Why do we want an Amsterdam? Why not a Liverpool.
Printable View
Why do we want an Amsterdam? Why not a Liverpool.
Waterways, I agree that UNESCO and EH are 100% two faced but you sort of miss the point. They will allow this partial dock infill for the waste treatment plant but have tried to run Peel out of town over a 5.5b investment plan :rolleyes:
Exactly! Something unique. However these money grabbing sharks keep filling in water spaces, so we will end up with an anytown full of retail sheds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike
---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------
Do you work for Peel? Something tells me you do. No one with any knowledge of Liverpool, its heritage, the city and dock waterways system would conclude we need to fill-in any more water spaces. The amount already filled has got beyond a joke. Many wanted the Albert Dock dynamited into the docks. Look what we have! They managed to demolish the Brindley warehouses and a whole dock district called Nova Scotia. The line has to be drawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter McGurk
You must work for Peel or British Waterways or made/make money from them to make such an ill-informed comment.Quote:
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).
Belwo; the south end docks that have been infilled. Manchester Dock and Chester basin on not titled, they are at the top near the Pier Head. That OVER HALF of the south end water spaces obliterated.
http://tinypic.com/r/6zqzqd/5
Central docks. Little of those are left and they want to fill in west waterloo as well - bottom left hand dock
http://i39.tinypic.com/21jdifm.jpg
The docks are still there complete with quays under the earth. Clarence dock is still there look, the oulines is still there of the quays:
http://i39.tinypic.com/vyskrc.jpg
- Sandon Dock - filled in
- Wellington Docks - will be filled in
- Bidston Dock - filled in. This was a part of Wallasey Pool
- Bromborough Dock - the largest privately owned dock in the world which was Bromborough Pool; filled in
- Princes dock - filled to canal boat depths
- Princes Half-Tide dock - filled to canal boat depths
Look at a map. Many branch docks north of Wellington Dock have been filled in, from Canada, Huskisson, Hornby, Alexandra, Langton, etc. Even the dock at Otterspool was filled in.
Name me something for the better in docks filling? Do not write Kings. What a disaster.Quote:
Times change. Sometimes for the better.
The point with Amsterdam is that they successfully converted commercial waterway to leisure/residential. Look at what Hamburg is doing - I did mention Hamburg and you read the web sites as well:Quote:
You appear to make much of the comparison with Amsterdam but the two cities are worlds apart in almost every respect
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/Hamburg-1.jpg
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/Hamburg-8.jpg
Read the web site in my sig. It says a lot. Liverpool IS unique. The largest interconnected dock system in the world. Well it was until sharks got their hands on it.Quote:
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.
Read the web site on the sig. I am clearly not advocating recreating the past. A waterscaped city has to keep what it has in heritage, but the rest can be modern builds suitable for a waterscape, not anytown structures more suitable fro Surrey.Quote:
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)
Peel Waters is lackluste and unimaginative - it will be cheap and tatty like the first phase of Dockalnds in London. The first phase was the Shanghai Tower. Great a tall tower for us. But the wanted it in the middle of Princes half-tide dock. The footprint is so large it would leave a moat around the tower. Land by stealth. More water spaces filled in for Peel to make money from lucrative land. They are a land company. They are out to make money at all costs. It is up to us to make sure they do not destroy our heritage and legacy.Quote:
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.
Peel's Liverpool Waters sure is becoming lacklustre and unimaginative but that's due to concessions having to be made because of those that you agree are 100% two faced - UNESCO and EH.
Peel know the rules, but ignored them. Then claim they are being victimized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
Two points
- The plans do not respect the WHS of the site
- The absence of any rapid-transit to the site when the city has a such a network
The above points show they are not serious - or complete amateurs. Probably both.
You are lionizing Peel. Peel are trying to do not much at all and make as much as possible. It is up to the city to make them do what they are supposed to do.
Peel would concrete over the lot if they had their way. Every project has waterspace filling and obliteration. Common sense says excavate them and build around the waterspaces. They are still there complete with quays. Then the waterscape improves vastly and history is not obliterated.
Peel create land by stealth, as they have done in Liverpool and Birkenhead. That is their mentality. They care not a jot about history or heritage. The plans for Liverpool Waters is just modern cheap tat worse than London's Docklands - in a World Heritage Site. English Heritage are locking horns with them for ignoring the history of the site. The area will flop and will not have vibrancy as seen in Continental cities. They have not even put in rapid-transit transport provision either in Wirral or Liverpool Waters. It will flop without a Merseyrail connection.
We need modern developments to compliment the waterscape and the history. Read the link in my sig. There are pages on Hamburg and Amsterdam. Manchester is mentioned for the good work they have done in canals. Breda and Ghent are reintroducing rivers and the likes.
The value of the land they own rises as it lays there derelict. How many years have they had to do something positive? mmm. What do we see? Nothing. What they offer is second rate tat. Nothing of any note except Shanghai Tower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Liverpool had always been a dynamic commercial city. It had always moved on with the times. It was never scared of money or making a profit. It had never, ever been frightened of change.
***
It’s quite laughable to conceive of an 18th century ‘Waterways’ lamenting the loss of the Pool in which the Old Dock was built or then condemning the infilling of the Old Dock for the Custom House or, the building of Liverpool One and the Hilton on the exact same spot.
Excusing Dolphin House in between, always moving forward. always making it better.
The city has been filling docks since they started building them but the Albert Dock was not demolished, in the 60s or the 70s. The Tobacco Warehouses are still there and nearly all of the water. You don't help yourself by exaggerating - we can all google earth it.
Yes, mistakes have been made but the WHS has done a job. As I said, we’ve kept the best of what we had and leveled the rest.
And it is right to argue for a balance between commercial dynamism and heritage but only where either have value. It is those people that cannot make a judgment on that value - those who say ‘keep all, at all costs’ - who would continue to hold us back. And this is where UNESCO goes too far. Way too far.
***
You say you look forward to a Venice or Amsterdam of the North. Given the constraints you put on yourself this is quite, quite impossible.
You show pictures of cute little canals which are totally out of scale to what we have in Liverpool. We have some very, very large open docks. They are not and never will be an ‘Old’ Amsterdam - unless you start filling in docks. Or unless you mean New Amsterdam, the old docklands, which are incredibly dull and lifeless. Not the Liverpool I know.
It’s just not what Liverpool is and to pretend otherwise is simply to bury your head in the sand and hope that the nasty bogeyman of change will go away.
***
If you were looking for a model to work with, I would offer you Sydney CBD. There’s hardly a stick standing there older than 1920 (QVB, parts of the Intercontinental, the Rocks). Nevertheless, it has kept much and moved on much.
In our own way, we are doing the same.
---------- Post added at 12:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 AM ----------
It's a massing model and an illustrative masterplan is all. As it happens I've always argued for something like that massing. Perhaps we'll see some more balls in it after Joe having a go at UNESCO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
The headlines would do us good - "Liverpool abandons UNESCO to welcome Prosperity."
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? Quote from Waterways.
And gondolas; they'd be nice too.:hug:
---------- Post added at 05:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:57 PM ----------
Forgive me for taking the mickey, WW. You write with passion, and I believe your vision of the new Liverpool docklands is one that will be unique among the old outdated seaports of the world.
So you are involved with Peel.
And?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter McGurk
Who is doing that? No one here is.Quote:
It’s quite laughable to conceive of an 18th century ‘Waterways’ lamenting the loss of the Pool in which the Old Dock was built or then condemning the infilling of the Old Dock for the Custom House or, the building of Liverpool One and the Hilton on the exact same spot.
Only at the 11th hour was the Albert Dock saved and the 1700s Brindley warehouses were demolished, for progress of course - a car park. All of the warehouses were demolished along with the district of Nova Scotia.Quote:
And the Albert Dock was not demolished, the Tobacco Warehouses are still there. Yes, mistakes have been made but the WHS has done a job. As I said, we’ve kept the best of what we had and leveled the rest.
In your eyes that is monetary value. Peel fail to see the value of the site. They are attempting to make Liverpool Docks like an inland waterway full of mill town canals boats. Historic ships cannot berth in city centre docks because they have been filled in to canal boat depths. A disgrace.Quote:
And it is right to argue for a balance between commercial dynamism and heritage but only where either have value.
You mean hold back Peel from creaming it in. I have no problems with Peel making money, but not at our expense. They must make it at our gain. UNESCO doesn't go far enough. The approval of filling in Wellington Dock was appalling.Quote:
It is those people that cannot make a judgment on that value - those who say ‘keep all, at all costs’ - who would continue to hold us back. And this is where UNESCO goes too far. Way too far.
Peel know the rules and the framework they have to work inside. Peel then chose to throw the rule book away and blamed EH and UNESCO when they present 2nd rate tat which respects no one. Then Peel attempt to get the city on their side as they need things to move on to create jobs. Peel not have the intelligence to realize that if they could combine the heritage and new developments they would gain a lot. However at is not their style is it? A cowboy workman always stays a cowboy because his mind is conditioned to short cuts and the fast buck. Many are left with his poor workmanship in the long term. In the long run he always loses to the respectable professionals. Peel have the cowboy attitude. But many are fools and suck the Peel propaganda in - like many took on the cowboy tradesman because he promised a lot.
There are NO constraints whatsoever. There are water spaces and they can be left as they are and built around using the known rule book - how simple is that? But no you and your outfit want to create lucrative land by stealth - Peel are primarily a land company. Peel will build sweet nothing. They will have a master plan and sell off the construction plots to others. but land values rise like a kite and Peel take massive windfalls.Quote:
You say you look forward to a Venice or Amsterdam of the North. Given the constraints you put on yourself this is quite, quite impossible.
Their naivety is there to see. How can you have two large projects like Wirral and Liverpool Waters and not have one of them on Merseyrail? That proves they are not in it for the long term. Peel will leave behind tat and walk away with windfalls leaving the city to pick up the pieces. An all too common occurrence.
You have been told that they are pictures displaying what can be done with redundant industrial water spaces. No one has said copy it type for type. On the Continent they value their water spaces and are excavating them after many were filled in. There is a page on that in the link in my sig. Liverpool can do what they are doing and create a waterscaped city very easily.Quote:
You show pictures of cute little canals which are totally out of scale to what we have in Liverpool.
Any close intertwining parts of the docks were filled in, like the Queens and Kings branches to put an ugly arena structure on and chara-banc park. Similar with Central Docks.Quote:
We have some very, very large open docks. They are not and never will be an ‘Old’ Amsterdam - unless you start filling in docks. Or unless you mean New Amsterdam, the old docklands, which are incredibly dull and lifeless. Not the Liverpool I know.
Melbourne have done half decent job, but could have a lot better. But they kept the water. So bit by bit the world's largest and most impressive interconnected dock system is demolished without many actually noticing - all in the name of progress the developer sharks will have us believe. The whole waterways and waterscape can be a water based city, like Amsterdam and Venice are with an obvious different complexion.Quote:
If you were looking for a model to work with, I would offer you Sydney CBD. There’s hardly a stick standing there older than 1920 (QVB, parts of the Intercontinental, the Rocks). Nevertheless, it has kept much and moved on much.
The above says it all. Two decades ago Liverpool had the reputation of a slum. Then UNESCO came and made large parts of the city centre and old docks world heritage sites. Then the rest of the UK looked at Liverpool in different eyes. And you want to destroy that to build tat and make quick bucks?Quote:
It would do us good - "Liverpool accepts de-listing to welcome progress."
World Heritage Status tells the world we are different and have something unique worth preserving. We have to keep the likes of you and the developer sharks from destroying that. If they want to join in and be a part of it they are more than welcome, but they have to follow the rules, not throw them away when it suits them and then throw their toys out of the cot when people point and tell them where they never kept to the rules.
The city has to be stronger and prevent these people getting their destructive way. We have a lot to preserve.
What has been filled-in in the South Docks:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity...d-Infilled.jpg
Liverpool waters V WHS - F*** WHS off then as Dresden did.
There are no rules about a rapid transport provision. If the council want to do this then that's up to them.
Ge, you missed the lot. If Peel wanted to make this large mixed commercial/residential project a sure-fire success they would have incorporated rapid-transit to ensure so. This applies to Wirral Waters as well. The simple fact they never proves they are not in for the long term. The similar Docklands in London needed a new 31 station metro to be a success. The biggest beneficiaries for extending Merseyrail into the project are the landowners - as an aside, water inside the territorial limits in economics is regarded as land, as are its resources. Rapid-transit rail (infrastructure) raises land values - look at all large cities that have comprehensive networks. London being the nearest obvious example. Rapid-transit rail creates economic growth. Economic growth soaks into the land and crystalizes as land values.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
Forget trams. Thank God the expensive fiasco at Edinburgh has put the lid on them for ever, apart from extending say Metrolink in Manchester. Technology in tram-like buses using electric drive recharged from each bus stop is proven in Shanghai. Trams will not be run into Liverpool Waters - which are just electric buses anyhow.
Liverpool applied to UNESCO for World Heritage Status and comprehensively got it. Immediately the city and private companies like Peel started to ignore it.
Is World Heritage Status beneficial to the city? YES without doubt. We stand out.
Do not be sucked in by the likes of Peel who deliberately flouted the rules then blame everyone else. I see little enterprise in that company -primarily being a land company. Peel say the city is being penalized by UNESCO and EH in order to get their way. Peel and wait and wait and the land values just keep rising. The board could comatosed for 10 years, wake up and they are worth even more. You can't do that with an enterprise business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
You need to get your facts in order about a whole lot of things.
Take your line on UNESCO... back in the day, the search was on for an event to put the city back on the map (a World Expo was considered amongst others). The city decided to prepare a very thorough survey and management plan of its heritage assets and an application to UNESCO for listing.
UNESCO graciously accepted the city’s invitation to review same and to visit and to put us on their list. They did little else.
Far from throw that ‘rule book’ away, there is nothing in it which would prohibit the kind of development that Peel now envisage.
Nor was there any absolute prohibition on filling in docks and in any event this has not happened, nor will it.
Listing was done for a purpose. Maybe that purpose is over and done.
We are none of us stupid, we can see for ourselves what water there is and what water there is not. We don't need pictures of unrepresentative fragments of docks.
***
In any event, our heritage is not in bricks and mortar and whether there’s water in between or not. It is the bold and enterprising nature of our city. The buildings we keep serve to remind us of that and to help to keep it alive.
We must make decisions about what we keep and what we don’t. You may not want, and we do not need, wholesale conservation of absolutely everything. But we also do not need to close our minds to anything but one particular cause or course because we think it would be nice, however impractical or undeliverable that might be.
Peel haven’t. They have listened. You need only look at what they started with and what they propose now. But it is none the less do-able for all that. It’s not uneconomic, doomed-to-failure noddy boxes and barges.
***
And what benefit would a ‘New Amsterdam’ bring? There is empty land aplenty in Walton, Kirkdale and Everton for development of that kind of modest scale.
The population of the Liverpool side of the Atlantic Gateway Strategic Investment Area, the former heart of Walton and Kirkdale and all that is scouse (800 hectares also known as ‘Northshore’ - of which Central Docks is only one-fifth) is... precisely, zero.
We’d do rather better to attend to that than shackle the growth of the city centre.
***
Peel bought the land, along with the MDHC. It wasn’t free, even when the port was on its arse and no one else was interested. They’ve been holding it since. Expensive - money to buy companies, with or without land, does not come free either.
Assuming 60 Hectares of Central Docks’ one-fifth is actually land, it has to go some to recover those costs and to perform at least as economically well as the 130 Hectares it actually occupies. Small wonder the buildings are tall and there's pressure on the water.
Economic pressures matter. Money matters.
***
I was reading today that 1 in 3 houses in Liverpool have no employment. Some people survive on £20 a week net of ‘fixed costs’.
There are people, some in positions of influence, some in non-elected and unrepresentative organisations like UNESCO, who have actively and expressly preferred a ‘do-nothing’ policy for the sake of ‘heritage’.
We should not accept anything for anything’s sake - ever, but economic pressures seem to matter rather more to the 1 in 3 than it does to the likes of ‘keep-it-all’ conservationists.
***
I’m not above getting sentimental over past glories. We can all see value in desirable buildings to keep and we can envisage a water-based expansion in Liverpool but without fundamental reason to be, none of it will happen.
So ‘wouldn’t it be nice’ will not do. There must be sound economic drivers to make it work or else it will stay as it. Dark tanks and desolation, bound in aspic, stuck in the 1950s (or rather the 1970s). An excuse for failure.
Perhaps this allows you to prefer the exploitation of the working man for personal profit of the very few that the Duke’s Dock Warehouses represent (the clue is in the name) rather than the economic and social benefits of the Echo Arena, ugly as it might or might not be.
Only you can say. But there was no other use for them as economically beneficial anywhere on the horizon, or ever.
***
It is a great shame that many of the more enterprising have left the city and will not be coming back. Or at least not while it continues to look back. The city's population is half what it was in 1938. Half. And still flat-lining. The birth rate goes on but people are still leaving.
But one thing to thank Peel for is, they’re still here. They’re still here, they’re still looking forward and they’re still investing. Peel have spent millions and not a brick laid. No windfall profits to be had there. Only hard work, money, risk and enterprise.
***
No, I’m not involved with Peel. Much that it matters. Peel know their own mind (as do I). They’ve no need of my support (or would be bothered by my criticism).
---------- Post added at 01:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 PM ----------
Indeed, it is not Peel's responsibility to provide external infrastructure but having said that they envisage a new overhead with potential for connections to the airport. I understand there are four stations on the Wirral Waters Scheme and the city have a new station in mind on its own merits at Vauxhall on the Northern Line (Merseyrail).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
Because of the geography of the city and the way the population is spread, there will be significant increased demand for cross-river traffic, which (if all was built to its greatest potential) could only be met by a new rail tunnel. A long time in the future and certainly not Peel's to fund.
To appease WW and any other, slowly decreasing luddites (if whom were around in the early 1900s would have opposed the Royal Liver Buildings which they're all clammering not to overshadow now) here is the latest render of the much scaled back Liverpool Waters and what do I see there, is that docks and waterways currently out of reach being brought back into use for the general public to enjoy?......never!!!!
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/8...rsmostrece.jpg
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The city approached UNESCO and they came and saw and said yes. What else are they supposed to do? Provide bricklayers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter McGurk
This is lies. Peel propose to fill in most of West Waterloo Dock. Peel have not taken into account anything of heritage of the old docks - NOTHING. Just cheap and nasty tat on renders is all we saw. The sort that will look tired and forlorn in the harsh, windy, salty river air.Quote:
Far from throw that ‘rule book’ away, there is nothing in it which would prohibit the kind of development that Peel now envisage.
Nor was there any absolute prohibition on filling in docks and in any event this has not happened, nor will it. We are none of us stupid, we can see for ourselves what water there is and what water there is not.
But want it dead for ever.Quote:
In any event, our heritage is not in bricks, mortar and whether there’s water in between or not. It is the bold and enterprising nature of our city. The buildings we keep serve to remind us of that and to help to keep it alive.
Lacklustre is an understatement for what was offered. Peel have done a good PR job, but listened? Nah! They could not even read the rules of UNESCO. Peel preserve heritage? One thing UNESCO pointed out was that Liverpool had historic docks but no historic ships. I do not see Peel excavating docks from canal boat depths to accommodate historic ships near he city centre. They treat unique Liverpool like a mill town - shallow canals and barges. That is all they understand.Quote:
Peel haven’t. They have listened. You need only look at what they started with and what they propose now. But it is none the less do-able for all that. It’s not uneconomic, doomed-to-failure noddy boxes and barges
Waterways in Walton? New to me. You appear to have lost the plot. The benefits of a waterscaped city like Venice and Amsterdam is all too clear to see. They are world-renowned. They kept their heritage and expanded sympathetically.Quote:
And what benefit would a ‘New Amsterdam’ bring? There is empty land a plenty in Walton, Kirkdale and Everton for development of that kind of modest scale.
Well as Peel own it they would try to tackle that. The population is zero now, but the aim is a waterscaped city on the brilliant water legacy which other cities in the world would drool over. Then they see how bad Liverpool handle such a gift from the past.Quote:
The population of the Liverpool side of the Atlantic Gateway Strategic Investment Area, the former heart of Walton and Kirkdale and all that is scouse (800 hectares also known as ‘Northshore’ - of which Central Docks is only one-fifth) is... precisely, zero.
We’d do rather better to attend to that than shackle the growth of the city centre.
The land (and that is also water in economic terms) has increased in value with Peel doing sweet nothing. Peel also land bank near Switch Island. Peel are quite prepared to wait decades to take their windfalls in which they did nothing but leave the land. The WHS of Central Docks mean Peel can split the docks from the main commercial north sector and sell off parts Central Docks, which was difficult to do previously.Quote:
Peel bought the land, along with the MDHC. It wasn’t free, even when the port was on its arse and no one else was interested. They’ve been holding it since. Expensive - money to buy companies, with or without land, does not come free either.
No one, apart from EH, has problem with tall buildings - it is where they are put. However they may form a wall if too close to the river, like what occurred on London's South Bank. Talls can go predominately on he land side of the Dock Rd, but Peel do not own that.
Economic pressures matter. Money matters, but if you have form business case that is well thought out they become less of a matter.
For God's sake!! He is blaming UNESCO! They were called in and set the status. They never appeared unannounced. Having developments conform to "heritage" is a big thing - it would make any development attractive and salable. That appears to go over the heads of Peel. Their mindset is geared another way. UNESCO approved of the Mann Island wedges. Saying UNESCO are some sort of Luddites is quite plainly asinine. UNESCO have made the world look at Liverpool in different eyes.Quote:
I was reading today that 1 in 3 houses in Liverpool have no employment. Some people survive on £20 a week net of ‘fixed costs’. There are people, some in positions of influence, some in non-elected and unrepresentative organisations like UNESCO, who have actively and expressly preferred a ‘do-nothing’ policy for the sake of ‘heritage’.
There are sound economic drivers.Quote:
There must be sound economic drivers to make it work or else it will stay as it. Dark tanks and desolation, bound in aspic, stuck in the 1950s (or rather the 1970s). An excuse for failure.
They said there was no other use for the Albert Dock either. The city needs the Echo Arena. but not in that location. See:Quote:
Perhaps this allows you to prefer the exploitation of the working man for personal profit of the very few that the Duke’s Dock Warehouses represent (the clue is in the name) rather than the economic and social benefits of the Echo Arena, ugly as it might or might not be. Only you can say. But there was no other use for them as economically beneficial anywhere on the horizon, or ever.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/KingsDock.html
The arena should have gone here...
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity...ockTower-2.jpg
The picture above is Queens Dock with Kings Dock to the right. On the land side of Queens Dock on the waters edge, where the tower is proposed, would have been an ideal location for the arena with a water facing aspect. The area within the red lines. The marked area is full of ramshackle industrial buildings awaiting clearance. Top right of the picture is where the arena was built. Where land tapers into the water is where the branch docks were filled in. Note that to the right of the Customs House built over the graving dock, one of the branch docks has been filled in to create a car park. The disused Wapping rail tunnel emerges to the bottom right just off picture, which is easily brought back into service serving the complex and surrounding districts.
Architects would have gone wild designing around the intertwining waters and quays of Queens and Kings Docks, giving a far superior waterscape than that ugly IKEA looking Arena. We could have had both. But got the worse deal.
The population moved to just outside the city. Merseyside is 1.5 million. You need to known more about economics and likes and that Thatcher/Reagan were responsible for much of the inner-city decline in the USA and UK by outsourcing to China. Witness the masses of ugly scrap piles at Liverpool docks giving an appalling impression, to be shipped to Spain and Taiwan because the steel industry was decimated in the UK.Quote:
It is a great shame that many of the more enterprising have left the city and will not be coming back. Or at least not while it continues to look back. The city's population is half what it was in 1938. Half. And still flat lining. People are still leaving.
What tripe! The land they own has risen in value for doing NOTHING much at all. If a factory buys new machinery and leaves it, they lose money as the machines do not make money by operating, the land sharks make money by doing NOTHING.Quote:
But one thing to thank Peel for is, they’re still here. They’re still here, they’re still looking forward and they’re still investing. Peel have spent millions and not a brick laid. No windfall profits to be had there. Only hard work, money, risk and enterprise.
Peel have come up with renders over the years of various projects. None have materialised:
- Post-panamax container terminal at Seaforth
- Freight terminal at the airport,
- Wirral Waters,
- Liverpool Waters,
- Shanghai Tower.
- Port Salford
Many of the proposals entail filling in water spaces to create valuable land. An attractive waterscape is being transformed into a bland landscape.
We need people to maintain the heritage aspect of the docks and increase the water aspect even further. Land is everywhere. Land around attractive waterspaces is not.
Peel are very 'longterm', as speculative land-banking companies are. They will watch the waterscape rot and rub their hands. We will probably be dead by the time Wirral Waters or Liverpool Waters is actually started. Still, they've got 5,000,000,000 years until the Sun destroys the Earth.
Don't hold your breath.
Ged, if you think anything remotely resembling that render will emerge you are very naive. Beware of fools gold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
I am so much of a Luddite I wrote this page on the Brunswick Quay Tower:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity...wickQuays.html
I was reading today that 1 in 3 houses in Liverpool have no employment. Some people survive on £20 a week net of ‘fixed costs’.
This bit surprises me.... having just returned from 4 weeks in Liverpool, it certainly did not look that depressed to me. The pubs were doing well, the resturants seemed to be OK, even with meal prices quite higher than the US, and lots of fancy phones and electronics everywhere. The places that looked bad a few years ago were now getting fixed up - as an example Princes Rd. looked better than before - less boarded up houses.
The 33% unemployed must be getting a fair amount from the govt. or the famous Liverpool underground (unreported, untaxed) economy is much larger than I thought...
A tremendous amount has been achieved in the centre. The good has got to get out a bit further now.Quote:
Originally Posted by az_gila
The grey economy has always been there and highly visible but over-reported is my guess.
Taking a walk around Everton Valley is an eye-opener (or the other side of what's left of Scottie Road) - plenty of plush four by fours rushing through to get to the other side before bandits strike. Bit like parts of Arizona, I imagine...:)
And what's wrong with Scottie Road?
There's actually a few living on or off Scottie that are driving those types of cars ;)
WW - if that doesn't get built do we blame Peel, UNESCO, EH or the council for all the compromises?
Seriously, quite a bit. As we all know, it used to be an 'urban village' - one of the best and just as infamous. Now it's an urban highway, one of the worst.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
It cuts people in Everton off from the city centre and isolates it from the neighbouring communities of Vauxhall and Kirkdale.
But that bit of the 'LIM' wot got built is not going away. A series of crossings from Marybone to Boundary street might help.
NO compromises. The rule book was known from the start. They know the framework they should work in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
If we hand Land Valuation Taxation, Peel would be paying tax on unused land, then that would spark them into life and get something done except dragging their feet - and making money for doing sweet nothing.
If it doesn't get built blame Peel and only Peel. The render was a joke. Skyscrapers on the river wall? Yerrr
I can see the uncertainty on the grey economy bit, bit do you think that the 33% unemployed part is correct - it certainly didn't look like it wandering around Liverpool...Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter McGurk
PS in Arizona we need big wheels for the local dirt roads, but pick-up are favored - heck our house has a 500 ft gravel driveway...:PDT_Aliboronz_24: But my cars are all 2WD...:PDT11
I was reading it in the Guardian which is by no means absolute proof and the original source is something called 'GMB Experts in the World of Work'. I can't help you with any links as yet - I'm not sure when the analog meets the digital at The Guardian...
I will admit to being surprised too but when you think how many people leave the city in the prime economically active age of 18 to 21 in one group and then 21 to 30 in another, then reckon how many old folks stay as the population of the UK get older, then add in the national average for unemployment-ness, I guess it starts to make sense.
I wonder how many people running around the shops and bars in town are still living on borrowed time (and money).
I had a nice big Ford in Africa - I loved that vehicle to bits. I bent a Toyota Landcruiser down at the shops in Sydney. Rubbish car. Massive engine but way too heavy. Nearly everyone there who needed one had a 2WD ute. S'not what you got, it's how you use it. Travelog over.:rolleyes:
---------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 PM ----------
The rule book is here http://liverpool.gov.uk/Images/SPDWorldHeritageSite.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
You will notice that Peel's proposals respects them. When you're ready you can tell us where they don't.
There is one thing tat is not mentioned and that is the "spirit" of World Heritage. A city applies, it gets it, then it ignores it or go off in a different direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter McGurk
For those who want to shoot liverpool in the foot, Liverpool will not reject World Heritage Status. People went for it as they thought it would stop the continual rot and prevent the modern tat that has emerged over the past 60 years.
And what is that spirit? I'm all ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
I wouldn't worry. LCC will approve this scheme, no matter what UNESCO say. I was at a meeting with Joe Anderson last week and he said those very words. The planning committee will do what Joe wants on this or kiss goodbye to their political careers.
Respecting heritage - new buildings respecting the World Heritage Status.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter McGurk
LCC passing it does not mean it will be accepted. LCC are not the end of the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by buggedboy
If you mean English Heritage, well they have no power other than to ask for a public inquiry. UNESCO have even less. We all know central government will support the council in this one.
You must work for Peel having such contempt for the city's heritage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter McGurk
Would you rather the tumbleweed wasteland remain because that's what is sure to happen, another 30 years of neglect if this didn't get built. Any other notion you have of a knight in shining armour rescuing it with their own 5.5b worth of investment is beyond even pie in the sky. Ask the locals of Vauxhall what they'd rather have, at least job opportunities and vibrancy on their doorstep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
If Peel continue with their approach (increased land values on derelict land) and continue to do nothing, then moves must be made to replace them. Others would eagerly take up the baton.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
They promise all sorts, but we see nothing.
"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."
Years before any Peel involvment,(80's,I think) it was was possible to walk(or cycle,in my case)from the Pier head to the marina,in Crosby! It did involve some circuitous pathfinding,along the way,with the odd run-in with the docks police,but it does seem pretty feasible, to run an acceptable pathway along there,as there is already a riverside road(now fenced off) along the front of the container base!
As for unesco/english heritage(who's?),we can,and have, managed quite well without them!
The simple fact is the city hasn't managed on its own. Swathes of of attractive, historic buildings have been demolished in the city - the carnage is approaching the destruction of whole districts. Historic buildings around the docks and historic docks have been obliterated - the docks can be reinstated - historic Clarence Dock is a prime example. Modern buildings over the past 60- years have generally been appalling. The city is open to short term vote chasing councils or political one-upmanship, as the Brunswick Tower debacle clearly demonstrated. No the city cannot do it by itself, it is clear it cannot. The city needs external bodies to advise, prod and pull back. I think UNESCO & EH are not strong enough at times - if they were strong the appalling Echo Arena would not have been built where it is. It looks like a carbuncle next to the Albert Dock.The city a few years back wanted to introduce Land Valuation Taxation - Whitehall stopped them. That is tax the values of land, all land, not the structures on it. That is, all land if something is on it or not. If they had the power to do so the derelict land and buildings would have been renovated or cleared a long time a go. Look at what Pittsburg and Harrisburg did in the USA. All vacant lots were cleared up very quickly. Speculators then turned to enterprise activities not parasitical activities and economic growth emerged instead of dereliction.Quote:
Originally Posted by wsteve55
In terms of Wirral Waters, we haven't seen firm commitmentrs for a range of reasons. One being that the financial incentives of Enterprise Zone status do not actually begin to kick in until April 2012. Apart from that, the financial situation we are in right now means there was always going to be a delay in securing finance. Getting planning permission meant that Peel could BEGIN the process of finding finance for their scheme. Not begin building. Anyone who has been involved in development knows that funding is usually dependant on securing planning content.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
As to Liverpool Waters, well they can have provisional meetings with potential investors, but it is unlikely they can get anywhere close to serious investment at least until they have outline consent. Nobody will go near it until it's approved.
I'm a big supporter of this scheme but I do not think we will see any building at Liverpool Waters until at least late 2013.
Look at LFC and their stadium. People are unreasonably thinknig that the new owners are taking too long to find funding. It takes as long as it takes.
As to your CPO fantasy. Well, a CPO would only be possible if another viable scheme was being proposed. There is not, so that isn't going anywhere.
I have neither contempt for the city's heritage nor do I work for Peel. Do you really think one of their employees would want or be commissioned to come here just to argue with you? Get over yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
***
As I said there is much of the past that we should keep. We should keep both the best of the past as a reminder, testament and encouragement of the spirit of the best of our predecessors that achieved so much and we should keep the most useful in today's context.
Both times change and buildings become redundant and redundant buildings have had their day - by definition.
If a building (or a dock) can no longer provide what it provided then or more importantly, what we need now, it’s continued existence is questionable. We need to make value judgements. No, I’m not talking about money - we must ask if we keep this thing, how will it help us, ‘spiritually’ and materially?
Truthfully, an 18th century Duke’s dock or dock buildings around it (even as loft apartments for several hundred) really cannot do the job of a 21st century assembly building to the benefit of tens of thousands.
***
Your allusions to Amsterdam harks back to both another time AND another place.
The reasons-to-be that made Amsterdam what it was and is just didn’t happen here. We would need to create it. A false copy. A theme park. A Disneyland version. A sham, that would destroy what we set out to preserve.
We can neither replicate old Amsterdam (the cute canals) without filling in docks to canal widths and depths (against a self-imposed constraint) and without reducing development to uneconomic levels nor does the very different New Amsterdam of full width and depth docks actually provide an environment that is economically deliverable or even a desirable place to live.
Take a serious look at New Amsterdam (the big docks). It’s like a council estate on ice.
I'm seriously concerned about the northern end of Peel's proposals. They have been compromised to such an extent, it is starting to look like New Amsterdam.
***
We need both understanding and imagination. If the limit of our ambition is to stupidly ape the past or make a dull copy without question, we are in trouble. If we want to ape someone else’s past, we are in serious trouble indeed.
---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 AM ----------
All too true. The earliest possible time for starting is 2014 (Lindsey Ashworth, Peel 2010) and that is entirely dependent on the economic situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by buggedboy
WW - who are these fanciful 'others' who would be only too keen to step in and build on the central docks. There were no others before Peel and there have been no others since.