Why didn't they just build this one?

[bazzacat]

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.

Thats true. But wasnt there a mid 70s proposal to build some enourmous building in Liverpool? I have a vague reccolection from the Guiness Book of Records, round about 1978, saying it would (if built), be Britains tallest building.

[Waterways]

Thats true. But wasnt there a mid 70s proposal to build some enourmous building in Liverpool? I have a vague reccolection from the Guiness Book of Records, round about 1978, saying it would (if built), be Britains tallest building.

There was two proposals, or one morphing. On in 1979 to build around Kings Dock, another at Dingle Lane/Otterspool. It would have been the world's tallest building.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=428

[Max]

Wonder why it didn't happen.

[FKoE]

Well Max son, as the Head of Liverpool City Council (notice me caps), I thought it was a waste of space, and the people of Liverpool would much more prefer a 120ft life size bronze statue of you in yer grots, than another hotel!!.


.... Don't be hittin me Maxie now, or I'll sic me secret Squirrel on yer!!

[Waterways]

Wonder why it didn't happen.

The city didn't want it (the council that is) and other factors I can't remember. They didn't want the 50 floor tall tower on the customs house site at Canning Place in 1950 either. They didn't want Brunswick Towers either, or Rogers 4th grace. Richard Craniums the lot of of them.

[Bunnyman]

The Otterspool tower wasn't a serious proposal. It was designed to test the water to see what the council would turn their noses up at. The developer was a piss-poor company called Wiggins that couldn't fund so much as a can of WD-40 for the gardeners mower.

[Max]

The Otterspool tower wasn't a serious proposal. It was designed to test the water to see what the council would turn their noses up at. The developer was a piss-poor company called Wiggins that couldn't fund so much as a can of WD-40 for the gardeners mower.

What a rip!

Ever since going up the Eifel Tower I want to see more towers.

[Bunnyman]

Have a look here Max. It's pretty good.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=380

[Gazzab]

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.

Is that the same Foster that is designing one of the new towers for the World Trade Centre - see link.

http://www.wtc.com/index.aspx

[Gazzab]

Not sure if it's the same Foster that put a design in for the Fourth Grace.

Foster's tower for WTC - 200 Greewich

Wasn't there a Rogers involved also who is designing a tower for the WTC site - 175 Greenwich.

http://www.wtc.com/inner_page.aspx?id=11

[johnmed]

Not too keen on that ship-like structure; blah!

[The Teardrop Explodes]

People really shouldn't take these architect's impressions as seriously they do on here...

It's a sales card on behalf of the practice

to give a fantasy illusion of what they're proposing to build would look brand new, in the most perfect and neigh impossible light conditions, with

highlight and enhancements which couldn't possibly exist from angles no-one will ever see.

Always imagine them 5-10 years on, from street level,

looking slightly dated, not quite as big as you were lead to believe, coated with a not-quite-so-hitech layer of grime, pigeon **** and peeling paintwork-

like London's Waterloo Eurostar Terminal.

Then if it still seems like a good idea say "Yes please"