Can't help but think it's the cringiest thing ever and might genuinely confuse people
I guess if TfL is broke and genuinely needs to do anything for money though...

I can understand why TfL needs the money, but it could have been done a lot better. Every other roundel kept as "Bond Street" perhaps, or a combined "Burberry / Bond Street"? I understand that they had platform staff announcing it as Bond Street for arriving trains, but I can't imagine they had them on all platforms and at all times the station was open. Bit crap when it's such a big interchange with the Elizabeth Line now.On the subject of Bond Street specifically, and how much it raised, opinion is divided: [Will] Jennings [who teaches and writes about architecture] thinks “a nice, small amount”; [Anna] Minton [an academic and the author of Big Capital: Who is London For?] thinks that “Burberry was paying very, very large amounts of money”. It ought to be possible to nail this down, but TfL declined to specify, commenting only that, whatever it was, it was invested back into the network. Again, the language of money gates off pluralism: it’s enough for us to know that profit was made, we don’t need to know how much. But without that information, how could we decide collectively whether it was worth it?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest