Equestrian Consultation
Simon's told me that the first of the 'consultations' about the Olympics is to be this Sunday at the Car Free day. He says "I reckon they'll play it one of two ways - either fanfares, flags and "Yay! Won't it be great!" to try and brainwash people or a display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."
Well, whatever - at least this will be the first opportunity to tell people face to face what we think, whatever we think.
http://www.london2012.com/news/consultations/greenwich-park.php
Well, whatever - at least this will be the first opportunity to tell people face to face what we think, whatever we think.
http://www.london2012.com/news/consultations/greenwich-park.php
Labels: Events, Greenwich Park Olympics Equestrian events, News
posted by The Greenwich Phantom at
15:56
39 Comments:
I'm thinking the leopard option
Irritating as I'm not in London this weekend
I do hope that all of us who can make it will go along and try to get their voices heard - whether for or against
Our copy of Greenwich Time appeared this morning and it was interesting to see LOCOG's proposed course map for the first time.
This afternoon I took it with me to the park and walked most of the course. Considering that Derrick Spurr says they "have no intention of allowing the removal of trees", there are a couple of spots which where the horses might have to jump over them. They'd better be good swimmers too since they'll have to gallop through the lake in the flower garden.
I used my limited Photoshop skills to overlay the route on a satellite image of the park which you can see here.
Of course, I know nothing about equestrianism so my concerns may be unfounded but it does seem a bit cramped in places. And where is everyone going to park?
One more thing before I get accused of being a killjoy or a NIMBY - my main concern with the hosting of this event in Greenwich is the ridiculous waste of money. I'm sure it won't be cheap to set everything up in the park and take it all down again so why on earth don't they save some money and use an existing site? Where's the legacy that the council keep mentioning?
If I had more spare time I'd organise a walk of the course and invite people from LOCOG, Royal Parks and Greenwich Council to come along and defend themselves.
Excellent post by Simon, and thanks for the map - it does look very cramped indeed to me, and will seem to require the closing of the whole Park (despite the reassurances in Greenwich Time about portable jumps - the course covers the whole Park, and will have to be laid, which won't happen overnight), when I had thought that the hope was that certain sections of the Park were going to be able to stay open. That clearly doesn't seem to be possible. (Actually, the flower gardens and the deer enclosure could probably stay open - ie the bits furthest from Greenwich town centre, and difficult for visitors to access if they can't walk up throught the Park).
If the Park does have to be closed that Summer, does it not seem likely that visitor numbers to Greenwich will fall, as many of the attractions will not be available to them. And will this not damage many local businesses?
Spectators of the equestrian events may well not make up this shortfall, because many of them will simply go home after the event, not staying in Greenwich and spending money - this is exactlt what happens each year with the Marathon. People who want to watch the Marathon in iconic Greenwich come, but then leave once the race has gone through. People who aren't interested in the event stay well away. The result is that all the shops, pubs, restaurants etc have a very poor day's trading. In my opinion, it is very likely that the Marathon effect coupled with the closure of the Park, will damage Greenwich's tourist trade that Summer.
Also, Simon's point about parking is very important - in Greenwich Time it says, "Excellent transport links in Greenwich will enable spectators to use public transport for their journeys to the venue." Well - 23,000 extra people on the DLR of a morning. That'll be fun. (I think I might go to Cornwall that week)
Note to the hydra-headed samkellyjones monster - if you can show me an authoritative timetable for the erection of the the stadium and ancilliary building (over 300 at Hong Kong apparently) the laying if the track, the positioning of the jumps, running of services etc etc etc that proves me wrong, then please do so. Don't just shout at me.
No - looking at the Greenwich Time map, I was wrong. The cross country course is going to smash straight through the middle of the flower garden. Jesus.....
Oh yes, and through the boating pond too. So - the pond is going to be drained and levelled, and the flower garden is going to be torn up.
And Derrick Spurr and samkellyjones are still telling me the Park isn't going to be damaged......
Oh I see Rod has got another job.
To begin with he was a tree expert - an aboricultural expert, emphasis on the aBOREicultural.
Then he became a cartographic expert re-writing maps of London by expressing a desire to see events moved to hitherto deepest Kent for the London 2012 games. Age old boundaries count for nothing though in Rod's world.
Now I see he has become a cross between a groundsman and an equestrian course builder decreeing that it "doesn't seem to be possible" that large sections of the park will be able to stay open.
Rod has spoken and so it must indeed be so...
But the one thing that never changes about our dear Rod is his uncanny knack to spout misinformation.
eg He takes issue with the fact that people are being encouraged to use public transport to get to the Greenwich events.
Apparently 23,000 are all going to choose the DLR as their public transport option.
You see south eastern trains, buses, ferries etc - none of them exist in Rod's World.
What's even funnier is his insinuation that they will all travel in the morning rush hour traffic.
Yes in Rod's world he has decreed there will be public transport chaos as people synchronise their journeys just to bring down the DLR system. Oh and ofcourse Rod has decreed that the events will start at 9am. So it must be so!
But in Rod's World no one goes on holiday in August 2012. So there will not be 100s of 1000s of London residents - let alone millions - flying out on holiday abroad.
Ofcourse not - traffic is just one way into Greenwich and London in Rod's World.
I only feel sorry for Rod that his world doesn't really exist and I wonder whether it is possible that he ever sees the good in anything.
I don't think he does.
Ha ha ha - almost wet myself laughing reading that.
But you do have a very good point
The people who moan about the park claim that the majority of people back their view.
Yet where is there proof?
We all know that people are more like to come out and complain than to support something. That's just human nature.
So how come just 2,000 people have signed the petition against the Park.
Yes that's 2000 people in about 4 months.
2000 people out of 250,000 that live in Greenwich. Less than one per cent.
And that's even being generous and assuming they are all from Greenwich (which ofcourse they are not - many have vested interests in lobbying for the events to move to Essex or elsewhere).
So that's 2000 want to see the events moved from the park.
More people want to see an immediate ban on power line adaptors of the type currently supplied by BT!
Twice that number want to Bruce Forsyth get a knighthood.
Four times that number wantan immediate ban on power line adaptors of the type currently
And 33,000 more people would rather "instruct water companies to return to charging churches as charities rather than as business premises."
I'll let the figures speak for themselves...
A knighthood for Bruce Forsyth? Where do I sign?
Sam and Jenny, you clearly both have a firm grasp on statistics and logistics but I'd be interested to hear your opinions on the benefits this event will bring to Greenwich? Particularly the legacy which Sebastian Coe said was "absolutely epicentral to the plans".
As for Sam's complaint about moving an event of the London Olympics out to "deepest Kent", the Beijing Olympics equestrian events were held in Hong Kong which is over 1200 miles from Beijing. Besides, why shouldn't we share some more of them instead of greedily trying to keep most of the events in Greenwich?
Sam and Jenny, a bit bitchy no?! Rod is saying his opinion, and you could have stated yours without being so nasty! Shame on you!
PS, Simon, awesome job on the map!! My worry is that if the Deer park area is the section that is left open, then where will I walk my doggies?! One of the reasons I moved to Greenwich was to walk my dogs in such a beautiful area!!! I'll be there on Sunday making my voice heard about the olympics in the park and also the fact that Greenwich is SHUT again for another marathon!! Nightmare!
Where is the "Old Navel [sic] College"?
Can we all agree that what we want is something that is Good For Greenwich? And put the insults to one side?
I'll confess that as yet I haven't read the LOCOG material, so I can't comment on the route yet. Although I am sorry to see that they seem have missed the opportunity to use the covered reservoir near the tennis courts as some kind of obstacle.
But - please let's not complain about a lack of legacy - as I see it, it's either major disruption (permanent building work etc), or no legacy buildings (and less disruption). But not both.
Where I think there may be a legacy effect is in tourism post Olympics. I think I'm right in saying that Barcelona and Sydney experienced huge upsurges in tourism after the Olympics (If I'm not, no doubt I'll be corrected).
If I saw TV pics of horses trotting by the Queen's House, that might fit exactly the (misguided, cliched but commercial) image I have of England and inspire me to spend a fortnight here.
Jenny's point about the level of opposition is a valid one. To the best of my knowledge (you see how I'm hedging my bets here?) opposition has only really manifested itself through the 3 amenity groups that held votes (I would hope that we can agree that a facebook petition isn't as valid). The numbers aren't huge.
So if there really is the claimed widespread opposition, it needs to mobilise, and fast.
Sam says -
"To begin with he was a tree expert - an aboricultural expert, emphasis on the aBOREicultural.
Then he became a cartographic expert re-writing maps of London by expressing a desire to see events moved to hitherto deepest Kent for the London 2012 games. Age old boundaries count for nothing though in Rod's world."
Where have I said anything about trees, except that I don't want to see any cut down?
Where have I re-written any map?
Where have I expressed any desire to see the Olympics moved to Kent?
I am getting very tired of you putting words into my mouth, rather than actually answering the points that I and others are making. This is an important debate, and we are not in the playground.
Your favourite insult seems to be "bore" - look in the mirror, Sam. You don't answer the legitimate concerns that people are expressing here, you just hurl insults and sarcasm around. I express concern about transport links to Greenwich with 23,000 people all travelling at more or less the same time, and you just take the piss. Bravo!
I need to state once again, because Sam doesn't really read what I write, that I am NOT against the Olympics in Greenwich, I am against damage to our World Heritage site. I would hope that even Sam would be able to see the very real distinction there. Here's hoping....
Oh dear SamJenny, you just seem to get more and more desperate and shrill as you post
You still haven't provided any real or factual reponse to our criticisms other than ad hominem attacks on myself and Rod
I notice you have no response to Simon, who has walked the course and is rather concerned - particularly over the flower garden and the boating lake. How do you respond to that?
Jenny, your post has to be amongst the more absurd that I've seen. Not one of us has claimed that the majority of people agree with us. In fact we have all made it clear that these posts are solely our opinions.
However, your figures for the silly petitions are from the UK's population, not Greenwich's.
If 2000 Greenwich residents are unhappy with this, then if this was nationwide, the equivalent proportion would be more than 750,000. About the same number that demonstrated against the Iraq War. Would you say that people against the war were a tiny minority? Or would you say that the people who bothered to march were representative of a much more widespread feeling amongst the populace?
And just to demonstrate your extremely shaky grasp of the facts here - what is all this waffle about Kent and Essex? Hickstead is in West Sussex and Badminton in Gloucestershire. FYI - those are the premier equestrian facilities in England
As for the arguments about people going on holiday. What has that got to do with anything? Whether the trains and DLR are absolutely empty or not - if the stands are booked out (which they will be - 250,000 people attend Badminton each year) there will still be 23,000 people descending on Greenwich in one day. More than a tenth of the whole population. And that's just the people with tickets for the stands. Realistically it is likely to be much higher
This whole thing strikes me as being thought up in an office by people who knew nothing about Greenwich and nothing about equestrianism. I think they looked at pictures of the park and thought "wow - a blend of old and new. The ancient park and the beautiful naval college framed by the modern towers of Canary Wharf. What an image!"
I bet the word "synergy" was used
It is the job of LOCOG and the Council to convince us that this is a good idea and that the park will suffer no harm. So far they have not done very well.
Rod
Let it go.
If I were wearing my cynical rather than sunny hat, I might be tempted to think that they are actively trying to derail you from discussing the issue at hand. (which in turn would mean they are trying to hide something, which would then mean ...). Which is why I prefer a sunny hat.
How about we lighten the mood in here with a sunny Friday sing-a-long?
Unfortunately the weather forecast isn't great this weekend, otherwise I'd suggest that everyone take their copy of Greenwich Time and go for a canter around the park to see the route first hand.
Let it go.
If I were wearing my cynical rather than sunny hat, I might be tempted to think that they are actively trying to derail you from discussing the issue at hand. (which in turn would mean they are trying to hide something, which would then mean ...).
Will, thank you.
The same thought had crossed my mind - it's exactly the same tactic that was used in the Royal Teas debate. I'm not going to elaborate a conspiracy theory, because that will just give "Sam" ammunition.
You're quite right, and I shall not engage with these unpleasant people any more.
Thank you once again.
Simon thank you for posting the map. Very useful. I hope to get along to the consultation this weekend.
Simon
I see your d'Agostini tune and raise you a Father Ted
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8linZiGYSeE
By the way, in the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that my opposition to the plans is in no way related to my horse allergy (which makes my lips swell to Lesley Ash proportions...)
I don't care about trees and ponds - but if they destroy the herb garden in 2012 I'll be delighted (and probably send them some money) as it has chives in it.
What has the humble chive ever done to you?
so the buggers think it's ok for horsies (and the - far worse - braying toffs that accompany them) to romp and rage around the park, hurdling trees, ponds, scaring the bejesus out of the deer, squirrels, birdies etc while it's shut to us humble, local forelock tugging punters for the duration, but they put up a horse jump gate thing just to annoy/delay the hell out of cyclists at the Maze Hill gate - mind you, COULD probably hurdle that on a horse - oblivious to the fact (Mr Spurr is well named, no?) that as it is cyclists have only 2 poxy lanes which are always full of meandering people, pushchairs, dogs, kids.....now they want to turn the park into a Horse Lane! And sell the manure back to us afterwards no doubt!
Q; if the horses do come, can we rent our big, communal garden to them for a few grand a week?
Wow - scared of chives! I thought it was just a really random nom de plume, but you really are. Scared. Of. Chives.
Which is even more random than it just being a random name IMHO!!
Is there a .....phobia name for your condition that you know of?
How are you with, say, spring onions or garlic?
Rod...Les was scared of chives..Vics Big Night Out?...An old Greenwich/Deptford reference..Good to see it back..
Ootraged...them serious cyclists just make me sigh....
But here's an interesting thing...the 23,000 spectators for the horseys is only the number for the stands for the showjumping etc that may happen near the Queens House....That figure takes no account of the other crowds in the park for the rest of the events. Have a look at Simon's excellent photoshop stuff or the maps on the British Equestrian site. (Which makes quite clear, by the way, that TV exposure is their main aim)
Gosh...wouldn't we all respect Greenwich Council if they stood up and said....."Er....we may have got this park thing wrong....."
Wolfe
sorry, this sort of thing happens to me all the time - I watch very little TV, and I constantly miss references that other people find blindingly obvious.
Very good point about spectator numbers exceeding 23,000, possibly by quite a margin.
Well I went along to the "consultation" but there were just a couple of people there who trotted out the contents of the leaflet/greenwich time. No new information and couldn't answer any questions because "the detail isn't known yet". There was nowhere for us to make our views known so it wasn't what i would describe as a consultation
By the time we found the consultation stall outside the ORNC (somewhere between the police and the Segways) they'd packed up and gone home. I'm annoyed with myself for not getting out there earlier but, even so, this was not long after 3 and the other stalls are only just packing up an hour later.
Apparently the next consultation is in November some time so I'll make sure I get there earlier!
I managed to speak to someone at the stand. He thought that the lower park would be closed for 3 months in the run up and then throughout the 12 days of olympic events. No mention of the para olympics. He had to admit there would be NO lasting legacy - can't gild a lily. Although he tried to convince me that the temporary seating was a form of legacy!! He tried to go into some detail about the course but I told him I looked at the website and read the brochure online.
I suggested that if they are going to conduct future consultations, then perhaps they could let people know exactly where they would be and timings; otherwise it would lack transparency. I don't appreciate wandering around looking for a stand in the rain. No method to register your views...
I finally found the stand at about 2.45 they had all but packed up then. I managed to speak to the one guy left and asked 1. Why had everyone gone. Well, its very cold and wet. 2. Why did they make it so difficult for us to find them. We didnt know where we were going to be until this morning - it hasnt been very well organised. 3. Can I have some details of the proposed course? He gave me a booklet with same old same old. I asked him if it was true that the course ran straight through the flower gardens and the pond. He seemed quite pleased and told me that the pond will make up one of the water jumps. What about the fish I shreiked? No problem we will move them for the duration, they will be fine. I was barely in control of myself by then and told him that there was a great deal of concern that they were not being upfront with the locals. He said "oh I bet you have been reading that Greenwich Phantom". Too flipping right I said, we shall fight you on the beaches.... he walked away into the rain with his boxes of unread leaflets. So keep it up Phantom, you have them worried.
Well done lgm for getting something out of them! The guy I spoke to was freakily cheerful for such an early hour and in the pouring rain, but couldn't give me ANY answers at all. He seemed to think that 100 horse boxes wasn't much traffic, and blamed everything regarding teh consultation being poorly signed, on Greenwich Council. I asked whether or not we'd be able to do a walk of the course and ask questions in teh next couple of months, and he said they want to wait until next summer becuase of the weather, by when I completely assume that the decision will have been made. To be honest, I felt like it had already been decided. Whether or not we liked the answers. Made me SO SO mad!!! I believe it will benefit Greenwich in terms of tourism, but I don't think this will outway the fact that we are being left with no new building etc, which won't benefit the people who live here! The man we spoke to even said that as Gerenwich residents we'd have NO weighting etc in getting tickets!!!!!
If they were going to turn Greenwich into an equestrian speciaility area for the next 100 years, building dressage and other exciting buildings that future generations could use, I'd be waving the olypmic banner and offering them the use of my tiny back yard. But they're not, and that's why I'm against it.
Well, in all fairness, I felt that I had a reasonable conversation with the LOGOC guy that I spoke to.
He admitted that originally there had been plans to cut the trees along Romney Rd down and even close Romney Rd for 3 months (!), but he was absolutely adamant that there are now no plans to cut down any trees at all. Some trees will certainly have to be pruned. He said that the return of the Park in its original state would be embedded in the contract that the Olympics body have to sign, and therefore legally binding, and was being insisted upon by the Royal Parks.
No, yesterday's event was not a consultation - there was no way of registering views. It was an exercise designed to hand out the LOGOC leaflet.
I did learn something - he told me that the Olympics are paying for 22 out of the 55 new DLR carriages, so that's a legacy of a sort.
He said that there wouldn't have to be as many temporary structures as the 311 counted at Hong Kong because the whole event was being held on one site, not spread across three areas, as at Hong Kong. The spread across three areas meant that a lot of facilites had to be duplicated, which won't be neccessary at Greenwich.
The cross country event doesn't require a track to be laid - the horses run upon the grass that's there, so obviously, depending on the weather, there'll be a lot of turf to be replaced, and of course the Flower Garden will have to be re-instated. He was pretty confident about these issues, but it's potentially a lot of work in my opinion.
As far as getting people to and from Greenwich is concerned, he said the the rail links are much better than they were at Sydney, where there was only one possible train line. The event only lasts for about four hours each day, so they can be timed to avoid the rush hour, and people will be travelling against the tide.
I still think transport is an issue for the whole of the Olympics, not just Greenwich, because there's just not much slack in the system, but the points he made were reasonable so far as they go.
I'm sorry this is a long post, but I'm trying to represent the jist of the conversation that I had. There are still things that I'm very concerned about, but equally, there are things that I'm a little bit easier with now.
Rod
Thanks for that - helps flesh out a lot of questions. On transport, I would have though Greenwich was in a far stronger position than Stratford - the Park is close for bus, train (from 4 different mainline stations), tube (ish admittedly, cos it needs a bus journey), DLR and river.
So long as it's all co-ordinated (which does seems to be achieved on Marathon day) sounds like shifting say 30,000+ a day is very acheivable.
That said, the traffic this weekend for the half marathon was APPALLING.
Was anyone else upset by the one-sided treatment this story got in Greenwich Time? There was so much left unsaid - how much disruption, the extent of the closure, time scales.....
I am getting seriously fed up with the way my council tax is paying for this piss-poor weekly propaganda sheet. It doesn't reflect Greenwich - it doesn't even tell us that the LOCOG people were at the car free day on sunday! They MUST have known (and if not how inefficient is that?). Almost as if they don't want us to have the full facts.
Kate
"Was anyone else upset by the one-sided treatment this story got in Greenwich Time?"
I'm sure lots of people are upset by this - I certainly am. It's just blanket propaganda with very little hard information, favouring emotive angles such as how Greenwich school kids will jump at the opportunity to get involves blah blah blah. So far as I can see, Greenwich school kids will be lucky to get into the events, which are likely to be going to be swamped by chinless toffs.
The Council have so far done a very poor job of selling this to us, I feel, going for the "don't let the moaners spoil this once in a lifetime opportunity" line, rather than providing better information. I mean they're not even getting the brownie points for the fact that the Olympics are paying for 22 out of 55 new DLR carriages.
rqznhSurely Blackheath is a more suitable venue for such a thing? It is a huge open space free of encuberments such as ancient trees, ponds full of fish and walkers of dogs, and maybe a shuttle bus service could go from the gates at the bottom of the park to the gates at the top of the park for the duration.
I was out of London at the weekend (actually I spent a number of hours taking an extraordinarily complex route from Stratford to Maze Hill because of the ridiculousness of the transport situation on Sunday) but will look out for the next consultation date, I may even do some flyers and put them through letter boxes!
they are going to use the pond as a "water jump"?! move the fish? (when, I want to watch that). What about the ducks?
Those of you who met some of this sorry bunch - did you get the impression that they have serious misgivings but are adamant that they shouldn't lose face?
Well, no, Kate - not at all, which is a reason why we should all keep the pressure on. It seems to me that one reason why they have retreated from the original scheme to cut all the trees along Romney Rd down is because of local opposition as expressed here. The LOGOC guys I spoke to were very aware of the debate happening here chez Phantom.
The fate of all park-destroyers and fish-displacers will be
this
Just a reminder that the AGM of the Greenwich Society is on 15th October - point 4 on the agenda is Olympics 2012. If the Friends of Greenwich Park meeting was anything to go by this meeting should be "interesting". I urge you, if you are a member, please attend.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home