Cant find the original thread!!!! was it lost in the hacking? well anyway, here is a recent rendering!

http://onfinite.com/libraries/538939/0bb.jpg

How about a fountain in the middle of it? That'd be nice.

It's another minge based feature.

That's one really nice development, can't wait to walk around there when it's developed :)

I am pleasantly surprised by that.

I like how the steps seem to match the station archs as well.

Also the pavement area is bigger which has pushed the road away. It's currently very paedestrian unfriendly trying to cross the road around by Concourse tower, which they are hopefully going to rectify. I like the idea of using the large N.Y./Tokyo type crossings.

With all those steps, ramps and sloping surfaces, this is obviously going to become a magnet for skateboarders and those kids doing stunts on bikes. If they want to attract anyone else, they will need to provide some facilties such as an open air cafe or bar.

That space in the oval would seem ideal.

How about a fountain in the middle of it? That'd be nice.Or, cascading waterfalls down sections of the steps culminating in a channell in front of the steps, with little footbridges over the channel? I have seen this feature, with great effect, on a number of entrances in many parts of the world.

The Lime St tower looks superb in that rendering- I hope it turns out like that. It's nice to see the horrible motor way in front of the station has been rolled back.

Martin, Maybe the city needs a skater park somewhere close to the centre- a decent, patrolled one, to keep the little shits away from pedestrian areas.

Martin, Maybe the city needs a skater park somewhere close to the centre- a decent, patrolled one, to keep the little shits away from pedestrian areas.

There are worse things kids could be doing than skateboarding but it does need to be policed as it can become a nuisance and a hazard. As anything with steps and ramps seems to be used by these kids, perhaps we don't need any custom built skateboard parks with elaborate curved surfaces, just a number of designated areas on the edge of the city centre.

Apart from that drawback, I do like the spaces they are creating there. It is really good to reclaim at least some of Lime Street from the traffic I'm sure a fountain would be a very good idea and maybe some of Councillor Jones' trees.

Looks good. It's a pity we can't see more of the tower.

I think Lime Street is to become single carriageway. The plan was to give the tram exclusive right of way on the St Georges Hall side. I'm not sure if this'll still happen if the tram doesn't happen however.

The cladding on the tower looks really good. We won't be weeping about Concourse House for long.

The cladding on the tower looks really good. We won't be weeping about Concourse House for long.

St. Johns should be cladd in glass, to reflect St Georges Hall. This could apply to the Mann Island site to reflect the PoL building.

Cant find the original thread!!!! was it lost in the hacking? well anyway, here is a recent rendering!

http://onfinite.com/libraries/538939/0bb.jpg

scouseyuppie01, were was this render published, this is the first time I have seen it, I like it lets get it approved and start building.

St. Johns should be cladd in glass, to reflect St Georges Hall. This could apply to the Mann Island site to reflect the PoL building.

Sounds like a good plan. Something needs to be done with St Johns- I hate it so much. It is rubbish in every possible respect and to my annoyance blocks the perfect vista from Lime st toward Church St shopping area.

Where would the Merseyrail and St Johns subways be on that rendering? I can't make them out.

St Johns needs levelling and replacing with a large garden and conference centre of some sort. :)

Where would the Merseyrail and St Johns subways be on that rendering? I can't make them out.
Maybe they will instead enhance the Merseyrail entrance on the corner of St Georges Hall so passengers will use that instead.

It's on the opposite side of the road Accy. Due to the traffic there, it is easier to get from the station to St Georges by subway and vice versa without having to traverse the surface roads. If the trams fall through and the idea for the Gateway is to fill the subway in, then I reckon they need to think again.

Where would the Merseyrail and St Johns subways be on that rendering? I can't make them out.

St Johns needs levelling and replacing with a large garden and conference centre of some sort. :)

St. Johns subway is being filled in, pedestrians will cross at grade. Merseyrail subway access will be at present location, inside the concourse.

Have you seen Monkey's post count folks? Shits all over Accy's! :D

Thanks for that Wooly. :cheers:

Monkey's exceptionally high post count is only temporary.

And yours is (almost) permanently shite. 158 relevant posts, 8858 of shite. :)

Have you seen Monkey's post count folks? Shits all over Accy's! :D

Thanks for that Wooly. :cheers:

cheeky :evil: pesky rabbit

for those who are curious i got the rendering on the first post from taking a pic of the hoardings outside lime street station and cropping it, you can see the shadows on the top half of the pic lol

Cheers scouseyuppie01, thought I had `nt seen that before. Very clever

opps, repeat post

I love them - makes all the difference to a city - that new area outside Lime St is just gagging for one. Lets hope they put one in.

BTW have you noticed that in the rendering there seems to be a 'cluster' of people in that area gathered around some kid who's obviously fallen off his skateboard and broken his neck. :)

The new tower that is replacing Concourse house is going to be a spanking new 28-storey mixed use cylindrical building standing some 120-130 metres high. Heh heh, that means Liverpool is going to get its own Rotunda tower that is going to piss all over the cruddy old obsolete short-arse one that is still awaiting redevelopment in crummy Brummy.

Hehe, I hope this scheme will do something to get rid of Lime Street's notorius early hours' reputation.

Is it ever going to get built? How many times do we see these artists impressions but it takes 3 years or so to get anything going. The 70s office block needs to be blown up

This is one of the few schemes in Liverpool which doesnt look like its going to be delayed.
In fact, it seems to be moving pretty fast.

Is it ever going to get built? How many times do we see these artists impressions but it takes 3 years or so to get anything going. The 70s office block needs to be blown up
acurra is right this is going to happen without a doubt the council and english heritage both gave it the ok.

Hehe, I hope this scheme will do something to get rid of Lime Street's notorius early hours' reputation.

You are not talking about the prostitutes are you ? I thought they didn't go up there and havn't been since the 60's ?

We have the thickest prostitutes in this country. They hang around the university or the Royal hospital (So I have been told!). Don't they know that students have no money and the sick are in no mood for rumpo ?

The only problem with the Limestreet gateway is I will miss that cut price jeans shop. I got 2 pairs of Hitman jeans for 8 quid. My Auntie had to turn the leg up an inch or two but otherwise they were a bargain. It will bring a tear to my eye when they are evicted to St John's market.

pobbie parr is a little out of date their lol

Actually Zod research shows that students are the biggest users of street filth.

Actually Zod research shows that students are the biggest users of street filth.
thats what i thought too.

The brasses aren't daft, they know where the business is.

The brasses aren't daft, they know where the business is.
Probably easier to rob too.

Actually Zod research shows that students are the biggest users of street filth.
And there was me thinking they were all wankers. :)

Once their student loan is all blown they do that Sloyne.

pobbie parr is a little out of date their lol
I wasn't talking about prostitution, just the general feeling of unease about the place at night. A number of people I know who have visited Liverpool say they thought it was overall a safe place with the exception of Lime St.

Report in today's DP says that Chieftain are to exhibit their plans for Skelhorne St. next Wed/Thurs at the Empire. The image in the paper looks brilliant, sorry no scanner.

So again, let's get this straight, Storey, Henshaw, Munby are you watching??

£50m private inward investment, 32 mike tower on derelict brown field site, in an area in urgent need of improvement, 175 bedroom deluxe hotel with conference/leisure facilities to compare with some of the best in Europe, top name hotel operator attracted to the city, "Chietain's project will include a public courtyard housing a leisure plaza with the overall scheme clad in glass with fish scale like quality of glowing light cascading down the building from the roof" in a tall buliding designated zone.

Planning application recommendation, refuse!! I'm lost for words to describe these people, all I can say is they've had their time, now go.

Well said! there is abosolutely no reasons to reject this scheme, everything is answered and catered for in their application, not to mention the fact that it isin-keeping with the TALL BUILDING ZONE crap. IF they do reject this scheme then there is definetly a hidden agenda here, if a private investor is again to be given their marching orders or told to unreasonably "scale down" their proposal, even when they do everything the city council claims to be looking for there then I think someone needs to loose their position at the city council.

Im getting a little sick and tired of watching towers being approved left right and centre in Manchester regardless, sending a messasge to the world that Manchester is a place to invest and create new buildings!!!!!! All we do is blatently scare investors off!!!! We will just make ourselves a basket case again and I dont think the city has quite yet reached a position to be so complacent!!!!!

PS, if anyone has a scanner would they do the honours and post the image from todays echo!!! I cant wait!

SENT TODAY IN RESPONSE TO THE DP ARTICLE. IF WE CAN REALLY PUSH FOR THIS ONE, I THINK WE MIGHT JUST GET IT.

I contact you in your capacity as Chair of Liverpool Planning Committee, on a matter of grave concern.

As a citizen of this city since the mid nineties, I have witnessed the slow rebirth of Liverpool. Initially, few believed that the sporadic pockets of investment that began to trickle from visionary firms such as Urban Splash represented the beginning of anything resembling a renaissance.

Gradually, the level of investment has increased, with cranes appearing upon our skyline for the first time in 20 years.

However, do not be fooled by the high number of these structures occupying, for example, the Paradise Street district. Whilst there may be several tower cranes in the area, they represent only ONE project. The danger in taking comfort in such images is that we feel that the renaissance has truly taken off.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Working within the voluntary sector, I see first hand the effects of deprivation upon the people of the city. These people desperately require opportunities to develop their skills and ultimately, contribute positively to the city that they call home. This means finding work.

Liverpool still has serious issues in relation to finding private sector employment. This city remains far too dependant of public and voluntary sector employers, in itself an indicator of a lack of economic development.

There must be a focus on encouraging private sector investment, which sadly, the city does not yet do.

The most relevant case in point are the Brunswick Dock and Chieftan development. These both represent two of the largest current proposals for high profile private sector investment in the city. Both will create significant job opportunities and also galvanise further regeneration in areas crying out for such support.

It is these projects that will regenerate Liverpool, NOT World Heritage Site status. Liverpool should be aiming to become a business capital once more, not a heritage theme park or a pretty, yet ultimately stagnant economic area such as Bath or York.

Increasingly, local people are becoming disillusioned with the reluctance of the Local Authority to support these essential projects, knowing that deterring private investment will cripple Liverpool's growth in a manner not seen since the 1980's.

In many ways, the future on Liverpool is in your hands and those of your colleagues on the planning committee.

The decision is yours, but you make it on my behalf and on behalf of all those young people in Liverpool that need work far more than a city of acclaimed historical character.

I implore you in the strongest terms to approve both projects and to work more positively to encourage investment in this city, the city that I love and that I am sure you love too.

Thank you in anticipation.

Good work Bug! Better than my attempt (below) I send to Doreen just now. We should all do so:

"Dear Lady Jones

I note with concern press reports that Chieftain Developments' proposed tower on Lime Street has been recommended for rejection.

Chieftain's proposal represents a £50m investment in the city from an outside developer, and one which is asking for no public support. The quality of the proposal is high and its building would massively improve this important gateway site, which is currently derelict. The development would bring in a hotel operator in a part of the city centre, close to the city's main railway terminal that lacks quality hotel accommodation. The development lies within one of the areas designated as a tall building zone by the council's draft tall buildings policy and would complement the planned Lime Street Gateway Tower that is planned for the site currently occupied by Concourse House.

I can see no grounds to reject this excellent proposal, which would bring a high-quality development to one area of Liverpool city centre (the Lime Street area south of the station) that remains in dire need of improvement.

In recent months a spate of articles have appeared in influential trade publications (the Architect's Journal, Estates Gazette, Property Week) reporting on the frustration of developers, both local and from elsewhere criticizing the way that Liverpool city council deals with business and investment opportunities, with negative comparisons being made time and again with the superior service to businesses provided by Manchester city council. Whether these complaints are justified or not, the rejection of Chieftain's tower Skelhorne Street development, a decision whose logic would beggar belief in my opinion, would confirm these accusations in many people's minds and send out a strong message to investors that Liverpool is not welcoming of the sort of opportunity that the Chieftain development provides.

One complaint that developers have been repeatedly making in the press about Liverpool is that the council is hostile to all developments that it is not involved with itself. This leads to suspicions that Brunswick Quay has not been approved because the council does not want it to affect the sales of the residential component of its own Kings Dock development, and that Chieftain's tower has been recommended for rejection because of a notion that it would somehow damage the prospects of the success of the proposed Lime Street Gateway Tower. If there is any truth in this, naturally one can appreciate why developers might have good cause for complaint and why outsiders would rightly come to view Liverpool has a city that still has a long way to go until it achieves its aim to be a business-friendly city.

However, in any case, the building of Chieftain's development would, in fact, complement the Lime Street Gateway Tower, and, in improving the area adjacent to the Gateway Tower, increase the whole area's attractiveness to those who might wish to live in the Gateway Tower, I believe, ultimately the value of the apartments in the Gateway Tower.

If I were considering moving into the proposed Gateway Tower, I would be far more likely to do so in the knowledge that across the road from my apartment would be another high-quality residential development that also contained one of the city's best hotels, than the current derelict site used for surface car parking, behind which is the back of the rotting Futurist cinema building as well such delights as Las Vegas amusement arcade and the Punch and Judy pub.

Chieftain's proposal is an excellent opportunity for Liverpool to receive a large inward investment, a important regeneration project in a key site in the city centre and a much needed and ideally-situated hotel. If despite all this, this project is rejected, it will be noted by the press and investors alike, with Liverpool's image and economic success being casualties.

I hope that the planning meeting on 2 August makes the right decision.

Yours sincerely

Awayo Awayawayo*"

*Only kidding.

Nice One Awayo

Well said mate. Im more of a browser on this site, having stumbled upon it and use it to find out about developments, but this has really got me riled.

What do they actually want on that site? A ground level car park? which is a real indicator of a failing city in my opinion, desperate use of land no one else wants.

I might send similar emails to all committee members, the "tall tale" and the "bespectacled gerbil" too

Gentlemen, those e-mails are superb. Better than the one I sent, although I raised similar concerns. I hope she takes note- that people who care about the city are articulate and knowledgable and find failures to welcome investment unacceptable.

Small pic from icliverpool!

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/jul2005/1/2/000ECE3D-AD2D-12E0-85610C02AC1BF824.jpg

I like! :)

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/jul2005/1/2/000ECE3D-AD2D-12E0-85610C02AC1BF824.jpg

Sweeeet :)

WTF??? That aint the inflated condom tower on the other renderings! I like.

Sent my response to Lady Doreen:

Dear Cllr Jones,

Make sure the Chieftain proposal on Skelly Street is approved or I'll break your face.

Sincerest regards,

Bunnyman.

I like your style Bunny, how could she possibly refuse? :)

Small pic from icliverpool!

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/jul2005/1/2/000ECE3D-AD2D-12E0-85610C02AC1BF824.jpg

I like! :)
really stunning very pleased with that.

WTF??? That aint the inflated condom tower on the other renderings! I like.

Sent my response to Lady Doreen:

Dear Cllr Jones,

Make sure the Chieftain proposal on Skelly Street is approved or I'll break your face.

Sincerest regards,

Bunnyman.

I'm sure Doreen will be scared of someone with a name like 'Bunnyman'. Never the less, thanks for trying.

I do hope this goes ahead though and they can get over small hurdles like consulting the local residents etc. They shouldn't complain really, it will add value to the area. Look at what is there at the moment - I have never been in the punch and Judy Cafe because it looks filthy. That is one the first things people see when they enter Liverpool through Lime Street. This tower would make a positive impression that we are a forward thinking city embracing old and new. That Cafe is part of history. History to be forgotten. Cafes like that bolong in the Strand next to Costaras fish bar.

Does anyone apart from Mike Storey and Doreen have fond memories of the 'Las Vegas' arcade ? Let's torch the place. I used to know the security guard who worked there (I have friends in high places) and he said it was a crap arcade too. It belongs in Southport not Liverpool.

Sorry, just having a dig at some of the crap that is there. If you come out of the Skelhorne street exit of Lime Street the buildings you first see are scrff old cack. Lets revamp this area. The other side is fabulous with Georges hall etc.

That looks great. Hope it gets approved.

is this the same tower?

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid178/p8495acd04c0361fe5165591b9e7aaf55/f3280a65.jpg

^Nope they are two seperate towers! That one is to replace Concourse House! :)

It cant be. That is the Lime St Gateway tower which will replace Concourse House. In the Skelhorne Street rendering, Concourse House is still there.

Yes it is Tommygunn. That was in the echo within the past few months. It's not the Concourse house replacement.

i am a little confused now is there a render of the gateway tower knocking around they both look very similar.

They are different towers, I posted other pics but they were in threads that have not been replaced yet.

This is the article that goes with the picture you posted. LINK (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=15500109%26method=full%26siteid=50061-name_page.html)

I'm sure Doreen will be scared of someone with a name like 'Bunnyman'. Never the less, thanks for trying.
I'm pretty sure a visit from General Zod would be more than enough. :)

Anyways, nice pics again. Gateway looks like it's gonna be ace, and will be much better than Concourse House, although I must admit that I've always had some soft spot for the latter.

I found the pictures on my computer.

This is the replacement for Concourse House

http://img302.imageshack.us/img302/376/lime9yr.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)


http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/9115/untitled2copy3eu.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)



This is the seperate proposal for Skelhorne Street

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/jul2005/1/2/000ECE3D-AD2D-12E0-85610C02AC1BF824.jpg

really stunning very pleased with that.

It does look good that,but the fact that it has been recommended for rejection sort of takes the shine of it all,I hope it happens more than ever now.

the chieftan project looks great better than lime street infact just hope both go ahead now thanks for the pics liverdude.

I think it looks better as well.

the chieftan project looks great better than lime street .

I agree. But this potentially could be what the council are afraid of. Their precious project being out-shone. Mind you, they shouldn't really conflict too much- for a start there will prob be a lot of demand for apartments in both, and Skelhorne has a big hotel element, which the Lime St tower does not. If Lpool needs a high class hotel anywhere it is near the railway station.

If this project is turned down it will be for cynical reaosns. There are no good reasons for turing it down. None whatsoever. The area is an eyesore- cheapy high-denisty student flats and shitty pubs/entertainment haunts.
I hope Skelhorne is given the go-ahead. Lime St almost certainly will. The council has come under a lot of public pressure recently- the business community, The Echo (Implicitly) and us guys :)

If they turn it down under all of this pressure then they are even more arrogant and squalid than I thought.

It's good to know that there are groups like Downtown Liverpool on our side.

Excellent photos Liverdude. I can tell they were scanned through from the echo though. You can see the print coming through from the other side of the page. Never the less, thanks for the contributions.

I am optimistic, almost to the point of foolishness that both of these will go ahead. Criticisim of the council not delivering seems to have risen to boiling point on delivering their official approval for private projects like these. At the moment I think they know the wolves are at the door and they have to deliver. I sensed a bit of panic with them after the 4th grace/burst footie debacle. Storey said we have to deliver on this one - refering to the kings dock arena.

Come to think of it, Concourse sticks out like a sore thumb more than I thought. Here's to Gateway. :banana2:

the chieftan project looks great better than lime street infact just hope both go ahead now thanks for the pics liverdude.

The Chieftain tower :drool: looks brilliant and together with the Gateway tower :drool: this part of town would really be on the up :)

It just beggers belief that the planners are recommending rejection,the question must be WHY

Lady D and her pals on the planning committee must weigh up the pros and cons ,which are :..........

Pros: Elegent tower slap bang in a designated "tall building zone"
Brown field site.
175 bed deluxe hotel with conference and leisure facilities.
Hotel to be run by a world class operator.
Would compliment the Lime St. gateway tower.
Should kick start the urgently needed regeneration of the whole of
the Lime Street area.

Cons: Possible traffic problems.

Lady D must also be aware that when the Lime Street Gateway tower planning application lands on her desk, the expectations of the City, English Partnerships, Liverpool Vision, NWDA and Merseytravel is a FULL AND QUICK APPROVAL. Should she reject the Chieftain tower on the 2-8-05, an lot of questions would be asked about the apparent bias against private developers
in favour of City backed schemes.

I just cannot see any justification for this tower to be rejected, come on Lady D, think of the cities future and back private investment on this tower and the Maro tower at Brunswick.

Send out a clear message to all private investors, Liverpool welcomes you with open arms

It will be interesting to see the planning officer's report when it finally appears, which should be any day now for the 2 August meeting. EH's reported objections will probably be an important consideration if these rumours of a rejection are indeed true (note: DP&E's 'rumours' often aren't, most recently on Merseytram).

While I think both towers are interesting designs, what is true is that proposing two in such close proximity does raise additional issues. Proposals for buildings this size have to be accompanied by an environmental statement that includes such things as sun path assessment and assessment of wind funnelling effects - all of which would be altered by the presence of another tower close by. There would be a question of mutual overlooking. In addition there is the question of how the buildings would look together. None of the renders have shown this, including the latest one of the Chieftain/Falconer Chester tower from the odd viewpoint of the junction of Dale St and Manchester St (which still shows Concourse House as the companion building).

None of this amounts to a good reason for rejection in my opinion, but does provide a good reason not to consider these two projects completely separately and considerably complicates the planning approval process.

Well all that we can do is e mail the people in question and hope for the best.

If this, gateway, and the 2 central station towers get built (along with the existing St Johns Beacon), this area is going to look a hell of a lot like Rotterdam in a few years :cool:

It'll be great to have few towers away from the waterfront. If the two Lime St towers get built it'll be a impressive sight for first time visitors.

It will be interesting to see the planning officer's report when it finally appears, which should be any day now for the 2 August meeting. EH's reported objections will probably be an important consideration if these rumours of a rejection are indeed true (note: DP&E's 'rumours' often aren't, most recently on Merseytram).

While I think both towers are interesting designs, what is true is that proposing two in such close proximity does raise additional issues. Proposals for buildings this size have to be accompanied by an environmental statement that includes such things as sun path assessment and assessment of wind funnelling effects - all of which would be altered by the presence of another tower close by. There would be a question of mutual overlooking. In addition there is the question of how the buildings would look together. None of the renders have shown this, including the latest one of the Chieftain/Falconer Chester tower from the odd viewpoint of the junction of Dale St and Manchester St (which still shows Concourse House as the companion building).

None of this amounts to a good reason for rejection in my opinion, but does provide a good reason not to consider these two projects completely separately and considerably complicates the planning approval process.

Lathom, good points you have raised, after reading the planning managers very detailed report on Beetham West , proximity,wind ,sunlight etc will be need to be covered by Chieftain. What I am not clear on, will the planning manager be looking at this tower in isolation or be looking at the impact both towers would have on the immediate enviroment ?

That's a strange angle they are showing the tower, from near the tunnel entrance, which is looking at it's thinnest point. The pic on the left is another angle from their website.

http://www.chieftain.ie/uk/images/developPic.jpg http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/jul2005/1/2/000ECE3D-AD2D-12E0-85610C02AC1BF824.jpg

Have sent my email supporting this investment in a rundown area of Liverpool.

Scan from Echo :)

http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/9093/limegat20tr.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

Lathom, good points you have raised, after reading the planning managers very detailed report on Beetham West , proximity,wind ,sunlight etc will be need to be covered by Chieftain. What I am not clear on, will the planning manager be looking at this tower in isolation or be looking at the impact both towers would have on the immediate enviroment ?

I would have thought that even if the two are not considered together that they could not be considered in complete isolation. Legally they are of course two separate applications. But the planning considerations overlap a lot. I imagine it could get very complicated producing all the required data on the basis of a hypothetical neighbour. This may account for the length of time the Chieftain one has taken.

On the other hand that kind of complexity is of course what planners are likely to get when they require tall buildings to be in clusters (something I agree with). They might have been taken at their word a bit more than they expected in this case!

This is what was said about the tower in the Waterfront Area committee meeting last March (the minutes must have only been put up recently):

The Committee noted this application and expressed the view that adequate parking must be in place and that residents are not disrupted during construction

Nothing about recommending rejection, things may not be as bad as they seem! :)

I would have thought that even if the two are not considered together that they could not be considered in complete isolation. Legally they are of course two separate applications. But the planning considerations overlap a lot. I imagine it could get very complicated producing all the required data on the basis of a hypothetical neighbour. This may account for the length of time the Chieftain one has taken.

On the other hand that kind of complexity is of course what planners are likely to get when they require tall buildings to be in clusters (something I agree with). They might have been taken at their word a bit more than they expected in this case!

I guess we will just have to wait for the planning manager`s report, but I would find it very strange if the PM did not have "one eye" on the Gateway tower whilst looking at this Chieftain tower. The architects Falconer Chester are a very thorough outfit, they produced a sunlight and shadow assessments for a low rise development due to be built on Pall Mall/ Leeds St.
So I would expect that they have covered all the requirements the PM would have requested.

The render that Liverdude :) has just posted from tonights Echo does give a
indication of the massive impact that this tower will have, being some 5 storeys higher and further up the hill than the Gateway tower ,it should show good definition between both towers.

I would have thought that even if the two are not considered together that they could not be considered in complete isolation. Legally they are of course two separate applications. But the planning considerations overlap a lot. I imagine it could get very complicated producing all the required data on the basis of a hypothetical neighbour. This may account for the length of time the Chieftain one has taken.

On the other hand that kind of complexity is of course what planners are likely to get when they require tall buildings to be in clusters (something I agree with). They might have been taken at their word a bit more than they expected in this case!

I realise that planning is a detailed and complicated process and that there is bound to be uncertainty when two large apartment towers are planned so close together but I would just hope that rejection would be considered the very last option when all other options had been exhausted.

After all, just look at places like New York and Hong Kong that have far taller buildings just as close together. There may be problems but striking developments like this are surely worth the risk.

I can't imagine that any modern planner would have allowed the Liver Building to be built in such a location - in front of the established waterfront, blocking traditional views of St Nicholas Church, out of scale with its neighbours, non-traditional architecture etc etc.

It looks amazing in that scan from the echo,I'd love to see this built.

If I had to look at the centre of town away from the waterfront, Lime St./Queens Sq./ St. Johns would be it. It would be fantastic to have a cluster developing here. :banana2:

I've had a go at super imposing the gateway tower onto that photo of the Chieften proposal. not sure how accurate the scale or angle is but if you can do better, feel free. :)
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/13/untitled5vp.png

Nice one Gareth, would love to see both model towers displayed together.
Anybody going to the exhibition next week at the Empire?

What times it on? School's out for summer and I've a load of time on my hands now, so I probably will.

Wednesday and Thursday. I'm going too. :)

It will be interesting to see the planning officer's report when it finally appears, which should be any day now for the 2 August meeting. EH's reported objections will probably be an important consideration if these rumours of a rejection are indeed true (note: DP&E's 'rumours' often aren't, most recently on Merseytram).

While I think both towers are interesting designs, what is true is that proposing two in such close proximity does raise additional issues. Proposals for buildings this size have to be accompanied by an environmental statement that includes such things as sun path assessment and assessment of wind funnelling effects - all of which would be altered by the presence of another tower close by. There would be a question of mutual overlooking. In addition there is the question of how the buildings would look together. None of the renders have shown this, including the latest one of the Chieftain/Falconer Chester tower from the odd viewpoint of the junction of Dale St and Manchester St (which still shows Concourse House as the companion building).

None of this amounts to a good reason for rejection in my opinion, but does provide a good reason not to consider these two projects completely separately and considerably complicates the planning approval process.

On the other hand, having two towers proposed in close proximity has advantages. Which ever tower is considered and given permission first will to some extent set a precedent for the area and make it easier to pass the other, or less difficult to refuse. Many of the considerations in making a decision for Lime St tower will surely apply to the other, e.g. acceptability of scale, blocking of views for existing residents/businesses, effects on micro climates (e.g. wind), etc.

In terms of the effects one tower has over the other- given that both proposals are in the planning process at the same time, I'm not sure they can really favour one over the other in this respect. Netiher tower yet exists, or has permission to. In any case, it will be the Skelhorne Tower that will suffer most in terms of views as it faces the back of the Lime St Tower. Hopefully then, EH (or any other NIMBY) won't be able to use this argument as a complaint against Skelhorne.

I might be completely wrong here. What do you guys think? I think I have to stick to my original opinion. If Skelhorne is turned down- it will be for cynical reasons- as opposed to reasons based on the local development plan. If Lime St Tower is allowed in that area, Skelhorne should be.

It's best though if both get underway before the other is completed because if one is completed and populated, you start getting residents trying to block the other one because of the 'right to light' or because they want unspoilt views of the 051. :crazy:

MORE RENDERINGS FROM THE DP YESTERDAY

http://onfinite.com/libraries/547171/3cc.jpg

http://onfinite.com/libraries/547172/cb5.jpg

Does anyone agree is bares remarkable resemblance to the beetham west tower????

Does anyone agree is bares remarkable resemblance to the beetham west tower????

I was thinking that yesterday.

The front and some of the base is similar to West Tower (although West Tower doesn't have balconies), but I think the difference in shape and cladding will set them apart enough. :)

when i seen the first render i didnt like it too much but this new render i have fell in love with i cant see it getting built though.

It would be great if both towers went ahead. I still don't see where any more land is going to come from to create a "cluster" though.

It would be great if both towers went ahead. I still don't see where any more land is going to come from to create a "cluster" though.
the two towers will do nicely for me :)

slightly confussed is this a 3rd proposal for this area along with chieftans one and the one to replace concorse house

It looks so sexy, with both towers it will be a great arrival point at the city for visitors, I heard something on the radio yesterday but didnt catch it, did anyone hear it?, think it was on Century?

The two towers would look fantastic together. Maybe this marks the start of the Liverpool Style- sleak, lozenge-shaped, glass-clad towers. Skelhorne, West Tower and the Lime St Tower (in the Development Thread rendering) all have a similarity to one another.

I thought of a potential problem for Skelhorne. -Could the Adelphi and Holiday Inn hotels make objections to high class competition?

The Adephi is still a disgrace.
I'd rather see it run out of business and boarded up then besmirching the city's reputation as our supposedly "top" hotel.

I agree. I'd also like to see the Holiday Inn go out of business- or improve preferably. But the point is- they have every right to object to the development- whether they are honest and say it is becuase of comptetition or not is beside the point. I doubt very much that either hotel will welcome a new and better alternative nearby.

I thought of a potential problem for Skelhorne. -Could the Adelphi and Holiday Inn hotels make objections to high class competition?
I would say no, because this is only 180 room's in a city that is going to be busy come the big magical year of 2008. Let's hope it gets the go ahead so that the Adelphi starts to realise it is going to have to improve in order to compete.


Irish developer Chieftan released new impressions of the 32-storey building yesterday - and revealed a world-class operator has been signed up to open a de-luxe hotel in the building.


De-luxe is one of those words i'm always wary of though, sounds a bit Del Boy'ish. :)

slightly confussed is this a 3rd proposal for this area along with chieftans one and the one to replace concorse house

No this is the Chieftan one.

The Adephi is still a disgrace.
I'd rather see it run out of business and boarded up then besmirching the city's reputation as our supposedly "top" hotel.

Never stayed there, although I've stayed in most of the other City Centre hotels at one time or another. The reason I've never stayed there is "that programme". I was appalled at the behaviour of staff there towards customers, it was a complete disgrace. Who can forget their behaviour on Grand National day of bouncing guests who had booked and confirmed rooms? Or the everyday rudeness of staff to guests? I agree with you that it should be closed, its reputation was completely ruined by that programme.

Liverpool does have highly-rated hotels nowadays. Poli, have you stayed in the likes of the Racquet Club, the RadissonSAS or the Hope Street Hotel?

Liverpool does have highly-rated hotels nowadays. Poli, have you stayed in the likes of the Racquet Club, the RadissonSAS or the Hope Street Hotel?

No, I am just professional low life required to stay in 3 stars, 4 star is the absolute limit I can ever get away with, and that's not often. I did like the Marriott by Lime Street, I think that is a good 3 star (room size is more like 4 star). So thinking about it, I've not stayed in most Liverpool hotels at all. The only person I know in my place who has stayed in the Hope St Hotel was criticised for extravagence.

Liverpool does have highly-rated hotels nowadays. Poli, have you stayed in the likes of the Racquet Club, the RadissonSAS or the Hope Street Hotel?
And the Redbourne Hotel in Woolton. This is a "Superior" and quite upmarket hotel. Once the home of 'Tate' of Tate & Lyle sugar fame it is now owned by a Edge Hill lad who once lived in Sidney House tenements, attended St. Anne's R.C. School, Overbury Street and is now the CEO of a multi-million pound international import enterprise and he is also the owner of many Merseyside nursing/care homes. Who said Scouser where not a entrepreneurial lot?

I do think the balconies on this one are great, imagine waking up in the morning and stepping out almost 400ft above the ground, i'd love one of those apartments! :)

I do think the balconies on this one are great, imagine waking up in the morning and stepping out almost 400ft above the ground, i'd love one of those apartments! :)

I think this is one of the best proposals we've had so far and I'd hate to see it knocked back.

Just over a week untik we find out whats happening, of course they'll probably delay the decision to do a site visit!

I do think the balconies on this one are great, imagine waking up in the morning and stepping out almost 400ft above the ground, i'd love one of those apartments! :)

Agreed, that would be fantastic. You could sit out in the evening, getting pissed, watching the sun set over the Welsh hills, or the cathedral, I suppose it would depend which side your flat was on. You'd have to make friends with neighbours to get a chance at looking at their views as well.

I've gone back to read a few times, and sorry but I can't quite understand what is being proposed. So can I just check - this is a second development, not the big one to replace Concourse House? Up Skelhorne St, but taller? Residential? And the Council are threatening to turn it down? That (turning it down) would be a complete fucking outrage. I'm not a big fan of the replacement of Concourse House, but anything further back from that site is fine, and will help clustering. That particular part of the city centre worries me the most, given all the attention elsewhere, so any develpment proposals there should be seized on, in my opinion.

That whole area is a complete dump, any Council that turns this one down needs to be sacked en masse and John Prescott should send commissioners in to run the planning function.

I've gone back to read a few times, and sorry but I can't quite understand what is being proposed. So can I just check - this is a second development, not the big one to replace Concourse House? Up Skelhorne St, but taller? Residential? And the Council are threatening to turn it down? That (turning it down) would be a complete fucking outrage. I'm not a big fan of the replacement of Concourse House, but anything further back from that site is fine, and will help clustering. .


Liverpolitan, This is the SECOND tower ( the Chieftain Tower ) it is up Skelhorne St, yes it will be taller, 32 storeys, the Concourse House replacement ( Lime St Gateway Tower) has been reduced to 27 storeys and is all residential. The Chieftain Tower will have a 175 bed de-luxe hotel and 80 apartments.

Liverpolitan, This is the SECOND tower ( the Chieftain Tower ) it is up Skelhorne St, yes it will be taller, 32 storeys, the Concourse House replacement ( Lime St Gateway Tower) has been reduced to 27 storeys and is all residential. The Chieftain Tower will have a 175 bed de-luxe hotel and 80 apartments.

Thanks Woody. Sounds great. People who work in Manchester but want to live in Liverpool could buy flats there and commute on the train.

Agreed, that would be fantastic. You could sit out in the evening, getting pissed,

Is booze + 400ft high balcony a good idea? ;)
Might end up drinking until you think you can fly, or is that just me. :bash:

But yeah, bloody ridiculous if the towers don't get approved. Would the council prefer to still have that festering Concourse House and a shitty surface car park in 2008. Right next to the major gateway to the city. How fucking inept are the morons on the council.

Caw, the replacement to Concourse House will almost certainly be approved by the council as they are involved in this project. The suspicion some have is that some in the council may think that the Chieftain development will harm the prospects of their own tower across the road.

Also English Heritage have been reported to be in favour of one tower (the Lime Street Gateway tower) being built in that locality and not both.

Caw, the replacement to Concourse House will almost certainly be approved by the council as they are involved in this project. The suspicion some have is that some in the council may think that the Chieftain development will harm the prospects of their own tower across the road.

Also English Heritage have been reported to be in favour of one tower (the Lime Street Gateway tower) being built in that locality and not both.
on the plus side this a tall buildings zone and the council have said that they would prefer a cluster in this area.

on the plus side this a tall buildings zone and the council have said that they would prefer a cluster in this area.
Agree..! you can't have a tall building zone with a cluster of just 1 building. This is the main transport hub in the centre of Liverpool, an ideal place for tall buildings, carparking should be less of an issue, and the site was approved for a hotel development also. (the student blocks were approved...!)

on the plus side this a tall buildings zone and the council have said that they would prefer a cluster in this area.

Also on the plus side , the Chieftain Tower will be part HOTEL and have only 80 apartments. CABE will also be happy as this tower will have a roof top public viewing area.

Well I must say that I am optimistic now. What with the recent public criticism of the council from various quarters, as well as the fact that the tower is basically acceptable under the local plan for that area. Even if the planners do oppose (-and we can't be certain that will be the case, assuming the Echo were right in the first place) then the planning committee (consisting of elected representatives) will be more sensitive to criticism. It may end up going the way West Tower did, i.e. being a close committee vote. If this proposal could be turned down by the planners and the committee... well, I'll have to see it to believe it.

Well I must say that I am optimistic now. What with the recent public criticism of the council from various quarters, as well as the fact that the tower is basically acceptable under the local plan for that area. Even if the planners do oppose (-and we can't be certain that will be the case, assuming the Echo were right in the first place) then the planning committee (consisting of elected representatives) will be more sensitive to criticism. It may end up going the way West Tower did, i.e. being a close committee vote. If this proposal could be turned down by the planners and the committee... well, I'll have to see it to believe it.

Blabbers, also remember that phase 1 of this site, those beautiful student apartments :wtf: was also rejected by the planners only to be saved :| by the elected planning committee. Who says that lightning does`nt strike twice. :)

Blabbers, also remember that phase 1 of this site, those beautiful student apartments :wtf: was also rejected by the planners only to be saved :| by the elected planning committee. Who says that lightning does`nt strike twice. :)

Quite right Woody. They should have an easier time passing this sleak land mark after they allowed those Breeze block student flats.

If these two towers went up, where would more go to form a cluster in the immediate area? This point was raised recently by someone else, as building is pretty dense around there. I do think it will look great to have the Chieftain Tower right next to the student blocks (which aren't half bad IMO) and the Gateway tower. Imagine the canyon effect that could be created on Skelhorne Street!

How about a few on London road and Norton St? A huge one where the current national express station would be pretty cool:D

http://onfinite.com/libraries/547171/3cc.jpg

who is the developer/architect of this...

Developer is Chieftain. Architect is Falconer Chester.

http://onfinite.com/libraries/547171/3cc.jpg

who is the developer/architect of this...
Here you go James
http://www.chieftain.ie/uk/index.htm http://www.falconerchester.co.uk/

If these two towers went up, where would more go to form a cluster in the immediate area? This point was raised recently by someone else, as building is pretty dense around there. I do think it will look great to have the Chieftain Tower right next to the student blocks (which aren't half bad IMO) and the Gateway tower. Imagine the canyon effect that could be created on Skelhorne Street!

How about a few on London road and Norton St? A huge one where the current national express station would be pretty cool:D

The Central Station tower(s)? would form part of the Lime st. cluster area. :cheers:

On the other hand, having two towers proposed in close proximity has advantages. Which ever tower is considered and given permission first will to some extent set a precedent for the area and make it easier to pass the other, or less difficult to refuse. Many of the considerations in making a decision for Lime St tower will surely apply to the other, e.g. acceptability of scale, blocking of views for existing residents/businesses, effects on micro climates (e.g. wind), etc.

In terms of the effects one tower has over the other- given that both proposals are in the planning process at the same time, I'm not sure they can really favour one over the other in this respect. Netiher tower yet exists, or has permission to. In any case, it will be the Skelhorne Tower that will suffer most in terms of views as it faces the back of the Lime St Tower. Hopefully then, EH (or any other NIMBY) won't be able to use this argument as a complaint against Skelhorne.

I might be completely wrong here. What do you guys think? I think I have to stick to my original opinion. If Skelhorne is turned down- it will be for cynical reasons- as opposed to reasons based on the local development plan. If Lime St Tower is allowed in that area, Skelhorne should be.


Blabb -

My concern would be that the very close proximity of the two towers could present a problem for the second one (i.e. the Gateway). Given that Gateway seems to be set back from Lime St more than Concourse House, and assuming that Grand Central is pretty much on the Skelhorne St/Bolton St corner, the distance between them seems very little. While the principle of tall buildings here would be established by permitting Grand Central, its existence might provide planning grounds for rejecting Gateway - namely overlooking and loss of amenity. These are grounds we know the Planning Committee takes seriously, and it might be that planners would have no option, legally, but to refuse Gateway.

I hope not but I do think this is a possibility, in which case a preference for Gateway seems to me justifiable not for the bad reason that it is a public-sector inspired project but also for the desirable demolitions and public realm improvements that it would bring.

If these two towers went up, where would more go to form a cluster in the immediate area? This point was raised recently by someone else, as building is pretty dense around there. I do think it will look great to have the Chieftain Tower right next to the student blocks (which aren't half bad IMO) and the Gateway tower. Imagine the canyon effect that could be created on Skelhorne Street!

How about a few on London road and Norton St? A huge one where the current national express station would be pretty cool:D

It strikes me that the Royal Mail may eventually abandon their large base on Copperas Hill, given their development at Warrington. The Forum site would be good, but it is (quite rightly) a listed building. Ranelagh Place strikes me as an ideal spot, especially the former 051 building (wedge-shaped site in front of the car park) and maybe the site of the curve-fronted building opposite, the former Army and Navy store. There is potential for a Times Square effect at that junction, the existing buildings are strong enough to take the competition, and towers would frame the view along Lime St to the Cathedral.

Look out for the delay in submitting the papers online in advance of the planning committee meeting 2nd August, where by Chieftain project is discussed.

The more contentious the project, the less time the public get to see the agenda and reports, to minimise public objections of any suggested rejections.

Let em know a few days before if we dont see anything

A few quotes from the planning managers report about the Cheiftain tower
http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/Published/C00000307/M00004693/$$ADocPackPublic.pdf
:bash:
"Inelegant and over complicated" (as opposed to the student halls?)
"Too tall" (surprise surprise)
"Shouldnt have a cluster" ( er..policy?)
"In a tall buildings zone but should only have one building there" (i kid you not)

This is getting so bad its almost funny.

The only crumb of ccomfort is that the manager actually wanted to refuse the Halls cnext door too, but the committee approved them. (He actually refused as he WANTED the hotel built first....but only at 12 storeys...grrr)

the gloves are off now

This is so rediculous that it would be hilarious if it wasn't so trajically pathetic. These people who come out with such meaningless hyperbole are the ones who run our city, supposedly educated persons who we entrust to run this city in an appropriate mannet. I mean, what the hell does over complicated mean in the context of building a 34 storey building in a large city?!

I despair, I fucking despair, I really do! :bash:

This will not go ahead.

I would be very disappointed if any of the two towers would be rejected, but the replacement tower for Concourse House will surely go ahead.

The Lime Street area in huge need of investment and the new tower and new Lime Street public square won´t solve all that. I can't see why 30+ Mikes should be a problem here and the proposal also includes a quality hotel etc.

To reject the Chieftans quality proposal seems like a very stupid thing to do. But as the Liverpool planning department try to scare away private investors, even high quality developments, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

A few quotes from the planning managers report about the Cheiftain tower
http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/Published/C00000307/M00004693/$$ADocPackPublic.pdf
:bash:
"Inelegant and over complicated" (as opposed to the student halls?)
"Too tall" (surprise surprise)
"Shouldnt have a cluster" ( er..policy?)
"In a tall buildings zone but should only have one building there" (i kid you not)

This is getting so bad its almost funny.

The only crumb of ccomfort is that the manager actually wanted to refuse the Halls cnext door too, but the committee approved them. (He actually refused as he WANTED the hotel built first....but only at 12 storeys...grrr)

the gloves are off now

Well that's that fucked then. The planners' report is so damning it, they can't be much chance the committee would overrule its recommendation of refusal. Why has it taken this long for them to come to this conclusion.

To the fair to the council planners, however, it appears that CABE and English Hertitage, both national quangoes, have criticised the building. However, I think the below line from the planners' report is interesting and seems to confirm that the council is refusing permission for private schemes that they imagine will compete with their own projects:

Furthermore the current proposal would have an adverse impact on the Lime Street Gateway if that development were to be approved and the presence of a taller building in close proximity would severely dilute the intended impact and function of the Gateway Building as a ‘stand alone’ symbolic ‘signpost’ of this important regeneration initiative as an entrance and setting to Lime Street Station.

Chieftain are another developer that has gone on the record recently claiming that Liverpool is the most difficult city they have tried to work in. I'll say again that there might be an element of bandwagon jumping in some of the recent criticism of the council. Remember that towers do get rejected in other cities too. Nevertheless, the council need to take a pro-active view about this and do there best to counter act the current negative perceptions of Liverpool's receptiveness to investment.

The recent Storey/Henshaw letter to the press, reacting to criticism by stating that they've done nothing wrong whatsoever and therefore will not change anything about how they go about dealing with business is exactly what we don't want to hear.

Henshaw is now lame duck executive and needs to retire asap. The economy might start heading back down the shitter again soon. Liverpool needs as much growth and investment now whilst it can get it.

Read the report, this city fucking amazes me! CABE, EH - thanks for sending this city to the shitter! :mad:

if the chieftan tower dosnt get the nod i think its only fair that the landmark towers previous height is restored.

Yes it does indeed amaze.

Thank f**k then i'm moving to Portugal.

Liverpool a city that seems to be happy with mediocrity!

Well that's that fucked then.Sorry Awayo but this is exactly the attitude I was talking about when I said that the people of Liverpool are apathetic. Instead of throwing up your hands in despair, why not go to the Town Hall and ask for "Standing" at the council meeting that will discuss the planning committee proposal and present your critism of the planning committees recommendation? Phone you local councillor and complain to him. Demand he consider the best interest of his constituents by voting for this investment in jobs. Organise as many people as you can to go to the council meeting with you. Phone Storey, Doreen and Trevor Jones, Mumby, Mr. & Mrs. Clucas et al. Threaten to run against you councillor or promise to support and campaign for his opponent in the next election if he doesn't help. And Awayo! do now. Good luck.

Sorry Awayo but this is exactly the attitude I was talking about when I said that the people of Liverpool are apathetic. Instead of throwing up your hands in despair, why not go to the Town Hall and ask for "Standing" at the council meeting that will discuss the planning committee proposal and present your critism of the planning committees recommendation? Phone you local councillor and complain to him. Demand he consider the best interest of his constituents by voting for this investment in jobs. Organise as many people as you can to go to the council meeting with you. Phone Storey, Doreen and Trevor Jones, Mumby, Mr. & Mrs. Clucas et al. Threaten to run against you councillor or promise to support and campaign for his opponent in the next election if he doesn't help. And Awayo! do now. Good luck.

Unfortuntely I live in Guildford.

Back home in three weeks though!

ok, im in touch with their overseas property manager, ill let you know what i get.

Something needs to be with the planning department now! I'd like to see Downtown Liverpool speaking out more and pushing the issue more! :mad:

Unfortuntely I live in Guildford.Back home in three weeks though! And me in Canada. But what I suggested has worked here with some success. These people need to be confronted and made to explain themselves. Without accountabilty they will continue to impede Liverpools resurgence.

Recently, here in Brampton, Ontario, we had a proposal for the city to assume the ownership, for $1.00, of a exhausted aggregate pit and turn it into a "Landfill Site" for household waste. Under the law here, a pit operator is obligated to return the site to as close to it's natural state as possible. This is usually done by turning the site into a public park. A very costly proposition when you consider that some of these pits go down a couple of hundred feet or more.

The group of local politicians backing this scheme where all in the orbit of the pit operator. Same golf club, same fraternity and service clubs etc. We (citizens) mounted publicity and harrasment campaign. We got standing at the council meeting, we posed questions, written and verbal. We bombarded the local press with letters and we conducted a major campaing of "Information" in the mayors Ward. She saw the light and threw her weight behind us.

We should arrange a meeting with the downtown lot(s) and see what we come up with. Could we all chip in and hire the tiled room at Duncs or the upper rooms at the Phil?

So is the planning report cited in this thread the final document by the planning dep? Have they actually decided against it yet? If not then they might (-I don't hold my breath) change their views a little with pressure from council chiefs.

Even if the planning dep oppose, the planning committee may well save it. We can't right it off until they have refused it. Their decisions tend to be more pro-development than the planning department's. I really don't see how Doreeeen(!) could oppose when she was instrumental in the development of the student blocks.

The planners don't want it, it is now up to the planning committee to decide in a week if it will go ahead.

For fucks sake, I despair I really do. Their reasons are nothing but garbage. Too tall? That's the whole fucking point of skyscrapers you dolts! :bash: :bash:

Oh yeah, and a hearty fuck off to David Henshaw. :mad:

We should arrange a meeting with the downtown lot(s) and see what we come up with. Could we all chip in and hire the tiled room at Duncs or the upper rooms at the Phil? The likes of the above should be forewarded to Storey, Henshaw, Anderson, the Jone's, Clucas's and every other councillor and to the chairman and as many staff as possible in the planning department. It shows intent of action and that their decisions are not going unoticed and that there is an attempt at organizing with future consequence to themselves. GO FOR IT! . The last thing politicians and bureaucrats want is an informed and engaged electorate/public, it freightens them to death. :)

Bunnyman please let me know in a private message if you are fundraising for such a meeting; I will put my customary coppers in the box or even break into my collection of 5 pence pieces. Hope I can attend a meet but I am not up there often, but I will try to if you arrange one. This is important, a meeting should be held, it's great you have suggested it. This one is one too many, as regards Liverpool spurning serious and valuable investment.

Reading the minutes (thanks for the link) it is puzzling and depressing. English Heritage say they prefer just one tall building of high quality in that area. Well that is not a sustainable position in my opinion, you either accept high rise or you do not. You do not specify the number of tall buildings, do you? It is fairly widely accepted in this country that clusters work better than isolated blocks, so where is English Heritage claiming this "single tower" thing works well? It was a disaster in London in the 1960s and 1970s, with isolated towers like the Euston Tower and CentrePoint and Hyde Park barracks puncturing the skyline without the grading and compositional benefits clusters bring.

Much is also made of CABE advice, but it's just their opinion. They are not building cities. They are not renewing cities. They are not responsible for creating the wealth and energy and new workplaces and homes that Liverpool centre needs. They do not care if all the investment and opportunities is sucked into other places.

The draft tall buildings policy is total crap, I've read it, it's rubbish. But....one thing posted here struck me, which is the lack of decent skyline profile from much of Liverpool (given that the taller buildings are effectively hidden by the hill, and are best seen from the Wirral). A development high on the hill could change all that.

How do cities like Birmingham and Manchester and Leeds do things? This system is just crazy. Can't the planners talk to developers and at least co-operate with them as potential partners in working up proposals, instead of this absurdly oppositional culture that seems to exist in Liverpool? The Liverpool approach is starting to raise the possibility of corruption - that is financial corruption - because there has to be some good reason why they are turning down perfectly good proposals and accepting others, some of which are not as good. I am not usually suspicious, but this latest episode is making me wonder. Are their snouts in the trough, and they oppose any development that won't line "their" pockets (not sure who "they" are, in case they want to sue).

Something in those minutes disturbed me more though, and it has nothing at all to do with financial corruption, it is worse - a form of political and moral corruption. Look at agenda item No 8, for a perfectly necessary, valuable and harmless mixed use development. The local councillors object on explicitly NIMBY reasons - they talk of a community overwhelmed by development, and they seem to oppose mixed communties (ie owner occupiers and middle classes) being allowed to live in their area, and the idea that there should be business enterprises and jobs. It is like something from the Militant 1980s. Who the fuck are these people? I thought people like that had died out years ago.

The two towers would look fantastic together. Maybe this marks the start of the Liverpool Style- sleak, lozenge-shaped, glass-clad towers. Skelhorne, West Tower and the Lime St Tower (in the Development Thread rendering) all have a similarity to one another.

I thought of a potential problem for Skelhorne. -Could the Adelphi and Holiday Inn hotels make objections to high class competition?
who cares, it could also be noted to adephi that theyre not actually taking care of one of the cities best buildings

A very good post Poli, and I completely agree. Plus the meeting would be a good move too...... This council are getting away with murder and nobody seems to be arsed.

their was a piece in tonights echo about some disused flats in kirkdale being an eyesore and this type of thing worries me .The main diffrence between manchester and liverpool is the rengenaration of manchester spreads miles out of the city unlike liverpool unfortunatly where you can drive through run down area after run down area.

Read the report, this city fucking amazes me! CABE, EH - thanks for sending this city to the shitter! :mad:

Just read it, and am gutted, it does`nt stand a dogs chance of getting approved after the mauling from EH and CABE. T he planning manager appears to be miffed with Chieftain , after saying an increase in height from the original 12 storeys he would have accepted up to 17, but an increase of 20 is taking the piss.

The Lime St Gateway Tower will be the only "new kid on the block", unless Chieftain come back with a 17 storey tower that contains just an hotel.

their was a piece in tonights echo about some disused flats in kirkdale being an eyesore and this type of thing worries me .The main diffrence between manchester and liverpool is the rengenaration of manchester spreads miles out of the city unlike liverpool unfortunatly where you can drive through run down area after run down area.

Sorry, I don't get it. In mileage terms, how many miles further does Manchester's regeneration go out compared to Liverpool's?

Sorry, I don't get it. In mileage terms, how many miles further does Manchester's regeneration go out compared to Liverpool's?
i couldnt tell you exact mileage but the diffrence is there to see in places like hulme which are miles ahead of liverpool in regenaration.Places like the boot estate storrington avenue in croxteth are in need of some serious money.

I think liverpool could learn a hell of alot from Hulme in Manchester. It has been Knocked down and re-built twice in the last 30-40 years. Its completely modern with people from all classes and backgrounds and it bridges the gap between the city and the suburbs, its development is also creeping into the moss side area (Manchester's toxteth) Its basically city living but not and its affordable, so all the pretentious people can live still within walking distance of the city but not pay the prices, Islington/everton road would be a great place to develop something similar, or even scotland rd, something has to bridge the huge gap between the city and the north, or even toxteth/dingle????? this would allow the spread of the Baltic triangle????

toxteth dingle would suit hulme type developments down to ground that was an area that really impressed me in manchester. It looks so smart clean and modern also when you have an area like this it extends the city centre in a way ideal for toxteth love to see that.

i couldnt tell you exact mileage but the diffrence is there to see in places like hulme which are miles ahead of liverpool in regenaration.Places like the boot estate storrington avenue in croxteth are in need of some serious money.

The Boot Estate is on the outskirts of Liverpool (almost, but not quite Crocky, which is nearer St Helens than Liverpool :) ) and is being currently regenerated.

The Boot Estate is on the outskirts of Liverpool (almost, but not quite Crocky, which is nearer St Helens than Liverpool :) ) and is being currently regenerated.
the boot estate is norris green and the entire estate is a shit hole and so is croxteth the roads round croxteth especially storrington avenue have never been touched since they were laid.

the boot estate is norris green and the entire estate is a shit hole and so is croxteth the roads round croxteth especially storrington avenue have never been touched since they were laid.

My Mum and Dad's house backs on to Stonebridge Lane. Lived there for 20 years. The area appears well cared for.

LFC star in £4m cafe bar venture Jul 26 2005

EXCLUSIVE by Andy Kelly, Daily Post

JAMIE CARRAGHER is investing in a new sports cafe venture for Liverpool which is being masterminded by one of the city's most successful business groups.

After conquering Europe on the football field, the 27-year-old defender, named Liverpool FC's player of the year, is hoping to do the same in the business arena.

And it is hoped the concept - known as Sport Cafe England - will be extended around the UK.

However, Carragher and his business partners are determined to start their enterprise in Liverpool first with an initial investment of around £4m.

The first venue being lined up by the Bootle-born international and his fellow investors is the city's famous ABC cinema site, on Lime Street.

They also hope to establish their new brand on key arterial routes into Liverpool, including Edge Lane, the East Lancs Road, Speke Boulevard and the Aintree corridor.

Carragher's partners in the project are the City Life Projects team which already owns Liverpool's exclusive Newz Bar, the Sir Thomas Hotel and the Park Hotel, in Aintree. The business plan involves joint ventures between the City Life team and leading sports personalities around the country.

Representatives from the Manchester United players' pool pension fund have already had talks with City Life about getting involved in a Cafe Sports England in Manchester.

Last night, Carragher said: "When I was approached I sat down and looked at the standard of business my partners were already involved with in Liverpool and that was good enough for me."

As well as the umbrella team of investors behind the Cafe Sports England idea, it is hoped each restaurant will be taken on by individual franchisees.

The cafes will be similar in concept to the likes of Hard Rock Cafe and Planet Hollywood, but much more individually tailored to their markets.

Andy Smart, general manager for City Life Projects, said: "If you look at some current sports cafes, they're full of baseball and ice hockey memorabilia.

"That's got nothing to do with Liverpool. We will concentrate on football, boxing, horse racing and golf, with memorabilia which people will relate to. That can change with each different city."

City Life are determined to have their first Liverpool sites up and running for Capital of Culture in 2008 but say they have been frustrated by the lack of progress in trying to secure the ABC site.

Owned by English Partnerships, it is due to be incorporated into the new Lime Street Gateway but no firm plans have yet been revealed for an end user.

City Life spokesman Daniel Hughes said: "ABC Lime Street is the ideal location for Sports Cafe England. It is an iconic building at a key gateway into the city centre.

"The building is in need of total refurbishment and we are prepared to do it. We have been trying to speak to Liverpool Vision and Liverpool City Council since January about this site, but at times it has felt like we are faced with a wall of silence."

Liverpool Vision's development director, Martin Wright, said that bids for the site had been put on hold while the Culture Company decided if it would use it in 2008.

An excellent prospect for the regeneration of a key landmark building in one of the city's most conspicuous sites that has been derelict for years with what sounds like a very viable plan from local entrepeneurs whose venture could grow into an nationally-successful business.

And what are they faced with, yet more obfusctication and unresponsiveness from the council and faceless quangocrats?

well it looks like cheiftans has gone down the bin shoot now as well! Could we not start a campaign to have the city council investigated???? Saying that though, all the silly little conservation groups are kicking off, i dont understand why one building of dominance is ok on Lime Street, and yet one built behind it, slightly away, will over dominate????? I think English heritage etc have a quota each meeting of how many buildings they have to disapprove and Liverpool is the easiest place to do that! I think St Georges Hall, Cathedrals and the Liver Buildings are becoming the biggerst hinderance to progress rather than Landmarks that attract high quality modern architecture to compliment them!

I've read the report in this mornings DP and I agree with Woody the Chieftain tower looks doomed, very depressing. Not only do CABE and EH put the knife in, City Planner (there's an irony!!) Nigel Lee, says "The proposed tower has no logical connection to the immediate buildings and appears to dominate the local townscape (it wouldn't dominate Lime St Tower??) it would also have a negative impact on the adjoining area and World Heritage Site"

In addition to all this shit, EH have also called into question a tall building zone around the Lime St area!! EH questions the suitabilty of a tall building cluster around Lime St!! Instead it wants to see a single landmark structure of high design rather than a group of high rise buildings.

So now EH look set to dictate council planning rules, if they get their way Liverpool will have only 2 tall building zones!! This just won't do!! Mike & Co have to tell these agencies to F*@k off right now!!! they are unelected officials supposedely heritage watchdogs and are now openly steering council policy.

This is getting out of hand, Liverpool now needs a firm hand at the wheel to steer it toward 2008 and beyond, the planning process seems to be at the mercy of too many public agencies.

Chieftain should take the strong hint in the Planning Report and propose a 17-storey hotel with residential element. That after all would be an imposing building on this site. Remember that one year ago all that was on the cards for this area was a reclad of Concourse House and some new steps. Improvements on this state of affairs still look very likely.

Planners can't easily ignore such strong criticism from statutory consultees like CABE and EH, especially for a site next to the WHS.

It does seem, from the not very coherent paragraph 1.8 of the Report, as though the Tall Buildings Policy will end up looking significantly different from the draft.

One good thing if this is rejected: the sound of helicopters landing next to Lime St Station will be avoided. A sixties throwback if ever there was one.

An excellent prospect for the regeneration of a key landmark building in one of the city's most conspicuous sites that has been derelict for years with what sounds like a very viable plan from local entrepeneurs whose venture could grow into an nationally-successful business.

And what are they faced with, yet more obfusctication and unresponsiveness from the council and faceless quangocrats?

There's something special about Carra. Fucking love the lad :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Fair enough about CABE and EH. What worries me is the complaint that the council have been difficult to deal with until this point.

Why couldn't Chieftain, an outside investor wanting to put millions into the city, have sat down with the council and advised in a friendly way they are welcome in the city, but that it was likely that only a building of x-storeys would be likely to be successful on that site? That way, Chieftain could have tailored their plans in order that they would be be successful.

Again and again, we are hearing that the council is refusing to meet with developers earlier in the process and are stonewalling when developers have plans that might not be accepted.

There may be valid reasons whey this tower has be rejected (can't see them myself but CABE and EH think so, it's not just the Liverpool planners) but why can't the council make it easier for developers. Chieftain are now added to the long list of developers who have tried to build in Liverpool and who are now slagging the council off.

Fair enough about CABE and EH. What worries me is the complaint that the council have been difficult to deal with until this point.

Why couldn't Chieftain, an outside investor wanting to put millions into the city, have sat down with the council and advised in a friendly way they are welcome in the city, but that it was likely that only a building of x-storeys would be likely to be successful on that site. That way, Chieftain could have tailored their plans in order that they be successful.

Again and again, we are hearing that the council is refusing to meet with developers and are stonewalling when developers have plans that might not be accepted.

There may be valid reasons whey this tower has be rejected (can't see them myself but CABE and EH think so, it's not just the Liverpool planners) but why can't the council make it easier for developers. Chieftain are now added to the long list of developers who have tried to build in Liverpool and who are now slagging the council off.

The Council appear to have a hidden agenda. But what is it? :bash:

But do the other UK cities face this much hassle from the likes of CABE and EH? It seems to be if a tower has shape they don't like it, but boxes are ok.

Fair enough about CABE and EH. What worries me is the complaint that the council have been difficult to deal with until this point.

Why couldn't Chieftain, an outside investor wanting to put millions into the city, have sat down with the council and advised in a friendly way they are welcome in the city, but that it was likely that only a building of x-storeys would be likely to be successful on that site? That way, Chieftain could have tailored their plans in order that they would be be successful.

Again and again, we are hearing that the council is refusing to meet with developers earlier in the process and are stonewalling when developers have plans that might not be accepted.

There may be valid reasons whey this tower has be rejected (can't see them myself but CABE and EH think so, it's not just the Liverpool planners) but why can't the council make it easier for developers. Chieftain are now added to the long list of developers who have tried to build in Liverpool and who are now slagging the council off.


Awayo -

You've said in several posts that developers' complaints need to be taken with a pinch of salt and I agree with you. While Storey and Henshaw certainly have a corner to protect, so do developers. Even if Liverpool is harder to deal with than other councils (and we only have their word for it), this still isn't necessarily a bad thing. Other councils may be permitting poor developments. Moreover, some architects have had positive things to say (e.g. Wilkinson Eyre).

In this particular case we do not know that planners did not sit down in friendly fashion and advise Chieftain what would be acceptable. I would say from the Report it was likely they did. In any case the earlier permission gives a clear idea. It is Chieftain who seem to have been unresponsive, judging from what CABE and EH say about their response to the first set of comments. Putting on an exhibition the week before the Committee meets is also obviously calculated to generate political pressure, and doesn't suggest a very conciliatory posture.

I'm a bit disappointed about this decision as I liked what I saw of the proposal, but I don't think it's grounds for despair.

An excellent prospect for the regeneration of a key landmark building in one of the city's most conspicuous sites that has been derelict for years with what sounds like a very viable plan from local entrepeneurs whose venture could grow into an nationally-successful business.

And what are they faced with, yet more obfusctication and unresponsiveness from the council and faceless quangocrats?

Time to bring the ABC Cinema building back to use. This sounds like a good use for it. Unless the council have other plans...

What is the point in having democratic local government when some un-elected Quango, full of Princes Charles-style stuffed shirts have so much influence over what can and cannot be built???

English Heritage- even the name is stuffy and meaningless. It looks like from now on there will never be a local vernacular. The idea of identifiable cities will decrease. Why? Beause the state has it's silly quangos imposing mediocrity over the whole country. I wish these people would fuck off and mind their own business. Do any of them even live in Liverpool? Why is the council so utterly feeble?

I fucking hate them all so much. In fact I'm going to e-mail that Storey arse hole right now. Oh yeah, at future elections, forummers may wish to consider voting for pro-business candidates!

So are we going to take any action or what?

I'll be up for it. Maybe a meet up is due to discuss a possible plan of action.

What is the point in having democratic local government when some un-elected Quango, full of Princes Charles-style stuffed shirts have so much influence over what can and cannot be built???Exactly! But of course politicians will take the road of least resistance and as Liverpool seem to have more than it's fair share of the spineless variety of the animal then it is expected they will offer no fight and blame the quangos. However, and, whenever the self interest of the political animal is under threat it will fight like a mother wolverine protecting it's young. Put some high profile councillors under threat of a credible challenge for their seat and watch how fast they will change, even the most sacred of their positions.

Awayo -

You've said in several posts that developers' complaints need to be taken with a pinch of salt and I agree with you. While Storey and Henshaw certainly have a corner to protect, so do developers. Even if Liverpool is harder to deal with than other councils (and we only have their word for it), this still isn't necessarily a bad thing. Other councils may be permitting poor developments. Moreover, some architects have had positive things to say (e.g. Wilkinson Eyre).

In this particular case we do not know that planners did not sit down in friendly fashion and advise Chieftain what would be acceptable. I would say from the Report it was likely they did. In any case the earlier permission gives a clear idea. It is Chieftain who seem to have been unresponsive, judging from what CABE and EH say about their response to the first set of comments. Putting on an exhibition the week before the Committee meets is also obviously calculated to generate political pressure, and doesn't suggest a very conciliatory posture.

I'm a bit disappointed about this decision as I liked what I saw of the proposal, but I don't think it's grounds for despair.


Along the lines of the atrocious student blocks behind the adelphi maybe?

So are we going to take any action or what?

I'll be up for it. Maybe a meet up is due to discuss a possible plan of action.

If the meeting is on a weekend I'll be there. I wrote Storey a rather biting e-mail so I'll probably end up being barred like Sloyne. The arrogance of the city's leadership really is getting to me- the likes of Mike Storey want to retire in a few years time and say "look, the Kings Dock Arena was built by me"- it is all about selfish snakes leaving a legacy- regardless of the wider socio-economic implications.

It would be very interesting to see a league table showing the value of regeneration plans turned down by various towns and cities in the U.K.

Anyone capable of compiling such a list?

Along the lines of the atrocious student blocks behind the adelphi maybe?

Planners recommended rejection of these.

Quite so, Lathom, the reason the ctte went against the planners' recommendation being that they didn't want to give the wrong message out to investors. :¦

KF, that could be an interesting list if it is possible to compile one from meaningful and truthful sources.

Closer to home a list of private business's who are having difficulties with the council may also be useful.

Grosvenor-Rod Holmes, Project Director

Albany Assets-Steve Moule, Director

Maro Developments-

Chieftain Group-

MDHC-Peter Jones, CEO

City Life-David Hughes

Windsor Developments-

While reading this list consider what those people have said, after all most of them are putting their money where their mouth is!!

The Businessweek supplement in tomorrows DP is to carry an article from Sir Joe Dwyer, Liverpool Vision Chairman re-his battle with the public sector and his fears for the future, I wonder if some "big name" resignations are on the way??


As far as taking action is concerned I'm not sure that a group of individuals like us would have any clout, I for one do not actually live within the Liverpool boundary so cannot even threaten to vote against "no stories Mike" in the next election. Organisations like Liverpool Chamber of Commerce (ok they have been a toothless bunch of yes men, but they now have an new boss) Downtown Liverpool (Tony Sebo) or even Downtown Liverpool in Business Frank McKenna would need to join forces and mobilise business opinion in order to make any headway against this council.

Quite so, Lathom, the reason the ctte went against the planners' recommendation being that they didn't want to give the wrong message out to investors. :¦

If the message was: build breezeblock crap in our city centre, then they did an excellent job. To my mind this is an example of what happens when the Council are afraid to apply quality standards for fear of scaring away development.

As far as taking action is concerned I'm not sure that a group of individuals like us would have any clout, I for one do not actually live within the Liverpool boundary so cannot even threaten to vote against "no stories Mike" in the next election.But do you live within a reasonable drive of liverpool? If so you can offer your services in canvassing and campaigning against Storey in his ward. Politicians depend on the "helpless" factor from individuals to keep people from acting. Target him and if you can't offer physicle assistance then help with a donation to the most credible candidate you think can defeat him. Regardless of political leanings, the man has become a liability to Liverpool and must, for the good of the city, be removed.

Chieftain should take the strong hint in the Planning Report and propose a 17-storey hotel with residential element. That after all would be an imposing building on this site. Remember that one year ago all that was on the cards for this area was a reclad of Concourse House and some new steps. Improvements on this state of affairs still look very likely.

.

That was the feeling I got when I read the report, The planning manager thinks that Chieftain have tried to cram to much onto what is a small footprint. If you read between the lines he thinks a 17 storey tower would be right for this site and it would be approved. This would also meet with EH desire to have only the Lime St Gateway tower with a smaller tower tucked behind it. The Heli pad is a joke, the CAA and the city would never allow it ,with a 27 storey tower so close.

Planners recommended rejection of these.


It seems to be a definite height problem then.
We will overturn any decisiion from the planning manager as long as it does not poke its head up above the skyline.
But then again they are recommending the 27 storey Lime st tower which does not seem as good as the Skelhorne st one.

Very perplexing this,maybe i should have posted it under that other thread about the planners and drugs.

That was the feeling I got when I read the report, The planning manager thinks that Chieftain have tried to cram to much onto what is a small footprint. If you read between the lines he thinks a 17 storey tower would be right for this site and it would be approved. This would also meet with EH desire to have only the Lime St Gateway tower with a smaller tower tucked behind it. The Heli pad is a joke, the CAA and the city would never allow it ,with a 27 storey tower so close.

One of the objections raised was that a 32 storey tower would cause 'overlooking' problems.
A 17 storey tower would not make that problem dissapear so why would that be acceptable?

So it seems an old building an a skyscraper cannot be seen in the same view. WHS won't affect development, yeh right...

As far as taking action is concerned I'm not sure that a group of individuals like us would have any clout, I for one do not actually live within the Liverpool boundary so cannot even threaten to vote against "no stories Mike" in the next election. Organisations like Liverpool Chamber of Commerce (ok they have been a toothless bunch of yes men, but they now have an new boss) Downtown Liverpool (Tony Sebo) or even Downtown Liverpool in Business Frank McKenna would need to join forces and mobilise business opinion in order to make any headway against this council.

The people with the real power to anything here are the editors of the local press.
If they really mounted a campaign against these strange planning decisions then maybe something would happen.
As already mentioned by someone on this forum the Echo seems to take on easy battles and then gloat about it afterwards.

How about taking on the council planning department and really bring home to the voters just how much investment is being lost.

I think that the Echo should be careful in future about what they publish. They should question the developers, council or other development agencies on the credibility of their project proposals. They should not publish these computerised artists impressions unless there is a realistic chance of success. They should have known better than to publish proposals like Titanic 2 or the otterspool sky scraper. When they eventually fall through it adds to people's frustration and we here cries of 'We are not a 'can do' city' and accuse Mike Storey of war crimes etc. I think they should be more selective in their publications because project failures can fan the flames of negativity. Then again, perhaps that is their cunning plan ? To get people like us to wage war against the councilors and development agencies! Who knows. If you look at Matrix's thread for projects that have failed I have put a link on it to an old echo article outlining all the failed projects in the city. Look at them carefully and you will be able to see what ones are twaddle and what ones are genuine failings of the council. Some were just sly market testers and the one about Coca Cola putting their world headquarters in Liverpool was reported to the echo in crayon from 'Mad' Mick O'Flannagan the crazy drunk who bevvies in Coopers by Clayton square.

Has everyone seen this;
Skyscraper plan looks doomed Jul 26 2005




By Larry Neild, Daily Post


ONE of the country's main conservation agencies has challenged plans for a cluster of tall buildings close to Lime Street Station in the heart of Liverpool.

Government agency English Heritage has for the first time confirmed that it questions the suitability of a tall-building cluster in Lime Street, even though it has been earmarked as such in a council strategy.

Instead, it wants to see a single landmark structure of high design rather than a group of high buildings to replace Concourse House which is to be demolished.

The move last night seemed certain to doom plans by Irish developers Chieftain to build a 32-storey hotel and apartment block in Skelhorne Street which was planned to have a Manhattan-style viewing platform and Liverpool's first rooftop helipad.

City planning manager Nigel Lee is calling on the council's planning committee next Tuesday to refuse to hand consent to Chieftain to go ahead with its £50m tower.

Meanwhile, Chieftain is opening a public exhibition tomorrow in the Empire Theatre to show off its plans.

However, if English Heritage's call is taken on board it will prevent other companies from developing high-rise buildings in and around Lime Street.

The agency is concerned that Chieftain's building will have a serious impact on historic buildings in the Lime Street gateway area.

Another leading agency CABE - Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment - is more scathing of Chieftain's plans. It says the form of the proposed tower is inelegant and over-complicated.

CABE says it is concerned that for visitors arriving by train the proposed tower will be their first impression of Liverpool, and it does not consider it meets the required standards.

In 2002, the planning committee gave the go-ahead for a 12-storey hotel on the same site to match the new student accommodation close-by.

Mr Lee says a modest increase in height could be supported, but not as high as 32-storeys.

"The proposed tower has no clear logical connection to the immediate buildings and appears to dominate the local townscape," says Mr Lee in a report to the committee.

He says whilst a hotel on the site would be a welcome contribution to the area, a 32 storey tower would be overly dominant.

It would also have a negative impact on the adjoining area and World Heritage Site.

Mr Lee agrees with CABE's comments and adds that the design of the tower would be a discordant rather than a complementary feature in the area.

The draft tall buildings strategy is currently undergoing consultations, with three areas specially earmarked for taller buildings, Lime Street, Old Hall Street and Parliament Street/Sefton Street.


This makes me sick, what a bunch of cunts, build the bitch, dont punish the city

CABE says it is concerned that for visitors arriving by train the proposed tower will be their first impression of Liverpool, and it does not consider it meets the required standards.

Absolutely! Who on earth would want new arrivals to be impressed by the high-class design and architecture in this city when they can have the soviet student blocks, Las frigging Vegas and an open plan car park?? We'd never get another dose of Objective One funding if we appeared to be a city that was making progress!

Cunts the lot of 'em! :rant:

This makes no sense at all. I would have preferred the Concourse House replacement to be fairly low (no more than 8 stories), but higher buildings up the hill are far less of a problem. Towers on hills can look quite superb, and the proposed tower would really help establish a new and exciting identity for the neverworld that is behind Lime St station. So how on earth could CABE endorse a high building immediately in the face of St Georges Hall and oppose one significantly further away? It is illogical.

An interesting piece in the London Evening Standard this evening that points to similar problems in London - saying it's just a lottery with developers forever having to try it on, and depending upon good luck and lots of expensive legal muscle to get their way.

What time do you want to go the exhibition tomorrow, Mark?

One-ish sound alright? Got to pick my car up from the garage in the morning. :)

OK, see you then.

guys, PLEASE get some pics.

We'll try our best. :)

On one condition Gothic: You post a pic of those massive chunky trainers again! :)

As far as taking action is concerned I'm not sure that a group of individuals like us would have any clout, I for one do not actually live within the Liverpool boundary so cannot even threaten to vote against "no stories Mike" in the next election. Organisations like Liverpool Chamber of Commerce (ok they have been a toothless bunch of yes men, but they now have an new boss) Downtown Liverpool (Tony Sebo) or even Downtown Liverpool in Business Frank McKenna would need to join forces and mobilise business opinion in order to make any headway against this council.

I'm sure there's something we can do. I'm not just talking about us but if we did a bit of networking, ie got Tony Sebo on board and and any pro-development councillors (are there any? :dunno:), there may be something positive we can do if we put our heads together.

I'd speak to Sebo, but my DL account hasn't worked since the hack and I really can't be arsed sorting it out as I can't stand the board system they use. If anyone has any ideas, let us know.

http://www.downtownliverpool.org

Check out the page for today on downtown. There is a splendid photo of the world herritage site - The Las Vegas arcade. I think this is important to show visitors to the city we think strongly about fruit machines.

There is another article on that web site to suggest that Edinburgh has similar problems with tall buildings. A bit more understandable in the scottish capital but not so much here. Half of our great buildings were cleared thanks to the Luftwaffe.

http://www.downtownliverpool.org

Check out the page for today on downtown. There is a splendid photo of the world herritage site - The Las Vegas arcade. I think this is important to show visitors to the city we think strongly about fruit machines.

There is another article on that web site to suggest that Edinburgh has similar problems with tall buildings. A bit more understandable in the scottish capital but not so much here. Half of our great buildings were cleared thanks to the Luftwaffe.

I think a brand new modern building will destroy the heritage of a 70s arcade where a Tommy Cooper lookalike security guard worked. I bet that impresses people no end when they come out of Lime Street.

Liverpool isn't Edinburgh, York or Oxford, its a "modern" city that needs regeneration. As soon as the fools at English heritage etc realise this then the better, they need to be exterminated & John Matrix is the man to do it!

A couple of quotes from the Scotsman article, it is an interesting read, because these cities, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Bath etc have bought into the WHS status, while I'm not really sure where any benefits, other title, will come from in a material and quantifiable way??, can anyone explain


"In Vienna and Cologne they had to look again at their policies on height after Unesco told them they were facing 'at risk' status. They had to decide, do they want iconic skyscrapers or do they want to be a World Heritage Site?"


"There is a contradiction between council and developers' aspirations to create a modern city and the trust's desire to protect architecture which draws visitors from across the world. They may face an uphill struggle."

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1685852005

Why is one tall building acceptable when another will apparently destroy the setting of the WHS. The whole thing is down to the council not wanting any competition to the Gateway tower, that point needs to be highlighted.

An Image of both towers together. AJ+.

http://www.ajplus.co.uk/Images/Articles/270705_fchester2.jpg

Published 27 July 2005 at 12:00
Liverpool skyscraper scheme faces the chop - image


A key Liverpool skyscraper scheme by Falconer Chester looks set to be refused planning permission next week, sounding the death knell for more tall buildings around the city’s Lime Street Station.

English Heritage (EH), CABE and the application’s Liverpool Council case officer are all recommending refusal for the local practice’s 32-storey hotel and residential development.

EH has already questioned Liverpool City Council’s plans for a cluster of tall buildings on Lime Street. Instead, the heritage body wants a single, landmark structure of high design quality on the site.

In a report released ahead of the planning committee meeting on 2 August, EH also criticised the application’s lack of contextual analysis of the site, which is bounded by Skelhorne Street and Bolton Street.

Meanwhile, CABE has questioned Falconer Chester’s site planning and the relationship of the scheme with an adjacent 12-storey block, branding designs for the tower ‘inelegant and over-complicated.’

Why is one tall building acceptable when another will apparently destroy the setting of the WHS. The whole thing is down to the council not wanting any competition to the Gateway tower, that point needs to be highlighted.

LCC are obsessed with the public gravy train. Politicians want to be associated with successful public projects. So I think selfish political aspiration is as much to do with it as anything else.

Attaining WHS was a terrible mistake. Making Liverpool a tourist destination is nowhere near what is required to make the place wealthy again. I hate EH; but the council are so feeble- going for corny titles instead of proper development.- Encouraging investment and development would not only create more wealth and employment- but would probably do far more for tourism than a title like WHS ever could.

The thing is CABE, English herritage etc make all the recomendations as supposedly credible experts and the councilors go with the proposals because as ever they have someone else to blame if there is a backlash against their decision to reject. CABE suggested that the tower was ineligant and not fitting to the area etc. That's their personal opinion rather than an objective proposal. Surely the jobs the tower would generate would be worthwhile. WH titles are no help to people who are unemployed or stuck in low quality jobs because there is little opportunity other than to sell flap jacks in WH museum coffee shops. Surely walking out of Lime Street and seeing this huge sky scraper would be impressive, people would think 'This is a promising addition to the city - very forward looking' . I don't need to mention Las Vegas again.

Well said Zod. These people aren't experts at all. Most of them will be fat, stuff-bags whose highly subjective opinions some how managed to get passed of as expert advice. What I want to know is why the council take the word of these idiots before they even consider asking the city's people- the people who go to town, work there, look at it regularly, etc. Why should the opinion of a NIMBYite, living in some Poundbury-style, rural location, who probably never even cares to visit the city and spend money there be put before the citizens???

Went to the exhibition with my friend. It was quite a small affair but very impressive nonetheless. The small scale model shows both new towers together and they look great. The large renderings show the tower to be of high quality and completely compatible with its surroundings.

This really will be criminal if it gets rejected on such pathetic grounds next Wednesday.

I suggest we gang together and bombard them if they reject it. All write a stern letter of disapproval. Power in numbers and all that. Otherwise it will look like a few disgruntled cranks.

Agreed - we should setup a petition too :D

Petitions are a bit on the biffy side. Still worth a go I suppose. Long convoluted letters highlighting the failed projects and asking for explanations why.

right im totally confused now. what the hell are those two buildings. i recognise the shorter one in that rendering only. can sum PLEASE sum these up... linking to a page that has a tower on it means nothing if i cant put it in context.

Fat one behind is Cheiftain's Grand Central Lime Street tower to be built by Falconer Chester (or desinged by or something)

Slim shorter one is the publicly funded Lime Street Gateway Tower on the site of where Concourse House currently stands, which is probably going to get the thumbs up.

Zod: Petition may be a bit iffy but snotty letters are just as useless when dealing with our council IMO. I never get a reply or even acknowledgement of my email if I write to a councillor.

Went to the exhibition with Marl 'Bunnyman' Creevy, today. Very interesting. I'm going again tomorrow as the BBC & Daily Post should be there an hopefully Tony Sebo.

Anyway, here's what I've captured for you lot. :)

New rendering of the tower.

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/3011/pict1098edit7bs.jpg

View from the ground. This is the terrible impression the tower would give according to CABE, or was it EH?

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/340/pict1100edit0th.jpg

so lime street gateway is on the left and grand central on the right?
im cofnused because lime street gateway is supposed to be 85.3 and grand central is 114.9 but the shorter one looks taller!

No! Gateway shorter and on right!:D

Great pics Gareth:D

A few shots of the display model.

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/1915/pict10965ct.jpg

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/1663/pict10972vl.jpg

A plan view.
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/7216/pict11019dk.jpg

so lime street gateway is on the left and grand central on the right?
im cofnused because lime street gateway is supposed to be 85.3 and grand central is 114.9 but the shorter one looks taller!
the tower on the left is the same size as the radio city tower.

Observe that gateway has been included in the model.

On the rendering posted by Super J, Gateway is on the right. The Chieftain tower is set further back away from Lime Street, up Skelhorne Street. That is the taller of the two. Gareth took a picture of the sites, if he would be so kind as to post it. :)

Also, the bloke from Chiefton we were speaking to said he could only say 'no comment' about the King Edward pub site but said that his vow of silence on the issue should come to an end in a couple of weeks or so. Keep 'em peeled for that one folks. ;)

nice pics gareth the gateway tower looks like a little boy stood with his father.

Phwoo, it's a biggun.

LCC are obviously worried that their landmark tower is being overshadowed by a larger one behind it.

Phwoo, it's a biggun.

LCC are obviously worried that their landmark tower is being overshadowed by a larger one behind it.
what would be the loss to lcc if their tower was overshadowed which it cleary is gonna be?

Thanks for the efforts to take these photos.

One observation - the base looks CRAP ! Almost as bad as Concourse House. I am sick of penny pinching on landscaping for major projects. Hardscaping (tarmac) is just not good enough! Seating etc with proper parkland /plaza envorinments (not just an odd tree) and fountains /water features are needed IMHO.

They shouldn't feel threatened. The larger tower compliments the gateway. I can see what you are saying though Awayo. Deffo a Phalic thing. They want the biggest willy in Liverpool and they will have no Irish men coming into town with a bigger one.

The site is currently a car park. The fact that it's a scruffy cap park doesn't matter as local experts don't reckon it gives people a bad first impression of Liverpool when walking out of Lime Street, unlike the proposed tower which so obviously would. :no: Note the commie student blocks flanking the plot.


The view from the side entrance to Lime Street station.
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/6304/pict1107edit5bz.jpg

Looking towards the station. (Away from Concourse/Gateway)
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/9245/pict1111edit7fk.jpg

Surely the tower would be for the greater good. Smashing photos Gareth. Let's hope that area looks interesting in a few years time.

If they don't approve it on Tuesday I think they have to do a site visit, when they compare what we could have to what we've got I wonder what they'll think?

Also, the bloke from Chiefton we were speaking to said he could only say 'no comment' about the King Edward pub site but said that his vow of silence on the issue should come to an end in a couple of weeks or so. Keep 'em peeled for that one folks. ;)

So Chieftain may be the developer of the King Eddie site.

How about, they know that the Skelhorne Street tower will fail, but they're goint to release plans for King Eddie shortly afterwards in the knowledge that the council would not want to reject two schemes by the same foreign investor shortly after each other?

If they don't approve it on Tuesday I think they have to do a site visit, when they compare what we could have to what we've got I wonder what they'll think?

They'll think 'Bungalows!', that's what they'll think. :(

So Chieftain may be the developer of the King Eddie site.

How about, they know that the Skelhorne Street tower will fail, but they're goint to release plans for King Eddie shortly afterwards in the knowledge that the council would not want to reject two schemes by the same foreign investor shortly after each other?


It would seem so, however we can only speculate at this point. I think they may have fairly advanced plans for King Eddie which have been drawn up before the shit hit the fan over Skelhorne Street. Also, they were very vocal in insisting that they are not going to give up of Skelhorne Street without a fight.

I should have talked to the guys there actually, it sounds like you had a really interesting discussion with them Gareth.

Great news that they're going full force for Grand Central, and even better that they could be looking at King Eddies. They must have a better chance there with a well established mini-cluster.

I should have talked to the guys there actually, it sounds like you had a really interesting discussion with them Gareth.

Great news that they're going full force for Grand Central, and even better that they could be looking at King Eddies. They must have a better chance there with a well established mini-cluster.

It was very interesting indeed, Yapachoo. Why not return tomorrow at 11am? The BBC will be there, as well as the Daily Post & Echo. They asked me and Bunnyman to come back so were going to give them some support in whatever capacity we can tomorrow.

Sounds like a plan Gareth, I'll get over there for a bit if I can.

Have you got any idea about what other people thought of the plans?

Quality coverage Gareth!

And a quality project that should be allowed unless there is a very good reason to reject it (haven´t heard any yet)

'Computer says no'. That's all the reasoning the shitty council seem to need. :)

The Chieftain guy sounded very bullish about this!!! I think Gareth, Badge and myself think they are going to fight this one.

So LCC Mike & mates could be faced with appeals on this, BQT & Maro and if today's DP is correct and Central Station is rejected, Ballymore. I think that represents some serious heavy hitters, will LCC take them all on?? have LCC got a legal fighting fund big enough?? after all it will be council tax payers money they would be spending.


http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/9316/dsc008586oo.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5944/dsc008598fa.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/2782/dsc008622iz.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Bloody hell! That looks good. I think really big tall buildings can work in a way that pissy little stumpy things don't. EH actually make things worse by sawing off the tops of towers: tall buildings blend effortlessly when they are allowed to be tall.

Gareth - great pictures but honestly those student flats are simply uneblievable. I saw them for the first time last month, and was gobsmacked. Talk about CHEAP. They have to be clad, or at least rendered or something, they belong in Eastern Europe in the 1960s. I just cannot understand how they are allowed and a lovely tower is not, but I think that everyone has already said that!

How much do you think high profile public support can help affect the planning committees decision?

Gareth, if you go again tomorrow and you talk to the same guy who told you about King Eddie's, ask him how it compares to West Tower or Brunswick Quay, it's worth a try! :)

This comment is copied from the agenda notes for 2nd Aug planning meeting. It refers to the planning application for a development (Urban Splash) at the rear of the Blackie on Great George St. (item 5) this project has a recommendation of approval.


POTENTIAL FOR THE AWARD OF COSTS AT A PUBLIC
INQUIRY
If the Planning Committee resolve to refuse planning permission
and an appeal was lodged by way of a public inquiry, there could
be resource implications as there is no identified budget provision
to fund the Council’s case. If the Council were unable to put
forward substantial evidence at a public inquiry, the Council could
be faced with a claim for costs on the grounds of unreasonable
behaviour. Members should be aware that the applicants
reference to the joint English Heritage publication would be a factor
in such considerations.
The Committee has no access to a budget of any significant scale for contesting an appeal and paying the resultant costs.

I don't know how funding for an appeal works but it is quite clear in this case there is no money to fight an appeal should the committee reject.

Maro already have an appeal lodged against LCC for the first refusal of BQT, I think the council would be on thin ice trying to justify to the electorate spending possibly several million pounds?? in fighting planning appeals for BQT, Chieftain & Ballymore.

This comment is copied from the agenda notes for 2nd Aug planning meeting. It refers to the planning application for a development (Urban Splash) at the rear of the Blackie on Great George St. (item 5) this project has a recommendation of approval.


POTENTIAL FOR THE AWARD OF COSTS AT A PUBLIC
INQUIRY
If the Planning Committee resolve to refuse planning permission
and an appeal was lodged by way of a public inquiry, there could
be resource implications as there is no identified budget provision
to fund the Council’s case. If the Council were unable to put
forward substantial evidence at a public inquiry, the Council could
be faced with a claim for costs on the grounds of unreasonable
behaviour. Members should be aware that the applicants
reference to the joint English Heritage publication would be a factor
in such considerations.
The Committee has no access to a budget of any significant scale for contesting an appeal and paying the resultant costs.

I don't know how funding for an appeal works but it is quite clear in this case there is no money to fight an appeal should the committee reject.

Maro already have an appeal lodged against LCC for the first refusal of BQT, I think the council would be on thin ice trying to justify to the electorate spending possibly several million pounds?? in fighting planning appeals for BQT, Chieftain & Ballymore.



What's this development then? Flats?

To consider a recommendation that Application No 05F/0625 to erect fourteen apartments on 4 floors with retail units on ground floor, on land at corner of Great George Street, Hardy Street & Sankey Street, Liverpool 1.

Ta Doug.

Encouraging news and an interesting development. Maybe they're saving the big bucks for their least favourite developments! Sounds silly but I wouldn't put anything past LCC at the moment.

i have worked out the source of my confusion. chris uploaded a picture of one tower to my site and had it labelled as the other!

Sack him! Useless Manc... ;)

what would be the loss to lcc if their tower was overshadowed which it cleary is gonna be?

There is no reasonable objection. Looking at the proposed plans, they look very impressive, this would impress anyone coming into the city, rather than a few Moscow style flats & a Spar.

Sack him! Useless Manc... ;)

And where were you today? :?

You not get my text this morning? :? My ankle is the size of a beach ball after footy last night. Cannae walk properly. Must've sent it at around eight o'clock.

I'v got the message but didn't see it this morning. The phone should display a 'new message' message, but it didn't for some reason, therefore, my attention was not drawn to it.

Sorry mate. :( Come to mention it, I can't find my phone now either. Hope the missus hasn't taken it to work with her. How did it go anyway? Was Gordon Burns there? :?