Jump to content


Photo

Victory Place MKIII


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

#31 kibitzer

kibitzer

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 351 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 05:32 AM

Fang - agree - will we ever see this to fruition knowing who the developers are? Wasn't 18th August (only last thursday) the date that enforcement notice was up for the car lot to be removed? I still see cars there but with the forsale notices removed from windscreens. The railings havent been put back nor the bench even if that small piece of land does belong to the owners of the site.

Seeing is believing with these plans I think we can expect to see a few more tweaks etc to these ideas before anything is built here - even a change of owner.

#32 RetiredMember2

RetiredMember2

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,955 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 10:10 AM

Well it looks like plans at VP have changed yet again.

An article in the excellent Transmitter mag has the latest.

http://blog.thetrans...-19-is-out.html

Posted Image

Posted Image

Bit of a shame they have dumped the cinema component.


I understand that St Aidans bought Los Torreros in a secret deal some 6 months or so ago. It is not suprising that they intend to integrate it's footprint with the proposed boutique hotel and roof-top restaurant.

The obvious stumbling block here is that there are no parking spaces for the entire development. The proposal includes residential units, hotel, department stores, leisure and entertainment venues, studios, cafes and a market now how many daily deliveries will something of this scale need?
How many of these deliveries will be in HGVs and where will all delivery vehicles park? This has potential to create a more or less permanent one lane, one way system.
Where will the patrons, staff and residents park?

Asthetically it's got that Stalinesque thing going on. All grey concrete and zero greenery make it less of a market square and more of a precinct.

Edited by citizen M, 22 August 2011 - 10:10 AM.


#33 Ziwa

Ziwa

    Member

  • Members 1
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,403 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 10:40 AM

Agreed that it is far too hard-edged to be an attractive building complex. Imagine the space when its not full of people and its raining - pretty grim. However, I think they could doctor it up fairly effectively with serious landscaping and maybe a green wall and rooftop garden.

HOWEVER, I share the scepticism about St Aiden's Group. Have a look at their projects page:
http://www.staidansgroup.com/

9 projects on there, all 'started' in similar time frames, only one says its completed.
Thank goodness work on the decaying pile of the Wesleyan Chapel on Gipsy Hill is finally underway after a 5 year wait since they announced they were going to do something. I do think, however, that their choice of big fat white plastic window framing gives an unnecessarily budget look to the outside finish. Compare it with how the window looked with narrow black trim. The point being, I don't trust them on making good choices on the exterior finish.

#34 Norwood lad

Norwood lad

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,694 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 10:47 AM

You can bet they are eyeing up the small two storey units with Way ahead and that clothes store as that way they have a massive footprint and can built up along Westow St. Who owns these small two storey buildings as you can bet there has been discussion behind the scenes.

Personally I have no problem with the size of the development, particularly as its one of the very few large plots in the town centre that could be up for redevelopment and the effect of traffic will as minimal as the rest of the shops around here ( the one way system and through traffic is by far the greatest contributor to congestion).

Question is , as others have mentioned is will anything actually be built or will it be another pie in the sky scheme from a developer that does very little actual developing.

#35 Fang

Fang

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 11:17 AM

HOWEVER, I share the scepticism about St Aiden's Group. Have a look at their projects page:
http://www.staidansgroup.com/

9 projects on there, all 'started' in similar time frames, only one says its completed.
Thank goodness work on the decaying pile of the Wesleyan Chapel on Gipsy Hill is finally underway after a 5 year wait since they announced they were going to do something. I do think, however, that their choice of big fat white plastic window framing gives an unnecessarily budget look to the outside finish. Compare it with how the window looked with narrow black trim. The point being, I don't trust them on making good choices on the exterior finish.



They sold the Old Chapel a couple of years ago to the builder currently 'converting' it.

"This is what we find, this is what we find, the hope that springs eternal, springs right up your behind."

#36 belli

belli

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 190 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 11:43 AM

Blimey, that blond woman on the steps is levitating!

Could it be the ley lines?

#37 charlie

charlie

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,623 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 12:00 PM

I just hope that they don't revert back to the extant planning permission, the approval of which was highly contentious!

#38 Summit Lover

Summit Lover

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 5,019 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 12:52 PM

Blimey, that blond woman on the steps is levitating!

Could it be the ley lines?

:lol:

#39 Ziwa

Ziwa

    Member

  • Members 1
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,403 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 03:38 PM

They sold the Old Chapel a couple of years ago to the builder currently 'converting' it.

So they can't even update their webpage within a few years of an event? Their projects all seem to have 'started' in 2005-7, with little happening after that.

I had noticed that their name was no longer on the front of the Old Chapel building and Peddar development had taken its place. So they can't be blamed for the kind of window frames, but the accusation of fiddle-faddling seems to have even more support.

#40 Fang

Fang

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 04:24 PM

I just hope that they don't revert back to the extant planning permission, the approval of which was highly contentious!



Wasn't the granting of planning permission also shrouded in some controversy? I recall reading an account of the planning committee meeting; accusations of vested interests, Councillors leaving the meeting after declaring an interest, and permission was linked with another development in South Norwood.

"This is what we find, this is what we find, the hope that springs eternal, springs right up your behind."

#41 charlie

charlie

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,623 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 04:57 PM

Wasn't the granting of planning permission also shrouded in some controversy? I recall reading an account of the planning committee meeting; accusations of vested interests, Councillors leaving the meeting after declaring an interest, and permission was linked with another development in South Norwood.


Yes, that is my understanding too! The existing planning permission, I think was tied into building out a business centre in Portland road in South Norwood as part of the S106 planning obligations. Can't understand why the S106 wasn't allocated to Crystal Palace. But, I may be completely wrong.

I have asked how and where the section 106 money for the Westow Street Post office development is going to be spent but suprise suprise no answer from Croydon council.

We really need a mechanism to ensure that the voice of the CP community is heard - the Crystal Palace equivalent of the campaigning group and website 38 degrees.

Maybe call it 180 degrees after the Triangle. ;)

#42 Ziwa

Ziwa

    Member

  • Members 1
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,403 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 05:25 PM

I have asked how and where the section 106 money for the Westow Street Post office development is going to be spent but suprise suprise no answer from Croydon council.

You mean you weren't invited to that party?! ;) The s106 funds paid for the fireworks and champagne....It was a good one! Improved the neighbourhood no end...though only for a small number of people and a short time, but hey.

#43 andreas

andreas

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 1,982 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 05:39 PM

You mean you weren't invited to that party?! ;) The s106 funds paid for the fireworks and champagne....It was a good one! Improved the neighbourhood no end...though only for a small number of people and a short time, but hey.


That one, yes, I put in a complaint about the noise. I was also miffed to have missed an invitation to that fabulous fact-finding mission to Rio.
opposed to taking terrapins.

#44 charlie

charlie

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,623 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 05:51 PM

Not forgetting the annual council officer and developers boys jolly oops I meant essential intensive 4 day networking event at MIPM in Cannes!

#45 andreas

andreas

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 1,982 posts

Posted 22 August 2011 - 06:02 PM

Not forgetting the annual council officer and developers boys jolly oops I meant essential intensive 4 day networking event at MIPM in Cannes!

http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/8669128.Council_to_spend___4_000_a_day_for_Cannes_conference/

Ah but these are austere times, the spend by Croydon this year is down from 165,000 in 2010. I liked this wry comment by Kirsty Whalley, the author of the piece:

"Although the authority cannot point to any tangible benefits of the conference for the borough, it insists it is necessary to attend."
opposed to taking terrapins.