I will report what is happening in the Westaway process but first let me just say that I think this forum would be the perfect vehicle for people to express their wishes, hopes and suggestions for the park and to that end Iam suggesting the following three questions:

SO THE QUESTIONS ARE;
1) What would you like to see in the park in the way of facilities and activities?
2) What else would you like to see?
2) Assuming that there has to be a development, what would you like the
contents to be?
3) Do you think a large conference hall would benefit the area?
4) If building a large commercial development was the only way to provide
enough funding to improve the park, would you rather leave the park alone or
would you consider it a worthy trade off?

The LDA as you probably know are thinking of taking over the park.They are now looking to see what could be achieved if they do. I believe that the LDA now funds the independant facillitator who is organising the park consultation. A consultation event was held in a marquee in the park and using the feedback, a task group put together a list of all the suggestions people made and the aspirations they had. On Saturday the main group met at the Salvation Hall and these options were put up for comment. A series of choices for the top site were also put forward for people to choose. We were given sticky green dots to stick on our favourite ideas and some red ones to say we did not want something. The choices for development were :

1) Rebuild a smaller version of the Crystal Palace.
2) theWilkinson Eyre sheme
3) a butterfly house
4) a conference centre cut into the hilltop along the top terrace

Opinion was split over The Crystal Palace scheme. It had a lot of green dots but also a lot of red ones. The butterfly house received a lot of green dots and not many red ones, the cut into hill conference centre received the most green dots but also the most red ones making it the most popular and the most unpopular building at the same time. The Wilkinson Eyre scheme was greeted with ridicule!

There were no young people present toput their case and therefore suggestions for skating, roller blading and other teenage type facilities received very few votes. There was a consensus on things like replacing the concert platform and improving the maze. There was universal opposition to a hotel. Other suggestions were pony rides, paddling pool, winter ice skating, reinstating the zoo or the motor racing track, cycling track and even a dog assault course.

If we are to get these things in our park and if it is to be managed well then there there will probably have to be a development in the park.

I may have missed something, but what's the Wilkinson Eyre Scheme?

The glass pod thing...

http://www.virtualnorwood.com/localinfo/cpparkglass.shtml

I maybe a minority but I love the Glass Pod and a lot of my local friends agree. It would make CP into a destination and really revive the area. A conference centre sounds boring to me and rebuilding the Palace is a step backwards. The butterfly thing sounds interesting, any more info? My Dad, now semi-retired, was slightly involved in consulting on the Park, and he mentioned an Eden Project type idea - is that the butterflies?

And discussed on the forum here...
http://www.virtualnorwood.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=509

And poll results here...
http://www.virtualnorwood.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=555

Silver
My initial thoughts ( and I should be working!) are:

In reverse order:

4) To stimultate regeneration of the park I agree that is likely that we will have to accept some sort of commercial enterprise. I would prefer to see something there such as an exhibition centre - say a permanent collection of art/sculpture with temporary exhibitions to attract people to the area thus generating revenue to maintain the park which hopefully will have been restored through lottery money or other funding source. Yes it is a worthy trade off - we have to be realistic. Could we have an outpost of the V & A??

3) I am not sure that a large conference hall would benefit the area - people would come and then go - unlikely to add anything to the economy of the local area.

2) Developement contents- art, sculpture or horticultural

1) Facilities and activities? I think people would be attracted to the park if it was restored to its former glory (I'm thinking of the main park in Madrid which is always packed at the weekends) - great landscaping,wonderful plants, areas for picnics and barbecues. Possibly a really good cafe/restaurant, get the zoo going
again. I don't particularly like the concert platform - but it works and it is architecturally of merit ( some would say!) - perhaps refurbish and get the summer concerts going again.

Young people should be represented and I like the idea of a skateboard or bmx park. Tennis courts & an outdoor swimming pool - a crystal palace lido. Winter skating rink. A big wheel? Gravel boules pits.


preferred development choice - smaller version of crystal palace but state of art -using up to the minute sustainable materials and powered from sustainable resources housing permanent and temporary exhibitions or a concert hall.

2nd choice butterfly house in conjunction with a mini kew gardens type development.

I too love the glass pod idea. What a weird and wonderful thing it would be - and think of the unique view of London you would have! It would be like being in a spaceship!
I can understand that people are against it because of it's non traditional design, but what people always forget is that the Crystal Palace was groundbreaking in its day too. Paxton designed something no-one had ever seen before and plenty of people hated it. The very reason it was called the Crystal Palace was because people sneered at it, thought it was useless and vain. The site has a history of being bold and brave in its architecture and the Wilkinson Eyre Pod follows that tradition. I just hope the decision makers can bear this in mind.

Skate park is always a good idea. If you build it, they will come. (but probably not to the consultation though)

And a butterfly house. Ai ai aiii! Do you people want to give me a nervous breakdown? Those evil creatures, with their frightening colours and dangly legs. I hate them. If there was a butterfly farm in the park I would live in fear of one of them escaping. And I'm not joking either. Horrid creatures. Please don't build one.

Changed my mind - agree that the Wilkinson Eyre Pod or something of that ilk would be brilliant.

Talking of sculptures when we were in Budapest a few years ago we went to a sculpture park on the outskirts of the city to see the old communist sculptures - pretty amazing.

Imagine the park full of Henry Moores or even linking up with eastern european countries to have a temporary exhibition of communist sculptures or giant spiders

Okay . . .
I'm guessing at some deeply scarring childhood trauma.

Ooh! Sculpture park. Great idea. Has anyone ever been to that one in Goodwood?
I also like the sustainable development principles too, and the permanent exhibition centre (but I fear it might encroach on the Horniman's audience maybe)

BUT GIANT SPIDERS? A park full of creatures with freaky mulitcoloured wings and giant spiders?? I really am not going to sleep tonight. What next? A permanent clown school? I think I need a lie down.

If I understand it correctly, the idea is to make the park as financially self-sufficient as possible – which I think is a good idea as it would help protect it against underinvestment in the future.

So whatever commercial development was put in place would have to generate sufficient revenue to fund both itself AND the development in the rest of the park – ie it would have to be pretty darn profitable!

For that reason I’m quite curious about a conference facility – because it has the capacity to bring in revenue from sources other than leisure. However, I must admit, the few details I had previously heard about this option suggested a mixed-use building (maybe museum, arts culture etc?) and not a ‘conference hall’.

I’d be in favour of a building which had the capacity to be used for a wide variety of purposes including drawing in people from outside the area for cultural events, and providing something useful for the local community, as well as getting revenue from conferences etc. However, if they are just proposing some kind of corporate facility, then No No No!

It’s hard to compare the conference facility against the mini Crystal Palace, because there is no indication of what would be inside the Palace, and therefore how it would make money. It’s no good if it ends up dependent on lottery handouts. Could conferences, arts etc not be accommodated in the mini-palace?

Wilkinson Eyre – gut feeling is I don’t like it. I think the London Eye has cornered the market for glass pods with views, and it already looks dated to me.

Butterflies – yeah, why not, who doesn’t like butterflies (umm, except Norman apparently). However, limited interest for local community (once you’ve visited it once, then what?), and doesn’t really sound like a money spinner.

I’d also want to see more facilities in the park such as the skating etc that Silver was suggesting – but I think it would be preferable if this wasn’t the commercial backbone of the park development – because you’d potentially have to charge quite a lot, and it could also be closed or changed in the future on the basis that it wasn’t making enough money to support the park.

Norman is right in that we need something with ground breaking design - something that Paxton would be proud of and he was a man of extraordinary vision and talent.

Whatever the development is it will need to be visionary in its design but also have some connection to the history of the site. How that connection is achieved I am not sure but, the more I think about it now, I don't think a mini crystal palace is the way forward! The crystal palace has had its day - lets move on - think Bilboa, Tate Modern........................

I would love an Eden Project type thing and think that it's important that any building is architecturally challenging and of benefit to the local community and tourists. I wasn't completely convinced by the Wilkinson Eyre design but I admired its ambition. I think a pod wouldn't create a very usable space and whatever is built (if anything) needs to be practical AND eyecatching. In terms of what it offers, anything to do with plants, wildlife, art, sculpture would be great, preferably the whole lot.

I have to admit my heart sank when I read the words "conference centre". That's sounds dull as dishwasher. Conference centres are ten-a-penny and can be found in hotels all around the country. Surely, we can have a bit more imagination than that.

I think the ice skating idea would be perfect for CPP and something that is perenially popular - you've only got to look at Somerset House to see that. However, it is a seasonal thing, so you have to think about ideas that would generate money the rest of the year as well.

You go every time you have someone visiting you for the weekend. How many times have we all visited the dinosaurs or been on the London Eye again and again because your second cousin twice removed hasn't seen them/been on it before?

I’m not so in favour of the notion of a ‘big idea’ development. First and foremost the park is a park – any development should be to support this, not take over.

One of my favourite London parks is Battersea. It has a good range of well-kept facilities (rowing boats, sports, a nice café, gallery, bike hire, etc), which include things which appeal to locals and visitors alike. It also seems to do a very good job of attracting events - both those which bring in locals and tourists (like the Thai food festival) and those which are a bit more corporate (like London Fashion Week) - which I presume help provide revenue for the park.

Personally, I think Battersea would be a good example for CP. Generating revenue from a variety of sources seems more sustainable than relying on one ‘showpiece’.

It seems that we are all in agreement that we want something unique for the park. The difficult thing is finding a unique idea that fulfils the brief of generating revenue for the park. It really does need some inspired thinking. The team behind the Eden Project came up with a unique idea that has really tapped into something in people’s hearts and minds. Everything that has been suggested so far is an adaptation of an idea which has worked well elsewhere. What would work well for Crystal Palace? Could we come up with something so exceptional that it becomes a leader in public space regeneration rather than a follower? Wouldn’t it be wonderful to hear other projects saying ‘We need a Crystal Palace style regeneration’?

I’m not saying I have the answers, mind …

I take the point that the glass pod echoes Marks Barfield’s work on the London Eye, but it also follows the organically inspired architecture movement of which Paxton is one of the founding fathers (the design for the iron struts which supported the glass panels came from inspiration which struck him whilst working as a gardener, looking at the backs of giant lilipads on a pond at Kew Gardens).
The glass pod has the capacity to house a restaurant, meeting facilities, a gallery. It would inspire and revile in equal measure. It would force people to have an opinion about it. You’d either love it or hate it. It would easily achieve the kind of national and international press coverage that would bring plenty of people to visit. It would be an iconic building. Would a conference centre alone be able to do that? I’m not sure. If you were a tourist, standing in the centre of London, with a clear view to Crystal Palace, and you saw the sun glinting off a big glass pod and you asked a Londoner what it was, would you jump on a train immediately to come out to see a conference centre? Or if you were told that the place was a public space, the best and cheapest view of London, the site of the original Crystal Palace, a gallery, a Turkish Bath, a Ballroom, a zero gravity simulator, the best wedding venue in the capital – I don’t know something we just haven’t thought of yet - wouldn’t you come?

And Weeble you’re right, the skate park couldn’t bear the brunt of the regeneration costs, as it would be unfair to ask kids to pay through the nose for their recreation. That should be a sideline of revamping the main attraction of the park.
However, Battersea has one major advantage that we will never have. Location. Right next to the Thames, a lovely patch of green in Central London, no travel needed. At present, you need a reason to come to CP, and that’s what a show piece would give people.

i like the idea of something which takes advantage of the potential views from the top of the park. all around our area you are not quite able to take in the full glory of what could be seen. Due to the profusion of trees, you are only afforded glimpses here and there.
The pod and sculpture gallery is a great idea but doesn't look suitable.
a glass pyramid ? but then again they have one in Paris.
Incidentally, i switched on the television last night, and caught the last few seconds of a feature on Crystal Palace Park. it was on BBC2, Seven wonders of London with Bill Oddie ! all i managed to see was local artist Audrey Hammond amongst the ruins in the park, then it switched to the secret gardens within the city of london. Did anyone catch it....is there a repeat scheduled ?

I didn't see that programme, but I have an idea which I think would serve all purposes. How about a leisure complex like they have at Centerparcs - a big dome with its own eco-climate, swimming pool, splash pools for kids, waterfalls etc. in a tropical setting (butterfly farm and sculpture park optional). Plus up to date sports facilities. A big commercial company like Centerparcs would be needed to fund it, but I bet it would be a good earner all year round. There's nothing like it in London that I know of because it takes up a lot of space ... the national sports centre occupies a huge site with an under-used arena all of which needs scrapping or updating, so the sports facilities could be upgraded at the same time. It could be quite spectacular but not necessarily ugly or intrusive on the locality. What does everyone else think?

And it could link up with the caravan site next door, people could buy a weekend pass and stay overnight ... I'm getting carried away with this idea ...!!

Sylvester - I always read what you have to say with great interest - but on this occassion I can't get past the word leisure complex - the whole idea is unbearable - sorry it just doesn't work for me. BUT that said, the more ideas thrown into the melting pot the better.

What about a cultural centre - incorporating public facilities such as a new library which could attract alsorts of people - get your library books, take in an exhibition then on to the park for a good read, skate, swim, visit to the zoo. Facilities could be provided for school educational ( history) trips. The centre could be funded through a mix of public private funding. crazy idea - probably!

Don't know how to do links but it's worth looking at the LDA website which has quite a bit on the westaway process. www.lda.gov.uk

yes it's good to have lots of different ideas. For me the key principles would be to:

1) have a structure that makes Crystal Palace an even more attractive place to go to for locals and visitors;

2) make the most of the wonderful views;

3) create enough operating surplus to allow the park to be maintained to a high standard.

Going back to the questions.
1) What would you like to see in the park in the way of facilities and activities?
Nothing wrong with the park use, in the traditional sense of park use.
Would just like to see it better run. Better cafe. Grass cut more often. Canada Geese killed off. Earlier opening times. BBQ's controlled. Better control of trees, a tree is not sacred by simply being a tree, get rid of sycamores and horse chestnut, the tree equivalent of tarmac. More Oaks and Coniffers where they are meant to be.
Create a group/society willing take on some work at mainting the plantlife/wildlife of the park.

2) What else would you like to see?
I would like the see the sports centre use the least possible amount of park. The main building rebuilt next to the stadium and train station. Football pitches, tennis, fishing, hockey etc should be moved to the huge (as big as the whole park)abandoned sports fields in Anerley(Crystal Palace). You see it from the train when going from Crystal Palace to Norwood junction. Bulldoze the old building and turn the area into a lake that can support wildlife. That means getting rid of the parks Canada Geese.

I dont wish to see any event that excludes people from the park or seriously damages peoples enjoyment of the park, loud pop concerts, motor racing etc.
Bulldoze the concert platform, its out of place, and leads to a vast area of the park being closed off when used for fee paying events. Build a new Concert Stage near the Anerley Hill (sports Centre) entrance. The west end/ Lower terracing/ car park area of the Park could then be the event (profit making) area of park, used for small concerts, farmers markets, flowershows, and car parking for major stadium events. And the rest of the park could still be used.

Dig up the "diana memorial" drain between the concert lake and fisherman lake, then turn the area into a bog garden. Get rid of the fishermen and open up the fisherman lake.

Get rid of the Caravan site and bring it back to the park. The LDA must be able to find a better site for the Caravaners nearer London.

2) Assuming that there has to be a development, what would you like the contents to be?
I've got a problem similar to Norman. He has a problem with Butterflies, I have a problem with architects. They seem to create designs to impress other architects, they give each other awards, and too many seem to think that their buildings should be challenging, and ignore public opinion. Their was good discussion on the Robert Elms Radio Show. He felt there was to much "Bling" architecture being built. Built simply to impress, the use of the building pushed to one side. The best example he could give was the Guggenheim Museum-Bilbao, there is nothing in the buidling worth looking at. Victorian "style" buildings such as Crystal Palace, Tower Bridge, St Pancras Station, may seem to be "bling" architecture, but the use came before the architecture.
I feel the Wilkinson Eyre, project is pure Bling, and I think Paxton would have hated it. I want a building that has a use. Build a tower in the style of the old Water Tower, next to the main junction. You could have a few restaurants with a view inside the lower levels, and a public viewing platform on the top. Build a glass building attached to it, in the same style as the Crystal Palace. I'd fill it with plants. I think a park with a botanical them would attract people. Make a crystal palace style eden project on the top of the hill. Pay to get into that, rest of the park free.

3) Do you think a large conference hall would benefit the area?
no

4) If building a large commercial development was the only way to provide enough funding to improve the park, would you rather leave the park alone or would you consider it a worthy trade off?
Its a matter of balance, I wouldnt want a nice park and an area destroyed by commercial development. I could only make a decision based on specific examples.

I would like to apologise for the length of this post, and to any Canada Geese that can read it. I wont be apologising to any architects that read it, shoulnt you be in some pretentious bar giving each other awards, and ignoring public opinion

True sometimes but not true all of the time Axean.

Bling Architecture



What you are forgetting Axean is that this structure has enabled Bilboa a run down impoverished area of Spain to regenerate and revitalise itself. That should be recognised.

Do like the idea of botanical garden but not sure if sticking it in a minature replica of the Crystal Palace will bring in either the locals or visitors in on a regular basis.

Why can't we have the best of both worlds - a challenging building which is fit for purpose.

PS I think you've missed the point of the Wilkinson Eyre project - have another look at the website.

I'm quite disappointed that you feel like that Axean, when you have some strong ideas on how to develop the park. It seems like you misunderstand what an architects role is. It would be a sad day if all architects ever did was produce buildings designed by public opinion. Their job is to have a vision, the be inspired. If not, they how would any architectural style ever move forward? We would just keep reproducing what we'd already done before and everything would end up looking the same. Take the case of the proliferation of toy-town Barratt Box housing estates. Mass housebuilders keep on building these based on the premise that they are of a design that people want to buy. Nonsense. They do sell, but for a whole host of reasons, the least of which is design. You can't design public buildings by committee.

Anything that is built in the park will need an architect. Full stop. You can't legally design a building of this scale without one. And slating them <snip> doesn't really add much to the argument. All of the Victorian buildings you listed were designed by architects, and there were probably local people who hated their work too. Tower Bridge was designed to fit in with Tower of London for ***'s sake - that's even worse, it's not even geniune Victorian design!
It usually takes 30 years before we love a new public building. Hence why we have to be brave and be bold. It's just too easy to go for the comfort of a Victorian styled building. We know it works, it's been proven. But I really can't see why we should just knock up a pastiche of Brunel's tower and be done. Future generations deserve something more special than that. I agree with Charlie, we need a challenging building, which is fit for purpose. And I think we all seem to be agreeing on the purpose at least...

Also - the other thing that has been troubling me over these proposals is something I heard a while back. Isn't there an issue of the land at the top of the park being contaminated? I heard that owing to the intense heat of the fire when the Palace burned down, the iron struts melted and have left a legacy of contamination in the soil? Is this why the Wilkinson Eyre proposal is raised from direct contact with the soil?

(and to add to the list of things I have a problem with - Robert Elms. Don't get me started - that would be totally off topic )

Interesting question.

If the site is contaminated it will be on Bromleys register. Remediation of contaminated sites can be a very very expensive process so I would imagine that a Phase 1 environmental desk top study and risk assessment has already been carried out.

Aye there's nowt wrong with Robert Elms. a little bit of a self-publicist and his self-proclamations of discovering jazz and being a renaiisance man are bizarre but his show on BBC London is great and his knowledge of London is pretty exhaustive.

In terms of plans for the park - botanical garden is a great idea. It should be kept as a free open space.... but a space that people would travel to in order to visit.

To try and re-create the Crystal Palace is a regressive, sentimental plan.

And I prefer architects to estate agents.
And I prefer estate agents to traffic wardens.

I have heard this argument so many times and it distresses me greatly..

When I first got married I collected little pottery cottage ware and displayed it to my husband's horror on a dresser in the kitchen. He hated it. Some years later when I told him I was planning to get rid of the hated crockery, he told me he liked it and wanted to keep it. He had not grown to change his opinion of its worth and beauty, he simply got used to it. The crockery was no more worthy or beautiful, just familiar.

My point is that universal opposition and dislike of a building is a reflection of the failure of design rather than the ignorance of those who don't like it. As you say it takes thirty years before people wish it to stay. Unfortunately if people look at something long enough they become attached to it. We only have to look at own TV mast. It is hardly a thing of beauty and yet when people were asked if they would mind it going they said they would. I was in Hungary recently and I witnessed something which impressed me greatly. The local council had built a grand fountain in the town square. People had watched it being built and when the day arrived to turn on the water they all gathered to watch it. It was a thing of beauty and all those assembled there were proud and thrilled. It was a lesson. Why can't we have something we are proud of, something we love. Why must we wait thirty years and then like it only out of some kind of affection based on familiarity?

I "went off on one" yesterday, but I still stand by my points.
I went and wrote out another post answering all the points put up. But to answer the points made against me led to me writing a post bigger than first, so I deleted it.

I can agree that in principle, architects need to be creative, to lead design forward. But they are supposed to do this on behalf of the public. Architects might lead, but the public should be responsible for the direction.

There is a scary culture amongst architects, too many (not all) believe they have a duty to ignore the public. I loathe this attitude and I wont be changing my mind.

I have some strong views about the park, and the geese definatly give me some dodgy looks as I walked through the park today. But I would never feel I could just go ahead and do what I want in the park, then declare that the public would like it in 30 years. I might feel that the public would like it in 30 years, but could never say it with arrogance and self importance "some" architects could.

This is too negative a post for what should be a helpfull/constructive topic on the park, so as Man City suporter, I'll end it with a ManU joke.
What do ManU and a Christmass cracker have in common?
One yank and they come apart.

Because we're inherently a bunch of whingers? Seriously, taken en masse we seem to be pathologically unable to take civic pride in anything.

I've got an alternative concept for a replacement for the stadium. It's on the US flightpath into Heathrow, so should be worth millions as a billboard.

You would struggle to find universal opposition on any building. In the same way, you'd struggle to find universal support of any building. Everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes good design, I never suggested opposition was down to ignorance. What you witnessed in Hungary may have been a display of public support, but it may have been about a million and one other things. And who's to say that those who didn't like the fountain, simply stayed at home that day?

I'm also not saying that we should have to wait 30 years to enjoy something, I'm just saying that we shoudn't be afraid to try something new, just in case we don't love it immediately. If we take the comfortable option represented by Victoriana, which is bound to be universally loved, what's to say that we won't fall out of love with that very quickly? It's very difficult to do a good job of a hertiage reproduction in the modern world. What if it ends up looking awful? Where do you draw the line on making it authentic? And once authenticity is compromised, you end up with nothing more than a cartoon building, apeing a once revolutionary style. At least with modern design there is no question of authenticity, no architect going 'Hmm, how authentic is this Victorian airconditioning?' or 'Do you think we could get away without putting in escaltors or electric lifts? Not very Victorian are they? 'Now then, where will we put the lower class dining room?' Anything we create will be a santisied version of history. We don't live in 1853 any more. We live in 2005, so lets have something more fitting to represent 21st Century design. Something which embodies the principles of sustainable design, uses low energy, composts its waste to feed the botantical gardens (which we are all keen on), something that elevates the locality, brings it to national and international significance (a mock Victorian conservatory would never achieve that) and shows that the people of Crystal Palace can celebrate the past AND look to the future .

There is no reason why we couldn't love a building that did all that.

Of course we would all like to see something built that looks beautiful, but everyone's perception of what is beautiful would be different. The thing is it has to be USEFUL and PROFITABLE as well. The days of concrete monstrosities have gone and modern architecture can be exciting but with a nod to history. Visit Dulwich Picture Gallery and see what has been done there - albeit on a smaller scale - and it has just been voted as a top attraction. Hopefully any developers will call in Nicholas Grimshaw!

Sorry Charlie, if you have a problem with the term "leisure complex", call it something else - "ecological leisure park", whatever! Remember that the Crystal Palace itself was a celebration of Victorian achievement where people went to enjoy themselves (a Victorian leisure complex perhaps?) . And however much we regret its passing, when it burnt down it was in a sad state of neglect because it had no more use and no one was prepared to finance its refurbishment at the time. In the words of some old time rock and roller, you don't know what you've got until you lose it...

That old time rock and roller would be Ral Donner wouldn't it....

My mum has that on vinyl. bit of an old tune I do believe.

There we are a Ral Donner Theme Park. there's a cult interest for you.

Anyway, my answer to any debate or any question at the moment is "less estate agents."

Do you fancy a quick pint in the Cambridge?

Yep Uncle Wilf, he's the one. I've got it on vinyl somewhere in the loft.

Andy I'm glad you asked me that question. I'd like to answer your question in two ways.......

And Sylvester - someone else has heard of Ral Donner. When I was a kid I always thought it was Elvis 'cos they sound so alike. I think the A-side is called something like "So Close To Heaven".... and I like to think that Ral had a certain hostelry in mind when he was singing that song.

I wish people would stop mentioning Estate Agents.

The three Paxton designed Crystal Palace columns ( Faith, Hope and Charity) were yesterday placed on board the canal narrow boat 'President' at the Black Country Living Museum, Dudley.

These full size, cast iron columns (last erected in Hyde Park in 2001 for the BBC series 'What The Victorians Did For Us' with Alan Hart-Davis) will be transported to London along The Grand Union Canal from May 22nd to June 8th.

Their eventual destination is Crystal Palace Park, where they will form part of the Crystal Palace Corner to be erected on top of the Crystal Palace foundations adjacent to Crystal Palace Parade.

For further details email: josephpaxton@hotmail.com

PS. Paxton's Crystal Palace:
Conceived at Chatsworth
Doodled at Derby
Built in Birmingham
Lent to London
Scorched at Sydenham
We cast in Wolverhampton!

How interesting but it's not clear why this is suddenly happening.

Uncle Wilf
Ral Donner was noted for sounding like Elvis - he capitalised on it and also recorded "The girl of my best friend". I think So Close to Heaven was the B side though. He died of lung cancer in 1981.

Croesus I have just had my area regenerated at a cost of two million pounds. The trade off was we suffer a one-way system which is puting many traders out of business, signage on every lampost, CCTV cameras that do nothing to improve security but intimidate our customers to such an extent that they do not return, dangerous pedestrian conditions and advertising hoardings in return for two clocks, both of which tell different times, neither of them correct. What exactly do people have to have civic pride for?????

I am also bemused by this continual assumption that those who want to rebuild the Crystal Palace are just too afraid to try something new. They are not saying they want any old building, they specifially want the Crystal Palace, the building that gave the park and the town its name. Don't get me wrong, In the end I just want a building that the majority are happy with, one that provides entertainment and employment but I just hate this attitude that those who favour a rebuild option are missinformed, backward thinking or nieve. People come from all over the world to see where the Crystal Palace stood. We all too often take our heritage for granted when there is sound economic sense in building on it.

Norman, those who have real vision and imagination can picture people gliding effortlessly up through a beautiful glass building on escalators in the same way as they could imagine skaters gliding accross the brightly lit Palace at night or watching musicians playing through the huge windows. I can hear the people now, 'where are you going tonight?' 'oh we're going to the Bluebottle and then up the Palace' 'Where do you work' 'Oh I work over the Palace. The rebuild vision seems sensible to many people young and old and their opinion is often treated with condescention. Anyway, where is this amazing, inovative modern building? All I have seen so far is a spaceship type building housing a conference space and possibly a sculpture exhibition, contents hardly likely to solve unemployment issues or alay the boredom of the young. I can't see the teenagers saying 'Oh I went to see the sculptures yesterday, you really should come with me next time'

Which design people like is obviously a personal choice and should be respected though I am surprised when the 'spaceship' scheme is put forward as ground braking. I see it as remeniscent of the 1950's and similar to other existing structures in the world. My point is therefore this, reminiscent of the Victorian age or reminiscent of the fifties doesn't mean they should not be considered. I for one wish that we had had some a fantastic new designs to choose from, designs that would make the area world famous again, but that has not happened.

We are blessed with a rich heritage. It is a park. Maybe the best building to grace Crystal Palace Park is simply the Crystal Palace. It was after all a slendid conservatory.

No it is not the community who lack vision, passion and imagination. It is not cowardly to want to rebuild a brilliantly designed, beautiful building that would instantly put the town back on the world map and regenerate the area. It is not a romantic unsustainable option. You only have to look in the shop windows to see how many traders feel it would be best for the town.
To suggest that we shouldn't try to rebuild it in case we fail to capture its original splendour, well maybe there's the cowardice.

Silver, can you tell me when the next consultation meeting is on this issue?
I'm damned if I'm going to let the consultants go away with the impression that all the residents of Crystal Palace want a faux Victoriana conservatory in their park. I will have to look at whatever is built on that spot as it will overlook my home. I'd quite like my voice to be heard on the future of the site.

I’m kind of amazed that no-one has said they are against commercial development in the park, and the extent to which people seem to be favouring a substantial development which will put the area back on the map.

This seems to be in a huge contrast to opinions about the multiplex development. I guess a lot of the anti-multiplex sentiment was because it was a bland identikit development. But I also thought it was about things like the impact of visitor numbers and traffic.

Sure the ideas on the table are rather more inspired than the cineplex-r-us we escaped, but if we really want a development of the scale and significance that are being discussed, will we be happy with the inevitable wider impacts?

For example – the Wilkinson Eyre scheme will cost £45 million to build – that’s over half the cost of the London Eye. To recoup that kind of investment, surely they’d need some serious visitor numbers – which would be bound to have a big impact on the area. Some of that will be positive, no doubt, but the impact on traffic etc seems daunting.

Whilst I can understand that these ideas capture the imagination, personally I think we need something a little bit less ambitious.

Norman - keep your eye on the LDA website here

Its not too late to make your views known as the site states that further work needs to be done on deciding the way forward for the top of the park, next to Crystal Palace Parade.

Lovely Charlie, thanks for the link

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Crystal Palace FC moving back to their original home in the park. They are, without a doubt, the biggest commercial organisation in the area with around 1/2 million people through the turnstiles last season. Their chairman was only saying last week his desire to play in a larger more modern stadium. Apparently he has been in talks in the past with the powers that be but they revolved around a smaller stadium than they have at the moment.

The answer is to replace both the athletics stadium and sports centre with one complex incorporating a 30k + seater stadium for CPFC. There would also be conference facilities which would provide revenue throughout the week. It would also boost trade in the triangle as it would be walking distance from the new stadium.

Yes and no-one on our street would be able to park their car on a Saturday afternoon and we'd be subjected to hundreds of fans traipsing past our house.

I'd hate it if they moved the stadium to the park.

That would remove the London Towers home court

I don't think the park should be used for football. It needs to be a resource for the whole community... as it is now.

And Bromley would finally get a good excuse to impose their residents parking scheme on Anerley Park/Thicket Road - didn't happen again the second time they asked.

I am a big football fan (though not of CPFC I might add). Nowing what some of the "fans" are like I wouldn't want the mahem of local derbys going on outside my front door.

There are some that would like to save the current sports centre.



I think that's a little unfair. I work as a steward at Selhurst park and so am well aware of what the fans 'are like'. I rarely see or even hear of any trouble even at local derbies. And having lived just over 20 years of my life in Davidson Road (off Tennison Rd) Although Sat afternoons were filled with cars everyone was good humoured and we never saw any trouble. This is just the typical Daily Mail NIMBY attitude we could do without.

Errr, any chance of getting me in the back door next season?

I'm sure we could help eachother out nudge nudge wink wink IYKWIM

I have to chip in and agree with Adey here. I really don't like this 'not in my back yard' attitude.

We've lived really close to Selhurst Park (practically on the pitch, lol) for a year now and we have never seen any trouble or 'mayhem' whatsoever. In fact, match days are pretty cool really - there's a really nice jovial atmosphere and to be fair, most people seem to arrive by train/bus etc and most of the surrounding roads are shut by the police anyway so parking isn't a huge problem. 20 minutes after a game you'd never even have known a match had been played.

Anyway, back on topic. I don't think the park with all its historical value is the best place for a football ground tbh. And anyway, rather than forking out for a posh new stadium why doesn't Mr Jordan invest in some new players so Palace can get back into the premiership?!!!