[original thread on uk.railway]
[x-posted to uk.transport.london]

On 31 Jan, 23:52, Martin Petrov wrote:
The new stuff that's being built outside of Euston at the moment - is
that preparation work for rebuilding the main station? Or not related
at all?


It's not preparation work for the big rebuild, instead it's more
immediate improvements, although Network Rail say they will
"complement" the proposed future redevelopment. The big rebuilding of
the station, being led by the property company British Land, won't
begin until at least 2011, so says Building magazine - though I
wouldn't be amazingly surprised if this got put back, and I suppose
it's possible this particular scheme may never happen. Note that I
don't have any inside info though, just speculating.

Also, aside from considerations about the economy, I dare say it might
not be considered ideal for one of the main London termini to be in
the process of being rebuilt whilst the Olympics are on. Plus, in the
hard to imagine situation that the Tories get moving on their high
speed rail plans (assuming they get elected in 2010, which is what I
and pretty much everyone else is assuming), then Euston is regarded as
the obvious choice of the London end of it as it has enough space to
accommodate it. The planned arrival of a high-speed line and
subsequent requirement to rebuild Euston in a different way could I
suppose put the brakes on the present redevelopment plan - unless the
current plan would be compatible?

Anyway, here's some more information - first Network Rail on what they
call the "Euston Station upgrade":
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/4771.aspx

And a short Building Magazine news piece from 2007 on British Land
winning the redevelopment contract for Euston:
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3084568

On 1 Feb, 00:50, Mizter T wrote:
And a short Building Magazine news piece from 2007 on British Land
winning the redevelopment contract for Euston:
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3084568

I don't know why they bother wasting the money; they're planning to
build an ugly monstrosity that's nearly identical to the horrific
inhumanity that's there now.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:12:55 -0800 (PST), lonelytraveller
wrote:

On 1 Feb, 00:50, Mizter T wrote:
And a short Building Magazine news piece from 2007 on British Land
winning the redevelopment contract for Euston:
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3084568

I don't know why they bother wasting the money

They're probably not given that it'll turn into a shopping mall with a
station attached (as has happened at Manchester Piccadilly)! It's
definitely a vast improvement over the old station concourse, though.

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as
lonelytraveller gently
breathed:
On 1 Feb, 00:50, Mizter T wrote:

And a short Building Magazine news piece from 2007 on British Land
winning the redevelopment contract for Euston:
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3084568

I don't know why they bother wasting the money; they're planning to
build an ugly monstrosity that's nearly identical to the horrific
inhumanity that's there now.

Euston is pretty much a lost cause, I think. The only real solution
would be to send a team of trainee architects untainted by the scourge
of "modernism" to examine St Pancras, and Glasgow Central, and
Manchester Piccadilly, and learn how a main line terminus station should
be designed, with beautiful and imposing buildings, a glass roof
supported by impressive-looking steelwork, and using traditional
materials like brick and stone. And of course to include a replica of
the "arch".

But that'd cost money, and no-one in the DfT (who at the end of the day
pay for such things) seems to believe that it's important for the
capital city terminus of one of our most prestigious routes should be
anything other than dull and utilitarian.

We just have to trust that the Grade-1 listings of the beautiful
Victorian termini we still have will prevent them from ever being
reduced to the concrete horror of Euston (and perhaps Euston itself as
an on-going warning to future generations that once you allow someone to
demolish the good stuff, it can never be replaced).

Writing in The Times, Richard Morrison stated that "even by the bleak
standards of Sixties architecture, Euston is one of the nastiest
concrete boxes in London: devoid of any decorative merit; seemingly
concocted to induce maximum angst among passengers; and a blight on
surrounding streets. The design should never have left the drawing-board
- if, indeed, it was ever on a drawing-board. It gives the impression of
having been scribbled on the back of a soiled paper bag by a thuggish
android with a grudge against humanity and a vampiric loathing of
sunlight".

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net
- http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

On 1 Feb, 13:31, Pyromancer
wrote:
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as
lonelytraveller gently
breathed:

On 1 Feb, 00:50, Mizter T wrote:
And a short Building Magazine news piece from 2007 on British Land
winning the redevelopment contract for Euston:
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3084568
I don't know why they bother wasting the money; they're planning to
build an ugly monstrosity that's nearly identical to the horrific
inhumanity that's there now.

Euston is pretty much a lost cause, I think. *The only real solution
would be to send a team of trainee architects untainted by the scourge
of "modernism" to examine St Pancras, and Glasgow Central, and
Manchester Piccadilly, and learn how a main line terminus station should
be designed, with beautiful and imposing buildings, a glass roof
supported by impressive-looking steelwork, and using traditional
materials like brick and stone. *And of course to include a replica of
the "arch".

But that'd cost money
Or they could just rebuild it as it used to look, but scaled and re-
oriented appropriately for the modern size and location of the
station.

Pyromancer wrote:


Euston is pretty much a lost cause, I think. The only real solution
would be to send a team of trainee architects untainted by the scourge
of "modernism" to examine St Pancras, and Glasgow Central, and
Manchester Piccadilly, and learn how a main line terminus station
should be designed, with beautiful and imposing buildings, a glass
roof supported by impressive-looking steelwork, and using traditional
materials like brick and stone. And of course to include a replica of
the "arch".

I don't know. Despite its faults, Euston does at least get one thing
right: it keeps the trains firmly out of sight of the concourse. For
many people, it's bad enough having to make a long journey by train,
without having to be reminded of how depressing trains can be by
actually having to look at them while you wait.

That's one thing that St Pancras only managed to get right with the
latest redevelopment, giving us that new basement-level shopping mall
and concourse, tucked nicely away from the trains. (After all, unlike
stations, shopping malls are places that most people actually enjoy
visiting spending time in.) And before it was redeveloped, St Pancras
was one of the bleakest, gloomiest, most depressing stations in London.

In message , at 14:39:11 on Sun, 1 Feb
2009, solar penguin remarked:
That's one thing that St Pancras only managed to get right with the
latest redevelopment, giving us that new basement-level shopping mall
and concourse, tucked nicely away from the trains.

It's only "tucked away" from the domestic trains because the latter have
been relegated to a windswept 1950's loo-wall structure built entirely
outside the original station, and a route-march from the rest of
humanity.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:39:11 on Sun, 1 Feb
2009, solar penguin remarked:
That's one thing that St Pancras only managed to get right with the
latest redevelopment, giving us that new basement-level shopping mall
and concourse, tucked nicely away from the trains.

It's only "tucked away" from the domestic trains because the latter have
been relegated to a windswept 1950's loo-wall structure built entirely
outside the original station, and a route-march from the rest of
humanity.

Windswept is good, given the diesel fumes.

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 14:39:11 -0000, "solar penguin"
wrote:

That's one thing that St Pancras only managed to get right with the
latest redevelopment, giving us that new basement-level shopping mall
and concourse, tucked nicely away from the trains.

I find it claustrophobic compared with Euston's high-ceilinged Great
Hall, which is certainly deserving of the name.

I wasn't impressed with St P, to be honest. It feels unfinished,
scruffy and poorly-designed. The trainshed is indeed impressive, but
that's all, and I don't go to stations to look at architecture, but to
catch trains.

Paddington is another example of a station that "looks nice" but is
poorly-designed for the passenger. Cold and reeking of diesel fumes,
and "The Lawn" (why's it called that? No grass...) is far too packed
in.

Neil

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

In message , Neil Williams
writes

I wasn't impressed with St P, to be honest.
[...]
The trainshed is indeed impressive, but that's all,

There are some nice features on the ground floor, but the overwhelming
impression is of just another shopping mall, which will probably go the
way of many such places in the current economic climate.

Paddington is another example of a station that "looks nice" but is
poorly-designed for the passenger. Cold and reeking of diesel fumes,
and "The Lawn" (why's it called that? No grass...) is far too packed
in.

IIRC, the lawn was once part of the stationmaster's garden.
--
Paul Terry