Redevelopment Plans for Liverpool Street - Development Policy Going Backwards

[WesternBiker]

Thank you so much for reproducing that picture of the original proposals for the 1970s redevelopment.

I remember reading about it in Modern Railways at the time (sadly didn't keep the issue) and its description of vast "Xanadu domes" (the bits at the back over the shopping centre/concourse). If I recall there was to be something like a million square feet of office space and a vast shopping centre as well. The overall feel from the artist's impressions of the interior were of a much larger and more spacious version of Birmingham New Street before redevelopment - described by many when I lived in Brum as 'the shopping centre with the station under it'.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is this article on “ianvisits“ describing the plans? If so it dates from last December and makes it seem like RAIL are not actually running a new news story:

The plans being tentatively outlined involve a deal with The Shard and Paddington Square developer, Sellar Property Group, and will see the building next to the southern entrance to the mainline station, which is currently occupied by McDonald’s on the ground floor demolished to create the new double-width entrance to the railway station.

Inside the station, the proposals would see the construction of a new two-level station concourse with greatly increased circulation space, and while details are currently at a very early stage, it’s likely that such redevelopment would involve changing the entrance to the tube station as well.

Costs to complete the overall project are currently estimated on a very preliminary basis to be in the order of £1.55 billion. To help fund all this, the existing Andaz hotel on the corner of Liverpool Street station, which is currently owned by Network Rail would be sold to and redeveloped by a joint venture lead by the Sellar Property Group, along with a new office building and “associated ancillary facilities”.

The proposed redevelopment will also improve the presence and efficient permeability and accessibility of the main southern entrances by removing 50 Liverpool Street — the “McDonalds building” — and remodelling the South Eastern Entrance. Although 50 Liverpool Street looks like a good Victorian building, it’s actually a 1990s redevelopment to replace a similar-looking Victorian building that used to be on the site. Other than the reuse of the bricks and its appearance, the bulk of the building is barely 30 years old.

Liverpool Street station plans for a £1.5 billion redevelopment

Initial plans have been revealed for a £1.55 billion redevelopment of Liverpool Street station that would see it become a two-level station with a much larger entrance built next to the tube station.

www.ianvisits.co.uk

 

[pdeaves]

In my view, Liverpool St is already dark and dingy (at least in part). However, the proposal does not appear to deal with that part!

 

[tomuk]

In my view, Liverpool St is already dark and dingy (at least in part). However, the proposal does not appear to deal with that part!

If its Sellar imagine a large glass building in a geometric shape a cross between The Shard and Paddington Square plonked on top of the old Great Eastern Hotel.

Paddington Square at Night.

 

[Falcon1200]

Personally I don't think you can improve on light and airey.

Agree, the concourse must not become a catacomb.

Certainly, I'm sad that the trainshed on the eastern side with its tea room on stilts was lost.

By the late 70s the tearoom had become the Europa Bistro, their Smoked Mackerel salad is still sadly missed, so different then from most BR catering!

 

[yorksrob]

Agree, the concourse must not become a catacomb.



By the late 70s the tearoom had become the Europa Bistro, their Smoked Mackerel salad is still sadly missed, so different then from most BR catering!

Sounds as though it would have been worth a visit !

 

[Mikey C]

Two lessons to learn here:

1) Perhaps before judging what is proposed, we should wait to see what is actually proposed
2) RAIL magazine is not necessarily the best source of information

Exactly

Apart from anything else, NO WAY would NR or anyone else would be allowed to remove the current soaring roof and replace with a Cannon Street office block. That sort of destruction wouldn't be allowed nowadays

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly

Apart from anything else, NO WAY would NR or anyone else would be allowed to remove the current soaring roof and replace with a Cannon Street office block. That sort of destruction wouldn't be allowed nowadays

What makes you think that? It's a replica.

 

[Mikey C]

What makes you think that? It's a replica.

Whether it's Victorian or relatively recent replica is irrelevant when considering the planning outrage that would ensue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whether it's Victorian or relatively recent replica is irrelevant when considering the planning outrage that would ensue.

Unless it's listed, there can be as much outrage as they like but it can only be declined on a fixed set of reasons, not "because it's ugly".

Edit: one ground is "not in keeping", but a concrete and glass office building absolutely is in keeping with any part of Central London, it's full of them.

 

[yorksrob]

Isn't it the case that parts of the train shed are replica, but other parts are original. The bit over the concourse might be replica.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't it the case that parts of the train shed are replica, but other parts are original. The bit over the concourse might be replica.

The concourse and the "McDonald's building" (doesn't contain a McD any more) are replicas.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Isn't it the case that parts of the train shed are replica, but other parts are original. The bit over the concourse might be replica.

I happened to be at Liverpool Street yesterday. Only part of the train shed is original, not an area that anyone typically stands underneath - one is usually alighting from or joining an Overground service. The ‘concourse’ is all replica/pastiche. (@Bletchleyite beat me to it.)

The ‘new’ design is somehow to have a concourse five times bigger, so presumably couldn’t be too ‘pokey’.

 

[yorksrob]

I happened to be at Liverpool Street yesterday. Only part of the train shed is original, not an area that anyone typically stands underneath - one is usually alighting from or joining an Overground service. The ‘concourse’ is all replica/pastiche. (@Bletchleyite beat me to it.)

The ‘new’ design is somehow to have a concourse five times bigger, so presumably couldn’t be too ‘pokey’.

The question is, where is this massive office block going to go.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The question is, where is this massive office block going to go.

On top!

The ‘new’ design is somehow to have a concourse five times bigger, so presumably couldn’t be too ‘pokey’.

It certainly needs it. It's one of my least favourite London termini, largely because it's usually overcrowded and full of clueless tourists waiting for the StanEx oblivious of them and their bags being in the way. Also the retail offering is very poor. Yes, the (replica) roof looks nice, but it's a bit Euston "classic" Great Hall vs what's there now - the old Great Hall looked amazing, but it was too small and the platforms were too short, so today's station is objectively better.

 

[Mikey C]

Unless it's listed, there can be as much outrage as they like but it can only be declined on a fixed set of reasons, not "because it's ugly".

Edit: one ground is "not in keeping", but a concrete and glass office building absolutely is in keeping with any part of Central London, it's full of them.

You still have to apply for planning permission, and the London Mayor would get involved. It's all froth about nothing anyway.

Liverpool Street Station set for £1.5billion redevelopment

Rail passengers heading from East Anglia to London could see huge changes at the gateway to the capital over the next decade with a £1.5billion…

www.eadt.co.uk

This project is separate to Network Rail's restoration work on the station roof which is due to get underway in earnest during the winter.

Over the next two years much of the roof should be replaced leaving it clearer and the station brighter than it has been for many years.

The full impact of the roof work should become clear when all the scaffolding is removed at the end of 2024.

 

[gordonthemoron]

surely there are far too many empty office blocks already? Why build more?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You still have to apply for planning permission

You do, but the criteria for refusal are fixed and defined, not just because someone doesn't like it.

 

[Bald Rick]

surely there are far too many empty office blocks already? Why build more?

The London office market is red hot at present.

 

[cf111]

Oversite development is/was all the rage. Was also the plan at Euston, might still well be.

To be fair, Euston is a dank hole of a station but Liverpool Street is quite pleasant.

 

[eldomtom2]

On top!



It certainly needs it. It's one of my least favourite London termini, largely because it's usually overcrowded and full of clueless tourists waiting for the StanEx oblivious of them and their bags being in the way. Also the retail offering is very poor. Yes, the (replica) roof looks nice, but it's a bit Euston "classic" Great Hall vs what's there now - the old Great Hall looked amazing, but it was too small and the platforms were too short, so today's station is objectively better.

"Objectively" is a dangerous word to use.

 

[Falcon1200]

Sounds as though it would have been worth a visit !

It was, even better then when the train home afterwards was loco-hauled by a 31 or a 37!

 

[Mikey C]

It certainly needs it. It's one of my least favourite London termini, largely because it's usually overcrowded and full of clueless tourists waiting for the StanEx oblivious of them and their bags being in the way. Also the retail offering is very poor. Yes, the (replica) roof looks nice, but it's a bit Euston "classic" Great Hall vs what's there now - the old Great Hall looked amazing, but it was too small and the platforms were too short, so today's station is objectively better.

Liverpool Street seem pretty decent to me as it is. Other than the Norwich services, it's a "commuter" station, rather than an inter-city one where people travel long distances, and need to stock up or dine beforehand, and there are loads of pubs and eating places nearby. And once the Crossrail trains connect up later this year, that will take people out of the terminal as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair, Euston is a dank hole of a station but Liverpool Street is quite pleasant.

Euston has a large hall and has a decent retail offering, Liverpool Street is cramped and small and has a poorer one.

Euston isn't pretty but it is MUCH more practical.

"Objectively" is a dangerous word to use.

There is no basis whatsoever on which the old Euston was a better station than today, unless you value fancy looking old buildings over practicality.

 

[Bald Rick]

Euston has a large hall and has a decent retail offering, Liverpool Street is cramped and small and has a poorer one.

Euston isn't pretty but it is MUCH more practical.

Liverpool St has a much, much better retail offering than Euston.

 

[swt_passenger]

I guess the fact that NR are about to spend many £millions reglazing the existing roof is a rock solid guarantee that it’s about to be replaced with a concrete raft?

…or could it be be a sign that the proposed building work is not actually going to be “over the station” as per the RAIL scare story?

 

[Class 170101]

The London office market is red hot at present.

I am shocked to read you saying that? How come? I don't understand with home working and the costs of energy centre stage right now why would people want to go back to offices unless it was significantly cheasper than working from home.

I guess the fact that NR are about to spend many £millions reglazing the existing roof is a rock solid guarantee that it’s about to be replaced with a concrete raft?

…or could it be be a sign that the proposed building work is not actually going to be “over the station” as per the RAIL scare story?

Agreed though NR aren't moving all that fast right now in that direction it seems.

 

[swt_passenger]

Agreed though NR aren't moving all that fast right now in that direction it seems.

I think when I had a check of the City of London planning site they were still awaiting planning permission for the temporary works.

 

[trebor79]

I am shocked to read you saying that? How come? I don't understand with home working and the costs of energy centre stage right now why would people want to go back to offices unless it was significantly cheasper than working from home.

Because people like tow orknwith other people, have a laugh and shared experiences etc.
I've been home based since 2018 but if you offered me a job with 5 days in the office I'd snap your hand off. It's miserable sometimes.

 

[Bald Rick]

I am shocked to read you saying that? How come? I don't understand with home working and the costs of energy centre stage right now why would people want to go back to offices unless it was significantly cheasper than working from home.

I don’t know. But my friends in property are saying that there is high demand for good quality office space in London. Low grade office space is struggling.

my views: some sectors of the economy know that to thrive they need people working together and collaborating in person, and therefore want to make coming to the office attractive, hence the need for high quality offices. (Apparently the most sought after places are those with an ‘outdoors’ facility and extras like space for a gym etc.)

Obviously some sectors of the economy don’t need this. But those that do want it bad.