WOW :PDT_Piratz_26:
Printable View
WOW :PDT_Piratz_26:
This is exactly what we want,this is a stunner.:handclap:
:PDT11 I'd buy that for a dollar!
Wonderful, lets hope it gets built!
I agree it's very impressive. About time too.:)
My only criticism is that it's yet another bloody bar code facade.
The 14th floor features a massive skybar and restaurant spread over almost 600 square metres that will be accessed by an exclusive express lift and offer 360 degree views of the whole of Liverpool from within.:PDT_Aliboronz_24:
A SPECTACULAR £130m skyscraper planned for Liverpool’s waterfront will contain the highest living space in the UK. Read
Tell me how tall It will be Kev.:PDT_Aliboronz_24:
170 m.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
At a rough guess about 550 feet.
It certainly looks stunning.
It has to be said that Beetham West and Unity have a rather dated look.
If plans get the go ahead, the tower will stand 170m (558ft) and 54 storeys tall by the Princes Dock development
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...7_tower300.jpg
The tower has been designed by architects Leach Rhodes Walker (LRW), who say they have taken into account Liverpool's World Heritage status
More here at :-http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6895610.stm
Kat
I took this from the Costco car park today as I liked the Liver building peeking over the horizon. The King Edward Tower will take that view away but will look awesome in its place.
http://s82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...t=DSCF1018.jpg
Liverpools King Edward Tower Gets Funding
Published on 2008-01-09 by Skyscrapernews.com
Scotching claims that a global credit crunch could affect Liverpool's future tallest building, the King Edward Tower, has taken a crucial step forwards in being realised.
The joint developers of the skyscraper, Y1 Developments Ltd and Richmont Properties, have secured the funding they will need to construct the £130 million project although they are still saying schtum on the actual source of the funding for now.
Designed by architects Leach Rhodes Walker, it has been a long time in genesis with over two years of consultations having taken place plus numerous design changes taking into account the views of the council and local stakeholders to reach the stage it has now of the planning application having been validated by the local council.
If built it will be 170 metres tall with 54 storeys. Inside will be 412 apartments plus office and retail space and plenty of basement level parking. For visitors the highlight will be a huge 600 square metre restaurant and skybar taking up the whole of the 14th that will be accessed by an exclusive express elevator that will whizz them straight there.
The planning committee of Liverpool City Council are expected to rule on approval of the scheme in the first quarter of 2008 with building works scheduled to begin in the autumn of this year should they be successful.
Anyone know what date the decision on this tower is going to be made. I know it's sometime this month, fingers crossed:PDT_Xtremez_42:
think its been move back to may
Government adviser slams plans for Liverpool super skyscraper
Mar 24 2008: Liverpool Daily Pos
THE Government’s key adviser on building design has condemned plans for Britain's tallest residential skyscraper near Liverpool’s waterfront.
A letter to the city council from architecture commission Cabe, obtained by the Daily Post, reveals the body’s criticism of proposals for the 54-storey King Edward Tower near Princes Dock, which could receive planning permission this month.
The letter condemns the “confused architectural expression” and “low ambitions for sustainability” it says the plans show, and concludes it does not support the proposal.
But the architects behind the development, LRW, have hit back, claiming Cabe has only taken a “snap shot view” of the scheme, which does not truly reflect its merits.
They added the final proposals were the result of a detailed consultation process with many official bodies within the city.
The letter from Cabe, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, says: “We agree with the principle of locating a tall building on this site, however our previous advice raised concerns regarding the precise height, form and architectural references of the pre application scheme.
“It is disappointing that the formal proposals have failed to respond to any of our previous comments.
“The amended scheme fails in our eyes to address the core failings of the original design, namely the unsatisfactory plan form, the unsuccessful relationship between the lower block and the tower, the confused architectural expression, the low ambitions for sustainability and the low quality public realm.
“The proposal does not meet Cabe and English Heritage’s guidance on tall buildings and should be refused planning permission.”
It adds there is a “relatively small amount of public space”, and describes the plan to build a tower and podium as an “uncomfortable amalgam”.
It also questions the structure’s place within the cityscape and concludes: “In summary, we do not support the proposal.
“It is disappointing that the pre- application consultation has not resulted in alterations that could have led to a contribution to the Liverpool skyline that responds more fully to the historic development and urban grain of the city.”
The £130m scheme by Y1 Developers and Richmont Properties on the King Edward pub site will comprise 412 apartments, 25,000 sq ft of commercial office space and a combination of 7,500 sq ft retail and leisure space, if given the go ahead.
A spokesman for LRW Architects said yesterday defended the development: “We are concerned that the Cabe response is effectively a snapshot view of the submitted designs given the limited time they have had to review these proposals and the limited time given to the associated presentation of said information.
“The project has been in detail design/development discussions for over two years with Liverpool City Council, Liverpool Vision, English Heritage and more recently LUDCAP. It is as a result of this detailed consultation process that the current designs were submitted for full planning consideration.
“LRW Architects feel that the current submitted design proposals, if approved by the council’s planning committee, will not only enhance this site’s immediate location and the wider setting, but will also act as a catalyst for the wider regeneration aspirations of the city of Liverpool.”
On the issue of sustainability the spokesman said minimum building regulations requirements will be exceeded and added the overall resulting sustainability could still be discussed with the council. The apartments on the 54th floor of the development would become the highest living spaces in the UK.
typical CABE doing everything they can to obstruct progress in Liverpool.
If it is distinctive, high, stands out and not in London they scream that it should be a 10 floor stump. If this was in London they would have said add more floors.
The city needs population density. This block will house about 900 people right in the centre on the waterfront too. If this is turned down then another blow to the city. The city will not recover from this combined with the Brunswick Tower rejection. Large developers will pull out altogether seeing the city as no-go area. That will then be a major body blow to the city it may not recover from.
Look OK to me. Get it built an get rid of that urban motorway between it and the Princes Dock.
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images...Tower_pic1.jpg
Couldn't agree more. I'm sick of cabe slating everthing that is planned in Liverpool. The Beetham tower in Manchester is nowhere near as impressive as this, yet cabe backed it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
I just hope that the council have the boldness and confidence to give planning permission. If they don't, this could be the final nail in the coffin for large scale investment in Liverpool. Fingers crossed:PDT_Xtremez_42:
CABE actually backed the Brunswick Quay Tower, unfortunately the idiots at the Council rejected it. Time to vote them out in May. We need dynamic people with vision. People who want to put this city back to where it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by AK1
Will Peel go ahead with the Shanghai Tower after all this? They want to built in the middle Princes half-Tide Dock the UKs tallest building outside London - trying for the tallest would be have Whitehall call it in and reject it. London has to be the biggest.
'Peel' are also going to appeal against the 'King Edward Tower'...saying it will detract from their planned 'Shanghai Tower'....Maybe this will have a bearing too!!:disgust:
They are fools to do so, as It stinks of jealously. King Eddies will enhance the Shanghai and vice versa. Peels' objections will be ignore - I hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenotoole123@msn.com
If they are not it will indicate that Peel have the city in their palms.
I was recently banned from posting to the Liverpool Echo forum for daring to mention that Peel were wanting to fill in historic West Waterloo dock as a means of gaining land by stealth. I emailed the echo webmaster and was ignored - no response. The forum is not used much anyhow, but that is not the point.
Anyone who dares to criticise Peel gets slammed down. This is not good for the city, to have one private company owning the commercial docks in Liverpool and Birkenhead and also the airport. And they they become a big property developer too.
If King Eddies gets rejected all other big developers will not even look at the city. They will spend a fortune and the time, on proposals that will be rejected. Then we will only have Peel - what Peel want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenotoole123@msn.com
That would be farcical, Peel havent even submitted a planning application how can they appeal against something when their own plans are still only at the drawing stage.
There intention with the Liverpool Waters publicity may be enough. Nevertheless it is silly to do so and the Council should dismiss their protests.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteH
Its not looking good for the King Edward Tower.
Cabe is really not happy with it.
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?...rycode=3110299
wouldn't worry about cabe, this will be built and then i'll hang my hat on it!
Doesn't matter how tall It Is, but they are approving too many souless looking modern buildings In Liverpool latley and this Is one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
modern..
yes..all new buildings are modern
souless.. no way
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoddersUK
Whatever the merits or otherwise of the design, I think it's a real pity that Martin Wright (Liverpool Vision) should describe it as 'ok for Liverpool'. Obviously this doesn't reflect well on the city's architectural aspirations - 'commercially appropriate' might have been more positive whilst still being realistic.
Personally I think the design is hopelessly mundane. A bit of Tower 42 (Natwest Tower, nonedescript 70s commercial) wrapped in a bit of barcoding (moribund noughties non-event). It must have taken all morning to do.
When does this go before the planners? Is it today?
I agree. This is no bland glass block.Quote:
Originally Posted by the pool08
In so far as a lame and borrowed idea is not bland then ok it's not bland but I wouldn't be the only one to have my judgement questioned. Certainly Martin Wright doesn't seem to be tha valued as a credible critic:Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Liverpool ‘not as good as Dubai’ remark sparks row
11 April 2008
By Rory Olcayto
Architects and planners have slammed as “ignorant” comments made by urban regeneration company Liverpool Vision suggesting that the city council should accept architecture below the standard of that found in Dubai.
“It’s a problem if [Martin Wright] doesn’t realise Dubai is hell on Earth”
Patrick Lynch
Commenting in last week’s BD on Cabe’s criticism of a tower scheme, development director Martin Wright, called the watchdog “naïve”, adding: “It [the tower] is not of the quality you’d find in Dubai, but what is proposed is not out of place in Liverpool.”
But leading figures have lined up to criticise this response, claiming that Liverpool should actually aim far above the standards found in the United Arab Emirates.
Patrick Lynch, a graduate of Liverpool University’s School of Architecture, the focus of an exhibition that opened last week, said he was worried by the comments.
“It’s a problem if Liverpool Vision’s director of development doesn’t realise Dubai is hell on Earth,” he said. “It’s just ignorance. How is that man in that job if he thinks that? The quality in Dubai is palpably not of a high standard.”
Lynch was backed by Bill Maynard, director of Urban Splash’s Liverpool office, who agreed that using Dubai as a benchmark was misguided.
“Dubai is a sprawling mess of hotchpotch architecture — we shouldn’t compare ourselves to it,” he said. “We should be comparing ourselves to Manhattan or Paris.”
Maynard added that while the baseline quality of new build in the city was improving, most developments were “average to mediocre”.
A Liverpool Vision spokesman said: “Liverpool Vision has consistently championed good quality design and has established a good reputation as an honest and proactive arbiter between private sector investors and the city council planning department. This relationship has resulted in may high quality buildings being delivered in Liverpool city centre..."
What we need is Iconic. Something that will be instantly recognisable and beautiful, not iconic because it is crap (cloud springs to mind). Betham tower may be a new so called 'soulless' building. But its different, its new i think it looks stunning. Same with the unity building.
Maynard, Lynch, cabe and everyone else hit the nail on the head.
“average to mediocre”. Although it is a step in the right direction, the Edwards tower could be a lot better. For the largest residential building in the uk it is unimaginative and i think cabe are right to say “confused architectural expression”. This shouldn't just be a Building for Liverpool, or even Britian. It should be a building that is recognisable across the world. It should be the standard to set the bench mark at. Not a half arsed clash of two very different architectural styles which we have two exceptional examples of in the Anglican and Catholic Cathedrals.
The two cathedrals are not clashes of two very different architectural styles. The Anglican is pure modern Gothic, the Metropolitan is pure authentic modern - totally unique, iconic and original. No city in the world has two cathedrals like them with totally conflicting styles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Broliv
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
The King Edward tower was the clash i was referring to with its design being based upon both cathedrals. I totally and wholeheartedly agree that our two cathedrals totally unique, iconic and original. That was my point entirely.
I agree the scheme clashes with itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Broliv
Personally I wouldn't have referenced the cathedrals (although now you mention it, I can see the form of the top is reminiscent of the Anglican Cathedral tower.
I think it looks like the Natwest Tower in a leopard skin kimono. A combination of the one which is itself a half-baked copy of Yamasaki's World Trade Center, the other a bit of meaningless (and rapidly going out of vogue) bar coding.
Unique? Maybe; in it's awfulness
Iconic? If it represents something, I don't know what it is
Original? See above
Rubbish? Oh yes.
iconic (adjective)
representative or characteristic of somebody or something admired as an icon
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=1005
Quote:
Architecturally the main feature of the building is the distinct spiral effect employed by the architects with a series of layered curves revealing different surfaces that celebrates the ecclesiastical grandeur of Liverpool. The brown stone is inspired by the Anglican Cathedral whilst the cornices and vertical lines on the curving glass take their cues from the Catholic Cathedral.
The brown stone is or should be a reddy/ black sandstone from an outcrop of Wilmslow Sandstone which has been quarried in Liverpool and used in many Liverpool buildings for more than a century. Whilst it is by no means unique to the Anglican Cathedral, I suggest the ecclesiastical reference to permanence and permanent materials is inappropriate in the dynamic and changing context of the city's business district. Also the sweeping form and the 'random' fenestration suggests movement and change - another contradiction with the chosen material.Quote:
Originally Posted by Broliv
I don't know who wrote this piece in skyscraper news but I don't see any reference in the KE tower to the Metropolitan Cathedral (which is in any event a rather 'pragmatic' version of the much better original in Brasilia by Oscar Neimeyer). The tower is much closer to the verticality of the WTC - see above post. This was largely derived from the multiple mullion cladding in the 'skin and core' ie relatively column-free construction (it was also used for the vertical cleaning system). How are they similar?
The spires and lines of the Metropolitan Cathedral i believe is refered to more, not so much the curves.
Still if we're getting confused over its style, just goes to show how confusing the building is.