The new Telegraph Hill skate park
The final designs for the Telegraph Hill skate park have been released by designers Gravity. The refreshed design is a result of extra funding secured by campaign group SPAG.
The design loops around the basketball courts and sinks in to the grass bank, in attempt to minimise the impact on sightlines and reduce noise. It now looks like a pretty impressive facility, that will encourage kids to skate for longer periods, keeping them in the park and off the streets, which was the initial impetus behind the project. We understand work is due to start in November.
Thanks to Dan for the tip-off.
30 comments:
Nice idea for kids - hope it doesn't spoil the look of the park though.
Agreed, hopefully its location next to the basketball courts is a pretty sensitive location in terms of aesthetic impact.
It's a bit "safe" isn't it?
Maybe kids are less demented than I was back in the 80s.
I remember doing drop ins on a 5.5 metre deep bowl with a concave lip
It's aimed at the younger end of the market, so yes, it's a little safer than Rom Skate.
looks good.
Cant wait to skate this. hope it isn't rammed full of scooter wielding toddlers like ladywell...
This park is too small for it.
One of the other parks in the Borough would have been better.
Haha - oops - here we go again. Nick you'd better tell everyone this park issue has been debated to kingdom come on here already, before it gets all out of hand again!
Dan
Brilliant but as audaxing said - a bit safe....quarter pipes and not half pipes???...
It represents a very civilised compromise by the promoters of the idea who originally conceived of it in the Upper Park and objectors who wanted to preserve the sunset- watching tranquility of that particular space.
Might not be ultra exciting, but older children would want to range further afield anyway - we are not that far from the South Bank and larger facilities in Croydon, Beckenham and Ladywell.
If the work is starting in November it presumably also means that the question-mark over digging into the bank has been resolved and there is a fully substantiated report in place - backed by professional indemnity insurance - categorially stating that this will not affect its stability.
looks great, well done to all involved. Will it be lit? or I guess maybe the park closes after dark does it?
The park closes (in theory - there has been another issue there...) at dusk.
It will not be lit - that would encourage trespass.
We have been assured by the skateboarders that they can't pursue their sport in badly lit premises anyway.
Seems a bit daft having one that won't be lit, especially at this time of year.
Greenwich Council managed to build a great skate park in Woolwich... by accident: http://853blog.com/2011/10/19/welcome-to-woolwichs-new-skateboard-paradise/
I'll try that again: Woolwich's accidental skate park.
This is a victory for mediocrity.
It solves precisely none of the problems it was conceived to address - and creates new ones, which didn't exist before.
SPAG told us the skatepark was needed because teenagers were using their skateboards late in to the evening - creating a noise problem for neighbours AND putting the skateboarders' safety at risk. This is what the skatepark was for.
But this skatepark closes at dusk and is designed for young kids - not teenagers.
Moreover - this park creates new problems. If it is built as designed the fence around it looks destined to be an eyesore, the independent report identified the potential for significant noise problems on Erlanger and cutting in to the hill seems to create an unnecessary risk of collapse.
I am not anti-skatepark. But we've ended up with a botched solution - which doesn't solve the problems it was conceived to create. I don't doubt that the appalling and unneighbourly way SPAG ran their campaign is largely to blame for these failings. This has never been accurately reflected on this blog - which largely became a campaigning organ for this unpleasant group.
Lou - you're not anti-skatepark, you're anti-everything.
The problemd this park is intended to solve was the skateboarders skating in at the junction of Waller and Shardeloes road and getting moved on by police, during the day. The noise problem was mainly "early" Sunday morning (i.e. 10 am)
It's hard to see how this can be described as an eyesore when it's next to a horrible blue, metal fence.
As Tamsin said, if work is starting then presumably a proper report has been commissioned which removes the worries about subsidence.
And as for the campaign, there were plenty of lies on here about a lack of a consultation by SPAG - no need to repeat them.
Waller and Arbuthnot, you mean, where there was a particular configuration for doing fancy tricks to the despair of residents. But it was also (if not primarily) after dark on winter evenings which is why it is a bit unfortunate that the skateboard area has ended up in a park that closes at dusk.
My comment on there presumably being an absolute go-ahead from a firm with the relevant qualificaitons and relevant insurance on digging into the bank was actually to prod someone - a councillor or from SPAG - to confirm this. We had almost 100% reassurance at the Park Users meeting in September but I'm not sure if anything in writing has been made available to the Park Users Group.
BTW - on the subject of the peace and tranquillity of the Upper Park, there is a meeting on Thursday 7pm (so an hour earlier than the Festival one the same night, might be possible to do both) to discuss the noise nuisance caused by the House of Bread Church. See more on this thread on the Telegraph Hill website.
wow. seriously. wow. I think some people need a cup of tea and a sit down.
Wow! So this is what it means to live in a community...love it.
A meeting about noise from a church, busy bodies incorporated.
A meeting about booming bass notes making life uncomfortable for hundreds of yards around the building every Sunday and some evenings as well. Compounded by the fact that the congregation is largely not local and so there are parking issues - to which a CPZ is possibly not the solution unless it can conversely be a "Sunday only" one with the traffic wardens on overtime and guaranteeing regular patrols.
Not "busy bodies" but unlucky people who moved there before the church changed its style of worship and now driven close to the end of their tether.
bbi - I understand from people who live near that the "noise from the church" is v loud music until 2am in the morning.
Please let this not be an excuse for all you anonymous people to rant about this yet again. Of course there has been a thorough report done on the bank, in fact we had to commision yet another one at our expense and as we had thought, the build will in fact stabilize the bank for many years to come. It is and never was just for little ones but for everyone who wants to use it whatever their age or ethnicity. The accoustic fence is there for a reason and it will not be as aesthetically hideous as the exsisiting blue metal fence. The YP skateboard where ever they can and have been skating on lit local roads in the evenings. This park does close at night so we hope that they won't skate in a an unlit park after dark. We have had to seriously compromise on space and location and we think we have probably come up with the best possible solution. It's a fantastic design making use of a difficult space and something the boys themselves wanted as they worked closley with the designers. Let us now get on with the build and deal with any future issues if they arise. Lou Baker - we have never used this blog before and you obviously don't know who we are or you wouldn't comment as you do! Come to the launch and see for yourself. And STOP being so negative.
This annoys Lou, I think we can assume that it's probably fine on that basis alone.
The actual skatepark doesn't annoy me at all.
But the process of getting the skatepark - which was duplicitous, immoral and wrong - does.
Once people realise they can get away with this sort of behaviour, they will.
This may not concern you now. But it might when the plan is to build something questionable close to your house. That's when you better hope the precedent set by SPAG isn't repeated.
did you go to any of the skatepark meetings Lou?
@anon
Yes. All of them.
I went to the 'consultation' - where residents were supposed to be allowed their say on the Upper Park plan. Me and my neighbour - both open minded about the idea to build this close by - watched not a consultation but SPAG forging results. Getting multiple kids to put pins against their favoured plan multiple times.
I went to the first meeting - where outraged residents offered SPAG a solution which they greeted with scorn but were then forced to accept when they lost the arguement.
And, worst of all, I went to the second meeting - where the plan was approved - which SPAG crammed with supporters from outside the area.
Now they may have won that vote anyway. And, as I said residents - including me - largely backed the Lower Park plan, albeit with provisos. But we'll never know because they cheated. I think that is duplicitous and an abuse of process. The same as their 'consultation' was. And yet this plan has been lauded on here - by Nick and others - who have never been in possession of the full facts and who, I suspect, never saw this abuse in process.
I have had reservations about some of the specifics of the skatepark plan throughout - but have never objected to the principle. The method, however, has a fouler stench than Beckton Sewage Works and should never be highlighted as an example of how to do anything.
cup. of. tea.
this is absolutely fantastic, a measured response to the bodacious demand for utter radness to flourish in the area.
Post a Comment