King's Cross Lighthouse to get revamp

[editor]

The picture you posted doesn't go up high enough to show the lighthouse bit.

Have you actually got any evidence from any source to support the 'lighthouse' theory or are you just here to showboat??

My dad told me the tower on top was one of those... wossname, works like a pinhole camera: you see the the surrounding landscape projected onto a horizontal round screen. There's one at Clifton - what's it called? Camera obscura?

That theory was discounted by Camden Council.

Inspections of the interior, say Camden Council, show that it can't have been a clocktower or a camera obscura. Obscurer are its origins indeed, and maybe it was a totally useless architectural flourish.

http://www.urban75.org/london/oyster-bar-kings-cross.html

 

[Onket]

Have you actually got any evidence from any source to support the 'lighthouse' theory or are you just here to showboat?

Simply pointing out the photo you posted doesn't fit the purpose you posted it for. Obviosuly, as I have said 3 times now.

You're an argumentative bugger aren't you.

 

[editor]

Simply pointing out the photo you posted doesn't fit the purpose you posted it for. Obviosuly, as I have said 3 times now.

I've posted up a well researched article citing several credible sources and illustrated it with a rich variety of images, many taken by myself. You, on the other hand, have posted up a slither of dull nitpicking jibes of fuck all of any use to anyone.

Instead of trying to score points that don't matter, why not spend your time researching the building and help improve the article?

You're an argumentative bugger aren't you.

Congratulations. You truly are now Beyond The LOL-dome.

 

[Onket]

So no-one is allowed to point out your errors, basically.

Hilarious!

 

[Thora]

I researched this pretty thoroughly at the time, and IIRC it was a topic on Robert Elms' radio show. No one could find any evidence of the tower being used for advertising, and by 1955 the building was plastered in ads anyway.

Where's the lighthouse?

 

[laptop]

Where's the lighthouse?

Directly above the policeman's helmet. Out of frame

 

[editor]

Where's the lighthouse?

Hi. Crazy idea, I know, but try following the oft-posted link which will take you to lots and lots of pictures of the 'lighthouse' along with research that strongly suggests that it never was in fact a 'lighthouse' but was more of an architectural flourish.

HTH. HAND.

 

[Onket]

Where's the lighthouse?

Directly above the policeman's helmet. Out of frame

Exactly.

 

[editor]

So no-one is allowed to point out your errors, basically.

By Christ you're dull today.

 

[Onket]

Nice edit.

 

[Thora]

Hi. Crazy idea, I know, but try following the oft-posted link which will take you to lots and lots of pictures of the 'lighthouse' along with research that strongly suggests that it never was in fact a 'lighthouse' but was more of an architectural flourish.

HTH. HAND.

Ooh, grumpy! Why not post a photo of the lighthouse thing then?

 

[editor]

Ooh, grumpy! Why not post a photo of the lighthouse thing then?

Oy lazy! Why not follow the link that's been posted at least three times now?

 

[Thora]

Oy lazy! Why not follow the link that's been posted at least three times now?

Because I don't see why you can't post revelant pictures on the thread.

 

[editor]

Because I don't see why you can't post revelant pictures on the thread.

I linked to the article with all the photos in my first post, adding the caption, "Loads of info and pics here." The second post contained the picture that was most certainly relevent to the topic.

I'd expect anyone sincerely interested in discussing this issue to have bothered to read that page (like several posters did) rather than rocking up late demanding that they be spoonfed all the images of a topic they're clearly not that interested in.

After all, if you were, you would have bothered to read the article first.



(((thread)))

 

[Crispy]

I can't see the lighthose in that photo

 

[editor]

I can't see the lighthose in that photo

*bangs head.

But if you'd bothered to read the thread and followed the link posted in my first post - you know the one that said "Loads of info and pics here" - you would have seen lots of pictures and realise the context of the photo I posted up later.

And when I posted that picture I didn't say, "Hey! Look! Here's a photo of the tower". What I said was that:

I researched this pretty thoroughly at the time, and IIRC it was a topic on Robert Elms' radio show. No one could find any evidence of the tower being used for advertising, and by 1955 the building was plastered in ads anyway.

See that? It says, the building. Not the tower.

Jeez.

 

[Thora]

I heard it was like an advert for the oyster shop.

 

[Crispy]

What oyster shop?

 

[editor]

Gotcha. It's all a wind up! Either that or it's Act Stupid Day.

Either way, I'm out of here. Thanks for trashing the thread.

 

[Crispy]

Anyway

The new design looks pretty good. Similar roof to the Belgo restaurant on Ladbroke Grove

 

[jæd]

Anyway

The new design looks pretty good. Similar roof to the Belgo restaurant on Ladbroke Grove

Where's the Lighthouse...?

 

[Onket]

Where's the lighthouse in that pic then?

<edit> Damn!!!

 

[Crispy]

Where's the Lighthouse...?

Read the thread you ingrate

 

[ska invita]

My dad told me the tower on top was one of those... wossname, works like a pinhole camera: you see the the surrounding landscape projected onto a horizontal round screen. There's one at Clifton - what's it called? Camera obscura?

nah, its a "folly". follys went out of fashion as a sign of decadence and excess, replaced by functionality etc. but i love a good folly myself.

 

[editor]

Read the thread you ingrate

Nooo! This is the thread that doesn't have to be read. Users are invited to rock up and lob in their three pen'worth at random - there's no need to read anything other than the last post.

So where's this lightship?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Well I for one read editor's article a long time ago and have on numerous Eurostar trips wowed my captive audience with promises to witness the King's Cross Lighthouse upon their return.

Occasionally to be met with wonder, oft to be met with meh.

 

[lang rabbie]

...from what I hear from friends at KXRLG (Kings Cross Railway Lands Group) final council approval for the 'armadillo' redesign haven't yet been given, as a few objections have been raised by some sticklers for tradition. It seems though that the council is likely to approve in the end, but you know how it goes with these planning application things...

Part of the problem is that the 'back' of the building (facing the Scala) is owned by London Transport, as they have doors there that go down into the underground, and this section takes up a fair amount of space in the property. From what I gather the armadillo roof bit will house some of the more functional aspects of the building (ventilation or what not)

Camden's development control committee granted consent, subject to a section 106 legal agreement, on April 2nd.

 

[Crispy]

nah, its a "folly". follys went out of fashion as a sign of decadence and excess, replaced by functionality etc. but i love a good folly myself.

nah, the bristol one is a camera obscura. the building itself used to be a windmill

 

[tim]

What a load of fuss about a manky old lump of scrap. I seem to remember reading somewhere that it was a recycled helter-skelter. I come from Hounslow and was bought up above the family shop next to the building capped by the wonderous Neals Corner minaret, a proper pointless Victorian folly.

 

[Housmans]

Camden's development control committee granted consent, subject to a section 106 legal agreement, on April 2nd.

You're right - double checked and my contact got it wrong! sorry bout that

nice pics here though: