# Should the Euston Arch be rebuilt?



## _pH_ (May 18, 2009)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8055034.stm

Interesting story! I had no idea the stonework had ended up in the river like that!

So, (assuming the fact that the current Euston is architecturally abysmal and its replacement cannot come too soon) should we go back to the past with Dan Cruikshank or look to the future with an architectural style akin to, say, Stratford or Canary Wharf?

Poll to follow!


----------



## brixtonvilla (May 18, 2009)

God, no. Never liked it in the first place. Euston is fugly, no doubt, but going back to the past is not the way to go. Build something new & sexy if you're going to rebuild.


----------



## Crispy (May 18, 2009)

It's a shame it was demolished, but god it was ugly. Really bad monumental scale.


----------



## editor (May 18, 2009)

The old arch was a lovely piece of architecture and guaranteed to be better than anything else they'd slap on the site.


----------



## Cid (May 18, 2009)

No, not exactly a fan of it and would just be another bit of nationalist, regressive symbolism.

I would like to see a more critical Modernism in that area though (which tends to go all out on the glass and steel aesthetic).


----------



## tim (May 18, 2009)

If they d do rebuild it everyone will, of course, cease being interested in it. People whinged for years about bringing the temple bar back to the city. Noe it is back as part of the neo-Carolean Paternoster square development it is ignored by everyone.


----------



## HobgoblinMan (May 18, 2009)

Get Justin Lee Collins to "Bring Back The Euston Arch". And dedicate it to the eternal memory of Jade.


----------



## pk (May 18, 2009)

editor said:


> The old arch was a lovely piece of architecture and guaranteed to be better than anything else they'd slap on the site.



This is my view.

I like Grecian architecture, and I was chuffed to see them pulling the stones out of the canal.


----------



## pogofish (May 18, 2009)

Yes it should be rebuilt but I don't see that as going back to the past.  You can manage to combine both preservation and progress with a bit of creative forethought.


----------



## lang rabbie (May 18, 2009)

*Stones of the Euston Propylaeum found by dredger in Bromley by Bow*






Thanks to Londonist for the link:

'Euston Arch' stones to be saved 

Photomontage of Euston Arch as it could look if rebuilt

More here:  Euston Arch Trust



Now if only the London Forum thread on the "Euston Arch", shamefully destroyed by philistine moderators during the great thread cull of 2005 could be similarly restored to its former glory.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (May 18, 2009)

Euston as it is nowadays is fugly.


----------



## Cid (May 18, 2009)

pogofish said:


> Yes it should be rebuilt but I don't see that as going back to the past.  You can manage to combine both preservation and progress with a bit of creative forethought.



Yes, but the sodding thing is huge and would look totally out of place (plus it would cost a fortune since you'd have to re-route the bus lanes). Just because something is old doesn't mean it's good.


----------



## London_Calling (May 19, 2009)

Maybe, if it were any good, they might have kept it and incorporated it in the new Euston.


----------



## editor (May 19, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Maybe, if it were any good, they might have kept it and incorporated it in the new Euston.


Would that be the same logic that saw endless superb buildings being pulled down all over the UK in the 60s, and the near-demise of St Pancras which was only saved after a high profile public campaign?

Here's how the rebuilt arch may look: 








Cid said:


> No, not exactly a fan of it and would just be another bit of nationalist, regressive symbolism.
> 
> I would like to see a more critical Modernism in that area though (which tends to go all out on the glass and steel aesthetic).


There's already tons of (mainly shit) modern architecture in the area, as well as the European Modernist  British Library building (which I rather like).

Not really sure what's so "nationalist" about the original arch, to be honest. It was built by a railway company (London and Birmingham Railway), not the state.

Euston Arch Trust: http://www.eustonarch.org/


----------



## London_Calling (May 19, 2009)

I don't get it, I suppose. Doesn't do anything for me.

Fwiw, I always feel it's a bit bullshitty when they try and impress with mood lighting. If it gets rid of the traffic like that though, I'll take two.


----------



## pogofish (May 19, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Maybe, if it were any good, they might have kept it and incorporated it in the new Euston.



From what I remember, there was quite a bit of support for it at the time, but BR and their developer were determined to have an all-new station and no obstruction to the site.

One thing that emerged later was that even the demolition contractor was incredulous about them wanting the arch razed and initially offered to re-erect it at his own expense somewhere else but BR were having none of it.

Which of course is maybe why so much of the stonework ended-up in a place where it could be fond again?


----------



## teuchter (May 19, 2009)

I'm not sure it's worth recreating facsimile style. I think I'd probably prefer the money spent on more useful improvements to the station itself.

I know everyone loves to say how much they hate Euston station but I actually rather like the main hall. It is quite grand and very generous in scale compared to most rail stations built around that time. I enjoy the no-nonsense coffered ceiling. With a bit of thoughtful re-arranging of facilities and tidying up of tacky kiosks etc I think it could be a very impressive space.

The platforms, of course, are grim. I'm not going to argue about that. And the forecourt and external appearance aren't up to much either.


----------



## Crispy (May 19, 2009)

The old Euston ticket hall, on the other hand - _that_ was worth saving and it's a much greater shame it was demolished than the arch.


----------



## Cid (May 19, 2009)

editor said:


> Would that be the same logic that saw endless superb buildings being pulled down all over the UK in the 60s, and the near-demise of St Pancras which was only saved after a high profile public campaign?
> 
> Here's how the rebuilt arch may look:



Yes, but that picture is, conveniently, dark and doesn't give the slightest idea how it would be integrated with the rest of the building and surrounding area. Without a complete redesign of the area it just won't work... Euston does need a bit of a face lift, but now is not the time for grand public gestures.



> There's already tons of (mainly shit) modern architecture in the area, as well as the European Modernist  British Library building (which I rather like).



Yeah, I know - I dropped out of the architecture school over the road... Who, incidentally, are still trying to redesign their awful building - definitely a case of 'two many cooks'... 



> Not really sure what's so "nationalist" about the original arch, to be honest. It was built by a railway company (London and Birmingham Railway), not the state.
> 
> Euston Arch Trust: http://www.eustonarch.org/



It's not the arch itself, it's the whole idea of reconstructing old structures and lauding them as great symbols of a bygone (invariably sepia) age.


----------



## Roadkill (May 19, 2009)

Tbh I'm really not bothered.

The arch shouldn't have been demolished, but equally, the station behind it was badly laid out and in poor condition by the early 60s.  It needed major work, if not completely rebuilding, and tbh the 'new' Euston that replaced it isn't a dreadful station to be in.

Like teuchter, I'd much rather see the money spent elsewhere on the station - or elsewhere on the railway, since there are any number of stations all over the place that could do with at least a new coat of paint.


----------



## editor (May 19, 2009)

Cid said:


> It's not the arch itself, it's the whole idea of reconstructing old structures and lauding them as great symbols of a bygone (invariably sepia) age.


If it's good, who cares? The way St Pancras was reinvented and brought back from the dead was brilliant, and that certainly was a symbol of a bygone age.

You're never going to get a grand architectural scheme for the area because it's too built up, but something like the Euston Arch (suitably lit and given a modern sheen) would at least provide a focus rather than the current vista of dowdy, dull, bland buildings.





Crispy said:


> The old Euston ticket hall, on the other hand - _that_ was worth saving and it's a much greater shame it was demolished than the arch.


I agree. That was a stunning building.


----------



## g force (May 19, 2009)

Euston's problems are far more than rebuilding an arch...the entire place needs to be re-built and made into a useable, attractive terminus. At the moment it's an embarassment - the concourse is horrific, the help point are shit, the ticket office is a mess and platforms themselves are no better.


----------



## Crispy (May 19, 2009)

A complete rebuild is in the pipeline, but they are relying on selling the space above the station to fund it. Probably not a goer at the moment


----------



## Rollem (May 19, 2009)

g force said:


> Euston's problems are far more than rebuilding an arch...the entire place needs to be re-built and made into a useable, attractive terminus. At the moment it's an embarassment - the concourse is horrific, the help point are shit, the ticket office is a mess and platforms themselves are no better.



this

personally couldn't care less for the arch now. a few years ago i was all for it, now i just want the whole damn area re-designed with or without an arch.


----------



## teuchter (May 19, 2009)

An interesting document here about the rebuilding of Euston station. There are some quite cool photos of the site during the rebuilding. And 1960's style "artist's impressions" of the new buildings.


----------



## teuchter (May 19, 2009)

g force said:


> Euston's problems are far more than rebuilding an arch...the entire place needs to be re-built and made into a useable, attractive terminus. At the moment it's an embarassment - the concourse is horrific, the help point are shit, the ticket office is a mess and platforms themselves are no better.



I was there the other day and noticed they are completely rebuilding the ticket office area at the moment.


----------



## T & P (May 19, 2009)

Tbh Euston is such a fucking monstrosity that you could put just about anything in front of it and improve the look of the place, so far as it even just partially obscures the facade.


----------



## hipipol (May 19, 2009)

I rather like Euston as it now is

I suppose we ought to campaign to have all old buildings blasted with soot, birshit ahd pwdered horse crap to get the true "feel" of Victorian london back - oh yeah, a smattering of pox ridden child prostitutes would also add to the "Empire" vibe

Utter tosh

Bye the bye - I never knew that the bottoms of rivers got "holes" in them large enough for 70 ft columns to be needed to fill em up!!


----------



## toblerone3 (May 19, 2009)

Don't think its worth reinstalling the Euston Arch. There's something deeply bland about the whole of Euston station indeed the whole layout of the area, but I don't think reinstalling the Euston Arch will be helpful. 

Indeed I think its inappropriate now. You cant really drive through the Euston Arch, its not pedestrian-friendly. It would be inappropriate because it would be out of tune with the few redeeming features of Euston station its functionality. Its not pretty but you can catch a train.

If I was to suggest one small improvement to the station it is that there should be a really good fish and chip shop there.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 19, 2009)

teuchter said:


> An interesting document here about the rebuilding of Euston station. There are some quite cool photos of the site during the rebuilding. And 1960's style "artist's impressions" of the new buildings.



Thanks for this Teuchter. I love 1960s promotional material.  Something so naive but at the same time hopeful about it.  

I wonder what happened to the upstairs "Superloo" complete with baths?


----------



## editor (May 19, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> You cant really drive through the Euston Arch....


Good start, IMO.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 19, 2009)

editor said:


> Good start, IMO.



Disfunctional arches are not good things to build an area around look at Marble Arch. What a mess!


----------



## teuchter (May 19, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> Thanks for this Teuchter. I love 1960s promotional material.  Something so naive but at the same time hopeful about it.
> 
> I wonder what happened to the upstairs "Superloo" complete with baths?



I'd be really interested to see some pictures of the station soon after it opened. Especially the concourse area before becoming cluttered up with Tie Rack kiosks and all the other stuff that's in there now.

Didn't have much luck finding photos on the web so far though.


----------



## teuchter (May 19, 2009)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=289449

thread merge?


----------



## marty21 (May 19, 2009)

lang rabbie said:


> Now if only the London Forum thread on the Euston Arch, shamefully destroyed by philistine moderators during the great thread cull of 2005 could be similarly restored to its former glory.



did that up in the river as well?


----------



## Crispy (May 19, 2009)

threads merged then. hmmm. should it go in Transport or London?


----------



## teuchter (May 19, 2009)

Crispy said:


> threads merged then. hmmm. should it go in Transport or London?



It's at moments like this that I am glad I am not a mod and expected to make such decisions.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 19, 2009)

I would say London on the grounds it is about archtecture not actually transport logistics.


----------



## lang rabbie (May 19, 2009)

[pedant]
As a paid up founder member of the Alexander "Greek" Thomson Society of Glasgow, can I stress that I voted "yes" - even though I know full well that a Propylaeum is not an arch.

That is why my thread in the London Forum had "Euston Arch" in quotation marks. 
[/pedant]


----------



## Crispy (May 19, 2009)

I'll see your Propylaeum and raise you an Aedicule.


----------



## lang rabbie (May 19, 2009)

tim said:


> If they do rebuild it everyone will, of course, cease being interested in it. People whinged for years about bringing the temple bar back to the city. Now it is back as part of the neo-Carolean Paternoster square development it is ignored by everyone.



Up to a point - the problem is that the "neo-Carolean" structures either side of Temple Bar are presumably so called as "timid designs designed to keep Prince Charles quiet" but they are actually bloody huge brutes of buildings which dwarf Temple Bar.

The situation at Euston is potentially different, as I think I'm right in saying that Euston Square is a protected square under the London Squares Act (the sale and building over of the bits of the square formerly on the south side of Euston Road was one of the scandals that led to the passing of the Act, however sedate the buildings on that side, including Friends Meeting House, now look!)

The question is can you redesign Euston Square and the forecourt to Euston Station, including a busy bus station, to provide an appropriate setting for the "Euston Arch" - which used to be located some 200 metres to the north.

I think you can, but I don't think the proposal in that slick night-time graphic of putting it slap bang on the Euston Road is the best solution. 

The LNWR war memorial should probably be moved as well to allow a complete redesign of the square.


----------



## teuchter (May 19, 2009)

lang rabbie said:


> [pedant]
> As a paid up founder member of the Alexander "Greek" Thomson Society of Glasgow,



Do you know this man?


----------



## teuchter (May 19, 2009)

I really don't see that the Euston Arch/Propylaeum has any great aesthetic merit in itself.

If it was surviving and the question were to knock it down or not, then maybe I'd be in favour of keeping it as a historical curiosity. But if I have to consider it on its own merits as a design, I can't say it's worth making a facsimile of. Especially now that it would have little meaningful relevance to the space around it.

(And I say this as a Greek Thomson admirer, by the way.)


----------



## lang rabbie (May 19, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Do you know this man?



I never met Gavin Stamp in the years when he was Glasgow based

[complete thread derail] Bizarrely, the last time I saw Gavin was when various assembled worthies of the Victorian Society turned up unannounced at Henry Tate Mews, Streatham Common to get into a Streatham Society guided tour of the former Park Hill (the converted mansion which contains the ballroom that was the original home of the Tate collection) after an afternoon visiting the Victorian churches of Norwood.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 19, 2009)

There's something polemical about the arch's symbolism.

Perhaps it was connected with the triumphal entry of the railway into London, but there it is slapbang on the Euston Road which is triumphal entry of the road into London. At this point in London the sense of road is more powerful than the sense of rail.

Perhaps the arch should be redesigned and re-aligned so that it is over the road.


----------



## lang rabbie (May 19, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I really don't see that the Euston Arch/Propylaeum has any great aesthetic merit in itself.





"Twas heretic, damnable error!"


----------



## Crispy (May 19, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> Perhaps the arch should be redesigned and re-aligned so that it is over the road.


That makes me  but it would totally block the road


----------



## Azrael (May 19, 2009)

tim said:


> If they d do rebuild it everyone will, of course, cease being interested in it. People whinged for years about bringing the temple bar back to the city. Noe it is back as part of the neo-Carolean Paternoster square development it is ignored by everyone.


Not so: I made it a point to go and have a look, and a lovely job they made of it.  

I enthusiastically support the reconstruction of the Euston Arch, with as many original stones as can be salvaged. Its demolition has to be a contender for worst act of architectural vandalism in England of the 20th century. I'd like them to rebuild the ticket-hall in the original style while they're at it. They won't, of course, but the arch might rise again.


----------



## teuchter (May 19, 2009)

lang rabbie said:


> "Twas heretic, damnable error!"



Convert me, then!


Just another propylaeum if you ask me. The only thing that particularly distinguishes is from the zillions of others there must be standing about the place around the globe is the fact that it had "Euston" written on it. Nothing particularly original or exceptionally beautiful about it.

In my ever so humble opinion.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 19, 2009)

There was a point behind my flippant suggestion that the Euston Arch should be over the road and not at right angles to it. Any self respecting arch or gateway should be leading to something and have a vista through to something. To have an arch stranded as a powerless onlooker as the traffic rushes past it on the Euston Road is silly.  Look at the difference in alignments in the two pictures below. North-South alignment or East-West alignment you cant have it both ways!


----------



## teuchter (May 20, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> There was a point behind my flippant suggestion that the Euston Arch should be over the road and not at right angles to it. Any self respecting arch or gateway should be leading to something and have a vista through to something. To have an arch stranded as a powerless onlooker as the traffic rushes past it on the Euston Road is silly.  Look at the difference in alignments in the two pictures below. North-South alignment or East-West alignment you cant have it both ways!



Well - originally it led to Euston Station. So Euston Road would always have rushed past it - but you would have passed through it to enter the station. So the alignment in the photomontage is essentially the same.

Here is another view. Presumably this is looking from Euston Road, into the station forecourt the other side of the arch. It makes rather more sense here than in the proposed arrangement, because it is part of a screen and you would actually pass through it to get into the station. As far as I can see, in the proposed reconstruction it would be purely symbolic, standing there on its own with no-one really going through it. Which is one of the reasons reinstating it seems a little pointless to me.


----------



## Azrael (May 20, 2009)

teuchter said:


> As far as I can see, in the proposed reconstruction it would be purely symbolic, standing there on its own with no-one really going through it.


This could easily be remedied by knocking up a few nice ornate fences either side of the arch. If that isn't practical, rebuild it anyway, as a giant two-fingers to wreckers past and present, and to serve as a wonderful, symbolic, folly.


----------



## lang rabbie (May 20, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Well - originally it led to Euston Station. So Euston Road would always have rushed past it - but you would have passed through it to enter the station. So the alignment in the photomontage is essentially the same.
> 
> Here is another view. Presumably this is looking from Euston Road, into the station forecourt the other side of the arch. It makes rather more sense here than in the proposed arrangement, because it is part of a screen and you would actually pass through it to get into the station. As far as I can see, in the proposed reconstruction it would be purely symbolic, standing there on its own with no-one really going through it. Which is one of the reasons reinstating it seems a little pointless to me.



Which is precisely what I'm saying - don't try and squeeze the rebuild  between the war memorial lodges on the Euston Road.   Come up with a proper plan to redevelop the depressingly black late 70s Seifert office blocks and put the "Euston Arch" back dominating the north side of Euston Square as the main pedestrian approach to the railway station with a minimalist glass bus station on either side.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 20, 2009)

lang rabbie said:


> Which is precisely what I'm saying - don't try and squeeze the rebuild  between the war memorial lodges on the Euston Road.   Come up with a proper plan to redevelop the depressingly black late 70s Seifert office blocks and put the "Euston Arch" back dominating the north side of Euston Square as the main pedestrian approach to the railway station with a minimalist glass bus station on either side.



Where would the pedestrians come from?


----------



## teuchter (May 20, 2009)

lang rabbie said:


> Which is precisely what I'm saying - don't try and squeeze the rebuild  between the war memorial lodges on the Euston Road.   Come up with a proper plan to redevelop the depressingly black late 70s Seifert office blocks and put the "Euston Arch" back dominating the north side of Euston Square as the main pedestrian approach to the railway station with a minimalist glass bus station on either side.



Or simply redesign Euston square with the aim of making it better, and realise that reinstating the Euston Arch is not necessary, or even particularly helpful, in achieving this.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 20, 2009)

i like it

i think it's big and bold and stone

i like big stone stuff  especially stuff like this


----------



## Chz (May 20, 2009)

How is it an "arch"?

And while tearing it down in the first place was a travesty, it doesn't really belong where they're proposing it now either. It did its job for history in kickstarting the preservation movement - let it rest.


----------



## Azrael (May 20, 2009)

Chz said:


> It did its job for history in kickstarting the preservation movement - let it rest.


Oh no, it must rise again, phoenix-style, if only to announce a major symbolic victory over the wreckers. In exactly the same place, and exactly the same proportions, with "EUSTON" in big gold letters across the top.


----------



## lang rabbie (May 20, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> Where would the pedestrians come from?



(i) the bus station

(ii) south of Euston Road - have you never seen the number of people who take their lives in their hands every day trying to get across despite the appalling lack of proper pedestrian phases on any of the sets of lights.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 22, 2009)

lang rabbie said:


> (i) the bus station
> 
> (ii) south of Euston Road - have you never seen the number of people who take their lives in their hands every day trying to get across despite the appalling lack of proper pedestrian phases on any of the sets of lights.



But if I understand your idea correctly you would place the bus station to the side of the 'Arch'. As for people coming from south of the Euston Road that would be mainly from Euston Square tube which is on the pisspoor circle line ffs and is 300 metres down the Euston Road. I mean completely walkable but a very poor interchange.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 22, 2009)

Looking at those photos I think I agree that the 'arch' isn't really up to much. The proportions are a bit wrong - it just lacks elegance. And I agree it wouldn't necessarily fit into the area any more.

However, the real shame of it is that we are likely to get a choice between reinstating the arch or building another sodding glass box there. Given that choice I'd probably go for the arch. 

I mean, let's think about station refurbs in London. Cannon Street - hideous. Kings Cross - disastrous. Charing Cross - bland. St Pancras - successful but almost entirely reliant on the Victorian building. So where's the evidence that anyone, either designing or commissioning, has the faintest idea how to build a good station that would stand the test of time?

It's enough to make you long for a stone arch again, even if it is a fuck ugly arch


----------



## teuchter (May 22, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> I mean, let's think about station refurbs in London. Cannon Street - hideous. Kings Cross - disastrous. Charing Cross - bland. St Pancras - successful but almost entirely reliant on the Victorian building. So where's the evidence that anyone, either designing or commissioning, has the faintest idea how to build a good station that would stand the test of time?



Jubilee line extension?


----------



## Crispy (May 22, 2009)

JLE is awesome 

I think Kings X will be much better once they build the new ticket hall and demolish that 70s monstrosity.

I like the new building that's going on top of Canon Street







That whole block with the X on the end is cantilevered over the entrance. Ballsy engineering, I like


----------



## Brainaddict (May 22, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Jubilee line extension?



Fair point in a way. But I put it to you that while they managed to create some quite good internal (underground) spaces, they didn't actually build any impressive above-ground buildings. I mean, they're passable, but nothing special. Southwark is probably the best of the lot, unless there's a good one I haven't seen (I rarely venture far east).


----------



## teuchter (May 22, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> Fair point in a way. But I put it to you that while they managed to create some quite good internal (underground) spaces, they didn't actually build any impressive above-ground buildings. I mean, they're passable, but nothing special. Southwark is probably the best of the lot, unless there's a good one I haven't seen (I rarely venture far east).



Yeah, I can't really argue with you there; the best bits of the JLE are underground. 

An underground station is of course a different animal to a major main line terminus.

What they do have in common is a very complex set of engineering and organisational requirements, and in the hands of a mediocre architect, transport architecture can so easily end up as bland veneer applied to functional sheds. Rather than a  beautifully crafted expression of those functional requirements like what you see in the best Victorian stations such as Paddington or York.

I think that the Jubilee line projects demonstrated that if you've got the right people at the helm, high quality architecture doesn't have to be incompatible with all the other things you need to get right to make transport architecture work. 

I'm tempted to put the Eurostar extension to Waterloo forward as an example of an ambitious piece of relatively modern rail architecture, on a large scale. It has of course been beset with various technical problems. We can argue whether they are the result of bad architecture or bad engineering.


----------



## teuchter (May 22, 2009)

Actually thinking about it, I'm not a massive fan of it, but JLE-wise, Stratford station is not bad at all. It deals with quite a complicated intersection of several different lines in a clear and relatively elegant manner.


----------



## Crispy (May 22, 2009)

Ah yes, stratford is good 

But annoying that the International station is 500m away. One whole stop on the (soon to be) DLR. Very integrated 
Oh, and the new platforms for the NLL are being built in such a way as to prevent further extension of those lines Eastward!


----------



## _pH_ (May 22, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> I mean, let's think about station refurbs in London. Cannon Street - hideous. Kings Cross - disastrous. Charing Cross - bland. St Pancras - successful but almost entirely reliant on the Victorian building. So where's the evidence that anyone, either designing or commissioning, has the faintest idea how to build a good station that would stand the test of time?



Add Fenchurch Street to that list. Lovely on the outside. Inside......hmmmmmm......like a pisspoor copy of New Street 

Outside:








Inside:


----------



## teuchter (May 22, 2009)

The Liverpool St refurbishment was OK, aside from plunging half the platforms into darkness.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (May 22, 2009)

http://www.franklinandrews.com/projects/?mode=type&id=15580


----------



## Prince Rhyus (May 22, 2009)

http://www.britishland.com/pressrelease050407


----------



## Crispy (May 22, 2009)

They're still in the very early stages of planning for this, I wouldn't pay attention to those renders.


----------



## lang rabbie (May 22, 2009)

Crispy said:


> JLE is awesome
> 
> I like the new building that's going on top of Canon Street
> 
> That whole block with the X on the end is cantilevered over the entrance. Ballsy engineering, I like



It is also cantilevered over the remains of the Roman Governor's palace which apparently survive beneath the platforms of the station and couldn't have piles driven through them.


----------



## Crispy (May 22, 2009)

Interesting! Also, the building next door - black one with silver diamond framing - is supported on just 4 columns - the diamond lattice holds the floors up and the pipes are filled with water to keep the steel cool in a fire so it doesn't warp. It was done that way because the jubilee line was originally planned to be extended directly underneath, pushing the foundations right to the edge.


----------



## editor (May 22, 2009)

There's a great feature on the Euston Arch on London Reconnections, including a short video.











http://londonreconnections.blogspot.com/2009/05/euston-arch-part-1-birth.html


----------



## Azrael (May 22, 2009)

Great link, thanks for that. 

It says the arch was "the largest of its kind in the world", which isn't in itself an argument for preservation, but it was a symbol of the early railway (or rather, railroad) age. English Heritage take such things into account. And as it happens, I do rather like the design.

Modern railway architecture is fairly abysmal. The current Euston, about to bulldozed 40 years after it went up, has pride of place in the rogues gallery. Even notable exceptions like Stratford don't compare with the work of 1930s modernists like Charles Holden, probably because today we make a fetish of glass. 






Canary Warf station and Canada Water possible exceptions.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 22, 2009)

Prince Rhyus said:


> http://www.franklinandrews.com/projects/?mode=type&id=15580



ooh, no, I take it all back - there's absolutely NO chance we'll end up with an anonymous glass box with all the charisma of an airport departure lounge. NO CHANCE AT ALL 

I wouldn't argue with the JLE station interiors - probably the best architecture in London for decades. Stratford's a bit meh for me, but I guess it's not terrible - which in itself is a break with recent tradition.


----------



## Endeavour (May 24, 2009)

i used to go past it on 




the bus when i was a kid


----------



## Azrael (May 24, 2009)

Neat! Worth rebuilding, or has it benefited from nostalgia?


----------



## lang rabbie (Jun 12, 2009)

The London Reconnections blog now has  a comprehensive post on the sorry saga of the 1960s demolition

The Euston Arch Part 2: Death

Think this was linked to earlier in the thread, but this earlier post on the construction of the arch is worth recommending anyway:

The Euston Arch Part 1: Birth


----------



## teuchter (Jun 12, 2009)

So Euston could have ended up looking like some kind of Soviet ministry...






That would have been pretty cool.


----------



## Azrael (Jun 13, 2009)

lang rabbie said:


> The London Reconnections blog now has  a comprehensive post on the sorry saga of the 1960s demolition
> 
> The Euston Arch Part 2: Death
> 
> ...


Thanks for those links. The apathy shown to conservation by an allegedly conservative government speaks volumes.  

The Soviet ministry would have been okay, with the Arch in front of it, though. I'm more convinced than ever that it should be rebuilt after reading those accounts. Betjeman's lament sums it up:-

_It would be beautiful you see, and of course people always think if you have anything beautiful it’s wicked nowadays. It has to be cheap._


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Jun 13, 2009)

They need to learn the lessons of St Pancras and build a station that is a centre for "civic activity" and something that people can take pride in, rather than building a big soulless glass box. Can't see it happening because everyone's got to make as much money from it as possible.


----------



## davesgcr (Jun 13, 2009)

Euston re-development on hold because of the financial situation

yes - it should be rebuilt - like the Fraunkirche was in Dresden - part of the heritage of Londons first main line railway


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2009)

Prince Rhyus said:


> They need to learn the lessons of St Pancras and build a station that is a centre for "civic activity"



A shopping centre?


----------



## Azrael (Jun 15, 2009)

davesgcr said:


> yes - it should be rebuilt - like the Fraunkirche was in Dresden - part of the heritage of Londons first main line railway


Glad someone's mentioned the Fraunkirche, which incorporates original stones in an impressive (and poignant, give their smoke-blackened state) fashion. 

Euston could be rebuilt in Classical style to match the Arch. A magnificent new Great Hall could be created to reflect and honour the original. What do people love about St Pancreas: the glass box they've bolted onto the end, or the soaring canopy of Victorian iron and glass? 

Of course this won't happen, given that architects by and large despise historicism in new builds and bleat "Pastiche! Urgh!" when it's suggested. Giant shoebox it is.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Glad someone's mentioned the Fraunkirche, which incorporates original stones in an impressive (and poignant, give their smoke-blackened state) fashion.
> 
> Euston could be rebuilt in Classical style to match the Arch. A magnificent new Great Hall could be created to reflect and honour the original. What do people love about St Pancreas: the glass box they've bolted onto the end, or the soaring canopy of Victorian iron and glass?
> 
> Of course this won't happen, given that architects by and large despise historicism in new builds and bleat "Pastiche! Urgh!" when it's suggested. Giant shoebox it is.



The St Pancras extension isn't a "glass box". It is fairly banal and could have been better. It would in fact have been better if it was more of a "glass box" if we take that ambiguous term to suggest less clunky detailing. However, part of the point of its banality is that it doesn't subtract from the main hall. The roof is kept low so that it doesn't interrupt the end of the Barlow shed, which is as it should be.

Why does everyone love the renovated St Pancras shed? A combination of its massive scale and finely executed and ornate iron- and brick-work. It's beautiful. But it was built by a wealthy private company at a time when railways were a profitable business, and labour was cheap. (It was also the most expensive design submitted and ran into controversy at the end when it went over budget.)

Pretty much the opposite of the current situation, then. To reconstruct that today would be immensely expensive. Which is why it's not a fair comparison to make. In any case, even if we could convince someone that it would be worthwhile to spend such a vast amount of money on a new train station, why not use that huge budget to build something amazing but of our own time?

And there is a difference between pastiche and reconstruction, Frauenkirche style. To rebuild Euston exactly as it was at your favourite moment in history could be interesting, although expensive and probably impractical. But just to build something in neoclassical style because we're too scared to do anything else - I'd be embarassed to be a resident of a city that regressive and unambitious.

Have you got any examples of large-scale buildings built in classical style in the past 10 or 20 years, that you feel have been successful, by the way?


----------



## Crispy (Jun 15, 2009)

How large? There's a new Quinlan Terry just gone up on Tottenham Court Rd next to the Dominion that I think is very succesful.
(sorry for big image)


----------



## Azrael (Jun 15, 2009)

teuchter said:


> To reconstruct that today would be immensely expensive. Which is why it's not a fair comparison to make.


Have you seen how much money they threw at the Jubilee Line Extension?  If cost were the real issue, we'd be scuttling around in rabbit warrens. Actually, this isn't far off what the original -- privately financed -- underground stations are like, albeit with very nice tiles. 

You've highlighted the real issue: the bizarre view that historical architecture is outdated. It's timeless and can be adapted for technological progress. St Pancreas reinterpreted the style used for medieval cathedrals by incorporating 19th century materials like iron. It's entirely of its time. We could do the same. I'm not suggesting that the Great Hall be reconstructed, but used to inspire something new. 

I'd just like it to be an option, on the table with modern designs. The competition might force them to raise their game to rival Charles Holden's masterpieces, instead of producing mini-airports. If one of those is better, choose that. 

Oh, and on reflection you're right about the shed at St Pancreas. It's more of a steel box, and already looks shabby. You're right it doesn't detract, but it doesn't add either. Imagine extending their shed in the original style and scale. That would have been an amazing building.  


Crispy said:


> How large? There's a new Quinlan Terry just gone up on Tottenham Court Rd next to the Dominion that I think is very succesful.
> (sorry for big image)


Good example. There are others -- the neo-classical building in Downing College, Cambridge -- but they're rare. I quite like the new Paternoster Square, which references neo-classicism, but I can't think of anything on the scale of Euston built in that style.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 15, 2009)

When it comes to building railway stations, I'd say the no.1 important factor is flexibility. Transport patterns change, and new infrastructure is always being built. Therefore, it's important to make future developments easy and cheap. That means, imo, large uninterrupted spans, little in the way of permanent structures within that space (ie no solid stone ticket office) and aesthetic designs that can adapt to future expansions/modifications without compromising their original intent. Classical architecture is badly suited for this sort of building. When they rebuild Euston, I expect to see a plain, functional shed, but with good materials and neat details. Internal functions should be in free-standing 'pods' or cabins, so that future modifications to teh station can move these functions around without causing great pain.


----------



## Azrael (Jun 15, 2009)

Crispy said:


> Classical architecture is badly suited for this sort of building.


Depends what materials you employ, surely? And I'm sure you can plan the station with a separate, large Central Hall unlikely to need modification. Connect it to sheds in more flexible materials in a classical style. 

Or produce something entirely different. I just want classicism and historical styles in general there as an option, and I'm extremely dubious that practicality is the main issue after hearing endless architects go off on one about "pastiche"!

Actually I'm convinced that the split between historicism and modern architecture is false. Holden's designs certainly reference the past. Architecture should be an extremely broad church.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2009)

Crispy said:


> How large? There's a new Quinlan Terry just gone up on Tottenham Court Rd next to the Dominion that I think is very succesful.
> (sorry for big image)



I'd be interested to see the interior of that building, and whether it has any particular relation to the facade, and if so, whether that relationship benefits or compromises it. 

The classical style is quite useful for making non-descript facades, if that's what you want. I'd describe that as a neutral addition to Tottenham Court Road.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 15, 2009)

It's a completely standard office building on the inside. Terry only did the facade, IIRC - the developers originally planned a Modern facade but the planners said no.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2009)

Azrael said:


> I'm extremely dubious that practicality is the main issue after hearing endless architects go off on one about "pastiche"!



Just like folk like you seem to go off on one about "glass shoeboxes" as if that it what any bit of contemporary architecture is going to be.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2009)

Crispy said:


> It's a completely standard office building on the inside.



Probably with rather less natural light than might have been possible if the facade had been designed with the occupants rather than the conservative planners in mind.


----------



## Azrael (Jun 15, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Just like folk like you seem to go off on one about "glass shoeboxes" as if that it what any bit of contemporary architecture is going to be.


Except that I'm not making sweeping generalisations about modernist buildings: simply ones that happen to look like giant shoeboxes.  The pastiche argument is used against all historicism.  

St Pancras shed extension:-







Note I've already posted up pictures of Charles Holden's work, and some of the Jubilee Line Extension. I want a diverse range of styles. Can you say the same? Are you happy for historical styles to be built alongside modernist ones?


----------



## Azrael (Jun 15, 2009)

Crispy said:


> It's a completely standard office building on the inside. Terry only did the facade, IIRC - the developers originally planned a Modern facade but the planners said no.


This sort of thing gives historicism a bad name. It shouldn't be about window dressing. If it's to be done, it should inform all aspects of the building, inside and out. Sticking a bit of classical wrapping paper around a modern building usually robs it of any claim at authenticity.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Note I've already posted up pictures of Charles Holden's work, and some of the Jubilee Line Extension. I want a diverse range of styles. Can you say the same? Are you happy for historical styles to be built alongside modernist ones?



To answer this fully would end up in a rather long post, but -

Yes I certainly like to see a diverse range of styles. But I'd rather we focussed on the design than the style. The first question that should be asked about a building is whether it is well designed. The "style" of it is significant but somewhat secondary.

Developers, architects, planning authorities and anyone else responsible for the form of our built environment should be given a hard time over bad design. There are plenty of bad buildings in all kinds of "styles". It's rather frustrating that the debate gets polarised into the rather unsophisticated one of traditional vs. modern in so many cases (thanks for that, Prince C.). It distracts from what we should really be talking about, as far as I'm concerned.

As for "historical styles" - well I find them rather problematic. Especially when they are just a (usually bad) imitation, rather than an intelligent re-interpretation. My observation is that there are few contemporary buildings built in "historical style" which are very interesting, or just any good in general. Which is why I asked if you have any examples.



> This sort of thing gives historicism a bad name. It shouldn't be about window dressing. If it's to be done, it should inform all aspects of the building, inside and out. Sticking a bit of classical wrapping paper around a modern building usually robs it of any claim at authenticity.



Well, yes. Again - give me some examples (from the past couple of decades) where a historical style has been successfully used to create something more than wrapping paper.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2009)

(Are you familiar with Adolf Loos' giant Doric column by the way?)


----------



## Crispy (Jun 15, 2009)

teuchter said:


> (Are you familiar with Adolf Loos' giant Doric column by the way?)



I bet you're familiar with his giant column!
Way hey hey


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2009)

Crispy said:


> I bet you're familiar with his giant column!
> Way hey hey



This is a serious thread Crispy.

I provided an opening for your type when I posted Mr Cocks' Monument a little while ago but no-one took it.


----------



## Azrael (Jun 15, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Well, yes. Again - give me some examples (from the past couple of decades) where a historical style has been successfully used to create something more than wrapping paper.


*Library at Downing College, Cambridge, 1990-2.*









*Brentwood (catholic) Cathedral 1989-91* 









I don't see why construction in the last few decades should mean anything: classicism's been with us for over two millennia! Gothic at least one millennia. If historicism led to unimaginative buildings, it would afflict us as much in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries as it does now. 

I agree that the debate is a silly polarization. That comes largely from the modernists, because they're dominant. Richard "Robin Hood Gardens" Rogers tried to get Quinlan Terry's Chelsea Royal Hospital rejected behind-the-scenes. Prince Charles has, at most, stopped a few monstrosities going up. He's fighting a loosing rearguard action.   

Of course you can design badly in all genres. But that's separate from the prejudice which historicism faces. Usually a cry of "pastiche" is all that's needed. I'm aware that historicism dominated in the past. We should be open to good design in all genres, but that's only possible when architecture is no longer dominated by people who reject the past.


----------



## Azrael (Jun 15, 2009)

teuchter said:


> (Are you familiar with Adolf Loos' giant Doric column by the way?)


Ah yes, _that_.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 15, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I provided an *opening* for your type



Way hey h..
oh never mind


----------



## Azrael (Jun 15, 2009)

Crispy said:


> Way hey h..
> oh never mind


If the opening involves the Loos Doric ... ouch!


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2009)

Azrael said:


> *Library at Downing College, Cambridge, 1990-2.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think those photos are a mixture of that library and Brentwood Cathedral. Anyway, that doesn't really matter. I haven't seen either of the buildings in the flesh (perhaps I should take myself on a Quinlan Terry tour some time) but from photos they look alright - they appear to have used decent materials and to be coherent in themselves. 

I suspect both of those buildings had fairly generous budgets. Personally, if I were the client, I would have spent that money on something more interesting but that is entirely down to my tastes of course. I find it a little peculiar, in a way, that people want to build that kind of stuff when there is already so much of it knocking about courtesy of the Victorians. But I can't say that either of those examples are "bad" buildings in themselves, from the information available. Quite rare examples though.

As regards Euston by the way - if there were a competition I'd be interested to see what someone like Terry came up with (I don't dispute that he does what he does well). I wouldn't want to rule him out on principle.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 15, 2009)

I don't think he's got the guns for big infrastructure, personally.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2009)

Azrael said:


> I don't see why construction in the last few decades should mean anything: classicism's been with us for over two millennia! Gothic at least one millennia. If historicism led to unimaginative buildings, it would afflict us as much in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries as it does now.



Regarding this -

The point is that technology and the way we live have changed much more dramatically in the past 50 - 100 years than they did at any time in the past.

The options available to an architect now are so much greater than to one working in the 1860s. It seems silly not to take advantage of these, especially when faced with dealing with a set of requirements hugely more restrictive than those faced by the Victorians.


----------



## Azrael (Jun 15, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Quite rare examples though.


True, as the style is deeply unfashionable amongst the architectural community. The skills are no longer taught. Mr Terry was failed when he submitted classical designs on his architecture course: he ran up (parodies) of modernist works and passed! He taught himself the tools of classicism by touring old buildings, but it takes a rare degree of dedication and bloody mindedness to do that. By the by, Mr Terry thinks there's an endemic problem in the way architecture is taught: five years of theory instead of an apprenticeship system. He makes a convincing case. I'd love to see his design for Euston, and what others would offer against it. 

As to why we should build in this style, it's been honed and perfected over two thousand years. A vernacular that well understood allows exciting things to be done. And simply, it can be extremely beautiful. Add in the benefits from harmonizing with surrounding buildings and you have a winner. 

It can also lead to new styles. Charles Holden was trained in historicism, and his buildings clearly draw inspiration from his predecessors. 






What's the roof at Oakwood but a medieval great hall imagined in concrete? 






If the prejudice against historicism were put aside, it could only help new styles. There's nothing to be gained from rejecting the combined experience of centuries.


----------



## Azrael (Jun 15, 2009)

Crispy said:


> I don't think he's got the guns for big infrastructure, personally.


Possibly not, although Brentwood Cathedral is large and impressive, and his Cambridge buildings stand out amongst tough competition. Point is, Mr Terry is more-or-less fighting it alone. There should be dozens of practices out there competing with him in the same genre.   


teuchter said:


> The point is that technology and the way we live have changed much more dramatically in the past 50 - 100 years than they did at any time in the past..


I'm not at all sure about the rate of technological innovation: the ironwork of Victorian buildings is surely as revolutionary as the changes in the 20th century. And I don't see the conflict between historicism and technology, as if historicism would hold us back. All sorts of exciting things could be done with a fusion of historic styles and new materials: to give one of the most famous examples, the concrete dome in the Pantheon.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 15, 2009)

I agree with you about architectural education btw. It badly needs fixing


----------



## Azrael (Jun 15, 2009)

Do you have any ideas on that front? I like Mr Terry's suggestion of an apprentice system -- he says it helps students get a feel for the practical instead of just the theoretical -- but I'm sure there's alternatives.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 15, 2009)

No specifics, but at both the universities I've been to, the teaching was geared towards turning us into beard-stroking pseudo-philosophers. 'What is the psychogeography of this space, mr. Crispy?' - 'what are you trying to say about the suburban condition with this piece?' Bleuch. When I present my work to a panel of critics I want to talk about how my building succeeds as a piece of urban design and a place for people to be in, not how it cleverly references deleuze and the alienation of modern consumerism.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2009)

Azrael said:


> True, as the style is deeply unfashionable amongst the architectural community.



That's true. And there perhaps exists more prejudice against it than there should be. But there are reasons for it being unfashionable. Most people who spend a large number of years doing architecture realise that on the whole it's a rather restrictive and unimaginative approach to design - particularly, as I said before - in the context of what we have available, and what we want to do, now.

Note that it is the people who actually _do_ architecture who mostly come to this conclusion, rather than the historians who just study it.



> endemic problem in the way architecture is taught: five years of theory instead of an apprenticeship system.



Not really true. The majority of time spent studying architecture is taken up doing studio design projects. As in, designing stuff, and then defending it against criticism. Not sitting around reading books. There may be some schools which allow students to hide behind theory more than they should, but design, and the (genrally quite tough) critique of it, is at the heart of all architecture courses and is the most important element in determining a student's success.



> As to why we should build in this style, it's been honed and perfected over two thousand years.



That is the generous way to look at it.

You might also say that it is the style that happened to be adopted by an incredibly powerful empire hence its familiarity (and association with power and stablilty) throughout Europe and consequently much of the rest of the world colonised in turn by Europeans.




> A vernacular that well understood allows exciting things to be done.



I'm not sure I'd call it a "vernacular". An early example of the blandness that can result from globalisation, perhaps? That's a bit unfair really because like you say in the right hands good things can be done with it. Not much new can be done with it now though. It's a fundamentally conservative style. If you want "exciting" then classicism isn't really at the top of the list.



> It can also lead to new styles. Charles Holden was trained in historicism, and his buildings clearly draw inspiration from his predecessors.



All good architects draw inspiration from their predecessors. Do you think currently practicing architects haven't spent a great deal of time looking at historical styles?



> What's the roof at Oakwood but a medieval great hall imagined in concrete?



I don't really buy into this kind of comment I'm afraid. Yes you can say that if you want. What it is is a solution to a basic structural problem, expressed.

Big beams spanning the big spans, with small beams spanning between them. It's not rocket science. A basic structural system, used by different designers throughout history because it works, not particularly because the builders of medieval halls were geniuses.

I could say that the roof of the current Euston station was "the coffers of the Pantheon, suspended between beams inspired by the something or other medieval whatsit" but it still wouldn't tell you whether it was any good or not.

As it happens I think it is rather good.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2009)

Crispy said:


> No specifics, but at both the universities I've been to, the teaching was geared towards turning us into beard-stroking pseudo-philosophers. 'What is the psychogeography of this space, mr. Crispy?' - 'what are you trying to say about the suburban condition with this piece?' Bleuch. When I present my work to a panel of critics I want to talk about how my building succeeds as a piece of urban design and a place for people to be in, not how it cleverly references deleuze and the alienation of modern consumerism.



There's no doubt that this is an issue in some schools, I have to say.

Which universities were those?


----------



## Crispy (Jun 15, 2009)

I'd rather not say


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2009)

Crispy said:


> I'd rather not say



Heh.

There are a few things I could say, too, but amn't going to here...


----------



## Azrael (Jun 15, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Not much new can be done with it now though. It's a fundamentally conservative style. If you want "exciting" then classicism isn't really at the top of the list.


I'm fundamentally conservative, so that tallies.  

Classicism is "conservative" in the proper sense: it conserves past ideas and styles. That isn't the same thing as boring. It isn't about a particular historical style but historicism in general. What about Gothic? The glorious flights of fancy the Victorians went off on couldn't by any stretch of the imagination be called dull. 

Too many contemporary architects try to bury the past. You say resemblance between Oakwood's roof and medieval halls is coincidental, but why did Holden expose the beams in that way, instead of using steel and burying it in concrete, or some other method? His earlier work shows a progression from historic styles to something original. Now there's a fetish for glass and steel; it might employ ancient construction techniques, but overt reference is frowned on. 

As for fashion proving things, it's usually a poor argument. I gave practical reasons why classicism (and historical styles in general) have gone out of fashion: students aren't taught them, or their vocabulary. Responding to technology isn't the cause. Traditional key structures have also gone out of fashion in music, and traditional prose in literature. Abandoning the past is ideological, not practical. 

Ultimately all I want is diversity. I have nothing against new styles, and welcome experimentation. The reverse doesn't seem to be true. Mr Rogers tried to have Mr Terry's design for Chelsea Hospital suppressed. A certain type of modernism seems to want the past destroyed. I distrust all Brave New World ideologies. If I've got it wrong, modernist architects should be happy to have historic styles built.


----------



## Azrael (Jun 15, 2009)

Crispy said:


> No specifics, but at both the universities I've been to, the teaching was geared towards turning us into beard-stroking pseudo-philosophers. 'What is the psychogeography of this space, mr. Crispy?' - 'what are you trying to say about the suburban condition with this piece?' Bleuch. When I present my work to a panel of critics I want to talk about how my building succeeds as a piece of urban design and a place for people to be in, not how it cleverly references deleuze and the alienation of modern consumerism.


All sensible moves. But if the schools and universities adopt your apporach, they'd have to start considering popular opinion in a serious fashion, and that doesn't fit well with unfettered experimentation. 


teuchter said:


> The majority of time spent studying architecture is taken up doing studio design projects. As in, designing stuff, and then defending it against criticism. Not sitting around reading books.


"Theoretical" doesn't just mean sitting around reading books; what you've described is a theoretical approach. I think Mr Terry was referring to working hands-on with an architect, seeing the day-to-day realities of the business and so on.


----------



## lang rabbie (Jun 15, 2009)

Can I just state that [IMHO] Quinlan Terry is an utterly inept designer.   He has no serious understanding (either academic, spiritual, or psychogeographical!) of the way that the classical Orders should be used, and just provides "classical" architectural wallpaper to suit his conservative clients.   

John Simpson is almost as bad when he moves beyond domestic architecture to large scale projects like Paternoster Square!

There are "Modernist" architects with a much better understanding of the underlying rules of proportion underlying classicism, who I would be far more willing to trust to incorporate a reconstruction of the Euston Arch alongside a contemporary rebuild in preference to having a mediocre building by Terry, Simpson or "Robert Adam".


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Too many contemporary architects try to bury the past. You say resemblance between Oakwood's roof and medieval halls is coincidental, but why did Holden expose the beams in that way, instead of using steel and burying it in concrete, or some other method? His earlier work shows a progression from historic styles to something original. Now there's a fetish for glass and steel; it might employ ancient construction techniques, but overt reference is frowned on.



I didn't say it was coincidental - I said the opposite. A straightforward construction system, used to the same end, several cenuries apart: of course there's going to be a resemblance.

Why did Holden express the beams in that way? You ask that question as if his choice to express structure is in some way a result of his classical training. The expression of structure is by no means exclusive to classical or historical architecture. In fact classical architecture is arguably largely about faking-up structure. Many of its motifs are derived from timber architecture and have little relevance, in a structural sense, to the way one builds in masonry. 

Holden chose to express the roof structure because he wanted to. A few decades later Rogers & Co decided to express the structure of the Pompidou centre because they wanted to:







"Fetish for glass and steel" is yet another cliche - what is that supposed to mean, actually? Do you think all contemporary architects have an urge to make everything out of glass and steel? Or do you think it might be something to do with the practicalities of building large structures (which obviously tend to be the most noticeable ones)?



> As for fashion proving things, it's usually a poor argument. I gave practical reasons why classicism (and historical styles in general) have gone out of fashion: students aren't taught them, or their vocabulary.



Yes they are.



> Responding to technology isn't the cause. Traditional key structures have also gone out of fashion in music, and traditional prose in literature. Abandoning the past is ideological, not practical.



In some cases it is ideological, in some cases it is practical.



> Ultimately all I want is diversity. I have nothing against new styles, and welcome experimentation. The reverse doesn't seem to be true. Mr Rogers tried to have Mr Terry's design for Chelsea Hospital suppressed. A certain type of modernism seems to want the *past* destroyed. I distrust all Brave New World ideologies. If I've got it wrong, modernist architects should be happy to have *historic styles* built.



This just seems to illustrate the confusion in these discussions: imitating the past is a completely different thing to conserving it.

I'd put money on the vast majority of modern, even modernist, architects having a much greater respect and love for true historic buildings than the average member of the public.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2009)

Azrael said:


> "Theoretical" doesn't just mean sitting around reading books; what you've described is a theoretical approach. I think Mr Terry was referring to working hands-on with an architect, seeing the day-to-day realities of the business and so on.



You go and do five years in an architecture school and then tell me that doing studio design work and defending it in front of crit panels (usually including practising architects, and sometimes non-architects) is "theoretical"! It is time to practise the most important bit of the architect's job - designing stuff - and make and learn from your mistakes before going and inflicting them on real-life people. Designing crap, and getting away with it, is fairly easy to do in a dull commercial practice - less so in a decent architectural school.

The hands-on stuff happens when you start working (as well as during the year(s) out of work experience that nearly all students do as part of their training) - there are arguments to say that five years is too long to spend at school (maybe) but if you were to abandon the principle of giving space for a bit of experimentation free of the banalities of office practice, I'm quite certain that the overall standard of architecture produced in the UK would not improve.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2009)

lang rabbie said:


> Can I just state that [IMHO] Quinlan Terry is an utterly inept designer.   He has no serious understanding (either academic, spiritual, or psychogeographical!) of the way that the classical Orders should be used, and just provides "classical" architectural wallpaper to suit his conservative clients.



I don't know; I get the impression he seems to be able to provide that wallpaper in a fairly competent way. This thread has made me think that maybe I should take some time to go and have a look at some of his stuff in the flesh, and see if I can come to a slightly more informed point of view.


----------



## lang rabbie (Jun 16, 2009)

Azrael said:


> What's the roof at Oakwood but a medieval great hall imagined in concrete?



A trabeated Grecian roof structure?  

There is nothing remotely "medieval" about it


----------



## teuchter (Jun 16, 2009)

lang rabbie said:


> A trabeated Grecian roof structure?
> 
> There is nothing remotely "medieval" about it



I think he is meaning this kind of thing -


----------



## Azrael (Jun 16, 2009)

teuchter said:


> The expression of structure is by no means exclusive to classical or historical architecture. In fact classical architecture is arguably largely about faking-up structure.


This is true enough. Not that modernism is guiltless in this: despite its "form follows function" doctrine, its best practitioners aren't rigid functionalists. 

Perhaps Holden didn't mean to evoke great halls, but the fact that he plastered over the structure in some other stations makes me think the choice was deliberate, especially given the height of the ceiling at Oakwood. There's no practical reason I can see to give it those proportions. It isn't one element in isolation but the effect of the whole. Mr Roger's Pompidu Centre (which I quite like, BTW) doesn't have those echoes. 

As for the glass and steel, yes, it's a cliché, but clichés arise from truth. I've seen the practical case made for glass as the best material to hang from steel-frames, but given the expensive climate conditioning systems many such buildings have to employ, and that brickwork survived long after we invented steel framed buildings, I'm not convinced. I think its an aesthetic choice first and foremost. 

You hit the nail when you say modernist architects have regard for "truth historic buildings". What on earth is a "true" historic building? Medieval Gothic, Victorian Gothic, or both? You only talk of "true" historic buildings if you think historicism is outdated, which is what I'm against. Why should Mr Rogers be so passionate about stopping a new building in a historic style going up? If he really had regard for old buildings, he'd respect the continuation of their style, not its taxidermy.


----------



## lang rabbie (Jun 16, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I could say that the roof of the current Euston station was "the coffers of the Pantheon, suspended between beams inspired by the something or other medieval whatsit" but it still wouldn't tell you whether it was any good or not.
> 
> As it happens I think it is rather good.



Take a C2C or District line train to Barking Station, which was reconstructed in 1961, and then imagine what virtuoso concrete engineering of that quality could have achieved at Euston compared to the blandness of what we actually got.

[Although removing all those back-illuminated adverts that were crudely bolted onto the upper walls ten years ago would certainly help Euston look a bit less crap.]


----------



## Azrael (Jun 16, 2009)

lang rabbie said:


> Can I just state that [IMHO] Quinlan Terry is an utterly inept designer.


Mr Terry's personal abilities are really by the by here. It's about styles, not individuals. The point is that there should be many people like Mr Terry, but there aren't.  I will say this for Mr Terry's abilities: as Brentwood and his Cambridge work show (I've visited both) he goes far beyond wallpaper. 

What about Mr Terry's old boss Raymond Erith? 






As for Oakwood, I didn't say it resembled a medieval hall because it happened to be trabeated instead of arcuated, or anything like that, but because it's general proportions, taken with the roof, appear to reflect one.  


teuchter said:


> You go and do five years in an architecture school and then tell me that doing studio design work and defending it in front of crit panels (usually including practising architects, and sometimes non-architects) is "theoretical"!


And if "theoretical" were a synonym for easy, you've be right, but it isn't. Presentation might teach practical skills in debating but the underlying teaching you describe is theoretical. It becomes practical when it's actually built, not when it's peer-reviewed by glowering architects. 

I'm sure it's a false choice between five years' and apprenticeship from the off. What about a shorter academic element, split with practical experience from the beginning? 

On whether historicism is built, I'm going on what Mr Terry described. How were you taught it?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 16, 2009)

Azrael said:


> What on earth is a "true" historic building? Medieval Gothic, Victorian Gothic, or both? You only talk of "true" historic buildings if you think historicism is outdated, which is what I'm against.



For me a "historic building" is one that says something about the time it was built (often a wide span of years in the one building).

Medieval gothic buildings tell us something about the way we lived at that time, and the great cathedrals are a record of the engineering sophistication they somehow managed to achieve without most of the tools we have.

Victorian gothic is something else again - it tells us something about the Victorians' curious obsession with the past despite their technological advances, and the competing styles of classical revival and gothic tell us a little about their ideological preoccupations. From a building/engineering point of view maybe it shows off their skills in brickwork, or in ironwork.

A Quinlan Terry building isn't historic because it doesn't tell us anything about history. All it tells us is what historical styles its architect is into.

Maybe it will have historic value in 200 years - who knows. Perhaps they will laugh at us, chuckling about how we were still imitating 2000-year old building technology. Perhaps they will admire the last gasps of classicism before it was eradicated by the fascist modernist architects of the mid-21st century. But at the moment it is no more "historic" than any other building built just now. Certainly, I'd put my money on its importance in the history of architecture being a lot less than any of Rogers' better works.

That would be my idea of what a "true" historic building is and isn't, anyway.



> Why should Mr Rogers be so passionate about stopping a new building in a historic style going up? If he really had regard for old buildings, he'd respect the continuation of their style, not its taxidermy.



Maybe he considers good architecture more important and worthy of promotion than "looks like old" architecture.


----------



## Azrael (Jun 16, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Maybe he considers good architecture more important and worthy of promotion than "looks like old" architecture.


Hold up, you said Mr Rogers respects old buildings. Presumably it's because he thinks they're good. Yet any new building in that style is automatically bad? This makes no sense. Using this logic, the old buildings would never have been built, since they're obviously not historic when they go up. You can find endless tracts from the Victorians moaning about "vulgar" railway (or railroad) stations and so on. 

You say Mr Terry's buildings tell us nothing, when they clearly tell us about the current battle between historicism and modernism, just as the Victorians tell us about the "curious" combination of modernity and tradition. (Nothing curious about it in my view.) 

And exterior battles of ideology aside, what happened to a building being worthwhile in aesthetic terms alone? Why does it need to "tell us" anything? If form follows function, and a new classical building is fit for purpose -- as the library at Downing is -- then, by modernism's own terms, it's a success.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 16, 2009)

Azrael said:


> And if "theoretical" were a synonym for easy, you've be right, but it isn't. Presentation might teach practical skills in debating but the underlying teaching you describe is theoretical. It becomes practical when it's actually built, not when it's peer-reviewed by glowering architects.



No, designing stuff is a practical skill, and design studio projects are a way of teaching practical skills in design - the most fundamental skills needed to produce good architecture. There are further practical skills that need to be added to this - skills best learnt in an office - to give you the knowledge to actually produce fully buildable stuff but the fundamental design skills are always there in the background.



> I'm sure it's a false choice between five years' and apprenticeship from the off. What about a shorter academic element, split with practical experience from the beginning?



Well, there are arguments being made for that at present. I'm not sure - it's a hard thing to determine.

The main problem with practical experience is that it depends totally on who you do it with. In some instances, it may be extrememly valuable and possibly more useful than any teaching recieved in an academic setting. In some instances the reverse is true.



> On whether historicism is built, I'm going on what Mr Terry described. How were you taught it?



Architectural history is generally taught as a lecture course which covers all the main stylistic movements, their main features and the reasons for their development. Usually there are measured drawing excercises where old buildings are measured and drawn up in detail. Those with a particular interest can often make the study of a historic building the subject of a dissertation or whatever.

As with anything if you have a particular interest in, say, classicism, you can go and look at Palladio's books of architecture, and if you see fit, use what's in there to inform your design work. As is equally true for any other historical style, or traditional building method.


----------



## Azrael (Jun 16, 2009)

teuchter said:


> No, designing stuff is a practical skill, and design studio projects are a way of teaching practical skills in design - the most fundamental skills needed to produce good architecture.


Designing is indeed a practical skill, but the end product -- the design -- is theoretical. An architect has practical knowledge when one of his or her designs has been built and proved fit for purpose, or when she or he has participated in the building of someone else's design. It could be a superb design but end up a failure once built. 

Any apprentice scheme or vocational placement would of course have to select the architect carefully. 

I'm glad to hear that historicism on architecture courses has improved since Mr Terry's days, or is better at your school. How were people who wanted to design in a historical style treated? Were their designs rewarded on their merits, or automatically failed as Mr Terry's were?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 16, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Hold up, you said Mr Rogers respects old buildings. Presumably it's because he thinks they're good. Yet any new building in that style is automatically bad? This makes no sense. Using this logic, the old buildings would never have been built, since they're obviously not historic when they go up. You can find endless tracts from the Victorians moaning about "vulgar" railway (or railroad) stations and so on.



You'd have to ask Mr Rogers about his thoughts on any specific case. I don't know whether he would say any new building in a "historic style" is "automatically bad". I wouldn't, necessarily.

Also - part of the value of old buildings is that they are old. An ancient building can have relatively little special architectural merit in relation to its contemporaries, but have historic value due to, say, it being one of few surviving examples of a style or technique.

The Victorians put up plenty of fairly rubbish buildings.



> You say Mr Terry's buildings tell us nothing, when they clearly tell us about the current battle between historicism and modernism, just as the Victorians tell us about the "curious" combination of modernity and tradition. (Nothing curious about it in my view.)



Tell us nothing in historical terms. They don't tell us anything much about the history of the buildings they are imitating.

Of course they tell us something about current times. In the same way that teenage pregnancy rates tell us something about current times. So what? That doesn't make them good or bad.



> And exterior battles of ideology aside, what happened to a building being worthwhile in aesthetic terms alone? Why does it need to "tell us" anything? If form follows function, and a new classical building is fit for purpose -- as the library at Downing is -- then, by modernism's own terms, it's a success.



Again, I was talking about how I would assess the value of "historic" architecture. Not how I would assess the worth of a newly built building.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 16, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Designing is indeed a practical skill, but the end product -- the design -- is theoretical. An architect has practical knowledge when one of his or her designs has been built and proved fit for purpose, or when she or he has participated in the building of someone else's design. It could be a superb design but end up a failure once built.
> 
> Any apprentice scheme or vocational placement would of course have to select the architect carefully.
> 
> I'm glad to hear that historicism on architecture courses has improved since Mr Terry's days, or is better at your school. How were people who wanted to design in a historical style treated? Were their designs rewarded on their merits, or automatically failed as Mr Terry's were?



It's getting late ... I'll have to come back to this tomorrow. There's no doubt that there are all sorts of prejudices in architectural schools which I could go on about at length. But -  like I say, I'll have to come back to this.


----------



## editor (Jun 16, 2009)

Trouble is that an awful lot of modern buildings are unlikely to last as long as their Victorian predecessors because they're knocked out so ruddy cheaply.


----------



## Azrael (Jun 16, 2009)

teuchter said:


> The Victorians put up plenty of fairly rubbish buildings.


True, as do all ages, and unlike Mr Robin Hood Gardens, I'm happy for failures in a style I generally like to be pulled down if they haven't had the good manners to fall down. 

I wasn't treating historical style and historical significance as the same thing. You're right in saying that the historical significance of contemporary buildings can't be immediately known. That's not what I was referring to; rather, I'm asking how a contemporary building in a historic style is somehow less authentic than one built over a century ago. In short, the view that technology has made historic styles obsolete.  

A historicist building continues and refines a tradition that goes back for centuries. It makes history into living history. History is a pact between the dead, the living, and the yet unborn, as Edmund Burke phrased it. What better way is there to respect the past than to ensure it has a future?


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2009)

The plans to rebuild the arch continue!



> Though progress is slow, the physical recovery of the stones from the smashed propylaeum, which Cruikshank actually described as being cleaner than when they went in -- "a good bath" in the Channel has washed off the Fifties-era smog -- has given extra impetus to the project.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Azrael (Sep 17, 2009)

£1 billion, and they only rebuilt the thing 40 odd years ago! 

That William Wiles can thunder on about "militant nostalgia" in the _New Statesman_ is reason enough to put the great doric back up again.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 5, 2015)

Some recovered stones from the arch have gone on display outside the station

http://londonist.com/2015/04/stones...content=Stones From Euston Arch Go On Display


----------



## paolo (Apr 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I'm not sure it's worth recreating facsimile style. I think I'd probably prefer the money spent on more useful improvements to the station itself.
> 
> I know everyone loves to say how much they hate Euston station but I actually rather like the main hall. It is quite grand and very generous in scale compared to most rail stations built around that time. I enjoy the no-nonsense coffered ceiling. With a bit of thoughtful re-arranging of facilities and tidying up of tacky kiosks etc I think it could be a very impressive space.
> 
> The platforms, of course, are grim. I'm not going to argue about that. And the forecourt and external appearance aren't up to much either.



I took a few moments to think about that and I agree - and I'd add... I think Euston suffers the way that other places have. An infestation of retail - inside and out - has ruined the sightlines. Which were arguable not ideal to start with.

Internally I'd remove all but essential free standing units. Add one or two more seating areas, each with it's own departure panels in view (so many people at Euston are just standing looking at the main boards).

I'd put all but core retail on a balcony tier. 'Core retail' (snack food, newsagents, chemists) on the sides. No retail on the platform back wall, where it currently adds to congestion in the platform-dash.

At the front, I'd have double height glass. With good internal lighting, this would act as a sightline beacon for people approaching on foot. Augment with a single station sign on top of that, I.e. High up. Reduce or eliminate the 'Island' retail units outside. Make it more of a plaza.

Add another undergound access route so the tube would have an entrance outside on that plaza. (I suspect the taxi pick up could make that difficult?)

Oh and get rid of the low rise commercial block that really obfuscates the frontage and reduces the feeling of space and view to the gardens, in the current plaza.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 5, 2015)

I passed through Euston the other day and noticed that they seem to be tidying up the advertising boards and also constructing a balcony along the entrance side of the msin hall. Didn't have time to stop and look properly but they could be positive changes. Although i won't be surprised if the balcony structure is naff like the one they did at Waterloo.


----------



## paolo (Apr 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I passed through Euston the other day and noticed that they seem to be tidying up the advertising boards and also constructing a balcony along the entrance side of the msin hall. Didn't have time to stop and look properly but they could be positive changes. Although i won't be surprised if the balcony structure is naff like the one they did at Waterloo.



I originally agreed with your opinion on Waterloo - that the obscuring of the original sweep was detrimental.

Now I think it's a good move. If you can't move the retail (which can be argued), punt it above.


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 6, 2015)

Euston station is distressingly ugly. 

The whole place is crying out to be torn down.


----------



## paolo (Apr 6, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> Euston station is distressingly ugly.
> 
> The whole place is crying out to be torn down.



I reckon its fixable.

Then again, I'm playing fantasy architecture. Like blokes with train sets who'll say "Oh, you just need to resolve the pathing issue at Willesden" and with a waft of their hand, they've created transport utopia.


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 6, 2015)

paolo said:


> I reckon its fixable.
> 
> Then again, I'm playing fantasy architecture. Like blokes with train sets who'll say "Oh, you just need to resolve the pathing issue at Willesden" and with a waft of their hand, they've created transport utopia.



Euston has such huge potential, there's so much space. 

At the moment it's not much  better than a 1960s public toilet.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 6, 2015)

There are two great beer and cider outlets where the arch used to be


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 6, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> There are two great beer and cider outlets where the arch used to be


That's  not where the Arch used to be. On the Dan Cruikshank programme from the '90s, where he went in search of the remaining stones, they located the original position of the Arch as being just in front of the present platforms, which seems to be about right judging from the historic London maps I possess.


----------



## Bungle73 (May 5, 2015)

The Euston Arch exhibition is now open








> Euston Arch Stones come home for the first time in over 50 years! The Arch was destroyed in 1962, much of the building material found its way to the bottom of the Prescott Channel and there it stayed until in 1994Dan Cruickshank discovered them and helped raise a selection in advance of the work being carried out for the Olympic Park. Since then the raised stones have been in storage in Lincolnshire.
> 
> This month four have returned home to Euston as part of a six week exhibition, stage by the Euston Arch Trust in Euston Square Gardens.
> 
> Come and see the stones for yourself and learn about the history of the Arch. The exhibition can be found in Euston Square Gardens, outside Euston Station, along the Western most path (enter the park on the Melton Street/ Euston Road entrance). It is open until Friday 9th May 24 hours a day and is of course free to view!



http://www.eustonarch.org/press-release/


----------



## editor (May 5, 2015)

Thanks - that's reminded me to post up my photos of the not-exactly-impressive remains of the arches.


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2016)

Wait: it might be coming back! Well, possibly. Maybe. 






(Sorry for the Fail link) 

Euston Arch set to rise again after nearly 60 years in London | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Herby (Dec 2, 2016)

I think St Pancras is possibly one of the world's most beautiful railway stations and what they have done to Kings Cross is almost as impressive. They should give Euston the same treatment and restore it to Victorian glory.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2018)

Some cracking archive pics here: 












 

Lost Beauty #9: Hardwick’s Hall (the old Euston station, London, UK)


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2020)

So, no then. 



> It’s been revealed that an investigation in 2017 as to the feasibility of restoring the Euston Arch put the cost in excess of £50 million.
> 
> The figure came from a House of Commons written answer to Michael Fabricant MP, who asked what plans there are to restore the Euston Arch as part of the wider Euston station redevelopment.
> 
> ...











						Euston Arch reconstruction could cost £50 million
					

It's been revealed that an investigation into the feasibility of restoring the Euston Arch put the cost in excess of £50 million.



					www.ianvisits.co.uk


----------



## IC3D (Nov 11, 2020)

It's a beautiful hall, esp like the drooping lamps but perhaps they could scale it up x10 and be fit for current passenger numbers


----------



## Lord Camomile (Nov 11, 2020)

IC3D said:


> It's a beautiful hall, esp like the drooping lamps but perhaps they could scale it up x10 and be fit for current passenger numbers


Yeah, for a second I thought "ach, why can't we have stations like that again?" before quickly realising they're atrocious for both passenger volume and accessibility, no doubt alongside other reasons too.


----------

