Brunswick Dock Area

[Kev]

A DAZZLING sail-shaped skyscraper would be an "interesting design in the wrong place and at the wrong time", a public inquiry heard.

Developer Maro wants to construct a 51-floor tower at Brunswick Quay, on the edge of Liverpool city centre.

The firm claims the building - home to a hotel, flats and offices - would be a positive and breathtaking addition to the waterfront.

But Liverpool council, which has twice blocked the plan, yesterday said Brunswick Quay does not need a tall building - and should be used as a workplace.

The site was previously home to a small business centre, set up after the Toxteth riots, which has been gradually emptied over the past few months and is now shut.

Paul Tucker, representing the council, said: "There are good reasons why the building is in the wrong place and is being proposed at the wrong time.

"This location does not warrant a tall building of the type proposed - or at all.

"Stand towards the end of Northumberland Street, look west and ask whether open space, shops and a boutique hotel will really promote integration of the dock with Toxteth and Dingle."

Mr Tucker said the council would liketo see the small business centre reopened.

He added: "This was a comparatively successful employment generator, which brought together a number of different features to benefit the local area.

"The effect of granting planning permission would be the irrevocable loss of that resource."

But Christopher Katkowski QC, representing Maro, said the £100m tower would hugely improve this part of the city centre.

He said: "The proposal would make a positive and breathtaking contribution to the skyline, waterfront, and the immediate locality.

"It seems obvious that the location and setting would be enhanced, and significantly so, with the proposals in place.

"The proposals should produce more benefits than costs to the lives of those affected."

The public inquiry is due to last for three weeks before a final recommendation on the plan is sent to the government.

nick.coligan@liverpool.com

[Kev]

LIVERPOOL should welcome plans for the city's tallest skyscraper because the quality of other new developments in the city is too low, a public inquiry heard yesterday. more (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=17197500%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=liverpool%2dneeds%2d51%2dstorey%2dskysc raper%2d%2dinquiry%2dtold-name_page.html)

Have your say!!

[Max]

MORE SKY SCRAPERS!:celb (23):

I would like to see the view of the city from a higher building.:celb (23):

Tallest building I've been up in Liverpool was the anglican cathedral.

In Paris you get a good view of Paris from the Eifel Tower.:celb (23):

[Paul D]

I'd love this to happen but I'm not very confident it will happen going on previous decisions,I want to be proved wrong.

[Kev]

Why would anyone want to reject such a proposal?

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/jun2005/7/6/000CFFE0-0F19-12A8-81B380BFB6FA0000.jpg

[Paul D]

Only God knows what these people are thinking?:disgust:

[Kev]

A SKYSCRAPER at Liverpool's Brunswick Quay would create a "them and us" mentality, a public inquiry heard.

Paul Tucker, a lawyer for Liverpool Council, claimed plans for a 51-storey building on the city's waterfront were in the "wrong place at the wrong time".

Mr Tucker insisted the city should not be seduced by promises of regeneration and investment.

He told the final day of a public inquiry into the development: "It is not lightly that the city seeks to resist a development which would make something of a statement about the future of Liverpool.

"However, the concern about the building is not that such a building might not add beneficially to the skyline of Liverpool, but not in this place and not at this time.

"The point is best illustrated by asking the question as to whether those living to the east of Sefton Street, with a view of the looming mass of the building permanently in their field of view, would consider that the 'them and us' mentality is being reinforced or being eroded.

"It is the planning of wonderland to suggest that the effect will be to promote social inclusion and integration of the existing population in the way envisaged."

Yesterday was the final day of a public inquiry into the proposed building after developers Maro appealed a Liverpool City Council decision to reject the skyscraper.

The site was previously home to a small business centre, set up after the Toxteth riots, which has been gradually emptied over the past few months and is now shut.

The firm claims the building, which would include a hotel, flats and offices, would be a positive and breathtaking addition to the waterfront.

Christopher Katkowski QC, representing Maro, said the £120m tower would hugely improve this part of the city centre. He said: "Liverpool has lagged behind its fellow 'regional pole' Manchester in delivering regeneration.

"There are promising signs that Liverpool is going through an upturn in regeneration activity but there is no room for complacency. Significant investment should not be turned away lightly.

"Enter Maro with a £120m investment in a remarkable scheme that even the 'Save Our City' group, an opponent, acknowledges would be beautiful and elegant and should not be lost to Liverpool.

"The proposals would set a new and high standard for contemporary architecture in Liverpool whilst improving the housing stock close to the city centre.

"Not only do English Heritage (EH) not oppose the appeal proposals in relation to their effect on the city's heritage, EH has been fulsome in its praise of the quality of design of the schemes.

"Then there are the reasons for refusal that can only be described as dour and depressing in their limited horizons.

"It is said that the proposals - for the finest and most remarkable contemporary scheme in Liverpool with £120m of investment at stake - should be turned away in order to retain a shabby and tired, cheap and basic, employment building, all against the background that Liverpool is awash with a vast supply of employment land.

"Liverpool stands to gain a great deal from these schemes and little if anything from turning them away."

The public inquiry is not set to make a ruling until September at the earliest.

samlister@dailypost.co.uk

[Paul D]

Why would anyone want to reject such a proposal


http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/127/176brunswickquaypic47tw.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Not only is the tower stunning but the public realm part of the scheme looks great too.

[Kev]

Seems to me that calling it an us and them mentality is a load of nonsense. Its beautiful and is the first sign of Liverpool's rejunevation/ renaissance before you get to Paradise Street. The alternative? Keep the area as it is for the forseable future - for what, why? It doesnt make sense.

Imagine going to Manchester and Leeds with a development like this and them turning it away - it wouldn't happen.

[Gareth]

Seems to me that calling it an us and them mentality is a load of nonsense. Its beautiful and is the first sign of Liverpool's rejunevation/ renaissance before you get to Paradise Street. The alternative? Keep the area as it is for the forseable future - for what, why? It doesnt make sense.

Imagine going to Manchester and Leeds with a development like this and them turning it away - it wouldn't happen.

It's a sort of weird working class snobbery when you think about it. Not really from the residents, but the local politicians who feel the political demography of the area could alter, meaning they may find themselves voted out come election time. This ideaology seems to call for a type of strict class segregation, when it comes to neighbourhoods. Question is, do we want Liverpool to be like this?

[Kev]

Why they are spouting off about the unsuitability of it in such an area when the nearest terraced housing must be a fair distance away, 1/2 mile or so?

[Max]

How tall will this Sky Scraper be?

Rode past the Unity and it's not that tall.:Smiliz_Kingz_PDT_13

[Kev]

How tall will this Sky Scraper be?

Rode past the Unity and it's not that tall.:Smiliz_Kingz_PDT_13

Quite right Max, Brunswick is 166.25 metres tall whereas Unity is 90.60 metres tall.

Almost twice as high :Colorz_Grey_PDT_16:

[Paul D]

It'll be a sad day for Liverpool if they reject this one.:Colorz_Grey_PDT_24:

[Kev]

It'll be a sad day for Liverpool if they reject this one.:Colorz_Grey_PDT_24:

If they do, the Council should be ashamed of themselves :ninja:. However, I have a strange feeling it will be good news this time around :celb (23):.

[Paul D]

I'm scared to think like that knowing how these things tend to always get rejected,over the years so many promises have never materialised.

[Max]

545 Feet tall will be the Brunswick one then Kev.

Not bad, the average height I guess.

The BT Tower in London is 600 odd feet.

I'd like a thousand odd feet one though like in America and in places like China though one day.:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

Will have to go to Shanghai before it sinks!:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

Eifel Tower is 990 feet which I went up in 2003.:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

[Ah-Ying]

Seems to me that calling it an us and them mentality is a load of nonsense.Of course it is and I suspect they know it but there is no one to take them to task, only the developer. I wouldn't mind starting a ginger group to take these people to task whenever they spout this type of ****e.

[Waterways]

Quite right Max, Brunswick is 166.25 metres tall whereas Unity is 90.60 metres tall.

Almost twice as high :Colorz_Grey_PDT_16:

Height is limited due to airport aircraft access,

[Kev]

Height is limited due to airport aircraft access,
Height being limited due to airport aircraft access always makes me laugh that, how many easy jets do you know that fly over Brunswick that low?

[Waterways]

Height being limited due to airport aircraft access always makes me laugh that, how many easy jets do you know that fly over Brunswick that low?

In fog they may. A plane smacked into the side of the Empire State in NY. The chances of just hitting that building with all that space around is what? But it did.

They work out angles from the runway, height, etc.

[Bunnyman]

That was decades ago John. It wasn't a jet plane, probably didn't have radar at the time, and the part of the ESB it wholloped was twice the height of Brunswick Quay. It'll have lights on the top as a precaution for single manned aircraft and microlights, but that should suffice I reckon. :)

[Liverpolitan]

In fog they may. A plane smacked into the side of the Empire State in NY. The chances of just hitting that building with all that space around is what? But it did.

They work out angles from the runway, height, etc.

Not very likely though, is it? And, hey ho, sometimes accidents just happen. After all, when the Air France concorde tragically crashed at Paris Airport, it crashed into a low rise hotel and killed people in that building, as well as the passengers. Planes that are crashing don't discriminate about the type of building they crash on, although pilots still in control seem to try to steer away from things like schools and into fields, or so you read. Of course, at Schiphol that didn't happen, but it's so densely built up, that is maybe harder to do, and they were crashing at night. The whole area smelt of perfume and death, as the plane was carrying tons of French perfume amongst its freight apparantly.

I have only ever panicked once a plane, with a conviction that we had just about run out of fuel with about ten miles to go - and that was going to LJLA when it was still called Speke Airport. I was comforted by the thought that if the pilot felt unable to continue the last bit, he could probably put down reasonably safely by slowing down and sliding into the mudflats of the inner estuary. Now probably it would have been be a disaster, the plane would break up and we would all have drowned (all ten of us - it was the old British Midland service from Heathrow, which was hardly a success), in two feet of mud, which would no doubt catch fire and become a sort of burning ungent. But, generally, I think there are lots of places around Speke where a plane in trouble can get down safely. And, as Bunny points out, the building will have lights on it.

[Max]

Surely a plane wouldn't be that low yet when by Brunswick quay?

[Bunnyman]

Stranger things have happened Max. Planes have over/undershot the runway numerous times. You'd be surprised how many aircraft are covered by the shifting river silts..

[Waterways]

Not very likely though, is it?


But likely.



And, hey ho, sometimes accidents just happen. After all, when the Air France concorde tragically crashed at Paris Airport, it crashed into a low rise hotel and killed people in that building, as well as the passengers. Planes that are crashing don't discriminate about the type of building they crash on,


I worked in aviation. I concluded nothing but flat land, or water, should be at the beginning or ends of runways – not even elevated runways lights. Never a hotel; not even to the side. Why? Because a plane might drop on it. Like it is not good to have a play area for 3 year olds on the pavement of a duel carriageway.



And, as Bunny points out, the building will have lights on it.

Which are not any use in fog.

[Max]

But likely.



I worked in aviation. I concluded nothing but flat land, or water, should be at the beginning or ends of runways – not even elevated runways lights. Never a hotel; not even to the side. Why? Because a plane might drop on it. Like it is not good to have a play area for 3 year olds on the pavement of a duel carriageway.



Which are not any use in fog.

Maybe they have fog lights on them too.:neutral:

[Waterways]

Maybe they have fog lights on them too.:neutral:

Fog lights that shine through the fog? Never seen any.

[bazzacat]

What field of aviation were you involved in? An interest of mine

[Waterways]

What field of aviation were you involved in? An interest of mine

Intrument Landing systems (ILS). The equipment on the ground that guides and lands the planes. A long time ago now.

[Harry]

I've flown into and out of Liverpool Airport hundreds of times and never been near Brunswick Dock.
The airport excuse is just another red herring being used by heritage Luddites.
As for the scheme causing a "them and us" situation, just what are the Council doing then to prevent this in other ways and how does rejecting redevelopment help?
Why is it only Liverpool who seem to have politicians and council mouthpieces who can spout this type of economic and social madness?

[Waterways]

I've flown into and out of Liverpool Airport hundreds of times and never been near Brunswick Dock.
The airport excuse is just another red herring being used by heritage Luddites.
[quote]

Maro cleared the height with the airport peopel first.

As for the scheme causing a "them and us" situation, just what are the Council doing then to prevent this in other ways and how does rejecting redevelopment help?
Why is it only Liverpool who seem to have politicians and council mouthpieces who can spout this type of economic and social madness?


you are right.

[AK1]

Does anyone know when Liverpool

planning dept are due to make their decision on Brunswick Quay. I last heard it was around oct or nov. I wonder what the chances are of it getting approval.

Fingers crossed!

[Paul D]

Does anyone know when Liverpool planning dept are due to make their decision on Brunswick Quay. I last heard it was around oct or nov. I

wonder what the chances are of it getting approval. Fingers crossed!

I think it's either the 11th or 16th November.

[Max]

Is there any lighting down there at night?

[Waterways]

Is there any lighting down there at night?

Yep. Go the web

site in the sig. The exact site is shown.

[AK1]

Is the planning department making a decision on brunswick tower this week?

[Paul D]

Is the planning department making a decision on brunswick tower this week?

I think we should know any time between now and Thursday losing this would be a great loss to Liverpool.

[Waterways]

I think we should know any time between now and Thursday losing this would be a great loss to Liverpool.


I think it's tomorrow. They will probably announce it on the day.

[Paul D]

I think it's tomorrow. They will probably announce it on the day.

I think the actual date was the 16th according to the Echo the other week,the decision can't come soon enough for me so I hope you're right.:)

[Sloyne]

Which are not any use in fog.But aren't all European passenger aircraft equiped with ILS, radar and glide slope equipement, not to mention air traffic controllers? Also, I can't think of any reason why an aircraft would be allowed to leave/arrive any airport in foggy conditions using VFR. It would, in my opinion, take a catastrophic failure of almost all the the above plus some kind of mechanical failure, for an aircraft approaching/leaving Liverpool Airport to collide with anything in central Liverpool. But, stranger things have happened. I think any aircraft colliding with any tower on Brunswick Quay, although not impossible, highly improbable.

So folks, pack your fear of flying in the attic, enjoy the convenience of your local airport and explore the world.:)

[Sloyne]

For those interested in this Maro proposal visit http://www.ajplus.co.uk/news/news_article/?aid=55848&sid=49. If true, it would extend Liverpool city centre south to at least Parliament Street or even Warwick Street. I hope it's true.

[Waterways]

For those interested in this Maro proposal visit http://www.ajplus.co.uk/news/news_article/?aid=55848&sid=49. If true, it would extend Liverpool city centre south to at least Parliament Street or even Warwick Street. I hope it's true.

The city centre was a triangle with one point at the Pier Head. This will make the triangle reverse. The point will be above Lime St Station and the flat of the triangle from Stanley Dock to Brunswick Dock.

What does this report say. You need to subscribe.

[scouserdave]

Excellent Ian Simpson interview in the Telegraph a couple of days ago. You can read it online here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/main.jhtml?xml=/property/2006/11/14/ptowers14.xml)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/graphics/2006/11/14/ptowers14.jpg

[Waterways]

Excellent Ian Simpson interview in the Telegraph a couple of days ago. You can read it online here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/main.jhtml?xml=/property/2006/11/14/ptowers14.xml)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/graphics/2006/11/14/ptowers14.jpg

Look at that view. How Mancunians rave over Manchester is beyond me. I have tried and just can't see what they see.

[twiz]

Dont suppose anyone knows how the decision went? It was to be decided today but I haven't heard anything, I hope it gets through or Liverpool will lagg behind in the provincial city tallest tower race.

[Waterways]

Was the appeal hearing yesterday, or was it postponed? Anyone heard anything yet?

[AK1]

Look at that view. How Mancunians rave over Manchester is beyond me. I have tried and just can't see what they see.

Agreed! Manchester never has been and never will be as visually impressive as Liverpool. Liverpool has numerous iconic buildings such as the graces, st Georges hall, both cathederals, Albert dock plus many more outside the city centre. Manchester has the town hall and not much else. This is why alot of people prefer Liverpool to Manchester. Liverpool must capitalise on this much more. Liverpool is very unique and seems alot more impressive than alot of other cities such as Birmingham and Newcastle.

[Waterways]

Agreed! Manchester never has been and never will be as visually impressive as Liverpool. Liverpool has numerous iconic buildings such as the graces, st Georges hall, both cathederals, Albert dock plus many more outside the city centre. Manchester has the town hall and not much else. This is why a lot of people prefer Liverpool to Manchester. Liverpool must capitalise on this much more. Liverpool is very unique and seems alot more impressive than alot of other cities such as Birmingham and Newcastle.

Forget new buildings. Just smarten up the existing buildings, and that includes re-cladding the RSA, and Liverpool is still miles better than any of those cities. The new developments and dock waterways regeneration and the Wirral Waters will totally outdo any of those places.

I always thought Manchester was characterless - a very forgettable place. They are trying like mad, and good on them, however they would have to totally re-build the place to get near Liverpool.
Manchester would be better moving the centre to Salford Quays. The water makes it attractive.

Ian Nairn, Britain’s Changing Towns (1967)

"The scale and resilience of the buildings and people (of Liverpool) is amazing - it is a world city, far more so than London or Manchester. It doesn’t feel like anywhere else in Lancashire: comparisons always end up overseas - Dublin, or Boston, or Hamburg. The city is tremendous, and so, right up to the First World War, were the abilities of the architects who built over it – the less said about the last forty years the better…… The centre is humane and convenient to walk around in, but never loses its scale. And, in spite of the bombings and the carelessness, it is still full of superb buildings. Fifty years ago it must have outdone anything in England."

Note: "outdone anything in England", including London.

[PhilipG]

Agreed! Manchester never has been and never will be as visually impressive as Liverpool. Liverpool has numerous iconic buildings such as the graces, st Georges hall, both cathederals, Albert dock plus many more outside the city centre. Manchester has the town hall and not much else. This is why alot of people prefer Liverpool to Manchester. Liverpool must capitalise on this much more. Liverpool is very unique and seems alot more impressive than alot of other cities such as Birmingham and Newcastle.

And that was designed by Alfred Waterhouse, born in Liverpool.

[kenotoole123@msn.com]

OH
NO!! Ruth Kelly has turned it down....even though the 'Planning Inspector' gave it the O.K.:shock:

[Paul D]

OH
NO!! Ruth Kelly has turned it down....even though the 'Planning Inspector' gave it the O.K.:shock:

Gutted I was starting to believe this might happen.:disgust:

[Waterways]

Gutted I was starting to believe this might happen.:disgust:

Ah well, back to 4th rate shoebox ticky-tacky 3 high flats. Pathetic!

See all the quality developers desert Liverpool now.

[Waterways]

OH
NO!! Ruth Kelly has turned it down....even though the 'Planning Inspector' gave it the O.K.:shock:

On what grounds?

[Paul D]

On what grounds?

In her decision letter, released today, Kelly says: ‘[i] consider that the harm to the setting of the World Heritage Site, and to the setting of and views from listed buildings and conservation areas, weighs against the proposals.’

The letter goes on: ‘[i] consider that the proposals would be of a high quality, though [I do] not consider that the proposed buildings would be appropriate in this location.’

[Sloyne]

OH
NO!! Ruth Kelly has turned it down....even though the 'Planning Inspector' gave it the O.K.:shock:Liverpool is a prisoner of it's past. It is it's own history, it's own inept highly politicized council, a very apathetic electorate and not just a little help from Manchester based bureaucrats, that will condemn Liverpool to being a relic and museum piece of mainly nineteenth and early twentieth century and an abundance of appalling 1950's/60's architecture. World Heritage status, lobbied for by a very shortsighted council leader, Mike Storey and his fellow Lib/Dem councillors, has preserved present day Liverpool in aspic, for all time. Liverpool will gradually assume the role of places like York, Chester, Gloucester, Canterbury, Lancaster et al. Liverpool, the once dynamic commercial powerhouse, architectural, engineering, social and health innovator, is now sliding, rapidly, into history. Liverpool's plight becomes even more poignant when you see places forging ahead places that were once basket cases when Liverpool ruled the oceans, insurance, banking and whose archtecture was marvelled at. Places like Singapore, Casablanca, Manta, Recife, Mombassa, KL, Valparaiso, Callao, Cartagena, Montevideo, Dubai and hundreds more cities throughout the world which have surpassed Liverpool's meagre efforts of redevelopement. And most of the foregoing didn't have the benefit of having enemy bombing clear out almost half of thier city centres. Most of them had to choose what buildings to replace.

If it is true that you get the leadership you deserve then the citizens of Liverpool must have committed some very bad sins to deserve the lot they have been electing since 1945. IMO. Rant over.:)

[Waterways]

In her decision letter, released today, Kelly says: ‘[i] consider that the harm to the setting of the World Heritage Site, and to the setting of and views from listed buildings and conservation areas, weighs against the proposals.’

The letter goes on: ‘[i] consider that the proposals would be of a high quality, though [I do] not consider that the proposed buildings would be appropriate in this location.’

It is not in the WHS or even the buffer. It is way away at the far end of Brunswick Dock with even Coburg Dock (not in the buffer either) between Brunswick and the start of the buffer. The tower blocks nothing whatsoever and is way away from anything of any significance.

This is madness. Well the real culprits were the LibDems on the City Council who originally rejected the tower. About time they were voted out of power with Storey being an embarrassment and all. They are so incompetent.

[Paul D]

That's exactly why WHS is a problem,it's not even in the WHS buffer zone and yet this is the reason she used to reject it,it makes it all so easy for the heritage lobby to oppose new developments in Liverpool.We're now left with a load of vacant low grade warehouses but the Victorian Society will be so pleased tonight.:neutral:

[Waterways]

That's exactly why WHS is a problem,it's not even in the WHS buffer zone and yet this is the reason she used to reject it,


It is not a problem at all. All she had to do was look at a frigging map. The initial problem was the councillors (all LibDem) who voted against this proposal in the first place. If they had said yes it would be near built by now.



it makes it all so easy for the heritage lobby to oppose new developments in Liverpool.We're now left with a load of vacant low grade warehouses but the Victorian Society will be so pleased tonight.:neutral:


EH never opposed this scheme at all, neither did UNESCO. I don't think the Victorian Society opposed it either as it was not obscuring anything Victorian. It was the retarded councillors. It is nowhere near the WHS and buffer and is remote from any major building in Liverpool.

BTW, does Hargeaves of Matalan give money to any political party?

This will set the city back decades. Investors will not look at Liverpool after this.

They rejected this and approved the Mann Island scheme. What madness. What double standards.

[Waterways]

Liverpool is a prisoner of it's past.

It is clear what the politicos want. They want commercial money making activities on the docks. These will be owned by large non-Liverpool based companies. The areas will be rendered lifeless as Kings Dock will be most of the time. Places were crowds turn up and then all go away after a number of hours.

[Paul D]

It is not a problem at all. All she had to do was look at a frigging map. The initial problem was the councillors (all LibDem) who voted against this proposal in the first place. If they had said yes it would be near built by now.


She was told to pass it by the planning inspector so someone has told her to do otherwise and she took the easy way out and used WHS against us,how many people in Liverpool know it's not in the WHS site? 99.9 I'd suggest so her decision goes unchallenged because she hints that it is,why build the new museum of Liverpool we already have one,the city.I suppose this means all the modern stuff in London wont be built now hey yeah right.

[Waterways]

She was told to pass it by the planning inspector


But the city rejected it in the first place.



so someone has told her to do otherwise and she took the easy way out and used WHS against us,how many people in Liverpool know it's not in the WHS site? 99.9 I'd suggest so her decision goes unchallenged because of it,why build the new museum of Liverpool we already have one,the city.I suppose this means all the modern stuff in London wont be built now hey yeah right.

The story of the past 80 years has been the south suppressing Liverpool. Just another episode. Prepare for more of the same until all investors don't even give the city a second glance.

Maro should re-submit the application with a slight amendment. Then Whitehall is out of the way.

I hate all this centralisation. Who the hell do they think they are thinking they know more then the people in the city? The sooner Liverpool is a city state the better.

http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk

[kenotoole123@msn.com]

I suppose we can only hope that 'Maro' come up with an alternative scheme (Even better & Higher !!!) and that the Council will be too embarassed to oppose it!!!

[Waterways]

What site shows Kelly's leter?

[Waterways]

I suppose we can only hope that 'Maro' come up with an alternative scheme (Even better & Higher !!!) and that the Council will be too embarassed to oppose it!!!

The height is fixed because of aircraft from John Lennon. Maro hopefully may wait until a Labour council is in charge. Anyone know the date of the council elections?

[Kev]

I just don't get it. It would have been beautiful and the approach to the city centre would have made people think and wonder in amazement, rather than ponder about the future of the Garden Festival site :PDT_Xtremez_12:. Take it to Leeds, go 'ed :mad:

[SteH]

The height is fixed because of aircraft from John Lennon. Maro hopefully may wait until a Labour council is in charge. Anyone know the date of the council elections?

The next elections are in May, but only 30 of the 90 seats are up for grabs. With the Libdems holding 56 seats, it would take an almighty swing to get them out, and given how things were when Labour were under control......

[Waterways]

The next elections are in May, but only 30 of the 90 seats are up for grabs. With the Libdems holding 56 seats, it would take an almighty swing to get them out, and given how things were when Labour were under control......

Ruth Kelly was told to pass it by the government planning inspector, she used a ridiculous World Heritage Site excuse. The proposal is a long way from the Heritage site. Her grounds for rejection are laughable they are so inaccurate.

This can be taken to the higher House of Lords. I hope Maro do. The tripe about blocking sight lines and World Heritage when it is nowhere near the zone should sway them. More time! They will probably give up and **** off - can you blame them?

[Bunnyman]

Can they take it to Europe?

John, now do you see the dangers of WHS in the hands of morons? Democracy in this country does not work. You can have knowledgeable professionals recommending all they like, but it's still a tinpot ****head with no knowledge of the place or the subject that makes the decision.

R. Kelly slept with a 14 year old girl anyway. :gossip:

[The Teardrop Explodes]

...what they seem to be saying is we can't have anything too high or too good near the WHS as it will overshadow those buildings, AND we can't have anything too high or too great ANYWHERE else on the waterfront cos it will take some of the glory away from them...(we can have **** anywhere though, that's ok. No problems. Won't block the view from Wirral)

Absolute ****ing madness

[Waterways]

...what they seem to be saying is we can't have anything too high or too good near the WHS as it will overshadow those buildings,


It is nowhere near the buildings of the Albert Dock - a long way away. Liverpool is not allowed to overshadow London or Manchester.



AND we can't have anything too high or too great ANYWHERE else on the waterfront cos it will take some of the glory away from them...(we can have **** anywhere though, that's ok. No problems. Won't block the view from Wirral)

Absolute ****ing madness

[Waterways]

If they moved it to Dingle, and even taller, over the Underground Station and the station brought into use?

[Bunnyman]

And turf out the small business located there (garage)? You must be joking if you think they'd ever pass that!

[PhilipG]

So, how is WHS supposed to help Liverpool?
Yes, the Royal Liver Building is iconic and is the best of the 3 Graces.
It's just that it's so ironic that it was the tallest office building in Europe until after WW2, and now it's the main reason for not allowing tall buildings! :eek:

[Waterways]

So, how is WHS supposed to help Liverpool?
Yes, the Royal Liver Building is iconic and is the best of the 3 Graces.
It's just that it's so ironic that it was the tallest office building in Europe until after WW2, and now it's the main reason for not allowing tall buildings! :eek:

Don't start blaming World Heritage for this debacle.

The excuses given are wholly inaccurate and WHS was wrongly used as an excuse - the site is nowhere near the buffer zone, never mind the zone proper. It is so inaccurate that Maro have a solid case for an appeal at the next level - the Lords or Europe.

Maro also wanted to excavate part or the whole of Toxteth Dock to extend development after the tower was built. They may think it worth it to go to the next appeal level. More time. If the idiot LibDem councillors had not voted against the tower it would be getting finished off by now. This city continually lets both barrels hit its feet time and time again.

World Heritage is great thing for the city. It gives international focus. Even with WHS the crimes committed are appalling. What would it be like without?

Look at the politics behind this. All Labour councillors on the planning committee vote for, all LibDem voted against except one.

It goes to appeal at Whitehall. The government planning man advises yes, the "Labour" minister" says no. You would think she would side with the Labour councillors. Unless they want to side with the ruling council to get them to co-operate closer over 2008? Maybe.

Over the past few years there has been talk of moving the seat of government away from London. The flooding risk is high and all Whitehall is under a flooding threat when it happens. A 1953 will happen again and with rising sea levels moreso. The Thames barrier will not stop it, only delay it.

Liverpool has been muted as the ideal place for a new seat of government by the odd experts and a think tank. A World Heritage site and docks and water spaces to build a new Whitehall? This tower would then get in the way? Birkenhead Dock are ideal too. Merge Wallasey and Birkenhead calling it Wirral something. Far fetched? Maybe. But could be something in it.

http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk

.

[AK1]

This decision is an absolute joke. You can tell it's the wrong decision by the amount of people on this site who are in support of the project. I just hope that R. Kelly reconsiders her decision. I also think that Maro should appeal, as they would have a very strong case. It is nowhere near any historical buildings and would be the first of a cluster of talls in that area which is good for jobs which are needed in that area. I am going to send an e-mail to Kelly to express my disappointment and I think everyone else should too! (Make sure it isn't abusive or she won't listen!)

[Waterways]

This decision is an absolute joke. You can tell it's the wrong decision by the amount of people on this site who are in support of the project. I just hope that R. Kelly reconsiders her decision.


I doubt it. They never say they were wrong. The only way is the House of Lords and Europe.



I also think that Maro should appeal, as they would have a very strong case. It is nowhere near any historical buildings


The nearest large structure is a large gas holder. Look at http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk Go to the Brunswick Quay page. The very bottom pic is a pano. A render of the tower can be seen to the right. The gas holder is to the left, then nothing else around.

The WHS ends at Albert Dock. About half way from the red brick warehouses to the tower is the WHS buffer zone. The tower is clearly well away even from the buffer with no significant buildings around, never mind historic buildings. Unless they think a 1971 gas holder is historic.



and would be the first of a cluster of talls in that area which is good for jobs which are needed in that area. I am going to send an e-mail to Kelly to express my disappointment and I think everyone else should too! (Make sure it isn't abusive or she won't listen!)

Put the detail here. I will put them on the web site:
http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk

Points are:
Objections by Kelly were inaccurate as:

1. The original council objection was by one vote only and was clearly party political points scoring as all Labour voted for and all LibDems, except one, voted against.
2. The site is well away from the World Heritage Site.
3. The site is well away from the World Heritage Site buffer zone.
4. No historic buildings around the site for any sight lines to be blocked.

[christy]

Absolute joke of a decision, esprcially when accompanied by the inacurate excuses given for the rejection.

She actually says that it would have a 'Detrimental impact on the views from the Albert dock...' of what, a piece of sky over Garston??????????
This woman needs embarassing on national telly over this!
And surely the views of the cathedrals from Wirral that she is on about will be blocked more effectively by the new development on the corner facing Norton's scrap yard? Who is going to be looking at these views anyway? Im pretty sure that any views from Wirral facing the cathedrals via Brtunswick key would be from places like Brombourough retail park and industrial esate?

[Bunnyman]

Don't start blaming World Heritage for this debacle.

WHS, for all the good it is intended to do, will always be used by nobheads for their own gain. Get rid, and the nobheads haven't a leg to stand on.

[Waterways]

LOCAL NEWS: Goverment reject Mersey skyscraper plansNov 17 2006

PLANS for a dazzling sail-shaped skyscraper on the Mersey waterfront have been knocked back by the government.

The 51-floor building would be the tallest in Liverpool - but cabinet minister Ruth Kelly has rejected it after looking at evidence from a public inquiry.

She said it would damage the nearby World Heritage Site by attracting attention away from it, and affect picturesque views of Liverpool’s cathedrals from Wirral.

And she also claimed Brunswick Quay is the wrong place for such a tall building, claiming the area would be regenerated at some point, even if this scheme did not happen.

Liverpool council turned down developer Maro’s proposals twice last year - an original version with 489 apartments and a 35-bedroom hotel, and a second plan with less flats and a bigger hotel.

Maro appealed both decisions, leading to a public inquiry.

Ms Kelly announced her verdict today, rejecting a government inspector’s recommendation that the second plan was acceptable.

[Waterways]

Absolute joke of a decision, esprcially when accompanied by the inacurate excuses given for the rejection.

She actually says that it would have a 'Detrimental impact on the views from the Albert dock...' of what, a piece of sky over Garston??????????
This woman needs embarassing on national telly over this!
And surely the views of the cathedrals from Wirral that she is on about will be blocked more effectively by the new development on the corner facing Norton's scrap yard? Who is going to be looking at these views anyway? Im pretty sure that any views from Wirral facing the cathedrals via Brtunswick key would be from places like Brombourough retail park and industrial esate?

The tower is tall and thin. Look at a map. Draw a line from the Anglican cathedral and through the proposed site. A few houses in Bebington might have a view partially obscured of the very distant cathedral. So we suffer because of a few people in Bebington.

This is total madness. This daft tart needs to be exposed. Well her husband has been.

http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk

.

[Paul D]

People need to e-mail her and Warren Bradley/planning dept and tell them what they think,complaining on a forum wont change a thing and if people feel so strongly about it do something about it.

[Waterways]

People need to e-mail her and Warren Bradley/planning dept and tell them what they think,complaining on a forum wont change a thing and if people feel so strongly about it do something about it.

Yep. I am going to put the details to complain on the web site:
http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk

.

[Paul D]

Yep. I am going to put the details to complain on the web site:
http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk

.

Nice one John.:PDT_Piratz_26:

[Waterways]

Government minister Ruth Kelly has decided to reject Maro Developments plans for a skyscraper at Brunswick Quay in Liverpool.

The ministers controversial decision comes despite the advice from the planners who carried out the public inquiry and wrote the final report recommending that it be approved.

At the crux of the decision is the fear that the tower would block views of Liverpools two cathedrals from some areas across the River Wirral, a certainty given that if you put one object between the viewer and the further away object it will always appear in-between from one angle.
The ironic thing, as images clearly show, is that the tower is unique amongst Liverpool skyscraper proposals in being nowhere near a world heritage site. The second illustration has been prepared to show exactly where this tower is in relation to Liverpool when looking across the Wirral.

Despite praising the "excellent inherent architectural merit" of the scheme, she believed that "the harm to the setting of the World Heritage site, and to the setting of and views from listed buildings and conservation areas, weighs against the proposal."

In other-words, even if your proposal has the best architecture on offer it can be refused if seen from or too a world heritage site. This turns on the head the previous decisions by John Prescott who preceded Kelly when he refused to call in developments such as the Minerva Building.
Kelly already has form for a less than logical approach to the planning system. Having backed a housing development in her capacity as a minister she proceeded to oppose it as the local m.p carrying out the nice trick of being for and against something at the same time.

The decision also conflicts with the reasons Liverpool Council originally refused planning permission, namely that Brunswick Quay broke their unitary development plan by being where it was by not being in a residential zone. The planners at Liverpool City Council refused to accept that it was of sufficiently high quality to approve it because these reasons counted against.

The minister has managed to argue against their grounds for refusal whilst at the same time coming up with new grounds that do not actually concern Liverpool City Council, a novel piece of governing that would make Yes Minister proud.

This ruling probably marks the end of the line for the Ian Simpson designed development. Maro Developments have pushed hard to get it through the planning system with the local council voting against it both times. Their only hope was an approval via a public inquiry and now that direction has been closed off there are few places left they can go.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=781

[Westy]

I think we should really scrap Heritage status, what people really know we have it apart from locals, tourists aren't interested if we have it or not, they just use MB's of phot space and rolls of film, Pathetic if its going to stop good buildings going up

[AK1]

I have sent an e-mail to Warren Bradley, Liverpool Planning Dept and Maro. I felt it was important to let Maro know just how much I am in support of the project and how I think they should press ahead with an appeal. I hope others will do the same. Their e-mail address - info@marodev.co.uk

[Waterways]

I think we should really scrap Heritage status, what people really know we have it apart from locals, tourists aren't interested if we have it or not, they just use MB's of phot space and rolls of film, Pathetic if its going to stop good buildings going up

World Heritage has nothing to do with this. Because some incompetent minister screws up don't blame WH. When people call Liverpool a slum, because the London and Manchester based media have perpetuated that myth, and you say most of the centre and extensive parts of the docks are World Heritage Zones I just like the look at their faces when told. The status pulls Liverpool up to world city. Value it!!!! Don't blame WHS status, blame primarily the idiot LibDem councillors who voted against this project, who you can always vote out and should be voted out, and then some idiotic washed out tart in Whitehall with a bent husband.

Central government in London should have no say in what is built in Liverpool - not their business. This over centralised country again - the most centralised in the western world. Appeals should be local - maybe with some regional people called in as independent.

[Waterways]

The site in the distance. Nothing around it. The school is St. Malachy's. From Mill View.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/Brunswick-ToxtethDocks.jpg

[Waterways]

Go to this thread about Kelly......

http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1648&highlight=%22Ruth+Kelly%22

[AK1]

World Heritage has nothing to do with this. Because some incompetent minister screws up don't blame WH. When people call Liverpool a slum, because the London and Manchester based media have perpetuated that myth, and you say most of the centre and extensive parts of the docks are World Heritage Zones I just like the look at their faces when told. The status pulls Liverpool up to world city. Value it!!!! Don't blame WHS status, blame primarily the idiot LibDem councillors who voted against this project, who you can always vote out and should be voted out, and then some idiotic washed out tart in Whitehall with a bent husband.

Central government in London should have no say in what is built in Liverpool - not their business. This over centralised country again - the most centralised in the western world. Appeals should be local - maybe with some regional people called in as independent.

Agreed! IT isn't WHS causing the problems, it is the way it is being used that is scuppering major projects. Having a WHS in a city is completely different from having it somewhere like the Taj Mahal. Liverpool is a thriving city and any WHS here must expect to have new 21st Century buildings built nearby. Another thing that has confused me about Kellys' comments is the fact that she said that it would damage views from and to the WHS. So why the F**k is there a 40 storey skyscraper being built right next to the Liver Building? (beetham tower) This just proves that there is something going on to stop projects like these going ahead. Beetham West Tower proves that tall buildings can be placed close to, or even in WHS' without damaging any of the existing architecture. The thing is, Brunswick Quay is miles away from the WHS compared to Beetham West. This is really starting to P**s me off!!!:disgust:

[AK1]

I received a reply from Maro thanking me for my support and saying that they are commited to developing the site. I aslo received a reply from Warren Bradley informing me that he had forwarded my e-mail to the planning dept.

CONTACTS: info@marodev.co.uk
: warren.bradley@liverpool.gov.uk

Does anyone know Ruth Kellys' e-mail address?

[PhilipG]

I received a reply from Maro thanking me for my support and saying that they are commited to developing the site. I aslo received a reply from Warren Bradley informing me that he had forwarded my e-mail to the planning dept.

CONTACTS: info@marodev.co.uk
: warren.bradley@liverpool.gov.uk

Does anyone know Ruth Kellys' e-mail address?

If anybody does get in touch in with her I don't think it serves any purpose to call her a tart or her husband bent.
There are plenty of other good reasons why she is wrong.

[Waterways]

If anybody does get in touch in with her I don't think it serves any purpose to call her a tart or her husband bent.
There are plenty of other good reasons why she is wrong.

Yep. You must be diplomatic and polite to them, which still does not detratct from her family's demerits.

[kenotoole123@msn.com]

Whatever you do don't mention 'Opus Dei'...(Of which she is a member/acolyte)...You really don't want them on your Back !!!!:unibrow:

[kung_fuzi]

I received a reply from Maro thanking me for my support and saying that they are commited to developing the site. I aslo received a reply from Warren Bradley informing me that he had forwarded my e-mail to the planning dept.

CONTACTS: info@marodev.co.uk
: warren.bradley@liverpool.gov.uk

Does anyone know Ruth Kellys' e-mail address?

kellyr@parliament.uk

But don't hold your breath for a reply.

[Paul D]

Tallest tower dream dashed

A PIONEERING £100m plan to build Merseyside's tallest tower, a 52-storey skyscraper, on Liverpool's waterfront was rejected yesterday by Local Government Secretary Ruth Kelly.

She rejected the recommendation of her own planning expert who wanted the tower at Brunswick Quay to be given the go-ahead.

The minister based part of her decision on possible damage to the city's World Heritage site, as well as views of the two city cathedrals from Wirral, which one critic last night described as "bizarre".

The decision was condemned last night by supporters of what would have been an iconic building by one of the world's best-known architects, Ian Simpson.

Applicants Maro were last night studying the details of the 58-page report by the government planning inspector, as well as the written decision by Ms Kelly's office.

Maro executives will this weekend be locked in talks to consider launching a legal challenge on Monday.

A source close to the company said last night: "Maro convinced a highly respected and expert planner about the merits of the scheme, and in his eyes won their appeal, only to have it rejected in Whitehall."

Chris Ives, development director at Maro Developments, said: "We are extremely disappointed that the Secretary of State has decided to overturn the decision of the planning inspector whose recommendation was to approve our plans to regenerate Brunswick Quay.


"We will review the Secretary of State's reasons in detail and consider our next steps carefully. Maro remain committed to regenerate this gateway site."


Maro's plans for the South Docks at Brunswick Quay included a 52-storey glass tower, designed by Ian Simpson, who was responsible for the new Beetham Tower in Manchester, No1 Deansgate and the Urbis Centre. Plans included a boutique hotel, a large public piazza with shops and restaurants, as well as residential and commercial space.


Although it was the rejection of the scheme by Liverpool council planners which triggered the appeal, the city's cabinet member for regeneration, Cllr Peter Millea, was a long-term supporter of the plan.

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_headline=tallest-tower-dream-dashed%26method=full%26objectid=18124390%26page=2% 26siteid=50061-name_page.html

[Paul D]

I wonder if they've decided to make a legal challenge? everyone seems supportive of it and shocked it got refused I hope they don't give up now.

EDIT:the tower would compromise views from The Rock Ferry conservation area well maybe Wirral Waters will block views of the Welsh mountains from a World Heritage site,they don't want to go down that road.:disgust:

[Paul D]

I received a reply from Maro thanking me for my support and saying that they are commited to developing the site. I aslo received a reply from Warren Bradley informing me that he had forwarded my e-mail to the planning dept.

CONTACTS: info@marodev.co.uk
: warren.bradley@liverpool.gov.uk



Everyone should send Maro a letter of support to encourage them as a matter of urgency it'll only take you a minute and let Warren Bradley know what you think while you're at it.Remember these zealots rejected West Tower originally so it's not a lost cause.

[Paul D]

The Brunswick tower would appear considerably taller than the cathedral.


This was one of her ridiculous reasons for rejecting it,I think she'll find that's what we call perspective we learnt about that in art lessons at school.:rolleyes:

I think if Maro continue the fight they'll win because these reasons are a joke.:disgust:

[Kev]

Hope so Paul, its all a bit depressing. Are we supposed to know our place/ status in relation to the rest of the country? :Colorz_Grey_PDT_24: Scousers can't have our scrapers? We'll see.....

[Paul D]

Ruth Kelly on Liverpool's urban renaissance

LIVERPOOL is ready to become a leading European city that will rival places such as Milan, Rotterdam and Turin, communities and local government minister Ruth Kelly has said.

In a speech to a summit meeting of civic leaders from ten English cities, Ms Kelly said Liverpool had the chance to become "an engine of growth" for the region and a major international player on the international stage.

A independent report for government called State of the English Cities showed that Liverpool has experienced an urban renaissance since 1997, with strong economic growth, higher levels of employment and noticeable improvements to the local environment.

But it also concluded more was needed to be done if it was to become a city of European importance.

Ms Kelly said: "Our cities have turned the corner in recent years. In Liverpool, the big increase in the number of graduates in the workforce is supporting the growth of dynamic new economic sectors in the local economies.

"However, we know there is still much more to do. We must be ambitious and visionary. Liverpool has the opportunity not only to become an engine of growth for its region - a Rotterdam of the North West, but also to compete on the international stage.

"Over the next 20 years, with its diverse economic base, it should be looking to rival places such as Milan, Rotterdam and Turin in the international arena."

She added: "This is a new exciting time for our cities and regions.

"We in government need to look at devolving more strategic powers to cities and they need to have governance arrangements that provide a clear mandate to take the tough decisions.

"Being bold and strongly led, we can take our cities to the next level." Ms Kelly highlighted the Government's work to strengthen the urban renaissance at a summit in Bristol yesterday.

The Government is already working with a range of UK cities, including the 8 Core Cities, to help them develop "business cases" to deliver a step change in their economic, social and cultural performance.

Her speech is the clearest indication yet that the region will be viewed favourably by the Government's 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review. The Government also plans a parliamentary paper on the future of local government expected to push ahead with plans to create authorities serving wider areas.:disgust:

[Max]

This was one of her ridiculous reasons for rejecting it,I think she'll find that's what we call perspective we learnt about that in art lessons at school.:rolleyes:

I think if Maro continue the fight they'll win because these reasons are a joke.:disgust:

Yet Beetham Tower west will be taller than the Cathedral.:disgust:

[Waterways]

Yet Beetham Tower west will be taller than the Cathedral.:disgust:

But that is not blocking the view from Rock Ferry, so that is OK Even the Labour MP's consituancy the tower fell into supported the tower.

There is some ulterior motive behind this. It just doesn't all fit.

[Waterways]

Hope so Paul, its all a bit depressing. Are we supposed to know our place/ status in relation to the rest of the country? :Colorz_Grey_PDT_24: Scousers can't have our scrapers? We'll see.....

If it was a bland out-of-the-box design it would have gone through. Liverpool overshadowing London..or Manchester? Can't be son.

[Paul D]

Many thanks for your support. We are reviewing the decision and taking stock.

We are committed to redeveloping the site.

Kind Regards

Chris O'Brien

I know everyone will have got this same reply but it's good too see they haven't cut their losses and run,they deserve credit for this.

[Waterways]

The Governmnet planning inspectors report and Ruth Kelly's report:
http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk
Go to the Brunswick Quay page. Under Links in the centre yellow section

The inspector was diplomatically critical of the silly Liverpool Council, while praising the scheme on all points. He did not see the tower obscuring views.

[AK1]

I know everyone will have got this same reply but it's good too see they haven't cut their losses and run,they deserve credit for this.

The only thing that concerns me about their comments is ' We are commited to redeveloping the site'. They don't say ' We are commited to this project'. This suggests that they might cut back on the project and reduce the size of the tower, or even come up with a brand new scaled down project of less quality. I hope they don't give in!

[Waterways]

From Daily Post

Meanwhile, Maro, the developer wanting to create the tower at Brunswick Quay, is seeking a meeting with city council leader Cllr Warren Bradley and council chief executive Colin Hilton.

Maro wants to know if the £100m project can be rescued, and is also considering whether to legally challenge the decision by Ruth Kelly to refuse permission.

A source close to Maro said: “The meeting will aim to determine whether there is merit in submitting a modified project that would be endorsed by the city council.”

[FKoE]

It'll be great aye.. Walking through the precinct to the benifits office, or your place of work, from the area you have lived all your life. This will really be of economic value to the area once they fence in this gated community.


Blackpools tower is 518ft tall and is the highest viewing stage in the UK.


Tall structures do not equal wealth or benefit to the communities living in its shadow.

[TruthHurts]

I hope it's true that Maro, the developers want to rescue their Brunswick Quay skyscraper project and are now demanding further meetings with city council leaders, Warren Bradley and Colin Hilton.

But there should be no question of that dread-word "modification" setting in - on this, as it has in so many earlier projects...!

Maro SHOULD maintain their determination to achieve lift-off according to original proposals...! - and MUST be encouraged to challenge Ruth Kelly's preposterous opposition with the sheer irrefutable logic of their case.

Frankly, I doubt that she's even looked at the site... Certainly, I'd be very surprised if she has any idea how far away the proposed building is from the "Three Graces" - OR how relatively small the World Heritage Site really is...! I'll bet she thinks it's THE WHOLE OF DOWNTOWN LIVERPOOL...!!!

Ruth Kelly must not be allowed to stifle Liverpool's ("Growth Engine") with such a shameless unimaginative piece of legislative ignorance...!!!

[Waterways]

I hope it's true that Maro, the developers want to rescue their Brunswick Quay skyscraper project and are now demanding further meetings with city council leaders, Warren Bradley and Colin Hilton.

But there should be no question of that dread-word "modification" setting in - on this, as it has in so many earlier projects...!

Maro SHOULD maintain their determination to achieve lift-off according to original proposals...! - and MUST be encouraged to challenge Ruth Kelly's preposterous opposition with the sheer irrefutable logic of their case.

Frankly, I doubt that she's even looked at the site... Certainly, I'd be very surprised if she has any idea how far away the proposed building is from the "Three Graces" - OR how relatively small the World Heritage Site really is...! I'll bet she thinks it's THE WHOLE OF DOWNTOWN LIVERPOOL...!!!


see:
http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk
Go to: the Brunswick Quay page. There are links to the government planners report which was complimentary of the building and site and stated that the site was ideal for a tall building.



Ruth Kelly must not be allowed to stifle Liverpool's ("Growth Engine") with such a shameless unimaginative piece of legislative ignorance...!!!

The history of the past 100 years has been the south supressing Liverpool by various means. This is just another.

[bustcapl]

the whole saga is a nonesense it must have cost Maro millions and all because ms kelly is worried how it will look from the wirral.

I suggest that the next big development be a huge double sided mirror in the mersey so we can enjoy views of our fair city.... i wonder how the wirral would feel about that>? Maro is not such an eyesore anymore !! lol

[Paul D]

Architect quits over ‘diluted’ iconic tower:PDT_Xtremez_12:


ARCHITECT Ian Simpson yesterday accused Liverpool City Council of lacking ambition as the Daily Post learned he had parted company with Maro Developments.

Maro, which wanted to build an iconic tower on Liverpool’s waterfront but had its plans rejected by government minister Ruth Kelly, is proposing what Mr Simpson described as a “watered down” replacement scheme in order to gain planning permission. The full details of the new scheme are expected to be ready for unveiling within a few weeks.

Mr Simpson was responsible for the design of what would have been Liverpool’s tallest tower – a 51-storey building on Brunswick Quay.

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/thebusinessweek/tm_headline=architect-quits-over-%2D%2D8216%2Ddiluted%2D%2D8217%2D-iconic-tower%26method=full%26objectid=18490521%26siteid=5 0061-name_page.html

[PhilipG]

Architect quits over ‘diluted’ iconic tower:PDT_Xtremez_12:


ARCHITECT Ian Simpson yesterday accused Liverpool City Council of lacking ambition as the Daily Post learned he had parted company with Maro Developments.

Maro, which wanted to build an iconic tower on Liverpool’s waterfront but had its plans rejected by government minister Ruth Kelly, is proposing what Mr Simpson described as a “watered down” replacement scheme in order to gain planning permission. The full details of the new scheme are expected to be ready for unveiling within a few weeks.

Mr Simpson was responsible for the design of what would have been Liverpool’s tallest tower – a 51-storey building on Brunswick Quay.

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/thebusinessweek/tm_headline=architect-quits-over-%2D%2D8216%2Ddiluted%2D%2D8217%2D-iconic-tower%26method=full%26objectid=18490521%26siteid=5 0061-name_page.html


If only we had city planners like we had 100 years ago.
They OK'd the Royal Liver Building which was the tallest office block in Europe until after the Second World War.

[AK1]

Architect quits over ‘diluted’ iconic tower:PDT_Xtremez_12:


ARCHITECT Ian Simpson yesterday accused Liverpool City Council of lacking ambition as the Daily Post learned he had parted company with Maro Developments.

Maro, which wanted to build an iconic tower on Liverpool’s waterfront but had its plans rejected by government minister Ruth Kelly, is proposing what Mr Simpson described as a “watered down” replacement scheme in order to gain planning permission. The full details of the new scheme are expected to be ready for unveiling within a few weeks.

Mr Simpson was responsible for the design of what would have been Liverpool’s tallest tower – a 51-storey building on Brunswick Quay.

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/thebusinessweek/tm_headline=architect-quits-over-%2D%2D8216%2Ddiluted%2D%2D8217%2D-iconic-tower%26method=full%26objectid=18490521%26siteid=5 0061-name_page.html

I would rather they left the site empty for a few years than put up a scaled down version. This is a prime site for something tall and iconic, not just another low level building. Ruth Kelly is simply backward, and the council are pathetic. This was refused because it was too close to the WHS but beetham tower which is in the WHS was given the go-ahead. What are they thinking? I really don't understand how they think. Brunswick tower is the ideal project for this site. I urge everyone to write to the council and to Maro to express your feelings. If the new version is another bland, boring building, then the site must be left empty for future generations.:disgust:

[scouserdave]

ARCHITECT Ian Simpson yesterday accused Liverpool City Council of lacking ambition
What was that Monty Python (or Fawlty Towers?) quote? He has a degree in the Stating the Bleeding Obvious!

[Max]

Would of been a great night picture If It wasn't rejected.

[Paul D]

Innovative tower plans worthy of waterfront site


MARO Developments yesterday defended plans for its Brunswick Quay tower, describing how its redesign would be "innovative, imaginative and worthy of the key waterfront site".

Concerns were raised by the former architect on the scheme, Ian Simpson, who said there was a danger the development would be a "watered-down", "much less ambitious, non-iconic" building than was originally planned.

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/thebusinessweek/regionalnews/tm_headline=innovative-tower-plans-worthy-of-waterfront-site%26method=full%26objectid=18501501%26siteid=50 061-name_page.html

I still reckon we'll get a great tower or two for this site but I'll always think of what might have been,unless it/they are a truly great design.

[Paul D]

"Studio Egret West (SEW) has been named on a four-strong shortlist to replace Ian Simpson on the doomed Brunswick Quay scheme in Liverpool, the AJ can exclusively reveal. The frustrated developer behind the project, Maro, has approached the former Will Alsop duo as well as BDP, Broadway Malyan and Liverpool-based DTR Ormrod to come up with fresh designs for the waterfront plot"

[AK1]

"Studio Egret West (SEW) has been named on a four-strong shortlist to replace Ian Simpson on the doomed Brunswick Quay scheme in Liverpool, the AJ can exclusively reveal. The frustrated developer behind the project, Maro, has approached the former Will Alsop duo as well as BDP, Broadway Malyan and Liverpool-based DTR Ormrod to come up with fresh designs for the waterfront plot"

Potentially great news, but lets wait and see. (Thanks for the update Paul)

[Paul D]

Potentially great news, but lets wait and see. (Thanks for the update Paul)


No problem matey,if you're expecting anything like the last proposal though I think you should prepare to be disappointed,I can't see anything above 25 stories.They may even have a couple of towers of that size just to keep everyone sweet like they did with Central Village.

[AK1]

No problem matey,if you're expecting anything like the last proposal though I think you should prepare to be disappointed,I can't see anything above 25 stories.They may even have a couple of towers of that size just to keep everyone sweet like they did with Central Village.

To be honest I wouldn't mind if it was a low rise development as long as it's still iconic and unique. I don't think a building has to be tall for it to be great, it's the design and uniqueness that makes a building iconic.

[Paul D]

To be honest I wouldn't mind if it was a low rise development as long as it's still iconic and unique. I don't think a building has to be tall for it to be great, it's the design and uniqueness that makes a building iconic.

Yeah I agree,I'd settle for a couple of nice towers to be honest,as long as they make a decent impression on the skyline because it's a bit flat to the South of the Waterfront.I hope they don't approve something bland though because the original Maro effort was special.

[PhilipG]

It would certainly be unique (for today's Liverpool) if it was really tall.
A reminder perhaps that Liverpool had the tallest office building in Europe for about 50 years!

[kat2]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1144/891265084_61b6bda08d.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1189/891264954_b6b6a54062.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1439/891264926_e42e2f4ef4.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1100/891505144_aec194ab1e.jpg
july24
kat

[kat2]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1327/897861371_99f7f2d9fe.jpg
photo taken July 24
Brunswick area
kat

[marky]

South West Brunswick Dock shed...seems to be some internal demolition taking place (can be seen from riverside walk, as the road is blocked off).
The funny thing about Brunswick Business Park is that it's mostly made up from Harrington and Toxteth Docks...except the little bit mentioned above.

[marky]

SW Brunswick Dock shed. These are the last of the Brunswick Dock Sheds. I don't know yet if total demolition is taking place...but the next few days will tell.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25632502@N00/1198039358/
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1355/1198039358_cb173eff8e.jpg

[verdi]

Yep, total demolition, was talking to one of the workies, (was a scouser!!!) :034: There is a tower of some sort going on the site, though not as high as wanted. As I sit here and gaze at Snowdon,from my window, as this building will now block my view of the river and Wales. No doubt half the ( luxury apartments)?? shall remain empty. There is to be a gym of some sort there too. The lease is up on the rest of Brunswick business park, so more business's will be leaving and more (luxury??) apartments appearing!! :PDT_Xtremez_42::unibrow:

[A.D.W]

Yep, total demolition, was talking to one of the workies, (was a scouser!!!) :034: There is a tower of some sort going on the site, though not as high as wanted. As I sit here and gaze at Snowdon,from my window, as this building will now block my view of the river and Wales. No doubt half the ( luxury apartments)?? shall remain empty. There is to be a gym of some sort there too. The lease is up on the rest of Brunswick business park, so more business's will be leaving and more (luxury??) apartments appearing!! :PDT_Xtremez_42::unibrow:

Yep! I work in the Brunswick Business Park, I'll not say where as to protect the innocent, but we are 'moving' to the Speke village some time next year.

:PDT_Piratz_26:

[petromax]

To be honest I wouldn't mind if it was a low rise development as long as it's still iconic and unique. I don't think a building has to be tall for it to be great, it's the design and uniqueness that makes a building iconic.

icon; recognizable symbol: a picture or symbol that is universally recognized to be representative of something
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

It is neither design nor 'uniqueness' that makes any thing iconic. The worst deisgned hospital on the planet can represent the health system whic operates it and is therefore iconic.

I don't understand how iconic and unique can be used in the same sentence. This is not simple pedantics. I am trying to understand what it is you want.

[kat2]

ponder this, for something to be iconic, it would have to be uneque, one of a kind, or another way the best in the field. Icon a symbol, a symbol of
something could be deemed as iconic due to its unequeness. Doesnt matter what discapline you apply this too, *lol* except my spelling which is far from it! *g*
kat:)

[petromax]

Far too often (especially tall) buildings are described as iconic where they are merely impressive in size.

They represent nothing and mean nothing, vide this Ian Simpson's Brunswick Quay proposal which looks remarkably like the Beetham Tower in Manchester, remarkably like his South Bank Tower and remarkably like three new towers in Piccadilly yet to grace this remarkably un-iconic 'skyline'

There are to intents and purpose identical; in no sense unique and really if they are iconic, what on earth do they represent?

Do we really want this meaningless rubbish in Liverpool which has a giant aspiration way beyond this lilliputian, one idea no hoper?

Being tall is no good enough; not good enough for Liverpool in any event.

[kat2]

Tall buildings in Liverpool have something to be iconic about, look for example at the views towards the welsh countryside, look at the fact that Liverpool over looks the River Mersey, what do the tall iconic buildings offer in Manchester? perhaps a look out over the city! but, then, how can this compare, if it was to be compared with the views of our natural geographic location, is that not unique?, to be fair with some of the Manchester scrapers, I think they got the status because they were the first in the area, but by no means architecturally the best. icon generally means a symbol.
kat:rolleyes:

[petromax]

Building tall has a lot to offer in Liverpool and I look forward to what will be a fantastic (high-rise) skyline that represents the bold and adventurous spirit and a new prosperity for the city that is significant on a global scale.

The Brunswick Quay proposals are just not good enough to match this aspiration. A truly mediocre building and in the wrong place.

[scottieroader]

Building tall has a lot to offer in Liverpool and I look forward to what will be a fantastic (high-rise) skyline that represents the bold and adventurous spirit and a new prosperity for the city that is significant on a global scale.

The Brunswick Quay proposals are just not good enough to match this aspiration. A truly mediocre building and in the wrong place.

I agree that the building wasn't original enough, and it was also in the wrong place... It's a city centre design placed too far out of the centre it would look bizzare. But the argument was never about design and people should stop bashing the planners as though this was a heritage lobby, anti-tall building argument. Toxteth is a poor area, what it needs is jobs, not a load of yuppies moving in causing all the local shops and bars to go upmarket so that locals can no longer afford it.

[Paul D]

But regeneration tends to have a knock on effect,I see you point with the yuppies but this development would also have created jobs and probably would have kickstarted further developments.

[petromax]

But regeneration tends to have a knock on effect,I see you point with the yuppies but this development would also have created jobs and probably would have kickstarted further developments.


But there was nothing happening at ground level; No shops, no pubs, no places to meet; nothing civic - one of the original 'wind-swept' plazas.

I agree a good development here would kick start further developments and an extended community but this design just wasn't it.

[Waterways]

Far too often (especially tall) buildings are described as iconic where they are merely impressive in size.

They represent nothing and mean nothing, vide this Ian Simpson's Brunswick Quay proposal which looks remarkably like the Beetham Tower in Manchester, remarkably like his South Bank Tower and remarkably like three new towers in Piccadilly yet to grace this remarkably un-iconic 'skyline'


I couldn't disagree more. The Brunswick Quay Tower was sail shaped, in theme with nautical Liverpool, highly finished and nothing at all like any building in Manchester. It compliments the location it was to be set in. It was no off-the-shelf design. The governments chief architect was all for it and was praisweworthy of the design and its settiing in the location.



Do we really want this meaningless rubbish in Liverpool which has a giant aspiration way beyond this lilliputian, one idea no hoper?

Being tall is no good enough; not good enough for Liverpool in any event.

The Brunswick Quay Tower was not meaningless rubbish at all. It was "iconic", not just big. It was on a bend in the river where the Liverpool escarpemnt falls away after rising in Everton, facing the river one side and the docks the other side and right on a river lock too.

It would have attracted much high quality development to off-set the the lack-lustre developments that were built in the South End docks paving the way to remove the business parks, excavate all or part of the in-filled docks, and get the businesses into proper business areas inland with better transport connections. Then leaving the waters for people to live around and enjoy.

Liverpool can't afford to turn down high quality billion pound developments - the reason it was turned down was because of petty political party politics. All Labour councilors voted for and all LibDem against bar one.

The current economic boom may be over faster than what we think and Liverpool may have missed out on quality investment - yet again. Make hey while the sun shines!!! Once again Liverpool shoots itself in the foot.

[Waterways]

I agree that the building wasn't original enough, and it was also in the wrong place...


I disagree. It was totally in the right place.



It's a city centre design placed too far out of the centre it would look bizzare.


The idea is to get the city onto the dock waterways - people living and enjoying themselves there. Liverpool city centre is like an inland city centre with nothing to indicate that there is a massive port adjacent. Only a small secvtion of the centre - the Pier Head and then the Albert Dock recently touched the river. Move the centre onto the water - make it more linear.



But the argument was never about design and people should stop bashing the planners as though this was a heritage lobby, anti-tall building argument. Toxteth is a poor area, what it needs is jobs, not a load of yuppies moving in causing all the local shops and bars to go upmarket so that locals can no longer afford it.

Oh no!!! Not this working class stuff again. Liverpool over the past 25-30 years was highjacked by a certain type of person of a certain class, accent and dress, who think their ways are the only way and the city should acomodate their sub-culture.

The working class community adjacent to Brunswick Dock is sparse indeed. Not many live around there. Their pubs would remain their own and they would not want to sit in a wine bar sipping Pims anyway. How many of them drop into the Chinese restaurant for a quick meal on the Herculaneum locks? Err, er, er...few indeed.

BTW, I was born within yards of Brunswick Dock.

[theoc]

I remember the start of the re-development at Brunswick/Coburg docks. whilst i have little objection to the regeneration of our fair city, i have the following issues...

1. There are far too many apartments in the docklands/city center areas already

2. the current developments mainly take no account of the heritage and appearance of the old docks and as such are an eyesore...what the deuce are the apartments next to the cockle hole near Brunswick all about? And don't even get me started on the white apartments next to the Albert Dock!

3. The quality of build and finish of the current developments (since the early 90's) is, quite frankly, rubbish and i would think that, especially around Brunswick dock with particularly salt and moisture rich air, re-re-development will be required within 20 years.

4. Brunswick/Coburg/Waterloo and Wapping docks used to be great places to live. I lived in Coburg Wharf 15 years ago but moved when developers got hold of the land on either side of Brunswick, along the river front and adjacent to the cockle hole.
The same is the case when i lived in Waterloo Warehouse.
It's already too crowded simply because developers have seen the potential of selling 'a waterside lifestyle'.
Whilst this is fine from a business perspective, Take a look at the docklands developments in The Isle of Dogs area of London...urban regeneration and abject poverty side-by-side...not a good combination.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that people on the other side of Sefton Street live in poverty but there is definitely a divide.

Regrowth is great, forgetting history and leaving people behind is not so.

I left Liverpool 10 years ago, i visit from time to time and whilst i look at the recent growth with admiration, I'm left feeling slightly sad when i look around and see that lots of the areas and buildings which made Liverpool the city it is are fast dissapearing and the areas that really need attention are being left until last and possibly until it's too late.
There is far worse in our society today than a lack of trendy living spaces in clique areas with bars, restaurants and gyms on every corner.

[Waterways]

I remember the start of the re-development at Brunswick/Coburg docks. whilst i have little objection to the regeneration of our fair city, i have the following issues...

1. There are far too many apartments in the docklands/city center areas already


I disagree. The density should be greater to add vibrancy to the docks areas and centre. Hopefully that is coming.



2. the current developments mainly take no account of the heritage and appearance of the old docks and as such are an eyesore...what the deuce are the apartments next to the cockle hole near Brunswick all about? And don't even get me started on the white apartments next to the Albert Dock!


I agree. look at the link on my sig and go to the menu



3. The quality of build and finish of the current developments (since the early 90's) is, quite frankly, rubbish and i would think that, especially around Brunswick dock with particularly salt and moisture rich air, re-re-development will be required within 20 years.


That is so. However that might be a blessing disguise.



4. Brunswick/Coburg/Waterloo and Wapping docks used to be great places to live. I lived in Coburg Wharf 15 years ago but moved when developers got hold of the land on either side of Brunswick, along the river front and adjacent to the cockle hole.
The same is the case when i lived in Waterloo Warehouse.
It's already too crowded simply because developers have seen the potential of selling 'a waterside lifestyle'.


Developers want to fill the water spaces in to gain lucrative cheap land. There is nothing wrong with building around the docks quays, as long as the buildings are appropriate.



Whilst this is fine from a business perspective, Take a look at the docklands developments in The Isle of Dogs area of London...urban regeneration and abject poverty side-by-side...not a good combination.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that people on the other side of Sefton Street live in poverty but there is definitely a divide.


There will be a class divide more than anything. The city can't be held up to preserve a working class image.



Regrowth is great, forgetting history and leaving people behind is not so.


Good point.



I left Liverpool 10 years ago, i visit from time to time and whilst i look at the recent growth with admiration, I'm left feeling slightly sad when i look around and see that lots of the areas and buildings which made Liverpool the city it is are fast dissapearing and the areas that really need attention are being left until last and possibly until it's too late.
There is far worse in our society today than a lack of trendy living spaces in clique areas with bars, restaurants and gyms on every corner.

The city is very different to what it was 45 years ago. The city has always been in a state of re-construction. It is valuing what we have then designing, planning and constructing to high quality.

The dock waterways should be built on to open up the river and water to the people and get the city based around the water. However it is how which is the question.

[marky]

The demolition of South Brunswick Dock Sheds re-started recently. Yesterday the dock-facing shed wall was sliced in half, making the demolition visible from Sefton Street. For once, it's easy to get pics of a demolition site, as they don't have it surrounded by large security panels.

[Waterways]

Well what did we expect?
Something eye catching?
World renowned?
Iconic?
No. A few stumps. Disgusting.

I hope the Labour party get in, in May, and tell Ollerton (was Maro) to resubmit the original 51 floor Brunswick Quay Tower, and Planning persimmon given pronto.

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/liverpoolpost/nov2007/7/1/620F391E-9E2A-FCA3-41461AE2B22B2FC4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/Martin_S/DevelopmentSummary/brunswickquay.jpg

[marky]

Police boat, Liverpool Marina. I only noticed this a couple of weeks ago. I haven't seen it moving around the Docks/River yet.

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee262/south_liverpool/Marina_Police_boat.jpg

[Broliv]

Yeah is to be used for search and recovery may also be used with customs as it has funky sonar equiptment that can see if anything is attached underneath a boat. I doubt it will be used much in the next 2 months as the lock gates can only be opened once a day due to the contractors not really finishing the job (not sure what the problem is now, but i know that when i went out racing the contractors had to pass over power cables in order to open the gates, i'll find out this sunday as we're racing again) and british waterways who project managed the whole thing so you can imadgine the mess it is in.

The Mersey reggatta starts 28th and ends 29th of this month. 2 days 6 races and boats from all over the northwest. Should be good.

[skgogosfan]

Well what did we expect?
Something eye catching?
World renowned?
Iconic?
No. A few stumps. Disgusting.

I hope the Labour party get in, in May, and tell Ollerton (was Maro) to resubmit the original 51 floor Brunswick Quay Tower, and Planning persimmon given pronto.

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/liverpoolpost/nov2007/7/1/620F391E-9E2A-FCA3-41461AE2B22B2FC4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/Martin_S/DevelopmentSummary/brunswickquay.jpg

They look like those metal mesh waste bins the corpy used to have. What is that "feature" on the top anyway? Oh dear.

Dave.

[Max]

Something simular to this would of been good to build in Brunswick!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Turning_Torso_3.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_Torso

The Turning Torso in Malmo in Sweden.

[Waterways]

I like that building. Different.

[lindylou]

Yes, it is an interesting building. I like it too.