YO! Liverpool
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 119

Thread: Planning decision on Liverpool Waters will be delayed until after Unesco inspection

  1. #61
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Well the thread was originally going on about how a quango who gives out a certificate saying we have a World Heritage site and who passed the ugly black buildings on Mann Island is now helping prevent (with the aid of an unelected preservation trust one man band who can't see past rightly preserving Georgian stock) a 5.5 billion influx of private money being spent on revitalising a tumbleweed eyesore that nobody wanted to touch for at least 20 years.


    ADVERTISING




    Somehow it got onto how some L1 stores are overpriced. Do what I do and don't go in them then and if there's no supply and demand, they will close down, but probably not in your lifetime, just like I never go into Harrods when in London. It doesn't half work but the only problem then is you have to find something else to moan about instead of something else to be proud of. Do you watch Eastenders perhaps Chas

    ---------- Post added at 11:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by grekko View Post
    Thought you were going the pub?

    He was until he found you couldn't still get half a bitter, a packet of players and a box of swan vesta and still come out with change from a ten bob note
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  2. #62
    Senior Member wsteve55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Crosby
    Posts
    2,199
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    "He was until he found you couldn't still get half a bitter, a packet of players and a box of swan vesta and still come out with change from a ten bob note"


  3. #63
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    70
    Posts
    248
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Unhappy Merseyside rejoice, our destiny's Shangaied,

    Peel's development director James Whittaker


    Far Eastern investors are snapping up apartments at MediaCityUK in Salford Quays, having invested £4.5m so far.
    Following sales visits to Hong Kong in March and the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur in May, Peel Media Living has sold 36 apartments in two residential blocks.
    Peel has now committed to trips to Singapore in October and Hong Kong again in November.
    Peel's development director James Whittaker said: “It became apparent at last year’s Shanghai Expo that there’s a real demand for UK investment opportunities within the Chinese market.
    “The hotels there are booked each weekend by London-based developers selling schemes off-plan, so there was overwhelming evidence that marketing to this cash-rich corner of the world would pay off.
    “We also had the benefit of a completed development and the twin attractions of the BBC and Manchester United to a market that loves British brands.
    “But it was still a big risk for us. We invested £75,000 in marketing and needed to sell between eight and 10 units to break even.
    “We used King Sturge’s office in Hong Kong to co-ordinate, and took the development models out with us, set up shop in a room in a hotel and waited to see what would happen.
    “We sold 24 units to 24 different individuals. We achieved £3m worth of sales in three days.
    “We went on to Kuala Lumpur where there is a massive Manchester United following and, while we did not do as well as Hong Kong, as the market there is more cautious and conservative, we still sold 12 units in two days.
    “Since our return all 36 have completed.”
    Peel has offered 12-month rental guarantees or furniture packs and say investors can expect a six per cent annual return on their capital.
    Mr Whittaker added: “Chinese investors are very savvy, they want the best return for the least risk and were attracted not just by the fact that prices here are a third of the London equivalent but that they get instant returns.”


    Manchester Evening News, July 21



    Chas

  4. #64
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    So what is your point - that we would be welcoming the biggest growing economy to our shores?

    Should we only build terraced houses because that's all scousers can afford - we did all that from the 50s to the 90s and the inner city depopulated and it was left a tumbleweed wasteland. Do you know about demographics?

    Catering for the top end of the market encourages entrepeneurial types who will open businesses employinglocals. Did Peel not reinvent Cammell lairds or build the new airport terminal? I bet those people in those jobs don't feel shanghai'd.

    All the best to you Chas.
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  5. #65
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    70
    Posts
    248
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    A small part taken from the PEEL proposal.
    Port of Liverpool
    A major deep sea “gateway” port for the region and Great Britain, handling the full
    range of deep sea traffics. The only West Coast deep sea container port
    which will be able to accommodate post-Panamax vessels handling direct calls by
    deep sea ships, as well as transhipment traffic to Ireland and traffic fed from other UK
    and Continental deep sea container ports. The major Irish Sea ro-ro port in the North
    West region, following the development of a riverside terminal.
    A major sustainable distribution hub(waterborne, rail and road freight transport),
    serving a national hinterland, with associated warehousing.
    It noted that the Port has a shortage of land
    within its estate and in the medium to long-term,
    land availability is likely to be a key constraint to
    development.


    Opinions sought.

    Chas

  6. #66
    Senior Member az_gila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    603
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chasevans View Post
    ...
    It noted that the Port has a shortage of land
    within its estate and in the medium to long-term,
    land availability is likely to be a key constraint to
    development.


    Opinions sought.

    Chas
    Sounds almost like they want to start filling in the River Mersey to create more land...

  7. #67
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    70
    Posts
    248
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by az_gila View Post
    Sounds almost like they want to start filling in the River Mersey to create more land...
    I can imagine.
    Nice one Az-gila,
    Chas

  8. #68
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Part of the shortage of land comprises the bird sanctuary at Seaforth that Peel has asked if they can relocate.
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  9. #69
    Senior Member wsteve55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Crosby
    Posts
    2,199
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    Part of the shortage of land comprises the bird sanctuary at Seaforth that Peel has asked if they can relocate.
    Which "Peel" were happy to allow to develop,surprisingly succesfully,but always with the provision that,one day,they might have to use the land involved! Access to the sanctuary isn't so easy,these days,and it will be sad to see it go,but it's a matter of priorities!

  10. #70
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Correct Steve. It's almost as if some people don't want to see the city progress isn't it?
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  11. #71
    Keeping It Real !!!!!!!!! ItsaZappathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    NORRIS GREEN/FAZAKERLEY
    Posts
    1,319
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    Part of the shortage of land comprises the bird sanctuary at Seaforth that Peel has asked if they can relocate.
    Now that's disgusting. Again, Merseyside will lose more wildlife.

  12. #72
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    70
    Posts
    248
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Angry PEELed an apple, only to find it was an onion. Ah well, that's progress!

    With all due respect, Ged and wsteve 55, I was merely pointing to Peel's lack of transparency in "The Master Plan". 300+ pages that appear to answer Merseyside issues. I think the "real" documents might give a clearer view of Peel's agenda.
    Originally Posted by Ged
    Part of the shortage of land comprises the bird sanctuary at Seaforth that Peel has asked if they can relocate.
    Thanks Ged, it's like drawing teeth.

    Regards,
    Chas

  13. #73
    Senior Member wsteve55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Crosby
    Posts
    2,199
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I take your point C, but I don't think "Peel"are quite the monsters you make them out to be,bearing in mind the reason any company, exist's at all,which is to make money! They don't have to "ask" to relocate the sanctuary,they can bulldoze it any time they like,but,they are showing at least some consideration by doing so,even if it is only cosmetic!
    I'm glad,that after many years of decline,that anybody, can see the potential to succeed in Liverpool,with the associated benefits,though,of course, that doesn't mean they should have a free rein,by any means!

  14. #74
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ItsaZappathing View Post
    Now that's disgusting. Again, Merseyside will lose more wildlife.
    Why if it's just relocating and it wouldn't be there in the first place but for them, it's on their land.

    ---------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ----------

    That's right Steve and why stringent planning laws, rules and regulations have to be adhered to. Chas, do you have a relative working at Cammell Laird or the airport which due to Peel's takeovers have cemented jobs that WOULD - not could have been lost. How do you feel about that. All without costing you an extra penny on your tax.
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  15. #75
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    70
    Posts
    248
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Exclamation PEELing, Steve, but some put it down to the weather. Ask not for whom the bell tolls..................

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    Why if it's just relocating and it wouldn't be there in the first place but for them, it's on their land.

    ---------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ----------

    That's right Steve and why stringent planning laws, rules and regulations have to be adhered to. Chas,
    do you have a relative working at Cammell Laird or the airport which due to Peel's takeovers have cemented jobs that WOULD - not could have been lost. How do you feel about that. All without costing you an extra penny on your tax.
    Too many pot herbs in the scouse for my liking.
    Chas

  16. #76
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Are you living anywhere near where all those streets are desolate around Anfield football ground Chas?. I would have thought your angst could be better directed towards another private company who are holding up the development of the area due to their will they wont they build a new ground - and LCC pandering to them and extending long expired plans to build on the people's Victorian Parkland.
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  17. #77
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    70
    Posts
    248
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    Are you living anywhere near where all those streets are desolate around Anfield football ground Chas?. I would have thought your angst could be better directed towards another private company who are holding up the development of the area due to their will they wont they build a new ground - and LCC pandering to them and extending long expired plans to build on the people's Victorian Parkland.
    I thought this thread was about Planning decision on Liverpools waterfront, are you trying to extend the thread to ...............where?
    What's YOUR point? (to repeat your question)
    Chas

  18. #78
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Shall I start a new thread then?

    Point proven.

    Thank you.


    Ged.
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  19. #79
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    70
    Posts
    248
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Arrow Off topic

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    Shall I start a new thread then?

    Point proven.

    Thank you.


    Ged.
    I'll gladly express my views on other topics, if you wish, although Liverpool waterfront and Peel are what this thread is about.

    I'll take that as my "point proven".

    Thanks,
    Chas

  20. #80
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  21. #81
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    70
    Posts
    248
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Angry PEEL appeal funded by Salford council taxpayers, LOOK OUT MERSEYSIDE!

    PEEL HOLDINGS TO APPEAL SALFORD COUNCIL HOUSING REFUSAL
    Salford Star date: 21st July 2011

    SALFORD TAX PAYERS TO PICK UP THE BILL FOR PEEL HOLDINGS BURGESS FARM HOUSING APPEAL…As Council document reveals a further 200 houses on the green field site…
    Peel Holdings is to appeal against the recent refusal by Salford Council's planning panel to grant permission to build 350 houses on the green field Burgess Farm site in Walkden. The £multi-billion company is demanding that Salford tax payers pick up the bill.
    Meanwhile, Salford Council documents show plans for a further 200 houses on the Burgess Farm site.
    Full story here…
    It was only a few weeks ago that, following a shambolic Salford Council planning panel meeting, Peel Holdings was refused outline planning permission to build 350 houses on the green field Burgess Farm site in Walkden/Little Hulton (see here).
    Yesterday, Salford councillors were told that Peel Holdings is not only planning to appeal against the democratic decision of the planning committee but is demanding full costs from the Council (ie Salford tax payers) to pay for that appeal.
    Even Councillor Derek Antrobus, the Lead Member for Planning who was actually in favour of the Peel Holdings development at that planning meeting, hinted at indignation when he tweeted on Twitter yesterday afternoon…
    "Peel appeal against Burgess Farm and demand full costs claiming Council unreasonable. Council to defend refusal. Up to Govt now."
    A more restrained quote by the councillor was issued by Salford Council later in the day…
    "Peel has exercised its legal right to appeal and this will be a matter for the Planning Inspectorate to consider. The council will resist the appeal and defend its decision to refuse the planning application."
    While Salford tax payers pick up Peel's bill for the costs of its appeal, it has come to light that, not only does Peel want to build 350 houses on the Burgess Farm green field site, there are plans for a further 200 houses on the site, making a total of 550 houses.
    Salford Council's Development Plan (Core Strategy) lists all the city's housing needs and the sites that will be built on between 2010-2030. There's currently a draft 66 page `pre-publication' consultation document on the Council's website which residents can comment on until August 1st (click here). Accompanying the Development Plan is another `changes in housing supply' document which lists every site in the city where houses could be built.
    Within this latter document (page 34) (click here) it states quite clearly that the `Site to the south west of Hilton Lane and north of Waverley Road (Burgess Farm)' will have 350 houses on it. And in another section, it states equally clearly `Burgess Farm 2 – land off Hilton Lane' 200 houses.
    That's 550 houses in total in a green field area that has protected great crested newts, where traffic congestion would be horrific, and where Salford Council's own planning report stated that there was no need for housing.
    Campaigners against the proposed Burgess Farm development are urging residents to object to the plans before August 1st by…
    • e-mail plans.consultation@salford.gov.uk
    • by post to: Core Strategy Consultation, Spatial Planning, Salford Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton M27 5BY.

    There should be printed copies of the Development Plan and `housing supply list' in all of the city's libraries.
    The Development Plan can also be viewed by clicking here
    The list of sites for housing can be viewed by clicking here

    * The Salford Star will be covering other housing issues thrown up by the Development Plan over the coming days…


    mary ferrer wrote
    at 12:23:30 PM on Friday, July 22, 2011
    I think if the appeal if found against the council,then the council pay If peel loose the apeal THEN they pay. Don't think that if Mrs Jones appeals against a refusal of her kitchen extention she could ask the council to pay,so why are PEEL any different. Lets just hope the inspector finds in favour of the council and tells peel to sod off.


    Salford Star wrote
    at 11:11:04 AM on Friday, July 22, 2011
    See Tom's comment...Good point Tom - the councillor's tweet says `demand'.


    Tom wrote
    at 11:08:24 AM on Friday, July 22, 2011
    Star, is it not in fact standard practice that the council incurs costs for planning appeals? Are Peel actively demanding that SCC fund the appeal, or is it just routine procedure? I think it's important that you clarify this point.


    Measured View wrote
    at 4:27:15 PM on Thursday, July 21, 2011
    Hmmm....Multi Millionaire Company takes on City Council and loses, then asks council to fund their appeal...does anybody spot the punchline here? Peel can fund their own appeal, the council should throw it out if Peel can't (or wont) fund it themselves!


    Ronnie Thompson wrote
    at 11:31:08 AM on Thursday, July 21, 2011
    TELL THESE PARASITIC CHUMS OF THE CLOWNCIL TO SOD OFF , AND TAKE THE TRAFFORD CENTRE WITH THEM .


    Bob Flowers wrote
    at 8:06:01 AM on Thursday, July 21, 2011
    The ineptitude , bungling , waste and squander at the swinetown big top just goes on and on .What a circus .Peel will get their way , and the clouncil will pick up the bill . WE TAXPAYERS HAVE ONCE AGAIN BEEN SHAFTED .


    Nachtschlepper wrote
    at 8:05:30 AM on Thursday, July 21, 2011
    It's time these parasites were told where to go. This company is bleeding the City of Salford dry. Our so called leaders will do nothing to stop them so perhaps we need to take matters into ur own hand. Demonstrations at Media City & the Trafford Centre might be a start.




    Chas

  22. #82
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    I hope the council tell Peel to eff off to Liverpool
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  23. #83
    Senior Member lindylou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,677
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    I've only just caught up with this thread - been ages reading through it.


    just a few comments to add my two penneth;

    first of all to say, excellent posts from Ged especially pages 2 & 3.
    Well said Ged

    re Everton district - - well, it has merely returned to it's original state of open green spaces. it was a rural area to start with, so it could be said that the miriad of terraced streets were a blot on the landscape -- if people from the old days could time travel they might recognise it more as it is today than how it looked during the 1920's, 30's, etc.

    re building tall on the waterfront skyline;
    where about were those '3 ugly sisters?' - the Clarence dock was it ?
    They were tall were they not ? Industrial too and not smart or beautiful.

    As Ged says, people who are against - do they live in the area ?? - - and yes, how long that waste ground has been there doing nothing! - it's about time the area is rejuvenated and can hold it's head high along with the centre and south.


    ps, but I do like the idea of GD's park with water features - that would be nice.

  24. #84
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    70
    Posts
    248
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Devilish deals

    I live in Anfield, Lindylou, where are you speaking from?. The Everton area you seem to recognize as a blot on the landscape is not the area I grew up in. I can give you a more in depth view of my life, but the thread is about the planning decision on Liverpool's waterfront.

    Mr John Whittaker
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	jw-dedevil.gif 
Views:	143 
Size:	972.0 KB 
ID:	22797

  25. #85
    Senior Member grekko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Age
    74
    Posts
    181
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chasevans View Post
    I live in Anfield, Lindylou, where are you speaking from?. The Everton area you seem to recognize as a blot on the landscape is not the area I grew up in. I can give you a more in depth view of my life, but the thread is about the planning decision on Liverpool's waterfront.

    Mr John Whittaker
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	jw-dedevil.gif 
Views:	143 
Size:	972.0 KB 
ID:	22797
    Chas , I think Lindylou was referring to the Everton area of the early 19th century when she commented upon the miriad of terraced streets being a blot on the landscape, not of the area or community of the early and mid 20th century. I'm sure she recognises, as do most of us on here, that the Everton area was a vibrant family oriented community who unfortunately, in many respects, had the misfortune to inhabit properties which lacked the standard facilities for healthy living and had seen better days, which was a major contribution to their wholesale demolition/disappearance.
    As for her comments on the waterfront I doubt if her place of residence should preclude her from commenting on her memories or preference of waterfront view.
    I do not go along with the siting of a lot of Skyscrapers etc of Peel's plans but, surely the improvement of that area has been too long coming, how much longer might it take to redevelop the site(s) if the plans are knocked back? We will probably never again build communities such as you and I remember but that shouldn't restrict peoples opportunities to try and build newer and hopefully vibrant living spaces.

  26. #86
    Senior Member chasevans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    anfield
    Age
    70
    Posts
    248
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Talking Lightning strikes as thread unwinds

    Quote Originally Posted by grekko View Post
    Chas , I think Lindylou was referring to the Everton area of the early 19th century when she commented upon the miriad of terraced streets being a blot on the landscape, not of the area or community of the early and mid 20th century. I'm sure she recognises, as do most of us on here, that the Everton area was a vibrant family oriented community who unfortunately, in many respects, had the misfortune to inhabit properties which lacked the standard facilities for healthy living and had seen better days, which was a major contribution to their wholesale demolition/disappearance.
    As for her comments on the waterfront I doubt if her place of residence should preclude her from commenting on her memories or preference of waterfront view.
    I do not go along with the siting of a lot of Skyscrapers etc of Peel's plans but, surely the improvement of that area has been too long coming, how much longer might it take to redevelop the site(s) if the plans are knocked back? We will probably never again build communities such as you and I remember but that shouldn't restrict peoples opportunities to try and build newer and hopefully vibrant living spaces.
    Thanks for YOUR opinion, Grekko. I've often stated my views on the Everton area and it's demolition and they don't coincide with a lot of people. That won't stop me from holding my views. I'm English working class, C of E, I now live up the road from Everton in Anfield, not here, there and anywhere, it would be revealing to know where the pro Peel activists live or where they came from.
    It was Lindylou who brought the Everton area into this thread, it's difficult enough to stay on thread, so before I go any further:-
    PEEL ARE A THREAT TO MERSEYSIDE
    Their sole motivation is profit, but as Colonel Gedaffi and his followers say, it's a rich man's world.
    Sociably,
    Chas

  27. #87
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Chas, you brought the Everton area into this thread on post 19.

    ---------- Post added at 09:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 PM ----------

    Grosvenor's motivation was profit, so what if the means to the ends results in a better place to be. Every single developer that ever developed an area did it for profit, not for the love of the place. LFC likewise when if ever they get around to sticking to their end of the deal with Anfield. Peel took an ailing airport and have turned it round. Peel took acres of derelict land that nobody wanted and now it's the Trafford Centre. Are you up to speed on what they have actually achieved rather than the scaremongering of what they might do?

    ps. Writing in bold/capitals/different colours/larger text doesn't make your point any more valid.
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  28. #88
    Senior Member John Doh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    214
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chasevans View Post
    Thanks for YOUR opinion, Grekko. I've often stated my views on the Everton area and it's demolition and they don't coincide with a lot of people. That won't stop me from holding my views. I'm English working class, C of E, I now live up the road from Everton in Anfield, not here, there and anywhere, it would be revealing to know where the pro Peel activists live or where they came from.
    It was Lindylou who brought the Everton area into this thread, it's difficult enough to stay on thread, so before I go any further:-
    PEEL ARE A THREAT TO MERSEYSIDE
    Their sole motivation is profit, but as Colonel Gedaffi and his followers say, it's a rich man's world.
    Sociably,
    Chas
    Spot on, Chas! - It never ceases to amaze me how gullible people are in allowing the likes of Peel to have carte blanche to reek havoc on the grounds that they are bringing much-needed investment to the city. They are traditional capitalists whose motive is making a profit based on land prices and property speculation; they are NOT a philanthropic institution!

  29. #89
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    'allowing' ? They have to present plans like anybody else - like they did at Cammell Laird which they saved.

    'carte blanche' ? Look the meaning up. Where have they been given carte blanche over anything when their plans are under scrutiny rsulting in them not being passed as yet - quite the opposite of carte blanche.

    'reek havoc' ? Where in Liverpool have they done this. Look at the Baltic triangle development that has been left as an eyesore due to a company going bust part way through it. Is that wreaking havoc?

    Are they not bringing much needed investment into the city then, explain why not?

    Name any modern day developers that are philanthropic institutions. Would you prefer it if they built it for no profit or lost on it. Why doesn't anybody else buy up this unwated derelict land then?
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  30. #90
    Senior Member az_gila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    603
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    ....
    Name any modern day developers that are philanthropic institutions. Would you prefer it if they built it for no profit or lost on it. Why doesn't anybody else buy up this unwated derelict land then?
    Go a bit further...

    Name the Liverpool developers in it's heyday that weren't driven by profit - there were a few, but perhaps some of them were offspring feeling a bit guilty about their family money made off the slave trade.

    Liverpool developed in the 1800's into the city it is now on the profit motive, why knock it....

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Wirral Waters Planning Approved
    By Waterways in forum Liverpool Developments Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-15-2010, 03:00 PM
  2. Liverpool Waters
    By Waterways in forum Liverpool Developments Chat
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 02-02-2010, 02:46 PM
  3. ?100m Liverpool St John?s Market revamp delayed for three years!
    By Kev in forum Liverpool City Center - Inner Zones
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-16-2009, 03:07 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

For daily updates, to support us further or to join in the conversation: Follow us on Twitter @YOLiverpool / Like our Facebook Page: @yoliverpoolpics / Join the Facebook Group: YO! Liverpool Pictures

× Thanks for coming to the web site. Support our future by turning off your Ad-Blocker or consider a donation via PayPal or Credit Card!