News

King's Meadow Baths revamp ‘not forgotten’

Linda Fort
31/03/2010

Events seem to be conspiring against the campaigners who want to see the King’s Meadow public baths restored.

But they are not down-hearted and Reading Borough Council (RBC) is still supporting their efforts.

Your comments(27)

1 | 2 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

I see the hidden hand of Reading Labour Party behind the nasty comments of the people opposing this scheme. How anyone can call this building ugly makes me very sad and fearful for the future of our heritage. I can only assume that these people see some form of beauty in a Novotel or Travel Lodge.

Bigboy, woodley
09/04/2010 at 16:51

Come on guys, don't get personal about each other's English grammar. Let's comprehend the fact that amidst the banter of knocking each down there are some good points, but STILL some points that tell me that the difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the planned restoration is not quite understood yet.

Go onto the website and see what the campaigners are wanting to do as Phase 1. Have a look at the grim photos of the changing facilities for the sports users on the Meadow. The Baths are only PART of the proposed Riverside Development. George Palmer bequeathed this 14 acres of land to the people of Reading for recreational purposes, and look at the present day standard the town offers for these purposes.

The campaigners want to start with putting these right. The Campaigners haven't got a whim, they are putting others first and it should be appreciated. If you don't know yet - the website is http://www.kingsmeadowbaths.org.uk

Everything on this site places everything in perspective. Perhaps you could add to the Measure of "Making" Searching the website would be appreciated.

To stack this Riverside Development against other new developments, expansions, restoration projects just doesn't make sense and is unfair to say the least. They are dependant on help from other means - the Campaign is purely"themselves" reliant on others' support. And...they'd like that.

lostlidos, Reading
08/04/2010 at 11:59

Ray Northstander I question whether The Royal Berkss frontage has had a greater impact on the people of Reading than the Heritage of the palmer family,OVER 98% were living in Reading at one time lived here because they either worked for or were working for a company suplying that company.Decendants of these workers make up a large percentage of the population of today. As for a conservatory added on or alteration to a listed building try visiting the coffee shop in the knave of Salisbury cathedral. By the way the baths are not grade 1 listed so are not subject to so many restrictions as you think.They have the same listing as the old hospital building in Chain street which Heelas was supposed to preserve but did not because they accidently lost the brickwork in reconstruction.There are many examples of this in the country as a whole. As for the station frontage well that has listed status but we still got a carbuncle on the side of it. But personally I would not preserve the baths as a functional one but more as a social history example within a relevant historical project attraction. As for you Hannibal what a sad life you lead if all you have to do is proof read my posts on this site.As you lose the will to live at the begining of my posts you won't see this comment will you HA HA.

bahumbug, Reading
07/04/2010 at 11:40

Bahumbug, I like what you did with the paragraph there, it makes your point far easier to read.

However irony of you saying that I have no grey matter is not lost, given that you cannot even spell the words that you clearly hold a strong opinion on. 'Bathes', 'Hayday', 'Maintinance', 'Anouther' ... I could go on.

The internet is littered with people ranting on message boards. By all means carry on doing so, but please do the rest of us a favour with some basic spelling effort. Otherwise people see your comments as rubbish even if you have a valid point.

Frankly I gave up the will to live halfway through so I don't really know if you are on the money or just a keyboard warrior foaming at the mouth.

Hannibal Smith
07/04/2010 at 10:26

"I know only too well how the succesive councils have wasted the money over the years."

That's exactly the point, bahumbug. "Wasted" is a subjective term. If you support the project/idea, it is not a "waste", in your view. If you don't, it is.

"As for a roof it is possible to put one on otherwise the other planners must have been lying in their plan too"

The other proposals were not dealing with preserving the existing building at all, they wanted to redevelop the site entirely, and use what bits that were salvageable to accommodate a health club. It was KMC that got the building listed, in order to baulk the opposing bids, and thankfully, they succeeded. Where KMC might have scored an "own goal" is that getting hold of a listed building carries responsibilites, and that means preserving the building "as built", using authentic materials and practices. That means expensive. It also constrains what you can do with the original design. There was no overall roof originally, so join the dots up. Ask English Heritage if it's ok to stick a conservatory on the side of the nave of Canterbury cathedral, or put a Costa coffee outlet in the walls of Windsor castle!

"why do we want preserve the station building and the frontage of the Royal Berks hospital and many other parts of the town"

Again, we're in the realms of opinion here, but I would suggest that the Royal Berks has had a bigger impact on more of the townsfolk's lives than the baths. Speaking as a railway enthusiast, our station is nothing special. Brunel did a much better job at Slough, and any architectural merit ours had was spoilt by that ugly carbuncle that was built on the eastern end of the station. Modern, yes, but akin to someone using a marker pen to draw an iPod in the mona Lisa's hand.

ray northstander
06/04/2010 at 20:46

Ray Northstander agreed council tax payers do foot the bill having lived in Reading all my life and having paid council tax in my own right for the last 55 years, with a family background of living in Reading going back to 1600s who have also in turn paid council rates I know only too well how the succesive councils have wasted the money over the years.

Point 2 there is NO probability about the council neglecting the bathes its fact.

Point 3 Yes if the plan was for simply an open air swimming pool perhaps the bathes would not flourish.But who said that was the be all and end all of the plan.As for a roof it is possible to put one on otherwise the other planners must have been lying in their plan too.

Point4 Is it a waste of tax payers money to preserve an important piece of social history of the town like the bathes, if so why do we want preserve the station building and the frontage of the Royal Berks hospital and many other parts of the town including the recently restored garden oposite the new prudentual building.

Hannibal if all you can comment on is grammer and spelling it just showes how little grey matter you have between your ears,(grey matter anouther way of saying brains).

bahumbug, Reading
06/04/2010 at 18:42

Just a couple of observations, bahumbug.

1. The council does not "foot the bill". Council tax payers do, and therein lies the root of the debate. Some say the council wastes money on things like city status bids, others support it. It's all about how the council utilises limited funds.

It is probably true that the building here was neglected by the council over the years.

I believe that decision was made, not to anger KMC, but as a considered one in deciding not to throw good tax revenue after bad. Even if the building was in pristine condition today, there is no way I can foresee the business model standing up, and presumably that is also the view of the council.

I have no axe to grind with anyone at KMC, but an open air pool, of that size, at this latitude, with our climate, makes no sense. Ice skating, or exhibitions when it is pi$$ing down with rain doesn't appeal either. If an overall glass roof was installed, it might stand half a chance, but I believe that the limitations of the building's design, and its' listed status could be the very things that could end up turning round to bite the campaigners on the bum, and prevent it from being a success.

ray northstander
06/04/2010 at 16:30

@bahumbug the word you are looking for is 'paragraph'.

Hannibal Smith
06/04/2010 at 15:28

To all of those who are calling the bathes to be knocked down ,you obvously never knew the bathes in their hayday. You are judging it by the neglected state the council has let it become.On princible alone they should foot some of the bill.The money is there from developers and maintinance money which should have been spent every year.TRUTH is it don't matter whether it should be a bathes again or not the building it self should be restored for the towns heritage alone.This building is as immportant to the history of the town as the ruins are.Its part of our social history.For those of you ignorant to the facts the bathes were built by the Palmer family to be used for the well being of their workers.This was pioneering in its time they were one of the first employers to think of their workers as human beings in their own right.The majority of the palmer heritage is gone in its true state this is the last building of its kind in this town that could be used for purpose.Most of todays Reading laid its foundations to the hard work of both the workers and this company.Nearly every single family in Reading have got a connection to the Palmer dynesty.Every time you walk in Palmer park,every time you pass /go work in or live in newtown every time you visit the Royal Berks Hospital.You should remember that the Palmer family put the money to make it so and without all those workers they wouldn't have been able to.The old newtown has gone in the main part the park has been neglected as for the hospital little of the original building is there.So to let these bathes go to would be disrespecful to say the least.

bahumbug, Reading
06/04/2010 at 11:45

Ugly,cold,not fit for swimming,no sunlight,knock it down. Well now, I'm not at all surprised at these comm4nts from narrow minded armchair feet up vocalists. How about you adding substance to your comments and DOING something yourselves? That indeed would be refreshing to the eye. Take your blinkers off.You'll have one or two choices. Concrete and car parks for which wil be down to the rate payers or donating a few bob towards a lovely riverside development - and note - one that doesn't JUST involve the pool. Wake up and stop displaying total disregard for what some people are actively trying to do. Let's hear about YOUR achievements - it would make for much better reading of course!!!!!!!!! You blame the campaigners and their hot air - your's would just about fry up the planet.

lostlidos, Reading
06/04/2010 at 06:44

I've just read posted comments.It appears that the message is clear with regards to the future of Readings own 'blot on the landscape'.KMC & RBC .......the people have spoken!RBC..carry on and do what you should have done decades ago, demolish it, like you did with the Coley pool!Also when that dark ,dingey site is clear and sunlight shines on the Caversham lock for the first time in a hundred or so years the people of Reading can have a proper discussion about the future of that corner of kings meadow.Let the sun shine in....Knock it down

Southcoast
04/04/2010 at 10:50

so where is all the cash going to come from ..... I used this place to get my BSAQ license but that was a long time ago.... level the place and start again

The Racing Snake
03/04/2010 at 01:26

Thanks campaigners.

You got us a derelict dump that we are lumbered with forever. Now you are trying to justify your stupidity with ever more pie in the sky ideas.

If it's so important why don't you pay for its upkeep?

Norbert
02/04/2010 at 21:40

It's an ugly building, not especially well designed, too enclosed to get any sun to keep bathers warm and highly unlikely to ever get used if returned to an outdoor swimming pool. I hate to see restorable old buildings go but this one really has no merit. Build a flash new waterpark if water is the prevailing theme or develop a major riverside quay attraction of restaurants and bars that draws crowds in from miles around – that’s what people want nowadays. My view in unsentimental but realistic.

Poldrieve, Caversham
02/04/2010 at 19:19

Would you guys that would like to see this building flattened prefer another high rise hotel and concrete walkways over the site as was proposed by the other bidder. KMC deserve all the help and luck that they can get with regard to creating a much needed leisure facility on the bank of the Thames. I always thought that the council had a responsibility to provide leisure facilities, but they prefer not to. KMC are actually doing the council's job for them! RBC are on record as saying that they will not provide a penny to help KMC..........kind of understandable from a council that wasted £3,8 million on investigating the possibilities of creating a new civic centre , and then decided not to . If RBC had given just a small part of this vast sum to KMC the project could have already been underway.

Howard Thomas Common Sense party
02/04/2010 at 18:09

1 | 2 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page