Liverpool Scraps Tall Building Policy

[Kev]

LIVERPOOL City Council has scrapped its controversial tall buildings policy.

The decision to do away with the policy will be welcome news to the city's major property developers who have been highly critical of the way it has been implemented.

News about the decision to scrap the policy emerged in a podcast interview given by council leader Warren Bradley to the Liverpool Daily Post's new website, Thebusinessweek.co.uk, which launches today.

In it, Cllr Bradley describes the tall buildings policy, which sought to restrict the construction of skyscrapers to certain parts of the city, as "a mistake".

It was introduced in December, 2004, and was meant to promote tall buildings in only three clusters around the city.

A number of tall building plans have been rejected since, much to the anger of developers.

Cllr Bradley said: "Nowhere has a tall buildings policy. What we have is guidance. If a planning application is received, it is dealt with on its merits.

"It's not about somebody who doesn't like tall buildings so you're not going to get it.

"I think it was a mistake. If you want to be a progressive, proactive city you can't have a ridiculous policy that says you can't have this and you can't have that."

Cllr Bradley also pledged to reform the city's complex array of inward investment and business support agencies. There are about 30 such agencies operating on Merseyside and Cllr Bradley said he had started discussions to streamline that number down to just two agencies within 12 months.

Cllr Bradley's full interview on the subject of whether Liverpool is really business friendly can be heard and downloaded at www.thebusinessweek.co.uk

Cllr Bradley said some council officials had in the past become dictatorial and he also promised to pursue a policy of turning Liverpool into one of the most business-friendly cities in Britain.

The scrapping of the tall buildings policy has been welcomed by business lobby group Downtown Liverpool in Business, which has campaigned against it for 18 months.

DLIB chairman Frank McKenna said: "We always said it was a daft idea and unworkable. It makes me wonder why these policies are ever dreamed up in the first place. Having a tall buildings policy is possibly even against the law.

"Let's not forget that we had two rounds of consultations on this and then planning officers had to spend a lot of time trying to make it work. So how much has this cost us?"

billgleeson@dailypost.co.uk

Plans for skyscrapers never got off the ground

DEVELOPERS have tried to build a number of skyscrapers in Liverpool over recent years but without much success.

One of the most contentious has been Maro's plans for a 500ft tower at Brunswick Quay, which would have been the tallest in the city.

The 51-storey building, with two smaller 10 storey blocks, has been rejected twice by the city's planning committee on advice from officials.

Developers are also still hoping to build a glass skyscraper behind Lime Street station but the signs are not looking good.

Chieftain Construction wants to build a 32-storey tower containing a 160-bedroom hotel and about 150 apartments.

But councillors rejected the application last summer, saying it would clash with a tower planned as part of a redevelopment of the outside of the station.

In March, the firm tried to have the Lime Street development quashed but failed in London's High Court. It will still try to get the go-ahead for its own proposal, at a car park site in Skelhorne Street.

The 1,000ft Otterspool Tower, dubbed "The Scousescraper", was to be the tallest building in Europe when the project was launched a decade ago.

Construction company Wiggins, claimed it would create 6,000 jobs, with the knock-on effect leading to as many as 30,000 more around the city but later dropped the plans.

Wayne Colquhoun, from Liverpool Preservation Trust, has called for the council to come up with a new comprehensive set of rules of skyscrapers to protect the city's skyline.

He said: "I'm not against modern buildings but it is vital that they are built in the right place.

"We need a strategy that very clearly sets out where developments can be built.

"We cannot let our landscape be ruined by glass and steel buildings which have no architectural merit."

[Kev]

THERE will be many developers breathing a sigh of relief at the news today that Liverpool City Council has decided to rethink its policy on tall buildings. more (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/thebusinessweek/regionalnews/tm_objectid=17046298%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=we%2dsay%2d%2ddaily%2dpost%2dcomment-name_page.html)

[Kev]

Couldn't resist:

http://static.flickr.com/51/143547286_577471ac2f_o.jpg

[TruthHurts]

I don't know who I'm responding to but I've just been flipping through the e-mails here and it’s now December 2006. So is there still any hope we may see tall - I mean REALLY TALL…! - buildings going up anytime soon in downtown Liverpool…??? ‘Cos, if so, I'll just bet that even now there’s some evil anti-Scouse sonova-***** out there determined to castrate Liverpool’s hopes of entertaining ideas above its station - like skyscraper-building, or any return to big-city-(dumb…?) whatsoever - before you can say “Three Graces”…!!!

Frankly, over the years, I’ve grown sick'n' tired of hearing about grandiose schemes to build huge glass and steel towers along the Mersey waterfront, only for just about every scheme to vanish like ice at a Bar-Bee... Usually turned down by some busy-body group, or other, seemingly convinced that the good folks of Liverpool would be much better served with no new erections permitted - higher than maybe a multi-story ducking stool, or two - EVER to be built, ANYWHERE in the city - within ten miles of the Pierhead... And, oh yes, of course... early-closing on Wednesdays and Saturdays at Speke Airport - (Sorry…! John Lennon)…!

John Jay

[AK1]

I don't know who I'm responding to but I've just been flipping through the e-mails here and it’s now December 2006. So is there still any hope we may see tall - I mean REALLY TALL…! - buildings going up anytime soon in downtown Liverpool…??? ‘Cos, if so, I'll just bet that even now there’s some evil anti-Scouse sonova-***** out there determined to castrate Liverpool’s hopes of entertaining ideas above its station - like skyscraper-building, or any return to big-city-(dumb…?) whatsoever - before you can say “Three Graces”…!!!

Frankly, over the years, I’ve grown sick'n' tired of hearing about grandiose schemes to build huge glass and steel towers along the Mersey waterfront, only for just about every scheme to vanish like ice at a Bar-Bee... Usually turned down by some busy-body group, or other, seemingly convinced that the good folks of Liverpool would be much better served with no new erections permitted - higher than maybe a multi-story ducking stool, or two - EVER to be built, ANYWHERE in the city - within ten miles of the Pierhead... And, oh yes, of course... early-closing on Wednesdays and Saturdays at Speke Airport - (Sorry…! John Lennon)…!

John Jay

There is still hope, quite alot of it actually!! Brunswick tower may still go-ahead, there is the proposed king edward tower on the site of the king edward pub, princess dock tower on plot 3a and the complete transformation of the north docks which will include a number of talls, 50+ storeys. Don't give up hope yet!!!!

[Waterways]

There is still hope, quite alot of it actually!! Brunswick tower may still go-ahead,


The tower was refused after the policy was scrapped. A hope and a prayer that it will be built. If it goes ahead it will be the Brunswick Stump.



there is the proposed king edward tower on the site of the king edward pub, princess dock tower on plot 3a and the complete transformation of the north docks which will include a number of talls, 50+ storeys. Don't give up hope yet!!!!

50+ tall on the north end docks? A World Heritage Site? The best option was the south end docks away from the WHS. One was proposed but turned down.

I can't see any real tall buildings being built at Liverpool. The big money after Brunswick Tower will not even look at the place now. Both barrels into the feet.

[Kev]

Has anyone actually come out and stated that a particular area is suitable for taller structures? Or do we assume the cluster at and around Princess Dock is all we can get?

[theninesisters]

Couldn't resist:

Cheers Kev! I get to see a Playstation 3 all day in work and now I have to put up with one on this site too :)

[Kev]

Cheers Kev! I get to see a Playstation 3 all day in work and now I have to put up with one on this site too :)

Nice one, do you work for Sony then?

[scouserdave]

Nice one, do you work for Sony then?
My eldest lad was whooping for joy a couple of weeks back when he received a freebie Playstation. He reviews games online and is always getting promo copies through the post, then sells them on Ebay. I presume it's the PS3, because he only recently had his PS2 chipped when he was in Manila. The last time I played "games" was Doom:PDT_Xtremez_12:

[Kev]

My eldest lad was whooping for joy a couple of weeks back when he received a freebie Playstation. He reviews games online and is always getting promo copies through the post, then sells them on Ebay. I presume it's the PS3, because he only recently had his PS2 chipped when he was in Manila. The last time I played "games" was Doom:PDT_Xtremez_12:

does he games test from home then? i could do that

[scouserdave]

does he games test from home then? i could do that
He's been doing it for a couple of years. There's a forum for pro gameplayers, invitation only. He somehow managed to get on there. Once on there, he just blagged. I'll have to get him to join Yo' to explain himself. He loves Liverpool.

[AK1]

:celb (23):
The tower was refused after the policy was scrapped. A hope and a prayer that it will be built. If it goes ahead it will be the Brunswick Stump.



50+ tall on the north end docks? A World Heritage Site? The best option was the south end docks away from the WHS. One was proposed but turned down.

I can't see any real tall buildings being built at Liverpool. The big money after Brunswick Tower will not even look at the place now. Both barrels into the feet.

Just wait and see! Don't be so negative! If they start refusing them, then you can get negative. Just be positive for now and hope that the planners begin to see sense sometime soon.

[Waterways]

:celb (23):

Just wait and see! Don't be so negative! If they start refusing them, then you can get negative. Just be positive for now and hope that the planners begin to see sense sometime soon.

The only hope if that Maro pull some strings and take it to the House of Lords and/or the EU. If they fail forget high quality investment in buildings. Just more of the same 4 floor tat that litters the city.

If Maro exhaust all avenues then it is bye, bye for quality investment. If I was a developer with 150 million to spend I would not be looking at Liverpool if Maro get the push.

Just look at the time and money Maro have spent. They are probably thinking we should have built in Leeds and it would have been finished by now.

They are left with a small dockside site which can't maximise its potential. Be prepared for a 4 to 8 floor anytown, anywhere, bland stump and Maro and others to forget Liverpool for ever.

Top architects now don't like taking commissions for Liverpool as they know there is a 90% chance of nothing happening. They like their ideas to come to fruition, not just be models and renders. So far at least two of the world's top architects have had proposals in Liverpool turned down.

[The Teardrop Explodes]

I'm thinking you're being overly downcast about the situation here. I know the Brunswick objections were officially after the 'no talls' policy was scrapped but there were still a lot of lingering politics from that in the air...

I think the situation's clarified since then somewhat. Bradley seems fairly clear about what these developments can do for the city, and I believe the Maro issue will only help concentrate minds for the future...

[theninesisters]

Nice one, do you work for Sony then?

Aye, it's still my 'first' job as I came here when I left school when it used to be Psygnosis and now I'm Lead Development Assistant for the PS3. It's a cracking job but after 13 years it's just a job to me now! :)

I've worked on a few games too!

http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,39137/

[Waterways]

I'm thinking you're being overly downcast about the situation here. I know the Brunswick objections were officially after the 'no talls' policy was scrapped but there were still a lot of lingering politics from that in the air...

I think the situation's clarified since then somewhat. Bradley seems fairly clear about what these developments can do for the city, and I believe the Maro issue will only help concentrate minds for the future...

If the tower doesn't get built then it will concentrate the minds of big and quality investors onto places elsewhere for ever.

[christy]

Decision about the Maro develpoment was crazy but as for architects not wanting to bother with the city iis not true. Rick Mather has designed the new John Moores arts building on site now where the old St Nick's building was. Daniel Libskind is designing the new eco domne thing if it goes ahead. Cesar Pelli Associates have designed te new hotel for Grosvenor. Apart from Willl Alsop and Ian Simpson, there have been no other notable architects whose designs have been knocked back. Architects who have entered design competitions and not won do not count as this is part and parcel of a large practices work.
Now large scale changes and developments are happening, hopefully more developers will approach iconic architects to design for them! Id like Zaha Hadid to design something myself, something brave and iconixc. On the theme of her, the design she completed and won a competition with for Cardiff was knocked back because it was too radical so it is not just Liverpool who reject things. As for the likes of Leeds and Manchester, the developments in both cities are apart from being widespread, extremely boring. The only recent thing of note in Manchester is Ando's Piccadilly gardens design. IMHO of course.

[christy]

Sorry, Khon Pederson and fox sky scraper as well but I actually prefer the new unity scheme!

[Waterways]

Decision about the Maro develpoment was crazy but as for architects not wanting to bother with the city iis not true. Rick Mather has designed the new John Moores arts building on site now where the old St Nick's building was. Daniel Libskind is designing the new eco domne thing if it goes ahead. Cesar Pelli Associates have designed te new hotel for Grosvenor. Apart from Willl Alsop and Ian Simpson, there have been no other notable architects whose designs have been knocked back.


Norman Foster and the 4th Grace. If a Norman Foster has the choice of a top project elsewhere that they know will not have 10 floors lopped off and a 90% plus chance of being built they will go for that. Liverpool is a wild card and only if they have nothing on would they be bothered. It is noted as a dead loss city - oh that place.



Architects who have entered design competitions and not won do not count as this is part and parcel of a large practices work.
Now large scale changes and developments are happening, hopefully more developers will approach iconic architects to design for them! Id like Zaha Hadid to design something myself, something brave and iconixc. On the theme of her, the design she completed and won a competition with for Cardiff was knocked back because it was too radical so it is not just Liverpool who reject things. As for the likes of Leeds and Manchester, the developments in both cities are apart from being widespread, extremely boring. The only recent thing of note in Manchester is Ando's Piccadilly gardens design. IMHO of course.

Leeds has some very nice designs on the way. Manchester is a glorified Croydon - off-the-shelf designs of little merit.

It is mainly the developers, the money men, who will not be bothered with Liverpool after seeing what happend to Maro.

[SteH]

I'm thinking you're being overly downcast about the situation here. I know the Brunswick objections were officially after the 'no talls' policy was scrapped but there were still a lot of lingering politics from that in the air...

I think the situation's clarified since then somewhat. Bradley seems fairly clear about what these developments can do for the city, and I believe the Maro issue will only help concentrate minds for the future...

I dont think Waterways is being downcast at all. There's been the Maro and Chieftan developments being thrown out, Central Station scheme being downgraded, Beetham West initially being knocked back, the list goes on and on. By the time developers eventually get to lay the first foundations they could be getting a rental return in other places.

[The Teardrop Explodes]

...but the fact is that 99.9% of developers schemes get the kb all over the world. I know we're all hungry and impatient for signs of the rebirth of this city but short-term disappointments are the nature of the beast I'm afraid. 'Rome wasn't built in a day''etc etc..

Despite all that, the trajectory's ever higher for this place, our city's on the move. Exciting times for all those worldwide who follow and care about the fortunes of our unique city.

[christy]

Norman Foster and the 4th Grace. If a Norman Foster has the choice of a top project elsewhere that they know will not have 10 floors lopped off and a 90% plus chance of being built they will go for that. Liverpool is a wild card and only if they have nothing on would they be bothered. It is noted as a dead loss city - oh that place.

It is mainly the developers, the money men, who will not be bothered with Liverpool after seeing what happend to Maro.

Norman Foster didn't get knocked back, his design was one of the competition entries that lost the design competition - not the same as being knocked back as architectural practices enter competitions and lose all the time. The fact that Foster entered the competition surely says much more!

I understand your point totally though, I just feel more positive about the situation and don't believe buildings getting the knock back for is a bad thing and as pointed out, this happens everywhere, world wide. I am glad in a way that the planners are being more choosy now and not just letting developments go ahead in the desperate way they did in the last decade, just because they thought if they objected the developers would move elsewhere or leave sites undeveloped (Queens square, Halifax building etc). There is however a balance to be struck and some decisions have unfortunately gone the wrong way such as Maro so hopefully they will now start to get things right. Liverpool is a very attractive place to develop aand invest in at present and money men will always go where they can make money and the money making opps for them in Liverpool at the mo is imense.
Just hope now that the tall buildings policy has gone, some good quality high rise buildings will be allowed to be built without ridiculous objections but not at any cost and just because they are tall.

[Waterways]

Norman Foster didn't get knocked back, his design was one of the competition entries that lost the design competition - not the same as being knocked back as architectural practices enter competitions and lose all the time. The fact that Foster entered the competition surely says much more!

I understand your point totally though, I just feel more positive about the situation and don't believe buildings getting the knock back for is a bad thing and as pointed out, this happens everywhere, world wide. I am glad in a way that the planners are being more choosy now and not just letting developments go ahead in the desperate way they did in the last decade, just because they thought if they objected the developers would move elsewhere or leave sites undeveloped (Queens square, Halifax building etc). There is however a balance to be struck and some decisions have unfortunately gone the wrong way such as Maro so hopefully they will now start to get things right. Liverpool is a very attractive place to develop aand invest in at present and money men will always go where they can make money and the money making opps for them in Liverpool at the mo is imense.
Just hope now that the tall buildings policy has gone, some good quality high rise buildings will be allowed to be built without ridiculous objections but not at any cost and just because they are tall.

Liverpool is regarded as a wild card. They see property prices rising because of WHS and Capital of Culture, then they sell. Liverpool came from a very low price base. The real big solid investments are in London, Edinburgh and to a lesser extent Manchester and Birmingham. The last two are a good investment as there is less hostility and they are welcoming.

The post about tourism was an eye opener. Liverpool is supposed to be touted as a tourist destination, yet Manchester received more foreign and local visitors - can't see why myself as the city is bland, and I am being honest. This may change once Liverpool centre is not a huge construction site, the cruise line terminal is in place, something is done about Central Docks and CofC year is over. It does indicate that Liverpool has a very long way to go. Get it wrong now and it is with us for generations.

Liverpool could strip all the rest with visitors if they got rid of the urban motorway through the centre (Dock Rd) making the city people friendly and developed the docks properly. The atraction is the water and the maritime history. The visitors want to see real ships, not just canal boats - the goons running the city can't see this.

Maro is a local company, owned by a Liverpudlian. An external company would have walked with their millions a long time ago muttering stupid comments about the retarded locals. He may see it personally and will fight the fools ruining his city.

[Kev]

An external company would have walked with their millions a long time ago muttering stupid comments about the retarded locals.

Odd? Arn't these your comments john? Retarded locals? :disgust:

[Waterways]

Odd? Arn't these your comments john? Retarded locals? :disgust:

Look at it from their point of view. :)

[Bunnyman]

John, Re. the tourism thing. Does that also include overnight stays for people using the airports etc? That would artificially inflate the figures in Manchesters favour, as would the conference facilities, no. of hotel rooms, the arenas etc.

[Kev]

Look at it from their point of view. :)

John, mate, there's no evidence that this is their point of view. I find those words like retard offensive and I wouldn't like to go into detail on the forum as to my reasons why. anyway, moving on.............

[Waterways]

John, mate, there's no evidence that this is their point of view. I find those words like retard offensive and I wouldn't like to go into detail on the forum as to my reasons why. anyway, moving on.............

I am speaking generally not about Maro in particular. I would say the people running the city are retarded in many ways. :)

[Sloyne]

John, Re. the tourism thing. Does that also include overnight stays for people using the airports etc? That would artificially inflate the figures in Manchesters favour, as would the conference facilities, no. of hotel rooms, the arenas etc.Right on! Manchester counts visitors by those who spend at least one night in that city. So, anyone from outside the city and travelling by air to, for example, North America, either from MAN or one of London's airports via MAN, will usually spend the night close to Manchester airport. Also, arriving overseas flights usually arrive in early morning after overnight flights and, again for many pax, will necessisate a stay in a Manchester hotel to mitigate the effects of jet-lag. I have missed, on a number of occasions and due to traffic conditions, early morning flights to NA and London from MAN so I now spend the night at a MAN hotel (Moat House) when flying home to NA. I am counted as a "Overseas tourist visitor" to that city. So, and always remember, "Figures dont lie but liars certainly figure" and that city up the hi-way is a past master at manipulating figures.

[Kev]

LIVERPOOL is being asked to re-introduce a policy to control skyscraper schemes, just months after a tall buildings policy was scrapped. more (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpooldailypost/news/regionalnews/tm_headline=call-for-new-city-skyscraper-controls%26method=full%26objectid=18550838%26sitei d=50061-name_page.html)


Last night, Liverpool’s regeneration executive member Cllr Peter Millea said the city would resist any moves to deter investors wanting to spend millions.

Since the tall buildings policy was scrapped, what tall buildings have been given the go ahead that wouldn't have before the scrapping? Brunswick was knocked back anyway!