Not another one! No it is not. At least I back views up by some facts.Originally Posted by Bernie
Look at those here. I state a fact that only 7.5% of the UK is settled and 5% of that is parks and gardens and they still do not believe it because they think 60%, or some other silly figure, of the UK built on. Well the Daily Mail and Telegraph said so, so it must be right. They still continually spout about urban sprawl. At 7.5%, we haven't even tinged the countryside.
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
Who's Jeremy Kyle?
Ha, you two guys, you're both gonna have a siezure. Chill... maintain a sense of humour.
You remember what that was don't ya.
...so called facts (read up).
Can you tell us then what the total breakdown of land useage is including unusable moorlands, highlands, coastal margins, parks, gardens, developed areas, underdeveloped areas, redundant areas, agricultural areas, the remains of our forested heritage, national parks, industrial areas, flood plains, defence establishments, infrastucture take, airports, ports and finally inhabited areas and provide us with references to the source and methodology and then we will have an idea of how much we can rely on what you say and make our own assessment of whether enough land is given over to the population?
For sure, this city is empty and it would be an irresponsible waste to build further out into the country because you've got a grudge against the landed gentry.
If you think that will create slums, Liverpool has almost exactly half the density of Inner London. Don't see many slums there, but no doubt you know better.
No gone on..., who IS Jeremy Kyle?
I gave a link explaining with data. As usual you didn't read it and still prattle conditioned babble about a subject you know little more than FA.
BTW, look at the slums in Tower Hamlets, that border the marble halls of the City of London.
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
Greatest presenter on daytime tv.
Many facts here..and all right it appears.....
The tower was triangular in plan. One picture showing one facet is misrepresentation. The tower was iconic and something this city should not reject if it wants to get anywhere.
Simpson castigated the city for being argumentative and obstructive with little to no vision. Others had noted the same. He was right - he was was educated here. He is a top man in the world architect world. You are grasping at straws in castigating the top architect (because he from Manchester? I can't believe that) in order to rubbish the best building proposed for the city since 1951.
Many Liverpudlians have a death wish and want the city remain a 3rd rate place.
----------
Architects Journal
23 November, 2006
AGENDA
Ruth Kelly's decision to torpedo Ian Simpson's Brunswick Tower in Liverpool over claims it will threaten the city's World Heritage status has been branded a 'smokescreen' by local observers.
Critics have also claimed that Kelly's reasons for blocking the scheme mask a deeper political agenda and an anti Liverpool bias.
Plans for the 52-storey glass tower on Liverpool's waterfront were thrown out by the communities minister last week, despite it securing support from the planning inspector.
At the crux of Kelly's decision, according to a Department of Communities and Local Government statement, were fears the tower would obscure views of Liverpool's two cathedrals inside the World Heritage Site zone - even though the scheme is 3km outside the conservation area.
Former Liverpool lord mayor Jack Spriggs has rejected the heritage argument.
'That's a frivolous reason, ' he says. 'It is all part of a government attack on Liverpool. It follows on from the demolition of the Liverpool tram scheme.
'If you were an investor, would you want to come into Liverpool?' he adds.
The 166m-tall, ?70 million Brunswick Quay scheme would have featured a boutique hotel, restaurants, shops and offices.
Liverpool City Council, led by chief executive David Henshaw, rejected initial plans, claiming local businesses would suffer. The scheme was blocked again last year - despite having the backing of planning committee head Doreen Jones - but won a crucial green light from the government inspector earlier this month.
Henshaw left the council under a cloud in January after a public bust-up with councillor Mike Storey, thought to be linked to the city's defunct tram scheme. Henshaw has since found his feet in central government - he recently spearheaded a Department for Work and Pensions review into the Child Support Agency.
Ian Simpson admits he was 'abbergasted'by Kelly's verdict.
'This development is well outside the World Heritage Site area. Despite an 18-month process, which went in our favour, this is another example of the government thinking it knows best, ' he says.
Simpson also told the AJ he would be prepared to reduce the height of Brunswick by up to a third to pacify the local heritage lobby.
Brunswick developer Maro Developments says it is 'disappointed' at the government's decision but remains committed to regenerating the gateway site.
A source close to the firm says Kelly's conclusion ew in the face of logic. 'It's bizarre.
Without private investment like this, there is no future for Liverpool.'
Despite Brunswick becoming something of a political football, Simpson has vowed to fight another day.
The question remains whether Kelly has scored a political home goal or kicked Brunswick into touch for good.
---------
Heritage in the dock
Propertyweek
24.04.09
By Paul Unger
Developers claim new planning guidelines for Liverpool?s historic docks are hampering growth
Liverpool achieved world heritage site status five years ago across six areas of the city in recognition of its rich mercantile maritime history.
The historic dock estate and the grand streets that the city?s merchants and ship owners helped establish were to be preserved, UNESCO decided, in recognition of the vital role the port played in the growth of the British Empire.
The six areas awarded world heritage site status were Castle Street and Dale Street, Lower Duke Street and Ropewalks, Pier Head, William Brown Street, Albert Dock and Stanley Dock.
The supplementary planning document required by UNESCO to guide the management of the area and neighbouring ?buffer zones? ? taking in virtually the whole city centre ? has only recently been drafted and its public consultation closed on 14 April.
Whether world heritage status is a blessing or a curse was debated by developers, not just in relation to subjective notions of what makes a fitting new building today, but also the very objective matter of making a profit.
The supplementary planning document, and the planning regime deployed in anticipation of it during the last five years, inevitably requires developers to do justice to the quality of the world heritage sites, not only in terms of design and materials, but also height.
Developers say they need height to generate profits. The guidance insists new development must not be at the expense of the area?s heritage, nor should it intrude on people?s sightlines of historic buildings.
Guy Butler, projects director at Grosvenor, felt the wrath of the Liverpool world heritage lobby while planning the tallest building in the 43 acre Liverpool One ? the Cesar Pelli-designed One Park West residential building on the Strand and Chavasse Park.
?The original design was four storeys higher, producing a tower of 21 storeys, with two buildings either side,? says Butler. ?We worked incredibly hard to get support and the planners were amazing, very commercially aware and right behind us. But eventually English Heritage said it was too tall and not in keeping with the world heritage site.?
Sensitive skyline
As a compromise, four storeys were removed, which reduced the value of the scheme?s flats by ?16m and meant the building went ahead at a loss to Grosvenor.
?We weren?t able to hang around with the development programme of Liverpool One,? continues Butler. ?And so we couldn?t risk a public inquiry and a two-year delay if English Heritage opposed us. We thought: this is an interesting building by a world-class architect, which could be treated as an exception, but they said no. Ask the architects or the planners now and they will say it spoilt the building.?
Other projects around the Pier Head have had to bow down ? literally ? to the world heritage site credo that the ?outstanding universal value? of the protected buildings and monuments ? in this case a trio of century-old buildings dubbed ?the Three Graces? ? is paramount.
The Museum of Liverpool promises to be a low and elegant addition to the sensitive skyline. Similarly, Neptune and Countryside?s Mann Island will feature cut-away walls that preserve more than a dozen enshrined sightlines.
Both of these forthcoming schemes require either hefty grants or publicly subsidised land acquisition to cover the expense of the natural stone cladding ? limestone at the museum and granite at Mann Island ? called for by both English Heritage and planners.
Tall buildings will be limited, the supplementary planning document dictates, to cluster areas north around Old Hall Street, Princes Dock and south in Brunswick and Queen?s Dock to protect the panorama of the city centre skyline.
There is a line of tall buildings emerging to the north with residential towers by Millennium Estates, Beetham and City Lofts. More are proposed by investor Ray Smith and the ubiquitous Peel Holdings.
If Peel had its way, the 60-storey Shanghai Tower in Princes Half Tide Dock to the north of Pier Head would be the centrepiece of its much-discussed Liverpool Waters.
?It?s time to enhance, not just protect, our architectural assets?
Robin Ellis, Downing
The developer wanted to build in the water itself but was told by Liverpool City Council and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment to forget it. Not only has the supplementary planning document ruled out losing any more water ? Pier Head was itself built on a reclaimed dock ? but, being so close to the world heritage site, the building could be deemed too tall. Peel will almost certainly have to move its Shanghai Tower northwards.
Lindsey Ashworth, development director at Peel, made his feelings clear in typically direct Peel style at Property Week?s Regenerate! Liverpool conference in February, when he complained that the supplementary planning document was all about heritage and contained ?no urban design vision?.
Ashworth says: ?The planning document fails to consider or factor in the economics of regeneration. It doesn?t consider the prospects of large-scale physical regeneration as a development opportunity in parts of the world heritage site.?
Put the city?s economic growth before views, Ashworth says, adding: ?And if you want to see the cathedral, go to the cathedral.?
The council claims the World Heritage Site status is a tool for tourism and was instrumental in securing the city a place at the Shanghai World Expo 2010.
Others agree that the heritage badge needs to be used more prominently. Robin Ellis, senior agency surveyor at Downing, owner of the Port of Liverpool Building, one of the Three Graces, says: ?A shift in the language the city uses when talking about its historic and world heritage sites would help to diminish the perception that more rules will hamper growth. It?s time we focused squarely on enhancing rather than simply protecting our architectural assets.?
There will be intriguing test cases if and when the Merseyside police headquarters, the Baltic Triangle and Queen?s Dock are redeveloped and when the defunct HSBC on Castle Street and Dale Street is sold.
Test of character
Commenting on the forthcoming supplementary planning document, a spokesperson for English Heritage, which is certain to be involved in all these cases, says: ?The objective of this planning document is to remove as much uncertainty as possible for developers working within world heritage sites. We were among those who contributed funding towards the creation of this document and we will be submitting our formal response shortly.?
Also preparing a response is the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, where John Sutcliffe, founder and managing director of structural engineering consultancy Sutcliffe, is head of the planning committee.
Sutcliffe says: ?Each development should be seen on its merits and if a tall building is of world-class quality then it could be acceptable.?
He adds: ?But there is no point having planning guidance if we are not selling the world heritage site as part of our tourism offer.?
Caught in this storm of comment and criticism is the council?s world heritage officer, John Hinchliffe. ?It?s a balance between careful introduction of new buildings and preservation of areas of outstanding value,? he says. ?It is not just a conservation document. We can have both tall buildings and protected views, but if we let people build whatever they want wherever they want, then Liverpool?s special character would be lost.?
An interesting twist to the consultation came in early April when Communities and Local Government said it would automatically refer applications within world heritage sites to the secretary of state if plans were objected to by English Heritage.
Michelle Steel, planning associate at Drivers Jonas, says the decision should not be seen as a threat to developers: ?It is an additional layer of regulation for checking the sensitive design issues around world heritage sites but will not automatically mean a call-in for an inquiry.?
For now, developers are still digesting the implications of applications being referred and Liverpool?s new planning document.
?It could be argued that this document should have been in place long before now,? reflects Katy Lightbody, associate partner at planning consultancy DPP Heritage. ?However, the document ups the ante and it is clear that proposals for development will need to be fully justified and able to withstand robust scrutiny.?
Whether profit can survive such scrutiny or whether reliance on grants is a long-term solution are both questions open to debate.
-------------------
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
Mmm,think I'll get a tent!(but old,or new??)
Yep, I had a quick skim - couldn't see anything on total land use but then who's going to rely on these independent 'think-tanks' for an objective assessment anyway (you do remember "what is the point of cities like Liverpool. Let's move everyone to the South East", don't you?)
However, I did notice from the Office of National Statistics (a reasonably creditable source) or whatever it is they call themselves these days, that the density of dwellings in Westminster (a very nice place) is only half that of Tower Hamlets (my friends like it; haven't seen any slums) and about the same as Hackney (those high-density, high-rise flats in the Barbican are SO nice) but Westminster's density is still DOUBLE that of Liverpool (a half-empty place).
BTW; your elbow is the pointy one.
No way!! Greater than who?
But none of them yours apparently, including your declaration that the city was allowing tall buildings in the south.
There is no hope for you if you think a so-called one-minute, plagiarist wonder like Simpson is the top or even a top man. You claimed credit for him being local; not me. I don't care where he's from.
Yes, if you look at it from one side or one particular angle, it's misleading - I think that's just the point I was making. And yes, a triangle has three sides.
ps. you don't need to quote the AJ or Property Week here; they take up enough space on the bookshelves as it is.
Norman Vaughan, Max Bygraves, Bruce Forsyth.
NO! NO! NO! (Well ok, maybe Max Bygraves)
Who's Max Bygraves?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks