wrote in message ...
Recliner wrote:
I had a few minutes in Bayswater to kill yesterday and decided to take a
look at the famous dummy houses in Leinster Gardens. I must say that the
false facades still work well, and are maintained (by LU?). Even the
pigeon deterrents are in place, exactly the same as on the adjacent
properties. In fact, I actually walked right past, distracted by the
building work next door.

But I wonder why the gap has been retained in the century plus since the
lines below were electrified. It's no longer needed for venting steam
engines, and I'd have thought there would be pressure to reconstruct
genuine buildings over the tracks, just as happens over stations. Have
there been such plans, or is there some major technical/financial reason
for not doing so?

wild guess

Assuming they could ever come to an amicable financial arrangement between
themselves and LU, the owners\residents of the adjacent properties would
suffer considerable disruption during the course of any construction work
for a start. Without sufficient clearance at the sides of the track for
supporting pillars at that point, its likely part of the existing properties
would need to be remodelled maybe losing half their existing ground floors
so to accomodate the ends of a concrete platform to straddle the track.
They would probably also lose their basements. While any new property would
probably require extensive sound proofing on the lower floors for them to be
habitable.
The loss of amenity in the adjoining properties in financial terms, combined with
construction costs given the difficult site, is probably far greater than
any gain to be made from a new property especially given it would be need to be
split three ways. If not necessarily equally.

/wild guess


michael adams

....


For those not familiar with the site, see
www.urban75.org/london/leinster.html
http://golondon.about.com/od/thingst...terGardens.htm


Emergency exit, perhaps?

michael adams wrote:
wild guess

Another wild guess, but perhaps they're listed? Is it possible that the
whole street is listed, including the non-buildings?

Theo

In message , Theo Markettos
writes

Another wild guess, but perhaps they're listed?

They are indeed. English Heritage ID 413898 shows that numbers 19-22
Leinster Gardens, "including 19a and screen wall forming equivalent of
nos 23 and 24" have Grade II listed status.

Most of the properties in Leinster Gardens are listed, and the entire
street is in the western part of the Bayswater Conservation area, so
development would not be at all easy.
--
Paul Terry

In article ,
(Paul Terry) wrote:

In message , Theo Markettos
writes

Another wild guess, but perhaps they're listed?

They are indeed. English Heritage ID 413898 shows that numbers
19-22 Leinster Gardens, "including 19a and screen wall forming
equivalent of nos 23 and 24" have Grade II listed status.

Most of the properties in Leinster Gardens are listed, and the
entire street is in the western part of the Bayswater Conservation
area, so development would not be at all easy.

I was assuming the existing facade's appearance would be preserved if
something was built behind. If so there should be little problem with the
listed status. It's pretty clear from the photos from the back that it's
only the facade that's worthy of listing.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote in message
news
In article ,
(Paul Terry) wrote:

In message , Theo Markettos
writes

Another wild guess, but perhaps they're listed?

They are indeed. English Heritage ID 413898 shows that numbers
19-22 Leinster Gardens, "including 19a and screen wall forming
equivalent of nos 23 and 24" have Grade II listed status.

Most of the properties in Leinster Gardens are listed, and the
entire street is in the western part of the Bayswater Conservation
area, so development would not be at all easy.

I was assuming the existing facade's appearance would be preserved if
something was built behind. If so there should be little problem with
the listed status. It's pretty clear from the photos from the back
that it's only the facade that's worthy of listing.

Yes, I was assuming that a new building would have a facade identical to
the adjacent real buildings. In other words, it would look more genuine
than the current fake, with real windows, real doors and a full roof. As
such, it would improve the look of the street, which is largely full of
tourist hotels these days.

On 10 Dec 2009 01:56:08 +0000 (GMT), Theo Markettos
wrote:

michael adams wrote:
wild guess

Another wild guess, but perhaps they're listed? Is it possible that the
whole street is listed, including the non-buildings?


Listing wouldn't necessarily prevent redevelopment, especially if the
new retains the appearance (or even the facades) of the old.

I have worked on many projects in London where a listed facade was
retained to front a thoroughly modern building built behind it.

I think Michael Adams had it right. He self-deprecatingly termed his
post a "wild guess" but I think he hit the nail on the head.

Bruce wrote:
Listing wouldn't necessarily prevent redevelopment, especially if the
new retains the appearance (or even the facades) of the old.

I have worked on many projects in London where a listed facade was
retained to front a thoroughly modern building built behind it.

Indeed, but perhaps they are listed for their architectural interest in
/not/ having a rear, rather than the facade that pretends they do.

In any case, changes to listed buildings need Listed Buildings Consent. So
you need to convince TPTB to allow it, rather than being set in stone that
it's impossible.

Theo

On 10 Dec 2009 22:13:22 +0000 (GMT), Theo Markettos
wrote:

Bruce wrote:
Listing wouldn't necessarily prevent redevelopment, especially if the
new retains the appearance (or even the facades) of the old.

I have worked on many projects in London where a listed facade was
retained to front a thoroughly modern building built behind it.

Indeed, but perhaps they are listed for their architectural interest in
/not/ having a rear, rather than the facade that pretends they do.


Speculation, of course. It would be interesting to know why they are
listed, whether they are listed as part of a larger terrace or only
these false frontages.


In any case, changes to listed buildings need Listed Buildings Consent. So
you need to convince TPTB to allow it, rather than being set in stone that
it's impossible.


For the avoidance of doubt, my point was that a listing does not
necessarily prevent redevelopment.

Bruce wrote:

Speculation, of course. It would be interesting to know why they are
listed, whether they are listed as part of a larger terrace or only
these false frontages.

There wouldn't be much point in keeping the false frontage and allowing the
houses either side to be demolished!

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

"michael adams" wrote in message

wrote in message
...
Recliner wrote:
I had a few minutes in Bayswater to kill yesterday and decided to
take a look at the famous dummy houses in Leinster Gardens. I must
say that the false facades still work well, and are maintained (by
LU?). Even the pigeon deterrents are in place, exactly the same as
on the adjacent properties. In fact, I actually walked right past,
distracted by the building work next door.

But I wonder why the gap has been retained in the century plus
since the lines below were electrified. It's no longer needed for
venting steam engines, and I'd have thought there would be pressure
to reconstruct genuine buildings over the tracks, just as happens
over stations. Have there been such plans, or is there some major
technical/financial reason for not doing so?

wild guess

Assuming they could ever come to an amicable financial arrangement
between themselves and LU, the owners\residents of the adjacent
properties would
suffer considerable disruption during the course of any construction
work for a start. Without sufficient clearance at the sides of the
track
for supporting pillars at that point, its likely part of the existing
properties
would need to be remodelled maybe losing half their existing ground
floors so to accomodate the ends of a concrete platform to straddle
the
track.
They would probably also lose their basements. While any new property
would probably require extensive sound proofing on the lower floors
for them to be habitable.
The loss of amenity in the adjoining properties in financial terms,
combined with construction costs given the difficult site, is
probably far greater than
any gain to be made from a new property especially given it would be
need to be split three ways. If not necessarily equally.

Yes, those are very good points. I had sort of assumed that the new
building might be constructed in conjunction with or by the owners of
the neighbouring buildings, perhaps as an extension. I think at least
one of those buildings is a hotel, so it could use the new space as an
extension.