|
Leinster Gardens
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? For those not familiar with the site, see www.urban75.org/london/leinster.html http://golondon.about.com/od/thingst...terGardens.htm |
Leinster Gardens
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? For those not familiar with the site, see www.urban75.org/london/leinster.html http://golondon.about.com/od/thingst...terGardens.htm Emergency exit, perhaps? |
Leinster Gardens
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. /wild guess michael adams .... For those not familiar with the site, see www.urban75.org/london/leinster.html http://golondon.about.com/od/thingst...terGardens.htm Emergency exit, perhaps? |
Leinster Gardens
michael adams wrote:
wild guess Another wild guess, but perhaps they're listed? Is it possible that the whole street is listed, including the non-buildings? Theo |
Leinster Gardens
In message , Theo Markettos
writes Another wild guess, but perhaps they're listed? They are indeed. English Heritage ID 413898 shows that numbers 19-22 Leinster Gardens, "including 19a and screen wall forming equivalent of nos 23 and 24" have Grade II listed status. Most of the properties in Leinster Gardens are listed, and the entire street is in the western part of the Bayswater Conservation area, so development would not be at all easy. -- Paul Terry |
Leinster Gardens
|
Leinster Gardens
wrote in message
In article , (Paul Terry) wrote: In message , Theo Markettos writes Another wild guess, but perhaps they're listed? They are indeed. English Heritage ID 413898 shows that numbers 19-22 Leinster Gardens, "including 19a and screen wall forming equivalent of nos 23 and 24" have Grade II listed status. Most of the properties in Leinster Gardens are listed, and the entire street is in the western part of the Bayswater Conservation area, so development would not be at all easy. I was assuming the existing facade's appearance would be preserved if something was built behind. If so there should be little problem with the listed status. It's pretty clear from the photos from the back that it's only the facade that's worthy of listing. Yes, I was assuming that a new building would have a facade identical to the adjacent real buildings. In other words, it would look more genuine than the current fake, with real windows, real doors and a full roof. As such, it would improve the look of the street, which is largely full of tourist hotels these days. |
Leinster Gardens
"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. |
Leinster Gardens
On 10 Dec 2009 01:56:08 +0000 (GMT), Theo Markettos
wrote: michael adams wrote: wild guess Another wild guess, but perhaps they're listed? Is it possible that the whole street is listed, including the non-buildings? 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. I think Michael Adams had it right. He self-deprecatingly termed his post a "wild guess" but I think he hit the nail on the head. |
Leinster Gardens
"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 |
Leinster Gardens
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. |
Leinster Gardens
"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)? |
Leinster Gardens
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 |
Leinster Gardens
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. |
Leinster Gardens
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. |
Leinster Gardens
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 |
Leinster Gardens
"Fig" wrote in message news:op.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. |
Leinster Gardens
Recliner wrote:
"Fig" wrote in message news:op.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. |
Leinster Gardens
"Basil Jet" wrote in message
Recliner wrote: "Fig" wrote in message news:op.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? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk