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.

I wasn't impressed with St P, to be honest. It feels unfinished,
scruffy and poorly-designed. The trainshed is indeed impressive, but
that's all, and I don't go to stations to look at architecture, but to
catch trains.

They could raise the money to make it look finished by charging a quid
to everyone who says "yes, the old bit looks nice, but when are they
going to put something permanent in place of that temporary bit where
the MML/EMT/Thameslink/FCC on a weekend go from?"

The last time I was playing "hunt the snorbans train" I was surprised to
find there are no ticket machines around the MML platforms, you have to
go downstairs.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

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.

I wasn't impressed with St P, to be honest. It feels unfinished,
scruffy and poorly-designed. The trainshed is indeed impressive, but
that's all, and I don't go to stations to look at architecture, but to
catch trains.

Agreed. Euston is ugly and mediocre, but at least it's not actively bad in
the way that the new St Pancras is.

tom

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

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

I wasn't impressed with St P, to be honest. It feels unfinished,
scruffy and poorly-designed. The trainshed is indeed impressive, but
that's all, and I don't go to stations to look at architecture, but to
catch trains.

I've not travelled to or from StP but I've nipped in and looked at it
when travelling from KX. The use of space seems very odd - people
crowded into the undercroft and down at the MML/EMT/WHY platforms but
hardly anyone in the area at the original platform level, champagne bar
notwithstanding. When I came to the end of the platforms and the giant
statue I felt like some kind of intruder in a private place. Maybe it
was just the time I was there.

Sam

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 13:31:20 +0000, Pyromancer wrote

Euston is pretty much a lost cause, I think. The only real solution
would be to send a team of trainee architects untainted by the scourge
of "modernism" to examine St Pancras, and Glasgow Central, and
Manchester Piccadilly, and learn how a main line terminus station should
be designed, with beautiful and imposing buildings, a glass roof
supported by impressive-looking steelwork, and using traditional
materials like brick and stone.

Given that the railway is supposed to be the transport mode of the future -
new major terminals should reflect the best we can offer today. By all
means keep the best of what's gone before - the recent rebirth of St Pancras
shows how well that can be done, but pastiche and/or replica doesn't suit a
modern public building such as (say) Euston.

Look at Chep Lap Kok, built from scratch to do the job and act as a state of
the art structure into the bargain. No-one would have seriously suggested
that the terminal should have been a replica of Kai Tak.

In it's day Euston was a staggering building; a true examplar of Britain's
New Railway. Sadly it's since been debased to a point where it's of no real
architectural merit and barely functions as an effective public space.

Zaha Hadid, IM Pei, Frank Gehry, even Richard Rogers, could produce a
stunning terminal but, as you say, "that'd cost money, and no-one in the DfT
(who at the end of the day pay for such things) seems to believe that it's
important for the capital city terminus of one of our most prestigious routes
should be anything other than dull and utilitarian"

On 1 Feb, 14:49, Stimpy wrote:
Given that the railway is supposed to be the transport mode of the future -
new major terminals should reflect the best we can offer today.
There's no justification in claiming that classicism isn't the best we
can offer today.

pastiche and/or replica doesn't suit a
modern public building such as (say) Euston.
The new design is a pastiche. Its a pastiche of 60s modernism.

Look at Chep Lap Kok
Very clinical isn't it.

In it's day Euston was a staggering building
That day was before the 1960s.

Zaha Hadid, IM Pei, Frank Gehry, even Richard Rogers, could produce a
stunning terminal
No. They could produce an eyesore. They've done that before.

"lonelytraveller" wrote in
message
...

Zaha Hadid, IM Pei, Frank Gehry, even Richard Rogers, could produce a
stunning terminal
No. They could produce an eyesore. They've done that before.

Before advocating Zaha Hadid as an architect for any project, check out the
analysis done by a Real Firefighter (tm) on her Fire Station (in Germany
IIRC).

--
Tim
http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:12:55 -0800 (PST), lonelytraveller
wrote:

I don't know why they bother wasting the money; they're planning to
build an ugly monstrosity that's nearly identical to the horrific
inhumanity that's there now.

ITYM very effective station. It's warm, bright, spacious and
accessible (OK, the platforms aren't, but it isn't designed for you to
wait on them, except for the commuter services). A fine station by
all accounts, and one that so long as it is structurally sound could
carry on as it is for another 20 years.

The one thing I'd change is to add a barriered walkway either up the
middle or up both sides, marked for people not to stand there, so
people can reach the platforms from the outside world without
crowd-dodging.

Neil

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

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...

ITYM very effective station.

I agree. Euston isn't pretty but it's functional.

I would remove some of the retail units in the middle of the concourse
(which I believe is planned) but other than that there's not much wrong with
it.

--
David

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 22:27:35 -0000, "David Morgan"
wrote:

I would remove some of the retail units in the middle of the concourse
(which I believe is planned)

It's already done. They've gone - the pillars are now exposed.

The ones that remain are two new ones on what would be the barrier
line if there was one (directly under the departure board). These, in
practice, don't seem to get in the way too much, and in some ways help
to separate flows and provide places for people to sit against if they
want to.

Neil

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

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
It's already done. They've gone - the pillars are now exposed.

Neil

I look forward to seeing the changes next time I arrive at Euston.

--
David