Central Park

What would you class as 'acceptable' development?

As a resident of Plymouth, and as an Argyle fan.

Not a resident of Plymouth, but in all honesty as long as there is not some great monstrosity of an eyesore erected, it wouldn't bother me what is built.

Central Park is hardly an area of outstanding natural beauty as it is. I see it more of a sports area so obviously the grandstand being developed, a hotel is taken for granted so one with decent leisure facilities and a bar that fans could enjoy a decent pint before and after the game, but would also get used at other times.

Anything else is fine as long at it doesn't look like a Death Star.

tend to agree with Greenjock, the open areas are only used as a dogs toilet at present. Keep the splendid avenue of Horsechestnut trees leading to Barn Park Road.

Greenjock wrote:

Not a resident of Plymouth, but in all honesty as long as there is not some great monstrosity of an eyesore erected, it wouldn't bother me what is built.

Central Park is hardly an area of outstanding natural beauty as it is. I see it more of a sports area so obviously the grandstand being developed, a hotel is taken for granted so one with decent leisure facilities and a bar that fans could enjoy a decent pint before and after the game, but would also get used at other times.

Anything else is fine as long at it doesn't look like a Death Star.

What about a potentially quite fantastic, state of the art sports complex that is then - cunningly - finished off in a way that disguises it as an Ikea??

Jon

JonB wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

Not a resident of Plymouth, but in all honesty as long as there is not some great monstrosity of an eyesore erected, it wouldn't bother me what is built.

Central Park is hardly an area of outstanding natural beauty as it is. I see it more of a sports area so obviously the grandstand being developed, a hotel is taken for granted so one with decent leisure facilities and a bar that fans could enjoy a decent pint before and after the game, but would also get used at other times.

Anything else is fine as long at it doesn't look like a Death Star.

What about a potentially quite fantastic, state of the art sports complex that is then - cunningly - finished off in a way that disguises it as an Ikea??

Jon

As long as there's a cinema inside, why not?

Devonport Park's so much better than Central Park nowadays. Brand new and exciting play areas, nice cafe and community building (with spotlessly clean toilets), lovely planting (from formal gardens to wilderness stuff, including a wildflower meadow), loads of squirrels, paths now smooth and easily navigated by small people on bikes and elderly people with mobility aids, beautifully restored war memorial and other artefacts, plenty of benches, some nice quiet areas where you can just sit and look ... and all beautifully clean, well lit and safe feeling. No wonder so many of us use it so often now.

Granted this was only possible thanks mostly to a mahusive Heritage Lottery grant, but it really puts Central Park in the shade.

Maybe Central Park's just too big? I'd never advocate building over any more of it, but with hindsight it would have been better if the original planners had shared out the open spaces a bit more evenly across the whole city.

There are two kinds of people who will care less what goes up there. That is the ones who live opposite and the ones who allow their dogs to foul the place daily. I live adjacent to a park and it has become a place for the dogs to crap on and woe betide kids wanting to play if it interferes with the dog brigade.

Whatever is put up there is always going to be restricted to a large degree. No chance there is ever going to be a supermarket built for example or probably housing. I see nothing wrong with any sort of leisure facility or for that matter a hotel as long as it blends in with the area.

Peggy wrote:

Devonport Park's so much better than Central Park nowadays. Brand new and exciting play areas, nice cafe and community building (with spotlessly clean toilets), lovely planting (from formal gardens to wilderness stuff, including a wildflower meadow), loads of squirrels, paths now smooth and easily navigated by small people on bikes and elderly people with mobility aids, beautifully restored war memorial and other artefacts, plenty of benches, some nice quiet areas where you can just sit and look ... and all beautifully clean, well lit and safe feeling. No wonder so many of us use it so often now.

Granted this was only possible thanks mostly to a mahusive Heritage Lottery grant, but it really puts Central Park in the shade.

Maybe Central Park's just too big? I'd never advocate building over any more of it, but with hindsight it would have been better if the original planners had shared out the open spaces a bit more evenly across the whole city.

So you're saying that because the park could be better (something which I agree on) that we should, well, build a hotel on it?

If it directly or indirectly benefits the football club then absolutely yes there is no reason why a hotel can't be built there. There is going to be divided opinion on that I know but in a vote I would vote yes.

Also just noticed Peggy's point about spreading out the open spaces in the City a bit more. If you look around Plymouth there actually is a lot of green open space already spread about. Nearly every area if not all have open green spaces in them some obviously bigger than others.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

If it directly or indirectly benefits the football club then absolutely yes there is no reason why a hotel can't be built there. There is going to be divided opinion on that I know but in a vote I would vote yes.

Also just noticed Peggy's point about spreading out the open spaces in the City a bit more. If you look around Plymouth there actually is a lot of green open space already spread about. Nearly every area if not all have open green spaces in them some obviously bigger than others.

What if it directly benefitted Brent, but didn't have much to do with the club?

TBF Plymouth has a lot more green space than, say, Portsmouth. But I'd imagine Pompey is one of the highest concentrated person per mile cities about so I'm not sure if it's a decent comparison.

I'd still vote yes. Nothing to do with who built it particularly although it was a poorly kept secret if nobody already doesn't know it was part of the purchase plan. A hotel there cannot do any harm to Argyle and if it indirectly benefits us by virtue of the hotel being "part" of an overall improvement strategy then fine by me. What use is the park as it stands now anyway. As I said originally the Nimbies and dog brigade are the only ones likely to shout that loud and lets face it their dogs can crap anywhere and they can fail to pick it up. It doesn't have to be done on grassland

There should be no attempt to build outside the existing footprint. That may include the sites of the existing offices, shop, tent etc. The green spaces are essential to maintain! It's one of the things that makes Plymouth such an attractive city. To say we've got enough already is the thin edge of the wedge - a little bit snipped off here and then the same next year and the year after. If the park is run down then that's an argument to tidy it up not to damage it more. I must say that eighteen months or so ago I walked through the park to get to the match from the city centre and was pleasantly surprised at how busy with people it was doing all the traditional park activities - several impromptu ball games, pitch & putt, families with kiddies, people strolling, people jogging, picnics. As for the dog problem - dozens of cameras equipped with a laser to administer a zap to offenders would do the job.

Within the existing footprint such things as small hotel, gym facilities, cafes, restaurant, sports shop, conference facilities, class-rooms, sports clinic seem entirely appropriate.

knecht wrote:

There should be no attempt to build outside the existing footprint. That may include the sites of the existing offices, shop, tent etc. The green spaces are essential to maintain! It's one of the things that makes Plymouth such an attractive city. To say we've got enough already is the thin edge of the wedge - a little bit snipped off here and then the same next year and the year after. If the park is run down then that's an argument to tidy it up not to damage it more. I must say that eighteen months or so ago I walked through the park to get to the match from the city centre and was pleasantly surprised at how busy with people it was doing all the traditional park activities - several impromptu ball games, pitch & putt, families with kiddies, people strolling, people jogging, picnics. As for the dog problem - dozens of cameras equipped with a laser to administer a zap to offenders would do the job.

Within the existing footprint such things as small hotel, gym facilities, cafes, restaurant, sports shop, conference facilities, class-rooms, sports clinic seem entirely appropriate.

This. And if you flatten the pitch and grandstand after we are wound up, loads more potential. Just think 'The Argyle Hotel' overlooking Central Park. Stay in the luxurious Barn Park Suite or the Devonport Bridal Suite (complimentary condoms) or just enjoy a beer in the glass and metal fronted Mayflower Bar and Pyramid Brasserie, after working out in the exclusive Lyndhurst Fitness Rooms.



Not without the bounds of possibility unfortunately.

What gripes me is that some greedy barsteward will make profit from land that was bestowed to the citizens of Plymouth, it should be the citizens that keep the profit and not some jumped up money fanatic.

I know that Mock has pointed out Portsmouth as having less green space then Plymouth but there aren't many cities that do. Bristol has masses of the stuff and whilst Bristol maybe twice the size of Plymouth it's still not relative in comparison. But then there's the argument regarding Dartmoor and the coast being our playgrounds in the back garden, so why do we need a huge chunk of green land?

For me the argument is about drawing a line in the sand and saying enough is enough to the greed agenda, the park belongs to the citizens and not to an already extremely wealthy parasite that examples the things that are so very wrong in our so called capitalist society.

Power to the people my friends!

Cerbera wrote:

knecht wrote:

There should be no attempt to build outside the existing footprint. That may include the sites of the existing offices, shop, tent etc. The green spaces are essential to maintain! It's one of the things that makes Plymouth such an attractive city. To say we've got enough already is the thin edge of the wedge - a little bit snipped off here and then the same next year and the year after. If the park is run down then that's an argument to tidy it up not to damage it more. I must say that eighteen months or so ago I walked through the park to get to the match from the city centre and was pleasantly surprised at how busy with people it was doing all the traditional park activities - several impromptu ball games, pitch & putt, families with kiddies, people strolling, people jogging, picnics. As for the dog problem - dozens of cameras equipped with a laser to administer a zap to offenders would do the job.

Within the existing footprint such things as small hotel, gym facilities, cafes, restaurant, sports shop, conference facilities, class-rooms, sports clinic seem entirely appropriate.

This. And if you flatten the pitch and grandstand after we are wound up, loads more potential. Just think 'The Argyle Hotel' overlooking Central Park. Stay in the luxurious Barn Park Suite or the Devonport Bridal Suite (complimentary condoms) or just enjoy a beer in the glass and metal fronted Mayflower Bar and Pyramid Brasserie, after working out in the exclusive Lyndhurst Fitness Rooms.



Not without the bounds of possibility unfortunately.

Don't forget the student accommodation!

Exactly Gob

Not sure why everything has to be measured in pounds shillings and pence. But you bet your bottom dollar (just to mix my currency metaphors) there is a developer seeking profit at the crux of any land grab deal.

It's the same with school playing fields. It should be literally outlawed to sell them off.

Parkland should be cherised. I don't and won't buy or be blinded by something that will supposedly benefit the football just because its Plymouth Argyle and they must take precendent over everything else. I take the samer view of the club developing land as I would Tesco et al trying to swallow part of Central Park up.

I know in a Dartmoor landlocked and coastal Plymouth that land for building a brand new stadium would be hard but there would be an honesty in starting again somewhere else on land the club owned (I realise it would be all but a non starter on cost alone).

I'm pretty sure I read that Lombard and PCC will get a cut of any profits from development as well, so the Council haven't done too badly out of the deal in my eyes.

Mock Cuncher wrote:

Peggy wrote:

Devonport Park's so much better than Central Park nowadays. Brand new and exciting play areas, nice cafe and community building (with spotlessly clean toilets), lovely planting (from formal gardens to wilderness stuff, including a wildflower meadow), loads of squirrels, paths now smooth and easily navigated by small people on bikes and elderly people with mobility aids, beautifully restored war memorial and other artefacts, plenty of benches, some nice quiet areas where you can just sit and look ... and all beautifully clean, well lit and safe feeling. No wonder so many of us use it so often now.

Granted this was only possible thanks mostly to a mahusive Heritage Lottery grant, but it really puts Central Park in the shade.

Maybe Central Park's just too big? I'd never advocate building over any more of it, but with hindsight it would have been better if the original planners had shared out the open spaces a bit more evenly across the whole city.

So you're saying that because the park could be better (something which I agree on) that we should, well, build a hotel on it?

No, not at all. But I didn't say what I did mean very well - probably because we were 1-0 up at the time and I wasn't concentrating proper like

Of course green spaces should be cherished, and there should be more of them, and as I said I'd never advocate building over any more of Central Park than has already gone. My brother pointed out to me recently just how much we'd lost when they extended the Milehouse junction and I was horrified - I see it too often to remember what it used to be like, whereas he's an infrequent visitor with little reason to go that way and it really jumped out at him.

Anyway. My point about size was that the restoration of Devonport Park was made easier by it being fairly compact - far from small, but still manageable. It's in the heart of two, maybe three communities, so it was easy to consult and make sure we got what we wanted and/or needed. And, of course, it was possible to get the money.

Central Park, on the other hand, is vast. It's on the doorstep of several communities, but not really in any of them - I think it acts more as a boundary between those communities. So - even assuming the money was there to do something with it - how would you find out what's wanted/needed, and where to put it?

So what we've got is a huge tract of land which must cost a lot to maintain and which, if we're honest, could do with a lot of improvement. Which is where the threats outlined by Gob and others come in: "here we are, nice Council leaders. We'll take some of that off your hands and build on it ..."

Oh and yes, the Life Centre does look like an Ikea: that cladding should never have been allowed.

As long as the Pitch and Putt survives, I couldn't give a damn

An Esculator turning into a Moving walkway

Can I ask a simple question to all of those that think Central Park should be untouched by human hands. Apart from possibly going to Argyle, what do you actually do in the park at other times? How often do you go there? Ok that's two but you get the drift.

People seem to scoff at somebody somewhere making a profit from something. Why exactly? If people didn't make a profit then there would be no incentive for anyone to do anything and no jobs created. There is nothing wrong with a profit. ALL of the would be investors in Argyle intended development and that was made clear at the time and from the start.

I get your drift SG but I'll throw one back at you, do you believe that if you do not use something that you should lose ownership of it?

Not necessarily GOB. We aren't talking about something owned by an individual here we are talking about recreational land or at least that is what it was originally intended for. Recreational as in for sport and walks etc. This land was not intended to be full of dog shit or neglected. What is popular in one era is not necessarily as popular in others. If something is little used anymore and is in the public domain then there well could be an argument of it's not used therefore we will change the use of some of it. Would you agree to a library staying open if it never lent a book? I doubt you would because it would be a waste of time it remaining and a waste of public money paying for something that is redundant.

A lot of Central Park is redundant land certainly around the edges so I don't see much wrong with some development being done there. As long as it isn't a complete abomination and doesn't blend in with the area. If somebody profits from that then again I see nothing wrong with profit as already said. I don't believe in allowing any old thing to be thrown up without question which I believe is a world of difference to what is likely here.

my kids enjoy riding there bikes in the park and they go in the play area but even that is very poor for the main park in a city this size, on a commercial front i would expect to see the pavillions replacement arena and ice rink built there in the not to distant future, but if and when this happens a clause should be included so that a certain % of the revenue is used in upgrading and maintaning the park, proper toilet facilities, a cafe and even a boating lake would be nice.

SG there are some things that are beyond "profit" in the financial sense (or should be). Central Park provides or can provide some of those.

I can never remember it properly but there's the saying about knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing.

Prostitution springs to mind.

And I've just read your response SG re land "at the edges" being worthy of development. You almost make my point for me - as soon as those "edges" disappear there will be new edges to whittle away at. Eventually we will be left with one tree and a dog peeing up against it.