The character of Forest Hill is overwhelmingly Victorian. The great majority of us choose to live in Victorian houses. This is our environment and it helps to define us. But we are not blessed by a great number of civic buildings dating from the same era. Two demolish two of the three key buildings at one fell swoop seems to me to be tremendous folly. One of the great things about this website has been learning more about the history of our area. So much heritage has already been destroyed. To name but a few: the station buildings, the great pumphouse, the Swiss Cottage! On walking about the area I'm often struck by how different - almost always how much better - the area would have looked with more sympathetic development.

Having said all of this yes, of course, something excellent, could be built in their place. But the Council doesn't think that long-term. It is intending to build a new pool that will last for 25-30 years (we had this from the horse's mouth at the Forest Hill Society AGM presentation from the relevant officials). I'm sorry but that's rubbish. It's cheap and it's rubbish. It means that far sooner than that the pool will be decaying and need replacing again. So, in twenty years, we will have moved from built-to-last premises in keeping with the area to a fading, design-by-numbers, piece of basic functionalism surrounded by densely packed housing stock - built to offset further the Council's stingy budget - that further undermines the heritage of the area. And then those of you who wanted them knocked down will think to yourselves: "Actually, d'you know......." but by then it will be too late.

So this thread has aroused much interest and most touched by TJ's last posting, still wiping a tear from my eye.

Newer listeners may not be aware that there was a magnificent Victorian pub in our area, that unfortunately seems to have closed its doors to trade, namely the Moor Park Tavern that overlooks the Camberwell Old Cemetery on Wood Vale. I believe, as I suggested to Robert Elms on his Radio London show, that this may have been one of two pubs in London that also acted as a chapel of rest (Steve Grindley).

I am surprised I have not heard more of you, in particular Perryman, campaigning to have this place restored to its former glory.

Buildings are not designed these days to have a long life. Buildings are most often designed with a 50 year life, although the architects are well aware that the building will last much longer than that period.....buildings are no designed for life anymore.....

You're making a great case for demolition of something ~120 years old, and that whilst now in serious need of attention of whatever sort (due to scandalous neglect on the part of Lewisham, let's not forget), has lasted pretty well... if the pool does get demolished and a replacement built, it's going to have taken them over 5 years to get to that point. So in a mere 20 years time the cycle starts afresh and we need to start looking at this all over again?!

We've seen all Bullock weaselly manoeuvring on and manipulation of the whole subject of repair vs part retention vs replacement, but this to me makes the case look even stronger for a proper look at the costs over the lifetime of the pool, as well as just the upfront costs of the construction work. In other words, what would we get for ?5m worth of repairs and major improvements (such as an extension) to the existing building, and what would we get for ?5m of new building? If the first lasts another 50 years and the second only 25, for example, then if you just look at the upfront cost you are not comparing like-for-like. You also need to think about it in Net Present Value terms (for the financially-minded amongst you) over its lifetime.

Isn't the prime problem lack of care of the buildings...at witnessed by the frustration displayed in the surveyor's report when the pools closed in 2006?

It is - in that the pool could have remained open while long-term options were considered, had they looked after it - but we should remember that it was going to need more significant sums of money spent on it at some point to bring facilities up to a decent standard.

This doesn't absolve Lewisham of its negligence. But hey, they can just get us to pay for a new one. At some point. Perhaps.

Incompetence or something more sinister?

It certainly looks like the latter with Bullock more recent spinning of the matter.

I saw this and thought of the pools - this kind of vandalism to our heritage seems widespread ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7476990.stm

I don't think the buildings are ugly. They have been woefully neglected.





If properly maintained/restored they could look stunning. Look around New York, they have maintained their old buildings, converted them to new uses like the Chelsea Market. Look at the Oxo Tower, they kept the historic facade but it's a new modern building.

Victorian Streetscapes are the most cherished in the country. In this age when councils seem obsessed with making all our towns and streets the same the country over with bland boring architecture and generic off the peg street furniture we need buildings like the pools, library and Louise House. Like them or loose them, the fact that so many people want to keep them is proof that you can't ignore them and they help gv ethe area a sense of identity.

Would anyone fight for Downham Pools building in 100 years time or the current Forest Hills Station Buildings? NO.

Thanks for posting that - a timely reminder of how the building is SUPPOSED to look (and would still, had it been looked after).

The Victorians had so much more style! Let's get some of those lovely railings back!

Just sent to stakeholders:

Throughout the period we will also be arranging for some focus groups with schools, businesses, local community organisations etc

That last bit -

should also have been in the quote!

The pools are in the most wonderful collection of pictures:
http://www.derelictlondon.com/derelict_london_com.htm
with at least two other shots of SE23 (perhaps my readers could add more). Straying briefly off thread amongst the many wonderful pictures of London on this site, only one more that I would raise for your collective interest. The 'concrete' house (just off Melville Road) which is probably only inches away from our hood is in their 2008 update.

Thanks BD, in interesting but quite sad website in many ways. Perhaps Lewisham could learn a thing or two from the Hackney fiasco:

Hackney Council closed the well-loved Haggerston Baths overnight in February 2000, following 10 years of poor
maintenance such as checking fire extinguishers, keeping gutters clear etc. The reasons given were health and
safety eg flaking paint. The timing happened to coincide with a ?multi-million overspend on the new Clissold Pool
in Stoke Newington.Despite a big community campaign to pressurise Hackney Council into reopening it, nothing
has happened. The pool building is deteriorating and, despite its Grade II listed building status, is on the Council's
list for disposals. Local authorities are reluctant to pay ?6 million to refurbish it

Meanwhile, the new Clissold Pool which cost ?31 million has closed after only 2 years!, "a state of the art
sports facility in one of the poorest boroughs in the country, the design was paraded around the the world by the
British Council, the Foreign Office and the Millennium Commission...meant to symbolise a brave new century and
lauded as "prime examples of the excellence of British architecture and design.. the aluminium and glass complex
hailed for its "functional modernism" - has been shut on safety grounds. The centre, in Hackney, east London, is
plagued by flaws which have seen walls cracking, roofs leaking, water pouring into the electrical fittings and drains
backing up. The showpiece swimming pools are seriously damaged and the walls of the squash courts are
crumbling." (The Guardian Feb 2004). Perhaps the money would have been more wisely spent on restoring the Haggerston
Baths.................

Sound familiar....???

Hi Zeus, yes I raised the Clissold pool debacle a few times on these threads. I lived nearby while the proposals were going through and followed the story with interest.

All I can say is, you have been warned.

While the Clissold Park pool is a sorry tale of Council incompetence, the particular worry for people in Forest Hill is that the proposed new leisure centre/pools complex is to be partly financed by housing - at a time when there is already a glut of newbuilds in Forest Hill, the housing market is going into a severe recession and house-builders/developers are shedding jobs. The worry now is that the Victorian buildings will be demolished and we will end up with a mothballed site. This madness should be stopped before it is too late!

oh yeh, that too!

Forest Hill residents have never been forgiven for saving our pools the first time our swimming facilities were under threat - the plan was discovered by chance by a parent taking their child for a swim. There had been an issue with planning permission for change of use of land elsewhere in the Borough and there was a massive shortfall in the budget which some bright spark decided they could clear by shutting our 2 pools. The funding for swimming should come from the health budget rather than leisure. Forest Hill pools were always very well used: children from 40 schools came here to learn to swim, a potentially life-saving skill. And of course people of all ages and all shapes and sizes can get their exercise buoyed by the water. A hydro therapy pool would be good too. This is publicly owned property. Hands off.

The situation as far as the pools are concerned is as follows:

1. There will be a "consultation" which excludes the option of retaining the existing buildings or their facades. Clearly, retention of the buildings or their facades is supported by a very signifiicant number of locals, possibly a majority. What sort of consultation is it that denies locals this option?

2. The "consultation" will give options on housing density, building facilities etc. Nowhere are there design options i.e. what many locals have referred to as an "architectural competition" to ensure we get a high quality building. At no time will locals be allowed any say in what the building will eventually look like.

3. As has been pointed out above, the housing market is deteriorating by the day. Throughout this week we have been regaled with news stories of building companies in serious financial problems. Today, Barrrat Homes (a company already ?400m in debt) has shed 18 per cent of their workforce. All builders says they intend not to start new projects and that flats are "almost impossible to shift". In this situation, it is almost impossible to envisage any building company taking on the FH pools development in the next few years.

This is a "non-consultation" based on an economic model that simply isn't going to work.

Why is it going ahead?

Images of the proposals to replace the pools are on the lewisham website.

Or you can see them and the link to the council website here:

http://www.poolingtogether.blogspot.com

The words "boring, bland, box, cheap and predictable" spring to mind.

It reminds me of Milton Keynes. Why is the council so intent on this ''could be anywhere" architecture?

Poor. Very poor.