Lost London

[i_like_concrete]

Originally Posted by Core Rising

Cheers I was wondering about that. Any idea what happened to that train bridge/ line?

It was sunken underground and became Thameslink, hence the hump in the road and the dual-level pavements in front of the buildings.

[Core Rising]

Ah yes, I see the hump in the road now. Real shame they got rid of the bridge, it looks lovely.

[i_like_concrete]

I suppose it was a bit quaint in its own way

http://www.flickr.com/photos/david_c...n/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/duke_of...n/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/david_c...n/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2534728...n/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmcl/40...n/photostream/

[Tetramesh]

Originally Posted by Core Rising

Cheers I was wondering about that. Any idea what happened to that train bridge/ line?

I think they removed it when the line to Holborn Viaduct was closed. The tracks now run beneath the road along the same route but instead of terminating a few hundred yards to the north as the Holborn Viaduct trains did they now run up as far as Bedford.

[The Champ]

It runs underground now, the road level at the junction is much higher than it initially was. City Thameslink is just behind the van behind the bus. The original bridge went some time ago, the one I remember was blue with a City of London crest on it.

Steve White2008 on Flickr has some shots of the area during demo of the bridge

image hosted on flickr
New Bridge St Blackfriars by Steve White2008, on Flickr

*whoops didnt see that the other guys had covered this off already*

[mulattokid]

Another thread from 2008 with some useful images

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...t=london+blitz

[Wispy Wonder]

Back to Shell Mex House - if anyone is interested, there are some interesting shots of it being built here - http://hurstpm.net/page_14

[Pub Lunch]

Here is todays lost masterpiece of London.

This is maybe the one that gets me the most, not only the particular building but the fact the street itself appears to be one of the most wonderful I have ever seen and it has all been wiped out.

This building is immense, I really cannot believe this would go and if anyone sees the monstrosity now in its place it makes it all the more heartbreaking (I don't have pictures however the current building on this site looks very new and so there has probably been another building or so here before the current one).

I think this is London's Penn station - a building of incredible proportions that causes the viewer to conjure images of magnificent Greek temples.

It was destroyed about 100 years after being built and itself was pulled down 100 years ago this year so it has been gone some time! I only discovered this building myself recently (wish I hadn't).

The opening to this street is truly magnificant and knowing this street well - I can tell you that it looks nothing like this now. It actually looks awful and considering it is just by St Paul's cathedral makes it all the worse. St Paul's deserves some finer buildings around it to make for a grander setting than the dross that currently surrounds it.

The blitz cannot be blamed for the loss of this street, the destroyed buildings were all pulled down willingly as far as I know.

The name of this most wonderful of streets is St Martins Le Grand and the building is the incredible GPO Building.

(I do apologise if any of these pictures have been posted before - I haven't read all 70 odd pages!)







I do not know the building infront of the GPO building (left of the picture) but I do know I saw pictures of it (quite often referring to it as the GPO building itself) on this thread with a before and after and again tragic is the word as it is a quite beautiful building in its own right.

I will try and take a picture of the opening of this street to show how it has changed and again not for the better. I don't get it because these buildings again look as big if not bigger than what replaced them and look the modern ones are so inferior that as a man who knows nothing of architecture or city planning I simply cannot understand it. Why would something like this not be worth preserving? And it isn't just one building but the whole flipping street!!!

[Pub Lunch]

I must add that, if you look at the last picture, the 2nd building in (to the left) IS still there. And it is the most beautiful building in the street!

And my apologies - I haven't read all 102 pages! So any reproductions of previous discussions/pictures are apologised for in advance.

[Pub Lunch]

Oops.

[Mr Bricks]

Tragic.

Btw, the ugly brown building on Ludgate Hill is now gone and something else is being built in its place. There should be a thread for it, but I can't find it.

[beefykeefy]

Originally Posted by jamie1371

Here are some good pictures


August 1919: St Thomas' Hospital on the south bank of the River Thames, London.
image hosted on flickr

I think this picture pretty much sums up most of what is wrong with London.

This hospital was a marvellous building, and although damaged by bombing, the wards nearest Westminster Bridge didn't need to be knocked down. The building suffered medium damage, and could have been repaired.

It and other buildings along Albert Embankment complemented each other, against the backdrop of the HoP.

Some might argue the inevitability of the hospital needing an extension, but this could've been provided elsewhere; can you imagine this place now having been converted into say, a hotel and cafes with a mix of apartments? It would have been mouth-watering.

In my opinion, many other buildings in London were pulled down based on a loose excuse of being required, due to war-time bombing. To me, many developers have used this as an excuse to make a buck, with the result being what we see before us now. An opportunity presented itself, and amongst the daze of the post war period, the opportunity won over; it still continues to this day.

No-one gives a fook for a coherent plan anymore, and at the risk of sounding old fashioned, no one cares for harmony.

Just look at pre WW2 pictures taken from the South Bank or any one of the bridges into the City, with it's fabulous skyline of chimneys, turrets, spires, domes and steeples. I was on the South Bank at the weekend, and the City view now is just awful.

It's like all the whores are on display fighting for attention in a mass jumble of dross. Some new buildings are great, but their impact is lost in the mess. The Shard will one day be surrounded by similar junk.

How anyone can imagine for one minute we've improved the view or aspects of London, is beyond me.

An earlier post, mentioned that if alot of this had remained, London would've rivalled Paris. Personally, I think it would've wiped the floor with it.

[Core Rising]

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

Tragic.

Btw, the ugly brown building on Ludgate Hill is now gone and something else is being built in its place. There should be a thread for it, but I can't find it.

Google maps ftw. Ugly brown building:

http://goo.gl/maps/9xTrF

New building!

http://goo.gl/maps/WQSwr

There might be a small thread for it. It probably just go a mention on the full summery of projects thread.

[Reconstructism]

Originally Posted by I am he

What year/period do you think London looked the best architectually? Is it now with the Shard?
And also, where do you think London ranks in the world for cities with the best architecture? How does London compare to New York and Paris??

Personally, between 1900-WW1. I think it would be up there with the very best cities which have historical centres.

I also don't see why preserving these buildings would come at a cost of continuing innovation and development in architecture. This would just happen outside of the centre, which is helpful if what is built is not very sightly!

[Starscraper]

Originally Posted by Core Rising

Cheers I was wondering about that. Any idea what happened to that train bridge/ line?

It was demolished in 1990 when Thameslink was being built.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't see all the other replies.

[ill tonkso]

Originally Posted by Reconstructism

Personally, between 1900-WW1. I think it would be up there with the very best cities which have historical centres.

I also don't see why preserving these buildings would come at a cost of continuing innovation and development in architecture. This would just happen outside of the centre, which is helpful if what is built is not very sightly!

Many would agree, though I would say pre-WW2. The 30's gave us some real gems.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Reconstructism

I also don't see why preserving these buildings would come at a cost of continuing innovation and development in architecture. This would just happen outside of the centre, which is helpful if what is built is not very sightly!

Paris, then. Not London.

[Mr Bricks]

^Don't know exactly what you're getting at, but many people have this weird idea that it is London's messy and often ugly architecture that makes the city great and lively. In the same way Paris is often seen as a "living museum" as if it was the city's intact and historic centre that makes it less exciting than London. Many cities have both architectural harmony and an amazing urban pulse.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

^Don't know exactly what you're getting at, but many people have this weird idea that it is London's messy and often ugly architecture that makes the city great and lively.

If many people have an idea then it can hardly be 'weird' can it. It's something that London actively promotes about itself. Ask anyone interested in studying or working in architecture and they'll say the best thing about London is its sheer diversity in styles and eras and the fact it is a complete mix of them wherever you are in it.

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

In the same way Paris is often seen as a "living museum" as if it was the city's intact and historic centre that makes it less exciting than London.

Yep. The centre of Paris is dull. Turn a corner, you know what to expect. It's architecture is all so apologetic. Paris still goes about thinking Pompidou is radical. London has a Paris Pompidou moment on nearly every turn of the corner.

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

Many cities have both architectural harmony and an amazing urban pulse.

Good for them. London doesn't have strict architectural harmony (I know that's not exactly true for every area in every corner of the city) but also has that amazing urban pulse. In fact I would call it a hyper pulse. People also rave about how quickly London changes, how they come back after ten years and it's a completely different, reinvented city with a constant flow of new buildings and streets to see. It's certainly not exactly low down the league of successful cities so it must be doing something right. It's hardly going to be any further up the league by only building harmonious architecture.

[Reconstructism]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

Paris, then. Not London.

Not at all. The centre of Paris has a very different feel due to it's architectural style and proportions. London has always retained some of its medieval cramped in atmosphere due to the roads not being as wide as continental boulevards, and also thanks to the non-uniformity of its streets in terms of the buildings.

The problem is that post-WW2, the harmony of the streets architectural style was broken in many places and we're left with the mess we have today. I don't like the fact that some areas of London are virtually a 20th century architecture museum, with examples from almost every decade.