On Sep 24, 3:27*am, Bruce wrote:

In my opinion, the new steel structure, clad in Lord knows what, will
be something of an insult to the designer of the original - Thomas
Hardwicke - and the craftsmen who built it. *Instead of something that
respects the original, it merely apes it, while housing businesses
that were never intended to feature in the original structure.

Regardless of that, the photo posted in this thread shows it replacing
the bus station access. This would seem to be rather
counterproductive, as it will reduce the effectiveness of the
interchange.

Neil

Regardless of that, the photo posted in this thread shows it replacing
the bus station access. This would seem to be rather
counterproductive, as it will reduce the effectiveness of the
interchange.

Neil

Buses will fit through the Arch and the Bus station will continue as at
present ...

C.

On Sep 24, 10:37*am, Tom Barry wrote:
I'm horrified to find myself agreeing with 'Bruce' here, although the
blasted word 'iconic' is overused, as ever. *Euston works very well as a
station if you're coming from the underground (but rather less well if
you're on foot or bus) and is an excellent railway station. *Far from
being a deliberate snub to the past, is in many ways a 1960s reworking
of what the LSWR did at Waterloo 40 years earlier, for much the same reason.

Agreed with your post in general. Confused by the "bus" point though -
Euston has a big bus station at the front with easy access to and from
the station, unlike most other London terminals where you have to hunt
for your stop across a variety of side-roads...

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

Tom Barry wrote:

I'm horrified to find myself agreeing with 'Bruce'

It's only really something to worry about if it becomes a habit. Just
have a nice cuppa and you'll be as right as ninepence.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683761.html
(143 609 at Bridgend, 2 Jul 1999)

John B wrote:
On Sep 24, 10:37 am, Tom Barry wrote:
I'm horrified to find myself agreeing with 'Bruce' here, although the
blasted word 'iconic' is overused, as ever. Euston works very well as a
station if you're coming from the underground (but rather less well if
you're on foot or bus) and is an excellent railway station. Far from
being a deliberate snub to the past, is in many ways a 1960s reworking
of what the LSWR did at Waterloo 40 years earlier, for much the same reason.

Agreed with your post in general. Confused by the "bus" point though -
Euston has a big bus station at the front with easy access to and from
the station, unlike most other London terminals where you have to hunt
for your stop across a variety of side-roads...


Yes, it's just a wee bit further away than is convenient. Mind you,
Waterloo's not brilliant for this, although it's not a particularly
difficult walk.

Euston has a couple of bus stops down side roads, too (Eversholt Street,
for instance), and I'm fairly sure I've had to cross Euston Road to get
some buses westbound down there (27?) that weren't serving the main bus
station. There's not a lot wrong with it that couldn't be fixed either
by moving the bus station nearer the concourse or the concourse nearer
the bus station and diverting all buses serving the station through it
(and, for that matter, covering it over a bit).

Tom

In message , Chris
Lonsbrough writes

Buses will fit through the Arch and the Bus station will continue as at
present ...

I know the plan drawn up in the 1990s showed that buses could get
through, although with very little clearance (500cm each side, I think).
I wonder if that's still possible with the buses in use today?

There's also the problem that with the arch sited between the
gatehouses, buses travelling eastwards along the Euston Road would have
to swing right across the traffic lanes in order to approach the arch
head on.

Mind you, I have heard it said that the position of the bus station
could change with the redevelopment of Euston, so I guess there's no
certainty that buses would have to pass through the arch.
--
Paul Terry

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:03:08AM -0700, E27002 wrote:

IMHO, it should be placed in a central postition in front of Euston
Station.

IMHO it shouldn't be rebuilt, as it's horribly ugly and doesn't even
have the benefit of being in any way original or creative, and what
limited usefulness might be squeezed out of it by putting a restaurant
on top could be done much better with a different building.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

comparative and superlative explained:

Huhn worse, worser, worsest, worsted, wasted

Tom Barry writes:
Anyway, Will Wiles has a couple of interesting pieces on the whole
shenanigans, which remind me very much of the Routemaster rubbish or the
rows about tall buildings in London:

Hmm, he seems to huff and puff a lot, and seems guilty of exactly the
same sort of rhetorical excess he charges the arch campaigners with (he
stuffs so many loaded words into each sentence that at times it seems
almost a parody). Basically, though, his argument seems to come down to
"you can never go home again, so stop trying."

Probably true, but I think it's equally silly to try and deny people's
undeniable sense of comfort in remembering the past. It's OK to look
back sometimes.

Despite his use of the pejorative tag "heritage industry", I think the
real appeal is to a wider public sense that politicians and the
architectural establishment _did_ go too far in pursuing their dogma,
and that even if it's too late to undo those huge changes physically,
they're not forgotten, and not really accepted. To some degree it's an
act of revenge.

When he says "Whatever they might claim, neither campaign is
forward-looking. Both see present-day London as a suitable venue for
revisiting battles that were lost more than half a century ago," there's
a sense of someone crying (fearfully) "Stop! We _won_; you're not
allowed to do that!" But, of course, they can do that. What goes
around comes around...

Maybe the reconstructed arch will be a tacky pastiche, or maybe it will
actually be something cool that will become a new icon. Who knows, it
depends on the actual object, not on the history.

[He also tries to throw in some kind of weird guilt-trip about "small,
young practices struggling to find work", but let's face it: the public
doesn't care about architectural practices.]

-Miles

--
Bacchus, n. A convenient deity invented by the ancients as an excuse for
getting drunk.

On 2009-09-24 12:12:11 +0100, Paul Terry said:

In message , Chris
Lonsbrough writes

Buses will fit through the Arch and the Bus station will continue as at
present ...

I know the plan drawn up in the 1990s showed that buses could get
through, although with very little clearance (500cm each side, I
think). I wonder if that's still possible with the buses in use today?

Guided busway, anyone?

snip


--
Robert

On Sep 24, 11:33*am, Tom Barry wrote:

Yes, it's just a wee bit further away than is convenient. *

Eh? It's right in front of the station (other than the seating/food
places area outside I suppose). And at least half of it is covered.

I don't think it needs to be any closer.

Neil