The infill is back

[Waterways]

First draft of web site:

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/

Domain name is:
http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk (will take 24 hrs to be active)

Only sensible Comments welcome.

Web site has been updated.

[FKoE]

Best of luck with that watership....

[Waterways]

The docks have a marine ecosystem and without it the docks would fill with algae and stink. Deep in the docks living creatures filter the water by eating. The docks are home to jellyfish, mussels, sponges and seaweed. Some of the marine inhabitants of the docks come from other countries, transported in the ballast tanks of ships. Giant snails and Korean sea squirts can be found, being originally brought over in the 1950’s and now dominate many dock walls. There are barnacles in the docks that have come from as far away as New Zealand and Australia.

The reduction of the depth of Princes Half Tide Dock from deep water to little more than pond depth, had a negative impact on the marine environment. No consideration was given to the essential marine life, all of which are now dead.

As detailed in the World Heritage Site Plan which the City Council, MDHC and UNESCO are cosignatories, clearly states that:

4.17.4 Docks with standing water in the site and Buffer Zone support a range of marine life and habitats. Of particular note are the colonies of marine life attached to the dock walls and other structures. In the Mersey itself, these colonies tend not to have become established as the high silt load of the river suffocates the organisms. The docks are therefore an important habitat."

The above clearly states that the docks and wildlife habits have to stay. By killing the marine life, the World Heritage Status agreement has been violated.

Below: the destruction continues....



Below: Algae is present in West Waterloo Dock as the marine life has been killed:

[Howie]

Famous dock faces its Waterloo
Aug 22 2006
By Nick Coligan Political Reporter, Liverpool Echo



CONTROVERSIAL plans to fill in an historic Liverpool dock have resurfaced despite opposition from residents.

British Waterways wants to dump rubble into West Waterloo dock so a new piece of land can be created on the banks of the River Mersey.

It is part of a last-minute change to the route of Liverpool's new £17m waterfront canal, a flagship 2008 scheme.

The organisation's plans first emerged two months ago, prompting anger from residents and rumours council planners were unhappy with the idea.

British Waterways shelved the scheme so more discussions could take place.

It has now resubmitted its proposal to Liverpool council, admitting for the first time it wants to fill in West Waterloo dock to create room for a leisure development. If approved by the planning committee, work will start in October.

British Waterways would not say what would happen if it was refused, saying it was confident the council would back it.

But residents today said they would fight to save the picturesque dock, built in 1834.

Tony O'Leary, chairman of Waterloo Quay residents' association, said: "Many people were attracted here because they liked being surrounded by water. The main reason for wanting to live here would be taken away if the dock is filled in.

"These docks are Liverpool's jewels, but we feel they are becoming a dumping ground."

Kirkdale councillor Malcolm Kennedy said: "We feel better use needs to be made of northern docks, particularly when you look at the way Princes dock has been developed."

The new waterfront canal, planned for two years, will link the Leeds-Liverpool canal with Albert Dock.

British Waterways originally decided to route it through the middle of West Waterloo Dock, but now wants to shift it several metres inland through a new channel.

A spokesman said: "The dock has already been partially backfilled by the landowner and currently has a depth of between 0.8m and 1.2m, which is insufficient to use as a marina or for navigation.

"Backfilling of the dock will create a plot of land between the canal and the Mersey for a high-quality leisure development, which will be a destination for boaters and the many visitors to Liverpool each year.

"This site is considered vital for wider regeneration and attracting investment to north Liverpool."

nick.coligan@liverpool.com

Source: icLiverpool

[Harry]

I don't agree with filling in the docks but I think the canal through the Pier Head is a joke. I don't want to see canal boats, they've never been a part of Liverpool's waterfront.
As for World Heritage, this should be kicked into touch. Too many parts of the city are like a museum already and too many people with a single agenda like the waterfront are holding the city back with heritage and nostalgia nonsense.
The way I see it, the people of the city have already voted with their feet on the present state of the waterfront and docklands-they're dead as a dodo 95% of the time. People don't go there to enjoy anything and a better mix is needed.
You shouldn't refer to FKoE as an imbecile just because you don't like his views.

[Howie]

I think the canal through the Pier Head is a joke. I don't want to see canal boats, they've never been a part of Liverpool's waterfront.

Bearing in mind the success of The Boat Museum at Ellesmere Port and the fact that the largest builder of steel canal boats in the UK, Liverpool Boat Co Ltd, is based here I think there are probably quite a lot of people who would like to see the narrowboats arrive in the Albert Dock. They would benefit tourism and the regeneration of the north end along the route of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, (see also the Museum of Liverpool and Canal Link thread).

[Waterways]

I was invited to talk on Radio Merseyside today. The mail box has filled up a bit.

http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk

[FKoE]

I don't agree with filling in the docks but I think the canal through the Pier Head is a joke. I don't want to see canal boats, they've never been a part of Liverpool's waterfront.
As for World Heritage, this should be kicked into touch. Too many parts of the city are like a museum already and too many people with a single agenda like the waterfront are holding the city back with heritage and nostalgia nonsense.
The way I see it, the people of the city have already voted with their feet on the present state of the waterfront and docklands-they're dead as a dodo 95% of the time. People don't go there to enjoy anything and a better mix is needed.
You shouldn't refer to FKoE as an imbecile just because you don't like his views.

Ah don't worry Harry, Waterships called me worse, like for example, 'scum' etc .. he's not a 'scouser' he's a self-proclaimed Liverpudlian..

It would appear he has bought an exclusive waterside apartment, and now he has started a residents commitee made up of fellow exlusive apartment owners, to save 'our heritage' ...

hehehe!! .........

[Waterways]

It would appear he has bought an exclusive waterside apartment, and now he has started a residents commitee made up of fellow exlusive apartment owners, to save 'our heritage' ...

hehehe!! .........

Do you have any facts to back up these articles of faith?

[Waterways]

I don't agree with filling in the docks but I think the canal through the Pier Head is a joke. I don't want to see canal boats, they've never been a part of Liverpool's waterfront.
As for World Heritage, this should be kicked into touch. Too many parts of the city are like a museum already and too many people with a single agenda like the waterfront are holding the city back with heritage and nostalgia nonsense.
The way I see it, the people of the city have already voted with their feet on the present state of the waterfront and docklands-they're dead as a dodo 95% of the time. People don't go there to enjoy anything and a better mix is needed.

You have hit the point and don't realise it. The developments of the docks are third rate. Around Brunswick is very poor and lifeless indeed. People just sleep there, having to shop elsewhere and be entertained elsewhere - there is only one pub there. Look at this web site. http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk> They never had a clue how to develop what they did develop on the docks. Hamburg and Amsterdam are examples of how to develop docks and waterways. Waterways with vitality and life.

There are lots of docks to go, the situation is not lost. They have to remain for world history and heritage reasons and most important the infilled docks must be excavated and developed around. Filling in these docks is insulting America. The USA preserved Ellis Island, yet the counterpart, Liverpool, treats the American emigration with contempt.

It is a matter of developing the docks properly and moving the population and life onto the waterfront, docks and waterways. The prime point is more of what they can give us for the future - which is a world renowed water centric city. Nostalgia is way down the list. Way down.

You shouldn't refer to FKoE as an imbecile just because you don't like his views.

I reserve the right for him to have a point of view, even though, you use the word - imbecile.

[Waterways]

I don't agree with filling in the docks but I think the canal through the Pier Head is a joke. I don't want to see canal boats, they've never been a part of Liverpool's waterfront.

There were actualy, in the 1800s. The locks at the Victoria clock tower are barge locks, although for larger barges than narrowboats.

As for World Heritage, this should be kicked into touch.

WHS is the only thing saving the city from shark developers. It is what made the world sit up and look at Liverpool.

[Kev]

Regarding the flaming, attempted jokes, name calling, insults what-ever, lets put it all in the past and start a clean. We are all aware of members views on certain things, lets get on with decent discussion. Discussions are generally ruined by such conduct and not good for the forum.

[FKoE]

Do you have any facts to back up these articles of faith?

I have a coppers nose for these sort of things Watership.

Lets have a gander at your arguement for retaining a duckpond, our 'alleged' heritage.


First off you claim to fill in the dock is a slap in the face to America!!!? ... Is it? How exactly ?.

If I was a decesdent of an Irish or a German emigrate to the USA via Liverpool docks, I don't think I'd be very concerned about how we got there or from what dock we sailed from. I'd be more concerned about tracing my ancestral roots, and why my ancestor sailed. ..

Then you bring up 'Ellis Island'... Let me first state, Ellis Island has a neglected twin, do you know of it?. And secondly, there are little or no records for any 'American' descendent to confirm from which Liverpool dock his ancestor sailed from.

And thirdly, with the logic you are using, in 160 years from now, there will be a Watership descendent complaining that the Terminus of Liverpools John Lennon Airport should be protected and renovated, rather than redeveloped, because thousands of people emigrated from there.

The only people concerned with the conservation of the duckpond is the residents of the exclusive apartments. Not the vast majority of the people of Liverpool, who would rather, it was redeveloped and not left as a stagnant pond for another 35 years. You are creating a historical myth and over emphasising the docks importance to the City, to the USA and to the waterfront.


This is why I suspect your motives for trying to save the duckpond have little to do with protecting 'our heritage' and more to do with protecting your property investment.

[Waterways]

I have a coppers nose for these sort of things Watership.

Lets have a gander at your arguement for retaining a duckpond, our 'alleged' heritage.


First off you claim to fill in the dock is a slap in the face to America!!!? ... Is it? How exactly ?.

I decide not respond to you are you are clearly intellectually challenged. To have such an attitude either you are dumb or who pays your wages?

Just answer the second and then I will ignore your inane ramblings for ever.

[FKoE]