On 24 Mar, 20:13, Adrian wrote:
On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote:

To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.

Essential to /what/?

It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.

It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's
ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" -
but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really
going to be worth spending £16bn on.

Ian

On Mar 24, 3:25*pm, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 24 Mar, 20:13, Adrian wrote:

On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote:

To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.

Essential to /what/?
It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.

It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's
ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" -
but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really
going to be worth spending £16bn on.

Ian

If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany,
then you should oppose Crossrail.

Adrian

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:05:33 -0700 (PDT), Adrian
wrote:

On Mar 24, 3:25*pm, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 24 Mar, 20:13, Adrian wrote:

On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote:

To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.

Essential to /what/?
It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.

It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's
ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" -
but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really
going to be worth spending £16bn on.

Ian

If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany,
then you should oppose Crossrail.

Nowadays the whole point might be that with modern technology there is
no longer a need for a physical centre as there was in the past when
the City of London was full of messengers running around with
negotiable documents.

In message , Charles Ellson
writes
Nowadays the whole point might be that with modern technology there is
no longer a need for a physical centre as there was in the past when
the City of London was full of messengers running around with
negotiable documents.

I work in IT in the finance industry, at Canary Wharf

- The transport links are abysmal, and during the rush hours trains
are always overcrowded.
- I have "modern technology" links at home (Broadband and phone) and I
am allowed to work from home occasionally (i.e. not all the time,
and there has to be a good reason).
- It is much easier and more convenient to do my job in the office.
- Yes, you can have meetings via conference call over the phone, but
it is much better to get everyone together in an office.
- It is far easier to get things from a colleague by going to their
desk and having a quiet chat than by phoning them.
- My clients on the trading desks are not allowed to do their jobs
from home. This is a regulatory requirement.
- Lastly and most importantly - you can't have a drink with your
colleagues and clients after work if you're all working from home.
--
Jane
British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden
http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Jane Sullivan wrote:

In message , Charles Ellson
writes

Nowadays the whole point might be that with modern technology there is
no longer a need for a physical centre as there was in the past when
the City of London was full of messengers running around with
negotiable documents.

I work in IT in the finance industry, at

I think the point was not that everyone can telecommute instead of going
into an office, but rather that the various offices don't need to be in
the same place. You could quite easily put a tower full of stockjobbers
and allied trades somwhere miles from the City, like, for example, er ...

Canary Wharf

Exactly.

Although Canary Wharf has missed this point. Instead of distributing
offices into the suburbs or wherever, it's created a second City.

I should add that i'm not convinced that Mr Ellson's argument is correct.
There may be advantages to having offices of related businesses in close
physical proximity; it certainly seems to be a pattern of urban
development that's been remarkably constant, even after the introduction
of the car, the telephone, and all the kinds of electronic communication
that have come since.

tom

--
I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science, with
epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by
trial and error, building our road behind us as we proceed. -- Max Born

On Mar 25, 8:56 am, Jane Sullivan
wrote:
In message , Charles Ellson
writes

Nowadays the whole point might be that with modern technology there is
no longer a need for a physical centre as there was in the past when
the City of London was full of messengers running around with
negotiable documents.

I work in IT in the finance industry, at Canary Wharf

- The transport links are abysmal, and during the rush hours trains
are always overcrowded.
- I have "modern technology" links at home (Broadband and phone) and I
am allowed to work from home occasionally (i.e. not all the time,
and there has to be a good reason).
- It is much easier and more convenient to do my job in the office.
- Yes, you can have meetings via conference call over the phone, but
it is much better to get everyone together in an office.
- It is far easier to get things from a colleague by going to their
desk and having a quiet chat than by phoning them.
- My clients on the trading desks are not allowed to do their jobs
from home. This is a regulatory requirement.
- Lastly and most importantly - you can't have a drink with your
colleagues and clients after work if you're all working from home.
--
Jane
British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the gardenhttp://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html

There's lots of nice houses in the docklands. If you choose to live
miles away from where you work, the commute is your own fault.

On 24 Mar, 23:05, Adrian wrote:
On Mar 24, 3:25 pm, The Real Doctor wrote:

It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's
ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" -
but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really
going to be worth spending £16bn on.

If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany,
then you should oppose Crossrail.

That's just being silly.

Ian

Adrian wrote:
On Mar 24, 3:25*pm, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 24 Mar, 20:13, Adrian wrote:

On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote:

To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.

Essential to /what/?
It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.

It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's
ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" -
but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really
going to be worth spending £16bn on.

Ian

If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany,
then you should oppose Crossrail.

Adrian

It'll take more than Crossrail to save London. It is gradually sinking, in a
century or two it will be under the water.

Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Adrian wrote:
On Mar 24, 3:25 pm, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 24 Mar, 20:13, Adrian wrote:

On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:
On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote:
To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
Essential to /what/?
It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.
It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's
ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" -
but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really
going to be worth spending £16bn on.

Ian
If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany,
then you should oppose Crossrail.

Adrian

It'll take more than Crossrail to save London. It is gradually sinking, in a
century or two it will be under the water.

See JG Ballard's very first novel, The Drowned World.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”