I was really pleased to see the removal of the bland, uninteresting,
boring late 60's tiling, and was looking forward to walking through a
station that doesn't cause clinical depression.

So was great to see the new tiling was identical to the old, nice one
tubelines.

Would it really have been so hard to make the station look just a
little bit modern.

Rob

On 25 Oct, 17:57, wrote:
I was really pleased to see the removal of the bland, uninteresting,
boring late 60's tiling, and was looking forward to walking through a
station that doesn't cause clinical depression.
So was great to see the new tiling was identical to the old, nice one
tubelines.
Would it really have been so hard to make the station look just a
little bit modern.

As a matter of personal taste, I quite like the bland Victoria Line
style.

Euston could be worse. Some of the recent jobs (Highgate, Bethnal
Green) are IMO pretty badly designed and executed, whilst Tower Hill
now looks like a cross between the 1970s subway systems you get under
major road intersections and a public convenience.

IMO the current round of station "upgrades" (why can't they just use
the correct term - refurbishment) will come to be deeply lamented.

On 25 Oct, 17:57, wrote:
I was really pleased to see the removal of the bland, uninteresting,
boring late 60's tiling, and was looking forward to walking through a
station that doesn't cause clinical depression.

So was great to see the new tiling was identical to the old, nice one
tubelines.

Would it really have been so hard to make the station look just a
little bit modern.

It's in line with LU's general policy of keeping stations visually the
same unless rebuilt, in order to preserve its heritage - which is a
good one.

The 1960s feel at Euston Square is just as worthy of preservation as
the 1930s tiles at Bethnal Green and the 1900s tiles at Arsenal, IMO.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

It's in line with LU's general policy of keeping stations
visually the same unless rebuilt, in order to preserve its
heritage - which is a good one.

And yet columns at Mile End station apparently weren't worthy of
preservation - so old white+green tiling was replaced with ugly blue
"wraps".

On 25 Oct, 18:26, alex_t wrote:
It's in line with LU's general policy of keeping stations
visually the same unless rebuilt, in order to preserve its
heritage - which is a good one.

And yet columns at Mile End station apparently weren't worthy of
preservation - so old white+green tiling was replaced with ugly blue
"wraps".

The blue things at Mile End are temporary, aren't they?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

The blue things at Mile End are temporary, aren't they?

Hopefully, but it seems that there are no planned closures of Mile End
in the near future - so "temporary" ugliness may last for quite a
while...

On 25 Oct, 18:20, John B wrote:
On 25 Oct, 17:57, wrote:

I was really pleased to see the removal of the bland, uninteresting,
boring late 60's tiling, and was looking forward to walking through a
station that doesn't cause clinical depression.

So was great to see the new tiling was identical to the old, nice one
tubelines.

Would it really have been so hard to make the station look just a
little bit modern.

It's in line with LU's general policy of keeping stations visually the
same unless rebuilt, in order to preserve its heritage - which is a
good one.

The 1960s feel at Euston Square is just as worthy of preservation as
the 1930s tiles at Bethnal Green and the 1900s tiles at Arsenal, IMO.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org

I suppose it's all down to personal opinion, after all the underground
station will probably be rebuild when they demolish the mainline
station above. I love the Tube architecture old and new
( www.tubephotos.com ) , but not anything from that era.

Rob

On 25 Oct, 19:03, wrote:
I was really pleased to see the removal of the bland, uninteresting,
boring late 60's tiling, and was looking forward to walking through a
station that doesn't cause clinical depression.

So was great to see the new tiling was identical to the old, nice one
tubelines.

Would it really have been so hard to make the station look just a
little bit modern.

It's in line with LU's general policy of keeping stations visually the
same unless rebuilt, in order to preserve its heritage - which is a
good one.

The 1960s feel at Euston Square is just as worthy of preservation as
the 1930s tiles at Bethnal Green and the 1900s tiles at Arsenal, IMO.

I suppose it's all down to personal opinion, after all the underground
station will probably be rebuild when they demolish the mainline
station above. I love the Tube architecture old and new
(www.tubephotos.com) , but not anything from that era.

Re your other post - yup, misread "Euston Station" as "Euston Square".
The same point applies to Euston tube, though.

Incidentally, I don't think there are any plans to destroy the
mainline station - if they did, it would be an act of vandalism on a
par with knocking the Arch down in the first place, since it's not
only a brilliant piece of 1960s architecture but also the only
mainline terminus that Just Works Really Well. Some refurbishment is
on the cards, but the structure and key features are staying the same
(or at least were on the last reports I saw).

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On 25 Oct, 23:30, John B wrote:
On 25 Oct, 19:03, wrote:



I was really pleased to see the removal of the bland, uninteresting,
boring late 60's tiling, and was looking forward to walking through a
station that doesn't cause clinical depression.

So was great to see the new tiling was identical to the old, nice one
tubelines.

Would it really have been so hard to make the station look just a
little bit modern.

It's in line with LU's general policy of keeping stations visually the
same unless rebuilt, in order to preserve its heritage - which is a
good one.

The 1960s feel at Euston Square is just as worthy of preservation as
the 1930s tiles at Bethnal Green and the 1900s tiles at Arsenal, IMO.

I suppose it's all down to personal opinion, after all the underground
station will probably be rebuild when they demolish the mainline
station above. I love the Tube architecture old and new
(www.tubephotos.com) , but not anything from that era.

Re your other post - yup, misread "Euston Station" as "Euston Square".
The same point applies to Euston tube, though.

Incidentally, I don't think there are any plans to destroy the
mainline station - if they did, it would be an act of vandalism on a
par with knocking the Arch down in the first place, since it's not
only a brilliant piece of 1960s architecture but also the only
mainline terminus that Just Works Really Well. Some refurbishment is
on the cards, but the structure and key features are staying the same
(or at least were on the last reports I saw).

--
John Band
john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org

I dont think it's clear at this stage what will happen, but the plans
go way beyond a simple refurbishment. I have mixed feelings, I've
traveled through the station 600+ times per year since April 1994 as I
live in Tring and work in camden. I don't think it's as bad as people
make out, and I know every square inch of the structure including the
disused areas. I will miss it is turned into a shopping centre/
station.

No one will give a crap if it's knocked down, it's not loved like the
arch.

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3084568
http://www.franklinandrews.com/proje...=type&id=15580

I have some shots of the old station, shame I'm to young to have seen
it!

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photograp...+old&go=1&a=-1

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:59:51 -0700, wrote:

I dont think it's clear at this stage what will happen, but the plans
go way beyond a simple refurbishment. I have mixed feelings, I've
traveled through the station 600+ times per year since April 1994 as I
live in Tring and work in camden. I don't think it's as bad as people
make out, and I know every square inch of the structure including the
disused areas. I will miss it is turned into a shopping centre/
station.

If it was turned into a Manc Picc-a-like I wouldn't mind too much, but
it is a prime example of how Birmingham New St needn't have been crap
while still having a shopping centre over the platforms. That said, I
don't think it would have been as good for a predominantly diesel
operation.

What disused areas are there, OOI?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.