Crystal Palace Park Project: drop-in sessions this Saturday

[Sid Nam]

Michael, I think this could be a marvellous opportunity for the ZRG, Boris Johnson and Bromley council but it is premature to claim it will be a wonderful opportunity for South London when we don't know what it will used for, how it will relate to the surrounding areas and what it will look like.

A building of that scale will change the way of life for all those living within the vicinity. The public transport and traffic issues will reduce the quality of life for all on many levels. I like the fact I can jump on a train to South Kensington and enjoy a day at the museums every now and then. I also enjoy visiting the Tate and NPG. I don't think we live in a cultural desert and actually quite like it here. I don't want to live in the shadows of a zone 1 attraction or a Westfield type complex.

I am mindful of the reasons the old palace failed and as far as I can see they still exist today. As for expos, if London needed another mega expo centre why is Earls Court closing? Galleries and museums don't make money, not the sort that a building of this size will need to generate. What sort of operation will bring in the money?

Michael, I agree that the future nighttime economy of this building has the potential to raise much needed revenue and to cause even further harm to the surrounding communities.

In fact the more I think about it, the more problems I see. Looking at the current wet weather what would sort of impact would concreting over a large green space on the top of a hill have on ground water run off? As well as concreting the surface, extra earth will be dug out to create the underground car park.

Tim, we know LBB have been trying to sell the park since it took responsibility for it in the eighties. The first thing it did was give itself planning permission to build a hotel and leisure complex to fund park improvements, only problem was MoL status meant it was against the law. But LBB soldiered on and got an Act of Parliament changed to enable such a commercial build. The transcripts from that reading record the benefits to Bromley residents, not a mention to those of the adjoining boroughs who had no representation at all. Not sure a Trust is the way forward for the park but neither is leaving it in care of LBB.

The Mayor and Leader of Bromley keep telling us that it is a jewel in London's crown, a regional park of national importance. It gets more than twice as many annual visitors as another regional park, Lee Valley Park. Lee Valley Park enjoys regional funding of £23M a year. LBB contributes more a year to the upkeep of Lee Valley Park, £389,000, than it does Crystal Palace Park, £250,000 (2013).

Hairybuddah the answer to your question is yes, make it much smaller and relocate to Hyde Park.

[Tim Lund]

I'm deferring responding to Sid Nam's last posting, because (s)he brings in several issues, such as the comparison with the Lee Valley Park, which require further thought on the whole question of how London regional parks - e.g those such as Crystal Palace, Wandle Valley, which server several boroughs - should be funded. The comment about concreting over a large green space on the top of a hill and ground water run off is interesting, and made me chose to write the post about re-engineering and re-wilding, part because the Lee Valley probably does have a significant role in managing problems to do with flooding. In writing it, however, it struck me that in the management of the Quaggy River, Lewisham and Bromley clearly have managed to co-operate effectively, so I can't see why Bromley can't work more effectively with its neighbouring boroughs in this case, and vice versa.

Can I also ask again to meet up with Sid Nam? I think the etiquette on this Forum is that if you are going to make sustained arguments on important questions such as this, it's only fair that the person you are debating with knows who you are, as you are able to by Googling me, and Stuart, Michael, Nigel & I all know who each other is in real life.

[Eagle]

Tim

I would imagine Sid is a gentleman.

Not sure Bromley Council would welcome ceding some sovereignty to neighbouring boroughs. Especially as most of them have a Socialist bent.

[michael]

Can I also ask again to meet up with Sid Nam? I think the etiquette on this Forum is that if you are going to make sustained arguments on important questions such as this, it's only fair that the person you are debating with knows who you are, as you are able to by Googling me, and Stuart, Michael, Nigel & I all know who each other is in real life.

While it may be frustrating, I think everybody is entitled to anonymity, even if they disagree with me. To suggest that there is an etiquette on this forum that does not allow for that is quite unreasonable. I do not buy-in to that etiquette, even if plenty of people might know who I am. I have not been introduced to Nigel, Eagle, CaptainCarCrash, Annie, and many others despite many discussions.
If Sid Nam wishes to reveal his secret identity that is his/her choice, not anybody else's.

As for water run-off I think it is just another issue that can easily be resolved in any plans, but is only raised to scare people during the current flooding.

[Tim Lund]

I agree with Michael about it being the right of posters to maintain anonymity on the Forum, which is why, in spite of knowing the actual identities of various other regular alias using posters, I do not reveal them. I still think it's reasonable for me to ask to meet.

As to Sid Nam's gender - I have been told he's a she, although it might just have been misinformation.

As to the water run-off - yes, I too think that's a scare which can easily be resolved, but in thinking this, I'm relying on the capacity of engineers - such as Arups - to come up with solutions. I suspect that Sid Nam is more of a 'back to Nature' environmentalist, but quite well informed, but who will instinctively distrust engineering solutions, so I thought it worth making the more general points I did on that other thread.

[Sid Nam]

Tim has referred to me as s/he in previous posts, I took that as a wind up and ignored it. Please don't take that as a throw away sexist remark, it's not. I get the impression Tim enjoys an internet ruck and I don't. They detract from the subject and are a waste of time and energy.

Back on topic. The ground water run off issue is a serious one. Prior to these extreme weather conditions it had not crossed my mind that this may be a problem. How many levels will the underground section have? How many tons of earth will be lost?

How much strain will something this massive place upon other infrastructure such as existing water and power supplies? How far will the Controlled Parking zones stretch? As far as CPZs go everyone's a looser, except the council. Those who have to pay to park are still not guaranteed space on roads where car ownership is high. Those who live just outside the zones are affected by displacement parking and high street businesses loose trade.

Mr Sid

Not a member of any political party or group, not an environmentalist and not a female of the species.

[Eagle]

I was correct Sid , you appear to be a Gentleman.l
#
I think only a matter of time before all the area gets CPZ;'s. It is a great form of revenue for the hard pressed councils.

Moral is if you do not have a garage , or legal of street parking , do not have a vehicle. Simples.

[Tim Lund]

Tim has referred to me as s/he in previous posts, I took that as a wind up and ignored it. Please don't take that as a throw away sexist remark, it's not. I get the impression Tim enjoys an internet ruck and I don't. They detract from the subject and are a waste of time and energy.

...

Mr Sid

Not a member of any political party or group, not an environmentalist and not a female of the species.

Thanks for making that clear, and as I said, I didn't trust the equally anonymous person who pm'd me to say you were a she. They also refused to reveal their identity, but alleged you were another poster, a woman, who I had met - but it didn't feel quite right.

I don't particularly enjoy internet rucks - I'm far happier with real engagement with what other people think, and bringing in relevant evidence and new arguments, but I don't back away from argument when I think someone is saying something wrong, and if someone is using illegitimate arguments - scare tactics, dismissing a view point because of who the person's nephew is - I am prepared to get into what you call a ruck.

[Tim Lund]

I agree with Michael about it being the right of posters to maintain anonymity on the Forum, which is why, in spite of knowing the actual identities of various other regular alias using posters, I do not reveal them. I still think it's reasonable for me to ask to meet..

For the benefit of anyone who may have misunderstood, this is what I wrote recently about anonymity.

[Rachael]

Tim doesn't feel my comment here:
http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic. ... =1&t=10805
was an accurate reflection of what he wrote here, and I agree.

[Tim Lund]

Tim doesn't feel my comment here:
http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic. ... =1&t=10805
was an accurate reflection of what he wrote here, and I agree.

Thanks, Rachel. And in PMs we have exchanged, I've also accepted that what I suggested was Forum etiquette, e.g that after a while anonymous posters should at least give non anonymous posters such as myself the chance to meet up, was only a personal view of etiquette, not something necessarily expected by Admin.

Admin - do you want to move these last three posts to the Asylum?

[cASIOCZ3000]

I live on Crystal Palace Park Road, have been in Sydenham for 8 years (love it), and am hoping the palace is rebuilt. I am a very regular user of the Park, and I dont know why people are so anti the possibility of investment. If the transport cant sustain it, it will probably fail planning, but if it can, surely the cash injection will be a good thing? I do not think people will drive to the venue any more than they do when visiting other land mark attractions in London., and its not like there isnt a train station right there....there is. It could be just what is needed to lift up CP/Sydenham from the limping on but not quite there state they are in as high streets.

[SE19]

Always interesting to hear people say: ”hoping the palace is rebuilt” to understand what they mean, when what the building could be is still so unclear, except for its proposed size which is being “tested to maximum scale”. Nick Boles in Parliament has made the best description I have read, where he effectively makes clear this will not be a replica and instead says “…to rebuild some version of the building, although obviously in modern form.”

Arup at the last public Drop-In went further saying there is no “replica” building being proposed, nor a “replica” glass-house of the original Palace. Video of the last Arup presentation: http://www.inspiredbythesubway.org.uk/01-02-14.html

Arup also commented that we presently “don’t have major arterial roads that can support this scheme”. Arup are already concerned that the rail network being “overloaded” unless they “design within” the capacity opportunities. They discussed that their client (ZRG) could be recommended to target the building’s uses to be at “off peak” weekday under-used and “empty” train services. But as in QA debate, this may not hold at weekends. Overall, it is becoming clearer a site of this proposed scale is not sustainable unless internal usage “constraints” like these are addressed. And it is good to hear Arup leading on these issues and seeking views of local concerns.

And, it is Arup who are saying the transport system cannot sustain a scheme of this size unless the building’s internal functions and uses are “designed within” the external infrastructure capacity opportunities. So, does this mean for years to come, as different owners come and go, or areas of the building are sub-let, and incremental change of use takes place… then at every stage… the internal demands will still need to be “designed within” external infrastructure capacity opportunities? Why will a building of this size always have one controlling owner overseeing the building changes and mix of uses to achieve this all of the time? This is not “sustainability” planning I am used to seeing. Not surprising a dedicated Advisory Board has been appointed by the Mayor “…to help develop the future mix of uses”, and I assume to try to address these “designed within” infrastructure capacity constraint issues.

The Outer London Commission, adds to this concern as it reported: "The car is likely to remain a key mode for many trips in outer London, however The Commission recommends more effective road management and crossborough work to address congestion.", and, "...trips taken within outer London over half were taken by car and around a third were walking or cycling trips. Car journeys represented an even larger share of trips between outer boroughs and outside of London (around 80 per cent).... In contrast, public transport was used for around 80 per cent of all trips between outer and central London"

There are some fundamental differences between the “Masterplan” and the “ZRG” proposal: “The levels of traffic generated by the Proposals would be very low compared to the overall traffic on the local network” (Masterplan Environmental Statement); “The majority of the built development is appropriate in MOL and has been sympathetically designed to minimise visual impact,…” (conclusion of the Planning Application); Plus, the two schemes may have some similarities, as MasterPlan notes: “The Event Management Strategy would include details of coach parking and use of neighbouring areas for parking, as agreed with the local Boroughs.” (Environmental Statement).

One thing we do know for sure, is the desire to test the “maximum scale” of the building, as in the latest emerging Design Principles: “the developers wish to test the maximum scale of the proposed Palace taking into account site constraints and other factors such as transport. The developer anticipates amending the Crystal Palace Act to allow more of the site to be development”

So just how big could this building be? In the ZRG architects emerging design brief talks about a footprint of the original Palace at being 60,000sqm, and maybe up to 6 stories high (as in the October 13 launch prospectus), plus unspecified underground spaces. So, for illustration only of the scale per floor, such a size could fit: Earls Court One (at 41,811m2, capacity 20,000 visitors), or the commercial/retail space equivalent of the Whitgift Centre (approx 54,000m2), or over 250 units of an average delux size hotel suite (estimated at 210sqm, similar to a four/five bedroom house) to fit potentially on one level in a 6* hotel. This last comparison puts the “The erection of up to 180 dwellings (Use Class C3) in 8 buildings of a total of 4,411 square metres” in original MasterPlan into some perspective of scale between the two schemes. http://www.crystalpalacecampaign.org/Ma ... 100721.pdf. To be clear, Arup have stressed ZRG have no stated intention for significant “retail” uses, but what about a new owner if all or part of the building is re-sold or sub-let at a later date? But, LBB note about Arup proposal "It is anticipated that over half of the Palace would comprise major new permanent and temporary public exhibition spaces"

The Outer London Commission (OLC) noted in 2010 the types of viable economic developments "of cultural importance": "There is scope for taking a more proactive approach to management of areas of cultural importance, and we commend the concept of “cultural quarters” places able to accommodate new arts, cultural and leisure activities and which can be managed so they contribute more effectively to regeneration – identified in the London Plan. This could be used as the basis for exploring the potential for very large scale commercial leisure facilities able to provide a regional, national or international scale offer (as has been done at Wembley, or at North Greenwich with the 02 Centre)." http://static.london.gov.uk/olc/docs/final-report.pdf

Note, the final building footprint may actually be bigger or smaller. But bigger is presently more likely when you include the total land needs (eg. provisions for service lorries, access routes, potential coach parking, etc, to service such a size of commercial site), and include the two extended garden “wings” also illustrated in the ZRG Vision document. This is assuming all the visitor coach parking will be “in” the park, or, maybe much of the coach parking will need to overflow regularly into Crystal Palace Park Road or other roads as indicated by the Masterplan?

Good to see CPZ being discussed. Plus please consider the impact to the NSC/RSC who arrive by car. Are they all to now pay excessive parking fees when they bring there their family or sports equipment? Not everyone can commute by public transport, noting this is a sub-regional Sports Centre designed to attract users from a very wide area as well as locally. How many people will stop going as regularly if parking costs or access becomes an issue? Even before this ZRG proposition, parking outside of the park is also a known issue with the Masterplan as this meant the “removal of substantial areas of hardstanding and car parking and return to ‘green’ open space” within the park:

• "While it is accepted that the introduction of a potential controlled parking zone (CPZ) for the area, as initially requested by TfL to protect the local surrounding roads from overspills, presents some implementation issues."
http://legacy.london.gov.uk/mayor/plann ... report.pdf

As Crystal Palace and Anerley covers many different sections… so CPZs need careful consultation and assessment across all five Wards. And, not all residents around the park can afford CPZ for themselves and all the extra “visitor permits” that would be needed…The area exhibits relatively high levels of multiple deprivation, particularly in respect of health, education, crime and income10. Some areas fall within the 20% most deprived areas of the country, therefore it is designated as an “Area for Regeneration” in the London Plan1. The area has an unemployment rate higher than the sub-regional average, more akin to inner London. …also include distinct social housing estate developments which have been developed at some of the highest densities in the Borough (up to 65 units per hectare). Access to off street parking and to private garden space is limited.”

And this is why getting representative cross border consultation is essential for all sections that live near and use the Park and NSC, yet this has not been happening to the degree expected for such a proposition, although Arup are improving and responding to concerns.

Plus, it is not clear from the recent draft London Plan what type of “Strategic Outer London Development Centre” has been envisaged for Crystal Palace. Is it meant as a “step change” in growth for significant new sources of employment (and potentially changing the quality and character of Crystal Palace and the wider area)? Or, is it to be sensitive to the area and to enhance the “existing” specialist strengths of the area and the Park/ NSC, and so contributing to existing growth trends and retaining the current “sense of place”? So this is not just about being for/against development, it is the community assessing what type and scale is appropriate for the area, and having an appropriate land disposal process of public MOL that allows the community to help shape their own neighbourhood.

Feedback comments regarding Crystal Palace becoming a “Strategic Outer London Development Centre” in the draft London Plan are needed before 10/4/2014.

SE19

[Sid Nam]

cASIOCZ300 I don't know why you think people who are against the ZRG proposal to build the largest trading complex in the UK in the park are against investment. I am very much for investment in the park, even though I don't use it as much as you.

I believe there is a very strong case for regional funding for this regional park and do not think it should be left under the management of Bromley council who contribute more to the Lee Valley Park than Crystal Palace.

I do not agree at all that Sydenham or CP are limping along. The arrival of the Overground lifted both. CP Triangle is thriving and last year has seen Sydenham go from strength to strength but turning them into the feeder routes to the ZRG complex and the introduction of CPZ's will stifle that regeneration and impact upon the health and way of life of all residents. The traffic and pollution data posted on the previous page are facts from TFL not FUD from Scaremonger Weekly!

You say that you don't think "people will drive to the venue any more than they do when visiting other land mark attractions in London" I disagree, as does the Mayor (see the SOLD report posted by SE19). Attractions in outer London generate high car use due to their location and the fact they are not set within the Congestion Zone like most London landmark attractions. Maybe this will bring about the extension of the Congestion Zone but it is you and I and our visitors who will have to pay for the pleasure of living in the shadows of the ZRG.

[marymck]

Earls Court has a big coach park. And Clarkes already park up on upper sydenham's residential streets, often with their engines running in the summer, to keep the air con going for the drivers' comfort I suppose.

[Tim Lund]

Always interesting to hear people say: ”hoping the palace is rebuilt” to understand what they mean, when what the building could be is still so unclear, except for its proposed size which is being “tested to maximum scale”. Nick Boles in Parliament has made the best description I have read, where he effectively makes clear this will not be a replica and instead says “…to rebuild some version of the building, although obviously in modern form.”

Arup at the last public Drop-In went further saying there is no “replica” building being proposed, nor a “replica” glass-house of the original Palace. Video of the last Arup presentation: http://www.inspiredbythesubway.org.uk/01-02-14.html

Arup also commented that we presently “don’t have major arterial roads that can support this scheme”. Arup are already concerned that the rail network being “overloaded” unless they “design within” the capacity opportunities. They discussed that their client (ZRG) could be recommended to target the building’s uses to be at “off peak” weekday under-used and “empty” train services. But as in QA debate, this may not hold at weekends. Overall, it is becoming clearer a site of this proposed scale is not sustainable unless internal usage “constraints” like these are addressed. And it is good to hear Arup leading on these issues and seeking views of local concerns.

And, it is Arup who are saying the transport system cannot sustain a scheme of this size unless the building’s internal functions and uses are “designed within” the external infrastructure capacity opportunities.

Can I just say that I appreciate SE19's approach? There clearly are significant questions about this proposal which locals will ask, but the tone I'm picking up here is of experts - Arups - and people like SE19, and Inspired by the Subway - the group whose website the video linked to is hosted - actually listening to each other.

[Lois]

It is good to see so much discussion so early on and it does seem that public consultation is taking place this time.

I have serious concerns about the roads and do believe that people will drive here and whilst I am not against a building on the top site I am very much against roads and roundabouts throughout the park which is what was proposed with the cinema scheme if I remember correctly and it seems to me to be the only way to ease the extra congestion that the area would suffer.

For me to support this scheme, I would want reassurance that the 60% of the building that is to be 'public' and by that I presume it to mean free access, will remain for the public and that change of use will not be granted to alter that. I would also want there not to be restaurants and cafes within the complex but instead for the visitors to use the 'triangle' so that local business owners will gain from the scheme.

The traffic and public transport issues seem to me to be the greatest problems to be overcome and I find myself wondering if there is anywhere not too far away where a Park and Ride set up could be put in place, but I can't think of anywhere.

If the transport issues cannot be solved then it seems that the top site would be best left as it is and that saddens me.
I want a new 'Crystal Palace' that is predominantly for public use and that takes in the subway and the museum - I don't mind how innovative and modern the new building is so long as it is attractive and practical but visitors should be made aware of the history of the original building. It must in some way pay homage to Paxton and the history of the site.

I do have concerns about the almost altruistic nature of the scheme as put across in the video of the last meeting. I fear that Bromley Council will be bending over backwards to get the local population on side to prevent a repeat of what happened with the Cinema scheme and that is why I feel that we need something in place to ensure that after a year or two we are not told that the art galleries are not used as expected and the whole place ends up turned into yet another shopping centre or even a cinema!!!

And lastly, I would love to see a local history museum for South East London incorporated into the scheme. Unless I am mistaken we don't have a single local history museum anywhere in SE London other than the tiny CP Museum that is run by volunteers and only open for a few hours at the weekend.

I can't imagine who would not want a successful building on the site which adds to and enhances the park and reinstates the prominence that the park once enjoyed. Just so many issues to sort out, least of all the transport issues.

[SE19]

Interesting points from Lois. “…it does seem that public consultation is taking place this time”. The question is, to what degree? So far, the process of disposal of public parkland and its consultation has raised many concerns for its appropriateness (over 1,700 signed this petition in less than a month):
http://karlhrichter.com/2014/01/17/open ... al-palace/

Recent concerns from London Assembly Member:
http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/ ... -01-08.pdf

And reply from the Mayor:
http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/ ... b_2014.pdf

An alternative process for public land disposal so potential development could be better “owned and loved by the local community” that may ensure best value for the site, while also allowing more creative proposals to come forward:
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default ... d_deal.pdf

For comparison In the last Masterplan was “public consultation” that lasted 4 years, and was marked out as being “Exemplary Consultation” in a report to Secretary of State, (although it too had criticisms of the consultation from which lessons should be learnt from if Arup is so determined): “By way of example, 228,000 copies of Park News were delivered through doors and 24,000 by post to stakeholders; 3,000 people attended workshops including 300 people at 13 black and ethnic minority group workshops. There were an average of 1,000 unique visitors to the Crystal Palace Park website each month and over 3,000 schoolchildren and 250 parents were involved in the schools consultation. 280 individuals and organisations were involved as members of the dialogue process, taking part in regular meetings. In addition, smaller working groups included the museum task group and sports working group, as well as special workshops. This extensive consultation preceded the statutory post application consultation carried out by the Council, which exceeded all requirements”

Arup are paid by their client, and are reported as having the “intention to do more than the usual planning application consultation”, but whose objectives are counter to that of “appropriate development” on Metropolitan Open Land. So there are inherent concerns in the process while the “very special circumstance” are not known to justify the development, and while the consultation does not deliver substantially better outreach and engagement with the local community impacted.

I have not seen anyone call the current Arup consultation an “exemplary consultation” process. In comparison, Arup are not (as yet) performing anything like the scale of the consultation as with the MasterPlan. Yet this time, the proposition is very different, as it focused on transforming the park and the “wider area too”, so the impact to wider community will be far greater. Already, it is Arup who have identified and leading on addressing significant risks to “overloading” the local transport with the size and scale of building being proposed.

Plus, the Outer London Commission have the general comment “effective management of the night time economy, which can on the one hand help support the vitality of town centres, but can also make them unpleasant places to be” when talking about “areas of cultural importance…” when discussing “…very large scale commercial leisure facilities able to provide a regional, national or international scale offer (as has been done at Wembley, or at North Greenwich with the 02 Centre)”.

This was not such a great issue for the last MasterPlan, yet the Arup consultation to date is far smaller than before, which is of concern considering we are now just months away from the target submission of the final planning application, “to submit a planning application to the LBB in Winter 2014” (See ZRG current FAQs today).

Another key factor, is the scale of “inappropriate” development in previous Masterplan was reported “of a little over half a hectare”. Yet, this site could represent a development site of some 60,000sqm (as indicated in the emerging design principles) as the developers wish to test the “maximum scale”, final figure maybe higher or less. But, this is still expected as a far greater scale and impact to the Materplan, so again cause for concern if the consultation is not targeting all the areas and sections of the local community this could likely impact.

I have not read nor heard an intention from Arup regarding making “60%” being permanently public “free access”. So I am not sure how you to provide such reassurance at this stage. The LBB Executive noted “It is anticipated that over half of the Palace would comprise major new permanent and temporary public exhibition spaces”. Arup have since commented this includes paid shows.

I would suggest, a key component to a private commercial building in this location being a “successful building” will be its eventual size, scale and its use. We are led to believe these design elements are open to public consultation, but how does this square with the stated approach in December 2013 to the architects?

“…the developers wish to test the maximum scale of the proposed Palace taking into account site constraints and other factors such as transport. The developer anticipates amending the Crystal Palace Act to allow more of the site to be development”.

As to “enhancing the park”, there are different views. Some argue that building over potentially some 60,000sqm of existing and “open” MOL parkland fails a large part of this test. Others welcome the investment to restore, landscape and to “improve the openness” of other existing park areas. We all will need to appreciate these different views, and further underlines the importance of an appropriate consultation process, that so far is not yet commensurate to the size and scale and impact of the proposition.

SE19

[Sid Nam]

Further to SE19s comments I would reiterate that these are not public consultations and are referred to by Arup as 'engagement' or 'drop in' sessions. The publicity for these events is woefully poor and relies upon the active involvement of voluntary groups to circulate information amongst members and a few posters put up in CP Station and Anerley Town Hall. No effort had been made to contact the residents of the adjoining boroughs who will be equally if not more affected by this than those in Anerley.

Don't know about you but information about a proposal of this magnitude, backed by a billionaire tycoon and the Chinese government, that will negatively impact upon the life styles and air quality of those of us who live in the vicinity, should reach every household in a 2 mile radius. Unless of course it is not considered to be in the developer's interests to alert so many potential objectors to this coup d'état.

As regards public access, the Arup rep told me that there would be free public access for some parts of the museum and gallery section but not when there were special exhibitions. He also explained that there would be other functions such as trading expos, conferences, music and sporting events that the public would have access to at a price. So the claim that 70% of the building will be for the public may be accurate but it alludes to the promise of free entry when it is not.

[Sid Nam]

The shortilsted architects are

David Chipperfield Architects
Grimshaw
Haworth Tompkins Architects
Marks Barfield Architects
Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners
Zaha Hadid Architects with Anish Kapoor


The next sales pitch is followed by a history lesson and doesn't look as though there will be much time for questions.

DATE: Saturday 1st March 2014
TIME: 11.00am – 5pm
PROJECT UPDATE: Project update at 11.30am and 1.30pm. Talk on the history of Crystal Palace by the V&A Museum at 12.30pm and 2.30pm.
VENUE: The Lodge, Crystal Palace Park