It was rather ironic to hear on the radio this morning that access to swimming is being extended by offering free passes to the over 60s. This presupposes there is a pool to swim in. With the closure of local pools this looks like a pipe dream in Lewisham, especially in our area. I find it extremely depressing in a number of ways. We are likely to be stuck with an empty boarded up site for a long time which will blight that part of FH (and next to the newly refurbished library) and the possibility of a new pool in the near future appears to be receding. It is not at all surprising that we are all so cynical in thinking that the removal of the buildings is to remove all hope of any retention of this historic site because what else could be the purpose of demolition before any plans are in place? I was not reassured by the officer presentations at the FH meeting that we will see a pool, at least in the near future. Nothing was said that guaranteed that outcome, in my view. As someone who will reach the target age of 60 in 2012 (the target year for us all to be fit and sporty) I was struck by the contradiction between the national policy objective and our local situation and it has not started the day well!
Some very interesting stuff on this site, which I think has been very recently updated. Some of the documents have a "publication date" of 30th May.
I see from the minutes of the last meeting that they were proposing the next consultation meeting for next Wednesday, 11th June. Will the FH Society be attending?
Interesting to note that this also clashes with the consultation on the potentially huge development of housing (previous proposals were for over 80 units) on the land behind the Christian Fellowship Centre on Honor Oak Road - discussed here: http://www.se23.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=380
I also note that there was mention of retaining individual historical features from the old pools e.g the foundation stone - what a travesty! The whole point is to retain the look of the three Victorian civic buildings in a row - pool, Louise House and Library. Retention of individual lumps of stone or brick is not enough!!
On the other hand, I also see that they are fairly well down the road of appointing achitects through an OJEU competition, with some forty-something expressions of interest. I hope they got more than than. A not-dissimilar competition I was involved in brought nearly 120 expressions of interest and over 40 actual bids. These were whittled down to a final five, who were all asked to submit preliminary design ideas and models for a week-long public exhibition and consultation, before the architect was finally selected. I hope Lewisham will be doing something similar in this case.
You can only say that a gym is more useful than a pool when you are only interested in what is actually a tiny sample of the population.
Apart the considerations on children I'd like to remind that swimming is the best way to keep fit for many of those suffering from very common conditions like asthma and arthritis and that for many of them swimming is in fact the only way they can keep in a state of fitness.
Let's not get sidetracked. We could do with a gym too, but that's not directly relevant to concerns over a demolition of the pool on spurious grounds without proper plans for its replacement.
[HLM's draft] includes the basic pools plus dry leisure and a multi-purpose room, but was only one storey and the frontage seemed untidy, using up a lot of space on a small site.
Penelope Jarrett wrote:
The officer?s plan seemed to be to ask HLM to come up with 3 designs for high, medium and low density housing, but all based on the draft Pools building presented to us. I asked if it would not be possible to ask the architects to do some different draft drawings, and then ask us which we felt should be worked up in more detail, but the officers seemed to think this was not possible.
Penelope Jarrett wrote:
Apart from disabled parking and coach drop-off for schools (there is already one such site in Thorpewood Avenue), there was some feeling that there should be no or minimal parking to discourage car use. Not everyone thought this feasible.
Not sure what the purpose of the public consultation is meant to be. Are we supposed to be commenting on the pools or the housing?
Not sure what the purpose of consulting on the housing would be either since it's quite likely that finances will dictate which option is chosen (high density).
I agree with previous. Talk by Lewisham about retaining bits of the historical buildings really make me cringe. There has been a suggestion of a history room, with the foundation stone and other bits. To me, this would just rub salt in the wound and permanently remind us all of what was stupidly lost. Perhaps even worse, there have been some suggestions of incoproarting "bits and bobs" of the old building into the new: terra cotta griffins on a steel and glass box, anyone? God forbid that we ever get to that point, but if we do I would rather have a decent and unashamedly modern building not tramelled with pathetic political sops.
As the campaign for "No demolition without designs" gathers momentum perhaps some historical background might be useful (with apologies to those who have read/heard it all before).
Holy Trinity Schools (1874), Forest Hill Pools (1885), Girls' Industrial Home (Louise House, 1890) and Forest Hill Library (1901) were built on a single large field, known as glebe land, that was awarded to the Vicar of Lewisham on the enclosure of Sydenham Common, in 1819. "Enclosure", incidentally, was a device by which those who already owned land in the parish were awarded plots of ancient common land which they fenced, to keep out "trespassers". The losers were those who owned no land, but had managed to scrape a living from the common.
The glebe land, popularly known as Vicar's Field, was let by the vicar as allotments to those who had lost their right to graze animals, gather wood, catch game etc. on the common. Over time, and in response to pressure from local groups, the vicar made parts of this large field available for purposes that were considered socially valuable.
The four buildings that cover the Dartmouth Road frontage of this field offer a vivid picture of late Victorian social attitudes: the schools offered education, particularly in the principles of the Established Church; the pools offered cleanliness (people brought their washing to be cleaned in the laundry in the basement, and there were private slipper baths) and healthy exercise; the Industrial Home gave training to "the deserving poor" to keep them from a life of crime and, of course, there was the library. In both the school and the pools the sexes were kept firmly apart. Boys and girls attending the school had separate entrances, playgrounds and classrooms. The pools also had separate male and female entrances, with separate ticket offices, pools and slipper baths for first and second class swimmers. Much of the evidence for these social divisions still survives in the pools, and would be lost with total demolition.
I believe that such a well preserved group of buildings is unique in London, if not the country. Indeed, I was speaking recently with somebody from English Heritage about a book they are preparing on London swimming pools. The EH person was intrigued to learn of the links between these four buildings (two of which are listed Grade II) and shared my view about their probable uniqueness.
It has been suggested that the foundation stone of the pools is one item that might be preserved. There is a pleasing irony in this for it mentions Theophilus William Williams. For twenty years Williams was the most powerful political figure in Lewisham, culminating in his becoming Lewisham's first mayor in 1901. However, during his mayoralty rumours began spreading about his dubious business practices. Things came to a head in 1908, when he was charged with fraud and embezzlement. On the day his trial was due to begin he committed suicide; an unfortunate decision for local historians, as the trial was abandoned and the full details of his misdemeanours never came to light. Although perhaps not honest, he was responsible for two very successful swimming pools (and two libraries), built on time and to budget.
For those who have the appetite for yet more information, there are articles on the industrial homes and the pools...
Note: I originally posted this on Sydenham Town forum. It was suggested that I also post it here as it may be of interest to those who don't visit the other place.
For a random selection of items on local history visit my blog at:
http://sydenhamforesthillhistory.blogspot.com/
We collected 480 signatures yesterday and there are 80 on the web petition, so that makes 560 at the moment.
It was very interesting speaking with people about the pools plans. There was general (but not total) ignorance about the council's plans and a certain amount of shock that total demolition was the current plan. There was quite a lot of affection for the old building, with many people talking about how they went there as children or with their own children. Of about 100 people I spoke with only 3 refused to sign and disagreed with us, one of them on the grounds that they wanted a hydrotherapy pool now (which could be possible in new plans - Peckham Pulse has a learner pool which also functions as a hydrotherapy pool).
My general impression was very strongly that most people I spoke with (and they were a reasonable cross section of people from different parts of the area, different ages, different backgrounds and those with and without children) were suprpised and displeased by the current plan of action. Generally most people seemed to fidn it suprising that there was not a plan to renovate or refurbish the pools.
I agree with Tim about using parts of the old pools stuck onto a new brick box pool and flats to try to appease those who like the current building facades.
We don't want to end up with some corporate "British Leyland-esque" compromise of a building like this:
I signed the petition today (a bit later than many)
Can I just suggest that maybe "and Petition" or "Please Sign Petition" be added to this threads title so that it will be easier for anyone visiting or signing up to this Forum, to see that indeed, there IS a petition?
Just a thought.
Search
Help
