Seems quite reasonable, bearing in mind the support for the plans back in 2007.
But the plans were different in 2007, to the extent that there is no valid reason for building this large building in the park. Apart from the cafe, a small store, and the big TV there is nothing in this building that could not be built in a far more convenient spot on one of the car parks behind the library or museum.
In 2007 they told us the pavilion would be it - no more buildings on the park. Now they are saying that they will be adding another building to provide changing facilities (which were part of the original proposal). A changing facility will need toilets - so why not add a cafe and build a far smaller structure in a central (more convenient) location?
The only reasons this building in being put in the park are 1) financial - the land is cheap (free) and 2) vanity - they are simply incapable of admitting they are wrong.
But the plans were different in 2007, to the extent that there is no valid reason for building this large building in the park. Apart from the cafe, a small store, and the big TV there is nothing in this building that could not be built in a far more convenient spot on one of the car parks behind the library or museum.
In 2007 they told us the pavilion would be it - no more buildings on the park. Now they are saying that they will be adding another building to provide changing facilities (which were part of the original proposal). A changing facility will need toilets - so why not add a cafe and build a far smaller structure in a central (more convenient) location?
The only reasons this building in being put in the park are 1) financial - the land is cheap (free) and 2) vanity - they are simply incapable of admitting they are wrong.
I haven't seen one suggestion for where it should go if not in the park. Any ideas?
It needs to be in the centre of town by the canal.
I haven't seen one suggestion for where it should go if not in the park. Any ideas?
It needs to be in the centre of town by the canal.
Why does it need to be by the canal? Nothing going on inside it has anything to do with the canal.
If it were my decision to make I would put it behind the museum and incorporate the extension/storage space the museum needs. An arts centre and museum would fit well together.
Why does it need to be by the canal? Nothing going on inside it has anything to do with the canal.
If it were my decision to make I would put it behind the museum and incorporate the extension/storage space the museum needs. An arts centre and museum would fit well together.
For water based activities like canoeing, run from the centre.
Yes from the time of the sketchy plans, to now, the project has been hijacked.
No it hasn't - the same people are pulling the strings. The difference is that the 2007 consultation didn't need to worry about the cost so much. Inevitably the proposals were a) too expensive and b) generated concern at such a large structure in the park.
So they water it down, shrink it 30% (moving some of the functionality to a second building - remember the pavilion was to be the only building on the park, no more would be needed). Then they leave out the popular feature that would have allowed live outdoor events to be staged there.
Of course they leave in the OTT costs of an architecturally unusual building - but, what the heck, it will be a nice addition to Sutton Griffin's portfolio.
Logged
Male
