Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 44

Thread: Is Liverpool's architectural boom all it's cracked up be? (an article)

  1. #16
    Senior Member petromax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    317

    Default

    presumably the same way an electric train works

  2. #17
    PhilipG
    Guest PhilipG's Avatar

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shytalk View Post
    The original purpose was for ventilation.

    St. John's Beacon is the name of a tower in Liverpool, built in 1968. It is 102 metres (335 ft) high, 138 metres (452 ft) above sea level, and was built as a ventilation shaft for St. John's Market. Near the top of the tower was situated a revolving restaurant and on top of that a viewing platform.

    This is from the wikipedia site
    Wikipedia is not a very reliable source.

    Here's what Quentin Hughes said in his book "Liverpool", published by Studio Vista in 1969, when St John's Precinct was nearing completion:
    "St John's Beacon, really a chimney disguised as a revolving restaurant, hovers 400ft. above the pavement, a land-mark from all parts of the city and a platform which will provide magnificent views."

    Joseph Sharples in his 2004 book, also called "Liverpool" says:
    "The dominant feature (of St John's Precinct) - also dominating much of the city centre - is the so-called Beacon, over 450 ft (137 metres) high, really a giant chimney for the boilers."

  3. #18
    Senior Member petromax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    317

    Default

    I must have been dreaming. Maybe it was the dodgy steak I had.

  4. #19
    PhilipG
    Guest PhilipG's Avatar

    Default Beetham Tower.

    I like it.
    Admittedly the north-facing side isn't very good.


  5. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilipG View Post
    I like it.
    Admittedly the north-facing side isn't very good.

    It just seems that they only put any effort into design on the profitable sides (i.e. facing over the water because the yuppies would rather not be reminded of the fact they are in that 'nasty little northern city with the dockers and the silly accents')

    The inward facing site and northern sides just look like the back of a building, like where you demolish all the buildings around an old building and see that the back is really ugly because it was invisible to everyone so noone could be bothered... except this isn't invisible. It's the city facing side of the one of the tallest buildings in the city.

    The rest of the building isn't especially original... Beetham West isn't too original either but at least it isn't downright ugly. It would be good as a minor building in a larger, more characterful cluster of tall buildings. Unfortunately due to the height, it could be a while before anything taller is built.

    Fortunately the proposal for the building ont he site of the old King Edward pub has come just at a time when developers are warming to the idea of being original rather than sticking to what has worked before. And the idea of it having a public restaurant on top is vital... it'll mean the building actually means something to ordinary Liverpudlians, while the Beetham towers mean nothing.
    Last edited by scottieroader; 09-23-2007 at 02:26 PM.

  6. #21
    Senior Member Paul D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,099

    Default

    Fortunately the proposal for the building ont he site of the old King Edward pub has come just at a time when developers are warming to the idea of being original rather than sticking to what has worked before. And the idea of it having a public restaurant on top is vital... it'll mean the building actually means something to ordinary Liverpudlians, while the Beetham towers mean nothing.
    The new tower by Beetham will have a restaurant on the 34th floor with excellent views over The Mersey,The Wirral and North Wales.At the time it is built it will be the highest restaurant in Britain.

  7. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul D View Post
    The new tower by Beetham will have a restaurant on the 34th floor with excellent views over The Mersey,The Wirral and North Wales.At the time it is built it will be the highest restaurant in Britain.
    that'll be nice... so long as you don't have to pay £200 just to get in.

  8. #23
    Senior Member petromax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scottieroader View Post
    ...the proposal for the building ont he site of the old King Edward pub has come just at a time when developers are warming to the idea of being original rather than sticking to what has worked before...
    But it looks like the NatWest Tower (Tower 42) wrapped in a Leopard Skin Kimono. Garbage.

  9. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by petromax View Post
    But it looks like the NatWest Tower (Tower 42) wrapped in a Leopard Skin Kimono. Garbage.
    .


  10. #25
    Senior Member The Gardens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scottieroader View Post

    I'm also a big fan of (not a building) the Churchill Way Flyovers
    As someone who lived in a flat on Hunter Street, I have the total opposite view of the Churchill flyovers, and linked walkovers. The communites in the surrounding areas were desimated by the building of these carbuncles in the late 1960's. They serviced the commuter, and held no benefit to the residents, who never even owned a car.

    The flyovers led the way to further developments, such as the access roads to the Kingsway tunnel, all built on land occupied by council tennents (saving time on compulsary purchase orders!). These further isolated the Vauxhall community.

    At least we were spared this planners idea of a road system (see below), covering Scotland Road, St Anne Street, Islington and Norton Street (St George's Hall if top right).

    I do share you views on the current crop of 'corporate' buildings appearing within the city. I think these are as souless as a prefab Tesco, and add nothing to the city skyline.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	GG Model.jpg 
Views:	197 
Size:	66.6 KB 
ID:	4340  

  11. #26
    Senior Member lindylou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    Gardens; funny, I was only thinking that same thing when we drove down that way last weekend - the way that community was split up - quite literally and the heart and soul of it ripped out.
    I'm not an expert on that area, but I am aware that it was once a very busy community.

  12. #27
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kev View Post
    How wuld that effect wiring of the building if it rotated? Wuldn't the wires have goot tangled as it turned?
    The kitchen/serving area, was static in the centre. The seating outer part rotated and the lights in that section were fed on a bus bar - like brushes in an electric motor or an electric train pickup on the line.

    The chimey aspect of the beacon was only small. It was the other way around the beacon came first - the beacon served as a chimney too, as it was convenient to do so. It was not a chimney and they put a restuarant on the top.

    I worked on it when under construction.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  13. #28
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scottieroader View Post
    Liverpool needs great modern architecture and it needs tall buildings… but what it needs are visionary and original designs which will set Liverpool apart as a city of architecture.
    Brunswick Quay Tower was one, however the city politicos turned it down. A Liverpool man and company too - Hargreaves the Matalan man. A billion pounds worth of investment snubbed. Then the knock on effect a high quality development brings - so probaly twice that figure.

    Look how the Guggenheim defines Bilbao; the Opera House defines Sydney and the Gherkin defines the city of London… we want the architectural equivalent of the Lamborghini Countach or the Mini, classics of design;
    We have that in the Three Garces - already there.

    instead we get the Unity and Beetham towers, the architectural equivalents of the Ford Mondeo. ‘Executive’ and ‘corporate’ styles, which lack originality because the developers are first and foremost concerned with making a profit and at low risk; and the easiest way to do that is to not rock the boat, stick to what works.
    Or what silly planners and politicos want. There have been countless very high and high quality proposals for Liverpool over the decades, yet apart from the second Beetham and the Metro Cathedral, no new buildings stand out in the city. In 1951 There was a proposal to build a 50 floor plus building in the old Custom House site. Turned down flat and the design emerged in New York as the Pan Am building - a NY landmark. The low rise tat that was built on the site in the late 1960s was appalling and eventually was demolished after a short time. Vison? The city is devoid of it. Yet only 100 years ago the city oozed confidence and originality. Nothing stopped the city from innovating.

    The ‘visionary’ new architecture in Liverpool is so ridiculously similar to that in Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds that you could almost write a brochure on how to build a tower block in a northern city:
    What do expect when every proposal has floors lopped off and years of planning delays. The developer then starts to see that they cannot maximise the potential of the site and cuts back on quality. Brunswick Quay had lengthy delays and came to nothing. Developers see this, and see Liverpool as no-go area and take their money somewhere else. A city still poor and turned down world-class designs and investment, is a seen as a do-nothing stuck-in-the-past place, unable to make any firm decisions on its own future.

    1. Opaque glass cladding sells, light blue and green are the colours of preference
    2. Lozenge shaped buildings with very gently curving facades are in.
    3. Buildings should rise straight out of the ground with no features of interest until you get to the top, there the building should slope or step back like the end of knife.
    The fashion of the time, like any other time - although you have a point about how they are at ground level. Then the developers cuts back at ground level because his original design had 25% of the floors lopped off by planners/heritage, etc.

    We have seen some originality in individual buildings such as the slender rectangular Manchester Hilton and the box-topped Unity, but even then, the fact that so many aspects of these buildings are similar should ring alarm bells.
    Unless you have a brilliant original designer, buildings that stand out cost. Unity is no run of the mill building, being a little different.

    People who point the finger of blame at developers are often reminded of the no-holds barred commercialism of Victorian builders as if this similarity means that architecture such as Unity is no different from the likes of the Liver Building. But there is one crucial difference between then and now… corporatism. The builders of 19th century office buildings, factories and housing estates were often run and owned by rich individuals, or a small group of close knit businessmen. They could take personal pride in what they were building, the spirit of philanthropy ran high and they wanted something which they could point to and say ‘I did that’. In the modern world of distant boards of directors based in London and New York, banks demanding business plans and thousands of shareholders wanting accountability, this pride in what you build cannot exist because no single person sees it as their baby. Even the architects may find their influence diluted by the influence of other architects and worst of all… of accountants.
    Some truth in that, however point to the planners/heritage people. Many developers do want to have high quality building that sell and command high rents. They are constantly turned down, so they take the easy way out.

    Also, let’s not forget that in the years since Victorian Liverpool was built, the poor quality buildings have been removed leaving only the best. You can’t compare the Victorian buildings left standing today to just any modern building as we know the older buildings have passed the test of time which the modern buildings are yet to face. Put this way it is easy to see why the old building in Liverpool today are inherently ‘better’ than what you might build now. We need to try and build the buildings that will stand alongside our Victorian buildings as the heritage of the future.
    Liverpool in the late 1800s/early 1900s built some high class, advanced, high quality buildings that are still around. They didn't have the constraints of the developers of today.
    Last edited by Waterways; 09-29-2007 at 04:59 PM.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  14. #29
    Senior Member lindylou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,677

    Default

    hello Waterways, glad you are back and posting.

  15. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gardens View Post
    As someone who lived in a flat on Hunter Street, I have the total opposite view of the Churchill flyovers, and linked walkovers. The communites in the surrounding areas were desimated by the building of these carbuncles in the late 1960's. They serviced the commuter, and held no benefit to the residents, who never even owned a car.

    The flyovers led the way to further developments, such as the access roads to the Kingsway tunnel, all built on land occupied by council tennents (saving time on compulsary purchase orders!). These further isolated the Vauxhall community.

    At least we were spared this planners idea of a road system (see below), covering Scotland Road, St Anne Street, Islington and Norton Street (St George's Hall if top right).

    I do share you views on the current crop of 'corporate' buildings appearing within the city. I think these are as souless as a prefab Tesco, and add nothing to the city skyline.
    Well like I said I don't like the dual carriageways from a functional/transport point of view... just the elegance of the flyovers as they cross Byrom Street. I walk under them twice a day and I love the contrast of them with William Brown Street.

    If something similar were to be proposed today I certainly wouldn't agree with decimating communities just so that we get beautiful engineering, but since they are here I think they should stay, even if Hunter Street was to be downgraded to it's original townscape rich form.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Telegraph travel article - and Sefton park Q.
    By az_gila in forum Wider Merseyside
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-14-2010, 02:43 AM
  2. Boom Over?
    By Waterways in forum Liverpool Developments Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-30-2008, 02:46 PM
  3. Spring-heeled Jack in Liverpool article
    By johnreppion in forum Liverpool Folklore and Oddities
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-25-2008, 09:40 PM
  4. Liverpool Skyscraper Boom Over?
    By Kev in forum Liverpool Developments Chat
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 04-08-2008, 06:12 PM
  5. Architectural Innovation in Liverpool
    By Kev in forum Kev's Liverpool History and Pictures
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-27-2007, 12:35 AM

Tags for this Thread

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
  •