Hi everyone, Basically over the last few days i have been wondering about an idea for a thread. We all know thanks to the development summary about the projects which sadly/ thankfully never made it... The Fourth Grace, Lime Street Gateway, Project Kirby etc etc.

But my Question is, What projects have passed by through the years that may have now been forgotten about by many? Cancelled due to economic climate, The War or any other situation going back through the decades. Or even just drastically differing proposals for the buildings that we have now became used to. Any old photographs, sketches, plans or renders you can share would be excellent :)

A recent cancelled project that I am disappointed about is the tower planned for Princes Dock Plot 3a. I just imagined that it would really solidify the cluster that has developed in that end of town, as well as give some much needed life to the area. Looking at the area now, its certainly missed.

Another big disappointment is Merseytram.

A recent cancelled project that I am disappointed about is the tower planned for Princes Dock Plot 3a. I just imagined that it would really solidify the cluster that has developed in that end of town, as well as give some much needed life to the area. Looking at the area now, its certainly missed.

Another big disappointment is Merseytram.


Shanghai Tower sits on plot 3a in the Liverpool Waters masterplan. Peel also applied to extend the existing planning permission, suggesting that you may yet see it.

Text from Bay City

'The planned cathedral would have been built from pinkish-brown brick relieved by bands of silver-grey granite. The breathtaking edifice would have been crowned with an enormous 510 ft high dome – 60 ft higher than St Peter’s and more than twice the height of St Paul’s in London (250 ft).

Following purchase of the present 9-acre (36,000 m2) site at Brownlow Hill, in 1930 Sir Edwin Lutyens (1869–1944) was commissioned to provide a design which would be an appropriate response to the Giles Gilbert Scott-designed Neo-gothic Anglican cathedral then emerging at the other end of Hope Street. Lutyens' design would have created a massive classical/Byzantine structure that would have become the second-largest church in the world. It would have had the world's largest dome, being 510 feet (160 m) compared to the 450 feet (140 m) on St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

Sir Edwin Lutyens (1869-1944) was commissioned to design a Cathedral to contrast with the Gothic gem of Sir Giles Gilbert Scott which was rising at the other end of Hope Street, where building had started in 1904. The central feature of his design, he decided, was to be a great dome 168 feet (51 meters) in diameter with an internal height of 300 feet (91 meters). The nave and aisles would consist of a series of barrel vaults running at right angles to each other. The High Altar would be twelve feet (4 meters) above the nave floor and a total of 53 altars would line the nave and transept, apses and sacristies. The height from the lowest step of the Western front to the top of the lantern would be a colossal 520 feet (158 meters). (By comparison, the tower of the Anglican Cathedral rises to 330 feet ( 101 meters)).

Inside the West Porch would be the narthex - 'a great space', wrote Lutyens, 'which it is proposed shall be open by day and by night, without let or hindrance, and kept warm - a spiritual sanctuary for those cold and destitute.' He might have added that it would be a link with the purpose of the site in the past. Building of the Crypt went on apace until 1941 when the war years brought the cessation of building, but the fund happily consolidated. In 36 years it had risen to £934,786 of which a little less than half had been expended. After the war the Crypt was completed and remains part of the present Cathedral, a magnificent fragment of what might have been. But the grandiose Romanesque super-structure, whose main entrance arch could have contained the nearby University's tower, was now costed at an impossible £27 million.'

http://i41.tinypic.com/35zwz.jpg


A model of the building.
http://i44.tinypic.com/2qipi7a.jpg


Comparison with actual site.
http://i46.tinypic.com/2sbn8xt.jpg


The crypt under construction.
http://i39.tinypic.com/2meptly.jpg


The crypt today.
http://i49.tinypic.com/2e1649d.jpg


The new cathedral, designed by Sir Frederick Gibberd.
http://i39.tinypic.com/ja9dox.jpg

Originally posted by yoshef.

This picture is from Doug Roberts, it shows a 1960s scheme called Aquarius city, proposed by Oldham Estates who were trying to buy the Albert Dock, in Liverpool, and demolish it.

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/1609/page34mu9.jpg

Wow, that's really interesting. Immagine 100 years down the line with that on one side and Liverpool Waters on the other. The "three graces" would be dwarfed in the middle.

I live how that model still has the Overhead in it. Or its the unbuilt inner motorway...

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x167/yoshef/lutyens1.jpg

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x167/yoshef/lutyens2.jpg

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x167/yoshef/lutyens3.jpg




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma2FYmvMbeY

How superior Lutyens cathedral was compared to the tin looking tat that was actually built.

The scale of that is incredible but I do prefer what we ended up with.

Both the Gibberd and the Lutyens cathedrals are great buildings - just wildly contrasting styles. To dispense with the Lutyens design and go for something radically different would not have been a decision taken lightly. The cost of this traditional form of construction in the post-war world would have been collossol - just think about the struggle to complete the Anglican cathedral in the 70s.
In the end, Liverpool and the RC church got a modern building that has now been in use for forty four years and become part of the iconography of the city.

Both the Gibberd and the Lutyens cathedrals are great buildings - just wildly contrasting styles. To dispense with the Lutyens design and go for something radically different would not have been a decision taken lightly. The cost of this traditional form of construction in the post-war world would have been collossol - just think about the struggle to complete the Anglican cathedral in the 70s.
In the end, Liverpool and the RC church got a modern building that has now been in use for forty four years and become part of the iconography of the city.


I would agree with that.

Even today, and the original design would be no more than half complete. For the thriving, expanding metropolis that was envisaged, such a cathedral would have had a place. In today's much contracted and less wealthy city, such a cathedral would be out of kilter.

The Metropolitan Cathedral went through a phase of being deeply unfashionable (as with all things 1960s). Today, such contemporary design is back in the mainstream and will remain so. It is not beautiful by any means but it does have a certain charm.

The original design is rightly touted as one of the "greatest buildings never built". There was a great article about the original building on the Internet a few years ago but it seems to have been removed. A similar, but shortened version can be found at:

http://www.andrewcusack.com/2007/01/11/the-greatest-building-never-built/

Originally posted by yoshef.

This picture is from Doug Roberts, it shows a 1960s scheme called Aquarius city, proposed by Oldham Estates who were trying to buy the Albert Dock, in Liverpool, and demolish it.

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/1609/page34mu9.jpg

If that was built on Kings Dock I would be all for it. Together with Liverpool Waters, it would have neatly framed the Three Graces at the Pier head.

Looking at the renders for Liverpool Waters, the focus is taken away from the Three Graces and they end up just being lost, especially for anybody entering via a cruise ship for instance.

On the contrary, if those towers would have been built, then the Liver building would have been lost with them looming up behind them as people alighted the cruise ships. Where the towers are now, views of the graces will still be "intact", with the taller buildings basically beign on your left.

Not that the views should be a factor anyway. You can see them from Pier Head. That should be enough, in my opinion.

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x167/yoshef/lutyens1.jpg

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x167/yoshef/lutyens2.jpg

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x167/yoshef/lutyens3.jpg




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma2FYmvMbeY

Thats superb! I wonder how the built environment around the cathedral would look now had that design progressed to completion? A lot of the 60's dross might now have happened..at least not in its current form...

Great find Yoshef - this one has a flavour of Istanbul!

http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab353/Babaloo5/Screenshot2011-04-05at105215.png

Rock Savage make the points that was also the main thing that struck me about these image (and thanks to yosh for finding and posting).

The surreal and unbelievable nature of the renderings aren't only owing to the unrealistically unblemished walls of the cathedral. As Babs says, it it had have been built, it would probably still be under construction (unless modern construction methods in the meantime could have sped things up faster than the previous estimates) and the older parts would be already weathered.

However, what is more incongruous is that a completed Lutyens cathedral could only exist in another Liverpool, one in different timeline in which WWII, nationalisation of the economy and state planning, the seizure of the city's assets by Whitehall and the resultant decline of the city had not happen. And in that parallel universe, the whole central city would have looked nothing that the cathedral's surroundings in this rendering.

The is no possible alternative reality imaginable in which Militant era bungalows, the NWDA/Obj 1 Liverpool science park and this wonderful monster could exist in the same city.

That would've been epic, Liverpool's very own Sagrada Familia!

However, what is more incongruous is that a completed Lutyens cathedral could only exist in another Liverpool, one in different timeline in which WWII, nationalisation of the economy and state planning, the seizure of the city's assets by Whitehall and the resultant decline of the city had not happen. And in that parallel universe, the whole central city would have looked nothing that the cathedral's surroundings in this rendering.

The is no possible alternative reality imaginable in which Militant era bungalows, the NWDA/Obj 1 Liverpool science park and this wonderful monster could exist in the same city.

Very true. In my more pessimistic moods, I feel much we're living in a timeline, skewed from the second world war, that should never have happened. Much like Marty Mcfly and Doc Brown arriving in the wrong 1985, we are living in the wrong 2011. Instead of Biff Tannen running the show, we got Derek Hatton.

As I say, that's in my worst moods. Other than that, there's still a lot of reasons to be glad about living in Liverpool and hopeful for the future. Maybe when I'm in my dotage (the late 2050s say) I'll look back and shudder at the way turn of the century Liverpool looked, but be glad with the monorails, hundred thousand more people and three hundred feet 'scrapers we ended up with.:)

Thats superb! I wonder how the built environment around the cathedral would look now had that design progressed to completion? A lot of the 60's dross might now have happened..at least not in its current form...

Well, not included in these images is the full area masterplan, which was for, I think, 5 grandes boulevards of Berlin-esque looking appartment blocks radiating from the cathedral.

The images must be floating around somewhere on here.

Would've been pretty impressive.

Well, not included in these images is the full area masterplan, which was for, I think, 5 grandes boulevards of Berlin-esque looking appartment blocks radiating from the cathedral.

The images must be floating around somewhere on here.

Would've been pretty impressive.


^^


Still 2 years away from the end of the war the city engineers seem to have big plans for re-building Liverpool.
I really like the idea of the big square in front of the cathedral.

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/8356/lutyenssept1943lz5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

^^

Apart from the unrealistic topography, it's just a tad too Soviet Union for me. As for the square - fine if it's on the north side but I wouldn't want to sacrifice any of Hope Street to bring it into being. On second thoughts, a square on the north side would kill off the Victoria building so, no ta.

Cathedral apart, it reminds me a bit of what was done to Le Harve after WW2. Very urban but, overall, rather soulless - justification for an oversized cathedral no doubt! :lol:

We can regret the Cathedral but not the masterplan. Those blocks are merely walk-up council blocks known locally as tenements. They would all be demolished by now. Thank god we were a least spared this episode of the ego mania of the planners.

It doesn't matter which orientation the above plans would have taken (as there is no point of reference in the above image), we would have lost a number of architecturally interesting buildings in favour of something that wouldn't look out of place in post-war Eastern Europe, had those plans come been realised. Although the cathedral would have been good, had it and the above plans come to pass, we would have had a much poorer city architecturally-speaking then we have now, so I think I prefer what the way things panned out, rather than what might have been.

there is no point of reference in the above image

There is actually.
The front of it (with it's main entrance fronting onto a semi-circular square) is looking down a re-modelled Hope St, toward Gilbert Scott's effort, its orientation being, in fact, exactly the same as the scaled down Metropolitan Cath. which succeeded it.

If this scheme had been done well, some spectacular benefits may have outweighed the loss of a corner of Notre Dame Convent (?) and the neo-clas. porticoes on the corner of Hope St. opposite it.

For confirmation of the orientation planned, the train lines from Lime St align parallel with the Grand Plaza then descend submerged under it, along it's left flank.

Under this plan, we all would all have severe reservations about losing of all the buildings currently on Mount Pleasant, particularly the convent but more especially the Wellington Rooms however, that immense, Grand Plaza replacing everything we NOW have on Brownlow Hill, would've been awe-inspiring, dramatic and undoubtedly architecturally significant on a "world" scale.

GV talks about cheap tenement blocks (and let's face it, this being post war Britain, that MAY have been how they would've ended up being realised) but had they been excecuted in a similar fashion to the appartment blocks on say, Torsstrasse, Berlin (as they were undoubtedly envisaged by the planners and architects), again, it would've been great.

^^

Apart from the unrealistic topography, it's just a tad too Soviet Union for me. As for the square - fine if it's on the north side but I wouldn't want to sacrifice any of Hope Street to bring it into being. On second thoughts, a square on the north side would kill off the Victoria building so, no ta.

Cathedral apart, it reminds me a bit of what was done to Le Harve after WW2. Very urban but, overall, rather soulless - justification for an oversized cathedral no doubt! :lol:

Interesting to note that on the east fringe of the project, the the Georgian terrace opposite Abercromby Sq, and the square itself, are retained, marking the boundary line of the redevelopment of Oxford Rd.

...double

On the bottom margin of the illustrated masterplan we also have the Adelphi Hotel depicted, with the monumental needle in the middle of the Grand Plaza tracing a line from it along what would've been the former Brownlow Hill.

^^Mount Pleasant has disappeared, also the University Building.

On the bottom margin of the illustrated masterplan we also have the Adelphi Hotel depicted, with the monumental needle in the middle of the Grand Plaza tracing a line from it along what would've been the former Brownlow Hill.

I didn't realise that was the Adelphi when I said there was no point of reference, but now I see how it could have been.

Rock Savage make the points that was also the main thing that struck me about these image (and thanks to yosh for finding and posting).

The surreal and unbelievable nature of the renderings aren't only owing to the unrealistically unblemished walls of the cathedral. As Babs says, it it had have been built, it would probably still be under construction (unless modern construction methods in the meantime could have sped things up faster than the previous estimates) and the older parts would be already weathered.

However, what is more incongruous is that a completed Lutyens cathedral could only exist in another Liverpool, one in different timeline in which WWII, nationalisation of the economy and state planning, the seizure of the city's assets by Whitehall and the resultant decline of the city had not happen. And in that parallel universe, the whole central city would have looked nothing that the cathedral's surroundings in this rendering.

The is no possible alternative reality imaginable in which Militant era bungalows, the NWDA/Obj 1 Liverpool science park and this wonderful monster could exist in the same city.

It makes you wonder how the Anglican was ever completed in the same environment. Perhaps it was started early enough for there to have been enough religious zeal and resultant financial offerings to carry it beyond the point of no return before WW2. While I quite like the Wigwam, this would've been a great architectural asset. (which is perhaps slightly blasphemous of me)

I guess that one of the main reasons that the Anglican was completed was that it started earlier, was substantially complete by WWII and, despite being the largest cathedral in Britain, is significantly smaller than the Lutyens design. Even so, completing the Anglican in the seventies was no mean feat and cost savings had to be made - including replacing natural stone with a reconstituted stone to form the roofs of the last bays of the nave.

I like to look at this Lutyens issue another way. Just suppose that, back in the early 60s, at the time that the Gibberd design was chosen, that Pope John XXIII had pontificated 'No, Liverpool must have the greatest cathedral in the world' and commanded the church authorities in Liverpool to continue building the Lutyens cathedral - aided maybe by a little funding from the Vatican.

Imagine the fuss over the intervening decades as this huge cathedral rose slowly on Brownlow Hill, still not completed today and swallowing massive amounts of money from church collections, goverment grants, donations etc whilst organisations such as Cafod begged for funds to relieve Third World poverty. With completion still decades off, it could become seen as a monumental folly - something like the replica of the Parthenon built above Edinburgh - but on a much larger scale.

I think in those circumstances, we might have seen the Gibberd cathedral in a different light - futuristic, economical, capable of being built in only four years. Why didn't we built that instead?

I like the Gibberd cathedral - a courageous sixties building that has had its faults but has overcome them. I would have loved to see the Lutyens design completed but it was really out of its place and time.

Excellent point Martin, and brilliantly articulated!

Using VT's help to locate the Adelphi, I have attempted to identify other locations

http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab353/Babaloo5/cath.png


I could live with the area between Lime Street and the Adelphi being gutted to make a boulevard leading to a square on the west side of the cathedral but that's all. I would prefer to keep Mount Pleasant, Hope Street etc as they are now.

Was this sketch under serious consideration or is it the product one of course work for a degree in architecture?

^^ we should have a cathedral square like that to the west of the Anglican, replacing the noddyland rubbish (http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.396848,-2.974844&spn=0.005374,0.016512&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=53.39675,-2.976174&panoid=pM92qbQuONCH4dQpHohLbw&cbp=12,47.55,,0,-4.41).

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/23945-1/liverpoolcathedral-ba08658.jpg

Using VT's help to locate the Adelphi, I have attempted to identify other locations

http://i879.photobucket.com/albums/ab353/Babaloo5/cath.png


I could live with the area between Lime Street and the Adelphi being gutted to make a boulevard leading to a square on the west side of the cathedral but that's all. I would prefer to keep Mount Pleasant, Hope Street etc as they are now.

Was this sketch under serious consideration or is it the product one of course work for a degree in architecture?

That grand approach and immense square is basically a repetition of Mussolini's Via Della Consiliazione approach to St. Peter's in Rome, and like that setting, the boulevard draws you uphill toward a dramatic focal-point (the cathedral) showcased at the summit.
http://www.lifeinitaly.com/files/conciliazione-New.jpg

The rest of the masterplan echoes Rome (and many other European city's) residential blocks. Just preserve the Wellington Rooms brick by brick and move it to another locale and I'd jump at this.

The 1947 plan for the West slope of the Anglican Cathedral.


http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/1502/anglican1947plan.jpg (http://img825.imageshack.us/i/anglican1947plan.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)


Regarding the Catholic Cathedral. With the tenements being based on the 1920s offerings of Vienna and Berlin, i'm not sure they would have stood the test of time or would have been appropriate in such a setting as bordering a grand plaza.

^^ we should have a cathedral square like that to the west of the Anglican, replacing the noddyland rubbish (http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.396848,-2.974844&spn=0.005374,0.016512&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=53.39675,-2.976174&panoid=pM92qbQuONCH4dQpHohLbw&cbp=12,47.55,,0,-4.41).

I've never been a great fan of that stuff either. Talk about a missed opportunity! It's like a lot of developments that sprang up in the 80s and 90s, that have blighted parts of Liverpool - completely insular and designed primarily around the car. And if there's any architectural merit there at all, I can't see it.

The 1947 plan for the West slope of the Anglican Cathedral.




Cheers! That pic was also in Doug's post i quoted, here's another version...

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/2128/cathedralfeb1944ps3.jpg
(Doug Roberts image)


Not fond of the terracing and commie blocks, but i think a grand approach / square along those lines, between Gt George Street & the Anglican is something we're missing out on. I suppose the slope is quite steep, but could have grand steps down the middle, to a square, with gentle slopes to the sides.

Looking at those pictures of the plans for the surroundings of the Lutyens Cathedral is fascinating. I suppose the planners at that time were envisaging some grand European city but they were a little on the megalomaniac side and the plans are reminiscent of Albert Speer's plans for Germania - Hitler's transformation of Berlin as the capital city of the world following a Nazi victory.

Doug posted one proposal from that era which showed the cathedral at the hub of a radiating network of roads. I upset some people by saying that such an arrangement would tend to marginalise non-Catholics but I think it goes further than that. Such plans as this are an attempt to impose a uniformity on the city, which seemed the intention of planners back in those days - and not just under fascist dictatorships.

Imagine if this had gone ahead. We would not only have lost the Assembly Rooms but also Alfred Waterhouse's Victoria Building, Notre Dame Convent and the Georgian houses of Mount Pleasant - all so that we could live in one person's dream of what the city should be.

And would it have worked? Not necessarily - wide boulevards and a great square may look great in an architect's plan but open spaces, especially at the tops of hills and in our coastal city could become very uninviting windswept areas. Maybe not - but we will never know.

Maybe one of the things that makes Liverpool the city that it is, is the fact that we have never been a capital city and therefore have been immune to the grand building projects imposed by kings, emperors and dictators - such as Hitler's transformation of Berlin, Haussmann's transformation of Paris or the geometric street layouts of Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York and Barcelona. Whilst we may have missed out there, we have survived a lot of the uniformity that can result from these mega-plans.

I think that modern planners are more inclined to respect this diversity. We get the grand flight of stairs up to the Metropolitan Cathedral but not wholesale restructuring of the city.

Looking at those pictures of the plans for the surroundings of the Lutyens Cathedral is fascinating. I suppose the planners at that time were envisaging some grand European city but they were a little on the megalomaniac side and the plans are reminiscent of Albert Speer's plans for Germania - Hitler's transformation of Berlin as the capital city of the world following a Nazi victory.

Doug posted one proposal from that era which showed the cathedral at the hub of a radiating network of roads. I upset some people by saying that such an arrangement would tend to marginalise non-Catholics but I think it goes further than that. Such plans as this are an attempt to impose a uniformity on the city, which seemed the intention of planners back in those days - and not just under fascist dictatorships.

Imagine if this had gone ahead. We would not only have lost the Assembly Rooms but also Alfred Waterhouse's Victoria Building, Notre Dame Convent and the Georgian houses of Mount Pleasant - all so that we could live in one person's dream of what the city should be.

And would it have worked? Not necessarily - wide boulevards and a great square may look great in an architect's plan but open spaces, especially at the tops of hills and in our coastal city could become very uninviting windswept areas. Maybe not - but we will never know.

Maybe one of the things that makes Liverpool the city that it is, is the fact that we have never been a capital city and therefore have been immune to the grand building projects imposed by kings, emperors and dictators - such as Hitler's transformation of Berlin, Haussmann's transformation of Paris or the geometric street layouts of Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York and Barcelona. Whilst we may have missed out there, we have survived a lot of the uniformity that can result from these mega-plans.

I think that modern planners are more inclined to respect this diversity. We get the grand flight of stairs up to the Metropolitan Cathedral but not wholesale restructuring of the city.




What do you call the wholescale restructuring of the inner city then? A mirage? If only.

It's the failure to think strategically, to envision the city as it could be that has led to the urban disasters that blight so much of inner city Liverpool!

What do you call the wholescale restructuring of the inner city then? A mirage? If only.

It's the failure to think strategically, to envision the city as it could be that has led to the urban disasters that blight so much of inner city Liverpool!

What exactly do you mean here Babs?

If you believe that wholesale restructuring has taken place and that has been bad then aren't you saying that it is wrong to think strategically?

Certainly we had the massive slum clearance programmes and the Shankland Plan of the 60s and more recently the clearances in Edge Lane. Even so, these aren't really the same thing as the complete rethinking of the structure of the city centre that the town planners were envisaging in the post war era and which resulted in some of the plans above.

Changing the subject a little, I think that one of the reasons that the Lutyens Cathedral still fascinates us today is that part of it was built. We can visit the crypt (fully open to the public now) and get some idea of the shear scale of the building that was envisaged (the crypt actually constructed only covers about half the area of the proposed cathedral).

There are quite a few examples from the recent building boom of buildings that have been started but not finished but what I find most interesting are schemes from the distant past that sometimes we don't even realise were part of a much more ambitious plan. I can think of two examples from the Wirral - the Manhattan grid iron of Birkenhead town centre which was to have been developed into a great city of the future - and of which only Hamilton Square was completed to the original concept. Imagine what Birkenhead would be like if the whole town had been built on the scale of Hamilton Square - surely something to rival the New Town in Edinburgh.

Also on the Wirral are the Lever Causeways near Bebington - nowadays these are just tree-lined roads or country paths but were built as the main roads of an industrial town to be developed by William Hesketh Lever. I'm quite glad that, in this instance, he didn't succeed as it would have led to urbanisation stretching into central Wirral.

You find out about these abandoned projects from years gone by all the time -even in the most unlikely areas. Golden Vision pointed out a few weeks ago that the gridiron town plan of the streets to the south east of Parliament Street were a Georgian plan for the new town of Harrington - again never built.

I'm sure that there must be lots of forgotten projects everywhere and it is a always fascinating to discover them. As far as individual buildings go, three years ago, when there was the controversy over the demolition of Josephine Butler House in Myrtle Street, Maghull were intent on also demolishing the eight storey extension to the rear. This building is quite a weird structure with a very architectural reinforced concrete staircase and some odd Georgian detailing:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/Martin_S/Hope%20Street/080531-1.jpg

It is only when you take a closer look that you understand what this is. The exposed concrete beams on the Myrtle Street elevation indicate that this is just part of a building that was never completed. It was not so much an extension to Josephine Butler House but a replacement for it as, clearly, completing the rest of the building would have involved the demolition of the earlier building.

Some research on the internet reveals that this was to be the Liverpool Cancer Hospital designed by architects Rees and Holt. The foundation stone was laid by Lord Derby in 1931. It followed on from the Liverpool Radium Institute that used to be in Josephine Butler House.

Looking at the Stowell Street elevation you get an idea of what the exterior of the building was intended to look like (the red brick and staircase would probably have faced onto an internal courtyard). As this is the elevation to a side street, it makes you wonder what the full building would have looked like.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/Martin_S/Hope%20Street/080531-2.jpg

This is Myrtle Street Baptist Church on the corner of Hope Street and Myrtle Street which was demolished just before World War II to make way for the new hospital. One of its most famous preachers was Hugh Stowell Brown - his statue used to stand outside the church but was moved following demolition to Princes Boulevard facing the gates to Princes Park. Unfortunately it was destroyed by vandals some years ago.

http://streetsofliverpool.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Baptist.jpg

What I have not been able to find is any picture of what the hospital would have looked like had it been completed. Being so tall and in such a prominent location (facing the Philharmonic Hall and Philharmonic Hotel) it would have made quite an impression.

The completion of the Liverpool Cancer Hospital was delayed by the war and finished off completely by the advent of the NHS. However, maybe Maghull can be persuaded to resurrect the plans. :lol:

What exactly do you mean here Babs?

If you believe that wholesale restructuring has taken place and that has been bad then aren't you saying that it is wrong to think strategically?

Certainly we had the massive slum clearance programmes and the Shankland Plan of the 60s and more recently the clearances in Edge Lane. Even so, these aren't really the same thing as the complete rethinking of the structure of the city centre that the town planners were envisaging in the post war era and which resulted in some of the plans above.


You can't plan cities without thinking strategically but thinking strategically in itself doesn't result in attractive looking cities as Liverpool's post WW2 history demonstrates. The kind of drawings that were produced for wholescale redevelopment of central Liverpool were part of the zeitgeist - nearly every major city produced similar drawings. As elsewhere, what we ended up with were urban 'motorways', a shopping precinct and a fragmented city centre. The schemes themselves show scant regard for what already existed and was of merit (again part of the zeitgeist). This doesn't mean that it isn't possible to re-envisage what a city should look like and then implement wholescale redevelopment of an area. It just requires more imagination and an awareness of context.

Gt George Street is part of an area that is desperately in need of a major overhaul. Given the protestations about ensuring that the Anglican cathedral should always be easily accessible to the population it serves, the current set of gated communities that enclose it is a betrayal of these sentiments and should be remedied forthwith!

We had a thread on creating a grand boulevard leading up to St James Road a while back.

You can't plan cities without thinking strategically but thinking strategically in itself doesn't result in attractive looking cities as Liverpool's post WW2 history demonstrates. The kind of drawings that were produced for wholescale redevelopment of central Liverpool were part of the zeitgeist - nearly every major city produced similar drawings. As elsewhere, what we ended up with were urban 'motorways', a shopping precinct and a fragmented city centre. The schemes themselves show scant regard for what already existed and was of merit (again part of the zeitgeist). This doesn't mean that it isn't possible to re-envisage what a city should look like and then implement wholescale redevelopment of an area. It just requires more imagination and an awareness of context.

Gt George Street is part of an area that is desperately in need of a major overhaul. Given the protestations about ensuring that the Anglican cathedral should always be easily accessible to the population it serves, the current set of gated communities that enclose it is a betrayal of these sentiments and should be remedied forthwith!

We had a thread on creating a grand boulevard leading up to St James Road a while back.

It is never that easy to defend the city planners of the post war years and there were some obvious failures such as the pedestrian walkway system and the Inner Motorway - one of the biggest 'nearly' projects. Unrealised projects such as Strand Paradise and the massive Civic and Social Centre blighted whole areas, which were not healed until Queen Square and Liverpool One came along.

The pedestrianisation of the city centre was probably one of the success stories as was the extension of the Merseyrail underground system and the planners of that era did foster the growth of Old Hall Street as a major office areas, which has been consolidated more recently with the St Pauls Square development. However, it took many years before areas such as Duke Street became reintegrated into the city centre.

I think that there is always a great danger with any grand plan - however imaginative it may seem. Buildings can be replaced but streets, when they are lost, can be gone forever.

I was never too keen on that idea of a grand boulevard leading up to the Anglican Cathedral - I think that it was misconceived for a number of reasons.

May just be me but I always think that the cathedral looks far more impressive when viewed from Duke Street with the west end towering like a cliff face above you. I don't think that square on view from the river is its most flattering aspect.

Secondly, if you are going to have a grand boulevard, apart from great religious processions, who is going to use it? Could be like the steps up to Sacre Coeur in Paris I suppose but might not work out like that.

Thirdly, and probably most importantly, the entrance of the Cathedral since the building was completed in the late 70s has been at the west end, not the Rankine Porch, and surely that is where any landscaping should be carried out.

At the west end, not only do you have the cathedral entrance but the Grade I Oratory and also access to Rodney Street, the Hope Street axis, Duke Street and Chinatown but it is all messed up by having the road access at that point. I would have thought that it would be relatively easy to have road access from Parliament Street and then the whole of the west end could be pedestrianised. As it is you have the weird arrangement whereby cars entering the cathedral precinct go straight past the main entrance (over the architect's grave) and then right round the building. Remove the cars and there would be the opportunity to make as grand an entrance to the Anglican as the Metropolitan now has.

Will be interesting to see if the new museum on the waterfront will have an exhibit on another nearly project for Liverpool similar to Lutyens cathedral. The Cloudhttp://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/fourth-grace.jpg

Instead we got this,
http://www.globalconstructionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/3xn-liverpool-museum8.jpg

Well, I think most of us are grateful we didn't get the cloud!! Bloody hell, could you imagine it?

I heard somewhere that we nearly got this (or at least a similar design) on the site of the old Custom House, but it was rejected by Liverpool CC, and it later reappeared in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. It's the MetLife Building, formerly PamAm Building.

http://i1217.photobucket.com/albums/dd388/akeller94/MetLifeBuildingNewYorkCity.jpg

Looking at those pictures of the plans for the surroundings of the Lutyens Cathedral is fascinating. I suppose the planners at that time were envisaging some grand European city but they were a little on the megalomaniac side and the plans are reminiscent of Albert Speer's plans for Germania - Hitler's transformation of Berlin as the capital city of the world following a Nazi victory.

Doug posted one proposal from that era which showed the cathedral at the hub of a radiating network of roads. I upset some people by saying that such an arrangement would tend to marginalise non-Catholics but I think it goes further than that. Such plans as this are an attempt to impose a uniformity on the city, which seemed the intention of planners back in those days - and not just under fascist dictatorships.

Imagine if this had gone ahead. We would not only have lost the Assembly Rooms but also Alfred Waterhouse's Victoria Building, Notre Dame Convent and the Georgian houses of Mount Pleasant - all so that we could live in one person's dream of what the city should be.

And would it have worked? Not necessarily - wide boulevards and a great square may look great in an architect's plan but open spaces, especially at the tops of hills and in our coastal city could become very uninviting windswept areas. Maybe not - but we will never know.

Maybe one of the things that makes Liverpool the city that it is, is the fact that we have never been a capital city and therefore have been immune to the grand building projects imposed by kings, emperors and dictators - such as Hitler's transformation of Berlin, Haussmann's transformation of Paris or the geometric street layouts of Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York and Barcelona. Whilst we may have missed out there, we have survived a lot of the uniformity that can result from these mega-plans.

I think that modern planners are more inclined to respect this diversity. We get the grand flight of stairs up to the Metropolitan Cathedral but not wholesale restructuring of the city.



London largely avoided all that too, and kept much of its medieval street plans, despite being a major capital.

I heard somewhere that we nearly got this (or at least a similar design) on the site of the old Custom House, but it was rejected by Liverpool CC, and it later reappeared in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. It's the MetLife Building, formerly PamAm Building.


Correct. Around 1951. The design ended up in New York and the building was built in the early 60s.

Correct. Around 1951. The design ended up in New York and the building was built in the early 60s.

Do you know whether the design for Liverpool the same as it was for New York? I suspect it probably would of had a smaller floor count, probably.

Do you know whether the design for Liverpool the same as it was for New York? I suspect it probably would of had a smaller floor count, probably.

From what I have read, the design was changed little.

It would have been better to renovate the old Customs House as it was only burnt out. The city was run by fools from WW2 onwards - it still is, look at the Brunswick Tower rejection. The Shankland Plan was an abomination. Parts of it were implemented. The making of the Dock Rd a motorway is one, which is near is.

From what I have read, the design was changed little.

It would have been better to renovate the old Customs House as it was only burnt out. The city was run by fools from WW2 onwards - it still is, look at the Brunswick Tower rejection. The Shankland Plan was an abomination. Parts of it were implemented. The making of the Dock Rd a motorway is one, which is near is.

I agree the Custom House was a wonderful building, and it should of been saved. I heard somewhere that it only got demolished because the Government wanted to centralise customs in London, but I'm not sure whether that's true or not. Also, I agree about the Shankland Plan; I'm just pleased that the entire plan wasn't completed with the Inner Motorway Ring Road thing and the urban M62.

About the MetLife Building plan for Liverpool, the skyline would of looked very Manhattanized if that along with 'Aquarius City' (the Oldham Estates' plan for the Albert Dock), the Brunswick Tower, and Liverpool & Wirral Waters were all accepted and built.

I agree the Custom House was a wonderful building, and it should of been saved. I heard somewhere that it only got demolished because the Government wanted to centralise customs in London, but I'm not sure whether that's true or not.

I think that might be a recent conspiracy theory. Certainly some buildings that were badly damaged during WWII were reconstructed - particularly India Buildings and St Nicholas's Church. The Customs House, though, was a huge building and just how practical it would have been to repair following the blitz damage is very difficult to say. Obviously everything is possible if you spend enough money but I guess that post-war Liverpool had other priorities.

I remember my uncle taking me to see the foundations (which remained until the late 60s)- and you could see the scorch marks on the walls from the fire. He said that the building had been completely gutted and that seems to be borne out by external views following the blitz with the dome and roofs gone. However, somebody recently posted a photograph taken inside and it seemed to be relatively intact- so I guess it is debatable - if rather academic nowadays.

To resolve the issue, we would need something like a building inspector's report from the time - I wonder if one still exists?

Liverpool's priority? Wasn't this a government building?

Also, it was the government who killed Brunswick at public enquiry. The city council reluctantly passed it.

Also, it was the government who killed Brunswick at public enquiry. The city council reluctantly passed it.

The Liverpool Councillors voted against. If they hadn't it would have been built around 2006. HMG's architect liked it. HMG rejected it because it may block the view of the Anglican cathedral from Rock Ferry if you are directly on line. Yes they said that.

HMG rejected it because it [B]may block the view of the Anglican cathedral from Rock Ferry if you are directly on line. Yes they said that.

From Rock Ferry? No-one goes there to see the skyline. If people go the Wirral to view the skyline they go to either Birkenhead or Wallasey usually. How pathetic.

Brunswick Tower was rejected by one vote. All Labour voted for, all LibDem against apart from one.

How foolish!! The city would have had a world-class tower by now regenerating the south end of the city. It probably would have spilled over to many parts of the city as confidence in the city improved.

Looking at the artists impression of what the skyline would of looking like with the Brunswick Tower in it, it looks like it could of lead to the expansion of the City Centre southwards into the Baltic Triangle area, and link the Marina into the City Centre. I agree very foolish.

Also, it was the government who killed Brunswick at public enquiry. The city council reluctantly passed it.

The city council rejected it twice (the original scheme was amended and resubmitted). The scheme went to public inquiry, which recommended in favour of it but the minister responsible, Ruth Kelly, rejected it on the grounds of the effect on views from Rock Ferry.

I heard somewhere that we nearly got this (or at least a similar design) on the site of the old Custom House, but it was rejected by Liverpool CC, and it later reappeared in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. It's the MetLife Building, formerly PamAm Building.

http://i1217.photobucket.com/albums/dd388/akeller94/MetLifeBuildingNewYorkCity.jpg



The quality of the materials count for a lot as the Met Life Building in New Nork still looks pretty good, while Portland House close to Victoria Station in London (built 10 years after the Liverpool plan) looks like something from the Cold War Eastern Bloc:


Portland House is substantially similar in design to the MetLife Building in New York City. The two buildings were under construction at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_House



http://en.structurae.de/files/photos/111/2003-06-12-london-portland-house.jpg

The quality of the materials count for a lot as the Met Life Building in New York still looks pretty good, while Portland House close to Victoria Station in London (built 10 years after the Liverpool plan) looks like something from the Cold War Eastern Bloc:

http://en.structurae.de/files/photos/111/2003-06-12-london-portland-house.jpg

I quite like the MetLife Building and wouldn't of minded it being built here, but if the planned building for Liverpool looked more like that London building, I'm glad it wasn't built.

The quality of the materials count for a lot as the Met Life Building in New Nork still looks pretty good, while Portland House close to Victoria Station in London (built 10 years after the Liverpool plan) looks like something from the Cold War Eastern Bloc:


With the harsh climate in the UK, mixed with fossil fuel emissions (soot) building need exteriors to resist. All too often they are built cheap and nasty and look awful after only a few years.

I quite like the MetLife Building and wouldn't of minded it being built here, but if the planned building for Liverpool looked more like that London building, I'm glad it wasn't built.

Going off topic for a moment, it looks as though you uploaded that pic to photobucket to post it. You only really need to do that for your own pics that aren't already on the net.

Use these steps if you see any pic on the internet that you want to post:

right click on image


Click 'properties'



Copy the address [url]



post the address with image tags on either side e.g. *******



click 'preview' before posting to check that it has worked.



You probably know this already - if so it might be useful to other people...:okay:

^^ Thanks for that, it'll save a lot of time :)

Going off topic for a moment, it looks as though you uploaded that pic to photobucket to post it. You only really need to do that for your own pics that aren't already on the net.

Use these steps if you see any pic on the internet that you want to post:

right click on image


Click 'properties'



Copy the address [url]



post the address with image tags on either side e.g. *******



click 'preview' before posting to check that it has worked.



You probably know this already - if so it might be useful to other people...:okay:

Many sites stop the access if the see lost of activity. Transferring to another site prevents the blocking.