At the last skyscraper meeting Martin, Doug and I discussed the value (and possiblity) of setting up a lobby group to unashamedly and speciffically promote taking a positive approach to contemporary development, change, growth and true urbanism.

Number one campaign could be 'Save our Future'. using the same 'emotional' logic as the heritage freaks and helping to coordinate pushing the message constantly. I think it would touch the common feeling in the city.

There are enough of us and it is sorely needed, Some of the debate and points on this site alone, if aired in the public domain would have a real impact.


What do you all think?

My opinion is society has become moribund and blase. It needs driving, a kick up the arse.

The only people that seem to affect change and opinion appear to be those with the clout to do so - the government and the media, maybe I'm wrong. What I'm saying, I suppose, is we'd need media access, BBC local radio, TV and most certainly the Echo and freebies. Access to estate/local residents groups, the business and retail communities - start pushing their buttons at grass roots -what's holding them back or more importantly what can be done at street level to enable them to propser and grow?

Flamin Nora I've just talked myself in to it.

Tony, a good idea, I hope you get practical support and can do something like that. Can I ask a question? Is it a generic concept, that could work anywhere (that is anywhere whose future is threatened by heritage obsessives?) or would it be uniquely Liverpool-themed? The reason I ask is this. It's plain reading this board that there have been some major problems with the planning culture in Liverpool, and opportunities have been lost. More and higher could and should have been built in this great boom. But...there are other problems that are as serious, in a more insidious way, and that also sap at the dynamism and health of Liverpool (and therefore limit its need for and scope for a bigger, higher city centre). The one I identify with is the lack of a sub-regional focus and role for Liverpool, and the dreaded "NW" word and all that goes with that. In the coming year it seems likely that some experiments around sub-regionalism may be attempted, and unless Liverpool has a very clear voice and high expectations, it may be left behind. This could, in its own way, be as serious as having a ludicrous, heritage stangled planning culture.

Now, it's one thing to persuade people that modern is nice (not easy in many cases, I imagine, but it sounds possible), but I honestly don't think people give a stuff about abstract concepts such as regionalism and sub-regionalism or city-regionalism. I could argue very coherently and have some evidence to suggest that Liverpool has actually lost thousands (not hundreds) of jobs due to North Westernism, and that goes way beyond simple transfers to or primary locations of official regional bodies in Manchester. Those are real jobs that people in Liverpool can't have, or have to suffer an expensive long commute to Manchester to do. But, it's not a simple or straightforward argument, and so not very accessible.

And yet, unless and until elected members in Liverpool are convinced their constituents require it of them, I can't see how they will be emboldened to take an assertive line (for example not co-operating with North West institutions that are blatant front organisations to filter resources and oppportunities into Manchester). So I wonder if your society might have not just generic modernist aims but also quieter subsidiary aims such as promoting Liverpool not only as a modern city, but also a first tier regional hub that provides all the services and roles a major regional centre furnishes its surrounding area with?

Just a question really. Rather than trying to promote such an aim through a society, or maybe as well as, I think there is a need for a proper, independent research report on the costs of North Westernism to the Liverpool economy, but who would pay to commission it, I don't know.

So what would need to be done Tony, to establish such a lobby group? There is the Downtown website which is already advacing these themes- what more would such a group do?

It sounds like a great idea- and seems like the only realistic way that 'our' voice would be heard- and potentially the voices of many other people.

I'm just interested what you'd have in mind for advancing the cause.

Also, how would funds be raised? If you want to provide a formiddable opposition to the heritage arseholes you need leaflets, posters, booklets, a website, badges, venues, etc.
Perhaps corporations and developers would offer some assistance- after all they would benefit from the 'cause.'

Am I taking this idea too literally or what? Where do I send my membership fee to? :)

I think you've got it Balbbs, that's if I have.

For me a key date for the 'Save our Future' is 1st January 2009!!! 2007 & 2008 projects are more or less sorted, it remains to be seen if they deliver. But the clock doesn't stop, authorities, in particular LCC, should now be in top gear to identify opportunities to build on the successes already achieved to take the city way beyond 2009.

Only this week the DP reported an increase in the local unemployment rate, very worrying figure is that Liverpool's rate is still more than double that of the North West.

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=16601593%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=32%2d252%2dmerseysiders%2dout%2dof%2dwork%2das%2djobless%2drate%2drises-name_page.html


In addition to this a delegation of local authorities, including Warren Bradley, met Tony Blair to discuss ways in which the government may tackle areas of extreme deprivation. Although this meeting was outlining the governments plans for tackling incapacity claimants and ways to 'support' claimants move away from benefits and into to work, it also highlights that in some areas of the city a lot of work remains to be done.

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=16606095%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=premier%2dpledges%2daction%2don%2dpoverty%2din%2dliverpool-name_page.html#story_continue


And yet here in Liverpool we have a council that has, for reasons perhaps only known to those directly involved, turned away millions of pounds of inward private investment, Brunswick Quay, (it still seems unbelievable!!) and other developments which would add to the overall wealth of the city. Who can say what other opportunities may have been fostered by these projects, we may never know. As an example the Marybone area shows what can be done, from student accomodation, to private flats with retail on street level the improvements are still continuing along Great Howard St and beyond.

Indeed, I'd be fascinated to know what this society would intail. I hope I can contribute where I'm useful. :cheers:

I couldn't agree more Doug. Any would-be 21st Century Society would have very little to do to build up a very strong case for its activities.

God knows how many schemes have either been turned down or cut-back. But even if we are lazy and take the 3 examples of BQ, Chieftain and Central Stn- that's around £350 million thrown away already. And that's only investment in the physical capital. These schemes would provide many more benefits.

a) Improvements to the built environment (enormous improvements!), relating to the city's environment.

b) hundreds of homes. This would increase the population making the city's economy more sustainable (-The Urban Task Force report "Sustainable Cities" would certainly support these schemes.)

c) Providing homes for businesses- shops, restaurants, bars, offices, etc.- creating jobs and consumer choice.

In addition to the initial waste of £350 million, there's also the wasted potential, which would surely amount to millions more (-and benefits that are difficult to quantify in monetary values.)

And these are just 3 schemes from the last year or two!!!

I'm sure if a lot of the city's people actually knew what was going on they would have something to say about it. Frankly, I find it utterly sickening.

We shouldn't forget that Liverpool is still economically poor. The government tax breaks, grants, etc. are not going to be around forever. Gordon Brown is already cutting back on public spending and if Liverpool wants to keep growing beyond 2008, private investment has to be welcomed. Heritage is not going to bring in the money that is required to create a sustainable and strong city economy.

We shouldn't forget that Liverpool is still economically poor. The government tax breaks, grants, etc. are not going to be around forever. Gordon Brown is already cutting back on public spending and if Liverpool wants to keep growing beyond 2008, private investment has to be welcomed. Heritage is not going to bring in the money that is required to create a sustainable and strong city economy.

Sounds like a letter to the Echo, Blabb. If only some of our councillors had the tendency to say similar things. :cheers:

Excellent Idea!

Great top notch idea, I am so up for it. So how do we get started?

Ye deffo to put it simply we would be a group totally opposite to English heritage therefore being a voice against those who object future developments, right?

We would point out our positive views against their lets face it pile of shite don't make sence views but does anyone no how to set up such a establishment?

I think developers would help fund such a group as it would be a almost like their second voice their trade union if you like.

Excellent start chaps.

As I said it was simply just a few ideas tossed around as part of our conversation when we met the other week... nothing is set.... it is all there to be crafted by us all.

Though the name may be a little tongue in cheek, I think it says exactly what it would be about, namely, we would be a group of people who want a future for a city that is as bright as that of the past, that we welcome, celebrate even, new ideas, buildings and form that this growth would mean. we are all positive about building a future... and adding to future heritage! A city that will be alive and most importantly vibrant, active and relavent. From this base it becomes easy to touch all the things that make great cities what they are, culture, the creative process, repopulation...what ever.

Out of the basic message could spin all sorts of interesting issues to highlight as is often done here on this site. If we are to be positive about building a future city then who in the world do we build relations with for example..Liverpool 'Global City Agenda' has always been an area that should be a base for any exploration of what future we could craft (as opposed to current policy of remaining 'passive recipient' of what ever crumbs who ever want to toss our way). What type of transport/civil engineering issues should we be pursuing. Once the ground is laid with regards to where we stand and what we want providing stuff to support it becomes really interesting.



Any initiative around contemporary development and urbanism would naturally have to be set within the context of all of the other metropolitan issues mentioned below. What would be the use of winning the case for not stitching the city in the past if we lose hand over fist on the investment and wealth creation potential that leads to good architecture because of sustained 'regional' bias and priority?

As to the form of any group/initiative that is all up in the air... 'potential' too.
I suppose the best thing to do would be for us all to meet up and see where, how etc we would want to go. This forum could be used to throw in ideas start building up material, evidence, commentary pieces etc.

The experience we have gained through running the downtown site is very uselful... one thing is that despite it's 'influence', a web site alone is nowhere near adaquate. When the organisation behind it was compromised getting the message over became much, much harder. With regards the downtown site, it is restricted to downtown and this call needs a much wider, metropolitan, international even context.

it would have to have many approaches, savvy promotion and gaining coverage is relatively easy. The pamphlets etc are good too.

One thing I would suggest is that any initiative, at least in it's early days would have to be organic... formalising things like with the Civic Society would be counter productive.

Membership, funds etc would have to be explored once the idea of what is to be done is fleshed out. One thing that would have to be absolutely clear is that it would be independent...no developers bitch or proprty tycoon's mouthpiece.

it is most important to get as many 'like minds' as possible on board as well.

The main aim and tactics, I think would be to presnt the case, backed up with continuous flow of examples from around the world of just how cities work... how there is a real urban renaissance taking place around the globe and how, again despite all the stuff going on here, Liverpool is relatively missing the boat.

There is so much positive force behind getting the council etc to act properly with regards to city growth that the 'anti' elements within the argument would be background... we simply make the case for the city to grasp it's potential for international revival... with all that that entails.

A manifesto would not be a bad idea... it would help us define some central issues as well as give us something to present once what we move forward as a group has been setled.

It could of course develop nationally.. would be a good way to force the city out of it's introspection for a start by getting others to give an outside perspective of what is going on. Personally I would only be interested in pushing the Liverpool side of things though as for me the ideas are all about getting the principles right for our revival. It's initial focus should be about the Liverpool situation/opportunity.. and what we can do to contribute to this.

Some good points have been raised below (cragieman hits the button), so what do others think should be the way forward with regards money, structure, activities etc?

Let's keep the ball rolling?

It is a much bigger job than those actively involved in the city right now can manage and there is lots of energy in this forum to build on. See who would be interested amongst your friends and other contacts and we could build up quite an influential body in a short time.. which can then begin to effect changes in the city for the better.

My job involves supporting people who want to set up organisations to bring about change. If anyone is interested, i can provide advice on:

Setting up
Registration (e.g. with Charity Commission/Companies House etc)
Funding
Training
Networking
Representation to local agencies


My organisation is www.lcvs.org.uk (poo site i know, but were working on that)
Another useful project of ours is www.liverpool-community.org.uk

Let me know if I can help

oops... message posted twice!

Bloody hell... the times I could have used that sort of advice in the past!
I have used LCVS a few times in the past actually... good organisation

Your skills will no doubt be called upon...nice one.

Blabbernsmoke... I sent you a message reply, did you get it?

Tony,

I'm really keen on something like this. Trouble with this forum is we spend so much time reacting to what other people are doing, whether its moaning about English Heritage or looking forward to some new development plan. It would be great to have some forum where we could have some impact for positive change.

There is so much more to urbanism than just whether or not we get tall buildings. There are many 21st century issues to be addressed such as social alienation, global warming, environmental degradation etc. There is also a need to conserve our heritage but in a way that does not deny our city a future.

As always, spot on Martin

I would help!!! ANYDAY

It would be great to have some forum where we could have some impact for positive change.

But how would we go about making an impact? Some have cited that such a movement would be a sort of opposite to English Heritage but it should be noted that EH are a government quango which the planning department feel obliged to listen to. How would we persuade them to take us, a bunch of bozos ;), seriously? I feel with their political platform, EH would have a great advantage over us. How would we level the playing field?

I would help!!! ANYDAY

That'd be rather grand, uk2012.

Nice sig by the way. :cheers:

"But how would we go about making an impact? Some have cited that such a movement would be a sort of opposite to English Heritage but it should be noted that EH are a government quango which the planning department feel obliged to listen to. How would we persuade them to take us, a bunch of bozos , seriously? I feel with their political platform, EH would have a great advantage over us. How would we level the playing field?"

All we can do is to highlight our own ideas, and show where we think other policy... for example E.H is going wrong. The advantage of this is that it forces the whole debate beyond the reactionary slagging off of ideas that have already become policy. It is possible to shape policy by highlighting good ideas, with rationale behind it... after all that is exactly how the extreme ideas being promoted in planning now were alowed to grow... on the back of 'sensible' conservation desires.

Changing perceptions, the slow burn... that is what an initiative can achieve if it is set out right and passionate argument is provided to back up statements... non of us are policy advisors.

You may be right and we might not influence a thing, but surely it is worth a go?

That is all we tried to do with downtown... I think it is better to try and fail than to regret not trying when things piss you.

I agree entirely, just wondering about strategy and implementation, that's all.

They are the types of things determined once some momentum has been geenerated.

Just read your comment on Wayne C... a fine example of the value of putting your thoughts out in public. No matter what we think of them, some people will like his sentiments...and who knows, some of those in charge may do even more damage...sorry..actually be swayed by them.

Good ideas should be aired because of the influence they may have.

You may be right and we might not influence a thing, but surely it is worth a go?

That is all we tried to do with downtown... I think it is better to try and fail than to regret not trying when things piss you.

Like most of the people on this forum I have spent quite a bit of time on here over the last 18 months complaining about the status quo in Liverpool. I might as well make the extra bit of effort required to join in with something that might make a difference.

It certainly doesn't make a lot of difference logging onto here and going crazy about things- crappy decisions are still happening now, as they were when I joined this place in July 2004.

I'd definitely get involved with something a bit more proactive.

But how would we go about making an impact? Some have cited that such a movement would be a sort of opposite to English Heritage but it should be noted that EH are a government quango which the planning department feel obliged to listen to. How would we persuade them to take us, a bunch of bozos ;), seriously? I feel with their political platform, EH would have a great advantage over us. How would we level the playing field?

OK its not the same statutary power that English Heritage has but it is important in opinion forming and, therefore in helping to change things for the better.

Don't forget that SSC has had some impact. Things that our forumers have written have been reproduced in other publications and one forumer got an article in the Daily Post for producing a rendering of the future skyline.

I'm sure we could do a lot more than that. For example, Gareth, you have a very good knowledge of broadcasting and broadcasting policy, we have quite a few geography, engineering and planning experts on the forum and a number of good photographers and, of course, everybody can have ideas.

We may be a bunch of bozos counting cranes and numbers of storeys but we also have far wider concerns such as regionalism, housing renewal, urban form, transport policy etc. etc.

Don't know if you saw the piece on 'North west Tonight', but one very important reason is to counter wayne's Liverpool Preservation Trust... he was at it again with the genteel edwardian ladies slant again. Love him, love his shop even more, but bloody hell! what's he on about?


I will contact buggedboy but getting any initiative going will need lots of hands.

We are shortly to resume 'normal' service with the downtown site and are pushing a few ideas along that will help with the future city agenda but our time will be limited.

Could we arrange a meeting to see if we can begin moving someting along?
Hows about 3.30 at Dr Duncs Saturday after next?

The North West tonight piece scratched at something without getting into it. A full investigion/examination of planning issues etc. would be a great item for the BBC to get stuck into with maybe a 2/3 minute report each night for a week or something.

What certainly wasn't mentioned was that, although it may lack the Edwardardian granduer, Liverpools 'contemporary' waterfront from say St Nicholas Church to Alexandra Tower will be pretty symbolic of Liverpool in 5 years in a positive manner.

Could we arrange a meeting to see if we can begin moving someting along?
Hows about 3.30 at Dr Duncs Saturday after next?

I should be able to make that. :cheers:

What date will that be? Might be moving house then. If not I'll be there.

February 4th. I'm sure it can be changed if not it's not convenient for the masses.

NWT will never do a proper report as its not Manchester, I can think of certain groups which would be interested, as positive regeneration/development are needed

How about February 10th? :)

Tuesday 7th? Only day I can do.

10th is good... in fact the only day I could make for the next 5 weeks!

I think numbers who are really interested is most important so let's see what day most people could actually make.

Any prep/agenda items could be discussed here to make sure nothing goes off on too far a tangent.

FYI I am told that a meeting is being called for the evening of 14th by the 'a mayor for Liverpool' team for those who are interested.
Will get more info up when I can.

Wasnt' really my thing anyway, but good luck with it.

No, no... it could still be 7th... let us see when most people can make it.

I've only said that I can only make the 10th.

I've splintered off now Tony. Any good society has resignations before it's been founded. I'm much more interested in the "alternative to the North West" agenda than a purely modernist one anyway.

Weekends are best for me but I should be able to get to any meet-up after 7pm.

FYI I am told that a meeting is being called for the evening of 14th by the 'a mayor for Liverpool' team for those who are interested.
Will get more info up when I can.

I just saw on the regional news that there are two rival campaigns. Liam Fogerty's and one arranged by the owners of Quiggins. Can you believe it? How can you be one issue campaigners who both agree, yet be rivals? The mind boggles.

Weekends are best for me but I should be able to get to any meet-up after 7pm.

I should be able to make pretty much any time, at the moment. Weekends and evenings are all fine to me.

Excellent choice as a cause to fight Liverpolitan.
Personally I would see the 'alternative to the North west' as an important part of any drive based on a positive future for Liverpool, but I take your point.

You must keep that one moving along though.

Re; Gareth and your point about the piece on North West Tonight... it is bizzare. To think that phase one... the collection of sufficient signatures to force a referendum is the political campaign for a particular mayoral candidate is boneheaded in the extreme. I think that was Jim hancock revealing his uttrer lack of talent and desire to put yet another 'Liverpool, knobead city' item onto the box.

I am sure that the core message (and point) will get back on track, but talk about not helping yourself... bloody marvelous!

Actually I can only do 11th! Sorry... saturday 11th feb... after 2p.m, does this suit anybody?

I believe Poli was joking Tony. I'll have to check my work schedule tomorrow over that one. :)

Saturday 11th. Feb after 2pm. Sounds OK to me.

its a pity you ignore my emails tony.

Sat 11th sounds ok for me, I'll be there around 3:00pm.

Tony, I’ve de-splintered, in spirit, but sadly can’t be there on that date. Can I add something here that I would probably never say most of had I been there in person?

Essay length piece to follow, so I don’t expect everyone or anyone to bother reading it all. I had a choice of hovering up or writing this. I can only see the dust clouds when the suns rays are shining through the window, so half-closed blinds solve that.

In your first post of this thread you painted a huge canvas of issues, around the issues of “contemporary development, change, growth and true urbanism”.

From my personal perspective, I think the word “sustainable” tends to go quite well with “growth” these days. It doesn’t mean anything much, but without it, you are liable to being misunderstood. Also, if you called it ‘positive’ change that might sharpen that aim……..shit happens, as they say, but actually embracing change and understanding you have to shape your own destiny is vital. I wonder also if there is something “social” missing in those aims, and if a modernist urban agenda can also be tied to a socially progressive and inclusive one? It’s always good to get your defence in first, and if you think how your Society’s aims might be criticised (skyscraper anoraks, friendly to property developers, destructive of heritage and established communities, challenging to party-based electoral governance, concerned with physical rather than social infrastructure, buildings rather than people), then it should be possible to frame your aims and objectives in such a way as to design such criticisms out? I agree with Martin and you on the need to frame this in a wider context.

To clarify my earlier post, I agree with you the two perspectives (or modernism versus city role) do not need to be exclusive. Your aim seem to be promote a more confident form of urbanism, whereby people are liberated from this fear that change and progress will destroy their heritage. Liverpool’s Victorian and Edwardian heritage lives not in old buildings, but in the city continuing to embrace bold contemporary modernism. It is a betrayal of that confident heritage to stymie contemporary development. The Victorians had no time for ancestor worship, nor should we. Shifting the perception of “heritage” from aesthetics to its truer meaning (which is an inherited culture) would be useful (as quite frankly you’re never going to persuade the lace’n’doily brigade to like anything modern, let alone tall).

As for "growth", my own take is that the pre-requisites for strong growth for cities such as Liverpool are fivefold:
a) decent communications, in particular a well-served and growing airport
b) at least one big and good quality university
c) an attractive and distinctive urban centre that supports a growing residential and visitor community
d) a growth-orientated and businesslike local authority that perceives its role as supporting and working with the market rather than defending the city against market forces
e) significant roles on the regional, national and international stage.

Your Society could presumably take on issues c) and d), as plainly Liverpool City Council, in terms of its elected and executive function, has been stuck in the past in that regard. Just making progress with that would be fantastic, given the inertia and misunderstandings you would be tackling.

But what about point e), roles? This plays into the sub-regional agenda, whether you call it Liverpool Bay or something else, and whatever boundary you draw. Part of ‘modernising’ Liverpool, in my opinion, should be about redefining what Liverpool is. A modern, confident Liverpool will not be too insular to presume leadership of its city region. Currently, I just don’t think it’s quite there as regards assuming / presuming a leadership role. (Incidentally, perhaps you could hold your first meeting in Birkenhead, to symbolically claim that side of the river as a part of your modern city of the future?). And yet, a lot of the growth and development required for the centre will depend upon just that, and the trams fiasco was in part a symptom of Liverpool not having the ability to bring all its sub-region with it. So maybe the ‘city region’ thing isn’t theoretical or remote from the urban development agenda.

I suppose the various agendas are not inevitably connected. Either or any could go forward independently – you could have a strong sub-regional agenda that didn’t address the modernist one, and vice versa. It’s just my personal belief that it would be useful for them both to be progressed as part of the same and there is some intellectual coherence between them. You would not need an explicit “alternative to the North West” aim if part of your agenda was to help Liverpool assume a modern leadership role within the region and wider world – it would I suppose be implicit.

I see what Poli means regarding the broader issues, and talking about things other than just buildings, and other physical matters. But the danger is that the organisation would become a big juggernaut, almost like a political party. This may well confuse people as to what our message is, and there might be conceptual difficulties in linking our beliefs about physcial matters, with social and political issues. Indeed, the people on this forum probably don't even share the same social/economic beliefs as one another. Some people come across as more 'left' and others more 'right'.

My view of this society is that it should primarily be about urban and physical matters. I thought the idea was to offer a modernist counter balance to the influence of the heritage folk. I've never heard EH come out with any social philosophy, so why should a 21st century society be expected to?

I suppose there needs to be a justification other than just "we like new buildings, we think there should be more of them." But the most simple message that would appeal to people is that if heritage is favoured over development, in many cases, this can lead to lost opportunities such as jobs, homes, physical/environmental improvements- and it is often the case that the heritage agenda has gone too far. e.g. going beyond the protection of old buildings, to suggesting that certain views from certain street corners should be protected. Which is preposterous.

I think there needs to be a very local subtext to it, which would appeal to the citizenry. If the accusation were made that we are some skyscraper spotters who are in the pockets of those evil capitalist developers- then this society would need to be able to show that the people involved love the city and its history. We are not opposed to protecting Liverpool's history at all, but that there needs to be a balance if Liverpool is to become rich and powerful again.

etc, etc.

But will (asumming we want to) divorcing the political aspect be that easy, or even possible, given that politics is so intwined with what we stand for. For example, how do we ignore the political georgraphy of Liverpool and it's surrounding areas when many things which are issue points for us, concern political divisions and quangos on national, Granadaland, metro, county and borough levels. You can't advocate that the city council adopts a pro-big development policy at the expense of what English Heritage enviisons or at the expence of what UNESCO wants, without it being political. It is a political statement. EH is a political quango. It has an opinion on how the city should maintian itself and it seems to hold great influence on the cabinet members of Liverpool City Council and those on the Planning Committee.

So I think we should be careful about what boundaries we draw whilst cultivating this society. We may end up castrating it before it is born.

Perhaps you could play the angle that 'English Heritage' is just that, an organisation to maintain in England as a vast theme park of olde worlde curriosities for passing tourists. That EH doesn't care about how Liverpool works or prospers and so a society would be needed to defend those parts of Liverpool's heritage that do aid prosperity while not being precious about the relatively insignificant heritage features whose preservation is holding Liverpool back.

Presenting yourself 'as we like new stuff' will only put people off, as the experience of modern architecture in this country is still on the whole a bad one. Presenting yourselves as defenders of Liverpool's past and FUTURE will make EH seem like the historical fundamentalists they can be. You need to be the middle way between quick buck developers and bureaucratic stucco junkies.

I like Poli's point that true heritage is as much about preserving a culture of progress and innovation as much as about preserving bricks and mortar. That does not mean that we are indifferent to old buildings being demolished but that we are concerned not only with what we inherit from the past but also with what the future will inherit from us.

As to the political issue - I don't see how we can avoid it. As skyscraper and architecture enthusiasts, how do we counter arguments that tall buildings are just built to allow greedy developers to make as much money as possible to the detriment of the areas they are built in? We have to have a broader vision that sees tall buildings as part of a general regeneration and revitalisation of the city.

Gee lads, that's some stuff there.
What I would say in response to some of these fantastically profound points is that it is all connected and all to be highlighted... whether any group or initiative that we look at covers all or any of these points will depend on how much time is contributed etc. Longest journey...first step and all that! Thanks for making that effort poli... good job you did that if you can't make it as there are some truly excellent issues there. Blabs I think hits the 'heritage' issue on the head.

Shall we settle on 11th then?

Goth - I don't understand... I wouldn't purposely ignore any emails, especially from you... send me another one or give me a bell?

Sounds fine to me, Tony.

thanks tony, ive replied to your message. seems my emails are going astray again!

thanks Goth

would be good if you could get along to next week's meeting?

would be good but impossible. its bloody ages to liverpool sadly, last time i went was a four hour train journey.
i know where the emails were going btw, i had you down as sebo@byonder.co.uk. my bad. anyway ill drop you a line with some thoughts.

Henshaw is a fucking twat and I hate his guts. He is an arse crawling pig who has blatantly been sucking ass in central government. Oh, what's that I hear you say? He's been offered a new job in Whitehall? Surprise, Surprise.

I'm sick of people referring to his spell in Liverpool as a success. So he improved efficiency and contributed to lower taxes... And? Isn't that what he was being paid a fortune to do? Fact of the matter is, LCC was at rock bottom when he was recruited, and only a complete fucking muppet could have made things any worse.

He stabbed the city in the back when he started interfering in the tram scheme, and getting involved in bitch fights with Storey. He even sent an arse crawling, secret report to his Darling in central government. Behind the backs of his employers, who will begin paying his enormous pension in the next few weeks. He should have been sacked and had his pension taken off of him.

If anybody wants an insight into the kind of slimey, horrible bastard that makes it in goverment then I give you Sir David Henshaw. And he is only a novice compared to some of these ministers and high-ranking bureucrats. They're all scratching each others backs, and kissing each others arses. Funny how both Henshaw and Storey have got their public sector jobs back within weeks of leaving their last jobs, isn't it?

Well, what shoud I expect from the state? Everything about it amounts to unfairness and stupidity. I'm tempted to say that Local government should be given more powers vis a vis central government, but frankly I don't have an ounce of faith in much of the LCC aparatus.

Until Liverpool adopts more of a free market economy, and reduces the interference and power of the local authority, the city will be doomed to a future of mediocrity (at best), and begging like a pathetic little urchin for government hand-outs to improve things. It will forever be the butt of jokes and its fine people and qualities will go unappreciated inderneath the elephant that is LCC, and the rest of the public sector. As long as the city gives the council a strong role, then success will depend on the quality of the those runing it (-and if the last 3 decades is anything to go by then that inspires little confidence.) Whilst LCC now bemoan the loss of £170M for the trams, they seem to over look the fact that they themselves have turned away over £350M of private investment from developers like Maro and Chieftain (-and possibly Merepack.)

Liverpool is no more than a merry-go-round for over-paid officials and quangos- all of whom end up making matters worse. Statism and pink socialists have ruined Liverpool over the last 30 years. The only reason things seem to be good now is because we're on the crest of a world economic boom (-it's practically impossible not to grow in times like this.)

The following policies need to happen...

*SCRAP World Heritgae Status.
*Welcome and encourage private investors and be pro development in planning(-still protecting indivdual heritage buildings of course)
*Sell off all LCC assets that are not directly related to the administration of the city.
* Adopt a cit-wide consitution:
- that bans interference in privtae development on heritage grounds (-listed building consent is enough to protect the existence of individual buildings.)
- that prevents LCC from raising council tax above the national average (-which can be calculated on an annual basis) (in fact, I would say the national average minus 1%)

As long as their resources are curtailed, they can do less damage.- also, there should be a presumption in favour of private, rather than public funded development.

--- All of this will help pave the way to Liverpool becoming rich again. Until this happens then the city might as well consign itself to being an embarrassment that begs for money.

Just out of interest, did anybody here see Making Slough Happy a few months back?

I think what you are all beginning to talk about is one of those 'Think Tank' societies they always talk about in the news. People like the IPPR or Fabians etc. Maybe this could be a "Liverpool Think Tank".

I do strongly agree with Poli with regards to his idea about hosting a meeting in Birkenhead. I am orginally from the Wirral myself and have seen the snobbery, resentment and petty arguments from both sides of the Mersey.

As much as peple may wish Wirral was still part of Cheshire, aligned with Chester, not Liverpool, it isn't going to happen. It doesn't make sense economically, socially or even geographically these days.

The Wirral isn't our only concern of course, places like; Sefton, including Southport; Knowsley; St. Helens; West Lancs and Halton should all be included as part of a Greater Merseyside, Greater Liverpool or Liverpool Bay.

As much as we may criticise Manchester, rightly or wrongly, it's authorities talk to each other. The Tram mess has shown exactly how much Merseyside's five authorities communicate with each other. They are merely reflecting the views of people who live there.

Capital of Culture is another great example of this. I know it was the City of Liverpool that was awarded it, but we often make much of Local Authority boundries being meaningless with regards to a real city limit. I'm frequently disappointed with the lack of planning for 2008 not only in Liverpool, but surrounding too.

People need to stop seeing each other as different and work together.

The Tram mess has shown exactly how much Merseyside's five authorities communicate with each other. They are merely reflecting the views of people who live there.


I think it is extremely naive to think that these mediocre indivduals (often elected by a tiny proportion of voters) are representing what 'their' constituents say. Sorry, I think that's nonsense.

Surely it would be better to reduce the power of LCC so that it makes little difference whether they communicate with other authorities or not. At the end of the day it is private enterprise that raises all the public money in this country- why don't we just cut out the incompetent middle men (i.e. the politicians and pen pushers) and allow private individuals, comapnies, etc. to spend their own money, and build developments, infrastructure, etc.

I don't mind councillors and MPs having pathetic fall outs and bitching about each other, providing they don't have mine and other peoples money and fates in their hands whilst they're doing it. Manchester might be lucky to have decent public servants- but for Liverpool this just doesn't seem to ever happen.- there's no point wasting years of progress waiting for the day that such an event will occur.

I’ve been trying not to, but recent tirades have goaded me into making some general comments on this proposed society, which sounds to me like a support group for big property developers – not, in my opinion, the most needy section of the community.

1) When it is complained that the city council have rejected hundreds of millions of pounds worth of investment, the clear implication is that anyone with big money ought to be allowed to build whatever they like. It’s OK for planners to have a say in loft conversions and conservatories, but not over multi-storey towers that everyone in the city will have to look at for decades.

Alongside this is the view that the public sector’s involvement in building control is a ‘conspiracy of jobsworths’, or more generally that the public sector is a swamp of corruption and incompetence. No doubt public sector people like planners and conservation officers are keen to protect their jobs (like everyone else); but this warmed-up Thatcherite view denies the possibility of developers acting selfishly as well. Look, for instance, at the recent behaviour of Peel, which held the city to ransom for some unspecified ‘planning concessions’ because it had a veto over a public sector scheme that is universally regarded as in Liverpool’s interest. Forumers have actually commended Peel for this! And regarding the more general argument of ‘private sector good, public sector bad’, surely there is no need to point out the extent of corruption and incompetence that can be found in the former. The recent trend of reneging on pension commitments in the private sector is a particularly massive and egregious example, about which there should be much more of a scandal. Moreover, try getting the private sector to even think about paying for a tram line.

2) A lot is made by critics on the forum of the ‘subjective’ nature of planning decisions. Certainly there is a large subjective and aesthetic element. But that isn’t the point. The point is, given that element, who should decide? It’s a political question. Should developers be the judge of their own proposals? Should you be allowed to build whatever you like, wherever you like, so long as you have the money and can foresee a profit? Perhaps some people really think this, but anyone who does not must then accept that someone other than the developer has to decide, and proposals will then sometimes be rejected or modified, and ‘investment’ declined.

There’s another problem with the ‘subjectivity’ criticism – where do you draw the line? What, in planning, isn’t subjective? Some people prefer edge-city shopping parks to city-centre shopping. What to some is an exciting combination of uses, types of people, and cultures (the urbanist’s vision) is to others a scene of inconvenience, conflict and threat. So even the most basic principles of urbanism, such that city centres should be a concentration of retail and commercial activity, are open to challenge on this ‘subjectivity’ criterion. A developer who owns a parcel of land at the city edge (Peel?) and wants to invest hundreds of millions in a shopping mall can declare all opposition to be ‘subjective’ and there is no objective basis for a reply or refusal. Cities get destroyed that way, as many American ones have been (prompting the ‘New Urbanist’ movement we hear about, which is at least as much a reaction to market forces as an expression of them).

3) Some would say it’s not the planning system in general that is at fault but Liverpool’s ‘sick planning culture’. I don’t think so. There is no ‘anti-tall buildings policy’ – six have been approved in the centre since 2000. Development is constrained, as it has been for decades, by Conservation Areas (I don’t think WHS has added significantly to that existing constraint). Liverpool has a lot that is worth conserving, and this is not incompatible, as innumerable current examples show, with development and regeneration. The important point about ICOMOS UK’s ultra-conservative criticisms of the Museum of Liverpool proposal, advocating either pastiche or the preservation of the current empty space (which, ironically, some forumers also favour), is that they were discounted by planners, and EH supported the building. So there is no ‘anti-modern agenda’ either.

None of this means that planning decisions have to be meekly accepted without comment. I don’t agree with all of them myself. It’s good that they are publicly debated and I admire the efforts of those like Tony Sebo who do a lot to promote this debate. But I also think that a forum should not just be a unified chorus of opinion, and therefore I maintain, I hope without infuriating anyone, that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with current planning in Liverpool.

Lathom,

An absolutely terrible post.

You ask where the line should be drawn and who should decide on subjective decisions. That's exactly my point- decisions made by a small group of self-interested elites can never, and will never, satisfy everybody's tastes. The liberal perspective I have offered means that everybody gets to have more of a say over what they do with the land that they own (-not unlimited freedom)- rather than being told what to do by people who don't even need an education to get elected and wield power aginst others.

Your view that this is Thatcherite is pathetic (and also insulting.) It's the kind of thing I'd expect Councillor Steve Munby to come out with because he can't think of a proper argument. There is not a shred of conservatism in what I've said. It's liberalism (read some Hayek for an interesting perspective.) Liberalism is intended to treat everybody the same, which leads me to conclude that it can't possibly be unfair.

It has never been suggested that developers should have a free reign. Of course, that would be silly. But when hundreds of millions of pounds are turned away on absurd grounds such as: "the development would affect the view from the corner of such n such a street", then frankly I think people will feel entitled to believe that there is something seriously wrong going on.

Semi-socialists have been running Liverpool for the last 3 decades, and it continues to be one of the most deprived areas of Europe. Compare this to the phenomenal wealth it experienced for the hundreds of years prior to this. Frankly, I do not see that having an incompetent council that turns away millions of pounds is doing any favours to 'poor people'- unless of course you're one of these old style collectivist types who is in denial. The best way to help the worst off is to allow economic activity to grow- this is where the state gets its own money from in the first place! -this might not be very marsh mellowy and nice, but sadly that's just the way the world is. It is capitalism that has made this country so well-off (-and the reason why poor people here aren't starving to death or dying of common ailments like in North Korea and parts of Africa.)

Incidentally, I deal with public sector planners on a weekly basis. I have no doubt that there are very talented and clever people in the public sector. But by and large I encounter an abysmal service from the public sector. Furthermore, practically everybody I've spoken to over here in Yorkshire seems to have special criticism reserved for those governing Liverpool and its planners. They usually pay particular attention to the conflicting quangos and the lack of knowledge and understanding on the part of the city's leaders. I spoke to one guy a few weeks ago- I asked him what was going on in Liverpool and what he thought... he laughed and said "a right fucking mess." These are people who have worked in the city and know first hand how badly it is run (in certain respects.)

The likes of Hatton, Storey and Henshaw making a show of the city is only the tip of the ice berg. So I think it is fair for people to explore alternatives.

Regarding Peel and other developers. What do you have against them? If it were not for private individuals and companies being engaged in money-making, we would all be poor. There wouldn't even be the tax revenues to fund the public sector! So the implicit theme that developers are some how evil is a bit on the naive side. (-although there are evil companies and this is why some measure of regulation is necessary- in Liverpool however, the council owns and controls too much of the economy.)

Also- why do you have a problem with Peel wanting to develop land that they own? It is their land, and I don't blame them for objecting to attempts by the council to force them to pursue a particular end.
(-just take a look at places like Commutation Plaza!)
I think it's fair to say that if Liverpool had the council and the quangos it does now in 1900 (onwards)- there would have been no Liver building, no Anglican cathedral, no Met cathedral, and generally very little becuase people wouldn't have bothered wasting time trying to invest their money in the place.

I can understand where you're coming from, but sadly, the world is capitalist- and those places that are most successful will be those that can attract people: to work, live and to spend and invest their money in them. This has always been the case with cities, and always will be. Sorry.

Lathom, I think you have written somewhere here that you are not a planner, forgive me if I am wrong, and yet your posts always make me think that you are. That's not an insult, by the way, just a comment, as you appear to have a profound understanding and sympathy for the profession as it exists in this country.

Please may I put a few counter-points to you.

First of all, your thinking appears to exclude consideration of the economic exigency. Liverpool is a poor city, and is highly vulnerable. It's not Manchester. It's not Leeds. It's not Bristol. It's not London. Planning in Liverpool is different - put frankly, people in Liverpool need to pay more attention to the economic implications of planning decisions than the citizens of the other cities. That is so that they can have jobs, have decent incomes, afford holidays, afford hip operations, afford to send kids to university, pay for new hearing aids, buy nice food, buy nice furniture, contribute more to charity....whatever wealth is for, people in Liverpool have less of it. The notion that somehow only "rational planning" as opposed to "wealth creating enterprise" will provide for people is not one I readily appreciate. I confess I am simplifying your argument for the sake of my own argument, and apologies for that, but while left-of-centre politically I cannot condone decisions that actually impoverish the people of a city that has already fallen behind.

Liverpool has been very poor, and is now just poor. It has had a bit of a hand-up, through European structural funds. Much of that money has been wasted. That is nobodies fault, it's just life. It was bound to be so. As much (if not more) fault for those failures lie in Whitehall rather than in Liverpool. And those funds will taper quite sharply in the coming years, and will probably be gone completely within 10 years. So Liverpool faces a choice. It either sensitises its development to the economic cycle and conditions, or it gets even poorer and effectively loses any chance of recovery. There isn’t a middle way, the competition for investment is intense.

Liverpool needs private sector investment, it needs capital, it needs more enterprising and middle class people to live in it. It needs to create an environment and culture that is geared not towards demolishing small businesses to build bungalows for pensioners, but demolishing bungalows to create business parks. In other words, a complete reversal of thinking. Liverpool is currently a fairly dependent city and increasingly others (ie tax payers in other countries and regions of Europe and Britain) will not support it, so it needs to become more self-sufficient.

Now, I fully believe that its cultural, historic and architectural assets are hugely valuable. They should be protected not simply because of their innate value, but because they are valuable to the city in an economic sense. A skyline ruined by cheap and inappropriately placed mini-towers would devalue the city and cause net damage. A system that allowed poor quality or inappropriate developments would be damaging, as it would actually make Liverpool poorer in the medium term – a less attractive city will attract fewer visitors, fewer new residents, fewer mobile business.

And yet, look at what has been accepted and what has been refused. There is no way (whatever the corrupt and pointless English Heritage have to say) that a tall replacement to Concourse House should have been allowed. It should not. It seriously compromises one of the priceless gems of Liverpool. I am a modernist who loves high-rise, and I believe that what is proposed for Lime St is a scandal. And yet it is supported, by the City and EH, while a high-rise scheme that would actually add dynamism and life to a nearby area, (the Central Station scheme) without compromising a sensitive heritage area, is mired in difficulty. How can you possibly defend a system or individuals who promote a taller replacement of Concourse House and yet oppose a tall building above Central Station? What kind of personal criteria do you use to come to such judgements? Plainly there is a serious problem.

Liverpool's only viable future is to embrace the market. It's not a choice. People in Liverpool are poorer than average, and poorer than they need to be. You have a shorted life if you are born in Liverpool than if you are born in many other parts of the country. You will buy and own fewer things. You are more likely to endure the misery and worry of being unemployed, struggling on a low income, not being able to progress. That is wrong and needless and these low-calibre partially educated heritage professionals and low-calibre politicians are stealing life chances and opportunities from the very people and city they are paid to serve. Surely that ought to make anyone angry.

Yes Liverpool's planners have been obdurate, old-fashioned, anti-market and incapable of acting in the city's best interests. They need to be opposed. They need pressure upon them that will force them (and their masters) to better appreciate the priorities of the city and the context within which it is fighting for a place in the world. Salaried and trained planners in a city authority like Liverpool may not be best placed to appreciate the context within which their decisions and behaviours take place, and in Liverpool’s case there has been a bit of bad luck with personalities high up in the Council. So it’s not really about personal blame of planners, they need to be better led and instructed.

This is all fantastic stuff - so are we all definitely meeting up next Saturday... Dr Duncans, from 3p.m onward?

Your last point Lathom (not about me.. thanks for the nice words) is important.
Sometimes on forums of like-minds like this we often use shorthand so never raise issues like ownership and rationale of the process.

From meetings I have been to I can assure you that these deeper issues are part of our thinking... I for one see no problem with developers making money...millions. They only make the money rom providing the venues for economic and cultural activity.. and if that activity is thriving enough to demand.... and prove profitable to provide... then, great!

it is how we got our great cities.. it is only developers who built it... remember, most developers only build others commissions, the exceptions are the lower grade stuff of spec that, ironically, our current planning bias leaves as the only options given permission...ramble over

Looking forwardx to seeing you all next week.

Is there another forum in this country in which the majority of posters do not live in the city or who write about it as though it is still the same city they abandoned years ago? I don't recognise Liverpool from this forum! Why aren't there more people who actually live in Liverpool posting on this site and by 'Liverpool' I don't mean Maghull, Huyton, Crosby, Birkenhead, Wallasey, Runcorn... I'm not joking. WTF is going on?

Well, that's what the forum is all about.... why not paint us your picture of the city?

Is there another forum in this country in which the majority of posters do not live in the city or who write about it as though it is still the same city they abandoned years ago? I don't recognise Liverpool from this forum! Why aren't there more people who actually live in Liverpool posting on this site and by 'Liverpool' I don't mean Maghull, Huyton, Crosby, Birkenhead, Wallasey, Runcorn... I'm not joking. WTF is going on?

But those places are Liverpool, just as Salford is part of Manchester, and Richmond and Croydon are part of London. You have an impoverished view of what Liverpool is. Liverpool broke its bounds 150 years ago. Do you honestly and sincerely believe that an ancient political boundary defines a great city? Do you believe that Liverpool stopped developing and spreading once that line was drawn?

"Abandoned" is a strange word to use for the diaspora of a city that has been almost deliberately de-populated as a matter of policy for decades. Do you believe that everyone who moved to Runcorn New Town or Skem really had much choice in the matter? Do you believe that people who went away because they were sick of being on the dole have "abandoned" the place of their birth? You have some really odd ideas.

Liverpool's only viable future is to embrace the market. It's not a choice. People in Liverpool are poorer than average, and poorer than they need to be. You have a shorted life if you are born in Liverpool than if you are born in many other parts of the country. You will buy and own fewer things. You are more likely to endure the misery and worry of being unemployed, struggling on a low income, not being able to progress. That is wrong and needless and these low-calibre partially educated heritage professionals and low-calibre politicians are stealing life chances and opportunities from the very people and city they are paid to serve. Surely that ought to make anyone angry.

Poli,

You have put this point more eloquantly than I did, and it is so true. Liverpool was my first experience of a big city and I have loved it ever since. Added to this is my Dad's nostalga about how amazing the place has been. It drives me fucking mad that the place has fallen behind places it used to piss over- Manchester, Brimingham, Leeds (-Leeds used to be a nothing before Harvy Nics moved there, now people don't shut up about the place. I'm living here ferfuxake!)

It is heart breaking that Liverpool has fallen into such a begging situation. There are lots of amazing things happening right now and the city will improve a lot in the next few years. But in the long term there needs to be some big changes, otherwise it might as well be consigned to the dust bin of the history of insignificant places.

Manchester is exceptionally lucky to have such a good local government. Development there is steaming ahead and millions and millions of pounds are being encouraged and welcomed to contribute to the environment there. Granted, Manchester is lucky to have the regional agenda work in its favour- but the council there also tell the likes of EH to fuck off when it comes to big projects. In Manchester, massive investments and job creating opportunities are prioritised over heritage. Maybe this is becuase there was less heritage there to begin with. But at the end of the day, the average standard of living there is now much higher than in Liverpool, and is growing faster.

This hurts me, and as such, I seek alternatives to the way Liverpool is being managed.

Lathom,

I enjoyed reading your post as it is always good to see the other side of an argument and you are very good at presenting the viewpoint from a planning perspective.

The argument, as I see it, is not anti-planning as such but against a planning elitism that ignores the aspirations of the people of the city in pursuit of some heritage utopia.

To use a simple analogy. If you take a taxi ride, you put your life and welfare in the hands of the driver. You trust that in gaining his taxi licence, he will have the skill and knowledge to drive you safely to your destination by the most direct route. That is his job and what you pay him for.

What you don't expect is for him to decide what destination you are going to. If you are going shopping in town and he suggests you might prefer a local shopping centre, you may take his advice but it is entirely your decision.

The same argument applies to planning. The planner has the skills and ability to scrutinise development plans and oppose those that would cause problems for local people, block popular views or not accord with the aspirations of the city. He has the vision to offer his informed opinion on which way the city should develop but in the end, it is the people who should decide.

There is a strong popular feeling in this city that the planners are out of kilter with what the people of this city want. It is they that are deciding on the destination, which seems to be some heritage utopia and ignoring the aspirations of the people for a modern and successful city built around a preserved heritage.

And I do have odd ideas - I'm from Liverpool 8. Ask anyone who lives in the city whether the suburbs I mentioned are part of Liverpool and they will tell you in no uncertain terms. In all these forums in SSC, everyone wants their city to be as big as possible and so suck up all the surrounding areas. Talk about gender signifiers. Boring. I'm talking essence of Liverpool and you won't find it in any of the places I mentioned. Maybe I was a bit OTT using the term abandoned but the thing about diasporas the world over is that the image they retain about 'the place of their birth' is forever dated. I was born in 1986. Don't remember the 70s or the 80s. Recently went about this country looking at unis. Couldn't wait to get back. It would take a fucking tank to get me out of this city and as I said, I don't (pictures apart) recognise it from the posts I read. I know skyscrapers are well ... no comment... but it is noticeable that not many people who live within the city of Liverpool as recognised by her inhabitants are posting on this thread. That's all. As me nan says:
"There's all kinds in this city." You'd never guess it from the atypical selection of scouse voices on this forum

Ha ha.

I'm a plastic scouser- born in Chester and raised in Runcorn- with a load of scouse ex pats. I am now a fake Yorkshireman who is constantly referred to as a scally-scouser by his work mates and friends (-they don't know the accent so well over here.) I have a crisis of identity.

I feel an emotional attachment to Liverpool. Probably becuase Runcorn was (and is) a shit hole and I spent a lot of my time in the 'pool- going back and forth on the X5 through out my teens. Runcorn new town was built to suck out people from Liverpool- but it never had an identity. The people in Runcorn (new town) refer to "town" meaning Liverpool.

I wasn't born in Liverpool, and have never lived there (except when staying with extended family.) Nevertheless, it is my favourite city in the world. If you have a problem with that, I'll stab you ye bastard!

No-one has said welcome, Liverpool8, I suppose it's not anyones job too, so I will. Hope you post more.

And the constant yabbing on this thread about Manchester.

Where's that?

And the constant yabbing on this thread about Manchester.

Where's that?

hmmmmmm, a touch of the Sir Miles Platting methinks.....I think you should raise that on another thread, to be honest. :)

But that's my point. Most people who live in Liverpool don't think about Manchester the city as opposed to Utd the club. It's 'scousers' who live outside the city boundaries or elsewhere in this country who are fixated on it and see it as some kind of benchmark for how a city should be. You scals seem to live in a parallel universe! I'm the only person on page 4 of this thread who actually lives in the pool!

Help! Is there anybody out there who still lives in this city? Are all the locals off their heads downtown. Can someone get me a taxi because I'm not walking down Park Road this time of the night.

But that's my point. Most people who live in Liverpool don't think about Manchester the city as opposed to Utd the club. It's 'scousers' who live outside the city boundaries or elsewhere in this country who are fixated on it and see it as some kind of benchmark for how a city should be. You scals seem to live in a parallel universe! I'm the only person on page 4 of this thread who actually lives in the pool!

Help! Is there anybody out there who still lives in this city? Are all the locals off their heads downtown. Can someone get me a taxi because I'm not walking down Park Road this time of the night.

You've done a hell of a lot of research for a new poster. It takes quite a lot of research to find posts where people reveal where they live. That shows a lot of commitment, which is great, but are you absolutely sure you know where everyone lives?

I live on Gambier Terrace if that helps (well, it helps me avoid the taxi rank at 2 a.m. anyway :)

The irony in Liverpool8's post...

Most people who live in Liverpool don't think about Manchester the city as opposed to Utd the club.

Most 'scousers' only association with Manchester isn't even in 'Manchester'.

Then

It's 'scousers' who live outside the city boundaries or elsewhere in this country who are fixated...

Which way do you want it?

All councils working together under the umbrella of Liverpool, (as most of the people on here seem to want), and how you seem to have suggested most people see 'Manchester' (i.e. including Trafford in 'Manchester'), or having Liverpool limited by the artificial political boundaries?

Welcome to the forum Liverpool8, wasn't sure if you were new.

You raise some fair points, especially about Manchester, but yu also display some ignorance of the social and planning history of the city.

I assume you mean the area that gets it's bins emptied by the city council as 'Liverpool'? If so then you have unwittingly gone along with the 'Manchester obsessed regional agenda' that sees Liverpool as the backwater shithole of 425k sorry inhabitants in comparission to Manc the mighty metropolis of 2.5 million creative souls.

Places like Huyton. Kirkby, Halewood, Bootle, Netherton are as 'Liverpool' as Scottie Rd... or even L8

When the inter war and post war estates where developed and populated by slum clearences from the heart of the city the culture continued. It was not as though they placed various families in well established towns beyond the boundary... Huyton for example had 500 people in it until the suburbs reached and overwhelmed the village with 50k slummies.
Know your city's history before you start denying folk their culture and roots?... and diminishing your city's influence and culture too boot!

I was born and bred (27 years)in Walton Liverpool 4. Now I'm a sheepshagging wooleyback living in Huyton apparently. Tell you what though I agree to a certain extent with L8. When I first moved to Huyton I did feel as though I was in the sticks a little bit, I mean five minutes away and they talk totally different from how I do, and theres cows in a field with some horses. I thought Prescot was hillbilly country, now I'm there all the time and I take it all for granted. But years ago I'd think (and still do) wooleybacks!

Once you cross that boundary line attitudes do change. I remember when Knowsley was going to be scrapped by the boundary commission a few years ago and amalgamated into Liverpool. The locals were horrified. They didn't want to be amalgamated into Liverpool. They set up a petition and almost EVERY fucker signed it. I was gutted I just couldn't understand why these people were snubbing Liverpool, I thought they were as Scouse as I was. I was wrong. At that time I felt I didn't belong and I wanted to move back into Liverpool I was that depressed about it. Daft I know but there you go.

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/liverpool/liverpool-from-air-m3674.jpg

Hee you go Sebo, a pic of part of that 425k shithole and a completely unrelated metropolis way over yonder. ;)

Nice one Bunnyman.
And Waterfront... didn't know you were stuck in the burbs with me!
The Prescot point is a good illustration actually for L8. As the city and it's inhabitants moveed further and further out, it eventually hit lancashire...where it stopped!
Today you can see this reflected in the culture, accent and outlook... Huyton is scouce Liverpool while Presecotians are Lancs!

I too was dishearened by the lobby against being taken over by LCC, but you must also remember that for most who I knew it wasn't about identification with city or other... it was about services and LCC as a corporation was shite, expensive and corrupt at the time.

Most people I know actually signed the petition, but this was to ensure that their bin was properly emptied and the school didn't have rats.


That is actually another point we should all remember when we bitch about the Lib Dems etc.... ten years ago the city council was appallingly bad... things have improved vastly, even though they are still crap when compared to other LA's around the country.

I was born and bred (27 years)in Walton Liverpool 4. Now I'm a sheepshagging wooleyback living in Huyton apparently. Tell you what though I agree to a certain extent with L8. When I first moved to Huyton I did feel as though I was in the sticks a little bit, I mean five minutes away and they talk totally different from how I do, and theres cows in a field with some horses. I thought Prescot was hillbilly country, now I'm there all the time and I take it all for granted. But years ago I'd think (and still do) wooleybacks!

Once you cross that boundary line attitudes do change. I remember when Knowsley was going to be scrapped by the boundary commission a few years ago and amalgamated into Liverpool. The locals were horrified. They didn't want to be amalgamated into Liverpool. They set up a petition and almost EVERY fucker signed it. I was gutted I just couldn't understand why these people were snubbing Liverpool, I thought they were as Scouse as I was. I was wrong. At that time I felt I didn't belong and I wanted to move back into Liverpool I was that depressed about it. Daft I know but there you go.

Being born and bred in Huyton. I think that was due to the Knowsley Council at that time providing better services and lower rates. Nothing to do with city loyalties. My family have been in Liverpool for generations and were moved out after the war from Edge Hill and Anfield.

My Nan was bombed out of Westbourne St, which used to be just behind the collegiate in Shaw St, so they rehoused her in one of their suburban estates as she was a widow with five kids.

Anyway... shall we continue the Liverpool planning history sometime later?

Liverpool8 are you able to come along to the meeting next Saturday?

Saturdays a bit wobbly for me but I want to get along, may make an hour of it and sup a coffee or mineral water!

Why aren't there more people who actually live in Liverpool posting on this site and by 'Liverpool' I don't mean Maghull, Huyton, Crosby, Birkenhead, Wallasey, Runcorn... I'm not joking. WTF is going on?

See, that's exactly the kind of attitude that holds the City back!

Why should the Wirral, or indeed its tunnel fees, pay for a Liverpool/Knowsley tram scheme if Liverpool wants nothing to do with them. I think the others have made this point fairly well so I wont dwell on it.

I quite fancy coming along to the meeting next week if only to sit and listen, so hope to put faces to names if that's ok. I'm not a psycho-murderer or anything. :)

Being born and bred in Huyton. I think that was due to the Knowsley Council at that time providing better services and lower rates. Nothing to do with city loyalties. My family have been in Liverpool for generations and were moved out after the war from Edge Hill and Anfield.

You are probably right there Dello regarding rates / services. But KMBC has been distancing its self from Liverpool for years even replacing 'Liverpool' with 'Knowsley' on all it's correspondence. They even posted flyers urging the residence to do likewise saying the Royal Mail had agreed to it, but I work for Royal Mail and I know they were actively telling KMBC to stop doing it because Huyton mail was going to Prescot and effecting quality of service (it still does). They are liars who will do anything to preserve themselves. I suppose this is a trend with all the metro councils seeking their own independence but what you've got to bear in mind is most of the councillors at KMBC are Knowsley (borough) residents, and these are the ones encouraging the seperation. They even scrapped the old crest with the Liverbird on it for fucksakehttp://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c19/Waterfront36/knowsley.jpg. With this monstrocity.http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c19/Waterfront36/smlKnowsleylogo.jpg Wankers the lot of them.

Fellowscalswhereveryizare. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not pissing on anyone not living within the legally defined city boundaries and I’m deadly bright (offered a place at Peterhouse, turned it down). I know what you mean by Greater Liverpool and Liverpool Bay. Do you know what? I also know this city’s socio-economic history. Backwards. All I’m saying is that this forum seems to be populated by people who don’t actually live in this city and there’s nothing wrong with that. Love it, Love it, Love it. I wondered why this was but quite honestly I don’t really care. No doubt it serves some function and it’s harmless. I hope all the places on Merseyside prosper but my main interest is Liverpool and in particular Liverpool 8. I’ve been sniffing around the site since just before crimbo and studying it ‘A’ level sociology style. Fascinating. Such knowledge and occasional wit. I guess I’m an ignorant scal or something but the ‘Liverpool’ talked about in this forum seems far removed from the Liverpool I live in. The conversations aren’t the ones I hear as I go about the city trying my luck. I really don’t have a problem with Liverpool only having a population of 450K. I don’t care what people think about Liverpool in fact I love it when they slag us off. I don’t know about you but I put my accent on with a trowel whenever I go somewhere where the locals don’t speak scouse. The inhabitants of this city know it’s a gorgeous dump, a streetwise prosy who’s not only been round the block a few times but has been knocked about a bit too and is still hitting the town like there’s no tomorrow. No stranger to intoxication of every kind. That’s Liverpool. This city doesn’t pretend to be something it isn’t. The world knows us for what we are. The whole of SSC seems taken in by Manchester. Maybe this says something about the difficulties some guys have separating the wheat from the chaff. It’s easy to see why Manchester dresses itself up in the garb of Greater Manchester, 2nd city etc. Think of Manchester. What comes to mind? Precisely, nothing whatsoever. Preston with tall buildings or rather variations on the same tall building. I can see how they are seduced by their own myth. They need it. They feed it. I don’t give a flying fuck about that city. Never did. As for ‘a Liverpool of the future:’ I want its population to be healthier than it is now, better educated, better housed and better paid. I want more than the choice of kebabs or burgers at 4am in the morning when I’m in town and I want to be able to find a café that’s open at 7am on Sunday morning when I’ve been up all night and it will be some time before I’m ready to come down. If trams come, I want them coming down Park Road as they did over 100 years ago. I want the Gaumont in the Dingle reopened showing Japanese samurai, Italian vampire and French porno movies for me nan and her new fella who loves a bit of ‘foreign’. OK, and fucking John Wayne movies for me granddad. I want decent shops in Park Road, Windsor Street and Mill Street. I want all the boarded houses renovated and new ones built. No green spaces except for the parks! I want these houses full of scousers who have come home, people from Eastern Europe and Somalis. But not you Abdul. That khat you gave me was shit. I want Toxteth TV to be a real TV station full of local news. I want to graduate with a First. I want to stay in Liverpool, work here, have my family here, grow very, very old here and die here. That’s all.

Nice post Liverpool8. A very good read indeed.

The only thing I'd disagree with- i think more people on here do live in the pool than don't.

I have to agree with your Manchester statement. Nothing springs to mind. Except an oversized and ugly airport- and a few 60s tower blocks. It is taking off wealth wise though- and I don't blame people for wanting Liverpool to have those riches too.

Nice post Liverpool8. What subject where you going to study there? I ask because you write well, so I wondered if it was perhaps English. I am a geographer, by way of background and training, so I tend to think in terms of space and how it is used and understood. In the world of geography a city is more than the district you live in and possible also love, although that is a part of it. Different people bring completely different ways of thinking to the question "what is a city". I think there is space for all those different perspectives here.

There are a lot of other cool cities apart from Liverpool, an awful lot, so I am intrigued if you should feel a desire to stay in just one place for your entire life. It's possible to be a son or daughter of one city, and live happily in the community of another. And you can remain a citizen of one city and yet be resident in another. At least I think you can.

Some good points there, especially this one

I don’t know about you but I put my accent on with a trowel whenever I go somewhere where the locals don’t speak scouse.

I have noticed that a lot of people from the rest of England react in a negative way when they hear my accent, only recently an external contractor to the company i work at quipped "i wouldn't leave your mobile in your vehicle especially in Liverpool". This was said to my face after i said "i'll just get my mobile from my vehicle" in my scouse accent. I don't have a strong over the top scally accent, but you can tell where i'm from, and i'm not going to start putting on fake "ok yar" tones to hide where i'm from just to fit in.

I was Born in L8 and lived there while very young "Wordsworth St" off Lodge Lane, before moving to Wavertree, Kirkdale, Walton, but currently live in Knowsley Council Land, anyone asks where i'm from, I say Liverpool :cheers: .

I always found that whenever, I told people I was from Liverpool they would reply with 'you don't speak with a Scouse accent' as if I'd just admitted to a prison sentence for child abuse.

Used to irritate me a lot. Made me want to pinch their hubcaps just to prove I was a real Liverpudlian.

I always found that whenever, I told people I was from Liverpool they would reply with 'you don't speak with a Scouse accent' as if I'd just admitted to a prison sentence for child abuse.

Used to irritate me a lot. Made me want to pinch their hubcaps just to prove I was a real Liverpudlian.



I get exactly the same, i didn't realise but is this a veiled insult to mean i'm alright, that i'm not one of those theiving scouse criminals, and how terrible it must have been for me, but i managed to escape the scousers and a criminal life, and get a proper job. :)

From Lodge Lane myself Jux, Moss Grove and Granby street also, wouldnt go near Park road, Mill street or Mount Carmel when I was a kid people down there used to eat babies and put people inside wicker men and set fire to them. :crazy:

From Lodge Lane myself Jux, Moss Grove and Granby street also, wouldnt go near Park road, Mill street or Mount Carmel when I was a kid people down there used to eat babies and put people inside wicker men and set fire to them. :crazy:

I moved to Dingle soon after being born, aparently it was rough, then moved to Belle Vale, aaaaaarrrrrgh, from the frying pan into the fire, but i don't remember any of it, my dad used to take me along in his HGV, i also don't remember any of it, (i came to life awareness at about 5 i think). I vaguely remember a brown carpet in a council block in Belle Vale, i can't go any further back. I remember the walkways in the sky going across from the housing estate to the BV shopping centre. I do remember the concrete'ness of the whole area though, and the massive 70s bloccks that have long since gone. (thank F*@c)

The inaugural meeting of the 21st Century Society will take place in Dr Duncans on St Johns Lane at 3 pm on Saturday 11th.

Please try and come along.

(I will do my best, but probably get there late).

Sounds good to me... hope to be on time, won't be any later than 3.30p.m.

http://www.merseyside.org.uk/displaypage.asp?page=31

Talk the walk so you can talk the talk

As Liverpool gears up to be European Capital of Culture 2008 tourism officials are making sure that everybody in local industry is fully briefed on what is going on in the city.

The Mersey Partnership (TMP), in conjunction with Liverpool Culture Company, has launched 'Talk the Walk', a series of guided walking and coach tours designed to improve city centre workers' knowledge about the changing face of Liverpool. The tours will help improve the reception offered to visitors, which forms part of the Liverpool Welcome initiative.

The 'Talk the Walk' programme comprises two tours - a 'Coach Talk' and a 'Talk Walk'. The 'Coach Talk' starts in William Brown Street at World Museum Liverpool and takes in the city centre, waterfront area and South Liverpool. The 'Talk Walk' starts at the 08 Place, taking in the Radio City Tower to look at the changing Liverpool skyline and the new Liverpool One development from the viewing platform at Paradise Street.

The tours are free of charge and led by a fully qualified Mersey guide. Places per walk are strictly limited and must be booked in advance. Coach Talks start at 9.30am and Talk Walks at 2pm. Both tours last no more than 90 minutes.

The tours are aimed primarily at people working in the tourism, leisure, hospitality and transport industries but would also be suitable for anyone interested in the regeneration of the city or those having frontline contact with visitors*.

Martin King, Director of Tourism at The Mersey Partnership, said:
"We would encourage all local businesses to send their staff on these tours. With the increasing number of tourists, investors and decision-makers visiting the region we need to make sure every one of our workers is fully briefed about what is going on all around them."


· Talk the Walk is promoted by The Mersey Partnership as part of its contribution to The Liverpool Welcome and European Capital of Culture.
· Tours are not open to the General Public

Hope the meeting goes well. Look forward to hearing all about it.

The inaugural meeting of the 21st Century Society will take place in Dr Duncans on St Johns Lane at 3 pm on Saturday 11th.

Please try and come along.

(I will do my best, but probably get there late).

Sorry to have missed the inaugral, I am working in London, but will back in town on 25th. Feb. In the mean time I would hope that a report on this meet will be posted soon.

Meeting was great. Lots of ideas. Agreed to formalise the group and pull together some basic principles that seeks to promote to welcome growth, change and rebirth of the city, conservation of buildings and pride in our culture and heritage... within the metropolitan and international context we need to set things in.

What we need now is help to pull together idea, constitution, techie stuff and an initial agenda for a city that looks to move into this, not so new, millennium!

Nice meeting everyone and putting faces to names. I hope once I left you all got down to business and a) agreed core values and aims b) elected a committee c) recruited a thousand members in a manic recruitment drive around the neighouring pubs....

I don't know how things turned out, but just my personal take on things was that there seems to be a core value that architectural quality is something Liverpool deserves, and that tall, modern and distinctive buildings can be of the highest quality. Those present seem to share the view that high quality modern buildings can compliment rather than detract from high quality older buildings in the vicinity, as long as planning decisions are sensitive and appropriate.

In terms of aims, I sensed that these probably flowed from that core value, because it seems that the conservation lobby oppose new high quality architecture if it's anywhere near old high quality architecture. That seems to be a fundamental difference between the people there today and the EH mindset. So I wondered if there was an aim to campaign (and persuade, and influence, and where necessary oppose) overly zealous and dead-hand interpretation of World Heritage site status?

I suppose if there were other aims, there might be one to promote Liverpool as a city where good quality architecture, planning and design are deployed to increase the prosperity and happiness of the Greater Liverpool area. There definately seems to be a commonly held aspiration to seize opportunities to make the region centred on Liverpool wealthier, but also to use architecture, planning and design to share those opportunities and benefits out, and make sure that the city centre and surrounds become lived in and loved again by a wider range of people.

Just my two pennyworth, not sure if I got the whole picture in an hour or so.

Sorry Tony crossed in the post, I was writing my missive while you posted yours, so I hadn't seen it before I posted.

great minds as they say!
better summary than mine pol. I should also have said it was good to meet a few new faces too. This has the potential to be really exciting and maybe have an impact... no need to over extend ourselves...logical set of ideas in a good urban context... then start getting the mesage out

Thanks Tony and Poli for summary, I would hope to take an active part in future meetings, work allowing. Just hope we can maintain an momentum and agree aims that we are all happy with.

Cheers again guys, :)

Just thought that I would keep the pot bubbling on this one.

This does not have to be done at breakneck speed, but better to keep a momentum going.

Basic ideas for the core points of any 'manifesto'?

i think the most important one is that we are a group of people who take a positive and welcoming attitude to Liverpool's growth and the physical changes this would bring.

that Liverpool being a commercial city should welcome major new additions to it's stock

We want to continue Liverpool's tradition of being a modern city, as it has been through all it's eras...untill the killer 80s' So new designs for new buildings...where ever they are... size and context in relation to it's proposed use and contribution to reanimating a block or neighbourhood...not the bloody old building next door!

These changes if encouraged within an urban context would only enhance the city's funtionality and if quality, rather than 'appropriate style' were the benchmark then change could also improve the landscape and skyline


Conservation of individual buildings of architectural or genuine historic merit is essential... but the value of this drive should not extrapolate into false ideas of 'heritage townscape'... especially into design realms that are alien to Liverpool.

etc, etc, enterprise, culture, city centre living... metro over regional, international revival and context, transport... etc.... what else?

An important point is that it is not a political party... so we do not all have to blindly agree on everything... we want to explore loads of ideas for a positive future for the city

Personally I would add something about people, to get round the "buildings more important than people" and "developers more important than communities" issues. That goes back to your first line about welcoming growth and change. Isn't the aim to welcome growth and change for all the people in Liverpool and its region, but in a way that everyone can have an opportunity to benefit? Otherwise its just growth for the profits of pension funds, Irish property developers and drug money launderers, and it's not clear how ordinary people benefit. If you can't afford one of those new flats (and a lot of the issue has been around residential rather than commercial development) then why should you care particularly?

But how can all the people benefit? Well presumably through increased mixing whereby a growing Liverpool population becomes progressively more middle class or attuned to middle class values - and the old patterns of exile (of talent) and residualisation (of the vulnerable, untalented and poorly motivated), leads to situations where there are whole estates lacking any social mix at all, some of which have shockingly high numbers of families where unemployment/semi-unemployment are transmitted naturally from one generation to the next.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that all the resurgent regional centres like Liverpool need a fundamental change in planning philosophy that is premised on:
a) increased densification
b) greater social class mix within those denser settlements
c) ensuring business premises are provided even where developers (of residential developments) don't want them or believe they can make as much return.

This is going to be difficult for a lot of planners, social landlords and corrupt politicians (who don't want people who potentially won't vote the "right" way in "their" ward) as they will need to re-think what living in a city is now about. Just as developers in the city centre don't want to mess about with more complex designs that incorporate dwellings for poorer people, families, people with disabilities etc., so social landlords and politicians don't have any incentive to give up their power in impoverished communities to strong, mixed communities where not everyone is dependent upon their patronage or scared to challenge their neglect and inefficiency.

The new downtown residential towers (despite their apologists talk about being just few in number, meeting needs etc) are in reality segregating some of the most talented potential contributors to civic and community life from the rest of the city. Middle class professionals and business people will be disproportionately valuable in rebuilding Liverpool - but they need to integrate, hang around more than just a few years in a cramped high rise flat before they marry and flee to Heswall to have kids. If the culture of the city is to change - to become one where education, skills, hard work, risk taking, social and civic duty and competitiveness are intrinsic, then somehow these values need to pervade the communities in which people actually live. We have had millions of pounds of public money spent on patronising initiatives to harness the "social capital" in impoverished working class communities, and, guess what? It doesn't bloody work, doesn’t' change those communities and doesn't create the step-change required for recovery. And yet plonking all the people who most possess resources and the ability to bring about change in towers in the centre is just not going to do it either, not sustainably.

Everyone feel free to ignore, but I'll have a go at drafting a couple of lines about that. If others don't agree, fine, it's only my opinion, but I think it's pretty much the way the world is going, and would be nice to get in there and be on the front foot of trying to change things, instead of the alternative, which would be to be purely reactive.

Just thought that I would keep the pot bubbling on this one.

This does not have to be done at breakneck speed, but better to keep a momentum going.

Basic ideas for the core points of any 'manifesto'?

i think the most important one is that we are a group of people who take a positive and welcoming attitude to Liverpool's growth and the physical changes this would bring.

that Liverpool being a commercial city should welcome major new additions to it's stock

We want to continue Liverpool's tradition of being a modern city, as it has been through all it's eras...untill the killer 80s' So new designs for new buildings...where ever they are... size and context in relation to it's proposed use and contribution to reanimating a block or neighbourhood...not the bloody old building next door!

These changes if encouraged within an urban context would only enhance the city's funtionality and if quality, rather than 'appropriate style' were the benchmark then change could also improve the landscape and skyline


Conservation of individual buildings of architectural or genuine historic merit is essential... but the value of this drive should not extrapolate into false ideas of 'heritage townscape'... especially into design realms that are alien to Liverpool.

etc, etc, enterprise, culture, city centre living... metro over regional, international revival and context, transport... etc.... what else?

An important point is that it is not a political party... so we do not all have to blindly agree on everything... we want to explore loads of ideas for a positive future for the city

Tony, I've drafted five core values / beliefs / aims (not sure precisely what they are).....includes yours I think, plus Gareth's, not sure if they will help or not, just offering them anyway for people to react to.


1. Embrace change and growth

Liverpool is a dynamic city with a great future as well as a great past. Change is to be encouraged and harnessed for the good of the city and its wider region. Liverpool can only sustain its current recovery if it becomes the natural home of more talent, entrepreneurship and growth. It is individuals, companies and risk-takers who will create our future, not plans or strategies. We need plans and a culture that welcomes and works constructively with anyone and everyone who wants to come and live here and do business.

2. Preserve individual buildings / groups of buildings on merit – not entire districts

As well as cherishing the fine buildings we are lucky to have inherited, future generations must inherit a changed and improved city from us. Time hasn’t stopped for Liverpool, and our tradition is as a city of entrepreneurs and creators rather than curators of our own past. Architectural masterpieces are not preserved by creating phoney heritage-friendly design for the districts around them: Liverpool is not Venice; we believe that we have great days ahead as well as behind us.

3. Apply quality criteria to all development in a way that doesn’t penalise high rise.

Genuine architectural and design merit should be one of the criteria applied for any change, whether it is by the public or private sector, or for high-rise, mid-rise or low-rise development. A tall=bad, low=good presumption has fostered blandness and mediocrity, and ironically damages the views and setting of some of our finest old buildings. Our new skyline will be different than the old one: it was always thus, and we cannot stop the clock at one point in time and say "our skyline is now finished".

4. The city centre is an engine of economic growth and requires a range of new developments.

The renaissance of downtown needs to benefit everyone in Liverpool and its wider region by providing more and better jobs. Retail and tourism are necessary but not sufficient for a strong economy where we can banish unemployment and poverty. The city centre also needs to be generating new, quality jobs in sectors other than retail and tourism: striking new premises will be required to attract and accommodate such jobs.

5. More emphasis is needed on quality of life and supporting our changing communities.

Vibrant and mixed communities are not fostered by the kind of low-density and single-tenure estates some planners have favoured in the past. Cities are about mixing, a melting pot where people can interact and create something entirely new, and a place where people can grow without having to leave. Everyone should be able to enjoy the striking new views that true high-rise buildings offer, and not just an elite. Everyone deserves access to good quality parks, even people who live in the city centre. Sustainable growth of downtown requires investment by the city, to complement that of developers.

Excellent stuff poli... I could go along with them.

I also take your point about peole and communities... we all tend to use our shorthand and this sometimes neglects issues that are actually central.


My whole rationale about developing a dynamic city that generates wealth is soleley so that scouseers, and that includes everyone who elexcts to settle here can help themselves and their communities by taking hold of the opportunities, rather than being forced to sit round waiting for shit shit arsed job in a call centre who is only here as long as the grants remain!

Intensification of development, mixing up uses and getting tens of thousands of people living downtown and the iner core creates a platform to create wealth.... and by tapping this by some to provide business this helps to created jobs and amenity for the other residents.....

Ramble over

Reading the last two posts, I'm struck by the sincere passion of the posters and an absence of specificity demonstrated in the over use of what seems like new Labour/new Tory generalised statements of wanting a better Liverpool for everyone!

The problem for me with the notion of a '21st Century Society' is that in typical English fashion it pretends it is non-ideological or that ideologies don't matter. Lets all work together for the good of the city! This is fine until an ideological flashpoint arises! For example:

(1) Do we always allow developers to develop where they think there is a market for their product?

(2) Do we accept that developers have the long term sustainable interests of the city of Liverpool at heart and build accordingly?

If you have answered 'No' to either of those two questions then ideologically you are not wholely supportive of trusting in the free market.

(3) This is a forced choice question. Are you happy with the lip-service paid to Georgian referencing in post 1960s developments in Canning or Upper Parliament street or would you rather see that area restored to how it used to look at its best?

If you would like it restored to its original splendour you are subscribing to a heritage vision of what constitutes an urban space!

The above examples are slightly tongue in cheek to make a point. But I would welcome answers to the following questions:

(1) Who is the 21st Society's target audience?

(2) How does what the 21st Society have to offer differ from existing voices within the city?

(3) How will the Society ensure that it is not seen as apologists for the interests of developers?

(4) Is the society demographically representative of the city of Liverpool? Any females, non-whites for example? If not at the moment, what steps will it be taking to ensure better representation?

(5) How does it address the wider urban needs of the people of the city of Liverpool? How does it ascertain what these are?

This one is a bit nasty, sorry but in the spirit of open debate amongst friends...

(6) Is its primary purpose to let off steam for those people on this forum who are frustrated by what is perceived to be the non-responsiveness of LCC to current opportunities for development in Liverpool?

Interesting questions, Tony and others have probably thought about it more than I have. I just think there is a gap - on one side there are property developer interests, who are in it to make as much money as quickly as possible; on the other are well funded and powerful heritage / conservation groups, who seem hell-bent on opposing high rise and modern buildings. The Council and planners appear inconsistent and unduly influenced by the heritage lobby. So some of pressure / campaigning / influencing group that seeks to speak out for modernity seems like a good idea to me. By modernity, I don't mean just supporting every single scheme that comes along, I mean espousing a belief that each generation can achieve excellence and be distinctive in town planning, architecture and design - and deserves every opportunity to achieve this. The current generation of architects and planners should not be unduly constrained by reverence to previous generations (who themselves were under no such constraints).

Who should it influence? Everyone. It should help inform and mould public opinion, by explaining the virtues and advantages of modernity, it should hold public officials and elected members to account, by following events and being able to pose legitimate and sometimes hard questions to them. It should influence decision making, by making representations, for example at public enquiries, or through letters to the paper. Public, professional and practitioner opinion changes over time, and Tony's society could certainly influence that if its messages are simple, cognate, well grounded in reality and presented persuasively.

Should it be representative? Pressure and lobby groups never are, that is not what they are there do be - they are there to reflect a body of interest. While it's good if they have a reasonable sized membership, and ideally one that broadly reflects the population, it's rarely that precise or that scientific. A group such as Tony' society will have infuence by virtue of the quality of its ideas, the extent to which it quotes good evidence and opinion in justifying its statements, and on the quality and effectiveness of its communication. It can help win arguments by virtue of its views, rather than seek to be some kind of political party (in all but name). Will it have a representative sex, age and ethnic balance? Probably not, but it's certainly a good question and once the Society exists and is promoting its ideas, let's hope that would change.

Tony seems keen to make it what people want it to be - and my take on what it's about might not be shared by others, which is fine, but here is an idea - why not join in, and help shape it? You seem to have a lot of relevant ideas and experience you could bring to things.

Reading the last two posts, I'm struck by the sincere passion of the posters and an absence of specificity demonstrated in the over use of what seems like new Labour/new Tory generalised statements of wanting a better Liverpool for everyone!

The statements are generalised because the society is in a very early stage. Although five of us met to make it's inception offical last Saturday, we still haven't decided on what we should or should not set in stone as 'manifesto' issues. This thread and the two posts you've addressed, are an attempt to float ideas about what direction this society should take, encourage debate
and share ideas.

The problem for me with the notion of a '21st Century Society' is that in typical English fashion it pretends it is non-ideological or that ideologies don't matter. Lets all work together for the good of the city! This is fine until an ideological flashpoint arises!

I'm not sure if not having a single, unflexible ideology is such a disadvantage, taking into account that we'll be wanting the society to be as inclusive as possible, I don't think a small number of us should impose our own personally nutured visions onto a society that's supposed to reach out to all people who believe the city should be primarily looking to Liverpool's future, more so than it's past, which I believe should be the society's key principle.

(1) Do we always allow developers to develop where they think there is a market for their product?

Well we're not the council so we're not in a position to allow anything. Whether individuals support individual developments should be up to the individual. However, I personally believe we should encourage developers to propose projects and for these to be of the highest quality ie regarding mixed use, architectural merit (ie no more commie blocks like behind Lime Street) and building materials. We should critisize proposals which are overtly single use ie one bed residential only, cheaply or poorly designed and constructed as well as Commutation Plaza style blandness. That should be a fundimental principle, which I think Poli has listed.

(2) Do we accept that developers have the long term sustainable interests of the city of Liverpool at heart and build accordingly?

The main priority of developers is to make money. But so what? That's capitalism for you. If you buy a sausage roll from Sayers, are Sayers more concerned about creating the product to keep you sustained, or are they more concerned of recieving the money, you pay for it? The developers will build what the city allows them to, which at the moment is anything low-rise and inkeeping, but I'd sooner we took a more positive approach, which I addressed in the previous paragraph.

If you have answered 'No' to either of those two questions then ideologically you are not wholely supportive of trusting in the free market.

I don't entirely. At the same time, I don't believe in rediculously prudent planning policy. But on the whole, developers should be able to build what they want unless there's good reason that they shouldn't in each individual case.

(3) This is a forced choice question. Are you happy with the lip-service paid to Georgian referencing in post 1960s developments in Canning or Upper Parliament street or would you rather see that area restored to how it used to look at its best?

I'm not really sure what you mean here.

If you would like it restored to its original splendour you are subscribing to a heritage vision of what constitutes an urban space!

So what? Appreciation of restoration and appreciation of moving the city into the future with new and exciting developement are not mutually exclusive. It's our opponents on this issue, in English Heritage, certain members of the council amongst others, who persist on this illusion. It's something I want this society to try it's best in shattering

(1) Who is the 21st Society's target audience?

Everyone who believes in it's key principles. Primarily the belief that Liverpool should take greater strides into the 21st century than it currently is, with less emphasis on dwelling over the past, which is done through over reliance on tourism and heritagism. We will not be out and out anti-tourism or anti-heritagism.

(2) How does what the 21st Society have to offer differ from existing voices within the city?

We're a group of reletively normal bozos who, as you admit with regards to Poili and Tony's posts have a sincere passin for the well being of the city. None of us have any personal motives other than the fact we care. We are not in league with any political party. We are not in league with developers, something we were indirectly accused of by the local government last year. Tony's downtown organisation has a similar emphasis, but that is more geared towards Liverpool's downtown environment. This socitey will have a greater motivation towards the city on the whole, it's surrounding region and how we would like it's future to take shape. SSC Liverpool unofficially plays this role though the site was originally just ofr architecture and construction.

(3) How will the Society ensure that it is not seen as apologists for the interests of developers?

By standing by what it believes. We only get painted like that because being overprotectionist with regards to the existing cityscape is scene as normal, which makes us appear extreme in comparision. In reality, we (at least us who attended the fist meeting) are no more apologists for developers than we are for the hertage fundamentalists. If, in a parrallel universe, there were a Liverpool where the local planning committe was to let developers do whatever they want, regardless of any effects or consequences they may have, we'd all be out to save the Town Hall from being demolished for something more modern, and probably bland if no quality control was in place. Good bye Liver Building too. However, the other extreme of heritage extremsism is no better and if in place at the beginning of last century, would've meant the Liver Building never seeing existence. We're actually fairly more politically central on this issue than the council, heritage fundamentalists and yourself, Fitzroy, give us credit for.

(4) Is the society demographically representative of the city of Liverpool? Any females, non-whites for example? If not at the moment, what steps will it be taking to ensure better representation?

At the moment, no. But we haven't even started properly yet to begin mustering over such an issue, if it is an issue. Most of us on here are white and male. But so what at the end of the day? We will try and reach out to all who believe in what the society stands for, regardless of what colour, creed, social class etc etc.

(5) How does it address the wider urban needs of the people of the city of Liverpool? How does it ascertain what these are?

We're not a political party, Fitzroy. We won't be giving the local councils marks out of ten for refuse collection. We do, however, believe in cultivating a strong economy as this is vital for Liverpool's future. We will speak in favour of good urbanism like SSC and DL do, regarding a good downtown and inner city environment, with emphasis in high desity, mixed social class neighbourhoods, mixed use of downtown buildings or areas, as opposed to zoning, good public transport, good ammenities such as parks, schools etc.

This one is a bit nasty, sorry but in the spirit of open debate amongst friends...

(6) Is its primary purpose to let off steam for those people on this forum who are frustrated by what is perceived to be the non-responsiveness of LCC to current opportunities for development in Liverpool?

And why go to all the trouble if this forum helps us do exactly that. Why are people taking the trouble, some involving a five hour train journey, to meet up and talk about nuturing this society? You said you were struck by the sincere passion of posters, but now you're saying they're just full of hot air. Are we not being a little contradictory here, Fitzroy?

Reading the last two posts, I'm struck by the sincere passion of the posters and an absence of specificity demonstrated in the over use of what seems like new Labour/new Tory generalised statements of wanting a better Liverpool for everyone!

The problem for me with the notion of a '21st Century Society' is that in typical English fashion it pretends it is non-ideological or that ideologies don't matter. Lets all work together for the good of the city! This is fine until an ideological flashpoint arises! For example:

(1) Do we always allow developers to develop where they think there is a market for their product?

(2) Do we accept that developers have the long term sustainable interests of the city of Liverpool at heart and build accordingly?

If you have answered 'No' to either of those two questions then ideologically you are not wholely supportive of trusting in the free market.

(3) This is a forced choice question. Are you happy with the lip-service paid to Georgian referencing in post 1960s developments in Canning or Upper Parliament street or would you rather see that area restored to how it used to look at its best?

If you would like it restored to its original splendour you are subscribing to a heritage vision of what constitutes an urban space!

The above examples are slightly tongue in cheek to make a point. But I would welcome answers to the following questions:

(1) Who is the 21st Society's target audience?

(2) How does what the 21st Society have to offer differ from existing voices within the city?

(3) How will the Society ensure that it is not seen as apologists for the interests of developers?

(4) Is the society demographically representative of the city of Liverpool? Any females, non-whites for example? If not at the moment, what steps will it be taking to ensure better representation?

(5) How does it address the wider urban needs of the people of the city of Liverpool? How does it ascertain what these are?

This one is a bit nasty, sorry but in the spirit of open debate amongst friends...

(6) Is its primary purpose to let off steam for those people on this forum who are frustrated by what is perceived to be the non-responsiveness of LCC to current opportunities for development in Liverpool?

I agree with a good deal of this, though it does need to be said that people are entitled to form pressure groups if they want; nor do they necessarily need to represent anyone other than their members or be statistically representative either. And airing the issues is a good thing.

For me the point is that no-one has demonstrated fundamental defects in the current approach of LCC. There is plenty of exciting and modern development going on. There are more towers being built than at any previous time - more than in the whole of the preceding three decades in fact. There are also proposals for modernist buildings that have been approved by planners and supported by EH. 'Mixed use' and 'high quality design' are not terms that are foreign to Liverpool planners; nor, to judge from numerous planning reports, are they keen on pastiche as a response to heritage issues. Things have changed dramatically from a decade or so ago, when beggars really couldn't be choosers.

As I've said before, and as Fitzroy says, 'should developers be allowed to build anything?' is a key question, and it is a political one. Since most people, when this question is put, seem to answer 'no' (even though that means that they too would decline 'millions of pounds of investment' if in charge), the task is to set out what the constraints should be, in a way that is not only clear and systematic but also accommodates the inevitable presence of subjective considerations. I suspect that a serious attempt to do this in connection with the heritage issues that (for good reason) are dominant in Liverpool would result in policies that are quite similar to the ones currently in effect. (Liverpol makes a stab at a different policy by suggesting that protection should be for buildings, not areas. But surely similar considerations apply to each, at least when areas are largely intact, as e.g. Castle St or 'Ropewalks'.)

But I am not a member of the Society, so please forgive my intrusion.

Couldn't disagree more as regards LCC. The planning dept is peopled by conservative , small town Mr Magoos. I think you said in a previous post the only two towers had been rejected. Firstly, Unity, was originally to be over 40 storeys, rejected, the tower on sefton st has now been scaled down to 22 storeys after "talks" with the council and then there's Lime st etc. Meanwhile, the Ibis hotel, a 5 storey red brick monstrosity is allowed to be built opposite the largest group of grade 1 listed buildings in the country(Albert Dock) As far as heritage is concerned the situaton couldn't be more perverse, LCC owns hindreds of listed buildings which are being left to rot,while designating a glorified chimney( St John's Beacon) as an architectural icon, which is to be the height limit for the tall buildings policy. The whole planning and conservation depts should be sacked.

Indeed, LCC have a very negative attitute when it comes to buildings being tall, architecturally non-conformist and seem to have a phobia of private investment, which is not healthy at all. They'll let any old crap in as long as it's not taller than anything already nearby and doesn't draw too much attention to itself, Ibis, as golden vision mentions, being one of many examples. Liverpool having more towers approved recently, as Lanthom says, than in the previous three decades means nothing really, considering that the city was in the doldrums. Only letting Beetham 1 though, would've made that a fact.

Also, I'd love to know what these marvellous buildings are that EH supported. I can't personally think of thm at the top of my head, can anyone help me?

Jesus, this post was so bad I JUST HAD to edit it...a bit!

Wow! I will have to go through and read all of these points properly.. but just one or two general things that I picked up on at first glance.

the first and most basic thing about a '21st century society' is basically as a counter to the heritage agenda that has seeped into thinking... i.e it is about glorifying our past so these heritage things MUST be good for us.....
ours would be 'we should celebrate change and growth... big, modern buildings etc because it is good for the city's vitality...and it makes it look good, and this is why......


the issue of free market is always a little difficult as of course I firmly believe in this, but if we give them total free rein they may just buld shopping malls and retail sheds...oops! All should work on the old chinese principle of 'be careful what you wish for as it may come true'

when I was at uni I said I the subject of my disertation would be 'sack the planners'.... but of course, you can't. So the sub text of any group would not be just to let off steam as the last point suggests it may be... but to lay out our thoughts of the type of city we could have... what benefits there are by looking at what WE say, with regards to urbanism, design etc... of course there is ego involved.. I want them to build MY city!....but.

The other point is that it is not my society and I really want us all to shape the initiative... that is why the message has to go right back to the basics... i.e we should welcome modern development and modern approaches to city building.. as in our opinion these happen to be what is best for engendering wealth and creative processes...etc... that is why we have set up this society (to provide a platform for our ideas to be aired), where the discourse and opinion pieces.. press releases etc start to come into things....

All of us on this site strive to improve what we see as the best way to grow Liverpool...we share ideas on this site, the 21st C society may be one good way of taking these points out from this site and into the public realm, thereby helping to shape debate and change ideas?
That is the value... it is giving things a go.

Excellent stuff so far... as I said I am going to digest it all properly

I can see the analogy - venting --> hot air but this was not the inference I intended to be drawn!

I guess the 'Society' is at the initial stages of fine-tuning its agenda. My concern based on what I had read in this thread was that there was a danger of spreading the canvas too wide. I was asking for a bit more clarity about its raison d'etre simply because once this has been defined, the process by which its aims and objectives can be achieved becomes more straightforward.

For example, if the purpose is to counter EH, certain strategies could be seen as likely to be effective which might become ineffective if the purpose of the society is to act as a 'think tank' to generate, fine tune urban issues for the Bay area. In the latter case you would need to dialogue with a range of different bodies in order to raise and maintain your agenda and this has the effect of forcing you to be ... shall we say, a bit more circumspect in the 'tone' that might be adopted towards EH which, sorry to say, can at times veer towards being a wee bit hysterical IMO.

I asked about ideology because in my experience organisations that fudge this issue often end up as a set of factions with all that entails.

You also need to be brutally honest with yourselves about what is acheivable. 5 people turning up to a meeting is a start but it needs to be built on and fast. There seems to be quite a bit of support within the Liverpool forum but this needs to be translated into people being more actively involved. Needless to say, if it is to be successful in the longer term it also needs to include people in its 'membership' who are not posters on this forum.

How will it be financed? Etc. Etc. I'm sure you have thought about all these things already.

I look forward to reading a statement of aims and objectives in the not too distant future.

your points are spot on Fitz, right now ideas are just being formed and the sum total of that has been two(ish) talks round a table and what there is on this thread.

I think that it is important that the basic take off point is established as all the other areas are supplementary/complementary. We can do stuff about international revival and trade, commerce, community cohesion and what ever.

I think the first principle is the basic one of welcoming the type of city that the heritage lobby do not want... i.e. a modern one, both in apprearance, but more importantly, in function!... Is that the core issue for everyone?

All the other things we want to see the city do is conditional on the city spurning the limits demanded by said heritage community.

Couldn't disagree more as regards LCC. The planning dept is peopled by conservative , small town Mr Magoos. I think you said in a previous post the only two towers had been rejected. Firstly, Unity, was originally to be over 40 storeys, rejected, the tower on sefton st has now been scaled down to 22 storeys after "talks" with the council and then there's Lime st etc. Meanwhile, the Ibis hotel, a 5 storey red brick monstrosity is allowed to be built opposite the largest group of grade 1 listed buildings in the country(Albert Dock) As far as heritage is concerned the situaton couldn't be more perverse, LCC owns hindreds of listed buildings which are being left to rot,while designating a glorified chimney( St John's Beacon) as an architectural icon, which is to be the height limit for the tall buildings policy. The whole planning and conservation depts should be sacked.

Indeed, LCC have a very negative attitute when it comes to buildings being tall, architecturally non-conformist and seem to have a phobia of private investment, which is not healthy at all. They'll let any old crap in as long as it's not taller than anything already nearby and doesn't draw too much attention to itself, Ibis, as golden vision mentions, being one of many examples. Liverpool having more towers approved recently, as Lanthom says, than in the previous three decades means nothing really, considering that the city was in the doldrums. Only letting Beetham 1 though, would've made that a fact.

Also, I'd love to know what these marvellous buildings are that EH supported. I can't personally think of thm at the top of my head, can anyone help me?

Whenever ‘investment’ is refused, planners get the blame. Whenever bad buildings get put up, they also get the blame. How about placing at least some of the blame for the poor quality buildings of the 1990s with those who built them? I don’t know what planning policy was in the 1990s and I don’t particularly defend it, except to say that planners can only approve what they are presented with, and in the 1990s they weren’t presented with much. The planning department can’t turn a budget hotel into a Hilton. In any case, the issue is what planners are doing now, not what they did ten or fifteen years ago.

It’s true that planners have scaled down some proposals at the pre-application stage (my original point counting acceptances and refusals referred, by the way, to the period since WHS inscription: I was arguing against the claim that WHS = no tall buildings). To golden vision’s examples could be added Eden Square and Windsor’s L1 development. One might agree or disagree with these modifications but that doesn’t alter the fact that plenty of towers are nevertheless being built and that LCC does not therefore have a general policy against them, despite what is incessantly stated.

Modern designs that EH supports (as Gareth asked for help): JMU Design Academy and Museum of Liverpool. These are key examples given the extreme sensitivity of their locations. You don’t have to like them: the point is that they are undoubtedly modern.

P.S. While I don't agree with Tony's 'abolish planners' position, I do appreciate his facilitation of debate.

Modern designs that EH supports (as Gareth asked for help): JMU Design Academy and Museum of Liverpool. These are key examples given the extreme sensitivity of their locations. You don’t have to like them: the point is that they are undoubtedly modern.


As regards planners being blameless, well they are not. They set a tone, they to an extent mould the nature of applications they will get, by their policies and behaviours towards preceding applications. I am sure given the trouble developers have had in Liverpool, there is a damaging reduction in the scale and ambition of develoments that are being presented. I am watching Central Station in particular as a test case here, as it seems to me that any reduction in height at all will be the final proof that the planning regime is habitually if not always hostile to high-rise. I believe the planners should be encouraging them to add 5 or 10 stories to the original proposal, not reduce the height.

There is good design and there is bad design: to be modern is not enough, it needs to be good - ie well designed, functional, attractive, appropriate. For a public building in a sensitive site, it also needs to be special. All subjective things. There is something opportunistic and aimless about the way in which some developments have been green lighted, others truncated, others stopped - design quality doesn't appear to be a particularly important consideration. English Heritage, as advisors, are intellectually bankrupt given the inconsistent positions they have taken on range of recent planning issues in the city. The planning regime in Liverpool appears uncomfortable handling difficult issues that require assessing the merits of modern buildings, they seem to lack any instinctive or trained or advised "eye" for what is good and special, and what is cack. They really don't know what is good or not, hence the debacle of the Mann Island site and also Concourse House.

To my mind, a 21st Century Society should not blindly promote "modernism" (and not every contemporary building is modern) but high quality modern architecture, and a planning regime that favours modernism and renewal of all areas deserving and needing such infusions.

Incidentally, while I was present there were six people there, not five.

I think we are getting too bogged down in this planners vs. developers argument. To have a 21st Century Society, we don't need an ideology, just an aim and a focus. Our aim, I believe, should be what Tony made the aim of Downtown Liverpool:

'To have Liverpool universally acknowledged as the greatest city in the world'.

To me, that is a sensible aim as it gives no limit on our ambitions for our city. You can argue for ever on what qualities the 'greatest city in the world' would have but at least it is fairly clear that being 'one of Manchester's best heritage suburbs' is not ambitious enough.

As for the focus, I think that will need to centre around the physical form of the city - its buildings, communications, location etc. That does not necessarily make us narrow in our outlook. For example, issues such as education, crime, employment, environment etc all have links to the physical form of the city.

We also need to look at the actual philosophy of the society. Would it be a pressure group campaigning on certain issues or a forum for ideas, education and comment? I would tend to go for the latter, as it is obvious from some of the above postings that we are never going to agree on every issue and too doctrinaire an approach would just tend to split us apart.

It is OK for someone like Wayne Colquhoun to take a firm stand against the 'trashy tart' on the waterfront when he is Honorary Life President and probably sole member of the Liverpool Preservation Trust, it is much more difficult when we are trying to be a democratic organisation with a wide range of views. We could end up like the Popular Front for Judea: 'We demand the immediate removal of all Romans, with the exception of those engaged in the building of aqueducts or the provision of central heating or in suppressing the activities of the Peoples Front of Judea.'

If we are to get serious about this Society, we will need to establish regular meeting dates and venues, membership and subscriptions and the establishment of a website and a newsletter / magazine.

As a possible example of the organisation we should aspire to be, the Friends of Liverpool Airport is a good starting point. This started in the early 80s when the airport was on the point of closure due to poor passenger numbers and now has a membership of around 500. It holds monthly meetings at the airport which are well attended and generally with an airport manager, an airline representative or some other air industry speaker. It publishes a quarterly magazine, has a website and arranges day trips and tours from the airport. In addition, FoLA members help out the airport with publicity and even do tours of shopping centres, exhibitions etc with a Liverpool Airport publicity stand.

One of the major advantages that FoLA has, that a Twenty First Century Society would lack is its close links to the airport, with some airport staff as members, free use of a meeting room etc. The subscription (£10 per head per annum) is the sole source of revenue but, with such a large membership that is quite adequate.

I think we are getting too bogged down in this planners vs. developers argument. To have a 21st Century Society, we don't need an ideology, just an aim and a focus. Our aim, I believe, should be what Tony made the aim of Downtown Liverpool:

'To have Liverpool universally acknowledged as the greatest city in the world'.

To me, that is a sensible aim as it gives no limit on our ambitions for our city. You can argue for ever on what qualities the 'greatest city in the world' would have but at least it is fairly clear that being 'one of Manchester's best heritage suburbs' is not ambitious enough.

As for the focus, I think that will need to centre around the physical form of the city - its buildings, communications, location etc. That does not necessarily make us narrow in our outlook. For example, issues such as education, crime, employment, environment etc all have links to the physical form of the city.

We also need to look at the actual philosophy of the society. Would it be a pressure group campaigning on certain issues or a forum for ideas, education and comment? I would tend to go for the latter, as it is obvious from some of the above postings that we are never going to agree on every issue and too doctrinaire an approach would just tend to split us apart.

It is OK for someone like Wayne Colquhoun to take a firm stand against the 'trashy tart' on the waterfront when he is Honorary Life President and probably sole member of the Liverpool Preservation Trust, it is much more difficult when we are trying to be a democratic organisation with a wide range of views. We could end up like the Popular Front for Judea: 'We demand the immediate removal of all Romans, with the exception of those engaged in the building of aqueducts or the provision of central heating or in suppressing the activities of the Peoples Front of Judea.'

If we are to get serious about this Society, we will need to establish regular meeting dates and venues, membership and subscriptions and the establishment of a website and a newsletter / magazine.

As a possible example of the organisation we should aspire to be, the Friends of Liverpool Airport is a good starting point. This started in the early 80s when the airport was on the point of closure due to poor passenger numbers and now has a membership of around 500. It holds monthly meetings at the airport which are well attended and generally with an airport manager, an airline representative or some other air industry speaker. It publishes a quarterly magazine, has a website and arranges day trips and tours from the airport. In addition, FoLA members help out the airport with publicity and even do tours of shopping centres, exhibitions etc with a Liverpool Airport publicity stand.

One of the major advantages that FoLA has, that a Twenty First Century Society would lack is its close links to the airport, with some airport staff as members, free use of a meeting room etc. The subscription (£10 per head per annum) is the sole source of revenue but, with such a large membership that is quite adequate.

Martin, posts 108 and 110 were trying to pin things down (and were then criticised as being too generic by Fitzroy, although he has shown no inclination to join, so that qualifies his statements somewhat). May I ask what is your reaction to those posts? I personally don't see a very broad "make Liverpool great" aim as being particularly useful given the discussion I heard and have read here, as I felt there was - is - something a bit more focused in the minds of some poeple.

At its core there needs to be a specific purpose to such a Society - which I think is to provide an alternative vision to an increasingly heritage-led vision of Liverpool - a voice for a modern, dynamic and varied city where heritage is only one string in the bow, not the whole bow. It's an alternative vision of the future (and of the past) to that promoted by the heritage lobby that opposes, for example, the Central Station development. That seems to be Tony's aim, it seems to be that of others - and it has real salience with important issues affecting the city. Is that your view of the central aim / purpose of such a Society? If not, what? I think Tony has helpfully boiled it down to that, and we need to stick with that idea and hammer it out, to see if it's one that we all agree with. I do agree with it.

And, being specific, I would like to add to posts 108 and 110 with this.

We need an overall purpose, ie why we exist, and the point of setting the Society up. We then need some aims,that is the ways in which we will fulfill our purpose.

Our PURPOSE, I believe, is to promote greater appreciation and use of modern architecture and design, including high rise building, in the regeneration of Liverpool. Our AIMS can surely be moulded from or around the five themes I drew together in post 110 (which were not particularly my own, but a summary of those raised in the meeting)?

Can we see where we can go with those posts, and see where it ends up, before embarking on a new conception of things? I'm not against anything you have said Martin, but there was a conversation around posts 108 and 110 (that Fitzroy and Lathom inadvertently stalled with their interesting questions), that I think we should continue with.

I think the ppint martin raises about sums it up.
Sticking to this gives us the hook to carry all other issues forward for debate.

I must agree with the point about 'modernism'.. the last thing the group should get bogged down in is the sense that the EH issue is about us having an alternative 'aesthetic design' philosophy... most planning and design philosophies are as destructive and dogmatic as each other.

modernity, not modernism...confidence in the capacity for incremental change, not 60s' 'progress'.. organic and intensive mixed use growth and enterprise, not spatial maasterplans and inward investment. From such basics we build....what ever - as a group - and as a city!

If we go with Martins basic point, who could argue with that as an aspiration? would also subliminally suggest that our current thinking is a barrier to this aim... which, of course, it is!

Martin. Could we presume to charge you with distilling what has been written and said so far and come up with a natty, concise draft set of 'ideals'.. a 'statement', or 'mission statement' for us to have a quick discussion over and then settle?

I have spoken to LCVS and they are discussing things on Friday and will follow up next week... so thanks for that Buggedboy!

The other point Martin raised, about FOLA and it's close links to the airport , is not one I see as a problem. I think we we can set the stall out right we will soon attract professionals etc in many of the institutions who are fed up with the agenda being driven by one skewered ideology... I am sure of that.

If we keep the mantra of 'the city should do this...for THESE reasons' we should also avoid the political spats... we are not looking to gain 'turf' we are seeking to inspire policy development?

Asking people to take on new ideas may piss them off, but it does not threaten most personal carreers... though maybe not for those creaming a living off the heritage freakery ride right now...

Lastly I did admit (sadly) that you can't sack all the planners... you just need ones who are good urbanists rather than mediocre jobsworths and who implement with no thought or care.

We want to build an alience of like minds... but to go further than just preaching to the converted...

I have read the posts you mention Poli but I don't see my approach as radically different but to quote from one of your postings:
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that all the resurgent regional centres like Liverpool need a fundamental change in planning philosophy that is premised on:
a) increased densification
b) greater social class mix within those denser settlements
c) ensuring business premises are provided even where developers (of residential developments) don't want them or believe they can make as much return.

There is nothing in that which I would disagree with but I don't think that you can use statements like this without an explanation of why you consider these desirable features. Many people equate high density with lack of privacy and poor living conditions, greater social class mix may not be attractive to a person who sees this as forcing him to live alongside uneducated and semi-criminal people and business premises alongside residential developments would not be attractive to a person who does not want to live above a glue factory.

The society needs to be able to argue that these are desirable features which come about from our fundamental aim of ensuring the growth and prosperity of the city and increasing its profile in the world. We need to understand the objections and question our own reasoning. Otherwise we could just come over as politically motivated and ideological.

Similarly, we need to be able to demonstrate why we see tall buildings as advantageous to our city and to point out the fallacies of a regeneration strategy based on too much emphasis on 'heritage'.

I have read the posts you mention Poli but I don't see my approach as radically different but to quote from one of your postings:
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that all the resurgent regional centres like Liverpool need a fundamental change in planning philosophy that is premised on:
a) increased densification
b) greater social class mix within those denser settlements
c) ensuring business premises are provided even where developers (of residential developments) don't want them or believe they can make as much return.

There is nothing in that which I would disagree with but I don't think that you can use statements like this without an explanation of why you consider these desirable features. Many people equate high density with lack of privacy and poor living conditions, greater social class mix may not be attractive to a person who sees this as forcing him to live alongside uneducated and semi-criminal people and business premises alongside residential developments would not be attractive to a person who does not want to live above a glue factory.

The society needs to be able to argue that these are desirable features which come about from our fundamental aim of ensuring the growth and prosperity of the city and increasing its profile in the world. We need to understand the objections and question our own reasoning. Otherwise we could just come over as politically motivated and ideological.

Similarly, we need to be able to demonstrate why we see tall buildings as advantageous to our city and to point out the fallacies of a regeneration strategy based on too much emphasis on 'heritage'.

It's a dialogue of the deaf! If (and it looks like a huge if) you manage to agree on anything, (and the discussion is actually going backwards rather than forwards) I will see what you do with interest, but I'm afraid to say it doesn't look to me as if this is going anywhere, so I won't participate further.

http://www.british-publishing.com/Pages/Liverpool2004/finally.html

Among Liverpool’s hundreds of claims to fame are .....

We shouldn`t sit on our backside!

:) :cheers:

Given scouser Dave's hint of possibly momentous news coming soon with regards to central docks, shall we get this moving along to give that platform for what we think about thngs like this... instead of mainly reacting to events when too late?

I have heard back from LCVS, so formalising the group is being pursued.

Any other news? Can we make this a sticky thread until thiings are resolved?

We still need to establish what we stand for properly. As recent conversation on this thread shows, the foundations are not yet set in concrete.

I'm sure a mod would happily stickfy this if you ask nicely. :)

You are right Gareth.
It would not be a political party, so we don't all have to be sycophantically 'on message' but we do need to have some basic core values... one mentioned was setting 'conservation' in it's proper context. that would be an obvious one that would set us as different to the save our city and preservation trusts, but not lose that vital aspect of the city's future needs to conserve buildings etc... not to have someting like that would attract all those 'knock em all down and start afresh' freaks from the 60s'.

the other main thing to settle is
are we an 'architecture' group...or something with a more basic but broader vision, that could be summed up in Martin's suggestion... of which architecture and 'design' are only elements?

I like the latter.

there have been a few attempts below to consolidate some of the suggestions put forward so who will have a stab at consolidating the consolidations?

I like the latter concept also. I'm off to bed now but at some point, hopefully tomorrow, I'll re-read this thread and compare opinions on what the core concepts should be. I will then throw my own hat in the ring stating my own personal point of view with regards to the society's core values. We may need another meet up soon. I feel alcohol knocked us off balance a bit last time. Maybe we need a more formal meet up point, at least for the next one, in somewhere like Central Library where we have a pen and paper meeting. It'd be off to the pub afterwards, of course. :) :cheers:

Any thoughts on my suggestion?

LoL!
I think that we should meet up soon... the llibrary is good.. also the Civic Trust have said they are happy to host groups like this one. The pub also usually means that ther is never enough space round a table or is too loud to hear some folk.

Martin was puting some thought to the aims.... did you conclude anything there M?

Good to see some momentum, I'm up for whenever you get together, I usually have a problem fixing a date, specially these saturday meetings!

Why don't you set a date then?

Midweek evening would be best for me at the moment.

Sound with me. Not sure about everyone else though.

Right having revisted all the posts in this thread I've conlcuded that there are two conflicting points of view regarding what shape the society is going to take. These are...

1/ Purely a physical development group which concentrates on trying to counter-balance the highly vocal heritage extremism that this city hosts as a stronghold for.

2/ A more wider focus on promoting anything that is seen as vital to the city's future.

As I've said, I like the sound of number 2 and (at least in the way I've typed it) it sounds better. I'm pasionate about city regional devolution, opposing Granadalandism and want Liverpool to establish a significant media sector, particularly maybe someone operating a local tv franchise (aka a Channel 6 license). Option 1 doesn't accommodate this. However, option 1 seems more practical. The more narrow field of concern could mean we could put more energy into key issues such as prmoting high density, mixed us, tall buildings etc. We may actualy be more effective in this mode.

This is what we need to establish next. Which way do we go. Should we all throw a ballot into the box and see which direction has the most support.

Is there anyway we can get a nice middle ground between these two directions. Maybe we have a core set of aims with regards to those that option 1 would include but perhaps we don't strictlykeep to a set of boundaries. So, say if most of the society's membership feel strongly about stressing a city regional focus as opposed to a north west focus, we could act on that whereas if just me and Poli are interested and practically everyone else either disagrees or is indifferent, we would leave that issue alone. However, promoting urban growth with regards to investment, jobs, homes, retail etc would be a core issue which we all must put our efforts into promoting. This could be an option 3 if there's to be a concensus that it is workable.

So what says everyone else?

So, say if most of the society's membership feel strongly about stressing a city regional focus as opposed to a north west focus, we could act on that whereas if just me and Poli are interested and practically everyone else either disagrees or is indifferent, we would leave that issue alone.

Leave me out of it Gareth, I'm just observing things and I'm not expressing views on it. As you've re-read the thread, you'll see that when I was involved, and attempted a first draft of the summary of the core values / aims etc., (which was evidently so poor Martin ignored it and did his own rather chaotic manifesto from scratch and without reference to what had gone before) I didn't make the city region an aim at all other than to insert the term in the context of a couple of the other aims - I did that simply because apart from you and me, there didn't seem t be any great enthusiasm for it in that first meeting or in the preceeding discussions here.

let us get together.
I like option 2. With the urbanist/building bias that we all have this would be a main focus naturally... option 2 does not limit anything else we may want to raise/indulge in.

one important point for me to forward concerns the issue of metropolitanism and media....with both issues they are incompatible with 'regionalism'... so there is the natural undercurernt/assumption.

poli...hope that is not a terminal take... contribution up till now has been excellent..

Right,

when are you revered gentlemen meeting up? If it is a weekend (other than he next one) I should be able to make it. How about one of the last 2 weekends in March?

Also, I think poli's contribution was excellent and would be glad to meet at the next gathering.

:cheers:

Right then folks... can we pin down a date when most can make it?

I also have an idea for a more inclusive name... 21st Century Society is more explicitly about architecture and design and meant as an explicit counter to the architectural obsessions of the heritage and preservation groups that infest the city.


Good point about waynes 'group' getting calls.... it is dead easy to get the press ringing you for your comments...if you offer good stuff.. journos here are fed up with the usual crap press releases that actually say nothing... at least wayne will say what he thinks.

option one... our own architecture focussed group as a counter
21st century Society

option 2.. the broader initiative that covers any issue to do with the city in it's urban, metropolitan and international context
Global City Agenda

Alternatives/scorn welcome... but we really should begin to settle things and just get on. I am up for either...though as I have said I like option 2 more

Right then folks... can we pin down a date when most can make it?

I also have an idea for a more inclusive name... 21st Century Society is more explicitly about architecture and design and meant as an explicit counter to the architectural obsessions of the heritage and preservation groups that infest the city.


Good point about waynes 'group' getting calls.... it is dead easy to get the press ringing you for your comments...if you offer good stuff.. journos here are fed up with the usual crap press releases that actually say nothing... at least wayne will say what he thinks.

option one... our own architecture focussed group as a counter.
21st century Society

option 2.. the broader initiative that covers any issue to do with the city in it's urban, metropolitan and international context.
Global City Agenda

Alternatives/scorn welcome... but we really should begin to settle things and just get on. I am up for either...though as I have said I like option 2 more

An important premise of this society must be the message that Liverpool is poor and needs money- regardless of the source, to regenrate it- create jobs and prosperity, etc. Therefore, in the city's planning there should be a presumption towards development and investment. If a company offers to build a £160M development on a derelict piece of waste land then the economic benefits must prevail above any other consideration- including aesthetic and heritage.

I'm happy to come along to help. Any day except Wednesday. As long as it doesn't turn into a partisan thing that is, I'm only interested in seeing Liverpool sensibly, and healthily developed, and sharing my thoughts, and listening to yours. And if its a weekend I'll have to bring my little fella....

An important premise of this society must be the message that Liverpool is poor and needs money- regardless of the source, to regenrate it- create jobs and prosperity, etc. Therefore, in the city's planning there should be a presumption towards development and investment. If a company offers to build a £160M development on a derelict piece of waste land then the economic benefits must prevail above any other consideration- including aesthetic and heritage.

Good post. I don't think Liverpool's politicians or senior officials feel as though they govern a poor city. They themselves are not poor, earning good salaries and expenses and living a good life in a city where you can live in a nice house in a nice area on a surprisingly modest income. Depending upon their ward, large parts of the city will not feel poor to them, although obviously for some it will. They have grown up in a culture where to be poor is simply a requirement for grant aid, and one where the cushion of European funding means there is always spare money to play around with. And, like everyone not actually required to make a hard decision, they believe they can have their cake and eat it. They do not understand the market, and have never needed to, and, like all addicts, they do not believe that their "fix" (that is structural funds and other hand-outs from elsewhere that keep the good ship Liverpool afloat) will actually disappear one day. But they will. There are only a few years left.

You can't entirely blame them, because the current funding regime doesn't incentivise local authorities to accept speculative commercial development, although it must be said it does incentivise population gain, and quite why Liverpool would turn away middle class new residents (who will otherwise live, in some cases, outside its boundaries) is a mystery.

I feel a bit torn on this. I am appalled by the cheapness of developments such as those around Queens Square, which have a post-WW2 austerity / breezeblock feel to them. But the city was so poor the choice was something or nothing. Personally, I think you can always turn the "something" into a thing that is better than nothing - with creative and engaged planning. A city centre full of and surrounded by holes and mini car parks was no good, and thank god for infill.

But I don't think the choice is quite as stark as you paint it. Brunswick Quay had nothing to do with aesthetics or quality (at least I hope it didnt) and everything to do with whether the Chief Planning Officer or the market would determine how the city would develop. The Chief Planning Officer thinks it's up to him, he decides where the stumpy mini towers go and where they don't, where is residential and where is commerical - and in the modern world, it doesn't really go that way, not for a poor city like Liverpool.

There is a fundamental lesson to be learned in Liverpool by senior politicians and officials, which is that the market is what builds and sustains a city. I personally don't believe many of them are capable of learning that simple lesson, because of the backgrounds in a heavily subsidised and interventionist regime. That is one reason I believe structural change to governance arrangements (be this through city mayor or city region) are essential for Liverpool - more so than for Manchester or Leeds. There needs to be a clearout, and new people who understand the modern world need to come in and run things for the benefit of the city. People like you Blabs, who understand that the market helps and grows the city, for the benefit of all, and is not some enemy to be fought and despised, which is evidently the position of the Liverpool planning department.

If I can just throw my two pence worth in, I haven`t read all of this thread (deliberately) as i`m sure that most of it I agree with....in all of it`s various elements.

We want to see a prosperous City and Region and Northwest in order to counter balance the landslide to the south.

In the extreme,

I don`t like `either / or situations` however there has to be a reality check whereby previously good investment and stable communities are essentially thrown to the wind in some sort of economics madhouse.....at the stroke of someones pen.

Or in fact refused and denied advancement because you are not in my gang.

If the `21st` does nothing more than open reasonable debate on both sides it will have suceeded.

However if it also has reasonable debate on singular issues and can bring clarity to a confused situation - so much the better, in the common good.

Renewal of enthusiasm for were you live and love will always be the grand motive.

Well for my twopence worth it is.

I for one would welcome Chris... please just leave any notions that you may be walking into some sort of Sicilian partizan organisation at home?

One of the reasons the group has been discussng whether to take a narrow 'design' focus or a rather broader one to promote the benefits of a metropolitan focus over regional is from quite a sophisticated understanding of urbanism and how cities work best.... it is not based on some lunatic hatred and resentment of Manchester...bloody hell, how provincial would that be? City in it's international context is the baseline theme... not, why have the mancs got a telly station and we haven't!

perhaps Paul could come too?

Let's see when we can all get together.

Tony,

One of the aims of the `21st` could in fact be to lobby for better media in the City/Region/Bay Area.

Television especially.

It makes my flesh crawl that Liverpool gave `Granada TV` the `Freedom of the City` for their services to the City ..... what a load of bollocks!

It`ll take more than a weather map down the Albert Dock.

That is essential... looking at the structures that could help make the city a dynamic place, rather than simply planning and architectural issues... would be right up for the media exploration.

Oops...double post!

It makes my flesh crawl that Liverpool gave `Granada TV` the `Freedom of the City` for their services to the City ..... what a load of bollocks! It`ll take more than a weather map down the Albert Dock.

We're in the age of digital TV now.

In the days of the weather map, Granada were granted the broadcasting rights for the region (following a tender)... if a Liverpool based company had a counterbid they weren't successful. Granada later merged with Carlton, and they became the largest broadcaster in the country... but it was all under licence. That's not something you can blame Granada for, you can only blame the lack of proportionate competition.

Anyway, in the age of digital, virtually anyone can broadcast on any number of available channels. If Liverpool create a channel, with programmes that interest people... then I'm sure people will watch it.

That's not the point. Granada are obliged to give a balanced coverage of the region they cover.they patently don't. To say they're biased in favour of Manchester is the understatement of the year.

That's not the point. Granada are obliged to give a balanced coverage of the region they cover.they patently don't. To say they're biased in favour of Manchester is the understatement of the year.

How do you know that.

Eh mate, i think you'd better go back to the Manchester forum if you're going to ask questions like that.

Eh mate, i think you'd better go back to the Manchester forum if you're going to ask questions like that.

Why should I, you made the claim. Not me. I'm asking you why you think what you do.

I'm gonna watch the regional news tonight and make a little diagram of what news is relevant to what area....... er, but don't we have separate newsdesks...? And honestly, just tell me why you think Granada as a company is excluding Liverpool, anymore than it excludes Rochdale, Blackburn, Preston, Blackpol and Southport (combined).

I'm not going to defend them, I just want to know why you think the way that you do.

Why should I, you made the claim. Not me. I'm asking you why you think what you do.

I'm gonna watch the regional news tonight and make a little diagram of what news is relevant to what area....... er, but don't we have separate newsdesks...? And honestly, just tell me why you think Granada as a company is excluding Liverpool, anymore than it excludes Rochdale, Blackburn, Preston, Blackpol and Southport (combined).

I'm not going to defend them, I just want to know why you think the way that you do.
Bye,Bye.

Bye,Bye.

Are you off then... words fail you?

We're in the age of digital TV now.

In the days of the weather map, Granada were granted the broadcasting rights for the region (following a tender)... if a Liverpool based company had a counterbid they weren't successful. Granada later merged with Carlton, and they became the largest broadcaster in the country... but it was all under licence. That's not something you can blame Granada for, you can only blame the lack of proportionate competition.

Anyway, in the age of digital, virtually anyone can broadcast on any number of available channels. If Liverpool create a channel, with programmes that interest people... then I'm sure people will watch it.

Actually b4mmy, I was a member of the `Merseyvision` TV franchise that took on `Granada TV` prior to its award of the 1979 franchise and I was amonst other interviewed at the IBA HQ (Independant Broadcasting Association) in London when it was chaired by Lady Plowden - and I personally saw to it that I made her job very difficult.

Writing to city councils and town councils and members of parliment urging them to split the `Granada TV` franchise along the lines of London. (Crystal Palace Transmitter.)

ie, `Thames TV` Weekly, Mon to Friday (daytime) and `LWT TV` (London Weekend TV) Friday evening to Sunday evening.

And the IBA refused point blank.

If they could provide a split franchise in London using one transmitter (Crystal Palace) there were no technical difficulties providing a similar split service using `Winter Hill` which was always used as an excuse and the lack of available alternative frequencies.

As `Granada TV` would not engage in any dialouge `Merseyvision TV` launched a bid for the total franchise.

We had talks with Towns in and around the area and proposed secondary news rooms in places like Preston, Blackburn, Chester and Manchester.
Liverpool obviously being the primary centre of the new franchise.....with the new ideas.

That obviously went down like a lead balloon in `Granadaland` who became seriously rattled that in fact the `Merseyvision` franchise document had to be discussed with the IBA before the `Granada TV` could be automatically awarded - as they had never been challenged before.

And this was the first time they didn`t get an open ticket.

We (`Merseyvision`) where the first to propose multiple news rooms feeding in from different parts of the region.

We (`Merseyvision`) where the first to advocate `24 Hour TV` in the UK (The very latest transmissions at that time 1977/1978 generally ended by 2am if you were lucky - a midnight close down was the norm across the majority of services ITV and BBC.)

There were also a number of innovative programing ideas including an increase in `Childrens TV` and more local `bespoke` programs aimed at the specific communities which would have had access to programming production.

Oh and it was `our` idea and intention to `repeat` popular programs at alternative times ..... for those who had previously missed the program.

Is any of this sounding vaguely familiar?

Although `Merseyvision` was not awarded the `Granadaland` franchise by the IBA because they though we might have `funding difficulties` and although we had three locations in Liverpool picked for possible TV Studios (with architects plans) and also in Preston and/or Blackburn (With Chester not sure what to do.....) they were forced by weight of argument to include various proposals into the ITV franchises awarded - as the `press` followed closely.

The (awarded) `Big Five` Thames, LWT, Granada, Yorkshire and Central TV were all told that their hours of transmission must increase.

It was initially left to Granada, Yorkshire and Thames to provise additional programming and eventually the UK got `24 TV` and it was down to `Merseyvision`

You will note that a certain Mr Redmond (later) had to use the production name of `Mersey Television.`

It came to pass in `Granadaland` because the IBA told them that they had to, that local news rooms opened in Liverpool, Preston and Blackburn.

How many survive?

Bring on the digital revolution were excuses cannot be made to stifle alternatives.

Bring on the digital revolution were excuses cannot be made to stifle alternatives.

Nice one Pete, that was really interesting reading.

Must have been a tough time for you and your team... but if your bid had been successful where was the Manchester news team in your proposal? Just kidding!

The way of the world is changing all the time...

...er, but don't we have separate newsdesks...?

There were news gathering desks at Liverpool, Chester & Lancaster but I now for a fact, they closed the Liverpool on at Albert Dock a year or so back. They went on about working with the council on a replacement service (ITVplc bullshit I'm well familiar with) but as far as I know, nothing came of it and it appears to me that Granada/ITVplc now have no presence in the city whatsoever.

Bingo Pietari. I was talking to Tony and others that someone on here was involved with the Merseyvision franchise challenge, but I couldn't rememeber who it was. Would you consider coming to one of our meet ups, I think a few of us would be interested in talking to you personally.

Bingo Pietari. I was talking to Tony and others that someone on here was involved with the Merseyvision franchise challenge, but I couldn't rememeber who it was. Would you consider coming to one of our meet ups, I think a few of us would be interested in talking to you personally.

No problem, I spend most of my time between Brum and London at the moment but I can make Liverpool.

If you send me a personal message I`ll provide email contact and we can move it forward.

:) :cheers:

This has nothing to do with being against Manchester I`m just being pro Liverpool and diversity.

Or should that be `DevaCity` (and I don`t mean Chester lol)

ie, `Thames TV` Weekly, Mon to Friday (daytime) and `LWT TV` (London Weekend TV) Friday evening to Sunday evening.

And the IBA refused point blank.

As you probably know, very early ITV was constucted in this weekday/weekend timeshare in the first three transmission regions, London, Midlands & North. The north had Granada on weekdays duty with ABC on weekends. The newer smaller regions added suchg as the Tyne Tees region, Anglia etc, were given seven day contracts as their areas were not deemed big enough for two companies to stay afloat financially, especially the weekend franchisee. The fact of the matter is that all the ITV stations struggles in the early years and thus the regions were restructured in 1967 (<- I think) so that they were all weekend except in London as an all week London ITV station, it was believed, would overly dominate the network. By the 80's, Granada was responsible for a good chunk of network output and the IBA were always going to be reluctant to oust them in favour of a bunch of scousers. All the majors were safe until the farcicle 1990 Broadcasting Act brought about the Thames franchise loss and the trashy centralised ITV we have today. Something not many people actually now is that GMTV is an ITV station in it's own right, as a breakfast license was issued separately. It defreated TVAM in the last franchise round.

If they could provide a split franchise in London using one transmitter (Crystal Palace) there were no technical difficulties providing a similar split service using `Winter Hill` which was always used as an excuse and the lack of available alternative frequencies.

But the two London ITV stations, Redifusion/ATV. Thames/LWT, Carlton/LWT, depending on what year we're talking about, shared the same frequency. What used to heppen was at Friday evening, the post office would disconect the weekday station and plug the weekend station into the transmitter. The north and the midlands had this system between launch 1955 and the second franchise round, 1967. There was some truth about the lack of designated frequencies the UK was allocated due to risks of interfereing with neighbouring countries which is why we only had a hand full of stations for many years. Channel 5 was given rather poor frequency allocations and certain transmitters still don't carry it on analogue, our nearest Welsh transmitter, Moel-y-Parc being one of them. Digital makes this less of a problem, particularly when analogue is switched off, but it appears that the government & it's broadcast regulator, Ofcom, are more concerned about giving us a plethora of shite downmarket market channels. British television is already down in the dumps now. The only decent things on happen to be US made dramas.[/QUOTE]

As `Granada TV` would not engage in any dialouge `Merseyvision TV` launched a bid for the total franchise.

Are you surprised? Why would Granada ever willingly negotiate in handing over two days of broadcasting?

Of course, your campaign was not entirely fruitless. Granada felt compelled to up their presence in Liverpool a few years later, mainly in anticipation that they'd face another bunch of scousers in the next franchise round. Of course, Thatcher's broadcasting act fucked everything and once Granada launched a successful hostile takeover of LWT (a symptom of the broadcasting act) in 1994, they became a London company and that was the first step to the creation of ITVplc ten years later, but that's another, sad and infuriating storey.

No problem, I spend most of my time between Brum and London at the moment but I can make Liverpool.

If you send me a personal message I`ll provide email contact and we can move it forward.

:) :cheers:

This has nothing to do with being against Manchester I`m just being pro Liverpool and diversity.

Or should that be `DevaCity` (and I don`t mean Chester lol)

Sure thing. I'll send you a PM shortly. :cheers:

...in anticipation that they'd face another bunch of scousers in the next franchise round.

I'm just getting the tea on so gotta be quick... I don't think anyone at Granada would look at credible competition as just 'a bunch of scousers'. I personally don't think like that when I run my business, and I don't think Granada would as well...its a successful multinational business and probably employs a fair number of 'scousers'.

I'd forgotten about that Mersey bid, and I remember now how it shook things up at the time. And a good job it did too. It made people look twice, instead of accepting what was offerred to them.

I still think its a bit shallow to say that Granada is Manchester-centric. It's a massive multinational business that is too important to think too parochially... it may have been true once, but I cant see it now.

I'm just getting the tea on so gotta be quick... I don't think anyone at Granada would look at credible competition as just 'a bunch of scousers'. I personally don't think like that when I run my business, and I don't think Granada would as well...its a successful multinational business and probably employs a fair number of 'scousers'.

I'd forgotten about that Mersey bid, and I remember now how it shook things up at the time. And a good job it did too. It made people look twice, instead of accepting what was offerred to them.

I still think its a bit shallow to say that Granada is Manchester-centric. It's a massive multinational business that is too important to think too parochially... it may have been true once, but I cant see it now.

Thing is b4mmy,

I don`t see any regional input / output .....

Totally faceless with no identity.

Which reminds me.

We (`Merseyvision`) promised to keep `Granada` as a TV production company for `Corornation Street`.

Can`t say fairer than that.

:) :cheers:

I'm just getting the tea on so gotta be quick... I don't think anyone at Granada would look at credible competition as just 'a bunch of scousers'. I personally don't think like that when I run my business, and I don't think Granada would as well...its a successful multinational business and probably employs a fair number of 'scousers'.

I was being a little tongue in cheek there.

I'm just getting the tea on so gotta be quick... I don't think I still think its a bit shallow to say that Granada is Manchester-centric. It's a massive multinational business that is too important to think too parochially... it may have been true once, but I cant see it now.

It used to be. It's now London-centric and will probably be New York-centric once ITVplc are finally bought out by an American network, which is what many anticipate happening.

Excellent dialogue men... I think the inability to see a manc bias does reveal quite a lot in perspective... You obviously haven't had to have that shit shoved down your throat for years. it is often the accumulation of 'petty' things that end up infuriating so... for example we will know of something important in Liverpool that would not get any publicty...er, coverage.

Millions of examples over the years but two will suffice.

In 1992 the world celebrated the 500th anivarsary of Columus' discovery of 'Amercica'. Absolutely huge, and Liverpool was at the centre of ot, recogniseed across the globe... but not in hicksville...or Granadaland!
Even the performance by the RLPO and firework display which went round the world was only carried in this area by....S4C

On the day that Liverpool's new terminal opened, with a bunch of really positive stats that showed how it is growing massivley Grnada carried as their main news feature piece an item on.... Manc airport.. not even a real story, simply some 'human interest' crap that I can't even remember off the top of my head at the moment.

BBC 'Manchester' makes granada look like scouse propaganda TV by comparison though!

it is bollocks that no one in Liverpool pays their TV licence so we are due from them bastards!

Hows about the coming..or following Saturday for this meeting then?
Discussion with LCVS are moving along.

Gareth has exceeded their stored private messages quota and can not accept further messages until they clear some space.

Hee hee hee .....

BBC 'Manchester' makes granada look like scouse propaganda TV by comparison though!

it is bollocks that no one in Liverpool pays their TV licence so we are due from them bastards!

Somethings not right here. I can't put my finger on it. My first thought is, if the system isn't working for you personally, the answer is not to fight it, but to join with it and influence the way it works.

Can you honestly tell me that there is no one working for these organisations that cares about Liverpool, or not one person employed by them was born in Liverpool. There must be people working for Granada or BBC that cares about the things you do. Why aren't they making a difference. What are they doing?

And I dont beleive that the BBC or Granada are homogenous beasts with an all seeing eye that deliberately goes blind when looking in the direction of Merseyside.

Running a business like Granada or the BBC isn't about exclusion. It cant afford to be. Media and media revenues are all about inclusion. I dont get it, you're making it sound like there is a grand plan to exclude Mersyside.

When was the last time you even saw Liverpool on a weather map?

ITV or BBC ?

The Beatles `Matthew Street` festival takes place the same weekend as the London `Notting Hill Carnival` which gets a mention.

When was the last time you even saw Liverpool on a weather map? ITV or BBC ?

I am defeated. I shall go into the east. x

Night night, sleep tight, X

Excellent dialogue men... I think the inability to see a manc bias does reveal quite a lot in perspective... You obviously haven't had to have that shit shoved down your throat for years. it is often the accumulation of 'petty' things that end up infuriating so... for example we will know of something important in Liverpool that would not get any publicty...er, coverage.

Millions of examples over the years but two will suffice.

In 1992 the world celebrated the 500th anivarsary of Columus' discovery of 'Amercica'. Absolutely huge, and Liverpool was at the centre of ot, recogniseed across the globe... but not in hicksville...or Granadaland!
Even the performance by the RLPO and firework display which went round the world was only carried in this area by....S4C

On the day that Liverpool's new terminal opened, with a bunch of really positive stats that showed how it is growing massivley Grnada carried as their main news feature piece an item on.... Manc airport.. not even a real story, simply some 'human interest' crap that I can't even remember off the top of my head at the moment.

BBC 'Manchester' makes granada look like scouse propaganda TV by comparison though!

it is bollocks that no one in Liverpool pays their TV licence so we are due from them bastards!

Hows about the coming..or following Saturday for this meeting then?
Discussion with LCVS are moving along.


I've got the best fairly recent example. 30th August 2004. Liverpool had the Mathew Street Festival on and Manchester had that Cow Parade thing. Which lost out? I recall one of them actually ignored Mathew Street whilst the other crammed it into a passing report. I recall complete hell on here over it.

Like Solidarity should have in Poland?

It would not be in Liverpool's long term commercial interest to ensure we get a 'fair service' from the manchester based industry. This TV debate may not be touching the real problem with the current set up.

We have discussed on another thread what the opportunities are for Liverpool in the post terrestrial world...and we aim to explore this further, one of the positive outcomes of us all rambling on this site.

This does not change how ever that under the terestrial licencing system it was illegal for Liverpool to craft an industry in this sector as it was dictated by London that manchester should have the two monopoly liciences for commercial and public broadcast. The resulting pretty Manc bias is infuriating, but as L8 said on another post, most of us don't give a fuck about Manchester....

It is the likes of you insisting that there is some sort of natural region and order, and manc is the ascendent one that really riles... also this dumb gloating like we have just seen on the Liverpool and Manchester thread... Cos manc is more important! where's the fucking satisfaction in that? Manc is only more 'important' than Liverpool right now because of government diktat... so much for Manc pride hey. The city was designated 'regional centre'...again by London diktat...good hey?

It has been said on this part of the skyscraper site loads of time that all the two cities need is a level playing field... I have never seen that comment made on the Manc thread... it has also been said here that it would be just as bad if the situation were reversed and we had government gifted ascendency over manc... we see no advantage in that... nice democratic lot that we are down this end of the M62! Manchester has been able to tap it's creative forces through this advantage... whilst Liverpool's has been stifled... surely that's not right? it is an essential part of your 'regionalism' though... and your proposed paper would just help to consolidate this unfair situation.. hence the hostility to the concept and not the messenger or the initial invite to contribute.

So, anyway. What are your thoughts that could make a positive contribution to Liverpool's need to be able to build a media sector in this post terrestrial monopoly... especially given the disadvantage it has faced by the previous 50 years ban on it being able to build an industry to help it take advantage of the new opportunities?

Somethings not right here. I can't put my finger on it. My first thought is, if the system isn't working for you personally, the answer is not to fight it, but to join with it and influence the way it works.

Can you honestly tell me that there is no one working for these organisations that cares about Liverpool, or not one person employed by them was born in Liverpool. There must be people working for Granada or BBC that cares about the things you do. Why aren't they making a difference. What are they doing?

And I dont beleive that the BBC or Granada are homogenous beasts with an all seeing eye that deliberately goes blind when looking in the direction of Merseyside.

Running a business like Granada or the BBC isn't about exclusion. It cant afford to be. Media and media revenues are all about inclusion. I dont get it, you're making it sound like there is a grand plan to exclude Mersyside.

Interesting post. If you use the word 'prejudice', but apply it to cities instead of groups, you get close to an answer. In the case of, say, racial prejudice, you often find that unequal outcomes are not the result of any grand plan to discriminate, or even often of deliberate or conscious acts by a majority of people. And that is what is happening here - across the public sector (and regulated sector, such as commercial television) the outcomes have been to centralise the provision of services and command and control within Manchester and to serve Liverpool from there. That is a result of prejudice, but not a simple anti-Liverpool one.

In terms of the hierarchy of cities and locational decisions, there is no national Department to Wreck Liverpool or Department to Boost Manchester..... but there have been decisions - important decisions - made by public sector bodies that have consistently tended to regard Manchester as the base of a "North West" region. While there are exceptions - and some North West outfits have based themselves in Liverpool, that is the pattern.

There is a longstanding pattern - which is counter-intuitive - to centralise at the regional level: Manchester and Leeds have done well from this; Newcastle (slightly), Sheffield and Liverpool (a lot) have done badly. That process is not an inevitable or even natural one, but again an outcome of a series of attitudes held by people in Whitehall who make decisions about where to put things within the regions. Looked at from Whitehall, it's simple: cut the country into regions, choose an administative centre, and run it that way. It's symptomatic of a highly centralised state that such insensitive and meaningless regions (as the North West or Government Office for the South East region) should be used. Because they are largely invisible to the public, no-one cares greatly.

"It" (this process of consolidating regional services in fewer cities) only becomes a problem when the "regional" media that is spawned by such decisions then try to create a false sense of regional consciousness. There has been 40 years of "North West" propaganda by Manchester-based regional tv interests. Why? Again, it's not that they are anti-Liverpool, it's just that having been created - given a territory and told to provide a news and tv service for it - it's easier to script and edit on the basis of terms such as "North West", "our region" etc. Does that answer your question? You seem to believe it it is not in the interests of, say, Granada, to perpetuate a sense that their given territory has some identity, and I believe it's entirely natural that they should seek to do this.

In the case of the media, having created this false region and built up Manchester as the base, the next logic is to say - as the BBC does - that Liverpool can get precisely NONE of the thousands of jobs being sent out of London, and Manchester should get ALL of them. That decision traces back directly to the decision to broadcast regional programmes from Manchester and never from Liverpool. This is therefore creating even greater inequality - and,inevitably, resentment, given it's a bigger relocation than ANY that Liverpool has ever enjoyed, and far more valuable to the economy.

The causes of this are not all simple, and one of the problems (especially here sometimes) is people looking for short and simple answers to complex situations. To be unhappy with the outcome (which people here and on the Liverpool and Manchester thread seem to be) is not to be a whinger, nor is it paranoid, it is simply to say "I don't like this" or "I don't think this is the right way". People then look around for why it has happened, and at alternatives. That is not to be anti-Manc, although plainly there are hundreds or thousands of public sector (and regulated) jobs in Manchester governing/serving Liverpool that probably ought to be sent to Liverpool.

By rejecting a subordinate role, Liverpool is upsetting that centralising logic (of Whitehall having a couple of mini-London's up north - Manchester and Leeds) and demanding a more federal (along the lines of Germany) distribution of power and opportunities between the great cities. There is unsufficient research on this issue.

Sorry - know this isn't directly relevant to this thread, just replying to B4mmy's post.

Excellent posts guys.

For me this is where the 21st Society should carve out a niche for itself that is separate from 'architectural concerns'. To be honest, I think you would have an even greater chance of success if this became your main focus! As demonstrated above there is so much evidence that is irrefutable. People in Liverpool would have a ready concern for such issues in a way they probably don't have for architecture in the city centre. What is described above by the Liverpool forumers is a process that renders Liverpool and its inhabitants invisible.

B4mmy's response is, perhaps unwittingly, typical of what you might get from the BBC. Or rather what I got back when I complained! There is no intention, local offices etc. Tokenism. There was a study carried out by Glasgow university that examined the BBC for bias in its reporting. Guess what, it was shown to be demonstrably biased in its tone and selection of which items to cover.

With the opening up of digital broadcasting both the BBC and ITV are vulnerable as never before to such as accusations as the ones delineated above. (In particular, the BBC with charter renewal never guaranteed and a government currently in power with an appetite to kick the BBC's ass if it can be seen as electorally popular!)

A proto organisation needs to fight battles it can win in order to acquire and store up credibility. Believe me you are on to a winner here. Especially if you amass a big fat dossier demonstrating bias!

There is a longstanding pattern - which is counter-intuitive - to centralise at the regional level: Manchester and Leeds have done well from this; Newcastle (slightly), Sheffield and Liverpool (a lot) have done badly. That process is not an inevitable or even natural one, but again an outcome of a series of attitudes held by people in Whitehall who make decisions about where to put things within the regions. Looked at from Whitehall, it's simple: cut the country into regions, choose an administative centre, and run it that way. It's symptomatic of a highly centralised state that such insensitive and meaningless regions (as the North West or Government Office for the South East region) should be used. Because they are largely invisible to the public, no-one cares greatly.

"It" (this process of consolidating regional services in fewer cities) only becomes a problem when the "regional" media that is spawned by such decisions then try to create a false sense of regional consciousness. There has been 40 years of "North West" propaganda by Manchester-based regional tv interests. Why? Again, it's not that they are anti-Liverpool, it's just that having been created - given a territory and told to provide a news and tv service for it - it's easier to script and edit on the basis of terms such as "North West", "our region" etc. Does that answer your question? You seem to believe it it is not in the interests of, say, Granada, to perpetuate a sense that their given territory has some identity, and I believe it's entirely natural that they should seek to do this.

In the case of the media, having created this false region and built up Manchester as the base, the next logic is to say - as the BBC does - that Liverpool can get precisely NONE of the thousands of jobs being sent out of London, and Manchester should get ALL of them. That decision traces back directly to the decision to broadcast regional programmes from Manchester and never from Liverpool. This is therefore creating even greater inequality - and,inevitably, resentment, given it's a bigger relocation than ANY that Liverpool has ever enjoyed, and far more valuable to the economy.

The causes of this are not all simple, and one of the problems (especially here sometimes) is people looking for short and simple answers to complex situations. To be unhappy with the outcome (which people here and on the Liverpool and Manchester thread seem to be) is not to be a whinger, nor is it paranoid, it is simply to say "I don't like this" or "I don't think this is the right way". People then look around for why it has happened, and at alternatives. That is not to be anti-Manc, although plainly there are hundreds or thousands of public sector (and regulated) jobs in Manchester governing/serving Liverpool that probably ought to be sent to Liverpool.

By rejecting a subordinate role, Liverpool is upsetting that centralising logic (of Whitehall having a couple of mini-London's up north - Manchester and Leeds) and demanding a more federal (along the lines of Germany) distribution of power and opportunities between the great cities. There is unsufficient research on this issue.

Sorry - know this isn't directly relevant to this thread, just replying to B4mmy's post.

Excellent post; I couldn't agree more.

My 'answer' to this centralising logic and change that is dictated by decision makers in London, is for Livrpool to become more free market.

It will be impossible to fight the already solidified attitudes that investment and public resources should be poured into the regional chosen ones. Well, it can be fought, but assuming any change of strategy could accrue from this, it would take a long, long time and probably bring about less change than people actually desire.

Liverpool needs to establish itself as a place where private investment happens- a place where companies want to establish their HQs and move their operations to. In this way, I think that the regionalising political decisions that undermine Liverpool can themselves be undermined- but not upset what the government is trying to achieve.
Liverpool could become rich and wealthy and prosperous, but do so without the assistance of central government, which in the light of the regionalising agenda, does not look forth coming.

Quaesiton is: How do we encourage the private investment? This is the philosophy I think this 21st Century Society should pursue- after all, it is not only pro-wealth and prosperity, but also supports progressive decisions in planning, development and design.

Quaesiton is: How do we encourage the private investment? This is the philosophy I think this 21st Century Society should pursue- after all, it is not only pro-wealth and prosperity, but also supports progressive decisions in planning, development and design.

Absolutely. I'm not sure if anyone followed my posts regarding WHS/EH and inward investment/affordable housing etc... a while ago but I was saying exactly the same thing, and its the right thing to focus on.

Interesting post. If you use the word 'prejudice', but apply it to cities instead of groups, you get close to an answer. In the case of, say, racial prejudice, you often find that unequal outcomes are not the result of any grand plan to discriminate, or even often of deliberate or conscious acts by a majority of people. And that is what is happening here - across the public sector (and regulated sector, such as commercial television) the outcomes have been to centralise the provision of services and command and control within Manchester and to serve Liverpool from there. That is a result of prejudice, but not a simple anti-Liverpool one.

In terms of the hierarchy of cities and locational decisions, there is no national Department to Wreck Liverpool or Department to Boost Manchester..... but there have been decisions - important decisions - made by public sector bodies that have consistently tended to regard Manchester as the base of a "North West" region. While there are exceptions - and some North West outfits have based themselves in Liverpool, that is the pattern.

There is a longstanding pattern - which is counter-intuitive - to centralise at the regional level: Manchester and Leeds have done well from this; Newcastle (slightly), Sheffield and Liverpool (a lot) have done badly. That process is not an inevitable or even natural one, but again an outcome of a series of attitudes held by people in Whitehall who make decisions about where to put things within the regions. Looked at from Whitehall, it's simple: cut the country into regions, choose an administative centre, and run it that way. It's symptomatic of a highly centralised state that such insensitive and meaningless regions (as the North West or Government Office for the South East region) should be used. Because they are largely invisible to the public, no-one cares greatly.

"It" (this process of consolidating regional services in fewer cities) only becomes a problem when the "regional" media that is spawned by such decisions then try to create a false sense of regional consciousness. There has been 40 years of "North West" propaganda by Manchester-based regional tv interests. Why? Again, it's not that they are anti-Liverpool, it's just that having been created - given a territory and told to provide a news and tv service for it - it's easier to script and edit on the basis of terms such as "North West", "our region" etc. Does that answer your question? You seem to believe it it is not in the interests of, say, Granada, to perpetuate a sense that their given territory has some identity, and I believe it's entirely natural that they should seek to do this.

In the case of the media, having created this false region and built up Manchester as the base, the next logic is to say - as the BBC does - that Liverpool can get precisely NONE of the thousands of jobs being sent out of London, and Manchester should get ALL of them. That decision traces back directly to the decision to broadcast regional programmes from Manchester and never from Liverpool. This is therefore creating even greater inequality - and,inevitably, resentment, given it's a bigger relocation than ANY that Liverpool has ever enjoyed, and far more valuable to the economy.

The causes of this are not all simple, and one of the problems (especially here sometimes) is people looking for short and simple answers to complex situations. To be unhappy with the outcome (which people here and on the Liverpool and Manchester thread seem to be) is not to be a whinger, nor is it paranoid, it is simply to say "I don't like this" or "I don't think this is the right way". People then look around for why it has happened, and at alternatives. That is not to be anti-Manc, although plainly there are hundreds or thousands of public sector (and regulated) jobs in Manchester governing/serving Liverpool that probably ought to be sent to Liverpool.

By rejecting a subordinate role, Liverpool is upsetting that centralising logic (of Whitehall having a couple of mini-London's up north - Manchester and Leeds) and demanding a more federal (along the lines of Germany) distribution of power and opportunities between the great cities. There is unsufficient research on this issue.

Sorry - know this isn't directly relevant to this thread, just replying to B4mmy's post.

Thanks Poli. I don't think I have seen this analysis offered more clearly and persuasively before even by you!

The downside, at least for me, is that inspired by such a broad vision people (in the form of 21stCS) might attempt to run before they can walk, or maybe even crawl. Turning around the structural factors outlined by you will require a lot of patience, network building and the kind of political clout that at the moment doesn't appear to reliably exist in Liverpool. It exists sporadically otherwise CoC would not have happened.

The structural factors you have outlined serve a number of vested interests and these will resist meaningful attempts at reorganisation. Tokenism, yes. Ceding real power, unlikely.

For me, the battle to reverse the trends you describe is more likely to be won through stealth than a knock-out punch. Especially one delivered by the 21st CS. Just because you are right about something, and I believe that you are, doesn't mean that redress will follow. That is not how power operates, it resists change. As Liverpool and its city region become stronger the argument for revision correspondingly becomes more obvious and difficult to resist without political and economic consequences. At this point 'power' seeks to incorporate change and claim that this is what it was aiming for all along!

This doesn't mean that there isn't need for a road map in the form of the set of aims implicit within your analysis. This is essential. Nor does it mean that there isn't room for skirmishes in the meantime in the form of highlighting how regionalist agendas disadvantage the Liverpool Bay area. Skirmishes provide good learning!

Needless to say my argument is premised on the principle that Liverpool continues to maintain is current level of economic growth. If this were to change radically then obviously different strategies would be needed!

My concern for the 21stCS, as I have made clear all along is that it is, understandably out of frustration which I share, too, over-reaching itself. I fear that if it tries to do too many things without a strong membership base and financial resoursces then it will run the risk of not acheiving its potential.

Acheiving any one of the many potential aims I have seen raised on this thread is going to require all of you to work your asses off! Organisations / pressure groups fail not because they can't generate good and worhty ideas. They usually fail because they can't sustain the daily grind of maintaining a meaningful profile.

Fitz... I think that you are spot on. I posted some ideas somewhere on this thread about focus and 'projects' but they were not picked up on.

I think what is needed in order to avoid this overburden of enthusiasm ( a symptom I am very well versed in.. having done it loads of times over the years) is a nice, braod based remit/misson or what ever and then to build up some solid, focused initiatives. That way, the name and the mission states the big picture in a fundamental way and the most pressing areas of concern are then prioritised and acted upon.

The three most important that has been gleaned by the content of posts on this section of the skyscraper site are

Good urbanism (with all of the threads about contemporary architecture, de-zoning, big downtown population strategies, tall buildings etc being 'context')

New/integrated media infrastructure and industry growing out from the city. Post terestrial opportunities, the need for direction and development...current barriers/legacy of being barred from the area..ways to overcome these problems.. positive focus.

The value of a metropolitan focus for governance, economic development and international placement, marketing etc....which naturally counters the push for regionalism or the old status quo of balkanised city... (Manc suffers from this too, but nowhere near the extent of our city-region)

All other areas like culture and creativity, the need to revive population levels or all the other things we ramble about here would largely fit into the context of the city's international revival and could of course be focussed on when we have the time/inclination/resources to pursue the next or another project focus?

I think a more 'holistic' title for the group would be required for this.

What do folk think?

I think a more 'holistic' title for the group would be required for this. What do folk think?

Liverpool Vision?

Actually, exactly what is Liverpool Vision's remit. Don't they cover all this... and if they do, and aren't, you should get yourself on the panel Tony.

I think a more 'holistic' title for the group would be required for this.

What do folk think?

"The Liberal Evangelists" or

"Gladstone's Revenge" / "Roscoe's Revenge"

or "The Murderers of those Heritage Commy fucking ****s!"

or "The Liverpool Bay Progressive Society"

???

"Liverpool Forward"

"The Liverpool Society"

I flirted with the idea 'Society 21'. A made a logo a week or so back but can't find where I saved it. I don't mind Blabbers last option though but I have a feeling many might mistake it as an Irish Seas shipping interest group.

History repeats itself for Heseltine?

Mr Heseltine came to Liverpool after the 1981 Toxteth riots
Michael Heseltine has returned to Liverpool to launch a Tory policy group on the inner cities - 25 years after he highlighted urban deprivation following the Toxteth riots.
In the wake of the riots in July 1981, Mr Heseltine took three weeks off as environment secretary in Mrs Thatcher's government and moved to Liverpool.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41408000/jpg/_41408230_heseltine203.jpg

Years later, in an interview with the Guardian newspaper, he recalled: "Alone, every night... I would stand with a glass of wine, looking out at the magnificent view over the river, and ask myself what had gone wrong for this great English city.

"The Mersey, its lifeblood, flowed as majestically as ever down from the hills.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41408000/jpg/_41408610_liver203.jpg
Michael Heseltine returns to Liverpoool with David Cameron

"Its monumental Georgian and Victorian buildings, created with such pride, still dominated the skyline.

"The Liver Building itself, the epicentre of a trading system that had reached out to the four corners of the earth, stood defiant and from my perspective very alone... everything had gone wrong."

Dubbed "minister for Merseyside" and even "Mr Merseyside", Mr Heseltine aimed to persuade the private sector it was in their interests to help finance the regeneration of the inner city.


Heseltine showed you could actually do things - and he deserves credit for that

Liverpool MP Peter Kilfoyle

One of his first acts was to invite the bosses of approximately 30 significant financial institutions to take a bus ride around the area.

"It is just not possible for the trustees of the nation's savings... to ignore these problems," he said.

As an added incentive, planning requirements were relaxed and companies offered urban development grants and exemption from rates for industrial and commercial properties.

Millions of pounds poured into the area.

The Merseyside Development Corporation, established by Mr Heseltine, spent more than £200m redeveloping Albert Dock - now home to the Liverpool's Tate Gallery.

In 1984 the corporation used the International Garden Festival to bring about the regeneration of acres of derelict land.

But critics say the inner city suffered at the expense of the big prestige projects.

His efforts had only ephemeral results

Former prime minister Margaret Thatcher



Between 1981 and 1991, Liverpool's population fell by 10% as 50,000 jobs, 20% of the city's total, disappeared.

And in 1988, the National Audit Office suggested winding up the Merseyside Development Corporation because it had achieved so little.


Liverpool MP Peter Kilfoyle was a vocal critic of the corporation as a Labour Party organiser in the 1980s.



But he remains full of admiration for Mr Heseltine's achievements in the city as a politician who "cut through the crap and got things done".

Backhanded compliment

He told BBC News: "Heseltine showed you could actually do things - and he deserves credit for that."

But another of Mr Heseltine's old adversaries, Mrs Thatcher, dismisses his contribution to the regeneration of the city.

After conceding he made "a great impression", she says in her memoirs: "For the most part, though, his efforts had only ephemeral results."

Although, in a somewhat backhanded compliment, the former prime minister adds: "I would not blame him for that - Liverpool has defeated better men than Michael Heseltine."

How about "For a Greater liverpool". :cheers: :cheers:

How about,

"The 21st Century Liverpool (Society)"

Promoting and supporting :-

`A quality environment, Business, Urban and Social`

Promoting and supporting :-

`City/regional growth and population renewal`

Promoting and supporting :-

`Media and communications development and beneficial Industries`

By :-

`Step by step reasonable debate and lobbying`

"Support The 21st Century Liverpool"

:runaway:
:runaway:
:runaway:

I`m not a big fan of `Mission Statements` but the `key` words and `direction` needs to be clear.

There is nothing wrong with being a debating society but can we also help by providing an idea and perception of beneficial change?

Excellent stuff... I particularly like the notion of applying for funding from
the polite society as "The Murderers of those Heritage Commy fucking ****s!"

I think the name should reflect what the core drive is about but perhaps, sadly, that is a little too literal?

Global City Agenda?


The remit and original rationale of Liverpool Vision was a great one. It is a URC for the city centre and was supposed to provide the 'vision' the big ideas, the blue sky stuff, that would them permeate down and inspire good positive urbanist planning and economic policy development.

Those in charge of these things however, being uttely thick ****s could not see that they could have a subsidised think tank, but instead saw them
as competition... even though LCC were one of the core partners!!!

So instead od niftily lifting all this free thought they screwed them in a corporate furf war, which they won.... leaving Liverpool Vision and it's very talented staff ( those not seconded from LCC that is) as basically public realm boys and project managers... current policy context did not change... one utterly central reason why policy is so backward in the city is the turf mentality. Does not matter how duff the programme as long as it is 'theirs' and they get the departmental budgets to run.

I have actually been in a meeting were it was said x£m should be spent, despite knowing that the site would be ripped up in two years (by the tram, ironically) as the money had to be spent and we will get more to rip it out again anyway!...cynical bastards. This is where vast amounts of 'regeneration' money goes.

http://www.liverpoolvision.co.uk/news/shownews.asp?recordid=113

Newsroom

Liverpool Vision asks school children to Imagine Your City Centre .....


Budding urban planners and architects from Barlows Lane Primary School in Fazakerley have been creating their own exciting plans for Liverpool city centre.

The workshops, part of Liverpool Visions Imagine Your City Centre schools project, aim to get local school children involved in the regeneration taking place in Liverpool city centre and brings together architects and planners to work with schools on their vision for the future.

Created to support the pupils Key Stage 2 curriculum, the workshops cover subjects such as history, geography, art and design.

40 Year 5 pupils took part in the workshops which allowed them to build their own vision for the citys Kings Waterfront and express ideas about they type of developments they would like to see in their City Centre.

As part of the project, the classes 5B and 5J were taken on a tour of the citys major projects to witness the regeneration work first hand

Peter Rix, Liverpool Visions Community and Education Officer said The workshops have been a great success, the pupils at Barlows Lane were a pleasure to work with and their ideas were terrific - beyond our expectations.

We are keen to engage with local schools and promote Liverpool city centre as a place with real opportunities for learning. We have agreed with the school to exhibit their work in Liverpool Visions exhibition space, and we hope it will encourage other schools to take part in our education programme.

Mr Brooksbank from Barlows Lane Primary School said: The workshops really fired the childrens imagination. They enjoyed the tours of the City Centre and it helped them with the workshops when they came back to class. Quite a few showed a real talent lets hope we have some of the citys architects and planners of the future.

The pupils work will go on public display in Liverpool Visions city centre exhibition area at One Old Haymarket in Spring 2006.

I think we have been round the houses as much as we can on this... any more will just complicate things even more?

We have enough ideas to pull an outline together

A meeting with LCVS has been aranged for 9a.m next Monday at their offices in Castle St. Thanks to Buggedboy we can formalise the group as soon as we decide on a few things...so can we toss things around one last time?... and then let me know if you would like to come to the meeting? Ther are a few obvious folk who have been passionate on this thread, but ther will also be some who want to get involved right at the start who may have not contributed... if this is you then make sure you get round to highlighting interest?

Email correspondence and/or meeting up?

I can probably make that meeting.

Regarding the outline, I assume we're going along with the broader aims approach? (aka option 2)

Right then chaps, anyone up for a meet up this Saturday? I know it's short notice but it'd be good if as many of us as is possible can meet up as we need to discuss a few strategies and in what each of us can help out. So would 4pm in Duncs this Saturday be convenient for anyone? It's not going to be too formal so don't worry if you can't make it.

However, we ought to go about arranging a more formal/serious discussion in, say, 2/3 weeks time. So if anyone interested could state what days/dates/times are most convenient for them, we can try to make it possible for as many people as we can to attend. I know some of you are based in other parts of the country and many more of you are busy people with busy lives, but please try your best if you're interested.

Also if anyone else can make it to the LCVS office this Monday 9am, that'd be great.

What say you all, citizens? :cheers:

I could do Saturday... I could also do any Saturday for the formal meeting.

This site has been appalling tonight...it takes so long to get new pages up!

I can make this Sat, 4:00pm ok with me.

Agreed this site is very slow, it needs to be sorted or people will get fed up of trying and drift away.

Just want to wish you all the best guys, just skimmed through the thread and have been really interested in it. I think its a fantastic idea and I hope people will listen! :)

If you can get your ideas together and a key theme is "private investment" then seriously look into getting private sponsorship and partners that will support you. Their knowledge, contacts and money! would be a real asset to you. I know its early days but think big guys! Choosing the right name is going to be your biggest challenge. "L21" perhaps? it certainly sounds media savvy (though also like a postcode :().

Just want to wish you all the best guys, just skimmed through the thread and have been really interested in it. I think its a fantastic idea and I hope people will listen! :)

If you can get your ideas together and a key theme is "private investment" then seriously look into getting private sponsorship and partners that will support you. Their knowledge, contacts and money! would be a real asset to you. I know its early days but think big guys! Choosing the right name is going to be your biggest challenge. "L21" perhaps? it certainly sounds media savvy (though also like a postcode :().

Actually L21 - "Liverpool 2 number 1" ;)

Thanks Prestonian.

it does have a lot of potential... what it delivers will be down to all of those who get involved.... so any of you want to see things happen then make sure you jump on board?

So what's happenong tomorrow then. Are we still on for 4pm in Dr Duncs? :?

I can still make it, but lets see who else can by mid morning by posting here... to date it's you, Doug R and me.

Pietari's interested as he emailed me earlier today, though I only just found it a minute ago. He's currently not viewing the site at the moment as he finds the speed of the site, uite understandably, unbearable. A lot of people aren't bothering as you can tell with hte forum being very quiet this week. A bit unfortunate really, as we're trying to arrange a fairly important meet up. Neverm mind, eh? :)

Do you know enough personal emails to drum up some attendees?
I'm fine with just the three of us to meet.

Also it must be remembered by all that this was just to try and get a 'quickie' in before the meeting with LCVS on Monday a.m.... the more important meeting for anyone who wants to actively help structure and organise the group will be in 2/3 weeks today.... Date needs deciding for this one so gents and ladies... get yur thinking caps on and diaries out?

Just want to wish you all the best guys, just skimmed through the thread and have been really interested in it. I think its a fantastic idea and I hope people will listen! :)

If you can get your ideas together and a key theme is "private investment" then seriously look into getting private sponsorship and partners that will support you. Their knowledge, contacts and money! would be a real asset to you. I know its early days but think big guys! Choosing the right name is going to be your biggest challenge. "L21" perhaps? it certainly sounds media savvy (though also like a postcode :().

L21 is Seaforth. Not such a great area. The fact I smoke helps to numb my taste of smell which is important where I live by the docks.

So what's happening?

Well, we met, you where there, as was doug, and it went well.

21st Century Liverpool - was the name we thought would do the trick... what do folk think?

We want to arrange a meeting in three weeks time to finalise things so please try and get along everyone who can?

I suggest we set a target date for March 25th, open to alteration if necessary. Can everyone interested state what days/dates/times are best for them?

Good luck with your meeting on Monday morning.

I can't make Sat 25th Mar, the 1st April would be better for me.

Just worked meself through to here. Plenty of :bash: :bash: :bash: and just a bit too much of :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: and then only three scals show for a meeting. Someones taking the piss! On the other hand it is a forum. Yeh, that could be the problem. Also, soooooooo much negativity. In the words of the song,

You've got to tolerate all those people that you hate
I'm not in love with you
But I won't hold that against you.

Just worked meself through to here. Plenty of :bash: :bash: :bash: and just a bit too much of :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: and then only three scals show for a meeting. Someones taking the piss! On the other hand it is a forum. Yeh, that could be the problem. Also, soooooooo much negativity. In the words of the song,

You've got to tolerate all those people that you hate
I'm not in love with you
But I won't hold that against you.

Caw,

Can you please do your job and sort this Manc troll out please. Yet another transparent gob shite to add to the collection.

Doug, Gareth, Tony- I'll get back to yous with a date n time.

:cheers:

Caw,

Can you please do your job and sort this Manc troll out please. Yet another transparent gob shite to add to the collection.

Doug, Gareth, Tony- I'll get back to yous with a date n time.

:cheers:


There was I thinking it was a forum in which people could express their own opinions, including scepticism. Didn't know that there was some sort of subtle credo in operation that discouraged this. I admire the people who turned up, it's the others I'm having a go at. This city is full of people talking and talking. Doing fuck all and giving it lots of :cheers: and even more :bash: :bash: .

Someone from Runcorn calling me a manc troll. Made my day. Hey Blabz, this is for you: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :jk:

Cheers Troll. :cheers:

Caw,

Can you please do your job and sort this Manc troll out please. Yet another transparent gob shite to add to the collection.

Doug, Gareth, Tony- I'll get back to yous with a date n time.

:cheers:
What have you got against gobshites Blabbermouth?

What have you got against gobshites Blabbermouth?

:laugh: :cheers:

Time to bring this back up methinks. Meet up this Saturday or the next one?

What we need to settle at this next meeting are:

Core aims/values (big picture Liverpool's international context, greatest city in the world etc... positive approach to commercial and entrepreneurial inspired growth and change... etc)


The mems and arts of the group.... minutae but needed... helps determine what the group can.. and CAN'T do, now and into the future if we mess up.


Core responsibilities.. chair, treasurer, secretery etc. these can be 'acting' according to how we recruit members, financial support and/or donations etc... would need to have an AGM within 6 months if we get loadsd of members and we want them to feel included.


Outline agenda for first six months... mainly what 3 or 4 core initiatives are we going to focus on to begin setting out the delivery of our... core aims( see above)

Some M.O's... i.e how are we to carry our broad message and campaign on our chosen first initiatives... seminars, savvy PR, pamphlets.... a website (obligatory I think)... other publications... as briefly discussed on another thread?

Once we have settled the above then we can move things on at our leisure. What I thik most peoples best contributions will be (aside from a core agreeing to do the admin) is building a raational case and body of evidence for each of the issues we raise... i.e. media sector... lots and lots of deep research, opportunities, laying out the landscape of the industry internationally...and so on. Critical overview and analysis of the big issues effecting the metropolitan region and putting forward alternative...better options for strategic direction for future policy development etc

One thing I think that we should avoid like the plague is to get into that loop of haveing to react to events and get caught up in the 'news cycle'... for example on urbanism and positive attitudes to growth and new architecture/skylines etc, people will be able to read our stance on these issues by the body of evidence we have supplied though our media... the long term, the strategic overview, the indepth body of research... more measured. This I feel will be our best contribution.


From this platform we build.... Influence, inspire common sense policy for growth, achieve our aims!


Are there any obvious things that I have forgotten?

Oh, yes... I can do either Saturday - all I actually came on to say in the first place!

This Satdee - the Derby! No chance unless it's a pre 10am brekkie meeting.

Next Satdee...not sure. Just book something and I'll either fit in or not, my weekends are usually mad.

Bloody hell... forgot all about the maatch. I have promised my brother I'd go and watch it on the telly with him!

1st April may be a bit auspicious as well!... imagine the free ammo that would give our 'others'... How about a definite for 8th. 2p.m and that's it... if you can't make that put as much up front to the issues I raised below?

8th looks good for me.

Honest.

I'm not sure where to paste this but here seems as good as place as any!

An article by Sophie Freeman
Daily Post






URBAN regeneration company Liverpool Vision is to be closed down. The organisation, which has helped drive the renaissance of Liverpool city centre, is now evaluating its exit strategy, and could be wound up as early as 2008. In a report released last December, Liverpool Vision, which was set up in 1999, was hailed for fast-tracking the transformation of the city centre. The billion-pound makeover would have been slower and more fragmented without the influence of Liverpool Vision, according to the government-backed review. Chief executive Jim Gill said yesterday: "The evaluation said the balance sheet was very positive. It said there was still a role for Liverpool Vision but it should review its position in two years' time.." Mr Gill said the review added that there would come a time when Vision was no longer needed because of the progress made in the city centre and because its partners - particularly the city council - would have the capacity to progress any necessary initiatives. He said the company could be wound up in 2008 or a year or two after that.

The aim of Liverpool Vision was to bring local politicians, agency chiefs and business leaders together under a single umbrella body to spearhead major projects. It was always expected that the company would have a finite life and that it would be terminated when other city bodies were able to carry out work on their own. "You can't just think about Liverpool Vision in isolation," said Mr Gill. "It's part of a collection of initiatives in Liverpool. It was never a permanent organisation." Mr Gill said major commercial developments were up to four years ahead because of the work and influence of the agency. He said the Vision formula, which had helped drive forward the RopeWalks area plan, and the scheme for the Kings Dock arena, would help the Government formulate a template for the rest of the country.


Liverpool City Council leader and board member Warren Bradley said: "We have moved forward since the inception of Liverpool Vision. It's not just about development, it's the public realm which has benefited as well. Regeneration will continue, but we need to be more creative in the way we do this as a lot of urban regeneration companies are going into the same business area." Fellow board member and Labour group leader Cllr Joe Anderson said: "Liverpool Vision played a significant part in the development and regeneration of the city. However, I have to say that there are far too many organisations leading in regeneration and sometimes that single focus is missing. There needs to be a new and different creative partnership, but one that is led by the city council in partnership with national governments."

Liverpool Vision has been instrumental in bringing the £920m Grosvenor Liverpool 1 retail scheme to the city and is currently backing a £160m scheme planned for the rear of Liverpool's Central Station. It has come in for some criticism, however, particularly with regard to its role in the collapsed Fourth Grace project, in which it took the lead. Its failed attempt to relocate Everton Football Club to the Kings Dock also dented its reputation for delivering projects.

Remember that NW Insider thing I posted a while ago... the one with the Regeneration Supplement?

The official launch is at the Raquet Club in Liverpool first week in April... if any of you guys want to heckle them, or open a constructive dialogue I would be happy to pass on the details.

Best wishes

I can't remember that B4.. could you ressurect it please?

I can't remember that B4.. could you ressurect it please?

Sorry Tony I daren't, I had to ask CAW to delete the thread due to vitriol last time. I'm sure you remember it anyway ;) . The C21 posters might be interested, if you would like to see if you can get a ticket I would be happy to help, but I don't have the tickets and its not my bash, I'm just passing it on...

Can we bring vegetables to throw? ;)

Righto.
If it is the launch of this enquierer then thanks, but I will pass the on the offer.

Another sad tactic ... we get 'the launch' and Manchester gets the process, the jobs and the rate revenue from a few thousand more feet of office space taken off the market...as well as the filip to it's media sector.

Are you coming along to this meeting... looks like the 8th now?

I say one of us should be present. We should be monitoring all media attempting to get a foothold in the city, even if we'll almost certainly dislike it or what it stands for.

Another sad tactic ... we get 'the launch' and Manchester gets the process, the jobs and the rate revenue from a few thousand more feet of office space taken off the market...as well as the filip to it's media sector....

:(
There ya go again...
:? :soapbox:



About 8th.... depends if I can get there, I normally get my little fella at 4pm on Saturdays.... not 100% sure what I can do for you to be honest, have you any idea what you need from people, and what contributions you need.

Remember that NW Insider thing I posted a while ago... the one with the Regeneration Supplement?

The official launch is at the Raquet Club in Liverpool first week in April... if any of you guys want to heckle them, or open a constructive dialogue I would be happy to pass on the details.

Best wishes

Thanks b4mmy - it would be great to have the details. People would then be able to make a choice about whether or not they go along. Who are the magazine's main backers? I read somewhere it was the NWDA.

I have provisionally booked a conference room in Central Library, William Brown St. for Sat 1st Apr, 1:30 to 4:00pm, this booking to be confirmed once there is agreement on the date and numbers.

Can I remind you all that Sat 8th April is the Grand National, there might a conflict of interest for some!!

Good shout Doug.

I reckon I can do the 1st.

1st is fine with me too.

the 1st then?

We can get over the 'april fool' thing as our inaugural meeting was the other week!!!!

I would like to help if you give me some idea of what I can contribute. I'm happy to do publicity, logo, interactive stuff and a microsite.

I can't make the meet at that time as I have to get my fella at 4pm.

Nice one... sounds good, thanks.
What is a micro site though?

Sorry Tony I daren't, I had to ask CAW to delete the thread due to vitriol last time. ..

There was no vitriol, there was an interesting discussion. Maybe, however, you thought it wouldn't go down well on Google search results and felt you had attracted bad publicity to your Manc pals and their business venture. You didn't even bother replying to thoughtful and perfectly on-topic and polite posts that addressed the issues you raised. So in summary, you post something controversial, react badly to the slightest challenge, and then request that everyones' posts be deleted. Why post on the internet at all if that is your attitude? I'm annoyed if CAW obliged you and did delete that thread, in fact it would be outrageous behaviour.

There was no vitriol, there was an interesting discussion. Maybe, however, you thought it wouldn't go down well on Google search results and felt you had attracted bad publicity to your Manc pals and their business venture. You didn't even bother replying to thoughtful and perfectly on-topic and polite posts that addressed the issues you raised. So in summary, you post something controversial, react badly to the slightest challenge, and then request that everyones' posts be deleted. Why post on the internet at all if that is your attitude? I'm annoyed if CAW obliged you and did delete that thread, in fact it would be outrageous behaviour.

Thats not true, all the mods were informed because the thread became a political bun fight and SSC is about architecture, not about zenophobia. I know only one person made constructive comments, maybe that was you... I can't remember but the thread became offensive and nothing to do with regeneration.

I did reply to as many posts as I could on that thread and continued to ask people to please read the press release as an opportunity to contribute to Regeneration Press, so your point that I couldn't be bothered to reply to 'thoughtful polite posts' is utter bollocks because there were hardly any of them, and the ones that were got a reply from me.

You seem to think that a Google search would scare the pants off me, I think you said the same thing in the actual thread.... but the publication has got nothing to do with me and I don't give two shades of shit what comes up on Google. And they aren't my pals, and the only guy that I know of that has got anything at all to do with the Regeneration Supplement is from, and works in Liverpool.

I post on this forum to share and discover information nothing more. Please see my reply to your thread for further clarification.

Yes I agree. I spent time contributing to that thread, and I think I made some fairly reasonable contributions. Who exactly decided that it should be removed and that I cannot review the posts there? Nobody asked me.

Thats not true, all the mods were informed because the thread became a political bun fight and SSC is about architecture, not about zenophobia. I know only one person made constructive comments, maybe that was you... I can't remember but the thread became offensive and nothing to do with regeneration.

I did reply to as many posts as I could on that thread and continued to ask people to please read the press release as an opportunity to contribute to Regeneration Press, so your point that I couldn't be bothered to reply to 'thoughtful polite posts' is utter bollocks because there were hardly any of them, and the ones that were got a reply from me.

I post on this forum to share and discover information nothing more. Please see my reply to your thread for further clarification.

How rude of you. You really are an outrageously arrogant individual. How dare you judge whose posts are fit for publication on the internet, and whose are not?

There were good posts on that thread, not just mine. Sebo, Gareth, Blabbern and others also posted well crafted and relevant posts there. SSC is not just about architecture, it is about urbanism. Urbanism is more than just buildings, it's about the economy, urban society and goveranance. Your thread was highly relevant, on-topic, and not at all offensive. How dare you decide you know what is relevant and what is not? I can't believe you, or that mods went along with your outageous and illiberal desire to shut others up simply because they didn't share your world view.

That thread needs to be restored, and you need to realise that this site is about urbanism as well as architecture. (And, if you honestly believe the site is just about architecture, why did you post that thread - about a new regional business publication?)

I am writing now to CAW and Gothic to find out what is going on here. I'm not posting here if someone like you, who doesn't understand the purpose of SSC and has no respect for the opinions of others, can simply have my quality posts deleted. I repeat - how DARE you do that? You really have pissed me off. And don't bother apologising, you've done the very worst anyone can do on the net - devalued others and tied to stifle right to self-expression.

How rude of you. You really are an outrageously arrogant individual.
Right back at ya Luv.

I am writing now to CAW and Gothic to find out what is going on here. I'm not posting here if someone like you, who doesn't understand the purpose of SSC and has no respect for the opinions of others, can simply have my quality posts deleted. I repeat - how DARE you do that? You really have pissed me off. And don't bother apologising, you've done the very worst anyone can do on the net - devalued others and tied to stifle right to self-expression.
No, what I did was protect myself from your libelous comment that I put up the post for personal gain. Since I am transparent on here, unlike you... I do have a problem with that. Would you care to discuss it in person.

Right back at ya Luv.


No, what I did was protect myself from your libelous comment that I put up the post for personal gain. Since I am transparent on here, unlike you... I do have a problem with that. Would you care to discuss it in person.

I made no such claim. You are imaginging it. I had no idea about your motivation, and was happy to believe your claim that you just thought people would be interested in it. I don't recall anyone saying you had anything to gain from it. So you really mean you wanted a whole thread deleted on the basis that you mis-read a post?

I made no such claim. You are imaginging it. And, I don't think anyone did. You really mean you wanted a whole thread deleted on the basis that you mis-read a post?

You did, and you already said as much again tonight Luv... check back through your posts. Without repeating myself I have made a far more considered reply to your thread than you have made to mine so the answers are all in there for you.

You did, and you already said as much again tonight Luv... check back through your posts. Without repeating myself I have made a far more considered reply to your thread than you have made to mine so the answers are all in there for you.

No, talking about pals (tonight) is not the same as saying someone is commercially involved with people. You don't read what is written, you read what you think might be there. I say "your Manc pals and their business venture", not "your" business venture. And, on the missing thread, I didn't even mention that - I was not interested in your motivation, only in the policy issues. You are mistaken. Hopefully, even though it is deleted, Gothic can look into this and satisfy himself that you are entirely wrong on that count, and restore the thread.

You ignored the policy discussion, about regionalism and sub-regionalism in the media, presumably because you are not interested in it. You didn't address the substantive points that were put - even where you asked questions, you didn't appear to read the answers. But, having started a discussion, it's really not for you to demand it be stopped and deleted simply because it doesn't go entirely as you wish it to.

As it transpires, sadly, we are all involuntarily investing in this doomed venture, by virtue of the NWDA wasting public money on an investment in it.

No, talking about "mates" is not the same as saying someone is commercially involved with people. You don't read what is written, you read what you think might be there.

No Luv, you have selective memory again. On the original thread you suggested that it was my outfit and that I made the post in the interests of self advertising. Even though I denied this several times you continued to make the association... And what's more the thread did become zenophobic and if it can be ressurected to prove this, I would be delighted to see you set fire to your balls and for you to throw yourself in the Kings Dock to put them out.

No Luv, you have selective memory again. On the original thread you suggested that it was my outfit and that I made the post in the interests of self advertising.

No, I did not. You are a fantasist. Moreoever, and I recall the posts, having reacting over-sensitively to the discussion, people went out of their way to reassure you that it was the policy issue they were challenging, not you or your motivation in posting that information there. You are completely distorting reality here, as well as telling lies about my posts.

This is a new line, only moments ago on another thread you were claiming your only objection to the thread was that you decided it had nothing to do with regeneration. In fact you are explicit that it has nothing to do with your own personal take on things. You keep changing your mind about just what it was that you didn't like about it. It would help if you didn't, however, make things up that didn't happen.

You ignored the policy discussion, about regionalism and sub-regionalism in the media, presumably because you are not interested in it. You didn't address the substantive points that were put - even where you asked questions, you didn't appear to read the answers....
Because I didn't know the answer, I don't know enough about the subject to make an informed comment.

As it transpires, sadly, we are all involuntarily investing in this doomed venture, by virtue of the NWDA wasting public money on an investment in it.
Why is it a waste of money. Do you speak for all the public as well as the internet.

Right, I hate to stick my oar in, but I must. Why do the rest of you scousers put up with Poli? He may be alright with the rest of you, but are you all completely blind to the damage this bloke's done to Scouse/Manc relations on here? Before he popped along, we all generally had a good laugh and often at each other's expense, but we laughed about it and normally, any gimp who started some flamewar between the cities would end up being branded a fool and we'd go on merrily believing in this idea of a unified North West.

Yet since he's joined, I've noticed his constant posts regarding Manchester raping Liverpool of it's assets through history has lead to a lot of you posting some incredibly dodgy things in recent history which could very easily stir up hatred. And he likes to pretend he's this fantastically respectful individual, but look at the language he's used in his correspondence with Bammy. He's been nothing short of aggressive, rude, ignorant and just downright offensive and largely, Bammy's responded with matter-of-fact responses with no insults. Poli likes to think he's eloquent and fantastically articulate in his postings but it's only when it suits him. He's an absolute horror to converse with if you happen to offer a different opinion to his.

But you've got to realise that his quite disgusting vitriol to all things Manchester is harming your group. More Mancs are getting pissed off with the way we're spoken about on here, and it's largely because of the language used which as I've said is nothing but pure vitriolic. His first appearence on SSC was a thread slagging off Manchester and it's working classes, which was grossly offensive. Since then, I've read many of his posts and just been left astounded at the pure snobbery of this man. He says above in one of his posts that Bammy has no right to judge a post on here. Yet Poli often finds he somehow has the right to libel every motherfucker on here.

And don't get me started about the Urban Photo forum. You've turned that place into an elitist fuckwit place where many people just don't wish to get involved for fear of having some cocksword wannabe critic pissing on their chips. If you complain about the lack of activity there, maybe you should look at why people don't wish to visit.

I'm quite exchausted after a long day so all this is clearly a messy diatribe but I could honestly go on about the wrongs of this man. But you'll have to make do with this. And if anybody gets a whinge on about me not replying to the incredibly thoughtful and inquisitive responses I may get, balls to you. I don't actually care about this place too much anymore because of people like Poli. He and his like (Farsight anyone?) have polluted the place and it's just not worth posting on anymore. So the point of this is simply, I wanted to say my piece. If you can't accept it Poli, balls to you, that's life.

So please Scousers, just think carefully about what you're agreeing with when speaking to Poli.