On 4 Feb, 15:23, Paul Terry wrote:
The medieval part of Cripplegate Within was lost in the Great Fire of
London
I've seen photographs of it, so unless they had photography in
medieval times, I think you're wrong there.

and much of the rest went in the great Cripplegate fire of 1897
(St Giles survived, but was badly damaged). It had already been
identified by the City as an area of extreme slum conditions by 1851,
and was very run down before the Luftwaffe cleared it.
So? That doesn't mean they can't build a facsimile of it in its better
days. There's no legal obligation for then to "build it like it was
when it became a really **** place".

I don't think it would ever have been worth trying to restore anything other than St
Giles - there was certainly no original design that could have been
brought back.
They can at least try. There are, after all, photographs of how it
was. Warsaw did, and it looks lovely as a result.

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 08:50:10 -0800 (PST)
lonelytraveller wrote:
middle of Zone 1 right next to massively wealthy companies, many of
whose staff choose to live in Barbican because of its proximity -

Exactly , its wealthy residents. There are plenty of iffy estates in tower
hamlets literally a stones throw from liverpool street station. They're not
cesspits but neither are they particularly pleasent.

there simply is barely anywhere else in the city of london to actually
live. Take that away, and it would turn into a cesspit within a
decade.

Well if the welathy residents moved out and the usual scum moved in then
yes , it would go downhill. BUt thats nothing to do with the buildings.

On the other hand, you'd be hard pushed to turn an area full of
Georgian squares, and well laid out and designed housing, into a
disaster zone, no matter who you fill it with.

Oh come off it, there are many areas of london with georgian houses turned into
pile-em-high bedsits and tiny flats. And not all those areas are particularly
pleasent.

Anyway, even a disneyland-style facsimile is an improvement on a
facsimile of corbousier.

Matter of opinion I guess.

B2003

In message
,
lonelytraveller writes

On 4 Feb, 15:23, Paul Terry wrote:

The medieval part of Cripplegate Within was lost in the Great Fire of
London

I've seen photographs of it, so unless they had photography in
medieval times, I think you're wrong there.

They had diarists and map-makers then, and Wencelas Hollar's famous map
of 1667 shows only a handful of buildings remaining in the area.

Ironically, it wasn't fire that destroyed Cripplegate, it was the very
late decision to order the Lord Mayor to pull down all properties in
Cripplegate Within to create a fire-break. This was successful, and thus
it was that the parish of Cripplegate Without (including its church of
St Giles) was saved. The other ten parishes of Cripplegate Within were
totally laid waste.

You may perhaps have seen photos of medieval buildings in the parish of
Cripplegate Without, where the Great Fire was halted, although I never
have. The continual redevelopment of London (as well as fires and wars)
has meant that very few medieval buildings survive in the city.

Most pre-war photos of the area show poor tenement housing and dour
19th-century warehouses. One of the reasons why the Metropolitan line
got an act to cut through the area for its 1865 extension to Moorgate
was because it offered slum clearance of the locality (albeit in a way
we'd not find acceptable today).

and much of the rest went in the great Cripplegate fire of 1897
(St Giles survived, but was badly damaged). It had already been
identified by the City as an area of extreme slum conditions by 1851,
and was very run down before the Luftwaffe cleared it.

So? That doesn't mean they can't build a facsimile of it in its better
days. There's no legal obligation for then to "build it like it was
when it became a really **** place".

Buildings usually become slums because they were poorly and cheaply
built in the first place.

They can at least try. There are, after all, photographs of how it
was.

I'd love to see some to convince me.

--
Paul Terry

On 04.02.10 12:40, Zen83237 wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8497509.stm

Oxford St is congested so let's remove all the buses. What next, Victoria is
congested let's remove the trains.

Kevin


I can never remember. Is Oxford Street only meant for busses, taxis and
service vehicles? Can private vehicles drive down that road?

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 12:40:26 -0000, "Zen83237"
wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8497509.stm

Oxford St is congested so let's remove all the buses. What next, Victoria is
congested let's remove the trains.

These proposals, always heavily supported by the retailers, to remove
buses from Oxford St are just stupid. If the retailers don't want
public transport in front of their shops then I suggest TfL takes them
at their word and removes all the bus services from Oxford Street and
Regent Street and for good measure immediately shuts all the local tube
stations and scraps the proposed Crossrail stations. That would save
billions at a stroke.

You're just being silly. The problem with the buses is that they're taking
up space but not doing anything useful - it's faster to get off at one end
of Oxford Street and walk the rest of the way than to ride a bus along it.
The trains are taking up space but work very effectively. It's a totally
different situation.

This idea is not anti-bus or anti-PT. If services could be changed so
fewer buses ran along Oxford street, they could run faster, and the
service could actually be improved.

The fact that Oxford St and Regent Street would no longer cease to
function is not TfL's problem.

I think if it no longer ceased to function, everyone would be rather
happy!

tom

--
The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday
thinking. -- Albert Einstein

On Feb 4, 12:40*pm, "Zen83237" wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8497509.stm

Oxford St is congested so let's remove all the buses. What next, Victoria is
congested let's remove the trains.

There is a good case for pedestrianisation of such an important
shopping area. There's an even better case for trams, IMO, not that
it's likely to happen. But removing the taxis and their annoying
habit of stopping wherever they like regardless of the disruption it
causes may be a better start.

Neil

On Feb 4, 7:41*pm, "
wrote:

On 04.02.10 12:40, Zen83237 wrote:

I can never remember. Is Oxford Street only meant for busses, taxis and
service vehicles? Can private vehicles drive down that road?

Private vehicles prohibited monday to saturday between 7am and 7pm,
IIRC.

In article
,
(lonelytraveller) wrote:
On 4 Feb, 13:42, wrote:

On the other hand, you'd be hard pushed to turn an area full of
Georgian squares, and well laid out and designed housing, into a
disaster zone, no matter who you fill it with.

I can think of counterexamples to that. Liverpool had some.

Anyway , you can't bring a bombed out area back. The best you'll get
is a disneyland style fascimile of it.

Which is largely what the Germans have done of course. They seem to like
it.

Try telling that to the people of Warsaw or Novgorod, entire cities
which were heavily bombed out - Novgorod in fact was systematically
destroyed - yet brought back as a near total facsimile of their
previous selves.

Warsaw is dreadful! It may be getting better recently but was far worse
than the East End when I was there in 2002. You must be being rather
selective or referring to work done since 2002.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Mizter T wrote:
On Feb 4, 7:41 pm, "
wrote:

On 04.02.10 12:40, Zen83237 wrote:

I can never remember. Is Oxford Street only meant for busses, taxis
and service vehicles? Can private vehicles drive down that road?

Private vehicles prohibited monday to saturday between 7am and 7pm,
IIRC.

No, all vehicles are allowed in at all times from Binney Street, Poland
Street and Rathbone Place, with a forced left turn into Oxford St in all
three cases. They can do U-turns once they are in, and can leave at numerous
places including the ends. They can't cross Regent Street at Oxford Circus
(not sure if that's a daytime restriction or a fulltime restriction).

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Feb 4, 12:40 pm, "Zen83237" wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8497509.stm

Oxford St is congested so let's remove all the buses. What next, Victoria
is
congested let's remove the trains.

There is a good case for pedestrianisation of such an important
shopping area. There's an even better case for trams, IMO, not that
it's likely to happen. But removing the taxis and their annoying
habit of stopping wherever they

Sorry, who likes? Taxis have drivers. Taxi drivers respond to
passenger directions. The reason taxis cause disruption is
overplanning and overcontrol or road space, which eliminates the
"nooks and crannies" cabbies usually use to effect drop-offs.



like regardless of the disruption it
causes may be a better start.

Neil