Making more room at the trough

It seems obvious from statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in advance of the report HS2 Plus being published that the proposals  therein for the redevelopment of Euston station and its environs have been guided by the heavy hand of HM Treasury. The idea is simple: allow a property developer or two to plant trotters and snout firmly in the HS2 trough by granting access to prime development land around Euston station, backed up by virtually unlimited compulsory purchase powers (see footnote 1), and, in exchange, extract a generous contribution to the cost of building a new station for HS2.

It is clear, from his written statement to the House of Commons on the Higgins Review, that the Transport Secretary is, as you would expect, broadly in favour of the idea. Mr McLoughlin describes it as “a significant opportunity to maximise the economic potential of the line and regenerate a site that has been neglected”. He also, unsurprisingly, remarks that it is “a significant opportunity to generate private sector investment that can reduce the overall burden on the taxpayer”. He therefore announced that he would set this ball rolling by requesting “HS2 Ltd and Network Rail to develop more comprehensive proposals for the redevelopment of Euston, working with the rail industry and the local community”.

Whilst I can understand why the Transport Secretary would nominate HS2 Ltd and Network Rail for this task, I fear that he has doomed the project to failure before it starts. After all HS2 Ltd doesn’t exactly have a good track record of “working with … the local community” and always appears to aspire to mediocrity rather than excellence.

I am also concerned that Sir David Higgins has rather pre-empted due process by proposing in HS2 Plus that the new station should be a “level deck design”. It has always been clear that HS2 Ltd is not concerned about the impacts upon the local community that expanding the footprint of the station would have, and wants to avoid the added construction complexity of more intricate designs that fit within the existing footprint. However, surely this rethink of Euston station merits a proper review of all the options, including the multi-level and below ground designs that have been proposed to an unreceptive HS2 Ltd.

I am definitely not a fan of the design for Euston station in the current version of the Phase 1 hybrid Bill. In my blog An exercise in creative writing (posted 8 May 2013) I called it “a shoddy, make do and mend substitute for a badly needed rebuild at Euston”. In my blog On second thoughts … (posted 30 Apr 2013) I opined that any new Euston station should be the “landmark architectural statement that such a project demands”. The current Euston Station is, by fairly common consent, an eyesore that was largely the well-meaning creation of some talentless and faceless servants of British Rail. Little more than fifty years after being built it is, in Sir David Higgins’ words, “getting close to its sell by date – except nobody would want to buy it” (see footnote 2). I am fearful that any replacement will be the product of equally talentless and visionless architects, and will leave something equally hideous and short-term as a legacy to future generations. The conceptual drawings that have been released by HS2 Ltd for various buildings along the HS2 route do nothing to assuage my fears.

In HS2 Plus Sir David Higgins is keen to compare what he thinks could be achieved at Euston with the successful regeneration projects at St Pancras and King’s Cross. It is important to recognise that Euston is lacking an essential feature of the other two projects, which is an iconic Victorian building at the core. Though the frontages of King’s Cross and St Pancras are very different, the one functional and the other fancy, they are both generally recognised as icons of their type. What architectural and historical merit Euston station had was swept away in the 1960s. All that is being offered as a historical centre of gravity for the new station is a reconstructed Euston Arch. Whilst this structure was an important focus for the unsuccessful campaign by Sir John Betjeman and others against the destruction at Euston, my view is that it lacks relevance, and more importantly architectural merit, in the context of today’s London. In all truth it is a pretty ugly pile of stone, and is likely to look totally incongruous plonked in front of the hideous Paxtonesque creation that I fear might serve as the new Euston station.

It seems essential to me that the design of any replacement for Euston station should only be entrusted to a top architectural practice and should be a nonpareil with the reasonable expectation of, in the phrase used by Sir David in his report, “standing the test of time”. What is needed is a structure that will become recognised as a major London landmark. In times gone by, prestigious architectural commissions of this type were subject to a competition to select the best concept on offer. It was such a competition that resulted in Sir George Gilbert Scott being entrusted with the design of the station frontage and hotel at St. Pancras, and the success of that decision is, thankfully, there for all to see today, one hundred and fifty years later. Surely a project to build a new Euston station should be treated similarly.


  1. Clause 47 of the HS2 Phase 1 hybrid Bill as deposited in Parliament allows for compulsory purchase orders if the Government “considers that the construction or operation of phase one of High Speed 2 gives rise to the opportunity for regeneration or development of any land”.
  2. An opinion expressed by Sir David during his Manchester launch speech.

2 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by chriseaglen on April 21, 2014 at 8:22 am

    Euston was recognised as a potential area in the late 90s for superstructure increases. Today it requires TFL and Crossrail/LUL to be part of the grouping. The HS2 Network Rail JV is simply another way of funding through the Paving Bill works that would be added to the Network Rail public debt currently at record level and rising. The station needs subsurface works as well as super structure and is a project alone without HS2. Not a perfect location for all but it works currently. Cannot see the ECML diversions suiting all from the North to the North. Needs a transport planner before architect. These multiple level stations are Paddington Crossrail discovered require Billions not millions to undertake. The HM Treasury will have considered all the parties to be involved but again it is London Centric costs and not the North South divide generating the London coslty work. Cannot see the investment migrating to Birmingham sufficiently or to Leeds and Manchester. A case of too many objectives and no cash.


  2. Posted by Stephen Plowden on April 21, 2014 at 11:28 am

    HS2 should be stopped altogether. If that is not possible, then the case for having the terminus at OOC rather than at Euston is overwhelming. I’m disturbed that so much attention is being given to the design of Euston, and to seeking mitigation and compensation for those affected by the line between OOC and Euston rather than to making the case for the terminus at OOC. Is there a case for redesigning Euston even if the terminus is at OOC? It is true that Euston is not very attractive, but it is working okay a station and the office blocks opposite are also okay. The idea that with all the other things that need doing redesigning Euston should be on the agenda seems to me absurd. Nor do we want extra activity in this area. It works very well at present and central London is already over full. Leave well alone!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: