On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:54:05 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:59:19 +0100, David Boothroyd
wrote:

55 Broadway?

Site has got to be worth a large sum of money on the open market, freeing
up resources which could be much better utilised elsewhere in the tube
system.

But why would you want to demolish such a nice distinguished building?

If it's not fit for purpose, it's 'niceness' is irrelevant. LT is there to
provide public transport, nothing else, it's assets are not there for the
benefit of train spotters, architecture wonks or unaccountable quangos who
don't have to pick up the tab for specious contradictory regulation.

So LU shouldn't do anything to reflect its heritage, its history and its
design excellence?

We (those LU employees who work there) should just be shoved in some
modern office equivalent of a battery hen shed should we?

All of the stations that are excellent examples of historical designs
should be flattened and replaced with mindless railway versions of a bus
shelter? Do you have shares in Metronet and Tube Lines as I'm sure they
would much prefer to bring in some prefabricated load of crap rather
than deal with the existing stations we have with all of their
difficulties and foibles? I'm sure they'd much rather not have to worry
about heritage features, design and special material requirements.

I really do not understand your approach to building design and
preservation - does function always override form in your book?

Speaking as a representative of the local electorate, I'd prefer that
we have guidance from experts on what is a proper historic building
design and what is undistinguished.

Such 'advice' is only valid if the alleged experts guidance is objective.
In the case of the EH et al, it is not.

They aren't paid to be objective. They are paid to fulfil their brief as
set by legislation.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!