http://www.newcrystalpalace.org/gallery.htm
Plans for new Crystal Palace are looking a bit better but also looking more expensive. Don't know how they will pay for this with the economic crisis. They said that had assured the funding from the clydesdale bank. Anyway it looks much better to me. See what you think.
Crystal Palace Plans
-
Greg Whitehead
- Posts: 474
- Joined: 11 Apr 2005 15:44
- Location: SE26 5RL
Another cinema plan with parking under the skin of a faux Crystal Palace. I'd imagine Paxton will be turning in his grave.
For a start someone should advise Ray Hall (does he own nightclubs on the side?) that the Crystal Palace was at Sydenham. Crystal Palace as a place does not exist (save for an isolated train station). Upper Norwood is the 'triangle' and Sydenham is where the park is. Someone might want to help him with his history lesson. It doesn't bode well if this is the head boy. C+, must try harder Ray.
The laughable claim that it will re-invigorate south London is utterly derisory and offensive. This is hardly as down-at-heel an area as say Wembley where those gullible fools bought into the idea of a new stadium making Wembley a gobal destination (stadium goers still run to and from the actual site in fear of their lives as it's so rough an area). This is a front for a vulgar cinema complex, nothing more. I thought idiots like this would have learnt their lessons the last time this fanciful idea got thrown out?
Where do I click NO?
For a start someone should advise Ray Hall (does he own nightclubs on the side?) that the Crystal Palace was at Sydenham. Crystal Palace as a place does not exist (save for an isolated train station). Upper Norwood is the 'triangle' and Sydenham is where the park is. Someone might want to help him with his history lesson. It doesn't bode well if this is the head boy. C+, must try harder Ray.
The laughable claim that it will re-invigorate south London is utterly derisory and offensive. This is hardly as down-at-heel an area as say Wembley where those gullible fools bought into the idea of a new stadium making Wembley a gobal destination (stadium goers still run to and from the actual site in fear of their lives as it's so rough an area). This is a front for a vulgar cinema complex, nothing more. I thought idiots like this would have learnt their lessons the last time this fanciful idea got thrown out?
Where do I click NO?
Last edited by Greg Whitehead on 23 Oct 2008 16:55, edited 1 time in total.
We had an earlier discussion about this some time ago (before Greg made his great comeback) and the proposals (as they then stood) were fairly comprehensively rubbished by quite a number of posters. To be honest, I can't tell what has changed since then, but if the changes Nicholas mentioned have been added, that will surely cost more money. How, exactly, are they going to fund that?
You just know, with all the polarised groups, this has the recipe for a
prolonged mess with nothing being done
Ali B
Apologies, I've just checked the link nicholas provided and it wasn't a Bromley link, but some other group who want to build a new palace. As above, someone still needs to issue some updates from Bromley and start the ball rolling....but it could be a long wait.......
prolonged mess with nothing being done
Ali B
Apologies, I've just checked the link nicholas provided and it wasn't a Bromley link, but some other group who want to build a new palace. As above, someone still needs to issue some updates from Bromley and start the ball rolling....but it could be a long wait.......
Last edited by ALIB on 24 Oct 2008 08:32, edited 1 time in total.
These plans from Ray Hall are just wishful thinking - they're not the official proposals, just one guy's wishes that he's lobbying for.
If you want to be totally anal you can browse through the 53 pages of this thread about the plans for the Park on the VN forum http://www.virtualnorwood.com/forum/ind ... topic=1837 , but I wouldn't particularly recommend it
If you want to be totally anal you can browse through the 53 pages of this thread about the plans for the Park on the VN forum http://www.virtualnorwood.com/forum/ind ... topic=1837 , but I wouldn't particularly recommend it
-
DerBrenster
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 25 Oct 2008 23:17
- Location: SE26 6XX
I've not felt the need to contribute to this forum before.
However, it seems to me that it's exactly the type of backward nimbyism promoted by people like "Grog" that have caused the top site to remain a wasteland. And most of them are members of that bunch of self appointed SuperNimbys, the CPCA.
I think Paxton would be filled with joy at the prospect of a structure in the image of his original back at the top of the hill. He was a visionary - not a luddite.
There are so many reasons that this is a brilliant idea. I live right next to the park and have done for 20 years. I use the park every day.
We have a new railway service to Penge West and CP in 2010. We have an already fantastic bus service. We have two existing other fast lines to Victoria.
Creating a replica Palace on the site of the original, the highest point in South London, opening up views towards London (and visible from miles away) will draw people to the area. Tourists will come here and spend their money. Employment will be created. And at long last, the park will be a coherent whole again.
If you have any knowledge of the original Palace and it's finances, it was always a commercial venture.
I am sick and tired of the negativity expressed by people about this. If you don't want to go there when it's built, fine. But what gives you the right to criticise when your option is to leave it as the inaccessible poisoned brown land that the site currently is?
Do you go to the Cinema? Do you eat out? Do you have a drink every now and then? So what's the problem with a third of this space being used for that purpose? And another third being a hotel where people can stay and spend? And the other third being public space? What exactly is wrong with that?
This proposal has hurdles to overcome for sure - and the credit crunch is an additional one. But I think the residents of SE26, SE19 and SE20 which border the park and who I've spoken with are actually largely supportive of this.
I remember talking with the people who led opposition 10 years ago - and they lived in Herne Hill and Dulwich.
I say - support the New Crystal Palace. And if you don't live close to it, keep your negative opinions to yourself.
However, it seems to me that it's exactly the type of backward nimbyism promoted by people like "Grog" that have caused the top site to remain a wasteland. And most of them are members of that bunch of self appointed SuperNimbys, the CPCA.
I think Paxton would be filled with joy at the prospect of a structure in the image of his original back at the top of the hill. He was a visionary - not a luddite.
There are so many reasons that this is a brilliant idea. I live right next to the park and have done for 20 years. I use the park every day.
We have a new railway service to Penge West and CP in 2010. We have an already fantastic bus service. We have two existing other fast lines to Victoria.
Creating a replica Palace on the site of the original, the highest point in South London, opening up views towards London (and visible from miles away) will draw people to the area. Tourists will come here and spend their money. Employment will be created. And at long last, the park will be a coherent whole again.
If you have any knowledge of the original Palace and it's finances, it was always a commercial venture.
I am sick and tired of the negativity expressed by people about this. If you don't want to go there when it's built, fine. But what gives you the right to criticise when your option is to leave it as the inaccessible poisoned brown land that the site currently is?
Do you go to the Cinema? Do you eat out? Do you have a drink every now and then? So what's the problem with a third of this space being used for that purpose? And another third being a hotel where people can stay and spend? And the other third being public space? What exactly is wrong with that?
This proposal has hurdles to overcome for sure - and the credit crunch is an additional one. But I think the residents of SE26, SE19 and SE20 which border the park and who I've spoken with are actually largely supportive of this.
I remember talking with the people who led opposition 10 years ago - and they lived in Herne Hill and Dulwich.
I say - support the New Crystal Palace. And if you don't live close to it, keep your negative opinions to yourself.
-
Greg Whitehead
- Posts: 474
- Joined: 11 Apr 2005 15:44
- Location: SE26 5RL
A round of applause Ladies and Gentlemen for "DieBremste" - if you choose not to spell my name correctly then I shall respond in kind. Or should that be verzögerte instead of bremste? Is your name meant to have been a joke given the eventual fate of the Crystal Palace and the fact that the only German word Brenster is anywhere near related to is Brenner (relating to fire/burn)? Given your fond predilection for German then you will not only get the joke I have made of you in the first and second sentences but may indeed prefer to converse from this point on with I in your favoured tongue?DerBrenster wrote:
I say - support the New Crystal Palace. And if you don't live close to it, keep your negative opinions to yourself.
I thought not.
Here we have Ladies and Gentlemen someone with a clear and vested interest in the project who seemingly does not wish for debate. I have left his final broadside as a quote to demonstrate as such. Pray tell, why else would he accost all and sundry (ok, little old ladies) at bus stops to ask one or two people’s opinion if he wasn’t the self-appointed public liaison officer or some such? Are you really trying to tell us you have been lurking on this site for some time and have been spurred to post only by this one thread? Come now, there's a good chap, stop insulting our intelligence (that is not a request that is an order).
I note the similarities between your own ill-informed flowery prose and those of the esteemed nightclub owner Ray Hall - are you one and the same? Frankly passages such as the following are offensive to our sensibilities.
Creating a replica Palace on the site of the original, the highest point in South London, opening up views towards London (and visible from miles away) will draw people to the area. Tourists will come here and spend their money. Employment will be created. And at long last, the park will be a coherent whole again.
This is just puff. Your argument has no basis. Given your close association to this abhorrent proposal how about some hard facts? You know the ones, things like projected visitor numbers, projections on extra traffic, revenue pumped into the local economy, CO2 emissions in tonnes (during build and beyond) and % of the supposed '1000 jobs' created being set-aside for those living within a 2mile radius...
You know the things we mean, the sort of pesky little details that people need to know in order to make an informed decision rather than just the flannel you have assaulted my monitor with.
This, for the sake of repetition for you 'DerBrenster' is a vulgar cinema complex with underground parking and naff shops tabbed onto the side. To pose the question 'do we go to the cinema' is weak. Yes, I do go to the cinema. I frequent Beckenham Cinema as I did yesterday evening to watch Burn After Reading by the Coen's. I do not eat in McDonald's and do not shop in 'The Officers' Club' therefore I am not interested in this assault on my senses, which is what the eventual ‘Chav Pallis, innit’ would be...
I put it to you again that this is a ghastly shopping-mall type affair for the local ruffians to hang about in. You have no appreciation of what would be a worthy and complimentary addition to the site. The only reason you are 'hanging your hat' on the Crystal Palace angle is to get past planning permission!
Tell me I'm wrong...Paxton, I assure you, would not be in any way shape or form delighted with this proposal. And I'm not a NIMBY; this proposal is simply not becoming and besmirches the name of 'The Crystal Palace at Sydenham'.
Hmm, I'd be happy with the LDA's plans, but then I'd also have been happy with a multiplex on the site too. Or a CP rebuild. Frankly, the Odeon in Beckenham is cramped, hot and rubbish. It could do with decent some competition.
Anything is better than an unaccessible, derelicit waste of space the top site is now.
And all this BS about worrying about traffic: There's two train stations within a 15 minute walk, loads of bus routes, a bus station, and (hopefully) a tram route up to the top site. In most areas of the country, people would kill for those public transport connections. If people really care about a few hundred more car journeys in an area that already has thousands per day, then make it a requirement not to have a car park on the site.
Just get off your collective asses and do something about the park. I am bored of living next to a semi-derelict wreck.
Anything is better than an unaccessible, derelicit waste of space the top site is now.
And all this BS about worrying about traffic: There's two train stations within a 15 minute walk, loads of bus routes, a bus station, and (hopefully) a tram route up to the top site. In most areas of the country, people would kill for those public transport connections. If people really care about a few hundred more car journeys in an area that already has thousands per day, then make it a requirement not to have a car park on the site.
Just get off your collective asses and do something about the park. I am bored of living next to a semi-derelict wreck.
This is the link I mentioned in my earlier post if anyone is interested:
http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/viewtopic. ... d5aaa9df0b
Does anyone know when we will hear more about the official plans? The last I seem to remember is that they had been submitted for planning approval - is that right?
http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/viewtopic. ... d5aaa9df0b
Does anyone know when we will hear more about the official plans? The last I seem to remember is that they had been submitted for planning approval - is that right?
Sorry greg, but the millenium done coped with no cars and 10 million visitors in it's first year, making it the most visited attraction in the uk EVER.
Even now it (the 02) copes very well with thousands of visitors (and has been incredibly successful). I saw madonna at Wembley and was home in Sydenham within 1 hour 20 minutes of the concerts end.
I really don't think with a tram link, gypsy hill, anerley and crystal palace train stations, a large bus station transport is that much of a problem.
As for how the development will look, finding etc, that's another matter.
I think the crystal palace should be celebrated in some way, and not just left to fester to the sorry state it is now in (however some parts covered in plants like some mystical mayan ruin do hold a romantic image). How that is done is a matter for debate. I don't believe it should be buried beneath a poor copy of Paxtons masterpiece that could deminish the wonder that you get at the sheer scale of the site, although a faithful representation of the building could be a thing of wonder.
Even now it (the 02) copes very well with thousands of visitors (and has been incredibly successful). I saw madonna at Wembley and was home in Sydenham within 1 hour 20 minutes of the concerts end.
I really don't think with a tram link, gypsy hill, anerley and crystal palace train stations, a large bus station transport is that much of a problem.
As for how the development will look, finding etc, that's another matter.
I think the crystal palace should be celebrated in some way, and not just left to fester to the sorry state it is now in (however some parts covered in plants like some mystical mayan ruin do hold a romantic image). How that is done is a matter for debate. I don't believe it should be buried beneath a poor copy of Paxtons masterpiece that could deminish the wonder that you get at the sheer scale of the site, although a faithful representation of the building could be a thing of wonder.
-
Pat Trembath
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 10:54
Latest information about the Masterplan is that it is due to be discussed at a special Planning Committee at Bromley Council on 9 December, when a decision should be taken.
Over the past eighteen months there has been an awful lot of hot air expelled about Ray Hall's new Crystal Palace plans. No planning application or supporting documents have been ever been submitted to Bromley for consideration.
Any such supporting documents will have to provide some very strong arguments as to why the top site of the park should have a change of use designation from Metropolitan Open Land to "land suitable for major development."
Following the failure of the earlier plans for a 20-screen multiplex cinema on this site there was a Public Inquiry held in 2005 and the Planning Inspectorate came down firmly in favour of Metropolitan Open Land and Bromley subsequently changed its own planning policies to comply with this decision.
Over the past eighteen months there has been an awful lot of hot air expelled about Ray Hall's new Crystal Palace plans. No planning application or supporting documents have been ever been submitted to Bromley for consideration.
Any such supporting documents will have to provide some very strong arguments as to why the top site of the park should have a change of use designation from Metropolitan Open Land to "land suitable for major development."
Following the failure of the earlier plans for a 20-screen multiplex cinema on this site there was a Public Inquiry held in 2005 and the Planning Inspectorate came down firmly in favour of Metropolitan Open Land and Bromley subsequently changed its own planning policies to comply with this decision.