| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name
 | Date | Lines | 
|---|
| 570.1 | ...damn great stickers get the message across!! | KERNEL::LOANE | Comfortably numb!! | Thu Jun 04 1992 22:06 | 10 | 
|  |     Publicise  the  fact  that  the  practice  is  showing total lack of 
    thought and downright dangerous; wait a week for it to sink  in  and 
    then  get  some  good  labels  to  stick  on  their windscreens with 
    gobs'n'gobs of glue on the back.
    I wish they'd do it here in Viables with  the  so-called  Shift  Car 
    Park; there'd be a few managers with red faces as well!! (oh, you DO 
    read this conference??!!) Last time I suggested it here, someone was 
    going to bring up the subject of "What constitutes a Shift worker??" 
    at some nebulous meeting, so nowt got done.
 | 
| 570.2 | Security guards stick the stickers | RDGENG::SJONES | Looking for inspiration | Fri Jun 05 1992 08:35 | 4 | 
|  |     
    In DECpark, the security guards stick the stickers on the windscreen.
    
    Steve
 | 
| 570.3 | Strange humps explained at last | LARVAE::SUGDEN | Schhhhhh....... | Fri Jun 05 1992 10:38 | 11 | 
|  |     There are even stranger things happening round the rear of the
    Crescent. There are a set of yellow striped sleeping policemen. I
    naively thought that these were there to get people to reduce their
    speed and to test the suspension of cars belonging to sales staff.
    However I now realise that I am wrong. Each of these humps is actually
    there to indicate the presence of a strange sign that is concealed in
    the shrubbery. These signs are barely visible at all when you drive
    past but if you walk close to them you can just make out some strange
    symbol looking vaguely like a plan view of a brassiere. I do not know
    what they mean but certainly you would not see the signs at all unless
    we had the humps to indicate where they are.
 | 
| 570.4 |  | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Fri Jun 05 1992 12:29 | 16 | 
|  | 
	Keith, before you think people are lazy when they park in these spaces,
	have you ever thought that the reason they park there is because they 
	have been twice around the car park, and there are absolutely no 
	spaces left?
	Last time I was in the Crescent I drove twice around the car park and
	there were no car-spaces at all, and all road-spaces that may just be 
	possible to park in without major obstruction were also full.
	I parked in one of the two free the disabled spaces, I told reception 
	where I was if the car needed to be moved.
	My suggestion is to increase the ligitimate parking available.
	Heather
 | 
| 570.5 |  | SAC::EDMUNDS | Q1: cue for a holiday | Fri Jun 05 1992 15:56 | 5 | 
|  |     Yes, that thought did occur to me, people park "where they shouldn't"
    LONG before the car park is full (which, although it may happen, is
    very rare).
    
    Keith
 | 
| 570.6 |  | WELLIN::NISBET | Let me see that Hymn sheet ... | Tue Jun 09 1992 12:57 | 10 | 
|  |     Last time I was at the Crescent I parked half way up the side of a
    hill, since it was the only place left. I had to take a bit of a run at
    it mind you, bounced up the kerb, and stopped when the wheels stopped
    gripping.
    
    When I came back out some time later, the car had slid about 2 feet
    down the hill. Give me a normal parking space anyday.
    
    dj
    
 | 
| 570.7 |  | LARVAE::CLEMENTS_D |  | Mon Jul 13 1992 18:30 | 10 | 
|  |     Don't forget, folks that the design of the car parks was ordained by
    some brain-the-size-of-a-planet deciding that, since Digital is heavily
    into new working practices, there wasn't a need to provide every
    occupier (or perhaps name on the occupants list) with a parking space.
    I think that the ratio that was used was something like 2:3.
    
    If you think that it is bad now, you should have been around during the
    last couple of weeks of last FY when **EVERYBODY** was in at some time
    trying to make sure that orders got booked and the admin got done to
    ensure year-end bookings credits........
 | 
| 570.8 |  | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Tue Jul 14 1992 08:52 | 15 | 
|  | 
>    Don't forget, folks that the design of the car parks was ordained by
>    some brain-the-size-of-a-planet deciding that, since Digital is heavily
>    into new working practices, there wasn't a need to provide every
>    occupier (or perhaps name on the occupants list) with a parking space.
>    I think that the ratio that was used was something like 2:3.
    
 	I think you'll find that the building and car park were re-done exactly
 	as before - a condition of the insurance. And this was designed way 
	before the NWP.
	What may be the case is that it houses more people than before. I 
	remember many unoccupied areas in the old Crescent.
	Heather
 | 
| 570.9 | The long arm of the ........ | LARVAE::CLEMENTS_D |  | Tue Jul 14 1992 23:25 | 8 | 
|  |     I hadn't realised that long arm of the insurance company extended as
    far as control over the rebuilding..... did they specify that the
    building was rebuilt as un-fireproof as before.....;-)...?
    
    You are certainly right about the population density having been increased 
    with the MK II building.....
    
    Dick.
 | 
| 570.10 | Insurance is for restoration | JANUS::BARKER | Jeremy Barker - CBN - Reading, UK | Wed Jul 15 1992 11:20 | 7 | 
|  | Re: .9
The action of the insurance company is by no means unusual.  After all,
the purpose of buildings insurance is to return the building to its
original state after it has been damaged.
jb
 | 
| 570.11 | Ooo..errr missus | LARVAE::HUTCHINGS_P | Manchester City | Wed Jul 15 1992 13:41 | 3 | 
|  |     complete with Fire Alarms that don't work properly..!!!
    
    
 | 
| 570.12 | There's only SO much land! | FUTURS::SAXBY | Working HERE? THAT'S the bonus?!?! | Wed Jul 15 1992 15:03 | 4 | 
|  |     
    Where would you put extra car parking spaces then?
    
    Mark
 | 
| 570.13 |  | LARVAE::CLEMENTS_D |  | Wed Jul 15 1992 22:19 | 4 | 
|  |     Perhaps there was an opportunity to build a subterranean car park
    underneath the building?
    
    D.
 | 
| 570.14 | $$$$$! | FUTURS::SAXBY | Working HERE? THAT'S the bonus?!?! | Thu Jul 16 1992 09:02 | 9 | 
|  |     
    Umm, a possibility, but I reckon (not knowing anything about building
    offices!) that the cost of putting a subterranean car park under the
    building would have been astronomical in comparison to basically
    rebuilding around the shell of the old Crescent (which, despite the
    comments at the time, appears to be what they did - I never saw the
    structure pulled down.)
    
    Mark
 | 
| 570.15 |  | AUSSIE::GARSON |  | Fri Jul 17 1992 04:15 | 5 | 
|  |     How about re-marking the parking spaces to pack them in more densely?
    That wouldn't cost too much. We're all buying smaller cars in these
    environmentally conscious times, right? (-:
    
    More car pooling?
 |