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


I know that tastes differ but that's just a *bit* sweeping, don't you
think? :-)
2 Willow Road?

Especially 2 Willow Road. Add everything else the hypocrite inflicted on
society at large to the list also.

Goldfinger was many things but hypocritical is not among them.

Au contraire, millionaire Marxists are inherently hypocritical.

He liked modern functional buildings and built one for himself.

Something he wouldn't be permitted to do today due to ridiculous planning
regulation.

He lived on the top floor of Balfron House for two months.

Wow, a whole 2 months before fleeing back to leafy Hampstead.

(OTOH look up the story
about him and Ian Fleming, and also the one about "Goldfinger here!")

I am conversant with that. Fleming had a point.

[snip]


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.

EH should have been severely slapped down on the Thames Tunnel issue.

There was absolutely no useful purpose served by their interference.

One suspects that if it was possible to consult Brunel on the matter, the
engineer would have been 1st to fire the shotcrete gun.

if self selecting worthies want to impose the costs of their architectural
tastes on society as a whole.

They have two choices.

They can buy said properties and do with them what they will.

Or they can consult the local electorate directly through a proposition
system and abide by that decision.

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.



greg
--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

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!

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
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?

snippitty 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.

True Story - Back in the happy days when we were a railway and the company
plan was but a twinkle in somebody completely Dagenham's(1) eye there was a
little depot called Arnos Grove. It was a happy place, friendly, quiet,
spares on the end of an autophone in the public bar of the Arnos Arms(2)
that kind of thing.
The train crew locker/messroom was reached via a door trainside of the
barrier in the booking hall. Although appearing to be made of wood this door
weighed so much as to be made of pig iron and with monotonous frequency
would physically pull the screws holding the hinges from the concrete door
surround. Eventually one of us would wake/sober up enough to notice and
wander down to the SM to report the defect.
A repairman would, in the fullness of time arrive and amid much sucking
of teeth announce that "well guv, yer problem is that the door's to heavy,
what you need is a completely new door and frame..." you know, gentle reader
what's coming next "...but this is a listed building see, so we're
b*ggered." He would then fill up the gaping screw holes with yet more
concrete, wait for it to set and rawplug the "Black Gate" back into the
wall, safe in the knowledge that he had a job for life. Of course, once the
dark side gained control, and the company plan arrived in all it's evil
majesty, the little friendly depot was closed, it's inhabitants scattered to
the four corners of the combine, the locker/messroom was converted into a
palatial GSM's office. First thing on the conversion? Yep, replace that
bloody door!

(1) Dagenham - Mad, several stops past barking.
(2) Those of you who live at the east end of the Picc think it's rough now,
in those days if a train sat down in the platform with no relief, you had to
wait for the guard to finish his pint and the driver his game of pool before
we turned a wheel.

Trust me I'm a DMT, would I lie to you?
--
Cheers, Steve.
Change from jealous to sad to reply.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:43:09 GMT, "Steve Dulieu"
wrote:

[big snip]

Trust me I'm a DMT, would I lie to you?

I think I'll refrain from answering that question in a public forum ;-)
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In message , Steve
Dulieu writes

Trust me I'm a DMT, would I lie to you?

*snort*
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:00:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:


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?

A straw man.

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

There is absolutely no reason why you or any other public sector employee
should be provided with facilities which have higher operating costs than
equivalent ones elsewhere.

You are employed to serve the public, not the other way around.

If that means the public is better served by placing LU's back office staff
in Stockley Park rather than St James' then so be it.

If you don't like it, tough, work somewhere else.


All of the stations that are excellent examples of historical designs
should be flattened and replaced with mindless railway versions of a bus
shelter?

a.n other straw man.

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

When it comes to paying for it out of taxpayers money, most definitely.

'Form' has left London with a non standardised unmaintainable mess on the
underground.

Holding up long overdue refurbishment because EH consider 70-80 year old
tile work to be 'worthy' is wholly unacceptable.

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 should not be paid period if they are not.



greg
--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:43:39 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:00:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:


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?

A straw man.

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

There is absolutely no reason why you or any other public sector employee
should be provided with facilities which have higher operating costs than
equivalent ones elsewhere.

Does your logic also apply to the private sector? If this is the case
then I trust we will see bankers and corporate lawyers sharing the same
facilities as privatised dustmen.

You are employed to serve the public, not the other way around.

Cheers for the reminder about why I am employed. I must admit that I had
forgotten and had assumed that the millions of pounds in fares that are
paid everyday were only there to keep me in a life of unbounded luxury
while I sit on my backside doing sod all.

If that means the public is better served by placing LU's back office staff
in Stockley Park rather than St James' then so be it.

If you don't like it, tough, work somewhere else.

Are you this pathetically pedantic about everything?

All of the stations that are excellent examples of historical designs
should be flattened and replaced with mindless railway versions of a bus
shelter?

a.n other straw man.

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

When it comes to paying for it out of taxpayers money, most definitely.

'Form' has left London with a non standardised unmaintainable mess on the
underground.

So everything must be standardised then because standardisation is some
epitome of efficiency?

Please give examples of what you consider to be the unmaintainable mess?

Do you always buy the cheapest option in everything you purchase or do
you differentiate as to quality, longevity, aesthetics etc?

Holding up long overdue refurbishment because EH consider 70-80 year old
tile work to be 'worthy' is wholly unacceptable.

Why is it unacceptable - just because it might cost more than some rock
bottom cheap as chips option?

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 should not be paid period if they are not.

And what objective criteria should they therefore employ to achieve
their overall mandate as set down in legislation?
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:57:46 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:


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

There is absolutely no reason why you or any other public sector employee
should be provided with facilities which have higher operating costs than
equivalent ones elsewhere.

Does your logic also apply to the private sector? If this is the case
then I trust we will see bankers and corporate lawyers sharing the same
facilities as privatised dustmen.

Ohh, a.n other strawman.

You are employed to serve the public, not the other way around.

Cheers for the reminder about why I am employed.

You clearly needed it.

[rest binned unread]
--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:43:39 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:00:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:


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?
A straw man.

We (those LU employees who work there) should just be shoved in some
modern office equivalent of a battery hen shed should we?
There is absolutely no reason why you or any other public sector employee
should be provided with facilities which have higher operating costs than
equivalent ones elsewhere.

Does your logic also apply to the private sector? If this is the case
then I trust we will see bankers and corporate lawyers sharing the same
facilities as privatised dustmen.
(snip)

Paul, your argument has already failed here because you're asking for logic.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:00:06 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:43:39 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:00:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:


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?
A straw man.

We (those LU employees who work there) should just be shoved in some
modern office equivalent of a battery hen shed should we?
There is absolutely no reason why you or any other public sector employee
should be provided with facilities which have higher operating costs than
equivalent ones elsewhere.

Does your logic also apply to the private sector? If this is the case
then I trust we will see bankers and corporate lawyers sharing the same
facilities as privatised dustmen.
(snip)

Paul, your argument has already failed here because you're asking for logic.

Obviously - I don't think I have come across anyone post such utter
patronising clap trap on the group.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!