# MISC | Demolished Railway Stations (Photo Thread)



## serdar samanlı1 (Feb 20, 2008)

Old Grenoble station looks like Sirkeci Station in Istanbul


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

dl3000 said:


>


I was reminded of your post when coming across the following article in the current edition of Montreal's weekly _Mirror_ (Oct-30 thru Nov-05).


from:http://www.montrealmirror.com/2008/103008/artsweek.html
Let there be light
Looking above for inspiration, the CCA --i.e., Canadian Centre for Architecture/Centre Canadien d'Architecture-- (1920 Baile) examines the diverse history of skylights in their latest exhibition Toplight: Roof Transparencies From 1760 to 1960. 









OPEN CONCEPT:
Penn Station, 1936 

Consisting of photographs, prints and drawings, all of which are culled from the centre’s own library and archives, the exhibit explores the social, cultural and political catalysts behind the use of glass in architecture.

Included in the exhibit are images of the first large-scale glass roof construction at the Halle au blé in Paris. Completed in 1782, the see-through roof was meant to contradict rumours of stockpiling or price hiking. London’s Crystal Palace, the Louvre and Detroit’s own Ford Motor Company also feature prominently in the show, alongside New York’s early working-class tenements and the city’s original Penn Station. 

Berenice Abbott’s 1936 photographs, displaying the station’s cathedral-like grandeur, are perhaps the most impressive in the show. Especially if you’ve ever visited its current incarnation of bleak, labyrinthine concourses buried deep under Madison Square Gardens. Until Feb. 15. 

by SACHA JACKSON


----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)

１９１４年の東京駅








アメリカの爆撃により破壊された１９４５年の東京駅


----------



## serdar samanlı1 (Feb 20, 2008)

How did old Rome train station looked like? Current Termini sttaion was built in 1950


----------



## serdar samanlı1 (Feb 20, 2008)

Demolition of Penn stn was a true crime. It least they preserve Grand Central


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Vienna may be famous as imperial city its major train stations did not survive the war however. A huge loss for the city as they were mostly replaced by ugly post war architecture. 

Funnily I could post some of the post war railway stations here as well as they have been replaced or are currently getting replaced. Wheres its hard to say if the new ones are that wonder pieces of architecture either. They however at least new and shiny. 

Here we go:
*
Westbahnhof (western railway station)*









*
Südbahnhof (southern railway station)*









*
Nordbahnhof (northern railwaystation, nowadays replaced by the Praterstern station right next to the old location)*


----------



## serdar samanlı1 (Feb 20, 2008)

One reason why we must be against war


----------



## DiggerD21 (Apr 22, 2004)

Train Station Hamburg-Altona:

At the end of the 19th century the first train station became too small for the traffic. So it was decided to build a new one further north and make the old one to the new town hall of Altona. The building survived WWII and still exists today. Nowadays it is the administrative seat of the district Altona.

Around 1890 (view from the south)









today (view from the north)










The real crime however was the destruction of the 2nd train station. It was built in 1898, rebuilt in the 1950s and finally demolished and replaced by an ugly new train station in 1979. As reason for the demolition counted that the building couldn't withstand the vibration caused by the construction works of the S-Bahn-tunnel. Ironically the demolition company had its problems demolishing the building, as it turned out to be a very stable construction, and so the demolition company went bankrupt.
The building of 1979 soon was called "Shopping Mall with siding track". And because it was so ugly, it has been renovated in 2005. However nobody knows how long it will still serve as a train station. There are plans to shut down the train service (just leaving the S-Bahn station in service) and build a completely new station further north.


The train station in 1912 (building on the left)









Train station after refurbishment in 2005


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

Chicago Dearborn Station:










Chicago Central Station:










Chicago LaSalle Street Station:










Chicago Grand Central Station:










Chicago Well Street Station:










Chicago LaSalle Updated Station:










Chicago Northwestern Station:










Chicago Jackson Park Terminal:


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Wow, such great stations in Chicago. They all have been demolished? What a crime.


----------



## serdar samanlı1 (Feb 20, 2008)

Chicago Northwestern stn lookslike NYC Grand Central


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

Slartibartfas said:


> Wow, such great stations in Chicago. They all have been demolished? What a crime.


I was actually wrong about one of them:

This 123 year old station:



















Had a fire in 1922:










And was rebuilt without the steeped roofs (which I think were it's best qualities).










The station was closed in the 1970's, but the building was saved. The area behind the station was very ugly and run down, and the tracks were all torn up and the station was renovated after sitting vacant for 10 years.



















New homes and a park were built in the old train yard (you can see the tower of the station at the end of the development):


----------



## Koen Acacia (Apr 17, 2007)

DiggerD21 said:


> Train station after refurbishment in 2005


This is *AFTER *refurbishment? 

How bad was it before?


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

Horrible hno:


----------



## Starscraper (Jul 5, 2004)

http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/b/broad_street/index.shtml

Broad Street Station in London, demolished in the mid 80's and replaced with the Broadgate development.


----------



## ultra laverdi (Sep 27, 2008)

we should create theme about demolished railways :yes:


----------



## X38 (Jan 23, 2008)

Hedjaz Railway Station in Damascus, Syria. Isn't demolished, but all tracks are removed, the building is being converted into a shopping mall, according to SSC member Benonie hno:.








Well, now THIS is the station of Damascus:








(picture of Benonie)


----------



## Imperfect Ending (Apr 7, 2003)

*MISC | Demolished Railway Stations*

*Demolished! 11 Beautiful Train Stations That Fell To The Wrecking Ball (And The Crappy Stuff Built In Their Place)*
http://www.infrastructurist.com/200...rain-stations-that-fell-to-the-wrecking-ball/

Posted on Monday June 22nd by Yonah Freemark and Jebediah Reed










In 1963, America learned a painful lesson when Pennsylvania Station, an architectural treasure that Senator Daniel Moynihan described as “the best thing in our city,” was torn down and replaced with a dreary complex that includes an office building and Madison Square Garden. The rail station, to this day the nation’s busiest, was moved underground into a claustrophobic warren of artificially lit passageways and bleak waiting rooms. While there has been an active campaign since the 1990’s to rectify the mistake by creating a new and worthy station a block away, the $1 billion-plus project remains stuck in political gridlock.

But the sad saga of Penn was by no means an isolated incident. Almost like a rite of passage, cities across the country embraced the era of Interstates, Big Macs, and suburban sprawl by tearing down their train depots. (Frequently, they just did the Joni Mitchell thing and put up a parking lot.) But time and experience are showing that train stations are vital organs in a healthy city, and removing them deadens the entire organism. The lesson is especially stark at the moment, as cities around the country face the challenge of rebuilding the infrastructure for regional high speed rail networks. Chicago–once abundantly blessed with grand stations–is today bouncing around ideas for a new high speed rail depot.

One lesson of this legacy is that what replaces a well designed and centrally located rail depot is rarely of equal worth to the city. Following is a tour of 10 great depots that were lost to demolition orders–plus one more that might be still–and what stands on those sites today.

*1. NEW YORK CITY: Pennsylvania Station*

THEN: “The best thing in our city,” according to Sen. Daniel Moynihan










WHAT’S THERE NOW: The new Penn Station is a dingy labyrinth beneath an ugly arena










*2. MEMPHIS - Union Station*

When this city’s Union Station opened in 1912, it was the largest stone structure in town. But when the U.S. Postal Service announced that it needed new land in the city in the late 1960s, the magnificent building was chosen for demolition because it no longer attracted the crowds that it had once brought into the city. Any interest in saving the structure itself was ignored.

These days Memphis is expressing interest in being part of the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor.

THEN: A grand Beaux Arts depot for a thriving city










WHAT’S THERE NOW: A windowless postal facility surrounded by barbed wire










*3. ATLANTA - Terminal Station*

Atlanta was once the largest rail crossroads in the south. Travelers could get virtually everywhere quickly and conveniently by rail. Built in 1905, Terminal was the grand portal to the city. It had two Italianate towers and a huge train shed behind. When the station was razed in 1970, it was replaced by a government office building. These days Atlanta’s intercity rail depot is a small former commuter rail station located far north of downtown, adjacent to a 16-lane highway.

Recently, Georgia governor Sonny Perdue–after scouting the passenger rail systems in Spain and China–has enthusiastically embraced the idea of a high speed rail network for the southeastern US. Of course, Atlanta would be a network hub–and very likely in need of a suitable depot.

THEN: A fitting portal to a regional capital










NOW: A government office building










*4. BIRMINGHAM, AL - Terminal Station*

In 1909, Birmingham opened its grand Terminal Station, which united the train services of six operators. The two block-long Byzantine-styled complex had 10 tracks, and when opened was the largest of its kind in the South.

Yet this station — which served a peak of 54 trains a day in 1943 — by 1969 only was seeing seven daily arrivals. As a result, the city chose to demolish the structure that year. Although the land was originally intended for a new federal building, a highway was built there instead.

Today, Birmingham is slated as a primary stop on the designated high speed rail corridor linking New Orleans and Atlanta.

THEN: An impressive and centrally located depot










NOW: A connector highway










*5. CHICAGO: Grand Central Station*

Perhaps more than any other American city, Chicago’s destiny has been a result of its transportation links to the rest of the country. As such, it had something of an abundance of train stations. Even while it still has four commuter terminals inside the Loop, knocking down impressive stations like Grand Central did not yield much for the city. The site of this former station, prime real estate on the banks of the Illinois River, is still a vacant lot after nearly four decades.

THEN: Located on the banks of the Chicago River, the beautiful station with ornate marble floors, Corinthian columns, and a fireplace. It served travelers to DC and many other cities.










NOW: A vacant lot










*6. CHICAGO: Central Station*

This 13-story Romanesque structure was built in 1893 and demolished eight decades later. Like former Grand Central, the site remains undeveloped to this day.

THEN: A well-designed depot in the heart of downtown on the shore of Lake Michigan










NOW: Undeveloped land at the edge of Grant Park










*7. ROCHESTER: NY Central Railroad Station*

Rochester’s principal train station opened in 1914, with New York Central Railroad connections to New York, Albany, and Buffalo. The elaborate curved brick exterior made a prominent mark on downtown. But the decline in passenger traffic emptied the station by the late 1950s, and the building was razed in 1965. In its place? A parking lot.

THEN: A local architectural triumph and an important part of the local infrastructure










NOW: A parking lot and an unappealing Amtrak facility










*8. ATLANTA: Union Station*

After being built in 1930, the smaller of Atlanta’s train depots was demolished in 1972.

THEN: A centrally-located secondary depot serving a large city










NOW: A parking lot










*
9. BOSTON - North Station*

Boston completed its Union Station in 1895, but tore it down only thirty years later to build the Boston Garden basketball arena. Which is to say, the city lost a beautiful neoclassical structure for its train services, replacing it instead with a basement of a stadium. When the Garden itself was demolished for a new arena in 1995–the mellifluously-named TD BankNorth Garden–North Station was renewed as an underground facility (still, sadly, not directly linked to the city’s larger South Station). While it’s easy to pick on the new Garden’s bland design, the new building is at least a vital and economically productive part of the city’s fabric. The fact that North Station fell so long ago, might have something to do with this.

THEN: An important portal for commuter and intercity rail travelers traveling to or from points north










NOW: The new Garden and an underground rail station










10. SAVANNAH: Union Station

Completed in 1902, the Savannah Union Station stood on the west end of downtown with its two Spanish Renaissance towers marking its presence on the historic city’s skyline. For blacks in the city, Union Station was the center of life. All that changed, however, in 1963 when building the depot and much of the neighborhood around it was bulldozed to make way for the tail end of an Interstate.

If Gov. Sonny Perdue gets his way, Savannah will someday reclaim its rail heritage and become a stop on an HSR link between Atlanta and Jacksonville.

THEN: An attractive and well-used depot in the center of town










NOW: Feeder ramps at the tail end of a highway









*
11. DETROIT - MICHIGAN CENTRAL STATION*

Unlike the other stations on this list, Michigan Central is still standing. But if the Detroit city council gets its way the station, which was the 1912 encore act by the same team of architects that designed NYC’s Grand Central (itself almost a victim of the wrecking ball until the US Supreme Court intervened in 1978), will be demolished. Ironically, the city council wants to use funds from the stimulus act–the same piece of legislation that provided $8 billion to begin building a high speed rail network–to do the dirty work on Michigan Central.

Though it has suffered two decades of vandalism and disuse, the depot remains well worth saving. With a bit of imagination it could be part of Detroit’s future as a hub on the Midwest regional HSR network.

THEN AND NOW: The building was the second act of the architects who designed NYC’s Grand Central Terminal. But will it be demolished now as Grand Central almost was in the ’70s (even years after the epic mistake of tearing down Penn)?


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

What a shame.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

One of the reasons why the American society is so suburban in nature. The cities were destroyed and turned into parking lots and business boxes.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

The Pennsylvania Station was a devastating loss for New York City, but the Madison Square Garden was built in its place and I would definitely not call the place ugly.

And the Michigan Central Train Station is gonna be demolished soon because a proper reuse cannot be found for it.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

Jim856796 said:


> The Pennsylvania Station was a devastating loss for New York City, but the Madison Square Garden was built in its place and I would definitely not call the place ugly.
> .


MSG looks like a big, bland drum from the outside. I think people tend to overvalue the structure just because of its history when it could have been built anywhere in Manhattan and been just as successful.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

LtBk said:


> I see these spots as huge opportunities for big projects. Any plans?


The 1rst (Grand Central) is undeveloped and is now refered to as Franklin Point. Before the recent downturn there were renders and plans but it never went into sales. Hopefully something similar will go to what was planned. 



















Those above have been scrapped though and it seems that there are plans for two 25 story buildings at the NE parcel with the rest to be developed later.
http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30299
Mixed-use towers planned for Franklin Point



The 2nd one is the Central Station development Site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Station_(Chicago_neighborhood)

A bunch of towers (including One Museum Park and OMP West) have gone up in the last five years at the south end of Grant Park on which it use to sit.

From Wiki


----------



## DHLawrence (Jun 20, 2009)

I think the Farley Post Office conversion is the closest NY will come to having a new old Penn Station. If only they could get on with it already!

MSG is not a historical building. The name is historical, but there have been three buildings to wear its name. I think there's a precedent for rubbing the ugly blight off the face of the Earth.


----------



## davsot (Dec 27, 2008)

Michigan Central Station should not be demolished!

They're currently looking for a reuse but in the meantime it is NOT a good idea to be demolished. Hey, it's been standing abandoned for so long, why all of a sudden demolish it? Why don't they demolish all those abandoned homes before demolishing this great piece of art.


----------



## Dan (Jun 16, 2007)

What a shame!!

So glad that Union Pacific and Rio Grande still stand in Salt Lake City...


----------



## Songoten2554 (Oct 19, 2006)

i agree its a shame really the original Penn Station was a masterpiece compared to what we have now its just sad that they had to demolish it.

i mean it looked like you came out of the station like in those greek buildings basically you came out of the building into a grand city like if you were in heaven, now its different and people come out of there like rats its really sad about that.

it looked to be a massive wonderful building why wasn't it preserved it is beyond me.

also Euston station i am sad to see that Arch go and not only that it looked grand and beautiful why all of a sudden it went to be well bland and boring?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Songoten2554 said:


> i agree its a shame really the original Penn Station was a masterpiece compared to what we have now its just sad that they had to demolish it.


I never understand why the new designs got approved...


----------



## davsot (Dec 27, 2008)

^^^^ political bull...

6 More Great Train Stations Lost To The Wrecking Ball


*1. COLUMBUS UNION STATION*
In 1897, Columbus opened its third Union Station, a large complex designed by Chicago architect Daniel Burnham. The building, expansive compared to previous facilities to handle additional traffic, had a monumental arched facade along High Street and a large train shed. Over time, elements of the structure were removed until the whole station was demolished in 1979 after Amtrak service ceased in 1977. Now a wacky convention center and several lanes of I-670 stand in its place.


THEN: A showpiece train station









NOW: A bizarre pastel-shaded convention center









*2. PHILADELPHIA BROAD STREET STATION*
The Pennsylvania Railroad opened the Broad Street Station in downtown Philadelphia in 1881 to serve all suburban and intercity traffic. The terminal was for a time the largest in the world, and by 1930 it was serving 450 trains a day. That huge traffic, however, made it too small, so Penn built two new stations — 30th Street and Suburban Station — in its place. In disuse, the Broad Street facility was demolished in 1953 and replaced by Penn Center, a complex of office buildings. One good result of the terminal’s destruction: the demolition of the “Chinese Wall,” a giant viaduct dividing downtown used by trains travelling from Broad Street Station to the west.

THEN: At the time of construction, the world’s largest train depot









NOW: The Penn Center office complex









*3. NEW ORLEANS UNION STATION*
Louis Sullivan, one of America’s most prominent architects, only designed one station, but his Union Station in New Orleans was a gracious slice of this southern city. The terminal opened in 1892 as the primary destination for Illinois Central Railroad trains from Chicago. Rising traffic and the advantages of one station for all lines encouraged the city’s railroads to join together in the construction of a new Union Passenger Terminal, which was completed in the 1950s directly adjacent to the older terminus, which was then demolished.

THEN: The only train station designed by great US architect Louis Sullivan, mentor to Frank Lloyd Wright









NOW: New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal









*4. MINNEAPOLIS GREAT NORTHERN DEPOT*
The beaux-arts Minneapolis Great Northern Depot was the city’s largest station. When it opened in 1913, it served as a prominent landmark along the Mississippi River, but it was destroyed in 1978 after Amtrak ended service to downtown Minneapolis. In its place is the new Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

THEN: A great Beaux Arts depot









NOW: For many years the site was empty, today the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis









*5. PORTLAND (MAINE) UNION STATION*
Service between Boston and Portland ended in 1965, four years after the city’s Union Station was demolished; only in the past decade have passenger trains again run along the line. Union Station, built in 1873, was the main terminus for Boston & Maine and Portland & Rochester services.

THEN: A appealing station with a clock tower









NOW: A new station that looks like a drive-thru bank branch









*6. MILWAUKEE UNION STATION*
The Milwaukee Union Station served passengers between 1886 and 1965, when it closed after being replaced by a new Intermodal Station. A week after shuttering, the terminal was struck by fire, subsequently bulldozed, and replaced by an office building. Not the prettiest ending for a proud Tudor-style brick structure with an impressive clock tower.

THEN: An impressive Tudor-style station









NOW: A squat office complex


----------



## ScouseinManc (Jun 23, 2006)

It really does begger belief, that regardless of whether these buildings had become superfluous or not, they were demolished without a care in the world.

Here in the UK, many of our grand terminuses had the added insult of becoming giant car parks, prior to their demolition:

* Glasgow St Enoch - closed in 1966, eventually demolished in the late 70's (ironically during Architectural Heritage Year...).
* Liverpool Central High Level - closed in 1972 - the majority of the building had been given over to the car since 1966. Demolished shortly after closure.
* Bradford Exchange - closed in 1977 & demolished. Replaced by a vulgar, smaller station a little further down the tracks.

The only saving grace was at Manchester Central - closed in 1969, given over to NCP (National Car Parks) & then bought by Manchester City Council in the mid 80's, who developed it into the GMEX Centre (Greater Manchester Exhibition Centre), which very recently reverted to it's original name of Manchester Central. 

The magnificent London St Pancras was even earmarked for closure & demolition back in the 70's. Thankfully, after having experienced the loss of London Euston, such was the severity of the public's anger that it was never allowed to go ahead. Of course now, this Gothic masterpiece has been beautifully restored & is the terminus for Britain's only high speed railway to Europe. 

For me personally, the destruction of NY's Penn Station, had to be the biggest crime against architecture I've ever seen or heard of. I am hopeful that eventually (& soon), this magnificent building will rise again & take it's rightful place in the heart of New York.

SiM


----------



## Basincreek (Mar 10, 2008)

It should be noted that these became disused not because of cars and interstates but because of a concerted effort by railroad companies to phase out passenger travel after WW2 because freight hauling was much more profitable with its near infinite scalability. That the interstates and cars became so popular was a result, not a cause, of this business model shift.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Basincreek said:


> It should be noted that these became disused not because of cars and interstates but because of a concerted effort by railroad companies to phase out passenger travel after WW2 because freight hauling was much more profitable with its near infinite scalability. That the interstates and cars became so popular was a result, not a cause, of this business model shift.


Hmmm. Interesting theory, yet cars and interstates (or the equivilent) have also become equally popular in other country's, whether in Europe or places like Australia (ok, lack of Interstates there) but they have not dismanteled their passenger railways to such a level.


----------



## mtj73 (Dec 1, 2007)

Number 1 is clear winner but didn't stand a chance really, it's huge and right in the middle of Manhattan taking up all that development land. Most of the others went into car parks or highway junctions. It was as if grand stations were seen as un-American at that time and had to go.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

*Cannon Street Terminal*

England we have had loads of great stations replaced with a 60s concrete mess!

One less know station is London's Cannon Street...

From this...










To this...


----------



## Basincreek (Mar 10, 2008)

Justme said:


> Hmmm. Interesting theory, yet cars and interstates (or the equivilent) have also become equally popular in other country's, whether in Europe or places like Australia (ok, lack of Interstates there) but they have not dismanteled their passenger railways to such a level.


Most of those other countries nationalized their railways.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

hoosier said:


> MSG looks like a big, bland drum from the outside. I think people tend to overvalue the structure just because of its history when it could have been built anywhere in Manhattan and been just as successful.


You underestimate the necessity of good transport links for a venue like the Madison Square Garden. The site of Pennsylvania Station provides exactly this. Other places available at this time don't.

Generally, I don't get what precisely you all bemoan. The station has been kept and works today as it did all the time. The valuable space has just been developed to make the most out of it.
Time goes on and new developments happen. I'm rather grateful that a sports venues in New York and Boston have been built in the city centre rather than out of town. If that means that a station is reduced to its core function then be it so.


----------



## davsot (Dec 27, 2008)

^^^^Umm, as long as it's linked to transportation, MSG will be fine as you have stated. So, it could've been built *anywhere else* as long as it was connected to NY transit.



mtj73 said:


> Number 1 is clear winner but didn't stand a chance really, it's huge and right in the middle of Manhattan taking up all that development land. Most of the others went into car parks or highway junctions. It was as if grand stations were seen as un-American at that time and had to go.



So, Madison Square Garden isn't "right in the middle of Manhattan taking up all that development land"? 

I'd rather have grand architecture than a bland sports venue any day...


----------



## mtj73 (Dec 1, 2007)

poshbakerloo said:


> England we have had loads of great stations replaced with a 60s concrete mess!
> 
> One less know station is London's Cannon Street...


Well, enjoy it while you can because even that concrete mess will be going soon. There are mixed feeling about it's replacement but it's got to better than what's there now.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

davsot said:


> ^^^^Umm, as long as it's linked to transportation, MSG will be fine as you have stated. So, it could've been built *anywhere else* as long as it was connected to NY transit.


Certainly not. I wrote of good transport links and not just of transport links at all. A single metro station which might be almost everywhere is just not good enough for a sports venue of this size. There are, however, very few places in New York, let alone in Manhattan, that are served by so many Underground and Main line services.


----------



## Grunnen (Jan 16, 2008)

^^ I agree. There is only one arena in the world which is visited more: the arena in Manchester, UK. Which not quite coincidentally was also built right upon an important railway station.


----------



## 21C Liverpool (Aug 6, 2009)

*LIVERPOOL CENTRAL*

Liverpool Central was one of 3 Major termini in Central Liverpool - Lime St, Exchange and Central, UK.

Today, Liverpool Central and Exchange Stations have been pushed below ground as part of Liverpool's metro system, however they are still major stations in their own right. Lime St Station today is the city's main national rail terminal.

Liverpool Central was built on an awkward site, sandwiched between Bold st and Renshaw st with an entrance to Ranelagh st. The station in its current underground form is as busy today as its heyday, however has now taken on a tired appearence with a low density shopping centre on what was the original facade and entrance space.

Central Station's dimise as a mainline station was largely down to the Beeching Rail cuts of the 1960's despite being a very busy and popular terminal. Its eventural demolition, it is argued, was needed for Merseyrails Loop and metro link, however this is debatable.

At present their are plans to regenerate the former high level Central Station site for Retail/leisure/commercial and residential use for developer Merepark. These plans however have taken a long time to materialise and are now being held up by UK Recession.

The loss of the station, particulary the facade and train shed to the rear was a mistake in the city's development and with some forsight could have been averted (see Manchester Central/GMEX regeneration, UK)

There are plans to regenerate the station below ground as it is now at full capacity and on a hit list of stations in the UK that need urgent upgrading, however given the nature of financial distribution in the UK, London will take priority and Liverpool Central will no doubt recieve merely a lick of paint.

Enjoy what went before and attached are some ideas from the forum for the sites development.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

sergiogiorgini said:


> With all due respect to Berlin, which did a fine and necessary job with its Hauptbahnhof, there is no way I would trade the Paris situation for one giant glass box in a dead area of town like that. (And neither would the Parisians.) Talk about killing the romance of rail travel.


If you ever go to Berlin and observe the travelling patterns of people over
there, you will realize that very few people use this station as their begin
or enf point of travel. It is mostly used as an interchange station, where
you can easily change trains, to/from tother trains or S-bahn. And for
that function, it does a wonderful job.

If you want to go downtown, you get out at Berlin Zoo, or at Alexanderplatz,
where all east-west trains are also calling.



sergiogiorgini said:


> And if Brussels' north-south link were created today, they would probably not go about it the same way. Obviously, their one and only shot at functional rail infrastructure did not depend on the demolition of those stations. They did that because in the 1950s, people weren't too attached to 19th century architecture anyway.


I'm not sure about that at all. Given the nature of the soil in Brussels, any
other option would have resulted in unbearable prices, or a link with much
less capacity. And there are not that many ways to build a six tracks wide
tunnel. What I will concede is that today, the impact on the surface would
have been much lighter. You don't even imagine how many surface buildings
have been demolished to build that link...


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

MarcVD said:


> And if you want to see how one can supress all termini in a major city, just
> look how it has been done in Berlin...


All do respect, Berlin is a lot smaller than Paris and London and is not a central hub like those cities. Frankfurt is Germany's main hub for interchange traffic.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Minato ku said:


> Honestly I prefer the modern station, even if I admit that it is ugly.


I had the misfortune to transfer in gare Montparnasse last year and I found it one of the most hideous stations I have been to. A complete contrast to other grand stations in Paris and what we usually expect around Europe.

To be honest, I suspect I would have preferred the original, even if it wasn't one of the best examples. It surely must have been better than what exists now.


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

It is maybe ugly but a way more efficient, the traffic are well organisated. The transfer suburban train/metro is very easy.
Now I also admit the a good renovation and a big reconstrution of the facade would be good.



Justme said:


> All do respect, Berlin is a lot smaller than Paris and London and is not a central hub like those cities. Frankfurt is Germany's main hub for interchange traffic.


Anyway it would be impossible to create a central station in Paris, we don't have the space to it unlike Berlin.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Justme said:


> I had the misfortune to transfer in gare Montparnasse last year and I found it one of the most hideous stations I have been to. A complete contrast to other grand stations in Paris and what we usually expect around Europe.
> 
> To be honest, I suspect I would have preferred the original, even if it wasn't one of the best examples. It surely must have been better than what exists now.


That's odd, I quite like the Montparnasse Station (inside). The grey raw concrete, the fact that it's a bit obscure. It's very relaxing to me, and it looks modern, plus less windy than other stations. It's my favorite station in Paris.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

*Milano, old Central Station *(1864-1931)

It was demolished when current Stazione Centrale construction ended. Even the viaducts bringin to it were torn down as the railways system was completely refurbished by building a massive 'external' (at the time) ring
More then 50 years later on the same run a large railway tunnel for suburban lines has been built, and in the same place where once the old station stood there is a large underground railways station now...


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

From those photos, Gare Montparnasse has some swingin' 60's funk to it. But then the interior may well be nasty, unfortunately I've never been to Paris.

Anyways many towns near me had small depots which last decades beyond the decline of rural passenger service, to be used by the railroad for office space back before modern communications. I have a book about the Santa Fe in Texas which has in the back great color photos of almost every station there was in Texas, most small but iconic yellow wooden buildings. A surprising number still exist but have been picked up and moved and re-used as houses or shops.


----------



## Bulbous (Jun 27, 2008)

Basincreek said:


> It should be noted that these became disused not because of cars and interstates but because of a concerted effort by railroad companies to phase out passenger travel after WW2 because freight hauling was much more profitable with its near infinite scalability. That the interstates and cars became so popular was a result, not a cause, of this business model shift.


This is one of the more stupid comments posted here, which a simple search through historical documents from any of the railroads of the time will show is false.....

The passenger decline started well before WW2, and was only halted due to wartime traffic. The railroads introduced new streamlined lightweight passenger trains to the rails in order to woo more passenger traffic back to the rails, and spent quite a huge deal of cash to make it all happen. Some of the fastest scheduled name trains ran during this period, yet the growth of personal transport in the automobile was already claiming passengers from the trains. By the time the Interstate system came into being, the passenger shift from rail to auto had been one way (except for the war years) for near on 35 years plus.

Your own Interstate Commerce Commission had the final say over dropping passenger services, and the railroads were bleeding from the losses of having to run continually loss making trains. This is basically how Amtrak came into being, so that the services could continue in a skeletal fashion under a new government agency, and the private companies could then drop their own services.

Yet Southern Railway at least continued their own passenger train service on their own rails, and did not hand over their trains to Amtrak for a few years yet, as did a few others.

Might be time for some after school reading for yourself sunshine......


----------



## simcard (Feb 18, 2009)

omg, that is so insensitive 

old beautuful architecture should be prized and proteced, not replaced with modern soul less buildings.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

> sergiogiorgini said:
> 
> 
> > With all due respect to Berlin, which did a fine and necessary job with its Hauptbahnhof, there is no way I would trade the Paris situation for one giant glass box in a dead area of town like that. (And neither would the Parisians.) Talk about killing the romance of rail travel.
> ...


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Bulbous said:


> Your own Interstate Commerce Commission had the final say over dropping passenger services, and the railroads were bleeding from the losses of having to run continually loss making trains. This is basically how Amtrak came into being, so that the services could continue in a skeletal fashion under a new government agency, and the private companies could then drop their own services.


One other factor was the end of the mail contracts, and that (if I'm not mistaken) that railways weren't allowed to run bus services.

The AT&SF was quite proud of it's premium trains, with it's superliners, and was even prepared to keep running them at a loss, as long as the loss wasn't to big, and the trains didn't run empty. The loss could be off-setted against the positive effect those trains has on their image. They didn't want to keep running the slow, often less than daily regional trains, that were hardly every used and became entireyl pointless once they didn't carry any mail anymore. The solution would have been for them to drop the regional trains, and replace them with buses, feeding passengers to their mainline premium trains. But they weren't allowed AFAIK. When Amtrak started however they did just that. And they ran the premium trains so poorly that AT&SF banned Amtrak from using the old names...


----------



## wrabbit (May 14, 2005)

The main concourse of Union Station in Chicago, demolished 1969. The waiting room (not pictured) still stands, but isn't nearly as impressive.









Tribune Co. http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...0d834518cc969e201287744daf1970c-.jpg&newest=1









Tribune Co. http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...0d834518cc969e201287744daf1970c-.jpg&newest=1


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

A relatively little known station in London, yet grand nevertheless

Crystal Palace High level, the end of a branch from Nunhead built primarily to serve the 'Crystal Palace' which was rebuilt in Norwood, South London, after being dismantled and relocated from Hyde Park in 1852. The palace itself was partially destroyed by fire in 1866, then completely in 1936, and after then already light traffic on the branch dwindled further until closure in 1954.

The Crystal Palace before destruction in 1936










Location










The station alongside the palace










The station building










The ornate subway, pretty much all that remains today










Inside the substantial trainshed


----------



## Luli Pop (Jun 14, 2010)

Buenos Aires

Estacion del Parque (1857-1886, 1st Argentinean railway)










Estacion Constitucion I (demolished in XIXth century)










Estacion Constitucion II (designed by Parr, Strong & Parr, inspired on Chateau Maisons-Laffitte and demolished on XIXth century)



















Estacion Constitucion III (designed by Paul Bell Chambers and Louis Newbery Thomas, constructed in 1898, partialy demolished on 1925)










Estacion Casa Amarilla


----------



## Silly_Walks (Aug 23, 2010)

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.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ 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.


----------



## stingstingsting (Jun 5, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ 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.


hno:

That kind of attitude is exactly what made the USA lose much of its cultural heritage. In the words of Joni Mitchell, you pay paradise to put up a parking lot. And that's exactly what happened; raze stations and put up huge carparks to please car owners and auto-worshippers such as you. I'm sorry but the days of your 'school of urban planning' are pretty much over.

One has to marry the old with the new. I think the French did it just right with Gare Du Nord. I'm glad they didn't turn that into a Montparnasse just because the Eurostar came along  And there are many more examples out there of this blending.


----------



## Apoc89 (Mar 4, 2010)

The funny thing is, in the UK it's the 1960s modernist stations(or 1960s extensions to older ones) that are being demolished and rebuilt, as in the case of London Bridge or King's Cross' front, while old Victorian stations such as St. Pancras are being preserved or restored.

Even in my town, they've just announced plans to reopen the old Victorian station building after the main ticket office moved to a bland glass box years ago. :banana:


----------



## billiam (Nov 18, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ 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 really couldn't disagree more, while I love high quality modern architecture the sense of theatre and occasion when you arrive in carefully restored or maintained classical station, such as st pancreas or my own local terminius Manchester Piccadilly is something that distinguishes rail travel from its competitors.

Surely the aim should be to preserve and update these stations where it is possible, and to bring in the modern facilities its users expect while retaining there history rather than ruthlessly destroying them in the name of efficiency or even worse fashion.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Minato ku said:


> The station was rebuilt in 1960's
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Its a lot better than some re builds! And looks good from the air! Needs a re clad and update tho!


----------



## Luli Pop (Jun 14, 2010)

that's ok maybe from a plane, but at a human level its surely one of the ugliest places of Paris.


----------



## Silly_Walks (Aug 23, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ 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.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

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.


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

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



Suburbanist said:


> ^^ 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.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

makita09 said:


> 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.


----------



## Lordpenguinton (Aug 19, 2009)

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?


----------



## Apoc89 (Mar 4, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> 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.


----------



## Silly_Walks (Aug 23, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> A demolition adds a sense of modernity,


Keeping beautiful old buildings adds a touch of class and a sense of history.


----------



## Silly_Walks (Aug 23, 2010)

Lordpenguinton said:


> From your posts it seems like you live there, but do ever see any of it?


Suburbanist lives in a place called Theory.


----------



## philvia (Jun 22, 2006)

Silly_Walks said:


> 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


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> 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.



> 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".



> 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



> 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.


----------



## Luli Pop (Jun 14, 2010)

Silly_Walks said:


> 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.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> 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_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Lordpenguinton said:


> 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")


----------



## Bartje (Nov 7, 2007)

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

In 1900









In 1970









Now


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ 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.


----------



## Substructure (Sep 10, 2004)

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.


----------



## Silly_Walks (Aug 23, 2010)

Substructure said:


> 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.


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

Substructure said:


> 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?


----------

