New Low-Impact Proposal Could Transform Liverpool Street Station Faster and Cheaper

John McAslan + Partners unveils an alternative design that preserves heritage, reduces demolition, and promises shorter construction times compared with Network Rail’s current plans.

A new alternative vision for the redevelopment of Liverpool Street station has been put forward, with its designers arguing that it could be delivered more cheaply, more quickly and with far less demolition than Network Rail’s current proposal.

As revealed by Architects’ Journal (AJ), the scheme has been drawn up by John McAslan + Partners, working alongside engineering consultancy Expedition and supported by campaign group Save Britain’s Heritage. It stands in contrast to the plan submitted earlier this year by Network Rail and Acme, which remains undecided by the City of London.

McAslan’s proposal—developed by the practice responsible for the major transformation of King’s Cross station in 2012—retains virtually all of the Grade II-listed 1990s concourse, avoiding the extensive demolition at the heart of Network Rail’s preferred scheme. Instead, it introduces a nine-storey ‘air-rights’ structure suspended from a lightweight steel arch. The new building, featuring cross-laminated timber floors, would sit above the existing trainshed and platforms rather than replacing them.

At roughly half the height of Acme’s proposed 18-storey tower, the design draws inspiration from the station’s original Victorian engineering while also referencing the adjacent 1990s Exchange House, designed by SOM.

Speaking to the AJ, John McAslan said that the intent was to produce a low-carbon, heritage-sensitive alternative that preserves daylight on platforms and improves views across the historic train sheds. He emphasised that the design keeps the vast majority of the 1990s elements, including the entrances, while delivering better accessibility and handling larger passenger flows.

According to McAslan, the lightweight, minimal-demolition approach means the project could be delivered for around half the cost of the £1.2bn Acme scheme, occupy two-thirds of the footprint, and be completed in half the time—with far less operational disruption.

“Our version could be built in maybe five to twelve years, with no or only very limited interruption to services and almost no impact on day-to-day operations,” he said. “Given that, why would anyone opt for a version that causes massive disruption?”