London Thinks Big

[Masked Grizzly]

Why not? It put Shelbyville, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook on the map.

Sorry, it's the law, any mention of monorails requires a reference to the Simpsons episode.

Understand. It is one white elephant and likely tourist trap scheme that (provided it is modernized) would make it as unique to London as the Routemaster Buses and Black Cabs.

London's population density is only 14,000 per square mile. That's half of what it is for New York.

Not so much thinking about population density rather the fact it would radically change London to something almost unrecognizable, drawing some parallels with post-war Tokyo by also becoming a sprawling high-tech city brimming with more high-rise buildings compared to OTL.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

I provided a link to the study a few pages back.

Ah, yes, found it.

And it is sales talk. "Could" Eventually" "Up to 273% "

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Coin Street by Richard Rogers (1979?)

Fresh from designing two of the most shocking buildings in a generation, the Pompidou Centre and the Lloyds Building, the third part of Richard Rogers’ hat trick was to be a mixed-use scheme for Coin Street, on the South Bank of the Thames. Early versions from 1979 depicted a curving glass arcade, surrounded by high-rise housing and offices in his trademark “guts out” style. Had this gone ahead, it would have cemented Rogers’s early, extreme approach to architecture, and might have made a difference in some of the battles with conservative neo-traditionalists that dominated the 1980s.

Instead, a local campaign led to Coin Street being built as a low-rise housing cooperative, in what was widely considered a huge success for the provision of social housing to Londoners on lower incomes. Nevertheless, when Rogers returned to build in London more than a decade later, he had developed a mature, smoother, more commercially tasteful style, and you can’t help wonder if a whole generation of city buildings were far less bold as a result.

Watkin's Tower - Despite being a pre-1900s scheme, the image by one Mike Paterson below envisions a scenario where it is completed and still standing in the present day.

The Pinnacle (aka Helter Skelter) - Came the closest to becoming a reality however only the first seven floors of core made it above ground level before the project ran out of steam. What would have been the tallest, and most eye-catching building in the City was cancelled. The core has now been demolished and a less showy tower of similar height will rise in its place. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22_Bishopsgate

 

[kernals12]

Understand. It is one white elephant and likely tourist trap scheme that (provided it is modernized) would make it as unique to London as the Routemaster Buses and Black Cabs.



Not so much thinking about population density rather the fact it would radically change London to something almost unrecognizable, drawing some parallels with post-war Tokyo by also becoming a sprawling high-tech city brimming with more high-rise buildings compared to OTL.

I think monorails might be a good idea for Chicago, to get rid of the noisy ugly El trains, or perhaps as an alternative to those ridiculous light rail projects.

 

[kernals12]

1966

The GLC decided to follow the city's cue in creating a pedway system. By 1990, virtually all of Central London was connected by Pedway. At first, developers weren't very pleased about it and had to be forced by law, but by the late 70s, the system had reached critical mass, any building that wasn't connected to the system was impossible to sell. This led to large scale demolition of London's 19th century homes. In affluent Kensington and Chelsea, the impact was especially noticeable, with Victorian terraces making way for American style high rise luxury condos

Royal Towers Development, Chelsea

But for aesthetically significant buildings, it was common to keep the facade while rebuilding everything behind it, allowing London to keep some of its heritage.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

1966

The GLC decided to follow the city's cue in creating a pedway system. By 1990, virtually all of Inner London was connected by Pedway. At first, developers weren't very pleased about it and had to be forced by law, but by the late 70s, the system had reached critical mass, any building that wasn't connected to the system was impossible to sell. This led to large scale demolition of London's 19th century homes. In affluent Kensington and Chelsea, the impact was especially noticeable, with Victorian terraces making way for American style high rise luxury condos

Royal Towers Development, Chelsea

Where would Cyclists fit in this scenario? Would the expanded Pedways have scope for Cycle Routes away from roads in this ATL?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cycle_routes_in_London

https://www.citymetric.com/transpor...highways-and-quietways-explained-cycling-4048

 

[b0ned0me]

How many people do you know would drive their cars 3 times as much if traffic were eliminated?

Plenty. And I also know plenty of people who do not have cars right now who would be happy to buy a cheap used car for occasional use if only there were somewhere to park it and some prospect of getting it from A to B reasonably quickly. Because unlike you I lived in London for 20 some years. I even remember when they first introduced the Congestion Charge and the centre of the city emptied of traffic, for a brief period of time until lots of people decided paying a few bucks a day was well worthwhile now that there was so much less traffic. As far as I know literally every traffic management scheme in London ever has failed due to latent demand overwhelming it.

Before I forget

2000

A proposal to restore tram service to Croydon after 48 years was laughed off by the London City Council. As one councilman said "Replace buses with trams? What are they going to do next? Replace their computers with typewriters? I've never heard such a thick idea ever".

Is there an actual point to you posting this? Because they built that tram system, and it records tens of millions of journeys every year despite being tiny. I’ve ridden it many times.
Also, London City Council appears to be in Canada somewhere. Did you mean Croydon Council or the Greater London Authority?

 

[kernals12]

Plenty. And I also know plenty of people who do not have cars right now who would be happy to buy a cheap used car for occasional use if only there were somewhere to park it and some prospect of getting it from A to B reasonably quickly. Because unlike you I lived in London for 20 some years. I even remember when they first introduced the Congestion Charge and the centre of the city emptied of traffic, for a brief period of time until lots of people decided paying a few bucks a day was well worthwhile now that there was so much less traffic. As far as I know literally every traffic management scheme in London ever has failed due to latent demand overwhelming it.

Is there an actual point to you posting this? Because they built that tram system, and it records tens of millions of journeys every year despite being tiny. I’ve ridden it many times.
Also, London City Council appears to be in Canada somewhere. Did you mean Croydon Council or the Greater London Authority?

It's a generic name

 

[kernals12]

Where would Cyclists fit in this scenario? Would the expanded Pedways have scope for Cycle Routes away from roads in this ATL?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cycle_routes_in_London

https://www.citymetric.com/transpor...highways-and-quietways-explained-cycling-4048

I think the pedways would be wide enough to accommodate cyclists. What a paradise that would be with no traffic to worry about. Forget Copenhagen, London would be the world's greatest cycling city.

 

[kernals12]

Plenty. And I also know plenty of people who do not have cars right now who would be happy to buy a cheap used car for occasional use if only there were somewhere to park it and some prospect of getting it from A to B reasonably quickly. Because unlike you I lived in London for 20 some years. I even remember when they first introduced the Congestion Charge and the centre of the city emptied of traffic, for a brief period of time until lots of people decided paying a few bucks a day was well worthwhile now that there was so much less traffic. As far as I know literally every traffic management scheme in London ever has failed due to latent demand overwhelming it.

I'm among the 80% of Americans who don't live in a core city, and from my experience in the car friendly suburbs where I've spent pretty much all of my life, I can say I can't imagine driving 3 times as much as I do now.

As for Britain, London only makes up about 14% of the UK's population, and Inner London makes up less than half of that. The people of Guildford and Milton Keynes are probably already driving as much as they can. People don't just get in their cars for the fun of it, they do it because there's somewhere they want to go.

 

[kernals12]

1966

The GLC decided to follow the city's cue in creating a pedway system. By 1990, virtually all of Inner London was connected by Pedway. At first, developers weren't very pleased about it and had to be forced by law, but by the late 70s, the system had reached critical mass, any building that wasn't connected to the system was impossible to sell. This led to large scale demolition of London's 19th century homes. In affluent Kensington and Chelsea, the impact was especially noticeable, with Victorian terraces making way for American style high rise luxury condos

Royal Towers Development, Chelsea

BTW the high rises of the 60s and 70s needn't have been ugly, this is Co-Op city in the Bronx, built between 1966 and 1973. All you need is a decent coat of paint.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

I think the pedways would be wide enough to accommodate cyclists. What a paradise that would be with no traffic to worry about. Forget Copenhagen, London would be the world's greatest cycling city.

An ATL London with decent Underground / Rail links where Pedestrianisation (also accommodating Cyclists) does not come at the expense of various OTL road / motorway projects (that were canceled in OTL with existing roads in London even torn up to partially appease Cyclists and anti-motoring lobby at the expense of motorists) would be something worth seeing.

Would probably have the London Ringways built plus radials along with the Arterial A-Ring (as the "City Ringway") plus an additional Ringway between Ringway 2 and 3 (roughly beginning and ending at an earlier Belvedere Crossing), while the easternmost River Themes crossing of Ringway 4 / M25 (ATL Ringway 5) instead being either earlier Lower Thames Crossing or earlier Medway-Canvey Island Thames Crossing (ideally with both built yet only one specifically used for ATL Ringway 5).

 

[kernals12]

An ATL London with decent Underground / Rail links where Pedestrianisation (also accommodating Cyclists) does not come at the expense of various OTL road / motorway projects (that were canceled in OTL with existing roads in London even torn up to partially appease Cyclists and anti-motoring lobby at the expense of motorists) would be something worth seeing.

Would probably have the London Ringways built plus radials along with the Arterial A-Ring (as the "City Ringway") plus an additional Ringway between Ringway 2 and 3 (roughly beginning and ending at an earlier Belvedere Crossing), while the easternmost River Themes crossing of Ringway 4 / M25 (ATL Ringway 5) instead being either earlier Lower Thames Crossing or earlier Medway-Canvey Island Thames Crossing (ideally with both built yet only one specifically used for ATL Ringway 5).

I think Ringway 1 would've just been too disruptive. Westway is a big eyesore.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

I think Ringway 1 would've just been too disruptive. Westway is a big eyesore.

Am not fussed about its disruptiveness, especially since nearby residents could have easily been rehoused had there been a more lenient Metropolitan Greenbelt from the outset or at minimum an earlier High Paddington type scheme to move the approximate 15-80k Londoners whose homes were projected to be in the way of the London Railways project (on top of the expanded ATL Underground / Rail network providing more scope for additional thousands of homes above railways, etc). - http://www.infrastructure-intellige...pacity-build-280000-more-homes-above-railways

 

[kernals12]

Am not fussed about its disruptiveness, especially since nearby residents could have easily been rehoused had there been a more lenient Metropolitan Greenbelt from the outset or at minimum an earlier High Paddington type scheme to move the approximate 15-80k Londoners whose homes were projected to be in the way of the London Railways project (on top of the expanded ATL Underground / Rail network providing more scope for additional thousands of homes above railways, etc). - http://www.infrastructure-intellige...pacity-build-280000-more-homes-above-railways

Building on top of rights of way like that is difficult. Whenever you're building a structure, you want all load to be well distributed. If you focus the load on a small number of points, you need to greatly strengthen them, which adds cost. This is why very few developers have chosen to build over Manhattan's streets despite it potentially being extremely profitable.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Building on top of rights of way like that is difficult. Whenever you're building a structure, you want all load to be well distributed. If you focus the load on a small number of points, you need to greatly strengthen them, which adds cost. This is why very few developers have chosen to build over Manhattan's streets despite it potentially being extremely profitable.

Of the view the concerns residents in the way of Ringway 1/etc had in OTL was severely exasperated by a strict post-war Metropolitan Greenbelt making it difficult to build more homes which would not be the case in ATL, for those locals that do not wish to move too far out from the area they grew up in within Greater London, an earlier High Paddington type scheme for additional homes built above railways could be a further remedy in this scenario to make way for the Ringways, etc and would have been able to easily meet demand had it been available.

 

[kernals12]

Of the view the concerns residents in the way of Ringway 1/etc had in OTL was severely exasperated by a strict Metropolitan Greenbelt making difficult to build more homes which would not be the case in ATL, for those locals that do not wish to move too far out from the area they grew up in within Greater London, an earlier High Paddington type scheme for additional homes built above railways could be a further remedy in this scenario to make way for the Ringways, etc and would have been able to easily meet demand had it been available.

Ok, I'll see what I can do.

 

[kernals12]

1978

Traffic in Central London was continuing to worsen and the GLC had no choice but to revive Ringway 1. But this time, they would plan things more carefully to avoid alienating residents.

First off, the roads would be built below grade and then decked over with park lands.

And to ensure residents wouldn't have to move far, new high rises would be constructed on both sides.

 

[kernals12]

The mass demolition I've caused with the Pedway system would probably make constructing Ringway 1 much less disruptive since most of the homes that would've been in the way would've had to be torn down anyway.

 

[b0ned0me]

I'm among the 80% of Americans who don't live in a core city, and from my experience in the car friendly suburbs where I've spent pretty much all of my life, I can say I can't imagine driving 3 times as much as I do now.

As for Britain, London only makes up about 14% of the UK's population, and Inner London makes up less than half of that.

So in other words you have no idea about what london is like at all. Or the huge numbers of people who currently either drive to a train station or walk past their car to a train station and the cram onto packed trains that cost them thousands of dollars a year in tickets. Solely because as expensive and miserable as their commute is, it’s currently cheaper and faster than sitting in nose-to-tail traffic for hours and then paying 50 bucks each day to park. Fix it so they can drive to work in half an hour and park easily and 90% of them will say fuck the train. Then add in all those people who commute on motorcycles or carpool, all those people who could have a car but currently don’t, and BAM your new roads are soon packed again.

Not sure of the relevance of the rest of Britain given that this thread is allegedly about London, but then maybe you should change the title to “What if a totalitarian dictatorship decides to raze totally raze london and rebuild it like Houston on acid” since that seems to be your solution to pretty much every problem.