Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33

Thread: 130 Liverpool buildings - SAVED

  1. #16
    Member Ron B Manderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    forfar
    Age
    79
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Very true the old saying.
    Throw it out ,and you need it within 3 weeks.
    Old buildings should be saved as it's what the tourist wants to see.
    When I visit a town thats what I look for .
    The history and the heart of the city.with proud history.
    And lets face it Liverpool has lots of that

    Don't let them do what the council did in Dundee.
    In The 60's the way it worked was evil.
    As contracts for demolition up to a certain price did.nt have to go to tender, the city ended up with buildind missing here and there . The town was spoilt.
    Yes certain council knobs were sent to prison.
    But alas. It was too late.
    So I would support your council and stop the demoliction people .
    Ron
    Last edited by Ron B Manderson; 01-21-2009 at 09:47 PM.

  2. #17
    Senior Member gregs dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    kirkby
    Posts
    2,636

    Default



    Once they were stables built by Andrew Walker, son of Sir Andrew Barclay Walker(Walker Art Gallery) for his polo ponies in 1885 and now they are mews
    These are on Grange Lane,Gateacre
    THE BEST VITAMIN FOR MAKING FRIENDS ? B.1

    My Flickr site: www.flickr.com/photos/exacta2a/

    http://flickrhivemind.net/User/exacta2a

  3. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fortinian View Post
    Ha ha, I can't believe you have used that hackneyed argument! Read it again,

    "the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s to clear away a lot of stuff we now rather wish we'd kept"

    So you would rather the world as it was in 1950? .
    On a purely aesthetic level, yes (well, about 1930 actually).
    Which is how it is in a lot of other major European cities.
    The courts, tenements etc needed (to simplify things a lot) decent plumbing, and a reduction in the number of occupants per acre, not wholesale clearance.
    The combination in the townscape of warehouses, courts, tenements and the rest was what gave Liverpool as a whole its special character (and combinations of other locally-distinctive but not individually-special buildings and building types) again, just as in Edinburgh or Prague or anywhere else with a strong architectural identity (where a particularly local take on the universal need for shelter generates a distinctive architectural language), not a handful of masterpiece monuments in the city centre.
    So the local landmarks, and a rich and identifiably local tradition of "ordinary" building and design, are important to a wider sense of civic identity, and just preserving a few buildings that you happen to think are of major importance is the pathetic argument that was used for decades to justify wrecking Liverpool, and that you've swallowed hook,line and sinker.

  4. #19
    Senior Member fortinian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    384
    Blog Entries
    2

    Thumbs up

    I see where you are coming from... but I still disagree. Just how much of the city do you want to preserve? How many tourists go out into the suburbs? Have you ever been to Prague's suburbs - they are not medieval cobbled streets, nor Paris. The city centre may have a 'look' or an aesthetic that indentifies it but that is not maintained through the rest of the city, nor should it be.

    We have the 'Georgian Quarter' which is a really nice way to preserve a swathe of our Cityscape, we are in no danger of losing late-victorian terraced housing, in fact we have a super-surplus of them which can still be lived in (a travesty in its own way). I fear you are imagining me as some sort of wrecking ball that wants to destroy the fabric of your city for the mere sake of it.

    I am not of a generation that remembers the courts, tenements etc... I have grown up in a Liverpool devoid of 'the docks', yet I still love Liverpool and can appreciate its heritage and feel it is somewhere different and special.

  5. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fortinian View Post
    I see where you are coming from... but I still disagree. Just how much of the city do you want to preserve? How many tourists go out into the suburbs? Have you ever been to Prague's suburbs - they are not medieval cobbled streets, nor Paris. The city centre may have a 'look' or an aesthetic that indentifies it but that is not maintained through the rest of the city, nor should it be.

    We have the 'Georgian Quarter' which is a really nice way to preserve a swathe of our Cityscape, we are in no danger of losing late-victorian terraced housing, in fact we have a super-surplus of them which can still be lived in (a travesty in its own way). I fear you are imagining me as some sort of wrecking ball that wants to destroy the fabric of your city for the mere sake of it.



    I am not of a generation that remembers the courts, tenements etc... I have grown up in a Liverpool devoid of 'the docks', yet I still love Liverpool and can appreciate its heritage and feel it is somewhere different and special.
    How many tourists (or potential investors) enter or leave the city through its suburbs? (answer: all of them) - and what sort of impression do they create? And what sort of impression could they create if we only thought of them as being and integral part of an greater "whole", rather than just the stuff round the edge of a very limited version of "Liverpool", which starts at Lime Street and finishes at the Pier Head?
    I can remember getting the bus into Liverpool in the late 70s / early 80s when the huge (and well-designed) 1920s and 30s council estates round Dovecot and Old Swan were just falling victim to "modernisation" (based on what was cheapest) and the "right to buy" - random bits of stone-cladding etc etc.
    They'll never be a "tourist attraction" in their own right (except for a handful of people who are interested in the achievements of Sir Lancelot Keay, City Architect at the time they were built), but Liverpool's suburbs (with a bit of litter picking, some careful refurbishment, and probably far less wholesale demolition that has been envisaged recently), could be a worthwhile introduction to the more important delights of the city centre.
    And yes, have seen the suburbs of Prague, and of Paris, and they look and feel nothing like each other, or like Liverpool's suburbs.
    Last edited by ghughesarch; 01-26-2009 at 07:21 PM.

  6. #21
    Senior Member danensis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Well, I drove into Liverpool the last time from Runcorn bridge. It used to be quite an interesting drive, past the Halewood plant, and then in through little places like Garston and Aigburth. But now its just cowboy town - dual carriageway, with the same old burger joints and big steel sheds as any other city. When I tried to get nearer the river I ended up nearly wrecking the car with stupid "speed bumps" which give you whiplash at 20 m.p.h. All the old streets I knew - which were perfectly serviceable housing once the lofts were insulated and the kitchen bathroom extension added, had been replaced with houses that looked as though the architect had been deprived of his construction kit when a child, and was making up for it.

    John

  7. #22
    Senior Member fortinian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    384
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    You over simplify what I am saying, I am not for the wholesale destruction of Liverpools cityscape and replacement with steel and glass - that would be awful. I am merely trying to retain some sort of realistic vision in an area that can get horribly swamped with trite nostalgia, sentimentality and general demagoguary.

    Liverpool is looked upon as a bit of a joke in the building world... no one can do anything because of the complaints. Look at Mann Island, we could of had an interesting building there in the shape of the cloud... but what do we have now? Some boring 'contemporary' buliding which is exactly the same as every other post-1990s building.

    Now, I freely admit, I was against the Cloud at first... but now we have such a boring unimaginative building in its place I wish it was here.

    We must preserve our heritage, but not at the expense of our future.

  8. #23

    Default

    I was against the Cloud, and against what's been built now - I don't see what was wrong with leaving the site empty. But there's the point - the site was, for whatever reason, empty, so building on it didn't involve sweeping something else away. There are lots of empty, or genuinely underused, sites in the city that could and should be filled, preferably by good, sensitive, modern buildings, or by the repair and reuse of what is currently derelict and decaying, before we start spouting about functionally redundant but visually important church towers and the like as "an impediment to progress and regeneration" - your precise words, and the ones that sparked my ire. Equally, there are a few empty sites that would be better left as open space.
    Last edited by ghughesarch; 01-29-2009 at 11:43 PM.

  9. #24
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Wayne in the Times:

    January 31, 2009

    Liverpool?s heritage
    Liverpool Preservation Trust speaks out on the effect of recent redevelopment to the city

    Sir, Those who live in Liverpool have had to endure traffic chaos while the massive Grosvenor Estate scheme was built (?Liverpool One, brutal developers nil?, Jan 24). We were told it would be worth the wait but then, on opening day, we go into recession, making it more miserable for small businesses that have not been priced out by the ensuing Klondike-style land grab, fuelled by Liverpool One optimism.

    Walk around the periphery of the new estate and you will see the disaster that has befallen our city with bad planning. Planners have done more damage than the Luftwaffe by finishing us off with brutal architecture, and Liverpool One is such an example. Grosvenor may have a few good points but it?s a group of average shops thrown together quickly. It could have been so much better if the European Capital of Culture had not been hijacked and turned into Culture of Capital.

    The Liverpool Preservation Trust has fought to cling on to the historic fabric of the city while 46 listed buildings were destroyed. In Liverpool One the oldest merchant?s house in the city was buried under a car park and the first purpose-built dock in the world, Steers Dock, has been replaced with Milton Keynes on Sea.

    It is architecturally criminal what they are doing to a World Heritage Site.

    Wayne Colquhoun

    Chairman, Liverpool Preservation Trust
    Wayne does have a point. He is regarded as a Luddite, but all is trying to do is preserve what we have and any new buildings adjacent conform to the old.

    OK, many modern buildings have blended in with the old, however in Liverpool modern architecture mainly has been a disaster with few decent examples. So Wayne's view is understandable.

    He is spot-on regarding the old Steers Dock and Liverpool One shopping mall. This historic dock should have been partially excavated with boats in the dock accessing from Canning Dock, then a well designed shopping centre built around it - what an attraction for shoppers!!!! Too easy is isn't it!!! Did they do it? No.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    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?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  10. #25
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fortinian View Post
    Liverpool is looked upon as a bit of a joke in the building world...
    After this was rejected, yes. It would have been completed a few years ago if they gave it the go ahead:



    no one can do anything because of the complaints. Look at Mann Island, we could of had an interesting building there in the shape of the cloud... but what do we have now? Some boring 'contemporary' buliding which is exactly the same as every other post-1990s building.


    I would not say those buildings are, boring 'contemporary' buildings which are exactly the same as every other post-1990s building.

    We must preserve our heritage, but not at the expense of our future.
    Quite the reverse. We must forge the futures, but not at the expense of our heritage.

    We must value what we have and work the future around that.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    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?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  11. #26
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ghughesarch View Post
    I was against the Cloud, and against what's been built now - I don't see what was wrong with leaving the site empty. But there's the point - the site was, for whatever reason, empty, so building on it didn't involve sweeping something else away. There are lots of empty, or genuinely underused, sites in the city that could and should be filled, preferably by good, sensitive, modern buildings, or by the repair and reuse of what is currently derelict and decaying, before we start spouting about functionally redundant but visually important church towers and the like as "an impediment to progress and regeneration" - your precise words, and the ones that sparked my ire. Equally, there are a few empty sites that would be better left as open space.
    Mann Island could have been clearly left empty. The only section of the proposed urban ring motorways built was the Dock Rd section, the Strand. Thank God it never happened. This can be got rid of and a park/leisure area around Canning Dock up to Liverpool One shopping centre can be made. It would have been even better if the Old (Steers) Dock was partially excavated and parts of the park left. a few single floor low rise leisure buildings could have been built to serve the needs of people. Naked Lilac mentioned how removing the park was real bad move when she visited the city in the summer.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    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?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  12. #27
    Senior Member gregs dad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    kirkby
    Posts
    2,636

    Default


    House in Church Rd Wavertree in 1909(photo courtesy Liverpool Record Office)

    The same house today the only difference is the chains have been removed from the garden posts
    THE BEST VITAMIN FOR MAKING FRIENDS ? B.1

    My Flickr site: www.flickr.com/photos/exacta2a/

    http://flickrhivemind.net/User/exacta2a

  13. #28
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    The top of the chimney pot has had work done to it.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    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?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  14. #29
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fortinian View Post
    but who remembers the hundreds of crap Victorian warehouses and slums they demolished? Who laments them? No-one because they were architectually and historically unimportant on their own. They were just empty relics of the past.
    Liverpool had late 1700s/early 1800s 13 floor warehouses with palladium fronts. All demolished in the 1970/80s. OK, they probably didn't know you could convert them to flats. But I'm sure they knew that.

    Why would anyone with half a brain pull this down? What a beauty. Like Chicago.




    Look at all the wonderful buildings that could still be here today and converted to flats. What a waste - that's all the city ever does, is have no vision whatsoever and fail to value what it has. The Victoria Dock is seen before they filled that in as well.

    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    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?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  15. #30
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197

    Default

    That Riverfront building and ones like it should never have been demolished.
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Anfield terraces saved from demolition
    By Colin Wilkinson in forum Colin Wilkinson's Streets of Liverpool
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-16-2012, 07:20 PM
  2. Everton Library: another building saved.
    By Colin Wilkinson in forum Colin Wilkinson's Streets of Liverpool
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-01-2012, 09:10 PM

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
  •