Demolishing arguments [Archive] - Yo! Liverpool Forum Community

Howie

09-04-2005, 12:26 AM

The problem with appointing a body of "experts" is that their expertise is so often questionable. Cabe, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (http://www.cabe.org.uk/), was created by New Labour as a successor to the Fine Arts Commission allegedly run as a one-man show by Lord St John of Fawsley. It soon acquired a reputation for making dubious aesthetic pronouncements on new building projects, promoting the foolish and faddish at the expense of the tried and trusted.

Overall, Cabe often failed to apply the simple rule which it has since formulated about new buildings: that they be of better quality than those they replace. In consequence, many much-loved Victorian terraces all over the Midlands and the North are due to be demolished to make way for indifferent new housing.

But this week, at last, the developers' poodle has turned and barked. Cabe reported for the first time on one of the Government's "housing market renewal" (i.e. demolition and rebuilding) schemes, and found it badly wanting. "We think the project fails both as urban design and as architecture," say the experts of the site in Sandwell, previously pointed to by the Government as a showcase for "market renewal". The project, designed by Persimmon plc and paid for by John Prescott's amorphous Whitehall department, failed on eight out of 10 of Cabe's objectives for good design. In particular, it lacks sufficient communal space and fails to keep faith with the character of the area - errors sadly familiar from a generation ago.

The high crime rates endured by the residents of 1960s housing estates testify to the obvious truth that bad design blights lives. "Expertise" and "modernity", no matter how eye-catching on a drawing-board, are no substitute for good building. If Cabe has a reason for existing - which is not yet proved - it is surely to defend unfashionable and worthy styles of architecture against ephemeral and worthless fads. If this report signals a new determination to do so, we will all be grateful - particularly if the commission now turns its attention to the catastrophe pending in Victorian Liverpool.

Source: Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/08/31/dl3102.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/31/ixhome.html)

Kev

09-09-2005, 01:01 PM

Ringo's House to be flattened. Former Beatle Ringo Starr's birthplace is to be demolished because it has "no historical significance", Liverpool City Council has said.

More (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4229068.stm)

Max

09-09-2005, 01:11 PM

Only historial thing about it is that he lived there.

Howie

09-09-2005, 10:48 PM

Welsh Streets homes doomed

HUNDREDS of homes in Liverpool's historic Welsh Streets are facing demolition after an 11th-hour change of heart by housing officials.

Almost 500 homes, including Madryn Street, the former home of Beatle Ringo Starr, are now set to be bulldozed.

The controversial plans to flatten the 11 streets and rebuild were shelved earlier this year after huge protests.

More (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=15950424%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=welsh%2dstreets%2dhomes%2ddoomed-name_page.html)...

:mad:

Howie

09-12-2005, 11:41 PM

Your guide to the new Edge Lane

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/sep2005/1/2/00000A24-8534-1325-97460C01AC1BF814.jpg

PLANS to transform Liverpool's Edge Lane with a widened road and new housing have sparked anger from some residents, whose homes will be demolished.

More (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=15960943%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=your%2dguide%2dto%2dthe%2dnew%2dedge%2d lane-name_page.html)...

Howie

09-13-2005, 08:43 AM

Soaring house prices save 7,000 homes from the axe

ROCKETING house prices across Merseyside have led to a dramatic cut in the biggest housing demolition programme since the slum clearances of the 1960s.

More (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=16123761%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=soaring%2dhouse%2dprices%2dsave%2d7%2d0 00%2dhomes%2dfrom%2dthe%2daxe-name_page.html)...

Howie

09-16-2005, 12:23 PM

Battle as road plan gets the go-ahead

FAMILIES living close to Liverpool's busy Edge Lane were gearing up for a fight last night after councillors gave the go-ahead to a £40m road widening scheme.

Despite pleas by local people and their three councillors, the council's planning committee voted by a majority to approve the road scheme.

The battle will now switch to a proposed public inquiry next month to decide whether compulsory purchase orders should be confirmed.

More (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=16137581%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=battle%2das%2droad%2dplan%2dgets%2dthe% 2dgo%2dahead-name_page.html)...

:angry:

Kev

09-16-2005, 03:47 PM

THE house where Ringo Starr was born will be taken down brick by brick and preserved, it was revealed today. Housing chiefs have come under fire for wanting to demolish the Beatles drummer's first home in Liverpool's Welsh Streets area under a £54m regeneration plan. Liverpool council today announced it will carefully dismantle the Madryn Street terrace rather than bulldoze it along with almost 500 other properties.

Source (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=16139788%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=we%2dll%2drebuild%2dringo%2ds%2dhouse%2 d%2dbrick%2dby%2dbrick-name_page.html)

:razz:

Scousemouse

09-16-2005, 09:43 PM

Quote by Cllr Flo Clucas, executive member for housing: "There has been a lot of speculation about Ringo Starr's former home in Madryn Street. I have asked officers to ensure that the property is taken down and stored. Its future use will become clear over time."

Translates to "We haven't got a bloody clue what we're going to do with it, but it'll keep 'em quiet for now."

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/jul2005/4/1/00067C2C-F56A-12CC-AA670C01AC1BF814.jpg

I wonder if the Council will think to take down the 'Madryn Street' sign before some enterprising chap half-inches it?

Max

09-17-2005, 12:31 AM

When they take the house down brick by brick were will they take the bricks? Will they rebuild them somewhere and make it into a tourist attraction?

Kev

09-17-2005, 07:14 AM

They will sell the house to Japan or USA :sad: OR they will rebuild it within the new Museum on Mann Island within the moved Museum of Liverpool Life.

Howie

09-23-2005, 01:05 AM

LIVERPOOL -- CULTURE OF DISRESPECT FOR RESIDENTS
September 07, 2005

Over four hundred homes in Liverpool face demolition, as part of the government's plans to raise house prices in the North and Midlands of England. This is another project within the 'Pathfinder' housing market renewal scheme, and is also linked to the preparation for Liverpool's term as 'City of Culture 2008'. To the residents of Liverpool's Edge Lane West, however, the scheme looks very much more like part of a culture of total disrespect for local residents on the part of politicians and corporations.

Edge Lane West has the bad luck to be chosen as part of the so-called 'eastern gateway' into Liverpool -- the council has plans for roads to be widened and new buildings built, in order to give visitors to the city of culture a smooth and pleasant ride to the city centre. As the council describes it 'The improvements planned as part of this scheme will help to give visitors a positive image of the city, which is crucial in the run-up to Liverpool's year as Capital of Culture in 2008' . This task has been undertaken by a range of 'regeneration' qangos, including the Merseyside New Heartlands Pathfinder, Northwest Regional Development Agency, and English partnerships, as well as much-hated local housing association Community 7, and Liverpool City Council. While the authorities state that half the properties have been acquired 'through negotiation' and through being empty, Community 7, as a major local landlord, has been accused by local campaigners of forcing residents out of their homes in order to cash in on the gateway project, 'Over 100 tenants have already been quietly moved out of the area... Most of these tenants will be moved out of the New Deal area altogether and ghettoised in areas which are not important to the city centre regeneration.'
However, over two hundred properties still remain inhabited, and English Partnerships (EP) -- the government's national 'regeneration' qango, has rolled out a stream of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) in January, in order to remove these obstacles to progress. EP's chairman is Margaret Ford, also a director of 'outsourcing' specialist Serco -- which runs prisons and military establishments . Other members of EP's board include James Tuckey, an advisor to BP, and various other Qangocrats. Their local equivalents, the Liverpool Land Development Company (LLDC), likewise has a board made up of the usual 'regeneration' professionals -- consultants, housing managers, and local politicians. They also include Alan James, Finance Manager, Jaguar Cars, and member of the Northwest Automotive Alliance. Lobbyists for the car industry will doubtless be pleased that the government, and Liverpool City Council, have decided that widening the roads into Liverpool is such a high priority. The LLDC part-time directors enjoy 'renumeration' from a pot of almost £160,000 and the company, which employs eleven staff, pays an average salary of £60,000. Not that they are keeping the benefits of 'regeneration' to themselves -- the construction companies Birse Civils Ltd, Mowlem plc and Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd have all been chosen to receive their share of the £65 million of public money set aside for the Liverpool 'gateway' project.

Ranged against the regeneration industry is an alliance of local residents, many organised under the banner of BEVEL -- 'better environmental vision for edge lane'. While work is not scheduled to start on the gateway project until 2006, the Public Inquiry is scheduled to start in October 2005. BEVEL are facing the regeneration qangos' legal team, and have already had to endure a series of pre-inquiry meetings before proceedings have even started. However, BEVEL have drawn up an alternative plan for Edge Lane West, and are pushing for the authorities to accept it. And BEVEL are not fighting alone -- they have support from a large number of community and heritage groups, as well as from other neighbourhoods scheduled to face the developers' axe as part of this 'regerneration' project. Local campaigners across the UK are all looking at what happens in Liverpool, and hope that the Edge Lane residents manage to face down the corporations and establish control over what happens to their streets.

For more details on the anti-Pathfinder alliance, see www.fightforourhomes.com

Source: Corporate Watch (http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=1950)

Howie

10-10-2005, 10:17 PM

'Don't bother rebuilding my house brick by brick so you can still say I was born there'

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/apr2004/2/7/00044821-0EAB-1074-A1DA80BFB6FA00CE.jpg

RINGO Starr has a message for campaigners fighting to save his old home from the bulldozers: "Don't bother."

The Beatles drummer says he "does not see the sense" in preserving his former home in Liverpool's Welsh Streets.

More (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=16231431%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=%2ddon%2dt%2dbother%2drebuilding%2dmy%2 dhouse%2dbrick%2dby%2dbrick%2dso%2dyou%2dcan%2dsti ll%2dsay%2di%2dwas%2dborn%2dthere%2d-name_page.html)...

Scousemouse

10-10-2005, 10:59 PM

Well Ringo has just gone up a couple of notches in my estimation, seems like he's the only one talking any sense! Good on you, Ringo!:PDT_Armat

And tell Flo where to get off. :rolleyes:

Kev

10-10-2005, 11:12 PM

Its a bit of a slap in the face for Flo eh?

Howie

10-13-2005, 10:52 PM

No need to bulldoze Edge Lane

RESIDENTS say they have a plan to refurbish rather than bulldoze hundreds of properties in Edge Lane, Liverpool.

A public inquiry heard that campaigners believe they can transform the community alongside the main route from the M62 to the city centre by 2008 - given the chance.

More (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=16245457&method=full&siteid=50061&headline=no-need-to-bulldoze-edge-lane--name_page.html)...

:nod:

Kev

10-14-2005, 08:24 AM

Isnt it possible that the situation will arise where nothing gets done and buildings stay empty because of these enquiries? Will the plan put forward by the residents mean that any money that was going to be pumped into the scheme will now be taken away?

Howie

10-14-2005, 10:53 PM

The proposed scheme is already £5million short, of which £2million the Council has agreed will be paid from local taxes. Why should we pay for people's homes to be demolished to be replaced by more f*ckin' luxury apartments? :mad:

Kev

10-14-2005, 10:59 PM

Howie

10-14-2005, 11:08 PM

I don't think many people have an argument with the demolition of properties on Edge Lane itself necessary for the road widening. It is the demolition of a further band of properties so as to create a row of apartments along each side of the new widened Edge Lane so as 'to provide a more attractive gateway to the city for visitors to the European Capital of Culture 2008' that is controversial. These will be neither affordable or appropriate to the existing residents of the area. :sad:

Kev

11-09-2005, 12:16 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/images/2005/11/09/new_bus_home_203x152.jpg

The new Paradise Street bus station is set to open as the Liverpool One project takes shape.

The first stage of the Liverpool One scheme, the multi-million pound Paradise Street Interchange, opens on Sunday November 13th.

More (http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/articles/2005/11/08/travel_businterchange_new_feature.shtml)....

FKoE

11-15-2005, 04:37 PM

A quick pop quiz.......... where was the original Liverpool?.

When did Lancashire villages of Garston and Walton become incorporated into the city Liverpool?. :unibrow:

Louis

11-15-2005, 05:17 PM

A quick pop quiz.......... where was the original Liverpool?.

When did Lancashire villages of Garston and Walton become incorporated into the city Liverpool?. :unibrow:

do you mean the original 7 streets location?

FKoE

11-15-2005, 05:20 PM

That would be a great start Loo, but I'm thinking more 1850ish, Vauxhall, and Toxteth ;)

Louis

11-15-2005, 05:25 PM

wasnt Garston 1902, Walton was 1895 and Toxteth 1835?

FKoE

11-15-2005, 05:26 PM

I thought Walton joined in 1901/1902 ??? :shock:

Louis

11-15-2005, 05:29 PM

i looked in a book and it said 1895! (i know its cheating)

FKoE

11-15-2005, 05:32 PM

i looked in a book and it said 1895! (i know its cheating)

Heheh :) , I'm 79.5% sure that Walton was incoporated in the 20th century, but theres Walton and then theres Walton eh?

Wheres me book :)

Louis

11-15-2005, 05:37 PM

Heheh :) , I'm 79.5% sure that Walton was incoporated in the 20th century, but theres Walton and then theres Walton eh?

Wheres me book :)

thats a very precise percentage

FKoE

11-15-2005, 05:41 PM

thats a very precise percentage

heheh :)

I found a good Liverpool site the other week, I'll post the address here : http://members.aol.com/scottwheelerband/liverpoolhistory.htm

Walton, and Walton village, I may be confused ;)

Howie

03-13-2006, 06:29 PM

Save our homes
Mar 13 2006
By Nick Coligan, Liverpool Echo

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/mar2006/9/5/0007E68F-63D9-1415-868F0C02AC1BF824.jpg

STEVE BROOKS lives in a three-storey terrace with bright red brickwork and an arched roof.

But not for much longer. For the father-of-six lives right in the middle of a regeneration zone - and the clock is ticking down to when the bulldozers move in.

His home in Exeter Road, Bootle, is surrounded by derelict, boarded-up houses, all awaiting demolition.

But Mr Brooks hopes it will not come to that. He is part of Neighbours Against Demolition, a protest group hoping to scupper the current controversial plan.

More (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=16808794%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=save%2dour%2dhomes-name_page.html)...

:(

Howie

03-23-2006, 01:33 PM

Late move to stop Edge Lane highway
Mar 23 2006
By Nick Coligan, Liverpool Echo

RESIDENTS have launched a last-ditch bid to stop bulldozers moving into Liverpool's Edge Lane.

It means plans to widen the traffic-clogged route, demolish 500 homes and build a new city centre community are again in doubt.

Campaigner Elizabeth Pascoe will challenge the £350m scheme in the high court.

But regeneration chiefs were today confident the long-awaited project would not be delayed.

More (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=16853389%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=late%2dmove%2dto%2dstop%2dedge%2dlane%2 dhighway-name_page.html)...

Kev

06-09-2006, 12:08 PM

JOHN PRESCOTT'S plans to demolish hundreds of homes on Merseyside will repeat the disasters of the 1950s and 1960s, a public inquiry was told yesterday.

Campaigners were at the hearing to save 400 Victorian villas in 10 Bootle streets from bulldozers under the Government's Housing Market Renewal Initiative (HMRI).

Yesterday, they compared the programme with post-war slum demolitions that replaced Victorian housing with low-cost, low quality flats.

Community leader Mary Owens spoke on behalf of the Neighbours Against Demolition group, which believes the properties, in Queens Road and Bedford Road, should be refurbished instead.

She said: "A large part of my working life has been spent working with community action groups largely on estates that were built in the 1950s and 1960s.

"People lived in walk-up flats and maisonettes and weren't prepared to continue to live in them any more.

"One of the greatest planning disasters ever was the demolitions of the 1960s."

Ms Owens, manager of community agency Maritime, accused the HMRI scheme of proposing "identical flats that the community has spent the last 20 years trying to get torn down."

And she criticised Sefton council for "failing" to listen to householders.

Kev

06-14-2006, 02:59 PM

THREE of Liverpool's oldest communities face D-day at a crucial meeting to decide the fate of thousands of terraced homes.

Councillors will tour Anfield, Edge Hill and Waver-tree tomorrow, before the future of dozens of Victorian streets is decided.

The three separate schemes are all part of regeneration company New Heartlands' multi-million pound vision for Merseyside's housing.

If given the go-ahead, they will mean:

* The demolition of 1,800 homes around Anfield stadium, to be replaced with 1,300 homes, shops, offices and community facilities.

* The bulldozing of 640 properties to the south of Edge Lane, Edge Hill, where about 300 new homes and shops will be built.

* The replacement of 525 terraces off Smithdown Road and Earle Road, Wavertree, with up to 450 new two- and three-storey homes.

Housing experts say the three communities have come to the end of their useful lives and need to be replaced with modern homes to get the property market back on its feet.

Many residents are happy to leave with the promise of being helped into a new property in the near future.

But others are campaigning to stay and have the terraces refurbished to 21st-century standards instead.

Liverpool council's planning committee will have the final say.

Liberal councillor Steve Radford, who opposes demolition, said: "These plans will simply add to the city's housing problems by deliberately making areas derelict. Organ-isations like English Heritage have real concerns about the quality of new housing."

Councillors are also set to give the go-ahead to plans for more than 70 homes on the former site of St Thomas a Becket school, off Spekeland Road, Edge Hill.

I want to go NOW

KaREN Williams is ready to move out of her Anfield home as soon as she gets the green light.

She rents her two-bedroom terrace in Vienna Street from a housing association and is waiting for another one to become available in a different area before leaving.

Karen, who has a seven-year-old son, Joseph, said: "My house definitely needs work doing on it - the bathroom has got damp, for example.

"I am happy to go and not come back, but Iwould like ahouse with a garden this time.

"This is not a very pleasant area to live in now, because kids keep getting into empty houses and setting fires."

Leave our community alone

MAXINE Liu has lived off Smithdown Road for more than 30 years - and she has no intention of going anywhere yet.

Maxine, of Tunstall Street, Wavertree, is a member of Smithdown Against Demolition, a new group set up to fight demolition plans.

She said: "First and fore-most, it will break up the community. People around here are always there if you need them.

"We are told we can move back into the area where we were born and bred, but we are worried that we will not be able to afford it. New properties are often expensive, especially for first-time buyers. A lot of people would benefit more if properties were modernised."

Paul D

06-14-2006, 03:16 PM

The area immediately around Liverpool's ground needs bulldozing,the council have allowed it to rot away and I can't think of a worse advert for the city than this place,so many people from outside the city must think they're in a war zone when they see that.In fact my mates a taxi driver and one Norwegian lad made that exact comment it's not good enough.

Kev

06-14-2006, 04:04 PM

I hope the Anfield ones are given the goahead for the sake of the residents.

Kev

06-16-2006, 08:33 AM

LIVERPOOL is repeating the slum-clearance mistakes of the 1960s by agreeing to the massive demolition of thousands of terraced homes, a leading conservation campaigner warned yesterday. more (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=17240746%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=don%2dt%2dresurrect%2dthe%2dcity%2ds%2d slum%2dmistakes%2dof%2d1960s-name_page.html)

Kev

06-20-2006, 09:25 AM

Kev

06-21-2006, 09:16 AM

THEY are the oldest houses in North Liverpool and last night the race was on to save them from demolition. more (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/breakingnews/tm_objectid=17265669%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=race%2dis%2don%2dto%2dsave%2doldest%2dh ouses%2din%2dnorth%2dliverpool-name_page.html)

Max

06-21-2006, 09:25 AM

It's only Breck road anyway.:Colorz_Grey_PDT_16:

Howie

07-20-2006, 08:47 AM

wallasey

07-20-2006, 11:35 AM

Thank goodness for that!

They renovated Skerries Street, so why not these other neighbouring streets? They are in a great location and the bus links into and around the city are pretty good too, especially as the Sheil Road Circular runs past every ten or so minutes. Arkle Avenue also has a bus going to Fazackerley Hospital too.

Wholescare renovation is needed here. Yuppies and couples would love this area. I know that Anfield isn't exactly Allerton or Woolton, but it does have a charm about it and it is full of character. I suppose modern society want Bars and posh restuarants on thier doorstep, something that Anfield doesn't have but why should that detract young proffessionals from moving there?

wallasey

07-20-2006, 11:45 AM

Derelict homes generate profits

Liverpool City Council has generated more than £500,000 in council tax by renovating nearly 500 derelict houses, it has said.

The initiative has been welcomed by local communities as it has helped cut vandalism and reduce the number of properties being used as drug dens.

Councillor Marilyn Fielding said: "This is an excellent initiative. "It can stop an area going downhill and brings houses back into use for families who desperately need them."

Sorry for double posting (I know that I should Simply Edit but this is a serious point)

I thought that there was some sort of financial gain from row upon row of houses being left derelict. There must be some sort of scam going on here, could the council be getting paid to have houses derleic and then sell the land off? Most of these houses are in locations close to the city afterall. Look at Dorethy Street in Edge Hill. Close to Edge Lane, near to the City Centre and great amenities nearby with the shopping hubs of Kensington and Picton Road on hand. The bus links into the city are exellent with high frquencies going up Picton Road, and once again, the Sheil Road Circualar runs past the road end (almost!) too. It is a great location but most (if not all by now) of the houses are boarded up and probably awaiting removal.

So, if the council want to con us out of our homes, thats fine. But I hope they relise that they are destroying OUR City too. Boarded up terraces are not a nice sight. Renovatoion is the key to success in almost all cases. So C'mon Liverpool city Council. Un board these houses and get them done up! Salfords doing in in Langworthy, so why cant we do it all over the city and cater for all types of wealths and aspirations.

We are loosing out, developers and business moguls do not want to locate to a city where almost every street is boarded up. Leeds is doing well for itself, as is Birmingham. They don't have huge swaithes of derelict terraces, but they also don't demolish streets because they are "undesirable".

Waterways

07-20-2006, 02:24 PM

This is just anti government crap by the Torygraph. If you can't see through this crap you are naive.

Overall, Cabe often failed to apply the simple rule which it has since formulated about new buildings: that they be of better quality than those they replace. In consequence, many much-loved Victorian terraces all over the Midlands and the North are due to be demolished to make way for indifferent new housing.

Much loved by who? By those who want to maintain class levels. The poor must be in distinctly working class homes - full of damp and virtually nil insulation levels, casting millions into fuel poverty and add CO2 to the atmosphere. Even if you double glazing and insulation in the loft it make little impact as the solid walls of nil insulation value is the vast majority of the area of the house surfaces. Then the draught or just cold floors. Best run bulldozers through the lot of them. They missed the post WW2 housing clearance because money ran out.

That is just what the Torygraph want.

There are currently three million people in the UK living in 1.5 million homes officially classified as unfit, and this situation is unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future. 2.5 million homes suffer from severe damp, and the cost of remedying these conditions is estimated between 46 and 70 billion.

House conditions were found to contribute to "chronic chest disease", hypothermia and digestive conditions.

The above was some of the findings of a report commissioned by the Joseph
Rowntree Organisation.

The high crime rates endured by the residents of 1960s housing estates testify to the obvious truth that bad design blights lives. "Expertise" and "modernity", no matter how eye-catching on a drawing-board, are no substitute for good building.

This is now just castigating modern design – notice they don’t point to the many successes. These people are just plain stupid. They must think we are all very dim to believe what they spout.

Waterways

07-20-2006, 02:25 PM

Waterways

07-20-2006, 02:34 PM

Homes reprieved as mass demolition plans frozen
Jul 20 2006
By Larry Neild, Daily Post

LIVERPOOL'S plans to bulldoze 3,000 terraced houses as part of the biggest clearance programme for 40 years, lay in tatters last night, jubilant critics claimed.

They say a decision by Local Government Secretary of State Ruth Kelly to freeze plans for a massive regeneration programme, would spell the end of the strategy.

But council officials insisted that the plans for Anfield, Breckfield, Edge Hill and Picton areas of the city, have not been shelved.

They say the minister has called for more information about the plans before deciding whether there should be a public inquiry.

In the meanwhile, the minister has issued a formal notice to the council banning them from granting any planning approvals without authorisation from the Government.

More (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=17416580%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=homes%2dreprieved%2das%2dmass%2ddemolit ion%2dplans%2dfrozen-name_page.html)...

The bulldozers should move in.

The averaged sized new home in the UK is a paltry British 76 square metres, while in Germany with a similar population density new homes are 109 square metres, nearly half as much again in size. In Australia the average sized new home is 205.7 square metres, in the Netherlands 115 square metres and in Denmark 137 square metres. Danish rooms are twice as big as the hutches now on offer in the United Kingdom. In Japan, a country once notorious for small homes, the average sized new home is now 140 square metres.

The averaged size living room in the UK is a miniscule 13 foot by 15 foot; a room which has to function as TV room, children’s play room, entertainment room and relaxation room. If the averaged sized man stands in the middle of a typical British living room and stretched out an arm he will hit either a wall or ceiling.

The housing charity, Shelter, estimate 500,000 households are officially overcrowded.

The UK has the smallest, pokiest most expensive houses in the developed
world. The old housing stock has a high carbon footprint, despite the illness such cold and damp homes bring on. The only way is to demolish and build eco homes - some are being built near Brunswick Dock.

Kev

07-20-2006, 03:07 PM

How does it effect the Edge Lane Scheme now? Will that stop too?

Howie

07-20-2006, 03:32 PM

How does it effect the Edge Lane Scheme now? Will that stop too?
No, I don't think it affects the Edge Lane scheme though it does have implications for the rest of the Community Seven (http://www.community7.org.uk/) / Kensington Regeneration (http://www.kensingtonregeneration.com/) area.

Waterways

07-20-2006, 04:49 PM

No, I don't think it affects the Edge Lane scheme though it does have implications for the rest of the Community Seven (http://www.community7.org.uk/) / Kensington Regeneration (http://www.kensingtonregeneration.com/) area.

Keeping old inadeqaute expensive to heat houses is a total waste of time. None of these house are of architectural merit. There are no positive points about them.

Howie

07-20-2006, 06:30 PM

Keeping old inadeqaute expensive to heat houses is a total waste of time. None of these house are of architectural merit. There are no positive points about them.
The point is that I own one of these inadequate Victorian terraces (which has stood for over 100 years and which would probably stand for another 100 years) and that if it gets demolished I won't. Neither will I own one of the new builds that you promote, as the pittance offered in compulsary purchase (due to the reduction in market value resulting from the regeneration activity) will not pay for a replacement and I am too old to get another mortgage. I will consequently have to move out of the area and probably pay out rent that I do not currently pay to live somewhere even less adequate. I will lose my home that I have paid for and some other wealthier person will move into the new build that replaces it. If it was a case of 'a-home-for-a-home' then I would have no argument with you. As it is, this is not my idea of regenerating a community but rather replacing it ('gentrification'). I personally do not think this is right and won't be going without a fight! :mad:

wallasey

07-20-2006, 08:02 PM

The point is that I own one of these inadequate Victorian terraces (which has stood for over 100 years and which would probably stand for another 100 years) and that if it gets demolished I won't. Neither will I own one of the new builds that you promote, as the pittance offered in compulsary purchase (due to the reduction in market value resulting from the regeneration activity) will not pay for a replacement and I am too old to get another mortgage. I will consequently have to move out of the area and probably pay out rent that I do not currently pay to live somewhere even less adequate. I will lose my home that I have paid for and some other wealthier person will move into the new build that replaces it. If it was a case of 'a-home-for-a-home' then I would have no argument with you. As it is, this is not my idea of regenerating a community but rather replacing it ('gentrification'). I personally do not think this is right and won't be going without a fight! :mad:

I hate seeing terraces boaded up and falling into decay. But what we need to ask is "What is wrong with these areas?". As previously said, they are in great locations (most of the time) and thats if you don't own a car too! These terraces are what make the city what it is and I think it is an absolute insult to both the city and it's forefarthers to say that they are past it and have no place in modern society. These terraces are well built, very presentable and normally brimming full of archutechtural merit.

Modern 'boxes' dont have anything going for them most of the time and if the situation in Gillmoss and Crokky Park is anything to go by, they are not built to last! Some of our worst crime hotspots are in Modern estates and developpments, need I remind us about Stockbridge Village back in the days when it was Cantrill Farm? (no offence Cannie farmers!).

I say keep the terraces. They look great (especially with a lick of red glaze!) and are suitable for those who are on the go all the time and only go home to eat, sleep and cleanse.

Thats all I have to say.

Waterways

07-21-2006, 12:42 AM

The point is that I own one of these inadequate Victorian terraces

You poor sod.

They are still crocks, and need demolishing for superior homes befitting the 21st century.

Waterways

07-21-2006, 12:49 AM

I hate seeing terraces boaded up and falling into decay.

I like seeing them opulled down. Appalling homes .

But what we need to ask is "What is wrong with these areas?". As previously said, they are in great locations (most of the time) and thats if you don't own a car too!

The locations are fine. It is just people don't like living in crap houses.

These terraces are what make the city

You are having a laugh.

what it is and I think it is an absolute insult to both the city and it's forefarthers to say that they are past it and have no place in modern society. These terraces are well built, very presentable and normally brimming full of archutechtural merit.

You are having a laugh. Architecture? Where? They were emergency 1800s homes as people flocked into the cities from the countryside. They look like barracks, as that was what they really were.

Modern 'boxes' dont have anything going for them most of the time

What a stupid comment.

and if the situation in Gillmoss and Crokky Park is anything to go by, they are not built to last!

I'll have snip the rest as it is too turgid. This attitude is typical of why Liverpool has stayed a crock of a 3rd rate city for 50 years. No ambition, no foresight, no nothing.

Howie

07-21-2006, 12:53 AM

You poor sod.

They are still crocks, and need demolishing for superior homes befitting the 21st century.
That would be fine if I could afford one of them, but as a low-waged public sector employee... :rolleyes:

wallasey

07-21-2006, 01:01 PM

What is your location Waterways? Do you live in a terrace?

Howie

07-22-2006, 10:18 AM

Live and let buy

Some MPs and local authorities are calling for controls on what they see as the damaging buy-to-let market. However, the mortgage industry has hit back hard to counter this stance.

The recent call by MPs for more controls on buy-to-let, claiming that it is ‘distorting’ the property market, forcing up prices and crowding out local buyers, caused something of a flutter in the mortgage and property market.

The all party Housing Select Committee’s report on 'Affordability and the Supply of Housing (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmodpm/703/703-i.pdf)' (420KB pdf), urges government to give local authorities more powers to limit the amount of buy-to-let properties in certain areas.

The report stated: ‘In some areas the housing market is distorted by significant levels of buy-to-let investments, which have driven up prices and not created stable communities. In these areas, the fact that housing offers a higher return on capital investment than equities has driven up prices artificially and is making home purchase unaffordable for local buyers, forcing them into rented accommodation.’

The Welsh Street Homes Group in Liverpool, one of many local authorities to give evidence to the Committee, warned that, ‘the increased borrowing power available to Southern, or Irish property owners has enabled the purchase of buy-to-let property in Northern cities. This has affected supply, and the cost of buying and renting accommodation in Liverpool.’

More (http://www.citywire.co.uk/News/NewsArticle.aspx?VersionID=83496&MenuKey=News.Home)...

Waterways

07-22-2006, 12:28 PM

What is your location Waterways? Do you live in a terrace?

Terrrace? Not if I can help it. They are a blight on the landscape.

Waterways

07-22-2006, 12:34 PM

Waterways

07-22-2006, 12:43 PM

wallasey

07-22-2006, 05:45 PM

This is total tripe. All they have to do is open land up to the free market and the situation will disappear. They allot a certain amount of land for building in each council area – the Local Plan - which is never enough. At times no land at all. It is rigged to keep land and house prices high, which cascades down to pokey overpriced rubbish that is being served up. The free market should dictate the land and house prices, not governments or councils. Rigging land availability is not the way. We are all being ripped off good style with the big construction companies and large land owners raking it in.

If I have got the right end of the stick, this would be a very good idea for Town/City Centre sites that need to be developed. Birkenhead for example, has loads of bare patches around Conway Street that would be great for Commercial/High spec apartment developments!

Waterways

07-23-2006, 12:46 AM

Kev

08-01-2006, 08:45 AM

LIVERPOOL'S plans to bulldoze 3,000 terraced houses as part of the biggest residential clearance programme for 40 years are back on track after the Government gave the go-ahead to the scheme.

Local Government Secretary of State Ruth Kelly yesterday lifted orders which prevented planning permission for the massive regeneration programme from going ahead.

Earlier this year, Liverpool City Council granted outline planning permission for the three Housing Market Renewal Initiative (HMRI) schemes at Anfield and Breckfield, Picton and Edge Hill.

Under the so-called Pathways regeneration strategy, 3,000 homes will be demolished and replaced by new ones.

Mrs Kelly put the plans on hold in July while she sought more information from the council on design issues and affordability.

Now the council has been told that the Secretary of State has decided not to "call-in" the plans and the direction has been lifted.

The Government move comes as a public inquiry into compulsory purchase orders for around 1,000 homes in the four areas continues.

The council's Liberal Party leader, Cllr Steve Radford, who is opposing the clearance programme, said: "While I'm disappointed the go-ahead has been given, the fight is not over yet.

"We have been fighting this scheme tooth and nail at the current public inquiry, which is now in its summing-up stages.

"The freezing of the plans by the secretary of state shows the council's total lack of detail, even though they have already moved two-thirds of the population out. It's about social cleansing rather than community regeneration.

"Pathways is really a house-crusher project. We need to keep our affordable housing, not get rid of it at enormous expense."

The city council insist that a housing strategy is vital to create sustainable communities by providing the types of houses that people want to live in, rather than attempt to refurbish unpopular small and worn-out terraced homes.

Following Mrs Kelly's decision, Cllr Marilyn Fielding, executive member for neighbourhoods and housing, said: "We were always confident that the proper planning procedures had been followed and that we could satisfy the points which had been raised on design and affordability.

"HMRI is about providing decent, affordable homes in areas where the housing market has collapsed and these plans will do that."

alanweston@dailypost.co.uk

lindylou

08-01-2006, 11:58 AM

The point is that I own one of these inadequate Victorian terraces (which has stood for over 100 years and which would probably stand for another 100 years) and that if it gets demolished I won't. Neither will I own one of the new builds that you promote, as the pittance offered in compulsary purchase (due to the reduction in market value resulting from the regeneration activity) will not pay for a replacement and I am too old to get another mortgage. I will consequently have to move out of the area and probably pay out rent that I do not currently pay to live somewhere even less adequate. I will lose my home that I have paid for and some other wealthier person will move into the new build that replaces it. If it was a case of 'a-home-for-a-home' then I would have no argument with you. As it is, this is not my idea of regenerating a community but rather replacing it ('gentrification'). I personally do not think this is right and won't be going without a fight! :mad:

Well said Howie. We are like you, we live in a Victorian terrace built in 1878. It is a lovely big house and we have worked long and hard to renovate it. Our house is fab inside - even tho' I say it myself. we could never afford another house of this size - and like you we don't want to take on another mortgage now (we are in our 50s). My family have lived in this house since 1940s and all my family history has been here. Anfield was a good area in those days, it's such a shame to see it go down the nick.
The new build houses might look a bit pretty but they are like dolls houses - so small and pokey inside (unless you can afford to pay an absolute fortune for a biggish one).
We have 8 big rooms in our house - the bedrooms are all double. The so called 'master bedrooms' in these new builds would fit twice or three times into ours !
I love my house. It's just the deterioration of the area that is the let down.

lindylou

08-01-2006, 12:02 PM

You poor sod.

They are still crocks, and need demolishing for superior homes befitting the 21st century.

If you could see my house you wouldn't say that ! I will post some pics when I get around to it.
I am proud of what we have done here - and if this house was in another location it would be worth a fortune.

wallasey

08-01-2006, 12:41 PM

I feel sorry for those affected by these orders. for one, they are being messed around by Whitehall Beurocrats who just cannot secide wheather to save our city or resume the 60's clearence. I would have thought that Ms Kelly would undestand the need to keep these houses intact seeing as she is a North Western MP, Is she going to allow Horwich or Bolton to be pulled down because of the presence of terraces? I think not!

Why do I get the impression that these demolision plans are being put through blindfolded? I mean, do these people understand the consequences of pulling down one of Liverpool's famous suburbs?

I do agree that Anfield/Oakfield are looking a bit rundown. But roads such as St Domingo Vale can be renovated. Skerries Street was and look how great that now looks! it can be done, and if there was a big profit/backhander in the offerring, I bet those Whitehall folk would decide to renovate and conserve rather than pull down.

Just look at Liverpool from the Air and Ainscough's Liverpool. These two books will show you what the city has lost. So many good standard, quality buildings have been lost so that landscaping and prefab housing can be erected. They are pulling down such iconinc examples of Victorian housing so that sub-standard boxes ,with no charm, can be put up instead. We have seen what this does. It destroys communities and destroy's people's pride in thier city.

Howie

08-03-2006, 09:16 AM

Watchdog's deal to check house plans
Aug 3 2006
By Alan Weston Daily Post Staff

THE GOVERNMENT'S watchdog on design and public space has withdrawn its objections to Liverpool's mass house clearance scheme in deprived areas.

In an unprecedented move, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (http://www.cabe.org.uk/) (CABE) had opposed the city council's compulsory purchase orders, which would allow them to bulldoze 3,000 terraced homes as part of its controversial Pathways regeneration strategy.

CABE said the council's application for the compulsory purchase orders did not contain enough detail to show that the areas where the demolitions were taking place - in Anfield and Breckfield, Picton and Edge Hill - would be improved by the new housing.

Now, however, the council has made an undertaking to CABE that it will not issue planning permission until a series of conditions are met. These are:

A working group to directly advise the planning committee to be established, consisting of CABE, English Heritage, the council, the developer and representatives from the community.
A detailed masterplan to be produced and submitted to the working group.
A design code to be prepared and submitted to the working group.

Selina Mason, CABE's director of design review, said: "It is the first time CABE has objected to a CPO but after detailed and careful consideration, we have been able to withdraw our objections, given that our concerns about design will be addressed.

"This is by no means an ideal process.

" It would have been better if the council had insisted on a masterplan in the first place.

"What we have now achieved is a mechanism to ensure design is considered before planning permission is granted.

"CABE advises on how to deliver good design and insists on quality, but we are still seeing mediocre housing that should not be considered acceptable for the people that are going to live there."

Earlier this week, Local Government Secretary Ruth Kelly also lifted orders which prevented planning permission for the massive regeneration scheme from going ahead.

Cllr Marilyn Fielding, executive member for Neighbourhoods and Housing, said: "Clearly we welcome CABE's decision to withdraw their objection. We recognise the concerns they have and we have been working hard with them to resolve the issues they raised, and we take on board their views on master planning. We would hope that in future we would work in partnership with CABE and other interested bodies to deliver schemes of this nature."

alanweston@dailypost.co.uk

Source: icLiverpool (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=17510870%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=watchdog%2ds%2ddeal%2dto%2dcheck%2dhous e%2dplans%2d-name_page.html)

wallasey

08-11-2006, 02:01 PM

The Buldozers move in to Cheers (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/breakingnews/tm_objectid=17547427%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=the%2dbulldozers%2dmove%2din%2dto%2dche ers-name_page.html)

Lake Street and neighbouring streets in Anfield are now in the process of being pulled down to make way for New Heartlands developments. These streets have allegedly been empty for years and will be wiped out in a few weeks.

Housing Experts have said that these houses are past there sell by and I can understand that especially if the terraces have been vacant for a long spell (no maintainace carried out ect) so it is likely that there is no going back. (although surveyers checks would be nice to have a look over if made public!)

But what is going to put up in their place? I have an extract here from "An Illustrated History of Liverpool's Suburbs" This is the closing statement on Anfield...

Today Anfield is a run down district, and is not an fashoinable or glamourous place to live and work. Unlike Everton, however, it has retained much of it's Victorian housing stock. Two and three story red brick townhouses with terrocotta details are the norm here, and the needless demolision of the 1960's has left little impact on the area. It is hoped that if Liverpool Football Club move to a new location on Stanley Park, then the move will trigger a large amount of rejuvination of the area. It is hoped that many of these elegent houses will be retained and renovated and that the character of this attractive Victorian area is not thoughtlessly destroyed.

I think that this statement is very true. The area isn't all that glamourous but was it ever intended to be? It is a good honest district that is now under threat from ugly boxes being built right in the heart of the place. I hope that the new buildings are symapthetic toward what was there previously and I hope that the number or buildings renovated and retained out weigh the amount that are to be pulled down. I don't mind seeing tired victorian terraces pulled down as long as the replacement buildings (especially in an area like Anfield) are built to mimik the previous occupiers. Modern won't go in an area like Anfield. Childwall or Norris Green possibly but Anfield or Walton or Tuebrook No.

lindylou

08-11-2006, 06:58 PM

Urban

08-11-2006, 07:07 PM

Shed no tears for the end of Coronation Street--- there's more to life.

FKoE

08-11-2006, 08:34 PM

Yesterday it was No Dogs, No Blacks, and No Irish.

Today it is....No Working-class

wallasey

08-12-2006, 12:16 AM

Yes, I agree with all that Wallasey.

I do agree that some terraced streets that are beyond repair do need to be swept away - usually the tiny two up/two down type.
But it is quite true that an area like Anfield would not suit 'ticky-tacky boxes' :)
However, there are some being built up the top of Breck road, and some are 3storey - like the original houses that were there before.
I don't agree with the large Victorian terraces being demolished if they are still in reasonable condition. They are marvellous dwellings when renovated. Lots of space in these family houses. They look good too.

Wil ltry and get over there once I have settled in and have aquired my Student pass!!! It's great to here that something of Victorian Ilk is being built instead of plain, hum-drum boxes that "depress" the area and only accelerate a down-spiral. As the writer of the book says, Anfield should aim to have it's terraces retianed and renovated. This could be a great location to be in with a good supply of shopping facilities and bus links into and around the city.

Anfield will never be the ultimate upper crust place to live in the city with boarded up terraces and "crumbling" homes. But i do think that by renovating the area to it's origanal glory is viable. Skerries Road has been renovated; and how great that looks now! The street has so much pride and is a shining example of what can be done in all areas of the city. Not just Anfield but Edge Lane, Welsh Streets and Garston ect.

Waterways

08-12-2006, 12:54 AM

If I have got the right end of the stick, this would be a very good idea for Town/City Centre sites that need to be developed. Birkenhead for example, has loads of bare patches around Conway Street that would be great for Commercial/High spec apartment developments!

In the whole scale of the UK, there just isn't enough brownfield sites to develop - that is propaganda pushed by large landowners. Birkenhead may have some but mainly in commercial areas.

To encourage high quality high rises, the infrastructure & amenities have to be there around, or guaranteed, to attract anyone.

Birkenhead and Wallasey are best to concentrate on developing the redundant docks between the towns. They have a brilliant opportunity to create a water based residential/leisure environment right up to 4 miles from the river. Filling in Bidston dock was a really daft thing to do.

wallasey

08-12-2006, 12:14 PM

Waterways

08-12-2006, 02:55 PM

Very True, the East and West floats have great potential to be home for both residential and leasure uses. The warehouse where the Historic Warships were are to be apartments (East Float) and the West Float is home to the LVRC (Liverpool Victoria Rowing Club ) to which many Birkonians and Wallaseians have joined. However, what mustn't be overlooked is that the docks in Birkenhead and Wallasey are also major sources of employment. There are business parks and industrial units being built and or modernised to suit small business'.

A long term plan is needed. The small businesses can be moved to proper modern business parks. The same applies to Liverpool. They can then concentrate of getting the Floats built up. The floats are so large they could have solid causeways built out into the water, could be curved or whatever, to accommodate residential buildings, restaurants on the tip of them, etc. The potential is enormous. But two towns may never agree – a big problem

Birkenhead, Bebington, Wallasey, etc should be all one place. Titled, City of Wirral or whatever. Or better still incorporated into Liverpool. Collectively, they have even less of an idea than Liverpool. There are no buildings of any repute on the Wirral, with a boring bland riverside. Lok at the Liverpool side of the river. Day and night.

On the Bidston Dock; from what I have heard is that the dock was filled in so that a HGV parking facility could be built as part of the Twelve Quays but as you can see, nothing has happened. I also heard that the Penny Bridge outside of the Bidston Dock was to be taken out (as it crosses nothing now) and be moved to the Duke Street Bridge. This has also come to nothing. Maybe this was purely specualtion!

Typical. Another attractive location disappears. Everywhere else in the country they are expaning waterways as they find them attractive. In Liverpool and Birkenhead they fill them in Also Port Sunlight is now filled in too. The water based heritage of Merseyside slowly errodes.

Urban

08-12-2006, 06:54 PM

Yesterday it was No Dogs, No Blacks, and No Irish.

Today it is....No Working-class

I don't know where you have got this from?
I have never made any comments about either Blacks or Irish, and think Liverpool would benefit from being more diverse.

The issue of terrorism has nothing to do with race but simply with evil people.

As for the working class I think that the tiny 2 up 2 downs are too small for anyone to live in and life for the working class of whom I AM A MEMBER should be improved.

lindylou

08-14-2006, 01:36 PM

Shed no tears for the end of Coronation Street--- there's more to life.

--- but not all terraced houses are like Coronation st.
What about the huge Victorian terraced houses like we have on Princes ave.
There are thankfully still many all around different parts of L'pool. Those like the ones on Edge lane, or roads off Prescot rd, Fairfield, Kensington, parts of Lodge lane, Arkles lane and the roads near to the stadium : Skerries, Wylva, Edith rd's, fine big family houses , also some of the roads off Picton rd have lovely big old houses - in good nick too, and most renovated to a high standard. There are too many to mention.
These houses are solid, lovely big rooms and many still retaining original decorative features. They would be worth a fortune down south.
New build houses would be out of character and look ridiculous in these type of areas. Imagine a row of little Barratts houses in Skerries rd :eek:

New houses can be nice - but in the right place, and as long as they are sympathetic to the surrounding environment.

for instance, look at the new housing estates they put in place of those that were demolished around L.8. or Everton district .. they have nowhere near the same character as the original housing. Everton Brow had rows and rows of fine big houses - fair enough they were in a bad condition ... but they could have been renovated. It would have been a fantastic and desirable area with fab views over the Mersey. There's nothing left of the original Everton.
L.8. had the heart ripped out of it and has never been the same since they threw up all those little boxes.
Thank God some of 'Parly' and Princes ave, Catherine st etc, survived.

Actually, a lot of the new build houses are not much bigger than the 'two up-two downs' .. it's just that they are a different lay-out and a more modern shape. I've been in new houses were you can't swing a cat ! :rolleyes:
Also I've seen new houses built SO close they might as well be terraced !!

Not that I've got anything against new ones .. some of them are gorgeous and in lovely locations ... I'm just saying that terraced doesn't always mean bad. :)

Urban

08-14-2006, 07:09 PM

A.D.Williams

08-14-2006, 07:47 PM

Tinsley Street - 14th August 2006

http://www.liverpoolviews.co.uk/north/anfield/roads/btins1408061.jpg

A.D.Williams

08-14-2006, 07:48 PM

Lake Street - 14th August 2006

http://www.liverpoolviews.co.uk/north/anfield/roads/blake1408061.jpg

A.D.Williams

08-14-2006, 07:50 PM

Lothair Road - 14th August 2006

http://www.liverpoolviews.co.uk/north/anfield/roads/bloth1408061.jpg

A.D.Williams

08-14-2006, 07:51 PM

Rockfield Road - 14th August 2006

http://www.liverpoolviews.co.uk/north/anfield/roads/brock1408061.jpg

julia

08-14-2006, 09:25 PM

Those like the ones on Edge lane, or roads off Prescot rd, Fairfield, Kensington, parts of Lodge lane, Arkles lane and the roads near to the stadium : Skerries, Wylva, Edith rd's, fine big family houses , also some of the roads off Picton rd have lovely big old houses - in good nick too, and most renovated to a high standard. There are too many to mention.
These houses are solid, lovely big rooms and many still retaining original decorative features. They would be worth a fortune down south.
New build houses would be out of character and look ridiculous in these type of areas. Imagine a row of little Barratts houses in Skerries rd :eek:

New houses can be nice - but in the right place, and as long as they are sympathetic to the surrounding environment.

I agree. Nice large houses in many cases. TERRIBLE neighbourhoods. The problem in my opinion is not the houses, but the government. Why does the City Council, police, etc. allow such bad neighbourhoods to continue to be so terrible? Why don't they patrol and clean them up? Start arresting thieves, trespassers, arsonists, yobs, gangs and drug dealers? These are the real questions. Don't they realise that when they tear down the houses in bad neighbourhoods, the bad elements will remain in Liverpool (They will just move on to cause trouble to houses still left standing and the families that occupy these houses?) So the City Council's so-called 'Social Cleansing' will not solve the underlying problems - it will just move the problems on to a new neighbourhood (Perhaps even yours and mine)...

Howie

08-14-2006, 09:32 PM

I agree, they do appear to be using demolition as a means of addressing anti-social behaviour. It doesn't make sense. :sad:

A.D.Williams

08-14-2006, 09:44 PM

I agree, they do appear to be using demolition as a means of addressing anti-social behaviour. It doesn't make sense. :sad:

I was 'verbally abused' by the street arabs when taking the above pictures.

:Colorz_Grey_PDT_24:

wallasey

08-14-2006, 10:12 PM

I agree, they do appear to be using demolition as a means of addressing anti-social behaviour. It doesn't make sense. :sad:

The houses aren't the problem! They are what make the neighbourhood what it is! Ok, the locals do have some sort of influance on how the area turns out but there is no need to take it out on the houses!

I do agree that the backs of these houses can be very grotty. Especially if your home backs onto one of the shop blocks that are totally or partially derelict. If you go to the Dorothy Street/Wavertree Road area, you will see what I mean.

I cannot congratulate you enough for capturing these homes before they are pulled down; I will be making it a priority to get over there next week once I have settled in and moved. That's if the street hasn't been cordoned off!

Well Done

Russ

Waterways

08-14-2006, 10:39 PM

I was 'verbally abused' by the street arabs when taking the above pictures.

:Colorz_Grey_PDT_24:

Demolition is too good for them.

Max

08-14-2006, 11:56 PM

Seems a big amount of Anfield/Everton house are abandoned like in Dave's pics.

lindylou

08-15-2006, 08:37 PM

Actually I do agree.
It's just that the very small terraces such as the ones in Walton where I grew up are too small you can walk in off the street, virtually stretch your arms and have the width of the front, and the backs are ugly and rat infested.

I agree that the large terraces are lovely and full of character.

Everton is a good example of an area that had its heart ripped out leaving a featureless nondescript area with a small population.

Yes, those tiny two up- two downs are far too small. My dad was born and raised in one off Goodison rd. Many of them though, are renovated, and the people have them like little palaces. But I would'nt like a house that small.

Many of the new builds are equally as small as I already said. Some of them are walk in off the street too. The ones that do have a small entrance hall are narrow enough that your shoulders almost touch the walls!

I wouldn't mind a new build if I could afford one of the big detached ones !! :D

FKoE

08-15-2006, 08:41 PM

Demolition is too good for them.

:rolleyes:

FKoE

08-15-2006, 08:43 PM

Yes, those tiny two up- two downs are far too small. My dad was born and raised in one off Goodison rd. Many of them though, are renovated, and the people have them like little palaces. But I would'nt like a house that small.

Many of the new builds are equally as small as I already said. Some of them are walk in off the street too. The ones that do have a small entrance hall are narrow enough that your shoulders almost touch the walls!

I wouldn't mind a new build if I could afford one of the big detached ones !! :D

We a family of 5 lived in a 2 up 2 down, outside toilet and all that lark... Today I own my own home, a 3 up 2 down terraced house...with an inside toilet... built in the 60's ..

Progress eh? :)

lindylou

08-15-2006, 08:45 PM

I agree. Nice large houses in many cases. TERRIBLE neighbourhoods. The problem in my opinion is not the houses, but the government. Why does the City Council, police, etc. allow such bad neighbourhoods to continue to be so terrible? Why don't they patrol and clean them up? Start arresting thieves, trespassers, arsonists, yobs, gangs and drug dealers? These are the real questions. Don't they realise that when they tear down the houses in bad neighbourhoods, the bad elements will remain in Liverpool (They will just move on to cause trouble to houses still left standing and the families that occupy these houses?) So the City Council's so-called 'Social Cleansing' will not solve the underlying problems - it will just move the problems on to a new neighbourhood (Perhaps even yours and mine)...

Yes, it's already happened in mine - Anfield. They moved problem families here and the area detiorated. When I was growing up here it was a good area .. and it was certainly a good area in my grandparent's times. The big houses had proffessionals like solicitors, doctors, etc, living in them. The area started detiorating after 1980's.
It's sad to see it like this now. Mind you, there are still some nice parts here and there still surviving the anti-social onslaught.

FKoE

08-15-2006, 08:48 PM

I don't know where you have got this from?
I have never made any comments about either Blacks or Irish, and think Liverpool would benefit from being more diverse.

The issue of terrorism has nothing to do with race but simply with evil people.

As for the working class I think that the tiny 2 up 2 downs are too small for anyone to live in and life for the working class of whom I AM A MEMBER should be improved.

So why are you bringing up TERRORISM.... and why are you ****ging the working class wholive in terraced houses, when you are proud to be a member, of the "Chav" classes ?...........

Housing should be improved for the working classes...social cleansing is not the solution though is it?

lindylou

08-15-2006, 08:50 PM

We a family of 5 lived in a 2 up 2 down, outside toilet and all that lark... Today I own my own home, a 3 up 2 down terraced house...with an inside toilet... built in the 60's ..

Progress eh? :)

yes, it's amazing how big families lived in the tiny 2 bedroom terraces
- families with 6 or even 10 kids ! No inside toilet and a tin bath !! :D
My dad's neighbours had 8 daughters and on Friday nights the whole family would use the same tin bath full of water !! Ha ! (ugh! ... but that's how it was in those days !) They couldn't afford to heat up refills for the bath for all of them.

FKoE

08-15-2006, 08:54 PM

Once a month we used to go to the washhouse.. remember them... you'd all share the bath.. then yer mam would throw in the washing... and we'd all struggle home with half a ton of wet washing in a borrowed pram :D

lindylou

08-15-2006, 09:00 PM

:D :D

wallasey

08-15-2006, 10:40 PM

"Social Cleansing" Thats an awful phrase! I would hate to be a victim of such a cheap and nasty phrase!

Shame on Liverpool City Council!

Howie

09-13-2006, 03:27 PM

First cinema in city to be demolished
Sep 13 2006
By Nick Coligan, Liverpool Echo

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/sep2006/7/6/A76F293D-CACA-9880-CEA23A9E9702B417.jpg

THE first purpose-built cinema in Liverpool is to be bulldozed and replaced with flats.

Councillors gave the go-ahead for the demolition of the one-time Bedford Hall picture house, in Walton, despite last-ditch pleas to save it.

The cinema opened on Boxing Day, 1908, about two years before aboom in the movie industry led to a string of public theatres opening across the country.

Cinema historians claim the picture house, in Bedford Road, is of national importance because it predates that building rush.

But Liverpool city council's planning committee was told appeals to have it listed and saved for future generations have fallen on deaf ears.

More (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=17737941%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=first%2dcinema%2din%2dcity%2dto%2dbe%2d demolished-name_page.html)...

Bunnyman

09-18-2006, 09:46 AM

They'd better not turn it into a poncey wine bar.

How about a new art gallery?

Kev

09-22-2006, 12:11 PM

PLANS to continue demolishing and rebuilding thousands of Merseyside homes over the next five years took a big step forward today.

Housing experts were lodging a bid with the government for millions of pounds, with the message "let us finish what we've started".

But for the New Heartlands programme to continue as planned, officials need a guarantee that they have government support for the foreseeable future.

The scheme was the brainchild of deputy prime minister John Prescott, but responsibility has now passed to communities minister Ruth Kelly.

Pauline Davis, managing director of New Heartlands, said: "The government launched this as a 15-year programme and got right behind it.

"We've worked so hard to get our plans into place and speak to residents on the ground.

"They're now ready to see action. We want to go faster, but we're bound by the money we've got.

"This bid is about bringing it home to the government that we're part-way through a journey and we need to know they're still behind us."

New Heartlands has teamed up with eight other schemes to ask the treasury to fund their work. If ministers give money to Mrs Kelly's department, they will then battle for ashare of the cash to continue their individual projects from 2008-11.

New Heartlands will use its money to continue its present work in Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral communities, rather than spread out to new areas.

Its plans are furthest advanced in Birkenhead, where the Ten Streets area is now flattened, and Bootle, where new housing developments are being built.

In Liverpool, work has been held up in some areas by residents determined not to move. Public inquiries have been held for the Anfield, Wavertree and Edge Hill schemes.

Rising house prices are used by some residents as evidence that demolition is not needed, and it has become increasingly expensive for New Heartlands to buy up properties. Source (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=17802355%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=let%2dus%2dfinish%2dwhat%2dwe%2dstarted-name_page.html)....

What do YOU think?

wallasey

09-24-2006, 12:08 PM

Went all over the place yesterday; eventually, I ended up here...

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2246/20060923mghlomkwgnlpool024np0.jpg

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7370/20060923mghlomkwgnlpool026qd6.jpg

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3159/20060923mghlomkwgnlpool028ts1.jpg

The ill-fated old picture house in Walton. To be honest, I cannot think of any other use for this building apart from commercial (like now) But, this is unique to Walton and so dies have some right to be saved???? I wouldn't mind seeing the plans for the new building though. Hopefully it will fit in!

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/9721/20060923mghlomkwgnlpool029oc2.jpg

I know this isn't anything to do with demolision but it's a nice shot and shows what the new building on Bedford Road needs to fit in with (if you get me drift!)

After Walton, Anfield (after the game) was my next stop. To be honest, I had never been around here during or after a match and so it was strange to see streams of red pouring down Belmont Road and Arkles Lane!

Anyway, I thought it was time to pay homage to Lake Street...

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/826/20060923mghlomkwgnlpool046uq9.jpg
This image says it all really. To be honest, by looking at this image, you can see that the houses needed to be pulled down and I hope that something like a plaza will be installed here as part of the regeneration of the area.

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/5981/20060923mghlomkwgnlpool047br9.jpg
The other side of Lake Street is still standing (just)

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/4594/20060923mghlomkwgnlpool048zv9.jpg
The site of the terraces on Lake Street. The pavement was only two paving slabs wide (length ways) which must have been fun when two people had to pass eachother!

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/504/20060923mghlomkwgnlpool056yo2.jpg
This is the saddening part when terraces are pulled down. The detailing here will never be seen again; it is highly likely that the new buildings (if that is going to be put here) won't have the "identity" that these terraces have. The Victorians/Edwardians didn't need to put detailing on these houses but they did. Doesn't that show how standards had gone down over the years?

A.D.Williams

09-24-2006, 12:22 PM

Bloody hell! Half of Lake Street gone. T'anks for the pictures Wallasey, squire.

FKoE

09-27-2006, 10:50 AM

A 59-year-old woman has won a legal challenge to a major urban regeneration programme involving the demolition of hundreds of houses.

Mr Justice Forbes has overturned a compulsory purchase order which would have forced Elizabeth Pascoe to move from her Liverpool home.

The demolition is part of the government's Pathfinder initiative.

The judge also ruled that Mrs Pascoe's right to private and family life had been violated by the order.

Mrs Pascoe's solicitor, Phil Shiner, said the judge had overturned the CPO and declared that English Partnerships, the acquiring authority, had acted outside its powers.

She challenged the CPO granted to English Partnerships to buy and bulldoze 500 homes at Edge Lane West in Liverpool for a new road scheme into the city centre and new housing.

It was the first in a series of CPOs planned by the Urban Regeneration Agency for deprived inner city areas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/5384472.stm

Kev

09-27-2006, 12:11 PM

FKoE

09-27-2006, 12:19 PM

She's put a fly in the ointment eh?

The entire project is up in the air now.

Kev

09-27-2006, 12:21 PM

She's put a fly in the ointment eh?

The entire project is up in the air now.

Thousands of people stand to loose out on a hell of lot now. I hope theres a solution to this.

Waterways

09-27-2006, 12:23 PM

So where does this leave the whole regeneration of the Edge Lane area? Will they simply renovate them back to their former glory? Will the regeneration never happen leaving Edge Lane into a further nose dive?

Tony Blair yesterday said that new homes are to be 40% more energy efficient and that by 2050 emissions will be 60% less in the UK. The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe - click on the link in the sig below and go to the Land Article on why this situation exists. These old homes are not energy efficient at all and consume a lot of energy to heat.

If we are to renovate old house they will not meet the current, and new, energy levels. It is cheaper and quicker to demolish and start again. In most cases in home renovation that is the case.

In future, as energy costs rise, people in these homes will be spiralled into fuel poverty. Nostalgia can be a nice thing, however reality has to set in sometimes.

The burden of nostalgia is a heavy weight.

I see Ringo doesn't live in one of these houses anymore. I wonder why.

FKoE

09-27-2006, 12:27 PM

that sounds contridictory .. if the case is create more fuel efficent buildings..then every pre-1970 building should be demolished.

The Edge Lane demolitions/regeneration were more to do with creating a gateway into the city centre than creating new homes for the existing community.

scouserdave

09-27-2006, 12:58 PM

In future, as energy costs rise, people in these homes will be spiralled into fuel poverty. Nostalgia can be a nice thing, however reality has to set in sometimes.

The burden of nostalgia is a heavy weight.

I agree. Let's fill in the disused docks and put wind turbines on them:unibrow:

Howie

09-27-2006, 03:13 PM

Have just heard the news. Liz Pascoe, resident of Kensington, and an Environmental Science graduate of the School of Biological & Earth Sciences at Liverpool John Moores University has won! Good on yer girl! :celb (23):

FKoE

09-27-2006, 03:30 PM

Her case has just been featured on BBC News 24...and Elizabeth stated her case. Good stuff aye :)

Howie

09-27-2006, 08:15 PM

Woman wins home demolition battle
Sep 27 2006

A grandmother has claimed a "bittersweet" victory in a High Court battle to save her Victorian terraced house from demolition under an urban regeneration scheme affecting hundreds of homes.

Human rights lawyers said the ruling won by Elizabeth Pascoe, 60, was a test case which would help other people across the country who face losing their homes under the Government's controversial Pathfinder initiative.

A Government spokesman disputed the claim, saying the case had nothing to do with the Pathfinder scheme, designed to regenerate inner city areas in the Midlands and the North of England, even though the judge hearing the case said that it did.

Ms Pascoe, of Adderley Street, Liverpool, challenged a compulsory purchase order (CPO) which sanctioned the acquisition and demolition of 500 homes in Liverpool's Edge Lane West area to make way for a new road into the city centre and new housing.

Mr Justice Forbes, sitting at the High Court in London, ruled that the order was flawed.

The judge said the legal challenge marked the first time the Urban Regeneration Agency, operating under the name "English Partnerships", had used its new statutory powers to acquire properties in a Pathfinder area.

He also ruled the CPO was an unjustified interference with Ms Pascoe's right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights since it deprived her of her home.

Ms Pascoe later said of her victory: "This is a pyrrhic victory for me. It is bittersweet because much of my community has already been destroyed as a result of the initiative."

She added: "I am very pleased but nervous about the longer term effects. They could just leave us to rot."

A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) strongly insisted to the press and media that the Edge Lane CPO was for a road widening and regeneration scheme that was not part of the Pathfinder programmes.

Source: icLiverpool (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0300nationalnews/tm_objectid=17830939&method=full&siteid=50061&headline=woman-wins-home-demolition-battle-name_page.html)

Howie

09-28-2006, 12:09 AM

http://web.onetel.net.uk/~howardpaterson/uploads/EdgeLane.jpg

Howie

09-28-2006, 12:21 AM

'This is a pyrrhic victory for me. It is bittersweet because much of my community has already been destroyed as a result of this initiative.' -- Elizabeth Pascoe

Pathfinder is a New Labour/John Prescott pet project. In Liverpool and across the north of England, tens of thousands of homes are being destroyed in the name of urban regeneration.

In Liverpool, swathes of Victorian housing is being destroyed. It would cost far less to renovate the existing housing, than new build, and would provide better quality housing, but what it would not provide is development opportunities for developers. And that is what Pathfinder is all about, development opportunities for developers and helping housing associations to rapidly expand.

In Liverpool, home owners are being offered paltry sums for their homes. If they refuse, they are served Compulsory Purchase Orders and their homes seized. If they play ball, they are offered a housing association home as they are no longer in a position to get back on the property ladder. Private tenants are being dumped on sink estates, if they refuse what they are offered, they are deemed homeless.

Local Labour MP Jane Kennedy described the plan as "social cleansing" at the public inquiry that approved the plans.

Elisabeth Pascoe has today won a victory in the High Court in London. She challenged the Compulsory Purchase of her home, claiming that it violated her Human Rights. The Judge found in her favour. Elisabeth Pascoe has described her victory as 'bitter sweet' as many of her neighbours have already been forced out of their homes.

Community activists have voiced concern at the involvement of criminal families. A nod and a wink, at best a blind eye, is turned to their activities. Criminal families are moved in to soften up the community, their relatives sit on the boards of pro-Pathfinder agencies. No structures are in place to address these issues.

In being prepared to not only speak out, but mount a legal challenge, Elisabeth Pascoe has shown herself to be a very brave lady. Her house has been broken into in the early hours of the morning, for her to be held at knife point, her car has been repeatedly trashed, a video of her car being trashed by local criminals was conveniently 'lost' by the local police (the local police receive funding from pro-Pathfinder agencies). Stress forced Elisabeth Pascoe to give up her Doctoral studies.

Local campaigner and documentary filmmaker Mike Lane who has fought hard against Pathfinder and the corrupt local council has received death threats, had his car fire-bombed and been forced to move house for fear of his life.

More (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/liverpool/2006/09/351960.html)...

Kev

09-28-2006, 08:10 AM

AK1

09-28-2006, 11:13 AM

She was on TV this morning - still unsure how I feel about this victory. Whilst all her neighbours have moved, do builders now build around her house and leave it intact?

It seems such a small part of Edge Lane.

Lets not forget that this decision only effects western Edge Lane, so the rest of the project is still continuing as normal. I am completely for this project and believe that this decision has pointlesly delayed things. Some people have said that the houses should be refurbished and sold on, this is never going to happen! The fact is, these houses would cost too much to repair and even if they where repaired, no-one would want to live in them because they are situated on a severely congested section of edge lane that bottlenecks from a dual carriageway to a single carriageway. This congestion is getting worse and by 2008 it will be at a virtual stand still. The houses need to go so the road can be widened to stop the congestion, but this isn't just a scheme to widen a road, the road and the whole surrounding area will be completely transformed. If it was just a road widening scheme, then why have they bothered with the rest of edge lane which is not going to be widened.
People need to move on and accept that this is what this area needs and if it doesn't go ahead, it will remain in this condition for many more years! I am truly ashamed at the fact that hundreds of visitors drive past this slum every day, what does this say about our city not just to visitors, but to the people of Liverpool? People are complaining that there isn't enough investment outside of the city centre and as soon as a project outside the city centre is announced, like this one, it is criticised!! Most people are for this project, it's just a shame that a selfish, narrow minded few have to spoil it for everyone else! I am beginning to lose faith in this city and its people.:disgust:

Howie

09-28-2006, 11:25 AM

If the developers hadn't treated the community with complete and utter contempt then this probably wouldn't have happened. :disgust:

AK1

09-28-2006, 01:03 PM

If the developers hadn't treated the community with complete and utter contempt then this probably wouldn't have happened. :disgust:

They actually treated the 'community' very well and fully consulted them on the plans. It's just that some of them didn't want to know and where unwilling to listen from the very beginning without even looking at the plans. The word 'community' is used too much on this issue. Firstly there hasn't been a community around there for about 2 decades. Ever since I was born, the area has been derelict with the population falling rapidly over the years with no influence from any organisations, secondly, if there was a real community there, alot more people would have refused to leave and would have stayed to save their community. The fact is most people who lived there where waiting for their chance to leave, this project gave them that opportunity. Finally, it is the people who make a community not the area and if this minority of people who won't leave had agreed to the plans from the beggining, the entire 'community' could have been moved around the same time and then moved back in the area after it was complete. They are responsibe for breaking up what was left of the community, not LLDC or their partners.

Howie

09-28-2006, 04:10 PM

AK1

09-28-2006, 04:43 PM

Sorry, I have attended many of the meetings over the last 5 years regarding the regeneration in the Kensington area. The lack of proper consultation and provision of information has been appalling. 5 years down the line we still haven't got a clue about what is happening with the rest of the Holt Rd/Cameron St area. And how on earth is anybody supposed to move back into an area if the new property is going to cost £50,000 or £60,000 more than they were given for their old property. Some of the initial offers where derisory e.g £38,000 for a property independently valued at £59,000 etc, etc. You don't even get enough to buy an equivalent property elsewhere. Anybody over 50 who can't get another mortgage is back to renting or homeless. And I won't even mention some of the intimidation of residents that has taken place. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Howie
A Kensington homeowner

The Holt road scheme etc is not part of the edge lane project. This is something that has been falsely portraid in the news over the past couple of days. The edge lane project and the pathfinder initiative are completely seperate schemes that have nothing to do with eachother and are ran by completely different organisations. Edge Lane project is by LLDC and English Partnerships, Pathfinder is Govt lead. Putting all this aside, do you think that the EDGE LANE PROJECT should go ahead? (Not including Pathfinder)
I do understand peoples concerns, but surely you and others can see the long term benefits of this project for the area and Liverpool as a whole. Finally, alot of the houses are only worth 65,000 because of the state of the area and the formentioned congested road. As I understand it, LLDC offered the homeowners the money plus the option of a new house in the new development for nothing, or a significantly reduced price because they already live there.

P.S I have family who live just off edge lane who can't wait for this project to go ahead.

Howie

09-28-2006, 07:47 PM

do you think that the EDGE LANE PROJECT should go ahead? (Not including Pathfinder)

I have commented on this previously on the Edge Lane Development thread here (http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?t=908) and earlier on this thread:

I don't think many people have an argument with the demolition of properties on Edge Lane itself necessary for the road widening. It is the demolition of a further band of properties so as to create a row of apartments along each side of the new widened Edge Lane so as 'to provide a more attractive gateway to the city for visitors to the European Capital of
Culture 2008' that is controversial. These will be neither affordable or appropriate to the existing residents of the area. :sad:

Ironically Edge Lane is not getting significantly widened and with the collapse of the Hall Lane bypass scheme I doubt it is going to do a great deal to alleviate congestion.

The essential point though is the treatment of the residents of the area. None of this regeneration has been about improving the area for the existing residents, but rather about displacing them and replacing them with a new community, ('social-cleansing' I think it has been referred to as). Pressures have been exerted on both tenants and homeowners to leave the area, probably never to return.

You are also incorrect in the assertion that homeowners were offered a new house for nothing. There has never been a 'home-for-a-home' scheme on offer. To my knowledge the best offer made was a loan of up to £25K to help bridge the gap between the cost of an existing property and it's replacement to be paid back either when the occupant left the new property or died. So that, for example, if you received £75,000 for your house and spent £100,000 on the replacement you would 3/4 own it and when you moved on and sold it for £200,000 you would repay a debt of £50,000. The only 'home-for-a-home' scheme I know of in this city was in Granby. I wouldn't actually expect this. I do think, however, that it is not unreasonable that people should expect to be paid the price of an equivalent property elsewhere because it is the regeneration activities themselves that have artificially brought down the 'market value' of the properties of the area (and there are people who say this has been deliberately engineered to keep down the price of the compulsary purchase).

Most people are for this project, it's just a shame that a selfish, narrow minded few have to spoil it for everyone else! I am beginning to lose faith in this city and its people.:disgust:
I just wonder how you would feel if somebody suggested disrupting your life by demolishing your home at great financial cost to yourself - even if it could be portrayed as being for the greater good.

PS. I know Liz Pascoe personally. She is a brave woman who despite being crippled with arthritis recently gained an honours degree and went on to commence PhD research which she had to abandon due to the stress of the situation she found herself in. She has also always stood up to the yobs who have moved into the area (often placing herself at personal risk). I wish her well and hope that the future holds something better for her, though that will be dependent upon what LLDC decide to do with the surrounding properties that have already been vacated and boarded-up.

Max

09-29-2006, 12:41 AM

She has also always stood up to the yobs who have moved into the area

Little coward yobs!

lindylou

09-29-2006, 12:16 PM

PS. I know Liz Pascoe personally. She is a brave woman who despite being crippled with arthritis recently gained an honours degree and went on to commence PhD research which she had to abandon due to the stress of the situation she found herself in. She has also always stood up to the yobs who have moved into the area (often placing herself at personal risk). I wish her well and hope that the future holds something better for her, though that will be dependent upon what LLDC decide to do with the surrounding properties that have already been vacated and boarded-up.

She sounds like a marvellous woman Howie.

Waterways

10-02-2006, 02:10 PM

The whole issue of regeneration is about social engineering or class clensing,

That is a novel idea. I thought it was about getting the infrastructure, standard of accomodation and economy up to date. Silly me.

I've been through it and know fully well what it's about. Remember the Jewish ghettoes in the 1940's the Jews (the target social group) were impoverished forced into rundown parts of cities, isolated and the downward cycle of deprevation continued, it was planned, then those ghettoes were cleared out, the people sent away to concentration or work camps, these neighbourhoods were then flattened or in the case of Warsaw (after the Ghetto uprising) bombed by the luftwaffe and attacked by tanks.

Is Tony Blair going to do that in Liverpool 8 because it need regenerating?

Up in North East the 'Going for Growth' project proposed by the council in 2000/2001 had plans to demolish housing that had only been built 5/7 years earlier, it's simple capitalism destory and rebuild, like in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Iraq, you destroy buildings and then rebuild them you create profit for corporations.

The UK has the oldest, pokiest, least energy efficient hosing stock in the western world. There are better ways to create a large construction industry.

Here in Liverpool it's division, individualism and selling your community out for your 12 pieces of silver. We don't hear about the victory of a community group or the collective fight back, we hear of individuals, the named homeowners usually middle class (Liz Pascoe - Edge Lane, Nina Edge - Welsh Streets) etc. The working class tenant activists don't get the headlines, don't get the support or respect, don't get our letters published in the Echo, what we get is contempt, police harassment, threats and abuse, in short the iron heel upon our face.

I agree in demolishing all those old energy inefficient houses.

For me it's never been about bricks and mortar, it's been about community and people, which is about a shared belonging, it's about respect and acceptance by your neighbours, it's where you do look out for one another which is an alien concept to the middle class.

I would disagree with that.

I was part of community fightback which saved 60 houses on the Pinehurst estate back in 1998, we also saved hundreds of houses from demolition in Norris Green, similar to Boot houses on the estate action area, they upgraded and the council (despite wanting them flattened) received an award for their improvements.

Disgusting. Those people could have been living in proper houses and not pay a fortune in gas for heating.

Given the choice between a poor house in a community I know, where people still look out for one another and one with all the modern conveniences in a strange neighbourhood I know what I prefer,

He thinks that new communities are soulless and the people uncaring, and only old houses in working class communities make caring people. How strange.

I've actually had the choice. A nice council house in a working class village (ooh the country, the middle class idyll) and our former Boot house in Norris Green I know which I preferred.

In the 1920-30s Norris Green was regarded as a soulless out of town estate. Now it is Dodge City.

We weren't given a choice tolerate the 'stooge' (protected by council and police) anti-social tenant, drug dealer threatening our family, wearing us down with constant rows and noise or move out. We lost our friends, neighbours and everything we knew. When we moved back 18months later the estate was already starting to be demolished, we even saw our family home demolished.

Many of those damp, pokey, energy inefficient homes should have gone years ago.

I've kept in touch with a lot other working class tenant activists across Merseyside and beyond. In short it's a class war...

It is? Putting people in superior accommodation is a class war?

What about the High Rise Tower blocks? The forgotten battle for tenants to get their homes upgraded, who were lied to, misled (Moderate Labour council in 1992) and ultimately forced out of them and dispersed.

The high rises were too expensive to maintain. Well many of them were. They were not suited to the class of people who they put in them.

It's never been about the condition of the housing, that's a complete ruse, it's about the class (or socio-economics) who live in them.

Do you mean the government has an agenda to move working class people from one working class area to another and each time give them superior cheaper to run homes as well? I never. How disgusting!

If you don't like all this improving of the quality of life of working class people, then go and buy your own house in war zone.

snappel

10-02-2006, 03:21 PM

It's never been about the condition of the housing, that's a complete ruse, it's about the class (or socio-economics) who live in them.I don't think it's a conspiracy theory or some new wave of social cleansing. It's only logical that working class housing will often be older and of a poorer quality than other housing. Not sure how Jews in Poland fit in with this - I mean, it's not like our local authorities are shepherding Liverpool residents into death camps is it? Yes, there are issues on house valuations and offers, etc, but I think your comparisons there were a bit extreme.

You named two middle-aged home-owners fighting to keep their homes - surely if the council/government were only attacking working class homes, this would never have been an issue in the first place?

wallasey

10-02-2006, 10:02 PM

I don't think it's a conspiracy theory or some new wave of social cleansing. It's only logical that working class housing will often be older and of a poorer quality than other housing. Not sure how Jews in Poland fit in with this - I mean, it's not like our local authorities are shepherding Liverpool residents into death camps is it? Yes, there are issues on house valuations and offers, etc, but I think your comparisons there were a bit extreme.

You named two middle-aged home-owners fighting to keep their homes - surely if the council/government were only attacking working class homes, this would never have been an issue in the first place?

They're of better quality than the crap they put up now!

For one, these houses wern't built to finincial constraints as experianced today. Also they didn't have the government interfereing in how things turn out unlike what we are experiancing today! However, I do think that the likes of Lake Street in Anfield needed to come down as they were literally to small and too narrow. I wonder if you could have spread your arms out and touched both sides of the house?

Btw; With Edge Lane in doubt, what's happening to the Welsh Streets? is there any liklihood that the houses will be refurbished?

Kev

10-05-2006, 04:17 PM

THE country’s top housing minister today told Welsh Street protesters – you have lost the argument.

Housing minister Baroness Andrews spoke out as she officially launched the new Clevedon Park estate in Toxteth (http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showpost.php?p=20709&postcount=67), earmarked for former residents.

She said housing demolition opponents would be won over when they saw the modern flats and homes built to replace ageing terraces.

But campaigners today hit back, saying the need to refurbish Victorian streets was stronger than ever due to rising house prices.The ECHO revealed yesterday that the first residents have moved into Clevedon Park, where 105 of 107 new homes will be filled by families from the neighbouring Welsh Streets.

Baroness Andrews, who was raised in a small terraced house in south Wales, said: “People tell me they are dancing for joy because they can see all the ideas discussed for so long finally coming to reality.

“It has been a slow process, but it makes it easier for everyone if they can see what the new houses look like and how much better they are. continues (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpoolecho/news/echonews/tm_headline=welsh-street-switch-%2Dwill-be-welcomed%2D%26method=full%26objectid=17875351%26pa ge=2%26siteid=50061-name_page.html)....

welstres

10-19-2006, 10:21 AM

I have lived in the same Welsh

Street for over 60 years and having worked as a volunteer street rep. for over 5 years on regeneration of the Princes Park area, I can tell you that the

residents can't wait to move into new homes.We are fed up with all the hype about what lovely houses these are, put about by the so-called Welsh Street

Homes Group, many of whose original, very few, supporters have now bought & moved into new properties on Clevedon Park, leaving only 3 residents objecting to

the proposals, who all live in Kelvin Grove and DO NOT represent the Welsh Street residents

THE FACTS ARE : 11 streets are to be demolished from one

side of Kelvin Grove to Admiral Street and new housing being built on the site for local residents,including local shops.
The remaining Welsh Streets-

Dovey,Teilo & Elwy, houses will be refurbished,together with the streets off Windsor Street down to Upper Warwick Street.

The Community will NOT be

split up as suggested by WSHG opposition group,who have only lived in the area for about 6 years and only became involved about 18 months ago when Nina Edge

became aware that her Kelvin Grove house was part of the demolition plan,who have never been involved with the community and are not known to the

community,most of whom have lived here all their lives.
Many residents had Improvement Grants in the late 70's to have bathrooms built on & general

improvements to their properties,however in spite of numerous damp proofing courses,these houses are in bad shape, now beyond saving and residents want

something better & have been prepared to fight for that.
Originally three of the streets Treborth,Pengwern & South Streets were not included in the

demolition proposals,but residents of those streets fought to be included in the demolition plans and over 200 Welsh Street residents lobbyed the Town Hall

meeting of the Executive Board demanding that these 3 streets be included in proposals and won their case.
One of the main problems in all this has been

the credence & publicity given to the opposition, whilst failing to give a truly balanced view on TV & in newspapers to the views, needs & aspirations of the

wider community.However as conflict sells news,I shouldn't be surprised we have not be given fair & Unbiased media time. Even the Liverpool Echo are failing

to publish any of our correspondence, whilst constantly publishing that of the anti- demolition groups,even now.
Despite all the hype we are now looking

forward to brighter future for the Princes Park Area and it's residents in better homes & surroundings.

Waterways

10-19-2006, 11:36 AM

I have lived in the same Welsh Street for over 60 years and having worked

as a volunteer street rep. for over 5 years on regeneration of the Princes Park area, I can tell you that the residents can't wait to move into new homes.We

are fed up with all the hype about what lovely houses these are, put about by the so-called Welsh Street Homes Group, many of whose original, very few,

supporters have now bought & moved into new properties on Clevedon Park, leaving only 3 residents objecting to the proposals, who all live in Kelvin Grove

and DO NOT represent the Welsh Street residents

THE FACTS ARE : 11 streets are to be demolished from one side of Kelvin Grove to Admiral Street and

new housing being built on the site for local residents,including local shops.
The remaining Welsh Streets- Dovey,Teilo & Elwy, houses will be

refurbished,together with the streets off Windsor Street down to Upper Warwick Street.

The Community will NOT be split up as suggested by WSHG

opposition group,who have only lived in the area for about 6 years and only became involved about 18 months ago when Nina Edge became aware that her Kelvin

Grove house was part of the demolition plan,who have never been involved with the community and are not known to the community,most of whom have lived here

all their lives.
Many residents had Improvement Grants in the late 70's to have bathrooms built on & general improvements to their properties,however in

spite of numerous damp proofing courses,these houses are in bad shape, now beyond saving and residents want something better & have been prepared to fight

for that.
Originally three of the streets Treborth,Pengwern & South Streets were not included in the demolition proposals,but residents of those streets

fought to be included in the demolition plans and over 200 Welsh Street residents lobbyed the Town Hall meeting of the Executive Board demanding that these 3

streets be included in proposals and won their case.
One of the main problems in all this has been the credence & publicity given to the opposition,

whilst failing to give a truly balanced view on TV & in newspapers to the views, needs & aspirations of the wider community.However as conflict sells news,I

shouldn't be surprised we have not be given fair & Unbiased media time. Even the Liverpool Echo are failing to publish any of our correspondence, whilst

constantly publishing that of the anti- demolition groups,even now.
Despite all the hype we are now looking forward to brighter future for the Princes

Park Area and it's residents in better homes & surroundings.

Sense at last. The Welsh Streets are not wonderful examples of architecture at

all. They are terraced houses. Emergency houses to house people quickly in the 1800s. The new homes will be bigger and cheaper to run, and look

better.

All this has been political clap-trap to get at the government for no apparent reason that they are doing a decent job.

AK1

10-19-2006, 10:12 PM

Sense at last. The

Welsh Streets are not wonderful examples of architecture at all. They are terraced houses. Emergency houses to house people quickly in the 1800s. The new

homes will be bigger and cheaper to run, and look better.

All this has been political clap-trap to get at the government for no apparent reason that

they are doing a decent job.

I agree 100%!!!!! I hate the british media and I never believe a thing they say, as all they ever report is bad

news and give completely one-sided, negative views on everything. You should always question everything that the media reports as it is always blown out of

proportion and often just blatant lies.

snappel

10-20-2006, 08:50 AM

When is it due to begin? I wouldn't mind getting some photos of the streets before they're destroyed.

Waterways

10-20-2006, 10:46 AM

When is

it due to begin? I wouldn't mind getting some photos of the streets before they're destroyed.

The map is interactive - just click on the

arrows.

http://www.toxteth.net/maps/liverpool/lpool3d.htm

What made them more

attractive than the average terraced street was that many had wide roads and were tree lined.

Howie

10-29-2006, 09:55 PM

What's happening to

Housing? (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/liverpool/2006/10/353224.html)

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/icon/2006/10/353231.jpg

Construction work seems to be taking place on every

corner of Liverpool city centre, tarting up town in time for the Capital of Culture celebrations in 2008. But within easy walking distance of this rich

man's paradise project, squalid homes are being starved of repair money, whilst more than adequate social housing dwellings are torn down. What is the Lib

Dem(olition) council's agenda? Why, profits of course! All the rich newcomers will need somewhere to live, so working class people have to pay with their

homes! But campaigners are fighting back...

Read more (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/liverpool/2006/10/353224.html) >>

A.D.Williams

10-29-2006, 10:42 PM

When is it due to begin? I wouldn't mind getting some photos of the streets before they're destroyed.

Good

idea.

Harry

11-07-2006, 11:34 AM

These streets are slummy piles of rotten, sh*t-brown, decayed bricks that somehow missed the slum clearances of the 60's and 70's, not the

working class Disneyland of ancient community as portrayed by the heritage brigade from their safe boxes in the suburbs.
Bulldoze them now, its making me

sick looking at them.

Kev

11-24-2006, 12:21 PM

AK1

11-24-2006, 07:56 PM

CAMPAIGNERS today won a major victory in the battle to save hundreds of homes in Liverpool's Edge Lane. more (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_headline=campaign-victory-in-fight-to-save-homes%26method=full%26objectid=18151926%26siteid=5 0061-name_page.html)

This was expected. The CPO was always going to be quashed because it was worded wrong. LLDC are putting a new CPO together, which will more than likely be approved. These campaigners have saved hundreds of homes from demolition so that they can rot for even longer. These houses will never be lived in again, and I have a genuine fear that those houses will still be there in that state, in 2008. What is that going to say to visitors? ' Welcome to Liverpool, the grimey dump that you always thought it was '. The vast majority of people in that area want these houses gone, because their lives are being ruined by the road and the lack of local amenities. This section of Edge Lane is extremely dangerous because of the road and other factors such as squating, rats and anti-social behaviour. I just hope for their sake that the next CPO is approved, and fast!! I am fed up with these people getting in the way of major developments. They have proposed an alternative road scheme which is frankly bizzare and wouldn't improve safety or traffic flow. In their plans the new road would stay in the same position but be widened by [B]taking the front gardens off some houses! Therefore the road would be a matter of inches from the houses and they really think that people are going to live in them then? This has only ever been about saving the houses and nothing else. I would love to see them saved but it can't be done and no-one wants them because of the road and the previously mentioned problems.

AK1

11-27-2006, 07:32 PM

Anyone know anything about the injunction stopping the edge lane properties from being demoilshed? Can it be overturned?

wallasey

12-17-2006, 10:09 PM

What's the hold up with the streets in Anfield? Nothing has happened since I last went there! Has there been a spanner dropped or something??

lindylou

12-18-2006, 11:53 AM

Tell me about it ! :disgust:

It's been that way for so long now.

I think I'm living in Brigadoon here. :rolleyes:

AK1

12-18-2006, 12:40 PM

What's the hold up with the streets in Anfield? Nothing has happened since I last went there! Has there been a spanner dropped or something??

The last I heard, there where houses being demolished but I haven't seen anything as yet. They really need to get going with that area. It has been like that my entire life. I hate travelling through it, it's really depressing. Imagine how local people feel!

wallasey

12-20-2006, 11:10 PM

Tell me about it ! :disgust:

It's been that way for so long now.

I think I'm living in Brigadoon here. :rolleyes:

The only thing that I have seen happen is that shop corner (which was patched up with sheet metal) collapse slightly. I wonder if the developers have been sitting on the stadium plans? On City, Warren Bradley was talking about the shared stadium plans yet again in effort to keep the Blues in the city. If he get's his way, then Anfield might not get the go ahead!

I know that there are other possibilities for why work has stopped, money being one of them probably, but there might be something in the stadium idea???

Kev

01-08-2007, 03:42 PM

LIVERPOOL’S terraced Welsh Streets have been declared free of anthrax deposits, clearing the way for demolition work to start in 2008. more (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpooldailypost/news/regionalnews/tm_headline=anthrax-all%2Dclear-for-welsh-streets%26method=full%26objectid=18419498%26siteid =50061-name_page.html)

Ged

01-09-2007, 12:48 PM

I know Waterways won't be able to reply to this as he's somehow got himself banned. However, to listen to him forever going on about thicknesses of insulation or not, you'd think that was the only thing that ever mattered and if you're going to use that argument, you'd lose all the fantastic 'terraced' houses on Canning, Huskisson, Percy streets and surrounding areas, Princes Avenue and even all the 30s style on Queens Drive, Menlove and Brodie Avenues with ornamental pots on the roofs and fine footprints etc.

I agree that those built pre war like the flower streets, the bread streets in Dingle and the Welsh streets are small and probably past their sell by dates but there will be a lot of happy memories for many in these and it'll be a wrench for some but a godsend to others if these were to go. One thing is for sure, a sea of new, small characterless little red houses with paper walls isn't always the answer either.

lindylou

01-09-2007, 06:30 PM

Our house was built in 1878. I wonder with some amusement if it will become an 'historic building' in 70 years time when it will be 200 years old ! )If it's still standing ! :D

Actually, these houses have been renovated to a good standard, but I do wonder just how long they will remain.
5 generations of my family have lived and died in this house but surely the house won't still be here to be passed onto future family members ??
I expect the houses will deteriorate by then.

Just shows you though how the good old houses have stood the test of time and survived two wars ... I couldn't imagine today's modern new builds to be still remaining after more than 100 years.

Ged you are right about the sentimental side of it - there are so many houses like this that have seen generations of the same family.

There are times when I think how I'd like to move, but I can't ever imagine strangers living in my house.

Kev

01-10-2007, 12:11 PM

The birthplace of Beatle drummer Ringo Starr could be knocked down and rebuilt brick by brick at the new £65m Museum of Liverpool on the city's waterfront.

The Victorian terrace in Madryn Street, Toxteth, is one of 460 in the area set to be demolished so new homes can be built in their place.

A campaign to save Ringo's birthplace failed after the city council said it had "no historical significance".

National Museums Liverpool said it would be a "hugely popular" feature.

A spokesman for the museums group said: "We are hopeful that we will be able to give a home to the childhood house of Ringo Starr.

"Negotiations are underway with all parties involved, but there are still many details to be worked out."

Ringo Starr lived at the house for about three months before he moved to Admiral Grove, where he lived for about 20 years.

He now lives in Surrey with his wife Barbara Bach. Building work on the museum, which will replace the Museum of Liverpool Life, is expected to be completed in 2008. BBC Liverpool

Max

01-10-2007, 01:09 PM

Only 3 months.

Why bother with It If he was only In that house for that long?

ayjaykay

01-10-2007, 01:24 PM

Only 3 months.

Why bother with It If he was only In that house for that long?

It does seem pretty ridiculous. It's hardly his "childhood home" if he only lived their for 3 months!

shytalk

01-10-2007, 01:31 PM

Yank tourists will still pay to see it, that is what matters.:037:

Max

01-10-2007, 04:08 PM

Arrrrrrrrrrrr, Yankees will pay to see anything.

Ged

01-10-2007, 04:20 PM

The museum is free though but I suppose they're here anyway, the tourists, paying into the local economy. Ringo doesn't even want it preserved himself. Shifting it a few miles down the road isn't the same as seeing the community he grew up in, the local pubs and street is it, like John's Mendips, Paul's Forthlin Road or George's house? Ringo spent 20 years in Admiral Grove and that's where he'll be best remembered and the woman who lives there now has it as a shrine to him.

Kev

04-03-2007, 02:25 PM

HUNDREDS of Liverpool residents will be forced to sell their homes so they can be bulldozed and replaced.

The government today rubber-stamped four legal orders issued to homeowners in Wavertree, Anfield and Edge Hill, agreeing there is a “compelling need” for the areas to be regenerated.

But anti-demolition campaigners were claiming a small victory after local government minister Ruth Kelly MP asked for more information about some streets in the Picton area of Wavertree.

They hope it could lead to homes in Smithdown Street and Earle Road being saved from the wrecking ball.

Ms Kelly will make a final decision in 21 days. continues (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpoolecho/news/echonews/tm_headline=losses-and-victory-for-city-homes%26method=full%26objectid=18851405%26siteid=5 0061-name_page.html)....

Steven

04-03-2007, 02:37 PM

A mate of mine spoke to Zak recently and he proposes to have the house taken appart and then re-built. Jeeze ! it would look like a poor man's version of Wothering Heights. Especially now Tescoes are going ahead with taking over the Mecca and making it like the one they have in the Swan.

taffy

04-03-2007, 02:57 PM

HUNDREDS of Liverpool residents will be forced to sell their homes so they can be bulldozed and replaced.

The government today rubber-stamped four legal orders issued to homeowners in Wavertree, Anfield and Edge Hill, agreeing there is a “compelling need” for the areas to be regenerated.

But anti-demolition campaigners were claiming a small victory after local government minister Ruth Kelly MP asked for more information about some streets in the Picton area of Wavertree.

They hope it could lead to homes in Smithdown Street and Earle Road being saved from the wrecking ball.

Are these houses between Smithdown Rd and Earle Rd actually in Edge Hill too. I'm sure Max will agree.

Howie

04-09-2007, 02:00 AM

Watchdog to probe Prescott demolition scheme
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
Last Updated: 1:10am BST 09/04/2007

John Prescott's heavily criticised £5 billion scheme to renegerate the inner cities (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=SNAU1RUPRMXI3QFIQMGCFGGAVCBQ UIV0?xml=/news/2005/05/20/npres20.xml) by demolishing thousands of Victorian terrace homes is to be the subject of an official inquiry.

The National Audit Office is to examine the Pathfinder regeneration scheme after Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, last week unleashed the bulldozers on 1,000 terrace homes in Liverpool.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/04/09/nprescot09.jpg
Stephen Ord, far right, and residents of Cantsfield St, Liverpool, which
is threatened with demolition under the Pathfinder scheme

By approving compulsory purchase orders for three inner city areas of the city, Miss Kelly has effectively signalled that she will continue with the policy devised by Mr Prescott in the face of opposition from his own Urban Task Force, led by the architect Lord Rogers.

Similar projects are under way in other parts of the North of England and Midlands.

The swathe of Victorian terraces that will be demolished is the largest clearance in Liverpool since the 1960s.

It is the first phase in the city's plans to clear more than 6,800 Victorian and Edwardian terraces, which is more than the Luftwaffe achieved in five years of war.

The Tories said that the compulsory purchase orders would waste millions of public money and condemn the city to looking like a bombsite next year when it is the European Capital of Culture.

The Government maintains that the demolition and replacement with modern housing will bring about economic and environmental improvements for the areas concerned. Alistair Burt, the Conservative housing spokesman, has been notified that the National Audit Office is to examine whether the £1.5 billion being spent on Pathfinder schemes in the North and Midlands over three years is value for money.

He said: "Yards away from the centrepiece of Liverpool's 2008 celebrations, foreign tourists will now be able to walk around inner city areas in the midst of clearance. It is a programme so centrally planned and controlled that it is not taking account of developments such as rising prices in these areas and growing demand for homes of this kind.

"There is a risk that in the years to come we will look back at the enormous waste and ask why something was not done sooner."

Some of the areas where the houses are due to be demolished are still 80 per cent occupied pitching the Government into a potential battle with those unwilling to move. There have already been successful moves in the High Court to block evictions.

Residents of another area due to be demolished when compulsory orders are served, the Welsh Streets, decked their streets in daffodils in commemoration of Liverpool's 800th anniversary. Stephen Ord, a civil servant who spent £80,000 on a house that is now to be demolished, said: "It is complete madness. It is a total waste of money to turn buildings worth £53 million that are economically viable into landfill.

"The council is saying the reason these terraces need to be demolished is that they are too small. Every single one of the homes planned to replace them is smaller than the ones that currently exist."

Dr Peter Brown, of Merseyside Civic Society, said: "Miss Kelly is allowing clearance of the communities she is supposed to protect. People need to wake up to the alarming precedent this sets.

"A Pathfinder has unwittingly become an asset-stripper's charter, developing techniques which potentially leave nowhere safe from legalised land grab."

Cath Green, the assistant director for neighbourhoods and housing at Liverpool council, said Miss Kelly's approval of demolitions was welcome "because it means we can move forward with investment that will improve the environment and increase housing choice".

Source: Telegraph.co.uk (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/09/nprescott09.xml)

Jericho

04-09-2007, 10:57 AM

I just hope they don't create any more estates like the one at the top of Earl Road or the houses that back onto Spekeland Road or much of the new housing association build in L8. In other words, if it looks 'corpy', they have probaly got it wrong. Great for people who will live in modern homes but less good for social cohesion because no one from outside the area will want to live there, and ten or so years down the line the chances are the tinning up will start. First one, then another. One will be burnt down etc. This pattern will always repeat itself until the city stops creating developments that only one particular section of society is shunted into. People who live in such areas deserve better. They deserve a house they can buy if they want to and a house they can readily sell if they choose to move elsewhere.

Kev

04-16-2007, 12:21 PM

RESIDENTS will spend the next two weeks in limbo as they await a final decision on the future of their homes.

Two terraced roads in the Picton area of Wavertree have been left out of a legal order forcing hundreds of Liverpool residents to sell their homes so they can be bulldozed and rebuilt.

The compulsory purchase order (CPO), covering parts of Wavertree, Edge Hill and Anfield, was approved by government minister Ruth Kelly last week.

continues (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpoolecho/news/echonews/tm_headline=families-wait-on-battle-for-homes%26method=full%26objectid=18909924%26siteid=5 0061-name_page.html)....

Howie

07-10-2007, 10:58 PM

Mosque and residents in bid to save derelict houses
Jul 10 2007
by Liza Williams, Liverpool Daily Post

A COMMUNITY is fighting to save terraced houses from the bulldozer.

Hatherley Street Residents Group and the Al Rahma Mosque in Toxteth want to buy houses in the street, which are mostly bricked-up and derelict – and redevelop them.

More (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2007/07/10/mosque-and-residents-in-bid-to-save-derelict-houses-64375-19433602/)...

kat2

07-12-2007, 12:29 AM

And how long would these privatly done up homes last? what standard would be reached and how long would it be before they cry foul and ask for council assistance in doing them up? why should the tax payer foot the bill for private housing stock. no parking areas no where for children to play except in the middle of the road where they end up smashing somebodys window. Houses done up dont last long you can only get so much out of a building. I mean what about things like thermal comfort levels? carbon emissions, all these regulations have to be met. dam coursing central heating new water supply new electrics, new roofing timbers (if rotten) and most would have to be treated for fire regulations.
Kat
:PDT11

Howie

07-12-2007, 12:43 AM

The only large amount of local tax payers money I'm aware of being used was the couple of million pounds that Liverpool City Council put up to bail out the so far unsuccessful Edge Lane project when they got their sums wrong.

kat2

07-12-2007, 01:10 AM

Theres alot of private investment going into edge lane area. The council may well have got its sums wrong but its attracting investment partnerships. Have a look at the edge lane video its out on the net somewhere.
I am not sure why the figures where wrong or whom is to blame, but, the council is thinking of the future, private investment should be encouraged because without it, it leads to deprevation, poor health, people living in damp squallied conditions, poor heating, low thermal value, buildings no longer fit for modern day purpose.
kat

dioraddict

07-12-2007, 02:04 AM

argghhh nothing makes me so angry than our unique obsession with demolishing things. there said it feel much better now.

but seriously why are we so keen to demolish perfectly good housing. Just because it's old doesnt make it bad and vice versa. Ok some of these properties are in need of serious investment but all things being equal would you rather live in a large, restored victorian terrace, like those remaining in the Lodge Lane, Granby, Jermyn Street areas or the Wimpey boxes across the road in North Hill Street???

These are just the examples I can think of, off the top of my head - the same principles apply equally to Edge Lane and other areas of the city.

Surely the length of time these properties have stood must say something about the quality of workmanship involved. The money obviously exists surely its up to us to decide where we want to live. Investment and not demolition is the answer. In other parts of the city, we all know that some of these properties are extremely desirable and sell for serious money - Why deny ordinary people the chance to live in comparable properties??

Howie

07-12-2007, 02:21 AM

I agree. These properties have stood for a hundred years and many of them would stand for another hundred, (which is probably considerably longer than the new builds that replace them will).

AK1

07-12-2007, 11:22 AM

The reason I agree with the demolition of these houses is because there is a genuine rason for doing so. There not just being demolished because they're old, it's because no-one wants them, the road needs to be widened and straightened, the area needs to be made safer and more pleasant, and the area is in desperate need of new facilities. None of this can be done properly while the houses are still there.
If they wanted to demolish them to simply replace them with new properties, then I would also be opposed to the scheme, but the project is much more than that. It will completely transform the area and make it a far better place to live and work. We can't let the minority of people get in the way of something that the vast majority of people want and need.

Jericho

07-12-2007, 12:31 PM

Both sides to this debate claim that the majority of people are behind them. Does anyone know how they are evidencing this claim? It's rather like the claim being made by the stop the development of the festival gardens site, apparently the 'majority' of local people are against that, too!

As for Edge Lane, the houses at the top aren't just everyday disposable Victoriana, they are something special and they make this area that is in effect the gateway to the city centre distinctive and special. In London they would fetch close to £1m each - here they are boarded up awaiting demolition to be replaced by a clone dual carriageway with clone housing that could be anywhere in the country. If it goes ahead people will see this as another failure by the city and its incompetent administrators to protect Liverpool's historic and built environment at a time when we should be disuading people from using cars to protect the environment. It's almost as though someone in the planning department is determined to push through the original plans for the inner ring motorway by stealth! It's so dated. If planners are concerned about congestion in the area they should build park and ride schemes near the end of the motorway (and elsewhere, too, if needed). The line from Lime Street to Wigan and Manchester is vastly underused and could easily support an additional ten minute service originating in Huyton or somewhere.

kat2

07-12-2007, 11:20 PM

Jericho

07-13-2007, 08:58 AM

The point is the housing stock was good in its day imagine if our victorian fathers took that attitude all those years ago and decided not to build and to conserve what they had. Most old housing stock doesnt come up to standard its not feasible to bring them up to standard either. Look at the foot print of those buildings alone fine in there day but impractical today too large to expensive to heat and run.No secure parking places, no where suitable for children to play no green spaces. fine in there day yes but we have to move on to build new homes that are more energy efficient take up a smaller square footage of land (population increase to think of). Health surveys done when they have looked at areas of poor housing stock prove that their is a link to the quality of stock and the overall health of the area concerned. Improving health means less money needs to be spent on healthcare, improved areas mean people come back to the area, and employment too.
you have to look at the bigger picture, health, enviromental impact, employment=investment
kat:034:

Your argument reads as though its been lifted without any critical analysis direct from the developer's glib and glossy brochure or fly-through video! Taking your argument to its logical conclusion why should we conserve ANY historical buildings at all? Let's demolish the Georgian quarter and all those large mansions around Sefton Park and replace then with semi-detached bungalows fitted with solar panels etc. No one is arguing for retaining poor housing stock so I'm not sure where you are going with that one.

Your misleading comments about cost of refurbishment have been tackled elsewhwere. The large houses in Edge Lane are not suitable for families with young children but they are suitable for everyone else - in other words the near majority of householders these days. Refurbished they would make ideal accomodation for childfree couples, healthcare staff, students and academics from the nearby universities, people working in the science and technology park and anyone else who wanted to live in such fine buildings. The people opposing the CPOs for the Edge Lane area aren't arguing that the area should be left alone. They have alternative proposals for redevelopment which the local media seldom discuss. I can't think why.

taffy

07-13-2007, 09:39 AM

Of course it isn't simply the large houses along Edge Lane that will be demolished. There are mass demolition plans for the smaller terraced houses between Edge Lane and Wavertree Rd, Edge Hill. This amount of demolition seems to be part of a greater plan which is independent of the necessities of any road improvement scheme. Most of these houses look in quite good condition but are now mostly boarded up awaiting demolition. Recently, I had the priviledge of being invited into one of the few houses still occupied in Plimsoll St. The lady had lived there for 50 years, all her married life. The house was in mint condition and did not deserve demolition.

These properties are very similar to those in the nearby Kensington Fields area which seem to have survived the demolition ball.

Jericho

07-13-2007, 10:35 AM

From today's DP:

Campaigners have renewed their battle after the change in govern-ment leadership, with hopes new Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Communities Secretary Hazel Blears will have a re-think about clearing thousands of old terraced homes.

Sandra, 62, said: “We campaigned for two years to try and save our homes, but one by one people have left and virtually every house is boarded-up.

“I wanted to stay because it has been my home for 32 years and is a lovely little house. It has been a smashing neighbourhood and very friendly. The kids around here were never any trouble.

“But now I have sold up to the council and I am waiting to move to the new houses around the corner in Cleveland Street. The nice thing is I will be joining five of my old neighbours.

“My house and the rest of Madryn Street is coming down as part of phase two of the clearance plan. I have heard the third phase will not be going ahead, it’s a pity it is too late to save our houses. I will be sad to go and hope to take as many plants with me to my new home where I will have a small garden.”

Cllr Marilyn Fielding, Liverpool City Council’s executive member for Neighbourhoods and Housing, said: “We’re happy to have been able to use Housing Market Renewal funds to help another resident move home and stay in the community.

“I can assure residents our plans for HMR in the Princes Park area are unchanged.

“The small number of residents opposed to regeneration are entitled to approach the Government, but we are confident the wishes of the majority who live in the neighbourhood and support the programme will be upheld.”

Nina Edge, campaigner for the Welsh Streets said: “We desperately need the new Communities Mini-ster to talk to Yvette Cooper, the Housing Minister to tell her enough is enough. What we need is common sense. The problem has changed, so must the solution. Wholesale demolition of half a million homes is not the answer.

“It is clear the Pathfinder demoli-tion machine is being driven by large house building companies that want to maximise profits.”

Ms Edge is backed by Homes Under Threat (HUT), a national net-work of communities under threat of demolition which has welcomed Gordon Brown’s assertion that affordable homes and listening to people would be among his priorities.

HUT spokesperson Sylvia Wilson said: “It does not make sense for the Government to destroy communi-ties when there is a housing shortage.

“Just because a house is a terrace or in need of some investment, it doesn’t mean it can’t be renovated more quickly and more cheaply than destroying communities and having to build new.”

The dishonesty of the politician is all too clear to see. The residents of the Welsh Streets weren't offered a choice of either rennovate the Welsh Streets OR moved to a modern new build off Park Road (Cleveden Park). If this had been the case the majority of people would have chosen to stay. They were given Hobson's choice!

Time and time again local politicians who wouldn't dream of living in one of the new builds themselves seem content to bulldoze entire communities under the banner of housing renewal. Most of you probably haven't seen Cliveden Park. Aesthetically it's not a patch on what a rennovated Welsh Streets could have been. Many of the terrace houses in the Welsh Streets could easily have been converted from two up, two down to four up, four down suitable for families - backyards could have been knocked together to form 'courtyards' ;). The treelined streets are full of charm (unlike Cleveden Park!).

In future, give people a real choice and we will see whether people choose to stay or move out. Giving people the choice of either you move out to a new build or you can stay in a street full of boarded up properties until the whole area becomes rat infested and derelict and you're forced to sell is no choice at all.

ChrisGeorge

07-13-2007, 02:50 PM

Time and time again local politicians who wouldn't dream of living in one of the new builds themselves seem content to bulldoze entire communities under the banner of housing renewal. Most of you probably haven't seen Cliveden Park. Aesthetically it's not a patch on what a rennovated Welsh Streets could have been. Many of the terrace houses in the Welsh Streets could easily have been converted from two up, two down to four up, four down suitable for families - backyards could have been knocked together to form 'courtyards' ;). The treelined streets are full of charm (unlike Cleveden Park!).

Hi Jericho

I have to say from my visit to Liverpool in May I found it highly depressing to see huge swathes of the city just swept away. I agree that some accommodation could have been made to preserve rather than simply scrap what was there. :PDT_Xtremez_42:

Chris

kat2

07-13-2007, 04:09 PM

its the cost of doing them up, dunno why people just dont get it, and the immense problems that come to light later on. for example most old homes do not have wall cavrtys, which means no insulation material can be inserted to bring it up to the "decent homes standards", ok, maybe they could stud out the entire building and put insultion in but, then it makes the hallways and stairwells too small, most people dont want to share a back garden (knocking two back yards into one) most people want places that are safe to park their cars and safe areas for their children to play in. by the time you strip a terris house back to its shell, take the roof off, underpin the foundations, bring new mains electricity, water, and gas into the building then you may as well have started from scratch anyway. Then theirs the problem of back alleyways, residents have told us time and again that they dont like them, their easy access for crime, even when alleygated schemes are employed. people want cheap to run homes that are warm without having to run heating all day.New housing if built sympathetically will out perform old housing stock on all accounts. Besides as our population increases we need smaller energy efficient affordable housing, which old victorian housing stock just doesnt provide.
kat:handclap:

taffy

07-13-2007, 04:35 PM

lindylou

07-13-2007, 04:43 PM

I agree. These properties have stood for a hundred years and many of them would stand for another hundred, (which is probably considerably longer than the new builds that replace them will).

my house was built in 1878 and is still going strong with many more years of life in it.

It's a lovely Victorian terrace - 8 rooms, very spacious, double hall, would cost the earth if it was in a different location. No way could we buy a house now of this size in any other place.
These new houses would literally fit into our back kitchen (and I'm not joking !).

Some people I know with new houses ; one has to keep the fridge in the hall because the kitchen is so miniscule.
Another pushed back the armchair and it made al hole in the weetabix wall :shock:

the walls are so thin you can hear people pull the cahin in the next house - and worse noise than that ! :shock:

Many of the new houses are built so close together they might as well be terraces. Lucky if you can walk shoulder width between some that I've seen .. and the cost of these shoeboxes is astonomical. :neutral:

I'd only consider a new build if it was near enough the proportions that I'm used to living in, no way could I survive in wendy house. :shock:

see also post no. 144 in this thread. I am proud of my lovely house ! :) :)

kat2

07-13-2007, 04:43 PM

Taffy,
*lol* yes all homes are rebuilt like buckingham palace and have a price tag to match, by the way have you read the decent homes standard or should I say regulations? I have several years back and the amount of legal legislation locked up inside such a document or set of documents makes no bones about the standard of housing and in particular noise pollution. If homes are built with poor sound proofing then thats a matter between the home owner purchaser and the building company concerned. I can assure you terris houses are very noisy I visit my friend every day she lives in one, you can hear the children next door runing up and down the stairs! There are so many regulations out now governing new build, the sad thing is people just dont bother to read through it. There are strict regulations under the environmental acts if noise pollution is such an issue.
kat

kat2

07-13-2007, 04:55 PM

Jerhico.
>Your argument reads as though its been lifted without any critical analysis direct from the developer's glib and glossy brochure or fly-through video! Taking your argument to its logical conclusion why should we conserve ANY historical buildings>
no listed buildings of architechtural significant importance are completely different and built to a much higher specification than the usual run of the mill terris house or even some victorian houses,dont get me wrong they were fine in their day! oh and by the way I do look at critical analysis I have in the past sat on many board meetings looking at the bigger picture asking residents what they would like to see improved in their areas, looking at the social demographics of the areas, drugs, crime, unemployment, no go areas,
people wouldnt live in certain areas due to the reputations some have earnt themselfs. In the past we polled primary care trusts on the health of certain areas, we polled the police we looked at unemployment and the lack of facilitys to train and give back respect to the young. Before anything ever hits the table the amount of research is staggering.If no one will invest in an area then you have to look at why, and if the majority of residents feel they would like to live in a nicer environment, a place for children to be safe and play, better health facilitiys then all this comes under redevelopment making space for these new facilities.
kat:034:

taffy

07-13-2007, 05:01 PM

Taffy,
*lol* yes all homes are rebuilt like buckingham palace and have a price tag to match, by the way have you read the decent homes standard or should I say regulations? I have several years back and the amount of legal legislation locked up inside such a document or set of documents makes no bones about the standard of housing and in particular noise pollution. There are so many regulations out now governing new build, the sad thing is people just dont bother to read through it. There are strict regulations under the environmental acts if noise pollution is such an issue.
kat

There is of course a big difference between theory and actual building practice in applying the building sound abatement regulations. The intentions are good but the end result can be poor. This was confirmed to me in recent discussions with an architect I know. I suspect not too many building site labourers have read the regulations either !!

kat2

07-13-2007, 05:13 PM

Taffy,
I would have thought that was down to local building control, I have used with success such regulations, but I have to agree its sad when corners are cut more building companys need to be held more accountable, like the sadly most recent events surrounding housing stock being built on flood planes.
again, though this seems to be a local building control issue. I can only say that over here on the wirral they are very strict with building code. I have sat on council meetings where officers if something hasnt been complied with have ordered demolition or steps taken to make good the abaitment.
kat

lindylou

07-13-2007, 05:15 PM

I'll be back to this debate ..... I've got to go now :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

havn't had time to read all the posts - got to log-off. :)

taffy

07-13-2007, 06:47 PM

Less than half a mile from the planned demolition of the Welsh Streets off Prince's Ave, similar property off Lodge Lane is to be renovated at £8000 each. See

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/business-news/2007/07/11/120-homes-on-way-100252-19438604/

AK1

07-13-2007, 06:59 PM

Different areas have different needs. In some cases it may be best to keep the existing houses but in others such as the dge lane area it is best to demolish the houses because of things like the road, poor living and working environment, lack of local facilities and the simple fact that people don't want the houses. Not everywhere is the same.

kat2

07-13-2007, 07:11 PM

Taffy, yes Liverpool housing trust
whom most probably got a grant in any case most refurbs as they are passionatly named have a shelf life of around 22 years.(source housing corporation) for eight thousand pounds all I can say is it wont be much of a refurb. More like a cosmetic look nice to hand on to some mug look!
think about it, damp coursing, electrics, plumbing, sewerage, re plaster, insulate, new bathroom, new kitchen and most probably new works to the roof to prevent the spread of fire, which sadly in the past most terris houses seem to have shared lofts
gosh though eight thousand pounds my kitchen cost over a thousand and I wouldnt say it was lavish by todays spending standards.
kat

Jericho

07-13-2007, 07:19 PM

No one in any of these clearance areas from Gerrard Gardens to the Edge Lane area to the Welsh Streets to Anfield to ... was ever given the choice of being able to stay in a rennovated house. Areas didn't become derelict overnight - the process was slow and is still ongoing. LCC treats the residents in these areas with contempt. It lectures them about what is best for them and their community and its officers assume that they know best! Lies are told about the state of Victorian and Edwardian terraced housing and how difficult it is to rennovate them. Most of the St Michael's area is composed of terraced housing built in a similar fashion to terraced housing in the areas described above and people don't have any problems rennovating their properties. If it can be done in St Michael's it can be done elsewhere.

kat2

07-13-2007, 07:45 PM

Jericho

07-13-2007, 08:34 PM

Jericho,
no lies are told certainly not from hard hitting facts on paper, generally for a building company to be able to do up victorian homes is extremely costly, why? well, compliance with current building regulations compliance with EEC directives which keep changing year on year, such things as the carbon footprint (which this new PM is keen to reduce) if you brought a victorian house up to todays standard (and if at all possible) it would take years to get a return on your money simply put all that has changed is the interior of the house, the surrounding infa structure , such as green spaces, places to park cars, community centers, health centers theres no where to put them without demolition. All we would see is the same victorian housing which fell into decline because there was no infa structure around them. I suppose really I do blame the council but now at least in some areas (not liverpool I may hasten to add) they are bringing about enforcement regulations to make home owners bring their propertys up to a decent environmental standard. Many of the old victorian houses were bought up by landlords cashing in on people like students, but that holiday has ended now because of the strict regulations and licensing of housing in Multiple occupancy, such things as fire precautioning, parking availability, and getting a council license have seen alot of the Lenard rossiters off! *g*! and about time too.
You dont just look at the housing stock, you look at what is happening around the housing stock, such as crime, health, employment.
kat

Whether it's Victorian/Edwardian rennovations of large houses along Princes Drive, Aigburth Drive, wherever - all I see is success with people getting a good return for their investments. Where it has been tried it has worked. Do you know of examples where it has been tried and it has been a disaster?

Costs would come down, too, with firms competing to offer the best rennovation deal to meet the most stringent standards. Costs could also be recouped when people sell their homes.

The terraced houses off Windsor Street (2 minutes walk from the Welsh Streets) are in the same socio-economic area and are popular with first time buyers and people who want to rent a house and not a flat. Many of these houses aren't as well built as the Welsh Street ones.

As for parking, etc. The residents of the St Michael's area (one of the city's property hotspots) manage well enough. Security is maintained through gated entries.

The time is ripe for a serious rethink. There is an alternative. People should have a real choice not a forced one.

kat2

07-13-2007, 09:09 PM

if the residents do up their own homes that is fine, they are not governed by the many regulations that large building contractors are, and yes, time and again it is not cost viable, oh, and consultation is always key, and residents are listened too, the majority have moved out! have a read through this link
http://www.liverpool-community.org.uk/files/report_MasterclassesAnswers_200605_FinalVersion.pd f
I have helped in the past revamp old propertys and, sadly it did not improve the over all area, shops, health centers, community center, green spaces and safe areas for children. More over it has been found regeneration brings in new business investment which increases employment.
kat

taffy

07-13-2007, 10:42 PM

From today's DP:

Most of you probably haven't seen Cliveden Park. Aesthetically it's not a patch on what a rennovated Welsh Streets could have been. Many of the terrace houses in the Welsh Streets could easily have been converted from two up, two down to four up, four down suitable for families - backyards could have been knocked together to form 'courtyards' ;). The treelined streets are full of charm (unlike Cleveden Park!).

.

Here's some photos of the Clevedon Park area plus some of the so called Welsh Streets. Most of these are in fact the standard 6 room Welsh builders' design and not the older 4 room two up two down design.

AK1

07-14-2007, 12:42 PM

Use bootle as an example. I am moving to a new build apartment in the keble road area of bootle in a few weeks. Here it used to be completely derelict with burnt out victorian houses, poor lighting, high crime levels, prostitution etc etc. Now, some of the houses have been demolished and replaced with new apartments and houses, and some have been completely refuribished both inside and out. In this case it was viable to do so as the surrounding infrastructure already contains things like a community centre, an open green space and roads that are wide enough to accomodate on street parking.

More demolition is planned so that more jobs and facilities can be created, but more renovation of existing terraces is also planned. The housing association and developer performing the work are in constant contact with local residents and have a good relationship with them. Ofcourse there are a few stuborn people who want to keep their existing houses that are due to be demolished, but most people understand the need for some demolition.

The companies involved in the work are going to be managing that area for at least 15 years to ensure the area becomes a good place to live and work. The houses and flats being created are of the highest standards and have off street parking and are affordable with schemes like shared ownership.

I am trying to highlight the fact that every area is different. Some areas may need complete demolition whereas other areas may need partial or no demolition. It all depends on the surrounding infrastructure, facilities, open spaces and affordability of renovation.

AK1

07-14-2007, 04:58 PM

Some pics of the Keble road area taken earlier today:

Due for demolition
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa60/AK1_photo/DSC00352.jpg

Some properties recently demolished
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa60/AK1_photo/DSC00355.jpg

Some under construction/completed properties
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa60/AK1_photo/DSC00356.jpg
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa60/AK1_photo/DSC00359.jpg

Recently refurbished terraces
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa60/AK1_photo/DSC00358.jpg

Old against new
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa60/AK1_photo/DSC00357.jpg

kat2

07-15-2007, 12:40 AM

some of the new ones are quiet nice, at least they will be thermally cheaper to live in. I like the third photo up. The only critisisem I have is the lack of parking space. At least you can tell the area has been improved, unlike the refurbished houses. It will be interesting to see how long the refurbs last.
I wonder if they changed the back yards?
kat

AK1

07-15-2007, 10:46 AM

There is some secure parking that can be seen on the third photo from the bottom, behind the brown gates in between each of the houses. There is space for two cars behind each gate.

kat2

07-16-2007, 12:00 AM

thnku, well, they certainly look alot better anyway
lovely photos.
kat

Kev

11-10-2007, 07:39 AM

THE £190m scheme to revive Merseyside’s housing market planned to bulldoze too many homes and failed to listen carefully to residents’ wishes, a d@ming report says today.

The National Audit Office highlights a series of weaknesses in the controversial New Heartlands “housing renewal” scheme, covering 130,000 homes across Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral.

The watchdog picks out the Merseyside scheme – one of nine across the North and Midlands – for creating “heightened stress” in neighbourhoods earmarked for demolition.

Its report criticises a failure, in the first years of the scheme, to assess whether homes should be saved because of their importance to national heritage.

And, specifically, it questions the consultation that led to the hotly-fought decision to bulldoze 444 red-brick terraced houses in the Welsh Streets, in Dingle.

New Heartlands is now considering saving 57 of those homes – including Ringo Starr’s childhood home on Madryn Street – after a heritage assessment.

In particular, the NAO questions the decision to demolish after a survey found only a narrow majority – 52% to 48% – in favour.

And it queries why that survey included residents in the surrounding Princes Park area, when it was not those residents’ homes facing the bulldozer.

Toby Evans, the NAO’s audit manager, who visited the Welsh Streets, said: “You have to be very careful claiming majority support on the basis of 52% versus 48%.

“Some of the residents we spoke to said the word redevelopment was used to describe the proposal, when what was planned was demolition.”

David Corner, the NAO’s director, said key recommen-dations – that surveys should be in demolition zones only and not use “redevelopment” to describe demolition – flowed directly from the Welsh Streets visit.

The report also highlighted how the number of homes earmarked for demolition across Merseyside had nearly halved, from 21,000 to just 11,000.

Last night, New Heartlands hit back strongly, insisting it worked long and hard to accurately gauge opinion on the Welsh Streets’ demolition and schemes elsewhere.

Pauline Davis, the organisation’s managing director, said: “I’m confident we have the support of the majority of the community for our plans in the Welsh Streets.

“It was not just a single survey that was taken and it was not just about clearance. That’s why Princes Park was included, because it is part of the broader neighbourhood.”

Ms Davis also defended the decision to halve the number of planned demolitions, which was partly due to the housing market bouncing back.

There was backing for New Heartlands from Louise Ellman, the Riverside MP whose constituency includes the Welsh Streets, who said: “There was no way of pleasing everybody. There was a very big division of opinion and some people were very opposed, but I know of others who have been rehoused and are very pleased with their new homes.”

Much of the NAO’s report makes general criticisms of nine so-called “Pathfinder” projects, including New Heartlands, describing the whole idea – costing £2.2bn – as “high risk”.

The Pathfinder neighbourhoods had succeeded in narrowing the house-price gap with surrounding areas, but it was “unclear” whether the programme itself was the cause.

Worryingly, the average compensation for residents being rehoused fell £35,000 short of the cost of a new home locally.

Government targets require New Heartlands to narrow the gap in vacancy rates between its pathfinder neighbourhoods and the wider region by one third by 2010. Between 2002 and 2006, that gap rose by 7%, although that might be explained by short-term purchases for work to be carried out.

Liverpool Dailypost

Howie

11-13-2007, 10:15 AM

Policy is destructive and divides communities
Nov 13 2007
by David Bartlett, Liverpool Daily Post

Housing Market Renewal is a deliberately misleading title.

It does the very opposite of the basics of a free market, the state through councils and housing associations uses vast public funds to purchase up properties and lands to take them off the market.

These public sector agencies then deliberately move people out and board up the area, creating a blight of dereliction.

The remaining owner occupiers are bought out at depressed prices and the few are forced out up by the abuse of compulsory purchase powers.

In areas designated for degradation and demolition, the land is then handed over to a combination of housing associations and one of four national housing builders who have been give a monopoly over the purchase of all significant land sites in their quarter of the inner city.

This deliberate restriction works against local builders and consumer choice.

Outside the inner city, planners obstruct the redevelopment of areas for housing.

Thus we have vast areas of blight outside the city being deliberately withheld from private housing development.

In the current three years, the council intends to demolish 4,000 homes forcing 3,000 families on to the ever-growing housing waiting lists.

This policy we are told has community support but when discussed at the Housing committee, press and public were excluded as it was “confidential”.

The demolition coalition of Lib-Dem and Labour councillors were afraid to debate this municipal vandalism in public.

They claim this policy leads to rises in home ownership.

Buying houses at £70,000 to £120,000 to then demolish then seems a pretty expensive way of doing it.

Who in these working class communities can afford smaller homes starting at £120,000?

In the words of Jane Kennedy MP, it is “social cleansing”.

I challenged for evidence that home ownership rises were not more likely due to private landlords selling their houses to capitalise on rising house prices, but council officers could not bring forward any statistical evidence.

Their policies might as well be driven by reading tea leaves.

In Pathfinder areas, people are paid compensation but the Joseph Rowntree Trust has shown that the average owner occupier will be worse off by £30,000 after the enforced move.

This policy is destructive, divides communities and creates a sinister cartel of council, housing associations and national house builders profiteering by forcing thousands out of their homes abusing hundreds of millions of pounds of our taxes.

Source: Liverpool Daily Post (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2007/11/13/policy-is-destructive-and-divides-communities-64375-20098749/)

Absolutely spot on! :nod:

Waterways

11-13-2007, 12:06 PM

Older poorly insulated homes push low income families into fuel poverty, which has health knock on effects, which in turn affects the economy as well as the personal social distress this causes. Keeping old houses for the sake of it is not a good thing at all.

"contrary to popular belief, we are not living on a crowded and urbanised island, but only in crowded and extremely dense cities."

"Our rigid and nationalised planning system is also delivering the wrong kind of housing. In a March 2005 MORI poll, 50 per cent of those questioned favoured a detached house and 22 per cent a bungalow. Just 2 per cent wanted a low rise flat and 1 per cent a flat in a high rise block. But houses and bungalows use more land, so while in 1990 about an eighth of newly built dwellings were apartments, by 2004 this had increased to just under a half."

"Our housing compares poorly by international standards too. Britain has some of the smallest and oldest housing in Europe, and what is being built now is even smaller than the existing stock. Yet despite this, house prices in the UK have risen much more strongly than other developed countries, meaning that despite real growth in our incomes we are not able to afford more and better housing, in the way that we can afford better cars and food as we get wealthier."

"Recent research into the impact of increased urban densities concluded that
'urban compaction' results in a loss of urban environmental quality and 'questioned whether the loss of environmental quality and urban character in low density housing areas is a price worth paying'. To put those questions more directly than academic researchers might do: do we want gardens to be
more and more expensive and, eventually, built over? Do we want the few low density urban conservation areas we have to be destroyed in order to preserve a few acres of countryside that few can visit? Do we want the whole of every urban area to be covered in tarmac? Should we not keep some trees in urban areas? Do we want playing fields to gradually disappear as being uneconomic, given the price of land? Do we want future generations to live walled up in urban areas in blocks of flats? Do we want biodiversity to be reduced as the scientific evidence shows that it would be?"

Read the documents:

Unaffordable Housing
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/libimages/143.pdf

Bigger Better Faster More
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/libimages/141.pdf

Better Homes, Greener Cities
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/libimages/137.pdf

AngelCake

11-13-2007, 09:57 PM

I've read of compensation figures of 30k! What does that buy nowadays? Liverpool council make me sick. Inept year in year out. The biggest winners are private companies as usual

scottieroader

12-27-2007, 11:37 PM

The thing is, while I concede that it probably is more cost-effective to demolish historic houses such as those on Edge Lane and build anew than it is to refurbish them, since when does 'cost-effectiveness' trump all other considerations? If, for example, during a future economic downturn the Liver Building was to become derelict, when the economy bounces back will we argue that it will be more cost-effective to demolish it and build something new in its place?

We're the capital of culture for God's sake. Surely somewhere, the difference in cost can be made up by someone. Someone rich with a pride in where they're from (are there no modern philanthropists?), Someone who makes there money out of tourism and has an interest in Liverpool being as attractive as possible?

scottieroader

12-27-2007, 11:46 PM

"Our rigid and nationalised planning system is also delivering the wrong kind of housing. In a March 2005 MORI poll, 50 per cent of those questioned favoured a detached house and 22 per cent a bungalow. Just 2 per cent wanted a low rise flat and 1 per cent a flat in a high rise block. But houses and bungalows use more land, so while in 1990 about an eighth of newly built dwellings were apartments, by 2004 this had increased to just under a half."

But you can't always have what you want... I've always thought it a little suspect to base things purely on what market research shows that people want.

Firstly... can all those people who want a detached house actually afford one, or are we just going to end up building loads of unaffordable homes.

Secondly... if everyone could have the home of their dreams, we'd quickly run out of land.

Waterways

12-28-2007, 12:37 AM

But you can't always have what you want... I've always thought it a little suspect to base things purely on what market research shows that people want.

Firstly... can all those people who want a detached house actually afford one, or are we just going to end up building loads of unaffordable homes.

Secondly... if everyone could have the home of their dreams, we'd quickly run out of land.

Oh that old propaganda line!!! Only 7.5% of the land in the UK is settled including parks and gardens, which amount to about 5%, which makes only 2.5% paved.

Hit the link in my sig and go to the menu and the link to How Land Affects The Average Person. This will make matters clearer.

scottieroader

12-28-2007, 12:42 PM

Oh that old propaganda line!!! Only 7.5% of the land in the UK is settled including parks and gardens, which amount to about 5%, which makes only 2.5% paved.

Hit the link in my sig and go to the menu and the link to How Land Affects The Average Person. This will make matters clearer.

Well very little of what you've said in it isn't propaganda. No mention of the lack of land caused by developer landbanking, no mention of the lack of affordable properties caused by developer unwillingness to build them, and exploitation of loopholes, no mention of the proliferation of tiny one-bedroom flats in city centres caused by developers building for the investor market (as opposed to the owner-occupier or buy-to-let markets)

Also... I think that while it is unfair that the majority of people subsidise the upkeep of the landed gentry's estates, you seem to be almost trying to give the impression that this is where most of the council tax goes.

And when you talk about how much land is available in the UK, do you remember to deduct unsuitable land. i.e:

Too hilly
Too boggy
Susceptible to flooding
Too far from the nearest local centre
Of historic/cultural value
National Parks
AONBs
SSSIs
Susceptible to coastal erosion
Too noisy
Too polluted
Too contaminated from previous uses
Those areas of greenbelt which really are necessary to prevent towns merging into one.

When you think of how much land is needed for housing, do you also think of:

Local convenience stores
Schools
Parks
Playing Fields
etc?

Waterways

12-28-2007, 01:55 PM

Well very little of what you've said in it isn't propaganda. No mention of the lack of land caused by developer landbanking,

Nothing there is propaganda. An open policy of planning allowing people to build anywhere within reason, would reduce this developer practice to the point it is not worth it.

no mention of the lack of affordable properties caused by developer unwillingness to build them, and exploitation of loopholes,

Once again, An open policy of planning allowing people to build anywhere within reason would eliminate the large developers and put us in the same category of other countries

no mention of the proliferation of tiny one-bedroom flats in city centres caused by developers building for the investor market (as opposed to the owner-occupier or buy-to-let markets)

Once again an open policy of planning allowing people to build anywhere within reason will give people choice of where they want to live.

Also... I think that while it is unfair that the majority of people subsidise the upkeep of the landed gentry's estates, you seem to be almost trying to give the impression that this is where most of the council tax goes.

As 0.66% of the population own 70% of the land, it is going their way. I emphasised how the land subsidy acts against the people and favours the rich. We need a free market that caters for the vast majority.

And when you talk about how much land is available in the UK, do you remember to deduct unsuitable land. i.e:

Too hilly
....

Figures were given

Those areas of greenbelt which really are necessary to prevent towns merging into one.

The Greenbelt is a nonsense creating sterile dead zones. It is a mechanism to keep townies in towns - an physical act of discrimination. If towns merge into one then they merge. I see no problem in that, as it is happened all over the world throughout history.

When you think of how much land is needed for housing, do you also think of:

As only 7.5% of the UKs land is settled making London, Liverpool, Manchester, etc, and in fact every city, town and village, twice the size in footprint, still only 15% of the land is used. Simple arithmetic.

The UK has a surplus of Land.

Now read these, which were on a post down the thread:

Unaffordable Housing
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima...images/143.pdf

Bigger Better Faster More
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima...images/141.pdf

Better Homes, Greener Cities
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima...images/137.pdf

scottieroader

12-28-2007, 07:22 PM

I understand that it is your point of view that in a world where regulations are relaxed, all the people free from them will start collectively acting in society's best interests...

but I disagree with it. In my point of view relaxing regulations will benefit the big players more than that the small developers, and will not stop developers landbanking nor will it stop things such as buy-to-leave investors dictating the market and developers will still not care about things such as design, affordability and sustainability.

Also I still believe that unfair as it is, the flow of tax money towards wealthy landowners is not significant.

And as far as greenbelts and the desire to keep towns seperate is concerned. I would like them to say seperate, I see no reason that just because something has happened in the past and would happen without intervention it should automatically be seen as just and acceptable.

I think where we disagree though is on wider issues and is not really reconcilable. So I'd rather draw a line under it and keep this topic on urbanism, and not stray into politics.

For the record (and I'm assuming here you are an advocate of Adam Smith) He and Marx (of whom I'm an advocate) aren't too dissimilar. I think it is erroneous the way many thinkers present Smith as the realist as opposed to Marx the idealist. They were both idealists, Smith spoke of a perfect market which in practice cannot exist.

Waterways

12-28-2007, 10:18 PM

I understand that it is your point of view that in a world where regulations are relaxed, all the people free from them will start collectively acting in society's best interests...

Not in everything, but yes in land and planning.

but I disagree with it. In my point of view relaxing regulations will benefit the big players more than that the small developers, and will not stop developers landbanking nor will it stop things such as buy-to-leave investors dictating the market and developers will still not care about things such as design, affordability and sustainability.

The UK is the only developed country where most of the houses are built by a few companies - the big players. It is clear houses are not affordable at all. The UK is always in a perennial housing crisis which need not be there. Look at the planning and land system and then see where the problems lay. Then think of how it could be rectified. Then look at how others do it - and there are some shining examples around.

Once the land is feed up and planning relaxed the construction will be in the hands of the market and small builders. Currently planning is Stalinist using central quotas - which clearly does not work. Look at the links I gave and how Germany and Switzerland plan and use land. Understand what I wrote - get the points and read the links.

Also I still believe that unfair as it is, the flow of tax money towards wealthy landowners is not significant.

The flow of money to them is significant and just downright unjust and should be stopped ASAP. However that is not the main point. The point is that they hold most of the nations land and create via the planning system an artificial land shortage ramping up land prices and hence house prices.

And as far as greenbelts and the desire to keep towns seperate is concerned. I would like them to say seperate, I see no reason that just because something has happened in the past and would happen without intervention it should automatically be seen as just and acceptable.

I see no reason to stop natural migration. It can benefit communities merging into larger units - or shrinking too. Your view is just subjective and nothing else with basis what

I think where we disagree though is on wider issues and is not really reconcilable. So I'd rather draw a line under it and keep this topic on urbanism, and not stray into politics.

What issues bother you? What bothers me is that housing is poor in the UK and costs the earth. We live in small, poorly insulated pokey holes that cost a fortune. in general. Read what I wrote again that is clearly there. Then read the links too.

For the record (and I'm assuming here you are an advocate of Adam Smith) He and Marx (of whom I'm an advocate) aren't too dissimilar. I think it is erroneous the way many thinkers present Smith as the realist as opposed to Marx the idealist. They were both idealists, Smith spoke of a perfect market which in practice cannot exist.

I couldn't care about Smith and Marx. Again understand the issues presented and how it affects you and everyone else. They are clearly put forward. The people would clearly benefit greatly if Land & planning was in a free market, and not rigged to benefit large rich landowners and few very large construction companies. .

scottieroader

12-29-2007, 12:16 AM

Your argument is starting to get aggressive waterways. I've said already that this is a discussion of politics and it is best not to get into it on this forum.

You just don't stop saying... read this that I've written, read it again, read it again and understand it this time. I understand it, I just don't believe it. I have different views to you. I fail to see how developers, with restrictions lifted wouldn't just take off into ever increasing spirals of buying land, building unsustainably on it and forcing people into poverty. You see it differently, but that is about values not understanding.

And please... I don't buy into to conspiracy theory that the landed gentry are somehow exerting an influence in the planning system.

So demolition... I suggested elsewhere that even though demolishing old, attractive houses to build bland tat (you can dress it up however you like but none of the visualisations for Edge Lane look at all pleasing to the eye) may cost more. This is a cost that we should meet. I don't think it should be about the money. Where do you stand on that?

Not in everything, but yes in land and planning.

The UK is the only developed country where most of the houses are built by a few companies - the big players. It is clear houses are not affordable at all. The UK is always in a perennial housing crisis which need not be there. Look at the planning and land system and then see where the problems lay. Then think of how it could be rectified. Then look at how others do it - and there are some shining examples around.

Once the land is feed up and planning relaxed the construction will be in the hands of the market and small builders. Currently planning is Stalinist using central quotas - which clearly does not work. Look at the links I gave and how Germany and Switzerland plan and use land. Understand what I wrote - get the points and read the links.

The flow of money to them is significant and just downright unjust and should be stopped ASAP. However that is not the main point. The point is that they hold most of the nations land and create via the planning system an artificial land shortage ramping up land prices and hence house prices.

I see no reason to stop natural migration. It can benefit communities merging into larger units - or shrinking too. Your view is just subjective and nothing else with basis what

What issues bother you? What bothers me is that housing is poor in the UK and costs the earth. We live in small, poorly insulated pokey holes that cost a fortune. in general. Read what I wrote again that is clearly there. Then read the links too.

I couldn't care about Smith and Marx. Again understand the issues presented and how it affects you and everyone else. They are clearly put forward. The people would clearly benefit greatly if Land & planning was in a free market, and not rigged to benefit large rich landowners and few very large construction companies. .

Howie

02-08-2008, 10:18 PM

Battle to save piece of history
Feb 8 2008
by Nick Coligan, Liverpool Echo

A VICTORIAN community centre in Liverpool could be bulldozed to make way for student flats.

But Wavertree residents are fighting the plans to demolish Gregson memorial institute, built in the late 1890s as a small museum and art gallery.

More (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2008/02/08/battle-to-save-piece-of-history-100252-20450324/)...

Waterways

02-08-2008, 10:26 PM

Howie

06-16-2008, 10:22 PM

Anfield homes a model of success
Jun 16 2008
by David Bartlett, Liverpool Daily Post

A ROW of Victorian terraced houses in the centre of North Liverpool, that were saved from demolition and restored to their former glory, have become a role model of success.

A unique private investment scheme from the Affordable Housing Development Company (http://www.ahdc.co.uk/) (AHDC), saw every three and four-bedroom property on Tancred Road, in Anfield, transformed and put back on the market.

The pioneering project will now be used as a model for redevelopment across the country.

AHDC was formed to participate in the enormous task of regenerating areas of deprivation in England’s cities.

Ian Robinson, chief executive of AHDC, said: “AHDC anticipates investing in excess of £20m to totally transform areas across the UK in a roll-out programme using the Tancred Road scheme as a role model.”

Source: Liverpool Daily Post (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2008/06/16/anfield-homes-a-model-of-success-64375-21080404/)

Howie

07-03-2008, 10:37 PM

MPs slam housing renewal
Jul 3 2008
by Nick Coligan, Liverpool Echo

HOUSING bosses today hit back at a government report questioning whether a massive demolition scheme was working.

An inquiry by MPs found the number of homes flattened by housing market renewal projects, such as Merseyside’s NewHeartlands, dwarfed new ones built.

It also found waiting lists for rented properties in housing regeneration areas had doubled.

More (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2008/07/03/mps-slam-housing-renewal-100252-21221719/)...

petromax

07-03-2008, 11:55 PM

Not in everything, but yes in land and planning.

Just picking up on this one point to refute (of many possible candidates ); what leads you to think that anyone outside of Utopia is going to drop their primeaval territorial instincts and selflessly act for the greater good?

To allude to another which appears similarly myopic; if anyone might build wherever anyone wanted 'within reason' (whatever that might mean), what effect due you think that this unbridled urban sprawl would have an our collective carbon footprint?

It would help considerably if you could distill the no-doubt cogent arguments in the accompanying links to screeds of closely type argument into a few sentences for all our benefit

Kev

07-09-2008, 08:27 AM

CONDEMNED houses in Edge Hill were primed ahead of their imminent demolition yesterday. Read (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2008/07/09/bulldozers-ready-to-move-in-to-demolish-900-homes-in-edge-hill-64375-21308237/)

Ged

07-09-2008, 09:16 AM

Yes but 900 into 300 doesn't go :rolleyes:

marky

07-09-2008, 02:32 PM

A short video of the demolition is here:
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/videos-pictures/videos/
It shows Hawthorn Grove area. I was here a few weeks ago and the pavements had already been tinned-up.

AK1

07-09-2008, 04:42 PM

Yes but 900 into 300 doesn't go :rolleyes:

Lets not forget that there aren't even 300 who live there anymore, there's only about 70! This is about creating safe sustainable modern housing with gardens, open space and community facilities. If 900 houses where replaced with 900 houses, they would have to build terraces with no gardens, no off street parking, no facilities and no open space. Basically what is there now, which is what people don't want.

Ged

07-09-2008, 04:46 PM

Yes but to put 300 into spaces that once held 900 means people are inevitably shipped out and will they all be sustainable affordable houses because out of the 90 scheduled for the Grosvenor st area, two thirds will be private. It is the continuity of depopulating inner area to outer areas.

Howie

08-04-2008, 11:21 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8ptFBfekVY

Waterways

08-04-2008, 12:08 PM

Just picking up on this one point to refute (of many possible candidates ); what leads you to think that anyone outside of Utopia is going to drop their primeaval territorial instincts and selflessly act for the greater good?

Few will, that is why we have governments.

To allude to another which appears similarly myopic; if anyone might build wherever anyone wanted 'within reason' (whatever that might mean),

Not in National Parks, near nuclear power stations, etc.

what effect due you think that this unbridled urban sprawl would have an our collective carbon footprint?

As only 7.5% of the land mass is settled, we can't "sprawl" anywhere. There is just too much land in the country, to use the emotive propaganda word, "sprawl" onto.

It would help considerably if you could distill the no-doubt cogent arguments in the accompanying links to screeds of closely type argument into a few sentences for all our benefit

What I put forwards was simple to understand:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/LandArticle.html

We all have lots to gain - even you.

Howie

12-06-2008, 10:25 PM

All hope is lost for city?s derelict row
Dec 6 2008
by Marc Waddington, Liverpool Echo

A NOTORIOUS row of derelict houses will be bulldozed despite years of campaigning to save them.

Many of the homes, in Prescot Road and Prescot Drive, Fairfield, were boarded up in 2000 with the aim of redeveloping them in the future.

They subsequently fell victim to vandals and arsonists, and now only a handful of people still live in the row, which is on a busy commuter route into the city centre.

Campaigners claim they were assured one day they would be brought back to use and would be part of the regeneration of the area around Newsham Park.

Now, after years of sitting empty, about 40 properties will face the wrecker?s ball.

Cllr Louise Baldock, chairman of the Newsham Park steering group, said the news was received with dismay.

More (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2008/12/06/all-hope-is-lost-for-city-s-derelict-row-100252-22417237/)...

wallasey

12-06-2008, 10:32 PM

Unfortunately, they have been left too long! The Prescot Drive properties in particular are more likely to fall down on their own accord rather than with the assistance of the wrecking ball. Most of them have roofs that have caved in, subsequently meaning the floors have collapsed under the strain.

It has after all been 8 going on 9 years since some of these houses were occupied, perhaps even longer since anyone repaired or cared for the buildings.

Waterways

12-06-2008, 10:41 PM

Any pics of them as they are now?

wallasey

12-06-2008, 11:56 PM

Prescot Drive 05MAY08...

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff167/tranmererusko/2008_05030217.jpg

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff167/tranmererusko/2008_05030220.jpg

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff167/tranmererusko/2008_05030223.jpg

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff167/tranmererusko/2008_05030228.jpg

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff167/tranmererusko/2008_05030229.jpg

Prescot Road 30NOV08

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff167/tranmererusko/2008_11300085.jpg

I am hoping the images speak for themselves!

potter

12-07-2008, 12:02 AM

nice photos Russ, those homes have been going down the nick for 15 years to my knowledge

Waterways

12-07-2008, 12:29 AM

Some are salvageable, other are not.

Howie

09-03-2009, 01:27 PM

Demolition notices threaten Liverpool cultural gem
Sep 3 2009
by Ben Schofield, Liverpool Daily Post

A CITY university is pushing ahead with plans to tear down crumbling city centre buildings, despite fears the work may also bring down a neighbouring cultural gem.

Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (LSTM) say 31 Pembroke Place ? which is opposite their new campus ? is a danger to the public and needs to be demolished.

But the owner of number 29 next door ? the site of historic Galkoff?s butchers ? says his building relies on 31 for structural support.

The shop, first opened in 1907 and now Grade II-listed, is renowned as the only surviving example of a tiled Kosher butchers in the UK. Original owner Percy Galkoff was also thought to be the first meat seller to use a fridge.

Now LSTM has notified the council it will be pulling down number 31.

The owner of Galkoff?s, Rob Ainsworth, has also been notified by LSTM under Party Wall legislation about the imminent demolition.

LSTM says it will do it all it can to support the party wall, but Mr Ainsworth remains unconvinced.

Galkoff?s has already lost support to one side. Number 27 was knocked down to make way for a block of apartments and shops in the mid-1990s.

Fears over the safety of the building then prompted builders to drive bolts through 29 and 31?s adjoining wall to stop Galkoff?s toppling over.

Mr Ainsworth said last night: ?As my property was built as part of a terrace, I don?t think it will survive as a stand-alone building.

?It?s already lost the support 27 provided before it was demolished in 1994. The loss of the building mass of 31 and weathering problems to the exposed gable wall, plus wind suction, means it doesn?t bode well for Galkoff?s.

?Something might also go wrong in the demolition ? an ?enthusiastic demolition?, they call it.?

Continues (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2009/09/03/demolition-notices-threaten-liverpool-cultural-gem-92534-24596491/2/) >>