LHR T2 to be demolished
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T2 the CTA the whole LHR package is a dump. I feel qualified to state this without bias having been here since 1970, which some will say is no time at all. What this wonderful plan does not seem to mention is the pathetic access via the tunnel and how the capacity will be absorbed during the build bearing in mind that T1 & T3 cannot fail to be effected. It is time that serious development started taking place at LGW, BHX and a possible new airport. I doubt that the latter will ever happen.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
egnx ema
I fear you have.
Whilst i admit that nostalgia is not a sufficient reason to demand the preservation of these buildings, national historical interest, architectural heritage is.
what else would you have knocked down with your wrecking ball; the Hoover building on the A4 or how about the Co-op building in Nottingham city centre, York cathedral.
What about the original terminal building at BHX with all its art deco splendor or the Beehive at LGW.
One building that should be pulled down is the arrival and departures building at EMA. possibly Doncaster may have already sealed its fate.
Go and swing your wrecking ball where it's needed most; like Belgium.
Bring on the balls!!
Whilst i admit that nostalgia is not a sufficient reason to demand the preservation of these buildings, national historical interest, architectural heritage is.
what else would you have knocked down with your wrecking ball; the Hoover building on the A4 or how about the Co-op building in Nottingham city centre, York cathedral.
What about the original terminal building at BHX with all its art deco splendor or the Beehive at LGW.
One building that should be pulled down is the arrival and departures building at EMA. possibly Doncaster may have already sealed its fate.
Go and swing your wrecking ball where it's needed most; like Belgium.
Couldn't agree more about the arivals building at EMA.
Then I my book I'd pull down Sir Norman Foster's monstrosity that is Stansted too!!
Coming back to the question of a spectators area at LHR, I suspect that as much as the so called lost retail opportunity the good old UK obsession with security will put paid to that.
Thank heavens for the more enlightened attitudes of our Central European cousins.
Then I my book I'd pull down Sir Norman Foster's monstrosity that is Stansted too!!
Coming back to the question of a spectators area at LHR, I suspect that as much as the so called lost retail opportunity the good old UK obsession with security will put paid to that.
Thank heavens for the more enlightened attitudes of our Central European cousins.
There was a time when Britain used to be at the forefront of development of all kinds, now all we seem to want to do is preserve anything that is old. We don't need to forget the past, but lets have some pride in the future. Let's feel proud to have a modern efficient main gateway to the UK (and no cheap jokes about BAA and efficiency).
Every time a name the worst airport in the world thread starts on here LHR gets a lot of mentions. The simple fact is T2 and the QB are tired and no longer function efficiently for the users, be that the passengers or staff.
Every time a name the worst airport in the world thread starts on here LHR gets a lot of mentions. The simple fact is T2 and the QB are tired and no longer function efficiently for the users, be that the passengers or staff.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T2 and Queens are both very poor and unattractive use of the limited space in Central Area and its demise is welcome. There is an opportunity now for a complete terminal ring. T3 and T2 have been within yards of each other for years and with the addition of the new A380 stands , even closer .They have been crying out for airside passenger link walkways and travellators. To the east the new T2/Queens should just be phase 1 of a combined T1 and T2. Carrying on round, the end of T1s Pier 4 A satellite is not far from the north eastern end of T3. There is the opportunity here for a first class development so, again,hopefully a new T2 will be seen as just the first stage of that.
Taking it all one step further, T 5 and T 3 should always have been designed as just 2 entrances to one terminal, with a full scale underground concourse including walkways and baggage conveyors between the tip of the outer T5 pier and the outer T3 pier which are within a very short distance of each other. The opportunity has been lost in the initial T5 project but could be recovered, albeit at higher cost than if it were incorporated in the first place.
Taking it all one step further, T 5 and T 3 should always have been designed as just 2 entrances to one terminal, with a full scale underground concourse including walkways and baggage conveyors between the tip of the outer T5 pier and the outer T3 pier which are within a very short distance of each other. The opportunity has been lost in the initial T5 project but could be recovered, albeit at higher cost than if it were incorporated in the first place.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skylion; your profile states that you are an aviation consultant. I doubt whether terminal buildings will feature on your portfolio 
You assert that T2 and T3 are within yards of each other. I can assure you they are not .
What on earth does that mean and how can they be??
As for airside walkways between T2 and T3 you must be crazy. Who'd want to walk that far? You may as well advocate walkways between T2 and the West end!!
Underground concourses what nonsense, this is England not the Australian desert.
Give the two fine buildings a facelift as they did with T3 and dont bother thinking about underground potential either, the place has more tunnels than a German POW camp.
You assert that T2 and T3 are within yards of each other. I can assure you they are not .
T 5 and T 3 should always have been designed as just 2 entrances to one terminal
As for airside walkways between T2 and T3 you must be crazy. Who'd want to walk that far? You may as well advocate walkways between T2 and the West end!!
Underground concourses what nonsense, this is England not the Australian desert.
Give the two fine buildings a facelift as they did with T3 and dont bother thinking about underground potential either, the place has more tunnels than a German POW camp.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Epsilon Minus:
Indeed I have considerable experience of LHR,- and of numerous airports worldwide.
If you look at a map ,- or good aerial photograph,- you can see just how close the terminals are and how walkways and travellators are indeed practical. Don't forget that the annual running costs of a single airside bus come to around £ 100k per year ( capital costs, maintainence, wages and between 2 and 3 drivers per bus), so fixed facilities come out both more practical and better. ( you dont have to wait for them). The gap between the extremeties of T3 and T2 is now a couple of hundred yards,- closer than than the further stands in T3 from the main lounge. T2 to T1 is similaly close via Queens and of course has always had a landside walkway.
The gap between the extremeties of T3 and T 5 is no greater than that between Hong Kongs main terminal and the outer group of stands,- already covered by walkways, travellators as well as a mini train,- and a number of American airports have similar underground links between concourses. Distances involved are also less than extremeties of Amsterdam and Singapore and doubtless others which provide walkways and travellators.
So..... look at the map again and the possibilities are there. LHR T1, 2,3,5 could be just one airport. It's a real and practical possibility.
Indeed I have considerable experience of LHR,- and of numerous airports worldwide.
If you look at a map ,- or good aerial photograph,- you can see just how close the terminals are and how walkways and travellators are indeed practical. Don't forget that the annual running costs of a single airside bus come to around £ 100k per year ( capital costs, maintainence, wages and between 2 and 3 drivers per bus), so fixed facilities come out both more practical and better. ( you dont have to wait for them). The gap between the extremeties of T3 and T2 is now a couple of hundred yards,- closer than than the further stands in T3 from the main lounge. T2 to T1 is similaly close via Queens and of course has always had a landside walkway.
The gap between the extremeties of T3 and T 5 is no greater than that between Hong Kongs main terminal and the outer group of stands,- already covered by walkways, travellators as well as a mini train,- and a number of American airports have similar underground links between concourses. Distances involved are also less than extremeties of Amsterdam and Singapore and doubtless others which provide walkways and travellators.
So..... look at the map again and the possibilities are there. LHR T1, 2,3,5 could be just one airport. It's a real and practical possibility.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skylion
Yes; from an aerial photograph taken from about FL150 T2 and T3 probably do look yards apart, but on the surface they are not. Trust me on this issue, Ive walked between the two for fifteen years.
Your views on the subject appear to be somewhat abstracted from reality and practicality.
Theres nothing wrong with QB or T2 that a good facelift wouldn't cure. They are both buildings of national historical interest and will hopefully be listed soon. Isn't that right swampy
Regards
Epsilon Minus
If you look at a map ,- or good aerial photograph,- you can see just how close the terminals are
Your views on the subject appear to be somewhat abstracted from reality and practicality.
Theres nothing wrong with QB or T2 that a good facelift wouldn't cure. They are both buildings of national historical interest and will hopefully be listed soon. Isn't that right swampy
Regards
Epsilon Minus
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Epsilon: Well, your yards must be different from mine, but I sat for quite a few years in T2 office block and for most mortals used to the distances at many of the worlds airports it is very close to T3,- and even more so now with the building of T3s A380 stands.
Moving on from that, the listing of T2 and Queens would be a nonsense and would severely limit future passenger growth in the CTA. Airport design and passenger expectation have moved on a lot since the 1950s when T2 was originally designed. The BAA have done well in modifying the terminal but it it now needs to go. An airport is dynamic and must move on,- the Viscounts, Caravelles and Comets have gone and so must the building. If LHR does not keep pace with the world the customers simply go elsewhere,- Amsterdam, Paris to mention just 2.
It is good to see the BAA/HAL coming up with new vision,- long may it continue.
Moving on from that, the listing of T2 and Queens would be a nonsense and would severely limit future passenger growth in the CTA. Airport design and passenger expectation have moved on a lot since the 1950s when T2 was originally designed. The BAA have done well in modifying the terminal but it it now needs to go. An airport is dynamic and must move on,- the Viscounts, Caravelles and Comets have gone and so must the building. If LHR does not keep pace with the world the customers simply go elsewhere,- Amsterdam, Paris to mention just 2.
It is good to see the BAA/HAL coming up with new vision,- long may it continue.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the Viscounts, Caravelles and Comets have gone and so must the building
Sorry but I don't accept your arguement. Yours is a short termist view, try to think beyond the here and now.
< Sorry but I don't accept your arguement. Yours is a short termist view, try to think beyond the here and now. >
I would have thought that this was the very last thing Skylion could be accused of!!!
He is the one looking to the future with a vision of having a modern and efficient Terminal in place of the current mess. Surely it is you that has one foot stuck in the here and the other foot firmly in the nostalgic past.
WTF has Parliament got to do with a modern airport?? Has the number of MPs grown significantly over the last 50 years? Has the number of people visiting it grown by anything like as much as LHR in this period. Has it hell as like!!
Yes they are symbols of the early days at LHR, and probably when you first started there (that is a guess not an insult
) but they are in the way now and a complete redesign with a clean sheet of paper is to be applauded.
Other buildings have been deconstructed and rebuilt elsewhere so maybe this shud be looked at.
I would have thought that this was the very last thing Skylion could be accused of!!!
He is the one looking to the future with a vision of having a modern and efficient Terminal in place of the current mess. Surely it is you that has one foot stuck in the here and the other foot firmly in the nostalgic past.
WTF has Parliament got to do with a modern airport?? Has the number of MPs grown significantly over the last 50 years? Has the number of people visiting it grown by anything like as much as LHR in this period. Has it hell as like!!
Yes they are symbols of the early days at LHR, and probably when you first started there (that is a guess not an insult
) but they are in the way now and a complete redesign with a clean sheet of paper is to be applauded.Other buildings have been deconstructed and rebuilt elsewhere so maybe this shud be looked at.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Surrey, UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who has used LHR as a pax since 1954 and continues to use it at least once a week I find myself wanting to agree with those who say that QB and T2 should be preserved - but I can't because actually there is so little of the original buildings left, or at least visible! If we want a meaningful Heathrow Museum then BAA are going to have to restore both buildings to their initial QB and Europa designs, and that hardly seems likely or practical anymore. I've realised that my nostalgia for all things aviation is over-ruled in this case for a desire to have a Heathrow of which we can be nationally proud, rather than the generally embarrassing dump that it now is (and I'm really sorry to find myself saying that, but anyone who travels the world a bit knows how true it has become).
My first real surprise at the "Heathrow East" proposals is how long it seems to have taken BAA to come up with the idea! Surely someone realised many years ago, when T5 was being designed, that there might be the opportunity to exploit a temporary overcapacity and undertake wholesale redevelopment of the CTA? My second surprise is that the plans shown on the BAA website don't include any reference to the proposed new runway; one might have expected the development control plan to have taken that into consideration as well.
Oh, and by the way, the Houses of Parliament that Guy Fawkes tried to blow up were demolished in the 19th century and replaced by a modern, up-to-date legislative complex - probably referred to as "Westminster South" in its day and the subject of much criticism at the time!
My first real surprise at the "Heathrow East" proposals is how long it seems to have taken BAA to come up with the idea! Surely someone realised many years ago, when T5 was being designed, that there might be the opportunity to exploit a temporary overcapacity and undertake wholesale redevelopment of the CTA? My second surprise is that the plans shown on the BAA website don't include any reference to the proposed new runway; one might have expected the development control plan to have taken that into consideration as well.
Oh, and by the way, the Houses of Parliament that Guy Fawkes tried to blow up were demolished in the 19th century and replaced by a modern, up-to-date legislative complex - probably referred to as "Westminster South" in its day and the subject of much criticism at the time!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely not.
Sorry if you didn't understand the analagy between historic aircraft and historic buildings. It wasn't my intention to confuse. May I ask that you carefully read all of my posts on this subject before going to print.
Thanks
Selooco
Much obliged for the history lesson, however the 19thC was 200 hundred years ago so as the buildings are still standing QED.
Epsilon Minus
By the way do you think that the clock on the houses of parliament should be replaced with a more modern digital one?
Sorry if you didn't understand the analagy between historic aircraft and historic buildings. It wasn't my intention to confuse. May I ask that you carefully read all of my posts on this subject before going to print.
Thanks
Selooco
Much obliged for the history lesson, however the 19thC was 200 hundred years ago so as the buildings are still standing QED.
Epsilon Minus
By the way do you think that the clock on the houses of parliament should be replaced with a more modern digital one?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good friend of mine is an electrician working at T5. According to local rumours there, the BAA's plan was that on completion of T5, the skilled labour force would move into Essex and commence work on the expansion at Stansted. With this now being possibly delayed, the BAA are facing losing the skilled construction labour force to Olympic Games projects. Such is the demand for this labour force that the BAA are brining forward plans to re-develop T2 in order not to lose the labour currently over at T5?
