View Single Post
  #9   Report Post  
Old September 24th 09, 03:27 AM posted to uk.railway,misc.transport.urban-transit,uk.transport.london
Bruce[_3_] Bruce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Sep 2009
Posts: 4
Default Euston Arch to be rebuilt as nightclub

On Sep 24, 1:40*am, Miles Bader wrote:
Bruce writes:
Thanks. *I agree. *That will be excellent.


Decent Urban Fabric 1:Concrete Commies 0


Unfortunately, the replica "Arch" would be a concrete structure.


Hmm? *It sounds like they're using a lot of the original stone (which
was recovered from a riverbed)...

Anyway, the problem is not concrete. *Concrete is a fantastic building
material, with an ancient provenance (first used extensively by the
romans!). *There are obviously many many excellent buildings made of
concrete.



I've just read a e detailed article and the replica will be steel- not
concrete-framed. It *might* incorporate some of the original stones,
but most of the cladding is likely to be some form of precast
concrete.

To add insult to injury, there will be an undeground nightclub in a
basement under the structure, and an 80+ seater restaurant at the top
level, accessed by lifts in the piers.

It might end up looking like the original but it al seems a little
tacky to me.



The problem was clueless and dogmatic '60s worship of modernity
("newer _must_ be better, there is no exception!") being used to justify
bad architecture and planning, and the mindless destruction of anything
not fitting the fad of the moment.



As it happens, the "modern" Euston is listed on account of its
architectural excellence. I like it very much and a lot of other
people do too.

The old Euston had two fine features (the Arch and the Great Hall) but
the rest of it was a disgusting smoke-filled pit that served no-one
well at all. The new Euston is an iconic building that symbolised the
"white heat of technology" of the 1960s and was far more functional
than what it replaced.

It wasn't possible to incorporate wither the Great Hall or the Arch in
their original positions, however the Arch could have been relocated
had the will been there. Sadly, it wasn't.

In my opinion, the new steel structure, clad in Lord knows what, will
be something of an insult to the designer of the original - Thomas
Hardwicke - and the craftsmen who built it. Instead of something that
respects the original, it merely apes it, while housing businesses
that were never intended to feature in the original structure.

There is perhaps no better definition than "bad architecture and
planning, and the mindless construction of anything fitting the fad of
the moment" while insulting the original. Don't you agree?