On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:42:45 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
Bruce writes:
grotesque and entirely pointless 19th century propylaeum.

What's wrong with propylaea (no idea how one is supposed to form the
plural...) anyway?


What is wrong with anything that is completely pointless?

The original served no useful purpose. It was purely a marketing
tool. It made a statement about the railway company that commissioned
it. And that's it.

Admittedly, it was a massive statement. The "Arch" became a familiar,
but ultimately pointless landmark. Then, in the 1960s, it got in the
way of turning a horrible mess of a railway station into something
that was truly fit for purpose.

It is notable that the proposal to rebuild the "Arch" includes a
nightclub and a restaurant, so the new one (if it is ever built) would
at least have some purpose. However, its heritage value will be very
limited, as to fulfil its purpose, it will almost certainly need to
have a slender structural frame clad with thin, light panels of
reconstituted stone.

The massive stone structure of the original would be ruled out on
practical and cost grounds, and only very few of the salvaged pieces
could be included. So the new one would hardly be a replica, more
like pastiche.

I doubt that it will ever happen.

On 19 Nov, 09:10, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:42:45 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
Bruce writes:
grotesque and entirely pointless 19th century propylaeum.

What's wrong with propylaea (no idea how one is supposed to form the
plural...) anyway? *

What is wrong with anything that is completely pointless?

The original served no useful purpose. *It was purely a marketing
tool. *It made a statement about the railway company that commissioned
it. *And that's it.

Admittedly, it was a massive statement. *The "Arch" became a familiar,
but ultimately pointless landmark. *

I've always felt the same about Canary Wharf Jubilee station, which
everyone but me seems to rave over, but which I would consider to be
an ostentatious sculpture rather than architecture.

It's a rectangular concrete hole, probably created by pumping water
out of a dock, and fails to protect its occupants from the cold in
winter. Putting a sculpture on top of it doesn't make it more fit for
purpose.

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:16:09 -0800 (PST), MIG
wrote:
On 19 Nov, 09:10, Bruce wrote:
Admittedly, it was a massive statement. *The "Arch" became a familiar,
but ultimately pointless landmark. *

I've always felt the same about Canary Wharf Jubilee station, which
everyone but me seems to rave over, but which I would consider to be
an ostentatious sculpture rather than architecture.

It's a rectangular concrete hole, probably created by pumping water
out of a dock, and fails to protect its occupants from the cold in
winter. Putting a sculpture on top of it doesn't make it more fit for
purpose.


Yes, I agree. It is a fine structure and a very impressive piece of
architecture. But totally unnecessary for a Tube station. Those tiny
Tube trains seem so out of place in such a grand design.

Another is Westminster, on the same Jubilee line. As a civil
engineer, I find it a most impressive monument to below-ground civil
engineering, almost on a par with a major bridge. But I do wonder
whether such a huge (and hugely expensive) hole in the ground was
absolutely necessary.

Bruce wrote:

Another is Westminster, on the same Jubilee line. As a civil
engineer, I find it a most impressive monument to below-ground civil
engineering, almost on a par with a major bridge. But I do wonder
whether such a huge (and hugely expensive) hole in the ground was
absolutely necessary.

It's supposed to be particularly bomb-proof, so maybe it is neccessary. I
imagine Westminster and Canary Wharf to be the only underground stations
where a bomb could go off without even permanently deafening everyone on the
same platform.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:55:48 -0000, "Basil Jet"
wrote:

Bruce wrote:

Another is Westminster, on the same Jubilee line. As a civil
engineer, I find it a most impressive monument to below-ground civil
engineering, almost on a par with a major bridge. But I do wonder
whether such a huge (and hugely expensive) hole in the ground was
absolutely necessary.

It's supposed to be particularly bomb-proof, so maybe it is neccessary.


Interesting. Not mentioned in any of the technical articles I have
read, but that's hardly surprising.


I imagine Westminster and Canary Wharf to be the only underground stations
where a bomb could go off without even permanently deafening everyone on the
same platform.


I'm sure you're right. But if all Tube stations had to be built in
that way, we could afford only a very few of them.

Bruce wrote:

I imagine Westminster and Canary Wharf to be the only underground
stations where a bomb could go off without even permanently
deafening everyone on the same platform.

I'm sure you're right. But if all Tube stations had to be built in
that way, we could afford only a very few of them.

Westminster station has MP's offices on top of it.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:25:51 -0000, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
Bruce wrote:

I imagine Westminster and Canary Wharf to be the only underground
stations where a bomb could go off without even permanently
deafening everyone on the same platform.

I'm sure you're right. But if all Tube stations had to be built in
that way, we could afford only a very few of them.

Westminster station has MP's offices on top of it.


Yes, I realise that. I still wonder whether the expense of such a
grand structure for the station was justifiable.