Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
50 Liverpool Street was a key part of the 1970s-1980s conservation campaign, being a reconstruction of an original building that sat within the old cab road entrance to Liverpool Street station and the Great Eastern Railway Company offices (which now forms part of the extended concourse). It was deliberately reconstructed to be a marker for what used to be there, and to cohere with the trainshed extension. There seems to be some difference of opinion as to whether it is actually listed; the City of London seem to think it is (see here: https://democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/documents/s85955/Liverpool Street Report.pdf), whereas Historic England seems to think it isn't (https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1286133?section=official-list-entry)
50 Liverpool Street is also part of the Bishopsgate Conservation Area (as is the rest of the station). The whole conservation area is significantly threatened by the proposal - the proposed tower block utterly dwarfs the Grade II* listed Andaz hotel and will block light into the station. This is precisely why the fly-through almost entirely avoids showing the proposed tower block.
I, of course, accept that the station needs some form of development. Network Rail claim that the key problems are a lack of accessiblility (ie lifts), and circulation on the main concourse. I am not sure how these problems will be improved in the curren proposals, the main feature of which is the giant office block they want to build above the station. They could also do what they have shown in the plans - ie remove some of the retail outlets and the furniture from the main concourse - without doing anything else to the station, should they wish to do so.
I also don't buy the argument that selling the 'air rights' is necessary to fund improvements. Other mainline terminus stations, such as Paddington, Waverley and Waterloo, have been improved in recent years without significant additional development. Furthermore, Network Rail complain that the current site is very hemmed in, but this is because existing railway land has previously been sold to development - how is selling more railway land to development going to fix this? In fact, Network Rail have form with this, as they tried to demolish span 4 of Paddington station in the mid-2000s, which they ultimately gave way on after public pressure (https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/paddingtons-fourth-span-saved-from-grimshaw-demolition) - perhaps they feel agrieved by losing that battle and this is why they're determined to send in the buldozers this time around?
I also don't buy the argument that 'if this gets rejected, then it proves we can't build anything as a country and it's a reflection of the economic situation we're in'. Can anyone really see this happening to the Gare du Nord, Milano Centrale, or Antwerpen Centraal? Liverpool Street is equally as historic as all of those stations, if not even more so. It's a destination in its own right and demolishing a chunk of it to build a bland office block will reduce the attractiveness of an area which has already seen significant development and lost a lot of its character (see, for example, the traversty of Old Spitalfields Market...)
This is the worst kind of incrementalism. The 1980s plans were approved on the basis of a sensitive heritage-conscious restoration of the station. Coming back 30 years later with a proposal to tear this up and buldoze large parts of the station doesn't feel like a democratic or even passenger-centred way of operating. What's to stop a further proposal in another few decades from demolishing yet more of the structure?
It would be better if Network Rail were at least honest and they said that the real - and only - reason why they want to do this is to further monetise the railway estate. But to pretend that years of disruption for passengers, a proposal that reduces the atmosphere and amenity of the current station, as well destroying its cultural, architectural and aesthetic importance, somehow has public benefit is utterly deceptive.
I really hope the City of London for once acts in the public interest rather than in-line with its feudal, arcane, unaccountable and undemocratic corpus and rejects the proposal.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
But not since the 1960s or before? I think what remained of the Anhalter Bahnhof (largely destroyed in WW2) was demolished in 1952, unless I am mistaken.
This is why what has been proposed is development policy going backwards.
I also don't buy the argument that selling the 'air rights' is necessary to fund improvements. Other mainline terminus stations, such as Paddington, Waverley and Waterloo, have been improved in recent years without significant additional development. Furthermore, Network Rail complain that the current site is very hemmed in, but this is because existing railway land has previously been sold to development - how is selling more railway land to development going to fix this? In fact, Network Rail have form with this, as they tried to demolish span 4 of Paddington station in the mid-2000s, which they ultimately gave way on after public pressure (https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/paddingtons-fourth-span-saved-from-grimshaw-demolition) - perhaps they feel agrieved by losing that battle and this is why they're determined to send in the buldozers this time around?
I don't see how any of the concourse changes can't be delivered within the present station? As far as I can see they're not extending the concourse at all, they're inserting lifts and removing existing shops to create more space, and creating a new upstairs 'retail zone' as well as more exits (pp6-14).
Most of the rest of the document talks about previous redevelopments... And you can see on p.25 that half the roof has already been lost (the 1894 roof, that which is under Broadgate with the higer numbered platforms), and they want to demolish much of the 1990s roof and build an office block on top of it. P.26 shows how they're trying with this new proposal to 'maximise daylight' with the odd shap of the tower, but it will still mean that the concourse area is covered in a huge block that will block light for much of the day - I can't see how it wouldn't create a gloomy atmosphere there in spite of what they show in the CGI photos (which are always touched up and distorted to make projects look better than they ultimately do).
P.39 shows quite how much of the station concourse and roof will be covered by the office block. And of course there's another 'sky garden' to pretend that there's some sort of public benefit in there, to get it past the planning inspectors...
I respectfully disagree that Liverpool Street needs much more work than any previous redevelopments of stations that have protected or enhanced their heritage features. Waverley in particular had its entire roof renewed, new through and terminating platforms added, new entrances onto Princes Street and Waverley steps, new escalators and lifts, a new drop off point and disabled access, the removal of the old motorail bay, changes to the drop-off/pick-up zone, a complete remodelling of its retail offering, and electrification of the majority of its lines. This was all done without demolishing the structure of building any large new offices on top of it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Please can someone explain to someone who has only used the station a handful of times why demolishing 70s, 80s and 90s buildings is objectionable? All the real Victorian stuff seems to be being left alone.
Please can someone explain to someone who has only used the station a handful of times why demolishing 70s, 80s and 90s buildings is objectionable? All the real Victorian stuff seems to be being left alone.
Previous iterations of the plans very much didn't leave the Victorian stuff alone, and were strongly objected to for that reason (and rightly so in my view).
I haven't looked at the newest proposals in detail, so can't comment on them specifically, but buildings built more recently can be of historic value. There is also the impact of the new buildings on things like the ambience of the station and surroundings. That was another element on which the old plans were very bad, by blocking all the sunlight. The newest iteration appears much better in that respect as well
Please can someone explain to someone who has only used the station a handful of times why demolishing 70s, 80s and 90s buildings is objectionable? All the real Victorian stuff seems to be being left alone.
The Victorian train shed in its original form was quite lopsided due to the layout of the station buildings.
The 1980's redevelopment gives it a pleasing symmetry, as well as a pleasing light concourse.
I don't see how any of the concourse changes can't be delivered within the present station? As far as I can see they're not extending the concourse at all, they're inserting lifts and removing existing shops to create more space, and creating a new upstairs 'retail zone' as well as more exits (pp6-14).
Most of the rest of the document talks about previous redevelopments... And you can see on p.25 that half the roof has already been lost (the 1894 roof, that which is under Broadgate with the higer numbered platforms), and they want to demolish much of the 1990s roof and build an office block on top of it. P.26 shows how they're trying with this new proposal to 'maximise daylight' with the odd shap of the tower, but it will still mean that the concourse area is covered in a huge block that will block light for much of the day - I can't see how it wouldn't create a gloomy atmosphere there in spite of what they show in the CGI photos (which are always touched up and distorted to make projects look better than they ultimately do).
P.39 shows quite how much of the station concourse and roof will be covered by the office block. And of course there's another 'sky garden' to pretend that there's some sort of public benefit in there, to get it past the planning inspectors...
I respectfully disagree that Liverpool Street needs much more work than any previous redevelopments of stations that have protected or enhanced their heritage features. Waverley in particular had its entire roof renewed, new through and terminating platforms added, new entrances onto Princes Street and Waverley steps, new escalators and lifts, a new drop off point and disabled access, the removal of the old motorail bay, changes to the drop-off/pick-up zone, a complete remodelling of its retail offering, and electrification of the majority of its lines. This was all done without demolishing the structure of building any large new offices on top of it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'm not 100% sure what is being kept and what isn't, all I'm basing my opinion on is the publications that are in the public domain and as I've said, the most recent one looks like a fairly decent compromise between heritage and providing a functional station.
Regarding the comparison to Waverley, Waverley isn't the busiest station in the UK and is still a chaotic mess with if I remember correctly, plans in the early stages of development for another rebuild, so it's not really comparable to Liverpool Street.
Visit Liverpool Street during rush hour and you'll realize why this is desperately needed.
I'm not 100% sure what is being kept and what isn't, all I'm basing my opinion on is the publications that are in the public domain and as I've said, the most recent one looks like a fairly decent compromise between heritage and providing a functional station.
Regarding the comparison to Waverley, Waverley isn't the busiest station in the UK and is still a chaotic mess with if I remember correctly, plans in the early stages of development for another rebuild, so it's not really comparable to Liverpool Street.
Visit Liverpool Street during rush hour and you'll realize why this is desperately needed.
Without wanting to go over old ground, my point is that the demolition isn't necessary to redevelop the concourse.
Network Rail could do the whole scheme of redeveloping the concourse without demolishing 50 Liverpool Street and putting a giant office block over the roof of the station. These are fundamentally two separate things. I'd be perfectly happy for NR to proceed with the changes they propose making to the concourse, but I don't see why they need to wreck a lot of the remainder of the station in the process.
If you look at the plans, this becomes quite obvious.
I use Liverpool Street most days, I know that it's very busy and improvements are needed. In part what's necessary are extra exits so passengers using Elizabeth Line services (and not the mainline station at all) can exit it easily without having to traverse the main concourse. Again - this is all possible without the demolition and the construction of the slab office block.
The example of Waverley was just to illustrate the point that you can improve stations which are historic without having to sell off and demolish large chunks of the station in the process. This is the backwards step - arguably reducing the size of the site in the 1980s to build Broadgate was short-sighted given the growth in passenger numbers since then, although arguably that wasn't foreseeable at the time. I don't see how further reducing the site and reducing the ambience by building a huge tower block over the top of it makes sense.
I remember Andrew McNaughton, former chief engineer of Network Rail, talking about this in the context of the proposals for Euston's HS2 station and the oversite development. Stations work best when designed as stations - as soon as you build other things over them, such as offices and housing, it complicates the operation of the station and whenever you want to do anything. Presumably this will have the same effect at Liverpool Street.
Previous iterations of the plans very much didn't leave the Victorian stuff alone, and were strongly objected to for that reason (and rightly so in my view).
I haven't looked at the newest proposals in detail, so can't comment on them specifically, but buildings built more recently can be of historic value. There is also the impact of the new buildings on things like the ambience of the station and surroundings. That was another element on which the old plans were very bad, by blocking all the sunlight. The newest iteration appears much better in that respect as well
The Victorian train shed in its original form was quite lopsided due to the layout of the station buildings.
The 1980's redevelopment gives it a pleasing symmetry, as well as a pleasing light concourse.
Those features shouldn't stop redevelopment if the station can no longer cope with demand. It does look like the new design doesn't include the excessive parts of the original proposal. It looks a world away from Birmingham New Street or Manchester Victoria. Its not realistic to expect the taxpayer to stump up the kind of money necessary to rebuild the station when private investors are willing to pay for it to develop above part of the station.
Totally disagree. Paddington is an utter mess with its awful cluttered concourse and four disparate entry points to the underground network, two of which (Elizabeth plus H&C) force conflicting pedestrian flows along platforms.
Liverpool Street isn’t perfect, but it is vastly superior to most other stations. However there’s cash on offer.
I happen to have been there every day this week, and although I can't say I enjoyed it, I think in the parts and times I was there it didn't feel any more "over capacity" than Euston, King's Cross & St Pancras (both main line and underground), Stratford, Oxford Circus, or many other rail/tube stations in London at very busy times. Does anyone know the specific bottlenecks at the moment?
Newer buildings ought to reflect their time in order to have historic value. Faux Victorian doesn't cut it for me.
Those features shouldn't stop redevelopment if the station can no longer cope with demand. It does look like the new design doesn't include the excessive parts of the original proposal. It looks a world away from Birmingham New Street or Manchester Victoria. Its not realistic to expect the taxpayer to stump up the kind of money necessary to rebuild the station when private investors are willing to pay for it to develop above part of the station.
If the problem is the volume of passengers coming off of the Elizabeth line without need for the main line station, perhaps a new entrance on the other side of Liverpool street would be more worthwhile.
With regard to the latest proposal, I do quite like the swooping supporting arches. I'd rather they confined it to the corner where the McDonalds building is though.
Network Rail could do the whole scheme of redeveloping the concourse without demolishing 50 Liverpool Street and putting a giant office block over the roof of the station.
Hence why the office block is needed to pay for it!
I'm really not sure what all the dithering is about, the new plans are fine and realistically, you don't spend any more time than needed hanging around the concourse...
It’s a good question, and the answer is “you get what you pay for”. A heavy duty escalator like those seen in tube stations costs a lot, lot more than one you might see in Next, for example. Also, the installation will cost more in a station (especially underground) than in a shop or hotel, simply because of the access and working environment.
The lift industry is a nightmare, as my neighbours and I found last year when one of our lifts broke down. Our property is managed by a big housing association, with more than 100 lifts to take care of. There is a cat's cradle of manufacturing, installation and maintenance contractors and subcontractors. Parts of our building had no lift for a month while the housing association grappled with our installation and maintenance contractors, who then had to grapple with the manufacturing contractors and subcontractors. Nothing seems to be standard components: the lift only got repaired once a subcontractor had manufactured a new circuit board. Apparently completely replacing the lift would take a month, so I dread to think how much that would cost.
I happen to have been there every day this week, and although I can't say I enjoyed it, I think in the parts and times I was there it didn't feel any more "over capacity" than Euston, King's Cross & St Pancras (both main line and underground), Stratford, Oxford Circus, or many other rail/tube stations in London at very busy times. Does anyone know the specific bottlenecks at the moment?
I personally think Liverpool Street is one of the most efficient mainline stations in the country, the bottleneck is the main entrance to the underground station and the conflicting movement in getting to the central line vs the Elizabeth line.
The main concourse is far less crowded than Waterloo on the Thurs evening (I pass through both). I think the reason it works though is the GEML trains arrive and the passengers leaving on them can go and sit in them as opposed the the fiasco at Euston - taking 4 - 500 passengers per departure off the concourse at a time is not an inconsiderable amount.
Please can someone explain to someone who has only used the station a handful of times why demolishing 70s, 80s and 90s buildings is objectionable? All the real Victorian stuff seems to be being left alone.
My understanding is that the 1990s scheme knocked down a lot of Victorian material, and built some Victorian-style parts as substitutes in places, which is why parts of it use Victorian style materials in a plainer style than the victorians had. (Someone is building a house not far from me in a row of Victorian houses in a similar, but slightly plainer style). I think this roughly resembles the modern part of the hotel wing during the St Pancras rebuild- in either case, a style which copies the previous one perhaps made the loss of original material more acceptable.
I use Liverpool St fairly often (at least once or twice every couple of months, often several times a month depending on work meetings) and think the revised plans aren't bad. The station isn't anywhere near in such a "bad way" as Euston is but clearly needs a lot of work - and the revised plans keep the historic parts of the station intact as far as I can see.
An earlier poster said - London is a living breathing city, and it keeps most of the best historic bits well -whether that's the magnificent St Pancras station which was under threat at one point..... or more "marmite"/controversial choices (I personally love the architecture at the Barbican Estate, The Golden Lane Estate, Trellick Tower etc - all listed - but realise that some opinions clearly differ!).
All a question of balance. Impossible to please all of the people, all of the time.....
Approved: Major redevelopment of Liverpool Street Station.
The City of London Corporation has backed plans for a fully accessible, future-ready station with improved passenger flow, new public spaces, greener routes and modern facilities. Britain’s busiest station is being prepared for the next 200M+ visitors.
It’s a good question, and the answer is “you get what you pay for”. A heavy duty escalator like those seen in tube stations costs a lot, lot more than one you might see in Next, for example. Also, the installation will cost more in a station (especially underground) than in a shop or hotel, simply because of the access and working environment.
The lift industry is a nightmare, as my neighbours and I found last year when one of our lifts broke down. Our property is managed by a big housing association, with more than 100 lifts to take care of. There is a cat's cradle of manufacturing, installation and maintenance contractors and subcontractors. Parts of our building had no lift for a month while the housing association grappled with our installation and maintenance contractors, who then had to grapple with the manufacturing contractors and subcontractors. Nothing seems to be standard components: the lift only got repaired once a subcontractor had manufactured a new circuit board. Apparently completely replacing the lift would take a month, so I dread to think how much that would cost.
If the train orders run out, perhaps we could get one of the manufacturers building lifts and escalators as a sideline - could be a nice little earner !
It’s a good question, and the answer is “you get what you pay for”. A heavy duty escalator like those seen in tube stations costs a lot, lot more than one you might see in Next, for example. Also, the installation will cost more in a station (especially underground) than in a shop or hotel, simply because of the access and working environment.
It's worth noting what happens when cheap escalators that can't handle railway duty are chosen though, we end up in a situation like Kentish Town where they need replacing earlier than expected.
It's worth noting what happens when cheap escalators that can't handle railway duty are chosen though, we end up in a situation like Kentish Town where they need replacing earlier than expected.
It's worth noting what happens when cheap escalators that can't handle railway duty are chosen though, we end up in a situation like Kentish Town where they need replacing earlier than expected.
This morning I counted 6 out of ~20 escalators at Reading out of service. This is not an uncommon occurrence. Indeed, the 'down' escalator to 10/11 (London bound) platforms has been undergoing repairs for approximately the last month causing significant congestion on the stairs. They seem to...
It's worth noting what happens when cheap escalators that can't handle railway duty are chosen though, we end up in a situation like Kentish Town where they need replacing earlier than expected.
An appalling decision in my view, but not surprising given the shocking undemocratic anachronism that is the City of London Corporation.
3,500 objections completely ignored.
If this proceeds it really is the thin end of the wedge - no reason why Network Rail or anyone else can't ignore the views of Historic England and heritage groups, to demolish listed buildings and ignore conservation areas at will.
No reason why a similar scheme can't be proposed for any other listed station in the country now.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.railforums.co.uk
