On Sep 23, 5:40*pm, Miles Bader wrote:
Bruce writes:
Thanks. *I agree. *That will be excellent.

Decent Urban Fabric 1:Concrete Commies 0

Unfortunately, the replica "Arch" would be a concrete structure.

Hmm? *It sounds like they're using a lot of the original stone (which
was recovered from a riverbed)...

Anyway, the problem is not concrete. *Concrete is a fantastic building
material, with an ancient provenance (first used extensively by the
romans!). *There are obviously many many excellent buildings made of
concrete.

The problem was clueless and dogmatic '60s worship of modernity
("newer _must_ be better, there is no exception!") being used to justify
bad architecture and planning, and the mindless destruction of anything
not fitting the fad of the moment.

Thank you. I agree. It is not, primarily, about the material.
Concrete can be used most effectively. My issue is with the mentality
that gave us Westway, Euston Station, and Centre Point. For what type
of humans where these structure built.

Contrast these with the “new” Liverpool Street, or the original St
Pancras. They lift the soul and speak of grandeur.

IMHO it is a pity that St Pancras, and now Paddington could not be
given the same treatment as Liverpool St.

IMHO concrete was used effectievly in some of the Jubilee Line
Extension Stations. Westminster is airy and feels spacious.

On Sep 24, 5:57*pm, E27002 wrote:
On Sep 23, 5:40*pm, Miles Bader wrote:

Bruce writes:
Thanks. *I agree. *That will be excellent.

Decent Urban Fabric 1:Concrete Commies 0

Unfortunately, the replica "Arch" would be a concrete structure.

Hmm? *It sounds like they're using a lot of the original stone (which
was recovered from a riverbed)...

Anyway, the problem is not concrete. *Concrete is a fantastic building
material, with an ancient provenance (first used extensively by the
romans!). *There are obviously many many excellent buildings made of
concrete.

The problem was clueless and dogmatic '60s worship of modernity
("newer _must_ be better, there is no exception!") being used to justify
bad architecture and planning, and the mindless destruction of anything
not fitting the fad of the moment.

Thank you. *I agree. *It is not, primarily, about the material.
Concrete can be used most effectively. *My issue is with the mentality
that gave us Westway, Euston Station, and Centre Point. *For what type
of humans where these structure built.

Westway: humans in cars.
Euston: humans leaving trains and entering other trains or buses.
Centrepoint: humans working in offices.

Now, the utterly ****ty streetscape around TCR/Centrepoint, which
Crossrail is thankfully going to improve beyond recognition, is indeed
unforgivable and another story.

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

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 09:57:24AM -0700, E27002 wrote:

Contrast these with the =93new=94 Liverpool Street, or the original St
Pancras. They lift the soul and speak of grandeur.

"Lift the soul and speak of grandeur"? You just lost all the normal
people who don't aspire to be art critics!

--
David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist

If you have received this email in error, please add some nutmeg
and egg whites, whisk, and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes.

On Sep 25, 4:45*am, David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 09:57:24AM -0700, E27002 wrote:
Contrast these with the =93new=94 Liverpool Street, or the original St
Pancras. *They lift the soul and speak of grandeur.

"Lift the soul and speak of grandeur"? *You just lost all the normal
people who don't aspire to be art critics!

Thanks, you have made my day!

E27002 wrote:


Thank you. I agree. It is not, primarily, about the material.
Concrete can be used most effectively. My issue is with the
mentality that gave us Westway, Euston Station, and Centre Point.
For what type of humans where these structure built.


Westway's an interesting one - it was clearly massively destructive of
an established community, but also built and designed to very high
standards. It took 30 years or so for the city to come to terms with
it, but it's actually done so, and in a way that has actually
strengthened the community (and notably in ways that none of the
politicians, engineers and planners of the original road foresaw).

http://www.westway.org/about_us/history/#a

There's a rather fine music venue and club underneath it, for instance,
for which the lack of light and ambient noise are obviously not issues -
you can't hear the traffic when the amp's been turned up to
ear-splitting levels anyway, plus it doesn't have any upstairs
neighbours to annoy, because they're in cars.

What else? Centre Point's a fine piece of architecture let down by the
base of it being designed for a car-based city rather than a pedestrian
based one. This is finally being remedied as part of the TCR station
upgrade, which will arguably complete the job of integrating the
building with the city properly. There's a common thread linking CP and
Westway, which is insufficient attention paid to the interface between
old and new, which I grant you is a valid criticism of a lot of post war
planning.

Euston we've covered - by any stretch it's a better *railway station*
than the old Euston, and works as part of the city scape in a consistent
and rational manner - the side down Eversholt St. is a bit of an
eyesore, but the side of Kings Cross on York Way isn't much better than
a blank brick wall either, and nobody criticises KX for being what it is
- a functional, stripped down modern building (that happens to have been
built in the mid-19th century rather than the mid-20th century).

So I'm not sure what the point of that was. There are plenty of bad
examples of concrete use around, so why pick 2 good examples and one
fifty-fifty one?

Tom

In message , Tom Barry
writes

Westway's an interesting one - it was clearly massively destructive of
an established community, but also built and designed to very high
standards.

At the time (and I lived in the area then) it's real significance was as
a potential prelude to the destruction of huge swathes of housing for
the London motorway box. As a youngster living in West Kensington and
owning a car, it first seemed wonderful - but it very quickly became
obvious that the country couldn't afford schemes on that scale.

What was not realised back then was that much 19th-century housing in
the central area could be upgraded to very acceptable modern standards -
instead there was a presumption that people would be happier in the
outer suburbs - an idea that totally collapsed when rising oil and
transport costs made suburban living far less economic for those with
jobs in town.
--
Paul Terry

On Sep 28, 11:36*am, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Tom Barry
writes

Westway's an interesting one - it was clearly massively destructive of
an established community, but also built and designed to very high
standards.

At the time (and I lived in the area then) it's real significance was as
a potential prelude to the destruction of huge swathes of housing for
the London motorway box. As a youngster living in West Kensington and
owning a car, it first seemed wonderful - but it very quickly became
obvious that the country couldn't afford schemes on that scale.

What was not realised back then was that much 19th-century housing in
the central area could be upgraded to very acceptable modern standards -
instead there was a presumption that people would be happier in the
outer suburbs - an idea that totally collapsed when rising oil and
transport costs made suburban living far less economic for those with
jobs in town.


We can be grateful that the destruction ceased when it did. London
was saved from a horrible fate.

In message
E27002 wrote:

On Sep 28, 11:36*am, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Tom Barry
writes

Westway's an interesting one - it was clearly massively destructive of
an established community, but also built and designed to very high
standards.

At the time (and I lived in the area then) it's real significance was as
a potential prelude to the destruction of huge swathes of housing for
the London motorway box. As a youngster living in West Kensington and
owning a car, it first seemed wonderful - but it very quickly became
obvious that the country couldn't afford schemes on that scale.

What was not realised back then was that much 19th-century housing in
the central area could be upgraded to very acceptable modern standards -
instead there was a presumption that people would be happier in the
outer suburbs - an idea that totally collapsed when rising oil and
transport costs made suburban living far less economic for those with
jobs in town.


We can be grateful that the destruction ceased when it did. London
was saved from a horrible fate.

Not applicable to you Adrian, but anyone else interested might like to hunt
out a recent BBC/OU programme on iPlayer, Saving the Market. All about the
campaign to save Covent Garden from demolition, has a lot about the proposed
inner urban motorway box we nearly got in the centre of London.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

E27002 wrote:

We can be grateful that the destruction ceased when it did. London
was saved from a horrible fate.

I have heard that the destruction of the Euston arch was instrumental in
turning public opinion against the destruction.

On Sep 29, 3:44*am, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
E27002 wrote:

We can be grateful that the destruction ceased when it did. *London
was saved from a horrible fate.

I have heard that the destruction of the Euston arch was instrumental in
turning public opinion against the destruction.

IIRC St Pancras was on the agenda for demolition. Sir John Betjeman
mounted a campaign for its preservation and the tide turned.