Crossrail works shot from the air

[Neil C]

This post from the ever-excellent London Reconnections is quite something: http://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/crossrail-begins-to-get-visible-part-1/

 

Fascinating to see the spaces they're working in, and also how it all fits together.

[Kris]

I found it quite hard to work out what was going on.

[The Stationmaster]

Interesting link but some strange captions - like the one claiming to show the Royal Oak Portal doesn't actually show it (it's off shot at the bottom right) and I also wonder about the comments about very restricted working space on some of the sites when they appear to have quite enough room to work -otherwise they wouldn't be able to work!. 

[Fat Controller]

I wonder if Wallersea island is Boris Island, being built by stealth...

[Joseph_Pestell]

I wonder if Wallersea island is Boris Island, being built by stealth...

 

That would have been a really good idea. Far too clever for politicians.

[Fenman]

Some interesting comments on the difference in design standards between central London Crossrail stations and those on the outskirts of the route.

 

"Value engineering" seems to be a term used to describe the process where an inspiring piece of design is, so far as possible, morphed back into a utilitarian shed in order to save cash.

 

Rogers' work for Heathrow Terminal 5 is a good example; the airport he designed for Madrid is much closer in conception to his original design for T5, before the "value engineers" got to it.

 

Although I guess this sort of thing has a long history in railway architecture: the original design for the St Pancras station hotel had a storey lopped off it, to save money. Fortunately the trainshed wasn't similarly affected.

 

But it seems a pity that Crossrail is not using the inspired approach taken by Frank Pick to the Piccadilly line extension, where architect Charles Holden designed every station to a similar theme, most of them being relatively inexpensive but highly functional and rather attractive pieces of design.

 

Paul

[jjb1970]

I think it is easy to criticise value engineering, whilst I often do not like the results the project team have a budget to work with and have to try and make the project fit within budget. Ultimately, for all I like great station and airport architecture I also think that often minimalist function based architecture can be just as striking and a lot better suited to its intended purpose. The world is full of stylish buildings that win a lot of awards but are dreadful to use.

[Fenman]

... The world is full of stylish buildings that win a lot of awards but are dreadful to use.

Unfortunately, there are even more ugly buildings which are also dreadful to use.

 

I'm told when the pre-T5 approach to British Airways' Concorde lounge was being rebuilt, BAA insisted all passengers would have to take a long route past lots of expensive gew-gaw shops rather than the shortest route. "Value engineering" for BAA's bottom line, not for the passenger.

 

Good design is about fitness for purpose and value for money, not prettification.

 

Paul

[jjb1970]

I work in an office designed by the good lord Rogers and everybody hates it. Whilst in some ways it looks stylish there is very little natural light which when combined with low ceilings makes it very claustraphobic. There is a chronic lack of meeting rooms yet large areas of wasted space in the form of a large atrium around which the building is built. The HVAC is dire too. On airports, the conversion of airports into shopping malls for over priced tat is not something I especially like and I don't like the trend for stations to be packing in more shops either.

[Fenman]

I work in an office designed by the good lord Rogers and everybody hates it. Whilst in some ways it looks stylish there is very little natural light which when combined with low ceilings makes it very claustraphobic. There is a chronic lack of meeting rooms yet large areas of wasted space in the form of a large atrium around which the building is built. The HVAC is dire too. On airports, the conversion of airports into shopping malls for over priced tat is not something I especially like and I don't like the trend for stations to be packing in more shops either.

 

I work in an office designed by an anonymous cheapo builder, and everybody hates it. It doesn't even look stylish, as well as being claustrophobic and suffering from drains that are only intermittently functioning.

 

Sounds like both your office and my office are examples of crap design. But I'm not sure why you think that Crossrail's suburban stations should also be crap designs, which is what you seem to be implying?

 

I am in complete agreement with you about the tiresome trend for stations (and airports) to pack in more shops. Loads of examples of good public design which have been made tawdry by rampant commercialisation - Waterloo pre-balcony used to be a good example, and one of the lesser-known examples which makes me very cross is Barking; a glorious late-50s/early60s, airy concourse, full of light, now shoved full of cheapo vendors.

 

Paul

[jjb1970]

I'm not saying I advocate bad station design, but that stations should be functional first and that if the budget is tight then somebody has to make the decisions on how to balance what is wanted with what can be afforded. The project team can ask for more money, but if they're told no then they have to make the project fit the budget which they have.

[Fenman]

I'm not saying I advocate bad station design, but that stations should be functional first and that if the budget is tight then somebody has to make the decisions on how to balance what is wanted with what can be afforded. The project team can ask for more money, but if they're told no then they have to make the project fit the budget which they have.

 

I agree with everything you've just written. So did Frank Pick and Charles Holden when they were busy building the supremely functional, aesthetically-pleasing stations on the Piccadilly line extension.

 

Paul

[colin penfold]

The difficulty of making a viable public service building is supporting the ongoing revenue cost of running it, far more than the capital to build it. A source of ongoing income from shops or other retail outlets is an obvious solution. Better than reduced or nonexistent staffing. You can ignore the shops but you cant ignore the fear of getting mugged on a deserted station. I wonder how the sums have changed since privatisation and the splitting of revenue streams & profit centres?

 

by the way, I initially thought this thread was about an air strike by the NIMBY airforce.

[Guest maxthemapman]

And let us not forget that when the Piccadilly Line extension was being built, the Underground was a private company.

 

It's simply come down to laziness. Nobody needs to try hard these days, and so they don't, but many of them lack talent or imagination, so perhaps it is just as well that they don't try.

 

I have met Peter Hendy personally, and found him to be intelligent but aggressive, and also lacking in any real attention for detail or desire for excellence. This was in the context of the awful maps produced by TfL, and one response he made was telling. I was pointing out that on the all-London rail map, the Shenfield Line was being shown inconsistently compared with other main lines out of London, simply due to an accident of franchising. His response? 'Who cares about the Shenfield Line", so don't expect any nice station rebuilds out that way either.

 

I recently got off the train at Liege Guillemins, one of the most beautiful modern buildings in the world, and it works well as a station too. British modern architecture is mired in comparison.

[Fenman]

The difficulty of making a viable public service building is supporting the ongoing revenue cost of running it, far more than the capital to build it. A source of ongoing income from shops or other retail outlets is an obvious solution. Better than reduced or nonexistent staffing. You can ignore the shops but you cant ignore the fear of getting mugged on a deserted station. I wonder how the sums have changed since privatisation and the splitting of revenue streams & profit centres?

 

I think that's a good point, and here's an interesting approach from the Netherlands, for low-use, unstaffed stations (the aesthetic is not really my cup of tea, but I guess this is an ultra-low-cost design. Though I think that toilet might actually be terrifying to use).

 

Paul

[Fenman]

...I recently got off the train at Liege Guillemins, one of the most beautiful modern buildinds in the world, and it works well as a station too. British modern architecture is mired in comparison.

 

I haven't seen that before. Extraordinary. It does make Reading and Newport stations look a bit, er, pedestrian, doesn't it? 

 

Paul

[colin penfold]

I think that's a good point, and here's an interesting approach from the Netherlands, for low-use, unstaffed stations (the aesthetic is not really my cup of tea, but I guess this is an ultra-low-cost design. Though I think that toilet might actually be terrifying to use).

 

Paul

interesting Paul, low cost build and maintenance, still staffed though, by cafe operative and toilet cleaner, hopefully

[Fenman]

interesting Paul, low cost build and maintenance, still staffed though, by cafe operative and toilet cleaner, hopefully

 

Yes, exactly - staffed by an independent cafe owner (it could equally be a newsagent, or some other shop provider). So no railway staff are employed although, as part of the deal, the cafe owner/manager/worker keeps a security eye on the whole station and, presumably, cleans it as a sub-contractor.

 

Though I admit I am guessing at the contractual relationships!

 

Paul

[colin penfold]

Im not so sure it's architects so much as planning law that cause many of our problems. For example, the legislature think by reducing car parking spaces on residential development they will restrict car ownership. Wrong! You just end up with cars parked in ridiculous places , and if you didn't know better you might think "Why did that fool architect build those 4 bedroom houses with only two parking spaces?"

[Guest maxthemapman]

I think that's a good point, and here's an interesting approach from the Netherlands, for low-use, unstaffed stations (the aesthetic is not really my cup of tea, but I guess this is an ultra-low-cost design. Though I think that toilet might actually be terrifying to use).

 

Paul

 

Hopefully the suburban Crossrail stations will be extremely busy, otherwise that's £20billion down the drain for nothing. I watch passenger numbers at stations closely, and can fairly confidently predict that for the existing stations, inner-suburban ones will get triple the current traffic (e.g. Maryland to Ilford), and outer ones double, but probably less beyond Romford because the stopping service is too slow for Brentwood and Gidea Park

[Guest maxthemapman]

I haven't seen that before. Extraordinary. It does make Reading and Newport stations look a bit, er, pedestrian, doesn't it? 

 

Paul

Its absolutely breathtaking, the photographs don't do it justice in any way. The lighting at night is amazing. This sort of thing is why I like visiting Belgium so much more than France

[figworthy]

"Value engineering" seems to be a term used to describe the process where an inspiring piece of design is, so far as possible, morphed back into a utilitarian shed in order to save cash.

 

Sadly, I've know an uninspiring design be subjected to "value engineering".  As a result, the owners subsequently acquired teeth marks on their nether ends.

 

Adrian

[Fenman]

Ealing Council appears to have got fed-up with Crossrail, and has now appointed their own architects:

 

“We know that Crossrail will bring huge economic benefits to the borough [of Ealing] and accelerate the regeneration already taking place. But the council is also determined to ensure that we get the best possible station designs, because they will be significant buildings in our town centres and experience shows good design brings greater regeneration benefits.  

“We have had lots of success influencing the interior plans for the station and I firmly believe we can work with Crossrail to develop an innovative design that will significantly improve what is proposed without significantly increasing costs or delaying construction by even a day.”

 

...

“The current design for the outside of [Ealing Broadway] won’t ignite a yearning passion in the hearts of anyone in Ealing. Our architects will make a useful contribution so that we can continue to push to get the best looking and most practical station we can.”

 

The full story here.

 

Paul

[chrisf]

Hopefully the suburban Crossrail stations will be extremely busy,

 

A forlorn hope in the case of Acton Main Line ...

 

Chris

[Ron Ron Ron]

Not quite Crossrail works from the air, but looking downwards all the same......

 

They like making big holes in London.....

 

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/crossrail012114/s_c19_RTX17G9C.jpg

 

 

 

.