Some good and telling points being made here. I hope though that someone from the CPCA is a member of the forum to put their side of the story and to answer the very pertinent questions raised by Gekko.

We are one of many representations of the local community and probably one of the most vocal. I think we are taken seriously by local businesses and organisations, but we are united by the fact that we are technologically advantaged and information rich. In this we are privileged as we have the means to make our voices heard. There is a large demographic in the Norwood area who don't share this privilege and whose voices probably go largely unheard.

I think in getting excited about our perceived ability to change things via the forum, we should not forget that we represent one small group of local residents. Whilst I think we need to use our voice, we shouldn't get too carried away. In my previous question about who the CPCA represents, there is a implied reciprocal question about whom the VN forum members represent.

The CPCA's stance can be seen as rather reactionary but on the other hand there is a very important point of principle here

This will be the first time that a major london park will be regenerated by the sale of part of the parkland itself. It has potentially very wide repercussions not only for CP but for other London parks and development policy in general.

I have to say that I have some sympathy with those who object to developing the park through a PPP initiative.

Bluntly since the estimated costs is going to be £100 million and only £20 million is generated from the sales I ask myself why the £20 million cannot be raised from taxation rather than sales. We already pay a very significant part of our Council tax towards the Mayors Office and the LDA itself has a budget of over £400 million (300 million of which is funded by taxation) and we are soon going to be paying more tax (some of which will be diverted to the LDA) to fund the Olympics.

Personally I still believe that paying tax is a two way street - as an individual you pay tax in return for macro benefits like the provision of decent publicly accessible green space. In my view the up keep of large park of significant regional and historical importance is something that firmly falls into what I expect my taxes to be spent on.

I agree the "no to everything" stance of the CPCA offers no solutions but equally the "but the LDA is all that's on the table and if we reject it what then ?" school of thought is just as blinkered because it ignores the fact that this is purely because the Mayors Office has [i]decided [/ (without including it as an option in thw consultation) not to commit significant public funding.

The fact that the LDA also remains stubbornly silent about how the shortfall in funding is to be met convinces me that we are being asked to approve a scheme without the full facts. In those circumstances saying "no" looks like reasonable caution rather than reckless negativity.

There is a subtle but important difference between the consultation exercise carried out by the LDA with the public and the one being held in meetings facilitated by Nigel Westaway, which they sponsor. The LDA lays claim to both activities as consultation.

I would be happier with the LDA if they didn't call it consultation. The posters and plans they put on show are part of an information roadshow. I am slightly put out by some of the 'puff' that comes from the LDA when they say they have consulted the local community. The LDA never knocked on the door of the Chamber of Commerce to ask for the views of traders. Those involved in the Westaway process have been involved in rationalising the park's requirements as a group exercise and have also been asked to represent themselves personally, not as a group, which was a technical stumbling block for the CPCA.

You are right to suggest that withdrawl can cut them off from effective representation. I only know too well. But save for them, the LDA appear unopposed.

I can draw a parallel with the Chamber's withdrawl from Croydon's Parking proposals for the area this year. Basically the parking proposals they came up with were insubstantial and would not address the parking problems properly, merely keep us occupied with discussing them. They involved us in hastily convened meetings that failed to bring all the appropriate parties together (i.e. certain people conspicuously absent). Their proposals were biased and self supporting (e.g. asking people for support for disabled parking bays but failing to tell them it meant loss of existing regular parking bays).

After several meetings, lots of emails and hours spent discussing it with Croydon the Chamber felt it was unable to support their proposal, also citing lack of credibility dealing with previous issues. On 5th October the Cabinet meeting at Croydon Council said (ref: TMCC051005R18)...2.1: In August and September residents and businesses were informally consulted on the possibility of altering the length of stay of the parking bays in Upper Norwood Triangle and the removal of parking restrictions in some of the bays. ... 3.1: 1250 questionnaires were delivered to residents and businesses within the Upper Norwood area. ... 164 responses were received which represents a 13% response rate. Although relatively low the majority of residents do not live in the Triangle area and therefore are not directly affected by the proposals and this is a similar rate of return to the original consultation in 2000. ... 3.4: It is clear from the results of the consultation that the majority of residents and businesses in and around the triangle are in favour of the proposed extension of the maximum stay of the bays from 30 minutes to 1 hour and also the removal of the restrictions in all but two loading bays. ... and all of that without a single mention of the breakdown of support from the Chamber of Commerce. A low response rate from people mainly outside the area and a claim of majority support. What a sham.

The CPCA have stepped out from supporting the LDA for lots of reasons, best explained in their newsletter and (possibly, I haven't checked) their web site. The LDA assured them that housing wasn't going to be included in proposals and has changed its stance. I'm sure that people can make up their own minds about the housing issues but at least the CPCA challenge for the LDA has stimulated critical opinion on the proposals that is clearly needed.

It makes you think doesn't it? If you step off the beaten track you risk being sidelined into the footnotes of history. I hope the CPCA know what they've bitten off and can deal with the pressure that will be brought to bear on them.

During the fight against the multiplex, I am pretty sure that the CPCA were actually in favour. It was the CPC and of course the activists, who fought it.

The CPCA pulled out of the Westaway process for three reasons: because of the condfidentiality agreement - this was necessary and I will give you an example of why. We were asked to consider whether moving the caravan site and redeveloping that corner of the park with new playground, nurseries for plants, gardens for children, new park rangers headquarters and information building would be a good idea. Obviously without a confidentiality agreement, someone may have told the owner of the caravan site that he was going before before it had been decided or anyone had told him officially. Surely this is not too hard to grasp.

Another reason they left was that they were told that they would have to represent themselves for a while instead of their group. This was essential if we were going to analyse the consultaton results in an unbiased way.

And lastly - because they were told that housing would not be used as a driver for the funding - Personally, I remember being told that it would only be used as a last resort but in any case, they may dissagree with this but in my opinion they should still let the public decide. The housing element of the scheme in all the brochures for everyone to see but really if we are talking about guilt by ommission, I don't think the CPCA can talk. They continue to get signatures for their petition by telling people that the LDA are building all over the park without a word about the improvements that the housing will pay for.

Nobody minds people having different opinions, to be honest in the beginning I was not sure one way or the other and I made a concious decision not to make up my mind, but to let the public consultation show what people wanted. The CPCA's blanket refusal to accept the views of others and their twisted portrayal of the process became hard to ignore.

The last straw was when they pitched a tent on the land that the LDA had hired for for the consultation event. They stood outside telling everyone that the LDA wanted to build all over the park without telling them about any of the improvements. In order to make sure that people actually went in to the consultation event, we had to produce a notice board telling people what they would miss out on if they signed the CPCA petition . We did not approach or talk to people. We just stayed to make sure the board remained in place.

You may think that the CPCA had every right to be there, but let me put this to you. My personal wish for the park is to rebuild the Crystal Palace. I could have put up a tent outside and lobbied people to put that on their questionaires but I didn't because I was confident that if people wanted it, they would say so. That is what public consultation is all about. What of the other 150 groups in the process? Should they all of set up a tent putting forward their prefferences? Does the CPCA really think the public are so stupid that they can't consider the facts for themselves? What is wrong here is that a local community association, one which I might add I thought was growing into something worthwhile, has been hijacked by a small group of people for their own ends.

What happens after this issue is settled? Will they continue to be a green group? Why don't they become a branch of the National wildlife Trust? Will residents who are not adversed to every form of development in the park have a place in their community association? I suggest not. Everyone should be entitled to their opinion.

Sorry to go on but I received the most hideous piece of hate mail imaginable today as a result of my views and my tolerance levels are low.

Note: edited by weeble just to add some paragraphs, text remains unchanged

Ever heard of paragraphs, Silver ?!

We were accosted by the CPCA on the way to the LDA marquee the other week, and then again as we crossed The Parade to the corner of the park on Bonfire night as part of the crowd heading for the firework display !
We were informed of the "outrage" (or something alon those lines) that was planned for the park and asked to sign a petition.
It seemed that a couple of weeks ago we couldn't go near the "triangle gate" without being stopped and told what to think !

I'll make my own mind up.

My limited experience of the CPCA is quite a simple one.

I encountered one of them outside Morriways at the weekend and, whatever the rights and wrongs of their arguments, you wouldn't want to work with them because of the circular and emotive nature of their arguments.

I can fully understand concerns about building housing on public spaces but incoherent ranting is not effective currency in any debate.

Other people in this forum obviously have a far more detailed knowledge of the CPCA, but from my own short encounter with them, given the complexities and the importance of the future of the Park, I'm not sure that their contribution brings anything other than heat to the table.

And I agree with Loplop. I don't appreciate being told what to think. I'll reach my own conclusions.

Exactly...let the facts speak for themselves and let the people make their own mind up.

That is utterly despicable. I would strongly suggest Silver that you contact your local PFH (Protection from harrassment) officer - I believe there is one based at Brixton Police Station. Although their remit is directed more towards anti stalking and anti racism they should take any complaint you send them seriously. The sending of mail designed to harass or distress is a criminal offence under the Protection from Harrassment Act punishable by a custodial sentence.

I've added a few - hope you don't mind Silver! I haven't edited to content though.

I do think in the long run the CPCA are just shooting themselves in the foot because LDA will now surely treat all the 'anti' housing sentiment expressed during the consultation with a pinch of salt because they will assume people have been 'brainwashed' by the CPCA on the way in! And at the same time they are alienating a large part of the community they suggest to be representing!

I can see how the Westaway process may have frustrated them, but as James points out, if you are not in it, you get excluded, and if you are not in it and then protest against it, you risk being disregarded completely.

Not saying this is the way things should be but in the current situation the CPCA do seem to be thier own worst enemies.

I can't believe how kind people are on VN. Where else would someone do your paragraphs for you. Beyond the cause of duty Weeble and very much appreciated! Thankyou.

Do you think their generosity will stretch to Housework.

Dazza

I like Silver's from-the-heart-stream-of-conciousness-posts.
That one a while back about her eventful day was fantastic !

As to the CPCA, it appears they're hasselling the poor residents of CP before they even get the chance to enter our dreary-last-legs-supermarket to find empty shelves and empty hearts.

Go easy on us, please.

Well, I've made up my mind. I will not support selling of parts of the park, and will probably put some effort stop it. That means I'll have to search for the CPCA petition. ...Sorry Silver

I hold strong views on land use, views that get stronger as the years go by. I find it unbelievable that London Parkland could be sold off for housing. When I work as a Land Surveyor I see instances all over the country of developers or councils gobbling up land. The argument that we would be selling of land that we are not currently using sounds just like another land-grab scam. As more and more land is developed and urbanised, it is vital that we protect parkland. I dont agree its right to sell land to improve the remaining. I believe this should come from taxes. I just cant agree to selling off land.

I expected the practice of locating "social uses" in the park that are hard to argue against. A nursery, a school for disabled, etc... But housing? I cant believe the audacity of it. In case you’re wondering, I am against loosing land to any "non-park" use. That means I am against the children's nursery. A nursery is needed, but locating it on parkland is just a way of acquiring land cheaply. Then, as Bromley did, you can use some of the revenue from the park to fund the nursery. There is an abandoned primary school rotting away down in Anerley, it would make a perfect nursery. A small section of it this land may be used for a "social use" but I'm willing to bet most of the land will be sold off for housing.

The huge nature of the of the development means there a lot of likes and dislikes but two “personal” issues stand out

1. - The consultation initially evolved from the Bromley’s disastrous plans for the top-site.
I feel the process has too many people linked to the top-site that see all issues from the top of the hill. Why is the consultation process (Nigel Westaway) held in Upper Norwood? Shouldn’t it be held in the Crystal Palace Ward, maybe in Anerley Town Hall? If it had maybe someone would have noticed there are 30 acres of abandoned sports fields just across the road from the park. Land Southwark Council wishes to sell off. Shouldn’t the fate of this land have been linked with the National Sports Centre? Why is land in the park given up for a football pitch, when we can have 30 "across the road"?

2. - I don’t trust the LDA or Ken Livingstone. It not an aggressive or political distrust. I just believe they see the park differently to us.
The GLA have a lack of land they can use, but constantly hold events and political rallies that require land. They need land! When the LDA have control of the park I fear that the locals will come second to LDA’s London requirements. They state they wish to hold concerts, events, and rallies in the Park. I need a guarantee that the park will not be treated as an event/concert/rallie ground.

Well, I'm off to find a petition

Great posting Axean - I may not agree with all you say, but I'm glad to see some different views on this really important issue being expressed in an open and non-confrontational way.

Just one thought - I was interested about the abandoned playing fields point - I take it you mean those between Anerley Road and the railway line. Madness that they are not being used as a proper green space whether for recreation or ecology. Is it Southwark that wants to sell them off - or do you mean Bromley?

I totally agree with Axean's view that it is difficult to justify much of the proposals when there are alternative local sites for much of what is included

Indeed I would add the further issue of whether Housing on the Norwood gate site could be justified if , as is one possibility , the morrisons site was sold for housing - any plans to put housing on the park would surely have to pass a "local need " test.

If the morrisons site went then what "need" would there be for more housing so near to the triangle ?

I am worried that Axean feels it necessary to apologise to me for stating his opinion. I have never denied anyone their opinion. I have my opinion which is in no way set in stone but I simply want public consutlation and I, unlike others, would be happy to live with the results of such consultation.

The meetings were originally held in Anerley Town Hall. The normal meetings were held appropriately I feel, in the park at the lodge and some main group meetings were held in Upper Norwood.

The nursery school in the park is replacing one that is already in the park and is being moved to make room for the housing.

The vacant site down Anerley Hill behind the tow hall, owned by Southwark, was considered by the facilitation process as an alternative site for the sports centre but most people wanted it to remain in the park itself. You could argue that this should have gone out to consultation but noone would have thought for one minute that the land would still be available when the consultation occured and I suspect that we would have encountered the same problems when it came to building on it.

The number of events is an issue and it is one of my personal concerns though overall I think it would be exciting to have things going on on our doorstep.

In conclusion I will not apologise for my views and I will not expect anyone to apologise for theirs. The consultation was supposed to stop people fighting for their own agendas. It doesn't matter how loaded you think the consultation was, if large numbers of people say they don't like the proposals, there is no way they could go ahead.

I didn’t mean to suggest anything negative. Just meant to start off the post by making light of the fact that I was going against what I perceived was the more popular view. Problem with posting on the Internet is that post will always be read differently to the way you want them to be. Now I'm stuck in a vicious circle, and somebody will read something into this reply that is not meant to be there.

I am surprised and disappointed that the playing fields were known about but left out of the consultation/plans for the park. The consultation talks about how its plans can regenarate the area around the park. It puts forward the idea of selling off land to provide amenities that will improve the triangle, but doesnt mention the abandoned playing fields in Anerley? Another reason to think there is some bias towards Upper Norwood in this process.

I think Southwark Council still own the land. I provided a couple of links in the post, one of which (I think) answered this. But the links just look like I have underlined points. So here they are again
1- The first link was a map showing the location of the abandoned playing fields south of the park.
Click here
2-The second link is to a PDF file produced by Southwark council. I feel they are obliged to take the greatest amount of money can for the site. They don’t appear apposed to a change of use that would mean housing on the site.
Click here

I have just heard heard that channel5 have just won the rights to a new broadcasting slot on DTT. They'll be paying more than 12million a year. Within 8 years there could be more than 150 TV channels broadcasting from the mast. Then you have DAB and the other small users. That mast is turning into a cash cow. Was the status of the “television mast”, land used by Crown Castle talked about? The LDA appear willing to take back the fishing lake, and relocate the Camp Site. If the LDA had the power to take back that land and make Crown Castle pay a fair rent then all our finance problems could be solved.

I agree with Axean. If part of the park is used for housing it will set a precedent for the rest of London's green spaces. Heritage Lottery money is being used at the moment to work up a plan to spruce up Brockwell Park. If the LDA get the green light to build housing on Crystal Palace Park I am worried that the same will happen to Brockwell Park.

Secondly I don't see how they can justify spending £50 million on planting a few trees and greening over some car parks. Fair enough, spend £50 million on a totally new sports centre, but not another £50 million on doing park maintenance that should have been done over the years regardless.

I think this is an important opportunity for Upper Norwood, but I don't think people living in the area should make such a huge compromise as selling off parts of parkland in return for the promise of regeneration.

I don't wish to be rude but do you really believe what you wrote? If you were just being flippant, then excuse me but If you do really believe that to be the case, then you really should try to get hold of the consultation document as I feel you need a bit more information before finally making up your mind.

Too late. Just posted my response to the consultation in which I stated that the LDA were morally bankrupt to suggest selling off parkland.

I attended the Norwood Area Committee last week and listened to a representative presenting the proposals and I have a copy of the consultation document. If you think I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick, why don't you tell me where I am misguided rather than personally attacking me.

I imagine that a reasonable chunk of money for the greening and restoration of the park will come from Heritage Lottery Funding. Selfishly, I would rather lottery funding come to Crystal Palace Park than go elsewhere.

Again, I would ask the question of the LDA as to how the project is to be funded and, was an alternative scheme looked at which did not involve selling off parts of the park.

I think the LDA have failed to explain the regeneration aspects of the project convincingly enough. They really do need to resolve all the unanswered questions before even thinking of going to planning. Otherwise, they will have a massive battle on their hands when the planning applications go in and we will be back at square one.

Reflecting on the consultation/exhibition process, I do think the LDA have made a mistake in not presenting the more detailed reasoning behind the proposals together with initial cost plans.

My other point is that if they don't have the funds available without the housing option, then why the big rush. Why don't they do the sports centre etc. and search for some funds for the rest of the proposals and take their time rather than rush through the work raising cash from property development. I think the Mayor made some hasty promises on the back of the Olympic bid, and now is struggling to fund the Olympics and the park regeneration. My view is it's better to wait a bit longer than rush in and regenerate in this way.

Basically past caring I dont think the ordinairy person will have a say in the final outcome it seems to me the powers to be are quite happy to let seperate independant groups shout it out & when no one can see eye to eye they will just put into place what they want.

However I dont think this would be an issue in any of the royal parks do you !

Dazza

Good point Dazza. I can't see them building villas in Kensington Gardens!

I have just returned from a fact-finding mission (or was it a holiday?) in San Francisco, and spoke with a few people there about the plans for the park. San Francisco has a strong tradition of neighbourhood participation and activism, and everyone I spoke to was astonished at the acceptibility (to some) of selling off parkland in order to fund development. I guess it's easy to accept that since no one else has ever done anything much for the park, then the LDA's option is the only way of doing things... but I was doubtful before and these conversations have convinced me that any form of disposal of public assets is not the way to go. A lot more imagination is required - and I'm not sure the LDA is big on imagination.

I should add I was also green with envy after having visited the new de Young Museum in Golden Gate Park - an astonishing building funded largely by private donations (more than 7000 people donated amounts ranging from $5 to $10 million). Quite some contrast to selling off land for developers to do with as they please...

I think San Francisco is a whole different ballgame to Crystal Palace. Many of its communities and its history is built up of people who have had to take an activist role in their lives, be it fighting for gay rights, environmental rights, rights of immigrants etc. So consequently their culture of community solidarity and action is far greater than ours.

London is a very displaced city with regard to community...we seldom even know our neighbours. Community enterprise and initiative is scarce. If the community really wanted the park to be developed under their terms with no compromise, then the community should have initiated and led those talks many years ago to facilitate a culture of participation and activism for future generations. Unfortunately, we live in a culture where people only act when the iron is hot or when a problem rears its head.

The LDA are now offering us a lifeline to regenerate our declining park and surrounding area, and we really shouldn't be turning our noses up at it as it's the best offer we're going to get. The grant makers don't care or they would have done something years ago.

Grant makers aren't going to care if people don't shout out and be counted. If enough people let their voices be heard and say they want some investment in the park and keep going on about it then the money will eventually come. It's up to those using the park and living and working in the Palace to stand up and be counted. I don't think we should accept the LDAs proposals and I personally think this is one battle we will win against them, because of the precedent it would set.

I never suggested that you got hold of the wrong end of the stick and my arguments have been laid out in detail on this site for people who read first and then react. I have respect for anyone who decides that the no housing in park principle is more important than the improvements, I just wish they would stop saying that all the LDA have planned is greening of the centre and a few trees because that obviously is not the case and saying is obviously likely to cause an adverse reaction.

Fair enough. I think the CPCA have every right to campaign wherever they like. It's a free country and anyone else can do the same thing. If the CPCA has been hijacked by a small group of people then it must be because other people within the group have let that happen. I can understand local people want Crystal Palace to benefit from the park improvements, but consider this - Is it morally right to put gentrification of the area before loss of park land?

Yes because parkland that is not used to its full advantage won't sustain the area economically and socially for future generations. Gentrification will at least give us a fighting chance at ensuring that our community remains sustainable and makes a place where people want to live and remain living.

Why does using a park to it's full advantage have to include building private housing?

Or indeed shops, I wonder sometimes. A park is meant to be open grass/plants space, after that who cares? Why is it the job of the park to sustain the area economically? Surely thats what jobs and businesses are for? The park is meant to give us a rest from all that economics at the weekend!

There is one point that is continually being overlooked by those against the LDA,s plans. A huge area of the park which has been lost will be returned to parkland, so the proposals will very much be a net gain. Surely it is better to have focused development on the periphery rather than smack bang in the middle as is currently the case.

Exactly...that way the periphery development helps sustain the rest the area.

What is the point of having all this open space if the surrounnding community shops/businesses are struggling and failing because nobody wants to come to the area because the park is run down and therefore attracting drunks and frequent violent incidents? Our area is falling down a slippery slope which the LDA is offering to pull us up from.

I don't think we can afford the luxury of biding our time till a better offer comes along or digging our heels in about setting a precedent about selling off parkland.

I cant speak for everyone opposed to the LDA's land selling proposals, but I haven't overlooked anything obvious. I just see things differently.
As far as I know, the areas of the park we cannot access have been leased out. These leases will eventually end, the land can be reclaimed.

This park could be here for hundreds of years, the demand for for land to build on should increase.
I consider it important that parkland is not built on, or has its use gradually and imperceptibly changed over the years.

For me, and I believe many others, our views are down to a principle.
I'll say it again, I haven't missed anything obvious.
We just have different priorities and principles.

Good debate.

An aside - heard on the radio this morning that Heritage Lottery Fund grants are being reduced because the money is now going towards the Olympic Project. No wonder the LDA are being tight lipped about how the Park redevelopment is going to be funded!!

A Christmas Story

Mr. and Mrs. Smith were at their wits end. Their three children had no money to go to the cinema or bowling and so they roamed the streets causing trouble. The Smiths had a garden but it was out of bounds as it had not been tended to for over fifty years. One day a police officer phoned Mrs. Smith to say that her son had been nicked for criminal damage. Christmas was coming and Mrs. Smith made a decision. She had been leasing out her garage at the bottom of the garden and the lease was coming to an end. She quickly advertised it and sold it within a week. With the proceeds she hired a gardening company to turn her unusable garden into a beautiful space with a football goal and half pint. She purchased a small shed where her husband could show the children simple carpentry. She bought a wendy house for the youngsters and had a vegetable garden planted so that she could provide cheap healthy veg for the whole family.

The moral is that it is sometimes good to lose some to obtain more.

Years later Mr Smith got a job which required him to have a car. Unfortunately the garage had been sold and so he had nowhere to park it, and had to turn down the job.

The moral of the story is you don't know what you've got till its gone, paint palace space and dig an underground parking lot

If we are now reduced to applying moral stories to the Crystal Palace Park Redevelopment debate then that is the best response you could have given Matt!

Yes, but sometimes you have to tell a story in simplistic terms to get the point across instead of using jargon.

I just want to live in an area where people are actually using the services on a regular basis, where our shops are thriving, our Park is actually being utilised to its full and proper extent, where people are trading, socialising and working together as a community. Can you honestly say that Crystal Palace fits that model at the moment? We live in an area that is in extreme decline and no amount of extra green space is going to save that unless there is something on it that people actually want to use or visit. That opportunity is with us now, so let's support it.

1)

CRYSTAL PALACE FIRE ANNIVERSARY


Next Wednesday 30th November at 7pm there will be a short ceremony on site to commemorate the 69th Anniversary of the Crystal Palace Fire.

Meet at Café Paradou (The Crystal Palace Corner Café!) on Crystal Palace Parade from 6.30pm onwards.

This is also to the day the first anniversary of the opening of Café Paradou and free coffee and a cake will be offered to those who attend.



John Greatrex
(Paxton’s Crystal Palace Corner Project)
tel: 020 8778 1865
email: josephpaxton@hotmail.com








2)

BUILDING ON THE CRYSTAL PALACE FOUNDATIONS

Transcript of speech
given to
The Norwood Society
at
All Saints’ Parish Rooms
November 22nd 2005 8pm


Thank you, Peter, for inviting me to address the Norwood Society
for a few minutes this evening on the topic:

BUILDING ON THE CRYSTAL PALACE FOUNDATIONS.

The Crystal Palace foundations stretch the length of Crystal Palace Parade.

Built into the foundations to the northeast is the BBC Transmitter Mast;
to the southwest resting on the foundations is the bus station.

Between and beyond these two structures lie the buried remains of the Crystal Palace Foundations, covered according to Henry Buckland with 385,000 tons of bombed housing from Doodlebug Alley.

At present there is nothing on these foundations to remind either the resident or visitor of the unique historical significance of this site – yet the Crystal Palace has been famous all over the world for the last 150 years.

Its significance in the history of architecture places it beside the Parthenon and the pyramids. It was the first major prefabricated public building. It was one of the first examples of ‘modern architecture’.

Its importance in our island’s history is on par with Stonehenge and that jewel of the first Elizabethan Age, now resurrected on the northern boundary of Southwark, Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre. Our Crystal Palace is the flower of the Victorian Age.

I can remember when working at the sports centre in the 70’s being asked by foreign spectators at the international athletics meetings, “Where is the Crystal Palace?”
All one could do was point to the top of the hill and say, “Sorry, you’re 35 or 40 years too late!”

To help answer that question, with the advice of the Norwood Society and the encouragement especially of John Yaxley, I had the good fortune and privilege to be one of a small band of Crystal Palace Anoraks who established an organisation that would focus attention on the Crystal Palace foundations.

The inspiration for setting up the Crystal Palace Foundation arose directly from reading Alan Warwick’s ‘The Phoenix Suburb’ and his accounts of the three Crystal Palace Exhibitions mounted by the Norwood Society during the 1960’s, for which the Duke of Edinburgh in his role as President of the 1851 Royal Commission, acted as Patron.

The Crystal Palace Foundation has during the intervening years established a small museum in the park which tells of Crystal Palace Past.

The Present and Future are the subject of a current lengthy consultation between a wealth of interested local, regional and national parties and individuals.

What appears to emerged so far from the consultation is a general agreement concerning the future re-siting of a number of the sports centre’s facilities in order to make them more user friendly and to return the centre of the park to open parkland, thereby reuniting the top and bottom ends of the park which have been split since the 1960’s.

There is considerable agreement also that the large areas between the sports centre and the Paxton designed terracing (Stonepenge) which are currently tarmaced for car parking should be reinstated as green parkland.

What of the hilltop itself?

‘To build or not to build?’ that is a question. A question that has only arisen in the last few years.

For the last 69 years a procession of planners and architects have viewed this exposed ridge of the southern hills of England’s capital city with an intensity verging at times on the obsessive.

To quote one local observer, the site has become ‘a feeding frenzy for the ambitious.’

The proposed new national exhibition centre originally planned during the late 1950’s to compliment the national sports centre was eventually erected on an even more ambitious scale in the southeast suburbs of Birmingham.

It is a fact that every one of the hundreds of suggestions since 1936 including the 1970’s viewing tower proposed by the Norwood Society at the time of the Queen’s Silver Jubilee; the 1980’s hotel complex; the 1990’s cinema multiplex; and the 20 naughties’ crystal pod or the more recent gateway housing share one basic architectural similarity, one indisputable but totally relevant fact.
And that is…………….none of them are designed by Joseph Paxton.

In my own opinion, nothing so far proposed by architect or planner as yet comes near to being a worthy and sympathetic architectural addition to the historically important summit of Paxton’s Crystal Palace Park.

To translate John Lennon into Latin, “All we are saying is give Pax a chance!’

Please, if anything (apart from Paxton’s Crystal Palace Corner which has planning permission and for which I thank everyone for their support and encouragement) if anything else is to be built on Paxton’s foundations, please let it be also made from the Crystal Palace parts designed by Joseph Paxton.

And please let it look like the world famous Crystal Palace - that shape those tourists back in the 70’s hoped to see on visiting this country – the style and shape that 9 out of 10 local people said the would prefer to the multiplex – the building the membership of the Crystal Palace Foundation voted for back in 1997.

Bromley Council, the planning authority for the topsite gave an undertaking to the House of Commons Committee when the 1990 Crystal Palace Act was passed:
“In consultation with the Crystal Palace Foundation the Council shall require any development of the relevant land carried out pursuant to the provisions of this Bill shall include provision of exhibition space on the history of the Palace and park.”

I believe the greatest exhibit of the Crystal Palace is the Crystal Palace and we need look no further for a more appropriately designed building to go on the Crystal Palace foundations.

Paxton’s Crystal Palace Site is historically far too important to surrender to the latest architectural fad.

Alan Warwick wrote of the Norwood Society’s Crystal Palace Exhibitions that the purpose was to bring back to South Londoners a reminder of the forgotten glories of the Crystal Palace district. A district that had evolved spontaneously with the Crystal Palace as its focus point, much as a seaside resort evolves from its own seafront. Take the inspiration away and the effect can be disastrous.

I would like to help bring that inspiration back – and one little bit will be Paxton’s Crystal Palace Corner.

The short visual presentation you are about to see has been produced by a fellow Crystal Palace enthusiast, produced as a direct response to those wishes expressed by the Crystal Palace Foundation membership in 1997 and I commend it to you for your consideration.

This is what could happen if we used a few more Paxton designed Crystal Palace Parts!

‘Crystal Palace’ CD Fly Through © PPI Nov 05
tel: 020 8269 2888











John Greatrex
(Paxton’s Crystal Palace Corner Project)
tel: 020 8778 1865
email: josephpaxton@hotmail.com

I will take Story telling over priggish condescention any day.

You guessed it... it's time for one of those...

Moderator's Notes
Need I say more? I think quite a few people have let personal remarks get the better of them. Please can I request a time-out on comments directed towards other members.

Before replying to this topic please pause before you hit the Add Reply button and consider whether you are adding to the discussion or responding to someone else's comments. If it is the latter, are your comments friendly or antagonistic?

Please, let's have a sensible debate

Be neighbourly and respect the opinions of other forum members!

Thought this link would excite everyone and lighten the mood a little. Can't wait!!

Fantastic - well spotted Charlie! An ice rink at the Palace - it probably deserves to be a new topic on entertainment & activities as well

Oh, I was wondering about that last night! I'm glad to hear it's happening.

New idea for park

A major new attraction established on the top site. A permanent exhibition and educational facility for urban gardening. An 'eden' for horticulture specialising in the urban environment. Incorporated within this complex, a permanent conference centre.

This would support at a sub regional level the proposal for the london ICC. The trerraces present an opportunity to be creative in how we provide additional facilities for exhibition space and vehicular accomodation. Their scale lends themselves to development of a lower level underground.

Responses please.


Moderator's Note
Replies posted in a new topic entitled "New idea for park" from 8th-16th January 2006 were general in nature, rather than discussing this new proposal. Therefore all posts have been moved into the existing topic for "Crystal Palace Park Redevelopment" so we don't end up with two lines of discussion and repeated comments.

I guess your on about Crystal palace park & Yeh, i'm into "An 'eden' for horticulture"..
I think the confrence centre idea is duff.. there is a confrence centre in the national sports stadium.. I belive all the park should be vegetation & no more construction....A huge pleasure garden with plants from around the world left to grow... It would be like a babylonian dream... Eden.... (maybe it should have a few sheds for storage & a tea hut... but thats it no more new build.. & no cars or coffee or mobile phone's..) Infact imagine if they let a primative giant ivy grow up and around the Palace Arial/Antenna.... Nice...

"It would be like a babylonian dream... Eden.... "

Yes, very nice but who would pay for it? I agree that a conference centre is not needed in CP (but I didn't know there was one in the NSC - so who uses it?). A conference centre would require residential accommodation on site (hotel) and a large car park.