On 24 Sep, 11:33, Tom Barry wrote:
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).


All the westbound buses now leave from the other side of Euston Road,
with the exception of the 18 from Euston to Sudbury which starts by
the gate house, but drops passengers off eastbound on Euston Road
before turning round via Grafton Place. The number of routes actually
using the bus station has thinned out in recent years as frequencies
have increased and some routes now only use it in one direction,
stopping on the road in the other (for example the 59 which uses the
bus station northbound, but now uses the corner of Euston Road and
Upper Woburn Place southbound).

In article
,
Bruce wrote:

On Sep 23, 6:38*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...rch-to-be-rebu...

The 70ft arch, inspired by Roman architecture,

Greek, surely.

A little research suggests that the Romans had their own distinct version of
"Doric" architecture, so maybe the article was right.


The correct description of the architectural style of the Euston Arch
is "Greek Revival".

Irrespective of its architectural style it's not actually an arch, is
it? What would the correct classical term for this kind of structure
be, assuming they actually built anything like this?

Sam

Sam Wilson wrote:
In article
,
Bruce wrote:

The correct description of the architectural style of the Euston Arch
is "Greek Revival".

Irrespective of its architectural style it's not actually an arch, is
it? What would the correct classical term for this kind of structure
be, assuming they actually built anything like this?


A dirty great big black lump?

A Doric 'Propylaeum' (monumental gateway)

Paul S

On Sep 23, 5:40*pm, Miles Bader wrote:
Bruce writes:
Thanks. *I agree. *That will be excellent.

Decent Urban Fabric 1:Concrete Commies 0

Unfortunately, the replica "Arch" would be a concrete structure.

Hmm? *It sounds like they're using a lot of the original stone (which
was recovered from a riverbed)...

Anyway, the problem is not concrete. *Concrete is a fantastic building
material, with an ancient provenance (first used extensively by the
romans!). *There are obviously many many excellent buildings made of
concrete.

The problem was clueless and dogmatic '60s worship of modernity
("newer _must_ be better, there is no exception!") being used to justify
bad architecture and planning, and the mindless destruction of anything
not fitting the fad of the moment.

Thank you. I agree. It is not, primarily, about the material.
Concrete can be used most effectively. My issue is with the mentality
that gave us Westway, Euston Station, and Centre Point. For what type
of humans where these structure built.

Contrast these with the “new” Liverpool Street, or the original St
Pancras. They lift the soul and speak of grandeur.

IMHO it is a pity that St Pancras, and now Paddington could not be
given the same treatment as Liverpool St.

IMHO concrete was used effectievly in some of the Jubilee Line
Extension Stations. Westminster is airy and feels spacious.

On Sep 24, 2:37*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.

Waterloo has been a great station. The next "rebuild" gives some
cause for concern. I doubt it will be sympathetic.

The original position of the Arch was somewhere towards the platform
side of the current hall, if memory serves (not that I remember the old
Euston).

The arch needed to be moved.

As for 'concrete commies', the demolition of the Arch was authorised by
Harold Macmillan. *That statement alone betrays that this is a
political, not an architectural or usability matter.

IMHO Macmillan is NOT a hero. His government failed on a number of
fronts. Not, least public disdain resulting from arrogance, and moral
lapses, gave Britain the Harold Wilson years.

E27002 wrote:
On Sep 24, 2:37 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.

Waterloo has been a great station. The next "rebuild" gives some
cause for concern. I doubt it will be sympathetic.

I'd be interested to know of any 'rebuild' plans that are available to the
public. AFAIAA all NR's current plans are to do with extending platforms
outside the station...

Paul S

On Sep 24, 5:57*pm, E27002 wrote:
On Sep 23, 5:40*pm, Miles Bader wrote:

Bruce writes:
Thanks. *I agree. *That will be excellent.

Decent Urban Fabric 1:Concrete Commies 0

Unfortunately, the replica "Arch" would be a concrete structure.

Hmm? *It sounds like they're using a lot of the original stone (which
was recovered from a riverbed)...

Anyway, the problem is not concrete. *Concrete is a fantastic building
material, with an ancient provenance (first used extensively by the
romans!). *There are obviously many many excellent buildings made of
concrete.

The problem was clueless and dogmatic '60s worship of modernity
("newer _must_ be better, there is no exception!") being used to justify
bad architecture and planning, and the mindless destruction of anything
not fitting the fad of the moment.

Thank you. *I agree. *It is not, primarily, about the material.
Concrete can be used most effectively. *My issue is with the mentality
that gave us Westway, Euston Station, and Centre Point. *For what type
of humans where these structure built.

Westway: humans in cars.
Euston: humans leaving trains and entering other trains or buses.
Centrepoint: humans working in offices.

Now, the utterly ****ty streetscape around TCR/Centrepoint, which
Crossrail is thankfully going to improve beyond recognition, is indeed
unforgivable and another story.

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

Sam Wilson wrote:

Irrespective of its architectural style it's not actually an arch, is
it? What would the correct classical term for this kind of structure
be, assuming they actually built anything like this?

I call that sort of thing a squarch.

Basil Jet wrote:

Sam Wilson wrote:

Irrespective of its architectural style it's not actually an arch, is
it? What would the correct classical term for this kind of structure
be, assuming they actually built anything like this?

I call that sort of thing a squarch.

And how many times before this discussion have you done so?
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13857124.html
(66 090 at Bescot, 25 Apr 1999)

"Miles Bader" wrote in message ...

The problem was clueless and dogmatic '60s worship of modernity
("newer _must_ be better, there is no exception!") being used to justify
bad architecture and planning, and the mindless destruction of anything
not fitting the fad of the moment.

-Miles

Whereas the Victorians who built the Euston "Arch" were in no way clueless
and dogmatic in the mindless destruction they wrought on most of the capital's
existing vernacular buildings. Many of them going back 400 years or more in their
determination to replace them with pastiche Roman and Greek temple style
edifices and the like. In this case presumably in recognition of the importance which
railways clearly played in the Classical world. How very fitting - nothing
faddish about that then, at all.

While many of those they didn't raze to the ground they "improved" or rebuilt
in the original style, so at to confuse and bewilder those of subsequent
generations with any interest in the subject.


michael adams

....












--
Sabbath, n. A weekly festival having its origin in the fact that God made the
world in six days and was arrested on the seventh.