Talk:Maida Vale tube station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Speculation on station being built higher

The article on Maida Vale station at Unfinished buildings.org speculates that the developer of the two parades of shops on each side of Elgin Avenue anticipated the construction of the station by building the fireplaces on the first floor in advance. I have left the link but commented it as speculation and probably wrong for the following reasons:

1. The architectural style of the adjacent buildings on Elgin Avenue appears to be more in keeping with the 1880s or 1890s (which would be consistent with when most of the area around the station was developed) rather than the first or second decade of the 20th century. The parades of shops were thus, most probably built between 15 and 35 years before the station and, most probably, long before any plans had been made for the Bakerloo Line.
2. Developer's simply do not build in this way. The fireplaces visible in the picture on the Unfinished buildings.org site do not indicate that the developer anticipated a later structure by building part of it in advance; they are the remnants of a three storey building that was demolished so that the station could be built:
   • The reason the fireplace openings were left in place is that the end wall of the now demolished building and the end wall of the existing parade of shops were built flush against one another. To make a neat job of the demolition by removing the final, thin layer of bricks that formed the end wall of the demolished building could have damaged the end wall of the parade leaving the owners of the Bakerloo Line liable for repairs. Leaving the final skin of bricks from the demolished building in place avoided this risk.
   • Also, because of the difficulty of building a brick wall neatly against an existing structure (it is impossible to ensure that the mortar is properly pointed), if the parade had been built after the demolished building, the end wall of the parade, had it been exposed by the demolition, might have been found to be of a poor standard requiring repointing or re-skinning to ensure it was made weatherproof. Again this would have been the responsibility of the Bakerloo Line owners. Again, leaving the final skin of bricks from the demolished building in place avoided this problem
   • The images from the London's Transport Museum Photographic Archive show the structure of the wall more clearly, and it can be seen that the front and rear edges of the wall show the "toothed" effect where the alternate courses of bricks from the front and rear wall have been removed.

DavidCane 11:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)