Crystal Palace Park Project: drop-in sessions this Saturday

[Tim Lund]

And for anyone viewing this on a small screen, it's at Anerley Town Hall, Anerley Road, between 11.00 to 17.00, with a short presentation followed by a question and answer session with the project team at 11.30, 13.00 and 15.30
13.30 and 15.30.

To find out more - http://www.thelondoncrystalpalace.com/

[Sid Nam]

Thanks Tim. And here's a link I have found to the secret Memorandum of Understanding between Bromley, GLA and the ZRG back in May 2013 - it would appear that discussions re disposal of CPP were taken place back in 2012. http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/200968435

[Tim Lund]

I'm hoping that at some point downthehill will come in here with some analysis, since of all the various comments written on Crystal Palace Park over the years, to me his seem the best informed, for example this from the thread Houses built in Crystal palace park?

Two of the 11 individuals in this group [Crystal Palace Park Community stakeholder group] were also instrumental in "getting off backsides" by fostering an introduction between Bromley LB and the Eden Foundation (i.e those behind the Eden Project) which ultimately led the Eden Foundation to becoming part of the current Executive Management board.

which seems to explain the involvement of Sir Tim Smit in these new proposals, and suggests that LB Bromley and the developers are well aware of the benefits of community involvement - up to a point, and the question is, where is that point?

The history of proposals to regenerate Crystal Palace Park has been extraordinarly long, and sometimes venemous, with different groups competing to be accepted as the voice of the community, some then co-opted into formal consultation structures, such as the one from which the LDA plan emerged, while others, less co-operative / less compliant then take their arguments to law, to the satisfaction of some lawyers at least



Source here

and bad mouth those who take a more pragmatic approach to matters.

Given this background, I'm not surprised that meetings involving the developers where held unbeknownst to community groups previously in the loop, and even more to those not, but who felt they should have been. No one starting on a project, especially of this size, will broadcast to the entire world the full range of options they are considering, but will judge how best to handle the public relations, as well as learning from and about the local context.

I'll be going along to the drop in session this Saturday, mainly to learn. I'm sure there will be aspects of the proposal which will disappoint me, and there may well be more serious problems apparent to more expert visitors, but as of now I have little reason to doubt that the experts being paid for by the developers know what they are doing.

[Nigel]

Tim
You say ;

but as of now I have little reason to doubt that the experts being paid for by the developers know what they are doing.

Do you mean they are super intelligent and will tell us what's best - or - they will be shrewd and highly paid to ensure this project goes ahead at maximum benefit to ZRG?

For someone who question and impugns so much you are strangely compliant when there is a hint if expert in the air .

I will be going and if I smell a rat I will be more convinced than I am now that this is an exploitative project to dispose of open land and responsibly for it and to aquire property for development in 3 years time .

Your point about earlier legal challenge is nonsense - the efforts of the antis saved the park from Burger king multiplex and you know it . Your style of campaigning , as for your views on housing , is dangerous and misleading
Good evening
Nigel

[Tim Lund]

Do you mean they are super intelligent and will tell us what's best - or - they will be shrewd and highly paid to ensure this project goes ahead at maximum benefit to ZRG?

I don't know about super intelliigent, but I'd expect the Arup staff who are woking up this proposal to be reasonably bright, and professionally qualified. It's one of the leading global engineering consultancies, and you yourself recently made an exception of scientists, as problem solvers, not being entirely useless]

For someone who question and impugns so much you are strangely compliant when there is a hint if expert in the air .

Sorry - but it does seem reasonable to me to at least listen to experts, and to put more confidence in experts who are widely recognised as such.

I will be going and if I smell a rat I will be more convinced than I am now that this is an exploitative project to dispose of open land and responsibly for it and to acquire property for development in 3 years time .

Somehow, even if there is no metaphorical rat to be smellled, your mind will come stocked, metaphorically, with rat like thoughts

Your point about earlier legal challenge is nonsense - the efforts of the antis saved the park from Burger king multiplex and you know it

Those particular antis were more responsible for nothing every happening with the LDA proposal, which followed on from the multi-plex proposal, and, other things being equal, was not too bad. But now we have a serious investor for a scheme which will deliver the LDA proposal and more. What's to complain of?

.

Your style of campaigning , as for your views on housing , is dangerous and misleading
Good evening
Nigel

Let's just say we don't agree on this one. If you say my campaigning is misleading, I guess that means you think it's working, so thanks - all compliments gratefully accepted.

[Sid Nam]

Tim, it is obvious you are a ZRG cheerleader but I didn't realise you were running a campaign on its behalf. This scheme is very well represented from Westminster to City Hall and the ZRG are an extremely powerful cash rich company making a mint in oil, diamonds and real estate across the globe but I am sure it will be pleased to have you on board.

I agree with Nigel's observations and am unsure whether you are in a muddle when it comes to Arup's role or if you simply seek to mislead, as reading your posts it would be easy to think that Arup have organised these drop in sessions to advise the public whilst acting as a neutral expert. This is wrong. Arup, are the ZRG's agents and are being paid handsomely for their role. The drop in sessions are a PR exercise and nothing else. They are not to address the negative impact of this on the park or surrounding areas only focus on the benefits.


I went to the first drop in at the community cafe in Crystal Palace. The officers line was how wonderful it would be for not just London but the UK to have the palace rebuilt. It was presented as a patriotic act that must be supported. Much was made about the possible community content although it was unclear how much if the community content would be free.

Claims that the surrounding high streets will be paved in gold or rather each will benefit from 200+ extra jobs due to increase in footfall from the complex, were made without any evidence and fell flat when officers explained that there would be restaurants and shops within the complex. I just don't see tourists taking a bus down to Sydenham to enjoy refreshments at one of our cafes when they can have a pew a view in the complex, can you?

There were no answers regards function or form other than the ambitious size and the fact they did not see the need for public transport improvements as most journeys would take place outside of or against peak flow. Any necessary improvements would have to be met by the public.

How can you drop the largest commercial complex of its kind in the middle of SE19 and not invest in infrastructure? When CPFC were thinking about moving to the stadium it was told it would have to invest £££££s on transport - why not the ZRG?

[Tim Lund]

Arup, are the ZRG's agents and are being paid handsomely for their role.

Translation - they are world reknown professional engineering consultancy. The alternatives to their involvement is to do nothing, or rely on amateurs.

The drop in sessions are a PR exercise and nothing else. They are not to address the negative impact of this on the park or surrounding areas only focus on the benefits.

I wouldn't deny that these are part of a PR exercise, and that from here on there is relatively little about the proposals which will change. But, as my previous post showed, there is evidence of the developers having listened to community participation already.

Claims that the surrounding high streets will be paved in gold or rather each will benefit from 200+ extra jobs due to increase in footfall from the complex, were made without any evidence and fell flat when officers explained that there would be restaurants and shops within the complex. I just don't see tourists taking a bus down to Sydenham to enjoy refreshments at one of our cafes when they can have a pew a view in the complex, can you?

Absolutely. Restaurants and cafés cluster. More people will visit Crystal Palace if this proposal happens, and they will see all the other places to eat and drink that the area offers, and go in them if the offer within the new development disappoints, if it is too busy, or if they just want something less corporate.

Incidentally, I've had a couple of PMs about Sid Nam, which I have to treat with reservation, since the person sending them declines to give their name. But if true, then Sid Nam is someone I've met a couple of times, and who has no need to google me. Maybe Admin could check up on Sid Nam's IP addresses, and see if he/she is really a sock puppet. In any case, his/her credibility will be enhanced by posting with a real name. Otherwise, he/she will create the impression that the antis are just a bunch of conspiracy minded flakes.

[admin]

May I ask both Tim & Sid Nam to call time on personal attacks. You agreed not to abuse other forum members and making unsubstantiated attacks on credibility is just that. Trouble is when one person get personal it is very hard not to respond in kind and so a small difference escalates into something that does no credit to either party.

Please stick to the subject. Oppose or support the proposals and judge by the quality of arguement not on ad hominen attacks.

I will remove any future ones.

Admin

[Sid Nam]

I have yet to see any convincing reasons that this proposal will do anything other than change the park into the grounds of a private commercial complex and negatively impact upon the surrounding areas both economically and environmentally due to the high volume of traffic, both visitor and service vehicles, a complex of this scale will attract.

I do not agree with the suggestion that visitors to the events within the ZRG complex will leave it to make there way around congested High Streets when they have everything they could want and more under one 960,000 sq ft of roof. Studies show that these sort of edge if town developments destroy not enhance high street trade. Visitors only have so much to spend and the ZRG needs visitors to spend money there not elsewhere. Increased footfall does not mean increase trade.

Tim and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this but it would be really helpful and community spirited not to mislead people into the role of Arup (it is not a neutral expert but the ZRG agent/promoter) the transport implications (there is not going to be aTube extension or any other improvements) the aims of the petition (for due process not anti development.

[Tim Lund]

I have yet to see any convincing reasons that this proposal will do anything other than change the park into the grounds of a private commercial complex and negatively impact upon the surrounding areas both economically and environmentally due to the high volume of traffic, both visitor and service vehicles, a complex of this scale will attract.

I do not agree with the suggestion that visitors to the events within the ZRG complex will leave it to make there way around congested High Streets when they have everything they could want and more under one 960,000 sq ft of roof. Studies show that these sort of edge if town developments destroy not enhance high street trade. Visitors only have so much to spend and the ZRG needs visitors to spend money there not elsewhere. Increased footfall does not mean increase trade.

I'd be interested to know of areas where increased footfall does not mean increased trade. Does Sid Nam have any cases in mind? Why in this case should the cluster effect not kick in? Already congested High Streets? Is that for cars or pedestrians? I've not looked into estimates for how visitors will get there, but I'd be amazed if it wasn't predominantly by public transport, meaning more people wandering around the immediate area at the beginning and ends of visits to the newly transformed park. Edge of town? You only have to walk across one road to get from the site to be redeveloped to the CP Triangle.

Tim and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this but it would be really helpful and community spirited not to mislead people into the role of Arup (it is not a neutral expert but the ZRG agent/promoter) the transport implications (there is not going to be aTube extension or any other improvements) the aims of the petition (for due process not anti development.

I think the issue of better public transport is important, and in one way or another has to happen. Maybe it is already being planned - I just heard something about a significant increase in London Overground capacity to Crystal Palace in the pipeline. It's perfectly fair to ask who's going to pay for such improvements, but not to suggest nothing can be done.

As to the role of Arup - I wonder if Sid Nam has ever had any dealing with professionals in any capacity. Of course they are paid by their clients, but they have a reputation to maintain; if they screw up, their chances of getting more business is reduced, so they have every incentive not to. Professional experts need to be paid, and they can either be paid for out of the anticpated profits of the developer, or else out of our taxes. I know which I think is fairer.

[Sid Nam]

Tim according to Arup the bus station is going to be within the complex, the train station is within the park and will connect with new central axis leading visitors direct to the complex. These will be the main transport termini and link direct with the complex not the High Street. I understand that the proposed increase in service on the Overground is planned because of demand not this proposal. The current service is over-stretched at peak times.

According to Arup the maintenance costs of the improved parkland will be in the region of £1M and the ZRG has pledged to meet this sum.The funds will be found from the complex profits for a possibly a ten year period but after that it's down to Bromley.

This complex needs to raise revenue for its shareholders as well as the park, the emphasis will be keeping footfall under one roof not sharing it. Also the weather will play a part, a day like today for example would discourage visitors from leaving the warm, dry, clean air, complex for the wet, congested (pavements and roads) polluted Triangle when, apart from a few antiques, everything they need is under one roof.

As there is no information on the sort of events and activities it is hard to build a visitor profile but why would people opt for the restaurants and cafes of the local high streets when there will be plenty of choice and quality in the complex? As for the Crystal Palace Triangle, it's mainly antiques, bars and restaurants - the ZRG complex will have plenty of the latter and I just can't see visitors to the trading floors, museums, expos, hotel etc feel compelled to take a stroll round the bric a brac stores.

But I am more concerned about the impact on Sydenham and Penge High Streets, as I live between the two. At the moment it is impossible to understand exactly how much extra traffic this will attract but if major events are going to take place at the weekends then the train service can be ruled out as connections to London Bridge and Victoria seem to be either suspended or permanently reduced at weekends. The service vehicles for one of the largest complexes in the world will be significant and thus will mean more HGVs on our roads.

So far the information I have seen and heard makes me think this is more likely to turn Sydenham into a thoroughfare for the ZRG complex than improve the quality of life and high street experience.

[michael]

I understand that the proposed increase in service on the Overground is planned because of demand not this proposal. The current service is over-stretched at peak times.
..
This complex needs to raise revenue for its shareholders as well as the park, the emphasis will be keeping footfall under one roof not sharing it. Also the weather will play a part, a day like today for example would discourage visitors from leaving the warm, dry, clean air, complex for the wet, congested (pavements and roads) polluted Triangle when, apart from a few antiques, everything they need is under one roof.
...
The service vehicles for one of the largest complexes in the world will be significant and thus will mean more HGVs on our roads.
So far the information I have seen and heard makes me think this is more likely to turn Sydenham into a thoroughfare for the ZRG complex than improve the quality of life and high street experience.

You make some good points that need to be answered by the developer.
My expectation is that because the visitors to the Crystal Palace exhibition will be traveling against the rush hour traffic, there is appropriate train capacity (with a number of different routes to and from central London). The only difficulty from a transport perspective would be events starting in the evening, or ending after 11:30pm. If demand required it then more trains and longer trains could be run to Crystal Palace so that it is served by more trains (and much longer) than the DLR can carry to Excel.

No doubt there would be an increase in car traffic (and lorries), I'm just not sure what routes it would take. What happens where there is a major athletics event? (which attract similar numbers of people at peak) I don't live near enough to notice any traffic impact, but it would give a good idea of the potential impact on surrounding roads including Sydenham High Street. At present I don't hear vast numbers of complaints from people about the problems caused by the existing stadium.

The argument that visitors might not leave the centre, so there might not be economic benefit to the surrounding areas, forgets that none of these visitors come today. I suspect that some people will include a visit to Horniman Museum (2 stops on the train) as well as some stepping outside to more 'authentic' restaurants beyond the palace.

I look forward to attending on Saturday to find out from Arup what the impact will be and what the benefits will be. I certainly hope that if a major cultural centre is placed on our doorstep that local residents are given a discount to all attractions in the first 5 years.

[Tim Lund]

Thanks, Michael. Not much to add to that, other than that, as a non car owner, if we get a better sheltered bus terminus up there, it's certainly going make my visits to the CP Triangle more frequent.

[Nigel]

The more we discuss it the risks are piling up and the potential benefits diminishing .
Sid Nam expresses for me a realist fear that the journey from ZRG owning the complex and it's grounds to applying for change of use to other commercial to housing is a short one - especially with LB Bromley involved .
Personally I have no desire to see a mock up of the original building , nor do I value am exhibition space that will not be used
What worries me is how easily big corporations can swallow up open space whether for housing or other development when the majority don't want this to happen .
Respectful of Admins request not to make personal comments - I can only say that it is not helpful for people to try and undermine others arguments with pointless evidence cobbled from the Internet and reassurances about "experts " - we need to be clear about what our objections or reason to support it are , and simply admit as much information as possible before it is too late .
I would vote for the park as it is now , warts and all , rather than a kind if Westfield / housing estate it / retail park
I stress I am no kind if expert at all
A very good evening
Nigel

[Tim Lund]

Thanks to looking at the RIBA site this morning - commented on here Why city life may be bad for you - not!, I also noticed a report jointly written by the RIBA and Arups, Designing with data: shaping our future cities,

If you look in the downloadable pdf report, there's some really interesting stuff about how what people want, as revealed by where they go, and what they do on line, can be incorporated into planning and consultation. As noted in one case study

It is often difficult for planners to gather knowledge and expertise from non-technical experts – those who live, work, or otherwise have an interest in the places being planned for. As a result, end plans tend to be based on a complex set of assumptions about a given place. Collaborative Community Map offers planners a way to engage with more people than just a select few, who either have an abundance of time to meet or a vested interest, by allowing people to participate in consultation activities at a time and place that suits them. Apart from offering the possibility to capture views of the silent majority, the map can also assist project teams in mapping constraints and concerns associated with planning and design proposals, by enabling stakeholder comments and their associated locations to be mapped. These can be drawn into a GIS tool for analysis and visualisation.

[admin]

I am planning to go to the Anerley Town Hall meeting on Saturday at 11am and do a report on it. Hopefully it will be informative and not destroyed as was the infamous LDA meeting at the same venue in 2007: (see bottom of this thread: http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=996)

Would be nice to have company. Anybody?

Admin

[michael]

I'll be going. See you there.

[Sid Nam]

I can't make it but would be interested to hear feedback as there was so little information at the first session. It was mainly conjecture, with focus on all the wonderful things that could be in the palace. No further details as to what the commercial aspect will entail other than gem trading, office space, sales rooms and a high end hotel.

I completed a multiple choice questionnaire but there wasn't a no box. Arup have just released the form and a summary of the first responses on line -
http://www.thelondoncrystalpalace.com/u ... nnaire.pdf

To respond to Michael's point that we don't experience many problems from traffic when there's an event on at the stadium. That is not my experience but as those events happen only a few times a year they don't have any real impact but the ZRG complex will be attracting stadium size crowds on much more frequent and regular basis. Daily? Twice daily? Nightly? Weekly? Until the details of the size and number of ZRG arenas and exhibition centres are released visitor numbers cannot be gauged.

The central coach and car parks currently serving the park and NSC are to be removed as part of the Masterplan, so while the visitor numbers to the park are to be dramatically increased the infrastructure in place to cope with large events is to be removed. This does not make sense.

The Arup chap I raised this with agreed that was what would happen but said that he could only talk about the new palace not the rest of the park and that I would have to raise my question with the GLA. I could not find a GLA rep. I pressed on and asked about coach parking and was told that they would be liaising with the adjoining authorities to see if there could be designated parking on the surrounding roads.

Arup are happy to make a decisions about peak flow visitor numbers without any information regards when and what sort of events will be running and how many of those events will be operating simultaneously. No mention was made regards the greatly reduced weekend transport services.

This is worth a read
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign ... -democracy

[Tim Lund]

Thanks Sid Nam. The actual link for the survey responses from the previous drop in event is actually this

http://www.thelondoncrystalpalace.com/u ... ec2013.pdf

I wonder what is the best way to plan for the effects on traffic and transport in general. It's hard to imagine a solution which will satisfy all possible contingencies, since there is bound to be some uncertainty in projections of how many people will come, and how. Even if we did know, it won't be obvious to the layman what would be the best solution. So how do we avoid, on the one hand, wasteful and disruptive over-investment in infrastructure which then doesn't get used, and on the other under investment, maybe resulting from the developers putting on pressure to increase their return on investment?

My answer would be for the developers to make all the data in their traffic projections public, so that lay members of the public can see if other professionals and academics with relevant experience think their numbers stack up. It's the same principle, I'm pleased to say, that Ben Goldacre is getting accepted in the world of drugs trials, and Arups themselves sign up to in their joint report with RIBA that I linked to earlier

Recommendation 2: Facilitate the digitisation of the planning process

As part of its Open Data initiative the government should model and explore the potential benefits of a digital planning process. Government should scope how it can standardise the digitisation of all information submitted for planning, and of standardising design data collection across local authorities. This public data should be open to unleash economic growth; and local authorities should be encouraged to use open data to inform local planning strategies.

As for that final link. Interesting maybe, but too far off-topic to comment on here.

[Sid Nam]

The mayor has said that this application will be called in as it could be seen as a conflict of interest for Bromley council to decide the outcome. That makes the link very relevant to this thread.

The mayor has been fiddling with the London plan www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/FALP.pdf he has amended it to put Crystal Palace on the major regeneration zone map. It now reads "Wembley, parts of Greenwich, Richmond/ Kingston, Stratford, Royal Docks, the Lower Lee Valley and the Upper Lee Valley, Hillingdon and the Wandle Valley, Crystal Palace"

The consultations are being carried out by the agents, completed forms counted as approval and no is not an option.