HEATHROW
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK, sometimes USA
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not just the existing airport direct/indirect employment to consider. Many businesses have corporate offices west of Heathrow for easy access and they would want to relocate should an estuary airport be built.
Relocating the UK's primary airport is a truly mammoth project, but less so if a suitable site could be found west, rather than east of central London.
Relocating the UK's primary airport is a truly mammoth project, but less so if a suitable site could be found west, rather than east of central London.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Airport plan: ‘Forget a third runway, turn it into a garden city’
Published on: 29 May 2012 08:13 am
Heathrow’s runways and terminals should be bulldozed to make way for a “garden city”, says a new report to be published tomorrow.
Former government adviser Graeme Bell said it was time to “reinvent” the site that is increasingly ill-suited to the needs of a modern hub airport.
Airline bosses prefer a third runway at Heathrow to solve London’s capacity crisis rather than a disruptive shift.
But Mr Bell is in favour of a new airport elsewhere, possibly the Thames Estuary. Many experts believe that would only be viable if Heathrow, which supports 250,000 jobs, was closed down.
Mr Bell said the five square mile airport site would be the perfect location for a new sustainable community of more than 30,000 residents in the traditions of Hampstead Garden Suburb and Welwyn Garden City.
The senior planning chief said the demolition of Heathrow, which started life as Harmondsworth Aerodrome in 1930, could provide “the biggest redevelopment site in Europe”.
His 16-page paper Heathrow Garden City by the Town and Country Planning Association, foresees four low-density garden suburbs with “allotments, community gardens and orchards” of about 5,000 people each and two urban villages of about 10,000 in total. As well as homes, it would have shops and offices that would make it a “west London counterpoint to Canary Wharf” and an educational campus based at the Terminal 5 building, the only structure that would definitely be kept.
There would also be 1,000 acres of parkland — roughly the same as Regent’s Park, Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens put together — and 86 acres of open water, more than three times the size of the Serpentine. The garden city would be served by the four existing railway stations and a new Crossrail station.
Mr Bell, currently director of planning for Devon county council, said he was inspired to draw up his vision when he drove to pick up a friend from Heathrow.
He said: “Rather than park in a BAA car park, which costs an arm and a leg, I decided to park in one of the streets off the A4 close to the end of one of the runways. I was aware of the colossal noise when planes were taking off and the awful smell. It really can’t be doing you any good to live with that noise and smell. I thought, ‘This is a really bad use of a piece of land inside the M25.’ Airports ought to be accessible but outside the city limits.”
Mr Bell said he had not costed Heathrow Garden City but said the huge development value of the site would make it financially viable.
Former government adviser Graeme Bell said it was time to “reinvent” the site that is increasingly ill-suited to the needs of a modern hub airport.
Airline bosses prefer a third runway at Heathrow to solve London’s capacity crisis rather than a disruptive shift.
But Mr Bell is in favour of a new airport elsewhere, possibly the Thames Estuary. Many experts believe that would only be viable if Heathrow, which supports 250,000 jobs, was closed down.
Mr Bell said the five square mile airport site would be the perfect location for a new sustainable community of more than 30,000 residents in the traditions of Hampstead Garden Suburb and Welwyn Garden City.
The senior planning chief said the demolition of Heathrow, which started life as Harmondsworth Aerodrome in 1930, could provide “the biggest redevelopment site in Europe”.
His 16-page paper Heathrow Garden City by the Town and Country Planning Association, foresees four low-density garden suburbs with “allotments, community gardens and orchards” of about 5,000 people each and two urban villages of about 10,000 in total. As well as homes, it would have shops and offices that would make it a “west London counterpoint to Canary Wharf” and an educational campus based at the Terminal 5 building, the only structure that would definitely be kept.
There would also be 1,000 acres of parkland — roughly the same as Regent’s Park, Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens put together — and 86 acres of open water, more than three times the size of the Serpentine. The garden city would be served by the four existing railway stations and a new Crossrail station.
Mr Bell, currently director of planning for Devon county council, said he was inspired to draw up his vision when he drove to pick up a friend from Heathrow.
He said: “Rather than park in a BAA car park, which costs an arm and a leg, I decided to park in one of the streets off the A4 close to the end of one of the runways. I was aware of the colossal noise when planes were taking off and the awful smell. It really can’t be doing you any good to live with that noise and smell. I thought, ‘This is a really bad use of a piece of land inside the M25.’ Airports ought to be accessible but outside the city limits.”
Mr Bell said he had not costed Heathrow Garden City but said the huge development value of the site would make it financially viable.
Last edited by IFRKING; 31st May 2012 at 21:26.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stick a golf a course (for the military) between the two runways and we can duplicate the old Bangkok-Don Muang, which, incidentally, is still open as a domestic airport.
And the shareholders of BAA will allow the sale of their biggest money-making enterprise because......................
And the shareholders of BAA will allow the sale of their biggest money-making enterprise because......................
When the next revolution in travel comes along a la Transporter via StarTrek certains airports need to be preserved as museums for people to visit in generations to come - "Yes they had these long swathes of concrete and a/c had to accelerate.....etc"
So really we need to apply for the LHR buildings to be listed status.
So really we need to apply for the LHR buildings to be listed status.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is really frightening is that someone who is a director of planning can even begin to think of such crazy ideas!
1) Identify site for new airport
2) Build new airport
3) Open new airport, old airport may also stay open (TSA, GMP, SZB etc)
4) If (3) results in closure, THEN redevelop site (MUC, DEN etc)
Frankly, I think his designs are actually rather mediocre. Throw in the buzzword "urban village" and "eco-city" and put a few trees round it, and you produce the kind of project I would expect any half competent urban planning student to come up with.
Considering the huge investment that has gone (and is still going) into surface access at Heathrow, I would expect substantial dense commercial, retail and residential development around the main stations, especially the current Heathrow Central and T5.
Rather than allotments and what is actually nothing other than suburban sprawl rebranded, any new development on the site should actually be more like Canary Wharf, or perhaps more like La Defense in Paris, with a row of skyscrapers between T5 and the CTA.
Anyway, all this really is academic, as for the time being at least, Heathrow is very much a going concern.
Yes, I think there's a certain amount of confusion about cause-and-effect in relation to the proposal.
AFAIK, the gentleman concerned isn't saying that a Thames Estuary Airport is required in order that Heathrow can be turned into a garden city.
But, on the other hand, if a TEA is built, nobody seriously believes that Heathrow can or will remain open a) because of airspace conflicts and b) because if it did, no airline would voluntarily leave LHR given the choice.
So, if Borisport or Foster's proposal were to get built, Heathrow would of necessity close and there would indeed be many thousands of acres of redundant real estate, in which case redevelopment would be the obvious option.
All highly theoretical at this point in time, of course.
AFAIK, the gentleman concerned isn't saying that a Thames Estuary Airport is required in order that Heathrow can be turned into a garden city.
But, on the other hand, if a TEA is built, nobody seriously believes that Heathrow can or will remain open a) because of airspace conflicts and b) because if it did, no airline would voluntarily leave LHR given the choice.
So, if Borisport or Foster's proposal were to get built, Heathrow would of necessity close and there would indeed be many thousands of acres of redundant real estate, in which case redevelopment would be the obvious option.
All highly theoretical at this point in time, of course.
Paxing All Over The World
... sustainable community of more than 30,000 residents in the traditions of Hampstead Garden Suburb ...
Sustainable?? Has he counted the Range Rovers, heated indoor swimming pools? Has he looked to see how many people that have made money by subdiving their plot and selling off?
Still, reading it made me smile.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None of the above, interesting as it is, explains why the shareholders of BAA would agree to the sale of their biggest money-making enterprise!
Without this, no new major hub airport that is intended to replace LHR, whether in the estuary or otherwise, would be viable.
Quote: "1) Identify site for new airport
2) Build new airport
3) Open new airport, old airport may also stay open (TSA, GMP, SZB etc)
4) If (3) results in closure, THEN redevelop site (MUC, DEN etc)"
1. In most of the cases where this has happened the "old" airport has remained open: ORY/CDG, LGA/JFK, CIA/FCO, SVO/DME, SHA/PVG, GMP/ICN, HND/NRT, DMK/BKK, YUL/YMQ, etc., are just a few examples of many.
2. In most of the cases where this has happened, the airports concerned were/are publicly owned.
Quote:
"More importantly the local economy would be utterly decimated. "
Exactly, and that is the deal breaker (if there is one).
Without this, no new major hub airport that is intended to replace LHR, whether in the estuary or otherwise, would be viable.
Quote: "1) Identify site for new airport
2) Build new airport
3) Open new airport, old airport may also stay open (TSA, GMP, SZB etc)
4) If (3) results in closure, THEN redevelop site (MUC, DEN etc)"
1. In most of the cases where this has happened the "old" airport has remained open: ORY/CDG, LGA/JFK, CIA/FCO, SVO/DME, SHA/PVG, GMP/ICN, HND/NRT, DMK/BKK, YUL/YMQ, etc., are just a few examples of many.
2. In most of the cases where this has happened, the airports concerned were/are publicly owned.
Quote:
"More importantly the local economy would be utterly decimated. "
Exactly, and that is the deal breaker (if there is one).
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 1st Jun 2012 at 23:50.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firefly Bob wrote:-
"Has this guy given any thought to the 100,000s of people who's lives would be turned upside down by such an inane suggestion?"
remember what happened to the mining industry?
"Has this guy given any thought to the 100,000s of people who's lives would be turned upside down by such an inane suggestion?"
remember what happened to the mining industry?
or has the author thought about all the jobs that would be lost....
If Heathrow is closed (as it would be if a Thames Estuary airport were ever built), then jobs would be lost whether it was turned into a garden city, a theme park, or frozen in aspic as a monument to 70 years of UK aviation policy.
If it's the closure scenario that you have a problem with, that's a completely different issue. Debate that sensibly, by all means, but the author's proposals for the aftermath have no bearing on it.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "remember what happened to the mining industry?"
Very well indeed, why would we want to decimate yet another industry, particularly one that is a UK success story? Admittedly governments have been trying to do this by stealth: disproportionate APD increases, prohibiting expansion where it's needed, etc..
The mining industry was spread out over large parts of the country, mainly in parts that don't vote conservative. The decimation mentioned by petey156 and Skipness One Echo would be concentrated in a relatively small geographical area of the Thames valley.
Quote: "If Heathrow is closed (as it would be if a Thames Estuary airport were ever built), then jobs would be lost whether it was turned into a garden city, a theme park, or frozen in aspic as a monument to 70 years of UK aviation policy."
Once again you mention the closure of LHR, forget it, it won't happen, the share holders of BAA will not allow it. Why would they?
Apologies if banging on about this is becoming tedious, but it is a fundamental question that must be answered. If this issue is not addressed, "Silver Island" or any other schemes will remain a fantasy.
Quote: "If it's the closure scenario that you have a problem with, that's a completely different issue. Debate that sensibly, by all means, but the author's proposals for the aftermath have no bearing on it."
It's not so much an issue with closure, but the failure of the advocates of replacing LHR with "Silver Island" (or and other schemes) to face up to reality and answer the fundamental question.
Very well indeed, why would we want to decimate yet another industry, particularly one that is a UK success story? Admittedly governments have been trying to do this by stealth: disproportionate APD increases, prohibiting expansion where it's needed, etc..
The mining industry was spread out over large parts of the country, mainly in parts that don't vote conservative. The decimation mentioned by petey156 and Skipness One Echo would be concentrated in a relatively small geographical area of the Thames valley.
Quote: "If Heathrow is closed (as it would be if a Thames Estuary airport were ever built), then jobs would be lost whether it was turned into a garden city, a theme park, or frozen in aspic as a monument to 70 years of UK aviation policy."
Once again you mention the closure of LHR, forget it, it won't happen, the share holders of BAA will not allow it. Why would they?
Apologies if banging on about this is becoming tedious, but it is a fundamental question that must be answered. If this issue is not addressed, "Silver Island" or any other schemes will remain a fantasy.
Quote: "If it's the closure scenario that you have a problem with, that's a completely different issue. Debate that sensibly, by all means, but the author's proposals for the aftermath have no bearing on it."
It's not so much an issue with closure, but the failure of the advocates of replacing LHR with "Silver Island" (or and other schemes) to face up to reality and answer the fundamental question.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 2nd Jun 2012 at 13:05.
Once again you mention the closure of LHR, forget it, it won't happen, the share holders of BAA will not allow it. Why would they?
I don't suppose they were thrilled about the enforced sale of Gatwick, Stansted and Edinburgh either, but they didn't have any choice.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Shareholders may get to vote at the BAA AGM, but that doesn't mean they get to formulate government airport policy."
Government policy is for privately owned airports, and has been for ages, so they would be unlikely to nationalise LHR in order to close it. Any attempts to do so would probably be illegal and challenged in the courts. Years of litigation could follow.
Bearing in mind that the other alternative costs the government nothing, it is unlikely that the government would have the stomach (and the spare cash) for such a fight when there are other priorities, not least the economy.
Yet another U-turn is so much easier.
Government policy is for privately owned airports, and has been for ages, so they would be unlikely to nationalise LHR in order to close it. Any attempts to do so would probably be illegal and challenged in the courts. Years of litigation could follow.
Bearing in mind that the other alternative costs the government nothing, it is unlikely that the government would have the stomach (and the spare cash) for such a fight when there are other priorities, not least the economy.
Yet another U-turn is so much easier.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 43
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380 on EK029/030 pushed back to 01 February 2013.
KE907 / 908 is also now operating mainly as B777-300ER instead of the usual B747-400.