{"id":395729,"date":"2026-01-28T21:54:14","date_gmt":"2026-01-28T21:54:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/395729\/"},"modified":"2026-01-28T21:54:14","modified_gmt":"2026-01-28T21:54:14","slug":"architects-clash-over-liverpool-street-station-plans","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/395729\/","title":{"rendered":"Architects clash over Liverpool Street station plans"},"content":{"rendered":"

At a public meeting last week (20 January) the founder of John McAslan + Partners showed off his rival design \u2013 a proposal billed as a \u2018less disruptive\u2019 alternative to plans submitted by ACME, which feature an 18-storey office tower erected above the station\u2019s listed concourse. This contentious enabling commercial scheme will help fund major improvements to the busy London terminus.<\/p>\n

During the event, McAslan told the audience that ACME \u2013 whose application continues to attract objections ahead of a City of London planning committee on 10 February \u2013 should have done more to question Network Rail\u2019s brief.<\/p>\n

Working with engineer Expedition and campaign group SAVE Britain\u2019s Heritage, McAslan claims his concept would result in almost no demolition of the Grade II-listed 1990s station concourse.<\/p>\n

He envisages a nine-storey development, inspired by the station\u2019s Victorian railway architecture<\/a>, hung from a lightweight steel arched frame and feature cross-laminated timber floors to float above the existing trainshed and platforms. McAslan has previously claimed the low-carbon design would cost \u2018half the current \u00a31.2 billion ACME scheme, take up two-thirds of the area, and take half the time to be delivered\u2019, thanks to its anti-demolition and lightweight construction approach.<\/p>\n

Speaking at the packed event held in John McAslan + Partners\u2019 Farringdon-based studio, McAslan said: \u2018I don\u2019t like criticising other architects, particularly people like ACME, who are good architects, but I think their brief is completely wrong and they haven\u2019t been able to challenge it.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

SAVE\u2019s alternative Liverpool Street scheme (John McAslan + Partners)<\/p>\n

\u2018That is a very hard thing if you\u2019ve been presented with a vision [by Network Rail]. In retrospect, they might have wanted to do that [challenge it]. Maybe something else might have emerged.\u2019<\/p>\n

He added: \u2018We\u2019d be happy to collaborate. ACME could do [the new approach], I don\u2019t mind. As long as something else happens.\u2019<\/p>\n

Supporters of his rival proposal include Griff Rhys Jones, the chair of the Victorian Society which is leading the Liverpool Street Station Campaign (LISSCA), a group of mainly heritage bodies opposing major redevelopment of the terminus. The famous comedian claims ACME\u2019s \u2018destructive proposals [\u2026] would plunge passengers into years of disruption\u2019.<\/p>\n

However, ACME\u2019s Ludewig has hit back at McAslan, saying the idea of building over the trainshed had been his preferred option too but, after extensive examination, the concept was found to be unviable. He said others, including BIG and Herzog de Meuron, had also previously considered this approach and not progressed their schemes either.<\/p>\n

Talking to the AJ, Ludewig said that, after spending considerable time trying to make a similar proposal work, the ACME team eventually ruled out the over-platform approach, blaming its \u2018engineering complexity, its impact on the operation of the train services and its limited potential for a viable office entrance\u2019. It was also deemed not to generate enough money to pay back any development partner as well as delivering the changes needed throughout the station.<\/p>\n

Ludewig also said he had talked to McAslan, who oversaw the revamp of King\u2019s Cross Station and Sydney Central, about ACME\u2019s efforts to get a building over the trainshed to stack up commercially. In the end, he said, the pair had disagreed about whether such a scheme was viable.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

ACME\u2019s optioneering for Liverpool Street \u2013 building over the concourse is the option submitted<\/p>\n

The architect told the AJ: \u2018[Our] trainshed proposal and John McAslan\u2019s concept are nearly identical. The principles are 95 per cent the same.<\/p>\n

\u2018I\u2019ve invested a year of my life trying to get a building over the trainshed to work; it was an obvious idea. We spent significant resources investigating the technical constraints \u2013 with a lot more commitment than previous attempts \u2013 to either prove or disprove the practicality and viability of this option.<\/p>\n

\u2018For a long time this was our preferred option and we included significant detail on it in our planning submission to explain why we ultimately had to adopt a different approach.\u2019<\/p>\n

Ludewig (see full comment below) said that ACME had interrogated a range of engineering options, including incorporating a supportive arch-like structure similar to the nearby 1990s SOM-designed Exchange House \u2013 a building which John McAslan\u2019s scheme references.<\/p>\n

However, he added: \u2018Even if it is technically possible[\u2026] if it doesn\u2019t make any money, nobody would build it. Ultimately, the trainshed options died the death of being unviable.\u2019<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

ACME\u2019s floor plan options for building over the trainshed\/platforms<\/p>\n

Network Rail added that they had carried out several independent reviews of McAslan\u2019s plans and had also come to the conclusion the alternative trainshed scheme was unviable.<\/p>\n

ACME\u2019s scheme<\/a>, like the earlier one by Herzog & de Meuron, has faced criticism<\/a> on environmental, heritage and viability grounds. It features staggered garden terraces sitting above the station, and would involve remodelling of the concourse, accessibility improvements and vaulted brick arches at two entrances.<\/p>\n

The number of official objections to the ACME proposal has now topped 2,400, compared with around 1,100 letters of support.<\/p>\n

Among those objecting is Tim Walder, the former principal conservation officer to the Greater London Authority. Describing the scheme as \u2018physically and visually domineering\u2019, he asserts: \u2018The proposed office building is too tall and massive for this context. The 1985 to 1992 elements, listed only recently, are almost wholly destroyed.<\/p>\n

\u2018The proposals also cause a high level of harm to the Great Eastern Hotel [\u2026] this elegant building will be backdropped and visually overwhelmed by the proposed offices.<\/p>\n

\u2018The City should pause this scheme and think again.\u2019<\/p>\n

The planning officers\u2019 recommendations ahead of next month\u2019s planning committee meeting have not yet been published.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

ACME\u2019s proposal: new pedestrian routes to Exchange Square<\/p>\n

Friedrich Ludewig, founder of ACME: why building over Liverpool Street station\u2019s trainshed is not viable<\/p>\n

A number of architects have independently proposed options to build over the trainshed \u2013 Herzog de Meuron with Sellar,\u00a0 BIG with British Land, and ACME with Network Rail.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve invested a year of my life trying to get a building over the trainshed to work \u2013 it was an obvious idea. We spent significant resources investigating the technical constraints \u2013 with a lot more commitment than previous attempts \u2013 to either prove or disprove the practicality and viability of this option. For a long time in the option assessment, this was our preferred option, and we included significant detail on this option in our planning submission to explain why we ultimately had to adopt a different approach.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve spoken to Historic England and the City of London about this option, exploring options for column positions, entrances, bulk and massing.<\/p>\n

The ACME trainshed proposal and John McAslan\u2019s concept are nearly identical. The principles are 95 per cent the same \u2013 but we have had a lot more time to investigate the details, so we differ when it comes to entrances, column detail and construction logistics, where our proposals are a bit more realistic, consider logistics, buildability alongside an operational solution.<\/p>\n

Practically, if you wanted to create an arch from which the rest of the structure is hung (similar to SOM\u2019s Exchange House to the north) you would have to first build a temporary transfer structure to build this arch. This is how SOM built Exchange House. That would mean swinging steel across the live platforms 1 to 10.<\/p>\n

Network Rail Anglia route has been very clear, that is not acceptable. You cannot simply close 10 platforms in the UKs busiest train station and, even if that level of passenger disruption was acceptable, it would add considerable cost. For this reason, our structural team discarded the arch form and considered a transfer structure, which would require landing columns protruding through the original Victorian trainshed down to platforms, additional to the cores for the office building, required in any scenario.<\/p>\n

Daylight is also complicated. The station is surrounded by very deep plan office buildings, on Bishopsgate and Broadgate. We decided to create massing options that never get closer than 12m to a neighbouring office building before stepping back. The McAslan scheme is much closer; it\u2019s basically within touching distance of 135-155 Bishopsgate. We don\u2019t think you can build so close to a deep 1990s building. We\u2019d be taking away the only daylight they have.<\/p>\n

But it doesn\u2019t really matter. Even if it is technically possible \u2013 and from an engineering point, many things are possible \u2013\u00a0 if it doesn\u2019t make any money, nobody would build it. Ultimately, the trainshed options died the death of being unviable.<\/p>\n

We explained to John McAslan and Chris Wise [of Expedition Engineerig] in detail the work that ACME had done with WSP, AKT2 and AECOM. Gleeds and JLL. And we explained why the scheme failed. They agreed that the schemes are very close. However, they refused to accept the results of the viability assessment, and the concerns from the Network Rail Operations team.<\/p>\n

The proposal to build over the trainshed failed because we could not make any money. It would cost \u00a3600 million to build and even in the most optimistic scenarios it would not create enough residual land value to pay for the station improvements and cover the margins needed for any development partner to deliver it.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

SAVE\u2019s alternative Liverpool Street scheme (John McAslan + Partners)<\/p>\n

Chris Wise, senior director at Expedition Engineering: how we would do it<\/p>\n

Our engineering would bridge the main Victorian trainshed without touching it, efficiently supporting the clear span of 90m with a series of tied parabolic arches, rather than the heavy transfer trusses often used for air rights projects.<\/p>\n

Inside the new building, instead of heavy columns, our floors are hung from the arches. All is carried on a series of tall piloti columns, designed at a civic scale to land away from the twin roofs of the Victorian station structure.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"At a public meeting last week (20 January) the founder of John McAslan + Partners showed off his…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":395730,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[148549,6225,6485,6486,1120,96,148550,84495,148551,56,54,55],"class_list":["post-395729","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-arts-and-design","tag-acme","tag-arts","tag-arts-and-design","tag-artsanddesign","tag-design","tag-entertainment","tag-john-mcaslan","tag-liverpool-street","tag-save-britains-heritage","tag-uk","tag-united-kingdom","tag-unitedkingdom"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/395729","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=395729"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/395729\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/395730"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=395729"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=395729"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=395729"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}