In message
-septem
ber.org, at 09:45:26 on Mon, 9 Mar 2015, Recliner
remarked:

I was taking some pictures outside the then very new M&S Simply Food in
the "Circle" bit of St Pancras when the bouncer on the door (why would
they need one?) got very aggressive and demanded I stop, and delete any
photos I had already taken. He seemed to be suggesting that I was
involved in industrial espionage. I must have had a pretty desperate
client if they didn't already know what goes on inside an M&S SF.

As luck would have it a BTP chap was nearby and I asked him if there was
a ban on photography there and he chuckled a bit and said "of course not".

ps Is that bit of St Pancras public or private - it belongs to LCR I suppose.

I think the whole of all railway stations is private, owned by NR, LCR,
TfL, etc.

Modulo NR being a nationalised organisation and TfL being Local
Authority owned.

Ditto with enclosed shopping malls. And, of course, the shopping
areas in St P are both.

The southern embankment near the mayor's office is also private land. I
went on a photography walk, and the guide said that, as a pro photographer,
he knew exactly where he could set up a tripod unmolested, and other areas
where he'd soon be evicted if he looked like a pro.

I think the new Granary Square is the same. You can wander around taking
pics to your heart's content with an amateur camera (I have), but set up a
tripod or start taking videos with what looks like pro gear and the private
security guards will soon approach you for a chat.

It's these various lines in the sand which I object to when it comes to
"public" spaces. After all, if you misbehave in numerous other ways the
law will deem them to be public places. In the USA it's not uncommon for
a Mall to have a dress-code. And that's not just "men must wear a shirt"
but things like "no baseball hats".
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 12:36:54 +0000, wrote:

On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 21:56:50 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
I don't agree at all. Only private sector money would have created the
wonderful new Kings Cross Granary Square developments, or restored St
Pancras Chambers into the magnificent new hotel. Ditto the Docklands area.
As for Broad St, the smart office buildings and privately-owned 'public'
spaces are a huge improvement over what was there before. The grand old
City buildings were always private developments.

Unlike that very left-wing Guardian polemic article, I've no problem with
privately owned land, or the way that London has sprouted various
curiously-shaped big buildings of late. I like the Gherkin, the Shard and
even the new Walkie Talkie (less so the bland Heron Tower). The new Canary
Wharf Crossrail station is also very promising. Let's hope OOC gets similar
developments.

Found ourselves with a couple of hours to spare before getting a
booked train out on a London break that concluded with a visit to a
relative at Finsbury Park last week. Caught the W3 up to Alexandra
Palace and watched the Sun go down as the Moon came up and the lights
come on over London . The modern buildings gave some interesting
reflections of the setting sun. It is quite an exciting skyline and I
think I prefer the modern London to the soot blackended fascades of
the 60's


From a different PoV, you can see many of the new buildings from this
wide-angle shot I took from one of London's slightly older iconic
buildings, Tower Bridge, also very controversial in its time:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...4129/lightbox/

This is what some critics said of Tower Bridge when it was new:

English architect and editor of ‘The Builder’ Henry Heathcote Statham
attacked the bridge, saying “it represents the vice of tawdriness and
pretentiousness, and of falsification of the actual facts of the
structure" while the designer Frank Brangwyn declared that “a more
absurd structure than the Tower Bridge was never thrown across a
strategic river.”

Likewise, so disgusted that they had to quote Shakespeare to express
their fury, the Pall Mall Gazette said of the bridge “there certainly
seems to be a subtle quality of ungainliness, a certain variegated
ugliness, so to speak, that age can scarcely wither or custom stale,
about this new bridge. It is excellently situated for our ugliest
public work, straddling across our Thames, to the terror of the errant
foreigner.”

And apparently it was also unpopular with our four-legged friends. In
August 1894, the Evening Telegraph described a dog who was so
frightened by the hydraulic action of the bridge that “when the
roadway had been restored to the horizontal it was more than the owner
of the dog could accomplish to get him across.”

From
http://www.architecture.com/Explore/...buildings.aspx


And here's cynical comments about some other controversial new
projects (including two railways):
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/01/the...o-ruin-london/

On 2015-03-08 23:43:09 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 21:56:50 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 17:24:22 +0000, Recliner said:
eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 15:02:01 +0000, Recliner said:
eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 10:45:02 +0000, Recliner said:
eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-07 23:38:01 +0000, Paul Corfield said:
I'm obviously guessing here but there are not many refuge sidings on
the ELL core section so you really need to get trains beyond Surrey
Quays to be able to hide them away somewhere.
I was wondering when watching it being built what they would do for
contingency - it seems very little. The elevated section down to
Shoreditch used to carry four tracks and one would have thought a siding
could have been put in there.
Yes, they used the wider embankment for the new stations, but could have
put a reversing siding between stations. But it does seem to be the modern
policy to keep tracks as simple as possible, as points and crossovers are
themselves vulnerable to failures. For this reason, I think many tube lines
now have fewer crossovers than before.
By extension, I was reading this piece in the Guardian the other day:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...y-into-the-air

The sell-off of Broad Street station and
space is one example
of
dreadfully short-sighted and cut price deals for developers. Imagine how
the railway would look now with a modern spur down to Broad Street.
I'd have though the Broadgate office development is far more usefu. And if
Broad St station was still open, the amazingly successful conversion of the
ELL to the Overground, with the link to H&I, would never have happened.
I think closing a London terminus given what we now know about population
growth and demand for travel was not a good decision. But you can say
that about a lot of railway closures.
The new Overground line adds a lot more capacity than was lost when that
little-used terminal finally closed.
Yes but this is with the benefit of hindsight - who knows what would have
been built around a Broad Street line by now.
There was no point keeping the almost disused, shabby old station open. The
re-established Richmond to Stratford route, and the busy new ELL Overground
routes are far more useful. The fortunate thing is that the old line's
disused viaduct was preserved for future railway use, while the redundant
station site was turned into something much more useful.
The point about the sell-off of public space is also important.
I don't agree at all. Only private sector money would have created the
wonderful new Kings Cross Granary Square developments, or restored St
Pancras Chambers into the magnificent new hotel. Ditto the Docklands area.
As for Broad St, the smart office buildings and privately-owned 'public'
spaces are a huge improvement over what was there before. The grand old
City buildings were always private developments.
Unlike that very left-wing Guardian polemic article, I've no problem with
privately owned land, or the way that London has sprouted various
curiously-shaped big buildings of late. I like the Gherkin, the Shard and
even the new Walkie Talkie (less so the bland Heron Tower). The new Canary
Wharf Crossrail station is also very promising. Let's hope OOC gets similar
developments.

You obviously have no problem then with privatisation of vast tracts of
cities where no one can protest or take pictures without permission, and
where the adjoining poor neighbourhoods are almost totally excluded from
investment. Instead what we get is space opimised for commerce and
bland upmarket shopping.

Actually, you can take amateur pics in those areas without permission, and
I often do. I've never been involved a protest in my life, and as far as
I'm concerned, they're a nuisance that stops me from getting to places, not
something I welcome or would want to encourage.

As for the adjoining poor neighbourhoods, they tend to become much more
desirable places to live than they used to be, and money floods in (eg,
Hoxton). That's the opposite of them being excluded from investment. How
else would they attract investment?

So, yes, I'm all in favour of wealth creation, and governments spend money,
rather than creating wealth. By all means regulate and tax the private
sector, but don't think you can create wealth without it.


Have a look at this report:

http://www.annaminton.com/privatepublicspace.pdf

I must say we are probably living in parallel universes - where you see
only private good I see ordinary people priced out of housing,
expensive housing lying empty, large 'spaces' patrolled by private
security and gated (eg Canary Wharf), neglected neighbourhoods next to
Canary Wharf, Excel, King's Cross etc, anodyne and expensive shopping
centres (Westfields).

See also

http://www.newleftproject.org/index....s_and_for_whom


E.

On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:29:40 +0000
eastender wrote:
I must say we are probably living in parallel universes - where you see
only private good I see ordinary people priced out of housing,

Its funny isn't it how some people are so keen on uncontrolled immigration yet
when the inveitable consequences occur - eg **** all housing available in
london at a reasonable rent - its suddenly someone elses fault. And I'm not
just talking about the lefties, we have idiots like Boris saying how wonderful
it is that Londons population will rise above 9m by 2020. Yes, absolutely
fantastic - so long as you're not a native (of whatever skin colour) who would
like to be able to afford to live here and doesn't want to share some scummy
little house with 5 strangers then commute in on overcrowded public transport
at rip off prices for a zero hours job that pays so little due to immigrants
pushing the wages down (and anyone who claims they haven't doesn't live in
the real world I'm afraid).

expensive housing lying empty, large 'spaces' patrolled by private
security and gated (eg Canary Wharf), neglected neighbourhoods next to
Canary Wharf, Excel, King's Cross etc, anodyne and expensive shopping
centres (Westfields).

If people didn't like shopping centres they'd go bust. You might not like them
- and frankly neither do I - but most other people do.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:29:40 +0000
eastender wrote:
I must say we are probably living in parallel universes - where you see
only private good I see ordinary people priced out of housing,

expensive housing lying empty, large 'spaces' patrolled by private
security and gated (eg Canary Wharf), neglected neighbourhoods next to
Canary Wharf, Excel, King's Cross etc, anodyne and expensive shopping
centres (Westfields).

If people didn't like shopping centres they'd go bust. You might not like them
- and frankly neither do I - but most other people do.

Yes, on that I think we three, and probably most others here, are agreed. I
suspect that the Venn diagram of male railway newsgroup posters and avid
mall shoppers has very little overlap.

Yes, on that I think we three, and probably most others here, are
agreed. I suspect that the Venn diagram of male railway newsgroup
posters and avid mall shoppers has very little overlap.

I take it you dismiss the way Westfield Stratford has brought to nearby
residents (including users of the of the NLL) much easier access to a
decent M&S food hall and large Waitrose - both sources of good scoff
irrespective of who actually does the shopping?

That said, I'll accept being informed that *real* railway enthusiasts
enthuse only about eggs, bacon and sausages cooked on a shovel
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

"Robin" wrote:
Yes, on that I think we three, and probably most others here, are
agreed. I suspect that the Venn diagram of male railway newsgroup
posters and avid mall shoppers has very little overlap.

I take it you dismiss the way Westfield Stratford has brought to nearby
residents (including users of the of the NLL) much easier access to a
decent M&S food hall and large Waitrose - both sources of good scoff
irrespective of who actually does the shopping?

Can you go into either of those stores without having to pass through the
dreaded enclosed mall area?

Can you go into either of those stores without having to pass through
the dreaded enclosed mall area?

I am not sure if "dreaded" applies to the whole "enclosed mall area" or
just part of it - eg the bit where you tend to meet 4 femails walking in
line abreast with stilletoes ready to deal with any obstacles. But FWIW
both stores are at ends of the mall and so can be accesed with very,
very little exposure to other stores.

The M&S food hall is right by the Stratford's Northern ticket hall. You
don't have to walk past any other store.

Waitrose is at the far end of the mall from M&S. But from the Northern
ticket hall you can walk along "the Street" which is not enclosed so you
don't have inhale concentrated retail pheromones all the way. Or you
could use Stratford International - although the shortest route from
there does take you past a few other stores.

I think you can use the same routes from either car park but the only
one I can vouch for is car park A which is at the Waitrose end.


--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

In article , d
() wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:29:40 +0000
eastender wrote:
I must say we are probably living in parallel universes - where you see
only private good I see ordinary people priced out of housing,

Its funny isn't it how some people are so keen on uncontrolled immigration
yet when the inveitable consequences occur - eg **** all housing available
in london at a reasonable rent - its suddenly someone elses fault. And I'm
not just talking about the lefties, we have idiots like Boris saying how
wonderful it is that Londons population will rise above 9m by 2020. Yes,
absolutely fantastic - so long as you're not a native (of whatever skin
colour) who would like to be able to afford to live here and doesn't want
to share some scummy little house with 5 strangers then commute in on
overcrowded public transport at rip off prices for a zero hours job that
pays so little due to immigrants pushing the wages down (and anyone who
claims they haven't doesn't live in the real world I'm afraid).

When I worked in London for a decade until 2011 I noted that most of the
younger people I worked with came from every part of the UK except London,
while born and bred Londoners like me had long ago departed for places like
Crawley, Chelmsford and Cambridge.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:55:18 -0500
wrote:
When I worked in London for a decade until 2011 I noted that most of the
younger people I worked with came from every part of the UK except London,
while born and bred Londoners like me had long ago departed for places like
Crawley, Chelmsford and Cambridge.

Chelmsford is quite nice, Cambridge gorgeous. But Crawley? You'd have to be
pretty desperate to see that place as an improvement on London

--
Spud