|
|
| London news (61084) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (61084) | |
London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Mar 9 05:28:45 2005 Couple of welcome pieces of news from the Transport for London website.The Docklands Light Railway branch to London City Airport and North Woolwich is on schedule for a December 2005 opening. The "viaducts" (which are what you-all would call an el) are now complete and laying track, installing signalling and completing the stations are in progress. The White City area in west London is starting a reconstruction in connection with the building a large new shopping centre there; the work will include (re)installing a station on the Hammersmith & City line. This notable omission in the Underground network will there fore be rectified quite soon - making transfers between the H & C line and the Central line a possibility, and also providing access from the H & C line to the BBC TV headquarters, a major employment centre. At the moment the H & C line viaduct runs over the top of the BBC TV Centre without any means of alighting there. |
|
|
| (61086) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Wed Mar 9 05:44:43 2005, in response to London news, posted by Fytton on Wed Mar 9 05:28:45 2005. Good news, although I think that there is a tendency in LT today to forget the lessons of history and over-station.Extra stations cost money to build and maintain, and make journeys more tedious for passengers. Although an extra station may add only 30 s to 1 minute to a journey, it always feels like more. Examples: Southwark should not have been built, far too close to Waterloo. Canada Water, did they really need this? Very close to Surrey Docks. If they could not have got the JLE alignment correct, could they have just moved Surrey Docks and made it double-ended? Park Royal, if the Central Line station ever gets built, I understand they intend to keep Hanger Lane open. Covent Garden still irritaes many people. A double-ended station under Long Acre would serve Leicester Square and Covent Garden effectively. |
|
|
| (61088) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Mar 9 06:19:59 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Wed Mar 9 05:44:43 2005. "Covent Garden still irritates many people. A double-ended station under Long Acre would serve Leicester Square and Covent Garden effectively."Both Leicester Square and Covent Garden stations are maxed out at peak theatre- and restaurant-going times. They *are* very close together, but clearly all of the entrances and exits from the tube are needed. The ideal solution would be the Chicago State Street one of continuous platforms between the stations, but that would mean enlarging the running tunnels between the two stations to platform-tunnel dimensions. I guess that is what you described, but it would be very expensive. There are also short distances between Embankment and Charing Cross on the Bakerloo and Northern lines, but Embankment is needed for interchange with the District and Charing Cross for interchange with national rail. Again, the State Street solution would be fun, but there isn't any obvious ource of money for it. The other examples you quote are all new interchanges (even Southwark, with Waterloo East national rail); the logic would then be to close the adjacent non-interchange stations. The East London Line extension project implies likely closure of Rotherhithe and Wapping; maybe they should close Surrey Quays too, but I guess that the change of name from Surrey Docks means that there are new housing developments there. Hanger Lane I am not familiar with, but I'd guess it isn't very heavily used. Southwark was probably political, like most things to do with the Jubilee Line extension, but there is no adjacent non-interchange station in that case anyway. Earlier in the history of the tube, a number of deep tube stations *were* closed because of little use: South Kentish Town, City Road, York Road, Down Street and Brompton Road. The last two were replaced by new entrances to the adjacent Piccadilly Line stations (Green Park - nee Dover Street - and Knightsbridge respectively). It's a bit surprising that Lambeth North survived; it too is very near Waterloo. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (61091) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Wed Mar 9 06:45:54 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Wed Mar 9 06:19:59 2005. I'm more thinking of closing down Leicester Square and Covent Garden, but building a new station between the two. The model for this is Knightsbridge, which works extremely well apart from some argy-bargy between people who got on at the wrong ends of the train. Any such replacement would enormously increase the capacity of the Covent Garden exit, which I never use now. My preferred route to there is to walk from Temple as this is the most peaceful. A new station would be expensive, but Covent Garden needs some sort of solution, and all will be pricy.One station instead of two reduces staff, current consumption, and brake wear, so in the long term spending more money may be better. |
|
|
| (61099) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Wed Mar 9 07:02:14 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Wed Mar 9 06:19:59 2005. Where is the "new" entrance to Knightsbridge? I don't remember it. |
|
|
| (61102) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Mar 9 07:05:58 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Mar 9 07:02:14 2005. "Where is the "new" entrance to Knightsbridge? I don't remember it."It's the Harrod's one. "New" in the 1920s. The original entrance goes from the east end of the platforms and up into Knightsbridge; the new one goes from the west end of the platforms and up into Brompton Road (by Harrod's). |
|
|
| (61103) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Wed Mar 9 07:10:07 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Wed Mar 9 07:05:58 2005. Oh, so where's the original one? I thought that was it. Harrod's is a decent walk from the old Brompton Road station -- not much closer than South Kensington, IINM, although I'm basing this on 17-year-old memories. |
|
|
| (61184) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Mar 9 12:39:44 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Mar 9 07:10:07 2005. Oh, so where's the original one?On Knightsbridge, near Sloane Street. Harrod's is a decent walk from the old Brompton Road station -- not much closer than South Kensington, IINM Definitely. Although actually *finding* South Kensington station may be a challenge with the crazy street layout round there. South Kensington is also a really strange station. The District Line station has all sorts of abandoned platforms and there's an abandoned passageway leading directly to Imperial College and the Albert Hall. |
|
|
| (61193) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Mar 9 12:45:15 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Wed Mar 9 05:44:43 2005. Southwark should not have been built, far too close to Waterloo.Or rather, should have been built a train length or two further east with platforms on the Holborn Lines above. Canada Water, did they really need this? Very close to Surrey Docks. If they could not have got the JLE alignment correct, could they have just moved Surrey Docks and made it double-ended? One of those eternal mysteries of PFI... Park Royal, if the Central Line station ever gets built, I understand they intend to keep Hanger Lane open. Oh no! But isn't there a gradient/HSE-needing-nappies problem with the Picc? Far better IMHO to stick a new Picc station at the North Circular Road (which is roughly halfway between Park Royal and Alperton) and build and elevated walkway from there into Hangar Lane station Covent Garden still irritaes many people. A double-ended station under Long Acre would serve Leicester Square and Covent Garden effectively. That sounds way too much like how the French abolished Martin-Nadaud. |
|
|
| (61222) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Mar 9 13:28:56 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Mar 9 12:39:44 2005. there's an abandoned passageway leading directly to Imperial College and the Albert Hall.That underground passageway is abandoned? I think I used it when I last went to the Albert Hall in 1992. I might go there again if Cream really reunites and I can get tickets. |
|
|
| (61235) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Mar 9 13:46:57 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Mar 9 13:28:56 2005. That underground passageway is abandoned?I've looked into it again, and it's only the bit to the V&A which was closed for a long time, but appears to be open again. Oops. Interestingly, I also found this. http://www.imperial.ac.uk/estatesprocedures/toolkit/tunnel_safety.htm |
|
|
| (61246) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Wed Mar 9 14:16:26 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Mar 9 13:46:57 2005. That passageway was very popular on cold windy days. You might not be able to get into Imperial College directly, but you can exit just by the Science Museum, which is close enough. |
|
|
| (61268) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Wed Mar 9 15:23:44 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Mar 9 12:39:44 2005. When I was in the area (in the late 80's), I routinely used that passageway that you claim is closed to reach SK. I'd occasionally use the Harrod's entrance to Knightsbridge instead, since the two stations are roughly equidistant to the place I was staying. |
|
|
| (61305) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by stephenk on Wed Mar 9 16:51:25 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Mar 9 13:46:57 2005. The passageway at South Kensington is definately still open, and is very popular! However, it has a lot of temorary closures as it is prone to flooding. |
|
|
| (62065) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Mar 11 05:52:13 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by stephenk on Wed Mar 9 16:51:25 2005. It certainly isn't abandoned and its 'last stop' (the exit for the Albert Hall) is just outside Imperial College.Outside of bad weather, the first part sstarting from South Ken station is the important part, as it gets you across the screaming traffic of Cromwell Road. |
|
|
| (62081) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Fri Mar 11 08:11:20 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Wed Mar 9 06:45:54 2005. Aldwych? :o)wayne |
|
|
| (62084) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Fri Mar 11 08:20:02 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Fri Mar 11 08:11:20 2005. Aldwych is well-sited, especially for the London Transport museum, but making use of the branch would have been so much hassle that you may as well have walked from Leicester Square or Holborn |
|
|
| (62140) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Mar 11 11:50:10 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Fri Mar 11 08:20:02 2005. Re-opening the tram tunnel would probably be a better idea. |
|
|
| (62147) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Fri Mar 11 12:00:59 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Mar 11 11:50:10 2005. Except that there happens to be a dirty great big underpass in the way. |
|
|
| (62150) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Mar 11 12:05:33 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Fri Mar 11 12:00:59 2005. Except that there happens to be a dirty great big underpass in the way.Close it. You don't want to encourage more people to drive up Kingsway. |
|
|
| (62156) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Mar 11 12:25:55 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Mar 11 12:05:33 2005. So what do you think of tramstituting the 1, 59, 68, 171, 188, 243, and 521? |
|
|
| (62157) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Max Roberts on Fri Mar 11 12:38:06 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Mar 11 12:25:55 2005. Underground line from Waterloo to Kings Cross, with southward and northward extensions to be determined. Kingsway might be wide enough to take dedicated tram lanes, but can you imagine everything funneling down the Walworth Road, along with bendi-buses on the 12. You would need a nuclear bomb to clear the traffic jam.You could do something like a tram from Elephant & Castle to Camden Town, but why take second best, I bet you that a sensibly built underground line, e.g. one designed and built by Spanish government and contractors, wouldn't cost much more than trams anyway. |
|
|
| (62179) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Mar 11 13:42:11 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Max Roberts on Fri Mar 11 12:38:06 2005. I bet you that a sensibly built underground line, e.g. one designed and built by Spanish government and contractors, wouldn't cost much more than trams anyway.If that were true, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and Sheffield should all secede and join Spain. |
|
|
| (62226) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Richard Rabinowitz on Fri Mar 11 15:57:39 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Mar 11 13:42:11 2005. So much for Queen Elizabeth 1 and Sir Francis Drake, I guess. |
|
|
| (62272) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Mar 11 17:40:52 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Richard Rabinowitz on Fri Mar 11 15:57:39 2005. Well quite. What was it that Froggy king said - "un métro vaut bien d'une messe"? |
|
|
| (62275) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by brooklynQB on Fri Mar 11 17:44:53 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Fytton on Wed Mar 9 06:19:59 2005. Is it true that South of the Thames, London is not well served by the Tube? Are they planning on doing something about that? And is there any possiblity of A) express service on the Tube and/or B) expansion into the suburbs?Also, is there a map showing Greater London with the tube lines outlined on it? That would give me an idea of how the Tube covers and serves London. Thanks. |
|
|
| (62287) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Mar 11 18:03:37 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by brooklynQB on Fri Mar 11 17:44:53 2005. Is it true that South of the Thames, London is not well served by the Tube?Yes, but they have real railways. You can see the full network in this PDF map. The quality of these lines is rather variable - the South Western is easily the best; the South Eastern has capacity limitations at the London end; and the South Central is a general mess. Are they planning on doing something about that? No. The most necessary extension would be to extend the Victoria Line from Brixton to Streatham Hill, Streatham, and Streatham Common. Of course, this won't happen because the Victoria Line is horrendously packed already. The only serious plan is to run a line from somewhere in Central London to Victoria, Sloane Sq (Circle/District), then diagonally under the King's Road to Parson's Green (District), taking over the line from there to Wimbledon, then adding two tracks and a flyover between Wimbledon and Raynes Park. This would double capacity on the extremely overcrowded SW Main Slow Lines (and interestingly, the time from Epsom to Victoria would be a couple of minutes quicker than the current SC Local to Victoria via Mitcham Junction). This has gotten put off for Crossrail to Paddington, which has very low ridership on its commuter lines. And is there any possiblity of A) express service on the Tube No. and/or B) expansion into the suburbs? Unlikely. I could see Ealing Broadway to Greenford being taken over by the Central Line, but that's just about the limit. Also, is there a map showing Greater London with the tube lines outlined on it? Look at the Central/SW/SE/NE/NW London Bus Maps on the TfL website. They're pretty much the best you can get. They also show all the overground railways. |
|
|
| (62297) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Fri Mar 11 18:19:01 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by brooklynQB on Fri Mar 11 17:44:53 2005. Have a look here for a selection of maps. The Tubes, Trains & Trams map will show you that South London has a much greater selection of regional rail lines to compensate for the smaller number of Tube lines.There is no possibility of express service in the Tubes because they are only double tracked. It’s much more likely, should money become available, that new lines will be built rather than express service created on existing lines. Crossrail, if built, will provide something like express service. As far as expansion is concerned, read the rest of the Transport for London site and watch for the various threads that come along from time to time! Oh, and the ends of the Tube are in the country, way beyond suburbs! |
|
|
| (62330) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Mar 11 20:04:07 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by JohnL on Fri Mar 11 18:19:01 2005. "Oh, and the ends of the Tube are in the country, way beyond suburbs!"Did you last visit London 40 years ago? I haven't been at many end stations, but I've been in Richmond, and I've been in the towns around Heathrow. Those are still inner suburbs, not even outer suburbs. |
|
|
| (62344) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Mar 11 20:59:07 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by AlM on Fri Mar 11 20:04:07 2005. West Ruislip is definitely outer suburbs. Epping's in deepest Essex. Amersham and Chesham are in Bucks. Watford's in Herts. Uxbridge is only just in Greater London. Edgware and Stanmore are within walking distance of fields. |
|
|
| (62566) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Sat Mar 12 13:13:52 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Mar 11 20:59:07 2005. Have a look here for a geographically accurate map of the London Underground, superimposed on a satellite image of London. Look how green it is around the edges!I would say that the build-up of London has been greater in the West rather than the east (though why people would ever want to live in Hounslow is beyond my comprehension)! |
|
|
| (62575) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Richard Rabinowitz on Sat Mar 12 14:11:11 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by JohnL on Sat Mar 12 13:13:52 2005. Where is Hounslow, and why wouldn't people want to live there? |
|
|
| (62582) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Mar 12 14:22:38 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Richard Rabinowitz on Sat Mar 12 14:11:11 2005. Where is Hounslow, and why wouldn't people want to live there?Hounslow is just to the east of Heathrow Airport (shown on the map) and directly below the usual approach when landing. |
|
|
| (62583) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Mar 12 14:24:54 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Richard Rabinowitz on Sat Mar 12 14:11:11 2005. Where is HounslowScroll down the left hand side of the map and you'll see Heathrow Airport (honestly, you can't miss it!). See the Piccadilly Line loop, with stations at T123 and T4. Hatton Cross is the station where the loop joins up. The next station is Hounslow West. The one after that is Hounslow Central. and why wouldn't people want to live there? Low Flying Aircraft noise. |
|
|
| (62586) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Sat Mar 12 14:48:05 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Mar 11 20:59:07 2005. Epping's in deepest Essex.I remember passing a couple of sheep farms on the way to Epping on the Central Line. My LIRR/NYCT blog |
|
|
| (62589) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Sat Mar 12 14:54:07 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Mar 12 14:22:38 2005. Hounslow is just to the east of Heathrow Airport (shown on the map) and directly below the usual approach when landing.Bend it Like Beckham was set and partially filmed in Hounslow. It seemed pretty upscale. My LIRR/NYCT blog |
|
|
| (62597) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Sat Mar 12 15:11:36 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Peter Rosa on Sat Mar 12 14:48:05 2005. I found pictures here of the Epping-Ongar branch (now abandoned by LU, hopefully to reopen as a private line). Tell me this isn’t deepest countryside?! |
|
|
| (62677) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Mar 12 19:12:24 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by JohnL on Sat Mar 12 15:11:36 2005. It was a waste of a good line to leave that as countryside. Shows how mediaeval our "planning" "system" is! |
|
|
| (62682) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by brooklynQB on Sat Mar 12 19:19:20 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by JohnL on Sat Mar 12 13:13:52 2005. Damn! I mean, London looks like it could easily fit 20 million people with all that empty space! Is there any popualtion gorwth/development going on in London now? Also, does London have housing projects/bad areas like NY? |
|
|
| (62721) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Mar 12 20:44:20 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by brooklynQB on Sat Mar 12 19:19:20 2005. I mean, London looks like it could easily fit 20 million people with all that empty space!And the tragedy is that 20 million people probably want to live there too. Is there any popualtion gorwth/development going on in London now? No, just horrendous house price inflation. Average prices of flats (apartments): 2004 (oct-dec) £261,918 2003 (oct-dec) £242,157 2002 (oct-dec) £231,341 2001 (oct-dec) £191,925 2000 (oct-dec) £178,842 1999 (oct-dec) £146,268 1998 (oct-dec) £116,346 1997 (oct-dec) £106,850 1996 (oct-dec) £94,615 1995 (oct-dec) £85,724 In other words, prices have more than tripled in the last decade. The average annual salary in London is £30,984. In this country, you can generally raise three times your income as a mortgage. This means that the average London couple can raise £185,904 - they can't afford the average flat in London (whereas, in 1995, a single guy could just about afford one). Also, does London have housing projects/bad areas like NY? Most places are safe now. A lot of traditionally poor areas have changed demographically over the past few years as the residents capitalise on the shortage of housing in London. Really, it's all the governments fault. We should have started building housing in large quantities in about 1994. Typically, the government got their growth predictions wrong, and then failed to react. At least the sodding NIMBYs are happy. |
|
|
| (62723) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Richard Rabinowitz on Sat Mar 12 20:49:58 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Peter Rosa on Sat Mar 12 14:54:07 2005. Well, Newark-Liberty (my pet name for the neighborhood next to Newark Airport) isn't very upscale - indeed, it's full of warehouses and the occasional x-rated video store. I'm baffled about Hounslow.OTOH, Seatac (the city that Seattle-Tacoma Airport begat) is full of touristy hotels, etc., more than anything else. On the downside, it was once a favorite stomping-ground for prostitutes (the town was incorporated in an effort to get rid of the hookers). This was also the site of a serial-killing spree back "in the day". The victims were sex workers. |
|
|
| (62738) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Mar 12 21:39:44 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Richard Rabinowitz on Sat Mar 12 20:49:58 2005. I'm baffled about Hounslow.I don't think there's anything much wrong with Hounslow, but I wouldn't call it "upscale" either. Apart from the aircraft noise, it's just a typical London suburb that became built-up when the Piccadilly underground line was built in 1933. |
|
|
| (62750) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by brooklynQB on Sat Mar 12 22:17:20 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Sat Mar 12 20:44:20 2005. London has the potential to outpace Tokyo and China for king of the cities in size and staure. Shame on you for leaving all that space, do you have the faintest idea the tidal wave of development that would overtake NYC if you left that much land around?....We'd have population numbers in the teens and twenties. Seriously, BUILD! Before long, you guys will be beating China. Also, I think some of those lines downb south could do good to be extended. I mean, I see lots of corridors that would make great transit areas for the Tube. Is anyone in the UK thinking of this? |
|
|
| (62752) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Mar 12 22:33:58 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by brooklynQB on Sat Mar 12 22:17:20 2005. Is anyone in the UK thinking of this?Great Britain is a small island where space is at a premium. The last thing they need is a population explosion. |
|
|
| (62772) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Sat Mar 12 22:51:40 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by David Fairthorne on Sat Mar 12 22:33:58 2005. Great Britain is a small island where space is at a premium. The last thing they need is a population explosion.Actually, we do need a population explosion. British agriculure operates at huge surpluses with huge subsidies and impoverished farmers (our agriculture only meets 60% of its own costs). It would be better to go with the market and build on agricultural land in strategic locations. I could see an UK with a population of 100 million no problem. |
|
|
| (62785) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by tracksionmotor on Sat Mar 12 23:19:22 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Sat Mar 12 22:51:40 2005. Simple: Grow trees and build 'Misquitos. If Rolls Royce can't build 'Merlins,' we'll do it for you. Everyone gets work and pays taxes to the Crown (distant cousin works for Inland Revenue.) |
|
|
| (62795) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Richard Rabinowitz on Sat Mar 12 23:42:19 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by tracksionmotor on Sat Mar 12 23:19:22 2005. Also, bring Mormons over. They'll provide population explosion, whether the folks around 'em want it or not. :-/ |
|
|
| (62866) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Sun Mar 13 05:41:22 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by brooklynQB on Sat Mar 12 19:19:20 2005. Also, does London have housing projects/bad areas like NY?I wouldn't recommend walking round the likes of Peckham, Harlesden and a few parts of the East End after dark. Some of them are bad enough during the day. |
|
|
| (62867) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by davesgcr on Sun Mar 13 06:59:33 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Rail Blue on Sat Mar 12 20:44:20 2005. The geography of London has undergone some major changes.Certain areas are gentrified (and converted from tough areas within the last 30 years - Notting Hill / Clerkenwell / Queens Park even...whenn I lived there in 1979 it was a bit fly blown with only poorish shops and not a lot of investment.Now it is very desirable and once divided houses are now single occupancy - "gastro pubs" etc. As the tube service hasnt changed - apart from the sad loss of the 1938 stock - gentification has more to do with housing stock and potential there.On the same line - Harlesden is tipped as the next up and coming area - ...Next "changing areas" - are likely to be the Thames Gateway stretch of east London - following on form the Dockland area - spurred by the High speed line from St Pancras and Stratford to Ebbsfleet.etc) My greateast "concern" is the fate of the swathes of 1930s suburbia - some of which is now ageing badly and despite having good transport links all round (which is why they came into being) are in danger of blight as age creeps in and the desirabity of their status falls through traffic / obsolescence and decay - I cannot think of anyone I know who has really willingly moved in to one.Most attractive are either trendy "inner" areas (where life cycle allows - i.e. no kids) - or the "greenbelt" beyond the M25 ring and attractive towns with fast transport links into mainline terminii.(and often good schools and amenities) Not all 1930s suburbs are deteriorating - there remain many excellent , well kept and thriving areas.One of the issues is "genalised travelling time" (the journey to say Stanmore is the same as that to greenbelt Leighton Buzzard or Berkhampstead.Commuting flows on suburnban rail continue to grow - partly as a factor of cheaper fares per mile than Tube fares. All in all - a very complex (and fascinating area of study - social geography at its best) |
|
|
| (62868) | |
Re: London news |
|
|
Posted by davesgcr on Sun Mar 13 07:17:23 2005, in response to Re: London news, posted by Deaks on Sun Mar 13 05:41:22 2005. Re "dodgy areas" - frankly - areas of high "public housing" tend to be the worse in terms of crime - though this can be very localised - even down to a few streets - the plan is to reduce the number of the 1960s era "deck access" flats and replace with smaller blocks or even terraced housing with "defensible space" - some of the worst GLC "estates" like Chalk Hill (near Neasden depot) and Stonebridge Park (on the Bakerloo) are good examples - some can be saved - the Kidbrooke Estate in South London is being refurbished - a bit of both demolition and refubing 1s happening on the North Peckham estate.Thankfully - the worst excesses of the 1960s planners were never realised which would have led to the demoliton of even more of inner london and even more frantic replacing now !Many tower blocks are now either refurbished (often for private tenants as near Clapham Junction) - or demolished (as in Hackney and much of East London) There is an excellent crime map of London - the worst areas statistically was Paddington (to do with the station and "transient population - though this area is now gentrifying fast) - along with the usual suspects of Peckham and inner East London / Lea valley.A friend who is a serving police officer intimated that much suburban crime was paralleled by access from inner London to the richer pickings of suburbia - hence correlations with linear access from poorer areas to more prosperous ones. Incidentally - one of the most insalubrious areas in London - the walk from Kings Cross to Kings Cross Thameslink via the street - is now - at least in daylight hours - massively better than it used to be now that the floating population of crack dealers etc has been moved on - but not sure where to ! |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
