Vision of LONDON 2008!!! - Page 3

***gothicform*** · May 9th, 2005, 02:09 PM

yes, but it has roughly the same amount of office space as the citygroup centre as for airports. hahaha. production of oil reaches its peak in 2005, demand continues to increase, what is the result? fact of the matter is that the governments attempts at growing airports is not sustainable in even the medium term.
hasnt it occured to you that the only reason a low rise office park is feasible there is because of the airport creating height restrictions. given its prime location thats an awful waste of land and i bet itll be completely flattened in 25 years and rebuilt at much higher density.
option 1 - keep the airport. employ 20,000 people in the area.
option 2 - demolish the airport. employ 200,000 people in the area.

jef · May 9th, 2005, 02:20 PM

The majority of requirements for large office space comes from banks and financial institutions. Without the city airport, without Crossrail, etc. , I am afraid large corporates won't move any longer to CW.

Fragmentor · May 9th, 2005, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Britannia

No, I shouldn't think so.

ah well...

***gothicform*** · May 9th, 2005, 05:13 PM

jef city airport has a minimal effect on the office demand in the canary wharf area. i say this from having worked on related issues.

Peyre · May 9th, 2005, 05:33 PM

meh get rid of it then. I was also under the impression that the Airport was significant for business travel and demand in CW

london lad · May 9th, 2005, 05:36 PM

The city airport is pretty insignificant compared to the other areas. CW or any office scheme in the docklands would have very little bearing on there beign a small private airport there. If it closed it would mean a few businessmen would fly into Heathrow, Gatwick or Stanstead. City airport might be conveinent to businessmen flying into London. When/If cross rail is built CW will be well served for Heathrow.

I dont know why they dont just build a High speed rail link from Stanstead to Liverpool st via Stratford . As Goth says one small private airport is potentially holding back a lot of higher density growth inthe Docklands.

***gothicform*** · May 9th, 2005, 06:20 PM

well not yet london lad but once they have filled up the available parcels on the isle of dogs developers are going to be looking further east. its not an issue yet, but it will be in 20 years time.

capslock · May 10th, 2005, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gothicform

hasnt it occured to you that the only reason a low rise office park is feasible there is because of the airport creating height restrictions. given its prime location thats an awful waste of land and i bet itll be completely flattened in 25 years and rebuilt at much higher density.
option 1 - keep the airport. employ 20,000 people in the area.
option 2 - demolish the airport. employ 200,000 people in the area.

Well yes it absolutely occurs to me. The maximum height in the buildings there is almost to the centimetre the maximum height allowed.

I was mainly answering the point made that the airport was keeping housing away by pointing out that it was also being used as a selling point for locating businesses, if not at Canary Wharf, the at the Royal Docks themselves... and I have to say that what is preventing development in the area, particularly employment, is the lack of infrastructure, not the presence of the airport.

It may all change if / when Crossrail goes out to there.

***gothicform*** · May 10th, 2005, 09:12 PM

yes, crossrail is the big thing. we did a cost assessment for it actually for a well known project and worked out how much the aiport costs the area assuming crossrail goes ahead. sure it brings in some business as youve said but the business it brings in is peanuts compared to what it does to the value of the land around it.
its true that the lack of infrastructure is preventing development, but if the infrastructure were there like crossrail for example then the airport would be the main limiting factor on development. still we're 8 years away from crossrail opening at least.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

May 9th, 2005, 02:09 PM	#41
*gothicform* Bossman Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: not london Posts: 29,177 Likes (Received): 487	yes, but it has roughly the same amount of office space as the citygroup centre as for airports. hahaha. production of oil reaches its peak in 2005, demand continues to increase, what is the result? fact of the matter is that the governments attempts at growing airports is not sustainable in even the medium term. hasnt it occured to you that the only reason a low rise office park is feasible there is because of the airport creating height restrictions. given its prime location thats an awful waste of land and i bet itll be completely flattened in 25 years and rebuilt at much higher density. option 1 - keep the airport. employ 20,000 people in the area. option 2 - demolish the airport. employ 200,000 people in the area.

May 9th, 2005, 02:20 PM	#42
jef Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Brussels/London Posts: 3,362 Likes (Received): 0	The majority of requirements for large office space comes from banks and financial institutions. Without the city airport, without Crossrail, etc. , I am afraid large corporates won't move any longer to CW.

May 9th, 2005, 05:13 PM	#44
*gothicform* Bossman Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: not london Posts: 29,177 Likes (Received): 487	jef city airport has a minimal effect on the office demand in the canary wharf area. i say this from having worked on related issues.

May 9th, 2005, 05:33 PM	#45
Peyre Waiting for 122 Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Harrow-On-The-Great-Big-Fucking-Hill, London Posts: 3,816 Likes (Received): 0	meh get rid of it then. I was also under the impression that the Airport was significant for business travel and demand in CW

May 9th, 2005, 05:36 PM	#46
london lad Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: London Posts: 8,155 Likes (Received): 45	The city airport is pretty insignificant compared to the other areas. CW or any office scheme in the docklands would have very little bearing on there beign a small private airport there. If it closed it would mean a few businessmen would fly into Heathrow, Gatwick or Stanstead. City airport might be conveinent to businessmen flying into London. When/If cross rail is built CW will be well served for Heathrow. I dont know why they dont just build a High speed rail link from Stanstead to Liverpool st via Stratford . As Goth says one small private airport is potentially holding back a lot of higher density growth inthe Docklands.

May 9th, 2005, 06:20 PM	#47
*gothicform* Bossman Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: not london Posts: 29,177 Likes (Received): 487	well not yet london lad but once they have filled up the available parcels on the isle of dogs developers are going to be looking further east. its not an issue yet, but it will be in 20 years time.

May 10th, 2005, 09:12 PM	#49
*gothicform* Bossman Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: not london Posts: 29,177 Likes (Received): 487	yes, crossrail is the big thing. we did a cost assessment for it actually for a well known project and worked out how much the aiport costs the area assuming crossrail goes ahead. sure it brings in some business as youve said but the business it brings in is peanuts compared to what it does to the value of the land around it. its true that the lack of infrastructure is preventing development, but if the infrastructure were there like crossrail for example then the airport would be the main limiting factor on development. still we're 8 years away from crossrail opening at least.