daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 10th, 2011, 07:48 PM   #141
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,090
Likes (Received): 286

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minato ku View Post

The station was rebuilt in 1960's





Honestly I prefer the modern station, even if I admit that it is ugly.
Its a lot better than some re builds! And looks good from the air! Needs a re clad and update tho!
__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 10th, 2011, 08:44 PM   #142
Luli Pop
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,529
Likes (Received): 40

that's ok maybe from a plane, but at a human level its surely one of the ugliest places of Paris.
Luli Pop no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2011, 05:49 AM   #143
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,974
Likes (Received): 836

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Old stations don't fit modernity, avant-grade design (for 2010, not 1910) and all comforts we want
Of course they don't fit modernity and avant-garde design... they're OLD stations. We love them cause they are beautiful, stylish and classical looking.
You can totally upgrade old stations to make them as comfortable as you wish.

Now go back under your bridge, you lovable SSC troll, you.
Silly_Walks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2011, 08:40 AM   #144
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

The problem with extensive renovations is that they cost a hell of money, usually (although not always) more than demolishing an old building and rebuilding something out-of-scratch in its place. St Pancras renovation cost more than € 1,1 billion. I DOUBT it would cost half that to build a minimalist-functional station with the same facilities and capacity.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2011, 10:27 AM   #145
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Yes and it was half a new build so whats your point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Old stations don't fit modernity, avant-grade design (for 2010, not 1910) and all comforts we want, most of them should be shut down for good, demolished and reconstructed with modern design, facilities and so.
I cannot believe your attitute. Old stations have electricity and water, lots of space, toilets and ticket offices, waiting areas, already exist and encapsulate a little bit of history. Precisely what does a demolition and rebuild add to that? Have you not been on planet earth recently, where the inhabitants did do a number of such demoltitions and rebuilds, to discover it was all a bit pointless and just the manifestation of misguided developer's wet-dreams?

I think you need to disconnect your internets and go and live in the 70s for the rest of your life, I guess you'll be happy there.
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield

Last edited by makita09; February 11th, 2011 at 10:34 AM.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2011, 12:58 PM   #146
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
I cannot believe your attitute. Old stations have electricity and water, lots of space, toilets and ticket offices, waiting areas, already exist and encapsulate a little bit of history. Precisely what does a demolition and rebuild add to that? Have you not been on planet earth recently, where the inhabitants did do a number of such demoltitions and rebuilds, to discover it was all a bit pointless and just the manifestation of misguided developer's wet-dreams?
A demolition adds a sense of modernity, a statement that Europe (as in my case) is not stuck in 19th Century only, that we can still keep it with the pace of modern design and that we are an evolving place in terms of transportation infrastructure, not only a place full of nostalgia and willing to roll back to steam-powered locos at the first opportunity.

Moreover, most "historical" train stations were built over former houses/cottages and other buildings? Why not restore those? Why not demolish rail lines that runs on former medieval walls and put back soldiers with crossbows and boiled oil?

I think that, sometimes, for the future to come the past got to go leaving nothing but memories.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2011, 01:35 PM   #147
Lordpenguinton
penguins: mmm tasty
 
Lordpenguinton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 136
Likes (Received): 21

You do realize that Europe help sets the stage for modern and contemporary design for the whole world and that some of the best transit infrastructure ever built is in Europe? From your posts it seems like you live there, but do ever see any of it? Oh and you do know that some of the most pleasing stations in Europe are the ones that have been refurbished and added to. Stations like King's Cross and Waterloo in London, the main stations in Strasbourg and Basel, and many others. And since you live in Europe, I find Rome and London really hard to drive in, so why don't we just tear down them to make our lives more convenient. Nice wide streets and sidewalks, maybe even a grid system to make it easy to find one's way. Just come to the US if you don't like 19th century buildings, a lot of people here don't like them either, granted they're usually developers but hey what can you do?
Lordpenguinton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2011, 04:46 PM   #148
Apoc89
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 287
Likes (Received): 55

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
The problem with extensive renovations is that they cost a hell of money, usually (although not always) more than demolishing an old building and rebuilding something out-of-scratch in its place. St Pancras renovation cost more than € 1,1 billion. I DOUBT it would cost half that to build a minimalist-functional station with the same facilities and capacity.
Yes, a "minimalist-functional" station would have been cheaper, but it would have also been a bland, unpleasant place that would be unappealing to people and drive them away from rail travel on the routes that St. Pancras serves. Its developers recognized that a large open historic station was exactly what they needed to serve as London's gateway to mainland Europe.

That is why 1960s and '70s architecture failed, its architects forgot that they were building for people and not machines. I'm sure more people would rather see Euston rebuilt than St. Pancras or Paddington.
Apoc89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2011, 05:51 PM   #149
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,974
Likes (Received): 836

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
A demolition adds a sense of modernity,
Keeping beautiful old buildings adds a touch of class and a sense of history.
Silly_Walks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2011, 05:52 PM   #150
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,974
Likes (Received): 836

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lordpenguinton View Post
From your posts it seems like you live there, but do ever see any of it?
Suburbanist lives in a place called Theory.
Silly_Walks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2011, 07:49 AM   #151
philvia
Registered User
 
philvia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Nyc
Posts: 1,022
Likes (Received): 33

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silly_Walks View Post
The only thing greater than riding a brand new Highspeed Train into a super sleek new station, is riding it into a beautiful old station. The contrast is so great, it just makes sense.
so true
philvia no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2011, 01:27 PM   #152
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
A demolition adds a sense of modernity, a statement that Europe (as in my case) is not stuck in 19th Century only, that we can still keep it with the pace of modern design and that we are an evolving place in terms of transportation infrastructure....
Does it? Or does a demolition just add a sense of out-of-date modernism? Modernity today means utilising old infrastructure if it is perfectly servicible and financially viable to do so. A train station does not need to make a statement that Europe is not stuck in the 19th century, because it isn't anyway. The only thing 19th century about stations is the station building itself - I wouldn't exactly confuse a Siemens Velaro for a steam train. Good architecture is timeless, this is an architecture forum, I would have thought this didn't need pointing out.

What you are suggesting is some kind of blanket demolition for reasons that aren't
  • To do with train services
  • To do with passengers moving about the station
  • To do with amenities for the passengers

So its nonsense. If a demolition was required due to any of the reasons above I'd understand. Otherwise you are deluded, that you would see significance in the age of a building rather than its function betrays a very peculiar way of looking at the world.

Quote:
Moreover, most "historical" train stations were built over former houses/cottages and other buildings? Why not restore those?
Facepalm.

Because they have been utterly destroyed in the process - you can't repair something that isn't there!!! AND they were for a completely different purpose - or are you saying there was a discusison in the early 19th century that went thus...

"Asquith old bean, me and the team are having trouble with the location for platform 8"
"Don't worry Perkins, Mrs Codswallop at number 46 said we can use her kitchen table instead, except afternoon sundays..."
"You mean sir, the trains will arrive at platform Mrs Codswallop's kitchen table?"
"Yes, should work out just fine, ensure the station master has a spare key to number 46 though, apart from that I can see no problem".

Quote:
Why not demolish rail lines that runs on former medieval walls and put back soldiers with crossbows and boiled oil?
Another false comparison. No one wants a medieval wall with medieval soldiers on them. We do want a station. You want a new station on top of an old one that performs entirely the same function but in some way different giving an air of 'modernity' that apparently people value apart from they actually don't and mostly prefer historical connections as long as they aren't dilapidated

Quote:
I think that, sometimes, for the future to come the past got to go leaving nothing but memories.
The future comes and the past goes anyway, that is what they do, they cannot do anything else. What you're failing to grasp is that making a station look all modern is window-dressing. Trying to make everything 'feel' modern in the hope that this makes a difference to anything is falling into the same trap that the modernisers of the 50s, 60s and 70s fell into. That is thinking that having modern looking things somehow spurs the population to do modern and future-enticing things, as if the 'future' is some whimsical deity that needs called upon with the aid of architectural props. It didn't do anything of the sort, it even accelerated the rate at which the new archecture started itself feeling out of date, because modern for modern's sake does not create good or lasting or economically beneficial archiecture.

Basically, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 14th, 2011, 04:38 PM   #153
Luli Pop
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,529
Likes (Received): 40

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silly_Walks View Post
Suburbanist lives in a place called Theory.
I think so!

he lives in a place called Theory in a time around 1950.

Brasilia is the ideal city for him and pleople are Playmobils.
Luli Pop no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 11:01 AM   #154
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
The problem with extensive renovations is that they cost a hell of money, usually (although not always) more than demolishing an old building and rebuilding something out-of-scratch in its place. St Pancras renovation cost more than € 1,1 billion. I DOUBT it would cost half that to build a minimalist-functional station with the same facilities and capacity.
Sure. But you don't want visitors arriving in London from overseas to arrive in a place that is minialist-functional. Many modern airports aren't build minimalist-functional either. You want to impress the visitors. st Pancras international is very impressive. Arriving there is the highlight of any trip I undertake to London. If I wanted to arrive in a boring functional facility I could as well fly to heathrow.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2011, 11:04 AM   #155
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lordpenguinton View Post
Oh and you do know that some of the most pleasing stations in Europe are the ones that have been refurbished and added to. Stations like King's Cross and Waterloo in London, the main stations in Strasbourg and Basel, and many others.
Don't forget Antwerpen Centraal. One of the best examples of an upgraded old majestic terminal in my opinion.
(And it barerely escaped being demolished and replaced by something "functional")
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2011, 12:10 PM   #156
Bartje
Registered User
 
Bartje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Groningen
Posts: 47
Likes (Received): 3

In The Netherlands we also have a few bad examples of demolished stations. Fot example in Coevorden:

In 1900


In 1970


Now
__________________
Het kan altijd hoger.......
Bartje no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2011, 01:43 PM   #157
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

New building is much better, open-aired than the old one. I wouldn't dare to imagine how dark is must have been within the building itself, filled with smoke from cigarettes. And the stations itself (the old one) doesn't look particularly remarkable in any way.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2011, 08:11 PM   #158
Substructure
Registered User
 
Substructure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,982
Likes (Received): 10234

Totally agree. I can't believe so many urban planners wet dream is to make European cities look like they're from the 19th century. Newer buildings (post 80s) are so much more well thought, functional, less costly to maintain, and often better looking.
__________________

Substructure está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2011, 01:45 AM   #159
Silly_Walks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,974
Likes (Received): 836

Quote:
Originally Posted by Substructure View Post
Newer buildings (post 80s) are so much more well thought, functional, less costly to maintain, and often better looking.
You forgot to mention cold, sterile, windy, etc.
Silly_Walks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 20th, 2011, 02:38 PM   #160
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by Substructure View Post
Totally agree. I can't believe so many urban planners wet dream is to make European cities look like they're from the 19th century. Newer buildings (post 80s) are so much more well thought, functional, less costly to maintain, and often better looking.
Eh? Examples?
__________________
"There is no problem so bad that you can't make it worse" - Chris Hadfield
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium