"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"michael adams" wrote in message

wrote in message
...
Recliner wrote:
I had a few minutes in Bayswater to kill yesterday and decided to
take a look at the famous dummy houses in Leinster Gardens. I must
say that the false facades still work well, and are maintained (by
LU?). Even the pigeon deterrents are in place, exactly the same as
on the adjacent properties. In fact, I actually walked right past,
distracted by the building work next door.

But I wonder why the gap has been retained in the century plus
since the lines below were electrified. It's no longer needed for
venting steam engines, and I'd have thought there would be pressure
to reconstruct genuine buildings over the tracks, just as happens
over stations. Have there been such plans, or is there some major
technical/financial reason for not doing so?

wild guess

Assuming they could ever come to an amicable financial arrangement
between themselves and LU, the owners\residents of the adjacent
properties would
suffer considerable disruption during the course of any construction
work for a start. Without sufficient clearance at the sides of the
track
for supporting pillars at that point, its likely part of the existing
properties
would need to be remodelled maybe losing half their existing ground
floors so to accomodate the ends of a concrete platform to straddle
the
track.
They would probably also lose their basements. While any new property
would probably require extensive sound proofing on the lower floors
for them to be habitable.
The loss of amenity in the adjoining properties in financial terms,
combined with construction costs given the difficult site, is
probably far greater than
any gain to be made from a new property especially given it would be
need to be split three ways. If not necessarily equally.

Yes, those are very good points. I had sort of assumed that the new
building might be constructed in conjunction with or by the owners of
the neighbouring buildings, perhaps as an extension. I think at least
one of those buildings is a hotel, so it could use the new space as an
extension.

There again, assuming that all the land over say District line track belongs
to LT there are probably plenty of places where they could build over the
track with far less problems on sites with easy road access and equally
high property prices.

If you're interested in buildings affected by the growth of the railways
here's another one, this time on the District and Circle Lines, which I came
across purely by chance one day.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2rdet8i.jpg


michael adams

michael adams wrote:

If you're interested in buildings affected by the growth of the
railways here's another one, this time on the District and Circle
Lines, which I came across purely by chance one day.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2rdet8i.jpg

.... which is here
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&....0 1,,0,-3.21

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

"Basil Jet" wrote in message

michael adams wrote:

If you're interested in buildings affected by the growth of the
railways here's another one, this time on the District and Circle
Lines, which I came across purely by chance one day.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2rdet8i.jpg

... which is here
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&....0 1,,0,-3.21

Maybe not affecting that wedge-shaped building, but weren't there plans
to build over South Ken station (a la Gloucester Road)?

Bruce wrote:
Listing wouldn't necessarily prevent redevelopment, especially if the
new retains the appearance (or even the facades) of the old.

I have worked on many projects in London where a listed facade was
retained to front a thoroughly modern building built behind it.

Indeed, but perhaps they are listed for their architectural interest in
/not/ having a rear, rather than the facade that pretends they do.

In any case, changes to listed buildings need Listed Buildings Consent. So
you need to convince TPTB to allow it, rather than being set in stone that
it's impossible.

Theo

On 10 Dec 2009 22:13:22 +0000 (GMT), Theo Markettos
wrote:

Bruce wrote:
Listing wouldn't necessarily prevent redevelopment, especially if the
new retains the appearance (or even the facades) of the old.

I have worked on many projects in London where a listed facade was
retained to front a thoroughly modern building built behind it.

Indeed, but perhaps they are listed for their architectural interest in
/not/ having a rear, rather than the facade that pretends they do.


Speculation, of course. It would be interesting to know why they are
listed, whether they are listed as part of a larger terrace or only
these false frontages.


In any case, changes to listed buildings need Listed Buildings Consent. So
you need to convince TPTB to allow it, rather than being set in stone that
it's impossible.


For the avoidance of doubt, my point was that a listing does not
necessarily prevent redevelopment.

Bruce wrote:

Speculation, of course. It would be interesting to know why they are
listed, whether they are listed as part of a larger terrace or only
these false frontages.

There wouldn't be much point in keeping the false frontage and allowing the
houses either side to be demolished!

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:06:06 -0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

michael adams wrote:

If you're interested in buildings affected by the growth of the
railways here's another one, this time on the District and Circle
Lines, which I came across purely by chance one day.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2rdet8i.jpg

... which is here
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&....0 1,,0,-3.21

Totally off-topic, but I love the way our PCSO chappie is chasing after
the Google car. Wonder if he caught it?

--
Fig

"Fig" wrote in message newsp.u4r3pgz0m4iaeb@dell
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:06:06 -0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

michael adams wrote:

If you're interested in buildings affected by the growth of the
railways here's another one, this time on the District and Circle
Lines, which I came across purely by chance one day.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2rdet8i.jpg

... which is here
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&....0 1,,0,-3.21

Totally off-topic, but I love the way our PCSO chappie is chasing
after the Google car. Wonder if he caught it?

Nice one! Perhaps he did, because that sequence comes to an end with
that shot. There's a different set of parked cars in the Thurloe Square
sequence.

Recliner wrote:
"Fig" wrote in message newsp.u4r3pgz0m4iaeb@dell
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:06:06 -0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

michael adams wrote:

If you're interested in buildings affected by the growth of the
railways here's another one, this time on the District and Circle
Lines, which I came across purely by chance one day.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2rdet8i.jpg

... which is here
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&....0 1,,0,-3.21

Totally off-topic, but I love the way our PCSO chappie is chasing
after the Google car. Wonder if he caught it?

Nice one! Perhaps he did, because that sequence comes to an end with
that shot. There's a different set of parked cars in the Thurloe
Square sequence.

Only slightly different... the same lorry is parked at Pelham Street in
both, but that lorry is not visible at all in the South Terrace shots, so
the pic with the cop is in a sequence of its own.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

"Basil Jet" wrote in message

Recliner wrote:
"Fig" wrote in message newsp.u4r3pgz0m4iaeb@dell
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:06:06 -0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

michael adams wrote:

If you're interested in buildings affected by the growth of the
railways here's another one, this time on the District and Circle
Lines, which I came across purely by chance one day.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2rdet8i.jpg

... which is here
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&....0 1,,0,-3.21

Totally off-topic, but I love the way our PCSO chappie is chasing
after the Google car. Wonder if he caught it?

Nice one! Perhaps he did, because that sequence comes to an end
with that shot. There's a different set of parked cars in the Thurloe
Square sequence.

Only slightly different... the same lorry is parked at Pelham Street
in both, but that lorry is not visible at all in the South Terrace
shots, so the pic with the cop is in a sequence of its own.

That PCSO shot seems to be one on its own. He's not visible in any of
the adjacent shots (which he would have been if he'd just been walking
along the road), and the DHL Mercedes van which had been following the
Google car down South Terrace has disappeared in that shot. But the
adjacent parked cars are the same, so it must have been taken at almost
the same time.

I wonder if the DHL van got too close to the Google car as it stopped
when reached Thurloe Square, thus blocking much of the shot, so the
Google car reversed back into South Terrace after the van had gone to
retake the lost shot, thus annoying the PCSO?