Printable View
I guess another way of putting it is "Fur coat and no knickers". That's what it is. I'm all for progress but we've all witnessed so called "progress" in the past and look what "progress" done to most of our fine architectural buildings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
You, and many others, are confusing many points rolling them all into one:Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsaZappathing
1. Preserving old buildingsPreserving buildings can be done by many angles. One is LVT. Read the bit I posted. Read up on LVT and Geoism. Pittsburgh stopped the rot. Another is legislation. Grants to update, etc.
2. Promoting economic growth
Pointing at advanced buildings that will promote the economy and growth is mutually exclusive to preserving old buildings.
No one is saying pull the old down to build the new. They are doing both at the same time, new and keeping old.
Can we build whole cities ontop of the clouds, under the sea and a Liverpool on Mars (since we're a Red city ;)) ? That'll be the future :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
If you say so.Quote:
Originally Posted by scouse smurf
But rebuilding a depressed city, that has been depressed for 40 years, that clearly needs rebuilding preparing for the future is necessary.
Or we could sit back and stare at Mars instead.
And we're a blue city. The red city is Oslo. ;)
I just read back on a few posts here. All those anti-progress, wanting to keep a depressed city depressed, tend to be older retired people on pensions, so OK, and whose minds are probably stuck 40 or 50 years ago. Sad isn't it? The young need a good decent city for the future - this appears not to enter the oldie's minds.
I can see why the young are contemptuous of the old.
I agree that it's time for Liverpool to move on. I love my home city and I want it to be up there with the best.
Yes, we've got to think about our children and grandchildren to let them have a city to be proud of. You have to move with the times and not wallow in the past - - - but that doesn't mean that we should sweep away anything just because it's old. Our history and heritage can be preserved alongside progress and change.
Waterways, I know you argue against the old terraces, but I don't think we should sweep away our fine old terraced houses just for the sake of it - there are still some fantastic old houses in good condition which should not be replaced by ticky tacky boxes. Victorian housing can be renovated to high standard. My own house being an example, and I love my 1878 house. :handclap: (we'd never be able to afford another house of this size) I think that old houses can be got rid of when their time is right - and it's not time yet for many of them. Our house is hanging in there and it's not time yet to throw in the towel :)
If our place was unpleasant and uncomfortable to live in, I would agree then to swap it for a ticky tacky box :) - but these houses are still solid and even more so after renovation.
We can still have beautifully renovated houses in our urban districts, and yet have exciting and new buildings elsewhere and in the right locations. New and old existing alongside each other.
ps, we should have had 'The Cloud' it would have been amazing. Liverpool should move on even more and be a bit daring. Now we can see how marvellous the L'pool skyline is looking - wouldn't it be even more marvellous to have a building so unusual like the Cloud would have been, something striking that no one else has got.
Granada reports done a house up on Madryn st to current building regulations and heat emissions standards, just to prove that renovating can be as cost effective as demolition and rebuilding. Of course advisers would never have had them go ahead with it if it were a lame duck. The trouble is starting again gets you a VAT free status - renovating doesn't - that needs to be changed.
I agree with keeping most of the old buildings - only when an historical importance is attached to it and they also look aestethically pleasing. I don't go in much for keeping the lone old building by the royal hospital or the georgian terrace on Dale st/corner of cheapside which is tacky - just because it's from a bygone time - however, Edge Lane for instance is a waste of good housing stock.
I agree with Waterways in principal that we have to move on in derelict parts - such as the central docks and the King Edward estate as that is not foresaking anything that's already there that's of historical importance or in current use.
Lindy, I like some of them, and some of the Welsh streets are very nice. The Georgian Quarter should be extended as well. However many old terraces are not fit for purpose and look awful giving a poor image. We must look ahead and make a quantum leap (for the city) in going into eco built sustainable communities which people buy into and make work. These actually do work. They are not an idea. There are lots of examples around. The last thing I want is Barratt built developer homes - ticky-tacky boxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by lindylou
The city was daring at one time. The RSA building for one, which uses river water to heat and cool before eco was fashionable. Although they ran short of money and clad it poorly giving a poor look for an unusual building. That is not beyond redemption and this building can come of age very easily.Quote:
ps, we should have had 'The Cloud' it would have been amazing. Liverpool should move on even more and be a bit daring.
I think Liverpool should have had the cloud but just not there at Mann Island. It might've gone down well amongst Liverpool Waters actually.
yes, I go along with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
The problem with terraces is the rear access. Also, making a building to current building regs in insulation is not startling. Eco homes cost around £30 a year to heat a 4 bed house.
A good terrace is worth keeping, but not for the sake of it. Renovating a whole terrace? It is cheaper to demolish and start again using SIP panels giving the same appearance and no heating bills. But people want more, such as small garden at the back, so the design changes.
The Georgian Quarter can be extended with houses with rear access for cars, etc. They would be very popular and increase population density making districts vibrant.
The city must change to a more eco outlook and design-in the eco aspects in the planning. Passive solar, etc. The day of looking at homes as "units" has to go.
The Phil/Opera House should have been where the museum is now. The museum could have been where the wedges are or better at Princes Dock, replacing the multi-floor cars park, which is on the quays. The key public places should be around the Albert/Pier Head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
The rear of terraces can be sorted by still demolishing the streets that lie behind them and using some of the space for an extension/parking space/small garden. It is important we keep frontages to the main arterial routes into the city centre. Low lying buildings and spaciousness either side of main boulevards looks unimposing. Leeds st now looks far better for buildings going up along its length. Look at Wavertree High street compared to all the gaps along Stanley road for instance.
Good points. The point about renovating terraces is always the cost for what you get and pay for. New building is nearly always the most cost effective option - even if they look the same. There is also the noise problem. This can be largely designed out of new terraced homes if the will is there - the legislation is not. Many terraces can't have bedrooms in the roof as the extra weight would be too much on the shallow 1 foot deep foundations. Remember these houses were cheaply made emergency homes in most cases, maximising land and profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
High St frontages are important and give as sense of vibrancy and community. Sustainable communities behind with open meeting places in the High streets is a good approach. High Streets should not be just rows of shops.
Nobody is saying keep terraces and every old building. Nobody is saying dont change anything. So that can not be used as an excuse.
Im saying not another pig ugly tower. Are there no other things that can be built? is the skyline so important to keep building Towers? The city must lack other things than towers. How about an Ice Skating rink, close to the city centre would be very popular. You can only build so many offices and apartments.
A skateboard park to keep them off the buildings in Town. An outdoor Cinema, Hey I like that one.
Surely there are things that could be built that the locals would use? built it new look, just dont build it up in the air with bits sticking off it. It already looks like Lego land there now.
Waterways you will find that I am a lot younger than you and a long way from my pension. My kids are living here.
We need a theme park - the garden festival site with the ferry stage ala 1984 would have been good.
I'm fed up driving the kids to Alton Towers.
I would rather have buildings the height of Albert Dock with the odd tower around the docks Quays and the odd open space agains the quays - excavate many of the infilled docks.
Then remove the Dock Rd to merge the docks into the city and have the towers back off the docks. Tall towers act as a wall to the dock waterfront as occured on London's south bank, where the towers act as a long wall isolating the population behind them. Also obsuring the view as well. Having them off the docks and gradually rising as they built inland is the way.
Concentrating the dock population tight up against the quays gives density and vibrancy that would entail a Merseyrail station and a tram system around the docks and city centre if need be. Or better still a Dockland Light Rail system, which most is actually elevated like the Overhead, which can run onto the Merseyrail network giving greater flexibility.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/DLR-viaduct.jpg
http://www.railway-technology.com/pr...london-dlr.jpg
Between all this can be places of attraction and leisure.
Theme Park? The prom awaits with its own rail stations. The Halton Curve reinstatement giving access from Chester and North Wales is essential for success.
We should take full advantage of what that stretch of waterfront from Garston to Seaforth holds for us over the likes of Manchester and Birmingham. It's criminal that much of it lay idle and desolate. Reinstated docks could even form part of a water based rides the likes of which they have in foreign holiday resort theme parks.
Yep Ged, it needs imagination. But to get the people in the road and rail lines need to be there. Road is great to and from Liverpool. The rail needs updating. If they can get right to the complex by rail is such a bonus as people from all over the North West and North Wales will flock in.
A 21st Century overhead in the form of a monorail alongside a rejuvenated stretch of the north waterfront is a must.
The Docklands type of light-rail has the great advantage of running right onto Merseyrails existing network via the Wapping and Waterloo tunnels. Light structural beams can be used to span water stretches, they can get quite a length in one beam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
This length of track is held up by single support columns. Cheap to do and twin track as well..
http://www.railway-technology.com/pr...london-dlr.jpg
This section is two column supporting but shows the lengths achieved
http://www.ltmcollection.org/images/...f/i00005nf.jpg
London Transport Museum
http://www.ltmcollection.org/images/...a/i0000nha.jpg
The Docklands Light Railway runs mainly on elevated tracks, some at ground level and underground.
Now that Waterways I would love to see here:handclap:
The Docklands Light-Railways is ideal, in fact near perfect, for Liverpool and Wirral. The rolling stock can be used all over the Merseyrail network. It is cheap to construct and highly flexible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike
The first stage should be replacing the existing, expensive heavy-rail trains for light-rail. Merseyrail rolling stock is up for renewal in a few years time. The light-rail trains have shorter turning curves making them flexible around Liverpool and Wirral Waters and any extensions on the existing network - out of the Waterloo Tunnel and onto the Northern Line is an example. The Wirral Loop tunnel under Liverpool goes through track like wildfire because of the heavy-rail trains. This is more down time. Light-rail has no effect.
Light-rail is cheaper to run as they use less energy to move and cheaper to maintain. Heavy-rail is for long distance. The short frequent stops of the Merseyrail network means they are overkill - a legacy of the past. Trains rarely hit 50mph on Merseyrail so no need for powerful fast trains, but they need rapid acceleration which electric motors give.
Its a great idea, would look good too.
I don't understand, who is supposed to fill these new buildings? Where are the new businesses creating the need for office space? Exchange Flags has taken 20 years to fill. Unity is half empty (Rumford House had better occupancy). The whole Liverpool Waters thing is a joke, who is ever going to build speculatively in this city?
The buildings are not built by private companies to lose money. They will be filled when the economy turns. If they are there in attractive water side/docklands location large companies will be attracted to such buildings and over into the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shanghai Scouser
It is called being proactive.
Companies did build speculatively, and still want to.
This building is not very interesting. It's a bit of Cardiff at the bottom and a bit of 90s Japan (possibly) for the rest. There is nothing distinctly Liverpool about the design ie. it should be bold, innovative; not copying something else, somewhere else.
It seems this architect has struggled from a lack of understanding of the city and a vague brief to 'build it high to impress' and 'get it past CABE whatever it takes'.
As for filling it, it won't get built until there is a perception of either increased demand or the existing demand finds Liverpool more attractive than elsewhere but there is a lot more to persuading people to move their livelihoods and homes to a city than building a railway.
What is Liverpool? The only thing I can say is that in the first part of then 20th century, the buildings were white.
Some buildings where indeed white but they didn't stay that way very long. The Liver Buildings were at their most impressive black with soot. There were a good number of white buildings in the centre but the predominant colour or material for the whole city would have been dark brick.
As I say, I meant that Liverpool buildings are bold, almost bragging in their self-confidence with great power and authority. And they were built to very high standards. The journals at the time refer to this as 'the Liverpool way'.
This building is a feeble copy of at least two others. It's no braver for picking out a trendy range of colours
I think the final product looks good and different. I makes you look, unlike Beetham 1.