Euston 'level decking' and over-throat development - post-Higgins plans

[NotATrainspott]

From the Camden New Journal:
http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2014/may/manhattan-style-housing-scheme-planned-hs2-redevelopment-euston

Manhattan-style housing scheme planned with HS2 redevelopment of Euston

The draft plans for a development which would run from Euston to Parkway in Camden Town

Published: 12 May, 2014
By TOM FOOT

RAIL bosses are touting a huge Manhattan-style housing development at Euston Station with housing snaking all the way to the top of Parkway in Camden Town.

A first glimpse of early plans put forward by Network Rail and HS2 show how housing would sit above the current railway tracks sandwiched between Park Village East and Mornington Terrace.

The buildings above the station are reserved for “commercial” and “mixed use” development in the draft plans.

The “work in progress” slides reveal a new “Level Deck” design for Euston triggered by recommendations made by HS2’s new chief executive David Higgins.

HS2 Euston Action Group chairman Robert Latham said: “Higgins is proposing more than a parade of houses along ‘Camden Cutting’, it is a gross overdevelopment. His vision seems to me: offices, shopping mall and housing for foreign investors above the station. Any social housing will be shunted down the line.”

The recent suggestion of building homes up the railway line to Parkway surprised council chiefs when it was presented to the Euston Station Alternatives Working Group.

“I hadn’t seen that before,” said council leader Cllr Sarah Hayward. “It would be very expensive to build on decking like that – and who would pay for that? It’s a complex piece of engineering.”

The working group is made up of senior representatives of the council, the Greater London Authority and Network Rail, the limited company which owns the vast majority of Euston Station. Sir David, the former chief executive of Network Rail, proposed a major development of Euston Station shortly after taking over the reigns as chief executive of HS2 in March.

The “Level Deck” plan is vastly different to the proposal for Euston in the HS2 hybrid Bill, which was debated by MPs last week, and is being reviewed by a Parliamentary Committee.

The HS2 presentation says the total land up for grabs is worth £1.4billion, adding: “These slides represent the beginning of the work, not the end. They are intended to be indicative of the sort of massing that might be required to deliver significant additional value.”

Meanwhile, engineering experts working on the “Double Deck Down 2” alternative for Euston Station say their scheme is finally being taken seriously by Network Rail.

Engineer Jeff Travers said that officials had told the Euston Station Alternatives Working Group that his DDD2 “could be made to work”.

He said: “DDD2 would not require the demolition of homes on the Regent’s Park estate, and would use the existing railway for construction transport instead of HGVs.

“It would also require only half the excavation needed for HS2’s Level Deck design.”

In effect it looks like the Euston Area Plan idea is what will end up being built, with the entirety of the Euston station and throat covered in parks and development akin to the Hudson Yards development in Manhattan. As a result there would be a net reduction in the land used by the station compared to today, albeit requiring demolition of everything that is there right now.

I had always been very surprised that there hadn't been consideration of development on top of the throat seeing as how at the moment the current one is effectively a massive industrial scar through Camden. With the current property market in London I would be surprised if this kind of over-site development didn't happen everywhere and anywhere there are active railway lands. Even if it were not possible to cover them over with skyscrapers it would still be a positive step to cover them in public parks and public transportation/cycling corridors. The LGV Atlantique stays in a cut-and-cover tunnel through the Parisian suburbs with a long stretch of green parkland on top, so it wouldn't be an entirely original concept.

 

[pablo]

Putting the foundations in for high-rise buildings would delay the construction of the station whilst it was hapening.

There is no commercial 'development' value in over-track parklands, just vast expense.

The cross-subsidies dilute the development value. Ergo, more public money required.

 

[DJL]

There is no commercial 'development' value in over-track parklands, just vast expense.

Possibly not quite true.
I imagine that building parkland or roadway over the railway is somewhat cheaper than building a highrise there.
If there are existing roads/parkways near/adjacent to the railway then moving these to be literally over the railway and then building highrise on the land formerly used for park/roadway might be cost effective in some circumstances?
Admittedly a lot of things would have to be just right for that to work out.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Putting the foundations in for high-rise buildings would delay the construction of the station whilst it was hapening.

There is no commercial 'development' value in over-track parklands, just vast expense.

The cross-subsidies dilute the development value. Ergo, more public money required.

The idea of over-site development has always been there in the station plans, without being specified exactly as the exact form would be dictated through standard planning procedures rather than the Hybrid Bill. I don't think the buildings were ever going to be spectacularly high though so I don't see why providing foundations would be that difficult.

In Manhattan the foundation piles for the Hudson Yards development are actually being installed while the train depot is still operational. They're building piles and then covering it over in a massive concrete slab so that none of the construction work would affect train operations underneath. In New York they do have the advantage that drilling down gets you into bedrock very quickly while in London they would have clay so I don't imagine the process would be just as simple or straightforward.

Either the over-site development contributions will pay enough that the construction period could be sped up or the reconstruction won't be complete for 2026. The WCML-Crossrail link should relieve some of the major commuter demand and there are theoretical possibilities for long-term diversions (as discussed in the other thread) so it might just be possible to phase construction differently. I don't see any way that the HS2 platforms necessary for 14tph Phase 1 operation could be delayed beyond 2026 but it might be possible to complete the classic ones later.

 

[gordonthemoron]

great idea, that'll reduce the net cost of HS2

 

[HSTEd]

There are at least eight or nine hectares if I have the position of the Parkway right, especially if what looks like a depot (?) was also covered over.

In camden that is likely worth rather a lot.

 

[gordonthemoron]

any flats near parkway would be handy for Edinboro Castle & Dublin Castle

 

[NotATrainspott]

There are at least eight or nine hectares if I have the position of the Parkway right, especially if what looks like a depot (?) was also covered over.

In camden that is likely worth rather a lot.

The carriage sidings are already being done away with to make space for the HS2 throat. It makes perfect sense to do this kind of thing, especially when the value of Camden property is going to go even higher when you're a few footsteps away from the whole of the North.

 

[DJL]

Of course it's important to ensure that no such development would cause a hindrance to future track layout changes

 

[pablo]

I can see there is not a lot of experience of complex developments here.
If you read the ground report you begin to appreciate the problems of providing foundations and LU access at Euston for the new terminus alone, owing to what's already there.

Now, if you propose to put commerial and/or mixed use development over the lot, you are raising the level of complexity by a factor. The piling becomes comsiderable and the foundations far more substantial.

Integrating the two develpoments (or three or more?) will be a nightmare. The design will take a lot of time and consultation. The construction of piles and foundations will prevent progress above. Hence the programme is extended.

Euston HS2 terminus construction period was the critical path item on the whole scheme without giving it further complication.

Seems like Camden has the right idea. Stop HS2 at OOC temporarily until this whole caboodle is better thought through.

Seems to me the governmint/HS2 Ltd is jumping at fire flies in an effort to keep this project on the rails!

Housing up the tracks? The whole thing is a political ploy.

 

[edwin_m]

Over-sight development has been paying for station works since the 1980s so there's nothing really new here.

 

[HSTEd]

And how exactly do you propose to stop the line at OOC?
Who pays for the six or seven additional platforms to be built there?

 

[pablo]

You mean oversite development? Yeh. Look at London Bridge. Although Euston avoided it in the '60s. I wonder why?

Hudson Yards:

New York City developers have begun working to turn a desolate railroad storage yard in Manhattan into a upscale new neighborhood filled with office skyscrapers, modern apartment towers and a slew of restaurants, bars and entertainment venues.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...07709F21DA78270F42B45D5E4AAB&selectedIndex=38
A vast area with mega development adjacent to mid-day storage tracks. The subway extension is going ahead, ahead of development, usw. No comparison. At Euston, you'll be lucky if you can swing a cat. I can remeber what it was like last time. Our ambition needs to be tailored to our means.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And how exactly do you propose to stop the line at OOC?
Who pays for the six or seven additional platforms to be built there?

Don't ask me, ask Camden. http://www.camdennewjournal.com/new...using-scheme-planned-hs2-redevelopment-euston
Scroll down.

 

[Bald Rick]

Although Euston avoided it in the '60s. I wonder why?
.

Because there was plenty of spare land in Central London when it was planned in the late 50s, partly courtesy of the Luftwaffe.

Air rights development is pretty straightforward, and viable in Central London. Look at Cannon St, Charing Cross, City TL (2nd one in 25 years underway now), Victoria, Fenchurch St, and most significantly Liverpool Street.

 

[HSTEd]

In other words Camden don't explain how this would be paid for.

Which means its just another wrecking amendment to kill the scheme entirely.

 

[pablo]

In other words Camden don't explain how this would be paid for.

Which means its just another wrecking amendment to kill the scheme entirely.

Well, actually, that's probably a false conclusion. I think they'd expect it to be all costs in the cause. HS2 Ltd./governmint to deliver.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The prospect of over-site development was included in the Hybrid Bill as well, albeit just for the parts of the station and throat that are being massively rebuilt. The Euston Community Forum Area report in the Environmental Statement discusses the prospects and gives ballpark figures for the extra time involved and the number of stories that could be built over each part.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Given the housing shortage in London a much better solution would be to cover the whole proposed area with social housing. By doing that you have a much better chance of getting Camden Council on board and you improve the lives of the average Londoner.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Given the housing shortage in London a much better solution would be to cover the whole proposed area with social housing. By doing that you have a much better chance of getting Camden Council on board and you improve the lives of the average Londoner.

It would certainly make sense to combine over site development with other regeneration happening around the area. In isolation the strip of land made available over the site is not spectacularly useful but if it were combined with a wider regeneration of the entire area it could be beneficial for all. So long as the development company could be made to build at least a 1:1 ratio of new to demolished social housing (not 'affordable', that just means limited to 80% of the market rate) there shouldn't be too many problems. It might take a change of government to force that though.

 

[HSTEd]

Really the development company would be ideally be a crown corporation.

An island of New York style high rises would be nice though.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Really the development company would be ideally be a crown corporation.

An island of New York style high rises would be nice though.

I think those people currently living in social housing have had enough of anything high rise!

 

[HSTEd]

I think those people currently living in social housing have had enough of anything high rise!

Perhaps they have also had enough of social housing full stop in that case?
60s tower blocks are often villified but it ahs to be remembered that despite crippling problems with lifts and the like they were still drastically superior to what they replaced.

It is highly unlikely that modern social housing or offices (as would likely be the case) would suffer from many of the same problems - especially as glass does not suffer the visual degradation that Concrete does.

No horrific brown masses with broken lifts.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Perhaps they have also had enough of social housing full stop in that case?

Oh if only! All too often that is all they can afford. Where do you expect those people to live if they don't have access to social housing? On the street?

60s tower blocks are often villified but it ahs to be remembered that despite crippling problems with lifts and the like they were still drastically superior to what they replaced.

It is highly unlikely that modern social housing or offices (as would likely be the case) would suffer from many of the same problems - especially as glass does not suffer the visual degradation that Concrete does.

No horrific brown masses with broken lifts.

Initially residents generally didn't miss what they had once had until entire communities began to be split up and then they began to have second thoughts. Given that you have studied in Manchester, why not go and ask the residents of Hulme as to what they thought of their brand new accommodation built in the 1960's / 70's. Which has now all been swept away without a tear shed.

Visual degradation was the least of their worries! The fact that their flats were falling apart was far more of a concern, not to mention concrete cancer et al. The idea of high rise utopia was flawed to say the least.

Or ask yourself why all the tower blocks have not been replaced with more tower blocks to provide social housing? The answer is simple; in that setting it doesn't work.

 

[HSTEd]

Oh if only! All too often that is all they can afford. Where do you expect those people to live if they don't have access to social housing? On the street?

No, I was making a rhetorical point - in a country where we have so drastically contrained the amount of land available for building the only way to get sufficient affordable housing in many cases is to build up.
More modern steel frame and curtain wall prefabrication techniques could potentially provide drastically reduced housing costs by going upwards and removing the only thing we have in short supply - land.

(If you want an example of how crazy modern construction techniques can be, this video shows some people in China using a bolt together prefabrication technique to assemble a 30 story building in 15 on site work days - it is very impressive).

Initially residents generally didn't miss what they had once had until entire communities began to be split up and then they began to have second thoughts. Given that you have studied in Manchester, why not go and ask the residents of Hulme as to what they thought of their brand new accommodation built in the 1960's / 70's. Which has now all been swept away without a tear shed.

There have been slums in social housing projects of every describable type - for example the Meadows in Nottingham which is rather closer to my home during my non study times.
I am actually less than half a mile form Hulme at this very moment in a hall that shares its name

Moss Side was just as bad, if not worse, than many of the high rise areas of Hulme - especially in its now ceased gang war period.
It is also worth noting that many of the concrete panel buildings that are often decried as the worst examples of prefabrication and why high rises are useless as residential buildings were often built with finite lifespans - many of which were drastically exceeded. They were for the most part post-war Emergency Housing Structures.

Visual degradation was the least of their worries! The fact that their flats were falling apart was far more of a concern, not to mention concrete cancer et al. The idea of high rise utopia was flawed to say the least.

The idea of any utopia must inherently be flawed.
The problems of which you speak were inherent to the construction methods and slightly questionable materials used in many of the structures in an attempt to get buildings up quickly and more cheaply.
A modern structure would not suffer from those same problems - and with continuously escalating house prices the extra engineering costs will still be worthwhile.
Many high rises in Britain were not packed in as close as possible, instead being isolated islands which trades away the requisite density advantages and prevent access toa ffordable public transport - another crippling problem that condemned many estates to stagnation and eventual social collapse.

Or ask yourself why all the tower blocks have not been replaced with more tower blocks to provide social housing? The answer is simple; in that setting it doesn't work.

Because tower blocks have been villified by the Ronan Point generation of structures that suffered from major engineering and operational problems due to undeveloped technologies and corners cut in the name of economies and speed of construction.
They were then built on the cheapest land available and were insufficiently dense to attract public transport - isolating them from the wider economy and making it more difficult for residents to find work.

Almost all of these factors can be bypassed with superior planning - which is why residential tower blocks are now springing up in multiple cities.

 

[pablo]

Ooooh. I detect a repeat of '60s optimism here. Let's face it, Le Corbusier's towers, wonderful in theory, didn't work in practice. They created social disharmony. Die leute is very conservative!

The whole high-rise, commercial and mixed use development proposal is impractical and a sop to buy off Camden's opposition.

Edit: I had an involvement with Camus is those days. Skimped workmanship was also a problem owing to poor supervision in the high-rise. But it was Ronan Point's progressive collapse, after a domestic gas explosion, that sealed their fate.
World Trade Center's twin towers suffered progressive collapse for an entirely different reason.
You don't want to build high for many good reasons, some of which we are yet to discover.

 

[HSTEd]

I am not particularily optimistic - I am just not so pessimistic as to say that any high density residential area will inevitably become a 'slum in the sky'.

But unfortunately noone has yet proposed any other means of getting large numbers of people into the relatively small areas available for development.... if the Green Belt did not exist then perhaps it would not be necessary.
We are short something like a million housing units and that number grows every day as increases in demand drastically outstrips supply to the tune of several thousand units per day.

Either we build up or we condemn endless residents to life in increasing compact shoeboxes.

EDIT:

One other option is actually my preferred one but it is rather more radical as it involves thousand square kilometre polders on the North Sea going out all the way to the Wells Bank and the Dogger Bank.
Land has become so absurd that if the act of parliament that undertook to construct those polders also granted automatic planning consent for all structures inside it that it would still work out cheaper than Planning Permission granted land on the mainland UK.

 

[pablo]

Phew! Nice idea but is it necessary?
This is a digression: If you fly over this country at low level (as I have done for thirty years) you realise that everywhere, almost, there are vast areas of under-utilised greenery. The Green Belt and high density ratios are the twin problem. They raise land values to absurd levels where development is possible, by constraint as you said, and protect our feudal hierarchy's inheritance from invasion. At a more local level they rob peeps of breathing space as possible development clusters around existing.

Time for a re-distribution? That would change the transport landscape in this country.

And why anyone should want to live over Euston's tracks beats me. Need to be born to it I suppose. I once lived on Cromwell Road, SW7, adjacent to BEA's in-town terminal, now long gone; with the triangle of SS tracks behind and the A4 street in front it was bedlam. But you got inured to it.:cry:

Edit: Also I got rid of my car for a couple of years then and using public transport instead was very constraining. Lots of places it was impractical to go to. Often an indirect routing; time consuming and not cheap. Engineering works take place at weekends too, just to mess you around further. I sometimes hired a car but looking back, regret those couple of years for lost opportunity. And this was The Metropolis!

 

[NotATrainspott]

If there are no constraints on expansion of cities and towns all that happens is you get urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is considerably less environmentally-friendly than medium-high density living because it makes public transport a lot less attractive compared to the ease of owning a car. One of the reasons that London does get so much more public transport investment is that its population density necessitates it while in most places it is still feasible to own and run a car or two per household.

 

[pablo]

If there are no constraints on expansion of cities and towns all that happens is you get urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is considerably less environmentally-friendly than medium-high density living because it makes public transport a lot less attractive compared to the ease of owning a car. One of the reasons that London does get so much more public transport investment is that its population density necessitates it while in most places it is still feasible to own and run a car or two per household.

Yes precisely. Australia and the US both have the problem, in places, of low density making public transport not viable and urban sprawl is no good either.

That's why a proposal such as Ringby is such a good idea but I suppose too complex a comprehensive develoment and too decentralising for our politicians to master. http://thornshapedroute.weebly.com/

But is public transport such a good idea per se? It seems to me that's it's a consequence of high density rather than a beneficail attribute of it. It's rigidities are its downside. You have to go out of your way to use it. It's timing or frequency may not be convenient to you. It's operators are sometimes unreliable or plain bloody-minded. usw. What are its benefits that low-density self-reliance doesn't provide?

......................?

 

[Emyr]

Imagine the pollution of London sprawled even further and everyone commuted by car...