|
London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
On 18/12/2017 10:08, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000 Charles Ellson wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:04:59 +0000 (UTC), wrote: Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could have put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!". It is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if wanted at some time in the future. Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted opportunity IMO. What are you going to use the extra floors for? -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:50:08 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 18/12/2017 10:08, wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000 Charles Ellson wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:04:59 +0000 (UTC), wrote: Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could have put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!". It is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if wanted at some time in the future. Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted opportunity IMO. What are you going to use the extra floors for? More shopping! There are 4 floors of shops and restaurants (1, 0,-1,-2) currently open above the E*******h line station in Crossrail Place with a 5th floor (-3) of currently closed of space which I assume will open next year. I think the ticket hall is -4 with the platforms at -5 The empty shops on -3 were briefly accessible when there were a series of light installations in them as part of Winter Lights. It seems there is a fresh set in Jan 2018 - https://canarywharf.com/arts-events/...er-lights-2018 |
London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:45:42 +0000
Robin wrote: On 18/12/2017 10:08, wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000 Charles Ellson wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:04:59 +0000 (UTC), wrote: Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could have put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!". It is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if wanted at some time in the future. Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted opportunity IMO. Is it known that such a design could have met requirements for smoke dispersal and bomb blast resistance? It is after all a high profile No idea, but couldn't be any worse than the skyscraper I worked in there. The emergency stairs had a choke point on the 1st floor. An appalling design and whoever approved it should've been sacked. location. And there were sound reasons why ordnance - and firework! - factories had strong walls and weak rooves. I doubt you could get much stronger walls than a former dock! |
London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:50:08 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote: On 18/12/2017 10:08, wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000 Charles Ellson wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:04:59 +0000 (UTC), wrote: Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could have put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!". It is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if wanted at some time in the future. Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted opportunity IMO. What are you going to use the extra floors for? Yeah, tricky one, what could thousands of square feet of floor space be used for in a major financial district + shopping area.... hmmm.... |
London's Elizabeth Line's disjointed introduction
On 18/12/2017 14:22, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:50:08 +0000 Graeme Wall wrote: On 18/12/2017 10:08, wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:28:36 +0000 Charles Ellson wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:04:59 +0000 (UTC), wrote: Also there's the plain fact that canary wharf station is a massive waste of space. You don't need ceilings 60 foot high in a tube station, they could have put 3 or 4 floors in to use for other things that would be a benefit to the area and bring in revenue for LU. As it is its just cathdral sized dead space that benefits no one other than the architects to say "Look what we did!". It is easier and quicker to dig a big hole and build within in than to construct a maze of tunnels as done in older Underground stations. In the case of Canary Wharf, much of the hole was already there in the form of the West India dock. The current construction doesn't appear to necessarily prevent addition of further internal floors/levels if wanted at some time in the future. Can't see that happening, at least not easily. There's too much structural clutter. Extra floors should have been designed in from the start. A wasted opportunity IMO. What are you going to use the extra floors for? Yeah, tricky one, what could thousands of square feet of floor space be used for in a major financial district + shopping area.... hmmm.... That you can only access through the ticket barrier… -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk