Toxteth District

[Ben]

I don't know what type of place a Wetherspoons is but think the last thing that part of Smithdown Road needs is a pub. A cinema would be much better! I'm always being told about an old cinema that used to be in upper parliament street Think it was called the Rialto Cinema

I'm not a fan of Wetherspoon pubs - and would certainly be keen on a proposal such as a cinema.
The reason I say that the jury is out in my mind about the proposal is the fact that in the 12 or so years I've known it, it has been an awful building with little prospects for being turned into anything of any note.

Wetherspoons - as a large corporate with a brand image to maintain, and enough cash to do that - would be an improvement in my mind.
I don't see anyone else joining the queue to take on this building.

It may be due to the long term lack of action in other key sites in this area, that I am less hopeful of the better alternatives turning up.

One thing that I would not welcome is another boarded up sh!th0le for the area to have to cope with.

[PhilipG]

I'm fed up with the build new houses obsession and that area has enough people living there. What about all the empty houses over Liverpool? Why can't thay be fixed up instead of being left for photographers to make a collection titled "urban decay"?

The point I was making was that some parks weren't built, and will not be built, without the income generated from using part of the site for housing.
Yes, I know there are plenty of empty houses, but they aren't overlooking a river and a park.

[Waterways]

Send a proposal to Liverpool council.They love wasting money,ruining beautiful architecture

Underground rail systems are er, er, er...underground. So no buildings get touched. You need to understand how cities work and how the most successful cities work.

[AngelCake]

Underground rail systems are er, er, er...underground. So no buildings get touched. You need to understand how cities work and how the most successful cities work.

Of course buildings would be touched. Expecting 100's of companies to move to liverpool just because we would have a city wide rail system is ridiculous.

[Waterways]

Of course buildings would be touched. Expecting 100's of companies to move to liverpool just because we would have a city wide rail system is ridiculous.

The only buildings touched would need to be touched. Good quality buildings will remain.

Fast, efficient, clean and comfortable transport infrastructure is an important consideration when locating. The Munich underground system built for the 1972 Olympics projected the city to world status from being a mere provincial city. The bavarians never looked back.

Also, the underground system means vibrant urban centres can flourish attracting people from the Greater Liverpool area and beyond. This means the city becomes more attractive generally and the regenerated, vibrant centres attract people and improve the quality of life of the people. A win, win all around for the locals and attracting outsiders.

Companies will not build around Lodge Lane, they will setup in the centre or the industrial estates. The attractive urban environment is what will attract them to the city, amongst others.

One thing is clear. Leaving these eyesore districts, or doing the usual quick tart up, will only do harm all around in the long run.

The centres and its immediate surrounds needs to be top quality and re-populated with people with high expendable incomes.

[Ben]

The only buildings touched would need to be touched. Good quality buildings will remain.

Fast, efficient, clean and comfortable transport infrastructure is an important consideration when locating. The Munich underground system built for the 1972 Olympics projected the city to world status from being a mere provincial city. The bavarians never looked back.

Also, the underground system means vibrant urban centres can flourish attracting people from the Greater Liverpool area and beyond. This means the city becomes more attractive generally and the regenerated, vibrant centres attract people and improve the quality of life of the people. A win, win all around for the locals and attracting outsiders.

Companies will not build around Lodge Lane, they will setup in the centre or the industrial estates. The attractive urban environment is what will attract them to the city, amongst others.

One thing is clear. Leaving these eyesore districts, or doing the usual quick tart up, will only do harm all around in the long run.

The centres and its immediate surrounds needs to be top quality and re-populated with people with high expendable incomes.

What I want to know is not the merits of a city wide rail system, but the cost justification for it, and whether it's a realistic plan, taking into accounts the size and population of Liverpool and the viable alternatives.
(I should mention at this stage, I am referring to your suggestions regarding the links to Lodge Lane etc ... in case you wander off on some general tangent)
Reading through some of your responses (many of them starting 'you don't understand....') they seem very naive.

I've highlighted in bold above a cost justification for Munich - if that's a comparison you want to draw. Where's the one for here?
Or is the cost justification in your mind 'well, this would attract those with fat wallets, eventually' - in which case, as AngelCake suggests, put your proposal to the Council .... I'll not hold my breath.

As I have previously mentioned - I don't dislike the idea, I just cannot see it heading anyone's list for infrastructure improvements for the next 10 years..

Unless you really think it a valid proposal - then it's about as much use as suggesting a monorail for Lodge Lane ......

[PhilipG]

I'm not an authority on local railways, but the loop-line in the city centre was only built (or should that be "dug") in the 1970s, which was hardly one of Liverpool's most prosperous periods.
Hardly any buildings were affected, except that the original Cavern was lost.
At the same time the Central/Garston line was reopened after being closed for years.

BTW. The point that we have unused tunnels keeps being missed.

[AngelCake]

The only buildings touched would need to be touched. Good quality buildings will remain.

Fast, efficient, clean and comfortable transport infrastructure is an important consideration when locating. The Munich underground system built for the 1972 Olympics projected the city to world status from being a mere provincial city. The bavarians never looked back.

Also, the underground system means vibrant urban centres can flourish attracting people from the Greater Liverpool area and beyond. This means the city becomes more attractive generally and the regenerated, vibrant centres attract people and improve the quality of life of the people. A win, win all around for the locals and attracting outsiders.

Companies will not build around Lodge Lane, they will setup in the centre or the industrial estates. The attractive urban environment is what will attract them to the city, amongst others.

One thing is clear. Leaving these eyesore districts, or doing the usual quick tart up, will only do harm all around in the long run.

The centres and its immediate surrounds needs to be top quality and re-populated with people with high expendable incomes.

Munich's population (2 million plus) is bigger than Liverpool's (500,000)and having an underground system doesn't always make urban areas flourish.London (8 million)) has many areas that people avoid tube system or not, same as New york (18 million).Mancester has become a vibrant ,attractive, regenerated city without the aid of a tube system. People with large incomes who live in the centre or surrounding areas are already happy to live in the Docks or Sefton park . I just don't agree that a tube system would transform the city as much as you think it would and bring in millions of people.

[Waterways]

Munich's population (2 million plus) is bigger than Liverpool's (500,000)and having an underground system doesn't always make urban areas flourish.

Munich was not 2 milion in the late 1960s when the underground was conceived. Merseyside has a population of 1.5 million.

London (8 million)) has many areas that people avoid tube system or not, same as New york (18 million).Mancester has become a vibrant ,attractive, regenerated city without the aid of a tube system.

So underground systems do not work in your logic. How odd. London and NY are successful because of the underground rapid transport systems...and other major cities like Tokyo, etc.

People with large incomes who live in the centre or surrounding areas are already happy to live in the Docks or Sefton park . I just don't agree that a tube system would transform the city as much as you think it would and bring in millions of people.

You need to understand what needs to be in place to project a city. It is clear you are quite satisfied with deprivation around you. Look at things logically and in a positive light. It will be much better then. You have the Liverpool disease.

[taffy]

Munich's population (2 million plus) is bigger than Liverpool's (500,000)and having an underground system doesn't always make urban areas flourish.London (8 million)) has many areas that people avoid tube system or not, same as New york (18 million).Mancester has become a vibrant ,attractive, regenerated city without the aid of a tube system. People with large incomes who live in the centre or surrounding areas are already happy to live in the Docks or Sefton park . I just don't agree that a tube system would transform the city as much as you think it would and bring in millions of people.

Bilbao in Spain has of course recently ( 1995) installed a new underground system. This has helped the city immensely along with the new Guggenheim museum. It has a population of about 350,000 with greater Bilbao about 1 million. Bilbao also has a new tramway system. Surely Liverpool would benefit from improved mass transport systems

[Waterways]

Bilbao in Spain has of course recently ( 1995) installed a new underground system. This has helped the city immensely along with the new Guggenheim museum. It has a population of about 350,000 with greater Bilbao about 1 million. Bilbao also has a new tramway system. Surely Liverpool would benefit from improved mass transport systems

The infrastructure is in place, tunnels, etc, to extend the existing Liverpool underground system.

It is essential to re-populate the city. The tramway is a white elephant, money should be spent on the underground system.

[AngelCake]

Munich was not 2 milion in the late 1960s when the underground was conceived. Merseyside has a population of 1.5 million.



So underground systems do not work in your logic. How odd. London and NY are successful because of the underground rapid transport systems...and other major cities like Tokyo, etc.

You need to understand what needs to be in place to project a city. It is clear you are quite satisfied with deprivation around you. Look at things logically and in a positive light. It will be much better then. You have the Liverpool disease.

I've no idea what Liverpool disease is but it sounds like you have the typical "I don't live in Liverpool and it's an awful place to reside".On previous posts I talked with Ben about how Lodge Lane and Toxteth needs improving so saying i'm quite satisfied with deprivation is offensive ,silly and misquotation.Why you are resorting to such low posts i'll never know.It's pointless trying to discuss important issues with someone who has an agenda. I'm interested in Toxteth becoming a nice area (regardless of where I live). I'm fine with people disagreeing with me but i'm not happy when a stranger tells me i'm happy seeing my birthplace deprived.You've crossed the line of reasonable debate

[Waterways]

I've no idea what Liverpool disease is

unprogressive, negative. The rejection of the Brunswick Quay Tower is indicative of this attitude. Liverpool is view from the outside as an argumentative do nothing city. Look at what Manchester has done in such a short space of time. They had a plan and knew what was important what was not....and went for it. I am impressed with that city. A have friends who live there and the council is superb.

It's pointless trying to discuss important issues with someone who has an agenda.

I agree. Find out what makes highly successful cities tick and projects them forward. You will find that top class infrastructure is at the top. Ken Livingstone is always on about London's infrastructure not being good enough and the likes of Paris, which is superb, will take business and wealth away from London. ...and Liverpool doesn't have infrastructure compared to London.

Pouring money to tart up run down areas is pouring money into a bottomless pit. The money has to be used to project the areas/city forward. A bit like Thatcher who squandered North Sea Oil revenues. She used it to pay unemployment benefit, not invest in the future. Wasted. Public money when spent has to matter and be a base on which people can progress and build on.

I feel as it I am saying the same thing over and over to you as you can't get something so fundamentally simple.

[AngelCake]

I'm not a fan of Wetherspoon pubs - and would certainly be keen on a proposal such as a cinema.
The reason I say that the jury is out in my mind about the proposal is the fact that in the 12 or so years I've known it, it has been an awful building with little prospects for being turned into anything of any note.

Wetherspoons - as a large corporate with a brand image to maintain, and enough cash to do that - would be an improvement in my mind.
I don't see anyone else joining the queue to take on this building.

It may be due to the long term lack of action in other key sites in this area, that I am less hopeful of the better alternatives turning up.

One thing that I would not welcome is another boarded up sh!th0le for the area to have to cope with.

If Wetherspoons are the only company interested then I suppose they will get the site at a knock down price unless a last minute bid is made

[Ged]

I do think Manchester was helped along a little with the aid of a bomb though. Even their own commentators admit that.