Why didn't they just build this one?

**Max** · 07-11-2006

That would of been boss to build.

That other one they nearly went for looked crap. Seriously wouldn't of been bad to go with this one.

**Kev** · 07-11-2006

I've never seen that before Max, wow!

**Max** · 07-11-2006

Skyscrapernews.com has the pics.

**lindylou** · 07-11-2006

That looks fabulous ! I like that !

**Waterways** · 07-11-2006

Originally Posted by Max

That would of been boss to build.

That other one they nearly went for looked crap. Seriously wouldn't of been bad to go with this one.

They thought it too high and would overpower the three graces. It was also considered not different enough. That is the case with the tower. The ship shaped building is something else though. Also you have to view these buildings from ground levels as that is where people view them from. Some look great from the air, but at ground level not good at all. At ground level, would you see the ship shape of the building? Would it be obvious? Probably not. Many buildings look great as models – look at the 1960s crap we were served up. They do look good from the air though.

A great iconic new building in Liverpool – the Brunswick Tower – would encourage more high quality iconic proposals. The current talls and those being built and to be built are very forgettable.

This picture really shows the levels of dock filling at Kings and Queens Docks- the removal of the water is really apparent.

**bazzacat** · 07-11-2006

We noticed on the boat trip on Saturday how there is an imbalance in the skyline when viewed from the river- all the newer, taller stuff to the north, and nothing comparable to the south.

FKoE · 07-11-2006

Thats a good point Bazza.. Maybe because the Northends river view is of Seacombe, Wallasey and New Brighton, and the Southends view is of Birkenhead and Rockferry

LOL

**Paul D** · 07-11-2006

Originally Posted by bazzacat

We noticed on the boat trip on Saturday how there is an imbalance in the skyline when viewed from the river- all the newer, taller stuff to the north, and nothing comparable to the south.

Brunswick Quay would be a giant step in the right direction if we get it but I'm scared to build my hopes up with this,fingers crossed.

**Waterways** · 07-11-2006

Originally Posted by bazzacat

We noticed on the boat trip on Saturday how there is an imbalance in the skyline when viewed from the river- all the newer, taller stuff to the north, and nothing comparable to the south.

Nothing can be above the Albert Dock buildings, until Queens Dock. The abandonment of the tall building policy may have the odd tall around the south, but as the Batic Triangle and Paradise is being build there are few place to put them now. None will be in front of the Anglican Cathedral either. So, that section will stay short. Basically, Parliament St/Queens Dock and to the south can go high.

**richie1878** · 07-11-2006

I've also thought (and said this on other forums), this was simply stunning. This was when they asked Joe public which design they liked, people said this one (if I remember correctly) and low and behold they picked the one that people liked least.

This really was a superb design, Liverpool has missed a tremendous opportunity.

Boo boo boo

**Waterways** · 07-12-2006

Originally Posted by richie1878

I've also thought (and said this on other forums), this was simply stunning. This was when they asked Joe public which design they liked, people said this one (if I remember correctly) and low and behold they picked the one that people liked least.

This really was a superb design, Liverpool has missed a tremendous opportunity.

Boo boo boo

Liverpool has missed a tremendous opportunity? What is new about that? Since WW2 it is a continuous saga. A 50 floor plus glass block was proposed for the old Custom House site in 1950 - aka New York style at time. They said no. The site was only cleared in the mid-1960s (I used to play on it as a kid). We always end up with cheap tatty crap instead. The serious world renowned architects I read have given up on the city as the city has no imagination or vision. They know what they forward will be rejected.

Look at the low level view above and imagine the Brunswick Towers at the end. It may mean that what could be will be not at all, but low level tat still keeps getting built on and around the dock waterways. Princes Dock has been heavily criticised by many.

What the city needs is a Frenchman to head the citys planning Dept. They have it. They can do it. They have a record of imagination and delivering. He must have total control and be able to override - even English Heritage. The only conditions is that the docks and waterways stay and infilled docks are excavated, and WHS is respected. That still leaves a lot to work with. With one man all is with him. Curently we have quangos polking their noses in - like Liverpool Vision. We need one point where it all come in and out.

Then something would happen - and something that will matter.

Well its back to the low level tat again, as that is not going to happen.

**Max** · 07-12-2006

Originally Posted by Waterways

They thought it too high and would overpower the three graces. It was also considered not different enough. That is the case with the tower. The ship shaped building is something else though. Also you have to view these buildings from ground levels as that is where people view them from. Some look great from the air, but at ground level not good at all. At ground level, would you see the ship shape of the building? Would it be obvious? Probably not. Many buildings look great as models – look at the 1960s crap we were served up. They do look good from the air though.

A great iconic new building in Liverpool – the Brunswick Tower – would encourage more high quality iconic proposals. The current talls and those being built and to be built are very forgettable.

This picture really shows the levels of dock filling at Kings and Queens Docks- the removal of the water is really apparent.

I can;t understand why people voted for the weird one though over this.

**Waterways** · 07-12-2006

Originally Posted by Max

I can;t understand why people voted for the weird one though over this.

To be honest by what is being built and proposed around the world this submission is poor. In comparrison it is bland. Look at some of the tall thin spires that are going up. That is what we need, and three or four of them. Something radically different and highly attractive - more than iconic. Like these:

But few will spend serious money on a city with an image problem on many fronts. So, back to dreaming.

**lindylou** · 07-12-2006

OMG ! They would look brilliant.
Oh, if only they would build something like that !

**Max** · 07-12-2006

Suprised the first picture will be London's first 1000 foot skyscraper though. We probably can;t get giant towers so were not competing with the capital.