It makes me puke to think of it, but I bet that on the Lime St frontage 3 storeys will be the max!

Many of our planners see those two pubs as our 'jewels'... Iv'e just hit on something!
One thing that really amazes me driving around Liverpool are the amount of pubs stood alone where they once stood at the end of terraced housing which has been demolished. They really are gorgeous buildings with a grandeur that isnt present on other cities pubs (with the possible exception of Glasgow).

Glasgow is such a cool place. I don't mean the consumerist frippery but the grandure and the grit. Excellent people. I mentioned somewhere too today that Glasgow has street after street, block after block of Castle St standard buildings.


Just thought I would share that with you all!

i don't know why these pubs in Liverpool end up standing there all alone many years after the surrounding neighbourhood has been bulldozed into the ground... does naybody know the answer to this?

Glasgow is such a cool place. I don't mean the consumerist frippery but the grandure and the grit. Excellent people. I mentioned somewhere too today that Glasgow has street after street, block after block of Castle St standard buildings.

Just thought I would share that with you all!

i don't know why these pubs in Liverpool end up standing there all alone many years after the surrounding neighbourhood has been bulldozed into the ground... does naybody know the answer to this?

I believe it was due to the power of the breweries. It would take too much to flight them in court. Many were left simply because the new homes needed a pub anyhow, so why not use the existing pub.

This beauty was recently demolished. It makes you weep when this sort of thing happens. In Liverpool it is an all too frequent thing:
http://www.toxteth.net/places/liverpool/pubs/images/windsor%20pub.jpg

Thanks john. Another up on Scottie Rd was just flattened too!

Thanks john. Another up on Scottie Rd was just flattened too!

To build a pub like this one today would cost a fortune. Yet they just pull them down. I don't even thing they look to see if they can be used for other uses, like a local medical centre.

To build a pub like this one today would cost a fortune. Yet they just pull them down. I don't even thing they look to see if they can be used for other uses, like a local medical centre.

What a shame, I had a drink or two in the Windsor some years ago - although it was a little bit out of the neck of my woods so too speak.

Sadly just one more example like Scottie road of a locally declining population.

Just a little reminder that the public enquiry into the Chieftain tower starts on Tuesday. Does anyone know when there'll be a decision? :?

To build a pub like this one today would cost a fortune. Yet they just pull them down. I don't even thing they look to see if they can be used for other uses, like a local medical centre.

you don't get 'grants' for that... and you need to be able to think laterally... 2 qualities that are completely missing in the north end.

Duplicate post from the Central Station thread to try and keep this info in the correct place.

Gareth after you left, cross questioning of the "expert" continued with many uncomfortable moments for him, overshadowing of the student flats from the tower and loss of privacy of the towers' residents from the student flats (works both ways!!!) Seperation distances were discussed, 8.7m from the towers balcony to the student flat opposite and 9.8m from the en-suite shower room of the one of the towers' flats to the student block.

The crazy thing about this "objection" is that the original 12 or 14 storey hotel building, no I'm being serious here they don't know how many floors are in this develoment!!! has planning permission so it would seem 3/4 years ago when this plan was passed the close proximity of one building to the other was NOT a deciding factor but could be now.

The crazy thing about this "objection" is that the original 12 or 14 storey hotel building, no I'm being serious here they don't know how many floors are in this develoment!!! has planning permission so it would seem 3/4 years ago when this plan was passed the close proximity of one building to the other was NOT a deciding factor but could be now.

Indeed, funny that isn't it? I may have to bring that up if it's conveniently not picked up on tomorrow. Could you email me a copy of that print out you showed me today, as I could work off that when planning what I'm going to say.

Ta in advance! :cheers:

Duplicate post from the Central Station thread to try and keep this info in the correct place.

Gareth after you left, cross questioning of the "expert" continued with many uncomfortable moments for him, overshadowing of the student flats from the tower and loss of privacy of the towers' residents from the student flats (works both ways!!!) Seperation distances were discussed, 8.7m from the towers balcony to the student flat opposite and 9.8m from the en-suite shower room of the one of the towers' flats to the student block.

The crazy thing about this "objection" is that the original 12 or 14 storey hotel building, no I'm being serious here they don't know how many floors are in this develoment!!! has planning permission so it would seem 3/4 years ago when this plan was passed the close proximity of one building to the other was NOT a deciding factor but could be now.


Doug what you've highlighted here just shows how hypocritical the whole thing is,it's all about height.
Below a certain level anything goes,build high and ...No chance.

Also the "expert" witness was grilled about using the draft Tall Building Zone document. Now this one takes a bit to get your head around, let's see if I can remember how it went.

Cheiftain want to build a 32 storey building on Skelhorne St. their expert checks all the relevant laws and guidance documents about all sorts of things that may affect the outcome, including the council's own draft Tall Building Zone document. They even talk to the original author of the TBZ document!! therefore it becomes a central piece guidance for the developer, or so you'd think. But the QC for LCC spends half an hour rubbishing this document and showing that the experts evidence based around elements of the TBZ document are basically worthless!!!

Now here's the jaw dropping bit, English Heritage say that a cluster of tall buildings in Lime St. would detract from the iconic status of the Lime Street Gateway Building diluting its status and underming its position!!! therefore there should be NO Lime Street Tall Building Zone.

A few weeks ago someone posted parts of an interview with Warren Bradley in which it was suggested that the TBZ draft document would be reviewed and there would be only 2 TBZ's in Liverpool. I like many others hoped that this interview showed strong leadership coming from Warren, ok only 2 TBZ,s but he did indicate he liked tall buildings. Based on what I heard this afternoon it was English Heritage who put the boot into the Lime St. TBZ not the council, they seemd to have played follow the leader!!

21st Century Liverpool Society has discussed loads of different issues at the meet ups and they are all relevant, but having sat through a day of a planning inquiry into a tower building for Liverpool I realised that whilst English Heritage, that un-elected bastion of middle England, is empowered by Liverpool's WHS award, 21st CL needs to meet the challenge of EH as a priority.

Yes Doug it is plain to almost everyone,English Heritage are the real enemy.

Doug, did they say when a decision is expected?

Doug,

What is probably more damaging to the city than the attitude to tall buildings is the total inconsistency that is being displayed. A developer goes to the considerable time and expense of developing a scheme based on guidance from the authorities only for that guidance to be rubbished by some other authority.

How much money did Ballymore waste developing their Central Station scheme in conjunction with the planners only for that same planning authority to reject that scheme when English Heritage leant on them?

that univeristy building opposite st georges hall blocks one of the friggin sides of lime street, i dont see how a tower would!

EH really do need to be vigorously challenged as to their role in Liverpool.

No indication today of when the decision will be announced, as Gareth said the inquiry was to last 6 days but is now to finish tomorrow afternoon.

The cost to developers must be considerable, capital tied up in the on-site costs, legal teams, experts witnesses and what for?? so they can win the right to spend their money in our city!! I said to Gareth earlier could you be arsed going through this?? must pay off eventually.

To deal with the inconsistency of all this?? may be the way forward is to adopt the Tall Building Zone draft as council policy on the 2 zone idea and allow tall buildings within those zones, and give the likes of EH the elbow if they come moaning.

Now here's the jaw dropping bit, English Heritage say that a cluster of tall buildings in Lime St. would detract from the iconic status of the Lime Street Gateway Building diluting its status and underming its position!!! therefore there should be NO Lime Street Tall Building Zone.


Is this some lone Liverpool branch of EH? or is the whole organiaztion so wrong?

Lime Street would look Magnificient with some WELL designed modern builds around it, rather than the half hearted stagnet decaying stuff that they seem to produce by stiffling investment, blah blah.. you know all this, but why are the Council listening to this idiots?

Sorry, I'm starting to foam at the mouth!

Now here's the jaw dropping bit, English Heritage say that a cluster of tall buildings in Lime St. would detract from the iconic status of the Lime Street Gateway Building diluting its status and underming its position!!! therefore there should be NO Lime Street Tall Building Zone.

So the Chieftain tower was rejected on the basis of its effect on a tower that has not only not been built yet, but at the time of the decision had not even received planning permission. Is that even legal?

As a matter of interest, if Chieftain win planning permission, who pays the legal fees. E.H. or the council-which is us the ratepayers.

Liverpool doesn't have a branch of EH, it is covered from the NW office based in Manchester.

I think the Lime St Gateway had been given planning permission a few weeks before Chieftain was rejected. But remember Chieftain already have planning permission granted for the 12/14 storey hotel building from 3/4 years earlier, although the scheme was described as not commercially viable.


I'm not sure about costs but if LCC lost and had to pay the costs there would be a stink. Late last year a scheme for flats at the rear of the Blackie came up for planning permission, the planning department along with their recommendation to Lady D. and chums, warned that rejection would face an appeal which the planning dept. said they had no budget for.

I think the Lime St Gateway had been given planning permission a few weeks before Chieftain was rejected. But remember Chieftain already have planning permission granted for the 12/14 storey hotel building from 3/4 years earlier, although the scheme was described as not commercially viable.

Chietain (05F/0294) was submitted to the planning department on 27/1/05 and was rejected on the 2/8/2005.

The Gateway tower (05F/1413) went into to planning on 3/05/2005 and was approved on 23/08/2005

How can they use the Gateway tower a reason for rejection when the Chieftain tower went into planning before the Gateway tower. Also, look at how fast the Gateway scheme got approved, no favoritism there eh?

This appeal could become a defining moment in the citys history. I think it clearly shows that unless the council have a cast-iron case against a development, then they will be on thin ice. The council don't give a toss what the public think or desire as regards to building size or design(eg The Fourth Grace), they will allways do what they want, egged on by EH, finding the weakest and feeblest excuse to say no to something THEY don't like. That was all very well in times past, when the city was in a depressed state, most developers didn't want to spend too much money here anyway incase they made a loss, so they would willingly downsize their developments, but how times change. Liverpool isn't the millitant, Gis a job place it was 20yrs. ago, its now a vibrant bussling major european city thats had hardly any new developments in the last 30 yrs.-and the sharks(developers) are circling. Companys willing to spend 50, 75 or 100 million pounds in new buildings know they can make huge profits here and those with bottle (Cheiftain Maro) will take the council on, they have to, the rewards are too great. This leaves the council in a great quandry, do they fight to the death any new proposal they don't like, or do they give in, if they fight it could cost them a lot of money and what sane councilor would admit spending ratepayers cash trying to stop millions of pounds of investment coming into the city. I pray it goes Cheiftans way and I also hope Vermont and Ballymore are watching from the wings. I also hope EH are watching too, and realise that they may be able to bully councillors(who are all part timers), but taking on large commercial companys just won't wash, and if they defeat you, you pay.

Liverdude thanks for the dates, so Chieftain was rejected 3 weeks before Lime Street Gateway was approved, also only 14 weeks start to finish for LSGW, interesting comparisons, shows how quick the council can move when they want to!!

This would certainly be a big blow to EH if Chieftain win, it may force another re-think about the TBZ's!!

Time to prepare what I'm going to say. That thing about Grand Central being submitted to planning before LSGW just shows how much this whole episode has stank. It's hardly been a level playing field for Chieftain has it? The council don't seem to care enough about the city's external reputation as a place to come and do business. A city going places. Like I've said before, how many more fuck ups do the council, egged on by English Heritage, have to committ before they all just stop bothering and we're back to th situation we had for 30 years where no one would touch us with a bargepole. What the council and it's planning department do in these next few years could lay out the foundation of how the city's going to take shape for the rest of this century.

Yesterday I felt like I was watching a war, opposing teams sat on opposing sides of the room ready to do battle, all very civilised but all deady serious, and no wonder considering the sums of money involved.

But why should LCC see developers as the enemy?? these companies don't have to invest here, it's just that the present climate of regeneration gives them the opportunity to make money!! and what is wrong with that?? The concern is this current wave of investment will not last, it never does and this time will be no exception. That's why Liverpool must make the most of these opportunities to build up a head of steam so that when the stormy weather returns we can batten down the hatches and ride out the storm in much better shape than we have in the past!! sorry about all those nautical terms, got carried away.

What the council and it's planning department do in these next few years could lay out the foundation of how the city's going to take shape for the rest of this century.

They need a firm idea of what the goal is - a waterway city. A proper vision. Then a strategy to set this in place. I am not encouraged by what I see at all. As usual they will muddle along and great opportunities lost and when the economy contracts all is lost.

They need a firm idea of what the goal is - a waterway city. A proper vision. Then a strategy to set this in place. I am not encouraged by what I see at all. As usual they will muddle along and great opportunities lost and when the economy contracts all is lost.

Which is what I fear.

Doug,

What is probably more damaging to the city than the attitude to tall buildings is the total inconsistency that is being displayed. A developer goes to the considerable time and expense of developing a scheme based on guidance from the authorities only for that guidance to be rubbished by some other authority.

How much money did Ballymore waste developing their Central Station scheme in conjunction with the planners only for that same planning authority to reject that scheme when English Heritage leant on them?

In some cases planning departments can be sued. Only the wealthy can do this. I man I know applied for Planning permission for a house he was to build. He contacted them took all their guidelines, had them down on site, and did everything they said they would want and more. They turned the plan down. After £15,000 of legal fees, and amendments to the plan he got planning permission. This is very common from arrogant planning authorities. People are put through unnecessary stress and expense.

Large organisations do the same, but the clever ones echo the discussions back to the Planners. When the plan is submitted it is exactly within their framework of guidance and advice.

If they are turned down they then have a legal case for extra costs and can sue. The small man just does not have enough money to take them to court, the big boy does. That is why some large blocks have been forced through in London.

What is highly favourable in any planning submission, from one house to a complex, is an eco slant. Building on a green field outside of the local plan is a no, no. However, you can get permission as a lifeline was thrown…

The 2004 PPS7 planning law, may hopefully pave the way for people to live back in the countryside and build individual homes on greenfield sites. People want to live with space around them, however like dense city centres - we appear to have none with centres virtually deserts in some cases and the countryside empty of people. The proviso is that it must be an eco house, well designed, modern, with advanced construction techniques. Taken from the act:

Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

“11. Very occasionally the exceptional quality and innovative nature of the design of a proposed, isolated new house may provide this special justification for granting planning permission. Such a design should be truly outstanding and ground-breaking, for example, in its use of materials, methods of construction or its contribution to protecting and enhancing the environment, so helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas. The value of such a building will be found in its reflection of the highest standards in contemporary architecture, the significant enhancement of its immediate setting and its sensitivity to the defining characteristics of the local area.”

The PPS7 law, which on paper actively encourages advanced eco design and construction, is a positive step. If PPS7 is implemented anything like the previous PPG7, Gummers law, which permitted building houses in the countryside, then hope is lost rendering this law a cosmetic exercise. Approximately 100 houses were built in the countryside under Gummers law from 1997 to 2004, a figure is so low not worth considering. Theoretically you could build, however the planners would block proposals at every angle and opportunity rendering the law virtually useless.

If you submit a plan and it is within the framework of PPS7 and have local backing of the immediate community, and you are turned down, then I would say an individual has a legal case against the planners.

I don’t know why some larger developers don’t resort to legal action against planning departments when it is clear they are within the framework. Councils do not have the money to fight costly legal battles. A few stings will focus their minds though and will instil some professionalism amongst them.

The public enquirey has finished. We should learn of the outcome soon. Fingers crossed. Except for Woody! ;)

To all members of the LV forum, Gareth took to the stand today at the Chieftain public inquiry. A daunting proposition, subjected to cross examination by counsel he was very brave, well done Gareth!!


Final summations by counsel are to be e-mailed out soon.

Well done mate. Glad to see there's a voice on the podium.

I await a verdict.

Excellent men... all we can do is chip and chip away.

Well done Gareth,must have taken some nerve.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: Well done Gaz, he the man.

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Good stuff, Gareth - I wouldn't have liked to have done that.

"I'm a white male, 18 to 49. Everyone listens to me! No matter how dumb my suggestions are."

You may have to change your signature Gareth!!!

Very well done ..... it`s not easy to get up in front of even friendly faces!

I bet you have spooked them (EH) no end.

We owe you and Doug a few free pints I think.

:) :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Congratulations Gareth, I bet you gave those "wigs" a lesson in urbanism.
Must have been a daunting task I am delighted that this forum is more than a talking shop, when positive action is required "its up and at `im" :applause:

All the Breaking News brought to you by our Court Reporter: Doug -shorthand - Roberts,

Well done to both of you.

Gareth - that's fantastic mate. You deserve the applause. Well done.

Well done men.

Stepping up to the podium is always a daunting prospect, that's a shed load of respect heading your way G.

Well in Doug, have you got a court sketch of the event?

The crazy thing about Lime Street and Central is that if you want to develop the downtown core of a major metropolitan area, surely one of the key aspects is ensuring that you can create and retain employment and economic activity in places that the population can reach and the employers, services providers and retailers can be accessed.

Massing around transport hubs is a no brainer, not many places in the UK have suburban/metropolitan transport hubs like Hamilton Square, James Street, Lime Street, Moorfields and Central, fuck the impact on 150 year old aesthetics which will upset the retrobrain brigade, let's start utilising our assets for ALL OUR benefit and for the future of the city.

Well done for your :speech: Gareth :bow: :cheers1:

Well in Gareth you've got to have balls to do that. :cheers:

Cheers folks. I'm not sure when we'll here anything on this but the I should revieve a copy of the report once it's been released and I'l let you know, if the local media haven't already picked up on it.

Well in Gareth. Sounds inetresting. So what did you say, what did you have to do? Tell me tell me!

I pretty much just put the case that the vast majority of objections wre hypocritical as they surely also applied to the LSGW, as well as the approved 14 storey building Chieftain obtained planning permission for earlier. Also, I put the case that Chieftain's proposal was rejected before LSGW was approved and that it was not on to use it against Chieftain, arguements such as there only should be one tower there and that the towers clash.

I didn't really say anything that Chieftain's barrister didn't cover and I was asked a few questions by the council's barrister. Having to answer no to the question 'Are you an expert in town planning' was a bit embarrasing but I saw that one coming to be honest. In reality, he went easy on me as I saw him go to town on a few of Chieftain's lot. Ideally I should've prepared a bit better, but I know what to expect next time. we can't have done Chieftain's case any harm I shouldn't think. At the very worst, it just won't have been taken into account, so it's all good.

Nice one! It sounds like you said some good stuff, and like you say, it won't have done any harm. I think it will do an awful lot of good to have demonstrated that members of the public like this scheme.

Having to answer no to the question 'Are you an expert in town planning' was a bit embarrasing
On a number of occasions I have been responsible for representing one group or another and being subject to questioning by lawyers. To the stock question "are you an expert?" on the subject, I have a stock answer, which is "I probably have as much knowledge as you do" on the subject. They, usually, drop that line of questioning.

Congratulations and thank you for your efforts and i'm sure your submission was helpful to Chieftain.

Quotations in italics. :no:

Quotations in italics. :no:
Thank's for the lesson. I have PM'd you.

I'd loose the Itals completely if I were you, Sloyne. They are not necessary, add nothing the meaning of your posts, seem daft on an internet forum and must slow down your posting for no good reason.

Glad to be of assistance. :cheers:

I'd loose the Itals completely if I were you, Sloyne.
But you're not me and, thanks all the same, but I will keep posting as I have always done. Hope it doesn't upset you to much.

I pretty much just put the case that the vast majority of objections wre hypocritical as they surely also applied to the LSGW, as well as the approved 14 storey building Chieftain obtained planning permission for earlier. Also, I put the case that Chieftain's proposal was rejected before LSGW was approved and that it was not on to use it against Chieftain, arguements such as there only should be one tower there and that the towers clash.

I didn't really say anything that Chieftain's barrister didn't cover and I was asked a few questions by the council's barrister. Having to answer no to the question 'Are you an expert in town planning' was a bit embarrasing but I saw that one coming to be honest. In reality, he went easy on me as I saw him go to town on a few of Chieftain's lot. Ideally I should've prepared a bit better, but I know what to expect next time. we can't have done Chieftain's case any harm I shouldn't think. At the very worst, it just won't have been taken into account, so it's all good.

Gareth,
What was your overall impression of how it went?
Obviously no decision was made there but you can sometimes tell from the vibes wether the argument seemed to be in one sides favour or not.
Was this the case or was there genuinely no way of knowing?

Gareth,
What was your overall impression of how it went?
Obviously no decision was made there but you can sometimes tell from the vibes wether the argument seemed to be in one sides favour or not.
Was this the case or was there genuinely no way of knowing?

To be honest, I'm a bit cautious about tempting fate here, but I think Chieftain have got a fair chance. I think they covered everything adequately and though the council's barrister was pretty sharp, I don't think he was able to adequately dismiss any on their arguements accept using the old heritage arguement. I think it's in the balance personally. Remeber, these things tend to favour the status quo, that being in this case that the tower should not be built.

edited it below

Those hideous student flats have got to be covered with something, I don't really care what - nothing will look worse. They are abominable. I cannot accept them. They are, quite literally, an insult to the city. At least this polite and quite low tower (low compared to real skyscrapers) would hide them from most perspectives. It's a no-brainer from a conservationist viewpoint - nothing more insults St Georges Hall than the presence of these cheap breeze-block stumpy slums crowding on the hill.

Those hideous student flats have got to be covered with something, I don't really care what - nothing will look worse. They are abominable. I cannot accept them. They are, quite literally, an insult to the city. At least this polite (and actually quite low tower compared to real skyscrapers) would hide them from most perspectives.

Incidently, the light issue was laboured upon by the council. Like students on the whole give a toss. They're there 8 months a year and spend their time getting when not studying getting pissed in the evening and asleep in hte day. Also, most away students only spend the first year in halls before finding a place to rent. I'm sure when going to university, what's opposite their would be accommodation, is not exactly a key concern of theirs'.

I dunno, a bloke on my hall of residence corridor had a window from which he could see into the room of a girl who used to go bonk crazy with her boyfriend with the curtains open on a frequent basis.

Every single night, the pervier members of the entire hall of residence would bundle into his room hoping to see some of the action. One guy virtually took up residence in there with his binoculars waiting until he was lucky enough to see what he was waiting for.

Jammy bastard. If I was him, I'd have charged a door fee. :)

To be honest, I'm a bit cautious about tempting fate here, but I think Chieftain have got a fair chance. I think they covered everything adequately and though the council's barrister was pretty sharp, I don't think he was able to adequately dismiss any on their arguements accept using the old heritage arguement. I think it's in the balance personally. Remeber, these things tend to favour the status quo, that being in this case that the tower should not be built.

That is the problem with the British Planning system, the 1947 Town & Country Planning act. In other sensible countries it is the reverse - prove it should not be built. Here it is the opposite, prove it should be built. Hence the appallingness of British cities. Compare British cities to say Munich, Hamburg, Berlin, Marseilles, Bracelona, Antwerp, etc.

From Better Homes, Greener Cities....

The presumption of a right to develop

In most countries, such as Germany or Switzerland, there is a presumption of a right to develop land; this right may be limited but it exists. In the UK the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 nationalised development rights.
Since then they have nominally been owned by the state and only exercisable by the owner of the land with the permission of the state.

Although formally such a presumption used to exist in the UK, even under the 1947 Act, it hardly mattered for practical planning purposes. In the early 1980s, under Margaret Thatcher, it was the minister then responsible
for planning, Michael Heseltine, who tried to reinforce this presumption, but without much success. For example, a company called Consortium Developments Ltd was formed by a group of house builders to try to
obtain permission for the development of, in effect, privately financed new small towns in south east England near London. It made a number of applications, all of which were turned down both by the relevant local
authorities and on appeal. The most interesting of these was a site called Foxley Wood to the south west of London towards Basingstoke. It was notable for the fact that the application was supported by the then Department of Trade and Industry on the grounds that there was a
shortage of labour in the area. Despite this it was turned down by the Inspector but called in by the Secretary of State Nicholas Ridley, who was clearly minded to approve it. Before he could do so, however, he was replaced as Secretary of State by Chris Patten, who confirmed the
Inspector’s refusal. The application was notable for the recognition of the need for housing for economic reasons, and it is evident that it might have been approved. But the hostility of those living in the vicinity was more powerful and stalled the proposal. After failures like these the presumption to develop soon fell into oblivion again and was formally abolished in the early
1990s.

Another point that struck me is that the removal of Concourse house and rebuilding it's replacement further back will open to the vista the wonderful view of the Las vegas slot machine emporium.... heritage landscapes...

Those student flats... nothing wrong with the scale and the massing... shit poor materials, aesthetics-wise, but they are well built. They should be rendered and painted white.

I've not photographed them from street level, they are too ugly and distressing to look at for long enough to focus a picture. Even from above, they look fucking stupid. What is that square horseshoe shape, and slightly but not quite curvey L all about, and why are they sitting in such an odd position, one to the other?

Click on the thumbnail to see bigger pic

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/2610/p1000916a4no.th.jpg (http://img99.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1000916a4no.jpg)

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2083/p1000913ab7bh.th.jpg (http://img89.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1000913ab7bh.jpg)

duplicate

maybe the heritage building had something to do with not being able to face onto the back street?

Pol thanks for posting that pic, I hope you don't mind but I've re-posted part of it.

At the Chieftain inquiry LCC counsel laboured the point that the student accomodation was losing privacy, losing sunlight to the Chieftain Tower with scaled separation distance of 9.8m. Looking at your pic I never noticed until now the right hand block has been built around an existing older shed like thing. How close is that!! those flats in that corner will be in permanent shadow!! I bet you could almost reach out and touch the shed. I'm not sure if this kind of evidence would be a good thing or not to present to a planning inspector but it really illustrates the duplicity of that argument.

Worth reminding ourselves that LCC planning dept. recommended rejection of those students flats, Lady D and chums overturned that recommendation.


http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8906/p1000913ab7bh7kw.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

But here's the danger... if we agree that these flats are a problem, justy because they are ugly then we slip into the realms of EH... just our version of some aesthetic 'sense' should dictate development.

The planning committee passed these flats because there was nothing wrong with the proposal.. other than they are ugly... a result of planners not even trying to improve their look because "they are not going to get built" Insufferable arrogance left us with an ugly, but useful facility, if the planners were not such wanks we could have had a nice looking and useful facility.


The whole right to light stance was a nonsense, as hopelly the judge will point out as they have permisson for 12 floors... which would block out the light... a 38 tower would not block out any more light to these flats.. oncve they're in shadow they're in shadow.

There is nothing wrong with those flats that a bit of plaster couldn't sort out.

There is nothing wrong with those flats that a bit of plaster couldn't sort out.

...and balconies for when you want to dry your clothes, or have a smoke, or enjoy a sunset or a firework display, or grow some plants, or have a cat litter tray, or a nappy bin, or have your breakfast outside on a summer morning, or put your shoes if you find out you have trodden in dog shit on the way home, or get away for a bit of peace and quiet from someone inside the flat who is nagging, or to create a bit more space if you are having a party (probably not all uses would be suitable at the same time).

No new city centre flat should be built without at least a small private balcony (unless there are decent sized communal balconies or roof gardens with clothes drying lines): it is a mode of development that is premised on high energy consumption (as in the use of electrical driers for clothes) and short-term use (eg suitable for people who are "always out anyway", or who will only stay a couple of years).

Those flat are all wrong, in my opinion.

I would agree with you on those points....if they where family apartments,say. Someting to consider is how much would the rents be in such a hi-spec eco housing scheme... they ARE student flats. Please don't take that as my welcoming shit or thinking that students can live in such, but I think you are overplaying the negatives a bit too much... I notice that they are full when other student accomodation downtown struggle to get the tenents.

taking the Philadelphia lawyer approach to pulling schemes apart is in danger of playing into the hands of the silly planners and EH. Is there a genuine problem if the Chieftan scheme gets built then? I suggest not. If the tower gets permission (and someone gets out the tub of plaster as I suggest) then that area will be well on it's way to recovery.... with those 'flats' playing their essential, and to me, welcome role in it.

Point taken, students will tend to only stay there in term-time for a year I suppose.

More uses for balconies.....

...a place to store paint, decorating stuff, and for general craft and DIY kind of things like cutting mdf were there is a "warning, do not inhale, use in a well ventilated space"... Without a balcony, and in a small flat, where are you supposed to do such things?

I have lived in tiny flats in the past, including ones with and without balconies, and living without a balcony is a total pain. I don't think anyone should support "balconyless" development unless they've actually lived without a balcony for more than a year. It is not tolerable. This is happening in the Beetham towers as well I noticed - and those just don't provide the basis for long-term or permanent residence.

Yes, there is a need for student accommodation, and for flats for people who only want to stay in Liverpool for one to two years if they work for a large company - but I believe the planners should set a general expectation that all new flats will have balconies. Currently, mixed and family use is actually precluded as a possibility - and if at least a portion of the flats in those developments had balconies it would be possible to mix them in the future.

How much would small private balconies actually cost if integrated into the design from the ouset? For a start, some of the space for them might come out of the floorspace that would otherwise be indoors (not ideal, but certainly possible), but it's just a door instead of a window, and a bit of steel and glass.........my amatuer guess no more than a couple of thousand quid maximum, or 1% of the total price of a £200k flat.

As I said pol things like balconies could have been accomodated (at no extra cost) if the planners had been inclined to improve the offer, but they were so arrogant. the ironly is that balconies would not have been asked for by them as the running minds set in Millennium house is "sticky out looks sticky on"... fucking knobheads. Especially given the sites topography the scheme could have been much better.... though my basic point is that they are not really THAT bad. I actually like the way they frame the vista up hanover St... and their bulk should become the norm for 'workaday' buildings around there.

I love balconies and stuf, something that seems to be completely missing in british design and planning. How often do you see small apartments that make maximum value of its site in Europe, the US etc. In Liverpool the only balconies you see are overlooking service roads as this does not intrude upon the 'aesthetic' presented to the main street... just how nutty is that?

There is a quaint little development just completed not far from where I live which has got opening doors with exterior handles on the first floor. Unfortunately, they haven't actually built a balcony to go with them which could cause some inconvenience.

I quite like the idea of a balcony myself. Our flat has got what the estate agents call a 'Juliette Balcony' i.e. a balcony too narrow to stand on but one useful for singing down at your forbidden lover - not that I use it for that often.

I would like the idea of a full width balcony. Only problem is, while I'm sitting there with my Chardonnay and copy of Lancashire Life, there's some bloke on the next balcony drying his Y-fronts, storing paint and cleaning dog shit off his shoes.

As I said pol things like balconies could have been accomodated (at no extra cost) if the planners had been inclined to improve the offer, but they were so arrogant. the ironly is that balconies would not have been asked for by them as the running minds set in Millennium house is "sticky out looks sticky on"... fucking knobheads. Especially given the sites topography the scheme could have been much better.... though my basic point is that they are not really THAT bad. I actually like the way they frame the vista up hanover St... and their bulk should become the norm for 'workaday' buildings around there.

I love balconies and stuf, something that seems to be completely missing in british design and planning. How often do you see small apartments that make maximum value of its site in Europe, the US etc. In Liverpool the only balconies you see are overlooking service roads as this does not intrude upon the 'aesthetic' presented to the main street... just how nutty is that?

Balconies are not liked because all it needs is one or two arsehole residents to store crap on them and hang out their washing, then the whole building takes a downturn. At Little Venice in Maida Vale, London, on the marina there a private block was being built in 1960. It had balconies on the design. Half way through the developers/builder went bust. The council took over the build and had some flats being council and others sold off. As soon as the council was involved the residents in the large houses opposite the water had the balconies removed as the working class would hang washing out – they gave examples where washing was hung out in other blocks. It is clear on the outside where the balcony door was going.

John, Martin, I think you are both showing a bit of a lack of understanding of what balconies are for. They are for drying clothes on. That is one of the reasons flats have them. If you find you have dog shit on your shoes, is it not right to put them out on a balcony to clean them? Should you do that in your kitchen or living room?

Well managed flats will enforce standards of use, and prevent them becoming an eyesore to others. They should not be used to store junk in a way that become an eyesore, or for seriously hazardous uses or storage (as though storing highly inflammable paint inside a fat is somehow safer than in a stout wooden chest on a balcony). Use must be considerate of others (same as noise, that enormous and invisible issue about living in a flat), but to say that because a minority might sometimes contravene a standard is a reason not to have balconies is ridiculous. Yes, there are old-style leases that ban washing etc but they are just archaic and should be over-ruled by bylaws requiring flats to have outdoors clothes drying facilities.

What is so wrong with drying washing? They are clothes and sheets drying in the sun and breeze. People wear clothes. They get dirty. They wash them. They dry them. Is it some kind of dirty secret? Are people pretending that they don't get dirty, therefore don't need to wash their clothes? Or pretending that while it may look like a flat, actually it has a large garden at the back where they dry their clothes?

Laundry should not normally be dried indoors, it is unhealthy, not good for the building itself, and environmentally unsustainable. You can get very nice foldable and quite low clothes driers for balconies that are not obtrusive at all. There is no need to have huge washing lines full of sheets draped over streets, it can be a quite tidy and discreet practice.

John, Martin, I think you are both showing a bit of a lack of understanding of what balconies are for. They are for drying clothes on.


They are not. They are for sitting out on having tea and coffee.


Well managed flats will enforce standards of use, and prevent them becoming an eyesore to others. They should not be used to store junk in a way that become an eyesore, or for seriously hazardous uses or storage (as though storing highly inflammable paint inside a fat is somehow safer than in a stout wooden chest on a balcony).


Dangerous substances should not be stored in any domestic premises.


What is so wrong with drying washing?


Nothing. It should be done on the outside of buildings. Imagine the Liver Buildings with washing hanging out.

John, that is frankly ridiculous. There are (virtually) no balconies on the Liver Building, and I for one am not suggesting that they are installed on that building. We are talking about residential buildings that have balconies, not commercial premises that do not. Residential buildings. Residential buildings are different - people live in them. Only in rather insecure cities that lack commercial buildings do they seek to trick-up blocks of flats to look like blocks of offices. That is what has been going on down at Princes Dock, I have spoken to a City planner who actually used the term "Benidorm" to describe what he disliked about balconies. It's a deeply ingrained cultural problem, and one reason they should probably close that entire Department and bring some fresh blood in.

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/8505387.htm

This is what people put on their balconies, to dry their clothes. They are not really visible because they are quite low. Argos's in inner city areas sell loads of them. They fit on balconies without annoying neighbours with views, and are compact and fold away - something flat dwellers need.

Incidentally, since it seems you store no paint, solvent, glue or even bleach within your habitation (all of which are dangerous), where do you store those items? Do you hire a fire-proof lock-up garrage somewhere and go and fetch things as and when you need them? And, when a flat dweller paints their flat, and have a quarter of a tin of paint left over, should they keep that paint so they can touch-up any later damage, or pour it down the drain (to pollute the sea) or throw it away (to pollute landfill), and buy more paint when they do need to repair damaged areas? Your totalitarian notions are bizarre.

I am not, incidentally, going to get into one of your silly cut and paste / back and forth type dialogues here, I know Tony indulges you, but I don't do that. Not being rude, just explaining why I am replying as I am without quoting you directly.

Poli,

This appears to be the second time that I have agreed with John-MK today and this is really worrying me and probably him as well (still we are having a nice little spat on the Kings Dock thread).

However, please understand that post 821 was not intended too seriously. I do like the idea of balconies but I agree with John that the purpose of them in flats is to sit out on in the summer - not for all the utilitarian uses you have listed.

A balcony for that use should be much larger and preferably located in an area where it doesn't detract from the appearance of a development. I realise that you can dry clothes in a very discrete way but it would be very difficult to enforce such a ruling.

Some of the dockside developments have long balconies, almost the full width of the apartment and which have access from both the living room and main bedroom. Its a nice idea, perhaps more consideration should be given to that generally. I doubt that balconies on tall towers would be acceptable due to the wind problem. Beetham West Tower does not have any - just the penthouse terraces at the very top.

John, that is frankly ridiculous. There are (virtually) no balconies on the Liver Building, and I for one am not suggesting that they are installed on that building. We are talking about residential buildings that have balconies, not commercial premises that do not. Residential buildings. Residential buildings are different - people live in them. Only in rather insecure cities that lack commercial buildings do they seek to trick-up blocks of flats to look like blocks of offices. That is what has been going on down at Princes Dock, I have spoken to a City planner who actually used the term "Benidorm" to describe what he disliked about balconies. It's a deeply ingrained cultural problem, and one reason they should probably close that entire Department and bring some fresh blood in.

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/8505387.htm

This is what people put on their balconies, to dry their clothes. They are not really visible because they are quite low. Argos's in inner city areas sell loads of them. They fit on balconies without annoying neighbours with views, and are compact and fold away - something flat dwellers need.

Incidentally, since it seems you store no paint, solvent, glue or even bleach within your habitation (all of which are dangerous), where do you store those items? Do you hire a fire-proof lock-up garrage somewhere and go and fetch things as and when you need them? And, when a flat dweller paints their flat, and have a quarter of a tin of paint left over, should they keep that paint so they can touch-up any later damage, or pour it down the drain (to pollute the sea) or throw it away (to pollute landfill), and buy more paint when they do need to repair damaged areas? Your totalitarian notions are bizarre.

I am not, incidentally, going to get into one of your silly cut and paste / back and forth type dialogues here, I know Tony indulges you, but I don't do that. Not being rude, just explaining why I am replying as I am without quoting you directly.
Can i just say my sister lives in a converted warehouse in the Baltic triangle.In the lease , it sates: no washing lines or washing to be placed on the balcony.

Can i just say my sister lives in a converted warehouse in the Baltic triangle.In the lease , it sates: no washing lines or washing to be placed on the balcony.

Quite. We need bylaws changed so that it is illegal to include such restrictions within a lease for a residential property. Inner city living needs to be liveable. These places are not offices, they are not hotels, they are homes. People need to be able to dry their clothes outdoors. I think a lot of those who make these rules are managing agents / property developers who themselves live in houses rather than flats. It is up to councils to start taking the sustainable communities agenda seriously and changing the way developers, managing agents and others view city living. Victorian lease covenants preventing you placing political pamphlets in the window of your dwelling, or from keeping a goldfish or budgie without the written consent of the freeholders, should all be swept away - they probably breach human rights legislation anyway.

I am not saying that views should be ruined or blocks look like slums. I myself would like to see more enforcement in some cases, for example where people decide for months on end to use blankets as curtains. It's very depressing and demoralising. Wherever possible, designs of flats should allow for communal roof-spaces and balconies for drying clothes and other open-air uses. And balconies can often be put "at the back", as Martin suggests. They are also useful in fires, as a place of refuge and for rescue.

Glass and steel balconies are not good because they do not provide privacy. Balconies should have solid, rendered walls that mean that whatever is within them (up to about 3 feet or however high the wall is) cannot be seen.
Martin, I cannot understand you argument about wind - why is it not a problem for people in penthouses, but a problem for someone on the 5th floor? The Barbican blocks all have balconies, wind isn't a problem there.

No doubt this person is breaching their lease and also the planning regulations, as their tiny balcony is in a conservation area. I spy not just a colourful windmill thingy, but also what looks like a Boots carrier bag. Tut tut.

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/421/p42207147vr.jpg[/URL]

More naughty signs of human habitation. A stern letter is required, followed by removal of the fire escape. If people are going to abuse these things, well they don't deserve them really.


http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/5728/p1000302a2li.jpg[/URL]

Fire escape naughtiness - drying clothes!

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/3392/p1000314a7ao.jpg[/URL]

This plant is probably illegal. If someone complains, the council planning department (its in Brighton) will write to require its removal. They have demanded that flower boxes be removed from high-up windowsills before, because they have to if just one person complains. It's the wrong idea, from 100 years ago, about how to live in a dense urban area. I think this plant is lovely. Without a (tiny) balcony, and a law-breaking spirit, this could not exist:

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/1426/p1010659a7eh.jpg[/URL]

Glass and steel balconies are not good because they do not provide privacy. Balconies should have solid, rendered walls that mean that whatever is within them (up to about 3 feet or however high the wall is) cannot be seen.
Martin, I cannot understand you argument about wind - why is it not a problem for people in penthouses, but a problem for someone on the 5th floor? The Barbican blocks all have balconies, wind isn't a problem there.

Not too sure I understand it myself Poli. Just that wind is stronger the higher you go and therefore the design of balconies has to be more careful.

I don't know exactly what layout the penthouse balconies on West Tower will have but I assume they will be wide spaces with solid walls at low level, as you suggest. I suppose that when I think of balconies, I think of those tiny things sticking out from the wall of a building with railings all round.

Quite. We need bylaws changed so that it is illegal to include such restrictions within a lease for a residential property. Inner city living needs to be liveable. These places are not offices, they are not hotels, they are homes. People need to be able to dry their clothes outdoors.

If people want outdoor drying and other outdoor pursuits then they get themselves outdoor accommodation - a garden. Simple. You don’t make a nice building look like a Hong Kong slum.

John, that is frankly ridiculous. There are (virtually) no balconies on the Liver Building, and I for one am not suggesting that they are installed on that building.

Why not. The washing can be outside the widows and a rope up to the Liver Birds and washing off that too. You can't discriminate, washing should hanging everywhere and anywhere.

Oh, please someone photoshop that image for me!

If people want outdoor drying and other outdoor pursuits then they get themselves outdoor accommodation - a garden. Simple. You don’t make a nice building look like a Hong Kong slum.

Rather a strange observation.
What is the difference between a clothes line in a garden and a balcony if used to dry clothes.
Does the clothes line make the garden look like a slum?
Are you saying that people who live in buildings with balconies can not hang out their washing because it might offend the tastes of others?
What a horrible sanitised world you must live in.

All human life is here but don't let me see it,hide it away.

Sicko!

cue for an italian song and views of downtown naples?.. beats Venice any day!

If people want outdoor drying and other outdoor pursuits then they get themselves outdoor accommodation - a garden. Simple. You don’t make a nice building look like a Hong Kong slum.

Is the Barbican like a "Hong Kong slum"? People dry their clothes on balconies in those blocks. It isn't generally visible, as I have pointed out, there is no need for it to be.

Your style of argument is annoying. I think I will make this my last reply to you. Bye bye John :)

Is the Barbican like a "Hong Kong slum"?

Ever been there. The Barbican is truely awful and should be blown up.

Please Liverpolitan, don't ever live next to me with your dirty washing.

Rather a strange observation.
What is the difference between a clothes line in a garden and a balcony if used to dry clothes.

He can't figure that one out.

He can't figure that one out.

Oh dear,what a poor response.

Pol thanks for posting that pic, I hope you don't mind but I've re-posted part of it.

At the Chieftain inquiry LCC counsel laboured the point that the student accomodation was losing privacy, losing sunlight to the Chieftain Tower with scaled separation distance of 9.8m. Looking at your pic I never noticed until now the right hand block has been built around an existing older shed like thing. How close is that!! those flats in that corner will be in permanent shadow!! I bet you could almost reach out and touch the shed. I'm not sure if this kind of evidence would be a good thing or not to present to a planning inspector but it really illustrates the duplicity of that argument.

Worth reminding ourselves that LCC planning dept. recommended rejection of those students flats, Lady D and chums overturned that recommendation.


http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8906/p1000913ab7bh7kw.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Doug,

The `Shed` you have high lighted seems to be some sort of `utilities` building of some sort although I couldn`t seen any obvious signs of ownership? ie, branding - in fact there were no signs at all.

I walked past it a few months ago when I was having by first proper nose at the development. Previously I don`t ever remember noticing that brick building and I`m really surprised that it was retained and wasn`t incorporated into the overall development somehow.

Looking at these student flats from this angle they seem to have been a bit themed to match the Adelphi don`t you think?

We're staying put


SHOPKEEPERS are blocking a multi-million pound transformation of ahuge city eyesore in a row over cash.

The loathed Concourse House faces demolition in ascheme which will reveal the Victorian splendour of Lime Street station.

Developer English Partnerships also plans a public square leading into the city and a 28-floor tower.

But five businesses in the parade of shops blocking the scheme claim they had not yet received an offer.

Four years of talks have yet to break the deadlock. The delay means part of the scheme will not be finished until at least the middle of 2008.

Other premises outside the station are already empty, boarded up and ready to be bulldozed.

Mike McCabe, who runs Henry Bohn Second-hand Books, said: "We know this scheme will transform Lime Street and we do not want to obstruct it.

"Of course, we will leave if we get areasonable cash offer, but none has ever been made.

"They asked for our accounts for the past three years, but they are irrelevant.

"Over the past three years, we have been surrounded by boarded-up shops and customers think we are closed. Trade has dropped.

"They have got to make us a cash offer or there is achance the scheme will never happen and that would be a disaster."

Waseem Baig, who has run the International Leather Store for 17 years, said: "Before all this, we were doing well, but trade has vanished, so there is no point showing the last three years' accounts.

"It is impossible to find anywhere else in the city centre we could afford to move to."
English Partnerships, the government's regeneration agency, has issued the shops with compulsory purchase orders to force them to sell.

The businesses will contest the CPOs this summer at a public inquiry, which can be avoided only if adeal is forged in the next few weeks.

A spokesman for English Partnerships said: "A valuer will normally look at the last three years' figures to get a feel for the value of abusiness, but there is nothing to stop acompany making the case that we should consider their figures over alonger period.

"We want to reach amicable settlements with all the companies affected by the development."

couldnt these shops move in with quiggns when they find their new "house"

How much money do they want? It sounds like they see this as a chance to make some dosh. What happens if the deadlock doesn't break? Would CPOs slow Lime Street Gateway down so it's nowhere near finished for COC?

EDIT: I was talking shit...

:cheers:

Nevermind, I enjoyed the post regardless. :cheers:

:laugh: Yes, it's a shame really. :cheers:

Please repost it :(

I would, but it ain't stored.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I walked past it a few months ago when I was having by first proper nose at the development. Previously I don`t ever remember noticing that brick building and I`m really surprised that it was retained and wasn`t incorporated into the overall development somehow.

I walked past the other day and the doors of this building were open. Inside were some big generators.

I guess they're supplying the power for the stoodents to waste on daytime tv and microwave meals.

We're staying put


SHOPKEEPERS are blocking a multi-million pound transformation of ahuge city eyesore in a row over cash.

The loathed Concourse House faces demolition in ascheme which will reveal the Victorian splendour of Lime Street station.

Developer English Partnerships also plans a public square leading into the city and a 28-floor tower.

But five businesses in the parade of shops blocking the scheme claim they had not yet received an offer.

Four years of talks have yet to break the deadlock. The delay means part of the scheme will not be finished until at least the middle of 2008.

Other premises outside the station are already empty, boarded up and ready to be bulldozed.

Mike McCabe, who runs Henry Bohn Second-hand Books, said: "We know this scheme will transform Lime Street and we do not want to obstruct it.

"Of course, we will leave if we get areasonable cash offer, but none has ever been made.

"They asked for our accounts for the past three years, but they are irrelevant.

"Over the past three years, we have been surrounded by boarded-up shops and customers think we are closed. Trade has dropped.

"They have got to make us a cash offer or there is achance the scheme will never happen and that would be a disaster."

Waseem Baig, who has run the International Leather Store for 17 years, said: "Before all this, we were doing well, but trade has vanished, so there is no point showing the last three years' accounts.

"It is impossible to find anywhere else in the city centre we could afford to move to."
English Partnerships, the government's regeneration agency, has issued the shops with compulsory purchase orders to force them to sell.

The businesses will contest the CPOs this summer at a public inquiry, which can be avoided only if adeal is forged in the next few weeks.

A spokesman for English Partnerships said: "A valuer will normally look at the last three years' figures to get a feel for the value of abusiness, but there is nothing to stop acompany making the case that we should consider their figures over alonger period.

"We want to reach amicable settlements with all the companies affected by the development."


well don LCC and vision, just think Chieftan would be half built by now!!! :cheers:

just think Chieftan would be half built by now!!!

Any ideas on when we can expect the outcome?

On or before August 17th.

just give em the money, and get the thing built

just give em the money, and get the thing built

a lease is a lease is a leash.

Are they hoping to take a `Walton`?

It is admittedly not fair to loose business but how much should have been decided long before now and this is yet again the fault of the LCC!!!

Cash row delays plans for the Lime Street Gateway (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=17101569%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=cash%2drow%2ddelays%2dplans%2dfor%2dthe%2dnew%2dlime%2dstreet-name_page.html)

somebody burn their shops down, that will solve it. Arson always solves everything :jk:

Surely the developers can afford a tasty offer for them, it seems like a very simple problem to fix if the shopkeepers just privide their earnings over the last 10 years rather than the last 3. The echo says the tower wont be complete until atleast mid-2008 now. So the most used train station of that year will be half under construction. They need to get it sorted! :bash:

If I was Henry Bohan books (and I'm upset to find out the scary guy who runs is isn't Mr. Bohan) I'd be desperate to move, anywhere has to be better, footfall wise. Move up Hardman Street and feed off the students, help build a slight more distinguished 2nd hand book bit, or even doesn to castle street / dale street way. The only reason we ever pop in is because we happen to be passing, and because, we've gone to the museum or the walker and we're heading into town from that direction. There's a 2nd hand book shop in Gostings arcade we make a point of visiting.

Are all the units under Marybone taken? Would've thought that would be a clever place for a bookshop.

Students read? :?

I walked past the other day and the doors of this building were open. Inside were some big generators.

I guess they're supplying the power for the stoodents to waste on daytime tv and microwave meals.

You're right Steve, this building is the original sub station that existed on the site before the development started. They obviously decided it was too expensive to try and move or renovate it, so just built around it quite litterally. The finish on those flats is shocking, I'm going to take some pictures soon and post them up here, just because I can hardly believe what I see when I walk past, in some places they didn't even finish the fake-stone cladding, and there are strips of bare plasterboard at street level.

As for the shops in front of Lime St, they've obviously got a sniff of big bucks. I expect they're all well aware of the scale of the development, and know that they yield a degree of power over the developers by being able to stall the process, and time is money. It's going to be a fine line to tread though, they need to put up just enough resistance to get a nice fat payout, but not too much resistance to force an enquiry and have CPO's slapped on them. I don't fancy their chances at an enquiry, who the hell would defend a crappy leather store which has had a permanant 'closing down sale' for the last ten years?

I remember when Henry Bohn books used to be hidden away on Seel Street, and it had exactly the same number of customers as it does now (normally half the number of staff) - so location has nothing to do with the success of the business (in their case) which is why they're trying to prevent anyone looking at the ballance books (geddit?). The truth is, if they're not a viable business why the hell should they be given consessions?

The developers were not allowed to... 'heritage' reasons. The most likely real reason ws the panners refusal to discuss any points about improving the scheme... one reason why they look so cheap and are strangely configurated!

Are all the units under Marybone taken? Would've thought that would be a clever place for a bookshop.

Yes, and no one's taking our Bargin Booze. there arn't an awful lot of empty shop right next to the students, there's more on Dale street but judging by how well small buisness fair along there (model world and a very nice camera / film shop closed just as my OH was getting into film and photography :dunno: )

Soemwhere like Chaepside, that already has some Niche little shops would be perfect. Next to a drum shop, camera repairs and a militaria shop.

The shops seem to want it both ways - first they complain about being kicked out of such a 'prime location' but when asked to show their books they then complain that business has been bad due to the place looking like a development site! You can't have it both ways. All of these shops could easily relocate to places where they'll clearly make more profit, they're just kicking up a fuss because they believe they can get more money - ah the wonders of living in a 'compo culture'.

Anyway, I hope Bohn Books gets a CPO in the teeth - years ago a bought a couple of old Shakespeare books from them, I only wanted 2 books but the guy convinced me to buy three because 'it would be a shame to spilt up the set' so I did, paying around £25 for the lot. A few months later I was having a clear out to raise a bit of cash and decided I didn't want the books afterall - so I took them back to the shop. The guy obviously didn't recognise me and when I asked him if he'd buy the books off me he took one look at them and said 'Nah, they're worthless' I couldn't believe it, when I told him I'd bought them off him just a few months ago for £25 he flat out denied it, saying he'd never sell books in that condition (identical to the condition I bought them in) despite the fact that they still had the original prices written in pencil inside the covers. I was mightily pissed off but there was nowt I could do. So he's hardly an 'honest broker' in my book... I hope they 'throw the book at him' (cringe).... :bash:

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=17101569%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=cash%2drow%2ddelays%2dplans%2dfor%2dthe%2dnew%2dlime%2dstreet-name_page.html

Cash row delays plans for the new Lime Street May 19 2006

By Larry Neild, Daily Post

WORK on one of Liverpool's key gateway schemes - a new-look Lime Street - may not have even started in 2008, Capital of Culture year, it was claimed last night.

A wrangle over compensation for remaining traders in shops in front of Lime Street Station is expected to delay the multi-million pound project.

The aim had been for the shops to be removed and replaced by restoring the original station entrance in time for Capital of Culture celebrations.

A new tower block to replace Concourse House is also planned, but that work will not be finished for some years.

Waseem Baig, owner of the International Leather Store, one of the concourse shops, said last night: "The reality is that it is wholly unlikely this scheme will even get under way before 2008."

He said comments from scheme promoter English Partnerships that the gateway will be completed in time for culture year were optimistic.

Last night, Mr Baig said he had written to English Partnerships as well as Liverpool Vision saying he was more than happy to relinquish his leasehold, providing there was reasonable compensation.

EP has now issued a Compulsory Purchase Order, triggering a lengthy public inquiry exercise.

Other traders joined Mr Baig, saying only hard cash will break the deadlock holding up the transformation of Liverpool's Lime Street station.

Five firms in a row of shops must be bought out before a multi-million pound scheme to rebuild the front of the station can start.

The businesses have yet to agree a price with developer English Partnerships, despite four years of talks.

The delay already means part of the scheme, to build a new public square and 28-floor tower to replace Concourse House, will not be finished until the middle of 2008.

The shopkeepers claim it will drag on even longer unless a speedy solution is found.

Other premises outside the station are already empty, boarded up and ready to be bulldozed.

Mike McCabe, who runs Henry Bohn Secondhand Books, said: "We know that this scheme will transform Lime Street completely and we do not want to obstruct it.

"Of course we will leave if we get a reasonable cash offer, but none has ever been made.

"They asked for our accounts for the last three years, but they are irrelevant.

"Over the last three years, we have been surrounded by boarded-up shops and customers think we are closed. Trade has dropped.

"They have got to make us a cash offer, or there is a chance the scheme will never happen and that would be a disaster."

Mr Baig, who has run the International Leather Store for 17 years, said: "Before all this we were doing well, but trade has vanished, so there is no point showing the last three years' accounts.

"It is impossible to find anywhere else in the city centre that we could afford to move to."

The businesses say they will contest the CPOs at a public inquiry this summer, which can only be avoided if a deal is forged soon.

A spokesman for EP said: "A valuer will normally look at the last three years' figures to get a feel for the value of the business but there is nothing to stop a company making the case that we should consider their figures over a longer period.

"We want to reach amicable settlements with all the companies affected by the development."

Cllr Mike Storey, the council's executive member for special initiatives said: "This has to be resolved as quickly as possible and I will contact Liverpool Vision to see what can be done."

larryneild@dailypost.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

..... why isn`t a CPO used?

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=17101569%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=cash%2drow%2ddelays%2dplans%2dfor%2dthe%2dnew%2dlime%2dstreet-name_page.html

Waseem Baig, owner of the International Leather Store, one of the concourse shops, said last night: "The reality is that it is wholly unlikely this scheme will even get under way before 2008."

He said comments from scheme promoter English Partnerships that the gateway will be completed in time for culture year were optimistic.

Last night, Mr Baig said he had written to English Partnerships as well as Liverpool Vision saying he was more than happy to relinquish his leasehold, providing there was reasonable compensation.


Basically, they're holding the developers to ransom. How does Mr Baig, owner of the International Leather Store (sounds mighty grand doesn't it) know that it's 'wholly unlikely this scheme will even get under way before 2008'? Because he's planning to hold it up that's why!

I say bring in the bulldozers. 'Reasonable compensation' is exactly what the developers are likely to be offering - what they really want is 'unreasonable compensation' because they know they're in a powerful position, being able to stall the process for a considerable amount of time. :bash:

I reckon they should let them rot, start a new 12 month paving programme along that stretch, then see how thriving their businesses are.....

If I was Henry Bohan books (and I'm upset to find out the scary guy who runs is isn't Mr. Bohan) I'd be desperate to move, anywhere has to be better, footfall wise. Move up Hardman Street and feed off the students, help build a slight more distinguished 2nd hand book bit, or even doesn to castle street / dale street way. The only reason we ever pop in is because we happen to be passing, and because, we've gone to the museum or the walker and we're heading into town from that direction. There's a 2nd hand book shop in Gostings arcade we make a point of visiting.


i think thats just the point.. because of the site being due for demolition and being half boarded up the businesses have been most likely going into the red from lack of customers and therefore dont have the cash to move elsewhere.. it looks almost as if lcc has been waiting for bankruptcy to get rid of them

i think thats just the point.. because of the site being due for demolition and being half boarded up the businesses have been most likely going into the red from lack of customers and therefore dont have the cash to move elsewhere.. it looks almost as if lcc has been waiting for bankruptcy to get rid of them

But surely the fact that the other businesses are boarded up can't be used to blame the council for poor profits from the businesses that have refused to budge, despite knowing for a long time that the site is marked for demolition. Anyone with any sense would have got out while they could.

Looks like the council have tried to starve them out, and the businesses have tried to wait it out and claim a massive compo payout - and now we've reached a stalemate. I don't know how someone can claim that 'people think our shop is closed' - when it has a thousand leather jackets hanging in the window and dozens more on racks outside. The reality is, if they couldn't make their businesses thrive in that location, regardless of the surrounding businesses, they're unlikely to be able to make it work anywhere in the city. They have thousands of people walking past their doors every single day, and yet they're claiming poverty now?

The council should not allow itself to be held for ransom over this, the developers should make a generous offer now (because they can probably afford to, and they'll loose even more the longer this drags on) and the businesses should be given the boot. It's a typical whiney 'it's not fair, we're being picked on, we want compensation' attitude which has marred this city for decades, and it's sad to see a few individuals ruining the fun for everyone else! Get those dozers revved....

Basically, they're holding the developers to ransom. How does Mr Baig, owner of the International Leather Store (sounds mighty grand doesn't it) know that it's 'wholly unlikely this scheme will even get under way before 2008'? Because he's planning to hold it up that's why!

I say bring in the bulldozers. 'Reasonable compensation' is exactly what the developers are likely to be offering - what they really want is 'unreasonable compensation' because they know they're in a powerful position, being able to stall the process for a considerable amount of time. :bash:

I reckon they should let them rot, start a new 12 month paving programme along that stretch, then see how thriving their businesses are.....

Lets burn them out! Just joking! No they shouldn't be able to hold English Partnership to ransom.

I'm sure there's room in St Johns for aother naff leather goods bin, or how about up Stanley Street in the hart of the gay quartier? I'd imagine there'd be quite a demand for leather goods there. :jk:

Yes, it will be a sad loss to the retail world

That second hand book shop is shite, even by the standards of second hand book shops. It was far better suited to Seal Street, in the days when Seal Street was an other worldy, rough arsed back street kind of a place.

As for that leather shop... I'm sorry, it just has to go. There's no symapthy from me. For businesses like those be trading from there they obviously got very, VERY good deals when they moved in. They should be grateful that they got such a bargain in the first place in such a historic area. Now make way for progress, and sell your tat at the Heritage.

There is a perfectly good market in St Johns for retailers of this nature.

Just a gentle reminder of what we have to put up with while this dispute goes on...

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2880/dsc02674fx.jpg

Saw Syriana a few weeks back, is there any way the CIA can do a "surgical" airstrike on the shit office block and shops? - i.e blow it up but dont harm the surrounding area? - they managed to hit a convoy of humvees in the film without doing much damage but still killed George Clooney in the process.

you go to stanley street often bunnyman??

you go to stanley street often bunnyman??


Yeah he's very fond of the sausage,he says they have nice butty bars down there or is that batty. :)

There was a dcent sandwich bar above the Lisbon as a matter of fact. :)

There was a decent sandwich bar above the Lisbon as a matter of fact. :)

:lol:

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8164/p5140741a5bd.jpg

Last Sunday afternoon, I had to hold my umbrella with one hand which is why it's even blurrier than usual for me.

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8164/p5140741a5bd.jpg

Last Sunday afternoon, I had to hold my umbrella with one hand which is why it's even blurrier than usual for me.

Actually Poli, it`s one of your best IMHO - very very atmospheric.

Raining around a fountian.....class!

Managed to make my way down to the Liverpool Vision Office for the first time yesterday. They've got a few models showing the Kings Dock development and the Lime Street Gateway. The photo's aren't great, but you can see how eliptical the tower is going to be (not easy to detect on previous renders). I think this is going to look great, it'll mean that you get very different views and profiles of it from all over the city..

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/4448/imgp03091uv.jpg

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/6083/imgp03105wh.jpg

I was wondering what that huge development was behind the tower in the first photo, but then reaslised that it's a pillar :$

Looks good doesn't it Billy? Just goes to show how complimentary Chieftain tower would be...

Managed to make my way down to the Liverpool Vision Office for the first time yesterday. They've got a few models showing the Kings Dock development and the Lime Street Gateway. The photo's aren't great, but you can see how eliptical the tower is going to be (not easy to detect on previous renders). I think this is going to look great, it'll mean that you get very different views and profiles of it from all over the city..

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/6083/imgp03105wh.jpg

Is that Chieftan on the right? :runaway:

It doesn`t seem to have windows.......

(yesm and so to bed.......)

Looks good, now GET ON WITH IT.

yeah looks good, get on and build it but add a few extra floors on and hope that no one from english heritage notices! :cheers:

EH would notice a small light on the top:(

Plot to axe blot
Jul 5 2006
Liverpool Echo

A PLAN to transform Liverpool's Lime Street station would rid the city of its most hideous eyesore, a public inquiry has heard.

A government inspector was told yesterday that the controversial scheme would spell the end for Concourse House, voted Liverpool's "Blot Idol" by ECHO readers.

The high-rise would be replaced by a modern skyscraper and public square.

But the £35m project is opposed by three shops at the base of Concourse House which fear for their livelihoods.

The inquiry continues.

Hi all,

in an attempt to get the latest on this Lime Street Gateway project i emailed a Kerri Farnsworth, Projects Manager at Liverpool Vision for more information. Below is the reply i received...



"The Lime Street Gateway project was granted full Planning, Listed Building and Conservation Area consents in August 2005 and we had hoped to be able to be onsite later this year once we had agreed terms with all remaining interests in the site, including tenants. The project cannot start onsite until vacant possession of the site is achieved, and until the highways improvements on Lime Street (a completely separate scheme tot he Gateway being promoted by Liverpool City Council) immediately in front of the site have been completed by Liverpool City Council.

Unfortunately two separate factors have combined to delay our ability to start the Gateway project onsite.

Firstly despite best efforts we were unable to agree terms for vacant possession with all tenants onsite, and so in December last year English Partnerships - the current owner of the site and key promoter & investor of the Gateway project - began formal proceedings to enable vacant possession of the site to be granted. The process is known as Compulsory Purchase proceedings. It is a lengthy process, over which we have no influence on timescales as it is completely independent and democratic, and if objections are made & not resolved between parties requires a formal Public Inquiry. 6 objections to the CPO were lodged, 3 of which were resolved but 3 unfortunately were not. As a result there was a Public Inquiry, which took place last week. We are now awaiting the Inspector's decision and ratification from the Secretary of State. There is also a period following the publication of these reports where the decision can be challenged, and this is heard in the High Court. Once the challenge period has expired, or any challenges themselves have been denied, there is then a legal process known as 'vesting' where all of the documentation is put into place to enable EP to legally prove that they have vacant possession of the site.

Secondly there was a lengthy delay in finalising the final layout of the highways works being promoted by City Council. This was in part influenced by the ongoing uncertainty over the status and future of Merseytram, which had been due to run through this area and affected the whole highway layout, and partly by the complex nature of other interests in the area that had to be considered. These works will take 6 months to complete and will now not go onsite until October this year.

As a result we will be able to commence work on the Gateway project until Spring next year, when the highways works are complete and all vacant possession matters should be resolved. The new fully-accessible station entrance off Lime Street will be complete and open for use within 12 months of the works starting onsite, with the majority of the remaining public space completed 6 months later. The construction of the landmark building will continue throughout this period (with a small area of public realm around the foot of the new building being retained to allow sufficient safe working space for these works to continue), and will be complete in 2009. The station will remain fully operational throughout all of the works."



So unfortunately it would seem we still have a while longer than expected until this project gets moving, shame....

not often that we get such an honest and full response though.

fair play.

Good work with the emailing too. :)

not often that we get such an honest and full response though.

fair play.

Good work with the emailing too. :)

Good responce but it also shows that one balls up creates another and another.

LCC/Liverpool Vision and investers need to get their act very much more together - we simply can`t go back to re-inventing the wheel on every possible project.

2009 :bash:

I know the world does'nt end after 2008 but Lime st is Liverpool's national station, people are going to be arriving and the first thing they see is a building site, some people could take that as 'wow, look at the progress the city is making', others could take it as 'capital of culture; and couldnt even be arsed getting ready on time'.

2009 :bash:

I know the world does'nt end after 2008 but Lime st is Liverpool's national station, people are going to be arriving and the first thing they see is a building site, some people could take that as 'wow, look at the progress the city is making', others could take it as 'capital of culture; and couldnt even be arsed getting ready on time'.

Yes, but if it was done now or in 2007, people would still arrive to see a building site!

I personally still don't envisage millions of extra tourists in 2008 and the more I hear about Capital of Culture the less important it seems to become.

I've visited loads of cities and not once have I failed to see mass building works. It doesn't matter if it's Amsetrdam, Prague, London or Rome there is always something going on. Liverpool will effectively never be 'finished' as there will always be something new being built. It's awkward that in rebuilding a railway station it will inevitably cause disruption and inconvenience to visitors, but like you say things don't end in 2008. It's about the bigger picture and I'm sure visitors will be open minded enough to appreciate what is happening.

Regardless of CoC though, this is so frustrating. Why do these things always have to take so long? There is so much red tape and obstacles which always crop up. For 2 years there has been talk about this project and it's still miles from even starting.

It's just one of those sites that has been affected by many other things going on. Something like Beetham West has been relatively quick, because there is no major road works restricting it, or tram project, or existing tennants etc. I always thought the tower wouldn't be complete in 2008, but the station entrance should be ready Spring 2008.

If they could build the `Empire State Building` in eighteen months in the 1930`s and they can`t build the `Lime Street Gateway` in the same time scale ...... well, I need say no more.

and that was during the depression too

and that was during the depression too

Well it`s depressing me I know that much :scouserd:

Found this pic from Cabes website not sure if it been posted before but it shows how good this is going to be. Any news on this tower its dragging on.

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/4517/7897bf4.gif

Heres another small one from www.glennhowells.co.uk

http://img414.imageshack.us/img414/4271/limestreetl03uj8.jpg

Here is a higher res. image of the proposed Lime Street Gateway. Looks absolutely awesome, and will make a huge difference to the area, really opening it up like a giant welcome mat.


http://www.squible.co.uk/liverpool/images/limestgate/limestreet.jpg




www.squible.co.uk

...in my opinion - too much concrete and not enough dynamism (Sp?)

The shops that currently reside in front of the station are an absolute disgrace, i just dont see how that was ever considered a good idea!!


"I know lets put shops there, that way when we get visitors they will spend there cash right on the doorstep!!!"

Yeah great!! Only it isn't and im being sarcastic!

The concourse house, i dont have a problem with, its just very dated and is in need of a rebirth, but this time to last.


The conceptual design above i think is spot on. There is nothing blocking the entrance, there is nothing ugly about it, the concourse house is set back slightly so as to not suffocate the entrance or the building.

I cant wait for this to start building, there just taking a bloody long time about it unfortunately.

It looks shite compared to South Parkway! Predictable and pedestrian. Where's the frigging road?

Its only conceptual, and surely it should be focussed on the pedestrians??

If we take Lime Street as a whole - the biggest problem isn't the station, it's the stretch between Skelhorne Street & the Adelphi. Some decent buildings on the north side but the south side, ex ABC cinema apart is an embarrassment. The problem with the concept is that it looks as though a lot of money will be spent to little effect. For me, Lime Street regeneration is about more than the station and a new tower (not really convinced that a tower works here, anyway - arguably it will detract from the station and St George's Hall). Lime Street is one of the most famous streets in Liverpool. The whole street needs to have a makeover - not just the station area.

I think this will be great, and it is a kick start to regenerating the rest of Lime St. The road needs to be tamed, as this is a main railway station with lots of paedestrians, and with great surrounding architecture, so visitors need to feel comfortable and have space around them. The rest of Lime St is under plans for redevelopment with a developer who has requested preferred status, so we will hopefully see the south side of Lime St also redeveloped to match the new Station area.

Some of the space shown on the above render is the main road, but tamed to give the street back a bit more to the weary foot passengers who have to brave the wacky racers of Lime St.

Valid points for sure mate, but the station is definately a very important project, it acts as an entrance to the city for many visitors from all over.

My first major problem is those damned shops on the front! i cant stand the ugliness of them! its so off putting for the whole area. Taking them away, as in the conceptual design, really opens it up and looks welcoming.

I dont disagree one bit that the whole stretch of buildings along that road need revamping, becasue they do. But one step at a time hey...

anyone know when the inside of the station is getting its makeover?

supposedly around the same time that the outside does!

so a while then....

coz really that is more important at the moment as its the very first thing you see when you arrive

i think they go hand in hand, they need to be a joint thing...

yeah i guess so! just get it done anyway!

...in my opinion - too much concrete and not enough dynamism (Sp?)

"Needs a effin great fountain........ "

I agree.

"Needs a effin great fountain........ "

I agree.
Probably but still a great improvement fountain or not.

I hope they don't complete 'the eye' outside the station as currently expected... so shit, so literal... a fucking big eye made out of walls, that disrupt the free flow in and out of the station.... looks naff as helll. Anybody got a render of it? if so would you please put it up?

On the plus side, the so called "eye" will enable people in wheel chairs, as well as skate boarders, to ascend the topogrpahy to the station door.

Looks good, only need to add a bit of public art or a water feature and it would be spot on.

^I fear that the 'eye' will be enlivened by an unofficial water feature cascading down its sandstone ramps most weekends.

LoL! Jesus...What a picture... the weeping Liverpool eye!

Nothing wrong with the ramps Blab, just the bloody literal interpretation of the theme!

^I fear that the 'eye' will be enlivened by an unofficial water feature cascading down its sandstone ramps most weekends.


OMG - the Lime Street grotto. If I wash my face in the water coming from the eye will it cure my acne and/or enhance the power of my inner eye?

Y aye man! :cheers:

OMG - the Lime Street grotto. If I wash my face in the water coming from the eye will it cure my acne and/or enhance the power of my inner eye?

literally !

Have there been any renders relseased to illustrate the internal renovation of the station and platforms?

Have there been any renders relseased to illustrate the internal renovation of the station and platforms?

Not as yet but the brochure out a while back has some pictures.

Today, I've recieved news of the decision of Chieftain's appeal. Sadly, it was turned down. I haven't read the entire report but I've scan read it and the basic jist seems to be that it sympathises with the heritage arguement of roofscapes and inkeeping. It starts of with...

The Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed and planning permission refused. For the reasons given below [in the document], the Secretary of State agres with the Inspector's conclusions, and agrees with his recommendation to refuse planning permission.

So that's that then!

Cheers Gar. No surprise there really.

This was never my fave project. I hope that they come up with another plan for that site asap. It, like most of the Lime Street area, needs regenerating big style.

I thought it was OK but it wasn't exactly my favourite scheme either. Sadly, I can't see any replacement plan which finally gets built, being particularly spectacular.

I hope that they are forced to impose the same criteria to the public sector one now.... I really do!

I would not mind seeing the scheme to replace Concourse House fail if it highlighted the absurdity of the situation we have imposed upon ourselves!

No great loss I ended up hating this tower.

Hope Brunswick doesn't go the same way.

I thought that their design wasn't suitable anyway. It looked awkward -crammed in against the station, unbalanced and unimaginative. It made the present building appear worryingly iconic in comparison. Good riddance to bad muck.

Not to be superficial or judgemental in any way.

Hope Brunswick doesn't go the same way.

Well this doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

Well this doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

Maybe it shows taste.

Brunswick is a different proposition altogether. A building that adds to the city not one that reflects its taste for the 3rd and 4th rate.

It made the present building appear worryingly iconic in comparison
What present building? It's (not) being built on a surface car park. Are you getting confused with the Gateway tower? :?

What present building? It's (not) being built on a surface car park. Are you getting confused with the Gateway tower? :?

I am.

Please don't tell me that the other one is going ahead.

Gateway tower yes.

Skelhorne Street tower no. :)

The Gateway tower is the one on the site of the present building isn't it?

Are you absolutely sure there isn't a hitch somewhere?

The Gateway tower is the one on the site of the present building isn't it?

Are you absolutely sure there isn't a hitch somewhere?

The Gateway tower is on the site of concourse house that's happening.

The one knocked back is next to the student appartments on a car park. :)

No great loss I ended up hating this tower.

Paul,the plan turned down was taller and a more unusual shape,just what we need to keep Liverpool different from other cities.
Furthermore it was set further back from the station,less intrusive on St Georges hall.
Can't see how you hated it.

I hope that they are forced to impose the same criteria to the public sector one now.... I really do!

I would not mind seeing the scheme to replace Concourse House fail if it highlighted the absurdity of the situation we have imposed upon ourselves!


Yes i can understand those sentiments.
Somehow though I can't see the same criteria being used.
just shows the hypocrisy of it all.

Let's face it, we all could have lived with it if it got built. Everyone would have been saying how great it is to have a tall 'cluster' on the site - I think it's a shame we've lost this building, but I love the new Lime St tower so I'm not going to shed too many tears over this one.

The tears need to be shed about the reasoning as to why the council backed scheme got the go ahead over Chiftain.

Paul,the plan turned down was taller and a more unusual shape,just what we need to keep Liverpool different from other cities.
Furthermore it was set further back from the station,less intrusive on St Georges hall.
Can't see how you hated it.

I hated it because it just didn't look right in the pictures were it was along side the Gateway tower,they were both totally different shapes and heights and I don't think they worked well side by side,an eyesore averted IMO sorry.

The tears need to be shed about the reasoning as to why the council backed scheme got the go ahead over Chiftain.

I agree with you on this though that was wrong,I wouldn't have moaned if it got built I suppose but if you're going to build big at least make it good.Didn't they have 2 appeals in? I'm sure they had one for the 32 storey version and one for the 28 storey version is that right?

I hated it because it just didn't look right in the pictures were it was along side the Gateway tower,they were both totally different shapes and heights and I don't think they worked well side by side,an eyesore averted IMO sorry.


I actually agree Paul,the two towers together didn't look right.
My problem is that I think Chieftain looked better than Gateway.
We're left with the lesser of the two plans.

I agree with you on this though that was wrong,I wouldn't have moaned if it got built I suppose but if you're going to build big at least make it good.Didn't they have 2 appeals in? I'm sure they had one for the 32 storey version and one for the 28 storey version is that right?

No,i think they originally proposed a 28 storey as an alternative to the 32 which had been rejected but then scrapped the 28 and decided to appeal against the rejection of the 32.

I hated it because it just didn't look right in the pictures were it was along side the Gateway tower,they were both totally different shapes and heights and I don't think they worked well side by side,an eyesore averted IMO sorry.


Hmmm, being devils advocate here Paul, I do wonder if a bigger cluster of tall buildings wouldn`t have negated the situation, especilly if it back tracked towards `Seymour Street` which I can foresee as being a very large and seperate business district between `Islington` and the University areas and the `051` tower ..... we have to think future and we have more than enough past to build on in order to do it.

We must also remember the main reason that these two buildings where ugly... namely the principle our planners have been working on to limits as much, the height of EVERY proposal put forwars.

If we went with the principle of accepting the massing put forwatd we could work with the developrs then on 'looks' to ensure we got as good a building as the developer could afford.... instead they are happy to go with mediocrity as long as they retain their beloved heightlines!

chieftain looked heaps better. once again we have to make do with the lesser design. why do we bother on here? :bash:

Looks like we're still going to be stuck with Concourse House for over a year, a planning application has been put in to put a banner wrap on it for a year.

http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/environment/planning/mvm_explorer.asp


As for Chieftain, i'm dissapointed it's not going to be built. Difference in heights and design is essential if we want to keep the architecture in the city exciting.

will be put on the market in the next few months for redevelopment- an 'insider ' told me the other night - he's currently working on the marketing materials.

will be put on the market in the next few months for redevelopment- an 'insider ' told me the other night - he's currently working on the marketing materials.

You tease :)

If ever there was a perfect spot for a Hard Rock Cafe Liverpool then this is it. It's unbelievable to see cities around the world that have contributed zilch to rock'n'roll that have Hard Rock whilst one of the most important cities on the planet to contribute to music has nothing. This spot is perfect as it would also be able to accomodate as a live venue and not just somewhere to get a burger whilst looking at a Pete Townsend guitar stuck on a wall

Hard Rock Cafes are shite.

True. however, I'd still lik to see a 'Hard Rock 'n' Roll' cafe here, with a giant Rickenbacker instead of the usual stratocaster/telecaster/Les Paul signs.
http://www.phototour.minneapolis.mn.us/pics/2446.jpg

It could be solely themed on Liverpool bands and artists, and would draw in shedloads of gullible tourists. :)

One area which Liverpool thrives in from an entreprennuerial point of view is the bar market. It's only a small step to ramp up the offer to flogging all the over priced tat etc. that Hard Rock lives off.

Do you think a 'Rock 'N' Roll Cafe' in Liverpool with a giant Rickenbacker would breach copyright etc? Would an independent party be able to develop something like this without ending up in court? :?

Hey Artie totally agree about the ABC, great location for a Hard Rock Cafe. We have discussed the lack of a HRC a few times and what still puzzles me is that even Nottingham (hot bed of rock??) has one.

The last semi-official comment about this place was that Liverpool Vision had it earmarked it for a National Dance School, also don't forget Jamie Carragher was in a consortium to buy it.


http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0500liverpoolfc/0100news/tm_objectid=15876115%26method=full%26siteid=50061-name_page.html


This is another one were LCC urgently need to pull their finger out.

I think hard Rock cafes are as passe as the groups they commemorate... would this be Liverpool taking another step back and doing what other cities have done 15 years ago?

As soon as they decided to franchise and expand around the world the deciding factor becomes money... and Nottingham until recently had more dosh than Liverpool, so made much more sense to place a cafe there than here... it has nothing to do with 'music heritage'.

One of Liverpool's problems is that we even see music as a 'heritage' now.. rather than a vital and current piece of cultural richness.

I agree that the Hard Rock Cafes are not brilliant, the menu has stayed the same for the last 6 years and its the same everywhere, whether you go to New York, Las Vegas or Sharm El Sheikh. The best one I have been to is the one in Las Vegas as it is quite big and off the main Strip, they had bands on in there and it was very packed. The ABC would be a great venue for something like this as someone has suggested. If it can't be there it should go somewhere near Mathew Street to suck in all the gullible Yanks and Japanese. It would make a shedload of cash. I am still mystified as to why one has never been opened given Liverpool's musical heritage. Has anyone ever heard of any world famous bands coming from Athens or Sharm El Sheikh??

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=17596659%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=lime%2dst%2dtower%2dappeal%2drejected-name_page.html

Interesting to note `Peter Milleas` comments:-

Cllr Peter Millea, executive member for regeneration, said the city centre had lost out on a vital development.

He said: "This scheme was just what the area needed. It is not just about a block of flats, it's about everything that attracts."

"It would bring shops and amenities, which are desperately needed in that area."

"That part of town needs some landmark features. The scheme also offered good quality accommodation. We cannot just keep churning out cheap social housing."

"People want the type of housing that it offered.

"I'm disappointed by this decision."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe if `Chieftain` can be bothered to bother submitting another development somewhere else in the city centre they`ll get an easier ride next time.....(like 051 I hope.....) :scouserd:

The decision against Chieftain is obviously to protect their own scheme, and using the protecting vista argument is a convenient contradiction for them to use. They will allow a tower to minimise the cost to themselves and ensure it is successful (hence they are great vote for us again), whilst denying a private developer to do the same using a vista argument that only applies to the other scheme. Do they think were stupid....!

Yes Juxt... they assume everyone is a thick as fuck and that they are the most supremely clever people in the world.

They have that perfect level of utter arrogance that only the truly thick can possess!

We are ran by/we employ fucking genuine no marks!

Yes Juxt... they assume everyone is a thick as fuck and that they are the most supremely clever people in the world.

They have that perfect level of utter arrogance that only the truly thick can possess!

We are ran by/we employ fucking genuine no marks!


How the Gateway scheme can go ahead after the excuses used against Chieftain is beyond me.
You are right,they think we are a load of ignorant peasants.

Fuck them all.: :gaah:

I hope that they would consider building it elsewhere like the 051 but after all this who would blame them if they couldn't be arsed?

it is simply outragous that they can use one set of rules for a building that is further away and less 'obtrusive' than their own scheme, which they are discarding the 'sacrosanct' principles for..... only a prick would think they could keep their dignity having done so.

Reading through the Inspector's report:

"the Secretary of State concludes that although those elements of the appeal proposal relating to sustainability, regeneration and housing are in compliance with the development plan, the proposal's impact on the WHS, William Brown St. conservation area and it's constituent listed buildings means that, taken as a whole, the appeal proposal is not in accordance with the development plan"

So it ticked most of the boxes!!

We are left with a decision that said a 28 storey building 80m nearer St. Georges Hall is acceptable but 32 storey building further away is not, double dealing bastards!!

I hope that they would consider building it elsewhere like the 051 but after all this who would blame them if they couldn't be arsed?

Hopefully they'll still view Liverpool as a good investment opportunity, despite the councils gross ineptitude, and they do stand a pretty good chance with any new development, can't see the council turning them down twice! Then again................... stupider things have happened :wallbash:

stupider things have happened

Too right. We voted the fuckers in!!

"the Secretary of State concludes that although those elements of the appeal proposal relating to sustainability, regeneration and housing are in compliance with the development plan, the proposal's impact on the WHS, William Brown St. conservation area and it's constituent listed buildings means that, taken as a whole, the appeal proposal is not in accordance with the development plan"


It's this sort of logic that makes you worried about where our priorities as a city lie. All the boxes ticked for a sustainable, vibrant urban development, but it conflicts with World Heritage....

Are we living in a museum or a city?

Rickenbackers are Gods, I'd love to see a giant one of those in Liverpool :)

Just to remind everyone here - HRC's are franchises - so, if anyone has enough money go right ahead.

Remember there are channels to complain, so lets take them all the way. This is a scandal and should be broadcast as such. Its also discrimination which LCC does quiet well!

spot on wormella.

We should highlight the inconsistency to sec of state.... stating clearly ourselves that there are people watching these issues... and would be only to opleased to pass on examples of public sector back scratching to the national press??????

We are left with a decision that said a 28 storey building 80m nearer St. Georges Hall is acceptable but 32 storey building further away is not, double dealing bastards!!

I wish a consortium of developers would sue LCC for inconsistency, it's commercially unjust.

Once Concourse tower is rebuilt and let, they will probably allow Chieftan to build their proposal by giving some other contradictory reasons, i.e. its further back from an existing tower, so will not impact, which wasn't the case when originally proposed. Just see if this doesn't happen.....! It wouldn't surprise me. I hope Chieftain hold onto the site, and re-apply in a few years time, as there will be need for hotel and residential in this area by then.

I DONT think they will Jux, business cant just hang on

Once Concourse tower is rebuilt and let, they will probably allow Chieftan to build their proposal by giving some other contradictory reasons, i.e. its further back from an existing tower, so will not impact, which wasn't the case when originally proposed. Just see if this doesn't happen.....! It wouldn't surprise me. I hope Chieftain hold onto the site, and re-apply in a few years time, as there will be need for hotel and residential in this area by then.


Why would they do that? They are ideologically opposed to ANY tall buildings, whs, tall buildings zones, neighvourhood characterisations etc are all just parts of the bigger plan to deny as many 'talls' as possible.

The only reason the Concourse replancement has been allowed is becasue it is a public sector led scheme... the ONLY reason!

just read this at the big dig website,

"
Major roadworks to begin in the Lime Street area
A programme of major roadworks begins on and around Lime Street on Thursday, 31st August, 2006 with motorists advised to avoid the area where possible.

The first phase of works will be United Utilities water mains renewal. United Utilities will be working outside the Empire Theatre and will close the inside lane of Lime Street from London Road to Lime Street Railway Station for a month.

To minimise disruption, the work has been carefully coordinated to take place before any physical work begins on the Lime Street Gateway.

The aim of the Gateway project is to transform the station area into an attractive and modern entrance to the city, featuring new public space and a 27-storey landmark tower.

Schemes recently completed as part of the £73 million City Centre Movement Strategy include improvements to Hunter Street and Byrom Street, Renshaw Street and Berry Street, Skelhorne Street, and Seymour Street and Copperas Hill.

These roads now provide a much easier route through the city centre and instead of travelling along Lime Street, motorists are encouraged to use Seymour Street and Copperas Hill.

Recent changes to traffic movement, parking and loading in this area have all been designed to reduce vehicles in the area in preparation for the Lime Street Gateway Project.

Councillor Peter Millea, Liverpool's Executive Member for Regeneration and Transport, said:

"We need motorists to follow our advice and use alternative routes and this is why the work was done to widen and improve Seymour Street and Copperas Hill. Anyone trying to use Lime Street is likely to face severe delays as the remaining lanes southbound are heavily used by buses accessing Queens Square Bus Station.

"The work in this area will transform the first impression visitors receive of our city as they exit the railway station and make the area around some of our most important landmarks, such as St George's Hall, a safer and more pleasant place to enjoy.

"We do apologise for any disruption while the work is ongoing."

"


hopefully the gateway is in sight!

`ping`

I see the dirty litter strewn subway outside Lime Street is to be filled in as part of the Gateway Project. Excellent news. It gives a horrible impression of the city for any traveller arriving in Liverpool by train.

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=17737939%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=classes%2din%2dwelcoming%2dtourists-name_page.html

Classes in welcoming tourists Sep 13 2006

By Catherine Jones, Liverpool Echo

TRAIN drivers and bus station cleaners are among staff being recruited to give a warm welcome to Capital of Culture visitors.

They are part of 700 front-line transport staff undergoing special training and qualifying for a Liverpool University backed certificate.

The workers include 500 Merseytravel employees, including Merseyrail train drivers and bus station cleaners.

City taxi drivers are also keen to get involved in the classes.

Talks aimed at recruiting staff at John Lennon airport and Lime Street station are ongoing.

Merseytravel training and development officer Liz Chandler said: "The 08 Welcome provides an overview of what Capital of Culture is.

"But most importantly it identifies the important role transport staff have in Culture year and the ongoing programme to welcome tourists.

"One of the reasons Liverpool got Capital of Culture was down to the people. It's up to them to help deliver a good year.

"We're encouraging people to think what it's like if you're a visitor to the region. The transport staff are usually the first people they encounter.

"First impressions are lasting impressions."

Mersey Ferries staff are also committed to promoting Liverpool to Capital of Culture visitors.

Six volunteers, five of whom work on the landing stages and one in the Pier Head shop, have taken a course covering presentation, customer services and guiding skills.

Each has his own speciality. Brian Thompson, who has worked on the ferries for 18 years and is specialising in the Mersey and its music, said: "Tourists are always asking us about Merseyside and we've always tried to help.

"Now we've learned how to put it across professionally and learned a bit more in depth about our subjects."

Neil Peterson, head of Liverpool Welcome at the Culture Company, said: "We want to involve front-line and customer service staff in providing a fantastic welcome that makes people want to experience Liverpool again and again."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe this will also help Rosco, :hi:

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/aug2005/1/4/00084118-9216-1301-BF880C02AC1BF824.jpg

Lime Street revamp to go ahead
Oct 10 2006
Liverpool Echo

THE government has confirmed compulsory purchase orders on shops at Lime Street station which should allow work to start on a £46.5m revamp by next spring.

A public inquiry into plans to demolish the row of shops in front of the station approved the orders earlier this year, and the Secretary of State has now confirmed the order.

A spokeswoman for the developers said they hoped to begin demolition work on the shops and the Concourse tower block by late spring next year.

I'll drink to that!

I never doubted it would go ahead,I was more concerned about the huge delays taking it beyond 2009/10.

At least in 2008 we wont have a minging tower to put people off. Actually, the sight of a huge building site will give the impression of progress and renewal as soon as people arrive.

good news.

Late spring next year? Why the hell does it take 6 months before they can start taking stuff down? I could do it faster myself with nothing but a hammer. I hope those idiot shop owners are happy.

I'm so glad this has been sorted now I can't wait to see the back of those shops.

I'm so glad this has been sorted now I can't wait to see the back of those shops.

......... oh ! When you said you cant wait to see the back of those shops ....:doh:

:runaway:


http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/1147/ticketofficeoa8.jpg

Late spring next year? Why the hell does it take 6 months before they can start taking stuff down? I could do it faster myself with nothing but a hammer. I hope those idiot shop owners are happy.

Here, here Twiz...
They'll be telling us all next that due to the lengthly delays the whole debarcle needs to be be put back out to tender, etc, etc. I never can understand why things take so long in this country. Germany had to build 4 stadiums in 3 months for the World Cup, which they did. And here we are still building Wembley... Tsk, tsk.

Late spring next year? Why the hell does it take 6 months before they can start taking stuff down? I could do it faster myself with nothing but a hammer. I hope those idiot shop owners are happy.

Here, here Twiz...
They'll be telling us all next that due to the lengthly delays the whole debarcle needs to be be put back out to tender, etc, etc. I never can understand why things take so long in this country. Germany had to build 4 stadiums in 3 months for the World Cup, which they did. And here we are still building Wembley... Tsk, tsk.

The delay til spring next year seems to have something to do with waiting until the current highway works on Lime Street are completed.

The scheme is currently expected to start on site in Spring 2007, once the major highways improvements on Lime Street have been completed.

http://www.liverpoolvision.co.uk/actionareas/limestgateway.asp

Late spring next year? Why the hell does it take 6 months before they can start taking stuff down? I could do it faster myself with nothing but a hammer. I hope those idiot shop owners are happy.

if it was possible i would tag along and join you belive me! and its been said demolition is the most satisfying job there is :scouserd: :scouserd: :scouserd:

Here, here Twiz...
They'll be telling us all next that due to the lengthly delays the whole debarcle needs to be be put back out to tender, etc, etc. I never can understand why things take so long in this country. Germany had to build 4 stadiums in 3 months for the World Cup, which they did. And here we are still building Wembley... Tsk, tsk.

4 Stadiums in 3 months? Shouldn't that be 3 years? Even that's going some.

......... oh ! When you said you cant wait to see the back of those shops ....:doh:

:runaway:


http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/1147/ticketofficeoa8.jpg

Excuse me this was an improvement.....unless you liked `Brief encounters` the movie and not the toilets :toilet: ..... thank you very much.

I`ve seen far far far far far worse UK train stations than `Lime Street` as above.

And mind you I`d like to see the others improved for definate.

It would however be nice if `Lime Street` gave that proper welcome and sense of arrival that once was.

However brief the encounter.....

if it was possible i would tag along and join you belive me! and its been said demolition is the most satisfying job there is :scouserd: :scouserd: :scouserd:


i am more than happy to bring my hammer down also.... it just annoys me as i know if chieftan had never been refused it would have been built by now.

its so furstrating!

information from the BigDig points out that the week beginning the 16th of October, this week, we will see work begin on the Lime Street Gateway!!

Whilst United Utilities continue to complete there work, work will begin outside the Railway Station to move the carriageway and significantly widen the pavement to create a grand
entrance into the city.

This will take six months to complete and the rest of the Lime Street Gateway project will begin in April 2007.

4 Stadiums in 3 months? Shouldn't that be 3 years? Even that's going some.

GazzaB, I know, it was really more like 6 months. The statement was merely to demonstrate how inefficient 'We' are at building & delivering to timescales generally! I also work in construction & see it every day...

Threat to Gateway as owners fight Oct 23 2006
by Staff Reporter, Liverpool Daily Post

ONE of Liverpool’s biggest city centre makeover schemes, the Lime Street Gateway, could face a new delay after traders vowed a legal challenge to a demolition plan.

At least two businesses remaining in a block of doomed shops fronting Lime Street last night revealed they are considering going to the High Court to appeal against the confirmation of a Compulsory Purchase Order.

The CPO has been issued to force the shops to close to enable the frontage to be demolished.

The plan is to remove the 1970’s arcade of shops as well as “eyesore” Concourse House to pave the way for a multi million pound makeover.

Last night the owners of the Henry Bohn bookshop, and the International Leather Store both confirmed they will seek legal action to halt the plans.

Michael McCabe, owner of the Henry Bohn bookstore, said: “I have been on these premises for nearly eight years and feel the proprietors of this area are being unfairly treated.

“We are looking at this very critical site in the city centre being transformed into a building site in our 800th birthday year.

“What a welcome for visitors to Liverpool.”

The International Leather Store, owned and run by Waseem Baig has been on the site for 20 years.

Mr Baig said “We will be certainly taking legal action. We have had discussions with the council, but as yet no kind of settlement has been offered.

“I am currently paying a rent of £8,600 for this shop, but the cheapest alternative in the city centre will cost me £100,000. There is no way I can afford that.”

Mr Baig said: “ Without a sufficient and fair settlement, I will be forced to retire.

“Over the last three years we have been surrounded by boarded-up shops and customers think we are closed.

“Trade has dropped. They have to make a cash offer, or there is a chance the scheme will never happen and that would be a disaster.”

If the legal challenge goes ahead it will mean that no action can be taken until the judicial route has been exhausted.

A spokeswoman for the Urban Regeneration Agency said: “The CPO has been confirmed following a public inquiry. The procedures are now in place and there is a six weeks period during which can a challenge can be made.”

Concourse House will be demolished for a new tower block, while the shops will be removed to make way for a restoration of the original station frontage.


------------------------------------------


Just when you thought it was safe...:evil:

:gaah:

I'm sure if the colour of the money is right they will both sling their hooks.

Nothing to worry about here, this is part of the process that was allways going to happen and just gives the Echo some negative news to print.

“I am currently paying a rent of £8,600 for this shop, but the cheapest alternative in the city centre will cost me £100,000. There is no way I can afford that.”


Either he has been getting a bargain, for a city centre site, or was considering moving to an exclusive boutique in Cavern Walks. Is it that dear for a city centre site.