Signal box: End of the line for 'much-loved' building? (BBC News 06/09/2012)

[whole diary]

[Btline]

Victorian and Georgian architecture has looked good for hundreds of years. Never seen as "ugly".
I'm sure it will always do so.

Concrete was only in fashionable for a few years (and only used as it was quick and cheap in post war Britain) until people realised the mistake.

Yes, at the time, the railways ploughing through cities was unpoular, but these lines are not seen as ugly anymore (e.g. Durham Viaduct) but as landamarks.
The ploughing of concrete motorways and dual carriageways will NEVER be popular. Will the concrete Westway ever been seen as a landmark? NO - always as an eyesore and blight for the families who's bedrooms back onto it.

I fear we are making a similar mistake now as the 60s with our "wacky" artchitecutre e.g. for New Street station. I'm sure in 25 years these wacky buildings will be seen as scars (although perhaps not in an ugly place like B'ham).
Why they can't build a Victorian/Georgian style building for the station I don't know!

[smokey]

Why they can't build a Victorian/Georgian style building for the station I don't know!

The answer is a four letter word:

COST 

[Electric train]

Victorian and Georgian architecture has looked good for hundreds of years. Never seen as "ugly".
I'm sure it will always do so.

There would have been people that would have seen them as blots on the landscape indeed many land owners insisted that railway compaines built in a certain style before they removed their objections.

Why they can't build a Victorian/Georgian style building for the station I don't know!

Cost is one thing, a Victorian/Georgian style signal box building is not fit for modern way of working.

The railways have in their 200 years been innovators, as engineers we are always looking for new ways of doing things, having said that if there is a way to reuse existing building then we do and example is the reuse of St Pancras, the way Paddington is being transformed, Blackfriers and soon London Bridge Stns.  Must admit Reading is very radical reuse of space 

We (the railways) cannot stand still, if we dwell in the past we will not serve the country.

While I enjoy seeing preserved Victorian/Georgian buildings as much as I enjoy Tudor and medieval I also like the Shard and the Gherkin

[Btline]

The difference is that the Shard and the Gerkin have good design and are fairly neutral and unobtrusive despite their hight (unlike the 70s NatWest tower that is a ugly blot and needs to come down)

I'm all for living in the present, but let's make the buildings look attractive! By all means build New Street using glass - but does it have to look like a spaceship? I doubt the cost would change a penny (probably cheaper!)

Remember NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s new station design that was put up at Corby and a few other places, it has now been rejected at some places (e.g. Kidderminster) because locals don't want their new station looking ugly.
The original station at Kidderminster was built in a Tudor style. The replacement is now going to "echo the SVR station opposite". Anything is better than the ugly, concrete box slapped down by a cash strapped BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) in the 70s.

Newcastle station looks like a Greek Temple. The list goes on...

As for Victorian "not fit for purpose", does anyone think a station like Paddington is not fit for purpose? The original section must be one of the best designed terminals in the world (the far platforms, added later, excepted).

I will agree with BNM that Euston is probably THE best London terminal for passenger flow and layout. It's just a shame the arch didn't remain and it was build of concrete.