| Stations vs development Posted by Mark A at 14:12, 3rd April 2026 |     |
... it can no longer be argued that Temple Meads is "in the middle of nowhere".
There's a whole rich thread to be had from that: why the arrival of a station can often be seen not to have pulled significant development towards it - and another aspect of this: if a station happens to be 'too well sited' its passengers are at perennial risk of finding that its services have been relocated to somewhere less convenient - and sometimes this happens with indecent haste. Common to both: property interests perhaps.
Mark
| Re: Stations vs development Posted by Sulis John at 12:16, 4th April 2026 | |
In the case of Temple Meads of course, the Luftwaffe had a lot to do with it originally. Oh, and the planners who moved in shortly afterwards!
| Re: Stations vs development Posted by Red Squirrel at 13:59, 4th April 2026 | |
In the case of Temple Meads of course, the Luftwaffe had a lot to do with it originally. Oh, and the planners who moved in shortly afterwards!
Not sure the Luftwaffe had very much to do with it at all, really.
Temple Meads is a bit of an awkward site, made even more isolated by the routing of the erstwhile Inner Circuit Road along Temple Way and Redcliff Way, and the dual carriageway through Temple Gate. Before that, bustling Victoria St led straight to it - and of course there was a tram terminal right outside.
A bit like Kings Cross of old, Temple Meads has had what to most is a ‘dead zone’ behind it made up of large industrial sites.
What is new is the re-zoning of this area to housing and education. This probably reflects the way the importance of freight has given way to a more passenger-oriented railway.
