This thread is about English Heritage's role in Liverpool.Firstly some background:In the last 30 years Liverpool has lost more "listed" buildings than other other city in the UK. English Heritage's neglect of Liverpool was exposed some years ago by the Georgian Society, which published a pamphlet called "The agony of Georgian Liverpool" which highlighted the continued needless destruction of the city's Georgian heritage and more recently the Echo's stop the rot campaign and the loss of the grade 11* listed Carsatelli building on Duke st. Since then English Heritage , aware of their obvious neglect of the city have sought a more active role in Liverpool, but the neglect continues.Buildings that should've been listed years ago lie abandoned,the latest list of "listed" buildings includes at least 75 that were bulldozed years ago and literally hundreds of "listed" buildings are under threat{more than anywhere else in the country. So it's with this background that English Heritage seeking to deflect any criticism of their duties in Liverpool, are objecting to tall buildings ,it's a ploy to appear that they are "hands on" and are protecting the city's historic environment. I phoned English Heritage's regional office in Mancheser this Morning and spoke the officer that covers Liverpool about my concerns,re: tall building objections,buidings that are not listed,neglect of buildings. You can take it from me,he got very nervous.The only way to stop English Heritage holding this city back from developing in to a modern,forward city,is by kicking up a fuss. Contact the Echo and other the local media about English Heritage' s role in the city.

Just to let anyone who is new here, English Heritage are Bastards!

This thread is about English Heritage's role in Liverpool.Firstly some background:In the last 30 years Liverpool has lost more "listed" buildings than other other city in the UK. English Heritage's neglect of Liverpool was exposed some years ago by the Georgian Society, which published a pamphlet called "The agony of Georgian Liverpool" which highlighted the continued needless destruction of the city's Georgian heritage and more recently the Echo's stop the rot campaign and the loss of the grade 11* listed Carsatelli building on Duke st. Since then English Heritage , aware of their obvious neglect of the city have sought a more active role in Liverpool, but the neglect continues.Buildings that should've been listed years ago lie abandoned,the latest list of "listed" buildings includes at least 75 that were bulldozed years ago and literally hundreds of "listed" buildings are under threat{more than anywhere else in the country. So it's with this background that English Heritage seeking to deflect any criticism of their duties in Liverpool, are objecting to tall buildings ,it's a ploy to appear that they are "hands on" and are protecting the city's historic environment. I phoned English Heritage's regional office in Mancheser this Morning and spoke the officer that covers Liverpool about my concerns,re: tall building objections,buidings that are not listed,neglect of buildings. You can take it from me,he got very nervous.The only way to stop English Heritage holding this city back from developing in to a modern,forward city,is by kicking up a fuss. Contact the Echo and other the local media about English Heritage' s role in the city.

Golden V a highly more productive way to go about things than that showed by our friend wesitie ^^^^^^

I am all for kickin up a fuss... but why don't our civic leaders just turn round and say ... NO this is a quality scheme we have taken on board your suggestions but are to plough on regardless... the city needs more of these schemes not the decrepid monuments to the past that as you quite rightly point out EH have done a fantastic job of ignoring!

Golden V a highly more productive way to go about things than that showed by our friend wesitie ^^^^^^

I am all for kickin up a fuss... but why don't our civic leaders just turn round and say ... NO this is a quality scheme we have taken on board your suggestions but are to plough on regardless... the city needs more of these schemes not the decrepid monuments to the past that as you quite rightly point out EH have done a fantastic job of ignoring!
Bustcap, you have a lot more confidence in the planning department than i have. The planning manager is Nigel Lees, naturally conservative,to think he and other planning officials won't be influenced by EH is naive. Eh heritage's unwarranted interfernce in new developments has to be challenged publically.

the point is i have no faith in our planning department my post previously was the ideal scenario!

Golden V a highly more productive way to go about things than that showed by our friend wesitie ^^^^^^

I am all for kickin up a fuss... but why don't our civic leaders just turn round and say ... NO this is a quality scheme we have taken on board your suggestions but are to plough on regardless... the city needs more of these schemes not the decrepid monuments to the past that as you quite rightly point out EH have done a fantastic job of ignoring!


Because they are not leaders,they are led by E.H.
They are truly spineless cowards. :cheers:

I have e-mailed Doreen, Warren and Peter. I'll report back if any of them reply. English Heritage said i should get a reply within 5 days. I'll let ya know!

I'm interested in reading Warren Bradleys reply to comapre it with the only one I got off Storey! :)

Perhaps it's time to launch Liverpool Heritage as a counterweight to EH, with the aim of saving and restoring historical buildings in danger or just plain run down and encouraging new buildings that over time will become part of Liverpool's heritage?

I believe that Liverpool City Council should refuse to acknowledge English Heritages objection which is competely ridiculous. They have already interferred with the Maro and Chieftain Construction projects but there certainly not going to sink this one! Some serious questions need to answered by this council over it's decisions. Warren Bradey being the new leader should act to prevent this fantanstic development from being lost altogether. Perpark/Ballymore have been in consultation with the council for over two years. Why didn't EH object then? EH are undermining the confidence private developers have in this city. I think it's time for change.
Lets drop EH and the CABE!!

I'd like EH to come clean and state their agenda.

Fitzroy's idea is spot on.
It is part of Liverpool's essential 'heritage' that modern buildings, suitable for their own contemporary purpose, regularly add to the urban environment. By crafting what is a false 'landscape' of flat cornicelines we are being unfaithful to our city's traditions.

Higgildy piggildy...glorious incongruity... and nice new, sometimes tall for their time, buildings are what Liverpool has always done...and needs to continue doing.

If they are adamant that tall buildings scar the pristine Victorian vista of the city then we should start a pious campaign to remove that blot on the landscape...the Anglican!

Crect tony, Liverpool's a city (in my opinion) without a particular trademark style or material, it's been built and developed by the dynamic of the moment through time.

EH should stick to stones in fields and chalk pictures on hills.

Crect tony, Liverpool's a city (in my opinion) without a particular trademark style or material, it's been built and developed by the dynamic of the moment through time.

EH should stick to stones in fields and chalk pictures on hills.

:) yeah

If everyone on this sight collectively thinks evil things about this group maybe,just maybe,they will get the message and go. :cheers:

what makes me laugh is EH are preventing us from having a heritge A FUTURE ONE! imagine if they were around 100 years ago, they would have been defunct now because liverpool would be a field!

Do you think perhaps Liverpool's mid-eighties desolation is now regarded as a historical period worth preserving? Maybe that's EH's logic.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.166

I've read their "Who We Are" page and it's confirmed what I thought - that they need to be taken down a peg or two. I read nothing on the page to see why the Council should take any notice of their tall building concerns.

To sum it up, fuck 'em.

Why can't we have both listed buildings AND skyscrapers? I'm sure I'm by no means alone in developing such thought processes... :|

what makes me laugh is EH are preventing us from having a heritge A FUTURE ONE! imagine if they were around 100 years ago, they would have been defunct now because liverpool would be a field!

I love seeing new and old built next to each other, it's not as if were planning to demolish a great old building to build a new one.

They don't want this new tall building because it will interfere with the Ropewalks area, (an area they have neglected, remember they neglected and then approved demolition of the Casartelli building).

So "English Heritage's" aim is to see the Ropewalks area decay to nothing, and nothing will be built to spoil the view of it decaying, so we end up with decay all around. A well preserved 19th century heritage slum.

The Ropewalks is regenerating itself without E.H. help, and will continue to do so. As a person born and living in Liverpool, i want to see this Central station tower development go ahead, because i don't think it will impact on the Ropewalks one bit, it will improve an underused derelict area, and bring in investment to the city, which will eventually further help the regeneration of crumbling (heritage) buildings within Ropewalks.

This will probably make up part of an e-mail i'm going to send to a number of people on the contacts thread.

They'll be suggesting the area is used to construct a set of single and two storey residential properties for social housing next.

Just phoned the Echo's "stop the rot campaign" about English Heritage's neglect and ignorance of the ropewalks area,whilst objecting to tall buildings.Hopefully this will put them in the dock.

When it comes to conservation of individual buildings and bits of heritage still surviving then I am actually on the sentimental wing...BUT!

In all the years I spent highlighting the value of a sound conservation policy, one that would stop historic buildings falling down around our ears, I didn't for a moment that this would extrapolate out into a move to prevent the city building heritage for the future!

You must remember who E.H are. they have a specific remit and a particular world view. This is exactly why they should have no say. they are only a group who are driven (beyond any use in building conservation) by a particualr 'taste' and why should their particular aesthetic preferences be allowed to not only shape the city...but also to cripple it's dynamic? They want to recreate historic landscapes...even if this means creating false ones as long as they look like thier idea of the ideal victorian landscape... hows that for contradiction?


They are not just interested in building conservation, but landscape preservation..and even worse, 'restoration' they literally want the whole world to 'look' old fashioned. there are some really strange mindsets in the movement. they would do away with the lift and cars too if they had their way.

you can never talk to them about 'reality' as they just reject that... they are passionate about their ideas on 'form' and 'appropriateness' and the type of stuff we discuss on this forum is anathama to their view.

English Heritage got absoloutley battered today in the Echo's letters page. Not only were these letters below included, the Echo had a go at them, themselves, in their own comment column. I can't find that on the net. I may type it up if I can be arsed.

AS a famous Chinese president once famously said: "It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it can catch mice."

When it comes to running a city or a country under whatever political system, it is not the system but the competence of the people who work in that system that really matters.

In Liverpool city council, non deliveries and negative publicity from the band of democratically elected and their expensive hired hands generated a great deal of public mistrust and distaste which led to masses of voters staying away at election times.

Voter apathy let in even more of the unworthy onto the seats of power. This vicious political circle has been going on in Liverpool for years and many may think that it is time to be broken, but before we even consider an elected lord mayor style of governance, I suggest that the existing system be opened to the voters of this city to determine whether there is a real need for change.

ANOTHER day, another disaster for the development of our great city. We have already lost the tram and there are big doubts about a new Royal hospital and now I read that the new museum building is in serious trouble.

The Lib Dems are letting everyone down. It is not enough that Mike Storey has resigned as council leader, all the rest of his cabinet should go, too.

AS a born and bres Scouser, I am sick and tired of watching English Heritage sniping at Liverpool from it's ivory tower in Manchester. We must stop this pariah of anti-investment in our city.

Aren't I good to you guys for typing this up? :cheers:

Growth is important

ENGLISH Heritage has a valuable history and, hopefully, a useful future, in acting as an independent watchdog on the aesthetics of planning.
But, like all specialist bodies, they can get too close to a subject and fail to appreciate the wider perspective.
Their objection to the L160m Central Station, on the grounds that a 400ft tower incorporating apartments and a hotel would overshadow listed buildings in the Ropewalks conservation area, is unfounded.
As unfounded, in fact, as a similar notion that a tower adjacent to Lime Street Station would detract from the glories of St George’s Hall.
Cities evolve and grow. On the bases of an impasse over history versus the present, Rome would be little more than pillars and post; Paris, a hill-top fortress or New York, a fishing village.
The key issue is making a connection; to think in joined-up writing rather than kiddie block capitals.
Far from swamping Ropewalks. Central Village will enhance a part of Liverpool which has suffered from second division neglect for far too long.
The plans for the new development should be approved as soon as possible, .so that the Bold Street/Renshaw Street axis can enjoy similar benefits from a boosted mixed economy, as is expected to be evident with the Grosvenor development centered on Paradise Street.
Delay at this stage would simply mean one area of the city becoming the all-too-obvious poor relation of the other.
Prosperity is best encouraged by a policy of sustainable growth for all.
The more pertinent checks and balances come in ensuring that the individual retail outlets are sufficiently varied to avoid repeating the ‘bar wars’ competition of recent years, which has seen some weaker businesses go to the wall.

Letters from yesterday's Echo


I WRITE regarding the latest interference by English Heritage in the Central Village scheme. Liverpool has long managed to combine a healthy pride in its history with an innovative and progressive outlook.

As the city stepped into each new era with confidence, new iconic structures were added to the skyline.

During the dark days of the 1980s and 1990s, this development stopped, and we were lumbered with unambitious monstrosities such as the Halifax Building on the Strand.

Now the city is regaining its confidence once more, its ability to express this in the traditional Liverpudlian way - creating high quality, iconic buildings - is being hamstrung by quangos and heritage bodies.

Had the current custodians of English Heritage been in positions of influence in past times, would one of the oldest wet docks in the world have been filled in to allow the construction of the Royal Liver Building? Would the Anglican Cathedral have been blocked due to its 'detri-mental effect' on the ropewalks area??


ISN'T it time someone told English Heritage to mind their own business?

The constant sniping at anything that looks a bit ambitious is getting well over the top. This city needs NEW and HIGH build around the heritage buffer zones.

Understandably, the city council is remaining tight lipped about Central Village, but Liverpool Vision has come out with 'ALL GUNS BLAZING' in its contempt of English Heritage. Congratulations to Jim Gill on publicly saying what many in this city see as unwarrented and unwanted comments. Also the ECHO has seen through EH weak auguments for defeating this scheme, and rightly is supporting a bold and stunning tower in an area of the city that few have ever seen.

I am convinced that Lady D ,will give EH the political "two fingers" after mulling over and noting their comments, and approve this bugger in double quick time.

[QUOTE=Gareth]Aren't I good to you guys for typing this up? :cheers:

Growth is important

Yes you are a very nice man for typing this up, thats a drink for you .

Its sure is good to see the Echo being very positive, and backing this development. With media backing and pages of letters showing support, Lady D and chums will be castigated for ever and a day if they turn this down.

This tower will be a boost to Bold st and the surrounding area, opening up a large underused area to life and activity, and providing income to the city in the form of council tax, which can be used to further improve the services of the city.

Imagine the views from the top of this tower.

I think there is a nervousness amongst the heritage groups in this and other cities that tall buildings are getting out of control. Manchester is a prime example with the tallest building outside London under construction and an even taller one planned.

It might seem that nothing ever happens in Liverpool but I doubt that is how others see it. For the 25 years from the completion of RSA until Beetham I, there were five buildings in central Liverpool taller than 15 mikes - Concourse House, Silkhouse Court, RSA, Metro Tower and the Littlewood (Bruntwood) building. These five were built over a period of ten years from the mid 60s to the mid 70s and none exceeded 18 mikes.

In the two and a half years since Beetham 1 reached full height, we have seen another four towers added to that total - Beetham 1, City Lofts, Unity office and Unity residential of which three are over 20 mikes. At the moment, work is underway on two more towers - Alexandra (25), West (40), another tower has planning permission - Lime Street Gateway (28) and there is outline permission for Kings Dock (21) and PSDA (17). Then, in the planning process, we have Vermont (22), Chieftain (28), Central Village (38). Planning appeals are in place for Brunswick Quay (51) and the former Chieftain scheme (32). Rumours are afoot about King Edward Tower (48?) and maybe a high-rise on the Pall Mall site.

In all, by 2008, less than five years since Beetham 1 was completed, we could have getting on for twenty towers over 15 mikes of which at least five will be over 25 mikes.

Couple that with all the mid-rise development going on or in the pipeline, which is in very prominent positions such as New World Squares, the Malmaison, Liverpool 1, the Baltic Triangle, the Museum of Liverpool and the Kings Dock Arena and Convention Centre and you can understand why bodies such as English Heritage are getting nervous.

ICouple that with all the mid-rise development going on or in the pipeline, which is in very prominent positions such as New World Squares, the Malmaison, Liverpool 1, the Baltic Triangle, the Museum of Liverpool and the Kings Dock Arena and Convention Centre and you can understand why bodies such as English Heritage are getting nervous.

Martin ,clear and concise summary re: Tall Buildings in the downtown area, but why should English Heritage be nervous ?
For years EH stood back and watched many fine buildings crumble, I think it was the Echo "stop the rot " publicity that woke them up. Also WHS should make a positive contribution to regenerating run down areas, new construction in or around the WHS must be of the highest design.
Central Village will make a tremedous difference to both Ropewalks and Renshaw St area, by opening up that part of town ,developers that have been sitting on prime but almost deralict sites for years , may well be encouraged to re -generate their own little plots.

EH remit should be to encourage the rebuilding of these plots both within the Ropewalks and Castle Street Conservation areas and not to try and hinder and object to schemes that we in Liverpool could only have dreamed about ,just a few short years back.
Its time EH realised that a growing and prosperous city is the only way that our heritage building stock can be saved.

We must not fall into the trap of imposing what we think WHS SHOULD do for an aspiring city, onto what we think WHS is. We should definitely not get confused about what the whole initiative is geared to achieving?

WHS is not to be interpreted and varied according to local needs. It is a tight initiative with nescesarily rigid obligations and limits, so as to preserve the extremely ancient and rare places it was created to preserve. it is not even like E.H... who can at the end of the day, be ignored. If you ignore the tight requirements of WHS you lose it. what should Liverpool do?

it is about archeological PRESERVATION and nothing else. It is about preserving the feel of places like the pyramids and Stonehenge in as close a proximity as they would have been when built...i.e. I think that we would all agree that it would be appalling to build a ring of condos around stonehenge so tenants would ahve a good view and developers could make a premium killing.

WHS is not a vanity badge...or even a celebration, in it's widest sense....it is meant to do what it says it will do in the management plan...i.e preserve the historic and structural integrity of the site or 'asset' as they call it. As this 'asset' in Liverpool's case is the whole downtown area as wellas a fucking big swathe going up the North Docks to incorporate the Stanley complex then we're fucked.

The only thing that we can do with this planning document is to ditch it. We cannot make WHS 'work for Liverpool'... it is simply the wrong tool. To try and dilute it's impact, in order to suit Liverpool's needs would actually be detimental to what is an excellent initiaitve in the context of what it is supposed to achive...and the places it should actually be restricted to protecting.

So; Liverpool city of dynamic change...Stonehenge set in aspic....perfect

we must be rid of WHS... ther is no possibility of negotiation...we get rid or we die!

Give me a call if you can Dave?

WHS should be killed off. It should be left intact, but it should not be included as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

Liverpool should adopt a new status: "City of Commerce and Enterprise."

Liverpool should be a hub of money and wealth-making. For 700 years of its history that's what it was. That's what cities exist for- people meeting and trading, etc.

This WHS status is just a completely stupid idea that is ill-suited to a place that wants to better itself. Liverpool is still relatively poor; making it into an awkward heritage monument isn't going to help change this. I'd like to see any evidence that suggests otherwise.

I really wish the city's leadership would read some books. Fuck wits.

Another little ploy the planners and E.H have come up with is not to 'red line' any zone...they just use an asterix ti indicate in a really loose way the small areas where tall buildings 'may be considered acceptible'

This has to be understood though in the context of them not truly wanting ANY...so within these 'areas' they can still fight each proposal individually, as they have already done in the Lime St and Parliament St 'zones'....shrewd bastards that they are.

So is the Tall Building Zone idea going to be a supporting document in the new plan system? What is the point in them producing a document for guidance when it doesn't really guide anything?

The thing that disgusts me so much about this self-serving quango agenda is that it is all so devoid of any intellectual reasoning. EH and their seemingly brainless friends at LCC have just invented this subjective nonsense and then have the cheek to act like they are talking science. This is ane xample of unaccountable public workers in their ivory towers- actually being dumb enough to believe that they know best, and nobody will question it.

Why should buildings all be the same height? Why should they all be the same colour? Why should new-build be anonymous, sub mediocre rubbish?

Thing is, I would say that the more variety there is in the urban fabric- the more interesting the place will be- and the more the idiosyncracies of indivdiual buildings will stand out against the others.
Does this not seem obvious?

It is a testament to EH's desire to preserve their own exitsnece that they have invented an alterntiave view which makes no sense. Sadly, LCC appear to be stupid enough to buy into it. I honestly think the people on this forum would run the planning department better than the robots who are there now. In fact, I will never work in a public sector planning dep having observed LCC.

Exactly... these would all be fine points, if we were in a city that had logical and intelligent planners...sadly we don't

It IS arbitrary
They ARE subjective
They ARE arrogant enough to think that they know best....but the reality is that they only have opinions formed around their own taste in architectural style...very dangerous ground on which to form planning policy.

They DO NOT take anything other than the look of a scheme into account

They ARE fucking idiots


Who do you sit mext door to in your office? Would they be up for letting us in on some of the nutty stuff they came across whilst dealing with WHS?

Exactly... these would all be fine points, if we were in a city that had logical and intelligent planners...sadly we don't

It IS arbitrary
They ARE subjective
They ARE arrogant enough to think that they know best....but the reality is that they only have opinions formed around their own taste in architectural style...very dangerous ground on which to form planning policy.

They DO NOT take anything other than the look of a scheme into account

They ARE fucking idiots


Who do you sit mext door to in your office? Would they be up for letting us in on some of the nutty stuff they came across whilst dealing with WHS?

Good post.

I don't know if you saw that 'Demolition' prgramme on Ch4. It had some woman from EH talking about why Sheffield's Park Hill was listed.- She was going on about how it should be preserved becuase it represents the brutalist style, etc. But these aesthetes (I'm willing to bet) live in nice, fancy, tree-lined neighbourhoods. They don't give a thought to the poor people who have to live in that badly planned hell hole of a plcae. It is true, all EH think about is the look of buildings- and even then, I'd say they have an odd perspective on things. How does surrounding class buildings with shite buildings enhance them? (I'm think Commutation Plaza here.)

As for the guy I spoke to at work. I'll ask him if he has any time to correspond with you. He said that it was impossible to establoish a middle ground policy with the WHS (i.e. between development and conservation) because there were so many different quangos putting their boot in. I have the impression that EH is not a homogenous organisation- some branches are more idiotic than others.

This is why I'm always banging on about just freeing up the market- because then proven morons like EH, LCC and others can't fuck things up. When the Liver bldg and others appeared, there was no consulting 'heritage experts' and all that bollocks. If a design is good, it should be allowed to be built regardless of where it is to be located. If a developer comes along with a world class design for a tower near St George's Hall then frankly my philosphy is- get it built, pronto.

My feelings exactly.

Imagine if they would have allowed something completely different on the Commutation Plaza site...completely different in 'style' but of equal quality with regards to world standards...now THAT would have complemented georges Hall etc perfectly!

Instead we have a bastard of a building that cost a fortune, but just doesn't deliver!

Lay out a gridplan and let them get on with it I say!

I remember reading an article in the Architect's Journal in which the writer argued that there was no such thing as an 'old building'. The point he was making was that all buildings, though their fabric may be centuries old, have a function dictated by modern requirements that is often completely at odds with their original intention.

As an example, think of Conwy Castle:

http://www.walesdirectory.co.uk/tourist-attractions/images-attractions/Conwy_Castle_View_2.jpg

This was built as part of Edward I's castle building programme to subjugate the Welsh people in the 12th. century. It would have commanded the Conwy estuary and the North Wales coastal routes and housed the king's courtiers in great luxury with a whole new town outside the castle walls to service their needs. To the English it would have been a proud symbol of regal power using state of the art military technology and to the Welsh a hated symbol of English domination.

Over the next few centuries, Conwy would have lost its importance in the governance of Wales as the country became more settled and castles became more vulnerable to cannon and explosive.

By the 16th and 17th centuries, the military function of the castle would probably have been downgraded to the point at which it would have served mainly a secondary role as a prison, storehouse or squat for vagrants followed by complete abandonment due to obsolescence.

Castles such as Conwy were 'rediscovered' in the 18c. and venerated by poets and artists as symbols of a vanished romantic past.

By the 19c. Conwy was such an important part of the landscape that the builders of the Conwy road and railway bridges incorporated battlemented towers into their designs.

The coming of mass tourism in the 20c. made Conwy a major tourist attraction to complement the beaches and scenery of the area.

At the beginning of the 21c., Conwy is now a Welsh Heritage symbol and source of pride for the Welsh nation, something that its original builders would have been a bit surprised about.

Conwy Castle fulfills its modern role as well as it fulfilled its original role. That is the test of a great heritage building. We still need it and would be lost without it.

The point about 'modern uses' by ICAMOS was a real cracker....what on earth where the original uses of the pyramids and stonehenge...nobody knows!

Except maybe Von Daniken!!!!!!!

There has just been an excellent programme on discovery science that highlighted some interesting issues...good one being that the population has dropped from 150 to 60k inn the last 30 years as it no longer functions as a proper city...but rather as a dysney centre.

Venice is Mike Storey's favorite city!

Ther was some excellent sentiments at the end of the History of Britain..the one about Churchill and George Orwell that you should all find and commit to memory... I didn't, hence the cryptic plea! about not being swamped by history but using it as a celebration to move into the future...good stuff!

Exactly... these would all be fine points, if we were in a city that had logical and intelligent planners...sadly we don't

It IS arbitrary
They ARE subjective
They ARE arrogant enough to think that they know best....but the reality is that they only have opinions formed around their own taste in architectural style...very dangerous ground on which to form planning policy.

They DO NOT take anything other than the look of a scheme into account

They ARE fucking idiots


Who do you sit mext door to in your office? Would they be up for letting us in on some of the nutty stuff they came across whilst dealing with WHS?

Let`s take a look and see,

Innovation v Heritage,,,,,

(Original 1900`s) Princes landing stage - half a mile long (Gone.)
Still no place for liners.....
New Brighton Pier (Blown out of the ground.)
Still no place for ferries.....
Pier Head "River Side Station" - removed / demolished (and the "Liverpool Museums - Large Object Store" - well gone where?)
No place for the trains to the liners or the ferries or even the historic buses and other large objects - lost?
Worlds first over head railway - along Liverpool waterfront docks.
No replacement and Merseytram - hasn`t happened .....yet!
Liverpool Sailors Home (Demolished.)
Anyone seen Kingston House?
New Brighton Tower @ 550 feet - taller than Blackpool tower (dismantelled.)
Nothing taller in the area.
Liverpool Customs House. (WW2 Damage.....)
It could have been saved ..... but the "QE II - Crown Courts" have some presense at least.
Liverpool Speke Aerodrome ..... amongst the first of the age.
A city not interested.
New Brighton fair ground and surrounds?
Pensioned off.

"Little Apple or Bigger Apple or Grannie Pippen?"

Use it or loose it, treasure it or demolish it - but I`d check out above first perhaps as just a very small example of a city that either lost the plot, got down sized or didn`t care.

I Love Liverpool.

It`s home, a life and a port in a storm and it works.

:cheers:

But for goodness sake realise the heritage and the innovation and don`t be just a jobsworth - save working heritage and add new facilities.

Liverpool has an `Old Town` and even a `New Town` a `New Port` and an `Old Port`

What should be where and at what cost?

Just a small exampe of innovations from when Liverpool that looked to the future... and could have provided us with heritage worth saving!

If we add to what we have got in a manner that induces pride and helps the city thrive then we will by definition be providing our future stock of 'heritage assets'

Sorry guys, I have been putting ICAMOS up for the last few days when it is in fact ICOMOS!

What they say though is telling.
Their assumption is that Liverpool has no future, and should not ruin the 'asset' by trying to create one...best to live in a museum is their advice.

carpetbaggers are always the greatest destroyers of potential...whether politicos or dedicated professionals with an agenda..... we need rid!

Our politicos and business community have behaved like uncle toms through all this, thinking that it is the best way to suck in more grants... heritage is expensive you know and the market can't provide the fantasy... another good way of keeping those private sector leeches out... fantasay and corrupt indifference... vote for a mayoral system and lets be rid of the parasites.

^^
Have you seen what the Council have done just by neglect? Check out the Grade 2 Welsh Presbyterian Church, aka "Toxteth Cathedral"
http://www.**************************/welshpresbyterian/index.html

[on the + side]

Quite surprised about Grade 2 Everton Library though. I thought it was heading the same way until invited to have a shufty last week. Looks like it may be converted into a social centre, once they sort out the wall at the back. :cheers:

Oops! Forgot!
Back wall pic
http://www.**************************/backwall.jpg

What they say though is telling.
Their assumption is that Liverpool has no future, and should not ruin the 'asset' by trying to create one...best to live in a museum is their advice.

Wasn't that the conclusion from Gavin Stamp's TV essay a few months ago? Modern Liverpool is irrelevant to the past. (I didn't see it, just reviews on this site).

There was a TV series about Venice about a year ago and that made some interesting points that are quite relevant to Liverpool (after all, at the height of its power, Liverpool was seen as the modern Venice):

http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/images/Venice/rialto_bridge_venice.jpg
Venice grew to being the greatest port on the Mediterranean due to its location at the European end of the overland trade route to China, whose economy dominated the medieval world.

In the fifteenth century, the discovery of the sea route around Africa destroyed the Venetian economy overnight. Although the sea route was much longer, it was far more reliable and while pack animals could transport a few tons of goods, ships could carry hundreds of tons.

To rebuild their economy, the Venetians turned to the Capital of Culture idea and made money from the artistry of their citizens, even painting portraits of the Ottoman Sultan in Constantinople, much to the anger of the Pope.

In the 18th. century, Venice became one of the most important stops on the Grand Tour for European nobility and became the Bangkok of Europe with an emphasis on sex tourism.

By the early 20c. Venice was a decrepid relic of its past glory and the Italian Futurist movement proposed demolishing the great medieval palaces and using the rubble to infill the festering canals.

An opportunity to do this occured in 1911 when the great campanile in St Marks Square collapsed and there were several proposals to replace it with a modern structure. In the end, the city authorities ruled that any rebuilding in Venice should adopt the principal 'As it was, where it was'. The city was not prepared to embrace change.

Nowadays, Venice is probably Europe's greatest heritage tourist attraction with gondoliers (often Albanian immigrants) serenading tourists whilst the Venetians have tended to flee the city to live in the more practical dry land modern suburbs.

Venice remains one of the most beautiful cities ever built but in many ways it seems to be an irrelevance to the modern world. I don't know how it could be brought more into the 21st century but I think that sooner or later they will have to do that if the city is to survive as a meaningful urban centre.

Liverpool's problems should be nowhere near Venice's. We have no buildings from before the 18c. and a large number of 20c. buildings. It is far easier to modernise our city without damaging its heritage but we seem to be allowing people from outside our city to dictate that we are to be Britain's Venice.

Our heritage is incredibly important to us not because it attracts tourists but because it constantly reminds us that Liverpool was once and should again be one of the greatest cities in the world.

:applause:

Bloody hell Martin, what a great post!

Liverpool's role in commerce and world development are if anything more important than Venice's was for many centuries as it was truly global and should be celebrated. We have only been out of the phase of us 'being somewhere' for the last twenty years, a mere blink in the whole history of the city.

Liverpool maybe has a potential future that Venice just didn't, though we must remember that the Venice we see today is largely a 16th C construct, they happily 'continually renewed' as and when during the previous 1600 years or so.

They only decided on preservation once the city was dead commercially.

if Liverpool was to stand still for the next 500 years then I would agree that we should preserve the corpse as well... but we don't have to.

Just like Birmingham has more canals than Venice...but it just isn't Venice!

Why do the likes of English heritage and other like minded pricks think the Liver Buildings are the fucking Taj Mahal or the Pyramids?

The buildings on the front are ok but they are not the be all and end all of the city, some guy was objecting to the museum building calling it a "trashy tart" get real for fucks sake, people like him don't want the city to do anything modern at all. I wish English Heritage and other twats like him would concentrate on preserving/find use for buildings like the White Star in James St and the Royal Insurance building on Dale Street instead of moaning and blocking the city's attempt to get into the 21st century. English Heritage and all you other gimps who moan about the city being modern just Fuck off and go and live in York or Bath, we don't want you here.

Sorry for the above language in my previous post, havent been able to get on the site for 3 weeks and reading this thread made my blood boil!

Fucking alright mate. E.H. are a shower of ******s. :rant:

Well John, how about this letter in today's Daily Post from Wayne Colquhoun, chairman of the Liverpool Preservation Trust who I think is the gentleman responsible for the 'trashy tart' quote:

'Heritage in Trust'

Having a World Heritage site means exactly what it says.

It means we are entrusted with looking after it as a World site; we gave away the ownership when we gladly accepted the title.

Failure to head (sic) the advice given by ICOMOS-UK is not recommended, as we will lose the title.

We are custodians, just as Egypt is for the Pyramids. That is something to be proud of.

The reason a title is bestowed is because it is already great, and the placement of a Scandinavian designed iPod of Italian marble on our skyline would show to Unesco how little we understand about our heritage.'

I never realised that Egypt was a custodian of Birkenhead's shopping centre.

Return WHS to sender with a sticky stating 'shove up your arse'.

LOL! (pyramids joke, not wayne)

wayne is a really good fellow... but he's gone off somewhere strange with this new group.

The irony of the trashy tart slight was a belter though, as, in architectural terms...the trashiest tart in the city is surely the Liver building.

Brashy, badly hung together and contradictory styles, ostentatious and American as fuck...but it all comes together so well. Great building!

Return WHS to sender with a sticky stating 'shove up your arse'.

No. Far too subtle.

Well John, how about this letter in today's Daily Post from Wayne Colquhoun, chairman of the Liverpool Preservation Trust who I think is the gentleman responsible for the 'trashy tart' quote:

'Heritage in Trust'

Having a World Heritage site means exactly what it says.

It means we are entrusted with looking after it as a World site; we gave away the ownership when we gladly accepted the title.

Failure to head (sic) the advice given by ICOMOS-UK is not recommended, as we will lose the title.

We are custodians, just as Egypt is for the Pyramids. That is something to be proud of.

The reason a title is bestowed is because it is already great, and the placement of a Scandinavian designed iPod of Italian marble on our skyline would show to Unesco how little we understand about our heritage.'

I never realised that Egypt was a custodian of Birkenhead's shopping centre.well if theyre gonna complain about danisharchitecture it should perhaps be best to remind him that itwas also danish nationals that designed the sydney opera house. a buiding with even greater architectural value than the 3 graces combined. thats not even to put the said graces down either which are brilliant buildings. and also london didnt lose its whs status when it allowed buildings like the gherkin and gave planning permission to the shard. and why would he discredit a building made of italian marble... surely a quality building of such stone is exactly whats needed as it will stand the test of time against harsh elements unlike many concrete buildings

The Liver Building is an adaption of a Chicago skyscraper, the Cunard Building is based on a Florentine pallazo and the Port of Liverpool Building is a rejected design for the Anglican cathedral. Seems like a Scandinavian I Pod with Italian marble facing is just what's needed.

"and also london didnt lose its whs status when it allowed buildings like the gherkin and gave planning permission to the shard."

but remember that you have to stick to the obligations you signed up to.
London and a few other cities have had individual buildings designated....none of these have a huge buffer zone either...

Liverpool committed itself to the most far reaching (in area as well as commitment) site of any other city in the scheme. Additionally it has provided the most 'generous' buffer zone which obliges long range sightlines and townscape as part of our deal.

it was all a con stitched up by the heritage community as a way of gaining total control of the city's planning...knowing full well exactly what the WHS initiative is about and understanding the tight restrictions.

the politicians and other groups just thought it was a celebratory 'vanity badge' to wave in the faces of the billions of tourists they thought would flock in on the back of it. they were conned...Liverpool is saddled with an utterly unuseable designation and the current building potential is being wrecked.

if you read the documentation it clearly states that WHS would NOT bring in loads of money for restoration and conservation...as the heritage community is skint...it would NOT bring in flocks of tourists..and even if it did then UNESCO and ICOMOS would come up with plans to limit them as they 'destroy the asset' (all in the documentation) and that it WOULD mean only building stuff that is similar to that which was designated (i.e stuff that looks old)

The heritage lobby knew all this but still pushed regardless. The irony is that this move has damaged the potential to build the desperately needed effective conservation strategy for downtown.

We must also remember that, in it's own right, WHS is an extremely valuable initiative.... the madness was imposing it on Liverpool.

This photo is known around the world for showing off 'Old & New'.

St. Patrick's Cathedral, 5th Ave, New York

http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/9416/newyork7cx.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

^^ Send that to the heritage lobby. They'll have heart attacks, surely. :laugh:

We are all preaching to the the choir on this site... you must remember that E.H come from a completely different ideology.
Whilst we can see the beauty and sense of the architectural mix in that great pic, one of EH would condemn it... as indeed they regualrly do. They site this composition as an example of 'madness', just as the lefties used to highlight pics of the Flat Iron building to show the voracity of capitalists, grabbing even the meanest plot of land to make profits!


Efficient use of land....capitalist obsessions which must be stopped by 'sound planning'

A beautiful church whose setting has been enhanced by quality development on a neighbouring plot.... a crime against good aesthetics, which should be checked by 'in keeping' and 'height restricting' design and development codes.

It all depends upon your perspective... and the heritage community's is warped by a love of the olden days and hatred of modernity.

I have actually had it put to me that it would have been better if NYC had never started building skyscrapers at all... but as it did, that city is 'lost to the community of architectural taste'! Just think about all of the stuff wrapped up in that statement...city as landscape, rather than economic and cultural dynamo...absolute passionate hatred of anything higher than what they could build in the early 19C... biggoted and dogmatic in the extreme!

These types of views are behind the thinking of those given (voluntarily) great sway to determine what gets built in Liverpool.

Taken from today's DP column "Have your say" this weeks contribution by Neil Cardwell, former Liverpool City Councillor

"I am proud to say that I was the first person to advocate World Heritage Status for Liverpool. It was back in 1994 when I was a Liberal Democrat city councillor and I tabled a motion that the Pier Head area should be the centre of a WHS application.

I was quite clear that this was appropriate in WHS terms because of the significance of Liverpool's role regarding the creation of the New World and mass European emigration.

Well I have watched with increasing alarm the way WHS has been implemented over a much larger area of the city centre. To put it bluntly, I now wish to recant. Liverpool is experiencing an unprecedented boom in its fortunes and the development that is now blooming is starting to be threatened by WHS.

The way WHS has been defined and now implemented is becoming a bureaucratic nightmare. I am particularly critical of the role of English Heritage and the final straw for me is EH's bizarre conduct over the extremely important Central Station proposal by Ballymore. Their arguments about the proposed height of a skyscraper in relation to the streetscape in the Ropewalks area just beggars belief, almost as if they could turn the clock back to prevent skyscrapers in the great city of London's financial centre for fear of overshadowing the views of the Tower of London. By the same token you could argue the Liver Buildings would never have been possible for its domination of Liverpool Parish Church.

What is alarming is the pusillanimous way city planning officers have become craven to this agenda. It's positively reminiscent of the communist system when responsible, legal professional developers creating wealth and jobs, can be thwarted by irresponsible quangos like EH, when hundreds of millions of pounds can be thrown away on highly subjective criteria. On this occasion this really is a case of "private good and public bad"

WHS can still be very important for Liverpool but it may be better in the long term if Liverpool didn't have it. At the very least EH needs to be de-fanged and its role devolved to an appropriate body. EH officials are not qualified to understand the subtelties and the history of this great city and therefore we need to start lobbying central government to disband EH and disperse its statutory role.

Liverpool needs a new balance between creative, exciting development and our great heritage"


He should come to Saturdays 21st Century meeting!!!

This whole english heritage thing stinks i think there should be an investigation into there involvement in some of these projects.Manchester and London are older citys than liverpool but are allowed to build 1000ft foot towers something is not right.

Taken from today's DP column "Have your say" this weeks contribution by Neil Cardwell, former Liverpool City Councillor

"I am proud to say that I was the first person to advocate World Heritage Status for Liverpool. It was back in 1994 when I was a Liberal Democrat city councillor and I tabled a motion that the Pier Head area should be the centre of a WHS application.

I was quite clear that this was appropriate in WHS terms because of the significance of Liverpool's role regarding the creation of the New World and mass European emigration.

Well I have watched with increasing alarm the way WHS has been implemented over a much larger area of the city centre. To put it bluntly, I now wish to recant. Liverpool is experiencing an unprecedented boom in its fortunes and the development that is now blooming is starting to be threatened by WHS.

The way WHS has been defined and now implemented is becoming a bureaucratic nightmare. I am particularly critical of the role of English Heritage and the final straw for me is EH's bizarre conduct over the extremely important Central Station proposal by Ballymore. Their arguments about the proposed height of a skyscraper in relation to the streetscape in the Ropewalks area just beggars belief, almost as if they could turn the clock back to prevent skyscrapers in the great city of London's financial centre for fear of overshadowing the views of the Tower of London. By the same token you could argue the Liver Buildings would never have been possible for its domination of Liverpool Parish Church.

What is alarming is the pusillanimous way city planning officers have become craven to this agenda. It's positively reminiscent of the communist system when responsible, legal professional developers creating wealth and jobs, can be thwarted by irresponsible quangos like EH, when hundreds of millions of pounds can be thrown away on highly subjective criteria. On this occasion this really is a case of "private good and public bad"

WHS can still be very important for Liverpool but it may be better in the long term if Liverpool didn't have it. At the very least EH needs to be de-fanged and its role devolved to an appropriate body. EH officials are not qualified to understand the subtelties and the history of this great city and therefore we need to start lobbying central government to disband EH and disperse its statutory role.

Liverpool needs a new balance between creative, exciting development and our great heritage"


He should come to Saturdays 21st Century meeting!!!

Wow, he has said exactly (to the letter) what I think. Very satisfying to know we aren't the only ones whop are completely flabber gasted by the stupidity taking place in the city. He is right, on this occasion it is definitely public bad, private good.... sheesh... I wonder if he logs onto this forum?

Blimey, that is pretty impressive - and also a damning indictment of the current situation - particularly if WHS actually was his idea in the first place!

The more people who come out and say it, the more likely the Liverpool Lib Dems will get a reality check. This issue really came into the public spotlight in 2005 and it will again this year. It may cost the Lib Dems dearly in the council election if they don't see the light very soon, as with the amount of failures, Fourth Grace, Merseytram, the Boot Estate, original Kings Dock and possibly the new museum, they don't need any more anti-progress publicity.

At the very least EH needs to be de-fanged and its role devolved to an appropriate body. EH officials are not qualified to understand the subtelties and the history of this great city and therefore we need to start lobbying central government to disband EH and disperse its statutory role.

http://www.datafox.org/gifs/applause.gif

Give that man a medal!
We have said exactly the same from the start. WHS should be Chapel St to James St, the Pierhead to Castle St..... NO BUFFER ZONE, no heritage freakery, no stopping development anywhere else...and hey presto the city could have something indeed to celebrate.

What we have instead is a scam cooked up by the heritage freaks, specifically designed to achive complete control from which to stifle modern development/change of any sort.

They don't care if the city dies... they truly don't. They celebrate venice as a model, but as a city it is completely dead.... schools, business, social services can't function... they have lost 50k mopre people in the last ten years... as a 'live' city it has no future...should we want to compete with that?

as a 'live' city it has no future...should we want to compete with that?

Nope, nope, nope.

However, it would make a change to have a tall building that wasn't full of one and two bedroom apartments and didn't look like most of the existing 'off the peg' talls. I know these developers are primarily interested in turning a fast buck rather than growing an attractive cityscape but a bit more imagination wouldn't go amiss.

I have heard some rumours, from inside the industry, that EH is doomed. It is a fragmented organisation which completely lacks a consistent strategy (-and that's assuming you agree with their philosophy in the first place.) I've heard the government will be winding it up in the not-to-distant future.

Mind you, the freaks who are running it now will undoubtedly be employed in some new, re-branded organisation.

However, it would make a change to have a tall building that wasn't full of one and two bedroom apartments and didn't look like most of the existing 'off the peg' talls. I know these developers are primarily interested in turning a fast buck rather than growing an attractive cityscape but a bit more imagination wouldn't go amiss.

You've got a point but the council doesn't want tall buildings at all. They're not interested in building a new city scape, tall or otherwise. They just want to maintain what we've got, which though nice, we could enhance it and make it infinately better.

I have heard some rumours, from inside the industry, that EH is doomed. It is a fragmented organisation which completely lacks a consistent strategy (-and that's assuming you agree with their philosophy in the first place.) I've heard the government will be winding it up in the not-to-distant future.

Mind you, the freaks who are running it now will undoubtedly be employed in some new, re-branded organisation.


Maybe it's good news, but I can't see our council changing just because English Heritage are no longer whispering in their ear. I think English Heritage tell them what they want to hear, to be honest. That way English Heritage can be the scapegoat for any backlash when powerful proposals like Brunswick Quay are dismissed by the Lib Dems.

Also, I can see refugees from the Manchester office making their way down the motorway to sit on newly created panels on Liverpool Council, which would be bloody typical of the Lib Dems, wouldn't it?

http://www.pastscape.org/homepage/news.htm

"Work has begun to incorporate monument information onto our database from the Historic Environment of Liverpool Project - a partnership between English Heritage, Liverpool City Council and other key stakeholders to record the historical, social, economical and architectural development of Liverpool."

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.001002003003001002

The Historic Environment of Liverpool Project (HELP)

Front cover of the recent English Heritage publication on Liverpool’s historic warehouses, showing rum storage in Clarence Warehouses.

This project is a partnership between English Heritage, Liverpool City Council and other key stakeholders. Our role is to help provide an overview of the role of the city’s historic environment in the rapid regeneration which has followed many decades of stagnation. We are examining those aspects which best reflect Liverpool’s history, economy and social make up and give the city its unique qualities. This work will inform regeneration and conservation policies in the city. A range of popular publications designed to raise awareness of the special character of the city and to address conservation issues is also planned. The first book in the series, Storehouses of Empire: Liverpool’s Historic Warehouses by Colum Giles and Bob Hawkins was launched in November 2004.

For more information on the research component of HELP please contact Colum Giles, telephone 01904 601907, e-mail colum.giles@english-heritage.org.uk.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.8338

Anfield/Breckfield, Liverpool

This view encapsulates the character of Anfield. On the left is the football ground, an impressive modern structure which dwarfs the surrounding houses; in the centre a row of houses on Walton Breck Road are empty and boarded up; on the right similar houses in Skerries Road have been refurbished and offer good quality accommodation in solid and appealing bay-fronted houses Anfield is known the world over as the home of Liverpool Football Club.

The area surrounding the ground, which falls into the modern wards of Anfield and Breckfield, is an inner-city suburb beset by economic decline and a lack of social cohesion, manifest among other things in a deteriorating physical environment and a faltering housing market. Liverpool, which since the Second World War has lost population and jobs on a scale unprecedented among our larger cities, has been particularly hard hit. Once known as the ‘second city of the Empire’, it had public and commercial buildings on a magnificent scale seldom equalled outside London. Even its ‘ordinary’ streets of terraced houses exhibit a solidity and opulence which hint at the great wealth once generated by the port.

etc etc etc

The King Harry public house, dated 1885, typifies the attractively detailed pubs and hotels that were scattered along the main thoroughfares of Anfield and Breckfield, varying both the scale and architectural tone of the surrounding houses

etc etc etc

I'm all for heritage and even sentiment.

I love London and the old pubs, offices and houses all of a sudden over shadowed by a beast of a modern structure, the clash of styles, ages and cultures.

I wouldn't like to see old Liverpool swept away in order to build a new Leeds or Manchester, at the same time we can't hold back the dynamic of development and the changing economic and cultural conditions of the city.

21st Century Liverpool, Doctor Duncans is part of it, but is not it.

It does not have to be a case of either or!

We do not have to knock everything down and build a new utopia... or set everything in aspic and pretend the 21st Cetury (or the 20th for that matter) had not arrived.

I have no qualms about being completely progressive about new buildings and development whilst being quite ardent in support of 'conservation' Love of my city and what is probably an over developed sentimental notion of the city is what drives me. There is no contradiction in this.

Dogma is always bad when taken to it's natural conclusion.... the old ideas about new cities as attempted through the 50s' - 70s' was as evil and destructive as the heritage agenda in extremis as psoposed in Liverpool right now.

The real joke is there are so many empty plots in Liverpool, be it infill or large vacant plots which can be used again but for new exciting and tall buildings where needed. This would not alter or detract from any of us stuning buildings. How can EH and LCC go on about our old buildings when they let them collapse and LCC board good houses up so we cant live in them and do our bit for regeneration!!!