On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Alan (in Brussels) wrote:

A MULTI-MILLION pound development that would have changed the face of
Camden Town has been thrown out by the Deputy Prime Minister.

The plan was originally rejected by Camden Council and now John Prescott
has agreed that, although the Northern Line station needs an upgrade,
the block would have ruined the area.

Hmm. How exactly you could make Camden any more horrible than it already
is is a bit of a mystery to me. Or would making it a bit smarter ruin it?
That said, the change of use embodied in the plans was awful, so i guess
i'm with Big John on this one.

The ideal plan would be to preserve the buildings, improve the station,
then murder every goth, drug dealer, tourist, tat merchant and other
variety of idiot in a five-mile radius. Now that's what i call urban
renewal!

Brian Coleman, Camden and Barnet member of the London Assembly, slammed
the decision.

He said: "It's an absolute betrayal by the government of users of the
Northern Line.

"This is the end of the project. We needed that new station, now the
users of the Northern Line face decades of misery."

Good to see society's intellectually challenged are being given good homes
in the London Assembly. Does he think LU are just going to give up on
Camden? Surely all they have to do is tone the plans down so they don't
completely destroy the town centre, and they'll be accepted.

tom

--
.... but when you spin it it looks like a dancing foetus!

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:43:59 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Alan (in Brussels) wrote:
Brian Coleman, Camden and Barnet member of the London Assembly, slammed
the decision.

He said: "It's an absolute betrayal by the government of users of the
Northern Line.

"This is the end of the project. We needed that new station, now the
users of the Northern Line face decades of misery."

Good to see society's intellectually challenged are being given good homes
in the London Assembly. Does he think LU are just going to give up on
Camden? Surely all they have to do is tone the plans down so they don't
completely destroy the town centre, and they'll be accepted.

But the plans can't be "toned down" too much or else you'll build
something that is not big enough and which will not comply with today's
safety and capacity requirements. While not fully familiar with the
desired level of capacity for the site the only other options are to dig
a new station that is largely underground thus reducing the surface
property issues. The issue with that is that it will (probably) cost so
much that there is no business case for proceeding. I think it is that
paradox that Mr Coleman might be referring to.

Camden Town station cannot cope properly with the demands made of it -
however it cannot be expanded at any price because there would be an
outcry from taxpayers about LU being profligate with public funds. I'd
call it a catch 22 - which seem to be a speciality of Mr Prescott's
department. First Thameslink and now this. What's he going to stop next
- the ELLX or Crossrail?
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:43:59 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Alan (in Brussels) wrote:
Brian Coleman, Camden and Barnet member of the London Assembly, slammed
the decision.

He said: "It's an absolute betrayal by the government of users of the
Northern Line.

"This is the end of the project. We needed that new station, now the
users of the Northern Line face decades of misery."

Good to see society's intellectually challenged are being given good homes
in the London Assembly. Does he think LU are just going to give up on
Camden? Surely all they have to do is tone the plans down so they don't
completely destroy the town centre, and they'll be accepted.

But the plans can't be "toned down" too much or else you'll build
something that is not big enough and which will not comply with today's
safety and capacity requirements. While not fully familiar with the
desired level of capacity for the site the only other options are to dig
a new station that is largely underground thus reducing the surface
property issues. The issue with that is that it will (probably) cost so
much that there is no business case for proceeding. I think it is that
paradox that Mr Coleman might be referring to.

How about rebuilding the station above ground, demolishing what's there,
but replacing it with new buildings with the same or similar use? Markets,
venues, public spaces, not shops and flats or whatever. I think that would
address most of the objection.

Or is it that LU can only afford to rebuild if they can recoup some of the
costs through making money off property?

tom

--
Why do we do it? - Exactly!

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:43:59 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Alan (in Brussels) wrote:
Brian Coleman, Camden and Barnet member of the London Assembly, slammed
the decision.

He said: "It's an absolute betrayal by the government of users of the
Northern Line.

"This is the end of the project. We needed that new station, now the
users of the Northern Line face decades of misery."

Good to see society's intellectually challenged are being given good homes
in the London Assembly. Does he think LU are just going to give up on
Camden? Surely all they have to do is tone the plans down so they don't
completely destroy the town centre, and they'll be accepted.

But the plans can't be "toned down" too much or else you'll build
something that is not big enough and which will not comply with today's
safety and capacity requirements. While not fully familiar with the
desired level of capacity for the site the only other options are to dig
a new station that is largely underground thus reducing the surface
property issues. The issue with that is that it will (probably) cost so
much that there is no business case for proceeding. I think it is that
paradox that Mr Coleman might be referring to.

How about rebuilding the station above ground, demolishing what's there,
but replacing it with new buildings with the same or similar use? Markets,
venues, public spaces, not shops and flats or whatever. I think that would
address most of the objection.

Or is it that LU can only afford to rebuild if they can recoup some of the
costs through making money off property?

Buildings of a similar size would presumably have similar congestion
problems. Sorting out the congestion involves spreading out some of
the entrances and other facilities - therefore more total space needed.
And the cost is so high that the only way it is affordable is through
property development above and around the station site.