You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • Interesting places by the Schick definition, which appears to be:

    Places which offer employment and things to do which can compete with the quality of employment and things to do available in Central London, such that there's no real need to reguarly travel to the center of the city for anything if you live there.

    E&C is certainly closer to meeting this definition now than it was in 2003.

  • Places which offer employment and things to do which can compete with the quality of employment and things to do available in Central London, such that there's no real need to reguarly travel to the center of the city for anything if you live there.

    A very slight change of emphasis (not very different from your version, but I find it important): I wouldn't put it in terms of competition, but in terms of accessibility (as above). If you can buy something like what you want locally, even if perhaps the choice isn't as great as in Central London, but you don't have to go on a Tube or railway journey to get there, then you may choose greater accessibility over greater choice.

    I haven't studied the E&C's development (apart from finding the new buildings unsightly, but that's the case pretty much everywhere in London at the moment, and doesn't say anything about the quality of function), but the recent traffic scheme is really terrible--shit done cheaply. They haven't grasped any of the nettles to be grasped there. There used to be a lovely page somewhere about the various visions for reforming the junction design, but I can't find it now. It showed the history very nicely and made it easier to understand the objectives to be achieved there.

  • A very slight change of emphasis (not very different from your version, but I find it important): I wouldn't put it in terms of competition, but in terms of accessibility (as above). If you can buy something like what you want locally, even if perhaps the choice isn't as great as in Central London, but you don't have to go on a Tube or railway journey to get there, then you may choose greater accessibility over greater choice.

    Do fast rail links to central London kill off local development, or do they accelarate it?

    One really big example is Stratford, where being a growing transport hub justified the shopping center, which then attracted housing, which is supporting more shopping and offices.

    It's true on a smaller scale, too. Vauxhall has been gaining, not losing, restaurants and shops despite being on one of the best train links to the city immaginable.

    I think happens because people over-value options, even if they are never likely to use those options in practice. For example people who buy trucks "in case they need to carry something heavy" despite the fact they are always used for the commute to work.

    So people value links to London, but then end up shopping locally if they can because it's easier. But you have to have the option to get to the city, to persuade enough people to move there, to make the local services and jobs viable.

    A counter example might be Nine Elms, which is attracting people and jobs without a good rail link. But they've got the promise of two stations on the way, and the developers are subsidising private busses to try and cover the gap.

About