the money to deliver, with a proposal which will of course be governed by English Law, so that when he makes commitments such as this from his FAQs

23. Will you build any housing on the park or the site?

The approved Masterplan includes small housing developments on the periphery of the park. If Mr. Ni’s proposal progresses, the GLA will not implement these housing proposals. Mr. Ni’s proposal does not include any housing in the Palace or park.

it is more reasonable to suppose they will be kept than broken.

[Robin Orton]

BTW, it's 'yea or nay', not 'yay or nay'. (But don't let me interrupt the flow of the argument.)

[Tim Lund]

BTW, it's 'yea or nay', not 'yay or nay'. (But don't let me interrupt the flow of the argument.)

Sorry - I've been quoting a former contributor to the discussion

local residents around the park have had an opportunity to have their say - yay or nay.

Please, Admin, will you make this thread a "sticky" one - thank you

[Robin Orton]

I was about to delete my earlier post, which was done on the spur of the moment and which I realize was in contravention of forum etiquette. Please ignore it and accept my apologies.

[Tim Lund]

Admin appears to have brought in a spam catcher, so my previous post addressing the credibility of this proposal was rejected for having too many urls. So, separately, it's worth looking at the proposal's advisory board. Of course, it's not a guarantee of anything, but it does give some credibility, because people such as

• Hank Dittmar - advisor to Charles Windsor
• Sir Tim Smit (of the Eden Centre); and
• Sir John Sorrell

aren't going to lend their names lightly to a pup.

Perhaps it would be better to focus here on what is proposed, rather than irrelevant details about the nationality of the developer, or easily refuted scare stories about building flats on the park. If that is all* that supporters of this petition will have to contribute, to the consultation process, which the developers of course planned anyway, any reasonable person, even Michael, will say that enough is enough.

* Sorry I forgot ludicrous speculations about a futuristic pod.

[Tim Lund]

For another viewpoint, here's the view of someone who I think we have to thank for SydSoc taking a rather more sensible view of this proposal between its last two newsletters. I'm afraid without permission I cannot give his name:

Sydenham was formerly prosperous, and famous throughout the world, on account of an institution at the heart of London, the Empire and national life with its magnificent culture, education, music, entertainments, exhibitions, &c; the Palace was the most significant structure, the prototype of modern architecture with its truth to materials and simplicity of design, an influence on the evolution of peoples, as the Chinese man devoutly recognises. The best remaining building site in a European capital deserves a replica of the Palace as exact as possible and a revival of its institution for the People.

Sydenham will be remembered for small-mindedness, walking the dog, xenophobia, love of stag-beetles, and selfish parochial smugness.

Those trees on the top site are despicable weed trees, no older than myself, not part of Paxton's plan to teach landscape gardening. Friends staying from Germany were depressed by the top site with its litter and melancholy.

I hope I haven't made a fool of myself by sharing with him my own enthusiasm for stag beetles and other aspects of bio-diversity.

[Sid Nam]

Although the function of this building remains a mystery, what is being proposed is the construction of one of the largest commercial complexes in the world in a public park serving a densely populated residential London suburb.

The proposed footprint is 990,000 sq ft, height 50 meters, with five floors.Those figures make the interior space just short of 5 million sq ft which makes this complex larger than Westfield Shopping Centre, it could easily contain five Shards, 600,000 sq ft, four Whitgift Centres, 1,302,444 sq ft or nine Glades shopping malls.

Westfield, the Shard, the Whitgift and the Glades were not built on parkland, are served by superior transport links and road networks and are not surrounded by residential homes.

The proposal would be better cited on Hyde Park where the infrastructure is there to support it and where it can be easily accessed by the target audience, tourists. Sydenham High Street is going to be one of main feeder routes to this complex.

The increase in traffic, especially the HGVs and service vehicles complexes of that scale attract, will be relentless. Add to that the fact this complex will be operating 24/7, factor in the extra daily visitor vehicles and you will see that the increase in road traffic on feeder routes will be significant and damaging to the environment, health, safety, high street economy and quality of life in general.

[Sid Nam]

Let's stick with the few facts we have and set out our views without resorting to attacking those who don't share them.

The Crystal Palace, a 92,000 square metre (990,000 sq ft) cast-iron and plate-glass palace constructed in London to house the Great Exhibition of 1851, is to be rebuilt by a Chinese billionaire, Shanghai Daily reports http://shanghaiist.com/2013/10/06/chine ... palace.php

990,000sq ft on five levels = 4, 950,000

The dimensions of The Shard could easily be accommodated on each floor of the proposed development.

The proposed development not only outstrips the dimensions of the following buildings but could accommodate all of them.

Whitgift Centre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitgift_Centre
Westfield http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westfield_Stratford_City
The Glades http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glades_(Bromley)
.

[Eagle]

Surely no one is comparing the Crystal Palace , with the eye sore , that is the Greyhound.

I doubt whether this proposal's go ahead will have anything to do with a few liberal middle class Sydenham ites.

The Chinese are famous for building things in the time we take to plan them.

Confucius will decide.

[Eagle]

Rodney

Do you really think the powers that be are going to take any notice of a few cranks , who do not even live in Bromley Borough.


As for your rather strange comments at the end brings me back to Children's Favourites in the 50's . I am a troll and I live in a hole. An all time classic , however see zero connection to China , Crystal Palace etc etc etc.