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

[scottieroader]

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.



We have that in the Three Garces - already there.



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.



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.



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.



Unless you have a brilliant original designer, buildings that stand out cost. Unity is no run of the mill building, being a little different.

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.



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.

We have the three graces, true, but we should have something exemplary and modern too. And as for the sameness of what's being built... it might be the style of the time, but it's much more uniform than it ever has been in the past. partly because modern buildings are less highly detailed. put technically there are fewer degrees of freedom for buildings to differ from eachother. So if there are only a few 'rules' which developers follow then all there buildings will look the same.

As for planners... I don't see why we should believe that someone who has done 4 years of study and has 20 years experience with Liverpool should be told by some financier in London who has never even seen Liverpool, how many storeys a building should have.

It's not the planners' fault it's more the developers. I work with many on a day to day basis (on the developers side I might add, I don't work for the council), trying to encourage them to improve their designs. They like to have the input of myself and my colleagues but they ignore it in the end, as to actually improving the quality of design and creating an original building, they just aren't interested. To the board members of the big developers, architecture isn't beautiful, money is beautiful. They put out all these b/s arguments that to follow ours/the councils/CABE's/EH's design recommendations aren't economically feasible. Give me a break, they don't build things to such low profit margins that to improve the design would take the profit away. We're talking about making a 100% profit on the development which, if recommendations were followed would be cut to about 90% I believe they should be required to make their financial plans publicly available to prevent them using this argument and then some of their rich pickings can be tapped in the public good.

[petromax]

...money is beautiful. They put out all these b/s arguments that to follow ours/the councils/CABE's/EH's design recommendations aren't economically feasible...

CABE are losing ground under pressure from the cities to support applications to promote inward investment.

Strong quality standards applied universally would improve design.

Any city that drops its standards will attract more developers wanting to make better profits.

[scottieroader]

CABE are losing ground under pressure from the cities to support applications to promote inward investment.

Strong quality standards applied universally would improve design.

Any city that drops its standards will attract more developers wanting to make better profits.

Indeed... that's something I have seen still going on in certain peripheral authorities in the northwest... Councils pursuing a policy (against the advice of their planning departments) of dropping design standards in order to compete... With it being a particular problem in peripheral councils I would like to see city regions address this by ensuring standards are more evenly kept and development is more evenly distributed.

Unfortunately noone outside of the planning profession takes heed of CABE's advice, many developers don't even know who CABE are.

[Waterways]

We have the three graces, true, but we should have something exemplary and modern too. And as for the sameness of what's being built... it might be the style of the time, but it's much more uniform than it ever has been in the past.

Nonsense!! Look at the Gherkin, Beetham Manchester which is top heavy. Look at Dubai which is a shining example of how to design modern buildings that have the wow factor.

Look at the rejected Brunswick Quay!! That was a sameness box? Nah!!

As for planners... I don't see why we should believe that someone who has done 4 years of study and has 20 years experience with Liverpool should be told by some financier in London who has never even seen Liverpool, how many storeys a building should have.

It's not the planners' fault it's more the developers.

Liverpool planners have an appalling amateurish reputation. From the 1951 50 floor plus block that was supposed to be built on Canning Place to the Brunswick Quay tower. I don't think they would know a good plan if it smacked them in the face. Then look at the tat approved. Look at Herculaneum Dock.

I do agree with a lot of what you write, however good planning in the city has been decidedly absent.

[PhilipG]

The UK does have great architects.
Unfortunately, most of their work is anywhere but in the UK.

[petromax]

Nonsense!! ...Look at Dubai which is a shining example of how to design modern buildings that have the wow factor....

Dubai is a shining excample of a soulless hell hole with no life and no reason. It's an alien life form on a featureless desert. If you want to live in a box, travel to work in a box and work in a box then Dubai's the place for you and good luck to you. Don't bring this XXXX here!!!

[petromax]

Brunswick Quay Tower was one, however the city politicos turned it down. ...

Brunswick Quay was hopelessly out of place by an architect who doesn't know or understand this city. Did you actually look at the spaces at dock level - windswept plazas with no life and no activity and an expressionless lump of a building from anytown, anywhere. How many 60s mistakes do you want to recreate in one building? Thank the lord we have seen the last of this idiot Simpson.

[Waterways]

Brunswick Quay was hopelessly out of place by an architect who doesn't know or understand this city. Did you actually look at the spaces at dock level

Yes, Impressive enough.

- windswept plazas with no life and no activity and an expressionless lump of a building from anytown, anywhere. How many 60s mistakes do you want to recreate in one building? Thank the lord we have seen the last of this idiot Simpson.

There is not enough room for windswept plazas on the site. The building was sail shaped and no anytown lump at all. No one with any eye at all for architecture could call the building anything but special. It was at a bend in the river and where the Liverpool escarpment tailed off. A perfect location for such an interesting iconic building.

Simpson got to the semi-final of the World Trade Centre replacement in NY. He is highly regarded.

[scottieroader]

Brunswick Quay was hopelessly out of place by an architect who doesn't know or understand this city. Did you actually look at the spaces at dock level - windswept plazas with no life and no activity and an expressionless lump of a building from anytown, anywhere. How many 60s mistakes do you want to recreate in one building? Thank the lord we have seen the last of this idiot Simpson.

I wasn't a massive fan of Brunswick Key... but then I'm not a massive fan of deconstructivism. I have seen it done well on a small scale where an streetscape with a strong context will be totally disrupted by a formless building and somehow be better for it, but I don't think it can be scaled up. The Guggenheim is a good example of large scale deconstructivism but it is incredibly detailed. Gehry obviously spent a lot of time on it, the concept for the Brunswick, I would wager was knocked up by Simpson on Autocad or Sketchup in about 5 minutes, and the shape of the building is its only characteristic. If you take say a 10m square anywhere on the building's surface then other than varying tints of glass, there is no variation within the square. then take that square from the bottom, middle and top, and again, no difference between the three.

I don't know if I blame Simpson for this, maybe Maro weren't paying him enough to so something of the order of Gehry. I mean Maro know what sells (to yuppies) and what the minimum amount of design is required to achieve this, they are unlikely to go over and above this. I have been told myself at work to scale back the amount of effort I'm spending designing something because we aren't being paid enough to make that effort.

[Waterways]

I wasn't a massive fan of Brunswick Key... but then I'm not a massive fan of deconstructivism. ....
......

I couldn't disagree with you more....

[scottieroader]

I couldn't disagree with you more....

You can't disagree with me not liking deconstructivism, it's my own opinion.

[Waterways]

You can't disagree with me not liking deconstructivism, it's my own opinion.

I can disagree with anyone I like and frequently do. :-)

[Ged]

I'll vouch for that

[petromax]

Yes, Impressive enough.

There is not enough room for windswept plazas on the site....

There plaza designed was shockingly lifeless and harsh, and windswept. Unfortunately I can't post the image at the moment.

...No one with any eye at all for architecture could call the building anything but special...

I have another almost identical image of Brunswick Quay: oh wait!, it's Simpson's scheme for London's South Bank. Just like a sail, a Bermudan schooner perhaps - we had lots of those in Liverpool. Inique - nah, special to Liverpool - nah

[QUOTE=Waterways;82417]... It was at a bend in the river and where the Liverpool escarpment tailed off. A perfect location for ...QUOTE]

...for something great, not this repetition of rehashed ideas from elsewhere. Another image, this time of Beetham Tower in Manchester. But no! it's Dominic Perrault's Tower 4 based on the sculptures on Christmas and Easter Island. Original? nah, no way.

But anyone with the slightest eye for architecture would have known all that.

As for highly regarded, I'd better check on what other people think before I make up my own mind?