On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, John B wrote:

Incidentally, I don't think there are any plans to destroy the mainline
station - if they did, it would be an act of vandalism on a par with
knocking the Arch down in the first place, since it's not only a
brilliant piece of 1960s architecture

You bloody what? It's horrible, and not in a remotely interesting way!

but also the only mainline terminus that Just Works Really Well.

This is true, though.

tom

--
I don't know kung fu, I AM kung fu.

On 25 Oct, 19:03, wrote:
On 25 Oct, 18:20, John B wrote:



On 25 Oct, 17:57, wrote:

I was really pleased to see the removal of the bland, uninteresting,
boring late 60's tiling, and was looking forward to walking through a
station that doesn't cause clinical depression.

So was great to see the new tiling was identical to the old, nice one
tubelines.

Would it really have been so hard to make the station look just a
little bit modern.

It's in line with LU's general policy of keeping stations visually the
same unless rebuilt, in order to preserve its heritage - which is a
good one.

The 1960s feel at Euston Square is just as worthy of preservation as
the 1930s tiles at Bethnal Green and the 1900s tiles at Arsenal, IMO.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org

I suppose it's all down to personal opinion, after all the underground
station will probably be rebuild when they demolish the mainline
station above. I love the Tube architecture old and new
(www.tubephotos.com) , but not anything from that era.

Rob

Unfortunately they aren't going to put the old Euston Arch back, or
rebuild the Grand Hall (not even at right angles or on a larger
scale). Its just going to be a slightly more modern version of the
same ugly "international style" that its currently in.

Incidentally, I don't think there are any plans to destroy the
mainline station - if they did, it would be an act of vandalism on a
par with knocking the Arch down in the first place, since it's not
only a brilliant piece of 1960s architecture but also the only
mainline terminus that Just Works Really Well. Some refurbishment is
on the cards, but the structure and key features are staying the same
(or at least were on the last reports I saw).
Its horrifically ugly. And its so badly designed that it naturally
attracts druggies and tramps around the front, making it one of the
least inviting stations to arrive at. And inside is hardly any better,
so devoid of architectural quality that there is little to describe it
except "large empty box with shops round the outside".

but also the only mainline terminus that Just Works Really Well.
This is true, though.
You could still have that if you demolished the monster of a building
that housed it, and put something nicer around the platforms.

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:47:32 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

You bloody what? It's horrible, and not in a remotely interesting way!

It is very practical, and works in a way that many stations don't,
while still retaining the impressiveness of a high-ceilinged Great
Hall.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Its horrifically ugly. And its so badly designed that it naturally
attracts druggies and tramps around the front, making it one of the
least inviting stations to arrive at. And inside is hardly any better,
so devoid of architectural quality that there is little to describe it
except "large empty box with shops round the outside".

The inside of the station is very good - it has been allowed to become
cluttered with island shops and some quite inappropriate frontages (eg
the pub inside the station - The Britannia, is it called?) and some of
the less commonly used areas are not kept clean. This is a shame, but
the main hall is a very impressive piece of architecture and the
station does work well (far better than, say, Victoria).

The outside is something else though - it is ugly, shabby and hard to
navigate: this is where the focus for any investment should be.

On 5 Nov, 12:45, whos2091 wrote:
Its horrifically ugly. And its so badly designed that it naturally
attracts druggies and tramps around the front, making it one of the
least inviting stations to arrive at. And inside is hardly any better,
so devoid of architectural quality that there is little to describe it
except "large empty box with shops round the outside".

The inside of the station is very good - it has been allowed to become
cluttered with island shops and some quite inappropriate frontages (eg
the pub inside the station - The Britannia, is it called?) and some of
the less commonly used areas are not kept clean. This is a shame, but
the main hall is a very impressive piece of architecture and the
station does work well (far better than, say, Victoria).
If you took the shops out of Victoria it would be a thousand times
more impressive.
Besides, impressiveness is worthless if it still leaves Euston at the
intrinsically ugly monstrosity that it is.

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:53:46 -0800, lonelytraveller
wrote:

Besides, impressiveness is worthless if it still leaves Euston at the
intrinsically ugly monstrosity that it is.

Ugly it may be, but it is immensely practical - and the shops aren't a
bad thing if you want to use them!

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On 5 Nov, 20:57, (Neil Williams) wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:53:46 -0800, lonelytraveller

wrote:
Besides, impressiveness is worthless if it still leaves Euston at the
intrinsically ugly monstrosity that it is.

Ugly it may be, but it is immensely practical - and the shops aren't a
bad thing if you want to use them!
That's no excuse. That's no justification for it being designed the
way it is rather than something more pleasant.

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:17:09 -0800, lonelytraveller
wrote:

That's no excuse. That's no justification for it being designed the
way it is rather than something more pleasant.

I'd rather it was like that than freezing, smelly (OK, that's the
diesel) Paddington, for example.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.