A letter in today's Guardian (link 1) which gives a link to the earlier story (link 2)...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ma...ool-waterfront
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ma...sk?INTCMP=SRCH
Printable View
A letter in today's Guardian (link 1) which gives a link to the earlier story (link 2)...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ma...ool-waterfront
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ma...sk?INTCMP=SRCH
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...front--007.jpg
Before all the monstrosities were built!
What monstrosities?
The Pier Head looks better NOW than its ever done.
As recently as the 1980's, it was a tramps toilet.
The Liver building aint so pretty.
People are far too precious about everything in this city, you would think we lived in Venice or Florence the way people go on about out tedious 200 metre long "waterfront".
I absolutely love the waterfront the way it is now. The contrast in styles, ages and building materials in the architecture makes it a remarkable public open space.
Standing near the floating bridge area and looking South on a bright, sunny day gives a great vista.
Here comes the yuan
A city’s bid to revive its fortunes through the local and the global
http://media.economist.com/sites/def...3_BRP003_0.jpg
AT THE new Museum of Liverpool (above), a sleek limestone affair of Danish design, the city’s Chinese community, which began with an influx of sailors at the start of the 19th century, gets an exhibit to itself. The emphasis seems a little odd, until you consider the city’s regeneration strategy, which rests on a characteristically 21st-century mix of the local and the global. The aim is to use Liverpool’s storied past to attract investment from around the world—and from China in particular.
More >>
Before we get carried away with the notion of Chinese investment and how Merseyside will benefit, a word of warning. This month thge UK's electronics industry meets to discuss how China's role in counterfeiting goods has affected the UK ( and western) economies generally. It's worth reading before the Peel offer is considered. Peel are in a hurry to get their deal passed.
Peel's response to UNESCO report:-
Apologies to anyone who tried this link to Farnell electronics site. It was working then closed down overnight.Quote:
Peel, however, has said the report is flawed and has refused to agree to any demands to remove skyscrapers.
Lindsey Ashworth, its director of investments, told the Liverpool Daily Post:
"It is not about making a profit. The opportunity is now. I think it is a
shame that we cannot reach agreement. But we are right, and they are
completely wrong."
http://www.element14.com/community/docs/DOC-28410/l/about-counterfeiting
Here is a screen grab copy of the pageAttachment 22948
I've often stated my views on Peel and UNESCO, I'll not expand on cockle pickers and China. This Far East country can't look out for it's own, can we really expect to live off the backs of the Chinese poor? It's distasteful, disgraceful and the whole idea should shame Merseysiders.
Yes, I'm probably viewing this on a Chinese component screen (actually a Philips).
Chas:unibrow:
IIRC, it was a tramps toilet because of the bus station.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry
It can be a nice open space public area without the ugly museum. A new ferry terminal and a cruise terminal that blended in, along with the open space and artwork would have fit the bill nicely.
It would have still been "a remarkable public open space".
The old buildings on Shanghai's waterfront are very reminicent of the Pier Head . If you watch the opening sequence of Empire of the Sun a movie from a book by J G Ballard who grew up in Shanghai you can see the shots of The Bund ( Shanghai's Pier Head)
Since the end of the cultural revolution there has been amazing building development in Shanghai but most on the Pudong side of the river. The iconic buildings on the Bund are in amazing shape and the Chinese are proud of the heritage value of the original buildings.New towers are all over the city some 88 stories high with open atriums and nightclubs on the penthouse floor this is all good but they also have 20 million people living in Shanghai- and that is just the legals so there are plenty of takers for apartments and office space. It would be hard to justify any sort of similar development in Liverpool and the one thing that Chinese want is a return on their investment either money out or people in.
Last time I visited and I have been there many times it had become very westernised with a Marks and Spencers and a Barbie shop the latest additions.The people part of Shanghai is going through massive clearance and many thousands are thrown out of their homes and workplaces roads are developed almost instantly.There is no going back once the blot on the landscape is there
Why would it be hard?
Without the buildings and work, you won't get the people.
Here's a Google of images of Shanghai's Bund showing the older buildings and the more modern buildings that have been more recently added to their Pier Head-style waterfront. I agree that there is some similarity to Liverpool's Pier Head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doris Mousdale
Chris
The similarities with one of our twin cities has not gone un-noticed by the people who can do something about it and are trying to. These images are in what is becoming a marveled at structure, our new museum.
USE THE SCROLL BAR BELOW TO SEE THE FULL PICTURES
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/648...rfrontlpoo.jpg
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/4...frontlpool.jpg
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
You know, it is commonly known that familiarity can breed contempt and I often think we beat ourselves up sometimes. All I see are people from other nations oohing and wowing at what we have in and around the Pier Head now including the new museum. I know as I have spoken with them, I make it my interest to.
What I remember of the Pier Head in the 70s, my playground (amongst others) is yes, having a laugh and a good run around the place but it was fume and smoke filled with the buses - the Albert Dock was dereliction at its worst with mud filled docks and then in the 90s the Pier Head became desolate.
I was down there at dusk over the weekend watching the crane putting the new landing stage pylons in and even then in the mild autumn night it was packed with people coming and going, criss crossing, taking photographs etc - many obviously not from Liverpool, not even from the UK. It must be one of the most photographed places anywhere.
Even as a kid I can remember being just a bit disappointed by the 'skyline' on the Mersey. I remember coming in on the Manx Maid (the boat in the picture??) from holidays on the IOM and the Liver Buildings seemed a bit like a pimple on a pool table. Miles and miles of flat 'urban landscape'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizzie1
There was a study done in the 60s into how the city might develop to frame the Pier Head Buildings, either by building a backdrop of tall buildings or by building waves of taller buildings either side of the Liver Buildings - like long bookends with the Pier Head as the centrepiece. It keeps the link with the past but builds on for the future.
Many other global cities have done the same, some more successfully than others - notably Sydney and even New York where the focal point of a composition is the Opera House and Bridge in one case and the Statue of Liberty in the other.
There's no point in standing still. Even the Liver Buildings were a 'monstrosity' to some when it was built (and it committed today's cardinal sin of filling in a dock). But it sent out the message that Liverpool was fit, healthy and open for business and today's skyline should do the same.
Liverpool's skyline is getting stronger and the better for it.
The rejection by the city's Lib-Dems of the Brunswick Quay Tower was criminal. It would have been built by now. The city shot itself in the foot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter McGurk
The filling of historic George's Dock was criminal indeed. The Three Graces would have been far better behind the dock giving an animated water feature in front - the dock with small boats. All these three monolithic buildings have done is create dead space around them. The Pier Head has had 4 complexions in my lifetime - it never seems to work no matter what they do. I hope this new reincarnation works. The Strand behind the Three Graces needs a lot doing to it to create animation. It needs cafes, etc, not faceless offices. The inner motorway, that was partially built along there needs removing. It also divides the Albert Dock from the main bulk of the centre - a real dumb idea and one of the few parts of the 1960s Shankland plan to get built. What was teh city thinking of when they adopted the ideas of this lunatic?
It can be like Venice if the dock waters are developed properly and prevented from being filled in. The potential is enormous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry
They get filled on a regular basis. Even in a World Heritage Site Buffer Zone. Disgusting. This abomination borders Liverpool Waters - now that is going to be a big success now isn't it? This now, with the Sandon Dock plant, ensures the dock waters will remain just the south end and up to central for leisure and resident expansion. What a waste! They no vision. Today.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter McGurk
£200m United Utilities waste treatment plant for Wellington Dock approved
A NEW £200m waste treatment plant will be built on the banks of the River Mersey to continue improving its water quality.
United Utilities was yesterday given planning permission for the new complex in Liverpool’s northern docklands.
The scheme involves draining Wellington Dock and partially reclaiming it to create a huge plant capable of handling 11,000 litres of wastewater a second – the equivalent of re-fuelling the average family car 200 times every second.
As part of the new improvements, sections of Sandon Dock will also be upgraded and the existing outfall will be extended into the River Mersey resulting in dispersing treated waste water even further into the estuary to meet new EU standards.
The new plant must be built by 2016 after United Utilities was prosecuted by the Environment Agency for polluting the Mersey.
Sarah Jakubiak of United Utilities said Wellington Dock was the only available site for the development.
It falls within the buffer zone for the World Heritage Site (WHS), and English Heritage had expressed concerns about the scheme. However, Ms Jakubiak said English Heritage had withdrawn their objections after United Utilities had presented their plans to a recent monitoring mission to the WHS by Unesco.
Liverpool council said yesterday that it was prepared to approve the plans for the plant because of the exceptional circumstances and because it was desperately needed.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/...#ixzz1j9PHnTii
Sandon Dock was filled to create a waste sewage plant for "Manchester". In London they are building the Super Sewer than is a massive pipe put under the bed of the River Thames and both banks of the river empty into it. It takes sewage to a treatment pant nearer to the sea.
Liverpool could have done the same by laying a pipe in the river bed and taking sewage and waste to nearer Liverpool Bay.
What I don`t like about the grand schemes of the docks, is they will become off limits to ordinary folk who don`t reside or work there, similar to the Queens, and Waterloo with their private estates.
Just a thought, what has happened to the coastal path planned a few years ago when we supposed
to be able to walk the Mersey to Crosby from Otterspool to join up the Lancashire coastal walk.
And they're not off limits now Joe?
On the contrary, the likes of the Victoria clock tower will be brought back into the land of the living and shops and commercial businesses are part of the scheme - quite unlike the Waterloo 'private' estates which were very public when I walked down there to take some photos.
Even if it were private (and it's not) it's private now and out of bounds for everybody and an eyesore to boot with wasted opportunities for regeneration and the income to the city that having people living and working there will bring to it - the knock on effect.
I would love to see the Victoria Tower rehabilitated where it is, or, if that is not possible, moved to Albert Dock where it can be seen and enjoyed. It is an unknown treasure of Liverpool's dockland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
Chris
I was in Shanghai in 1981 and saw a crowd outside a store - looking at a fridge in the window. It was clearly something they hadn't seen before. Thirty years on the city is dominated by neon signs.
Took photographs of The Bund and about three years ago I showed them to a student from Shanghai - the change was so great she initially didn't recognise her own city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
In its way, the Shankland plan was visionary (if dramatically flawed in retrospect). Coming out of post-war austerity, it represented a brave new world for the city and the investment perhaps something of a reward for the pasting taken in WWII.
We know now that we can work in the sky and even live there to a degree but generally speaking and no matter how high the buildings are, we like our feet on the ground when we’re moving about and generally we prefer to walk rather than ride (as long as it’s not too far).
So you’re right, The Strand should be full of ‘active frontage’ at street level and to be fair, council and the planners have always pushed for this.
The micro-climate is poor if better than at the Pier Head itself but the biggest problem is lack of people - of course millions used to pass to and from the ferry or the bus station. Now, those are gone, or all but gone. Buildings on the 'Strand Wall' are empty and there’s plenty of room for restaurants and night life in less exposed parts of the city.
Many cities have dealt with the problem of a big, wide road cutting off the waterfront - usually by making the waterfront worth getting to. There’s a lot more to happen at the Pier Head to make it worth a visit.
Rebuilding the Goree Piazza would help reduce the width, slow traffic and help the pedestrian to cross but without a strong reason to go to the Pier Head or to The Strand itself they’re never going to be what they were, road or no road.
---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------
It is right that a lot can be done to keep the old docks as docks with some imagination and lateral thinking but it’s not always the right thing to do. The docks were built in a spirit of enterprise and new uses could and should be found likewise. Sometimes that means filling them in, albeit only with very strong reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
George’s Dock for example was both obsolete and something of an eyesore by all accounts and building in it has given the Liver Building the prominence that has helped make it so famous - a positive, forward-thinking and imaginative outcome.
Putting them to work in one way or another seems the most sustainable and people will always be drawn to live by the water. The V&A Waterfront at Cape Town is a good example of an old port that has continued to work while the commercial port has moved on. The recent announcement of Pelican Tall Ship cruises from the Albert Dock complex is good news in a similar way.
The waste treatment plant might seem negative but it has made huge improvements in the quality of the Mersey and as far I know doesn’t treat the Mersey itself or any waste in it from Manchester.
In any event it would have been extraordinarily difficult to find anywhere else to put it North of Seaforth and it’s hard to see how untreated waste can be pumped into Liverpool Bay.
---------- Post added at 06:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 PM ----------
I've often thought I'd like to live in it but the bus service probably isn't that good...Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisGeorge
I can think of realigning quays and the likes as being acceptable, but there is no reason for mass filling, as per Bidston, Toxteth, Harrigton, Herculaneum, Trafalgar, etc. There is enough land around to put arenas on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter McGurk
Once the docks are gone they never come back.
Ged all Waterloo and the residential part of the Queens are still private, You cannot pass through the Wateloo dock gates unless you live there I was only there yesterday, there is even a gate security lodge.
Over in Birkenhead you can still walk around the east float converted warehouses on the docks see pic
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3019/2...0b799e06_o.jpg
old warehouse,birkenhead by exacta2a, on Flickr
I have been going to Shanghai regularly for the past 15 years ,Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin
Kevin the change has been so fast and dramatic that if you go back after six months whole swathes of the place are totally different. What they do while all the rebuilding is going on is plant any waste areas with trees and plants so there is plenty of greenery around. Also young rich Chinese, and there are plenty of them, are buying up the old merchant houses for homes , galleries and restaurants which mix well with the new builds.Yes the air quality is questionable but they plant the top edges of flyovers with green plants to clean the air.
They all have fridges, watercoolers/heaters huge sound systems even in the tiniest apartments Maserati showrooms and high end designer stores abound . Ikea was like a football stadium with over 40 checkout tills all in action.Yes the old streets and neigbourhoods are fast disappearing but the new regeneration is happening real fast no dithering allowed.
I think it is that they are allowed to fill that is the problem. That encourages the easy and quick fast buck route. A prime example is Kings Dock. The branches were filled in to put a large ugly arena and chara-banc park on it, that could have gone on the land side of Kings/Queens Dock. See:Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter McGurk
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/KingsDock.html
The in and out nature of the branches meant a wonderful waterscape to work around. Some architects would be in their element designing around that. About 25% of the branches could have been filled in at the river end to give more depth to the land there. What a missed a opportunity. Leave the docks as they are and design around them. It is quite simple. Then unique waterscaped districts emerge. The only positive docks filling was actually St.George's Dock, although by leaving the docks it could have been better. All other docks filling has been negative. Nothing better came out of it.
The council should make it clear that there will be no more water space filling. The fact that they can means the developers use a guerrilla campaign to get their way. They wear the city down and get their way. If they can't do that they will not even consider filling in docks, no more than filling in the River Mersey.
Of course our first choice should be to keep the docks - always.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
We like water. We like to live by water. We like the reflections, the movement, the kid in us - the poetry of it. And in Liverpool's case, we appreciate the greatness by association - we live(d) in this great city that built this great thing.
But none of those things were in the minds of those that built them. Profit and expediency more like.
It is really, really sad when someone can only imagine two dull brick towers or a waste treatment plant in them but at least in the latter there's been a huge benefit to marine life in the river.
It's a sign of the differing times that the 'great and glorious' Liver Buildings rose out of a filled-in dock then but we have a waste plant now.
Best case, I would always want to keep the docks but it's not necessarily the filling of the docks that's a problem, it's what you put in them that matters.
---------- Post added at 10:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 AM ----------
The Mersey Waterfront Regional Park docs are archived here: http://merseybasin.org.uk/archive/items/MBC143.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by gregs dad
The footlink was or is intended to provide public access around the Mersey from New Brighton to Southport via Runcorn. The problem in this part of the world always was, how do you get past the working section of docklands at Seaforth?
I think it was a nice idea but practically speaking you would need an Act of Parliament to create a public right of way.
Having said that, being able to access all parts is bit of a planning mantra and rightly so. There's still a place for privacy (like, my front garden or even private gardens in a London square) but essentially 'gated' communities are difficult to justify.
Problem is, they're very attractive to investors who might otherwise not want to live or put money into a 'dodgy' area. It would be interesting to know how that went in London's Docklands...
At Waterloo I walked right past the gate lodge, i'm not even sure anyone was in it. I went around to the dockside and there were even residents out enjoying a BBQ and some music. Perhaps it is usually out of bounds then, but so it is now anyway at Central docks and the Peel plans are certainly not for a gated community, quite the opposite.
It seems so. In fact in relation to the question of public accessibility (and Mersey Waterfront Regional Park), Peel have this to say in the application:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
"Mersey Waterfront Regional Park - the Mersey Waterfront Regional Park initiative has two strands; the City to Sea strand harnesses the attractiveness of waterfront locations to attract businesses and other investors; the Pride in Promenades strand focuses on enhancing quality and accessibility of public realm. The Liverpool Waters masterplan will form an important component of the Mersey Waterfront Regional Park by enhancing access and the quality of the environment and by attracting new uses and users to waterfront."
However the East Waterloo Dock is not part of the application, so...
Peel want it filled in - another water space will then be gone. The city fathers are fools for not drawing the line on dock filling. IF they ddi then no application would come in with docks filling as a part of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter McGurk
I'm all for preserving heritage, but what use is too many docks and no boats/ships to use them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Want a few docks for Havasu City?:slywink:Quote:
Originally Posted by az_gila
Click on my sigQuote:
Originally Posted by az_gila
I guess in an ideal world, you could do that. In the real world you have to balance posterity with 'progress'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
There seems to be a basic contradiction in what you say. You want to preserve the remnants of the past and presumably the spirit that built them. Back in the day, that same spirit would have had no hesitation whatsoever in filling in every dock if it made more money.
Peel may have wanted to fill the East Waterloo Dock (did they own it then???) but the fact is, it isn't filled and no docks will be filled for Liverpool Waters (or Wirral Waters) either. So something is working in your favour.
Just reading the red text on your signature, no we wouldn't visit Venice if the canals were filled because that's all there is. Venice's canals are the lifeblood of the city. They are the only way to get around. It's different, unusual and attractive.
What else does Venice do but be seen? Do you mean all Liverpool does or did or has to offer is derelict docks? Do people really come to see derelict docks or even working docks? I think not.
For the greater part of Liverpool Docks' lives they've lived behind high walls cutting the city off from the river. I don't think that's what's made Liverpool unique. The comings and goings of a great working port are what has given us a unique character - not empty docks.
Yes, water is attractive to live by and even play in or on but if you can't get life out of the docks, they may as well be filled. As it happens it seems that Peel and the city agree. Why else would Peel apply to create marinas and the like and the city support them?
If you're not flogging a dead horse perhaps you're fighting a battle already won?
Nah... little boats so I think they dig their own....:PDT_Aliboronz_24:Quote:
Originally Posted by grekko
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=havasu...vasu+city&z=17
We live here now with what they left us. We do not have to think like them. Most of the history has gone which was the buildings around the water spaces. We can make a future Amsterdam out of them. You can't do that without water.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter McGurk
I think British Waterways may own West Waterloo - not sure. The master plan is filling in West Waterloo - Peel claim to build a cruise liner terminal off the dock so it needs filling. So this is not working to "our" favour.Quote:
Peel may have wanted to fill the East Waterloo Dock (did they own it then???) but the fact is, it isn't filled and no docks will be filled for Liverpool Waters (or Wirral Waters) either. So something is working in your favour.
The docks were lifeblood of Liverpool --and still are. Amsterdam and Venice were commercial cities - that is why the canal;s were built. They converted the redundant commercial canals and buildings to residential and leisure use. Which is exactly what Liverpool should be doing.Quote:
Just reading the red text on your signature, no we wouldn't visit Venice if the canals were filled because that's all there is. Venice's canals are the lifeblood of the city. They are the only way to get around. It's different, unusual and attractive.
They do now that many of them are expanding onto them and opening the river up to the city beyond.Quote:
Do people really come to see derelict docks or even working docks? I think not.
Click on the link in my sig and read the pages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
I think a new cruise liner terminal (in part of the West Waterloo Dock) is a very significant step forward and very much in the city’s favour (and in favour of your position). I would thank Peel for it. I’ve no need to react to Peel’s thinking, I prefer to think for myself, thank you.
I don’t think you can be referring to ‘Old Amsterdam’ (with the canals). Liverpool docks have neither ever had nor ever will have, that character. The canals are Lilliputian in comparison. Different entirely.
***
Perhaps you mean the regeneration of the Eastern Harbour District (ie., the docks) in Amsterdam. As it happens someone gave me a large coffee table book on the ‘New Amsterdam’ a while back.
From what I can see, very little use is made of the water. It’s a dull place indeed and may just as well have been entirely dry. It hasn’t enticed me to go there and have a look.
***
'Most of the buildings have gone' but 'we can make a New Amsterdam out of them'??? You can see how this is contradictory.
In any event, you are entirely mistaken that anything in the central and north docks other than Seaforth Docks are currently any kind of lifeblood for the city. They are a post-industrial wasteland. Liverpool is already converting what remains of the buildings into residential and leisure use.
The rest are long gone, such as they were. And as they were (tin sheds), they would have restricted the kind of bold development that put them there in the first place. Perhaps unfortunate but true - but it is flogging a dead horse to try to bring them back.
It seems to me that we've kept the best and most re-usable and leveled the rest to make way for new and bold development. Result.
***
The Leeds and Liverpool canal (being the only canal) is a different story again. The Stanley Dock end is being ‘regenerated’ and the rest of the canal in the city has been re-opened/made safe and it is hoped to see sequential development along it as an important water-resource in the city.
The city are also investigating the further exploitation of the waterfront to bring the city to the river. I’m sure we’d all like to see it as the longest and most successful waterfront in the UK.
***
Peel have gone to great lengths to appease the Luddites at UNESCO. The proposed skyline respects both the Liver Building and Stanley Dock complexes, yet is still bold and imaginative.
What more could you want? - if it's not a battle won, it's definitely getting there.
.
What's with this new water treatment facility going ahead including the partial in-fill of a dock which UNESCO and EH have agreed to in the WHS buffer zone. Is that two faced or what?
100% two-faced!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
If they were told they could not fill in docks to do it they would have found another location. They pleaded and whined that it was the only location (which is tripe) and got their way. If they are aware they could not do this at all they would never submit such plans. Naive councillors then say yes as it "creates jobs". It would have created jobs in another location and the Wellington dock used for more longer lasting more heritage developments that will be here in hundreds of years to come and would enhance the quality of life of the people of the city.
Wayne Col' was right.
Gain some facts before thinking :) The amount of water spaces infilled is the equivalent to a whole port in come cities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter McGurk
Liverpool's unique interconnected docks system (largest in the world) can crate a whole waterscaped city in themselves. The waters are an ideal transport route as well. I'm sure people in Amsterdam say what you said when the commercial side subsided.Quote:
I don’t think you can be referring to ‘Old Amsterdam’ (with the canals). Liverpool docks have neither ever had nor ever will have, that character. The canals are Lilliputian in comparison. Different entirely.
It is not contradictory.Quote:
Most of the buildings have gone but we can make a New Amsterdam out of them??? You can see how this is contradictory.
The port is still; very important top the city.
Who want to put back old warehouses? A Liverpool Waters, but done properly with proper rapid-transit transport connections to ensure success, which has passed them by.Quote:
but it is flogging a dead horse to try to bring them back.
If keeping our heritage is being Luddite then......Quote:
Peel have gone to great lengths to appease the Luddites at UNESCO.
Peel care only of Peel and the profits they make from increased land values. Even derelict it gains in value.
What more do I want, well what we all need really, not a want, is stop the water space filling to line the pockets of rich organizations. Enough is enough. In fact much of it can be re-excavate, like Toxteth and Harrigton Docks when the industrial estate is moved to a proper location.
The scope fro Birkenhead Dock, which run inland is phenomenal -right between two towns which can make a proper centre. Wallasey doesn't have a centre being realistically a suburb of Liverpool.
BTW, Wallasey needs a rail tunnel connecting to Liverpool - Birkenhead has one. Best is North End Liverpool to Wallasey. Merseyrail then can serve large parts of Wallasey currently unserved, and the north end of Liverpool bringing both banks together. She should be easy to get from Anfield to Wallasey and beyond then.
I've just read Kev's further instructions for this forum. I'm new here but this post doesn't strike me as particularly friendly or factual or that useful. I'm not particularly thin-skinned. What I do doesn't call for being thin-skinned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
However I do have a lot of facts at hand as it happens, having spent a number of years studying the subject, the area and the city both professionally and privately. I'm ready to debate the issues calmly and hopefully as much for my benefit and information as yours and everyone else here.
So what's it to be? Rational discussion or yet more internet macho and bs. Up to you (or perhaps not)
---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:37 PM ----------
The amount of water infilled is pretty small considering there are seven and half miles of docks on the Liverpool side alone and a drop in a bucket compared to anything but (pick a small port).Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
You’re quite right that a lot more could have been achieved with some but it wasn’t. Times change. Sometimes for the better.
You appear to make much of the comparison with Amsterdam but the two cities are worlds apart in almost every respect
Whilst by no means unique Liverpool or its Docks could be another Venetian or Dutch paradise but you don’t seem to say anywhere why they should be or how they could be. Like it or not, money matters.
I’m sure you will say that profit or economics are unimportant compared with the ‘heritage’ of the place but unless you can make the economic case persuasively to those that make those decisions (or you’re ready with your own money), you really are going to have to live with it, much as the Luddites eventually had to live with the Spinning Jenny (or the like)
And yes, if all of Peel Waters went ahead the best way to meet demand is a new rail tunnel under the Mersey. It would be a nice problem to have.
You may be new here Peter,but it's good to see you are now providing your informed opinion on here as well as a certain football forum.
Happy posting