BBC Kings Cross pictures

[wintonian]

The Beeb has a pictorial slideshow looking at some of the external changes to the station to mark the demolition of the temporary 1973 façade.

 

[Robsignals]

What was there before 1973? The Underground entrance looks rather large considering no rail passengers will use it.

 

[jon0844]

Why is it that every rendered photo of the future look of a station that Network Rail produces never has any non-white people? Is there no clip art available of black or Asian people?

In Hatfield, there's a new development of student flats and they've gone for a mock-up that implies most people walking around the town are young women. All white, obviously.

Why show a totally unrealistic vision of the future, whether a new train station, housing development, shopping centre or whatever?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

W
In Hatfield, there's a new development of student flats...

Is there? Hadn't noticed any construction work. Could be useful if there are some!

 

[theboywho]

I have to say - and I hope you will forgive me for doing so - that this is something of a let-down. I find this highly surprising given that he was the younger brother of the famous Thomas Cubitt. Surprising because it is alleged that Lewis designed many of the developments his brother built!

Compare it to the beautiful frontage of neighbouring St Pancras station - made up of George Gilbert Scott's Midland Hotel. A beautiful example of the Victorian Gothic revival, albeit constructed a little later than Kings Cross.

Pity that the Kings Cross trend continues in similar vain today with its over-the-top, modern latticework extension! It appears we have learned nothing what-so-ever from our architectural past.

 

[yorksrob]

I think sometimes less is more. The arched windows fronting the trainshed, whilst not being particularly fancy, are quite striking to look at. I also thought the curves of the green roof provided quite a nice but unobtrusive contrast with the Victorian frontage, although architectural tastes change and this has now been superceded by the new development which is definately more fitting for a terminus in of the 21st century.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Underground entrance looks rather large considering no rail passengers will use it.

Do you mean the existing entrance in the RH foreground? I don't believe there are any significant changes to its size - all the stuff behind it was already there as ventilation and services for the tube ticket hall below, but was hidden by the 'green shed'. They are neatening it up a bit, and IIRC from a previous thread there will be some small shops surrounding the vent equipment, again basically to hide it and re-provide the news/snacks sales facilities already there on the roadside. Connecting the stairs and the shops will be a canopy.

The other structure on the left alongside Pancras Rd is the existing 'egg' shaped intervention building containing fire service lifts etc provided as a result of the KX fire, IIRC that is just being screened differently to hide the shiny metallic finish.

 

[Harlesden]

Why is it that every rendered photo of the future look of a station that Network Rail produces never has any non-white people? Is there no clip art available of black or Asian people?

In Hatfield, there's a new development of student flats and they've gone for a mock-up that implies most people walking around the town are young women. All white, obviously.

Why show a totally unrealistic vision of the future, whether a new train station, housing development, shopping centre or whatever?

The images are intended to focus on the structure itself because that is their purpose. Why on earth would anyone want to look at an image of a planned structure and focus their attention on the race of the passers by rather than on the structure itself. Simply because a racial group makes up 5% or so of the population does not automatically imply the racial group must be featured in every street view type photo. Totally unrealistic and rather ridiculous. It implies that if I were a professional photographer taking a picture of a station or other structure for publication, I must wait for the group of white people to pass by before taking my picture, to avoid offending people.

 

[142094]

Surprised that no-one has asked why there aren't any 'ladies of the night' in some of the pictures...

 

[michael769]

Because it is daytime?

 

[jon0844]

The images are intended to focus on the structure itself because that is their purpose. Why on earth would anyone want to look at an image of a planned structure and focus their attention on the race of the passers by rather than on the structure itself. Simply because a racial group makes up 5% or so of the population does not automatically imply the racial group must be featured in every street view type photo. Totally unrealistic and rather ridiculous. It implies that if I were a professional photographer taking a picture of a station or other structure for publication, I must wait for the group of white people to pass by before taking my picture, to avoid offending people.

You are naive. This is a rendered shot and architects quite clearly use people that portray a certain image. And that makes me wonder why the photos used don't represent reality at all.

The photos of our new estate were the same and you'll see it all over. The photos for the rest of King's Cross were identical and other stations.

If the image was supposed to be of the structure only, why have any people in it at all?

As for ladies of the night, I think they moved away a long time ago. In fact, when did they ever hang around at the station itself?

 

[142094]

Because it is daytime?

Sure some of them are diurnal

 

[route:oxford]

You are naive. This is a rendered shot and architects quite clearly use people that portray a certain image. And that makes me wonder why the photos used don't represent reality at all.

Perhaps it's because Kings X is the main route to Scotland?

Before I moved to England from Scotland, I'd never spoken to someone who wasn't white. Not a personal choice, just a fact that I'd never encountered anyone in school or at work who wasn't white.

 

[Tracky]

Maybe they were after consistency with the 1850, 1870 and 1930 images of Kings Cross.

 

[OxtedL]

Or perhaps that's just the particular set of stock imagelets that the graphics team had knocking around that they felt were most appropriate to the setting. The people are really just there to give proportion and non gloomy-deathness to the picture - they are actually very difficult to get looking right in any mock up and require lots of time and effort.

This kind of topic feels intuitively uncomfortable to me, but is this image any better from the point of view of the objectors? (London Bridge I think, despite the filename)

 

[Skimble19]

Really can't see that anyone who isn't white is likely to care that there are only 3 or 4 non-white digital fake people on a rendered image of a station.. Must admit I find white people generally get far more concerned about this than any of my non-white friends..

Anyway, back on topic, is there going to be a canopy between the Underground entrance by the road and the front of the station?

 

[Mojo]

Anyway, back on topic, is there going to be a canopy between the Underground entrance by the road and the front of the station?

No. Customers coming off trains from plats 0-8 and travelling to the Underground will continue to use the current entrance which is on the corner between the old concourse and the new concourse., as at present. An 'awning' will be attached to the front of the station, although I had my concerns about this in the other thread about Kings +.

 

[DarloRich]

Why is it that every rendered photo of the future look of a station that Network Rail produces never has any non-white people? Is there no clip art available of black or Asian people?

In Hatfield, there's a new development of student flats and they've gone for a mock-up that implies most people walking around the town are young women. All white, obviously.

Why show a totally unrealistic vision of the future, whether a new train station, housing development, shopping centre or whatever?

:roll: really :roll:

I am more interested in ensuring that the station is accessible and open to all in society rather than what colours are or are not painted on a computer generated image.

By the way there are no blind people, deaf people, disabled people, fat people or people with ginger hair in the pictures. Something ought to be done! Wont anyone think of the children?

 

[jon0844]

This isn't a Daily Mail 'think of the children' thing, it was an observation - and something I've observed over a number of years. Sorry for having an opinion and making a comment. I am not starting a campaign or asking anyone to sign a petition FFS.

I think it's quite clear from the pictures you see that these photos are very carefully thought out, and it's anything but random. Someone has directed these images and approved them and I simply wondered why the photos always exclude certain things.. which means you probably won't see old people, groups of youths or visibly disabled people either.

The idea is obviously to paint a picture that we subliminally see as non threatening and safe. Hence the use of young people with young children/babies in a picture for a new housing development, to portray it as somewhere you'd like to live and bring up a family, or young female students for a new student development, as who wouldn't want to pay over the odds to stay there than somewhere up the road? It probably wouldn't be quite the same to lots of 18-year old lads in trackies.

To me it begs the question why architects and designers feel we can't be shown a more realistic image of something. Perhaps it is simply because they know that most people would be put off? If so what does it say about us?

Interestingly, I saw on the front page of the Daily Mail today a picture of shoppers fighting for deals in Selfridges. Now, because it's the Daily Mail, the photo showed all the people reaching out to buy perfumes being non-white. No problem you might think. Sure, except for the fact that the text made a point of saying how they outnumbered Britons, as well as stating the police were called in to control the hordes (even though the police weren't called in to deal with the people in the photo, or even in the store in question - they were just out and about to manage the increased numbers of people in general).

It was written up as if there was some sort of riot, as against it being a very well planned PR stunt by Selfridges that got into most papers today and all over TV yesterday to talk about how swamped it was, thus getting loads of free publicity and making others feel compelled to get down and bag a bargain too.

 

[swt_passenger]

No. Customers coming off trains from plats 0-8 and travelling to the Underground will continue to use the current entrance which is on the corner between the old concourse and the new concourse., as at present. An 'awning' will be attached to the front of the station, although I had my concerns about this in the other thread about Kings +.

As shown here:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/assets...1918/763594bb-263a-483b-9790-8857c0812854.jpg

 

[DarloRich]

This isn't a Daily Mail 'think of the children' thing, it was an observation - and something I've observed over a number of years. Sorry for having an opinion and making a comment. I am not starting a campaign or asking anyone to sign a petition FFS.

I think it's quite clear from the pictures you see that these photos are very carefully thought out, and it's anything but random. Someone has directed these images and approved them and I simply wondered why the photos always exclude certain things.. which means you probably won't see old people, groups of youths or visibly disabled people either.

The idea is obviously to paint a picture that we subliminally see as non threatening and safe. Hence the use of young people with young children/babies in a picture for a new housing development, to portray it as somewhere you'd like to live and bring up a family, or young female students for a new student development, as who wouldn't want to pay over the odds to stay there than somewhere up the road? It probably wouldn't be quite the same to lots of 18-year old lads in trackies.

To me it begs the question why architects and designers feel we can't be shown a more realistic image of something. Perhaps it is simply because they know that most people would be put off? If so what does it say about us?

Interestingly, I saw on the front page of the Daily Mail today a picture of shoppers fighting for deals in Selfridges. Now, because it's the Daily Mail, the photo showed all the people reaching out to buy perfumes being non-white. No problem you might think. Sure, except for the fact that the text made a point of saying how they outnumbered Britons, as well as stating the police were called in to control the hordes (even though the police weren't called in to deal with the people in the photo, or even in the store in question - they were just out and about to manage the increased numbers of people in general).

It was written up as if there was some sort of riot, as against it being a very well planned PR stunt by Selfridges that got into most papers today and all over TV yesterday to talk about how swamped it was, thus getting loads of free publicity and making others feel compelled to get down and bag a bargain too.

It doesn't say anything about me other than i just dont care.

As I said as long as the finished article is accessible to all in society it isn't an issue as far as i am concerned. I tend to take a practical, plain speaking northern approach to things which does seem at odds with many people in the south.

As an aside I wouldn't wipe my rse with the Daily Mail let alone look at it! I would suggest you simply you do what I do when confronted with the Daily Mail. Avert your eyes, that way you cant be infected by their perverted thinking

(By the way i do understand your point and think you may well be correct. The designers will want to project their ideas to the upwardly mobile, "aspirational" middle classes who want the kind of lifestyle they associated with the next step up the ladder. To do this they will want to show them that people just like them live/work/play in the area. The designers want them to "buy" that ideal so will avoid anything that might taint the "brand".)

 

[Tracky]

If it was reality there would be litter and graffiti everywhere within hours of opening to the public.

 

[Bungle73]

What was there before 1973? The Underground entrance looks rather large considering no rail passengers will use it.

The "African Village".

This isn't a Daily Mail 'think of the children' thing, it was an observation - and something I've observed over a number of years. Sorry for having an opinion and making a comment. I am not starting a campaign or asking anyone to sign a petition FFS.

I think it's quite clear from the pictures you see that these photos are very carefully thought out, and it's anything but random. Someone has directed these images and approved them and I simply wondered why the photos always exclude certain things.. which means you probably won't see old people, groups of youths or visibly disabled people either.

The idea is obviously to paint a picture that we subliminally see as non threatening and safe. Hence the use of young people with young children/babies in a picture for a new housing development, to portray it as somewhere you'd like to live and bring up a family, or young female students for a new student development, as who wouldn't want to pay over the odds to stay there than somewhere up the road? It probably wouldn't be quite the same to lots of 18-year old lads in trackies.

To me it begs the question why architects and designers feel we can't be shown a more realistic image of something. Perhaps it is simply because they know that most people would be put off? If so what does it say about us?

Interestingly, I saw on the front page of the Daily Mail today a picture of shoppers fighting for deals in Selfridges. Now, because it's the Daily Mail, the photo showed all the people reaching out to buy perfumes being non-white. No problem you might think. Sure, except for the fact that the text made a point of saying how they outnumbered Britons, as well as stating the police were called in to control the hordes (even though the police weren't called in to deal with the people in the photo, or even in the store in question - they were just out and about to manage the increased numbers of people in general).

It was written up as if there was some sort of riot, as against it being a very well planned PR stunt by Selfridges that got into most papers today and all over TV yesterday to talk about how swamped it was, thus getting loads of free publicity and making others feel compelled to get down and bag a bargain too.

Architectural artists impressions aren't supposed to depict "reality". They supposed to make whatever building they are showing look nice, and also show what it will look like. The people are just there to make it look alive, but apart from that their importance is minimal. The building itself is what matters, and is what you are supposed to be looking.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this tbh.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
OK, I'm now even more convinced that this is all in your head. There are two artist's impression pictures and in the first the people are too small to see what race they are, and in the second you still only see clearly a few people.

 

[quarella]

Personally I like 60s/70s/80s architecture and while some of it deserves to go it does have a place. As for the Kings Cross Booking Hall it did stand out and was clearly visible from the road.
As for the public square which now seems a requirement of any new development. They had them in the sixties, called them precints and people complained how drafty they were. :roll:

 

[biggus]

I too have concerns about the awning. Firstly it interferes with the facade - hard for it not to.

Secondly, it is a bit ugly in its own right, with its big shiny grey cantilevers and bus-shelter influences.

Thirdly, designs with this aesthetic often look hideous as soon as they get dirty or vandalised. Structures in more traditional materials are often more amenable to maintenance and dont rely on a pristine finish for their visual impact. I would concede however that awnings in general are likely to present inherent maintenance and cleaning problems- they do tend to shabiness.

 

[Mojo]

Thirdly, designs with this aesthetic often look hideous as soon as they get dirty or vandalised. Structures in more traditional materials are often more amenable to maintenance and dont rely on a pristine finish for their visual impact. I would concede however that awnings in general are likely to present inherent maintenance and cleaning problems- they do tend to shabiness.

I wonder how well it will be cleaned? Liverpool Street station is filthy at the higher levels (just sit in Pontis cafe and look out at the dust everywhere), and across the road St Pancras is very grubby.

 

[swt_passenger]

I too have concerns about the awning. Firstly it interferes with the facade - hard for it not to.

Secondly, it is a bit ugly in its own right, with its big shiny grey cantilevers and bus-shelter influences.

Although IMHO it isn't anything like as obtrusive as the traditional looking canopy in the BBC's images 4 and 5 (and post #23). To me that is much much worse...

 

[LE Greys]

The "African Village".

Architectural artists impressions aren't supposed to depict "reality". They supposed to make whatever building they are showing look nice, and also show what it will look like. The people are just there to make it look alive, but apart from that their importance is minimal. The building itself is what matters, and is what you are supposed to be looking.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this tbh.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
OK, I'm now even more convinced that this is all in your head. There are two artist's impression pictures and in the first the people are too small to see what race they are, and in the second you still only see clearly a few people.

Yes, that really is what people called it, not an attempt to stir the pot at all.

Although, I have to say, if I had been in charge of this, I would have started adding the faces of recognisable people. William Cubitt, Edmund Denison, Sir Nigel Gresley and quite a few other King's Cross names for a start, probably along with the entire Cabinet (thus reducing diversity even further) and any other face that I could think of.

 

[Robsignals]

The "African Village".

The buildings, apart from the Undergound station, do have a colonial look.

 

[biggus]

Looking at the pictures again, it appears that the small arches WERE the original indoor/outdoor bit of the station frontage. It would have been nice if the revamp could have restored them to this role, eliminating the need for any awning. I hope there was a good excuse for not doing this.