Don't worry. Too many remember BR building efforts of the 1960s and 70s were they built buildings resembling concrete bunkers on the outside and often even worse for the staff on the inside.
as much as i hate private developers i dont think we should rely on them to provide affordable housing. they are a private company whos main goal is to make a profit, and that is a contradiction to the word ‘affordable’. but local authorities have had their budgets cut (aswell as some of the councillors, mps etc being in the pockets of private developers) meaning they cannot invest into social housing, so the land the council own is sold to the developers so the council can try to increase its income. also gonna use this as a reason to rant about thatcher lol. as less that 5% of houses sold during right to buy havent been replaced, causing a shortage of housing.
I completely agree that it shouldn’t exclusively be down to private developers to provide affordable housing, but until there are fundamental changes in how central government allocates funds for the building of social housing, private developers are still going to be important in attempting to remedy the chronic shortage of housing that people can actually afford. It makes my blood boil to see how often we have to go through the ridiculous charade of developers announcing their latest shiny project, complete with a stipulated requirement for affordable housing to be part of it, only for the amount to be whittled down to almost nothing. Sorry but no, if your exciting project to build lots of stupidly-priced McMansion apartments for oligarchs to leave empty year-round “isn’t commercially viable” if you are forced to actually build some pitifully small number of affordable dwellings as part of it, then that projects has no business getting built in the first place.
@@GorgeDawes A classic tactic is to claim that anything that reduces the Return on Investment to below ~15-20% would make the entire scheme unviable; or alternatively commit to a certain proportion initially, but then after site acquisition, demolition and initial groundworks, approach the council again and say "we've recalculated and can't afford that proportion any more". Never mind the official definition of "affordable" is 80% of market rate, which for London, may not actually be that affordable, even with shared ownership. Given some London councils are already attempting to relocate people on their housing lists to locations outside the London metropolitan area, I suspect one unstated reason for HS2 is to extend the London commuter belt to Birmingham and beyond, with London Boroughs deciding that bribing Midlands authorities to accept people, and providing the people with a HS2 season ticket, would be cheaper and easier than providing accommodation on their patch. Which will cause even more fun for Midlands LA local plans - as it is, a few years ugo, Warwick District allocated provision for 12,000 new homes over the following 15 years. Locals were aghast, saying that it was far too high, and only 6,000 were needed. The Planning Inspectorate disagreed with both, stating that Warwick needed to find room for an extra 2,000 homes (14,000 total), both for themselves and overspill from neighbouring Coventry...
@@xr6lad you meant renationalized, and i think it would be really quite easy... simply seize the state run stuff back... (bt, power companies, grid, water boards, BR, London Transport etc) and if a "shareholder" dares to complain, lock em up for handling stolen property
I was so pissed off when they released these plans. There is SO much empty office space in the city - I know, me and my friends have been doing pop-up art exhibitions in them! I've written to More or Less to see if they can dig out the stats on current office space and therefore how on earth any developer can argue that office space is a need within the city
empty office space, people going in only Tuesdays and Thursdays yet they are building more skyscrapers and the empty ones in the City are barely used, strange
From being a victim of railway arch cleansing- I have learned that it’s all about these greedy developer’s holding companies- building empty offices- to then take loans out against at the speculative over inflated value. It’s sick, and it will break.
I have a feeling that the developer's plan is a 'stalking horse' that conceals their real intentions of a lesser development in the vicinity. In other words, they think that their second plan will be much more acceptable by comparison. There are empty retail and office buildings in practically every UK town now. Jago's narrative is spot on.
I live in a Grade 2 listed building and we are not allowed to change the external appearance in any way without council approval. I am sure this would remarkably change the outside and should not be allowed. But if Sadiq has anything to do with it who knows.
I presume you are being sarcastic. But it's often difficult to find a real shop: ie one selling newspapers and bottles of milk rather than unaffordable fashions or overpriced snacks.
@@davidemmott6225 Strange, I find Tesco Expresses and Sainsburys Local branches (which sell both) all over central London nowadays. It's getting to the point that there's hardly space for the overpriced-coffee chains and handmade (in a factory) sandwich shops!
The low ceilings over the platforms at Charing Cross are oppressive and dark and could have been at least two storeys. I remember the comment about the "new" Pennsylvania Station: "We used to enter the city like kings, now we enter like rats." The grandeur of the refreshed St Pancras shed should be an inspiration to architects, but somehow, they never get it. Keep up the good fight!
Yes, Kings Cross, St Pancras, Paddington are good examples of a sympathetic redevelopment. Cannon St and Fenchurch St were also bodged with offices on top meaning tacky low ceilings and facias. Euston is embarrassing as it is.
It’s developers, not architects, that drive these decisions based on economics - if money can’t be found to renovate without self generated income then they need to make it somehow; offices on top of prime central real estate achieve this.
@@RU-vidmessedupmyhandle Exactly, Nicholas. This is what happened to Liverpool Street in the 1980s, and they plan to make it even worse (which I hadn’t thought possible!)
Jago this is more than perfect. We need more protection of our railway heritage and much more affordable housing. Thank you for your bad temper and expressing what I'm bad at doing outside work
The one thing I've never thought when in a train station espcially in the middle of one of the largest shopping hubs in the world is, I wish there was more retail in the train station.
Yes I was thinking the same thing recently at Heathrow Airport as I walked past all the shopping outlets most of which were empty of customers despite the airport being as usual packed with people. 😂
Ah yes, reminds me of the fact the famed and gorgeous Grand Central Terminal here in NY was almost demolished for a Marcel Breuer office building that looked like a SHOEBOX LID on its side! This almost happened right after the original NY Penn Station was demolished. Penn Station's demolition was a turning point in the preservation moment, the city passed a landmarks preservation act that created the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission two years after Penn Station was demolished. So when Penn Central wanted to shut down Grand Central, a lot of people were furious. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis in particular was having NONE of it. She joined the fight in 1975 with the Municipal Art Society and had a conference at the famous Oyster Bar where she said, "If we don’t care about our past, we can’t have very much hope for our future." Thanks to Jacqueline convincing the mayor (Abraham Beame), the terminal was ultimately saved by the city's LPC, but this was challenged by Penn Central in a Supreme Court case. In 1978, the court ruled in favor of the city. And the most beautiful building in NYC was saved.
@@JP_TaVeryMuch Among them, of course, St Pancras where Betjeman's statue gazes upwards. The sympathetic 1980s renovation of Liverpool Street itself was an early step in the new enlightened approach.
I remember the days when you went to a train station to get on a train and go somewhere, you used to buy your ticket from a cheery face behind a hatch in the wall, you could even sit and wait in a waiting room that would have a real coal fire in the winter, there was even a porter on the platform who used to help you with your luggage and set the train off with a whistle and a flag. I must be getting very old.
@@johnjephcote7636 It was only a few years ago they got rid of the leather chairs and stained hardwood tables at Bath Spa station. Now no tables and metal benches that you normally get outside.
It all sounds so bucolic. Remember, though, we didn't have to worry about accessibility in those days, because we chucked all our disabled people in institutions.
You are indeed! Me too. My earliest recollections are from the mid-1950s, catching the train at St Mary Cray up to Brixton, where we had previously lived and still had friends. No fire in the waiting room; I suppose we were past that by then. We were upset if we missed a train, because we had to wait 20 minutes for the next one. Now I live in Kingston, Ontario, where we get a few passenger trains a day.🙂
I suspect the actual main issue for these developers is that Liverpool Street Station is not making any money for them at the moment. Their plans have the utmost respect for making a great deal of dosh.
Listing means that whenever a developer takes an interest in a building there will be a mysterious fire sooner or later that guts the existing structure to the point that it is unsafe to rebuild and the whole thing has to be knocked down. I await further developments (pun intended).
Liverpool Street is my favourite terminus and the one I use most. Given one of its defining features is the heavy use of glass roofs allowing natural light, I'm not sure how a redevelopment that places a building on top can preserve its feel. Also I don't know much about its accessibility but I have never found it crowded or needing more retail space.
Ditto. As mentioned previous post, I pass through Liverpool St more or less 7 days a week, and problems with "overcrowding" have never been a big issue in my experience, especially given the volume of commuters at peak times. Don't want to be cynical, but I think there are ulterior motives at play here, predominantly profiteering.
For that matter, even gold is only valuable because everyone's decided to agree that it is. I mean, it looks nice, and doesn't corrode, and even has a limited degree of utility in some electronic circuits, but it's totally useless for making tools or building anything.
@@Krzyszczynski I think gold is valuable because there's only a limited amount of it. Aluminium, for example, was more expensive than gold until an industrial process was invented which could produce it in great quantities. That's never happened with gold, so the only way to obtain it is mining (or reclaiming) of it, both of which can be expensive. Also, humans have found plenty of uses for it - just look at the Wikipedia article on gold: "It has been used for coinage, jewelry, and other arts throughout recorded history", so there clearly are uses for it outside electronic circuits or tool-making. In fact, the same article mentions that 50% of gold mined today is used in jewellery, 40% for investing and just 10% in industrial uses (e.g. Circuitry). Gold used to be the basis of many currencies, but the abandonment of the 'Gold standard' brought fiat currencies - now these really are only worth what someone (i.e. A central bank) says they are worth.
Well said, Jago - I have yet to find anyone who thinks that this development is a good idea on any grounds at all. I hope it’s thrown out by my fellow planners and given the disdain it deserves!
If it gets the go ahead (and knowing current state of backhanders disguised as funds toward local infrastructure) I think it will set a dangerous precedent as future planners will be able to get round listing status with this as example.
Dear oh dear. I used to use LST to travel frequently to and from Cambridge in the mid 80s (before the KX electrified services were extended from Royston to Cambridge) and let me tell you something. The "old" station was a complete mess, and not a pleasant place to be AT ALL. BR's improvements in a nutshell were to combine two adjacent stations, both with the same name into a single station with a single concourse. And they did so magnificently. Sure, the disabled didn't seem to get a look-in back then (bar an escalator or three), but hey, this was the 1980s and everyone has functioning legs, don't they?! So yes, LST could be improved. But this absolutely must not be allowed to go ahead. This is not being done to improve passengers' days, it's being done purely to improve the bank balance of the developers. And yes, that's their job. But they don't have to do it on top of a pair of listed buildings.
Fully agree the BR makeover was a 1000% improvement over the old layout - where you would walk a mile around dirty columns and buffer stop ends to move around the station.
What is needed is better interchange between the underground and national rail/overground platforms. A giant glass box covering a lovely Victorian station should not be on the cards.
They don't care about the station or its use, they just want some central location to stick more apartments and offices and (fortunately) they can't just demolish the thing as I'm sure they'd rather do.
That's constrained by the position of the tunnels. Part of the issue is that access to the original tube lines was in lifts. These were direct but with very limited capacity. When escalators are put in to replace the lifts, the path had to zigzag because escalators slope rather than go straight down. Then you have the issue with the cut-and-cover lines which, of course, are under the roads outside the stations.
How to get affordable housing: Contact the DPRK government that you want to move to the DPRK. If we accept you, you're booked on an Air Koryo flight from Beijing-Capital to Pyongyang Sunan. Get an apartment free of charge in the middle of Pyongyang as housing is considered a human right here. And you don't have to pay taxes as taxes have been abolished since 1974 thanks to my grandpa Kim Il-sung. "A sleeping giant has reawakened. Evil stalks the land" Ah yes, the ghost of Beeching has returned to destroy yet another station. And it's like developers are allergic to the word "affordable"! Because that means they'll have to think about a demographic that they don't want to think about or acknowledge.
In theory, if the tower block were set back more, it would be less "offensive" (?) But one of the features of these termini/stations is the natural light of the canopies that exist. But if it's just office blocks and hotel space, it's a no.
It'll end up feeling like Euston when you walk out. Just... enclosed and boxed in. Totally uninviting. At least the station itself won't become a concrete slab though like Euston lol.
Absolutely every point hits home perfectly. There has just been a "consultation" on a huge new office block which nobody needs, right opposite Wimbledon station. It was overwhelmingly rejected but the council approved it anyway. Likening office space to NFTs is a very astute observation. The developers have been rumbled in New York and new blocks are now being cancelled as they cant get finance. London will follow. Also agree, Charing Cross is an abomination.
Given that Liverpool Street was one of the very first major stations (if not the first) that was actually sympathetically renovated, preserved the historic architecture and enhanced its setting, it would be hugely ironic if it were altered in this way. Obviously accessibility and sustainability could be improved by other less drastic means. I like the buzzword bingo for developments - we used to have similar ones for management or marketing jargon. The tall glass tube seems not unattractive in isolation (though there are lies, damned lies and artists' impressions) but it is simply in a totally inappropriate place and on an inappropriate scale - unlike, as you point out, the sympathetic redevelopment at Kings Cross which neatly blends old and new, as Liverpool Street itself does at present. Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention!
As my main gateway to the Metrop from Norfolk for a number of decades, I have always thought that Liverpool Street station could do with LESS retail space. For sure it does get overcrowded making wheeling my velocipede through the crowds without injuring folk a nerve wracking experience. How having a large lump of glass and steel placed atop bricks, mortar and cast iron is going to make anyone's journey less harrowing is beyond my understanding.
Tbh this is what I think too. The surrounding area is one of the best places in London for independent food spots and the sort of shops you'd perhaps want to visit before travelling. If you really had to expand the retail space of LST I'd suggest covering and pedestrianising the road between LST and The Arcade to ape what they did at Kings Cross and then to use that new retail space as an excuse to get rid of the old upper concourse retail spaces to make the trainshed more open.
Hi Jago from Spain. As you know Liverpool Street is not my favourite station which is just around a corner or two but I do agree with you that profiteering developers should not be allowed to destroy our architectural heritage. They'll be wanting to demolish Windsor Castle next to make a rail/river interchange with a travelator to Heathrow terminal 6.
Excellent deconstruction of a bad idea for a construction. Especially the point I made about shopping. The redeveloped London Bridge seems to have sacrificed passengers to the god of shopping even to the extent that any passenger wanting to use the toilets whilst waiting to change trains has to leave the station and navigate most of the shopping centre to get to them (previously they were conveniently on the platforms).
Demolish Windor castle? I remember switching the tv on some years ago and seeing it in flames with a crowd gathering, I thought'yes' then realised the crowds were trying to put it out
I remember when BR were plonking offices on top of other London termini, and they came up with the catchy line, 'Ideas above their station'. (I think it was that.) You're quite right of course. It is very tiresome having to fight these people. A walk around the square mile does make you wonder who has so much money to develop a building used five days a week. I suppose it could be argued that it's somewhere to keep security guards warm and dry at the weekend. In years to come, I wonder whether there'll be a bronze statue of Griff at the front of Liverpool Street?
Liverpool Street Station has been a part of my life since the 1960s, beginning as a child and as a commuter from the mid-1970s. The original station was a magnificient atmospheric rabbit warren of tunnels and upper walkways with a tea room and a pub; the 1985 redevelopment turned it into a soulless mausoleum that you simply rushed-through to and from to enter the underground or catch your train. The proposed redevelopment is typical of the thoroughly unimaginative and hideous steel and glass blocks that litter the City and its eastern outskirts and should be comfortably defeated by any reasonable overview by a City planning committee and if not, rigorously opposed. The idea of providing 'destination shopping' is utterly laughable, Liverpool Street has and always will be a 'working' Station where commuters grab food and drink before their journey home, it is not a place that you wish to linger for any length of time. Passenger flow on the concourse has always been an issue as people largely criss-cross each other as they make their way to and from the mainline platforms to the Underground, but it strikes me that this problem pervades every London mainline terminus; in recent times, the Station has provided much needed increased concourse seating to allow passengers to catch their breath and await their trains, sadly lacking for far too long. I believe that the retail mix of the Station could be improved, it has been a bit haphazard for a while, although has recently improved in some areas, but the large wholesale redevelopment that is proposed is completely unnecessary and inappropriate.
Dear Person , great there 's someone /people who remember 'good ' architecture , they ruined the local station where I am , its crass and horrible , there 's still 'good ' architecture worth saving though ,
I also quite liked the old style walkways, & all they needed to do was spruce it up a bit (& put a lift in, which of course was a major structural change) - the walkway barriers were safe, but they put in the shops over the platforms, & of course it was linked with the closure of Broad St station. Not just with Liverpool St., I'm often rushing about now among all the shops thinking "& WHERE are all the actual blimmin' trains/platforms/ticket office/machines?" as the entrances to platforms are obscured. Actually I still don't know where the newer lifts are at LS. I remember in particular the Fanta-In-A-Cup dispensing machine opposite platform 6 I think - 10p for lemon as well as orange! On the way home from school, summer of '76, very welcome - well before the days of carrying bottled water became so prevalent.
I am with you 100%. Having just spent time in London for the first time since moving back to my home country in 2019, I was quite amazed by the waxing density of high rise tower clusters in both The City and Vauxhall/Battersea. To boot, these structures possess absolutely ZERO visual character or sympathy to the history, design, and aesthetic of their surrounding built environment. And, as you rightly query, to what end? All I can assume is that there are a handful of developers and crony committees, councillors and politicians, whose pocket linings thicken predictably each time a planning permit application gets rubber-stamped.
It's worse than that. All developers have to do is wax lyrical about all the imagined benefits their development will bring and the councillors will lap it up. No need to spend money "persuading" them that the plan is good.
@@Inkyminkyzizwoz will they be able to pick it up from there? I world have thought it unlikely. HS1 only has a couple of main stops (before it stops being HS, that is, and goes back to being a normal speed). But then maybe OOC will be like Stratford Int'l.
I think that covering up parts of the cealing structure isn't respecting the building. the roof is one of the most important victorian features of the station in my opinion. and it's obvious the roof cannot handle a 8 story office block. however, I do think it's right to build new thing around stations so that more people will go with public transport instead of cars.
You missed "place-making" off the bingo card. Anyway, the redevelopment of Liverpool Street in the early '90s paved the way for the re-birth of St Pancras and King's Cross. It showed that a terminus station could be an attractive and pleasant place to start or end your journey, or even just to spend some in. The '90s improvements are looking their age and could do with some work but the current proposal is just greed, dressed up.
A crucial detail: The whole roof south of the Northern transpet (so 1/3 of the platforms and the whole concourse) and the entrances, and those clock towers are all very sensitively done 1980s pastiche. The original station buildings were demolished. If you google up some historic aerial photos you'll see what I mean. Until the brouhaha/kerfuffle/fracas started those elements were not included in the listing, which is why Sellar thought they could get away with it. Now they *are* included, and it will prove much more difficult to demolish.
Unfortunately I can only give you a single thumbs and not the several hundred this video deserves! London is fortunate that it's major Victorian Stations (bar Euston) avoided demolition or even worse 're-modelling' in the 70s and 80s, hopefully Liverpool street avoids another brush with death and it's fine architecture will be enjoyed by future generations of London commuters
I agree with you. A solution without a problem. What would be really nice is to replace the old glass roof with large modern glass panels - perhaps curved. It would be open and airy without all the fussy small dirty glass there now. Trouble is - who pays for it?
Jago -Your title sums up what you analysed perfectly. As far as I am concerned, Liverpool Street Station has been largely trashed several decades ago.My father took me to see it in March 1963, and it was as outstanding as anything. Both the Western and Eastern train sheds were in excellent condition, and I was fascinated by being at the platform ends, and seeing the mass of trackwork, with the points regularly clicking into position this way and that! But several decades ago, the Eastern train shed was knocked out and replaced with an ugly block, and another block was built over the platform ends. As a consequence, much of the station now is just covered with low concrete roofs, making it inky-black, relieved by the electric lamps. So for passengers and railway enthusiasts, it can be very depressing to see -especially if one remembers how exquisite it once was. Victoria is the same, only worse. Cannon Street, Charing Cross and Fenchurch Street have all had this treatment. You are quite right, that King’s Cross was given the correct modification, and is probably more beautiful than ever. That shows, therefore, what could have been done to Liverpool Street. I live now in Northern Ireland and can happily report that here, at least, the tiny little (second) Great Victoria Street terminus is to be demolished and replaced by a magnificent new Grand Central terminus for Belfast - with a real overall roof, allowing lots of light onto platforms and concourse. That’s how to do it!
Really can't agree with your assessment of the old Liverpool Street. OK, the office block over the throat doesn't help. But the rest of it was a gloomy mess when I used it in the 1970s and early 1980s, dark and a bit threatening. I was amazed how much the 1980s restoration improved it and made it light and airy. BR proudly put it on the front of the National Rail timetable, quite rightly. Agree about the other London stations you mention.
@@iankemp1131 We ain’t going to agree on this one, Ian. The block over the colossal set of tracks and points at the station throat totally blocks out the light for much of the station. The Eastern shed was very attractive; a different and newer roof than the Western shed. I have used Liverpool Street Station a lot over the years. Before the dreadful modifications several decades ago, it was all spacious and cheerful. Evidence is in old photographs and also films like “The War Lover” (Steve McQueen), in which one can see light coming right through the entire station. There is a book written by Alan Jackson - “London’s Termini,” in which the chapter on Liverpool Street is wittily and correctly entitled “Not as black as painted!” It is now a half-ruined monument to the railway age, and seems doomed to be completely wrecked.
@@robertweissman4850 Fair enough, we ain't. I was more familiar with the western side and to me it improved out of all recognition after the 1980s refurbishment, helped by the disappearance of diesel fumes.
@@iankemp1131I reckon that most contributors are in line with what I think. The work done several decades ago seems to me, no improvement. It’s become very boring and the darkness created by the acres of low concrete roofing is only relieved by the electric lamps. I agree with you about the removal of insidious diesel fumes, but that is because of completion of electrification of the trunk route to Norwich Thorpe in May 1987.
@@robertweissman4850 I think if you look through the 900+ comments the vast majority are positive about the present station, as is Jago's video. I replied to yours partly because it was a outlier. A few comments refer to the low roofs at the far end over the station throat, and that's a fair comment, but nothing like as bad as at Victoria, Cannon Street, Charing Cross etc. But the vast majority of the station has the high airy roof - see 1:55 - and the western concourse is far nicer and lighter than it was before the redevelopment, particularly as the old station was almost cut in half.
Once I spent 24 hours on Liverpool Street as I planned my journey homewards to The Netherlands kinda wrongly. It was my hotel without a bed. Know the station pretty well now
If you want to look at god awful concrete tower blocks there are plenty to be found in Croydon. Heck, take your next holiday in Warsaw and eat your heart out. The rest of us are rather tired of them though.
@@johnjephcote7636 I was there in August, it's much better than it used to be, at least the upper level, but lipstick on a pig. Zachodnia is being totally developed though.
I've found myself lately sitting in my office with your videos on in the background, and when you sign off with your usual, "Cheerio!", I find myself replying with one of my own.
I can recall Liverpool St be a very dark and depressing station in the late 70's. Working for BT I was involved in the Bishopgate redevelopment in the 80's which has given us the present day station, fit for purpose, I see no need to bury it in glass and concrete.
Totally agree with your comparison of Liverpool Street before and after. It was an inspiring transformation that British Rail were rightly proud of and which set the scene for later sympathetic upgrades to other major stations.
They plonked an office block over the station throat during the last redevelopment. That’s why it’s dark and dingy on some of the platforms. Blocking out more natural light by building on top will just make it worse.
Yes, you are right, I forgot about that. As you say the far end of the Liverpool St platforms are quite gloomy and oppressive because of the building that straddles the station throat 👍 Perhaps the developer thought that 'its been done here once before, so lets try it again'.
Very acidic sarcasm. (Best sort IMHO). I concur with your assessment of public consultation. At least one listed buildings upgrading that I objected to as a member of a planning committee because I thought it would lose its character if the development went ahead...was overruled by the rest of the committee. I still think I was correct. But hey, democracy, right? Back in the 70s, being a student in Colchester meant I used the station a lot. I was very wary of the 80s upgrading but just maybe they got away with it. Sticking things in glass boxes would make it more like an exhibit in a museum. This is a BS plan and deserves to be thrown out - and with some force. Thanks for keeping everyone informed.
I adore Liverpool Street Station. It's my London terminus from where I live and I've known it since a child. Although it's changed a lot, it still has a certain beauty and charm about it; but alas, it doesn't get recognised because the likes of St. Pancras, Kings Cross and Paddington Stations are bigger, grander, and more famous. Thank you for bringing this to light - I sure hope nothing bad happens to this underrated terminus.
Very well said sir. The technique used at most of the "public consultations" with which I have been involved is based on one developed by the RAND corporation, and which is called the "Delphi Technique". In my experience, it's a method of giving the appearance of public participation and involvement, where in reality a pre-ordained outcome is decided, and the "facilitators" are merely there to steer the discussion towards that outcome. That way the public have been "engaged", and "consulted", but the people who are usually driving the consultation have their desired outcome which will be reached by hook or by crook. Another way of putting it is that the whole rigmarole is a scam and a con, often used to rubber stamp a need to have "engaged with the public", before doing something which serves some actor other than the public, but it would take someone quite cynical to post that opinion on a public platform...
I once worked in local government. Some sessions of the planning committee were public, and they were always filled with staff from the various developers; mysteriously, they were the only people ever given an opportunity to ask questions.
The "Delphi Technique" describes what Mt Khan used for his ULEZ extension. Apparently 80% against but he massaged teh numbers and still intends to proceed and there seems to be no legal way he can be challenged.
I wonder if the basement is still the same as when I was there in the early 90s? I was doing air leakage tests on the rooms that had 'total-flood' gaseous fire extinguishing systems. One of the rooms had a lot of leaks into a riser, so whilst I tested the others, a labourer was filling the holes - unfortunately the fumes from the sealant set-off one of the fire detectors, triggering an evacuation. Meanwhile, it was the shape of the rooms that were testing me - I needed to know the volume reasonably accurately, and the various arches tried my memory of school maths.
It’s astute incisive commentary like this that really gives Jago an edge. Probably One of the most important Tales from the tube. I hope the “powers that be” watch and learn.
More people wanting to make a lot of money turning part of what’s left of our beautiful capitol city into an empty eyesore. It makes my blood boil (as I think is what happened to Jago). Thank you once again Dear Sir for bringing this dreadful scheme to mine and everyone else’s attention. Thank you Jago and keep fighting for our beautiful city.
Like @Ikwigsjoyful I too stood and applauded this wonderful and well directed diatribe. But what had me howling in delighted laughter was "offices are like NFTs; only those who own them think they are valuable." Sheer genius, sir!
If this proposal succeeds it’ll end up like, for example, Krakow or Malaga where the original, perfectly functional station has been either closed or demolished and replaced with a shopping mall in one part of which someone has inadvertently left some railway tracks. This bit can be quite difficult to find due in part to the crowds of people who are not there to travel. The whole and sole purpose of the exercise is to enhance the profitability of the developers. Whatever can be done to prevent it should be done.
Love your sarcasm but totally agree, any redevelopment needs to use Kings Cross as a benchmark. I lived in Essex in the 80's, and never 'saw' Kings Cross as it was hidden, those pictures you showed opened up its outlook. But we also saw the Eastern Concourse of Liverpool St disappear under redevelopment, we thought at least they left the grander western concourse and shed. So we don't want to see it 'buried'.
They really should leave Liverpool Street alone. I don't believe the developer's claim to respect the heritage. I very much agree with all you say, Jago!
Some people are still saddened by the demolishing of Broad St. This plan is proposed by soulless "retail opportunists" & not doubt the hotel will be unaffordable for 90% of people/passengers to stay in.
Well said Jago. You managed to keep it all much more polite and humorous than I could manage. The mocked up entrance arch was a pathetic and poorly thought out knock off of that which was done properly at King's Cross. If this scheme goes ahead it will be a criminal travesty. Loved the bingo card - really laughed at that.
This is excellent. Jago, I think you have some very grounded and accurate points in all of your statements here. Taking into consideration the views from both sides and giving a balanced opinion. Well done!
To quote His Majesty the King from nearly 40 years ago: What he actually said, in full is that he “would understand better this type of high-tech approach if you demolished the whole of Trafalgar Square and started again with a single architect responsible for the entire layout, but what is proposed is like a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend.”
One of your best videos jet. Britain’s architectural heritage is something tantamount to being, well sacred. Anything else is a betrayal of what Sir John Betjeman stood and fought for! It is protected for the benefit of you, me, the nation, future generations and not to be defiled some property developer. Yes, I admit I‘m an architect, and yes I admit I am passionate about British architectural heritage and railway architecture. Other countries don’t have that to the same extent, and if planning authorities are content with compromising that, then London will have all the charm and spatial quality bestowed upon cities like Collogne [Köln] or Berlin. If you don’t believe me, go and have a look at the results for yourself. Sorry about the rant. I love your channel all the good work you do. Best regards from Germany!
Well done Jago, well said, and an enthusiastic thumbs up from me. The questions I have to the developer would be: 1. How much empty office space is available in the immediate vicinity of the station? 2. How much empty retail space ditto? 3. How are you planning not to darken the trainshed (as BR has already done with its country end) with a new structure above it, and how is this structure to be supported whilst leaving sightlines inside the station clear? As we all know, 1. demand for office space is currently very moderate, with the economic outlook not encouraging any optimism here; 2. demand for new retail space is even more moderate, with stores closing due to the overcapacity caused by people using home delivery, and economic outlook ditto; 3. I'm a chartered building surveyor and I can't see this working structurally. The ultimate cause of all this is not client-side demand but pure speculation or if you like, investor-demand for capital security, and arguments are manufactured (e.g. by "customer participation", hoho) to suit the plan. As we all know, the safest haven for capital is "bricks and mortar" (or as Jago correctly points out, steel and glass), because one day, there MIGHT YET be client-side demand again, and then the by now 15-year old empty and dusty glass cube can be reactivated. THAT is the reason for this project, no other. As a sideletter, if I were Network Rail (who I assume own the site), I would play megahardball on the site lease contract. No support structures at all inside the train shed, no reduction of natural lighting, full City of London levels of ground rent, financial participation on the provision of train services to the doorstep, that sort of thing.
Ah Yes. Retail Space, offices, and a hotel. Exactly what London and the UK are short of.... 😒 You literally took the words out of my mouth. The only "retail" I habitually do at the railway station is a cup of coffee, a Cornish Pasty, and a newspaper for the puzzle section. Tho' I did once buy underpants from Princes St. Mall when passing through Waverley.
As someone who no longer lives in the smoke, but does keep tabs on things, I was quite excited about the developmemt at "One Hooper's Court" and Knightsbridge station. Everyone seems a winner. This on the other hand, is ridiculous.
My brother and I visited Liverpool St station last week and spent a very enjoyable hour outside, enjoying a coffee and the view towards the trainshed. Mortified when a guy working there started to tell us the plans for the station, including (according to him) the total removal of the roof. I truly hope these plans are thwarted. Liverpool St is a stunning building, and it would be a huge mistake to bury it (almost literally) beneath an ugly modern monstrosity.
Haha I loved this video! The fact that you’re normally quite reserved and neutral on most topics gives this video much more weight and I could hear the frustration many of us share and have with these sorts of developments. You wouldn’t break character unless is was absolutely necessary. The Kings Cross station upgrade was a welcome change, tastefully done and did away with that ugly claustrophobic green box that plagued the original facade. St Pancras would have been great if it weren’t for the notable lack of toilets. Pretty sure the architect forgot people had bladders and hastily added the bare minimum in at the last minute.
Totally agree. The developers merely seek to benefit the developers and see Liverpool Street station as an easy win. Allowing this sort of monstrous carbuncle will nudge us a bit closer to the vision of London in the 2012 version of the film Total Recall. Another example of a block on top of an older building is Paucescu House in Bucharest, initially the new 'lid' looks false, faked and incongruously out of scale. You are visually tricked into thinking that each horizontal division is an actual floor, it isn't. Although a somewhat wierd addition to one of Bucharest's many historic buildings, it is more honest architecturally than this hand wave to preservation at Liverpool Street.
Honestly, I stood up and applauded at the end of your “speech” - I agreed with every word. Of course, historic public buildings should be brought up to to modern standards of accessibility and sustainability, but clever, creative people can do that without utterly destroying a building’s character.
Undecided on this. The station has incredible architecture over the trains that you can barely see unless you happen to look up while running for the train or notice it while having a summer beer in exchange square. Then immediately after noticing it, you notice it's covered in grime and it really needs some TLC and that basically means investment else its going to fall apart and lead to demolition. The station is so cramped in rush hour and god help you if there's a service disruption. It's hard to navigate, even the toilets are hidden down some stairs behind a pay wall. When you compare this to Kings Cross and London bridge, they really have done a great job of improving the station and access. Some of the mockups look great, the Wetherspoons looks incredible (the most important part!). The extended walkway at 5:20 really maximises the space, vastly more so than possible currently, and it brings people into the incredible architecture. I like that and I think it looks quite good. Brighter, cleaner and friendlier. However, it looks like they would demolish the clock towers at the west entrance, I'm against that. These should be incorporated into the new build. I also think there should be a garden terrace which is accessible to the public. You basically have to walk to Finsbury currently.
Nevertheless even if you don't look up there is a real feeling of light and space about the station. I remember it as it was before the 1980s refurbishment; it felt dark and dingy then, and even a little sinister. Walls were removed and vistas opened up. Very dubious this plan would do the same. There are lies, damned lies and artist's impressions.
Agree with you 100 percent. That ghastly block of tastelessness is disgusting from every perspective. Even this corrupt, grasping collection of below par Ministers can see that, surely?.
Thank you so so much for this video, This station has so much significance to me throughout my youth and growing up I always used to travel to london and the first place I land is ofcourse Liverpool street. In the same respect when I leave london to head to Suffolk the last place I am is liverpool street. It's such an incredible liminal space that has it's faults and its brilliant. It's surrounded by all these high rise brand new buildings and yet still stands there in the centre of London. So for it to be built on top and redesigned on the inside for the better of the people is just a proxy for the benefit of these large investors. the same old story and such a sad one to see in London everywhere. Thank you so much for this video I have a very deep connection to this train station and the journey back to Suffolk.
Developers have the morality of the average politician. They haven't/won't accept that post Covid the world has changed, shops are empty and boarded up, rail footfall is 20% down, rail revenue 30% down, offices are empty for 80% of the time. It's not aesthetically pleasing to plant this block on or hide the internal details, but brown envelopes on golf courses take precedent with monotonous regularity.
Oh, be as opinionated as you like on this one, Jago! When I first heard about the redevelopment I was interested... but then I'm always interested in any news of railway development. However now I know about the "massive glass box" part of the proposal. Bloody hell... just make it more accessible and easier to navigate!
And what better example of a 'public consultation' gone awry than London Mayor Sadiq Khan's one related to the ULEZ charge where some tens of thousands of 'against' votes were simply ignored and discarded and the charge will be brought into place regardless. Well Done for your video on Liverpool Street, Jago. Great stuff as always.
Excellent video, especially the point about overcrowding vs destination. Have you considered making a video on the 80s BR/NSE alterations to Liverpool Street?
