Ossian Smyth said:
>It has now been sold to a property development consortium that plans
>to keep the dome as a concert venue. They also plan to build several
>thousand residential units on the accompanying land over the coming
>This site is on the Jubilee underground line and borders the
>Docklands financial district and London City Airport. The development
>of the site is subject to planning permission, that the developers
>expect to obtain in 2003.
>Is this a viable car free district?
Every site is a viable carfree district. Some are just more viable
than others. This one is VERY viable.
>Could the developer increase profits by achieving a higher
If allowed, certainly. After all, they make their money on the floor
space, not the parking lots. It would require that the city permit
them to build at higher densities, achieved by making the streets
narrower, much narrower. Red Ken is likely to be behind the program.
Lord Rogers has had a lot to say about the site and might get
>Could the developer be persuaded that a car free district would have
>higher property values than a car dependent district?
If we had the research, I think we could easily see this--I'm sure
it's true, but I can't yet prove it. We're working on it.
>Could the planners insist on car free development?
The city's planners? Politically difficult now. If the developer's
planners proposed it to the city, I think it would be accepted.
Concerns will be raised about what will happen to the cars that
people who live there own. Some of them will need to be accommodated
in peripheral parking garages, but many would probably accept car
sharing for the few trips when they still need a car. (Car sharing
is well developed in continental Europe.)
>Anyone on this list who lives in London and is interested in finding
>ways to get this district designed in a car free fashion is welcome
>to email me.
-- ### --
J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities