I am rung by the tides

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote

[snip]

> I was thinking the other day that it would be nice to exhume some
> of the lost rivers. Completely impractical, of course, but nice.
>
> More plausibly, how about making the surface parts of the New River
> more accessible? AFAIK, most of it's fenced off at the moment.

I think that both are actual projects. I seem to recall reading
recently that Boris wants to write exhuming rivers into the London
Plan, when the Plan gets revised over the next couple of years to
de-Ken-ise it. I seem to recall that the Wandle is beginning to
re-emerge.

The New River already has been made more accessible, I think,
although I don't explore where it goes often enough to know details.
I'm not sure where the river stops being functional now that the Ring
Main is in business

Jeremy Parker

On 2008-07-22, Ian Jelf <ian@bluebadge.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I recently did a walking tour of the New River (well the end of it from
> Angel to New River Head as part of a Finsbury and Clerkenwell Walk).
>
> The path from the end of Benyon House (just South of Myddleton Square)
> and which has an attractive map of the River engraved in the paving
> stones has *never* in my experience been open, having a locked gate.
> Imagine my surprise, then, when telling the group that it was "never
> open" and pushing on the thing to find that it sprung open!
>
> We didn't go that way (I wasn't sure where it actually comes out and
> turning up with groups on "private" land can be a risky business if not
> thought out in advance these days) but does anyone know any more about
> when this mysterious gated section is open?


If this is the gate I think it is, it doesn't go through to anywhere,
just to a sort of lookout over the gardens that now occupy the space
where the ponds were long ago.

>
> There are plenty of other sections to be seen though, notably on the
> edge of Finsbury Park (yes, on another Ian walk.......).
>
> I believe that water supply functionality ends at Clissold Park these
> days BICBW. I can say that filtration at New River Head finished as
> long ago as 1946.

Stoke Newington East Reservoir, I believe. The West Reservoir is not
connected and is now a boating lake.

E.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, John Rowland wrote:

> Tom Anderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, John Rowland wrote:
>>>
>>> There might not be much of interest in Gower Place, but there are
>>> goods vehicle accesses.
>>
>> There's one to Gower Court at the eastern end; i walked down Gower
>> Place about ten minutes ago, and didn't notice any others. I think
>> the wise strategy would be to keep a vehicular route from Gordon
>> Street as far as the entrance to the court (which is also where the
>> entrance to the UCL health centre is - GPs, dentists, and
>> occupational health - and it would be useful to have easy vehicle
>> access to that, for the mobility-impaired), although ideally a paved
>> rather than tarmacked one, and then convert the rest into a
>> micro-park.
>> I don't know how big the river is at that point, but there's
>> definitely room for a modest stream, banks, a footpath on either
>> side, and a cycle path on one side. If you took down some of the
>> fences from the Kathleen Lonsdale building on the south side, you
>> could squeeze in some seating, and thus a long, thin outdoor cafe,
>> too.
>
> But how deep is the river there? A riverside park is no use if the river is
> 30 metres down.

They could put one of those sun-pipes in!

True enough, you might also have to raise the river, and then send it back
down at the far end. Not quite sure about the logistics of that.

tom

--
No noon today. Noon tomorrow. There's always a noon tomorrow.

Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, John Rowland wrote:
>
>> Tom Anderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, John Rowland wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There might not be much of interest in Gower Place, but there are
>>>> goods vehicle accesses.
>>>
>>> There's one to Gower Court at the eastern end; i walked down Gower
>>> Place about ten minutes ago, and didn't notice any others. I think
>>> the wise strategy would be to keep a vehicular route from Gordon
>>> Street as far as the entrance to the court (which is also where the
>>> entrance to the UCL health centre is - GPs, dentists, and
>>> occupational health - and it would be useful to have easy vehicle
>>> access to that, for the mobility-impaired), although ideally a paved
>>> rather than tarmacked one, and then convert the rest into a
>>> micro-park.
>>> I don't know how big the river is at that point, but there's
>>> definitely room for a modest stream, banks, a footpath on either
>>> side, and a cycle path on one side. If you took down some of the
>>> fences from the Kathleen Lonsdale building on the south side, you
>>> could squeeze in some seating, and thus a long, thin outdoor cafe,
>>> too.
>>
>> But how deep is the river there? A riverside park is no use if the
>> river is 30 metres down.
>
> They could put one of those sun-pipes in!
>
> True enough, you might also have to raise the river, and then send it
> back down at the far end. Not quite sure about the logistics of that.

I can't see why it shouldn't work.

Maybe the river could be a road too... it would only be a couple of inches
deep, it would have few vehicles, with a 10mph speed limit with SPECS to
prevent splashing, and pedestrians have no need to cross it except at either
end.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, John Rowland wrote:

> Tom Anderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, John Rowland wrote:
>>
>>> But how deep is the river there? A riverside park is no use if the
>>> river is 30 metres down.
>>
>> True enough, you might also have to raise the river, and then send it
>> back down at the far end. Not quite sure about the logistics of that.
>
> I can't see why it shouldn't work.
>
> Maybe the river could be a road too... it would only be a couple of
> inches deep, it would have few vehicles, with a 10mph speed limit with
> SPECS to prevent splashing, and pedestrians have no need to cross it
> except at either end.

That's a rather wonderful idea. Let me know what the HSE say about it.

tom

--
Gotta have skills to pay those bills.

Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, John Rowland wrote:
>
>> Tom Anderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, John Rowland wrote:
>>>
>>>> But how deep is the river there? A riverside park is no use if the
>>>> river is 30 metres down.
>>>
>>> True enough, you might also have to raise the river, and then send
>>> it back down at the far end. Not quite sure about the logistics of
>>> that.
>>
>> I can't see why it shouldn't work.
>>
>> Maybe the river could be a road too... it would only be a couple of
>> inches deep, it would have few vehicles, with a 10mph speed limit
>> with SPECS to prevent splashing, and pedestrians have no need to
>> cross it except at either end.
>
> That's a rather wonderful idea. Let me know what the HSE say about it.

Fords do exist. Then again, they do have "Test your brakes" signs on the far
side ;-)

I suppose my other idea, to turn Byng Place in to a square pond with a
shallow bit diagonally across the middle marked by buoys, and a rhino in the
east corner and a shark in the west, might fall foul of HSE too.

John Rowland wrote:
>
> I suppose my other idea, to turn Byng Place in to a square pond with a
> shallow bit diagonally across the middle marked by buoys, and a rhino

Er, that should have been "hippo".

> in the east corner and a shark in the west, might fall foul of HSE
> too.