Richard J. wrote:
RPM wrote on 18 May 2009 19:37:11 ...
On May 18, 6:41 pm, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Richard J.
writes


That said, I would think long and hard about a "rebuild", especially
given the dramatic changes in layout at Euston since then. It could go
somewhere else, I suppose. After all, Temple Bar was brought "back" to
a completely different location but looks (and functions) very well
there.

Now where might the Arch (sorry, "Propylaeum") go?


It has never been suggested it should be rebuilt in its original
location. That would mean placing it roughly where the gateline is for
the London Midland/London Overground platforms. Instead it is proposed
to re-site it between the existing lodges on Euston Road, something
that should have been done in 1962 IMHO.


The pediment (top triangle) is OK, but the rest is a mish-mash.
Pretentious and not very beautiful in my view.
Oh well, we all differ.

Indeed, and it is the the importance of the arch in *railway*
architecture rather than architecture in general that merits its
restoration.

What importance? As far as I can see it had no effect at all on
subsequent railway architecture, where more effort and expense was put
into the station itself (such as at King's Cross and Paddington) than on
some great marketing promotion outside. At Euston, the arch was there
from the start in 1837, but it took another 20 years or more before more
than one arrival platform was provided.

The arch has probably had an important role in _other_ railway (and
non-railway) architecture having survived - St Pancras, perhaps.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK