On Jul 31, 3:46*pm, Stimpy wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:41:34 +0100, Mortimer wrote



The sixties really were an appalling decade for a "slash and burn" attitude
to anything old.

No worse than the Victorians

The Victorians did, saddly, destroy some fine earlier work. But there
own building were generally good.

The concrete commies generally replaced our heritage with with souless
disfunctional junk unfit for human use.

1506 wrote:
On Jul 31, 3:46 pm, Stimpy wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:41:34 +0100, Mortimer wrote



The sixties really were an appalling decade for a "slash and burn"
attitude to anything old.

No worse than the Victorians

The Victorians did, saddly, destroy some fine earlier work. But there
own building were generally good.

The concrete commies generally replaced our heritage with with souless
disfunctional junk unfit for human use.

But disfunctional junk (with the possible exception of the Great Hall) is a
good description of the old Euston that was swept away and replaced by a
rather good modern station. In particular the arch was just a pretentious
status symbol. Its proportions were awful, with the columns at variable
distances apart to suit the road traffic requirements, some columns with
circular cross-section, some square. An insult to the classical Greek
architecture that it incompetently tried to match.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:58 +0100, 1506 wrote

The sixties really were an appalling decade for a "slash and burn" attitude
to anything old.

No worse than the Victorians

The Victorians did, saddly, destroy some fine earlier work. But there
own building were generally good.

That is, of course, a matter of opinion

"Stimpy" wrote in message
. co.uk...
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:58 +0100, 1506 wrote

The sixties really were an appalling decade for a "slash and burn"
attitude
to anything old.

No worse than the Victorians

The Victorians did, saddly, destroy some fine earlier work. But their
own building were generally good.

That is, of course, a matter of opinion

Agreed. It's an opinion that is as valid as the opinions that Euston is "a
rather good modern station" (Richard J) and "one of the finest examples of
1960s architecture in Britain, and indeed one of Britain's very best railway
stations" (Tony Polson).

On Aug 1, 11:25*am, "Mortimer" wrote:
"Stimpy" wrote in message

. co.uk...

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:58 +0100, 1506 wrote

The sixties really were an appalling decade for a "slash and burn"
attitude
to anything old.

No worse than the Victorians

The Victorians did, saddly, destroy some fine earlier work. *But their
own building were generally good.

That is, of course, a matter of opinion

Agreed. It's an opinion that is as valid as the opinions that Euston is "a
rather good modern station" (Richard J) and "one of the finest examples of
1960s architecture in Britain, and indeed one of Britain's very best railway
stations" (Tony Polson).

rIGHT ON!

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 19:25:01 +0100, "Mortimer" wrote in
misc.transport.urban-transit:

"Stimpy" wrote in message
.co.uk...
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:58 +0100, 1506 wrote

The sixties really were an appalling decade for a "slash and burn"
attitude
to anything old.

No worse than the Victorians

The Victorians did, saddly, destroy some fine earlier work. But their
own building were generally good.

That is, of course, a matter of opinion

Agreed. It's an opinion that is as valid as the opinions that Euston is "a
rather good modern station" (Richard J) and "one of the finest examples of
1960s architecture in Britain, and indeed one of Britain's very best railway
stations" (Tony Polson).

The second may be saying the first, if Polson thinks that every building
from the '60s is worthless and that railway stations are generally
abysmal failures. I'm willing to believe the first claim, but not the
second.

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 19:16:56 +0100, Stimpy wrote
in misc.transport.urban-transit:

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:58 +0100, 1506 wrote

The sixties really were an appalling decade for a "slash and burn" attitude
to anything old.

No worse than the Victorians

The Victorians did, saddly, destroy some fine earlier work. But there
own building were generally good.

That is, of course, a matter of opinion

As with most ages, there are great buildings and great monstrosities
that were built, often with very similar style, but with one designed by
an architect who should never have had a commission. Bloody Stupid
Johnson was not invented out of whole cloth.

In message
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 19:16:56 +0100, Stimpy wrote
in misc.transport.urban-transit:

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:58 +0100, 1506 wrote

The sixties really were an appalling decade for a "slash and burn" attitude
to anything old.

No worse than the Victorians

The Victorians did, saddly, destroy some fine earlier work. But there
own building were generally good.

That is, of course, a matter of opinion

As with most ages, there are great buildings and great monstrosities
that were built, often with very similar style, but with one designed by
an architect who should never have had a commission. Bloody Stupid
Johnson was not invented out of whole cloth.

Bergholt Studdley please...

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:46:52 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote in misc.transport.urban-transit:

In message
Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 19:16:56 +0100, Stimpy wrote
in misc.transport.urban-transit:

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:24:58 +0100, 1506 wrote

The sixties really were an appalling decade for a "slash and burn" attitude
to anything old.

No worse than the Victorians

The Victorians did, saddly, destroy some fine earlier work. But there
own building were generally good.

That is, of course, a matter of opinion

As with most ages, there are great buildings and great monstrosities
that were built, often with very similar style, but with one designed by
an architect who should never have had a commission. Bloody Stupid
Johnson was not invented out of whole cloth.

Bergholt Studdley please...

My most abject apologies.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:46:52 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote in misc.transport.urban-transit:
In message
Free Lunch wrote:
an architect who should never have had a commission. Bloody Stupid
Johnson was not invented out of whole cloth.
Bergholt Studdley please...

Bergholt Stuttley ("Bloody Stupid") Johnson.

Remembered and checked. See "Hogfather".

He would, I'm sure, have designed a Euston Arch that would have fitted
very nicely into a luggage rack.

Colin McKenzie



--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.