Crystal Palace stadium re-development?

[Dorian]

Not sure how Bromley came to be wholly responsible for CPP, that seems to be the big problem in all this ...... as well as the likelihood that Croydon could pay CPFCLtd's new owners (too?) handsomely for the site for housing.
.

Im not sure that, if by Croydon you mean Croydon Council ,would have any money to buy land for Housing ? Most of Public Housing building is carried by Housing associations. Croydon Council has a huge deficit even prior to the recent austerity measures and cuts.

Interestingly the actual pitch at the Selhurst Ground is designated as " Local Open Land" which means if built on for residential purposes, 2.4 Hectares ( 6 Acres) of new open land locally has be provided for every 1,000 people the new devlopment would result in as mitigation.

Selhurst stadium may not bethe Cash cow that every one seems to think.

[ALIB]

Spot-on Dorian

[Hill Dweller]

Yep, by 'Croydon' I meant the council and any private/semi-private HAs that it needs to rely on.

I've not seen any mention that Selhurst is a legitimate cash cow but that doesn't make it unlikely that it will be over-paid for. Croydon council leaders have wished the consortium well, they have their needs and reasons and I daresay unacceptable cuts on the way.

As has been posted by another, earlier, Bromley are already considering some residential and leisure uses of CPP, as well as having already recently upgraded large parts of its sports facilities (including the stadium and the pool, which only re-opened 18m ago). I feel sick to think London is being the venue of such gross destructive wastefulness.

I also feel suspicious of covert wannabe-profiteers changing the nature of their company to Limited, just before announcing all of this. It makes me heave!

However, lovely as this whooshed pot of coffee has been, BFN

[Duke of Clarence]

i cant beleive the ignorance of those who would challenge the point by means of arguing about traffic congestion and unwanted concerts or corparate events

So those who don't share your view are ignorant. Great 2nd post mad19.

do you think football fans dont shop and do you not think football fans that support cpfc might not live among youof course they do,

No one has said football fans don't shop or live here, where do you get that from? Football fans, and I'm a Palace supporter for my sins, do not go shopping on match days. The match, a bite to eat and few pints is on the agenda NOT a shopping trip. And football fans do enjoy slow food but NOT on matchg days. Don't know why you're trying to suggest otherwise.

Take a closer look at the High Streets around Selhurst for a reality check on what to expect for CP Triangle before coming out with speculative claims that tens of thousands of people desending on the area for the primary purpose of attending an event in a brand new 40,000 capacity stadium with new restaurants, corporate facilities and bars will regenerate the wider local economy.

How much expendable income do you expect stadium bound people to have after they've forked out for entry fees and treat themselves to food and drink on site? The required CPZs, road closures and congestion, roads and pavements, will put off people whose primary purpose is to browse and shop on the Triangle not spend their money elsewhere

Anyway for me this is not just about football it is about anyone building a 40k seat attraction in a Grade II listed park, especially one designed to operate over a 2-3 hour window and the logistics and impact of that; that is potentially 80k journeys in that timeframe."

Palace will only use the stadium maximum of 30x and they'll only half fill it (sadly I'm a realist and I don't see gate numbers exceeding 20,000 though you never know!). The idea of rattling around in an anodyne corporate building is not appealing but the real rub is that it will be the many "other" uses that will reach capacity and dominate the stadium and negatively impact on everyone's enjoyment of their homes, park and town centre; football fans and non football fans alike.

please check out the education and training of young children and crystal palaces football in the community and schools, have a look at the effort thats put in there,

CPFC have been working in the area for years. They already run facilities and have a training ground for young people in CPP. The communiyt benefits you describe all ready exist and should not be offered in return permission to build a 40,000 capacity stadium on public land.

maybe your right about some of your points on ownership ect,

How very sweet but I don't think anyone here needs or seeks your endorsement. You've made your point, you'd love a huge stadium in the Grade II listed park and you don't think much of those who don't or the traffic, parking and public transport issues.

we will create bridges for our beloved area

That will be a challenge, bridge building with the ignorrant! You use the word we I wonder many people do you speak for mad19?

If Bromley sell off the land or grant a lease to something like this then that part of the Grade II Heritage park is gone forever regardless of what money could be found in the future - we will never get another opportunity if it becomes a cash cow for CPFC or their backers.

Also is it feasible to build the stadium for £50M? I think not, but increasing the spend to a more realistic £2-300M (remember we are dealing in part with a toxic site in places, a significant s106 contribution and whatever other sweeteners Bromley will require) would raise the questions:
Where are CPFC going to find that sort of money? - With backers who want to operate major events 3/4/5/6/7/ days a week?

And the rest of the park, like the town, will be dominated by events held in the 40,000 capacity stadium. Thousands of people arriving at the same time heading for same destination will turn the park into the stadium's main feeder route. No matter what form of transport or which station they come from the fact remains that for a couple of hours pre and post event 15,000, 20,000, 30,000 40,000, 60,000 people will descend on the park from all directions making it an unpleasant place to be.

[Dorian]

Wow, busy day , Clarence ?

So a new stadium at the site of errrrrr "The National Sports Stadium " in a park created on former Common land to re-house a National Exhibiton Glass House of not insignificant size, is wrong ?

I see..................

[stuart]

Also is it feasible to build the stadium for £50M?

Reality check on stadia cost:

Emirates £400m
Olympic £600m
Wembley £800m

And none of those included building an Olympic sized swimming pool in the basement.

Stuart

[dickp]

What percentages of those costs was the cost of buying the land, as opposed to the costs of construction? Would CPPC get a sweetheart deal for the land (i.e. very cheap), as a quid pro quo for masterplan implementation?

Regarding traffic: hours per year when traffic might increase: 1.5 hours x 2 x around 17 = 51 hour per year.

Hours per year when traffic won't increase (because stadium isn't being used) - but the park would still be enhanced: 8760 - 51 = 8709 hours net gain of better park per year, without the stadium being used.

OK, I'm including night time hours, buy yoy get my point. A few hours traffic per year in return for more parkland, and better facilities (delivered, at no cost to the taxpayer).

Of course, you could continue to hope for some better source of funding will come along. And perhaps you might even still be alive when (or if) that ever happens. But that won't stop the existing stadium rotting in the meantime.

Personally, I'd rather go with something that's "on balance better than now" than hoping for perfection that might never materialise.

[The Commander]

What percentages of those costs was the cost of buying the land, as opposed to the costs of construction? Would CPPC get a sweetheart deal for the land (i.e. very cheap), as a quid pro quo for masterplan implementation?

CPFC is definitely looking for a sweetheart deal to make up for the S106 planning obligations which at present are only an aquatic centre, some reconfiguartion of the NSC and a community running track. Their proposals to not touch on the implementation of the masterplan or maintenance of the park.

My personal belief is that the negative impacts of a huge 40,000 seater stadium holding events year round are not mitigated by the current proposals in terms of planning gain. This scheme is all about the wants and desires of CPFC2010 which ultimately is a private commercial football club.

Sledge hammer and nut! There are other more sustainable approaches which should be considered before Bromley go anywhere near this scheme.

[Dorian]

Sledge hammer and nut! There are other more sustainable approaches which should be considered before Bromley go anywhere near this scheme.

Whilst agreeing that the scheme needs fine tuning and thinking through, surley this can be done via a statutary consulation period. S.106 obligations , travel plans included and community benefits can be part of this. Issues of funding and costs are the concern off the Football club.

What should not happen is the usual long series of " talk shops" where not all views can ever be placated and result in nothing at all happening , Croydon Gateway is a prime example. Sometimes making a decsion is far better than making none.

[stuart]

Reality check on stadia cost:

Emirates £400m
Olympic £600m
Wembley £800m

And none of those included building an Olympic sized swimming pool in the basement.

What percentages of those costs was the cost of buying the land, as opposed to the costs of construction?

Excellent question dickp

AFAIK Olympic & Wembley did not include any land costs. Total cost of Emirates including land was nearer £500m. So how much would CPFC be expected to pay for land (outright or lease?). Is this included in £50m?

What surprises me is the cost of sinking an Olympic Pool into unstable land, having sufficient height and plant to to overcome the humid atmosphere (the major problem within the NSC) would be of the order of £50m before you build a 40,000 stadium on top of it. Just think about the pool roof beams!

Sorry but the 'plan' does seem like a back of envelope fantasy football game to me. Do we have any architects or civil engineers who would like to tell me different?

Stuart

[JeeBee]

The new swimming pool isn't under the stadium, it is underground still, but under the former car parking area which will be getting dug up anyway. However it is still a substantial piece of engineering. I believe it was already on the masterplan.

It costs £21m to build a 15,000 seater stadium: http://www.footballgroundguide.com/doncaster_rovers/

Or for 22,500 (with 138,000 cubic metres of chalk being excavated) it will cost £95m for Brighton's new stadium. I believe there were a lot of sweeteners for that one.

But for Stoke, 28,384 capacity was built for under £15m, in 1997.

So when CP say they can build a 25,000 stadium for £40m it's not unrealistic.

[The Commander]

Sledge hammer and nut! There are other more sustainable approaches which should be considered before Bromley go anywhere near this scheme.

Whilst agreeing that the scheme needs fine tuning and thinking through, surley this can be done via a statutary consulation period. S.106 obligations , travel plans included and community benefits can be part of this. Issues of funding and costs are the concern off the Football club.

What should not happen is the usual long series of " talk shops" where not all views can ever be placated and result in nothing at all happening , Croydon Gateway is a prime example. Sometimes making a decsion is far better than making none.

Sorry Dorian, but costs are of concern to the public when it comes to selling off public MOL land. They certainly will be of concern to Bromley, a public body, who will have to justify value for money and will be subject to scrutiny. Any land disposal could also potentially become subject to EU procurement rules. Before Bromley goes anywhere near this I would expect them to demonstrate that they have considered all other options in the public interestand consulted on them.

With regard to " talk shops" - The community has been through a lengthy consultation process. The masterplan has only just been approved. I now expect Bromley to be exploring a number of different avenues to secure delivery and implementation.

CPFC2010 fundamentally changes the vision of the masterplan which did not include a stadium.

[stuart]

The new swimming pool isn't under the stadium, it is underground still, but under the former car parking area which will be getting dug up anyway. However it is still a substantial piece of engineering. I believe it was already on the masterplan.

....

So when CP say they can build a 25,000 stadium for £40m it's not unrealistic.

The masterplan had it above ground level. The car park lies beneath some nasty natural springs. Digging down (and into the old CP waterworks system) is quite a challenge. Having a roof support a park (if not a stadium) above it is going to be pretty beefy.

The CP plan is not 25,000. It is:

- 40,000 seat stadium

- new indoor aquatic centre

- reconfigured indoor sports complex within the existing structure

- new community athletics facility

Hence on the figures you quote the stadium is going to be in the hundreds of millions before the rest. Cantilevered roof cost is not linear. And it is going to be in London where the costs are even higher as the three recent stadia demonstrate.

I really hope CPFC are not kidding themselves (or us) and have taken good independent advice on this plan. Or, if it ever went ahead, are you prepared to bet a pony they could pull in this plan for around £50m?

Oh and where do the cars from the carpark go?

Stuart

[JeeBee]

The stadium is being built in two stages - stage one is 25,000 for £40 to £50 million quid.
Stage two increases it to 40,000 and increases the total costs to around £90m.

Supporting half a foot of soil and grass is a lot easier than supporting a stadium.

I don't know where the cars from the car park go - where do they go with the existing masterplan?

[Hill Dweller]

As posted earlier, this except from the link says it all :

"We never wanted to buy it but you don't let your club go out of business," says Parish.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard- ... -palace.do

Not unless you and your fellow consortium members can all see it boosting all your own businesses to the detriment of ordinary citizens and with very little to do with football.

What's in a bl**dy name with all this tosh about 'CPFC' (and let's NOT forget the reality of Limited) moving 'back' to CPP?
If a name needs to be linked with a place, why were they not re-named Selhurst, Norwood or Croydon when they were moved?
They were moved for national interest reasons during war time, first to the velodrome and they built a new ground at their second placement, where they were probably financed and well pleased to be in a much more easily accessible location at last.

Someone's mentioned whether people wil survive to see a better new 'development' idea, what about those that won't survive the mess that this huge scheme would entail .... let alone that it's all about someone usurping the cachet of the area's name and nada, zilch else?

.

[Dorian]

As far as I know ( Im a rugby man meself and know little about Chavball ). Crystal Palace football club was formed by workers at The Crystal Palace Exhibition that the area has decided to take its name from. Those workers at The Crystal Palace had every right I would have thought to name themeselves after the building in which they worked, and its nice that legacy lives on , even if they did move to South Norwood in the 20's.If as HD says , " whats in the name" why dont residents rename themselves as living in Annerley , Upper Norwood or South Norwood which they actually do or are they " Usurping the cachet of a Buidlings name", in fact built to celibrate British Imperialism , dominance and inventivness ? or do they like calling it Crystal Palace, even if there hasnt been a Crystal Palace since 1936, I certainly do.

And so , if thought out and well planned and well contracted by the Planning authorities the Team that plays the National sport, returns to regenerate a National Stadium at a site they took ther name from when the players worked at a Million square foot International Exhibiton centre, it will be a great thing.

Sorry Dorian, but costs are of concern to the public when it comes to selling off public MOL land. They certainly will be of concern to Bromley, a public body, who will have to justify value for money and will be subject to scrutiny. Any land disposal could also potentially become subject to EU procurement rules. Before Bromley goes anywhere near this I would expect them to demonstrate that they have considered all other options in the public interestand consulted on them.

I can not envisage the site being sold and would object to that if it were on the cards. However proposals in the MOL that increase community use and recreation are encourged in MOL policy in both the London Plan and Bromley adopted Plan.

Further more, although I dissagree with it, the previous Labour administration decided that reduction car use would be facilitated by removing car Parking spaces, so again this is policy complient. impratical maybe, but that needs to be discussed with labours Planning wizard ( may be not ) Lord Faulkner ( the man who was responsible for the Millenium Dome fiasco, which became only a succes in private hands)

[The Commander]

Sorry Dorian, but costs are of concern to the public when it comes to selling off public MOL land. They certainly will be of concern to Bromley, a public body, who will have to justify value for money and will be subject to scrutiny. Any land disposal could also potentially become subject to EU procurement rules. Before Bromley goes anywhere near this I would expect them to demonstrate that they have considered all other options in the public interestand consulted on them.

I can not envisage the site being sold and would object to that if it were on the cards. However proposals in the MOL that increase community use and recreation are encourged in MOL policy in both the London Plan and Bromley adopted Plan.

Sorry Dorian - sold in property speak can mean obtaining an interest in land whether it be actually purchasing the freehold or leasehold interest. It will have to be one or the other. I expect CPFC to be looking at a sweet lease on a long term.

[Hill Dweller]

Oh quite a coincidence Commander
I just read this from Jan last year .................
“The biggest asset a football club has is the land the stadium’s on,” says Parish. “In an ideal world, we’d build a purpose-built stadium right now, and there’s a couple of interesting options available elsewhere* that we’ve got to exhaust before we think about redeveloping Selhurst Park.” .................

http://surrey.greatbritishlife.co.uk/ar ... are-28769/



Wish I could find the report I read at the start of all this about the consortium having become a limited liability company just days before the CPP plan was put out.
Limited liability on a project planned to take till 2015?
Perhaps that should be paired with a limited 'take' on all the merchandising TAG's MD must be planning for future grandiose plans having the cachet of CP? S'only fair innit?

[JeeBee]

What else would a large private enterprise be if not a limited company?

[Hill Dweller]

erm .... an unlimited liability one, where its owners also own the responsibility for ALL the debts they incur.


From what I've read it's a recent change of status, under the present co-chairs.

It makes the risks of this 'plan' utterly inappropriate on PUBLIC land.