Jump to content


Photo

Crystal Palace FC and the NSC


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#31 mikecrystalpalace

mikecrystalpalace

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 09:07 AM

Thanks for the replies. Have to say im somewhat saddend by the response.

Like it or not people the fact is Crystal Palace Park and the NSC are both in a terrible state and there is not a huge pot of money going to be thrown at fixing either. It's also blatantly obvious that Bromley Council/LDA want rid, So lets take our heads out of the sand, take the nimby hat of our heads and look at this on its merits.

Firstly to those who say it aint possible because of this law dating back to 1066 well maybe, though interesting to note that Bromley Council/LDA stated that they welcome this in principle and hinted the proposal should have been in the recent consultation. Surely if this was a complete no go they'd just come out and say so?

Secondly who's nose would this development put out of joint? Doesn't look to me the athletics track is in a built up area, so whats the problem? Ok there'd be abit of noise for three hours on a saturday, big deal. Traffic jams? Fact of London life im afraid, and that ain't gonna change until South of the river gets the tube or trams they need.

Thirdly, correct me if im wrong but the Crystal Palace area is depressingly run down. Appreciate it won't help all buisness' but anyone who thinks that 25,000 people congregating in the area won't have a positive effect on local shops, pubs and cafes is dreaming. Take a look at the state of annerly road, drink in the arms anyone? Thought not. So any improvement there can only be a good thing. The area is also in desperate need of identity, i think we'd find the local MP's take a great deal more interest in upper Norwood if this development went ahead, who knows they might even speed up the tramlink, or at least plan the route with abit more more thought (this is already happening with the tramlink around the arsenal area). I'd welcome that too.

Fourthly and most importantly, the club would pay a rent. As long as this money went to fund the upkeep and improvements in the rest of Crystal Palace Park then long term theres a huge benefit, with a steady income long term substantial improvements could be made to the museum, cafe, farm and even the sports centre and the like, better than a one-off payment generated by a load of yuppie flats i'd have thought?


Bring it on i say! Bring the Palace Home.
The more i get to know people, the more i like dogs. (Oscar Wilde)

#32 James

James

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 09:55 AM

Thanks for the replies. Have to say im somewhat saddend by the response.

I have to say that I disagree with most of what you have said. I don't think that Crystal Palace area is "depressingly run down" nor in "desperate need of identity". Whilst the ongoing income would be better than the one-off capital sum from housing development I'm not convinced putting CPFC in the park is beneficial to the area.

European.vote - EU Referendum


#33 jamesl

jamesl

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,016 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 10:00 AM

Like it or not people the fact is Crystal Palace Park and the NSC are both in a terrible state and there is not a huge pot of money going to be thrown at fixing either. It's also blatantly obvious that Bromley Council/LDA want rid, So lets take our heads out of the sand, take the nimby hat of our heads and look at this on its merits.


As I understood it the LDA's consultation was part of a proposal to spend between £50-100 million on the stadium and the Park. Personally I take their claims with a huge pinch of salt because they never actually come clean about where its coming from (apart from £20 million from Housing) but if they are true to their word I think your analysis is incorrect.

I also think you mustn't lose sight of the fact that football is not the only sport played in this country - if the stadium was turned over to CPFC what would happen to other users like the athletics ?

Do you think the community would vote for the LDA's overall plans for redevelopment if they knew it meant that the stadium was turned over to the sole use of a football club that is not universally supported in south london ?

I am a Palace supporter and would love to see the club move forward but I'm pretty sure that if the leasing of the stadium to CPFC had been mentioned in the recent consultation it would not have garnered much support locally.

Edited by jamesl, 04 January 2006 - 10:01 AM.


#34 Fang

Fang

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 10:52 AM

The problem is that the Athletics Authorities don't want it. It has been made clear that after the Olympics one of the "legacy" benefits will be that the Olympic Stadium and facilities will be the new home of British Athletics. The NSC will be redundant and what we are discussing here is trying to find a use for an unwanted and soon to be unfunded, sports facility.

James, I know you are a staunch defender of this area but as someone who has lived here for some 20 years I have to say that the area has been in a slow decline for many years. There is still a strong sense of community in this district and I'm very, very, happy here but we must be realistic about the problems it has.

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

#35 James

James

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 11:14 AM

I don't dispute the fact there are problems in the area that need addressing. It's just that (with the exception of the park) I don't walk around the local area getting all gloomy and depressed about the area being in decline.

Regeneration seems to be the big buzzword for local authorities to use when in fact they should be saying redevelopment due to poor maintenance.

European.vote - EU Referendum


#36 duckec01

duckec01

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 12:58 PM

I don't dispute the fact there are problems in the area that need addressing. It's just that (with the exception of the park) I don't walk around the local area getting all gloomy and depressed about the area being in decline.


I totally agree James. There are problems with the park, but apart from that there is no obvious decline in the area. Yes the triangle has its problems. But there are less vacant premises now than at any time since I first moved here in 1988. There is no way a football stadium is going to improve things.

#37 Fang

Fang

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 01:29 PM

Again, we will have to disagree. We are no longer the district shopping centre we were, the traffic situation has worsened, along with associated noise and pollution, The character that made this area different from other districts around here has gone and I'm not even sure that the empty premises situation is as rosy as you say. All of this is correctable with a bit of leadership and bearing in mind the problems that arise as a result of the area being adminsitered by 5 local authorities, there really is a case for a single local community based organisation lobbying and fighting for the intrests of the people who live and work here.

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

#38 Guest_Bex_*

Guest_Bex_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 January 2006 - 01:38 PM

Maybe you could introduce me to the some of the bourgeoisie you've referred to - I haven't met anyone in our area that fits that description.

Maybe Bourgeoisie could also be defined as those who are willing to start a petition for a local Waitrose!!! There are plenty of those types around! :rolleyes:

Edited by Bex, 04 January 2006 - 01:38 PM.


#39 Yamaman

Yamaman

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 132 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 02:07 PM

I've been to a few grounds in my time and while I'm yet to go to Chelsea (or ever will) I must say I have never seen a footy ground be surrounded by a booming area. Sure St. James's Park is in a nice area but that's 5 mins walk to the CBD so everone heads there straight after the game.
Upper Norwood may not be booming but the places that are opening are all very nice (ie Bruscetta's, White Hart, Cafe Nero etc). We need more of them and less greasy chicken take-aways which is what would open with a new ground built.
But then I'm bias as I'm one of the many who actually quite liked the idea of a few residential flats being built at the gateway to the park. Definately better than a 40,000 seat stadium!!

I'm also bias as I'm in favour of keeping local sporting facilities for all as Axean says. I use the pool and the track and even enjoy lounging in the park on a sunny Saturday in summer. Something that would be out of the question with 15,000 fans marching through on their way the ground.

#40 matt

matt

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 02:16 PM

My thoughts entirely!
Whilst the park may not be in tip-top condition, at least its a park - Summer weekends its full of kids and theres precious few other areas they can go and play round here. Meanwhile the sports centre offers participation rather than just watching sport. Moving 20,000 football fans plus into the area would soon put a stop to that.

Mikecrystalpalace may see this as nimbyism, and fang may view this as a bourgeoisie view. But thats not the case - if I viewed it as for the benefit of the CP community, I'd agree with it. But its not, its for the benefit of CPFC fans, who I couldn't care less about.

#41 James

James

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 03:17 PM

Again, we will have to disagree. We are no longer the district shopping centre we were, the traffic situation has worsened, along with associated noise and pollution,

I don't see the (detrimental) effects of the one way system in the same way as neglect of the upkeep of the park. The one way system is reversible and the local economy could bounce back if something is done about it. The traffic is bad in many places and solutions can be found to deal with them as best as possible. I can't see any reason why the park has been neglected. The economy, lifestyle changes and traffic play a role in the 'decline' of the triangle. They don't impact the park in the same way. For me, decline is associated with neglect and lack of maintenance and corrective action, not the issues that create change.

the problems that arise as a result of the area being adminsitered by 5 local authorities, there really is a case for a single local community based organisation lobbying and fighting for the intrests of the people who live and work here.

VN isn't a lobby group or organisation. However you've hit the nail on the head about why our web site covers five boroughs - for some inexplicable reason the councils find it hard to network with four other boroughs. At least online we don't have to be so devisive and can represent the area in a more meaningful way.

European.vote - EU Referendum


#42 Fang

Fang

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 03:54 PM

Are there any members of The Crystal Palace Community Assoc. here? Do they have a lobbying role? I know about the Chamber of Commerce and The Triangle Traders, I don't think we are short of organisations up here we just need them to become a bit more vociferous.

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

#43 James

James

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 04:07 PM

we just need them to become a bit more vociferous.

If you want to see some action you need to get involved. The reason why "they" aren't as vociferous as you'd like is because they don't get enough hands on support and too many people assume someone else is going to speak up on their behalf. And when they do they are sometimes accused of being self-serving. If you aren't happy with what "they" do then "you" need to take an active interest and change matters for yourself.

European.vote - EU Referendum


#44 Dazza

Dazza

    Council Boy

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,327 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 04:11 PM

Cant see why Palace need a 40000+ seat stadium we only got 20000 at the last home game perhaps if we play man united or chelsea perhaps but we would be relying on away support to achieve them figures.

If the palace bought the sainburys site back there is plenty off space for development.

Dazza
Your obviously mistaken me with someone who gives a fig

#45 matt

matt

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 04:24 PM

And then sainsburys could move to fill the Morrisons space. Everyones happy! :)