My maths might be a bit dodgy - but if you've got 7.5m to build new pools and you have a short fall of 2m, that means its going to cost 9.5m to build the pools alone - right? To raise the additional 2m you build flats and a buisness unit - but that's going to cost money. So where would this money come from? If it's from the original investment, it means the pools do not cost 9.5m. Otherwise it means you build the flats first and sell them to fund the pools, meaning no pools until profit is made - which is a huge risk to the plan. What were they thinking!

I think it has to do with providing enough space for a sizable development that can be sold on to a developer for that sum, economy of scale is one consideration, to build 30 flats on one site makes more money that building 10 flats on three sites.

Earlier in the thread somebody pointed at the fact that option 1 involved clearing the site and placing the leisure centre to one side opening an opportunity for a development to take place at a later time. The commenter that made this quite clever observation concluded that it would have been better to chose option 2 and minimize the risk of an over-development.

Ahhh I see, so the the designs were actually complete nonsence, as once the developer puts in a planning change application, anything could be approved. As we have all noticed only recently in our community!

That's surely a risk, that's why it's better to be clear at start.

Agreed! But none of this has been clear from the start which is why the council and Mayor should take responsibility for the friggin mess it's become.

I don't think that the designs were complete nonsense, they were rushed jobs but they gave the idea of the kind of volumes that go up on the site with each option.
Option 1 was a cut down version of a leisure centre with only one pool, cheaper and very basic. This option was probably included just to please those that are dead against new housing and as a way to signal what is affordable without including housing on the site.

According to my local paper, the new pool at Deptford Wavelengths has just been opened. This is basically a large modern shed (not bad looking) with a 25 metre 6 lane pool in it. It cost ?4.2 million apparently. Seems like we might have a bit of spare change even from ?7.5 million. Is it really going to cost ?3.3 million to build a learner pool, changing village etc. I am sure a reasonable set of pools could be built for ?7.5 million behind the existing facade.

The Council does have a strategy of over inflating the figures for the costs of the pools, partly by getting everyone to write a wish list, mainly so that they can get us to swallow 1) demolition and 2) lots of housing.

Why didn't the council give an open brief to architectural firms in the first place like Southwark have with Camberwell pools so we either get a refurbishment option, exciting architectural replacement, no expensive flawed studies and proper architecture.

They do it in lots of other councils in the UK (and around the world). Why not in Forest Hill, borough of Lewisham?

Whatever came of the 'study', like with the olympic games pitch, all the designs would be thrown out anyway and totally redesigned by another firm.

Regarding design competitions, I remember the guy from the council saying that no-one would be interested in such a small fee for the pools for a design competition.

However, this is clearly not the case:

THEY DO IT IN SALISBURY:
Salisbury has run one with the RIBA for a job for 3 million:
http://www.salisbury.gov.uk/news/2008/di...8-14-a.asp

Here an exert: The design competition launch by the district council and county council is expected to attract entries from architects and landscape architects across the world.

It has been organised by the Royal Institute of British Architects, which regularly holds similar competitions up and down the country to improve the look and feel of cities and towns.

THEY DO IT IN THE USA:
http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=6118

THEY DO IT IN KENT:
http://www.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/section...docid=5316

Here is an exert:
Cllr Roy Bullock*, Leader of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, said: ?We were extremely pleased with the high standard of submissions received for the design competition. Now that the winner has been announced we embark on the detailed design stage, which should lead to the submission of a planning application in the near future.

* Any relation to Sir Steve??

Again this was organised by the RIBA.

THEY DO IT IN LANCASHIRE:
http://www.rossendale.gov.uk/site/script...newsID=477

Here is an exert:
A Lancashire design competition has captured imaginations around the globe and attracted 87 Expressions of Interest from as far afield as Italy and the United States.

Again this was organised by the RIBA.

THEY DO IT IN CHELTENHAM:
http://www.cheltenham.gov.uk/libraries/t...FolderID=0

Again this was organised by the RIBA.

These were the first 5 I found on a quick google search. There are hundreds and hundreds of them.

So if they do it in lots of other places, including Southwark for their swimming pools , WHY DIDN'T LEWISHAM COUNCIL DO IT?

HERE IS A QUOTE FROM RIBA ABOUT ARCHITECTURAL COMPETITIONS:
An architectural competition enables a client to choose from a variety of schemes to resolve their project. The RIBA organises bespoke architectural competitions that encourage excellence in design.

Just out of interest, is the max that calls Louise house and the pools "unremarkable" and wants them pulled down/delisted the same Max that said on video that to demolish the pools is "a crime against local history?"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLd6oz4IUjk[/youtube]

Just wondering that's all.

If you pay attention to what I say there you'll realize that what I described "a crime against local history" was the demolition of the former Hither Green Hospital, that was indeed a building complex of exceptional value, in fact I was so relaxed at the idea of losing Forest Hill Pools in favour of a modern replacement that I didn't even agree to being interviewed by Forest Hill Pools because I didn't want to give the impression that I was campaigning for the conservation of the old building.

That interview was in fact recorded in the alleyway on the side of the original Ladywell Baths that has a lot of history in common with Forest Hill Pools, I picked on the story of these two pools born together and crumbling together as a starting point for of longish monologue on old pools, budgets for conservation vs. budgets for sport etcetera, all stuff I still believe in, in fact the same things that I's saying in this thread.
The little fragment that survived the cutting room is about conservation, but not in any way support of the old Forest Hill Pools building.

And by the way I never said here that Forest Hill Pools is unremarkable, I only said that of Louise House. What I said of the Superintendent House is that it's not pretty, that's a notch down from unremarkable.

Tim Walder is exactly right. There is adequate budget to build a decent modern pool without the need to demolish LH and without building additional housing in Forest Hill. Quite honestly, as the decision from the original onsultation was to rebuild, why doesnt the council just get on with it. I dont see how there is a 2million shortfall. Let's see some more design options. There might even be enough money to keep the facade. JUST GET ON WITH IT!!!!!!

and in response to Max, I'd rather keep a building that is 'not pretty', than have a modern eyesore, covered in grafitti within months, in the centre of densely populated flats that could make people feel uneasy coming and going.

One of the officers at the last stakeholder's meeting was reported as saying that a competition would be 'too expensive'. The internet research undertaken by Sydenhamcentral shows that this is possibly not the case. Perhaps a council officer or one of our local councillors could explain to us why Lewisham has adopted such a 'top down' approach.

Hi Sydenhamcentral

I couldn't open your link but found this news report from the BBC website, which is an article about Forest Hill Pool being demolished, when the news was first released to the majority of the residents of Forest Hill via the News on 29 February 2008.

Victorian Pool To Be Demolished - BBC News _ 29 February 2008

You are clearly passionate about swimming Max, that is testimony to your incredible hardwork on saving Ladywell Pool, but please try and understand that the people who are campaigning to save the frontages of Forest Hill Pool and Louise House are as equally passionate about swimming and preserving Forest Hill's heritage.

As sydenhamcentral has shown Southwark are being inventive about ways to use a similar site in Camberwell, so why can't it be done here?

The work that cost ?4.3 million at Deptford Wavelengths was an extention to an existing modern leisure facility so it is not clear if a direct comparison with the site in FH is appropriate.

Also, acceptance of a 'modern shed' can hardly sit well with 'saving the face of FH', the architectural gem of LH or the aim of securing a high quality building that has been consistently asked for in the earlier posts in this thread.

Tim Walder is right to the extent that cutting down to the bone you can build something that resembles a pool and leisure centre, although from the ?7.5m budget you'd have to deduct the sum destined to the restoration of the Superintendent House and the clearance of the site that is occupied by the pools now to start anything (the extention to Wavelengths was built on a car park).
At that point, since you wouldn't have any contingency money you'd have to hold tight and hope that inflation doesn't stop your building site or make you decide to drop this or that part of the building half way through.

He is even right in pointing at the fact that a modern pool just built by Lewisham Council desn't look bad, which is surprising, I would have said that he was against all modern buidings, or "vanilla boxes" as they are now fashionably called on the Sydenham/Forest Hill border.

To Forest Hill Billie, it's my experience with the London Pools Campaign, not Save Ladywell Pool that suggests me that it would be better to have a modern pool at this point.
I've been involved with that for years and for years I've been the recipient of stories of misery around Victorian Pools, neglected and closed down and then fighting to be refurbished, struggling for funds and so on. It's the same story all the time. And it's my opinion that if the old pool is not much to start with and there is a serious plan for a new built then you're much better advised to let it go and grab the opportunity.
I was even a speaker at a Victorian Society conference on pools once! For every success story in keeping an historic pool there is a battalion of failures and compromises on size, opening times, pricing, you name it.
It only works when the buiding is exceptional and there are funds for conservation beside those for sport. Building and running pools' costs are serious amounts, if you add to the burden then you take away from sport and I don't think that that is right at all. What's worst is that those costs can take away so much that you put at risk the centre altogether.

I looked back at the Council's original options, they aren't bad at all, especially options 2 and 3, they are obviously not cheap, that's what Forest Hill could have had. That would have created a very good place where the swimming club can do its sterling work with kids, where regular swimmers would have found a slot for their fitness lanes and all the other activities that you can carry in a well sized and funded pool. There's a good size gym and two fitness suites to accomodate all the dry activities that are those that help a centre to be financially viable in the long run. And if a centre costs less to run then it's more likely to survive budget cuts.
Old Forest Hill Pools being the perfect example of what happen to a centre that costs a packet to run because it's not being designed with profitability in mind. An extension to the old (not pretty) Superintendent House is posible, what you'd get would be a small thing, benefiting a small area round it and at risk of reduction of opening times or altogether closure at the first tightening of budgets because unprofitable.

The officer's report to the Mayor and Cabinet is very specific about the way forward:

It is proposed to commission feasibility work to examine how a two pool option could be delivered taking into account the listing of Louise
House. This further work will include examination of how Louise House
and possibly the existing pool frontage could be incorporated into a
new scheme for the site. Section 8.2

Now this is exactly the "two option" approach (one option with demolition and one without) which was discussed earlier on this thread.

I very much hope that our two Civic Societies will welcome this approach and press the Council for a more speedy programme of work to this end.

We can of course spend our time arguing over old ground or criticising LBL's handling of this issue (and there's plenty of ammunition here to keep us going until well past Christmas!).

Alternatively, we can move forward and work with the council through the stakeholders group to come up with the details of such a scheme.

I'm bored with going over the same arguments time and time again. I want pools. A specific proposal is on the table which points the way forward. Surely our Civic Societies are going to welcome this approach and help us to move forward?

Nasaroc. Nail Head.