King Edward Tower

[Kev]

IT IS a derelict, burnt-out building that has become a blot on the recentlyregenerated urban city centre landscape.

But the King Edward pub, bought five years ago for just £150,000, is now rumoured to be worth a staggering £9m.

Despite its less than salubrious appearance, the building's value has shot up thanks to its prime position sitting high above the River Mersey, making it ripe for redevelopment.

Sources told the Daily Post that one development company had offered the owner £9m for the site, but was turned down.

The owners, Richmont Properties, are still considering whether to sell the land, develop it themselves, or join up with another firm for the venture.

To make it viable for buyers splashing out such a sum, they would need to build a sky-scraper style tower similar to its neighbour, the multi-million pound Beetham Tower.

A spokesman for regeneration organisation Liverpool Vision said: "It is designated as one of the clusters for tall buildings."

But many are less than convinced that a firm would actually part with such a hefty sum, particularly as the site does not have planning permission for any development. James Kersh, from estate agents Sutton Kersh, said: "It's a prime location because there are so few land sites in the city.

"But it is only worth that much subject to planning. It could be they have been made an offer of £9m subject to planning but with a clause that if it is not successful the developers would pay much less."

Stuart Keppie, from property firm Keppie Massie, said: "It is a postage stamp site. A 40-storey site might give you a return, but I would not advise any of my clients to buy it unless there was planning permission attached.

"There are people who are desperate to get into the city centre but the price of that site is totally dependent on the planning permission.

"It was bought a few years ago by mystery owners and it seems to have been in limbo ever since."

If the owners seal a £9m deal, they would emulate the success of their neighbours Beetham.

The Liverpool-based developer paid the city council £163,000 for land on Brook Street in January, 2002, because it said it wanted the site to make environmental improvements for its nearby 28-storey Beetham Tower and possibly build a small office block.

But once Liverpool's cabinet approved the deal, the firm subsequently submitted a planning application to build the 40-storey block West Tower, which is estimated to make them £30m.

A spokesman for Richmont Properties said: "Design negotiations are at a very early stage with the city council.

"If someone is happy to pay that amount, we would advise them to speak to our agents, Knight Frank."

samlister@dailypost.co.uk

[Wormella]

It would be really nice to see something done with it.

[Kev]

Has anyone got a pic?

[A.D.Williams]

It'll be nice to see something done with this! :disgust:

http://www.liverpoolviews.co.uk/pierhead/ndock/edward.jpg

[A.D.Williams]

I think they found a dead body in there a year or two ago as well!

:eek:

[Max]

He turned down 9m!:eek:

Did they find out what happened to the dead body?

[wallasey]

For £6 Million !

It has been brought by a Wirral businessman but his plans are remaining a secret for the time being. Property experts in the city think that the site could and would be ideal for a high-rise residential development. If this were to happen, those living in Beethams West Tower could have thier river views blocked out.

Here is the article...
(http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/thebusinessweek/regionalnews/tm_objectid=17408499%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=waterfront%2dpub%2dsite%2dsold%2dfor%2d %2dpound%2d6m-name_page.html)

[Kev]

Sold at last!! Can't complain for £6 million eh? Now on with the demolision of the burnt out pub.

[Kev]

Princes Dock owner Peel Holdings is believed to have paid around £20m for the adjacent King Edward industrial estate, which it has bought from a property investment firm called London & Cambridge. Peel, which recently acquired the owner of Princes Dock, Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, wants to use the site to link Princes Dock with the main dock road and with the city's central business district.

..............

[Paul D]

This is a fantastic site for a very tall tower so let's hope they aren't forced to downsize it,it's in a tall building zone so I don't see a problem but you never know in this city,still this is excellent news.:celb (23):

[wallasey]

Sold at last!! Can't complain for £6 million eh? Now on with the demolision of the burnt out pub.

Why demolish it? We are loosing so many Dockside pubs at the moment, One day we will only be left with the Baltic Fleet if we are not too careful. I would like to see the facarde incorporated into the new building. Archtechtually, it isn't all that bad.

Give it a chance, please........ :protest:

[Kev]

Pre-planning of the King Edward Tower mentions the following details:

Height: 146M
Floors: 48
Residential

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/669KingEdwardTower_pic1.jpg

Source (http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=669)....

[Max]

478ft will be bigger than Beetham west tower won't it?

Manchester has one approved for over 600! Otherwise they have no taller buildings than us!:celb (23):

[Kev]

478ft will be bigger than Beetham west tower won't it?

Manchester has one approved for over 600! Otherwise they have no taller buildings than us!:celb (23):

8 floors taller, though I'm sure the ground level of the Tower will be lower than the Beetham West, maybe someone can confirm this.

[Max]

The Edward one will be taller.:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/bdbsearch.php?convert=feet&city=Liverpool

Height is only what matters to Max.:Colorz_Grey_PDT_16:

[Kev]

The Edward one will be taller.:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/bdbsearch.php?convert=feet&city=Liverpool

Height is only what matters to Max.:Colorz_Grey_PDT_16:

Well Max, when we stood side by side on the forum meetup, I felt like a little Beetham next to a Huge King Edward :)

[Max]

I bet the rest did too.:D

[Max]

Next time we have another forum meet up, I want a pic of us all standing next to each other.:Colorz_Grey_PDT_16:

[AK1]

Does anyone know how this is getting on. I have looked at the website but there isn't much info on the project. I hope it is more than a rumour! It seems like a very high quality project and would be a great addition to our waterfront.

[The Teardrop Explodes]

...true. That's the one that really looks exciting.

Was also thinking the same "what happened to that" thoughts about the proposedbusiness district.

[AK1]

...true. That's the one that really looks exciting.

Was also thinking the same "what happened to that" thoughts about the proposedbusiness district.

I think the business district is still going ahead. The king edward tower looks really exciting but it's hard to get any info from the developers. I have tried e-mailing them but the address doesn't exist. There is an image of it on the website under 'spring review' in the downloads page.

[Brenda]

Can we have a link please :PDT_Piratz_26:

[AK1]

http://www.dtruk.com/services.html

[Brenda]

thank you :Colorz_Grey_PDT_16:

[The Teardrop Explodes]

http://www.dtruk.com/services.html

That Piccadilly Village pic looks great doesn't it? I'd love to see those sort of models being applied to private and social housing within our city. Try to remove those lifeless low-density estates we have in and around the city centre and start building imaginative apartment districts like that one..

[Kev]

The King Edward pub site near to Liverpool's waterfront looks likely to remain derelict for months to come, after talks between its owner and city planners hit deadlock......continues (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/thebusinessweek/regionalnews/tm_headline=vision-steps-in-to-solve-impasse%26method=full%26objectid=18433909%26siteid =50061-name_page.html)....

......Harvey Developments submitted a planning application for a twin tower residential development just before Christmas but a source told the Daily Post the company was being frustrated in its attempts to get clear guidance from the council about exactly what type of design and usage it would be happy with.

[Paul D]

You can already sense the planners are fuming over this,this new tower has the potential massive and they don't like it.Hopefully Liverpool Vision will sort this out and give us something at least the size of West tower.:)

[Paul D]

With it only having a small footprint,this tower in its present state would probably be Liverpool's tallest building,I hope they get this one built.

[Kev]

I do hope this gets the go-ahead soon.

[twiz]

King eddie = 512 apartments
Beetham west = 130 apartments

Depending on how much bigger the footprint is, thats a massive difference. Even when split into 2 towers of 256 apartments they work out to be around 50 stories, it can't be twin 50 storie towers! but I can't see how they can build 512 apartments on a small site without building very tall.

[Paul D]

It all sounds really promising,we've been waiting years to see this site developed.There's been loads of rumours but they've never came to anything so it's great to finally see something concrete.I don't think it'll be long before Peel announce something for that fairly substantial plot of land adjacent to it either,they haven't shed out £20 million for nothing.:)

[christy]

All sounds more promising. I cant wait until the industrial estate Peel have bought is done aswell. Be realy interested to see what Peel and the architects come up with because for that site as it is such an unusual site with it having no obvious front, back or sides, and each side is at a different ground level.. It is like an island or a compiund on its own. Hopefully they will open it up and some sort of link between the Princess dock developments and the Old hall street area will be designed.
Whatever is built there (and on the pub site) will terminate 3 main vistas (Leeds street towards the river; Great Howard street towards the city and Knig Edward street away from the city, not to mention facing the river) and therfore MUST look good from ALL angles. Cant wait tio see what is proposed

[Max]

So what happened about the dead body found In the King Edward Dave mentioned?

I saw a pic of inside the pub too that ScouserDave took too, has secret Agent Snappel or anyone got any more Inside pics?

[christy]

The police didn't look for anyone in connection , can't remember which but it was either an overdose or natural causes

[Max]

Sounds like some Addict probably went in their to do drugs and O.D then If the person died by Overdose that is.

[Paul D]

It was a tramp I seem to remember.

[Max]

http://www.liverpoolpictorial.co.uk/burntout.jpg

Home sweet home.

[Max]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/3690481.stm

http://tinyurl.com/ydzreb

http://tinyurl.com/ygk4bx

http://tinyurl.com/yk8g7x

He lived Wavertree road officially too.

Anyone know when the pub was burned down?

[Paul D]

"A source close to the talks said there were no sticking points about the height but rather the quality and density of the residential element"


I hope this is accurate,we want it to be tall and most of all we want it to be a quality design,we have to get this important site right.I can't wait too see the renders of this.:)

[AK1]

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=829

[Max]

Liverpool's waterfront will look like big citys around the world with towers like this.

All It needs Is the Max Molyneux Tower and we'd have a godlike waterfront.

[Kev]

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/829FirstImagesofKingEdwardsTowers_pic2.jpg

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/829FirstImagesofKingEdwardsTowers_pic1.jpg

[Paul D]

Imagine that travelling into the city centre,it's massive,I'm desperate to see this built.:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

[Kev]

^^ Great ^^

[Paul D]

Very early days yet and the design will probably change but positive news all the same.:celb (23):

[AK1]

The one thing I like most about this tower is the fact that it looks good from all sides. Alot of developers tend to have the good bits facing the river and the backs are just left plain and boring. The original beetham is a typical example. The front and the sides look great, but the back is just concrete and quite ugly. I don't see why they have done this because most people see the buildings on the waterfront from behind as they travel into town.:Colorz_Grey_PDT_24:

[Kev]

eight days to sort the site out (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpoolecho/news/echonews/tm_headline=eight-day-deadline-to-sort-out-derelict-pub%26method=full%26objectid=18741092%26siteid=500 61-name_page.html)......

[PhilipG]

eight days to sort the site out (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpoolecho/news/echonews/tm_headline=eight-day-deadline-to-sort-out-derelict-pub%26method=full%26objectid=18741092%26siteid=500 61-name_page.html)......

Quote:
But the pub’s owners, Richmont Properties, are hoping to strike a deal with the council which would let them keep the building intact while they work on a long-term plan.

They will ask if they could swathe the King Edward in a Capital of Culture banner so it is hidden from view.
Unquote.


Like they've done with the ABC cinema, and to a lesser degree, the Futurist.
And Williamson Square.
And Concourse House and Radio City Tower until they had to take them down.

Wonderful solution! :disgust:

[scouse smurf]

Quote:
But the pub’s owners, Richmont Properties, are hoping to strike a deal with the council which would let them keep the building intact while they work on a long-term plan.

They will ask if they could swathe the King Edward in a Capital of Culture banner so it is hidden from view.
Unquote.


Like they've done with the ABC cinema, and to a lesser degree, the Futurist.
And Williamson Square.
And Concourse House and Radio City Tower until they had to take them down.

Wonderful solution! :disgust:

Its only so they don't have to spend much money on it.

I'll be happy to see it gone. I've always hated seeing it on my way into town. Between that and the old Flash Harry's by LJMU, I don't know which was worse. At least they got rid of that one :)

[AK1]

It will be pointless for them to refurbish it when it's going to be demolished eventually anyway, and covering it in a banner is just the easy way out. It would end up being really grotty and wouldn't help with the rodent issue.:disgust:

[Max]

No Pub sign for me to take a pic of either.:(

[scouse smurf]

No Pub sign for me to take a pic of either.:(

I didn't even notice it had gone lol, I wonder when that went missing. Its on this photo from Liverpool Pictorial too, when was that taken ?

http://www.liverpoolpictorial.co.uk/kingedwardL3.jpg

[snappel]

What's the point in a CoC banner? Everyone knows now already...

[Paul D]

Eyesore pub on multi million £ site to be razed

ONE of Liverpool’s worst eyesores is finally going to be demolished, the ECHO can reveal.

The owner of the former King Edward pub, on the edge of the city centre, has appointed a firm to tear down the derelict, burned-out building.

It follows a council order which demanded Richmont Properties either refurbish or bulldoze the venue, passed by thousands of motorists every day.

The developer says it is now working “constructively” with Liverpool council and English Heritage to draw up a plan for a landmark building on the site, said to be worth millions of pounds.
The announcement will come as welcome news to city officials, who were worried about what message the King Edward would send out to visitors.

The pub was deemed Liverpool’s 11th worst grotspot in a report last year.


A spokesman for Richmont Properties said: “Responding to the notice to repair or demolish the pub, contractors have been appointed and will soon be commencing demolition works.


“We will endeavour to minimise disruption to businesses and residents as much as possible.”


The King Edward closed about 10 years ago before falling into disrepair. Richmont Properties had originally hoped to swathe the building, at the junction of Great Howard Street and Leeds Street, in a banner while they worked on a long-term plan.


The company has recently submitted a planning application for about 500 apartments, shops and offices on the site.


The spokesman said: “Discussions are moving forward positively with the council to ensure the planned development reaches a satisfactory conclusion for all parties, not least the people of Liverpool, regenerating the location with what will be a world-class scheme.”

[scouse smurf]

[B]The pub was deemed Liverpool’s 11th worst grotspot in a report last year.

About time it's going

What are the other grotspots ?

[Harry]

I don't know what was on that list but one of the worst is at the junction of Islington and Moss Street, a row of dereliction with an ugly metal forge shop on the corner. Its on one of the main routes out of the city centre but appears to be invisible to everyone but me.
My pet hate is Heap's rice mill, a rotting pile of ugliness facing the King's Dock and incredibly described as "historic" in a recent Echo article. This is the problem when heritage fanatics hold too much sway in a city, any old pile of crap such as this is celebrated instead of being seen for what it is - a filthy anachronism made of rotting bricks that should have been demolished decades ago. Even more incredibly, they're apparently turning this eyesore into apartments.

[AK1]

Any news on this yet? The owners of the site have a website but it is still under construction.

[SteH]

Demolition of the pub has finally

begun

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpoolecho/news/echonews/tm_headline=last-orders-as-pub-bites-dust%26method=full%26objectid=19314171%

26siteid=50061-name_page.html

[snappel]

As of yesterday virtually the entire top floor had gone. No doubt by the end of the week the rest will also be rubble.

[marky]

Demolition teams really work fast nowadays...there were only a few bricks left on the floor today. A small section of dividing wall between the next property, is all that remains standing.

[marky]

Here's a pic from the other day...clearing away the King Edward pub debris.

[chippie]

Well done Marky,couldn,t they have carried on with the rest of the rubbish around it? Looking forward to the new tower next, in it,s place

[PhilipG]

Here's a photo from May 1994.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1331/604737006_2a13cf75ba_o.jpg

[chippie]

Went in there last year Phil and a few photos were taken, when I find them I will put one of them up, photos, I mean.:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

[jon_hall]

A waste of another fine Liverpool pub, but in the state it was in there was no doubt it had to go.

Nice to see the council finally realising it has to try and save properties, afetr the wanton destruction of the massive houses in Toxteth.

[woody]

New planning application submitted today, 3 July 07.....

Ref: 07F / 1978
To erect mixed use development comprising, retail, commercial and 418 apartments with car park.:handclap:

[Kev]

Cheers for the update Woody :PDT11 Happy days..... :)

[woody]

Cheers for the update Woody :PDT11 Happy days..... :)

Happy days indeed Kev, they have reduced the number of apartments from 512 down to 418 , but this scheme could still give the city its first 50 storey tower ! :eek:

[Paul D]

Happy days indeed Kev, they have reduced the number of apartments from 512 down to 418 , but this scheme could still give the city its first 50 storey tower ! :eek:

:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

[Kev]

I can't think of a more appropriate site for a scheme of this size, with Princes Dock a stones throw away :PDT_Aliboronz_24:

[Sloyne]

I can't think of a more appropriate site for a scheme of this size, with Princes Dock a stones throw away :PDT_Aliboronz_24: Looking at the towers in close proximity to this site one can expect two very tall structures on the site. I believe Beetham Wast have 168 apartments and that is a 40 story building. KE are calling for a 412 apartment building('s). Do the math.

[woody]

These are OLD renders ,but may indicate what we can expect.........

hthttp://img409.imageshack.us/img409/9843/kingedwardtower3tr1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)tp://

htthttp://img409.imageshack.us/img409/9464/kingedwardtower4pb4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)p://

[Harry]

I believe the accepted definition of a skyscraper is a building 50 floors high or taller. Lets hope this is Liverpool's first skyscraper.

[snappel]

Who gives a sh1t about terminology, let's just build the **** things...

[shytalk]

Skyscraper, 5 results on Dictionary.com. None mention how many stories.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skyscraper

Get them built so Snappel has something to climb.:handclap:

[snappel]

I read this definition:


multi-storied building constructed on steel skeleton, combining extraordinary height with ordinary rooms such as would be found in low buildings, the term originated in the United States in the later 1880s after buildings in New York reached ten stories

I think 'Harry' is just being a pedant.

[PhilipG]

In case anybody doesn't know, the Royal Liver Building was the tallest office building in Europe until after the Second World War.
It's a pity Liverpool's planners aren't as forward thinking now, as they were 100 years ago.
And the definition of a skyscraper is about the same as the definition of a length of a piece of string.
I've seen a postcard of Manhattan's skyline in about 1907 which mentions skyscrapers.

[woody]

Many thanks to Gothic at Skyscrapernews, this image was released just past midnight, 54 storeys ..........170M high.......

htthttp://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3882/1005liverpoolsfuturetalla8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)p://

[AK1]

OMG!!!!:PDT_Piratz_26::PDT_Piratz_26:
Please let this get the go ahead, please:PDT_Xtremez_42:

[kat2]

A Beautiful piece of architecture

the sort of thing the council has talked about in its layered or tier approach.
its certainly iconic.
Kat

[Jimmy78]

WOW :PDT_Piratz_26:

[Paul D]

This is exactly what we want,this is a stunner.:handclap:

[Kev]

:PDT11 I'd buy that for a dollar!

Wonderful, lets hope it gets built!

[RoddersUK]

I agree it's very impressive. About time too.:)

My only criticism is that it's yet another bloody bar code facade.

[Paul D]

The 14th floor features a massive skybar and restaurant spread over almost 600 square metres that will be accessed by an exclusive express lift and offer 360 degree views of the whole of Liverpool from within.:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

[Kev]

A SPECTACULAR £130m skyscraper planned for Liverpool’s waterfront will contain the highest living space in the UK. Read (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2007/07/12/city-set-for-uk-s-highest-homes-64375-19442500/)

[Max]

Tell me how tall It will be Kev.:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

[PhilipG]

Tell me how tall It will be Kev.:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

170 m.
At a rough guess about 550 feet.

It certainly looks stunning.
It has to be said that Beetham West and Unity have a rather dated look.

[kat2]

If plans get the go ahead, the tower will stand 170m (558ft) and 54 storeys tall by the Princes Dock development
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43994000/jpg/_43994837_tower300.jpg
The tower has been designed by architects Leach Rhodes Walker (LRW), who say they have taken into account Liverpool's World Heritage status
More here at :-http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6895610.stm
Kat

[PhilipG]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1426/818740142_29487332ab_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1134/818740568_6e92d56002_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1017/818740920_cfd6cc000d_o.jpg

[MarkA]

I took this from the Costco car park today as I liked the Liver building peeking over the horizon. The King Edward Tower will take that view away but will look awesome in its place.

http://s82.photobucket.com/albums/j248/itsmma/?action=view&current=DSCF1018.jpg

[Paul D]

Liverpools King Edward Tower Gets Funding
Published on 2008-01-09 by Skyscrapernews.com

Scotching claims that a global credit crunch could affect Liverpool's future tallest building, the King Edward Tower, has taken a crucial step forwards in being realised.

The joint developers of the skyscraper, Y1 Developments Ltd and Richmont Properties, have secured the funding they will need to construct the £130 million project although they are still saying schtum on the actual source of the funding for now.

Designed by architects Leach Rhodes Walker, it has been a long time in genesis with over two years of consultations having taken place plus numerous design changes taking into account the views of the council and local stakeholders to reach the stage it has now of the planning application having been validated by the local council.

If built it will be 170 metres tall with 54 storeys. Inside will be 412 apartments plus office and retail space and plenty of basement level parking. For visitors the highlight will be a huge 600 square metre restaurant and skybar taking up the whole of the 14th that will be accessed by an exclusive express elevator that will whizz them straight there.

The planning committee of Liverpool City Council are expected to rule on approval of the scheme in the first quarter of 2008 with building works scheduled to begin in the autumn of this year should they be successful.

[AK1]

Anyone know what date the decision on this tower is going to be made. I know it's sometime this month, fingers crossed:PDT_Xtremez_42:

[the pool08]

think its been move back to may

[Kev]

Government adviser slams plans for Liverpool super skyscraper

Mar 24 2008: Liverpool Daily Pos

THE Government’s key adviser on building design has condemned plans for Britain's tallest residential skyscraper near Liverpool’s waterfront.

A letter to the city council from architecture commission Cabe, obtained by the Daily Post, reveals the body’s criticism of proposals for the 54-storey King Edward Tower near Princes Dock, which could receive planning permission this month.

The letter condemns the “confused architectural expression” and “low ambitions for sustainability” it says the plans show, and concludes it does not support the proposal.

But the architects behind the development, LRW, have hit back, claiming Cabe has only taken a “snap shot view” of the scheme, which does not truly reflect its merits.

They added the final proposals were the result of a detailed consultation process with many official bodies within the city.

The letter from Cabe, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, says: “We agree with the principle of locating a tall building on this site, however our previous advice raised concerns regarding the precise height, form and architectural references of the pre application scheme.

“It is disappointing that the formal proposals have failed to respond to any of our previous comments.

“The amended scheme fails in our eyes to address the core failings of the original design, namely the unsatisfactory plan form, the unsuccessful relationship between the lower block and the tower, the confused architectural expression, the low ambitions for sustainability and the low quality public realm.

“The proposal does not meet Cabe and English Heritage’s guidance on tall buildings and should be refused planning permission.”

It adds there is a “relatively small amount of public space”, and describes the plan to build a tower and podium as an “uncomfortable amalgam”.

It also questions the structure’s place within the cityscape and concludes: “In summary, we do not support the proposal.

“It is disappointing that the pre- application consultation has not resulted in alterations that could have led to a contribution to the Liverpool skyline that responds more fully to the historic development and urban grain of the city.”

The £130m scheme by Y1 Developers and Richmont Properties on the King Edward pub site will comprise 412 apartments, 25,000 sq ft of commercial office space and a combination of 7,500 sq ft retail and leisure space, if given the go ahead.

A spokesman for LRW Architects said yesterday defended the development: “We are concerned that the Cabe response is effectively a snapshot view of the submitted designs given the limited time they have had to review these proposals and the limited time given to the associated presentation of said information.

“The project has been in detail design/development discussions for over two years with Liverpool City Council, Liverpool Vision, English Heritage and more recently LUDCAP. It is as a result of this detailed consultation process that the current designs were submitted for full planning consideration.

“LRW Architects feel that the current submitted design proposals, if approved by the council’s planning committee, will not only enhance this site’s immediate location and the wider setting, but will also act as a catalyst for the wider regeneration aspirations of the city of Liverpool.”

On the issue of sustainability the spokesman said minimum building regulations requirements will be exceeded and added the overall resulting sustainability could still be discussed with the council. The apartments on the 54th floor of the development would become the highest living spaces in the UK.

[SteH]

typical CABE doing everything they can to obstruct progress in Liverpool.

[Waterways]

If it is distinctive, high, stands out and not in London they scream that it should be a 10 floor stump. If this was in London they would have said add more floors.

The city needs population density. This block will house about 900 people right in the centre on the waterfront too. If this is turned down then another blow to the city. The city will not recover from this combined with the Brunswick Tower rejection. Large developers will pull out altogether seeing the city as no-go area. That will then be a major body blow to the city it may not recover from.

[Waterways]

Look OK to me. Get it built an get rid of that urban motorway between it and the Princes Dock.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/5264KingEdwardTower_pic1.jpg

[AK1]

If it is distinctive, high, stands out and not in London they scream that it should be a 10 floor stump. If this was in London they would have said add more floors.

The city needs population density. This block will house about 900 people right in the centre on the waterfront too. If this is turned down then another blow to the city. The city will not recover from this combined with the Brunswick Tower rejection. Large developers will pull out altogether seeing the city as no-go area. That will then be a major body blow to the city it may not recover from.

Couldn't agree more. I'm sick of cabe slating everthing that is planned in Liverpool. The Beetham tower in Manchester is nowhere near as impressive as this, yet cabe backed it!
I just hope that the council have the boldness and confidence to give planning permission. If they don't, this could be the final nail in the coffin for large scale investment in Liverpool. Fingers crossed:PDT_Xtremez_42:

[Waterways]

Couldn't agree more. I'm sick of cabe slating everthing that is planned in Liverpool. The Beetham tower in Manchester is nowhere near as impressive as this, yet cabe backed it!
I just hope that the council have the boldness and confidence to give planning permission. If they don't, this could be the final nail in the coffin for large scale investment in Liverpool. Fingers crossed:PDT_Xtremez_42:

CABE actually backed the Brunswick Quay Tower, unfortunately the idiots at the Council rejected it. Time to vote them out in May. We need dynamic people with vision. People who want to put this city back to where it was.

Will Peel go ahead with the Shanghai Tower after all this? They want to built in the middle Princes half-Tide Dock the UKs tallest building outside London - trying for the tallest would be have Whitehall call it in and reject it. London has to be the biggest.

[kenotoole123@msn.com]

'Peel' are also going to appeal against the 'King Edward Tower'...saying it will detract from their planned 'Shanghai Tower'....Maybe this will have a bearing too!!:disgust:

[Waterways]

'Peel' are also going to appeal against the 'King Edward Tower'...saying it will detract from their planned 'Shanghai Tower'....Maybe this will have a bearing too!!:disgust:

They are fools to do so, as It stinks of jealously. King Eddies will enhance the Shanghai and vice versa. Peels' objections will be ignore - I hope.

If they are not it will indicate that Peel have the city in their palms.

I was recently banned from posting to the Liverpool Echo forum for daring to mention that Peel were wanting to fill in historic West Waterloo dock as a means of gaining land by stealth. I emailed the echo webmaster and was ignored - no response. The forum is not used much anyhow, but that is not the point.

Anyone who dares to criticise Peel gets slammed down. This is not good for the city, to have one private company owning the commercial docks in Liverpool and Birkenhead and also the airport. And they they become a big property developer too.

If King Eddies gets rejected all other big developers will not even look at the city. They will spend a fortune and the time, on proposals that will be rejected. Then we will only have Peel - what Peel want.

[SteH]

'Peel' are also going to appeal against the 'King Edward Tower'...saying it will detract from their planned 'Shanghai Tower'....Maybe this will have a bearing too!!:disgust:


That would be farcical, Peel havent even submitted a planning application how can they appeal against something when their own plans are still only at the drawing stage.

[Waterways]

That would be farcical, Peel havent even submitted a planning application how can they appeal against something when their own plans are still only at the drawing stage.

There intention with the Liverpool Waters publicity may be enough. Nevertheless it is silly to do so and the Council should dismiss their protests.

[RoddersUK]

Its not looking good for the King Edward Tower.
Cabe is really not happy with it.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3110299

[jay2410]

wouldn't worry about cabe, this will be built and then i'll hang my hat on it!

[Max]

Doesn't matter how tall It Is, but they are approving too many souless looking modern buildings In Liverpool latley and this Is one of them.

[the pool08]

Doesn't matter how tall It Is, but they are approving too many souless looking modern buildings In Liverpool latley and this Is one of them.


modern..
yes..all new buildings are modern

souless.. no way

[petromax]

Its not looking good for the King Edward Tower.
Cabe is really not happy with it.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3110299


Whatever the merits or otherwise of the design, I think it's a real pity that Martin Wright (Liverpool Vision) should describe it as 'ok for Liverpool'. Obviously this doesn't reflect well on the city's architectural aspirations - 'commercially appropriate' might have been more positive whilst still being realistic.

Personally I think the design is hopelessly mundane. A bit of Tower 42 (Natwest Tower, nonedescript 70s commercial) wrapped in a bit of barcoding (moribund noughties non-event). It must have taken all morning to do.

[jay2410]

When does this go before the planners? Is it today?

[Waterways]

modern..
yes..all new buildings are modern

souless.. no way

I agree. This is no bland glass block.

[petromax]

I agree. This is no bland glass block.

In so far as a lame and borrowed idea is not bland then ok it's not bland but I wouldn't be the only one to have my judgement questioned. Certainly Martin Wright doesn't seem to be tha valued as a credible critic:

Liverpool ‘not as good as Dubai’ remark sparks row
11 April 2008

By Rory Olcayto

Architects and planners have slammed as “ignorant” comments made by urban regeneration company Liverpool Vision suggesting that the city council should accept architecture below the standard of that found in Dubai.


“It’s a problem if [Martin Wright] doesn’t realise Dubai is hell on Earth”
Patrick Lynch

Commenting in last week’s BD on Cabe’s criticism of a tower scheme, development director Martin Wright, called the watchdog “naïve”, adding: “It [the tower] is not of the quality you’d find in Dubai, but what is proposed is not out of place in Liverpool.”

But leading figures have lined up to criticise this response, claiming that Liverpool should actually aim far above the standards found in the United Arab Emirates.

Patrick Lynch, a graduate of Liverpool University’s School of Architecture, the focus of an exhibition that opened last week, said he was worried by the comments.

“It’s a problem if Liverpool Vision’s director of development doesn’t realise Dubai is hell on Earth,” he said. “It’s just ignorance. How is that man in that job if he thinks that? The quality in Dubai is palpably not of a high standard.”

Lynch was backed by Bill Maynard, director of Urban Splash’s Liverpool office, who agreed that using Dubai as a benchmark was misguided.

“Dubai is a sprawling mess of hotchpotch architecture — we shouldn’t compare ourselves to it,” he said. “We should be comparing ourselves to Manhattan or Paris.”

Maynard added that while the baseline quality of new build in the city was improving, most developments were “average to mediocre”.

A Liverpool Vision spokesman said: “Liverpool Vision has consistently championed good quality design and has established a good reputation as an honest and proactive arbiter between private sector investors and the city council planning department. This relationship has resulted in may high quality buildings being delivered in Liverpool city centre..."

[Broliv]

What we need is Iconic. Something that will be instantly recognisable and beautiful, not iconic because it is crap (cloud springs to mind). Betham tower may be a new so called 'soulless' building. But its different, its new i think it looks stunning. Same with the unity building.

Maynard, Lynch, cabe and everyone else hit the nail on the head.
“average to mediocre”. Although it is a step in the right direction, the Edwards tower could be a lot better. For the largest residential building in the uk it is unimaginative and i think cabe are right to say “confused architectural expression”. This shouldn't just be a Building for Liverpool, or even Britian. It should be a building that is recognisable across the world. It should be the standard to set the bench mark at. Not a half arsed clash of two very different architectural styles which we have two exceptional examples of in the Anglican and Catholic Cathedrals.

[Waterways]

Not a half arsed clash of two very different architectural styles which we have two exceptional examples of in the Anglican and Catholic Cathedrals.

The two cathedrals are not clashes of two very different architectural styles. The Anglican is pure modern Gothic, the Metropolitan is pure authentic modern - totally unique, iconic and original. No city in the world has two cathedrals like them with totally conflicting styles.

[Broliv]

The two cathedrals are not clashes of two very different architectural styles. The Anglican is pure modern Gothic, the Metropolitan is pure authentic modern - totally unique, iconic and original. No city in the world has two cathedrals like them with totally conflicting styles.


The King Edward tower was the clash i was referring to with its design being based upon both cathedrals. I totally and wholeheartedly agree that our two cathedrals totally unique, iconic and original. That was my point entirely.

[petromax]

The King Edward tower was the clash i was referring to with its design being based upon both cathedrals. I totally and wholeheartedly agree that our two cathedrals totally unique, iconic and original. That was my point entirely.

I agree the scheme clashes with itself.

Personally I wouldn't have referenced the cathedrals (although now you mention it, I can see the form of the top is reminiscent of the Anglican Cathedral tower.

I think it looks like the Natwest Tower in a leopard skin kimono. A combination of the one which is itself a half-baked copy of Yamasaki's World Trade Center, the other a bit of meaningless (and rapidly going out of vogue) bar coding.

Unique? Maybe; in it's awfulness
Iconic? If it represents something, I don't know what it is
Original? See above

Rubbish? Oh yes.

[petromax]

iconic (adjective)

representative or characteristic of somebody or something admired as an icon

[Broliv]

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=1005



Architecturally the main feature of the building is the distinct spiral effect employed by the architects with a series of layered curves revealing different surfaces that celebrates the ecclesiastical grandeur of Liverpool. The brown stone is inspired by the Anglican Cathedral whilst the cornices and vertical lines on the curving glass take their cues from the Catholic Cathedral.

[petromax]

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=1005

The brown stone is or should be a reddy/ black sandstone from an outcrop of Wilmslow Sandstone which has been quarried in Liverpool and used in many Liverpool buildings for more than a century. Whilst it is by no means unique to the Anglican Cathedral, I suggest the ecclesiastical reference to permanence and permanent materials is inappropriate in the dynamic and changing context of the city's business district. Also the sweeping form and the 'random' fenestration suggests movement and change - another contradiction with the chosen material.

I don't know who wrote this piece in skyscraper news but I don't see any reference in the KE tower to the Metropolitan Cathedral (which is in any event a rather 'pragmatic' version of the much better original in Brasilia by Oscar Neimeyer). The tower is much closer to the verticality of the WTC - see above post. This was largely derived from the multiple mullion cladding in the 'skin and core' ie relatively column-free construction (it was also used for the vertical cleaning system). How are they similar?

[Broliv]

The spires and lines of the Metropolitan Cathedral i believe is refered to more, not so much the curves.

Still if we're getting confused over its style, just goes to show how confusing the building is.

[petromax]

The spires and lines of the Metropolitan Cathedral i believe is refered to more, not so much the curves.

Still if we're getting confused over its style, just goes to show how confusing the building is.


Yes, it is very confused. A poor design.

I tried to upload a jpeg of Tower 42 but it still doesn't work. Can anyone help?

[Waterways]

Yes, it is very confused. A poor design.

I tried to upload a jpeg of Tower 42 but it still doesn't work. Can anyone help?

Go to: http://www.tinypic.com. Upload it to there. Save the URL. Then use the image button on the editor on this forum and paste the tinypic URL into that.

[AK1]

The architects did say a couple of weeks ago that there is still time for them to make any changes to the design that the council/cabe may want. I think if they can make the two different styles of the building merge and flow better and use better quality materials, then it would be less confused whilst still unique.

I personally like the current design

[petromax]

Go to: http://www.tinypic.com. Upload it to there. Save the URL. Then use the image button on the editor on this forum and paste the tinypic URL into that.http://i28.tinypic.com/30m7sjq.jpg

[petromax]

and a bit of the WTC cladding

http://i26.tinypic.com/21b0kxz.jpg

[petromax]

The architects did say a couple of weeks ago that there is still time for them to make any changes to the design that the council/cabe may want. I think if they can make the two different styles of the building merge and flow better and use better quality materials, then it would be less confused whilst still unique.

I personally like the current design

I think they needed to know what they were doing, not be so confused, rather than just be pushed from pillar to post by whomever.

[petromax]

As I say, it must have taken all morning:

http://i30.tinypic.com/ztbwg6.jpg

[Waterways]

http://i28.tinypic.com/30m7sjq.jpg

Is that the NatWest Tower?

[Waterways]

Some the buildings in Dubai are literally stunning. Although the city should aim above Dubai.

[petromax]

Is that the NatWest Tower?

It used to be. Now it's called Tower 42

[petromax]

Some the buildings in Dubai are literally stunning. Although the city should aim above Dubai.

But most are soulless. I like big, bold buildings but the better ones in Dubai are still in the design stages and tend to be smaller scale. The Burj could be great but the real problem is at ground level. There is no city on the street - just highways in the endless desert. As someone said 'a living hell' of a place

[Waterways]

But most are soulless. I like big, bold buildings but the better ones in Dubai are still in the design stages and tend to be smaller scale. The Burj could be great but the real problem is at ground level. There is no city on the street - just highways in the endless desert. As someone said 'a living hell' of a place

You are mixing two things up. The streetscape and the buildings. One stunning sight was when approaching Miami at night. All the tall buildings were lit up. During the the day it was awful at street level.

Tall buildings does not mean poor soulless streets below.

[petromax]

You are mixing two things up. The streetscape and the buildings. One stunning sight was when approaching Miami at night. All the tall buildings were lit up. During the the day it was awful at street level.

Tall buildings does not mean poor soulless streets below.

You say that Tall buildings do not mean soulless streets having just given a good example of how it can go wrong. If all a city had to do was look stunning then you might accept it actually being awful. Somehow I doubt it.

I am not mixing anything up. I will tell you why I think not: It's all one thing. It's called a city. Dubai is not a city - it is a collection of isolated buildings, standing in the desert, connected by hostile roadways without rhyme or reason. There is no cohesion and no sense of place, something Liverpool has in spades

Is it possible for you offer an objective and reasoned alternate view?

[Waterways]

You say that Tall buildings do not mean soulless streets having just given a good example of how it can go wrong.


An e.g. of how not to do it.



Dubai is not a city - it is a collection of isolated buildings, standing in the desert, connected by hostile roadways without rhyme or reason.


Yes, another example of how not to do it. While Paris, London and New York are examples of how not to do it.



Is it possible for you offer an objective and reasoned alternate view?

I just gave to one with examples of how not to and to do it. Just not what you wanted or how you perceived matters. :)

[Broliv]

I'm a bit confused. Any chance you could give a good example of how decent tall buildings fit into a decent street scape? You probably have mentioned it but i'm being a bit thick today

[petromax]

I'm a bit confused. Any chance you could give a good example of how decent tall buildings fit into a decent street scape? You probably have mentioned it but i'm being a bit thick today

Me too. Perhaps if Waterways could focus on the message and not the messenger, we would understand better.

[Waterways]

Me too. Perhaps if Waterways could focus on the message and not the messenger, we would understand better.

Where is this focusing on the messenger? E.g's of tall buildings with good streetscapes were given..

[petromax]

Where is this focusing on the messenger? E.g's of tall buildings with good streetscapes were given..

You said: "Yes, another example of how not to do it. While Paris, London and New York are examples of how not to do it."

Do you mean the ones that are examples of how not to do it or do you mean the ones that are examples of how not to do it?

[Waterways]

You said: "Yes, another example of how not to do it. While Paris, London and New York are examples of how not to do it."


should be "how to do it".

[skgogosfan]

Anybody know when this is likely to be considered by the planning committee?

Dave.

[PhilipG]

and a bit of the WTC cladding

http://i26.tinypic.com/21b0kxz.jpg

Why choose this photo to illustrate the cladding of the World Trade Towers?
I didn't expect it and it brought memories of that Tuesday flooding back to me.

[lindylou]

Why choose this photo to illustrate the cladding of the World Trade Towers?
I didn't expect it and it brought memories of that Tuesday flooding back to me.

OMG ! isn't there any other picture of the cladding :eek:

That ones a bit macabre !

[vinnyq08]

hi people
does anyone now it the king edwards tower has got the go ahead yet?
or has it been cancelled? if anyone has any info i would be most grateful

thanks:PDT11

[Waterways]

Not yet, as it doesn't have planning permission. The developers say they have all funding in place - well they always say that. If it is in place the credit crunch has no impact on it. If not fully in place they may find it difficult getting the money to build.

As this building would come on-line in around 4 years the economy would have picked up from, we hope, this temporary blip.

[vinnyq08]

thanks for the info waterways :thumbsup:
do you no when a decision will be made on wether it will get the planning permission ? i hope it does i think it wuld be good for the city and it may draw in new investors:D

[Waterways]

Planning permission may take a time as this is a large building that came under a lot of constructive criticism.

Go to, downloads and "residential move file". A small vid of the tower.
Enter LRW (http://www.lrw.co.uk/)

Peel are proposing the Shanghai Tower in the middle of Prices half-Tide Dock right "in front" of King Edwards. They may have to find a better dock to put it in.

[Kev]

DEVELOPERS plan to flood Liverpool?s ailing city centre property market with more than 700 new apartments.

Last night, parties behind two ambitious waterfront projects said they were close to resolving outstanding financial issues and were expecting to proceed.

more (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2009/01/20/we-ll-still-build-700-waterfront-homes-64375-22731360/)

[Waterways]

DEVELOPERS plan to flood Liverpool?s ailing city centre property market with more than 700 new apartments.


Liverpool is such a negative city when it comes to advancement. Anywhere else they would be delighted that two new developments are being built for the future and to enhance their city. New developments are "flooding" the city instead of creating accommodation and advancing.

Liverpool has a poor reputation elsewhere as an argumentative go nowhere city where little gets done.

...and two large developments in a recession too. It is clear the writer of the article doesn't want new top class developments.

[fortinian]

Ironic really when you consider that Liverpool was made into a great city because it was unafraid to experiment, modernise and advance.

[Waterways]

Ironic really when you consider that Liverpool was made into a great city because it was unafraid to experiment, modernise and advance.

Correct. The number of firsts in the city is phenomenal. The world's first


Steel framed glass curtain walled building
Air conditioned building
Passenger railway
Commercial enclosed dock
Electric elevated railway
Large scale ferro concrete building
Iron framed buildings (churches)
Interconnected enclosed dock system
First radio broadcasts
etc

[Waterways]

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh300/PiercyDaniel/kingedward.jpg

Source: Piercy Daniel

[Harry]

Looks great.
Lets hope the city is "flooded" with many more of these, hopefully on top of all of the ugly old red-brick monstrosoties that make our city look like ww2 ended yesterday.

[Kev]

don't forget to aknowledge the source WW :PDT_Piratz_26:

[stan howard]

a person on somewhere on this site was looking for information on st edwards orpanage liverpool, i will try to enclose this old photo c1910 - 1920

[pablo42]

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh300/PiercyDaniel/kingedward.jpg

Source: Piercy Daniel

Wow! Why not.