Victoria station: The heart of London’s transport
The historic station could be about to face one of the most dangerous remodelling interventions
London Victoria is one of the city’s communication hubs and the heart of its commuting movement: this magnificent construction witnesses the astonishing amount of over 85,000,000 annual commuters walking through its platforms and hallways. This noticeable figure positions London Victoria as the second busiest station in the country, according to the statistics released by the British tabloid Evening Standard.
From a central spot in the station, a woman can be seen rushing on a pair of high heels: she is late to the train that will most likely take her home after a workday… A clock that indicates it’s seven o’clock and, at this time, many people with widely different backgrounds end up crossing paths in one same place. Just like the essence of the station itself: different buildings converging in one station.
It was almost two centuries ago that this building arose in London when two different railway companies agreed to build adjoining but totally independent terminuses. In 1860, the first half opened its doors under the design of engineer R. J. Hood and two years later was the turn of the other part, a project led by Sir J. Fowler. Still today, and in spite of the unified floor, the design differences can be appreciated when looking up to the structure.
When the two buildings finally became one in 1921 (after the merge of both companies under the firm Southern Railway) the dividing wall was perforated and the two halves were connected by an archway that allowed the free flow of users between them. This gave a positive permeable character to the inside space while keeping the dual façade on the outside, which reflects and preserves the historical character of this building.
Today, Victoria Station could be facing one of the most dangerous interventions a historic building can suffer: the Evening Standard has recently revealed a proposal for an ambitious plan of roof replacement and vertical development of an office tower above the platforms. But what are the risks of such an intervention in this old famous building?
Not only would this project entail a multi-millionaire investment, but it would also lead to a visual and functional impact on a building that has earned its historic status in nowadays’ London scenario: in order to enlarge a project and develop a tower on top of it, the first step is to alter the structure and prepare it for the massive loads it will hold. This, in the case of Victoria Station, would mean the intervention if the original structures that still exist today, changing one of the elements that most clearly tell the story of the building.
Another critical point to be analysed is the light permeability. The original station, even coming from two different buildings, follows the traditional market-station construction style in both halves, dominated by big, solid steel frames and glass panels just like the traditional 20th-century industrial construction dictates. The current state of the station allows the entrance of a great amount of natural light, an essential point in a space as busy as this one. But the implementation of a new structure on top of it would mean that all that that is now light would be turned into shadow and the natural illumination of the space would be lost. Even if some skylights were incorporated into the new design in order to let some sunlight into the ground floor, still a reinforcement of the whole structure would be necessary to hold the new floors above it, resulting in thicker steel frames that would get rid of all the “lightness” effect and reduce the light entrance.
Is this historic dual building ready to break with its balance in order to host an imposed contemporary office tower just because the promoters would get economic benefits out of it? Is the financial aim reason enough to alter the long-awaited functional unity and a history of two centuries reflected in one building? Some of the commuters seem to have quite a strong opinion about it: “Bad idea! That’s definitely a bad idea!” says one of them, while a member of the staff claims that “this intervention could cause severe disruptions for the commuters”.
As Richard Moe, an American lawyer and ex-president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation quoted once, “preservation is simply having the good sense to hold on to things that are well designed, that link us with our past in a meaningful way, and that have plenty of good use left in them”. And the new plan for Victoria aims to break with all those principles at once.
