DOCSLIB.ORG

London Underground Ltd Halcrow Group Limited

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
London Underground Ltd Halcrow Group Limited London Underground Ltd York Road Station Re-opening Volume 1 Technical Pre-Feasibility Report March 2005 Halcrow Group Limited London Underground Ltd York Road Station Re-opening Technical Pre-Feasibility Report April 2005 Halcrow Group Limited Halcrow Group Limited Vineyard House 44 Brook Green London W6 7BY Tel +44 (0)20 7602 7282 Fax +44 (0)20 7603 0095 www.halcrow.com Halcrow Group Limited has prepared this report in accordance with the instructions of their client, London Underground Ltd, for their sole and specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk. © Halcrow Group Limited 2005 Halcrow Group Limited Vineyard House 44 Brook Green London W6 7BY Tel +44 (0)20 7602 7282 Fax +44 (0)20 7603 0095 www.halcrow.com London Underground Ltd York Road Station Re-opening Technical Pre-Feasibility Report Contents Amendment Record This report has been issued and amended as follows: Issue Revision Description Date Signed 00 00 Draft 14.03.05 NGH 00 00 Final issue 11.04.05 NGH Contents Figures 7 1 Executive Summary 0 1.2 Business Case Analysis 1 2 Introduction 2 2.1 Purpose of study 2 2.2 York Road Station 3 2.3 Study Team 4 3 Methodology of Study 5 3.1 Existing information 5 3.2 Consultation and reporting 5 3.3 Site visits 6 3.4 Pedestrian Route Study 6 4 Station Building 7 4.1 Original building configuration 7 4.2 Existing condition 12 5 Appraisal of Options 15 5.1 Outline of strategy 15 5.2 Design concept 15 5.3 Concourse level 16 5.4 Shafts 19 5.5 Platform level 22 5.6 Preferred scheme 24 5.7 Non compliances inherent in preferred scheme 24 6 Services, Signals and Tunnel works 26 6.1 Mechanical and Electrical services 26 6.2 Signal works 26 6.3 Tunnel works 27 7 Implementation – Operational Issues and Construction Risks 29 7.1 Operational implications of station reopening 29 7.2 Construction risks 29 8 Costings 31 9 Conclusion 33 Appendix A – Project Brief 34 Appendix B – Existing drawings 35 Appendix C – Design analysis 36 Appendix D – Cost report 37 Appendix E – Mechanical and Electrical report 38 Appendix F – Signal report 39 Appendix G – Tunnel works 40 Appendix H – Consultation notes 41 Figures Figure 1 – Location of station on Piccadilly Line Page 3 Figure 2 – Location plan Page 3 Figure 3 - Buschow Henley proposal for adjoining land Page 5 Figure 4 - Overall front elevation Page 6 Figure 5 - Front elevation photograph Page 7 Figure 6 - Rear elevation photograph Page 7 Figure 7 - Original elevation and section drawings Page 8 Figure 8 - Original concourse layout prior to closure Page 9 Figure 9 - Original platform layout with existing adaptations Page 11 Figure 10 - Photograph of shaft 2 Page 13 Figure 11 - Photograph of shaft 3 Page 13 Figure 12 - Cross passage photo between shafts 1 and 2 Page 14 Figure 13 - Detail of cross passage between shafts 1 and 2 Page 14 Figure 14 - Proposed concept perspective of front elevation Page 17 Figure 15 - Scenario 1 concourse plan Page 18 Figure 16 - Scenario 1 longitudinal section Page 21 Figure 17 - Scenario 1 platform plan Page 23 Figure 18 - Scenario 1 cross section Page 28 1 Executive Summary 1.1.1 London Underground Ltd commissioned Halcrow Group Ltd to determine the technical feasibility and quantified business case for an additional Piccadilly Line station, on or near the site of the former York Road Underground Station, which closed in 1932. The commission has two discrete outputs. The first, which relates to the technical aspects of the station re-opening proposition, is this technical pre- feasibility report. The scope of the technical aspects of the study was to identify infrastructure upgrade options for a re-opened York Road Station, to undertake sufficient engineering analysis to prove feasibility of construction of the proposed works, and to determine costs of design, construction and commissioning. 1.1.2 A series of archived drawings were made available by London Underground Ltd. These included sections and plans of some of the original construction drawings. The options developed by the team for the station were reviewed by LUL on various occasions, including a technical workshop. Site visits were made by members of the team in conjunction with LUL. 1.1.3 The general design principles adopted were: • Step free access to platform level from concourse level • Enlarged concourse with ticket purchasing facilities, based on anticipated throughput from the business study • Reinstated platforms and upgrade of subterranean areas • Station staff and commercial accommodation • Secondary means of escape from platform • Ventilation of tunnels and station • Station compliant to current standards 1.1.4 The “do-minimum” solution developed uses the three existing shafts to provide from platform level a single lift shaft with twin lifts and an emergency staircase exit compliant with Standards, contained within a fire-hardened platform environment; and a ventilation shaft. The capital cost of the works necessary to reinstate the station on the do-minimum basis is £16.2M on the assumption that it could be carried out simultaneously with the Piccadilly Line Upgrade project. Doc No TCOYKR Rev: - Date: March 2005 0 T:\TBG Projects\TRC Projects\TCOYKR York Road\Final report\Technical Pre-feasibility Report revised april.doc 1.1.5 That option provides a level of passenger capacity of 4200 pax/hr, limited by lift capacity. A number of derogations from Standards would be required to be sought as a consequence of the geometry of the existing sub-surface areas. To accommodate a greater throughput of passengers, additional lift capacity could be provided, but extensive reconfiguration of sub-surface areas would be required in addition, with substantial new tunnel works and track re-alignments necessary to eliminate the non-compliances with Standards. The potential disruption of such works to Piccadilly Line services would be substantial. 1.1.6 Considerable uncertainties exist in the forecasts of future patronage from the re- developed catchments area, and the extent of additional surface public transport links that would be provided to serve the ‘Kings Cross Lands’ development. If it became evident as the design of the development proceeded that a higher level of passenger throughput would be required over that accommodated by the “do- minimum” option, a completely rebuilt station would have to be contemplated. 1.2 Business Case Analysis 1.2.1 An outline business case analysis has been conducted on the scheme and is presented in volume 2 of the report. The appraisal has been carried out in line with the TfL Business Case Development Manual (BCDM) and engenders clear definitions of the scheme objectives and the measures of performance against which the benefits of the scheme are assessed. 1.2.2 The central case passenger demand forecasts indicate that around 9,200 passengers would use York Road Station during the morning peak. The Pedroute analysis of pedestrian movements through the station indicates that proposed design layout would operate within acceptable tolerances. 1.2.3 An assessment of the impact of re-opening York Road Station on the level of crowding at King’s Cross St Pancras indicates it will provide little in the way of congestion relief. Furthermore, the addition of a further stop on the Piccadilly Line provides considerable journey time disbenefits to all existing users. 1.2.4 1.2.5 Overall, the scheme performs poorly in economic terms with a negative net present value to society of -£34.1 million and a benefit to cost ratio of merely 0.03 : 1. Doc No TCOYKR Rev: - Date: March 2005 1 T:\TBG Projects\TRC Projects\TCOYKR York Road\Final report\Technical Pre-feasibility Report revised april.doc 2 Introduction 2.1 Purpose of study 2.1.1 London Underground Ltd commissioned Halcrow Group Ltd to determine the technical feasibility and quantified business case for an additional Piccadilly Line station, on or near the site of the former York Road Underground Station. 2.1.2 The commission has two discrete outputs. The first, which relates to the technical aspects of the station re-opening proposition, is this technical pre-feasibility report. The second, which relates to the business case aspects, is a Business Case prepared in accordance with Transport for London guidance and methodology. 2.1.3 The scope of the technical aspects of the study is as follows: (i) Identify infrastructure upgrade options for a re-opened York Road Station, to be compliant with London Underground Ltd space planning standards, and incorporating step-free access. Existing (disused) station infrastructure is to be considered for re- use wherever practicable, to minimise the cost of the required works. (ii) Undertake sufficient engineering analysis to prove feasibility of construction of the proposed works, and to determine costs of design, construction (including all necessary fitting-out) and commissioning to a stated accuracy tolerance not worse than 50%. Demand assumptions for station sizing assessment are to follow the guidance in London Underground Ltd Station Demand Modelling guidance. (iii) Assess and cost modifications to tunnels, track, signalling, and other line-side systems necessitated by construction and operation of the new station. It is to be assumed that these would be integrated with the future Piccadilly Line Upgrade works Doc No TCOYKR Rev: - Date: March 2005 2 T:\TBG Projects\TRC Projects\TCOYKR York Road\Final report\Technical Pre-feasibility Report revised april.doc 2.2 York Road Station 2.2.1 York Road Underground Station, approximately 1km north of Kings Cross station is positioned between Kings Cross St Pancras and Caledonian Road stations on the Piccadilly Line (fig 1).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Uncovering the Underground's Role in the Formation of Modern London, 1855-1945
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--History History 2016 Minding the Gap: Uncovering the Underground's Role in the Formation of Modern London, 1855-1945 Danielle K. Dodson University of Kentucky, [email protected] Digital Object Identifier: http://dx.doi.org/10.13023/ETD.2016.339 Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Dodson, Danielle K., "Minding the Gap: Uncovering the Underground's Role in the Formation of Modern London, 1855-1945" (2016). Theses and Dissertations--History. 40. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/history_etds/40 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the History at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--History by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File. I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known.
    [Show full text]
  • I Use the Term Train Enthusiast Quite Loosely. Being Excessively Pedantic About Semantics, I Concur That It Describes My Affinity Neither Precisely Nor Accurately
    I use the term train enthusiast quite loosely. Being excessively pedantic about semantics, I concur that it describes my affinity neither precisely nor accurately. But in the interest of using a generally understood term (as opposed to “enthusiast of underground intracity trains only”), the term will do. My earliest memory is of me looking out from my upper story window in my home in Osterley, West London on the tracks of the Piccadilly Line on its southwestern Heathrow branch. This was in 1999. But this is irrelevant to the explanation. I deem that the most methodical way to elucidate my situation is to systematically describe the sensory experience I relish, as the senses are at least common ground for most humans. Before proceeding, note that almost all the data will be exclusively drawn from my experiences of the London Underground. This is not to say that the LU is the ‘best’ train system in the world, but if I were indeed a favouritist, I might be tempted to call it so. For reference, I have been on intracity trains in Madrid, Berlin, New York, San Francisco, Delhi, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Boston, and several other places, and I still remain attached to the London Underground above all. Taste will not be covered in my overview of the senses for obvious reasons, so I shall start with sight. Transport for London (TfL) has done a phenomenal job of creating a visually and aesthetically consistent system of the London Underground. The Johnston font family (which I have used here) is utilized exclusively across the network, the roundel logo has become an internationally recognized icon, praised for its simplicity and versatility, and the innovative station designs of Charles Holden and Leslie Green (amongst others), make for an enjoyable experience.
    [Show full text]
  • South Kensington Around Station Development Addendum to the Heritage Statement
    January 2021 South Kensington Around Station Development Addendum to the Heritage Statement Prepared by Alan Baxter South Kensington Underground Station Around Station Development Amendment Addendum December 2020 100 Design and Access Statement | South Kensington Around Station Development South Kensington Around Station Development South East Aerial View Around Station Development Complete delivery of step-free access to the District and Circle lines Provision of 35% high quality affordable housing on site Contextual architectural response A renewed sense of arrival for c.34 million visitors and residents per year Regeneration - a greatly improved sense of place Heritage-led restoration Local skills, apprenticeships and education Repair of the damage caused by the railway works in 1860 High quality, small retail units Improved pedestrian experience Alan Baxter Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners South Kensington Underground Station Around Station Development Amendment Addendum December 2020 Contents Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................................1 1.0 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................2 2.0 Summary history of South Kensington .........................................................................................5 3.0 Assessment of Significance .................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • No 424, February 2020
    The Clapham Society Newsletter Issue 424 February 2020 We meet at Omnibus Theatre, 1 Clapham Common North Side, SW4 0QW. Our guests normally speak for about 45 minutes, followed by around 15 minutes for questions and discussion. The bar is open before and after. Meetings are free and open to non-members, who are strongly urged to make a donation. Please arrive in good time before the start to avoid disappointment. Gems of the London Underground Monday 17 February On 18 November, we were treated to a talk about the London Underground network, Sharing your personal data in the the oldest in the world, by architectural historian Edmund Bird, Heritage Manager of Health and Care System. Dr Jack Transport for London. He has just signed off on a project to record every heritage asset Barker, consultant physician at King’s and item of architectural and historic interest at its 270 stations. With photographs and College Hospital, is also the Chief back stories, he took us on a Tube ride like no other. Clinical Information Officer for the six One of his key tools is the London Underground Station Design Idiom, which boroughs of southeast London. He is groups the stations into 20 subsets, based on their era or architectural genre, and the driving force behind attempting to specifies the authentic historic colour schemes, tile/masonry repairs, etc, to be used improve the effectiveness and efficiency for station refurbishments. Another important tool is the London Underground Station of local health and care through the use of Heritage Register, which is an inventory of everything from signs, clocks, station information technology, and he will tell us benches, ticket offices and tiling to station histories.
    [Show full text]
  • The BG News March 2, 1990
    Bowling Green State University ScholarWorks@BGSU BG News (Student Newspaper) University Publications 3-2-1990 The BG News March 2, 1990 Bowling Green State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/bg-news Recommended Citation Bowling Green State University, "The BG News March 2, 1990" (1990). BG News (Student Newspaper). 5051. https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/bg-news/5051 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Publications at ScholarWorks@BGSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in BG News (Student Newspaper) by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@BGSU. THE CLUB OF WHO??? SWIMMERS SINK IN MAC Campus organization follows Falcon men finish fifth of six science fiction show Friday Mag It in first day competition Sports A # The Nation *s Best College Newspaper Weather Friday Vol.72 Issue 92 March 2,1990 Bowling Green, Ohio High 45 The BG News Low20e BRIEFLY Protesters march against rape CAMPUS Women for Women Art exhibit opens: The undergraduate student design exhibition opens with a reception takes back the night tonight in the Fine Arts Gallery from 7-9. The show will last through March 15. during campus rally STATE by Jill Novak staff writer Reforms addressed: Republican candidate for governor A group of about 60 University students and faculty George Voinovich said Thursday the members marched through campus and downtown state education bureaucracy has Bowling
    [Show full text]
  • Points of Interest
    LONDON UNDERGROUND’S EDWARDIAN TILE PATTERNS by Doug Rose (author of the book “Tiles of the Unexpected”) A report of the LURS meeting at All Souls Club House on Tuesday 10 November 2015 The meeting welcomed Doug Rose, not only author of the book “Tiles of the Unexpected” but also author of a series of publications depicting diagrammatic histories of the London Underground. Doug began by pointing out that the presentation was about early forms of graphic communication and not tiling per se. The three railways which we are familiar with (the Bakerloo, Piccadilly and Hampstead) all opened in 1906-07, when a brave decision had been made about how the platforms were going to be decorated. London was thus the home of the most extensive tiling project then undertaken in Britain. The talk, therefore, would be about this subject. He explained that a small group of people back in 1982 had discussed the tiling schemes with him, having spent the previous two or three years trying to record them – the colours on the stations and their patterns. It was realised that there were over 40 stations, each one having unique tiling scheme. Doug was very interested in the project, not really realising what he was letting himself in for. He began the talk by explaining that original stations, such as Baker Street (Metropolitan), where as much natural light as possible was used, was augmented by gas lighting. This worked well for sub-surface lines but would not work in deep level tube tunnel stations. A view of the northbound platform at King’s Cross on the City & South London Railway showed what the lighting was like on a tube tunnel station platform.
    [Show full text]
  • Conserving Heritage Tiles on the London Underground: Challenges and Approaches Kate Fulcher*
    PIA Volume 22 (2012), 48-60 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.402 Conserving Heritage Tiles on the London Underground: Challenges and Approaches Kate Fulcher* The London Underground is the oldest Underground railway in the world. Some of its stations are now over a century old, and many others have important historical associations. A great number of the early stations were tiled in distinctive schemes, leaving London Underground with an enormous amount of tiling heritage to care for in a transport network that has to continue offering a customer focussed service on a daily basis. This paper discusses the difficulties this presents to London Underground in its efforts to conserve its heritage tiling, and the approaches they have taken. Both London Underground’s and the heritage community’s attitudes to large scale architectural conservation have changed over time, so from an initial approach of retention of all viable original material, they have moved on to a more considered aim of holistic station conservation, focusing on the architect’s intent and the “feel” of a station. It is not only London Under- ground who have been involved in the work affecting heritage tiling, and the impact of other parties is also discussed. Introduction and the size of tiles, and it thus presents The London Underground has a long and com- myriad difficulties for conservation. This arti- plex history, stretching back to the middle of cle covers only ceramic glazed tiles used on the 19th century. Many stations still retain ele- walls inside stations, mainly in underground ments of their historic pasts, in the form of passages (there being very little that survives decorative and functional features, which are above ground).
    [Show full text]
  • Transport Design Icons and Heritage Itinerary
    Visitor information 1. Baker Street Platforms 5 and 6 date back 1 to 1863 and the earliest days of the London Underground. Transport Design Icons Designed by Sir John Fowler, this was one of the first stations to have Underground Discover some of London’s most platforms. The appearance BAKER STREET BAKER STREET BAKER STREET BAKER STREET popular transport design icons today reflects its original style and it is easy to imagine steam BAKER STREET BAKER STREET and the best times to visit the from the trains filling the air stations where you can find them. on these alcove lit platforms. BAKER STREET BAKER STREET BAKER STREET Underground station: For over 150 years, design on our transport Baker Street 10:00 - 15:00 network has shaped how London looks and how visitors experience the city. From the 2. Leslie Green tiles design of the iconic Tube map to London’s 2 famous red buses, transport design has made Glazed tiles have been a feature of London Underground station interiors since the 1860s. Regent’s Park station is London an easier, safer and more pleasurable a fine example of architect Leslie Green’s use of white place to explore. These designs can still be and bottle green tiles and mouldings in central London experienced as you travel across London and stations from the early 1900s. here we have shared a few of our favourites. 09:00 - 15:00 Underground station: Regent’s Park For more information, visit tfl.gov.uk/visitinglondon 3. Leslie Green stations Between 1906 and 1907 the architect Leslie Green 3 The busiest times to travel are 08:30 - provided London with some of its most iconic 09:00 and 17:30 - 18:30, Monday to Friday.
    [Show full text]
  • Holloway Road Underground Station – Heritage Statement
    Holloway Road Underground Station – Heritage Statement Listing details: Holloway Road underground station was designated as a Grade II listed building on th 17 May 1994. The listing entry describes the station building as: “Station for the Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway, now part of London Underground. 1906 by Leslie Green. Claret-coloured faience and brick, tile internally, roof obscured by parapet. Two storeys, six-window range. The ground floor consists of flat-arched bays divided by pilasters, from left to right: former exit, now partly blocked, with late 20th Century entrance; blank and tiled; late 20th Century shop front; station entrance; former shop front with original entrance and top lights, otherwise blocked; works entrance with iron gates, perhaps original. Entablature with raised lettering to frieze: ‘EXIT, HOLLOWAY RD STATION, G N P & B RY’, the present entrance bay having more recent awning obscuring the frieze, with standard inter-war lettering designed by Edward Johnston. The first-floor windows form an arcade of segmental arches with egg and dart mouldings and keystones; cartouches at the springing of the arches and at the corners of the building; parapet rebuilt. Ticket hall: tiled dado with Art Nouveau frieze to part of the north, west and east walls and central piers; south wall retiled and altered for late 20th century lifts. North wall has pedimented architraves in tilework to three ticket windows with integral lettering, and sign lamps over probably of inter-war date; balustrade to stairs with fluted hexagonal newels and decorative iron rail. Door in north wall with original architrave and panelled door of original design.
    [Show full text]
  • Reports of Society Meetings 150
    REPORTS OF SOCIETY MEETINGS 150 YEARS OF PIONEERING DESIGN THAT CHANGED THE CAPITAL FOREVER by Mark Ovendon A Report of the LURS meeting at All Souls Club House on Tuesday 11 June 2013 Mark entitled the talk “TfLL – Transforming London’s Look: The History of Design on the London Underground”. When trying to summarise 150 years of design of London Underground it is such a huge subject that it’s difficult to know where to start, so the question was asked – “What are its most famous elements?” Our speaker attempted to do this by splitting design into three main elements: the map, the logo and the font and how these elements of design are used and represented in things like publicity, signage, stations and architecture and the corporate identity of the system. Right back in the early days of what is now known as London Underground there was very little in the way of continuity or design standards. This, the speaker refers humorously to as the “BC” period – Before Continuity. At this time there were a number of different companies running the Underground all of whom were working in different offices more or less in complete isolation to each other and therefore resulting in radically different designs. This started to change slightly at the beginning of the last century – after major financial problems (the “AD” – or after debt – period as the speaker referred to it). During the early years of last century the Underground began to amalgamate with the help of characters such as Charles Tyson Yerkes, Frank Pick, and Edgar Speyer and what resulted started to create some coherence in design.
    [Show full text]
  • South Kensington Presentation Boards July 2016
    Introduction In early 2015 we prepared initial designs to improve South Kensington Tube station, including increasing capacity and providing step-free access. Discussions with local resident groups, cultural organisations, and the officers and council leadership from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have helped us develop proposals that meet the needs of customers, while ensuring the changes are in keeping with both the building and the area. We now want to share these proposals with local residents, businesses and customers as we continue to develop these plans and before we apply for listed building consent from the Royal Borough. History and today 1868 South Kensington station opened. As one of the oldest Tube stations on the network, it’s no no stranger to change; all elements have been modified over the years for operational needs, repairs and routine maintenance. 1871 The station was widened to the south to allow the two rival companies (the Metropolitan Railway and the Metropolitan District Railway) to run trains on their own dedicated tracks and platforms. A reversing track was added and the tracks were covered by a glazed roof. 1871 – Glazed barrel roof © TfL from the London Transport Museum collection 1885 The pedestrian subway was built to link the station to the museums of Albertopolis. 1907 The construction of the electric Piccadilly line prompted a modernisation of the station. The Metropolitan District Railway’s architect, George Sherrin, designed a new entrance to the District line that included a shopping arcade, a new ticket hall space and canopies over the platforms. 1907 – Sherrin ticket hall © TfL from the London Transport Museum collection History and today 1907 The architect for the Piccadilly line, Leslie Green, provided a new ticket hall building that provided access to the deep-level platforms via stairs and lifts.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing London 12 09 Changing London Changing London
    09 Changing London 12 09 Changing London Changing London AN HISTORIC CITY FOR A MODERN WORLD NEXT ISSUE Continental Railways has delivered a world- EUSTON ARCH SET LONDON’S SUBURBS TRANSPORT class station of which all are justifiably proud, London is a patchwork of planned urban TO RETURN? quarters and historic villages, each with its own London’s complex transport networks are the whilst on the London Underground one of the sense of identity, but an one which is increasingly product of many centuries of development and biggest conservation projects ever undertaken Built by Philip Hardwick in 1837, the either in replica, or reusing some of threatened. We take a look at some of the change, and further change is both necessary has seen many historic stations brought back to Euston Arch (seen here in 1934) the original material, could become issues they face. and desirable if London is to sustain its pre- their original splendour, but modernised so that was the first great monument of the a symbol of the regeneration of this eminence as a world city. However, some they are fit for purpose for the 21st century. Railway Age. Its demolition in 1962 entire quarter of London in the of London’s most important buildings have Similar challenges exist for our streets and amid bitter controversy was not just same way that the reconstruction a crucial operational transport function. a national scandal, but a landmark in of the Frauenkirche in Dresden has public spaces which we will need to adapt to Reconciling 21st century transport needs with the development of the post-war captured European imaginations.
    [Show full text]