In message , Richard J.
writes
Mizter T wrote on 18 May 2009 14:32:16 ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8055034.stm
Excerpts...
---quote---
Stones believed to be part of a giant arch that used to stand at
Euston railway station are being retrieved from an east London
waterway.
[...]
The stones are being lifted from the Prescott Channel, where they were
used to fill a hole in the riverbed.
[...]
British Waterways will lift the stones from the channel, near Bromley-
by-Bow, on Monday to enable barges to use the lock to transport
materials in and out of the Olympic Park for the 2012 Games.
[...] the Euston Arch Trust [...] wants to rebuild the arch between
two existing lodges on Euston Road.
---/quote---

Why? It's not even a good example of a Greek-style arch (

Actually, I liked it very much (from pictures.......can't remember it in
place).

That said, I would think long and hard about a "rebuild", especially
given the dramatic changes in layout at Euston since then. It could go
somewhere else, I suppose. After all, Temple Bar was brought "back" to
a completely different location but looks (and functions) very well
there.

Now where might the Arch (sorry, "Propylaeum") go?

The pediment (top triangle) is OK, but the rest is a mish-mash.
Pretentious and not very beautiful in my view.

Oh well, we all differ.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On May 18, 6:41*pm, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Richard J.
writes


That said, I would think long and hard about a "rebuild", especially
given the dramatic changes in layout at Euston since then. * It could go
somewhere else, I suppose. * After all, Temple Bar was brought "back" to
a completely different location but looks (and functions) very well
there.

Now where might the Arch (sorry, "Propylaeum") go?


It has never been suggested it should be rebuilt in its original
location. That would mean placing it roughly where the gateline is for
the London Midland/London Overground platforms. Instead it is proposed
to re-site it between the existing lodges on Euston Road, something
that should have been done in 1962 IMHO.


*The pediment (top triangle) is OK, but the rest is a mish-mash.
Pretentious and not very beautiful in my view.

Oh well, we all differ.

Indeed, and it is the the importance of the arch in *railway*
architecture rather than architecture in general that merits its
restoration.

RPM

RPM wrote on 18 May 2009 19:37:11 ...
On May 18, 6:41 pm, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Richard J.
writes


That said, I would think long and hard about a "rebuild", especially
given the dramatic changes in layout at Euston since then. It could go
somewhere else, I suppose. After all, Temple Bar was brought "back" to
a completely different location but looks (and functions) very well
there.

Now where might the Arch (sorry, "Propylaeum") go?


It has never been suggested it should be rebuilt in its original
location. That would mean placing it roughly where the gateline is for
the London Midland/London Overground platforms. Instead it is proposed
to re-site it between the existing lodges on Euston Road, something
that should have been done in 1962 IMHO.


The pediment (top triangle) is OK, but the rest is a mish-mash.
Pretentious and not very beautiful in my view.
Oh well, we all differ.

Indeed, and it is the the importance of the arch in *railway*
architecture rather than architecture in general that merits its
restoration.

What importance? As far as I can see it had no effect at all on
subsequent railway architecture, where more effort and expense was put
into the station itself (such as at King's Cross and Paddington) than on
some great marketing promotion outside. At Euston, the arch was there
from the start in 1837, but it took another 20 years or more before more
than one arrival platform was provided.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Richard J. wrote:
RPM wrote on 18 May 2009 19:37:11 ...
On May 18, 6:41 pm, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Richard J.
writes


That said, I would think long and hard about a "rebuild", especially
given the dramatic changes in layout at Euston since then. It could go
somewhere else, I suppose. After all, Temple Bar was brought "back" to
a completely different location but looks (and functions) very well
there.

Now where might the Arch (sorry, "Propylaeum") go?


It has never been suggested it should be rebuilt in its original
location. That would mean placing it roughly where the gateline is for
the London Midland/London Overground platforms. Instead it is proposed
to re-site it between the existing lodges on Euston Road, something
that should have been done in 1962 IMHO.


The pediment (top triangle) is OK, but the rest is a mish-mash.
Pretentious and not very beautiful in my view.
Oh well, we all differ.

Indeed, and it is the the importance of the arch in *railway*
architecture rather than architecture in general that merits its
restoration.

What importance? As far as I can see it had no effect at all on
subsequent railway architecture, where more effort and expense was put
into the station itself (such as at King's Cross and Paddington) than on
some great marketing promotion outside. At Euston, the arch was there
from the start in 1837, but it took another 20 years or more before more
than one arrival platform was provided.

The arch has probably had an important role in _other_ railway (and
non-railway) architecture having survived - St Pancras, perhaps.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:08:30PM +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote:

The arch has probably had an important role in _other_ railway (and
non-railway) architecture having survived - St Pancras, perhaps.

But the *Euston* arch, and the specific form of that arch, had no
important role.

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life
-- Samuel Johnson

On 18 May, 19:37, RPM wrote:
On May 18, 6:41*pm, Ian Jelf wrote:

In message , Richard J.
writes

That said, I would think long and hard about a "rebuild", especially
given the dramatic changes in layout at Euston since then. * It could go
somewhere else, I suppose. * After all, Temple Bar was brought "back" to
a completely different location but looks (and functions) very well
there.

Now where might the Arch (sorry, "Propylaeum") go?

It has never been suggested it should be rebuilt in its original
location. That would mean placing it roughly where the gateline is for
the London Midland/London Overground platforms. Instead it is proposed
to re-site it between the existing *lodges on Euston Road, something
that should have been done in 1962 IMHO.


Would be interested to see where if they could drive a bendy bus
through it in that spot into/out of the bus station. Although, if
Boris gets his way, I suppose it would only be a large double-decker
instead.