The New King Edward Tower

[Waterways]

I just read back on a few posts here. All those anti-progress, wanting to keep a depressed city depressed, tend to be older retired people on pensions, so OK, and whose minds are probably stuck 40 or 50 years ago. Sad isn't it? The young need a good decent city for the future - this appears not to enter the oldie's minds.

I can see why the young are contemptuous of the old.

[lindylou]

I agree that it's time for Liverpool to move on. I love my home city and I want it to be up there with the best.
Yes, we've got to think about our children and grandchildren to let them have a city to be proud of. You have to move with the times and not wallow in the past - - - but that doesn't mean that we should sweep away anything just because it's old. Our history and heritage can be preserved alongside progress and change.

Waterways, I know you argue against the old terraces, but I don't think we should sweep away our fine old terraced houses just for the sake of it - there are still some fantastic old houses in good condition which should not be replaced by ticky tacky boxes. Victorian housing can be renovated to high standard. My own house being an example, and I love my 1878 house. (we'd never be able to afford another house of this size) I think that old houses can be got rid of when their time is right - and it's not time yet for many of them. Our house is hanging in there and it's not time yet to throw in the towel
If our place was unpleasant and uncomfortable to live in, I would agree then to swap it for a ticky tacky box - but these houses are still solid and even more so after renovation.

We can still have beautifully renovated houses in our urban districts, and yet have exciting and new buildings elsewhere and in the right locations. New and old existing alongside each other.



ps, we should have had 'The Cloud' it would have been amazing. Liverpool should move on even more and be a bit daring. Now we can see how marvellous the L'pool skyline is looking - wouldn't it be even more marvellous to have a building so unusual like the Cloud would have been, something striking that no one else has got.

[Ged]

Granada reports done a house up on Madryn st to current building regulations and heat emissions standards, just to prove that renovating can be as cost effective as demolition and rebuilding. Of course advisers would never have had them go ahead with it if it were a lame duck. The trouble is starting again gets you a VAT free status - renovating doesn't - that needs to be changed.

I agree with keeping most of the old buildings - only when an historical importance is attached to it and they also look aestethically pleasing. I don't go in much for keeping the lone old building by the royal hospital or the georgian terrace on Dale st/corner of cheapside which is tacky - just because it's from a bygone time - however, Edge Lane for instance is a waste of good housing stock.

I agree with Waterways in principal that we have to move on in derelict parts - such as the central docks and the King Edward estate as that is not foresaking anything that's already there that's of historical importance or in current use.

[Waterways]

Waterways, I know you argue against the old terraces, but I don't think we should sweep away our fine old terraced houses just for the sake of it

Lindy, I like some of them, and some of the Welsh streets are very nice. The Georgian Quarter should be extended as well. However many old terraces are not fit for purpose and look awful giving a poor image. We must look ahead and make a quantum leap (for the city) in going into eco built sustainable communities which people buy into and make work. These actually do work. They are not an idea. There are lots of examples around. The last thing I want is Barratt built developer homes - ticky-tacky boxes.

ps, we should have had 'The Cloud' it would have been amazing. Liverpool should move on even more and be a bit daring.

The city was daring at one time. The RSA building for one, which uses river water to heat and cool before eco was fashionable. Although they ran short of money and clad it poorly giving a poor look for an unusual building. That is not beyond redemption and this building can come of age very easily.

[Ged]

I think Liverpool should have had the cloud but just not there at Mann Island. It might've gone down well amongst Liverpool Waters actually.

[lindylou]

I think Liverpool should have had the cloud but just not there at Mann Island. It might've gone down well amongst Liverpool Waters actually.

yes, I go along with that.

[Waterways]

The problem with terraces is the rear access. Also, making a building to current building regs in insulation is not startling. Eco homes cost around £30 a year to heat a 4 bed house.

A good terrace is worth keeping, but not for the sake of it. Renovating a whole terrace? It is cheaper to demolish and start again using SIP panels giving the same appearance and no heating bills. But people want more, such as small garden at the back, so the design changes.

The Georgian Quarter can be extended with houses with rear access for cars, etc. They would be very popular and increase population density making districts vibrant.

The city must change to a more eco outlook and design-in the eco aspects in the planning. Passive solar, etc. The day of looking at homes as "units" has to go.

[Waterways]

I think Liverpool should have had the cloud but just not there at Mann Island. It might've gone down well amongst Liverpool Waters actually.

The Phil/Opera House should have been where the museum is now. The museum could have been where the wedges are or better at Princes Dock, replacing the multi-floor cars park, which is on the quays. The key public places should be around the Albert/Pier Head.

[Ged]

The rear of terraces can be sorted by still demolishing the streets that lie behind them and using some of the space for an extension/parking space/small garden. It is important we keep frontages to the main arterial routes into the city centre. Low lying buildings and spaciousness either side of main boulevards looks unimposing. Leeds st now looks far better for buildings going up along its length. Look at Wavertree High street compared to all the gaps along Stanley road for instance.

[Waterways]

The rear of terraces can be sorted by still demolishing the streets that lie behind them and using some of the space for an extension/parking space/small garden. It is important we keep frontages to the main arterial routes into the city centre. Low lying buildings and spaciousness either side of main boulevards looks unimposing. Leeds st now looks far better for buildings going up along its length. Look at Wavertree High street compared to all the gaps along Stanley road for instance.

Good points. The point about renovating terraces is always the cost for what you get and pay for. New building is nearly always the most cost effective option - even if they look the same. There is also the noise problem. This can be largely designed out of new terraced homes if the will is there - the legislation is not. Many terraces can't have bedrooms in the roof as the extra weight would be too much on the shallow 1 foot deep foundations. Remember these houses were cheaply made emergency homes in most cases, maximising land and profit.

High St frontages are important and give as sense of vibrancy and community. Sustainable communities behind with open meeting places in the High streets is a good approach. High Streets should not be just rows of shops.

[Spike]

Nobody is saying keep terraces and every old building. Nobody is saying dont change anything. So that can not be used as an excuse.

Im saying not another pig ugly tower. Are there no other things that can be built? is the skyline so important to keep building Towers? The city must lack other things than towers. How about an Ice Skating rink, close to the city centre would be very popular. You can only build so many offices and apartments.

A skateboard park to keep them off the buildings in Town. An outdoor Cinema, Hey I like that one.

Surely there are things that could be built that the locals would use? built it new look, just dont build it up in the air with bits sticking off it. It already looks like Lego land there now.

Waterways you will find that I am a lot younger than you and a long way from my pension. My kids are living here.

[Ged]

We need a theme park - the garden festival site with the ferry stage ala 1984 would have been good.

I'm fed up driving the kids to Alton Towers.

[Waterways]

I would rather have buildings the height of Albert Dock with the odd tower around the docks Quays and the odd open space agains the quays - excavate many of the infilled docks.

Then remove the Dock Rd to merge the docks into the city and have the towers back off the docks. Tall towers act as a wall to the dock waterfront as occured on London's south bank, where the towers act as a long wall isolating the population behind them. Also obsuring the view as well. Having them off the docks and gradually rising as they built inland is the way.

Concentrating the dock population tight up against the quays gives density and vibrancy that would entail a Merseyrail station and a tram system around the docks and city centre if need be. Or better still a Dockland Light Rail system, which most is actually elevated like the Overhead, which can run onto the Merseyrail network giving greater flexibility.




Between all this can be places of attraction and leisure.

[Waterways]

Theme Park? The prom awaits with its own rail stations. The Halton Curve reinstatement giving access from Chester and North Wales is essential for success.

[Ged]

We should take full advantage of what that stretch of waterfront from Garston to Seaforth holds for us over the likes of Manchester and Birmingham. It's criminal that much of it lay idle and desolate. Reinstated docks could even form part of a water based rides the likes of which they have in foreign holiday resort theme parks.