Originally Posted by
Peter McGurk
Best case, I would always want to keep the docks but it's not necessarily the filling of the docks that's a problem, it's what you put in them that matters.
I think it is that they are allowed to fill that is the problem. That encourages the easy and quick fast buck route. A prime example is Kings Dock. The branches were filled in to put a large ugly arena and chara-banc park on it, that could have gone on the land side of Kings/Queens Dock. See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/KingsDock.html
The in and out nature of the branches meant a wonderful waterscape to work around. Some architects would be in their element designing around that. About 25% of the branches could have been filled in at the river end to give more depth to the land there. What a missed a opportunity. Leave the docks as they are and design around them. It is quite simple. Then unique waterscaped districts emerge. The only positive docks filling was actually St.George's Dock, although by leaving the docks it could have been better. All other docks filling has been negative. Nothing better came out of it.
div>
The council should make it clear that there will be no more water space filling. The fact that they can means the developers use a guerrilla campaign to get their way. They wear the city down and get their way. If they can't do that they will not even consider filling in docks, no more than filling in the River Mersey.
Bookmarks