Pax:
... on a site that covers 12.14 square kilometres (4.69 sq mi).
So, that all looks pretty efficient to me.
And try comparing that with the square mile in London, or with Canary Wharf.
You are making a comparison between LHR and the vast majority of London, which is nearly all residential. And you are also including offices and hotels in the vicinity, which are not included in your land area figures.
Try comparing LHR with any decent technology and manufacturing park, and you will find the employment and revenues at LHR not nearly so wonderful. And anyway, most of these jobs are not being destroyed, they are being transferred. If anyone cannot arrange to move 30 or so miles down the Thames, they hardly deserve to be employed. I have moved in excess of 17 times, to maintain my profession, so I have little sympathy for someone who cannot be bothered to make an effort.
Whino:
The only reason the technology companies are there is because of the proximity to LHR, if that were to close and a new estuary airport opened then the technology park would need to be in Kent, not Middlesex.
Popycock. So did the Warwick, Oxford and Cambridge Uni technology parks set up near Heathrow? Of course not. They set up in agreeable locations where a large number of quality personnel live.
The old LHR site would be just such an area. Close to the pleasant pastures of Windsor and the Thames valley, plenty of sailing, no aircraft noise, easy commuting to London City, direct Crossrail line to the new Silver-Boris airport only 30 minutes away, no commuting to central London required.
Who would NOT want to be based in the Heathrow Garden Technology Park?
.