Redevelopment Plans for Liverpool Street - Development Policy Going Backwards

[Russel]

I never knew the existing concourse was a 90's replica, it's very good, especially for something designed and built in the 90's.

 

[camflyer]

Hideous. The 1991 construction at the front of the station is in sympathy with the retained trainshed. This is the antithesis of it, and should not be allowed.

I usually try to see the positive in any new redevelopment and many people hang onto the past for no good reason. However, in this case it's hard to see any architectural merit at all. There is no doubt that Liverpool St does need modernisation as it now looking shabby compared to other main London stations but surely we can do better than this.

 

[XAM2175]

I have no issues with a late-St-Pancras, Manchester Piccadilly or Kings Cross style blending of a new structure with an historic building. Kings Cross I think is a beautiful station with the two parts complementing each other wonderfully. And I don't even particularly like Liverpool St station as it is.

Yes, this is close to my feeling too. I recognise, as I noted earlier in the thread, that there's a not-unreasonable belief in conservation circles nowadays that the general public should be able to easily recognise where additions or modifications have been made to the original fabric of the building - but that doesn't excuse building something that seems so vastly out-of-sympathy with the structure onto which it's been grafted.

 

[davetheguard]

Some aspects of these plans are good: the extra lifts and circulation space for instance.

But the reduction of natural light on the concourse is not welcome at all. What's the adjective they use in the video? "More enclosed feel"? I don't think that's a benefit.

Look at any TV programme about modern archetecture, Grand Designs et al. The winning design feature that they're all after is MORE natural light, not less! Look at all the recent successful re-designs on the railway: Paddington; King's Cross; St. Pancras; London Bridge; all featured much lighter public spaces when compared to the stations before rebuilding.

More space is needed at Liverpool Street, but not at the expense of less light.

 

[Malaxa]

Plans on show today and tomorrow 12 till 7 - or you can download the exhibition boards here.

More "Sustainability" BS - you have to put that WEF buzzword in to get anything past the planners these days. It seems to do the trick, though: Sprawling green-field housing estates in the middle of nowhere were always "sustainable" before they got built and startef generating countless vehicle movements per day per household.

 

[MP33]

Around the time of the 1970's redevelopment there was a novel published about a disaster when a Boeing 747 crashes into a London Terminal in rush hour. The author was interviewed and asked if there would be a disaster movie which were popular at the time. The author said that they could change the location to Liverpool Street and using it to film the disaster which would kill two birds with one stone.

 

[crablab]

The proposed replacement doesn't seem to compliment the listed part, and will doubtless get objections from various bodies.

The problem is that at some point the listed bit no longer becomes fit for purpose, whether that's in 20 years or 100.

We don't want unnecessary cultural dereliction, but at some point you do need to either build something completely new somewhere else, and turn the listed bit into something a little less critical national infrastructure, or just knock it all down and start again.

Ultimately these are utilitarian structures and although I don't believe that there's anything particularly wrong with the listed train shed at Liverpool Street, we do have an awful lot of Victorian railway infrastructure which really will not last forever (see recent geotechnical events for examples).

I note the recent example of a bridge up North which has had a crack in it for decades, but the proposed modern replacement was rejected (as the original was listed) and so the railway has had to endure a decade of TSRs, and a lot of bills to find a replacement cast iron structure that will hopefully get planning consent. I don't live in the area so can't comment on how important the aesthetics are to the area, but ultimately this all costs time & money. So pick your battles wisely! (Personally, I think money is better spent making more aesthetically pleasing & acceptable modern designs, than recreating original structures from 100 years ago in pastiche form).

I don't think this particular proposal to remove natural light is going to help, however.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Around the time of the 1970's redevelopment there was a novel published about a disaster when a Boeing 747 crashes into a London Terminal in rush hour. The author was interviewed and asked if there would be a disaster movie which were popular at the time. The author said that they could change the location to Liverpool Street and using it to film the disaster which would kill two birds with one stone.

Said book, as an aside, appears to be "Sam 7", which seems to be out of print or I'd grab a copy!

The cover artwork has it as a DC-10 or MD-11.

Sam 7

It is a typical big city rush hour, on a Thursday eveni…

www.goodreads.com

 

[WesternBiker]

But the reduction of natural light on the concourse is not welcome at all. What's the adjective they use in the video? "More enclosed feel"? I don't think that's a benefit.

Look at any TV programme about modern architecture, Grand Designs et al. The winning design feature that they're all after is MORE natural light, not less! Look at all the recent successful re-designs on the railway: Paddington; King's Cross; St. Pancras; London Bridge; all featured much lighter public spaces when compared to the stations before rebuilding.

More space is needed at Liverpool Street, but not at the expense of less light.

Once I had got my head around the proposal (and that is not easy, the way it is presented) I was very struck at the loss of natural light. The current concourse glass will disappear completely. As well as quite jarring with the rest of the station, the pictures seem to show the white ceiling as positively luminescent - when in reality, of course, it'll be a ceiling. And the current spaciousness will go, too, as fitting the extra storey in will lower the headroom of the main concourse. The lower concourse is going to feel more like the platforms at Charing Cross or Cannon Street, I suspect - a large but covered circulating area.

 

[yorksrob]

The problem is that at some point the listed bit no longer becomes fit for purpose, whether that's in 20 years or 100.

We don't want unnecessary cultural dereliction, but at some point you do need to either build something completely new somewhere else, and turn the listed bit into something a little less critical national infrastructure, or just knock it all down and start again.

Ultimately these are utilitarian structures and although I don't believe that there's anything particularly wrong with the listed train shed at Liverpool Street, we do have an awful lot of Victorian railway infrastructure which really will not last forever (see recent geotechnical events for examples).

I note the recent example of a bridge up North which has had a crack in it for decades, but the proposed modern replacement was rejected (as the original was listed) and so the railway has had to endure a decade of TSRs, and a lot of bills to find a replacement cast iron structure that will hopefully get planning consent. I don't live in the area so can't comment on how important the aesthetics are to the area, but ultimately this all costs time & money. So pick your battles wisely! (Personally, I think money is better spent making more aesthetically pleasing & acceptable modern designs, than recreating original structures from 100 years ago in pastiche form).

I don't think this particular proposal to remove natural light is going to help, however.

I don't think it would be architecturally desirable to have a 1970's style concrete office block with a Victorian trainshed on the back, nor a concourse with the ambience of an underground car park. To be clear, the train shed should stay.

This dreadful proposal should be seen off.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

I don't think it would be architecturally desirable to have a 1970's style concrete office block with a Victorian trainshed on the back, nor a concourse with the ambience of an underground car park. To be clear, the train shed should stay.

This dreadful proposal should be seen off.

I agree. I quite like Liverpool Street.

 

[crablab]

This dreadful proposal should be seen off.

I agreed with that.
My point is more general about the longevity and suitability of the Victorian infrastructure.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Just overheard a presenter on BBC London TV news saying there's going to be something about the plans for Liv Street on their 12.30 lunchtime bulletin today.....

 

[Sonik]

I don't think it would be architecturally desirable to have a 1970's style concrete office block with a Victorian trainshed on the back, nor a concourse with the ambience of an underground car park. To be clear, the train shed should stay.

This dreadful proposal should be seen off.

Quite, aside from anything else, unlike for example the redevelopment of Kings Cross, I can't see that there is really a significant benefit (if at all) to the usability of the station from this proposal.

So why is this rebuild even needed? It's not like the existing station has major issues, or any problems that couldn't be addressed with some minor tweaks like widening staircases.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So why is this rebuild even needed? It's not like the existing station has major issues, or any problems that couldn't be addressed with some minor tweaks like widening staircases.

It needs a serious refurb, it's horrible to use and doesn't flow at all. But there's no reason that couldn't be done within the confines of the current building.

 

[trebor79]

It needs a serious refurb, it's horrible to use and doesn't flow at all. But there's no reason that couldn't be done within the confines of the current building.

It's kind of constrained by the retention of the outer walls (and lower rooms of, unless the ceiling in WH Smiths is pastiche) of the hotel building. It might be better to level that, have a larger concourse with natural light and put the monstrosity office building over the eastern ends of the platforms?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's kind of constrained by the retention of the outer walls (and lower rooms of, unless the ceiling in WH Smiths is pastiche) of the hotel building. It might be better to level that, have a larger concourse with natural light and put the monstrosity office building over the eastern ends of the platforms?

You could probably still have the office building and natural light if you made the bottom level of it high enough and all glass. You can always build up a bit more to compensate. I doubt anyone would really notice if there was a tower block on top of Euston, for example, the space would still be massive.

 

[yorksrob]

I agreed with that.
My point is more general about the longevity and suitability of the Victorian infrastructure.

I think it depends on the structure and its use. A bridge bearing heavy loads is bound to be subject to more wear and tear than a train shed, which can probably last as long as needed with maintenance.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Just overheard a presenter on BBC London TV news saying there's going to be something about the plans for Liv Street on their 12.30 lunchtime bulletin today

Got that slightly wrong....was just a quick reference for viewers to check out the plans on their (BBC) website...

 

[fandroid]

Some aspects of these plans are good: the extra lifts and circulation space for instance.

But the reduction of natural light on the concourse is not welcome at all. What's the adjective they use in the video? "More enclosed feel"? I don't think that's a benefit.

Look at any TV programme about modern archetecture, Grand Designs et al. The winning design feature that they're all after is MORE natural light, not less! Look at all the recent successful re-designs on the railway: Paddington; King's Cross; St. Pancras; London Bridge; all featured much lighter public spaces when compared to the stations before rebuilding.

More space is needed at Liverpool Street, but not at the expense of less light.

Even the much criticised Birmingham New Street has more natural light now, in the Grand Central part outside the ticket gates. I appreciated that yesterday when, after early heavy rain, I was quickly aware that the sun was shining in the outside world again

 

[Chris125]

An online consultation has opened with some characteristically loaded questions, but with the current economic situation - and the surprisingly modest size of the office buildings being proposed - one wonders if this still makes economic sense.

https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/article...ion-rebuild-of-liverpool-street-station-58995

Consultation – Liverpool St Station

www.upgradelss.com

The current consultation will focus primarily on the upgrades to the station infrastructure. Evolving designs by Herzog & de Meuron for the new office, retail and leisure scheme will also be shown, with more developed proposals to be displayed at the second consultation planned for January.

 

[Wolfie]

An online consultation has opened with some characteristically loaded questions, but with the current economic situation - and the surprisingly modest size of the office buildings being proposed - one wonders if this still makes economic sense.

https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/article...ion-rebuild-of-liverpool-street-station-58995

Consultation – Liverpool St Station

www.upgradelss.com

The City is hardly short of office space.

 

[Bald Rick]

The City is hardly short of office space.

as it happens, the City office market is red hot at present, particularly for ‘fancy’ offices close to main stations with decent modern facilities, and especially if there is outdoor space.

 

[Mikey C]

It'll be a DC10, which in the 70s gained a bad reputation after a number of incidents...

 

[bnc2018]

An online consultation has opened with some characteristically loaded questions, but with the current economic situation - and the surprisingly modest size of the office buildings being proposed - one wonders if this still makes economic sense.

https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/article...ion-rebuild-of-liverpool-street-station-58995

Consultation – Liverpool St Station

www.upgradelss.com

I was also surprised by how little office is actually proposed to be built here as well. They claimed to be spending £450m on the train station - just how profitable are these two buildings going to be?

In other news, Dezeen have published an article that includes an aerial shot that I'm guessing is in the consultation but I hadn't yet seen. https://www.dezeen.com/2022/11/25/herzog-de-meuron-liverpool-street-station-redevelopment/

 

[Mikey C]

In other news, Dezeen have published an article that includes an aerial shot that I'm guessing is in the consultation but I hadn't yet seen. https://www.dezeen.com/2022/11/25/herzog-de-meuron-liverpool-street-station-redevelopment/

"Historic England's chief executive Duncan Wilson also commented on the plans, describing them as "oversized and insensitive"."

Exactly

 

[yorksrob]

I believe The King once coined the phrase "monstrous carbuncle". It would be fitting for the proposed office block on Liverpool Street.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

I believe The King once coined the phrase "monstrous carbuncle". It would be fitting for the proposed office block on Liverpool Street.

 

[TAS]

Historic England has published updated list entries for both the station and the former Great Eastern Hotel. The update for the station specifically mentions the trainshed extension of 1985-1992 (which the redevelopment proposes to demolish), while the hotel is upgraded from Grade II to Grade II*.

I'm no expert on listed buildings, but I guess this may pose an additional challenge for the redevelopment plans? As someone who rather likes the current concourse, I won't be too sad if it does, but I doubt it'll be fatal for them - after all the 1980s redevelopment also involved the demolition of listed buildings and I'd be surprised if this happening hadn't been anticipated as a possibility when the plans were being drawn up. There's been no public comment from Network Rail or the developers that I've seen, but both SAVE Britain's Heritage and the Victorian Society have welcomed the update.

Worth noting that the station listing specifically excludes "the frontages of the principal entrances to Liverpool Street and Bishopsgate, along with the retail structures, fixtures, signage, toilets, stairs, escalators, raised walkways, and inserted offices within the upper and lower station concourse", including the towers at the entrances, as well as 50 Liverpool Street (the McDonalds building), platforms 11 onwards and the shopping arcade towards Broadgate Square. The full text of each entry is too long to quote, but I've quoted the Reasons for Designation for each building below and included links to the complete entries, which are well worth a read.

Liverpool Street Station

Liverpool Street Station, City of London, is listed at Grade II for the following principal reasons:

Architectural interest:

* for the architectural and engineering importance of the western trainshed of 1873-1875 by Edward Wilson for the Great Eastern Railway. The transept and nave arrangement of the structure, together with the Gothic detailing to the brickwork bays and the sophisticated structural ironwork by Fairburn Engineering Company, create a cathedral-like trainshed for a major railway terminus; * for the quality of the trainshed extension of 1985-1992, which carefully follows the detailing, form and proportions of the 1870s Wilson structure to integrate a second transept that enhances the spatial quality and cohesiveness of the remodelled station’s unified concourse.

Historic interest:

* as an important building in the development of railway architecture in the mid-Victorian era, Wilson’s design for the western trainshed, part of the last of the mainline termini in London, is a sophisticated, innovative and structurally ambitious exemplar of station design prior to increased standardisation seen from the 1880s; * for the 1985-92 remodelling by the British Rail Architects’ Department, which was a major historicist infrastructure project of the period, standing in stark contrast to the preceding Modernist schemes for the site.

Group value:

* with the former Great Eastern Hotel, which was developed in relation to the station and is connected on its north and west sides; * with the First World War memorials erected by the London Society of East Anglians and the Great Eastern Railway Company, which form part of the station complex.

Great Eastern Hotel

The former Great Eastern Hotel, Liverpool Street, City of London, is listed at Grade II* for the following principal reasons:

Architectural interest:

* the building, designed by the noted architects Charles Barry Junior and Charles Edward Barry and extended by Colonel Edis and Maples with later additions by Manser and Conran, has an architecturally accomplished exterior which acts as a frontispiece to Liverpool Street Station. The interior contains a series of lavish C19 reception rooms in a variety of styles which show high quality in their design and detailing and retain the great majority of their original appearance.

Historic interest:

* located in the City of London, the building contains a series of function rooms in a range of styles which were designed to cater to hotel guests and the wider working population of the City and are expressive of social activity in the later-C19 and the status of terminus hotels.

Group value:

* with Liverpool Street Station, with which it has a strong historical and functional relationship.

 

[R Martin]

Well obviously it has to make money otherwise you don't get all the changes to the station itself, which they claim will not cost the tax or fare payer.

Anyway, having been to the exhibition in the GE hotel today it is clear this will get mixed reviews.

Losing the replica part of the western trainshed is probably the most controversial part of the scheme. The proposed replacement doesn't seem to compliment the listed part, and will doubtless get objections from various bodies. Getting natural light to the lower concourse has been considered, but the need to increase concourse space above may compromise this.

On the positive side, removing a lot of the existing clutter is welcome, as is improved access for all. Separating the retail from the platform area is an improvement, and hopefully the Kindertransport statue will get a more dignified position than outside McDonalds.

A video shown at the exhibition should be on Vimeo and YouTube soon which makes things a bit clearer, but will doubtless draw more criticism too.

There are lots of planning hoops to jump through yet, this is early days so we'll just have to await further developments. I just wonder who will water the tree shown in the artists impressions.

I worked at LV during the 70's and you can easily locate the original part of the train shed as the original columns are fluted and the new are plain. The original station was dirty and ugly the new concourse and area adjacent to platforms 1 to 9 where the old general offices are a great improvement. I'm sorry if the station may have changed since I retired 18 years ago