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.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
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?


As built there was a huge area (5 acres) above the platforms which was
designed for night use by parcels traffic, needless to say when built it
coincided with the decline of this sort of business. One of the rail mags
raised the possibilty of its use for night goods deliveries for London
shops, didn't seem to likely to me though. I wonder if there is any scope
for letting more light through?

Railways archive has a brochure from the opening:

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/doc...Euston1968.pdf

Paul

On Oct 26, 11:34 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Neil Williams" wrote in message

...





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?

As built there was a huge area (5 acres) above the platforms which was
designed for night use by parcels traffic, needless to say when built it
coincided with the decline of this sort of business. One of the rail mags
raised the possibilty of its use for night goods deliveries for London
shops, didn't seem to likely to me though. I wonder if there is any scope
for letting more light through?

Railways archive has a brochure from the opening:

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/doc...Euston1968.pdf

Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The deck will be demolished and replaced with a shopping centre, we
will find out what the plans will be hopfully in the next 12 months.

The disused areas are discussed in this thread.

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.tr...4c8131f7c0fe39

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 26, 11:34 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Neil Williams" wrote in message

...

What disused areas are there, OOI?

As built there was a huge area (5 acres) above the platforms which was
designed for night use by parcels traffic, needless to say when built it
coincided with the decline of this sort of business. One of the rail
mags
raised the possibilty of its use for night goods deliveries for London
shops, didn't seem to likely to me though. I wonder if there is any scope
for letting more light through?

Railways archive has a brochure from the opening:

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/doc...Euston1968.pdf


The deck will be demolished and replaced with a shopping centre, we
will find out what the plans will be hopfully in the next 12 months.

The disused areas are discussed in this thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.tr...4c8131f7c0fe39


I thought Neil meant disused areas of the mainline station, I can't see
disused tunnels caused by various alterations of the deep level stations
being relevant to a shopping centre above the mainline concourse?

Paul

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, John B wrote:

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

You bloody what? It's horrible, and not in a remotely interesting way!

but also the only mainline terminus that Just Works Really Well.

This is true, though.

tom

--
I don't know kung fu, I AM kung fu.

but also the only mainline terminus that Just Works Really Well.
This is true, though.
You could still have that if you demolished the monster of a building
that housed it, and put something nicer around the platforms.

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:47:32 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

You bloody what? It's horrible, and not in a remotely interesting way!

It is very practical, and works in a way that many stations don't,
while still retaining the impressiveness of a high-ceilinged Great
Hall.

Neil

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