Plans for the existing Euston station post HS2?

[Bletchleyite]

Why resite the bus station? It's conveniently located, an excellent example of integrated transport, just how it should be. It could be made to look nicer but it should definitely not be moved away.

 

[MB162435]

What the ###****!!! has value for money got to do with it? I doubt if the original arch covered its costs. It was an act of vandalism to remove it and if it is at all possible to reverse that vandalism money shouldn't come into it. On another thread is the story of recent vandalism to one of the new Merseyrail trains, which apparently will cost over £1k to put right: you could argue that's not value for money. Admittedly the Euston Arch (even if most of the original stones can be recovered) would cost many times that to rebuild, but the principle is the same.

Value for money has everything to do with it

Do you honestly think out of all the plans for Euston, the arch should be anywhere near the top of the list, and if plans have been scaled back it should still go ahead?

As I said it would be lovely to see at Euston again and if it went ahead I would be excited to see it in it's glory again

With every company and person being extremely careful with their money currently, building a arch that just looks nice but offers no real improvement to a customers experience won't be hugely supported

As others have said, not every part is accounted for so won't be completely original anyway

 

[Energy]

What the ###****!!! has value for money got to do with it? I doubt if the original arch covered its costs. It was an act of vandalism to remove it and if it is at all possible to reverse that vandalism money shouldn't come into it. On another thread is the story of recent vandalism to one of the new Merseyrail trains, which apparently will cost over £1k to put right: you could argue that's not value for money. Admittedly the Euston Arch (even if most of the original stones can be recovered) would cost many times that to rebuild, but the principle is the same.

There is a big difference between building a large arch and cleaning a train with the former costing a lot more. Removing the arch is not vandalism as they were allowed to demolish it even if it did look nice so the principle is not the same.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The arch was ugly anyway, in my view.

 

[swt_passenger]

Surely all the tacky refreshment shacks etc that litter the area outside the concourse could be cleared away. Maybe the bus station could be resited too. Originally wasn't the arch in between the two lodges that are still in situ close to the Euston Road?

No, although that’s where a rebuilt arch is often visualised in recent renders.

But the “arch” was about 200m further north, set between a different set of four small lodges, on the north side of Drummond St, which used to continue to the east right across the site, joining up with Doric Way.

 

[si404]

Admittedly the Euston Arch (even if most of the original stones can be recovered) would cost many times that to rebuild, but the principle is the same.

I know it saves sculpting new stone, but why do we need to hunt down the original stones? Obviously a lot of them are in known locations, but it probably isn't easier to rebuild something than to just build a new Doric Arch.

And it's not the same as restoring an in-service train that was vandalised. The Euston Arch was demolished nearly 60 years ago and Euston will be a building site for another 10 years: bringing something back that almost nobody would be able to actually remember is very different to cleaning a new train (for a tiny fraction of what the train cost) so you can continue to use it.

The arch will be about 200 years old if they rebuilt it, but it being rebuilt wouldn't undo the 'vandalism' of the 60s that meant it was gone for over a third of that time.

 

[Mollman]

There have been many plans to rebuild Euston and the arch, two examples from 2013 and 2015 are seen here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/realestate/a-landmark-lost-and-found.html

https://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co...r-50-years-languishing-in-river-lea-1-4061265

 

[si404]

The arch was ugly anyway, in my view.

Looking at photos, if they had moved it in the 1960s rather than demolished it, then the general consensus today would be that it is as ugly and brutalist as the rebuilt station.

 

[Mikey C]

Like many people I had assumed the Arch was on the Euston Road, when in reality it was right in the middle of the modern station, and in reality it needed to be removed. It's a tricky one, the old Euston station was attractive and historic, with its Great Hall, but also unsuitable for modern needs

The arch should then have rebuilt as the centrepiece of a park somewhere.

 

[mr_jrt]

Looking at photos, if they had moved it in the 1960s rather than demolished it, then the general consensus today would be that it is as ugly and brutalist as the rebuilt station.

You what?

How on Earth could you consider that arch as even remotely in the same league as a 60's concrete box? St. Pancras surviving presumably is as bad as 60's Euston, then?

The arch should have been moved south to either Euston Road or roughly where the tower blocks ended up. Even with the old stones in good condition, they're going to have been cut up during disassembly. I suspect a new arch would have to be a replica, which at least frees you to make some changes. I think a replica arch incorporating some of the old stone as a limited facade (say, the old "EUSTON" ones, for example), would be a good idea. Maybe scale it up to make the space up in the top more useful as a function space. Even if not for that, scaling it up slightly to comfortably fit a roadway suitable for a pair of double deckers would be wise - the old arch looked too tight a fit for a normal road with two lanes between the main columns!

 

[LOL The Irony]

You what?

How on Earth could you consider that arch as even remotely in the same league as a 60's concrete box? St. Pancras surviving presumably is as bad as 60's Euston, then?

The arch should have been moved south to either Euston Road or roughly where the tower blocks ended up. Even with the old stones in good condition, they're going to have been cut up during disassembly. I suspect a new arch would have to be a replica, which at least frees you to make some changes. I think a replica arch incorporating some of the old stone as a limited facade (say, the old "EUSTON" ones, for example), would be a good idea. Maybe scale it up to make the space up in the top more useful as a function space. Even if not for that, scaling it up slightly to comfortably fit a roadway suitable for a pair of double deckers would be wise - the old arch looked too tight a fit for a normal road with two lanes between the main columns!

It's not the prettiest arch, but it's still good architecture and a million times better than the concrete poohole that is current Euston. I think we should build a new arch entirely, keep the Doric columns but make the arch like an arch (aka give it an arc, the old one looks like a porch). Also put it at the western end of the bus station so the buses drive through it when entering the station, that'll look pretty cool.

 

[Horizon22]

Are there safeguarded plans for a future Crossrail 2 Euston St. Pancras station and if so, would that have any impact on the work to Euston in the ner future?

 

[cle]

The fact is, the Arch has gone. Whether it was a mistake to get rid of it, or not - we are where we are. And it's not a priority.

Plus we should look forward - design a new trademark if that is needed.

But look at Crossrail and the Jubilee Line - we over-engineer on the aesthetics to our detriment. Not every new piece of infrastructure has to be a show-stopper, it can be beautiful in its simplicity and function. St Pancras is next door for nostalgia, Kings Cross for a cutting edge integration of Victoriana into modern style.

I think the two Taps do the job perfectly

 

[LOL The Irony]

Plus we should look forward - design a new trademark if that is needed.

I agree, something now that still encompasses the spirit of the original, like my proposal of keeping the Doric columns but replacing the arch with an arc.

 

[swt_passenger]

Are there safeguarded plans for a future Crossrail 2 Euston St. Pancras station and if so, would that have any impact on the work to Euston in the ner future?

There’s plenty of info online, they know basically where the underground box goes, and where the surface worksites will be. I’m sure we’ve had drawings posted before which give the broad layout of the escalator routes and ticket halls:

The connection at Euston would also boost national connectivity by helping thousands of HS2 passengers to reach their final destination and so keep the whole country moving. Since the 2015 consultation, we have been working in collaboration with Network Rail to integrate the new Crossrail 2 entrance within Euston station to improve interchanges between Crossrail 2 and national rail services (including High Speed 2 services) and reduce the impact on the local area.

Euston St. Pancras - Crossrail 2

crossrail2.co.uk

 

[Horizon22]

There’s plenty of info online, they know basically where the underground box goes, and where the surface worksites will be. I’m sure we’ve had drawings posted before which give the broad layout of the escalator routes and ticket halls:

Ah yes, thought I'd see it before. Focussed on the NE side presumably wouldn't be an issue and its years away yet if it does ever happen

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Quite frankly I am amused to see all this discussion about an arch. That said I confess I am a functional person and not an aesthetic

 

[urbophile]

Quite frankly I am amused to see all this discussion about an arch. That said I confess I am a functional person and not an aesthetic

Strangely, the 'new' Euston concourse was and is more impressive for its aesthetics than its functionality. A minimalist box with nowhere to sit and wait for your train (until a few seats were latterly and reluctantly added). I happen to like it, but making it more functional spoils its appearance. The 'arch', by the way, isn't an arch but a propylaeum. Arch is easier to say!

If HS2 is a British 'Grand Projet', a tiny proportion of the cost spent on a tasteful display doesn't seem inappropriate. A 21st century equivalent to the 'arch' would be fine, but it would be a pity if an opportunity for creative restoration was being lost.

 

[urbophile]

There is a big difference between building a large arch and cleaning a train with the former costing a lot more. Removing the arch is not vandalism as they were allowed to demolish it even if it did look nice so the principle is not the same.

Legalised vandalism. Governments can get away with crimes that the rest of us would do (a lot of) time for.

 

[urbophile]

So we might just end up with a pastiche rather than anything original - think Trafford Centre?!

Good Lord deliver us! If you are right, we're better not pursuing this matter.

 

[tspaul26]

Strangely, the 'new' Euston concourse was and is more impressive for its aesthetics than its functionality. A minimalist box with nowhere to sit and wait for your train (until a few seats were latterly and reluctantly added). I happen to like it, but making it more functional spoils its appearance. The 'arch', by the way, isn't an arch but a propylaeum. Arch is easier to say!

If HS2 is a British 'Grand Projet', a tiny proportion of the cost spent on a tasteful display doesn't seem inappropriate. A 21st century equivalent to the 'arch' would be fine, but it would be a pity if an opportunity for creative restoration was being lost.

It occurs to me that there is an opportunity for each new HS2 station to have its own motif derived from the classical orders.

For example:

• The ‘Euston Arch’ featured Doric pillars;
• The original Curzon Street headhouse has Ionic (and will be incorporated into the new station; and
• Piccadilly’s trainshed is supported on Corinthian columns.

Perhaps a similar motif could be chosen for other stations to give a subtle sense of individuality whilst at the same implementing a consistent over-arching theme across the route.

 

[yorksrob]

Strangely, the 'new' Euston concourse was and is more impressive for its aesthetics than its functionality. A minimalist box with nowhere to sit and wait for your train (until a few seats were latterly and reluctantly added). I happen to like it, but making it more functional spoils its appearance. The 'arch', by the way, isn't an arch but a propylaeum. Arch is easier to say!

If HS2 is a British 'Grand Projet', a tiny proportion of the cost spent on a tasteful display doesn't seem inappropriate. A 21st century equivalent to the 'arch' would be fine, but it would be a pity if an opportunity for creative restoration was being lost.

I think it's rather a splendid concourse as well. I hope it stays.

 

[tspaul26]

I believe it was somewhere around the barrier line for the suburban platforms.

The surviving parts of the arch have been in the bottom of a river for several decades and probably don't amount to more than a small part of it anyway. So we might just end up with a pastiche rather than anything original - think Trafford Centre?!

If it were my decision (assuming that it had already been decided that the thing was to be rebuilt) I would re-use the original stone where possible, but make sure that any replacement material was obviously different in some way.

For example, carve replacement pieces from a darker stone or even set the stone in plain concrete (especially since much of the HS2 line will be built from copious amounts of the latter).

In the latter case, I am also reminded somewhat of Matthew 13:52 from Sunday Mass last week:

“Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old.”

 

[edwin_m]

Not sure what I've done here, to attract a theological response from separate people to two consecutive posts... Is the Euston Arch a mythical object of veneration akin to the Arc(h) of the Covenant?

 

[Journeyman]

Not sure what I've done here, to attract a theological response from separate people to two consecutive posts... Is the Euston Arch a mythical object of veneration akin to the Arc(h) of the Covenant?

Those who demolished it chose...poorly.

Not really. We are where we are. I don't consider it a great loss.

 

[DJ_K666]

If it were my decision (assuming that it had already been decided that the thing was to be rebuilt) I would re-use the original stone where possible, but make sure that any replacement material was obviously different in some way.

For example, carve replacement pieces from a darker stone or even set the stone in plain concrete (especially since much of the HS2 line will be built from copious amounts of the latter).

In the latter case, I am also reminded somewhat of Matthew 13:52 from Sunday Mass last week:

“Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old.”

That would be termed an Accountancy rebuild. there is enough original material to qualify. I think the courtyard outside would be a good place. Re shape the concourse to fit it in. It's only ugly concrete and glass anyway, not what a 'Proper' station should look like in my opinion.

 

[Journeyman]

That would be termed an Accountancy rebuild. there is enough original material to qualify. I think the courtyard outside would be a good place. Re shape the concourse to fit it in. It's only ugly concrete and glass anyway, not what a 'Proper' station should look like in my opinion.

Leave Euston alone! As a fan of a bit of brutalist concrete, I've always rather liked the place.

 

[Energy]

Legalised vandalism. Governments can get away with crimes that the rest of us would do (a lot of) time for.

Still not called vandalism in the law while graffiti is so they are different things.

 

[DJ_K666]

Leave Euston alone! As a fan of a bit of brutalist concrete, I've always rather liked the place.

I find it sterile and uncomfortable. It is, however, a classic example of the Modernisation Plan station architecture. Doesn't mean it can't have its shape changed

 

[Energy]

Euston looks fairly ok/good on the outside with the black cladding although it looked terrible when it was white in my opinion.