editor
hiraethified
Come on - natural light has to struggle to get through because of all those massive metal pipes blocking the light.Clumsy? Maybe a little. Over-engineered? Maybe a little.
Come on - natural light has to struggle to get through because of all those massive metal pipes blocking the light.Clumsy? Maybe a little. Over-engineered? Maybe a little.
I've only been there once and just to change trains (nor do I know what was there before) - but I don't find it all that bad.
Clumsy? Maybe a little. Over-engineered? Maybe a little. At least it's fairly generous in scale and has some natural light. It could be a lot worse. It's better than the extension to St Pancras, for example.
I think it's a bit unfair to compare it with the great Victorian terminii - they had a lot more cash to spend, lots of cheap labour, and a fraction of the technical requirements any building has to satisfy these days.
Come on - natural light has to struggle to get through because of all those massive metal pipes blocking the light.
Come on - natural light has to struggle to get through because of all those massive metal pipes blocking the light.
Er, hello? New Street is a modern station.yeah. somewhere like birmingham new street is far worse.
You can't seriously be comparing the elegance of St Pancras with the clunky mess that is Leeds station?!Yeah, but even the st pancras roof needs a few bits of metal to hold it up.
Then:
Now:
You can't seriously be comparing the elegance of St Pancras with the clunky mess that is Leeds station?!
I suggest you go. For a modern station, it's ugly, dark, badly designed and unpleasant to use. The low, windowless area leading to the platforms is as bad as New Street, and the entrance feels like an Eastern European checkpoint.But like I say I've only been there once so amn't particularly well qualified to pass comment.
I'm not trying to say Leeds station is some sort of architectural wonder; I just think you're being a bit harsh on it.
Sure. But we're supposed to be better at things now.
No, that would be an unfair comparison for the reasons I mentioned before. Just making the point that the structure/glass ratio isn't any better there than it is at Leeds, from the look of it.
I'm not trying to say Leeds station is some sort of architectural wonder; I just think you're being a bit harsh on it.
.
Where that then?citygirl said:ticket office
outside canopy
from the platform
way out
if anyone's interested
are they not there? the pics?
sorry, i have a headache
Seeing as I was specifically talking about a modern, large station, could you give some relevant examples please rather than stating the ruddy obvious?Aye. There are much much worse stations.
Seeing as I was specifically talking about a modern, large station, could you give some relevant examples please rather than stating the ruddy obvious?
Birmingham New Street was rebuilt over forty years ago. Hardly comparable to Leeds then, which was rebuilt as recently as 2002.Like I said New Street. That Manchester one I can't remember (actually, all the Manchester stations except Victoria)
Birmingham New Street was rebuilt over forty years ago. Hardly comparable to Leeds then, which was rebuilt as recently as 2002.
wow! that one has picnic benches and everything.
you could go on a day out there.
I've no idea why you insist on posting up tosh on this thread but allow me to correct you once again.It wasn't completely rebuilt. They did building work to parts of it.
By the 1990s, the station's capacity was exceeded on a daily basis, and the 1967 design was deemed inadequate. Between 1999 and 2002, a major rebuilding project took place, branded as Leeds 1st. This project saw the construction of additional approach tracks at the western end of the station, improving efficiency by separating trains travelling to or from different destinations and preventing them from having to cross each other's routes.
The station was expanded from 12 to 17 platforms, with the construction of new platforms on the south side, and reopening of the now-disused parcels depot to passengers on the north side. The majority of the track, points and signals were also replaced. The most visible change to passengers, however, was the replacement of the 1967 metal canopy with a new glass roof, considerably increasing the amount of daylight on the platforms.
A new footbridge was also provided, replacing the previous underpass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_station
I've no idea why you insist on posting up tosh on this thread but allow me to correct you once again.
Birmingham The station was completely re-built by the British Railways in the mid 1960s, while Leeds was a "major rebuilding project."
Well, that and the construction of additional approach tracks at the western end of the station, the station growing nearly 50% in size with five new platforms, almost all of the track, points and signals being replaced, the building of a new taxi rank and bus interchange, the entire station canopy being removed and replaced, and a large new footbridge being constructed, replacing the previous underpass.Leeds station isn't *that* different in terms of architecture as it was before. What has been modernised is mainly:
Hey, I've no doubt that Leeds used to look shit but that doesn't excuse the crappy thing that's there now.Editor - I think you seriously need to look up some photos of how cack Leeds Station used to be. I agree the new model is just a meccano set job, but at least yet it's not covered in ads..