In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:50:17 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
least one wall has long gone, so there won't be much that's authentic
if/when it ever gets re-used as a shell housing something entirely
unlike a power station. Given the lack of authenticity, I wonder why
a pastiche of the old power station needs to be part of any new
development? After all, we already have one old coal power station
preserved as an art gallery in the form of Tate Modern -- just how
many does London need?

True. It should really be put out of its misery and demolished. I
don't think people are as sentimental about it as the politicians
think. At the end of the day it was just a power station, not a
cathedral.

Whats the status of Lots Road these days? Is that still around?

Largely demolished, I think. I don't know if any part of the old
building will survive into the new development.

I found these short videos from 2008 and 2009 (there's more):
2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&h...&v=M1Cm2u3rKGo
2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cUfi...eature=related

There seems to be a building shell still standing, or was when I cycled past
on the other side of the river this morning.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 14:45:09 on
Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Recliner remarked:

any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be predicated
on the construction of a tube line, which would cost hundreds of
millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?

I thought the tube line was to be financed by other Nine Elms area
developments?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 11:25:01
on Thu, 1 Dec 2011, remarked:
any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be predicated
on the construction of a tube line, which would cost hundreds of
millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?

I thought the tube line was to be financed by other Nine Elms area
developments?

If you have the details, do tell.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
wrote:
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 14:45:09 on
Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Recliner remarked:

any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be predicated
on the construction of a tube line, which would cost hundreds of
millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?

I thought the tube line was to be financed by other Nine Elms area
developments?

I don't think there's much chance of a contribution from the new US Embassy :-(

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

In message , at 21:07:24 on Thu, 1 Dec 2011,
Nick Leverton remarked:
any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be predicated
on the construction of a tube line, which would cost hundreds of
millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?

I thought the tube line was to be financed by other Nine Elms area
developments?

I don't think there's much chance of a contribution from the new US Embassy :-(

Boris was reported to be looking for £2.5m from the Embassy project,
which is small change and neither here nor there in the grand scheme of
things.

On the other hand, the Battersea Power Station project is supposed to be
grossing £5.5bn, which is almost 20x the loan they are currently
floundering with.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:07:24 on Thu, 1 Dec 2011,
Nick Leverton remarked:
any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be predicated
on the construction of a tube line, which would cost hundreds of
millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?

I thought the tube line was to be financed by other Nine Elms area
developments?

I don't think there's much chance of a contribution from the new US Embassy :-(

Boris was reported to be looking for £2.5m from the Embassy project,
which is small change and neither here nor there in the grand scheme of
things.

On the other hand, the Battersea Power Station project is supposed to be
grossing £5.5bn, which is almost 20x the loan they are currently
floundering with.

A lot of business ideas suppose that they can gross a lot of money, and a
lot of them fail to meet their goals. Of more interest, if anyone knows,
would be what contribution the project was actually expected to make to
the Northern Line Battersea extension.

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

In article , (Nick Leverton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 14:45:09 on
Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Recliner remarked:

any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be
predicated on the construction of a tube line, which would cost
hundreds of millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?

I thought the tube line was to be financed by other Nine Elms area
developments?

I don't think there's much chance of a contribution from the new US
Embassy :-(

Have you been along Nine Elms Lane recently? It's a true "empire on which
the concrete never sets", as my father used to dub the South Bank.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 21:35:25 on Thu, 1 Dec 2011,
Nick Leverton remarked:
Boris was reported to be looking for £2.5m from the Embassy project,
which is small change and neither here nor there in the grand scheme of
things.

On the other hand, the Battersea Power Station project is supposed to be
grossing £5.5bn, which is almost 20x the loan they are currently
floundering with.

A lot of business ideas suppose that they can gross a lot of money, and a
lot of them fail to meet their goals. Of more interest, if anyone knows,
would be what contribution the project was actually expected to make to
the Northern Line Battersea extension.

The power station developer was the "sponsor and manager" for the
extension.

http://www.northernlineextension.com...ess_report_no_
1_final.pdf

There are some interesting maps, eg p8. The price depends on the route
and I presume it's the £459m one. They seem to have gone for the highest
density development scenario on page 10, but it's possible (if this was
also the announcement of the choice of route) that the developer could
only have paid for the cheaper route option, more on cash-flow than
cost/benefit grounds.

ps A third of the debt that was called in this week is money still owed
to the previous site owners who sold to REO in 2006.

--
Roland Perry

http://lurs.org.uk/meetings.htm
Tuesday 13th December 2011: Treasury Holdings has ambitious plans to
redevelop the Battersea Power Station site and to see the Northern Line
extended from Kennington to Battersea in order to serve the area.
Northern Line Extension Project Manager, Tony Whitehead will be joined
by Jon Kirkup from London Underground to explain the processes involved.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:53:11 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote:
I'm still bemused as to why a tube line is needed when miles of
railway on 3 key TOCs passes right by the site. Can't a proper rail
interchange be constructed for far less cost than a tube line?

I imagine given the choice most people would prefer to get a tube direct
into central london than have to get a mainline train and change at
victoria or waterloo. Imagine you're standing at Vauxhall and want to get
to the west end - do you hop on a victoria line to oxford circus or wait
20 mins for a mainline train to go a mile to victoria then get on it?
Its a no brainer.

B2003