I don't lknow the percentage of age groups in the area but there are mostly older people in influential positions ie committees, working groups etc. I suspect that this is because younger people seem to think that their time is more precious for some reason. Ironic when you think about it. We older people would love the young people to care enough about the area to participate, but they don't and I accept no responsibility for that. Similarly I take no responsibility for the lack of ethnic minorities giving time to such committees and working groups. That is also up to them not me.

I went to Saturdays 'CPP Main Group meeting' and thought I'd post some details about the meeting. But its very hard to remember detail so there will be some mistakes which others might be able to correct.

First off Tilman Latz, of Latz und Partner, (the master planners) gave a short speech. He showed a plan of the park and broke the plan down into areas and costs. Hopefully this will be available on the internet in a few weeks because its to difficult to describe. But I'll give some information I can remember. Plans were broken down dependant on money available and what could be achieved in the park. For some reason they were broken down on how important the park would become by distance.

A Revived Local Park will cost 40.5 millions and will include things like water management, some ponds, and playgrounds
An Enhanced Regional Park will need an additional 17.3million and would include Greenhouses, Cricket Pavilion, Subway/CPP Museum/Viewing Platform, water rill, Adventure Play Ground etc
A Nation Destination would need 9.4million more and would include Tree Top Walk, Aquarium Mist Garden, etc.
The plans still included a proposal to sell off land for housing.

We were asked to give views on housing and vote on several questions.
Most people are still against housing. The amount of housing has been reduced and will only bring in 12million. Many felt that amount didn't justify the problems selling of land would cause.
Many objected to to other proposals within the park, saying they weren't needed and if they weren't built we wouldn't have to sell land. But I felt this was just a way to block housing.
The housing will still overlook into the park, but would be green roofed.

We were also asked about other subjects such as security, lighting, and 'Park Interpretation'(museum/education/signposts)
The plan is to keep all the park open 24hrs a day, and light the main paths.
Housing looking over the park is meant to increase security.

Opening the park 24hrs a day and lighting it, is a big issue for me. I can see how this will increase security. The park is made up of hundreds of 'rooms' and easily damaged structures. It is not a large open field of barren mown grass like Clapam Common, we dont have the long views to see what's a in the general area but we do have hundreds of small areas. We also have many important and easily damaged features. Only last Tuesday the Waterfall Bridge was set alight and is now closed off.

Lighting (in the park areas) will drive nocturnal species out of the park. For some of these nocturnal species Crystal Palace Park and the lakes form a vital habitat.

As I said at the begining, details should soon be available on the internet. The plans need to be seen to be understood.

Thanks to Axean for an excellent overview. I also attended, with MrZiwa. He said that despite missing out on a beautiful Saturday, he felt is was very worthwhile to attend, as it gave us a more optimistic and matured view of the state of play for the future of the park. The meeting was actually pretty constructive overall, in comparison to the general mood of past meetings. Parties on both sides seemed to more or less be listening to each other. There are still some strong differences of opinion and some hard feelings over past history and a sense that ideas generated by a dedicated public in the past are being appropriated by a highly paid set of jonny-come-latelies. Some people still have ideas they'd like to get heard out more fully. But really, it felt as if some of the impossible chasms between factions have started to be bridged, and we might be able to move forward to a park where things are changing for the better.

I'll expand a little on the breakdown for the projects. This was a kind of 'triage' system, classifying different projects in the park redevelopment (as Axean listed them) with respect to their relative contribution to the park's profile or importance on a wider scale:
Revived local park - the objective is to meet the needs of local people
The most basic works are needed to keep it functioning as a park of importance for local people, but these projects will not add to its recognition on a wider scale, either regionally or inter/nationally. This primary level for the triage includes a whole range of maintenance works, and the price was a bit of a shocker - I'd say that £40.5M should be seen as the level of underinvestment over the past years. Furthermore, it was stated very clearly that if there is sale of land for housing, it would only be used for this basic and necessary work, not for the next two layers which could be seen as icing on the cake. This level of projects does not include many building works. (I'm happy to type out the full list of things in each catagory if anyone wants them). It was explicitly said that the decision has not yet been taken to sell parts of the park for housing. The current proposal, if there is a sale, is for 2.07 acres of footprint for housing. If the proposal gets submitted with the housing sale in it, this is not a certainty that the housing will a) be granted by Bromley and be followed through if it is granted.

Enhanced Regional Park - the objective is to make CPP a draw for all of London and boroughs far afield
as listed by Axean (with a few additions) however note that funding for Subway/CPP Museum/Viewing Platform is not included in the £17.3 budget. The funding for this group of things needs to be raised elsewhere. It strikes me that this is an excellent place for Silver's group to stump up the funds and help make the building on the topsite a reality.

(Inter)National Destination - an enhanced draw for tourists from all over
This would require some unusual additions the likes of which people would be discussing from all around. To complete Axean's list, we were given 4 projects in this catagory: Tree Top Walk, Aquarium Mist Garden, Paxton Spring and critically (considering recent discussion on this forum) the Energy Tower(s). Funding for the last project is not included in the £9.4M.

Now for some opinions. I found this a pretty sensible breakdown of projects. They are listed in an order of urgency and relevance for the local community, with priority to the 1st level. Its important to look at what is included in the budgets, and then realize that money needs to be raised beyond the £70M for some of the either bigger investment projects or lesser priority projects. This also means that some of the more imaginative/promotional/glitsy projects are not necessarily locked in to the park rejuvenation plan. I'd think this is a good thing -it would be a cryin' shame to build fancy Energy Towers and not have enough money to stabilize the walls of the terrace foundations. The Energy Towers are a marvy idea, full of 'vision and innovation' but they will not necessarily work very well as they are a demonstration project, and it is guaranteed that they'd be out of date quickly (unless our energy technology sector stalls in R&D just after they are constructed, in which case we are all stuffed).

Another important point is that completing the full roster of projects is projected to take a long time to implement. This is a plan for a 15-year agenda. That makes some of these decisions more important, as we are setting a really long term course. It also makes some of the decisions less critical, as in 5 years time the options for implementing them may change.

There was an uncomfortable lack of concrete suggestions on where to turn for funding. A list was given that included lots of lottery funding, private-public partnerships, etc, but it will take a lot of hard work to get those funds. On the good side, I think the plan for the park is brilliant overall and most people are really getting behind the Latz 'vision thing'. That is the most critical point for drawing funding - vision and local support. Also, it was pointed out that if the job is done right it will increase in momentum. Not all the funding needs to be raised up front. The improvements can begin - in fact have begun - and the proof of concept will be on the ground. So the funding, while challenging, may start solving itself as the project gets going.

The housing issue is still a hot potato. My take on it is that if there were a way to iron-clad an agreement that building on the park will not set a precedent, the issue would become much much less contentious. Only a few people were really holding to an argument on principle alone. Others seemed to use the argument of principle to bolster their objection to the housing because they really see it as a camel's nose/slippery slope.

Finally, there are really a number of kinks to be worked out. I agree with Axean that we need to seriously consider the effects of lighting the park on the wildlife. I'm impressed by the specifications of the lighting presented by the landscape architects - a modest downlighting will potentially work - but we need data to decide, not just aethetic hunches. I think Axean's comment on the separation of the park into many 'rooms' is incredibly perceptive. This phrasing and conception has not been mentioned by the architects directly, and I think should be addressed. (It is related to the comment by someone at the last meeting, that one of the beauties of our park is its 'secret garden' effect). There was some very negative opinion on the potential aesthetics of a Tree Top Walk (though apparently the one at Kew has been so popular as to massively exceed expected visitorship and has received rave visitor reviews). Should the Energy Towers be retro or futuro (if they happen)? Latz et al said again that they value the trees highly, but there are likely to be some struggles over specific areas and what is considered 'necessary' cutting and what not. All of these points require attention.

Sorry I seem to have gone on a bit about this! (I'd postponed writing about it, as I knew there was lots to say, and I've got some crushing deadlines of my own.) It seemed like a worthwhile endeavour. If you are still interested after reading all this, then do try to get to the various outreach things being staged on the weekend.

From someone not involved, I gasped at the £40m figure. Frankly, if that is the amount of money required even just for stage one, and this will take 15 years!? I don't think its worth it, I'm quite happy leaving the park as it is for my children, rather than undertaking some amazingly costly project for my grandchildren. I think the area could probably find many more uses for that £40m (such as a car-park Silver??) and I suspect that the whole scheme is suffering from a massive example of project-creep. I'm sure there is plenty of motivation both reputationally and financially for architects/engineers etc to come up with some gold-plated headline grabbing refurbishment, but I find it hard to believe that £40m is really required for a bit of tidying up in a public space which quite adequately (if not perfectly) serves its local community well already. Its not as if the park will be deserted this weekend (if the weather holds!) - it will be packed with people appreciating what it provides already. I'd much rather carry on with what we've got rather than spend a fortune on debatable improvements and leaving the park as a building site until my children have left home (the oldest is 2).

Thanks so much for the updates Ziwa and Axean.


Perfectly? Completely disagree with you Matt. If the Cutty Sark was having £25million invested in it then £40 million for CPP seems like good value, from what I’ve seen and heard about the plans so far.

I fully agree with Gipsy, it may sound a gigantic amount for us but for all the money that has been invested in Wembley, Cutty Sark and the rest I believe that it worth investing in the park.

Also I doubt they are talking of a “little bit of tidy up”, my understanding from threads and the rest is that this will involve much more than that and I am happy to support.

As it is now the park looks good but there is always space for improvement.

Last but not least, I have not got children but that does not stop me from supporting activities and investments that will benefit future generations, otherwise I’d stop recycling, being nice to my neighbour and the rest cause at the end of the day I will be on this planet not for that long….

The cutty sark requires specialist treatment/tradesman which cant be done by any tom dick or harry. £40 million pounds does seem a bit excessive for a bit of park maintenance which does not need specialists.

Mind you I can see why its going to take so many years at a price remember how long & how many millions it cost to paint the dinosaurs dull colours & clean up a few paths. Come to think of it now £40 million now seems a bargain when you compare with last works carried out.

I wonder if they are using the same contractor the local authority are probably waiting for the contractor to return from the year long company vacation in Hawaii.

Dazza

"There was an uncomfortable lack of concrete suggestions on where to turn for funding. A list was given that included lots of lottery funding, private-public partnerships, etc, but it will take a lot of hard work to get those funds"

I thought lottery funding was a serious option ?

The park working groups report from 20/02/06 says

• "New source of funding has become available, £90m from Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF)
o This could help reduce the housing requirements for the park
o This may stop organisations from campaigning on a single issue (housing)
o Problems about how we apply for it though
o A lot of people have concerns about housing"

Nevertheless isn't the clear lack of other sources of investment precisely why Housing should be considered as an option to raise money?

I'd rather have £12 million towards some rejuvination that £0 million and nothing at all.

This is why I get so fed up with the No brigade - saying no is so easy when you don't come up with an alternative source of funding. I really wish the CPCA would expend the same amount of energy they do on the "No housing" campaign to identifying alternative forms of funding.

I'm also just not convinced that the case for no housing is as overwhelming as the CPCA claim it is.

If you actually read the analysis of the public consultation it is clear that it is only in CP that people (apparently) have such strong feelings. The opinions against housing around the Rockhill and Sydenham gate were far less strong. The numbers who voted on the Triangle gate area were only a few hundred so it's easy for a well motivated (but small in number) pressure group to vote on mass and give the impression that "no housng" is the "overwhelming view" (to quote CPCA) of the majority in CP.

I'm also not convinced that the much vaunted 7000 signature petition gives an accurate view. The constant gripe on the CPCA's website is that the consultation process is skewed and biassed without any acceptance that their own petition was hardly impartial. The petiition (when read carefully) actually only asks whether , as a point of principle, you are opposed to the selling off of parkland for housing.

I think most people would agree with the basic sentiment but I think you would get a very different view if the petition also mentioned "but in saying no you are risking the possibility of even basic rejuvination of the park"

It's so disappointing that a so called "community " association has become so entrenched and focussed on one issue that Nigel Westaway & Associates and The Environment Council felt compelled to say in a letter accompanying the Crystal Palace Main Group meeting agenda that "some dialogue members have found recent meetings frustrating or unpleasant and we have had frequent comments that they are dominated by a small number with others getting little opportunity to speak". Under the heading of 'Group representation' it said "I would like to remind you that groups attending the meeting should send no more than five representatives".

Though I am not personally favourable on the housing in CP (we really do not need more), however I agree that the CPCA seem good at opposing issued re the park without providing substantial and constructive criticisms.

I have not heard any alternative plan but "leave it as it is", which clearly is not beneficial for anyone ...

if we get the list of the works suggested and the amount requested for each work we might eb able to understand where the £40m go and then we can target our protests if we think there is an over-expenditure

This kind of discussion is exactly what we all need to engage in.

Note that my comments on sources of funding were written with a fair dose of my own opinion added - apologies if perhaps I should have been more neutral there (though I did include it in the 'opinion section'). Specifics on where funding was to come from were not dealt with in this meeting, but perhaps it was not the place to do so. If there is nothing concrete to say now, and if this is not something the public can constructively engage in helping with, then it is proper that it not be raised as a series of 'maybes and what ifs' in such a meeting. The quote from Feb '06 that Jamesl presented is very interesting - this was not mentioned in the recent meeting. As that 90M was discussed over a year ago, it could well be that it got swallowed up by Olympics needs. Or maybe it is still available. It would help to know.

On the pricetag, I agree with Gipsy et al. Its pretty much what you might expect for a huge piece of land (it is 2/3 the size of Kew Gardens, an international destination). Frankly, on looking at the breakdown (we got a line by line) it actually seemed the estimates were pretty reasonable. There are lots of unexpecteds in there. For example, they have to budget (sorry I didnt record the exact figure) something like 800K to deal with Unexploded Ordinance.

On the 'No' crew, the CPCA, etc, I'll just underscore that this meeting was really much more constructive than in the past. A few people stood up and hollared unnecessarily, with frothing and expletives, but it was not contagious and by the end it just seemed that those people had to vent their fears and frustrations with past fights. There was a suggestion of a huge sum of money being offered by the daughter of one of the CPCA commentators, but it seemed by the end of that rant, that it was a combination of wishful thinking and rhetorical trick. If those sums of money are out there for our park, then it looks like there is a sensible plan to implement its use, so bring it on.

This morning I had a chat with the guy who runs the grounds maintenance contract. It was clear he is very saddened by the lack of investment in the park from Bromley. His team is only 6 people total (he was doing weeding & planting alongside his team, in his office clothes, despite being the project boss and clearly a very well-trained and committed horticulturalist). He said he has suggested any number of things that would contribute to long term maintenance of the park (planting out the shrubs to fill them in, more sustainable digging and rotation of the beds, etc) but Bromley has to cut costs and will not invest in the park since it is being turned over to the LDA. I expect that this is an indicator that keeping the status quo is not an option. When Bromley threw in the towel on the park and LDA stepped in, the decision was cast that it had to improve to beyond a local park only. That's just a guess on my part, but seems logical, considering the LDA priorities. I'd venture that OUR responsibility as local residents is to participate in the process and ensure that the park does retain its primary utility as a local park, as well as developing into a regional/(inter)national destination. We don't want it to turn into a Disneyland attraction, but to maintain its value for local recreation and wildlife habitat, as well as developing its potential (realized a number of times in the past) as a point of pride for the area. The park needs the money and the vision for the future to do that. That is perhaps why I found the 'triage' list fairly reassuring, as it set this out quite clearly.

Finally, I'm curious why people undervalue work on a heritage like this park and consider it something that can be done by a TomDickorHarry, whereas restoration of a boat merits higher accolades*. Proper work with the land and the living world requires skill and innovation as does work with concrete objects. Just as you can restore your own picnic table but don't flinch at hiring a specialist to restore the CuttySark, you shouldn't then assume that since you can dig your own patch of petunias that development and restoration of heritage landscape could be done by anyone. I'd underscore that that basic £40M has a significant component of underinvestment from the past, for exactly those kinds of mistaken assumptions.


*no disrespect to the Cutty Sark. I am completely commited to professional conservation work (in the museology sense). I owned a 25m, 100year old boat myself for many years, I work in a museum, as well as in the working in the natural world.

Hang on - we're not personally being asked to put our hands in our pockets, so we should be glad if the £40m can be raised to improve the park for everyone's benefit. Thanks to Axean and Ziwa for their input. But I don't understand why the park needs to be kept open and hence illuminated 24/7?

Perhaps someone should send the invoice to Bromley, asking for backdated payments?

By the way, for the avoidance of doubt I just want to reassure everyone that discussions about the CPCA are acceptable. All comments posted are still subject to our usual forum guidelines.

"I'd venture that OUR responsibility as local residents is to participate in the process and ensure that the park does retain its primary utility as a local park, as well as developing into a regional/(inter)national destination. We don't want it to turn into a Disneyland attraction, but to maintain its value for local recreation and wildlife habitat, as well as developing its potential (realized a number of times in the past) as a point of pride for the area. The park needs the money and the vision for the future to do that. "

Do locals really want CP park to be an international destination though? I'm sure some local businesses would like that, but there would be a lot of knock-on effects to people who moved to the area because they liked it as it is - traffic, crowds and other associated disruption which is fine on athletics day etc, but all-year round? That's not just a park matter, thats something that would affect the whole of the wider-Norwood area.
And do we really have to have specialist restoration of a heritage landscape? I'm concerned that the whole Park Project hasn't got a clear idea of what it wants to be - so its become an expensive laundry list of wants and desires, some of which aren't actually necessarily compatible - Kew Gardens or the Cutty Sark area are not places where the primary utility is as a local park. I can't think of many places which are both international destinations and predominately for local utility.

As for being a point of pride for the area - I could care less about that. I do however like having a nice big local park to use, which is rather more use than "pride".

Seriously, I wonder if some of the people actively involved in all these consultations have got so caught up in hifalutin schemes that they haven't thought about whether the silent majority actually want them, or want the disruption to their lives & park. Hence the brouhaha.

EDIT - Just realised that might sound a little personal, it wasn't intended as such and please don't read it in that way. This not intended as a criticism of individuals or others that get involved in local things I haven't got the time or inclination to do, just a personal reflection that large projects driven by "insiders" and enthusiastic volunteers can lose sight of the real needs of the apathetic majority (or perhaps minority, I fully accept I may be on my own on this)!

Just thinking about the £40 million price tag. Over 15 years that's 2.6 million a year which isn't a alot given that the LDA estimates that the park serves upwards of 100,000 people. It's a very big space

More importantly (to my mind) it's not just a park. It's a landmark site with a very unique place in the history of London. That's why I fully support any attempt to apply a long term "vision" for the park.

It's encouraging to hear that the recent meeting was more constructive although very disappointing that certain individuals continue to scream and shout. I wish they would take a deep breath and consider the impact of their behaviour.

I have long wished to attend these meetings but they are usually on a day when I am looking after my 10 month old daughter. Normally I'd be happy to take her with me but tales of shouting and swearing put me off because it would frighten her. I find it breathtaking arrogance that an attempt to stop the disruptive behavior of a small minority has ben prtrayed in certain quarters as an infringment of free speech and participation.

Perhaps those who behave in such a way ought to pause to consider that aggressive and overbearing behaviour is disenefranchising people like me with young children from taking part in a debate which has a direct beraing on my childs' future environment. I strongly resent it.

look at the brilliant stadium Cardiff had built on a similar budget . I just cant get my head around the figures being highlighted for a bit or gardening & upkeep sorry I stand corrected specialist heritage enforcers !

Dazza

PS Could you imagine if the CrystalPalace was still standing I bet the figure to upkeep the park then would be astronomic & could potentially bankrupt the country !

I personally don’t mind if the park becomes an national/international centre of attraction, as long as it kept in style (i.e. Kew Gardens better than Disneyland), I doubt it will ever turn into an entertainment park and definitely I do not want that.

I am not an expert but I think we need specialist restoration of a heritage landscape (this it the legislation?), if the swimming pool is a Listed building I believe that what’s left of the palace needs expert to be maintained.


I can think of at least another place which is both international destinations and predominately for local utility: Hyde Park (funny enough that’s where the Palace was originally built)


I care a lot about the park, its structures and its heritage and this was one of the main reasons why I moved here. There is so much history surrounding the park and the area which should not be lost.

As long as the silent majority/minority remains silent they cannot change things, if I want to change things I get involved and do something about it.

Re the screaming and shouting of certain individuals, I am getting used to it and the louder the shout the less I listen to them!

I can see Matt's point but my view was that by dividing the proposals into three distinct stages the LDA are focussing on the idea of getting the park up to scratch first and then leaving open the possibility of the more eyecatching grand schemes to a later date and further consultation.

My frustration is that even relatively simple proposals that focus on creating more green space and giving the park more definition and function (by having three distinctive "gates" for example or re-opening the children's farm)are constantly delayed because of some naive belief that the money to do this can somehow be magiced out of thin air.

I understand Matt's view that what you want is a park , easily accessible and with enough for your children to enjoy. I share that view. However I can't get away from comparing what we have now with the park I loved and enjoyed as a boy in the 1970's and being deeply depressed.

What saddens me is that facilities that were fantastic when I was a lad (like a decent swimming pool,free summer holiday sports events for kids , the adventure playground and the farm) aren't there anymore so the park is not even what is was 30 years ago.

Instead what we have is a park which is very scruffy and difficult to access at the top, marred by a now decrepit 1970's concrete monstrosity, with no farm and only one (poorly equipped) play area and a pretty dire cafe.

I'm not having a go at those whose view is that the primary focus should be the provision of a decent park. I just wish that those who are so implacably opposed to what the LDA are trying to do actually open their eyes, look at the reality of what we have in 2007 and accept that they have a duty to think about what people actually need.

IMO those who constantly self promote themselves as guardians of the park and the CP community and think it's productive to attack rather than engage (positively) in the consultation process would do well to accept that they aren't elected representatives and don't have a mandate to speak for me and mine.

Crystal Palace Park is already an international tourist destination, its just it doesn't look like it. Over the years I have received quite a few calls and emails from the public asking questions about the park. I remember getting a phone call from an office in Jordan one day... a secretary wanted to plan an itinerary for her boss's family holiday!

The dinosaurs are still the world's first dinosaur theme park... you wouldn't believe how many dino fans there are out there.

How much of this budget is allocated for marketing?

I think that the park becoming a touristic destination would benefit the area greatly. I don't understand concerns about traffick, there is already too much passing traffick in the area that only brings pollution but no benefits because it's only cars passing through the area without stopping. If something can attrack interest and investment in the area, rather than to worry about how the local infraestructure is going to cope, I'm sure there would be enough pressure to improve that infraestructure, the public transport in this case.

What would have happen if the palace hadn't burnt? I imagine we would already have a proper tube and more and quicker conexions to central London.

Many of the consultees at the LDA's consultation event in the park stated clearly that they would accept a 'major attraction'. This rather surprised the LDA.

Mistakenly thinking that any building would provoke a 2nd campaign the LDA did not want to propose a building. However they were duty bound to provide what the consultees wanted.

What did they do? They came up with the idea of an upwind tower. This would be their major attaction. Well it certainly will be major. 86 meters high, it will loom over our little town like a huge chimney.

The new Crystal Palace proposal is now boasting 80 million pounds of private funding, the provision of over a thousand jobs and entertainment for all tastes and ages plus the ability to fund the park for many years to come. Now that's a major attraction that may be worthy of serious consideration.

where can we find out more about what this is? I've heard you mention it a number of times, but don't know exactly what it is or who the potential funders are. What would they expect for their investment? Is there a webpage? It sounds scarily like the Mall of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mall_of_America). Or think of the South London equivalent - 'Elephant & Castle'?

I think a huge commercial development on the topsite, which then ran the whole park, would not be a good long term vision.

I think that if the proposal to rebuild the palace is serious, and have all that founding it would be worth while fighting for. Maybe setting up a website or asking for people's support would help. Think the Crystal Palace campaign but in this case the cause would be the rebuilding of the Crystal Palace.

It has been done!

Seriously though the web site is being constructed as we speak but you can log on and watch the promotional film. (See 'www.thecrystalpalacesite.com) Specific Info will be on the site next week. This is because we are not able to list the interested parties till then.

The benefactor and primary funder wants the Crystal Palace to be run by a charitable trust which will fund the park. He is not on board for profit. The Crystal Palace and steam trains are his passions. Other investors are business orientated. obviously if this proposal is adopted, there would be no need for housing in the park which would be a one off financial input and popular with noone.

jamesl seems to get what I'm saying - I'm not a "Blocker", I was just staggered by the cost of Phase 1, let alone the other two phases. I think that phases 2 & 3 should be mothballed relatively quickly or nothing will ever get done and just phase 1 concentrated on, yet in a way flexible enough to allow further projects to fit in, if thats what the community wants (and the funding is there) at a later date. Its not like this hasn't been going on for years as it is. My concern would be that each stage of the project requires just a teensy bit more land sold for housing to secure part of the additional funding, but thats likely my cynicism kicking in. I also think that disruption to the utility we enjoy in the park currently should be clearly stated, including the likely timeframe for that disruption.

With respect, Crystal Palace Park will never be Hyde Park, and nor do I want it to be. Though I wouldn't mind my office being as close to the former, as it is the latter, I don' t want to live near Hyde Park, hence I don't. Also, the silent majority on certain issues may well be very vocal and active on others, but not have room in their lives to be vocal on them all (and requires some R&R in the park occasionally, therefore!)

I think the actual costs are probably realistic on all phases of the Latz plan, but it is hard to know, and actually maybe not for us to vote on if they can come up with the money. What is really important is if we want what they are offering. Do you like the Masterplans for the Park?

Silver's video is worth watching and considering. Personally, I'm still not convinced - it still reminds me of Mall of America, and all the commerical ventures within it are heavy demand on the local environment. Some of this proposal IS effectively housing on the park, just with residents that rent by the day instead of month or lease. Also, a £60M budget seems low to me. We've currently got a building going in here with a higher budget before internal fitting, but less floor area, and built on existing infrastructure.

I think the video is very inspiring and the option worth considering. I cannot understand why the LDA is ignoring the proposal.

Thank you for posting the website silver, the video is amazing - it almost made me cry! (Almost). I think if the palace was rebuilt like that the rest of the park would fall into place by virtue of it being such a high profile destination. To live near to something like that would be wonderful.

Silver - do you know what the plans are in terms of drumming up support for this?

Agree that the video looks great. Thanks, Silver. Interesting to read the part about learning from experience and making the building that bit smaller. It really looks like a good idea. What are the plans for showing local support?

nice looking video. i really like the idea of the hotel that gives a nod to the past but provides additional modern facilities for the local community. i don't think it would have any more impact than the queen's does now on local amenity but would give more back than queen's does. maybe i just got schmoozed by the narrators dulcet tones though?

you've spelt transformation and focused wrong though in the opening sequence - it kind of grates with the pernickity me and detracts from its overall slick appearance.

re: the transport connections i think they probably would've kept the high level station on farquahar road open to service the flow in to the palace (if it would've lived through the war and the austere years after). unlikely that a tube line would've been brought in then i suspect.

I'm very curious to know who the primary benefactor / funder in this plan is though?

I discovered the "CPP consultation bus" today on the top site, which holds an exhibition of the latest LDA/Latz park plans -- rather sketchy, but overall I think they look good.

If you haven't seen the plans yet, the bus is out again tomorrow, down on the terraces.

hi All,

a reminder that CPP is offering another workshop on using housing or whatever to fund the park - Tomorrow night!

A few of us in our neighbourhood will go, then get together later to have a chat about it. We feel that its important to get the full story, as best we can, so we can all arrive at our decisions from an informed perspective (even if we don't necessarily all agree). Have you coordinated something similar?

I'll repaste in the announcement from the dialogue people:

NEXT PUBLIC WORKSHOP
A public workshop will be held on 1st June, giving residents the chance to discuss the hot topic of using housing to part fund improvements to the park.

The LDA has not made a decision on whether or not to include the two remaining housing options in the final masterplan. In the autumn the masterplan will be submitted to Bromley Council, who will make a judgment of whether to give planning permission for the masterplan based on local and national planning laws and guidelines. It is expected this decision will take around a year.

The evening workshop will be held on Friday June 1st starting at 6.30pm and will be held at Anerley Town Hall.

The decision over the Tramlink route is not part of the masterplan and will be taken by Transport for London in October this year.

Regards,

Munish Chopra
Crystal Palace Park Consultation Team
munish@localdialogue.com

Tel: 020 7357 6606
Fax: 020 7357 6604
Mob: 07974 330 274

CPP Consultation
Local Dialogue LLP
FREEPOST NAT3717
London
SE1 2TU

www.crystalpalacepark.org

Did anyone on the Forum go to the park consultation meeting in Anerley? I heard from a few people that it was a real humdinger! If the Sydenham Town Forum is anything to go by (and I strongly recomend you log on!) our dearly beloved Community Association - that of which we do not speak- really excelled themselves.

I couldn't face one more dose of these dreadful people so did not attend but those who did attend had to choose between leaving or putting up with what seems to have been the most outragious display of dictatorship to date! What I do find intgeresting though is that people who would normally be of their persuasion are joining the other camp as a reaction to their dreadful behaviour.

The fact that these people are available for every single meeting of the consultation group speaks volumes as far as I am concerned. Just as lack of interests in the youth often goes hand in hand with crime, lack of interests in adults seems to lead to obsessive and unsatisfactory behaviour. It really would be in the public interest if they found some meaningful things to do with their lives. Going to one consultation meeting is acting as a responsible citizen. Going to every single one is quite frankly wierd!

Thanks, Silver, I have read some of the comments. It is beyond belief. As a matter of fact I can't say what I really think of that band or "association" for fear of being banned from this forum. I have to say, however, that it is a curious case study of how a minority can impose their views and spoil any kind of development that has the mayority support (this statement should of course be checked against statistics). For fear of legal actions, the LDA will give up eventually and this pretty piece of London will become a dump.

Unfortunately I'm studying at the moment (besides working full time) and therefore I have not time to attend these meetings and I have to rely in others attending and expressing their opinions.

http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/viewtopic.php...48e8a059e96f454

Goodness, what a disgraceful performance. I really wonder whether the LDA should insist on participants to these events signing up to some ground rules. And no that does not mean limiting freedom of speech - but simply having a framework for proper civilised debate.

They did attempt to set some rules

Nigel Westaway & Associates and The Environment Council felt compelled to say in a letter accompanying the Crystal Palace Main Group meeting agenda that "some dialogue members have found recent meetings frustrating or unpleasant and we have had frequent comments that they are dominated by a small number with others getting little opportunity to speak". Under the heading of 'Group representation' it said "I would like to remind you that groups attending the meeting should send no more than five representatives".

This has been ignored. CPCA claimed on their website that this was an attempt to stifle free speech. How ironic given the reports of the recent meeting.

I went along to the meeting, it's nice see one being held in the Crystal Palace Ward
One of the master planners gave a talk and went through the plans for the park area by area.

We were then invited to split into two groups to discuss the housing option. I looked like the most 'passionate' attendees where going to stay in the main hall so I went into the room next door (which also contained the food & drink). Our meeting was fairly civilised but we could hear shouting and aggressive speeches from next door, which caused some laughter.
As I said our meeting was fairly trouble free and meant various views were actually heard. We are asked to write one opinion for and against housing, then each person was allowed to give a short opinion.
Its clear the majority are against land been sold off for housing, although there's significant majority who can see a benefit to selling off some land. But amongst that group some were unhappy the flats are planed to overlook the park.

I part of me wished I had stayed in the loud group. It looks like it was a memorable occasion.
One truly terrifying piece of detail given out. The planners are planning to fill the topsite with Plane Trees. I'd rather see ten time the amount of housing than have the topsite cleansed of wildlife by London Plane Trees. Hopefully this was only mistake and they are planning are more wildlife friendly species of tree.

I heard from some people who also attended the meeting Axean reports on that they too switched groups to be away from the frenzied frothers. It sounds like a balanced discussion was had in the civilized subgroup. It also sounds like people fall into 3 general catagories: the 2 extremes of no housing at any cost vs. housing sounds a sensible solution to a financial problem (and those people are unlikely to change opinions) and the range of opinions among the fence-sitters. There are probably 3 critical bits of data for the fence-sitters: 1) is there any way to guarantee that this sale of land for housing on our park will not set a precident, that it will be one-time only (in our general lifespans) for CPP and that it won't set a precident for sales of land in other parks (e.g. the schools playing field scandals of previous generations) and 2) what will the housing look like and can we be ensured that it will be aesthetic, minimal impact on the park, etc., 3) are we sure that the funds raised will make a significant difference to the park renovation. We haven't yet had solid answers on the 1st points. It seemed like we got a relatively clear answer on the 3rd one during the last general group meeting: £12M, or 1/4 of the costs for basic park renovations. However, it is important that these questions keep getting asked and we look for consistency and commitment in the answers.

I agree with Axean on the species of tree to be planted on the topsite! The Ecology Consultancy should be working on this point to ensure that the plantings are wildlife friendly, otherwise we lose a lot of the benefit of conserving the land!

Finally, there is apparently a meeting entitled Crystal Palace Park Developments TONIGHT (Wednesday) in Penge 7:30 pm, Penge Congregational Church (junction of Penge High St and Kenilworth Rd, near Sainsburys), presentations from Roger Frith (Snr Development Manager of Infrastructure Development in the LDA) and Ray Sacks, Chairman of Crystal Palace Campaign.

I happen to have a bit of a soft spot for planes - look at the huge, magnificent trees of Green Park and some other parts of Central London which survived Victorian smogs where little else did. I do agree however that wildlife-friendliness should be an important consideration. It's not the only one, however. They should be considering the potential effects of climate change. Not much point in planting only natives if some of them are going to cop it in 30 years time because it has become too dry and warm for them and I hope both the planners and the ecology consultancy are considering likely forecasted changes in the longer term. A mixture of trees rather than a monoculture might be best and the safest bet overall, although this may not be seen as desirable from a design point of view.

There is an article on GREEN ROOFS with a fair number of photos and mention of a fair number of sites in London, as well as the rest of the world, in this month's Royal Geographical Mag. Check it out at Smiths when you're waiting for the train. It made me see the options for the park much more positively than I had just in eyeballing the few obvious ones I'd come across and the few hyperenthusiastic websites I'd stumbled on. A friend mentioned that he thought Germany has a regulation that all (or most) new roofs have to be planted.

I think the most local example may be at Horniman Museum.

Is there a meeting about the plans for crystal palace park tomorrow eve (19th July)? Someone mentioned it to me, but I can't find any information about this and would be interested in attending. If you know the details, please let me know.
Many thanks
Alison

So whatever happened- the net result is still the same: the last time I checked everyone was so happy that the original CP was going to be rebuilt with private money.
Now a year on- nothing.
Still nothing. Of any sort. More talking, arguing, form filling and paper shuffling. If only we could get the Singaporean government involved. Groundbreaking would commence within a couple of months.
It looks like nothing will ever come of it.

I hope I'm wrong- but somehow I don't think so.

New microsite on redevelopment launched by Croydon Guardian

Their photography is a bit disconcerting... beheaded statues to introduce the masterplan and a rather dangerous angle for the transmitter in the masthead. But hey, at least they are making an effort

Perhaps we could update our wiki page with some more information?

Crystal Palace Park

As it was the annual atheletics meeting last Friday, it was I felt, a proud and new dawn to the park, seeing and experiencing the new walk way from the Crystal Palace train station through and into the Park.

They have since install 6 new granite sitting units, which are simple and yet effective to the landscape. Also with the new entrance to the National Sport Centre, which is a huge different experience to the old. Overall, it is moving in the right direction.

All we need to do now is rebuild yet again the toilets which we just finished from the last fire, then we are back on track to push through the Grand Master scheme and hopefully every local groups and individual will see the positive and be part of this legacy.

I agree, I went to the Athletics Meeting with a friend who lives in/near Notting Hill who has been sl.. off Crystal Palace forever and who kept on telling me to move out from the area and buy a 1 bedroom flat in his area instead (insane)! I showed him the park, took him to Mediterranea … he ate his words!!!

At the free concert in the park there was a stall posing an interesting question. 'Did people want the top site forrested or left open?' People's immediate reaction was to say forrested but after reading the accompanying litererature, many changed their minds. The main factor for their change of heart seemed to be that the forrestation of the site of the original Paxton Crystal Palace would preclude any building there in the future and many people expressed a desire to see a Crystal Palace there again one day. The other reason some changed their minds was that they did not want to sit on the highest point in South London and not be able to see the sky through the trees.

I can empathise with this. I love trees like the next man and totally accept that some may prefer to look up at a tree canopy but I just find it wonderful to sit on the top of Primrose Hill and have nothing between me and the sky. There are so few places where this can be enjoyed. After reading the local paper, I can't help feeling that having to accommodate the fun fair has something to do with the decision to propose just planting trees on the site as opposed to something more adventurous.

I agree with you Silver, I love going up the hill and sit there looking at the landscape. Though I love trees, I think it would be a waste to fill the original site of the Palace with trees.
Still I look forward to see a decent and feasible plan to rebuild a scaled down version of the Palace to host cultural events and a couple of café, as long as it does not turn into a MALL or similar!
On this note, I was out for lunch today in the City and I have overheard someone talking about the plan to rebuild the Palace. I am not sure if he is involved in any way in the plans but surely the Crystal Palace name circulates more and I had 3 colleagues moving in the area in the last 3 years and 1 more planning to do so.

Interestingly, and just to give the other point of view, I have never met any one (apart from Lord Charlie) who has expressed anything but sheer horror at the thought of building a scaled down version of the Crystal Palace on the top site. However, many people do want a development of some sort ( especially one that gives a view over to the city) and if the planting of trees is going to preclude that then we need to make our views known now.

PS Is that edgy enough?

Charlie, The iconic Crystal Palace is loved the world over, by architects and laymen alike and so although you may not personally like it, would it be so terrible to have it if indeed it provided what the area wanted and needed? It would offer world class entertainment for us all. It would offer something for the young people to do and it would offer 1000 jobs. It would bring a customer base so needed since the introduction of the one-way stripped the town of it's existing one and It may enhance our civic pride in an exceptional way.

It is reported in the Croydon Guardian this week that although the LDA did not consult on the scheme, the majority still wanted a development on the site, many expressing an unpromted prefference for the Crystal Palace. It is such a shame that the LDA didn't see fit to consult on the scheme but I am interested to knw, would you still oppose the new Crystal Palace if the consultation had shown that the majority of local people wanted it?

For all those of you who are as dissappointed as I am at the plan to simply plant trees on this very important site, the best thing to do is write/e-mail Bromley Council sending a copy to the Mayor.

There is a video online where you can view Ray Hall's proposal to build the new Crystal Palace at
<thecrystalpalacesite.com> or e-mail <anewcrystalpalace@tiscali.co.uk>