On 7 Oct, 17:50, "Richard J." wrote:
lonelytraveller wrote:

The thing I don't like about Crossrail is that it seems that the
designers have gone out of their way to make it necessary to
demolish anything old that would be difficult to demolish under
normal circumstances due to popular protest.

For example, they chose to make it necessary to demolish the
Astoria, a popular and iconic music venue with much history, to
sort out the station at Tottenham Court Road, rather than choosing
to demolish the fairly unpopular Centrepoint on the other side of
the road.

By "fairly unpopular", I guess you mean you don't like it. It is
actually a listed building, which the Astoria isn't.
Just because something is/isn't listed doesn't mean it is/isn't liked
or is/isn't worth keeping; the Red House Coal Store at Smithfield
market wasn't listed until last year, for example, despite the ugly
modern poultry market having been Grade II for ages. The Astoria is
extremely popular. By CenterPoint being fairly unpopular, I mean that
it regularly comes to the top of lists of ugly buildings in central
london that people would like to demolish. If I remember correctly,
Centre Point's construction was also illegal.

They chose to make it necessary to demolish a block of Dean street
near Diadem Court, rather than the ugly 1970s office block on the
other side of oxford street, or the building that Dean Street
Tesco is in, or the modern buildings of St Anne's court.
The problem with large office buildings is that the compensation costs
for compulsory purchase are enormous. I'm not familiar with the
buildings in question, but you seem to regard anything old as
sacrosanct, and anything new as ripe for demolition. In my experience
Crossrail have bent over backwards to preserve listed buildings wherever
possible.
You've jumped to an inaccurate conclusion. I regard anything old AND
nice to look at as worth keeping, and anything new
AND ugly as ripe for demolition. If they've bent over backwards, its
for modern buildings - cardinal tower, for example, very ugly, was
going to be demolished, but the McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken
franchisees who were at the base raised objections, so now they are
going to demolish the rather pretty 54-60 Cowcross Street and replace
them with something horrifically out of keeping. The compensation
costs of demolishing ugly modern buildings can hardly be much compared
with the overall cost of crossrail, I'm sure its extremely affordable,
especially as they could build brand new office blocks in their place
afterwards, which would doubtless be worth far more.

They chose to obstruct the side entrance at paddington, rather than
demolish the horrifically ugly modern building on the other side of
the road.
Because the modern building is on the wrong side of the road for an
interchange with the mainline station. What do you mean by "obstruct"?
Crossrail is quite deep, the escalators would be long enough to
stretch the width of the road easily. By "obstruct" I mean that it
will require the retaining wall railings and canopies to be
demolished, making the station appear somewhat naked.

I still don't see why they didn't route it as a new tube line from
Paddington to Liverpool street via Charing Cross and Temple -
reusing the old Jubilee line route and Aldwych branch of the
Piccadilly
where possible.
Well, for a start, the Jubilee/Piccadilly tunnels aren't big enough!
They are big enough for a tube line - hence why I said that I don't
see why they didn't route it as a new TUBE line...

Anyway it's a bit late now to start debating the route all over again.
I don't see why its a bit late now, they aren't even going to start
building it for 3 years.