# King's Cross Lighthouse to get revamp



## MrSki (Apr 21, 2009)

After twenty years!



> Latitude Architects has won planning permission from Camden Council for a £13 million internal reconstruction of the grade II listed Lighthouse Building in King’s Cross, London.
> 
> The building, which formerly housed offices and shops at ground level, has been empty for 20 years and has appeared on English Heritage’s buildings at risk register.
> 
> ...



I thought it might fall down before it was sorted.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 21, 2009)

that block is really derelict now, it's a pity cos there were quite a few businesses there before, I like the lighthouse, hopefully they will do a good job on it


----------



## toblerone3 (Apr 21, 2009)

I often wonder about that little triangle of land and wonder what's going on thinking that it must be some intractable planning blight cause by being on the borders of Camden and Islington. 

I also think that this could be the end of the day for Mao Zedong!


----------



## marty21 (Apr 21, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> I often wonder about that little triangle of land and wonder what's going on thinking that it must be some intractable planning blight cause by being on the borders of Camden and Islington.
> 
> I also think that this could be the end of the day for Mao Zedong!



oh yes, you pointed that out to us on that walk, I'd never noticed it before


----------



## toblerone3 (Apr 21, 2009)

Nobody knows what the Lighthouse was for!


----------



## marty21 (Apr 21, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> Nobody knows what the Lighthouse was for!



it is a mystery!


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 21, 2009)

good.


----------



## MrSki (Apr 21, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> Nobody knows what the Lighthouse was for!



I thought it was alight when fresh oysters were being served in the oyster bar below?


----------



## g force (Apr 21, 2009)

That is I think the most accepted reason but even that is unclear in this building's case....maybe the builder just liked Lighthouses?!?!


----------



## editor (Apr 21, 2009)

Loads of info and pics here: http://www.urban75.org/london/oyster-bar-kings-cross.html


----------



## toblerone3 (Apr 21, 2009)

MrSki said:


> I thought it was alight when fresh oysters were being served in the oyster bar below?



From the Urban75 pages

"The official view used to be that the 'lighthouse' was an advertising feature intended to promote Netten's oyster bar which was immediately beneath on the ground floor. This is now shown to be unlikely."


----------



## MrSki (Apr 22, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> From the Urban75 pages
> 
> "The official view used to be that the 'lighthouse' was an advertising feature intended to promote Netten's oyster bar which was immediately beneath on the ground floor. This is now shown to be unlikely."



Why does it seem unlikely? (cos it was not a feature anywhere else?) 

About three months ago, I helped out somebody digging out a basement at the bottom of the Cally Road. (A stones throw from the soon to be ex Flying Scotsman) built around the same time as Keystone Crescent(1870s), I can confirm there where shed loads (well actually cellar loads) of oyster shells mixed in with the hardcore/foundations.

According to locals, one of whom died earlier this year (aged 98) & living in the same house as she was born in, The top of Gray's Inn Road used to be a funfair! Right next to where the Lighthouse is.

Only having oysters twice in my life (& suffering an allergic reaction both times, ) I could understand wanting them fresh.

For such an iconic building not to have more references when it was built I don't understand. 

Maybe it was to navigate a peasouper.

It does split Pentonville Road (Quick rant for those not in KC, why does the spell checker, along with so many peeps ask how Pentonville Road is spelt? Did they never play Monopoly?) With Gray's Inn Road it could have been a guide for taxis in the dark.

The only reason it seems unlikely to me is that some poor bugger had to go upstairs and light the light.

I know that is was easily accessible for shooting pigeons in the mid to late eighties but also starting to crumble. (Hence why some bit are missing.)

I will follow on with my own percy reseach & try to dig out a photo or any other interesting fact.

Anyone with an objection, look at the time of my post & argue when the sun shines.


----------



## editor (Apr 22, 2009)

MrSki said:


> Why does it seem unlikely? (cos it was not a feature anywhere else?)





> The story is that the building originally served as an oyster house - oysters being the fast food of the day - with eateries often being marked by a lighthouses, much like McDonalds (spit!) uses the familiar Golden Arches to catch the eye of hungry punters.
> 
> Thing is, if the lighthouse motif was used as a commonly recognisable symbol for snack-seekers, how come no others survive?


I researched this pretty thoroughly at the time, and IIRC it was a topic on Robert Elms' radio show. No one could find any evidence of the tower being used for advertising, and by 1955 the building was plastered in ads anyway.


----------



## wiskey (Apr 22, 2009)

editor said:


> Loads of info and pics here: http://www.urban75.org/london/oyster-bar-kings-cross.html



you're missing a 't' in 'this' in the caption under the walthamstow lighthouse pic

interesting reading though


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 22, 2009)

If this is the scheme that goes ahead, I'm rather pleasantly surprised.    The zinc armadillo roof of the extension doesn't look too obtrusive.

http://www.latitudearchitects.com/architecture/commercial/the-lighthouse/


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 22, 2009)

This is good news, I'd assumed they were going to pull it down as part of the scorched-earth assault on the "old" King's Cross.  Nice to see they are able to distinguish between the good and bad elements of the area's recent history.


----------



## toblerone3 (Apr 24, 2009)

I think there should be a light at the top of the Lighthouse.


----------



## GuerillaPhoto (Apr 24, 2009)

was inside there/ on the roof last week and its a fucking state inside.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 25, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> I often wonder about that little triangle of land and wonder what's going on thinking that it must be some intractable planning blight cause by being on the borders of Camden and Islington.



Having the Circle Line running a few feet underneath the site has also seriously limited the options for redevelopment.


----------



## perplexis (Apr 25, 2009)

OMFG, I've walked past that building hundreds of times and *never* noticed it had a lighthouse on top. Wow!!


----------



## Onket (Apr 27, 2009)

GuerillaPhoto said:


> was inside there/ on the roof last week and its a fucking state inside.



I see they've cleaned off some of the graffiti though.


----------



## Onket (Apr 27, 2009)

editor said:


> No one could find any evidence of the tower being used for advertising, and by 1955 the building was plastered in ads anyway.



If it was plastered with ads then that'd fit in with the lighthouse being an ad in itself. Plus the lighthouse is higher than the top of that photo you posted, surely? 

p)


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2009)

Onket said:


> If it was plastered with ads then that'd fit in with the lighthouse being an ad in itself. Plus the lighthouse is higher than the top of that photo you posted, surely?


There's no photos or documentary evidence showing the 'lighthouse' operating as an advertising feature for the restaurant below.


----------



## Onket (Apr 27, 2009)

editor said:


> There's no photos or documentary evidence showing the 'lighthouse' operating as an advertising feature for the restaurant below.



Couldn't possibly have been the case then.


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2009)

Onket said:


> Couldn't possibly have been the case then.


I've researched this quite thoroughly and couldn't find any evidence to support it being used as an advertising beacon. If, however, you can find some evidence to the contrary, I'd be delighted to update the article. Empty sneery comments just make you look stupid though.


----------



## Onket (Apr 27, 2009)

Thanks for your input.

Pointing out that the picture you posted doesn't show where the lighthouse is, isn't an empty sneery comment though.

I don't accept you to agree though, so don't worry. X


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2009)

Onket said:


> Pointing out that the picture you posted doesn't show where the lighthouse is, isn't an empty sneery comment though.


That doesn't even make sense, but if you have some fresh information to add to the article I've researched and photographed, I'd be delighted to see it.


----------



## Housmans (Apr 27, 2009)

...from what I hear from friends at KXRLG (Kings Cross Railway Lands Group) final council approval for the 'armadillo' redesign haven't yet been given, as a few objections have been raised by some sticklers for tradition. It seems though that the council is likely to approve in the end, but you know how it goes with these planning application things...

Part of the problem is that the 'back' of the building (facing the Scala) is owned by London Transport, as they have doors there that go down into the underground, and this section takes up a fair amount of space in the property. From what I gather the armadillo roof bit will house some of the more functional aspects of the building (ventilation or what not)


----------



## Onket (Apr 27, 2009)

editor said:


> That doesn't even make sense, but if you have some fresh information to add to the article I've researched and photographed, I'd be delighted to see it.



Sigh.

The picture you posted doesn't go up high enough to show the lighthouse bit.


----------



## laptop (Apr 27, 2009)

My dad told me the tower on top was one of those... wossname, works like a pinhole camera: you see the the surrounding landscape projected onto a horizontal round screen. There's one at Clifton - what's it called? _Camera obscura_?

Yes, here's the one in Edinburgh: http://camera-obscura.co.uk/camera_obscura/camera_obscura.asp


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2009)

Onket said:


> The picture you posted doesn't go up high enough to show the lighthouse bit.


Have you actually got any evidence from any source to support the 'lighthouse' theory or are you just here to showboat??


laptop said:


> My dad told me the tower on top was one of those... wossname, works like a pinhole camera: you see the the surrounding landscape projected onto a horizontal round screen. There's one at Clifton - what's it called? _Camera obscura_?


That theory was discounted by Camden Council.


> Inspections of the interior, say Camden Council, show that it can't have been a clocktower or a camera obscura. Obscurer are its origins indeed, and maybe it was a totally useless architectural flourish.


http://www.urban75.org/london/oyster-bar-kings-cross.html


----------



## Onket (Apr 27, 2009)

editor said:


> Have you actually got any evidence from any source to support the 'lighthouse' theory or are you just here to showboat?



Simply pointing out the photo you posted doesn't fit the purpose you posted it for. Obviosuly, as I have said 3 times now.

You're an argumentative bugger aren't you.


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2009)

Onket said:


> Simply pointing out the photo you posted doesn't fit the purpose you posted it for. Obviosuly, as I have said 3 times now.


I've posted up a well researched article citing several credible sources and illustrated it with a rich variety of images, many taken by myself. You, on the other hand, have posted up a slither of dull nitpicking jibes of fuck all of any use to anyone.

Instead of trying to score points that don't matter, why not spend your time researching the building and help improve the article?


Onket said:


> You're an argumentative bugger aren't you.


Congratulations. You truly are now_ Beyond The LOL-dome_.


----------



## Onket (Apr 27, 2009)

So no-one is allowed to point out your errors, basically. 

 Hilarious!


----------



## Thora (Apr 27, 2009)

editor said:


> I researched this pretty thoroughly at the time, and IIRC it was a topic on Robert Elms' radio show. No one could find any evidence of the tower being used for advertising, and by 1955 the building was plastered in ads anyway.



Where's the lighthouse?


----------



## laptop (Apr 27, 2009)

Thora said:


> Where's the lighthouse?



Directly above the policeman's helmet. Out of frame


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2009)

Thora said:


> Where's the lighthouse?


Hi. Crazy idea, I know, but try following the oft-posted link which will take you to _lots and lots_ of pictures of the 'lighthouse' along with research that strongly suggests that it never was in fact a 'lighthouse' but was more of an architectural flourish.

HTH. HAND.


----------



## Onket (Apr 27, 2009)

Thora said:


> Where's the lighthouse?





laptop said:


> Directly above the policeman's helmet. Out of frame



Exactly.


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2009)

Onket said:


> So no-one is allowed to point out your errors, basically.


By Christ you're dull today.


----------



## Onket (Apr 27, 2009)

Nice edit.


----------



## Thora (Apr 27, 2009)

editor said:


> Hi. Crazy idea, I know, but try following the oft-posted link which will take you to _lots and lots_ of pictures of the 'lighthouse' along with research that strongly suggests that it never was in fact a 'lighthouse' but was more of an architectural flourish.
> 
> HTH. HAND.



Ooh, grumpy!  Why not post a photo of the lighthouse thing then?


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2009)

Thora said:


> Ooh, grumpy! Why not post a photo of the lighthouse thing then?


Oy lazy! Why not follow the link that's been posted _at least three time_s now?


----------



## Thora (Apr 27, 2009)

editor said:


> Oy lazy! Why not follow the link that's been posted _at least three time_s now?



Because I _don't see why_ you can't _post revelant pictures_ on the _thread._


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2009)

Thora said:


> Because I _don't see why_ you can't _post revelant pictures_ on the _thread._


I linked to the article with all the photos in my *first post*, adding the caption, "Loads of info and pics here." The second post contained the picture that was most certainly relevent to the topic.

I'd expect anyone sincerely interested in discussing this issue to have bothered to read that page (like several posters did) rather than rocking up late demanding that they be spoonfed all the images of a topic they're clearly not that interested in.

After all, if you were, you would have _bothered to read the article first._



(((thread)))


----------



## Crispy (Apr 27, 2009)

I can't see the lighthose in that photo


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2009)

Crispy said:


> I can't see the lighthose in that photo


*bangs head. 

But if you'd bothered to read the thread and followed the* link posted in my first post* - you know the one that _said "Loads of info and pics here" _- you would have seen lots of pictures and realise the context of the photo I posted up later.

And when I posted that picture I didn't say, "Hey! Look! Here's a photo of the tower". What I said was that:


> I researched this pretty thoroughly at the time, and IIRC it was a topic on Robert Elms' radio show. No one could find any evidence of the tower being used for advertising, and by 1955 *the building* was plastered in ads anyway.


See that? It says, *the building*. Not  the tower. 

Jeez.


----------



## Thora (Apr 27, 2009)

I heard it was like an advert for the oyster shop.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 27, 2009)

What oyster shop?


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2009)

Gotcha. It's all a wind up! Either that or it's Act Stupid Day.

Either way, I'm out of here. Thanks for trashing the thread.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 27, 2009)

Anyway 

The new design looks pretty good. Similar roof to the Belgo restaurant on Ladbroke Grove


----------



## jæd (Apr 27, 2009)

Crispy said:


> Anyway
> 
> The new design looks pretty good. Similar roof to the Belgo restaurant on Ladbroke Grove



Where's the Lighthouse...?


----------



## Onket (Apr 27, 2009)

Where's the lighthouse in that pic then? 

<edit> Damn!!!


----------



## Crispy (Apr 27, 2009)

jæd said:


> Where's the Lighthouse...?


_Read the thread you ingrate_


----------



## ska invita (Apr 27, 2009)

laptop said:


> My dad told me the tower on top was one of those... wossname, works like a pinhole camera: you see the the surrounding landscape projected onto a horizontal round screen. There's one at Clifton - what's it called? _Camera obscura_?



nah, its a "folly". follys went out of fashion as a sign of decadence and excess, replaced by functionality etc. but i love a good folly myself.


----------



## editor (Apr 27, 2009)

Crispy said:


> _Read the thread you ingrate_


Nooo! This is the thread that _doesn't have to be read_. Users are invited to rock up and lob in their three pen'worth at random - there's no need to read anything other than the last post.

So where's this lightship?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 27, 2009)

Well I for one read editor's article a long time ago and have on numerous Eurostar trips wowed my captive audience with promises to witness the King's Cross Lighthouse upon their return.

Occasionally to be met with wonder, oft to be met with meh.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 27, 2009)

Housmans said:


> ...from what I hear from friends at KXRLG (Kings Cross Railway Lands Group) final council approval for the 'armadillo' redesign haven't yet been given, as a few objections have been raised by some sticklers for tradition. It seems though that the council is likely to approve in the end, but you know how it goes with these planning application things...
> 
> Part of the problem is that the 'back' of the building (facing the Scala) is owned by London Transport, as they have doors there that go down into the underground, and this section takes up a fair amount of space in the property. From what I gather the armadillo roof bit will house some of the more functional aspects of the building (ventilation or what not)





Camden's development control committee granted consent, subject to a section 106 legal agreement, on April 2nd.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 27, 2009)

ska invita said:


> nah, its a "folly". follys went out of fashion as a sign of decadence and excess, replaced by functionality etc. but i love a good folly myself.



nah, the bristol one is a camera obscura. the building itself used to be a windmill


----------



## tim (Apr 27, 2009)

What a load of fuss about a manky old lump of scrap. I seem to remember reading somewhere that it was a recycled helter-skelter. I come from Hounslow and was bought up above the family shop next to the building capped by the wonderous Neals Corner minaret, a proper pointless Victorian folly.


----------



## Housmans (Apr 27, 2009)

lang rabbie said:


> Camden's development control committee granted consent, subject to a section 106 legal agreement, on April 2nd.



You're right - double checked and my contact got it wrong!  sorry bout that

nice pics here though:


----------



## jæd (Apr 28, 2009)

Housmans said:


> You're right - double checked and my contact got it wrong!  sorry bout that
> 
> nice pics here though:



I can't see any Armadillos or light-ships. This thread is


----------



## marty21 (Apr 28, 2009)

tim said:


> What a load of fuss about a manky old lump of scrap. I seem to remember reading somewhere that it was a recycled helter-skelter. I come from Hounslow and was bought up above the family shop next to the building capped by the wonderous Neals Corner minaret, a proper pointless Victorian folly.



that's not a pointless folly, this is a pointless folly


----------



## Onket (Apr 28, 2009)

editor said:


> Nooo! This is the thread that _doesn't have to be read_. Users are invited to rock up and lob in their three pen'worth at random - there's no need to read anything other than the last post.



It gets better!


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2009)

jæd said:


> I can't see any Armadillos or light-ships. This thread is


FFS. Where's this light-sabre that works as a docking beacon for airships?


----------



## jæd (Apr 28, 2009)

editor said:


> FFS. Where's this light-sabre that works as a docking beacon for airships?



That would be cool. When are they building it...? Do they have planning permission. 

Btw, do you know when they knocking down that bell tower eye-sore thing in Kings X...? My Grand-Pe said was some kind of advert for the Oyster Bar downstairs but now it looks silly.


----------



## toblerone3 (Apr 28, 2009)

This is from the Camden New Journal April 9th. According to the head of Camden Planning Committee the hunchback Armadillo roof is too French!




Artist’s impression of how the new Lighthouse building on Gray’s Inn Road in King’s Cross could look  
‘Hunchback’ Lighthouse gets go-ahead

‘Extremely ugly’ stepped roof plans for iconic structure are criticised at meeting 

A NEW look for the iconic Lighthouse building in King’s Cross could end up resembling a “hunchback armadillo”, a planning meeting was told.
Camden’s former planning chairman Councillor Brian Woodrow, who still sits on the development control committee, said on Thursday that an overhaul of the Victorian structure on Gray’s Inn Road would fit better in Paris, rather than central London. 
The Lighthouse point looking out over King’s Cross station will stay where it is – but under the scheme a stepped roof will be constructed behind it.
Cllr Woodrow said: “My strong reservation is about the roof. I think it is like a hunchback armadillo, the way it staggers up. It is like a French building which might be appropriate in France, but not here.”
He asked for the council and applicants to be given more time to examine potential revisions. But the developers behind the project said they did not want to go back to the drawing board again and legal advisers warned the panel of councillors that a decision had to be made on the night.
Lib Dem councillor Flick Rea told the committee’s advisers: “Are you saying that all the years I’ve been doing something illegal? Come on, of course we can do this. You can’t bully the committee into saying this is it or it’s nothing.”
She said the back of the design was “extremely ugly” but added that she was “happy to see it preserved”. 
Planning officials said possible revisions to the roof had already been discussed and were not considered a way forward. Five councillors voted in favour of the scheme. Two abstained from the decision.
Architects insist their plan is the only way the popular but dilapidated building, which has been empty for two decades, will be saved. The power room will be located at the back of the building because the underground tracks close to the surface prevent digging out a 
bigger basement.
David Whittington, from the London Planning Practice, said: “At the present time, the building is an eyesore and casts a negative presence over the King’s Cross. These proposals represent the only deliverable proposals for the site to have emerged in the past 20 years.”
He said the only way to make the refurbishment economically viable was to provide space for shops and offices.
The council’s planning department was criticised for not taking more notice of the King’s Cross Conservation Area Advisory Committee, which claims it was not properly consulted over the changes and was only made aware of the application at the last moment.
Ernest James, the committee’s chairman, said: “We weren’t able to comment at the proper time because we weren’t consulted. Elephantine is one of the kindest remarks that have been said about the roof.”
But Lib Dem councillor Russell Eagling said: “This is a fantastic way of saving a very important building.”


----------



## Crispy (Apr 28, 2009)

Fuck's sake. This is a fantastic scheme. It respects the existing building while adding a bit of excitement. Traditional materials, traditional windows. You won't even _see_ the armadillolity from the street.


----------



## g force (Apr 29, 2009)

Wow....so London can only have one style of peserved building from now on huh? Jesus planners are fucking dense at times esp when you see the shit Camden has let go around Euston/Kings Cross.


----------



## MrSki (Apr 29, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> Cllr Woodrow said: “My strong reservation is about the roof. I think it is like a hunchback armadillo, the way it staggers up. It is like a French building which might be appropriate in France, but not here.”



What the fuck is a french building?

Still it will make those coming off Eurostar feel at home.

I hope it doesn't smell of garlic.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 29, 2009)

A french building, yesterday. It's the Ritz.


----------



## g force (Apr 29, 2009)

Councillor is "useless twat" shocker...


----------



## toblerone3 (Jun 16, 2009)

Slightly unusual view of the lighthouse. Can't quite work out where its taken from.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 16, 2009)

Right here I reckon:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...1.529949,-0.121733&spn=0.000305,0.000617&z=21


----------



## toblerone3 (Jun 16, 2009)

Still trying to work out how you figured that out Crispy. That building is a hostel which had a bad reputation in the past.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 16, 2009)

Just looked for a roofline that matched the one in the photo - ie one big rear extension, the order of red then grey tiled rooves. Easy


----------



## autumnphyre (Mar 16, 2010)

Hey,
Read through everything here and have been trying to find out about this perculiar structure for some time. 
Has anyone contacted the estate agents/surveyors  DE & J Levy who have their boards stuck all over the building? They might have some records of it's previous uses (whether they are allowed to disclose that kind of information is another matter) or they may know a previous tenant who can shed light on it's history.

Alternatively there are usually records/blue prints/journals/accounts kept in libraries, there's a honking great big one just down the road from the building that keeps those kind of files I think? Anyone checked there?


Just a couple of suggestions, if anyone finds out anything more please let me know I would love to find out.

Would love to go in there before they rebuild it too .......


----------



## editor (Mar 16, 2010)

autumnphyre said:


> Hey,
> Read through everything here and have been trying to find out about this perculiar structure for some time.
> Has anyone contacted the estate agents/surveyors  DE & J Levy who have their boards stuck all over the building? They might have some records of it's previous uses (whether they are allowed to disclose that kind of information is another matter) or they may know a previous tenant who can shed light on it's history.
> 
> ...


In case you missed it:
http://www.urban75.org/london/oyster-bar-kings-cross.html


----------



## editor (Jun 6, 2011)

So, two years on and the place is still rotting away. The tower is in a terrible estate now.  






New photo feature: http://www.urban75.org/blog/kings-cross-lighthouse-continues-to-rot-away/


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jun 6, 2011)

Amazed there are no takers for shops in such a prime location near Kings Cross. Has the building been squatted or is it still secured?


----------



## Crispy (Jun 6, 2011)

Kings Cross has only recently become describable as a "prime location" tbf


----------



## editor (Jun 6, 2011)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> Amazed there are no takers for shops in such a prime location near Kings Cross. Has the building been squatted or is it still secured?


 It was briefly squatted about seven years ago, but as far as I know it's been lying empty ever since.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 6, 2011)

Can you imagine the pollution levels on that corner.

It's crazy what the car was allowed to  do to this city.


----------



## editor (Jun 6, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Can you imagine the pollution levels on that corner.
> 
> It's crazy what the car was allowed to  do to this city.


Amen to that.


----------



## marty21 (Jun 6, 2011)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> Amazed there are no takers for shops in such a prime location near Kings Cross. Has the building been squatted or is it still secured?


 
I thought all those shops were boarded up atm , awaiting redevelopment of the block.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 6, 2011)

Use to go to that kebab shop years ago.. back in the day, when the General Picton was the General Picton and you could still hear a good mobile disco.  All things must change.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jun 8, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I thought all those shops were boarded up atm , awaiting redevelopment of the block.



Sure, but there is a sign up saying 'all enquiries' and giving a phone number.


----------



## toblerone3 (Oct 6, 2011)

Interesting Urban Exploration of the Lighthouse building with some great rooftop photos

*http://www.guerrillaexploring.com/g...house-building&catid=8:accommodation&Itemid=3*


----------



## toblerone3 (Oct 6, 2011)




----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2011)

Nice one. Look at the sad state of the cupola


----------



## davesgcr (Oct 6, 2011)

Crossing the roads around there as a pedestrain is an absolute nightmare - massively unpleasant and dangerous.

The area has definately improved though from an "ambience" point of view - I sed to avoid the street walk to the mercifully closed old KX Thameslink station , as it was well dodgy after about 7pm of an evening (and not much better in the daytime) - the cashpoint around there had the worst BTP reported crime rates in London , and apparently there were folk selling all kinds of things including "user" parnaphanelia. Back in the day.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 6, 2011)

That website is amazing! I particularly like some of the Smithfield and Ally Pally pictures. All power to the Guerrilla Explorers. (Decades ago I did a similar thing inside St Luke's Old Street, must dig out those photos).

It's so sad to see the Lighthouse getting steadily worse and a shame about the graffiti.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 18, 2013)

Construction is now underway

http://kingscrossenvironment.com/20...use-building-refurbishment-begins-to-gear-up/


----------



## Onket (Aug 21, 2013)

Andrew Hertford said:


> That website is amazing! I particularly like some of the Smithfield and Ally Pally pictures. All power to the Guerrilla Explorers. (Decades ago I did a similar thing inside St Luke's Old Street, must dig out those photos).
> 
> It's so sad to see the Lighthouse getting steadily worse and a shame about the graffiti.


 
Yep, great website. Would be interested to see your pics too.

Can't agree with your point about the graff, though.


----------



## MrSki (Aug 21, 2013)

Yes Cheeky Monkey added something...


----------



## Onket (Aug 21, 2013)

Great to see Tox in somewhere so inaccessible.  I love the way taggers go further, higher, more remote etc just to leave their mark even if the number of people seeing it is likely to be low.


----------



## Corax (Aug 21, 2013)

Did a triple-take on that thread title, and not just because of its age.  WTF?


----------



## Onket (Aug 21, 2013)

Onket said:


> Great to see Tox in somewhere so inaccessible.  I love the way taggers go further, higher, more remote etc just to leave their mark even if the number of people seeing it is likely to be low.



http://www.guerrillaexploring.com/g...:ges090-kings-x-tube&catid=52:metro&Itemid=67


----------



## davesgcr (Aug 26, 2013)

For God's sake (and without critiscising the outing or the photos - which are excellent) - watch those juice rails - and even more so near the 25kV overheads - MINIMUM safe distance is 9 feet - and they can (and do) arc over with appalling consequences. Too many incidents a year of people getting either killed or left with what the log reports call "life changing injuries" .......


----------



## editor (Sep 14, 2014)

It's slowly getting there: 







http://www.urban75.org/blog/kings-cross-lighthouse-under-wraps-as-redevelopment-picks-up-speed/


----------



## Crispy (Dec 17, 2014)

progress indeed 






(not my photo)


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 25, 2015)

1938 picture (unfortunately not showing the 'lighthouse' bit) on tweeter today


----------



## editor (Feb 25, 2015)

Some more archive shots here: http://www.urban75.org/london/oyster-bar-kings-cross.html


----------



## Crispy (Aug 10, 2015)

Scaffollding coming down.




Kings cross architecture by LazyOaf87, on Flickr


----------



## marty21 (Aug 10, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Scaffollding coming down.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 might pop down at lunchtime to have a look


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 25, 2016)

a 1931 view from an  unusual viewpoint -






posted on tweeter today by robnitm


----------



## IC3D (Jan 25, 2016)

Who's going to be the first to tag it?


----------



## MrSki (Jan 25, 2016)

IC3D said:


> Who's going to be the first to tag it?


Cheeky monkey?


----------



## Kevintangodance (Apr 7, 2016)

editor said:


> I researched this pretty thoroughly at the time, and IIRC it was a topic on Robert Elms' radio show. No one could find any evidence of the tower being used for advertising, and by 1955 the building was plastered in ads anyway.



I believe I have found an older photo pf the building. The BBC did a documentary about the flying scotsman train which was based at the station Kings Cross opposite this building. There is a short section of film in the documentary which is described as being from 1948.
I took a screen shot of that film.
Here it is, and a slightly better frame screen shot cropped close:








Sadly as far as I can make out, the older photos give no clues about purpose - but at least there are no windmill sails on it 
I have a blog, mostly Christian stuff, but I still post the odd tiny little bit of Urban Exploration - I used to do a lot more in a "previous life". I do it legally by the way - my Construction Health & Safety Consultancy job gives me access to places (and I ask nicely) and I used to be in professional photography so that also "opens doors". My blog-website-churchy-thing is here if you're interested - kevintangodance


----------



## ska invita (Apr 10, 2016)

Is looking good at the moment and shops should open by summer... One shop sign has already gone up. The only weird bit is the back by the scala, where the rear wall is exposed breeze blocks and looks a bit ugly.

 I'm guessing they will do something on the end eventually... There's also the hair salon which is being used as a builders office which has been left untouched...

Nice bricks though, especially the bits with both black and white bricks.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Mar 16, 2021)

from 1899

from 'flashbak' on tweeter


----------



## MrSki (Dec 9, 2021)




----------



## marty21 (Dec 9, 2021)

MrSki said:


>


I remember it from 1990 when I first worked nearby , the building was fairly grubby looking then tbf.


----------



## MrSki (Mar 16, 2022)




----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 16, 2022)

MrSki said:


>


Arteta's after the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow in st Chad's place


----------

