Originally Posted by
Colin Wilkinson
I do agree. The city was definitely looking the worse for wear at that time - and it is easy to criticise decision-makers who wanted to improve the place, even if their vision in retrospect looks flawed. I remember too the reaction (it lasted well into the 1970s) against Victorian architecture. It was regarded as dowdy and ugly (as you say, not helped by the blackened stone/brick). Quentin Hughes like to tell how he took an Italian professor on a guided tour of Liverpool and being asked 'where did you get all this black stone?'.
At least I feel the days of pulling down buildings without due thought have gone.
Once people saw what was below the layer of grime they changed their minds. The beauty of the buildings emerged. We are still making the same mistakes. Some new buildings are made of cheap concrete and the stuff gets dirty quick. They never learn. In our damp climate you need the materials to resist the grime.
div>
There was just not enough vision. What there was, like the Shankland Plan, was just appalling. The inner motorway he designed was partially built. The section along the Dock Rd to Leeds St. This should be put right ASAP. Even the NY Times critisede it, as it formed abig barrier between the city and Albert Dock.
The original designers of the Overhead were lax. It only went inland at both ends. Even in 1893 the Wapping and Waterloo Tunnels could have been used to get trains further inland - how much the passengers would have interfered with the freight I do not know. Also the tunnels were owned by different companies. Many men had to take a bus from home to the Dock Rd and get the Overhead along its length, while getting to a station further inland at various points would have been far more convenient. This would have made the Overhead Railway very attractive to many and it probably would have still been with us if it did penetrate inland more.
Bookmarks