On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

In article ,
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

In article ,
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Neil Williams wrote:

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 14:39:11 -0000, "solar penguin"
wrote:

That's one thing that St Pancras only managed to get right with the
latest redevelopment, giving us that new basement-level shopping mall
and concourse, tucked nicely away from the trains.

I find it claustrophobic compared with Euston's high-ceilinged Great
Hall, which is certainly deserving of the name.

Hmm. Big Hall, possiby. There's nothing very Great about it.

?

In fact, boggle.

The Great Hall at Euston is a glorious space. With some of the retail
clutter cleared away (as I hear it has been - can't wait to see the
results) it should be the magnificent, uplifting space it should be.
Lovely bit of architecture - and the materials used were superb.

It's a featureless cuboid.

Well, so's the golden ratio..

Well, no it isn't, it's a dimensionless irrational number, but IKWM, but
then it's also not a building. You can use the golden ratio in the making
of aesthetically pleasing buildings, but you need much more than that. The
idea that you only need geometry was tried out fairly thoroughly between
the 30s and 60s, and the fairly emphatic conclusion was that that that
doesn't work.

It absolutely does the job of being a station, but apart from that, it
does nothing at all.

Let's make sure we're on the same wavelength here - are we talking about
this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._concourse.jpg

(now minus some of the shops)

?

Yep. That's the place. A real gem.

Well, de gustibus non est disputandum, but i can assure you that you're
utterly wrong.

tom

--
Tubes are the foul subterranean entrails of the London beast, stuffed
with the day's foetid offerings. -- Tokugawa