SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Shops & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors Adult Learning Lewisham


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (104): « First [1] 2 3 4 5 Next > Last »
Forest Hill Pools
Author Message
roz


Posts: 1,790
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #1
19-03-2008 09:53 AM

[Continuation of the earlier thread, where the Last Post details are stuck at 23rd March 2008 -admin]
_____________________________________________

As someone who has been a pool user for 23 years (when it was open), who cares deeply about pool and sports reprovision in Forest Hill, and given that the Council are clear that full site clearance and newbuild is the only option on the table, I think it is time to take a different perspective to the retention argument and which addressed the reality of the situation.

Lets get on with discussing what people want to see in the new facility, and looking at any new proposals put forward by the Council. There is to be a large scale consultation very shortly, the details of which, I understand, will be made available in the next few weeks.

Over to you......

Find all posts by this user Reply
Renzon


Posts: 30
Joined: Jun 2007
Post: #2
19-03-2008 12:09 PM

I would like to see a well-thought out building, preferably with a solid brick/masonry construction (with or without parts of the existing facade retained) with high quality detailing (similar to the Horniman Museum extention).

If total demolition is decided upon for reasons of budget and programme (which I feel would be a shame) then I think that the future design should incorporate features of the existing Victorian structure as cues in the design process and reinterpreted with a modern twist.

I do not think that a steel and glass 'lightweight' type building would be appropriate on this site, owing to its historical Victorian context and its proximity to the recently refurbished library.

Find all posts by this user Reply
ForestGump


Posts: 202
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #3
19-03-2008 03:34 PM

At the moment we don't know what is on or under the table, and the proposed option carries a high planning risk compared to retaining the frontage.

The size of plot for housing isn't clear nor its position, this could affect vechicle and pedestrian access. Would it be better to have one slip road giving access to and from both the housing and the pools?

Should consideration be given to converting Louise House into flats as an option?

If Louise House is demolished should the library be intergrated into the new pools, so it forms one site housing community assests?

Find all posts by this user Reply
hilltopgeneral


Posts: 156
Joined: Mar 2004
Post: #4
19-03-2008 03:55 PM

I think it's interesting how it now appears to be a foregone conclusion that the pools should be demolished. Rather than 'discuss what's on the table", many people probably wonder whether that should really be the only dish on the menu.

Another aspect that is at best receiving insufficient attention (and at worst being rather arrogantly dismissed) from Lewisham and your camp is that almost irrespective of the architectural merits of the existing structure, people simply don't trust the council to deliver a new pool that will function properly, open on time and to budget - and look better. They are rightly suspicious that rather than the best modern design by a talented architect we will get some anodyne box that looks dreadful after ten years.

Some people are further able to differentiate between the worth of a relatively undistinguished piece of Victorian architecture and the contribution of the building to the streetscape.

Don't underestimate people's distrust of the council, either to deliver something genuinely better, or to go about the process in an transparent, accountable and honest manner.

After all, the pool wouldn't be closed in the first place if they'd looked after it properly. As a result we now have this farce of paying for a replacement. Something stinks and it isn't just the unwashed of Forest Hill.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Baboonery


Posts: 581
Joined: Sep 2007
Post: #5
19-03-2008 04:59 PM

But of course the suggestion that any new pool will most certainly be 'a featureless/anodyne box' isn't arrogantly dismissive in any way at all, oh no no no.

Find all posts by this user Reply
millesens


Posts: 65
Joined: Apr 2006
Post: #6
19-03-2008 05:29 PM

For once I agree with HTG. The Council will get away with delivering a substandard new building if they can and save money by selling land to property developers. The community will be in a lose lose situation in the long term. We will lose land, Victorian architecture and some form of homogeneity and local history just to be left with a building that will look shabby just a few years down the line. Unfortunately examples of recently built facilities cited earlier only encourage many residents? fears of getting just another "featureless/anodyne box". Why would the council build a state of the art pool and sport complex here where residents do not like to take a stand and put up a fight ? The Laban Centre is a fantastic example of how a brand new building can achieve so much. Yet I don't know how it was funded, possibly partly privately?

Find all posts by this user Reply
hilltopgeneral


Posts: 156
Joined: Mar 2004
Post: #7
19-03-2008 05:33 PM

Baboonery Wrote:
But of course the suggestion that any new pool will most certainly be 'a featureless/anodyne box' isn't arrogantly dismissive in any way at all, oh no no no.


Are you wilfully misquoting me?

Try reading again. Use your finger to point to the words if you need to.

People are worried that they will get something inferior - because there might not be the money or the will to build something better.

I'm not suggesting it is a certainty, but that people have grounds for this concern when they consider other recent examples.

I suspect that for a reasonable proportion of those who would rather not see the pools demolished, it may be more because of what might happen if we go down that route than because of deep attachment to the existing building.

Find all posts by this user Reply
forest_hill_billie


Posts: 28
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #8
19-03-2008 05:42 PM

How do you know what the Council are thinking?

I haven't lost my complete faith in Lewisham Council to suggest that they will totally disregard the opinions of the vast majority of its residents.

We vote for these people after all.

Find all posts by this user Reply
hilltopgeneral


Posts: 156
Joined: Mar 2004
Post: #9
19-03-2008 05:53 PM

You might not think the same way after researching how decisions are made at Lewisham now that we have a Mayor, and the percentage of the electorate who actually voted for him.

Find all posts by this user Reply
shzl400


Posts: 729
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #10
19-03-2008 07:54 PM

forest_hill_billie Wrote:
How do you know what the Council are thinking?


How about some of these....

"Resident consultation is a pain in the neck"?

"It's council-owned land, so we can do what we like"?

"There is no more funding available"?

"Let's just get this over and done with"?

"Let's just use the land for housing instead"?

And most likely, all of the above!

Find all posts by this user Reply
Tim Walder


Posts: 67
Joined: Mar 2008
Post: #11
19-03-2008 08:58 PM

I wonder if Roz is a mouthpiece for Lewisham Council. If so, is this because she happens to agree or because she is part of it?

I do not take an entirely cynical view. The fact that Lewisham (publicly at least) remain committed to providing a swimming pool is a good thing.

I do disagree with Roz that we should just move on to talking about the design of the new pools. That glazes over too many questions. I do think the facade of the old pools should be incorporated, but even if it isn't, there are other questions about the current plans which are very unanswered:

1) Is it really necessary for Louise House to go too?
2) Why is there an assumption that part of the development must be funded by building private flats?
3) If it is funded in such a way, why is conversion of/addition to Louise House not an option?
4) Does anyone question the principle that blocks of publicly owned land should be split up in this way? At the moment Lewisham owns the library through to the pools in one sweep; sticking a private development in the middle of this plot will split it up and may have consequences int helong term future.
5) Does anyone care that the small park is to disappear?
6) Would this enabling development really raise ?2 million? This seems a bit hopeful, especially as the housing market is currently on a down turn, with a particular weakness in the flats sector. Forest Hill appears to have a lot of flats coming ready now.

I can see a Doomsday scenario where the pools and Louise House are demolished in a hurry to overcome opposition to the Council's plans. The enabling devlopment could then fall victim to a downturn in the housing market. Then Lewisham Council will say there is not enough money to build the new pools. Forest Hill would then be left with no pools at all, having destroyed its own heritage for nothing, and with a great big hole in the middle of Dartmouth Road. We would all look pretty daft then.

Find all posts by this user Reply
thenutfield


Posts: 235
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #12
19-03-2008 10:43 PM

nice try Roz, but I fear the professional arguers of SE23 dont have pragmatism very high on thier agendas.

I think they must all be scared of water. Personally, I would rather be swimming in a pool in 2 years than arguing about it in 5.

Find all posts by this user Reply
hilltopgeneral


Posts: 156
Joined: Mar 2004
Post: #13
20-03-2008 10:31 AM

thenutfield Wrote:
nice try Roz, but I fear the professional arguers of SE23 dont have pragmatism very high on thier agendas.

I think they must all be scared of water. Personally, I would rather be swimming in a pool in 2 years than arguing about it in 5.


Whatever happens, you won't be swimming in any sort of pool in two years time.

It's difficult to respond constructively to such a glib comment, but new pool or old pool, I'd rather see the best solution than the quickest. Rather a year longer to create something that looks good, given that people have to live with it for years and years to come.

It's also a good while since it closed. Nothing much has happened in that time. But then it would suit the council to have it that way, seeing as it costs them less. Or perhaps I am too unkind and it is just public sector inertia?

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,790
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #14
20-03-2008 07:02 PM

This is a discussion of what people would like to see on the new site, following Lewishams decision in February to demolish and build completely new facilities from scratch. If you are not interested or unable to contribute to the development of the new scheme then I'm sure we'll all cope.

Find all posts by this user Reply
alexis


Posts: 4
Joined: Mar 2008
Post: #15
21-03-2008 08:18 AM

Wow. Pool Fundamentalism.

We all care about getting the new swimming baths and we could easily find some middle ground.

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,790
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #16
21-03-2008 09:46 AM

Sorry, I have to say I'm really lost now. Everyone is talking as if the decision is still up for discussion or negotiation. The Council are clear that it isn't and a decision has been made. And yes, they can legitimately make a decision like that. A debate on what is now clearly a ' closed' matter would therefore seem pointless.
I don't mean this rudely, but are people in denial, or is it that the saga has gone on for so long now that its hard to believe that things are moving forward at last.?

There is so much passion and interest in this site, I would be concerned if people lose out on the opportunity to put all this energy into discussing new proposals, due to, rightly or wrongly, indignation about past failures. Effectively the community will be losing out twice.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Perryman


Posts: 809
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #17
21-03-2008 01:53 PM

Now that the Mayor has had the benefit of a fuller consultation with the community (via this board), you would like to think that he has the common sense and integrity to come to final decision that lies between the 2 extremes of refurbish or demolish.

Now get on with it.

Find all posts by this user Reply
forest_hill_billie


Posts: 28
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #18
21-03-2008 03:06 PM

Ros

The mayor is very capable of changing his mind and associated policy regarding the closure of facilities in the area. He did so with Ladywell Pools as highlighted in Jon Henley's Diary, in The Guardian on 15 December 2006. Which reads:

"? When, last May, Labour's control of Lewisham council ended after 35 years, it was widely assumed that the slump in support for Mr Tony's men was due in no small part to a bitter battle over the fate of the popular Ladywell baths, which Labour mayor Steve Bullock was hellbent on demolishing to make way for a new school, and residents were determined to keep. Despite swearing that he would "not be changing his mind", Cllr Bullock last month did, announcing that the pool would stay open, the school would be built elsewhere, and that this was, of course, "the result I was always striving for".

The Save Ladywell Pool Campaign, he added magnanimously, was "a great example of how local people can get their views heard". Oddly, the mayor told Time Out that the campaign, led by "a very small group of backward-looking people", was "pathetic". Presumably to put an end to all this confusion, the front page of Lewisham Labour Action now proudly proclaims: "Mayor Saves Ladywell Pool." Fancy that!"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/dec/15/1
Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user Reply
hilltopgeneral


Posts: 156
Joined: Mar 2004
Post: #19
21-03-2008 10:56 PM

Good work FHB.

Nice to live in a democracy isn't it.

Looks like Bullock is a prime practitioner of the classic Leftist 'we know what know what's best for you'. Amazing how the misinformation campaign is working - the mantra of 'it must be demolished' drowns out not only local concerns but also the published findings of engineers and surveyors who have determined that it is possible to retain and / or refurbish if so wished.

Will that be the same sort of 'pragmatism' that brought us the gulags?

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,790
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #20
22-03-2008 09:42 AM

There are local concerns either way. The more Vocal Locals, for want of a better term, are keen to see the building retained in all or in part. These Vocal Locals are usually well equipped to get their voices heard and use sites such as this. This site is not likely to be representative of the broad majority of local people therefore who probably don't have regular computer access if at all, or who frankly have the time to keep up with whats going on.

There are quite a few other local people, myself included, who after many years of supporting the continuation of swimming facilities in Forest Hill, and who have participated in such past campaigns, now accept the inevitable and want to avoid further unecessary delays to the reprovision of a good facility. The concept of ' heritage' should not only refer to the built environment but the right of local people to good affordable health promoting community facilities. This should therefore at least carry as much weight , if not more than , as the retention of a not particularly wonderful existing structure.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (104): « First [1] 2 3 4 5 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields


Possibly Related Topics ...
Topic: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Thefts from Forest Hill Pools Gym Lockers Tina 4 1,610 14-09-2018 08:25 AM
Last Post: hillview
  Forest Hill Assembly - Saturday 11 March , 1.30 – 3.30 pm at The Forest Hill Pools Cllr Paul Upex 0 634 07-03-2017 10:02 AM
Last Post: Cllr Paul Upex
  Forest Hill Pools Slipper Baths localbigwig 0 1,220 23-02-2016 05:54 PM
Last Post: localbigwig
  Face lift of block before Forest Hill Pools Cheeky 3 3,636 23-06-2014 12:39 PM
Last Post: digime
  Save Forest Hill Pools alexis 62 31,400 24-03-2008 08:38 PM
Last Post: sydenhamcentral