Crystal Palace Park Project: drop-in sessions this Saturday

[Tim Lund]

The images at the meeting today were much more impressive. That image was enlarged to the size of a wall with the whole park shown, as well as lots of local landmarks.

I don't think we learnt much new from today's meeting. Possibly a little more about Mr Ni's motivation but not a lot about the content of the palace or the developer's projections for traffic.

Generally comments from the floor appeared concerned but not completely opposed to the development, perhaps they were just being kind.

Well, I went to learn, and I guess the main things I learnt - which of course I could probably have found out before - were

• The design to be chosen is still wide open, and could range from a near replica to a much more contemporary interpretation of what Paxton did in 1854.
• Crystal Palace plays a big part in Chinese architectural and design education, which was given as an explanation of why this project should be taken up by Mr Ni
• It would perhaps be unfair to call it a vanity project, but it's not seen for him as about maximising returns. Whether that counts as philanthropy was left moot.
• Because the design and mix of uses is not determined, it is not yet possible to say with any precision what the traffic impacts will be, or how it might look from various different angles.
• The guy giving the presentation, Jerome Frost, was one of the people behind the delivery of the Olympic Park in 2012, (and got an OBE for it)
• The brief will be to come up with uses which will use the spare capacity in the existing public transport system - i.e. attracting visitors out of London during the day, rather than at evening peak times when it is at capacity - which I suppose is obvious, really.

Not sure that comments from the floor were 'just being kind' - I imagine people mainly said what they thought.

[Sid Nam]

The images at the meeting today were much more impressive. That image was enlarged to the size of a wall with the whole park shown, as well as lots of local landmarks.

I don't think we learnt much new from today's meeting. Possibly a little more about Mr Ni's motivation but not a lot about the content of the palace or the developer's projections for traffic.

Generally comments from the floor appeared concerned but not completely opposed to the development, perhaps they were just being kind.

Thanks Michael for attending and trying to get information on behalf of those you represent. It sounds as though the sales pitch is not much different to the session I attended, just bigger pictures and a slicker presentation, heavy on conjecture but light on detail.

My neighbour went to the 3pm session on Saturday and said it was shambolic. Not enough space, the Arup rep spoke for 45 mins only leaving 15mins for questions. As there were over 100 people wanting to speak it got heated. The Bromley rep, was a gum chewing bouncer, who refused to give his name.

No information about use will be released until the ZRG are given control of the park. The transport issue, was glossed over with focus on new buses but no research into the impact of 20 extra busses an hour will have on local roads and bus networks. No mention of the need for a much bigger bus station. No mention of the impact of car journeys. No mention of the fact that as the aim is to attract large numbers outside if peak times this means the enter area will be operating with constant peak flow traffic and commuters. This has serious implications for the health and quality of life of those of us who live within the ZRG controlled parking zone areas.

Of course until the ZRG come clean with their plan it is hard to predict how many journeys will be made, when they are likely to occur and what mode of transport will be taken, but one of the uses the Arup rep spoke about was art rooms and auctions. This activity requires the use of large delivery/collection vehicles that take place daily and due to the nature of the sales, not Bargain Hunters but all very pricey, I don't see prospective collectors coming on the 122.

I came across the Crystal Palace Local facebook page this weekend, some interesting discussion. Here's a sample:

SeNineteen Wanderer Couldn't agree more Jason John Butcher. I'm not anti rebuilding, but I am anti rebuilding-for-the-sake-of-it with little regard for the community or the area, however you choose to define those things. And unless they become a lot more forthcoming about what this project is really about, and sharpish, I fear that's exactly what we'll get.
16 hours ago · Like · 2

Jason John Butcher too right! these 'politicians' forget they were elected to REPRESENT the interests of their electorate, so far, from what I can see, the only interests being served here are the developers'. does make me wonder whether there is anything in it personall...See More
16 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2

Louise Yates This land was Penge Common long before it was the final resting place for the Great Exhibition Hall.. Rebuilding for the sake of it is not an argument; creating a space all can enjoy and which will not directly conflict with the Triangle is. What is being attempted is underhand at best and robbery of public open space at worst.

[michael]

Thanks Michael for attending and trying to get information on behalf of those you represent.

To be fair, I went along because I'm personally interested, not to represent anybody else. The prospect of the Forest Hill Society having an opinion on the Crystal Palace redevelopment is an interesting proposition as it may have a very different point of view from people living closer to the site.

Speaking personally (which I invariably do on this site) I'm still of the opinion that the Crystal Palace could be great for South East London. Beyond South Bank and Greenwich there is little that generates significant visitor numbers in South East London. Building another cultural destination in Crystal Palace presents huge opportunities for a massive area around. Again speaking personally, I love an occasional visit to Crystal Place Park below the sports stadium, but dislike everything uphill - the car parks and brownfield spaces within the Metropolitan Open Space. Perhaps there is something nice up there, but I've never found it.

I think that a lot of people, like me, would like to see the Crystal Palace rebuilt. There is still a big question about what will be in it - personally I would favour a new Eden Project that is not hidden away in Cornwall as a major part of the scheme, with a museum to the history of television, together with a theatre / cinema / TV recording studio. Although such a scheme would generate many visitors, it would avoid massive events with football or athletics size crowds.

Parking is a serious matter for any large scale development in London. The O2 reduces demand by charge at least £5 per hour, and possibly more on days of major events, this encourages the vast majority of visitors to travel by underground. I similar scheme could be put in place at Crystal Palace, which would mean that most visitors would come by public transport. Crystal Palaces happens to be one of the best connected stations for the rest of South London, so even local visitors would be encouraged to take trains or buses.

A park and ride scheme could be set up in the new Westfield in Croydon and a large CPZ would be required across the five surrounding boroughs. Maximum time limits would need to be set on other local car parks, such as Sainsburys in Crystal Palace and Hombase in Penge, if normal life is expected to carry on in local businesses.

I'm pretty certain that if this scheme comes to nothing then there is little hope that the Crystal Palace will ever be rebuilt. If people want to see a new Crystal Palace (and I have ever since I was a child) then it is something where we need to engage positively and attempt to find solutions to the problems. And we need to think about what we want on the site (as I have started to do, as it is clear the developer isn't sure yet).

[Tim Lund]

Well said, Michael, although I think you're being a bit unfair about never having found anything nice up there. It has a certain desolate grandeur, which stuck me most when I was there with some friends from Rome, and it triggered thoughts about the ruins of Empire. Also, when the previous application for a multiplex cinema was being proposed, I found a scrub Spindle tree growing near where the bus terminus is now, which rather thrilled me, at least. But I am also thrilled by the prospect of something comparable to the former Crystal Palace reappearing, and I want to see how modern day engineers will be able to solve the problems posed by redevelopment of a site originally developed 150 years ago.

Your point about an "Eden Project that is not hidden away in Cornwall" is excellent. I just missed being able to ask a question Saturday, but it would have been to ask if the design would seek to promote interest and careers in gardening locally, in the way the original Palace did. Those of us, living in London, but who care about the environment should not have to burn fossil fuels going great distances to see the wonders of the natural world up close.

But we can't expect to have it all our own way. If my neighbour feels scornful about stag beetle pupae, and objective assessments conclude that more people will be attracted by exhibitions and boutique shops than Spindle trees, what right do I have to impose my ideas above those of my fellow citizens?

Incidentally, I have just had an email from Darren Johnson, Green London Assembly member, to say that his "absolute priority at the moment is to ensure there is robust consultation process with maximum transparency and opportunities for public engagement." There is a certain ambiguity in this - does 'maximum' apply just to 'transparency', or to 'opportunities for public engagement' as well, and in either case, what does maximum mean? In the case of transparency, I'd say it would have to include making all data public as urged here, but even that will have limits; suspicious as I am of the concept, there are times when commercial confidentiality is reasonable. But what does it mean to ask for maximum public engagement? Can there ever be a point where someone, as a member of the public, demands to be engaged on some aspect of the scheme and the developers can legitimately say, "sorry, we've already reached the point of maximum public engagement?"

[admin]

But I am also thrilled by the prospect of something comparable to the former Crystal Palace reappearing, and I want to see how modern day engineers will be able to solve the problems posed by redevelopment of a site originally developed 150 years ago.

Oh and what an opportunity we missed through the vanities of nationalism!





The first time I visited the spectacular great glasshouse Foster + Partners built for the National Botanical Gardens of Wales I thought it would be much better placed at Crystal Palace. Not only does it reflect the very idea of 1855 building a glasshouse for public good - but its design fits the top of a hill 'rounding it off' rather than being a statement overpowering the surroundings, But it is inside it scores - both by bring a different climate, landscape and planting combines with integrating into the glorious vistas outside.

It would work very well.

The disaster which anybody other than crazed nationalists with too much money could see was there was no market for what it did where it was put. It failed spectacularly and is a running sore in Welsh politics.

Whereas anybody here who ventures to Chelsea, Hampton Court and Kew will know there is an insatiable demand for horticultural display by people who have the money to pay and are within commuting distance of Crystal Palace. Foster's gallery is here:

http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projec ... e/gallery/

[youtubes]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3I1GgEoDPs[/youtubes]

[Tim Lund]

Incidentally, I have just had an email from Darren Johnson, Green London Assembly member, to say that his "absolute priority at the moment is to ensure there is robust consultation process with maximum transparency and opportunities for public engagement." There is a certain ambiguity in this ...

Could it not be that a busy man was writing an email quickly and used a superlative where he should have used a comparative?

That's a charitable explanation, which still leaves his position ambiguous. Less charitably, I'd suggest, he's an experienced politician who understands very well that his position in the GLA depends on the Green Party winning at least 5% of the votes across London, and that is most easily secured by appealing to a diffuse constituency who care about stag beetle pupae and spindle trees. I don't suppose for one second that the ambiguity is not deliberate.

[Tim Lund]

Here's a link to the 'Inspired by the Subway' page with their filming of the presentation as given at the drop in session.

Admin, or anyone - how do I get this vimeo in a post here?

[admin]

Admin, or anyone - how do I get this vimeo in a post here?

The Vimeo button is right next to the Youtube button when creating a post.

Admin

[Sydenham]

Thank you Tim for posting this video presentation and followon q & a's. Really valuable to be able to hear what was said as I couldn't go to the meetings myself.

[Tim Lund]

Admin, or anyone - how do I get this vimeo in a post here?

The Vimeo button is right next to the Youtube button when creating a post.

Admin

I saw that, but what do I put between the vimeo BBcode opening and closing tags? This is what was in the relevant iframe tag on the page linked to, so I tried putting the src value in, but it didn't work.

src="//player.vimeo.com/video/85765632?byline=0&portrait=0" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""

[Sid Nam]

Here's a link to a letter Darren Johnson AM has just sent to the Leader of Bromley council https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default ... d_deal.pdf

And here's a link to a map http://www.howpollutedismyroad.org.uk/roads.php
that shows you just how polluted the streets of London are and explains that highstreets like ours are the most vulnerable

"most research on the health impacts of air pollution is about concentrations of pollution, not quantities. For example, it's likely that a lot of pollution emitted on a narrow high street surrounded by tall buildings will stick around, leading to high concentrations, while the same quantity emitted on the top of a windswept hill may quickly be dispersed, posing less of a health risk."

Sydenham Road sees 18,834 vehicles per day.

Road name: Sydenham Road
Total traffic: 18834 (vehicles per day)
NO2 pollution: 2.01 (tonnes per km per year)
NO2 from buses: 0.41 (tonnes per km per year)
PM10 pollution: 0.13 (tonnes per km per year)
PM2.5 pollution: 0.12 (tonnes per km per year)
Benzene pollution: 0.04 (tonnes per km per year)

[Eagle]

Why would not most of the visitors to the new attraction travel by public transport. Seems logical to me.

To ensure this happens the development must have restricted parking. Say 50 spots for staff and management only.

Problem solved

[Sid Nam]

This is going to be one massive complex and Arup estimate there will be around 2,000 employees. Visitor vehicles aside, and I don't see the art and diamond collectors or the patrons if a 6* hotel coming on the 122, the traffic/polution from the larger service and delivery vehicles will be substantial and daily.

Arup have conceded that nothing can be done to improve the road networks to accommodate the extra traffic this will bring to our roads, if you think we got problem with rat routes now just wait till the High Street is operating with peak flow numbers all day long.

How many extra buses will there be. Four, eight, twelve per hour? How much higher would you like the nitrous oxide levels to rise? London's population is already suffering from the harm caused by existing NO2 levels.

"The same cold nights caused air pollution to reach level 6 across much of London with Brixton Road being a hotspot, reaching level 7. Here air pollution is linked to the high number of buses using the road"
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... teel-works

[michael]

Perhaps there could be 3,000 car parking spaces for electric vehicles and only 50 for petrol engined cars. That way all the diamond collectors would be able to hire a pollutionless vehicle to take them to the Diamond Palace / Eden Project. It might not reduce the traffic impact but for the few billionaires planning to regularly visit the Palace they wouldn't increase the pollution to local streets.

Seriously, the impact of people attending diamond auctions or 6* hotels is tiny in comparison to Savacentre in Lower Sydenham - with its enormous free car park.

There are ways to mitigate against travel by car, especially in a location with as many trains as Crystal Palace or Excel. If the real concerns are traffic and pollution then there may be other ways to reduce the number of car journeys locally and encourage use of electric vehicles. For example Savacentre could start charging for parking for all non-electric cars and similarly for the car park in Girton Road. But this is really a national problem, so really the government should ban the sale of new non-electric vehicles after 2018.

If buses form a significant part of the travel plan for the Palace, then perhaps section 106 funding could be provided to convert all Crystal Palace buses to hybird vehicles.

Alternatively the roads around Crystal Palace could all become toll roads (not just College Road) so that only local residents and electric vehicles could use them without a £5 charge. The money raised could go towards the installation of giant fans in the high street to help disperse traffic fumes, or towards a scheme to enable zeppelin trips from Hyde Park to Crystal Palace, which would further reduce car numbers.

[Sid Nam]

Very funny Michael. Maybe you are right and this building will not only bring us improved transport links with only new, clean, buses being allowed on Sydenham's streets but it will also be the catalyst for mass production of the electric car. Are you saying Crystal Palace is as well connected as the Excel centre?

But seriously this complex is massive, the maintenance costs alone will be huge not to mention the rest and it has to be financially viable. Arup have already conceded that it has to attract lots of visitors in order for it to be economically viable.

The travel plan relies on the notion that the bulk of the tourist trade will only happen between 10am and 4pm, I just don't see how that will be financially viable but I do see how that will make the local road networks operate at permanent peak flow.

What will that do for public health never mind increase everyone's journey times, every time, every journey.

We have yet to learn how large the arenas, expo halls, museums are going to be. We have no idea of what sort of numbers could be descending but we do know that Sydenham High Street will be one of the main feeder routes to this complex.

I don't think it funny or wise to dismiss the impact the increase of vehicles and pollution will have on this area. The non-private car traffic alone, ie service, delivery, coaches, busses, will be enough to clog up our High Street and arteries.

And if it is not the massive tourist trap it is being sold as and for various reasons (not that good transport links, not centrally located, too expensive) not a lot of people end up going there, what will become of such a massive building?

[michael]

Very funny Michael. Maybe you are right and this building will not only bring us improved transport links with only new, clean, buses being allowed on Sydenham's streets but it will also be the catalyst for mass production of the electric car. Are you saying Crystal Palace is as well connected as the Excel centre?

roughly speaking, although I haven't done the maths properly. But Excel is not well connected with only a single monorail line connecting it to London. Crystal Palace is very well connected by train, better than most other zone 3/ zone 4 destinations and with the potential for more trains and longer trains.

The travel plan relies on the notion that the bulk of the tourist trade will only happen between 10am and 4pm, I just don't see how that will be financially viable but I do see how that will make the local road networks operate at permanent peak flow.

there is no travel plan. In fact when I attended the meeting it was the question I asked: when would the travel plan be available for consultation, as it makes a huge impact.

I don't think it funny or wise to dismiss the impact the increase of vehicles and pollution this will bring to the area. The non-private car traffic alone, ie service, delivery, coaches, busses, will be enough to clog up our High Street and arteries.

I don't think it funny or wise to suggest that diamond collectors are going to be clogging the street (or traveling on the 122). Actually it is funny to imagine them coming by bus. But I hope you take my point about Savacentre being a larger traffic generator than a 6* hotel and auction house. The real issue is the content that will attract large numbers of people (rich and poor - but mainly not millionaires), most of whom I expect would travel by public transport - just as they did for the Olympics and most other major events in London (I'll admit that Stratford has much greater train capacity, which is why there was so little car parking).

Please don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the concerns about traffic and I live off the South Circular, which has 50% more traffic than Sydenham Road. As yet we do not know whether the Crystal Palace will increase traffic in Sydenham by 50%, 200%, or 2%. The travel plan has not been published, only after that will we have a rough idea of the number of likely journeys, the routes, and the mitigation that will be implemented.

[Sid Nam]

This is a massive building. The information given about the commercial content so far has been hotel, precious gem trading, art auctions and sales rooms. I would imagine the patrons of the high end attractions will be plentiful. Have you ever spent a day at an art auction? They take days to set up, that includes lots of vehicles going out to collect and deliver pieces. Then the viewing days attract large crowds and this culminates in the auction. Check out Chiswick if you are feeling flush http://www.chiswickauctions.co.uk

The notion of the high end visitors arriving on the 122 made me smile but yes I agree that they will arrive by private vehicles, however the bulk of the visitors will arrive, every day, throughout the day, via public and private transport.

The Arup rep I spoke with at the first drop in session did not say there was no travel plan, he told me the travel plan was being "worked up" and hinged around the theory that most visitors would arrive outside of and contra to peak flow commuter traffic. He went on to explain that was why existing public transport links would be sufficient.

The Excel is connected to all the mainline train stations, the DLR, riverboat, cable car and the Jubilee Line.

[michael]

He went on to explain that was why existing public transport links would be sufficient.

I'm a bit sceptical if there are any major events in the evening. Perhaps they will make it a planning condition that no events start after 4pm or end after 11pm, but I doubt that is what it wanted to make best use of a new palace.

The Excel is connected to all the mainline train stations, the DLR, riverboat, cable car and the Jubilee Line.

Cable Car is not really a feasible option, it takes longer than the DLR and cannot handle many people at a time. Riverboat is not really a major method of transport to Excel since it has to go all round the Isle of Dogs and the O2. So virtually all public transport journeys are on the tiny monorail (DLR). This branch of the DLR runs every 5 minutes at peak.
Crystal Place has 4tph from Victoria, 4tph from Canada Water, and 2tph from London Bridge (equivalent of trains every 6 minutes). Lengths vary but none are 2 or 3 carriages, so they can carry significantly more people than DLR to Excel. That is without any increase in frequency of services, even longer trains, or accounting for journey from Croydon by train or possibly by tram.

Once we know the full details of the scheme I could quite imagine finding myself opposed to the development, but I believe this is one of the greatest opportunities for South East London in 100 years. If it is able to deliver on my expectations then it will be wonderful, and ZHG should be given every encouragement to make this the best scheme for local people and the rest of the world.

[hairybuddha]

Sid - Is there anything that Arup/ZRG could do to persuade you to support the project?

[Tim Lund]

I've been comparing the approach Darren Johnson is advocating in the letter Sid Nam posted a link to the contents of a Bromley report from October

3.15 It is proposed that the building of the Palace and restoration of the park in line with the agreed Master Plan will be fully funded by the ZRG, which is willing to take a long-term view of the scheme’s commercial potential. It is estimated that the total cost of the project will be circa £500m. The park would remain in the freehold ownership of the London Borough of Bromley, and would remain an open and free public space for all. The public space on the ground floor of the new Palace would also include free exhibitions.

3.16 The project would explore the potential for one or more trusts or similar bodies to be formed to operate and manage key elements of the exhibition space and park. At the heart of this proposal is the aspiration for the local community to have a strong role in running, managing and maintaining Crystal Palace.

Instead of effectively selling the land to the ZhongRong Group, you could offer the 125 year lease to a new Community Land Trust, controlled by councillors representing the five wards in the Crystal Palace area. The Trust would, in turn, open a public competition for proposals for the park in line with the existing masterplan, and the Trust could then control any variations in the lease, for example to expand the areas for commercial use or change public access.

This would keep the freehold in public hands, while giving local residents democratic control over the use of the building. By making it an open competition, it would help meet your statutory duty under Section 123 of the Local Government Act (1972) to ensure you attain best value for the site, while also allowing more creative proposals to come forward. By placing it in the hands of a Trust, you would be in keeping with the project’s suggestion, in the brochure, that the development would be “owned and loved by the local community”.

The Crystal Palace Community Development Trust shows that effective cross-boundary working led by the community and working hand in hand with the boroughs is possible.

In both cases, LB Bromley remains the freeholder, but in Darren Johnson's approach, the leaseholder is new Community Land Trust, presumably along the lines of the Crystal Palace Community Development Trust. I doubt very much whether Mr Ni would be interested in making his proposed investment in this case, so realistically, this alternative amounts to muddling along as we have up til now - and I'd guess that's the real intent.