When i first heard that the 4th span of London's Paddington train shed was to be demolished and replaced by office and retail development i was aghast as i loved this Edwardian addition that though added on to the original station after it was built was designed to deftly match Brunel's original Paddington terminus for his Great Western Railway.
Network Rail wanted this and it English Heritage had even approved the scheme - again making me gasp as to what kind of group had obviously taken over this staid organization. The Westminster Council having approved it i could understand - after all this part of the station was quaint, and we all know that Brits recoil at the mention of the "Q" word. Quaint can go.
But if the demolition had continued "it would have been the most extensive destruction of a Grade I structure since listing began." (Quoting Guardian article of Aug 2, 2006.)
The span to be atomized is a fine glass and steel one with large overhead windows.
I believe this may have been the span where taxis once drove right up to meet trains - a unique thing i've only seen at Liverpool Street and Paddington stations - the first time i arrove in London, in 1969, i alighted at Liverpool Street Station on the boat train from Harwich and seeing these pollution belching black cabs pouring right into the station is an indelible memory for me.
Oh well, progress should march on but not at the loss of such QUAINT architectural heritage!

Platform 9 at Liverpool Lime St still has vehicles driving up to meet London trains. Once they were taxis.

How on earth can anyone describe an Edwardian industrial construction as "quaint"? It was ugly and remains ugly.

It never matched the genius of Brunel (who'd have thrown up if he ever thought anyone would describe anything he produced as "quaint". If you were lucky. More likely he'd have blown his cigar in your face then punched it).

We've far too many mediocre pastiches around. This one should go.

Unfortunately, "quaint" doesn't always generate revenue.

Plenty of people lamented at what was destroyed that the great railway stations could be constructed. - including, I believe, Dickens.

I think Paddington's real problem is that Brunel's 'gem' is largely obscured by non-descript stuff fronting it - you can almost pass by the station out front and not realize it. The grandeur of this listed train shed is hardly apparent to the casual observor.

Re: "How on earth can anyone describe an Edwardian industrial construction as "quaint"? It was ugly and remains ugly."

flanneruk you obviously did not bother to look at the architects plan of "exciting cubes of prefabricated steel and plate glass office development" to be imposed by developers upon the site of the 4th span. There are many ugly buildings in London, few are Edwardian, but many are unimaginative office cubes.