Printable View
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images...oster_pic1.jpg
That would of been boss to build.:PDT_Aliboronz_24:
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images...oster_pic2.jpg
That other one they nearly went for looked crap. Seriously wouldn't of been bad to go with this one.
I've never seen that before Max, wow!
Skyscrapernews.com has the pics.:PDT_Aliboronz_24:
That looks fabulous ! I like that !
They thought it too high and would overpower the three graces. It was also considered not different enough. That is the case with the tower. The ship shaped building is something else though. Also you have to view these buildings from ground levels as that is where people view them from. Some look great from the air, but at ground level not good at all. At ground level, would you see the ship shape of the building? Would it be obvious? Probably not. Many buildings look great as models – look at the 1960s crap we were served up. They do look good from the air though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
A great iconic new building in Liverpool – the Brunswick Tower – would encourage more high quality iconic proposals. The current talls and those being built and to be built are very forgettable.
This picture really shows the levels of dock filling at Kings and Queens Docks- the removal of the water is really apparent.
We noticed on the boat trip on Saturday how there is an imbalance in the skyline when viewed from the river- all the newer, taller stuff to the north, and nothing comparable to the south.
Thats a good point Bazza.. Maybe because the Northends river view is of Seacombe, Wallasey and New Brighton, and the Southends view is of Birkenhead and Rockferry :D
:unibrow: LOL
Brunswick Quay would be a giant step in the right direction if we get it but I'm scared to build my hopes up with this,fingers crossed.Quote:
Originally Posted by bazzacat
Nothing can be above the Albert Dock buildings, until Queens Dock. The abandonment of the tall building policy may have the odd tall around the south, but as the Batic Triangle and Paradise is being build there are few place to put them now. None will be in front of the Anglican Cathedral either. So, that section will stay short. Basically, Parliament St/Queens Dock and to the south can go high.Quote:
Originally Posted by bazzacat
I've also thought (and said this on other forums), this was simply stunning. This was when they asked Joe public which design they liked, people said this one (if I remember correctly) and low and behold they picked the one that people liked least.
This really was a superb design, Liverpool has missed a tremendous opportunity.
Boo boo boo
Liverpool has missed a tremendous opportunity? What is new about that? Since WW2 it is a continuous saga. A 50 floor plus glass block was proposed for the old Custom House site in 1950 - aka New York style at time. They said no. The site was only cleared in the mid-1960s (I used to play on it as a kid). We always end up with cheap tatty crap instead. The serious world renowned architects I read have given up on the city as the city has no imagination or vision. They know what they forward will be rejected.Quote:
Originally Posted by richie1878
Look at the low level view above and imagine the Brunswick Towers at the end. It may mean that what could be will be not at all, but low level tat still keeps getting built on and around the dock waterways. Princes Dock has been heavily criticised by many.
What the city needs is a Frenchman to head the citys planning Dept. They have it. They can do it. They have a record of imagination and delivering. He must have total control and be able to override - even English Heritage. The only conditions is that the docks and waterways stay and infilled docks are excavated, and WHS is respected. That still leaves a lot to work with. With one man all is with him. Curently we have quangos polking their noses in - like Liverpool Vision. We need one point where it all come in and out.
Then something would happen - and something that will matter.
Well its back to the low level tat again, as that is not going to happen.
I can;t understand why people voted for the weird one though over this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
To be honest by what is being built and proposed around the world this submission is poor. In comparrison it is bland. Look at some of the tall thin spires that are going up. That is what we need, and three or four of them. Something radically different and highly attractive - more than iconic. Like these:Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscr...jects/lbt2.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...2012_large.jpg
But few will spend serious money on a city with an image problem on many fronts. So, back to dreaming.
OMG ! They would look brilliant.
Oh, if only they would build something like that ! :neutral:
Suprised the first picture will be London's first 1000 foot skyscraper though. We probably can;t get giant towers so were not competing with the capital.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
Thats true. But wasnt there a mid 70s proposal to build some enourmous building in Liverpool? I have a vague reccolection from the Guiness Book of Records, round about 1978, saying it would (if built), be Britains tallest building.
There was two proposals, or one morphing. On in 1979 to build around Kings Dock, another at Dingle Lane/Otterspool. It would have been the world's tallest building.Quote:
Originally Posted by bazzacat
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=428
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images...Tower_pic1.jpg
Wonder why it didn't happen.:Smiliz_Kingz_PDT_13
Well Max son, as the Head of Liverpool City Council (notice me caps), I thought it was a waste of space, and the people of Liverpool would much more prefer a 120ft life size bronze statue of you in yer grots, than another hotel!!.
:D .... Don't be hittin me Maxie now, or I'll sic me secret Squirrel on yer!! :D
The city didn't want it (the council that is) and other factors I can't remember. They didn't want the 50 floor tall tower on the customs house site at Canning Place in 1950 either. They didn't want Brunswick Towers either, or Rogers 4th grace. Richard Craniums the lot of of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
The Otterspool tower wasn't a serious proposal. It was designed to test the water to see what the council would turn their noses up at. The developer was a piss-poor company called Wiggins that couldn't fund so much as a can of WD-40 for the gardeners mower.
What a rip! :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunnyman
Ever since going up the Eifel Tower I want to see more towers.
Have a look here Max. It's pretty good.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=380
Is that the same Foster that is designing one of the new towers for the World Trade Centre - see link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
http://www.wtc.com/index.aspx
Not sure if it's the same Foster that put a design in for the Fourth Grace.
Foster's tower for WTC - 200 Greewich
Wasn't there a Rogers involved also who is designing a tower for the WTC site - 175 Greenwich.
http://www.wtc.com/inner_page.aspx?id=11
Not too keen on that ship-like structure; blah!
People really shouldn't take these architect's impressions as seriously they do on here...
It's a sales card on behalf of the practice
to give a fantasy illusion of what they're proposing to build would look brand new, in the most perfect and neigh impossible light conditions, with
highlight and enhancements which couldn't possibly exist from angles no-one will ever see.
Always imagine them 5-10 years on, from street level,
looking slightly dated, not quite as big as you were lead to believe, coated with a not-quite-so-hitech layer of grime, pigeon **** and peeling paintwork-
like London's Waterloo Eurostar Terminal.
Then if it still seems like a good idea say "Yes please"