Sorry - it was 1844 - I misread my notes.
Sorry - it was 1844 - I misread my notes.
In my post of February 9th., I listed some of the fine churches that had disappeared. Many were demolished for housing or other developments but quite a number succumbed to vandalism and fire. Whether the destruction of St Katharine’s Church in Abercromby Square was vandalism or redevelopment is a matter of opinion. The whole integrity [...]
More...
div>
Thankfully St John's steeple is still standing thanks to my www.fairfieldspire.co.uk
But some churches have been demolished for the worst reasons possible - one being Emmanuel Everton which claimed there was instability with the tower - but in fact they wanted that plot of land for a new Inner Ring Road which didn't happen.
The tower was solid and it was only a local chap who actually bought the bells from the Council to have them installed in Christ Church, Bootle.
Absolutey correct - change has been made.
This all very well in wanting to keep these churches standing but....who's going to fund their upkeep and also have security on the premises to stop them getting vandalised,if the church doesn't want them any more.
Venice has managed to keep all its churches and tourists flock there in the millions. Quentin Hughes once described Liverpool as the 'Venice of the North' back in the 1960s and people laughed at him. Had we kept a few more of our better buildings (particularly the huge belt of Georgian housing that shrank dramatically in the 1960s and 70s) - Liverpool would have been a much 'richer' city. There is a price to pay - but once you have removed our architural heritage, it cannot be replaced. We can always make excuses about cost - but in the long term these arguements don't stack up (look at the cost of high rise developments that replaced the old streets - they barely lasted 30years and we are still paying for the blight they caused).
Well, considering the concept of 'heritage' didn't carry with it the same significance as it does today...I think we're fortunate to have the buildings we have. We can only lament on yesterday's foolishness, especially since we have the evidence of what the city has lost. I think it makes the photopgraphic record that we do have all the more important. Thanks again for posting Colin.
I'm sorry but you have gone right off the radar when comparing Venice to Liverpool,Venice is and all ways will be a tourist haven in terms of its culture,romantism,Gondola's and its waterways.
Now then lets see what Liverpool has...Boarded up shops,boarded up houses,a stinking river and the romantism is Cinderella on the Empire every year...eck! vandalism is taboo in Venice.
In the words of German sailors coming ashore.....Our bombers didn't do a very good job Hans.
St Petersburg, was also modelled on Venice and views itself as the Venice of the North. I can recommend a visit, really beautiful.
Birmingham has more canals than Venice
I lived in Birmingham for a few years....that's were the comparison ends.
St Catherine Abercromby Square suffered incendiary bomb damage in WW2, just like St Luke's. The photo just shows the shell of the building. Yes it could have been saved and the whole street facade incorporated into Senate House. It's ironic a few years ago the University were complaining how the new merseytravel bus stops were destroying the look of the square !!
Have you ever tried pushing a barge with one of those oars,Ged?Birmingham has more canals than Venice
Bookmarks