YO! Liverpool
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 44

Thread: Liverpool Skyscraper Boom Over?

  1. #1
    Creator & Administrator Kev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Under The Stairs >> Under The Mud.
    Posts
    7,489
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 13 Times in 11 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Post Liverpool Skyscraper Boom Over?

    The head of Liverpool's new economic development company has admitted the recent boom in skyscrapers across the city is over.

    Speaking to the Liverpool Daily Post, Jim Gill warned that the threat of a recession is frightening off developers from pressing on with high rise schemes in the Capital of Culture host city.

    He told the paper: 'In the current economic climate, I would be very surprised if any new tower actually got under way in the sort of timetables we have seen over the past few years.


    ADVERTISING




    'It's not like building a traditional housing estate where the house builder can move development forward in blocks of three, four or five houses.'

    Gill has recently become chief of the all new Liverpool Vision superquango made up of the city's three main development and business organisations Business Liverpool, the Liverpool Land Development Company and the exisitng Liverpool Vision.

    His comments have been generally supported by city's main business players. Frank Mckenna ,of commercial lobby group Downtown Liverpool in Business, said: 'Gill is very knowledgeable about development and regeneration and I do not necessarily disagree with him.

    'But we have got to be careful though and not throw the baby out with the bathwater – we could be in danger of talking ourselves into a recession.'

    He added, however, that architects in the city were as busy as ever before but 'may be doing other things' than high rise developments.

    source
    Liverpool in Pictures/ YO! Liverpool has taken me over 10 years to develop and maintain.

    All server & domain costs are covered by myself & kind donations of individuals.

    If you like the website, please donatevia PayPal!




    Thank you


    Kev
    2005 - 2017

  2. #2
    Newbie jay2410's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    What is the point in Gill saying this? Doesn't that statement just make his job harder?

  3. #3
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kev View Post
    The head of Liverpool's new economic development company has admitted the recent boom in skyscrapers across the city is over.

    Speaking to the Liverpool Daily Post, Jim Gill warned that the threat of a recession is frightening off developers from pressing on with high rise schemes in the Capital of Culture host city.

    He told the paper: 'In the current economic climate, I would be very surprised if any new tower actually got under way in the sort of timetables we have seen over the past few years.
    What also frightens them off is the fiasco of the iconic Brunswick Quay Tower rejection. Brunswick Quay Tower Rejection A total of one billion in investment that dragged on and on for years and the company lost a fortune and lots of time too making very serious world-class proposal. What city would turn down that sort of project?

    Others see that and don't even consider the city. They want to go to a dynamic go-ahead place to invest their money. They want to have excellent co-operation and prior advice from the city, then get planning permission quickly, then get the place built ASAP to get a return, together with public investment on infrastructure, particularly rapid transport.

    The LibDems were responsible for that rejection, in a city which was starved of investment for 30 years - you get as much as you can while you can as it never lasts. Beggars can't be choosers. What were they doing? What was in their tiny minds? They must be voted out for a more dynamic council - instead of the in-fighting shambles we have had for years and years.
    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

  4. #4
    Senior Member AK1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bootle
    Posts
    426
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Lightbulb

    I don't by any means think it's over, but I do think it is slowing down. Lets not forget that we still have the king edward tower, plot 3a princes dock and shanghai tower to come plus the central docks plan by peel in the distant future.
    I do think that the council are now more willing to approve high rise schemes since the brunswick tower incident. They have since abandoned their tall building policy which only allowed tall buildings in certain areas.

  5. #5
    Senior Member SteH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Childwall, Liverpool
    Posts
    611
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AK1 View Post
    . They have since abandoned their tall building policy which only allowed tall buildings in certain areas.
    But they have replaced it with a policy that demands a set number of parking spaces per each residential unit, a more devious and sunning way of limiting their number.

  6. #6
    Member RoddersUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Insufficient parking has always been a reason for them to reject an application whatever the size or type of the building.
    Last edited by RoddersUK; 03-17-2008 at 04:36 PM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RoddersUK View Post
    Insufficient parking has always been a reason for them to reject an application whatever the size or type of the building.
    If there is a rapid transport rail station adjacent then parking is non-issue. The sooner the disused tunnels, lines and stations are brought back into use the better.
    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

  8. #8
    Senior Member danensis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    80
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I think that should be "world crass" not "world class". I really cannot see the point in making your city look just like every other city. It is Liverpool's uniqueness (and that of its people) that has given it its strength. If all you want is tower blocks then Hong Kong does it so much better, and India or Brazil is cheaper.

    John

  9. #9
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danensis View Post
    I think that should be "world crass" not "world class". I really cannot see the point in making your city look just like every other city. It is Liverpool's uniqueness (and that of its people) that has given it its strength. If all you want is tower blocks then Hong Kong does it so much better, and India or Brazil is cheaper.

    John
    The Brunswick Quay Tower was an iconic building not an oblong glass block. Look at the link I gave - and Liverpool being the home of the modern building,.

    Every city and region thinks its people are unique - so a non-issue. What is unique about Liverpool? In looks it is its variety of very differing buildings. What created that, was that those many years ago just built what they thought was apt at the time.

    Liverpool was famous for its innovation in building. The world's first air-conditioned building - St. George's Hall. The world's first steel framed glass curtain walled building - Oriel Chambers. The world's first large scale ferro-concrete building - the Liver Blgs. St. George's Solar school in Wallasey. Advanced Dock/warehouse buildings - Albert for e.g. The world's largest interconnected docks system.

    Now we have a bunch of people who think Liverpool should stay still and become a dead city like Venice.
    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

  10. #10
    Senior Member naked lilac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hawaii, USA
    Posts
    437
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I don't think Venisia is a dead city at all.. It is fabulous and unique and breathtaking to say the least.. and that is what the World would like to see ..

    I think, (personally speaking) , Liverpool is getting too modern and agree with danesis on this.. It is the Old worldly historic buildings that tourist and such come to see.. If they all are demolished for Modernism , then why would anyone want to come there?? People are drawn to Europe for the cobblestones and architecture of the forefathers.. NOT for glass, that you can see most anywhere.. Go to Dubai if you want MODERN.. my opinion...

  11. #11
    Senior Member SteH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Childwall, Liverpool
    Posts
    611
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I read an article on Venice somewhere, in that its population quadruples or something like that every day and by 7pm nearly all the tourists have left and nothing happens its a dead town. Venice will always attract tourists, but it will stay stagnant due to its canal based situation.

    Liverpool neednt be like that and lets face it most visitors come initially due to the Beatles and football, not because of historical buildings. Liverpool city council an others sometimes seem hell bent on restricting progress and putting whatever obstacles in the way they can. There seems an obsession at times with protecting the world heritage site which spans quite an area, yet the council were prepared to allow a 30 storey tower to go up at Concourse House, within a few hundred feet of St Georges Hall.
    Last edited by SteH; 03-18-2008 at 09:22 AM.

  12. #12
    Member RoddersUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by naked lilac View Post
    Liverpool is getting too modern
    If everyone had this attitude then we would still be living in caves or mud huts. The great building that Waterways just mentioned were all considered modern in their day. You cant turn the whole city into one big museum. What Liverpool need are new building of quality design but theses are very few and far between.

  13. #13
    Newbie jay2410's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    A valid opinion maybe. How about looking at the people who actually live and try to work in Liverpool, not just the people who like to come and have a look and then go back to where they come from, saying oh wasn't nice to see some history.

    Those people would quiet happily turn Liverpool into a giant museum or at the very best keep the status quo. After all you can't deny some people have an allergic reaction to change and the future.

    I would like to think, I represent the views of the majority of young professionals working in the city who want to see the city grow, want some interesting tall, eye catching buildings, that display prosperity and forward thinking to those looking to invest, and more importantly provide modern grade a office space for business, which you will find is costly and very hard to produce in older buildings. There is a lot of space towards the north end of the business district that lies derelict, and if developed would not affect the world heritage part of the water front, so what’s the harm in building scrapers there or at Brunswick for that mater, you could block them out with your hand looking from Birkenhead!

    My opinion is that Liverpool lags some way behind in business and jobs compared to other not to distant cities, and if someone wants to point money and ideas and infrastructure into the city then let them, going back to the article, "beggars can’t be choosers".

  14. #14
    Senior Member lindylou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,678
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    I agree with having the best of both worlds - like posters are saying - we have to move on and grow. I am all for that.

    However, I do see what Nakedlilac is saying too .. ie, the beautiful old architecture of Europe - who would want to see that swept away and replaced by glass
    For instance, I don't go to Sevilla or Granada to look at concrete and glass - I go to experience the beauty and history of Al Andaluz - and of course the same would apply to any old European city.

    Just because you want to see and enjoy the old, doesn't mean you don't want the place to progress.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Liverpool can have both new and old.

    Liverpool has to preserve what it has

    Far too many excellent old buildings are still being demolished or left to rot. This has to stop immediately. Introduction of Land Value Tax will stop it, as it did in Pittsburg in the USA

    Liverpool needs new buildings blending in with the old.

    New buildings can blend in with the old. For e.g., extending the Georgian quarter with only modern Georgian buildings - developers would line up to do that, as they know they would sell. Georgian buildings never went away, they have always been built to that style right up to this day. The worlds first stock-standard house. Style books were made and you just copied them. Many were built in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and North America.

    This new development in Aylesbury, by volume house builder Bryant blends in well. although slabbed pavements would have been better Some new developments have cobbled streets too.

    Liverpool needs new modern state-of-the-art buildings

    There is lots of spare land that can be used for state-of-the-art modern buildings. Venice is a dead city - it is not active in the commercial sense and has stayed static. De Gaulle feared Paris may end up the same way and reserved land west of Paris at La Defense. No architectural or height restrictions, do what you want. It is the financial district of Paris with lots of residential flats too. It worked. London copied it in the Docklands.

    The old dock waterways had old transit sheds, of which most are demolished. The warehouses can be converted to flats, not the sheds. These areas can be made vibrant by building new overhanging buildings as at Hamburg, or direct copies of the Albert Dock if need be. Below Hamburg:


    Liverpool needed this iconic building at Brunswick Dock as well. The city foolishly rejected it. It would have been built by now attracting attention from all over the world.

    .
    Last edited by Waterways; 03-18-2008 at 02:12 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

  16. #16
    Member RoddersUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    "developers would line up to do that" Really? What is stopping them from doing just that?
    They are only interested in profit and building to the size and proportion of those Georgian buildings wont make them the same (if any) profit as the Aylesbury example, which in my opinion is terrible and does not blend in with anything apart than other boring pastiche building that are slowly swamping this country.
    Liverpool can continue to grow and preserve is rich heritage but not if it believes the "beggars can’t be choosers" line. The money is at long last being spent in the city but it needs to be spent on the right quality building and not building that will become the noughtys equivalent of the 60's tower blocks.

  17. #17
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RoddersUK View Post
    "developers would line up to do that" Really? What is stopping them from doing just that?
    Rodders, maybe the poor transport infrastructure? I think so. I an underground station was cut into the Wapping tunnel in the Georgian quarter, they would flock in. They need to see the city buying into matters too. Lay down the rapid rail transport infrastructure and they will come in.

    Are the developers going to spend extending the Georgian houses up to Lodge Lane and Edge Hill? Not when they see nothing being done to change those areas.

    They are only interested in profit and building to the size and proportion of those Georgian buildings wont make them the same (if any) profit as the Aylesbury example, which in my opinion is terrible and does not blend in with anything apart than other boring pastiche building that are slowly swamping this country.
    Liverpool can continue to grow and preserve is rich heritage but not if it believes the "beggars can’t be choosers" line. The money is at long last being spent in the city but it needs to be spent on the right quality building and not building that will become the noughtys equivalent of the 60's tower blocks.
    Rodders, as those large Georgian homes around Canning St are fetching premium prices I think many would like to extend them and make them just the same. Smaller Georgian houses can be built to blend in - or even larger being apartments.

    The Aylesbury example is a lot better than the tat that some dish up. The front doors are on the pavements and the new homes do match to some degree some of the older homes around. I have seen some of them. Others had railings in front, really looking good. The point is that new buildings can be built to blend in with the existing older homes.

    I would not call Brunswick Quay a 60s tower block at all. An world-class iconic building designed by the architect who came second in the World Trade Centre replacement in NY. It would totally act as a catalyst for the south end of the dock waters, attracting top-class investment. It could have been there by now. I firmly believe the rejection of this building has had a negative affect of the city. Apart from the Shanghai Tower, no new large top class developments have come forward. If the Shanghai Tower goes through excessive official hassle then the investment money will dry up for certain. Some developers are having cold feet and Central Village and others are now not that certain to go ahead. The dynamic city they saw a few years ago appears to be turning 180 degrees, so better returns elsewhere.

    I hope the LibDems get voted out - they are a wash-out. Then the new administration have a word in Maro's ear and say re-submit your tower. Maybe Maro are waiting for a regime change to see what way to go. I wouldn't blame them if they pulled out of Liverpool 100% ands sold up the land they own.

    Chris Ives, the director of the developers Maro, said in 2006: "If we had gone to Manchester, Newcastle or Leeds with this building we would probably already be on site." He expands, "Liverpool city council doesn't have any vision - they can't see around corners".

    Says it all really.
    Last edited by Waterways; 03-18-2008 at 02:04 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

  18. #18
    KenO kenotoole123@msn.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Runcorn
    Posts
    47
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Not only would the 'Brunswick Dock Building' have been an 'Iconic' Bldg.....How much has the City lost in Rates...The Rates from this building would have paid for Capital of culture year...'Three' times over!

  19. #19
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kenotoole123@msn.com View Post
    Not only would the 'Brunswick Dock Building' have been an 'Iconic' Bldg.....How much has the City lost in Rates...The Rates from this building would have paid for Capital of culture year...'Three' times over!
    Also the knock on effect of other top class proposals wanting to be around this building. They would bring in revenue and people with money and their business skills too.
    Last edited by Waterways; 03-18-2008 at 03:01 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

  20. #20
    Member RoddersUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    It was not my intention to say the Brunswick Quay was a 60's tower block, I agree it would have be a great addition to Liverpool's skyline and a catalyst for further development as will the Shanghai Tower if it goes ahead.

    I'm sad to say that appointing a top architect does not always guarantee a top class design though, just look at One Park West.

    It is not just Liverpool that is suffering from developers getting cold feet, it's happening the world over at present. And i agree that the council has a lot to answer for.

    I dont see your point about a poor transport infrastructure stopping developers from building Georgian houses. They can make a bigger and quicker profit by building shoe box apartments so thats what they will do.

  21. #21
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RoddersUK View Post
    I dont see your point about a poor transport infrastructure stopping developers from building Georgian houses. They can make a bigger and quicker profit by building shoe box apartments so thats what they will do.
    Many will take the easy way out. They will not move towards a few dodgy areas if they see nothing been done about them - of course they want to maximise return. If they see activity and progress in the pipeline then they will move in. If it all looks great for the future then they will act. If they see nothing they will keep away.
    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

  22. #22
    Member RoddersUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I agree but when the do start to develop those areas i bet you any money they wont be building new large Georgian town houses.

  23. #23
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RoddersUK View Post
    It was not my intention to say the Brunswick Quay was a 60's tower block,
    Some 60s blocks should never have been demolished. We cry about the odd terraced street, but some of these blocks were superb. The three on Shiel Rd were very good looking blocks as were the same designs in the north end: St. Georges, etc. Private developers should have been given the blocks for a £1 and then they would have have made them top class.
    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

  24. #24
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RoddersUK View Post
    I agree but when the do start to develop those areas i bet you any money they wont be building new large Georgian town houses.
    If the city says you have to build Georgian houses as that is the district policy, they will. It all comes back to city leadership and policy. They have to know what is important. The underground rail transport infrastructure clearly is one of the big keys to open up investment. It must be done properly not by cutting back and using cheap Mickey Mouse trams
    Last edited by Waterways; 03-18-2008 at 03:23 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

  25. #25
    Member RoddersUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Adlington House too has just recently been developed very successfully.

  26. #26
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RoddersUK View Post
    Adlington House too has just recently been developed very successfully.
    Rodders, the odd few have been, but far too many good looking blocks were needlessly demolished - Shiel Rd is a decent area too with a park opposite - private developers would have taken them up. Heysmoor Heights at the end of Lodge Lane is looking great.

    The developers will not move any further into Lodge Lane as it looks like a war zone. They need to see something positive happening before they move into such an area - like an underground rapid transport station being constructed. Something permanent.
    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

  27. #27
    Senior Member SteH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Childwall, Liverpool
    Posts
    611
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterways View Post
    Rodders, the odd few have been, but far too many good looking blocks were needlessly demolished - Shiel Rd is a decent area too with a park opposite - private developers would have taken them up. Heysmoor Heights at the end of Lodge Lane is looking great.

    The developers will not move any further into Lodge Lane as it looks like a war zone. They need to see something positive happening before they move into such an area - like an underground rapid transport station being constructed. Something permanent.
    With respect to Sheil Road though, the blocks were demolished and sustainable social housing built in its place, its not as if the land was just landscaped over. Not all ex council blocks can be converted for those who can afford to buy.

  28. #28
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteH View Post
    With respect to Sheil Road though, the blocks were demolished and sustainable social housing built in its place, its not as if the land was just landscaped over. Not all ex council blocks can be converted for those who can afford to buy.
    The existing nice looking blocks were sustainable too. The energy consumption per unit in a block is far less than a house. Also they held more people. Imagine all 3 filled with high earning people. That would improve the area and the local restaurants/pubs/cafes/shops etc. It was very foolish to demolish the 22 floor blocks in the city. Entwistle Heights at the top of Parli' was another that was ripe for a private occupation. A good looking block as well.

    Those three block would have sold as they opposite a park. What makes me think why they were demolished was to get the high earning people into the centre.
    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

  29. #29
    Senior Member SteH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Childwall, Liverpool
    Posts
    611
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterways View Post
    . Imagine all 3 filled with high earning people. That would improve the area and the local restaurants/pubs/cafes/shops etc. .

    Those three block would have sold as they opposite a park. What makes me think why they were demolished was to get the high earning people into the centre.
    I agree that desirable accommodation for middle-high income people has to be brought into the deprived areas to generate the demand for sustainable businesses such as cafes and shops, but should this be at the cost of driving out local residents. Those blocks were occupied and run by a local housing trust, who took the decision to demolish them and build houses in their place rather than refurbish them. Maybe a good middle ground would have been to leave one standing but whats done is done now.

  30. #30
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteH View Post
    I agree that desirable accommodation for middle-high income people has to be brought into the deprived areas to generate the demand for sustainable businesses such as cafes and shops, but should this be at the cost of driving out local residents.
    The decision to demolish was totally wrong. They were fine blocks indeed. They were no Piggeries. Local residents can still be accommodated locally.

    You don't want working class ghettos, and Liverpool is full of them.
    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

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Home of The Skyscraper
    By Waterways in forum Buildings and Structures
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-31-2009, 11:50 PM
  2. Boom Over?
    By Waterways in forum Liverpool Developments Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-30-2008, 01:46 PM
  3. Is Liverpool's architectural boom all it's cracked up be? (an article)
    By scottieroader in forum Liverpool Developments Chat
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 10-13-2007, 03:06 PM

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
  •  

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!