The head of Liverpool's new economic development company has admitted the recent boom in skyscrapers across the city is over.

Speaking to the Liverpool Daily Post, Jim Gill warned that the threat of a recession is frightening off developers from pressing on with high rise schemes in the Capital of Culture host city.

He told the paper: 'In the current economic climate, I would be very surprised if any new tower actually got under way in the sort of timetables we have seen over the past few years.

'It's not like building a traditional housing estate where the house builder can move development forward in blocks of three, four or five houses.'

Gill has recently become chief of the all new Liverpool Vision superquango made up of the city's three main development and business organisations Business Liverpool, the Liverpool Land Development Company and the exisitng Liverpool Vision.

His comments have been generally supported by city's main business players. Frank Mckenna ,of commercial lobby group Downtown Liverpool in Business, said: 'Gill is very knowledgeable about development and regeneration and I do not necessarily disagree with him.

'But we have got to be careful though and not throw the baby out with the bathwater – we could be in danger of talking ourselves into a recession.'

He added, however, that architects in the city were as busy as ever before but 'may be doing other things' than high rise developments.

source (http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/dailynews/2008/01/liverpool_skyscraper_boom_over.html)

What is the point in Gill saying this? Doesn't that statement just make his job harder?

The head of Liverpool's new economic development company has admitted the recent boom in skyscrapers across the city is over.

Speaking to the Liverpool Daily Post, Jim Gill warned that the threat of a recession is frightening off developers from pressing on with high rise schemes in the Capital of Culture host city.

He told the paper: 'In the current economic climate, I would be very surprised if any new tower actually got under way in the sort of timetables we have seen over the past few years.


What also frightens them off is the fiasco of the iconic Brunswick Quay Tower rejection. Brunswick Quay Tower Rejection (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/BrunswickQuays.html) A total of one billion in investment that dragged on and on for years and the company lost a fortune and lots of time too making very serious world-class proposal. What city would turn down that sort of project?

Others see that and don't even consider the city. They want to go to a dynamic go-ahead place to invest their money. They want to have excellent co-operation and prior advice from the city, then get planning permission quickly, then get the place built ASAP to get a return, together with public investment on infrastructure, particularly rapid transport.

The LibDems were responsible for that rejection, in a city which was starved of investment for 30 years - you get as much as you can while you can as it never lasts. Beggars can't be choosers. What were they doing? What was in their tiny minds? They must be voted out for a more dynamic council - instead of the in-fighting shambles we have had for years and years.

I don't by any means think it's over, but I do think it is slowing down. Lets not forget that we still have the king edward tower, plot 3a princes dock and shanghai tower to come plus the central docks plan by peel in the distant future.
I do think that the council are now more willing to approve high rise schemes since the brunswick tower incident. They have since abandoned their tall building policy which only allowed tall buildings in certain areas.

. They have since abandoned their tall building policy which only allowed tall buildings in certain areas.

But they have replaced it with a policy that demands a set number of parking spaces per each residential unit, a more devious and sunning way of limiting their number.

Insufficient parking has always been a reason for them to reject an application whatever the size or type of the building.

Insufficient parking has always been a reason for them to reject an application whatever the size or type of the building.

If there is a rapid transport rail station adjacent then parking is non-issue. The sooner the disused tunnels, lines and stations are brought back into use the better.

I think that should be "world crass" not "world class". I really cannot see the point in making your city look just like every other city. It is Liverpool's uniqueness (and that of its people) that has given it its strength. If all you want is tower blocks then Hong Kong does it so much better, and India or Brazil is cheaper.

John

I think that should be "world crass" not "world class". I really cannot see the point in making your city look just like every other city. It is Liverpool's uniqueness (and that of its people) that has given it its strength. If all you want is tower blocks then Hong Kong does it so much better, and India or Brazil is cheaper.

John

The Brunswick Quay Tower was an iconic building not an oblong glass block. Look at the link I gave - and Liverpool being the home of the modern building,.

Every city and region thinks its people are unique - so a non-issue. What is unique about Liverpool? In looks it is its variety of very differing buildings. What created that, was that those many years ago just built what they thought was apt at the time.

Liverpool was famous for its innovation in building. The world's first air-conditioned building - St. George's Hall. The world's first steel framed glass curtain walled building - Oriel Chambers. The world's first large scale ferro-concrete building - the Liver Blgs. St. George's Solar school in Wallasey. Advanced Dock/warehouse buildings - Albert for e.g. The world's largest interconnected docks system.

Now we have a bunch of people who think Liverpool should stay still and become a dead city like Venice.

I don't think Venisia is a dead city at all.. It is fabulous and unique and breathtaking to say the least.. and that is what the World would like to see ..

I think, (personally speaking) , Liverpool is getting too modern and agree with danesis on this.. It is the Old worldly historic buildings that tourist and such come to see.. If they all are demolished for Modernism , then why would anyone want to come there?? People are drawn to Europe for the cobblestones and architecture of the forefathers.. NOT for glass, that you can see most anywhere.. Go to Dubai if you want MODERN.. my opinion...

I read an article on Venice somewhere, in that its population quadruples or something like that every day and by 7pm nearly all the tourists have left and nothing happens its a dead town. Venice will always attract tourists, but it will stay stagnant due to its canal based situation.

Liverpool neednt be like that and lets face it most visitors come initially due to the Beatles and football, not because of historical buildings. Liverpool city council an others sometimes seem hell bent on restricting progress and putting whatever obstacles in the way they can. There seems an obsession at times with protecting the world heritage site which spans quite an area, yet the council were prepared to allow a 30 storey tower to go up at Concourse House, within a few hundred feet of St Georges Hall.

Liverpool is getting too modern

If everyone had this attitude then we would still be living in caves or mud huts. The great building that Waterways just mentioned were all considered modern in their day. You cant turn the whole city into one big museum. What Liverpool need are new building of quality design but theses are very few and far between.

A valid opinion maybe. How about looking at the people who actually live and try to work in Liverpool, not just the people who like to come and have a look and then go back to where they come from, saying oh wasn't nice to see some history.

Those people would quiet happily turn Liverpool into a giant museum or at the very best keep the status quo. After all you can't deny some people have an allergic reaction to change and the future.

I would like to think, I represent the views of the majority of young professionals working in the city who want to see the city grow, want some interesting tall, eye catching buildings, that display prosperity and forward thinking to those looking to invest, and more importantly provide modern grade a office space for business, which you will find is costly and very hard to produce in older buildings. There is a lot of space towards the north end of the business district that lies derelict, and if developed would not affect the world heritage part of the water front, so what’s the harm in building scrapers there or at Brunswick for that mater, you could block them out with your hand looking from Birkenhead!

My opinion is that Liverpool lags some way behind in business and jobs compared to other not to distant cities, and if someone wants to point money and ideas and infrastructure into the city then let them, going back to the article, "beggars can’t be choosers".

I agree with having the best of both worlds - like posters are saying - we have to move on and grow. I am all for that.

However, I do see what Nakedlilac is saying too .. ie, the beautiful old architecture of Europe - who would want to see that swept away and replaced by glass :eek:
For instance, I don't go to Sevilla or Granada to look at concrete and glass - I go to experience the beauty and history of Al Andaluz - and of course the same would apply to any old European city.

Just because you want to see and enjoy the old, doesn't mean you don't want the place to progress.

Liverpool can have both new and old.

Liverpool has to preserve what it has

Far too many excellent old buildings are still being demolished or left to rot. This has to stop immediately. Introduction of Land Value Tax will stop it, as it did in Pittsburg in the USA


Liverpool needs new buildings blending in with the old.

New buildings can blend in with the old. For e.g., extending the Georgian quarter with only modern Georgian buildings - developers would line up to do that, as they know they would sell. Georgian buildings never went away, they have always been built to that style right up to this day. The worlds first stock-standard house. Style books were made and you just copied them. Many were built in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and North America.

This new development in Aylesbury, by volume house builder Bryant blends in well. although slabbed pavements would have been better :( Some new developments have cobbled streets too.
http://www.bryant.co.uk/main/cms/includes/asp/CMFileGetFile.asp?fi=35186


Liverpool needs new modern state-of-the-art buildings

There is lots of spare land that can be used for state-of-the-art modern buildings. Venice is a dead city - it is not active in the commercial sense and has stayed static. De Gaulle feared Paris may end up the same way and reserved land west of Paris at La Defense. No architectural or height restrictions, do what you want. It is the financial district of Paris with lots of residential flats too. It worked. London copied it in the Docklands.

The old dock waterways had old transit sheds, of which most are demolished. The warehouses can be converted to flats, not the sheds. These areas can be made vibrant by building new overhanging buildings as at Hamburg, or direct copies of the Albert Dock if need be. Below Hamburg:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/Hamburg-2.jpg

Liverpool needed this iconic building at Brunswick Dock as well. The city foolishly rejected it. It would have been built by now attracting attention from all over the world.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/BrunswickQuays-3.jpg


.

"developers would line up to do that" Really? What is stopping them from doing just that?
They are only interested in profit and building to the size and proportion of those Georgian buildings wont make them the same (if any) profit as the Aylesbury example, which in my opinion is terrible and does not blend in with anything apart than other boring pastiche building that are slowly swamping this country.
Liverpool can continue to grow and preserve is rich heritage but not if it believes the "beggars can’t be choosers" line. The money is at long last being spent in the city but it needs to be spent on the right quality building and not building that will become the noughtys equivalent of the 60's tower blocks.

"developers would line up to do that" Really? What is stopping them from doing just that?


Rodders, maybe the poor transport infrastructure? I think so. I an underground station was cut into the Wapping tunnel in the Georgian quarter, they would flock in. They need to see the city buying into matters too. Lay down the rapid rail transport infrastructure and they will come in.

Are the developers going to spend extending the Georgian houses up to Lodge Lane and Edge Hill? Not when they see nothing being done to change those areas.


They are only interested in profit and building to the size and proportion of those Georgian buildings wont make them the same (if any) profit as the Aylesbury example, which in my opinion is terrible and does not blend in with anything apart than other boring pastiche building that are slowly swamping this country.
Liverpool can continue to grow and preserve is rich heritage but not if it believes the "beggars can’t be choosers" line. The money is at long last being spent in the city but it needs to be spent on the right quality building and not building that will become the noughtys equivalent of the 60's tower blocks.

Rodders, as those large Georgian homes around Canning St are fetching premium prices I think many would like to extend them and make them just the same. Smaller Georgian houses can be built to blend in - or even larger being apartments.

The Aylesbury example is a lot better than the tat that some dish up. The front doors are on the pavements and the new homes do match to some degree some of the older homes around. I have seen some of them. Others had railings in front, really looking good. The point is that new buildings can be built to blend in with the existing older homes.

I would not call Brunswick Quay a 60s tower block at all. An world-class iconic building designed by the architect who came second in the World Trade Centre replacement in NY. It would totally act as a catalyst for the south end of the dock waters, attracting top-class investment. It could have been there by now. I firmly believe the rejection of this building has had a negative affect of the city. Apart from the Shanghai Tower, no new large top class developments have come forward. If the Shanghai Tower goes through excessive official hassle then the investment money will dry up for certain. Some developers are having cold feet and Central Village and others are now not that certain to go ahead. The dynamic city they saw a few years ago appears to be turning 180 degrees, so better returns elsewhere.

I hope the LibDems get voted out - they are a wash-out. Then the new administration have a word in Maro's ear and say re-submit your tower. Maybe Maro are waiting for a regime change to see what way to go. I wouldn't blame them if they pulled out of Liverpool 100% ands sold up the land they own.

Chris Ives, the director of the developers Maro, said in 2006: "If we had gone to Manchester, Newcastle or Leeds with this building we would probably already be on site." He expands, "Liverpool city council doesn't have any vision - they can't see around corners".

Says it all really.

Not only would the 'Brunswick Dock Building' have been an 'Iconic' Bldg.....How much has the City lost in Rates...The Rates from this building would have paid for Capital of culture year...'Three' times over!:disgust:

Not only would the 'Brunswick Dock Building' have been an 'Iconic' Bldg.....How much has the City lost in Rates...The Rates from this building would have paid for Capital of culture year...'Three' times over!:disgust:

Also the knock on effect of other top class proposals wanting to be around this building. They would bring in revenue and people with money and their business skills too.

It was not my intention to say the Brunswick Quay was a 60's tower block, I agree it would have be a great addition to Liverpool's skyline and a catalyst for further development as will the Shanghai Tower if it goes ahead.

I'm sad to say that appointing a top architect does not always guarantee a top class design though, just look at One Park West.

It is not just Liverpool that is suffering from developers getting cold feet, it's happening the world over at present. And i agree that the council has a lot to answer for.

I dont see your point about a poor transport infrastructure stopping developers from building Georgian houses. They can make a bigger and quicker profit by building shoe box apartments so thats what they will do.

I dont see your point about a poor transport infrastructure stopping developers from building Georgian houses. They can make a bigger and quicker profit by building shoe box apartments so thats what they will do.

Many will take the easy way out. They will not move towards a few dodgy areas if they see nothing been done about them - of course they want to maximise return. If they see activity and progress in the pipeline then they will move in. If it all looks great for the future then they will act. If they see nothing they will keep away.

I agree but when the do start to develop those areas i bet you any money they wont be building new large Georgian town houses.

It was not my intention to say the Brunswick Quay was a 60's tower block,

Some 60s blocks should never have been demolished. We cry about the odd terraced street, but some of these blocks were superb. The three on Shiel Rd were very good looking blocks as were the same designs in the north end: St. Georges, etc. Private developers should have been given the blocks for a £1 and then they would have have made them top class.

I agree but when the do start to develop those areas i bet you any money they wont be building new large Georgian town houses.

If the city says you have to build Georgian houses as that is the district policy, they will. It all comes back to city leadership and policy. They have to know what is important. The underground rail transport infrastructure clearly is one of the big keys to open up investment. It must be done properly not by cutting back and using cheap Mickey Mouse trams

Adlington House too has just recently been developed very successfully.

Adlington House too has just recently been developed very successfully.

Rodders, the odd few have been, but far too many good looking blocks were needlessly demolished - Shiel Rd is a decent area too with a park opposite - private developers would have taken them up. Heysmoor Heights at the end of Lodge Lane is looking great.

The developers will not move any further into Lodge Lane as it looks like a war zone. They need to see something positive happening before they move into such an area - like an underground rapid transport station being constructed. Something permanent.

Rodders, the odd few have been, but far too many good looking blocks were needlessly demolished - Shiel Rd is a decent area too with a park opposite - private developers would have taken them up. Heysmoor Heights at the end of Lodge Lane is looking great.

The developers will not move any further into Lodge Lane as it looks like a war zone. They need to see something positive happening before they move into such an area - like an underground rapid transport station being constructed. Something permanent.

With respect to Sheil Road though, the blocks were demolished and sustainable social housing built in its place, its not as if the land was just landscaped over. Not all ex council blocks can be converted for those who can afford to buy.

With respect to Sheil Road though, the blocks were demolished and sustainable social housing built in its place, its not as if the land was just landscaped over. Not all ex council blocks can be converted for those who can afford to buy.

The existing nice looking blocks were sustainable too. The energy consumption per unit in a block is far less than a house. Also they held more people. Imagine all 3 filled with high earning people. That would improve the area and the local restaurants/pubs/cafes/shops etc. It was very foolish to demolish the 22 floor blocks in the city. Entwistle Heights at the top of Parli' was another that was ripe for a private occupation. A good looking block as well.

Those three block would have sold as they opposite a park. What makes me think why they were demolished was to get the high earning people into the centre.

. Imagine all 3 filled with high earning people. That would improve the area and the local restaurants/pubs/cafes/shops etc. .

Those three block would have sold as they opposite a park. What makes me think why they were demolished was to get the high earning people into the centre.

I agree that desirable accommodation for middle-high income people has to be brought into the deprived areas to generate the demand for sustainable businesses such as cafes and shops, but should this be at the cost of driving out local residents. Those blocks were occupied and run by a local housing trust, who took the decision to demolish them and build houses in their place rather than refurbish them. Maybe a good middle ground would have been to leave one standing but whats done is done now.

I agree that desirable accommodation for middle-high income people has to be brought into the deprived areas to generate the demand for sustainable businesses such as cafes and shops, but should this be at the cost of driving out local residents.

The decision to demolish was totally wrong. They were fine blocks indeed. They were no Piggeries. Local residents can still be accommodated locally.

You don't want working class ghettos, and Liverpool is full of them.

The decision to demolish was totally wrong. They were fine blocks indeed. They were no Piggeries. Local residents can still be accommodated locally.

You don't want working class ghettos, and Liverpool is full of them.

Neither you or I know the exact details of why the decision to do what they did was made, but these blocks must have consisted of at least 300 households, all of which were on assured tenancies. The housing trust had a duty to relocate them and would they have been legally allowed to force them out then sell on the blocks to be done up? If the blocks had loads moving out because they were crapholes and nobody would move into them so they were only 20% occupied maybe they could justify such an action, but I'm sure that wasnt the case.

Whats wrong with the working class anyway, thats an insult to most people! Gutter class or Underclass may have been a better phrase to use if you want to talk about ghettos.

Neither you or I know the exact details of why the decision to do what they did was made, but these blocks must have consisted of at least 300 households,

You sound like you are making excuses or apologising for the needless demolition. It would have been cheaper to give them away than demolish. The council and other agencies could have ensured their survival and housing of the remaining tenants. It isn't rocket science to do that.

You sound like you are making excuses or apologising for the needless demolition. It would have been cheaper to give them away than demolish. The council and other agencies could have ensured their survival and housing of the remaining tenants. It isn't rocket science to do that.

Rehousing such a large number of households in the same area isnt that simple, Sheil Park was quite close knit and a large number of residents had been there since it was built and wanted to stay in that area. CDS took the decision to demolish and rebuild on the site,maybe they couldnt get grants or whatever for new properties if the old ones were simply sold on for refurbishment. Like I said if nobody wanted to live there things may have happened differently but it would have been morally wrong to forcibly break communities up when there was such an active residents involvement there.

Don't forget the heavy and constant criticism of tower blocks almost from when they were built. Nobody could see any use for them and they were being demolised all over the country.

Most people would have needed a crystal ball to see that it was not the design that was the problem. As soon as they passed into private hands - problem solved!!

Don't forget the heavy and constant criticism of tower blocks almost from when they were built. Nobody could see any use for them and they were being demolised all over the country.

Most people would have needed a crystal ball to see that it was not the design that was the problem. As soon as they passed into private hands - problem solved!!

The last Shield Rd block was demolished only a few years back. London blocks had successfully been passed to private hands and renovated for over 20 years and a few Liverpool blocks too. The solution was known.

There was no need to have destroyed these nice buildings - and some of them were very nice.

I personally think the reason was to get the middle classes with money into the centre. Hence a few block went into private hands near the centre and around Sefton Pk.

The last Shield Rd block was demolished only a few years back. London blocks had successfully been passed to private hands and renovated for over 20 years and a few Liverpool blocks too. The solution was known.

There was no need to have destroyed these nice buildings - and some of them were very nice.

I personally think the reason was to get the middle classes with money into the centre. Hence a few block went into private hands near the centre and around Sefton Pk.

The first to go was in Louisville Kentucky. You could probably find the famous film of the demolition on Youtube. The first in UK blew itself up at Ronan Point (a gas explosion caused progressive collapse of the prefabriacted panel system - "like a deck of cards"). There has been a constant stream of demolitions since starting in Sheffield, then Leeds and Birmingham including Liverpool piggeries and right up to today's plans to demolish Trellick Tower and Robin Hood Gardens in London.

Only privately owned or well-situated high rise residential has survived completely intact up until recently eg Highpoint in Highgate and Roehampton Vale, London.

The reason for demolition was poor construction; high maintenance costs and lack of care from the users (eg p*ssing in lifts, rubbish or beds thrown off landings). Only the 'better' ones survived

Only privately owned or well-situated high rise residential has survived completely intact up until recently eg Highpoint in Highgate and Roehampton Vale, London.


Shiel Rd flats where well situated. The few 22 floor blocks in the North End could have been moth balled, until re-generation.


The reason for demolition was poor construction; high maintenance costs and lack of care from the users (eg p*ssing in lifts, rubbish or beds thrown off landings). Only the 'better' ones survived

In other words keep the working class out of them. Seeing what happened in Liverpool 8 with 3 distinct changes in completion of the whole are except the Welsh Streets, what do you put the working class in?

The French had the right idea. I never saw a grotty council area there, even in Paris. Each block has a concierge. Offenders were quickly evicted/prosecuted. If you had a poor track record they wouldn't allow you into a council place.

A part of the answer was get them into owner/occupation. But that takes land - we have it but in the hands of the chosen few who will not sell.

I was in Manchester today, the city that's more forward thinking than Liverpool and so attracts big business and world bank HQ's and all that or so we're constantly informed.

Counted more than 20 residential high rise blocks on the fringe of the centre at the end of the M602.

I was in Manchester today, the city that's more forward thinking than Liverpool and so attracts big business and world bank HQ's and all that or so we're constantly informed.

Counted more than 20 residential high rise blocks on the fringe of the centre at the end of the M602.

We can learn a lot from that city.

The sooner the LibDem mob are voted out the better. No co-incidence that Mchr city council is the same party colour of Whitehall. That must make a difference.

Liverpool needs new buildings blending in with the old.

I agree, but barely any of the new blend In that much with the old.

I was in Manchester today, the city that's more forward thinking than Liverpool and so attracts big business and world bank HQ's and all that or so we're constantly informed.

Counted more than 20 residential high rise blocks on the fringe of the centre at the end of the M602.

Considering were a major Uk city, It's disgusting that we haven't had things other major uk cities like Manchester have attracted. Only because of the 2008 thing the council are bothering trying and they still fail at that.

I agree, but barely any of the new blend In that much with the old.

Max, go to post 15. I also said "Liverpool needs new modern state-of-the-art buildings", as well. We don't seamlessly extend buildings like in the Georgian quarter.

Along the dock waterways we need state-of-the-art designs. Buildings that make a statement to the world. We don't need them around Canning St.

Considering were a major Uk city, It's disgusting that we haven't had things other major uk cities like Manchester have attracted. Only because of the 2008 thing the council are bothering trying and they still fail at that.

The council have been negligent, unable to cope with the massive regeneration of the city and coping with World Heritage too. The UN is considering putting Liverpool at risk. Still, listed buildings are being demolished and many allowed to deteriorate that in few years time they will be demolished on safety grounds.

It's the message the city gives out that matters - image. Manchester have been doing that for near 20 years, with publicity Olympic bids (they knew they were not going to get it, but what world media focus), Commonwealth Games etc. They have been overstating their city for 20 years, and it has worked. The city is at all brilliant but they have created that image.

Liverpool has one shot, and it is not being done that well - Culture city 2008. After that, back to the grind and trying to give a good image, which the city is not good at. The image will rise with actions: a rapid transit underground rail extension, proper re-generation of the dock waterways to make it an Amsterdam, etc. Then people will flock in with money to invest.

Some very sensible suggestions and discussion here.
However, although I agrre totally about the calous demeolition of many perfectly good tower blocks, the Shiel road heights, as noble, well proportioned and amost monolithic a design as they were, were structuraly unsound as there was a fault with the original mix of concrete that led to cracks in the pre fab structure. Because it was one pre fab block on top of another that costituted the structure, the problem would have been a ridiculous price to sort out. Unfortunate but true. However, this only stands for the Camus constructed blocks (Shiel rd, Cantril Farm etc)

No excuses for the rest. I mean why demolish Coronation court in Fazackerly, the city's first ever high rise housing block? A landmark on the East Lancs entry to the city lost and replaced by boring brick 'anywhere' flats. By losing all of the flats around the city, a lot of the sense of scale has been lost. Ged was on about Manchester and the blocks I think he means are in Salford who kept theirs and they give an impression of a big city as you approach(Unlike Salford, Manchester followed the same line as Liverpool and demolished most of theirs)

Cant believe the houses in Duke street on the corner of Slater street were allowed to be demolished and allowed to get in such a state that they had to be. MR STONE AND FRENSON HAVE A LOT TO ANSWER FOR WITH THAT ONE!. Hopefully the council will now learn of their intentions nd not let this happen again (although I wont hold my breath)