Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,202
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Sorry Dad (but she started it :wink: )
- Thread starter Penners
- Start date
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Actually, no you did, I was merely responding to Penners' topic, but I will allow you to have the final tedious word, then you can thwack your big dick on the table and feel really proud. Which in reality is what so much of your following me around this site and arguing about stuff - particularly railways and air travel, but also so much else - is about.
The handful of your followers will no doubt be wetting themselves with excitement, but there you go.
The handful of your followers will no doubt be wetting themselves with excitement, but there you go.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,202
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Look, there are almost 1500 members of this discussion forum, but there is only one who, time and again, makes the effort to post messages the effect that they don't want to engage in a particular discussion. What's the point in that? The answer is quite simple - just don't post!
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone is entitled to argue against any stated opinion, if they wish.
But, if they don't wish to enter the debate, or if they just wish to drop out of the debate (both of which are fine) there is no need for childish and rude retorts in order to try to stifle debate. There is only one person here who doesn't seem able to follow this basic etiquette.
As for following you around, I follow no-one, I follow the debate. If you don't wish to become involved, that's fine, no-one is forcing you. After all, if nearly 1500 people posted that they didn't wish to debate a point everytime something was raised we would all have to wade through thousands of idiotic posts such as 'na na na na na'.
(Sorry Penners, I'm in my room now).
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone is entitled to argue against any stated opinion, if they wish.
But, if they don't wish to enter the debate, or if they just wish to drop out of the debate (both of which are fine) there is no need for childish and rude retorts in order to try to stifle debate. There is only one person here who doesn't seem able to follow this basic etiquette.
As for following you around, I follow no-one, I follow the debate. If you don't wish to become involved, that's fine, no-one is forcing you. After all, if nearly 1500 people posted that they didn't wish to debate a point everytime something was raised we would all have to wade through thousands of idiotic posts such as 'na na na na na'.
(Sorry Penners, I'm in my room now).
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
I rest my case.
I don't see 1500 members posting time and again about air travel and the pointlessness of railways. It's not the only issue, but the main one.
Open to the other 14,999...
I don't see 1500 members posting time and again about air travel and the pointlessness of railways. It's not the only issue, but the main one.
Open to the other 14,999...
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,202
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Ah, but you're resting a different case.
My case is that 1500 members don't post because, presumably, they don't want to - but they don't go to the trouble of posting that they don't want to post.
Also, being a lone voice in the wilderness is no indication of the merit of the argument.
My case is that 1500 members don't post because, presumably, they don't want to - but they don't go to the trouble of posting that they don't want to post.
Also, being a lone voice in the wilderness is no indication of the merit of the argument.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Yeah right.
It's just, you see, I enjoy posting here about period buildings, and those include St Pancras' Station. I'm a bit of a rail historian. My mates are amongst some of this country's most notable rail historians, for what that's worth. How nice it would be to be able to share some simple pleasure here without you buggering it all up every time with arguments which basically achieve nothing. Very few read this.
I simply can't be arsed when you pop up every time railways are mentioned and argue that they have had their day, and air is the future. It's a different issue.
Still, those who agree with you are entitled now to agree with you... the forum is yours...
It's just, you see, I enjoy posting here about period buildings, and those include St Pancras' Station. I'm a bit of a rail historian. My mates are amongst some of this country's most notable rail historians, for what that's worth. How nice it would be to be able to share some simple pleasure here without you buggering it all up every time with arguments which basically achieve nothing. Very few read this.
I simply can't be arsed when you pop up every time railways are mentioned and argue that they have had their day, and air is the future. It's a different issue.
Still, those who agree with you are entitled now to agree with you... the forum is yours...
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,202
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
(bites lip).Nemesis said:
I've said all along I'm very pleased with the restoration work on St Pancras station and hotel. I merely suggest that if Waterloo - just 3 miles away remember - had remained as the Eurostar terminal then the restoration project wouldn't have cost £800m and there would have been money left over for other equally laudable restoration (or other) projects.
I've nothing against history (I have a 1550 house for goodness sake) and I think railways are an admirable historical subject. I'm sorry if it's an inconvenient truth that railways are outdated as a mode of transport except in niche areas such as mass transit systems in areas of high population density. The fact that all railway systems depend on massive public subsidies may be regrettable, but wishful thinking and rose-tinted spectacles can't change the reality.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,202
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Oops - seems I got my figures wrong, it wasn't £800m after all:
Construction of the line and revamping St Pancras cost £5.8bn in public funds.
Of the funding, £800m went on redeveloping St Pancras station, meaning the cost of installing the line was about £73.5m per mile.
This compares with £28.4m to build a mile of a three-lane motorway in 2005, according to a Parliamentary answer from May last year.
(Full story).
So, £5bn of public money for moving the Eurostar terminal 3 miles and 20mins off the journey time to Paris.
Construction of the line and revamping St Pancras cost £5.8bn in public funds.
Of the funding, £800m went on redeveloping St Pancras station, meaning the cost of installing the line was about £73.5m per mile.
This compares with £28.4m to build a mile of a three-lane motorway in 2005, according to a Parliamentary answer from May last year.
(Full story).
So, £5bn of public money for moving the Eurostar terminal 3 miles and 20mins off the journey time to Paris.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
And?
Nemesis wrote:
“I think we can make wonderful buildings, I wouldn't deride all contemporary architecture”.
I still need convincing on this. I was lucky enough or unlucky enough to work on the British library immediately adjacent to St Pancras station. Bus garage or what? Or as Jeremy Clarkson so aptly put it “ I’ve seen better looking crematoriums in the north of England”
I was also lucky enough to see the original drawings for Holborn viaduct. The time, detail and draughtsmanship that had gone into creating the decorative metalwork on this stucture was astonishing. If they created a bridge across the viaduct today it would be some straight lined linear effort with no romantic appeal at all. I’m sure computers are to blame for a lot of our purely functional designs today suffocating the artistic abilities of the designer.
Speaking as a red blooded male, I have to admit that architecture up to the Victorian times did incorporate a large degree of feminine curves and embellishments e.g. flower patterns in the stonework decorative metalwork and contrasting natural materials that age gracefully to a beautiful patina. These I feel are sadly lacking in our modern utilitarian structures where the designs are all very masculine.
The only element of contemporary design I would praise is modern lighting which dose wonders for highlighting the intricate details of historic architecture. I think that contemporary glass and steel structures can look quite good when used as an abutment to a historic building, the roof on the British museum for example and as per this discussion, St Pancras station but glass and steel used on its own is a bit like bus shelter design and in my opinion should only be used for airports or factories in the middle of nowhere.
“I think we can make wonderful buildings, I wouldn't deride all contemporary architecture”.
I still need convincing on this. I was lucky enough or unlucky enough to work on the British library immediately adjacent to St Pancras station. Bus garage or what? Or as Jeremy Clarkson so aptly put it “ I’ve seen better looking crematoriums in the north of England”
I was also lucky enough to see the original drawings for Holborn viaduct. The time, detail and draughtsmanship that had gone into creating the decorative metalwork on this stucture was astonishing. If they created a bridge across the viaduct today it would be some straight lined linear effort with no romantic appeal at all. I’m sure computers are to blame for a lot of our purely functional designs today suffocating the artistic abilities of the designer.
Speaking as a red blooded male, I have to admit that architecture up to the Victorian times did incorporate a large degree of feminine curves and embellishments e.g. flower patterns in the stonework decorative metalwork and contrasting natural materials that age gracefully to a beautiful patina. These I feel are sadly lacking in our modern utilitarian structures where the designs are all very masculine.
The only element of contemporary design I would praise is modern lighting which dose wonders for highlighting the intricate details of historic architecture. I think that contemporary glass and steel structures can look quite good when used as an abutment to a historic building, the roof on the British museum for example and as per this discussion, St Pancras station but glass and steel used on its own is a bit like bus shelter design and in my opinion should only be used for airports or factories in the middle of nowhere.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Oh but for decades Victorian architecture was derided as being rubbish!
As indeed was Georgian architecture - so much of that demolished as worthless in the not too distant past - which I don't think in fact could be described as
... architecture up to the Victorian times did incorporate a large degree of feminine curves and embellishments
In fact Victorian architecture still is at times - we are having to defend the Smithfield buildings from demolition/ruination at public inquiry.
Not all contemporary buildings are glass and steel, but it's possibly a spot shortsighted to deride everything modern as worthless? Maybe aesthetics and design move on?
Not sure I agree with JC about the British Library either - and internally it's a wonderful space surely?
http://www.urban75.org/london/british-library.html
As indeed was Georgian architecture - so much of that demolished as worthless in the not too distant past - which I don't think in fact could be described as
... architecture up to the Victorian times did incorporate a large degree of feminine curves and embellishments
In fact Victorian architecture still is at times - we are having to defend the Smithfield buildings from demolition/ruination at public inquiry.
Not all contemporary buildings are glass and steel, but it's possibly a spot shortsighted to deride everything modern as worthless? Maybe aesthetics and design move on?
Not sure I agree with JC about the British Library either - and internally it's a wonderful space surely?
http://www.urban75.org/london/british-library.html
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
That comment is cheap, sexist, irrelevant, objectionable and totally unworthy of you.Nemesis said:
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
I rather thought it pretty low key by my usual standards. It was metaphorical and a quote (slightly paraphrased) from Janet Street Pawter BTW.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Well, I think I managed to grasp the fact that the phrase was metaphorical. And naming its source doesn't change my view.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Well, I hang my head in shame then. Although you have quoted out of context, which is never a great idea.
Or should I gird my loins and point out all the contradictions in the arguments?
No, cos it's not worth it. It's just all manufactured and tiresome.
Or should I gird my loins and point out all the contradictions in the arguments?
No, cos it's not worth it. It's just all manufactured and tiresome.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
It however won:
Brilliant.
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3124829&origin=BDbreakingnews
8)
Other connected thread:
http://periodproperty.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7570&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=st+pancras
Brilliant.
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3124829&origin=BDbreakingnews
8)
Other connected thread:
http://periodproperty.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7570&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=st+pancras
