| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Underground Stations and missing panels....
Would someone mind explaining a mysterious phonomena that seems to be
striking random parts of random Underground stations across Central London? I refer to the mysterious case of the phantom panel nicker! There does not appear to be a station left that does not have completely random ceiling panels missing from ticket halls, corridors and platforms. I can understand it when its part of a major refurbishment (See the utter mess Oxford Circus is in at the moment for example) but the ticket hall at Piccadilly Circus has random missing panels and now I have noticed that those above the top of the main escalators at Holborn have begun to randomly vanish as well. What is going on? Its not very good what ever it is as it is making a lot of the stations look an uncared for mess (insert maintenance debate here!) I know that much repair work has to take place outside of operating hours but there is no excuse for leaving some stations looking like they are derelict! Regards John M Upton My Fotopic Collections: South Central/Southern, Model Railway & Other Rail Pictures: http://gallery39764.fotopic.net/ Bus Pics: http://gallery42239.fotopic.net/ My Online Novels: http://www.securitynovels.com |
Underground Stations and missing panels....
JMUpton2000 wrote:
There does not appear to be a station left that does not have completely random ceiling panels missing from ticket halls, corridors and platforms. The Disability Unit have declared that good-looking stations are discriminatory to the blind -) |
Underground Stations and missing panels....
I believe that it is a phenomena that is not limited to the London
Underground. The Toronto subway system also suffers from the same affliction. Underground Gremlins? Regards Ray JMUpton2000 wrote: Would someone mind explaining a mysterious phonomena that seems to be striking random parts of random Underground stations across Central London? I refer to the mysterious case of the phantom panel nicker! There does not appear to be a station left that does not have completely random ceiling panels missing from ticket halls, corridors and platforms. |
Underground Stations and missing panels....
MisterShooter wrote: I believe that it is a phenomena that is not limited to the London Underground. The Toronto subway system also suffers from the same affliction. Underground Gremlins? Regards Ray JMUpton2000 wrote: Would someone mind explaining a mysterious phonomena that seems to be striking random parts of random Underground stations across Central London? I refer to the mysterious case of the phantom panel nicker! There does not appear to be a station left that does not have completely random ceiling panels missing from ticket halls, corridors and platforms. I'd like to announce that, after minths of hard work, the new ceiling panels in my kitchen are almost completely insatalled. :-) Neill |
Underground Stations and missing panels....
They fall on passenger's heads and taken away with the bodies? |
Underground Stations and missing panels....
JMUpton2000 wrote:
Would someone mind explaining a mysterious phonomena that seems to be striking random parts of random Underground stations across Central London? "MisterShooter" wrote I believe that it is a phenomena that is not limited to the London Underground. (Top posting corrected) "A phenomena"? For some time, there seems to have been confusion between the singular and plural forms of criterion/criteria. I do hope this isn't spreading to phenomenon/phenomena. |
Underground Stations and missing panels....
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 17:03:56 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote: John Salmon wrote: JMUpton2000 wrote: Would someone mind explaining a mysterious phonomena that seems to be striking random parts of random Underground stations across Central London? "MisterShooter" wrote I believe that it is a phenomena that is not limited to the London Underground. (Top posting corrected) "A phenomena"? For some time, there seems to have been confusion between the singular and plural forms of criterion/criteria. I do hope this isn't spreading to phenomenon/phenomena. You can't deduce that from a single data. Perhaps correcting this should be the only item on the agendum. -- Chris Hansen | chrishansenhome at btinternet dot com |http://www.christianphansen.com or |http://www.livejournal.com/users/chrishansenhome/ |
Underground Stations and missing panels....
In article ews.net,
"JMUpton2000" securitynovels @ freeuk.com wrote: Would someone mind explaining a mysterious phonomena that seems to be striking random parts of random Underground stations across Central London? I refer to the mysterious case of the phantom panel nicker! There does not appear to be a station left that does not have completely random ceiling panels missing from ticket halls, corridors and platforms. I wondered about posting this when it happened a few weeks ago. I'm a Westminster councillor and sit on one of the Planning Sub-Committees. One application we recently decided was from London Underground and concerned Great Portland Street Station (a listed building: had it not been, then there would have been no requirement to seek planning permission). The application was for the removal and replacement of the tiles throughout the station. The sub-committee looked at the application and decided that it wasn't happy the case for getting rid of such a large amount of original features. It decided to have a site visit. When this was announced it was revealed to the committee that most of the tiles had actually been removed the previous weekend. We went on the site visit to be told that there had been a confusion when the supervisor had been told "We're good to go" (meaning to the committee), and assumed this meant it was good to go removing the tiles. Although LUL had claimed that the original tiles were all badly damaged, it was quite clear that the damage was not that severe. When it came back to the committee we decided to refuse the application. As it is now not possible to put the original tiles back, this normally means that whoever was responsible for removing them gets prosecuted for damaging a listed building without permission. -- http://www.election.demon.co.uk "We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog- ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002. |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
David Boothroyd wrote:
In article ews.net, "JMUpton2000" securitynovels @ freeuk.com wrote: Would someone mind explaining a mysterious phonomena that seems to be striking random parts of random Underground stations across Central London? I refer to the mysterious case of the phantom panel nicker! There does not appear to be a station left that does not have completely random ceiling panels missing from ticket halls, corridors and platforms. I wondered about posting this when it happened a few weeks ago. I'm a Westminster councillor and sit on one of the Planning Sub-Committees. One application we recently decided was from London Underground and concerned Great Portland Street Station (a listed building: had it not been, then there would have been no requirement to seek planning permission). The application was for the removal and replacement of the tiles throughout the station. You've raised an entirely new topic here. This thread was originally about ceiling panels, which are a comparatively recent feature of station architecture, and nothing to do with mid-19th century listed buildings. For those interested in more detail of the Great Portland Street case, there is a .pdf file at http://tinyurl.com/s7m6u . English Heritage supported the application but the 20th Century Society objected. (Some of the tiles date from the 1920s.) The sub-committee looked at the application and decided that it wasn't happy the case for getting rid of such a large amount of original features. It decided to have a site visit. When this was announced it was revealed to the committee that most of the tiles had actually been removed the previous weekend. We went on the site visit to be told that there had been a confusion when the supervisor had been told "We're good to go" (meaning to the committee), and assumed this meant it was good to go removing the tiles. Although LUL had claimed that the original tiles were all badly damaged, it was quite clear that the damage was not that severe. If most of the tiles had already been removed, how were you able to form that judgement? In any case damage that's "not that severe" can still look unsightly with small chips and crazing of the glaze. Tiles cannot be refurbished in the same way that iron, stone and brick can. When it came back to the committee we decided to refuse the application. As it is now not possible to put the original tiles back, this normally means that whoever was responsible for removing them gets prosecuted for damaging a listed building without permission. And how would that help the travelling public - your electors? The application was actually trying to recreate the original look of the tiling, which is currently a mixture of original vitreous enamel and later ceramic tiles, some quite modern. It would revitalise a "tired public transport facility" in the words of your officers. Your decision appears vindictive to me. What do you actually want LU and Metronet to do now? -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
"Richard J." wrote in message . .. For those interested in more detail of the Great Portland Street case, there is a .pdf file at http://tinyurl.com/s7m6u . English Heritage supported the application but the 20th Century Society objected. (Some of the tiles date from the 1920s.) My interest in this area is as a member of an ecclesiatical Listed Buildings Advisory Committee (which takes the place of the local authority under Ecclesiastical Exemption), so my knowledge is not of railways in particular. However, if an application like this had come before our committee there is no way we would have thought of considering this without a site visit. It is often the case that an amentity society has more specialist knowledge than a hard pressed relatively junior EH case worker. When it came back to the committee we decided to refuse the application. As it is now not possible to put the original tiles back, this normally means that whoever was responsible for removing them gets prosecuted for damaging a listed building without permission. And how would that help the travelling public - your electors? The application was actually trying to recreate the original look of the tiling, which is currently a mixture of original vitreous enamel and later ceramic tiles, some quite modern. It would revitalise a "tired public transport facility" in the words of your officers. Your decision appears vindictive to me. What do you actually want LU and Metronet to do now? Helping the travelling public is irrelevant in this in stance. the purpose of Listed Building control is protect Listed Buildings from inappropriate changes. In this case the kind of tiling has no effect upon the use of the building. The rules about not carrying out work without consent apply just as much as to whether the work was "accidentally" or deliberately done. Having read the file attached, I would think that a refusal was not unjustified regardless of the issue of the work having been done. Michael |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 23:41:37 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote: For those interested in more detail of the Great Portland Street case, there is a .pdf file at http://tinyurl.com/s7m6u . English Heritage supported the application but the 20th Century Society objected. (Some of the tiles date from the 1920s.) English Heritage are right and the 20th Century Society (whoever they are, I've never even heard of them before) are wrong. The original design intent wasn't to have 80-year-old tiles looking terrible, and you just have to have looked at the difference between Queensway and Lancaster Gate to see the difference retiling can make. Now that doesn't mean the responsible person in LUL shouldn't be punished for violation of listed building regulations, but I'm surprised that the committee felt a site visit was necessary. It's a no-brainer to me. -- James Farrar . @gmail.com |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
|
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
In article ,
James Farrar wrote: English Heritage are right and the 20th Century Society (whoever they are, I've never even heard of them before) are wrong. The C20th Society aims at preserving the best 20th Century buildings. The original design intent wasn't to have 80-year-old tiles looking terrible, and you just have to have looked at the difference between Queensway and Lancaster Gate to see the difference retiling can make. The remaining tiles at Great Portland Street don't look terrible. And the samples of the new ones did not look like much of an improvement. Now that doesn't mean the responsible person in LUL shouldn't be punished for violation of listed building regulations, but I'm surprised that the committee felt a site visit was necessary. It's a no-brainer to me. I wasn't actually on the committee for the decision to make a site visit (I'd swapped duties with someone else). However, there is a limited amount you can learn about historic fabric without actually seeing it in situ. And not every member of the committee travels by tube (I do, but not all the Tories). Westminster is not a planning authority which often goes on site visits. -- http://www.election.demon.co.uk "We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog- ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002. |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 23:41:37 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote: And how would that help the travelling public - your electors? It doesn't. The application was actually trying to recreate the original look of the tiling, which is currently a mixture of original vitreous enamel and later ceramic tiles, some quite modern. It would revitalise a "tired public transport facility" in the words of your officers. Proof if any were necessary of the ridiculously arbitrary and subjective nature of the listing process. No building under 100 years old should be listed period. Your decision appears vindictive to me. Of course it is. Did you expect anything better from pettyfogging officialdom. 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. |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 23:37:48 +0100, David Boothroyd
wrote: In article , James Farrar wrote: English Heritage are right and the 20th Century Society (whoever they are, I've never even heard of them before) are wrong. The C20th Society aims at preserving the best 20th Century buildings. 'best' does not include brutalist desctruction of towns and cities throughout the UK, a school of architecture which appears to a favourite of this self selecting group of unaccountable worthies. No building under 100 years old should be listed period. 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. |
Gt Portland St tiles
Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 23:37:48 +0100, David Boothroyd wrote: In article , James Farrar wrote: English Heritage are right and the 20th Century Society (whoever they are, I've never even heard of them before) are wrong. The C20th Society aims at preserving the best 20th Century buildings. 'best' does not include brutalist desctruction of towns and cities throughout the UK, a school of architecture which appears to a favourite of this self selecting group of unaccountable worthies. No building under 100 years old should be listed period. Funny, that's what they thought of Victorian buildings in the 50s & 60s, and what the Victorians thought of buildings before them. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Gt Portland St tiles
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:03:40 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:
Greg Hennessy wrote: On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 23:37:48 +0100, David Boothroyd wrote: In article , James Farrar wrote: English Heritage are right and the 20th Century Society (whoever they are, I've never even heard of them before) are wrong. The C20th Society aims at preserving the best 20th Century buildings. 'best' does not include brutalist desctruction of towns and cities throughout the UK, a school of architecture which appears to a favourite of this self selecting group of unaccountable worthies. No building under 100 years old should be listed period. Funny, that's what they thought of Victorian buildings in the 50s & 60s, 'they' being talentless poseurs such as the Smithsons, Goldfinger et al + their public sector sponsors who destroyed towns and cities in the interests of 'modernism'. and what the Victorians thought of buildings before them. The Victorians didnt have ridiculous restrictions on land use. The Victorians would not have countenanced leaving the site of a former power station in the middle of London standing empty for decades because unaccountable worthies deem it do. If the '20th century society' (sic) deem buildings to be so important, they can pay the price for keeping them. 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. |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
In message , Greg Hennessy
writes No building under 100 years old should be listed period. I know that tastes differ but that's just a *bit* sweeping, don't you think? :-) The Hoover Building? 2 Willow Road? Bankside Power Station? Coventry Cathedral? Liverpool Cathedral (either one, come to think of it)? City Hall in Norwich? The facade of Buckingham Palace? 55 Broadway? -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:35:47 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote: In message , Greg Hennessy writes No building under 100 years old should be listed period. I know that tastes differ but that's just a *bit* sweeping, don't you think? :-) The Hoover Building? A thin facade on a supermarket. Leveling the site and building housing on it would have far better served that part of West London. 2 Willow Road? Especially 2 Willow Road. Add everything else the hypocrite inflicted on society at large to the list also. Bankside Power Station? A.n other ridiculous waste of extremely scarce resource. It and Battersea should never ever have been built in the middle of London in the 1st place. One has to ask why more self serving worthies such as Serota et al at the Tate deserved a handout valued at 10's if not hundreds of millions. Coventry Cathedral? If the local religious tribe feel that they need a new place to worship, it's no concern of those who don't. Liverpool Cathedral (either one, come to think of it)? See above. City Hall in Norwich? A decision for Norwich and it's local electorate, not worthies living nowhere near the place. The facade of Buckingham Palace? If her Maj feels the need to change it and is picking up the bill, why not. 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. 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. 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. |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 23:41:37 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote: David Boothroyd wrote: As it is now not possible to put the original tiles back, this normally means that whoever was responsible for removing them gets prosecuted for damaging a listed building without permission. And how would that help the travelling public - your electors? The application was actually trying to recreate the original look of the tiling, which is currently a mixture of original vitreous enamel and later ceramic tiles, some quite modern. It would revitalise a "tired public transport facility" in the words of your officers. Your decision appears vindictive to me. What do you actually want LU and Metronet to do now? I think the issue here is that the authorities or bodies with responsibility for making these judgments don't give a damn what LU or Metronet do provided they do as they are told. Cost is also not a concern for those issuing their judgments - the listing of the Thames Tunnel being a great example of how to multiply the cost of a project several fold. While I admire good architecture [1] and think that there is much on the LU network that is worthy of retention and careful and appropriate restoration I know from personal experience how unbelievable it can get in dealing with local authorities and English Heritage. While I don't know the facts in this case concerning removal of the tiles I can clearly recall an old memo (in the years after the Kings Cross fire when there was a lot of Fire Precautions work undertaken) that made clear the consequences of working without proper consent on listed buildings. This is the sort of thing that really should not happen given LU's past experience in this area. [1] an entirely subjective matter I accept. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
In article ,
Greg Hennessy wrote: On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:35:47 +0100, Ian Jelf wrote: In message , Greg Hennessy writes No building under 100 years old should be listed period. 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. He liked modern functional buildings and built one for himself. He lived on the top floor of Balfron House for two months. (OTOH look up the story about him and Ian Fleming, and also the one about "Goldfinger here!") Bankside Power Station? A.n other ridiculous waste of extremely scarce resource. It and Battersea should never ever have been built in the middle of London in the 1st place. One has to ask why more self serving worthies such as Serota et al at the Tate deserved a handout valued at 10's if not hundreds of millions. Liverpool Cathedral (either one, come to think of it)? This manages to mention three buildings (Bankside, Battersea and Liverpool Anglican Cathedral) designed by my favourite architect of all time, Sir Giles Gilbert Scott. Scott had a genius for making functional buildings into popular landmarks. In Battersea Power station it is tragic that successive failures have left the building in such a condition that the original chimneys have to be replaced with facsimiles. Bankside has unfortunately been converted in a quite unsympathetic way. 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 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. -- http://www.election.demon.co.uk "We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog- ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002. |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
David Boothroyd ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying : In Battersea Power station it is tragic that successive failures have left the building in such a condition that the original chimneys have to be replaced with facsimiles. Quite. Absolutely criminal what's been done to/with Battersea. |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
David Boothroyd wrote:
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. But you ignored the guidance from the experts at English Heritage regarding Great Portland Street station. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:38:23 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote: No building under 100 years old should be listed period. There have been too many mistakes made in the past to simply abandon what protection we do have. If we ignored everything under 100 years, we could all too easily find ourselves with nothing - or only inferior examples - left by the time the most important buildings were "old enough". For example, 100 years would rule out listing anything related to the two world wars, surely a rather important part of our history. And where would British cities be without a 71 year old phone box design? The Victorians often flattened what went before to build their railways and satanic mills. After all, Georgian buildings were then fairly recent, and there were loads of 'em... Post-war Britain then did the same thing to the Victorians, and look what monstrosities that could produce, perhaps doing more long-term harm to the fabric of some cities than the Luftwaffe managed. For some reason a lot of people think listing is about buildings being twee and pretty - it isn't, it is about them being of architectural or historic interest. It also isn't about fossilising them (thankfully - I've lived in a Grade I building, and I wouldn't fancy C17th plumbing and wiring). -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:29:21 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote: As it is now not possible to put the original tiles back, this normally means that whoever was responsible for removing them gets prosecuted for damaging a listed building without permission. And how would that help the travelling public - your electors? The application was actually trying to recreate the original look of the tiling, which is currently a mixture of original vitreous enamel and later ceramic tiles, some quite modern. It would revitalise a "tired public transport facility" in the words of your officers. Your decision appears vindictive to me. What do you actually want LU and Metronet to do now? I think the issue here is that the authorities or bodies with responsibility for making these judgments don't give a damn what LU or Metronet do provided they do as they are told. Cost is also not a concern for those issuing their judgments. Exactly, which is why unaccountable quangos stuffed with worthies should not be in a position to implement and enforce what are entirely subjective judgments. That decision should ultimately be borne by those who end up paying for it. - the listing of the Thames Tunnel being a great example of how to multiply the cost of a project several fold. Never mind the opportunity cost of putting a transport artery out of action for far longer than expected. Bishopsgate goodsyard being another example of EH's unaccountable interference. 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. |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
In message , David
Boothroyd writes In article , Greg Hennessy wrote: On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:35:47 +0100, Ian Jelf wrote: In message , Greg Hennessy writes No building under 100 years old should be listed period. 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. He liked modern functional buildings and built one for himself. He lived on the top floor of Balfron House for two months. Interesting. I thought it was Trellick tower. You live and learn! Thanks, David. (OTOH look up the story about him and Ian Fleming, and also the one about "Goldfinger here!") Bankside Power Station? A.n other ridiculous waste of extremely scarce resource. It and Battersea should never ever have been built in the middle of London in the 1st place. One has to ask why more self serving worthies such as Serota et al at the Tate deserved a handout valued at 10's if not hundreds of millions. Liverpool Cathedral (either one, come to think of it)? This manages to mention three buildings (Bankside, Battersea and Liverpool Anglican Cathedral) designed by my favourite architect of all time, Sir Giles Gilbert Scott. Scott had a genius for making functional buildings into popular landmarks. Like the K2/K6 telephone kiosks, then? :-) In Battersea Power station it is tragic that successive failures have left the building in such a condition that the original chimneys have to be replaced with facsimiles. Bankside has unfortunately been converted in a quite unsympathetic way. It wasn't my intention to single of GGS. But I admire his stuff a great deal, so I suppose I did so subconsciously. 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? Probably because he doesn't think it's nice and/or distinguished. That's the thing with taste, isn't it? 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. Glad you think so! -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
In article ,
Ian Jelf wrote: In message , David Boothroyd writes This manages to mention three buildings (Bankside, Battersea and Liverpool Anglican Cathedral) designed by my favourite architect of all time, Sir Giles Gilbert Scott. Scott had a genius for making functional buildings into popular landmarks. Like the K2/K6 telephone kiosks, then? :-) Definitely! In Battersea Power station it is tragic that successive failures have left the building in such a condition that the original chimneys have to be replaced with facsimiles. Bankside has unfortunately been converted in a quite unsympathetic way. It wasn't my intention to single of GGS. But I admire his stuff a great deal, so I suppose I did so subconsciously. If you really like his buildings, one of the best is the one he built for himself at Chester House, Clarendon Place W2 (just off Bayswater Road). It is quite the most beautifully proportioned neo-Georgian house I have seen. I was walking by it once when I thought "that house looks just like Cambridge University Library designed as a two storey house" which was not surprising! 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. Glad you think so! Well, I'm atoning for just having given permission to demolish a 1928 neo-Georgian building which I actually quite like. (EH thought it undistinguished though, and it was unlisted) -- http://www.election.demon.co.uk "We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog- ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002. |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
In article ,
Greg Hennessy wrote: Bishopsgate goodsyard being another example of EH's unaccountable interference. I'm currently working for the company which persuaded the local council to give permission for its redevelopment. -- http://www.election.demon.co.uk "We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog- ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002. |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
In article ,
"Richard J." wrote: David Boothroyd wrote: 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. But you ignored the guidance from the experts at English Heritage regarding Great Portland Street station. There was a conflict between them and the 20th Century Society. Advice and guidance from experts is only advice and guidance. -- http://www.election.demon.co.uk "We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog- ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002. |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
|
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
David Boothroyd wrote:
"We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog- ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002. OT, but is this some kind of attempt to smear Ming as "just as bad as Labour" for believing what Mr Blair told everyone before the Iraq war? While I understand (especially today of all days) that believing what that lot say is a deeply unwise plan, I'm not convinced that their mendacity was so clear four years ago that an opposition spokesman would have been right to automatically assume our PM would take us to war based on a tissue of lies. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
In message ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes In article , (David Boothroyd) wrote: If you really like his buildings, one of the best is the one he built for himself at Chester House, Clarendon Place W2 (just off Bayswater Road). It is quite the most beautifully proportioned neo-Georgian house I have seen. I was walking by it once when I thought "that house looks just like Cambridge University Library designed as a two storey house" which was not surprising! Eek! Complete with tower?! Well I could do with a house with such a tower for my books....... -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
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. |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:06:39 +0100, Arthur Figgis ]
wrote: On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:38:23 +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote: No building under 100 years old should be listed period. There have been too many mistakes made in the past to simply abandon what protection we do have. Mistakes which were entirely driven by central planning with SFA direct local decision making. The 1947 T&C planning act abrogated planning from localities. If we ignored everything under 100 years, we could all too easily find ourselves with nothing - or only inferior examples - left by the time the most important buildings were "old enough". For example, 100 years would rule out listing anything related to the two world wars, So. surely a rather important part of our history. And where would British cities be without a 71 year old phone box design? That's a decision for localities and their electorates to take. Not by unaccountable whitehall dictat. The Victorians often flattened what went before to build their railways. Which are now run far beyond capacity, expansion completely hamstrung by ridiculous planning regulation. If continentals can put new railways underground to spare property deemed worthy, it's shouldn't be beyond the wit of the UK to do the same. After all, Georgian buildings were then fairly recent, and there were loads of 'em... There was loads of victorian building too. Without needing Whitehall to manage it. Post-war Britain then did the same thing to the Victorians, Post war Whitehall did it to the Victorians, While the rest of Europe attempted to rebuild shattered towns and cities to how they looked on the 31st of August 1939. Central planning fetishists such as Patrick Abercrombie were let loose, armed with powers to seize & destroy what the Luftwaffe couldn't. and look what monstrosities that could produce, perhaps doing more long-term harm to the fabric of some cities than the Luftwaffe managed. Did you expect anything better from wholly unaccountable civil servants in Whitehall ? The destruction of Plymouth and the creation of monstrosities such as Stevenage, Harlow et al was entirely the fault of micromanaging state control. For some reason a lot of people think listing is about buildings being twee and pretty - it isn't, it is about them being of architectural or historic interest. That's fine, they can make their case for listing directly to the local electorate, who can then pick up the costs which listing brings. 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. |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
In message , Greg Hennessy
writes Post war Whitehall did it to the Victorians, While the rest of Europe attempted to rebuild shattered towns and cities to how they looked on the 31st of August 1939. Sorry Greg but that bit just isn't true. Many continental cities suffered from a love of concrete and a naivety of design just as much as Britain. More so, to be honest. Cologne's stunning cathedral was (and to a large extent still is) surrounded by wholly insensitive development out of scale, and keeping and more importantly difficult to maintain well and keep looking good. And don't let anyone tell you that cities like Dresden were in any sense "fully restored". Only a minor (if amazingly beautiful) part of the historic centre was rebuilt "as before". Take a stroll along the nearby Prager Strasse and you could easily be in Stevenage or Harlow but without the nice bits. Brussels has lots of the same and so do any number of other continental cities. For what it's worth, I reckon we've actually done a *better* job with our urban fabric than many of our neighbours. (Though that's not to say we don't have some monstrosities, too.) -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
In article om,
"John B" wrote: David Boothroyd wrote: "We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog- ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002. OT, but is this some kind of attempt to smear Ming as "just as bad as Labour" for believing what Mr Blair told everyone before the Iraq war? No. It is a demonstration that the belief that Baathist Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was reasonable and shared widely. It is therefore irrational and ahistorical to claim that the only reason people believed Iraq had WMD was that it was in the dossier. While I understand (especially today of all days) that believing what that lot say is a deeply unwise plan, I'm not convinced that their mendacity was so clear four years ago that an opposition spokesman would have been right to automatically assume our PM would take us to war based on a tissue of lies. No lies were told. The Prime Minister had been advised by the intelligence agencies that Iraq had WMD, and believed it (not surprisingly given that everyone else believed it as well), and said to the public what he honestly believed in private. If that analysis turned out to be wrong, it was not because the Prime Minister was attempting to deceive. -- http://www.election.demon.co.uk "We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog- ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002. |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
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! |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
"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. |
Gt Portland St tiles (was: Underground Stations and missing panels....)
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! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:15 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk