4 ms·
>Incidentally I got a proposal to vote on the other day proposing changing Park Lane southbound into park land with cafes which I think would be nice. It is un
by johnnycab 7y ago
>Incidentally I got a proposal to vote on the other day proposing changing Park Lane southbound into park land with cafes which I think would be nice.
It is unlikely to be happen due to the 'solutions' proposed in section 3.3.10 through to 3.3.13 (pg33). Which states that there is no will to implement any measures on this part of the thoroughfare by the incumbent landowners ─ any attempts to do so, have been thwarted for more than a century. The well heeled clientèle, do not particularly need a bohemian cafe culture at the doorstep nor do they care about pedestrians, especially when they arrive at the affluent hotels/hedge fund offices/ ballrooms/casinos, in their luxury automobiles to work & play. The addition of having access to exclusive shopping districts, restaurants, entertainment within spitting distance in any direction, further erodes any case for pedestrianisation.
However, there is a good case for lowering speed limit, modernising the subway access and creating more ways to cross between the central reservation, across to Hyde Park.
- dwoozle 7y agoYou don’t need to give incumbent landowners a veto over development. That’s a choice, and one that can be made differently.
- vuln 7y agoI must be misunderstanding your comment. Are you advocating for the government to take a land owner’s property without any recourse? The land owner is given no choice in the matter? Seems awful.
- marcinzm 7y agoRoads are generally not controlled or owned by the adjacent landowners but rather the government. Although do let me know if it's different in London.
- ItsDeathball 7y agoEven if the subject weren't publicly owned land, the implication would be the opposite, that landowners should control their own land and not everything around it that doesn't belong to them.
- gumby 7y agoYes, you misunderstood the comment to which you were replying. Public roadways serve more than just the properties adjacent to them. People should not be downvoting your comment.
- dwoozle 7y agoSure, it’s called eminent domain, the land owner has no recourse but they do get compensated, and it’s an almost universal concept.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tim333 7y agoI imagine the land is owned by the government or the crown. p33 says "Some of these solutions have been considered in the past, but have foundered, principally due to lack of resource" but that could change. The road was expanded in the 60s: >a major reconstruction programme in the early 1960s that transformed the road into a three-lane dual carriageway by removing a 20-acre (8.1 ha) section of Hyde Park but I'm guessing the trends are a bit the other way now - less towards cars, more towards pedestrians.