Heathrow Airport potential

https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/674x400/HeathrowAirport-698519.jpg

Heathrow’s 1200 hectares (3000 acres) could accommodate up to 60 OACity modules, housing 450,000 people, whilst still leaving 600 hectares of “green space”.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/12/article-2502512-195D424700000578-364_634x233.jpg

Heathrow site (outlined in red) superimposed onto central London

Government adviser suggests radical Heathrow Airport plan:

‘Forget a third runway, bulldoze the runways and terminals and turn it into a garden city’

The senior planning chief said the demolition of Heathrow, which started life as Harmondsworth Aerodrome in 1930, could provide “the biggest redevelopment site in Europe”.   Mr Bell is in favour of a new airport elsewhere, possibly the Thames Estuary.  Many experts believe that would only be viable if Heathrow, which supports 250,000 jobs, was closed down.

Mr Bell said the five square mile airport site would be the perfect location for a new sustainable community of more than 30,000 residents in the traditions of Hampstead Garden Suburb and Welwyn Garden City.  His 16-page paper Heathrow Garden City by the Town and Country Planning Association, foresees 4 low-density garden suburbs with “allotments, community gardens and orchards” of about 5,000 people each and 2 urban villages of about 10,000 in total.  

Only 30,000 residents..!!??
Phooey..!!  Heathrow’s 1200 hectare (3000 acre) site could accommodate up to 60 OA-City habitat modules, i.e., 450,000 people, whilst still providing 600 hectares (1500 acres) of “green space”.   What a shame it would be to waste such a wonderful site on an idea as unimaginative as low-density “garden cities” with land-chomping driveways and scruffy allotments..!

Mr Bell said the huge development value of the site would make it financially viable 

Imagine how much more financially viable would be a 60-module Oasis-City housing 450,000 people instead of a paltry 30,000..?  And which would provide far better and more attractive nature zones – including 25% tree coverage of the site, which would be double the UK average of 13%..!  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *