Jurassic Park's bridge

At times, as this long, tumultuous, year finally winds down, it can appear as though the Brexit debacle is engulfing everything. When one emerges briefly from behind the sofa, barely anything seems to have escaped its touch.

It is pleasing, therefore, to see a piece of news emerge that is not only entirely different but also a rare positive. After months of campaigning, the Friends of Crystal Palace Dinosaurs have secured the funds  needed to proceed with trying to install a bridge in Crystal Palace Park to enable them to maintain and celebrate the Victorian masterpieces.

Slash, with top hat

More than 600 people – many just local supporters – backed the plan, contributing to the more than £70,000 required to make the plan a reality. Mayor of London Sadiq Khan gave it a kick start with £30,000, Arup another £9,000 and the architects behind the bridge, Tonkin Liu, at least £2,500. It was assisted by an extra sprinkling of stardust from Guns N Roses guitarist Slash, who fondly remembers visiting them as a child. Taking a break from his world tour with Axl, Slash donated one of his trade mark top hats to an online auction as well as making a donation, attracting much needed wider attention to the scheme in its final few weeks. I'm sad, and a bit happy, to report that, even for a Guns N Roses nut, the hat proved to be beyond my price range.

That said, it was a close-run thing, only hitting its target in the last few hours of the appeal. And now, those behind the project have a job to do persuading some critics that its construction is for the best, amid fears it could damage wild life or attract vandalism.

The dinosaurs are of global significance. Designed by Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins, the 30-odd statues were the first attempt in the world to create full-scale models of what dinosaurs would have looked like when they ruled the planet. While mainly sited on an island in a lake in Crystal Palace Park, proud locals are not hesitant to boast they’re also in Penge.

Despite some of the models being almost comically inaccurate – demonstrating how our knowledge of the creatures’ physical appearance was at such a formative stage 160-years-ago – the dinosaurs are Grade I listed, the highest status available. But, exposed to the elements, the dinosaurs do need constant maintenance and the last cold winter had, according to the Friends, ‘a disastrous effect upon the sculptures’.

It is understandable that some might worry the creation of a bridge might prove invasive and upset the wildlife. The lakes are well laid out, providing a lovely spot around which to walk and it is teeming with birds. But it isn’t a site of special scientific interest or a rare bird reserve. Pedaloes and rowing boats can be hired, people gather and feed the perennially aggressive Canada geese; it’s worth asking whether the wildlife would be there at all if it were not for the dinosaurs.

Those behind the project also insist the bridge will be secure from vandals and that the only visits allowed will be for works and particular tours. Overall, the local community is very supportive of the plan but hopefully those who have concerns will be assured about its benefits. It would be such a shame if it was derailed through misunderstandings, especially as I know that it has been tremendously difficult to get anything done to improve and restore Crystal Palace Park. 

This is the ambition and plan of the Friends of Crystal Palace Dinosaurs

And, apart from anything else, if the bridge opens on time next summer it will hopefully provide a delightful spot to escape from the daily nonsense that dominates the news these days.


Postscript

I would love to track down a copy of this book; Dinosaurs Don't Die, by Ann Coates. First published in 1970, the cheapest copy I have managed to find costs Aus$95. It appears to feature the Crystal Palace dinosaurs coming alive. Sadly, I doubt I'll source a copy for my two daughters this Christmas.

Boris' Tour de France 'no brainer'

Fans of Boris Johnson like to claim that behind that bumbling, buffoonish, Bertie Wooster-esque, façade there is a clever, conscientious politician.

But it has become increasingly hard to be convinced by this argument and with his rejection of London hosting the Grand Depart of the Tour de France, he has acted with staggering unprofessionalism and short-sightedness, damaging any prospect of the race returning to Britain for many years to come.

London went through the whole process of bidding for this stage of the Tour triumphing over places such as Edinburgh, Manchester and cities in Germany. And then, the day before contracts were due to be signed, Transport for London pulled out claiming that it wouldn’t provide value for money.

Boris Johnson has now said pulling out was his call, describing it as a ‘no-brainer’.

‘I had to take a very tough decision, obviously painful. In an ideal world, you know me, my policy is to have your cake and eat it. The difficulty was we had to make a choice. £35million is an awful lot to spend on a one off when you could put that money in to long term projects. What people really want is safer cycling lanes.’

It’s certainly true that people want safe cycle lanes – something which Boris himself has been pretty reluctant to invest in until recently – but if it was such a ‘no-brainer’ why on earth wasn’t this realised at an earlier stage? What is the point of going through the whole charade of bidding for such a prestigious event when the mayor can so glibly withdraw at the last minute? 

TfL claim that the process didn't cost a penny as it was all done internally; perhaps true, but all the work done on the bid by members of staff has been completely wasted. Whatever else has gone on, there has been a massive failure of process at TfL and within the mayor’s office.

And we must look at this claim that it wouldn’t have proved to be value for money. Spending £35m on anything is certainly a hefty bill but Yorkshire, which hosted the opening stage last year, estimates it has generated £150m worth of wider benefits. There, the event attracted 4.8m spectators; it is hard to imagine it wouldn’t have attracted an even bigger crowd if the peloton had been wheeling their way through London's highways and byways next year.

In TfL’s defence, a spending review is looming and it does face cuts but Boris isn’t exactly averse to wasting money. Christian Wolmar, the transport journalist who recently tried to become Labour’s prospective candidate at the next mayoral election, put together a good little article looking at the money wasted by Boris during his tenure.

Amongst the highlights were:

£300million spent on the New Bus for London, a poorly conceived, terribly designed monster that will lumber around our streets for the next few years. Boris has also spent £10m pursuing his fantasy of an estuary airport, something which was never likely to happen in the first place

£24m on a cable car across the Thames that promised to be a great way for commuters to travel but in fact carries precisely zero commuters. Boris pledged no public money to this, but of course TfL has contributed.

Boris pursued another vanity project to rebuild the Crystal Palace; it involved handing much of a public park over to a Chinese business, apparently ignoring the conventional tendering process and hoping locals would simply be wowed. Unsurprisingly, Bromley Council ultimately walked away after fruitless talks – wasting £150,000 in the process – and Crystal Palace Park was in the sadly all too familiar position of missing out of millions of pounds from the Heritage Lottery Funding as a consequence of Boris’ misadventure.

TfL has also pledged £30m to build the Thames Garden Bridge (along with another £30m from the government) despite promises, again, that public money would not be used. Again, the whole project appears not to have gone through proper tendering processes.

In comparison to the above, therefore, spending £35m, with the likelihood of greater, and wider, benefits down the line, doesn’t seem such a bad idea.

But what makes the decision all the more inexplicable is that one of Boris’ genuine achievements as mayor has been his ability to sell London around the world. Yet this tangible success – one which has the capacity to provide a legacy for the future – has been foolishly set back by cancelling the event in such a last minute, casual fashion.

It is clear that the Tour de France owners, Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO), are angry at the withdrawal – the bidding process would undoubtedly have cost them time, money and effort – and they are hardly likely to look at future bids from London, or elsewhere in the UK, with much sympathy. And other sporting organisations too will look at London with sceptical eyes, wondering whether it’s worth dealing with the city if there is a chance it might pull out at the last minute.

Boris’ legacy has been looking flimsy for some time but a future major will not thank him for this genuine damage to London’s reputation as a city which can stage major international events with competence, confidence, success and flair.

Crystal Palace; nothing happening very slowly

By the time something is done with the north terrace of Crystal Palace Park - the site of Joseph Paxton's masterpiece and now little more than waste ground - I would not at all be surprised if the construction of HS2 to Manchester had long been completed and we were all used to travelling on Crossrail 2. Such is the complexity of the site, coupled with the various interested parties, it is very tricky to make any progress. And so it comes as no great surprise to learn that the exclusivity deal signed between Bromley Council and the Chinese ZhongRong group - who want to spend £500million rebuilding a version of the palace - has come to an end with little evidence of progress being made.

A quick recap of the original timetable:

Early 2014 - Shortlist of architects selected. This was achieved and the six firms - the usual suspects for such a high profile project - can be found here

Autumn 2014 - Architect selected and a planning application submitted

Winter 2015 - Building work begins

The last two have got utterly nowhere. The hoped-for schedule was always wildly optimistic and so it has proved. The notion that a planning application of such magnitude would be passed so swiftly, especially considering widespread opposition from local groups, was absurd. I should add that the scheme does, or perhaps did, have support from some residents and local businesses, impressed by the scale and potential of the project. They have, however, become increasingly hard to track down.

The main sticking point seems to be that the Chinese firm want to take over large swathes of the public park and Bromley Council have not received sufficient assurances over access to the land or, indeed, what on earth they would put in a new palace once it was built.

Bromley Council are very keen to stress that just because the exclusivity deal is over, does not mean talks with ZhongRong have ended. They continue. In a statement, dated Monday February 2, council leader Stephen Carr says the following:

'These have been and remain complex proposals. The potential to completely restore and improve the park as well as regeneration for the surrounding area is something we cannot ignore. Equally, the Council is not going to agree to something without being confident about the proposals as we are custodians of this fantastic park.'

He adds:

'Whilst we are no longer bound by an exclusivity agreement, the confidential discussions have not concluded and these continue with ZhongRong. Local people and other interested parties should know that when there is something to say, we will keep them informed as we have sought to do all the way along this process and I thank them for their continued patience.'

From Bromley's perspective, it is easy to see their point. Someone is offering a huge amount of money to regenerate a pitifully neglected spot and while it is a huge pity Heritage Lottery Fund money has been lost, AGAIN, it is a pittance in comparison to the quantity being talked about by this Chinese firm. But one must question whether a project on this scale was ever vaguely realistic.

The Greens were first out of the traps this morning (Friday January 30) calling for the scheme to be scrapped. Tom Chance, the party's candidate for Lewisham West and Penge, said:

'The idea of building a huge hotel and conference centre on our park was wrong, the consultation process was hopeless, and the consequences have included community groups blocked from improving our park, the loss of millions of pounds of lottery funding, and a huge amount of anger and resentment among local people.

'Bromley and the GLA need to stop messing around with fantasy projects and send the ZhongRong group packing.'

And he has his own ideas as to what should happen now:

'If they set-up a Community Land Trust to govern the park's future this could find viable ways to implement the adopted masterplan incrementally without losing large areas of the park to private ownership and commercial buildings. 

'The council could also work with local environmental groups to turn the scrub and woodland on the hill top into a popular local nature reserve within the next six months, instead of denigrating it as a waste of space and trying to concrete it over.'

Personally, I'm sure Bromley will persist for a while longer but I expect ZhongRong to eventually slink away and the council will be forced to return to the masterplan. The gleaming building, below, which dazzled the easily-bedazzled Boris Johnson so looks increasingly unlikely ever to emerge. I doubt even Joanna Lumley's smile would be enough to rescue this.

What is happening with the Crystal Palace redevelopment?

A curious press release appeared on Bromley Council’s website on Friday, announcing a £2.4million improvement programme for Crystal Palace Park. Nine projects would be examined and a feasibility study drawn up. The projects included conserving the dinosaurs, conserving the sphinxes and south terrace steps and the Paxton basin. The amount of money is not huge and will not vaguely cover the nine projects listed. But the bigger question is why is Bromley Council spending any money on the park at all when the Chinese ZhongRong group are still in negotiations over a £500million reimagining of Joseph Paxton’s Crystal Palace?

On a sunny, unusually warm day in February this year hundreds of people crammed in to a sweltering, sweaty, room to hear what might become of the park if the ZhongRong group get the go ahead to their ambitious scheme. As I wrote here, it wasn’t particularly informative. Bad-tempered from the beginning, the local community, evidently distrustful of planners and the council after decades of promises and inaction, broadly displayed suspicion towards the scheme, drowning out the few voices of support. Consultants Arup, who led the event, struggled to provide much information at all, as did representatives from Bromley Council and the Mayor of London’s office, who were also in attendance. No one from the ZhongRong was there, or at least made themselves known.

What was clear was a shortlist of six architectural practices had been drawn up with a winner due to be selected by the summer. And while summer has some time to go (hopefully), no winner has yet emerged and the whole grand scheme has been notable for its silence. The notion that an application might be submitted in Autumn this year - and building commencing in Winter 2015 - seems unlikely to say the least.

The delay appears to be within the negotiations between Bromley Council and ZhongRong. They were always going to be somewhat fraught, being, as they are, about selling off a large swathe of a public park to a private venture on a 125-year lease. Some observers have suggested - plausibly enough - that 'ZhongRong are making demands that cannot lawfully be met' but a council spokesman would not be drawn on this. Instead, he insisted that 'negotiations are on going'.

'We are going one stage at a time. The first step was the exclusivity contract. ZhongRong would then develop their plans and negotiations would continue about a land deal. These negotiations are on going.'

And, asked about Bromley Council spending money on restoring land which could be part of the redevelopment according to a map released a few months ago, he said:

'The map of exclusivity doesn't necessarily mean ZhongRong want, or indeed, are going to get, all that area. The idea around that is to get an area of land about which Bromley wouldn't enter into negotiations with other people. It was a way of giving ZhongRong some security.'

And he refused to say whether the timetable was slipping or not.

'We couldn't comment on the timetable. We want to be as open as possible with people about it and will give updates when we can.'

As for the money now being spent, we need to go back to when ZhongRong just made their presence noticed. Bromley Council had submitted an application for Heritage Lottery Funding for the park and it is likely they would have been successful had ZhongRong never appeared. In which case, the HLF would have given a £5million grant towards the park, on top of about £2.4million from the local authority and the Mayor of London's office. This £2.4million is that money.

And they know it is just a drop in the ocean of the funding the park really needs. The £60million masterplan which was halted a few years ago would need be about £100million in today's money, I am told. The council spokesman added: 

'£2.4million won't solve everything. We know that. Is it a step forward? Yes. Will it make a difference? Yes.' 

One wonders whether the ZhongRong plan will be the latest Crystal Palace to fail to materialise; a colourful, flamboyant intervention, backed by an overly-enthusiastic Mayor of London who is searching for vanity projects to create something of a legacy, and a council keen to rid themselves of a troublesome park. We will have to wait and see.

Boris questioned on Crystal Palace plans

*This is really just an update on the previous entry.

Several London Assembly members have tabled a series of questions to Mayor Boris Johnson about the proposed £500million redevelopment plan for Crystal Palace Park and today I received all of the answers.

Readers will notice a disappointing number of responses are simply 'Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly'.

The questions, from Green member Darren Johnson and abour's Val Shawcross and Fiona Twycross, range from issues over the London Plan to the failings of the consultation process, which Boris now believes have mainly been resolved.

The highlights are below, responses in italics. (If anyone wants the full responses, contact me on Twitter and I'll respond)

Darren Johnson

Further Alterations to the London Plan 

You are proposing to designate Crystal Palace as a Strategic Outer London Development Centre. Is this in relation to the proposal to build on the top site?

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

You are proposing to designate Crystal Palace as a Strategic Outer London Development Centre. Does this encompass (a) the park, (b) the National Sports Centre, (c) the Crystal Palace "town centre" and (d) other neighbouring town centres such as Penge?

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

You are proposing to designate Crystal Palace as a Strategic Outer London Development Centre. Is this area identified for exogenous growth, to create new significant growth opportunities, or endogenous, to enhance existing growth trends?

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

Val Shawcross

Crystal Palace Park - MOU

Please publish the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the GLA, LB Bromley and ZRG in March 2013 concerning the development on the top site of Crystal Palace Park.

This will be made available on the Bromley Council website.

Crystal Palace Park. Transport impact

When is it planned to undertake a transport impact assessment on the proposal to redevelop the top site on Crystal Place Park? How many car journeys would be generated by the Crystal Palace Park Development each day if the development were to go ahead?

I acknowledge this is a priority for local people having listened to feedback from the consultation sessions.

The consultant team will identify transport issues raised by the scheme early on and have already begun initial discussions with TfL and Tramlink. A Transport Assessment will be prepared alongside all the planning application documents after an architect has been appointed in Summer 2014. It will rely on detailed information on uses and activities within the building and therefore it will evolve as the proposals develop.

The new Crystal Palace should not have unacceptable impacts on the transport network and the potential impact on both the local highway network and the public transport network will be a key consideration throughout the design process.

Crystal Palace Park - Overseas Government Investment

Are you concerned that LB Bromley are allegedly proposing to let a large part of Crystal Palace Park's public Metropolitan Open Lane to an overseas private developer for 125 years?  What scrutiny and public oversight will be in place to ensure the interests of the local community and public access to the park is protected for the entire length of this proposed lease period?

Crystal Palace Park is owned by the London Borough of Bromley and therefore the details of any land transaction related to the park is a matter for Bromley.  Any impact on Metropolitan Open Land will be fully and carefully considered in detail as part of the planning process.

Crystal Palace Park - Potential Uses of Development

What commercial usages are being considered for the buildings at Crystal Palace Park top site? How are potential conflicts between what is planned and the planning restrictions currently imposed on this land going to be resolved?

It is very early days in the process, but suggested commercial uses could include a hotel and conference facilities, studios, galleries and other commercial space. These will be subject to a full, detailed planning process.

Fiona Twycross 

Crystal Palace Park 

Have you read the results of the first questionnaire carried out by Arup at its consultation event? They are available on the London Crystal Palace website and show a majority favouring a museum, art gallery or visitor attraction rather than hotels and retail. What do you think of the findings of this initial consultation meeting?

Yes, I have read the results, and am extremely encouraged that people are engaging so actively with the ongoing consultation process. I’m keen to see something that balances public appeal, facilities and attractions with the need to ensure the ongoing commercial sustainability of the building, and my officers are working closely with Bromley and Arup to ensure this is the case. I assure you that we want to attract and deliver in Crystal Palace a cultural attraction that will be of national significance and add to and not compete with London’s existing cultural offer.

Despite your own personal enthusiasm for the plans to build of a replica of Crystal Palace in Crystal Palace Park the findings of the consultation show respondents top three priorities were restoring the park, attracting locals and protecting heritage. Will you listen to these views even if they are different to your own stated view?

There is no reason why the views of local constituents and the aims for the renovated park should be being mutually exclusive. Restoring the park, attracting locals and protecting heritage are three of our long-stated goals for this project. However, the cost of renovating the park is rising and currently estimated to be £80 million. Therefore, significant investment needs to be generated to deliver the priorities of the public, and the findings of the consultation process, and we will keep this in mind as developments continue to progress.

Are you aware of concerns raised about the initial consultation meeting about Crystal Palace Park in December, and what is your office's involvement in the consultation process?

I am aware of the concerns that were raised. A team from Arup is leading on engagement activity on behalf of the developer and is being supported by my officers. I understand that the second consultation meeting on 1^st February addressed many of the concerns around communication and presentation.

Approximately 350 people attended this meeting, with around 320 copies of the questionnaire completed online and on the day. There was representation from my officers at the event, as there will be at the next event on 1^st March.

We need to talk about Crystal Palace

It would appear that those behind plans to 'rebuild' Crystal Palace have underestimated levels of interest. The Mayor of London's office, Bromley Council and consultants Arup hosted a day long 'drop-in' event for local communities to hear an update on plans to redevelop the top terraces of the park, on the site of Joseph Paxton's original building. But, with a talk scheduled for 11.30am, the doors of the meeting room at the Lodge - inside a modern tower within the park - had to be closed as it was already bursting with at least a couple of hundred people (indeed, I only managed to squeeze in waving a toy to give to my wife to keep our daughter entertained!). 

While the planners may have the best of intentions, the event didn't seem to satisfy most attendees. There wasn't an enormous amount to update as there remains a lack of information and detail as to what is really intended. And, significantly, there was not, as far as I was aware, a representative from the Zhong Rong group, the Chinese firm who are eager to pay for the £500million redevelopment.

As soon as James Lough, associate director of Arup, began his speech, he was interrupted by challenging questions:

'Where is the brief for this? There is no brief that says, we want this. You don't have a brief you don't have a concept. You have got six disparate firms of architects, how can they come with a concept for Crystal Palace?

'A lot of us were under the impression that the Chinese organisation were going to rebuild Crystal Palace. A lot of us thought this would be according to Paxton's own design and now it seems that this in fact something completely different.'

Another lady exclaimed: 'We don't buy it, it's a sham and it's shameful.'

Mr Lough did his best to respond. The brief 'is being developed for the competition and the project'. Yet, it is clear the six short-listed firms have not been set any parameters within which to work. This is their opportunity to show off with flamboyant designs that will never be built.

The new building, Mr Lough admitted, 'isn't going to be a slavish adherence' to Paxton's design as that was of its time and the new building will have to conform modern building regulations.

An ambitious timetable was laid out. From the six firms, three will be selected later in Spring to submit more detailed - and presumably realistic - proposals, with the winner chosen in the Summer. Assuming all goes smoothly in planning (!), work would commence in winter 2015 with the final building opening in 2018.

There is nothing firm about what might be in the new palace, though the questionnaire they have distributed gives an interesting insight into what the local community thinks.

Would you like to see a new Crystal Palace developed in Crystal Palace Park?

Yes - 54% No - 19% Not sure - 28%

What uses would you like to see in the new Palace?

                                           Yes          No

Hotel                                    32            45

Cinema                                 52            31

Museum                               86              7

Art Gallery                           85              8

Shops                                    25            52

Artist studios                        72            12

Restaurant/cafes                  81            13

Conference facilities            44            33

Viewing platform                  85              7

(The above figures are estimates. The only precise percentage given was for the 'yes/no' question, all the other figures are my interpretation of block graphs. I'm happy to be corrected)

A world class hotel is a crucial aspect to any development of this scale so the hostility to this is already striking. There is also strong opposition against the venue hosting shops. The backers say they will not compete with what is already available in Crystal Palace, but it's hard to imagine this project going ahead without shops, bars and restaurants.

The Q&A afterwards developed something of theme. There were repeated complaints about the failure to alert people about the exhibition, though I did wonder if this was perhaps a bit unfair; while I only found out the night before, the event was packed and I gather the later, similar, meeting was heaving too.

Were other councils being involved? Yes, but none were there at this session. They are being kept updated apparently. It is significant that, while Bromley Council control the park, those most affected do not live in the borough.

Concerns were raised over the funding of the project; how could it be guaranteed that the Zhong Rong Group would be committed to the project for the entire course? And what about the potential sale - the 'privatisation' - of a significant proportion of the park? A representative from the council said lawyers were already looking to securing funding and they would ensure open access to land is guaranteed for the future.

I don't want to give the impression there was only opposition to the scheme. It clearly has robust support. One man described it as the 'most exciting' of the various schemes he had seen over the 30 years he had lived in the area. Another called for prominent water features to be part of any new development, reminding the gathering how the park's fountains had once been the size of Nelson's Column.

The fountains of Crystal Palace

But overwhelmingly, there was a feeling of frustration at the lack of detail. Labour London Assembly Member Val Shawcross asked about the footprint of the planned building, saying it appeared to be way beyond was what allowed - presumably based on the current artist's impression which sees the an enormous structure covering spots like the bus station. The answer was no limits had been given to the architects to give them as much freedom as they needed to come up with their design. When Ms Shawcross begged for consultation to 'be cranked up' she was met with a round of applause.

The redevelopment of Crystal Palace has been dogged for decades by politics at all levels; local, council level, regional and in government. Indeed, I have heard the various Crystal Palace groups compared with the People's Front of Judea. Consultation so far has been dogged by a lack of information. Arup made no guarantee that the planning brief will be made public but they are looking at opening a shop in the Crystal Palace Triangle to try and keep people more directly informed. Perhaps that will help.

Those behind the project will surely hope so. The scheme will only have a successful outcome with careful negotiation. There is a vocal body of opposition which will only get stronger and louder if the current inadequate state of affairs continues.

A brief update on Crystal Palace

Yesterday, it was reported that six architects have been shortlisted for the £500million reconstruction of Crystal Palace.

The list includes the all of the likely candidates: David Chipperfield Architects; Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners; Zaha Hadid Architects with artist Anish Kapoor; Grimshaw Architects; Haworth Tompkins Architects; and Marks Barfield Architects.

These six have been whittled down from an initial list of 40 firms and now each of them will submit a more detailed proposal for the site before three of the firms will, according to Property Week, 'be invited to produce initial concept designs. The scheme's backers hope to finally select an architect by the summer.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson is clearly delighted by all of this:

'This is a stellar line-up of talent demonstrating the world-wide interest in this unique and challenging project.

'The rebuild of the Crystal Palace is set to produce an extraordinary new landmark for the capital, which will support the rebirth of  this historic park and catalyse jobs and growth in the area.'

It does, however, raise a couple of questions.  

No deal has yet been signed with the Chinese Zhongrong Group, whose billionaire owner Ni Zhaoxing wants to rebuild the palace. It's certainly not unusual for such high profile firms to get involved at such an early stage, but one planning expert tells me the timetable is 'hasty, though not exceptional'. We know, however, Bromley Council are desperate to rid themselves of the responsibility for the park. And the mayor is dazzled by big, impressive, futuristic images and is eager for landmark vanity projects to give him what amounts to a legacy. And consultation with local communities has so far been woeful; there is no indication from this latest announcement if or when this will improve.

Also, while all of the shortlisted firms will no doubt submit spectacular proposals for the site, what little consultation there has been has indicated a replica of the palace was to be built; will these firms find their creative talents shackled by such constraints? It seems unlikely, especially as submitting grand proposals for such a prime site - regardless of whether they are built or not - is a major advertising tactic for such practices. 

Thus far, while the prospects for a rebuilt Crystal Palace could certainly be exciting, it all seems wearily reminiscent of the previous, overly-ambitious and flawed, schemes to rejuvenate the site.

Update

I have been reminded of a similar scheme to rebuild Crystal Palace which has been around for quite a while. My wife and I made a trip to Crystal Palace several years ago and dropped into the library in the Triangle where we were given a brochure by an enthusiastic fellow for a very ambitious scheme. This vision featured a new palace - two-thirds the size of the original - incorporating a world-class hotel, conference centre, restaurants and shops. A new Olympic-sized swimming pool would be built, as well as a ski slope, cinemas, a butterfly house, hanging gardens and a botanical centre. It would be a venue of international renown and be a new heart for south London.

In many ways it is very similar in scale to what is being envisaged now though obviously hasn't become a reality; the architect behind the scheme - Lewisham-based Raymond Hall - had a vision of it being reopened this year, although the updated video claims 2018 for a royal unveiling. For more information on this scheme go here.

'Piloti' backs the new Crystal Palace

Private Eye's architectural writer, Piloti, doesn't often praise a scheme preferring to target nefarious, crude, developers, but in this fortnight's edition he is effusive about the prospect of a new Crystal Palace, invoking John Betjeman. He writes:

The site of the Crystal Palace on top of Sydenham Hill must be the most desolate and sad in Britain. 
    Proposals to build there ahve been unsatisfactory and come to nothing. but now, surprisingly, a Chinese billionaire, Ni Zhaoxing, of the developer ZhongRong holdings, proposes to recreate Paxton's iron and glass creation on the site (with a modern interior). Opposition has already emerged, both from ideologues who disapprove of replicas and from people who think the present rubbish on the site is worth retaining. But surely this is a wonderful idea - provided the 1854 structure is rebuilt accurately and in its entirety.
    'Let's Build Another One!' wrote John Betjeman, sainted founder of this column, in 1936 after the fire that destroyed the Crystal Palace. 'It is an emblem of all that was best in the great Victorian age, when England was prosperous and full of hope; when she was bolder than she is now...There would be nothing sentimental in rebuilding this greatest of Victorian cathedrals.' Quite so.

Piloti's voice is not just a lonely shout from the wilderness. These plans do have local support, and plenty of detractors, as I have found speaking to locals and also peaking at  forums such as this. Here's a few examples:

The white flag is quickly raised: 'Time to emigrate' was an early cry but others quickly issued a call to action, 'Time to fight', seemingly winning the argument as the first worrier replied 'wouldn't emigrate without fighting.'

Some are prepared for it to be given a chance:

'I think people are too quick off the mark to condemn this project, without knowing exactly what the plans are.
'Crystal Palace today (as well as the name) would not be anything like it is today without the 'delapitedated' (sic) palace mentioned.
The traffic concerns are completely without evidence. How many people drive to museums in London? Really.
I think this would be miles better than any other scenario, no housing, check. No need for funding for upkeep of the park, check. Keeping to the original footprint, check.
Crystal Palace IS the Crystal Palace. If well done, we should not stand in the way of good progress.
Wait and see before poo pooing it. It's not a cinema, a flying saucer or a 'Westfield'. Be careful what you wish for.'

While another said:

'As long as it's done with consideration and minimal disruption, then it should be supported. Will have a good effect on the house prices too, and good for tackling crime; they would have to bring in more police and security. More money in the local economy is a good thing overall. They should have rebuilt it before. If the only bit they're gonna rebuild is on the old Palace footprint, then that's great. If they improve public transport, that's great. Don't torpedo the idea. Help to shape it and make sure it serves local interests.

But there's a hefty dose of scepticism:

'We need to see what are these plans for CP. If the financial model (occupancy/returns etc) make sense. The impact on the community (traffic pollution, jobs etc). Then we can draw some conclusions.
At the moment I can only see some shady way to present this project to the media as if it was a done deal, no local consultation and sketchy information about the structure itself.... on the basis of current (limited) information the building makes very little sense.....'

And local councillor John Getgood falls into this category:

'There are so many unanswered questions. I am just musing at the moment, trying to put it all together. Anyone who remembers the debate on the Master Plan will know that once I have adopted a position, I will argue firmly for it but we cannot be said to be at the stage here yet. I have asked for clarification from the council on the ownership issues. They are not clear.'

Others have made their minds up:

'Trouble is, it's not just going to be a museum, the plans include shopping, a hotel, eateries of various types, I really do think traffic is going to be a problem. 
Also the original footprint includes some the current bus station, so I wonder what they'll do about that.
I'm not being a nimby, and I'm certainly not a pointless poopooer (is that even a word? - Ed), but I work in the construction industry, and I know how much of an environmental impact this will have on the park, as it's built, and I also know what much plans change between the 'pretty CGI pictures' stage, and the 'bog standard piece of shit' eventuality, I've see it happen.
Personally, I'd like to see a good clean up and reforestry sort of thing on the top terraces, keep it green, basically.'

And there are some who really hope it will all help the local football club:

'The devil is in the detail I guess but generally I think I'm for it in principle - that part of the park has been left to rot for a long time and lot of it hasn't been accessible to the public for many years....think overall it will be good for the local economy and put South London a bit more on the map. Maybe he will double up and Buy CPFC aswell!

Note:  Today Bromley Council gave exclusive rights for 16 months to the developers to give them an opportunity to move on with their plans. This means, they will have until February 2015 to amplify their ideas and consult with the community, before they submit a planning application. There's more information here.

Can Paxton's Crystal Palace be rebuilt?

Over the years, plans to restore the site of the Crystal Palace have come and gone, stymied by local agendas, politics, planning and a lack of funds. I have seen sympathetic butterfly houses suggested, trees mapping out the template of the original palace, a car park, houses, a shopping complex and a huge private scheme which envisaged hotels, shops, a conference centre and the inclusion of an Olympic sized swimming pool  alongside restoration of the enormous fountains. All have been conceived, some with greater detail than others, but they have fallen by the wayside.

Several local pressure groups have their own, competing ideas and have been known to take consultants on site, show them around and then, one by one, take the expert aside to whisper that the others had little idea what they were talking about. It is no surprise nothing significant has happened.

But yesterday Mayor of London Boris Johnson was joined by Mr Ni Zhaoxing, the chairman of the ZhongRong Group. Mr Zhaoxing – worth $1.25 billion and 76^th on the China Rich List according to Forbes – has a dream of restoring Joseph Paxton’s Crystal Palace to its former glory (a video of their scheme is below). It wouldn't be the same as Paxton’s original, which sadly burned down in 1936, but will update the ‘innovative, translucent and delicate structure of the original along with its size and scale’, about 50 metres high and 500 metres long.




The palace would be a ‘culture-led exhibition and employment space’, the Italian terraces restored, a central tree lined boulevard running through much of the park created, the concert bowl renovated and the dinosaurs given new lighting (they were only recently restored in 2002). Sadly, no mention of the magnificent fountains which came with the original building but you never know.

They anticipate it would feature a hotel and conference facilities, studios, galleries and other commercial space. Not altogether too dissimilar from the scheme I mentioned above. Currently it remains all a bit vague. Detailed plans are, we are assured, ‘to be developed’. But if they want to stick with their timetable, they had better get cracking. A figure of £500million has been mooted for the project and they hope an application could be submitted as early as Autumn 2014, with building starting in winter 2015. And all of that includes the minefield of consultation, with the myriad of interests bickering for attention.

Paxton's original Crystal Palace

Leader of Bromley Council Stephen Carr describes it as a ‘visionary proposal’ but admits it is at an ‘early stage’. ‘It has to be worthy of serious consideration,’ he believes. They claim up to 2,000 jobs could be created.

On its website Bromley Council says the park needs ‘significant financial investment to its infrastructure to ensure that it can be enjoyed by generations to come,’ and this plan boasts that it would not need housing to be built. But it does mean handing over a large swathe of the park to a private, Chinese investment company. We know that: ‘The investor has submitted a request for an exclusivity agreement from Bromley Council.'

And already there are concerns about the project. In a letter to Bromley Council in August, the Crystal Palace Community Stakeholder Group (CSG), after they got wind of the scheme following a private reception at the Houses of Parliament, said the ‘proposal threatens the growth of community engagement and enthusiasm for a new sustainable future for the park’. They fear the park would be ‘under threat from commercial developers’. And they are particularly worried the scheme may jeopardise the Masterplan for the park, which has spent years working its way through the planning system, as well as scuppering chances for a Heritage Lottery Fund bid.

And in the London Assembly, the Green Party are already against it. Assembly member Darren Johnson said:

‘While I’m sure many people would love to see the Crystal Palace raised from the ashes, this precious parkland isn’t the right place for it. When the palace was moved there in the 1850s the newly laid out park was near countryside, but today it’s an urban park with a lot of space already taken up by the national sports centre, car parks, road and the caravan site.

‘The Mayor and the council need to concentrate on enhancing the park and backing the community groups who are doing their best to restore heritage features without losing green space.’

And as with the CSG, he raised the prospect losing the chance for an HLF bid.

One does not want to be too negative as it may be an interesting scheme and it is certainly ambitious. There are serious people on board, such as the co-founder of the Eden Project, Sir Tim Smit, who will sit on an advisory panel, chaired by Boris Johnson, which will have the challenging task of steering a path through the minefields ahead. But, at the moment, it feels it was too early to announce, such are the scant details. Details need to be urgently fleshed out and meetings with local community group need to be held within weeks. 

Update

It only seemed sensible to go up to Crystal Palace, from our little Penge cottage, to see what locals made of the idea. A prominent local businessman, who has been involved in previous restoration plans, was very keen.

'I think it's fantastic. Brilliant. It's definitely going to happen. The government are behind it, Boris is behind it; it's inevitable. They'll be a few people round here who won't like. They'll say it's like a Westfield, but it won't be. It will be great. I've been involved in plans before and I've had poison pen letters. But the vast majority of people will be right behind it. Great for the area'

A woman at the Westow pub, however, was a bit more circumspect.

'Oh no, it won't be a replica, it will be an ugly, horrible thing and they'll fill it with Caffe Nero's. We'll lose green space, and they better restore the park properly.'

Not scientific, or comprehensive, survey; just a bit of local anecdote.

Meanwhile, the egregious Stephen Bayley, writing for the Telegraph, says a new Crystal Palace will 'shame Britain'. In an absurd, pompous article, he thinks a new palace will be a 'convention centre for the lanyard-festooned suits with the inevitable yawn-inducing hotel' and calls it 'architectural debauchery'. yes, there are plenty of hurdles and issues ahead, but this is written before he has seen any plans, architectural drawings, even before an architect has been appointed. In fact, his biggest concern appears to be that such a building might appear in south east London. He writes:

'The legacy of 1851 was Albertopolis, the extraordinary collection of colleges and museums that make South Kensington one of the intellectual centres of the worlds. That's not going to happen in Penge.'

This is true. Penge is never going to compete with South Kensington, with its palace, museums and conspicuous wealth. But if he ever bothered to come to Penge he would find plenty of links with old Prince Albert, who, despite his regal bearing, wasn't such an insufferable snob; such as a beautiful estate of workers' cottages, which, if not based on his designs, were certainly inspired by them.