Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 151

Thread: Brunswick Dock Area

  1. #1
    Creator & Administrator Kev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Under The Stairs >> Under The Mud.
    Posts
    7,488
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Brunswick Dock Area

    A DAZZLING sail-shaped skyscraper would be an "interesting design in the wrong place and at the wrong time", a public inquiry heard.

    Developer Maro wants to construct a 51-floor tower at Brunswick Quay, on the edge of Liverpool city centre.

    The firm claims the building - home to a hotel, flats and offices - would be a positive and breathtaking addition to the waterfront.

    But Liverpool council, which has twice blocked the plan, yesterday said Brunswick Quay does not need a tall building - and should be used as a workplace.

    The site was previously home to a small business centre, set up after the Toxteth riots, which has been gradually emptied over the past few months and is now shut.

    Paul Tucker, representing the council, said: "There are good reasons why the building is in the wrong place and is being proposed at the wrong time.

    "This location does not warrant a tall building of the type proposed - or at all.

    "Stand towards the end of Northumberland Street, look west and ask whether open space, shops and a boutique hotel will really promote integration of the dock with Toxteth and Dingle."



    Mr Tucker said the council would liketo see the small business centre reopened.

    He added: "This was a comparatively successful employment generator, which brought together a number of different features to benefit the local area.

    "The effect of granting planning permission would be the irrevocable loss of that resource."

    But Christopher Katkowski QC, representing Maro, said the £100m tower would hugely improve this part of the city centre.

    He said: "The proposal would make a positive and breathtaking contribution to the skyline, waterfront, and the immediate locality.

    "It seems obvious that the location and setting would be enhanced, and significantly so, with the proposals in place.

    "The proposals should produce more benefits than costs to the lives of those affected."

    The public inquiry is due to last for three weeks before a final recommendation on the plan is sent to the government.

    nick.coligan@liverpool.com
    Become A Supporter 👇


    Donate Via PayPal


    Donate


  2. #2
    Creator & Administrator Kev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Under The Stairs >> Under The Mud.
    Posts
    7,488
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    LIVERPOOL should welcome plans for the city's tallest skyscraper because the quality of other new developments in the city is too low, a public inquiry heard yesterday. more

    Have your say!!
    Become A Supporter 👇


    Donate Via PayPal


    Donate


  3. #3
    Otterspool Onomatopoeia Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Nowhere
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,908

    Default

    MORE SKY SCRAPERS!

    I would like to see the view of the city from a higher building.

    Tallest building I've been up in Liverpool was the anglican cathedral.

    In Paris you get a good view of Paris from the Eifel Tower.
    Gididi Gididi Goo.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Paul D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,099

    Default

    I'd love this to happen but I'm not very confident it will happen going on previous decisions,I want to be proved wrong.

  5. #5
    Creator & Administrator Kev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Under The Stairs >> Under The Mud.
    Posts
    7,488
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Why would anyone want to reject such a proposal?

    Last edited by Kev; 06-08-2006 at 07:03 PM.
    Become A Supporter 👇


    Donate Via PayPal


    Donate


  6. #6
    Senior Member Paul D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,099

    Default

    Only God knows what these people are thinking?

  7. #7
    Creator & Administrator Kev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Under The Stairs >> Under The Mud.
    Posts
    7,488
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    A SKYSCRAPER at Liverpool's Brunswick Quay would create a "them and us" mentality, a public inquiry heard.

    Paul Tucker, a lawyer for Liverpool Council, claimed plans for a 51-storey building on the city's waterfront were in the "wrong place at the wrong time".

    Mr Tucker insisted the city should not be seduced by promises of regeneration and investment.

    He told the final day of a public inquiry into the development: "It is not lightly that the city seeks to resist a development which would make something of a statement about the future of Liverpool.

    "However, the concern about the building is not that such a building might not add beneficially to the skyline of Liverpool, but not in this place and not at this time.

    "The point is best illustrated by asking the question as to whether those living to the east of Sefton Street, with a view of the looming mass of the building permanently in their field of view, would consider that the 'them and us' mentality is being reinforced or being eroded.

    "It is the planning of wonderland to suggest that the effect will be to promote social inclusion and integration of the existing population in the way envisaged."

    Yesterday was the final day of a public inquiry into the proposed building after developers Maro appealed a Liverpool City Council decision to reject the skyscraper.

    The site was previously home to a small business centre, set up after the Toxteth riots, which has been gradually emptied over the past few months and is now shut.

    The firm claims the building, which would include a hotel, flats and offices, would be a positive and breathtaking addition to the waterfront.

    Christopher Katkowski QC, representing Maro, said the £120m tower would hugely improve this part of the city centre. He said: "Liverpool has lagged behind its fellow 'regional pole' Manchester in delivering regeneration.

    "There are promising signs that Liverpool is going through an upturn in regeneration activity but there is no room for complacency. Significant investment should not be turned away lightly.

    "Enter Maro with a £120m investment in a remarkable scheme that even the 'Save Our City' group, an opponent, acknowledges would be beautiful and elegant and should not be lost to Liverpool.

    "The proposals would set a new and high standard for contemporary architecture in Liverpool whilst improving the housing stock close to the city centre.

    "Not only do English Heritage (EH) not oppose the appeal proposals in relation to their effect on the city's heritage, EH has been fulsome in its praise of the quality of design of the schemes.

    "Then there are the reasons for refusal that can only be described as dour and depressing in their limited horizons.

    "It is said that the proposals - for the finest and most remarkable contemporary scheme in Liverpool with £120m of investment at stake - should be turned away in order to retain a shabby and tired, cheap and basic, employment building, all against the background that Liverpool is awash with a vast supply of employment land.

    "Liverpool stands to gain a great deal from these schemes and little if anything from turning them away."

    The public inquiry is not set to make a ruling until September at the earliest.

    samlister@dailypost.co.uk
    Become A Supporter 👇


    Donate Via PayPal


    Donate


  8. #8
    Senior Member Paul D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kev
    Why would anyone want to reject such a proposal


    Not only is the tower stunning but the public realm part of the scheme looks great too.

  9. #9
    Creator & Administrator Kev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Under The Stairs >> Under The Mud.
    Posts
    7,488
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Seems to me that calling it an us and them mentality is a load of nonsense. Its beautiful and is the first sign of Liverpool's rejunevation/ renaissance before you get to Paradise Street. The alternative? Keep the area as it is for the forseable future - for what, why? It doesnt make sense.

    Imagine going to Manchester and Leeds with a development like this and them turning it away - it wouldn't happen.
    Become A Supporter 👇


    Donate Via PayPal


    Donate


  10. #10
    Stop the bullies! Gareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kev
    Seems to me that calling it an us and them mentality is a load of nonsense. Its beautiful and is the first sign of Liverpool's rejunevation/ renaissance before you get to Paradise Street. The alternative? Keep the area as it is for the forseable future - for what, why? It doesnt make sense.

    Imagine going to Manchester and Leeds with a development like this and them turning it away - it wouldn't happen.
    It's a sort of weird working class snobbery when you think about it. Not really from the residents, but the local politicians who feel the political demography of the area could alter, meaning they may find themselves voted out come election time. This ideaology seems to call for a type of strict class segregation, when it comes to neighbourhoods. Question is, do we want Liverpool to be like this?
    "I'm a white male, 18 to 49. Everyone listens to me! No matter how dumb my suggestions are."

  11. #11
    Creator & Administrator Kev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Under The Stairs >> Under The Mud.
    Posts
    7,488
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Why they are spouting off about the unsuitability of it in such an area when the nearest terraced housing must be a fair distance away, 1/2 mile or so?
    Become A Supporter 👇


    Donate Via PayPal


    Donate


  12. #12
    Otterspool Onomatopoeia Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Nowhere
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,908

    Default

    How tall will this Sky Scraper be?

    Rode past the Unity and it's not that tall.
    Gididi Gididi Goo.

  13. #13
    Creator & Administrator Kev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Under The Stairs >> Under The Mud.
    Posts
    7,488
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Max
    How tall will this Sky Scraper be?

    Rode past the Unity and it's not that tall.
    Quite right Max, Brunswick is 166.25 metres tall whereas Unity is 90.60 metres tall.

    Almost twice as high
    Become A Supporter 👇


    Donate Via PayPal


    Donate


  14. #14
    Senior Member Paul D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,099

    Default

    It'll be a sad day for Liverpool if they reject this one.

  15. #15
    Creator & Administrator Kev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Under The Stairs >> Under The Mud.
    Posts
    7,488
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul D
    It'll be a sad day for Liverpool if they reject this one.
    If they do, the Council should be ashamed of themselves . However, I have a strange feeling it will be good news this time around .
    Become A Supporter 👇


    Donate Via PayPal


    Donate


Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Clarence Dock Area
    By gregs dad in forum Liverpool's Maritime and Docklands
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 01-28-2011, 04:53 PM
  2. Albert Dock Area
    By scouserdave in forum Liverpool's Maritime and Docklands
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 10-31-2010, 01:04 PM
  3. Liverpool Marina Brunswick Dock Area
    By Kev in forum Liverpool's Maritime and Docklands
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-10-2009, 03:08 AM
  4. Waterloo Dock Area
    By Waterways in forum Liverpool City Center - Inner Zones
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-13-2007, 11:07 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •