http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=4590

I expect that the residents of areas next to Heathrow will watch the
politicians twitching over the visual impact of Victoria with great
interest.

Mwmbwls wrote:
http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=4590

I expect that the residents of areas next to Heathrow will watch the
politicians twitching over the visual impact of Victoria with great
interest.

it's not a great building but it certainly needs to be refurbished.
Especially that crappy roof.

On 12 Dec, 09:33, Mwmbwls wrote:
http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=4590

I expect that the residents of areas next to Heathrow will watch the
politicians twitching over the visual impact of Victoria with great
interest.

That article's ********. This is the redevelopment of several blocks
north of the station (including the bus station and District/Circle
tube entrance), but it doesn't involve the mainline station at all.

A quick search of Google News says this is the original source, and
doesn't contain this error:
http://www.propertyweek.com/story.as...de=3101964&c=1

The Times has rewritten it here, introducing mention of the mainline
station:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3019604.ece

And Transport Briefing has taken this and run with it, merging it with
some random junk from this old press release:
http://www.capitalcommitment.co.uk/s...ase.aspx?id=46

And this new one:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/6832.aspx

Grrr.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

In message
, Mr
Thant writes

A quick search of Google News says this is the original source, and
doesn't contain this error:
http://www.propertyweek.com/story.as...de=3101964&c=1

Interesting to see in that report that the development has to make
provision for Crossrail 2.

--
Paul Terry

On 12 Dec, 12:47, Paul Terry wrote:
In message
, Mr
Thant writes

A quick search of Google News says this is the original source, and
doesn't contain this error:
http://www.propertyweek.com/story.as...torycode=31019...

Interesting to see in that report that the development has to make
provision for Crossrail 2.


It's always a good idea to make passive provision for such things. The
notion of Crossrail 2 being built might currently seem laughable, but
in 10, 20 or 30 years time things might be different.

Paul Terry wrote:
In message
, Mr
Thant writes

A quick search of Google News says this is the original source, and
doesn't contain this error:
http://www.propertyweek.com/story.as...de=3101964&c=1

Interesting to see in that report that the development has to make
provision for Crossrail 2.

That's what safeguarding is all about!