London Bridge re-development

[number6]

London Bridge is much improved in many ways from how I remember it when I commuted everyday but as part of the redevelopment of the station a little too much of the original structure [read: pretty much all of it] is being demolished.

The Brighton side wall was the first victim - the earliest surviving London station structure I believe. Now the other side is under threat.

 

The latest ruse to get rid of the South Eastern Railway Victorian facade in Tooley Street is to use the excuse of car bomber risk. Something the planners and Network rail is calling "stand-off distance" - I presume the area surrounding a bomb blast. That certainly is a new one on me.

 

News article here:

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/5665

 

My experience of years of battling planners and developers over various plans makes me just ever-so slightly cynical toward these reasons for demolition. I dread to think what happens when you apply this criteria to other busy railway station entrances...

 

If you want to sign the petition against the removal of the building do go here:

http://bvag.net/save-these-buildings

 

Cheers 6

[petethemole]

I saw a news item on line today that English Heritage are prepared to allow demolition of the listed roof, but I can't find it now.

[John M Upton]

As a regular worker of trains to London Bridge, I can tell you the overall roof isn't worth preserving, part of it was botched back together after being remodelled by the Luftwaffe and generally it looks a poor grimy mess and won't be missed.

 

The huge continous row of brand new ticket barriers that runs the entire width of the South Central side of the concourse is mightily impressive though! Still not convinced that the 'Shard' is going to be little more than a glorified white elephant though, no one wants brand new office accomodation in Central London now and probably won't for a good few years yet.

[number6]

Indeed those barriers are impressive.

 

Not covering the bus station is a mistake. The 70s era roof is already gone but now imagine the wind that is going to whip around that tower block and the rain lashing down whilst you wait for a non existent 47. If the Victoria station bus standing is anything to go by it is going to be an absolute mess of sheds and barriers instead of an elegant large cover over the whole thing. Sigh. The cynic in me thinks the architects would rather us gaze upon their glorious building than stay dry.

 

Its not the overall roof at risk but the arches and wall to the south side. I haven't looked recently as it may already be gone?

[Glorious NSE]

I'd agree with John that I don't think the Brighton side train shed will be greatly mourned, and neither will the odd orange footbridge and 80s canopies the other side, the building you refer to on the Chatham side is interesting though, and the implication in the article that it's all down to anti-terror measures I find quite strange.

 

From the piece in Modern Railways it's as much to do with opening up a clear route for entrances/exits/interchanges underneath the station (replacing the bodged together footbridges and subways of the existing design) - and also gives some benefit in terms of making a rare bit of open space which is also suitable for large numbers of folk to move through whilst exiting the station - have to say i'm not sure that major subway would work if all it did was to pour out large numbers of people behind that building.

 

Have to admit it's a nice looking building though.

[Glorious NSE]

Its not the overall roof at risk but the arches and wall to the south side. I haven't looked recently as it may already be gone?

 

Again from the Modern Railways article the upper part of the wall (which forms the side of the train shed) is planned to come down, the lower part (the viaduct itself) is due to be cleaned up and retained.

[number6]

I'm obviously an old fart who still enjoys traveling from Brighton to London Bridge and departing and arriving under 'proper' train sheds! I loath the subterranean holes that are Victoria Brighton side, Cannon Street and especially Charing Cross. Worse still are those large stations that just rely on small shelters for each platform.

[John M Upton]

It will mean farewell (and not before time IMHO) to the train crew toilets there which come complete with genuine 1970's BR biege tiling and green plastic!!! They look like they haven't seen a cleaner or a paint brush since 1976 most mornings as well...

[Glorious NSE]

I'm obviously an old fart who still enjoys traveling from Brighton to London Bridge and departing and arriving under 'proper' train sheds! I loath the subterranean holes that are Victoria Brighton side, Cannon Street and especially Charing Cross. Worse still are those large stations that just rely on small shelters for each platform.

 

I'd suggest having a read of that article to get a proper overview of the whole plan - it's in the November edition of Modern Railways, starts on page 52 - it's the edition with a Southern 377 on the cover.

 

Key points from your post:

1. It won't have an office block on top of it anywhere! (a good result - as I agree totally with your views above!)

2. Those canopies will run the full length of all platforms (to encourage folk to move right down the train) - they aren't just 'bus shelter' style small shelters.

 

I think the retention or removal of old/historic structures is an interesting discussion, and I don't know what's the 'right' answer in terms of this particular one, but overall the plans for London Bridge look good to me.

 

It seems to solve many, (if not most) of the deep seated, fundamental problems of the current layout - it'll give you a unified station to the same standard for the first time ever for instance, easy access to all platforms and much more space to access the exits and the underground, plus the Thameslink 2000 related changes like more through platforms at the expense of some terminal ones (although I think Southern gets more space back with the removal of all the old 'temporary' offices under the trainshed?)

 

In 50 years time will we be campaigning to have it torn down as an eyesore or protected as a brilliant bit of design? Dunno...but hopefully it'll do a good job of being a railway station!

[DavidH]

The Network Rail terrorist angle is an interesting one, seeing as many (if not the majority) of other major stations have drop off points in front or even inside the station. I always wonder why journalists let people get away with these ridiculous statements.

 

And which car bombers are these? Why would they hit London Bridge station particularly rather than driving into the front of a station, say Newcastle, where there are never any police, and no one would suspect an attack? So why not prevent cars and taxis at Newcastle, if there's this perceived terrorist risk and Network Rail is so worried about it?

[number6]

My point exactly David - and really my issue was also precedent in planning - once you can justify it in one place it can roll out everywhere. You only often need one domino to fall!

[chrisf]

Oh dear, more terrorists under the bed. Careful, chaps, they might turn out to be - gasp - photographers!

 

If anyone can find a way of keeping all the old walls and roofs at London Bridge AND accommodate the alterations necessary to accommodate Thameslink I'd likke to hear it.

 

Chris

[Oldddudders]

Adds and alts at London Bridge have been going on for almost 40 years. Platforms 17-19 were taken out in about 1972, I think. When I see what colleagues did at Liverpool St, turning a nasty, dirty station into a pleasant-enough and practical environment, I think this is what London Bridge needs.

 

The railway of today needs to make itself fit for purpose. Nostalgia must be secondary to the needs of the paying punter. I do not believe we are talking of such sacrilege as the Euston Doric Arch here. The site may be venerable - but it's crap.

[roythebus]

Surely London Bridge has seen constant alteration since the day it opened?

 

Nostalgia ain't wot it used to be!

[number6]

Interesting the mention of Liverpool Street which, if you look closely, retains a good deal of its brick built exterior on Liverpool Street and Bishopsgate with on-street facades. When the insides were scooped out and rebuilt this combo added a huge amount to the character and provides a great deal of the style and atmosphere of the place. When you calculate what parts of the building contribute to the way in which we experience the building the newer additions such as the mezzanines and underground entrances in from Broadgate are little better than walking into your average Tescos or underground car park.

 

Agreed its no Doric arch and I have admitted to being more a Borough Market than a Bluewater fan. But people flock to the riverside, streets and pubs around here and surely that is for the Victorian atmosphere, Southwark Catherdral, the warehouses and docksides much more than it is to gaze adoringly at The Shard. I just reckon NR has chosen to reflect this new building in their plans rather than do a combo job taking in both the needs of the modern railway and the station's existing environment and heritage. ...and then wrapped it up in this car bomber blarney!

[Edwin_m]

Liverpool Street has also preserved its magnificent main trainshed for posterity, though I agree the mezzanine doesn't seem to fit in too well and the higher-numbered platforms have also been built over. We also have St Pancras, Kings Cross and Paddington, plus many main stations outside London, which have been or are being thoroughly modernised but retain most of the original architecture.

 

In that context I don't think we can mourn the trainshed at London Bridge too much, but I think it would be a shame if the South Eastern building had to go. If they need space for crowds to pass to and from the subway then surely they could punch through some of the windows to make extra accesses. They could also narrow the road to make a wider pedestrian area, but that would perhaps be anathema to Boris.

[unravelled]

For anyone not familiar with what's going on in the area, I've some photos at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/unravelled/sets/72157627782905207/.

 

It covers London bridge and the Thameslink works I can see along to Blackfriars. The most recent additions were taken on a walk round at ground level looking at the arches, and threatened buildings.

 

Dave

[number6]

Dave

Your image of this building shows how interesting it is! Its such an wonderful wedge shape and has superb detailing and colours. Thanks for that.

I still reckon its much more than just 'crap'.

 

Fourth and fifth last in the little thumbnails above:

or

here

and

here

 

Cheers 6

[roundhouse]

I travel into London Bridge most days. Whilst the new concourse which is currently nearing completion, is much better than the old 1970's one I will miss the trainshed.

 

A few shots of the trainshed one from above and one from inside taken a couple of years ago plus one of the recently demolished bus station / forecourt.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Aerial view...

 

bcwty.jpg

 

 

.

[roundhouse]

very nice aerial view... and very recent aswell.

 

Ian

[Heruss]

Bottom picture above... I seem to remember there were similar arguments for a vaguely similar design a bit further north of London, too expensive, too dirty, won't be greatly missed etc etc. Looks like this now....

 

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_02/StPancras_800x643.jpg

[roundhouse]

As the sun was out, I took a few photos on arrival at London Bridge this morning. One photo also shows the new concourse from the footbridge under the old trainshed.

 

Ian

[Katier]

Personally it's a balancing act...

 

If a redevelopment materially improves things then at the end of the day that's a good thing...

 

Unfortunately all to often the replacement is no better, often worse than the pre-WWII structure it replaces. Moor Street, Birmingham, is a classic example of why old with additions can be the best option. One of the nicest stations in the country and proof of just what can be done to retain a structure in a aesthetically pleasing design while still being 100% fit for purpose.

 

Snow Hill by contrast is struggling, I believe, and doesn't have the capacity of the original with half the number of platforms. Most of the cross-city line is pretty dire, compared to the GW Line which has some gorgeous stations that are still fit for purpose along it's length.

 

Sometimes things have to change but Heritage shouldn't be forgotten.. and where possible should be retained.

[roundhouse]

Last week part of the new entrance area was opened up for use. On the temporary enclosure to the existing old concourse where Thameslink will go they have erected a rather nice bit of wall art.

 

Ian