That suggests we should forget and destroy everything from the past, if it doesn't have a use nowaday. If we thought like that, we'll end up with more stupidly shaped concrete and mirrored buildings which will need replacing again in 50 years.
That suggests we should forget and destroy everything from the past, if it doesn't have a use nowaday. If we thought like that, we'll end up with more stupidly shaped concrete and mirrored buildings which will need replacing again in 50 years.
Some old Liverpool pics I found
My Flickr Pics
Latest Additions:
Wolfmother @ O2 Academy
Spin Doctors @ O2 Academy 2
Sefton Park
Liverpool Cathedral Tower Experience and St Georges Hall
Chester Zoo
Wirral Egg Run 2011
Check out the Yo! Liverpool Flickr Group
ss,
Only if we began with stupidity could we end up with it.
Where is the confidence in ones neighbours? Wher is the imagination? The foresight?
The matchbox size of the house has nothing at all to do with it being old or new. Give me this eco beauty any day that some old Victorian pneumonia home. BTW, it comes in a kit.
The reason we have tiny pokey homes is the land laws and the planning laws. Read this:
How land affects the Average Person
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
This is a major problem. The notion that buildings must be a permanent structure and be there for centuries. It is a functional structure. They outlive their usefulness and in most cases need adapting to cope with needs, by extending and the likes, as time moves on.
We do not think a car needs to last 200 years, so why do we have this attitude towards buildings? Pre-fabbed buildings can look terrific - it is just design. Want to to look Tudor? You got it. Want it to look like a Cornish cottage? You got it. When the useful life is over they are cheaply replaced. I see nothing wrong with that.
div>
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
I agree with you on some points WW, but the use of the land we have needs looking at. In the towns and cities, all over the UK, there are vast tracts unused. The so called brown sites should be freed up. We have a hospital over here, Arrowe Park, it was built on parkland. Miles from the population. Yet Birkenhead has vast tracts going idle. It's been idle for years. I think we should use what we got before we decimate more of the countryside.
Of course brownfield land should be utilised, however this land will account for only about 14% of the homes the UK needs. The myth all brownfield land can solve all problems while the stinking rich keep hold of their lucrative acres gets stronger by the day.
The Myths of the Planning System
How has this situation come about? In a country that was
among the first to roll back the government?s role in the
economy, why do we still plan our housing in the way we
do? And why do we accept the outcomes of this system,
which forces us to live in crowded, old, small and expensive
housing of a type we do not want?
One reason is that the political alliance to save the
countryside is very strong, but to be successful there
have to be a number of arguments that resonate with
voters. By analysing these arguments we discover that
they are as much folk myths as the view that British
housing is the best in Europe:
? Britain is a small, overcrowded country ? in fact only
around 7.5% per cent of land in Britain is urban, half the
figure in the Netherlands and lower than Belgium, (West)
Germany and Denmark. We are living in crowded and
dense cities, not a crowded and urbanised country.
? Southern England is especially crowded, so new development
should take place in the North ? in fact the
North West is the most urbanised region in England,
and the South West and East Anglia are among the least
urbanised.
? But the South is full of towns? ? development is
usually near major transport links, giving the impression
of over-urbanisation. In addition, there is the
psychological effect of travelling between cities ? one
travels slowly through urban areas but speeds through
rural ones, giving a false impression as to the level of
development.
? We?re all getting older and will want smaller houses ?
in the last 32 years the number of households has
risen by one-third, outstripping the growth of the
housing stock. Besides, many older people do not
want to move out of their houses, and nor should they
be forced to.
? We need agricultural land to be self-sufficient ?
Britain has one of the highest proportions of land
given over to agriculture in the world, and we produce
agricultural surpluses. We are fully integrated in the
world economy and rely on imports for almost everything,
especially energy ? being self-sufficient in food
alone is pointless.
? Cities are bad for environment ? interestingly, it seems
that the kind of low rise, low density housing that
planners and guardians of the countryside dislike is
better for biodiversity than monocultural farmland.
? We need to live at high densities to protect the global
environment ? the planning system?s emphasis on
using brown field land often increases fuel use, as these
sites are not always near existing development or
people?s work places. Taxation is a much more effective
tool for reducing fuel usage.
? Building on brown field sites is always better ? the
number of brown field sites is heavily restricted,
perhaps only 14 per cent of the houses we need could
be built on them. If we are only going to use these sites
then house prices will continue to rocket and we will be
living in very dense, crowded, high rise accommodation
? just what we do not want.
? There are lots of empty buildings we could use ? our
vacancy rate is very low internationally, and some
vacancy rate is required for the market to be flexible.
--------
Countryside organisations are demanding all city brownfield sites be built on.
This should be resisted as we now have an ideal opportunity to leave most
of these sites vacant, cleaned up and made natural again by turning them
into parks, woods and encouraging wildlife for the local population to enjoy.
This is an ideal opportunity to improve brownfield areas, improving the
quality of life of urban dwellers. Righting the wrongs of the incompetent
planners of the past. Areas like Hampstead Heath should be actively
encouraged. Woods in towns and cities would also be a great bonus. The
deliberate differentiation between town and country requires abolition as the
Town & Country planning act attempts to divide. Using the words town and
country sets the tone. It creates conflict. It creates two separate
societies. It creates distrust.
A good read. Opens your eyes....Unaffordable Housing
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
You have a point WW, but turning the countryside into huge estates is not good. You can have small high densith housing in towns. there have been some great examples. I believe London has one development that resembles a Spanish town.
More myths. Concreting over the countryside. Urban sprawl. Emotive terms used by the large landowners, to keep you hemmed up in a tight urban communities. The implications are that we do not have any land. As only 7.5% is settled we can't sprawl anywhere. If all towns and cities were twice the size that is still only 15% of the land used.
About two thirds of all new housing is built within existing urban areas with the remainder mainly built on the edge of urban areas. Very little is built on open countryside.
Land reform must mesh with decent relaxed planning laws that allow the population to build on all land. Laws passed relating to land are rendered sterile if relaxed planning laws are not implemented. Areas of natural beauty, SSSI's, national parks, industrial and commercial sectors, etc, of course should have restrictions, which still leaves a vast amount of subsidised field Britain to build on.
Building on a larger mass of land will eliminate the unappealing high density, high impact developer estates; the sort that make people shudder, with many having to buy as they have Hobson?s choice. Many against building on the countryside envisage high density, high impact developer estates. The vision of these estates stirs negative emotions. That clearly would not occur if the people are allowed to spread out on the land. With cheaper land, people would build larger houses on larger plots for less money. Having the large developers curtailed will result in a mixed assortment of higher quality homes.
"We are living in crowded and dense cities,
not a crowded and urbanised country"
"Planners have created a system
that has led not only to higher
house prices but also a highly
volatile housing market?
Best read the links I give. It will become clearer.
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
To return to the original question "What's so great about Old Buildings?" its about scale and context. There are one or two modern buildings that give a nod to their surroundings, but most architects want to be noticed, and New Brutalism never really disappeared.
John
In the case of Liverpool the planners make sure they do not want any building to be noticed. The Caesar Pelli building is a non-entity as the planners lopped off about 7 to 10 floors reducing impact. The Brunswick Quay Tower is another prime example, which was rejected.
The Liver Blgs can be described as brutalism. It was meant to be noticed. The Capital Building is pure brutalism - although this is a highly functional eco building before eco was fashionable.
Which leads me to, why aren't all buildings facing water using a heat pump to heat and cool using the dock or river water as the Capital Building did in 1973? The city has much innovation in these matters, and even St. George's school, Wallasey. St. George's Hall being the world's first air-conditioned building. The city should insist on these being implemented.
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
[QUOTE=Waterways;199050]This is a major problem. The notion that buildings must be a permanent structure and be there for centuries. It is a functional structure. They outlive their usefulness and in most cases need adapting to cope with needs, by extending and the likes, as time moves on.]
I know lets fill in the docks and canals and build on them.
www.livewiredancestudio.com 77 Renshaw St.
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
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
Bookmarks