Finsbury Park Station/City North Development



  • edited February 2015
    <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">Isn't this a question of you get what you pay for? </span><div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">TFL isn't paying for this shiny new tube entrance and improvements to the station, the developer is, which is why I gather they get to call the shots as to what happens at the station. I doubt Islington council has much say in the matter either since it's TFL property and the deal is between TFL and City North Finsbury Park Limited.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">(Just saying - not that I think it's right to close Wells Terrace or that it won't be a nightmare.)  </span></div>
  • But Islington is the planning authority so it is their say<br>
  • <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">You know more about these things than I do but it's TFL property and it seems to me if keeping the entrance open as long as possible and/or not inconveniencing station users were a priority for TFL, they would have made it a priority for the council. From the comments here, the anger seems to be directed at Islington, and probably rightly so, but I think it's TFL management that need to bear the consequences for this decision. It's their customers who are affected.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
  • TfL are contributing £47.8 million to the "Western Station Entrance and Step Free Works" so certainly seem to be paying for part of it.
  • On balance I think this is more TFL's fault than Islington's but I do think the council should be weighing in for its residents as should Haringey.
  • edited February 2015
    <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">Thanks for the correction Arkady, if that's the case, then I think complaints should be sent in care of TFL.</span><div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">I have to say, my first reaction to the closure was that it would be a nightmare, I'm beginning to wonder about how bad it will actually be. As it stands now, it's already a nightmare to navigate Finsbury Park station, chaos really, especially at rush hour. No one keeps to the left and I find it not the most fun of experiences</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">I have wondered that if the station had primarily one entrance/exit, like at most other stations and the staircases to the platforms were designated on one side as down and the other as up, would it be easier to get around? Anyway, just a thought.</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><br></div><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">(but on match days it will be 'end of days' I think)</div>
  • They plan to instigate a one-way system on match days.<div><br></div><div>It looks to me like the basement works are expected to take around a year.</div>
  •  Would it be quicker to enter the tube via mainline station and go down the double helix stairway?
  • The new gate line at Station Place is expected to cover both the NR and TfL entrances
  • Having looked at the plans yesterday, isn't the Wells Terrace entrance closing because they're putting this new pedestrian road there and building above it? <div><br></div><div>It can't quite make sense of the picture which has an overview of the three City North buildings. What is happening to goodwin street for instance?</div><div><br></div><div>Anyway it's going to double my walk to the station for two and a half years, which is a pain the arse and whilst I think it will improve the station long term it doesn't tackle the problem of there just not being enough tunnels to cope with passengers entering and exiting at rush hour. I assume these three new buildings will be inhabited, along with the Art Building people that's going to be a lot more passengers and this plan doesn't seem to make any new space for them.</div>
  • 27 million people use Finsbury Park station every year - City North/Arts House/whatever other development in Finsbury Park will make an immaterial difference.  But the new station has actually been designed with more capacity, there will be lifts installed and from the new City North entrance you'll be able to get directly to the National Rail platforms.<br><br>The thing I'm struggling to understand is why this hasn't had to be consulted upon? <br><br>@Ossie Goodwin Street remains, it is hidden behind Three City North and then has a through route to the new entrance basically under where it says Fitness Centre.<br><br><br>
  • Yeah, one of the best things about the development is the new L-shaped cut-through to Goodwin Street with the new ticket hall opening out onto it. Goodwin street has some beautiful buildings which hopefully can be restored and put to good use once the street has decent footfall. The long-closed old post-office, for instance, would make a great bar.
  • This shows how the new street will work. Is starts at Wells Terrace, where the fruit stall is now. Where it reaches the right turn - that's where the new station entrance will be. From there the street runs under one of the new blocks and out onto Goodwin Street.<div><br></div><div><img src=""><br></div>
  • I assume the old-post office is the red brick early 20th century building? Never noticed it before, is it listed? - its going to abut the long linear block of City North isn't it.  Hope it's sympathetic...<br><br>Wonder how soon something will come forward on the car park site behind the Post Office.<br>
  • Interesting.<div><br></div><div>At what point on Wells Terrace does this New Public Space intersect?</div>
  • Pretty much opposite the new Starbucks.  Page 13 of the TfL PDF shows a view towards Wells Terrace.<br>
  • edited February 2015
    @NorthNineteen - yes, that old red building. Not listed:<div><br></div><div><img src=""><br></div><div><br></div><div>It abuts City North, but it's slightly set back at the abutment as there will be an access ramp to the underground car-park there. That should help a bit.<br></div><div><div><br></div><div><a href="">Ground floor plan</a></div><div><a href="">First floor plan</a></div><div><br></div><div>I'd say the car-park's days are numbered!</div><div><br></div><div>@Ossie - the new street will join Wells Terrace exactly where the fruit stall is now. This image will help. Though note it shows the Wells Terrace entrance still in place - it will be used for storage and office space during the development, and no-one has yet said what will happen to it afterwards:</div><div><br></div><div><img src=""><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>
  • edited February 2015
    Ok that's what I thought. Makes sense. <div><br></div><div>Plenty more money for Mr Morris.</div><div><br></div><div>Is there any housing assoc/"affordable" housing the City North plan? Is that a stupid question?</div><div><br></div><div>Funny to leave the Wells Terrace entrance building. It's not exactly a beauty is it?</div>
  • Yes there is 'affordable' housing, though not at the usual quota. That's been controversial. Though as someone on this forum once said, if you need to specifically build affordable housing then someone has broken the economy. We need more housing, period. And lots of it.<div><br></div><div>I don't suppose the Wells Terrace entrance building will last long. The latest renders, e.g. the one below, don't show it. From memory I think it's rented rather than owned by TfL, and regardless I'd imagine it will be redeveloped eventually. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><img src=""><br></div>
  • That's why I put "affordable". More housing is right. More council housing would be best.<div><br></div><div>Have you found any specifics anywhere about this cinema? Is there a company already lined up?</div>
  • As an aside, I've just noticed that the lift/stairs core for the circular tower isn't actually in the tower itself, and is instead offset.  That's a bit weird isn't it?<br><br>@Ossie Picture house was previously mentioned though not sure how official that is.<br>
  • <div>@NorthNineteen Like a circular Trellick Tower?</div><div><br></div>I know someone who works at Picture House, I'll ask.<div><br></div><div><br></div>
  • I assume the stairs and lift are in square bit running up the side of the circular tower?<div><br></div><div><img src=""><br></div>
  • I'll give it one thing, I'd love to see the view from up there.
  • edited February 2015
    A good start might be to not use what precious space we have for new homes in London to build overpriced flats that are flogged to investors in places like Singapore.<div><br></div><div>That's a major contributory factor to <a href="">£810,000 two-bed flats in City North </a></div><div><br></div><div>We should impose restrictions on who can buy, perhaps not Londoners only and we probably wouldn't even do just British because of the EU, but European-only would at least take some heat out.</div><div><br></div><div>More affordable housing is needed to be built. The statistics clearly show how it all but vanished by the early 1980s never to return.</div><div><br></div><div>The private sector will always ebb and flow with the economy. It's hardly surprising that it hit a bottom and has only gradually revived after the biggest global financial crisis ever seen, where the underlying cause was property speculation, and most of our major developers nearly ceased to exist.</div><div><br></div><div>There's a lot of unused brownfield land we could be building decent affordable homes on - instead we come up with half-baked plans like Help to Buy and the easy option of sprawling over the Green Belt.</div><div><br></div><div>One more quick thing before I finish that rant...that building in the City North images looks hideous. </div>
  • "There's a lot of unused brownfield land we could be building decent affordable homes on - instead we come up with half-baked plans like Help to Buy and the easy option of sprawling over the Green Belt."<br><br>I'm sorry but that is not true, loads of brownfield land is being built on but it is a) often expensive to make suitable for residential which increases the prices needed to make it viable and b) often still contains employment so need to be careful to not reduce the number of jobs.  No politician or any land-use policy is suggesting to build on the Green Built.  Some commentators are saying it should be considered and I agree with that, Green Belt should not be so set apart that it means you can't consider doing anything on it just for the benefit of a select few.<br><br>I agree that something needs to be done about reducing the attractiveness/desire for people to look at London property as an investment.<br>
  • Regarding the separate lift/stair building, I think that's generally a good idea with residential towers because it keeps the noise away from the apartments.<div><br></div><div><br></div>
  • edited February 2015
    NorthNineteen - remove the bit where a developer needs to make their profit and it substantially reduces the cost of building on brownfield land delivered by the difficulty of preparing it. <div><br></div><div>So if the government or local authority builds affordable homes there (with the assistance of a private partner perhaps paid a fee) you solve some of the problem. <div><br></div><div>Also, this risks the accusation of Nimbyism on my part, but I will give you a case that stands in contrast to your Green Belt point.<div><br></div><div>Where my mum lives in Hertfordshire the district council has been told that it must come up with Green Belt land for homes and propose the best site to do so. It brought in consultants who assessed a variety of sites and gave their choice. </div><div><br></div><div>Their second best choice was an area of grazing farmland, copses, and fields used for horses the other side of the lane from where she lives. This land is fundamentally unsuited for building homes on. It slopes in three directions, is an odd wedge shape, access is poor and it is about as far from the town centre as possible.</div></div><div><br></div><div>I can think of many more suitable, flat, more accessible and closer to town centre Green Belt sites on the edge of the town where she lives. So why were they not chosen? The cynic in me says because those other options are located by the most expensive part of town, whereas the bizarrely picked one by her backs onto a former council estate.</div><div><br></div><div>This isn't the only place this is happening. There is a push to give up Green Belt land and it is delivering situations like this. </div><div><br></div><div>I perhaps made my point badly with a good old-fashioned sweeping generalisation.</div><div><br></div><div>I am not opposed to all Green Belt building, but we need to exhaust the other options first and make sure it is done coherently and well. I don't see the current lobbying for Green Belt building achieving that, be it from commentators or those in authority, I see it leading to badly-designed sprawl.</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
  • The forum and its Twitter feed have been mightily ripped off by the Islington Gazette. Lots of you are quoted. This will add to the traffic spike we've been having in recent days...
  • Ha ha. That is very easy journalism.. Copy and paste...
Sign In or Register to comment.