Sloyan Doyle have this morning secured the Maro site ready for demolition of the old Business Units.

Welcome to the site BD. I don't live far from the site myself so I am glad to see the old Business Units going if for no other reason than to leave them in their present dilapidated site invites vandals, arsonists etc. Hope to see a new proposal for this site soon.

Welcome to the site BD. I don't live far from the site myself so I am glad to see the old Business Units going if for no other reason than to leave them in their present dilapidated site invites vandals, arsonists etc. Hope to see a new proposal for this site soon.

Thanks Martin, yes it will be good to see it go, fingers crossed for the right replacement!

I still can't get over what a travesty it was to reject this scheme

Could it be re-submitted for approval now Ruth Kelly isn't in charge?

Could it be re-submitted for approval now Ruth Kelly isn't in charge?

I doubt it because Simpson isn't on board anymore.

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/4049/zbrunswickneogeorgiantn6.jpg

I had a good look around this the other day. It's housing association. Externally it is VILE, very cheaply finished and odd looking. It's not mock Georgian and the balcony railings look like they might be made from non metal material that doesn't rot in the sea air. A touch of B&Q mock tudor is the only thing it hasn't included... yet.

It's incongrous (low rise terraces and modern bungalows) are the dominant residential structures locally. I liked that. There's also a local convenience store in the street opposite (Horsfall?), and Brunswick station is a few minute's walk away. At least it's not three detached bungalows which is the modern design of choice for that area. A bit of extra money spent on the finish and it could have been something a lot better. I wonder how it will look 10 years from now? Doesn't look as though it was built to age well. If I didn't know better I could well imagine that it was some tongue-in-cheek art installation like the recent one in Gt George St - sadly it's for real.

These are the embarressing results of heritage mania and backward thinking. They actually make the argument for clearing terraced streets even stronger..wasnt there a project by the same people behind the Brunswick tower to create a new higher density residential development with a more forward looking approach to the design?

The Brunswick Business Centre having it's heart ripped out yesterday:

http://www.haighmail.com/09072007014.jpg

Originally built after the Toxteth riots as an affordable place for local people to start up their own business and closed in controversial circumstances by a greedy developer (MARO) anxious to make a quick buck.

Sentimental for me since I used to work there and knew all the people. Lots of which were local people who'd been there since day one.

Is a new business centre or similar scheme being developed elsewhere?

no in answer to above.

the original maro proposal to the tenants was for relocation to a new business centre but they dropped this half way through the process once they realised they had a critical mass of tenants willing to take the (meagre) compensation payments without relocation.

they divided and conquered by splitting the tenants between those who could relocate easily and thus would take the compensation and get out to avoid hassle and those who could not relocate easily (installed fixtures, the long standing tenants) who wanted to fight.

all this is my opinion by the way, based on my own experience. i suggest nobody take my word as gospel and instead investigate what happened themselves. this hopefully avoids me getting sued! i love you maro really! everyone shop in matalan, yeah!

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c19/Waterfront36/brunswick1.jpg

Beetham's very own copy of Maro's Brunswick, (above), looks set for approval in London, only built upside down (below).

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/1012BeethamLondonRecommendedForApproval_pic1.jpg

I still cant believe we didnt approve it! i personally hope one day it will make a come back in that form, that was a quite unique design :ohno: :nuts:

Don't expect anything half as good as the original tower,I reckon they'll build two 25 storey efforts.

Agreed, even now some months after the dust has settled it seems almost unbelievable that this was never passed. Like Gherkin on an earlier post I would love to see Maro re-submit, cunning plan re-instate Simpson, re-hash the layout, juggle around with some of the numbers maybe increase the parking, we all know this is a brilliant plan. If BB on the King Eddy site gets through planning it may give Maro some confidence to give it one more go!

I think it could be worth a try. As long as the developers do just enough tweaking to make sure it doesn't look like an identical proposal I'm sure they'd get a majority council support. Remember when they submitted this proposal there was quite a different planning atmosphere. Beetham West was just a stump and EH fever was at its peak. Since then most people have seen the positive effects BW and other developments are having on the skyline, and with 3a being approved and King Eddies proposed they might have better luck this time.

Personally I'd love to see them submit the same thing, but I'd rather something slightly modified if it'd mean it'd be approved.

"EH fever was at its peak"

It's so good to talk about English Heritage's chokehold on Liverpool in past tense. Let's hope their reign is truly over and Maro submit something tastey for this site, I think 30 stories is an absolute minimum after their first try. I think something around 35-45 would be perfect for this location. Just imagine, with the new towers we're getting to the south (columbus quay, vermont, kings dock, queens dock, brunswick quay), the skyline will strecth for a good 2 miles.

if that was proposed today i'd be confident that it would be given planning permission under Warren Bradley

if that was proposed today i'd be confident that it would be given planning permission under Warren Bradley

I agree. As long as the developers appear to have made some consession (to avoid the council having to make a complete U turn) then I'm also confident that a similar tower would pass. Beetham had to do the same thing in London to get approval for the tower quoted by JUXTAPOL. It would be a shame if we lost the essence of the original, but a slightly scaled down version would be better than nothing, or a stumpy 25 storey set of twin blocks.

it's the location that will be the problem with a resubmitted application. resubmit yes, but do it using land somewhere near old hall st.. the costco/toys r us site or on top of the lovely brown business park sheds would seem ideal.

I hopeyoure right, but I'd honestly be surprised if anything over 15 stories gets built here. I know the outlook has changed and you may find that Maro went off to build something truly stumpy, only now to realise that the outlook HAS indeed changed again for the better....so maybe, just maybe they have gone fonud that their revised, smaller project can now get revised again, but this time upwards.

However, I can but dream. 3/4 blocks of 12/15 stories is what we'll get methinks.

Has anyone been down here lately? what is happening? the last i saw they had started to demolish the warehouses.

Does anyone know if the site at Columbus Quay is still working, nothing seems to be going on:ohno:

Brunswick Quay plan to transform dockland

Nov 21 2007 by Larry Neild, Liverpool Daily Post

A SECOND attempt is to be made to develop the Brunswick Quay site on Liverpool’s waterfront following the scrapping of a 50-storey skyscraper scheme.

Now developers Ollerton Developments – the new name for previous site owners Maro - have come forward with a vibrant and imaginative mixed-use scheme.

They say their multi-million pound scheme could transform Brunswick Quay waterfront in Liverpool into a public destination.

Instead of the original plan for a huge tower designed by architect Ian Simpson, architects at Studio Egret West plan a series of cylindrical towers topped with roof gardens.

A combination of homes, a spa, bars and restaurants are planned for the site in what is described as a striking development alongside

the river. The development would also create jobs with a café, grocery store and office space adding to the commercial element of the scheme.

Jamey Hargreaves, speaking on behalf of the developers, Ollerton Developments, last night told the Daily Post: “The property mix will comprise apartments of various styles and sizesŠtogether with a substantial number of flexible family homes, as well as commercial space.

“We wanted a scheme that made a clear statement about our desire to create something imaginative and compelling and we feel that Studio Egret West have delivered that.

“We believe our proposals set this development apart from others in the city in the way they provide access to Liverpool’s greatest natural resource – the river.

“Our intention has always been to make this a destination in its own right, not just a place to live, and by opening up the waterfront, creating a public spa and including restaurants, a cafe and bars we will achieve that.”

Christophe Egret, partner at Studio Egret West, said: “We are investigating an original form of development that physically opens up the views to the river Mersey and Liverpool while providing a destination at the edge of the city centre that will be conducive to family life. We look forward to working with Maro to bring our shared vision to fruition.’’

Ollerton Developments is the new name for Maro Developments. The name change follows previous changes in the company’s management structure.

Maro, part owned by Matalan founder John Hargreaves, first put forward a development plan several years ago. It led to a public inquiry with the then local government minister Ruth Kelly dismissing the appeal and refusing planning permission.

In January Maro parted company with Mr Simpson, who also designed Manchester’s tallest building, the 50-storey Beetham Tower on Deansgate.

The Daily Post understands that the new architects and Ollerton executives have been involved in detailed discussions with city planning officers. There have also been meetings with local people as part of a consultation exercise.

Great stuff it sounds interesting,can't wait to see how many talls are planned.

^^^ does not say anything about talls ^^^

Sounds interesting, but anything is going to be a let down after the Maro tower was scrapped. This is more or less what I was expecting, low-rise mix-use, nothing too outlandish. I imagine the final product will be good (and certainly an improvement on the current state of affairs) and I like the idea of the roof gardens. But as with so many schemes in this city, we're ending up with a watered down, stumpy compromise when we should of had a soring iconic beauty.

This miserable sketch was with the report in this mornings DP, I am totally underwhelmed by this, how disappointing.


http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7665/p1010400ko6.jpg

Well we always suspected ( and I felt pretty sure) we werent going to get anything over 20 stories.

No doubt this will be high quality, but as to being architecturally significant or in anyway iconic or memorable, I imagine that they were forced away from such principles on the basis that it would be rejected.

I still think that they will look interesting from the road, but won't add to the skyline in any significant way. Again, I imagine that formed part of the brief.

Sad as i am to see the demise of the original 52 storey building this is probably more in keeping with the area.

The original tall had a lot of 1-bed 'crash-pads' which i don't think where ever going to be sustainable in Liverpool, not yet anyway, we need more jobs into the city, well-paid jobs as well.

It was in the wrong area in the first place and too far from the city centre.

Sad as i am to see the demise of the original 52 storey building this is probably more in keeping with the area.

The original tall had a lot of 1-bed 'crash-pads' which i don't think where ever going to be sustainable in Liverpool, not yet anyway, we need more jobs into the city, well-paid jobs as well.

It was in the wrong area in the first place and too far from the city centre.

Although I agree about having too many 1 bed pads, I think the tower would have helped to 'draw' the city further down it's natural progression along the docks (which is already happening).

I've no doubt the new buildings will look 'ok' (although I hate those 'rough sketches' - why bother?) and it won't be bad for the area. It's more about what we lost here, and why and how we lost it. Personally I don't think that a low-rise development will be any 'more appropriate' here, just like I don't think a similar low-rise development will be 'more appropriate' for Lime Street. Technically we currently only have one new genuinely 'tall' building for the city with planning permission at present, and I'm still not convinced that this city is prepared to make the necessary decisions needed to put our skyline fully back on the UK map, let alone the world map.

[QUOTE=T0M;16614803] Personally I don't think that a low-rise development will be any 'more appropriate' here.[QUOTE]

I disagree Tom, as the architect says they are trying to open up the river front and make the site 'conducive to family life', i don't think a tall building would have done this.

I would have loved the original design to have been built but i think it would have been really out of place, this site is too small, tall buildings will be built but i think they will be to the North of the city centre and by Peel.

This miserable sketch was with the report in this mornings DP, I am totally underwhelmed by this, how disappointing.


http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7665/p1010400ko6.jpg

whats the point in that... its like soemthin a kid would bring home from play skool!

whats the point in that... its like soemthin a kid would bring home from play skool!

^^ a sketch of the new development

~or~

a sketch of a selection of pedal bins and waste paper baskets ?

Although we all knew when the new plans were released, we weren't going to see anything particularly tall, this sounds totally underwhelming. I know it's hard to tell from that sketch, but there doesn't seem to be anything of interest or significance. I can understand the artist formerly known as Maro not wanting to submit anything too outlandish for fear it will be rejected again. However surely there is a middle ground, that isn't as bland as this? Buildings doen't necessarily have to be tall be make a statement. But these buildings seem neither tall nor interesting in terms of their form. I hope if passed, the cladding and the roof top gardens add some interest to the buildings. As the plans stand, they'll be not much more than an 'also-ran' in Liverpool's renaissance, never mind the fore-runner, like the previous proposal was.

Although we all knew when the new plans were released, we weren't going to see anything particularly tall, this sounds totally underwhelming. I know it's hard to tell from that sketch, but there doesn't seem to be anything of interest or significance. I can understand the artist formerly known as Maro not wanting to submit anything too outlandish for fear it will be rejected again. However surely there is a middle ground, that isn't as bland as this? Buildings doen't necessarily have to be tall be make a statement. But these buildings seem neither tall nor interesting in terms of their form. I hope if passed, the cladding and the roof top gardens add some interest to the buildings. As the plans stand, they'll be not much more than an 'also-ran' in Liverpool's renaissance, never mind the fore-runner, like the previous proposal was.

I'm with you on this Chris. We have to remember that this was the site of one of the single best new tower proposals in the entire UK, let alone blowing out of the water anything Liverpool currently has. Very few iconic towers are going to be 'family friendly' - and the rejection of the original tower had nothing to do with this, it was about the business use of the site - which now seems to have been conveniently forgotten.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to develop this site in a family-friendly way, but not at the cost of loosing an opportunity to add another iconic building to the waterfront profile. It's not like they were proposing to knock down an existing housing estate to build the tower.. this is effectively wasteland now.

What annoys me is the huge potential of this site. Given that the council backtracked on their original objection to the Maro tower, and ended up supporting an iconic building (and now probably wish they'd supported it in the first place because it would have been buitl by now and would have fitted in perfectly with Liverpool's reinvented waterfront image) I think the developers should push for something unique and significant on this site.

A couple of stumpy 12 storey towers with a bit of greenery is going to wash.

Those drawings piss me off, people get paid to make those 'impressions' and they're as good as useless. Give us some decent renders. :bash:

^^^ does not say anything about talls ^^^

Talls are about 20 storeys to me,I'm more interested in public realm than height,I'll leave that to wiggley an co.:)

Well we always suspected ( and I felt pretty sure) we werent going to get anything over 20 stories.

No doubt this will be high quality, but as to being architecturally significant or in anyway iconic or memorable, I imagine that they were forced away from such principles on the basis that it would be rejected.

I still think that they will look interesting from the road, but won't add to the skyline in any significant way. Again, I imagine that formed part of the brief.

We were never going to get an iconic tower on this site, so the late lamented Maro Tower :ohno:,we must just eraze from our minds. This could be a very interesting scheme, I think it will add to the skyline with towers ranging from 8 to 20 (hard to tell off that sketch:nuts:). If a residential development for this site was proposed back in the 80`s, we could all look forward to Barretts ( or Wimpy ) turning up to build 4 storey town houses, so this is light years away from creating "little boxes" . As for that sketch with Ollerton involved in detail discussions with the planners, from the architects perspective it makes sense to keep things vague, as the scheme that will be submitted for approval will be I suspect be very different from the sketch.

This miserable sketch was with the report in this mornings DP, I am totally underwhelmed by this, how disappointing.


http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7665/p1010400ko6.jpg


Doug thanks for posting , for what I thought was an entry for the Turner Prize:lol: It makes my efforts back on Central Village look like a Van Gough:ohno:

Interesting. I wonder if they really have contacted local residents. Maro said that before and I don't believe it was true.

Very hard to make any judgement from that sketch. I think there is potential there. We can't expect great height following the debacle with the Simpson design.

A cluster of decent sized buildings might look ok, a 51 whopper is gob smacking, but if these are around 12 storey and with a unique design then this could be a great development.

Would rather see the 51 storey whopper nearer the city centre.

I don't have any regrets myself about the Simpson outcome or any supposition that height is a good thing in itself - certainly not in this spot (which incidentally is a wasteland due to the efforts of the landowners to turn it into one).

From the sketch one can't indeed draw much of a conclusion, but one can learn a bit from the Studio Egret West website (http://www.egretwest.com/). The practice seems to contain mainly Alsop alumni, and many of their projects have the expected colourful and curvy quality. So there is a reasonable chance of something architecturally interesting emerging.

give me back the 51 storey sublime tower anyday rather than a couple of 10/20 storey tiddlers.

check out this thread on Yo Liverpool -

http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6838

Verdi complaining about the view being lost and our long lost friend waterways wanting them to dig out the docks.

Nothing changes does it?

I don't have any regrets myself about the Simpson outcome or any supposition that height is a good thing in itself - certainly not in this spot (which incidentally is a wasteland due to the efforts of the landowners to turn it into one).

From the sketch one can't indeed draw much of a conclusion, but one can learn a bit from the Studio Egret West website (http://www.egretwest.com/). The practice seems to contain mainly Alsop alumni, and many of their projects have the expected colourful and curvy quality. So there is a reasonable chance of something architecturally interesting emerging.

I'm not going to condemn this new development simply because it isn't as tall as the Simpson tower and I trust that I didn't support the Simpson tower simply because it was tall.

I know it is water under the bridge but I still feel angry at the way the Simpson tower was obstructed by the planners simply it appears because they hadn't coloured in that particular patch of land as suitable for an apartment development.

The goverment inspector gave his enthusiastic support to the proposal and it is tragic that it fell at the last hurdle on the whim of a minister who didn't even bother to visit the site.

The sketch that we have seen so far seems to be a typical architect's conceptual design. I am sure we will get professional renders soon enough but I think there is promise there. One feature that has survived from the Brunswick Quay tower is the concept of the roof garden. That may be easier to achieve at lower level and on a larger area.

i wont make any judgement on it till they actually produce some proper renders and not something that has been brought home from play school!

This wasn't my fav project in Liverpool, but the most disappointing aspect of the failure is the NIMBY attitudes that have emerged.

I heard the Brunswick Quay tower has been cancelled. That sucks.

The original has been but these new proposals are presumably still on the cards. I don't think the developers woulsd spend 12 months working with planners, only to cancel the project a week after going public with their ideas.

I know it is water under the bridge but I still feel angry at the way the Simpson tower was obstructed by the planners simply it appears because they hadn't coloured in that particular patch of land as suitable for an apartment development.

The goverment inspector gave his enthusiastic support to the proposal and it is tragic that it fell at the last hurdle on the whim of a minister who didn't even bother to visit the site.


Martin (just saw your reply): On the receding water that flowed under that bridge:

I wouldn't characterize the inspector's report as enthusiastic. The key point about it that no-one has commented on is that he endorsed LCC's rejection of the original scheme. As the second one was not very different from it (and in appearance not at all), his approval would have to be judged marginal. It was this I think that gave Ruth Kelly the leeway needed to overturn his recommendation.

As for colouring in the patch of land, this is a rather curt dismissal of the principle of land-use planning - about which those formerly employed at Brunswick business park might have a different opinion.

At any rate, that argument is unlikely to carry much weight this time round, given the 'wasteland' condition already mentioned.

(Incidentally I didn't mean to place you in the 'tall for tall's sake' camp - your arguments in support of the tower were quite ingenious and I would say came close to having an influence on the outcome.)

Thanks for your response Lathom. I have to say that my enthusiasm for the tower was reduced by the way that the developer behaved, something that may well have led to the decision going against him. He certainly did not do any meaningful consultation with local people and the tenants of the Small Business Centre seemed to have been left in the dark about his intentions.

The second proposal didn't look in any way different from the first but did contain more commercial space, which should have helped to placate the planners concerned about the change of use of the site. (Incidentally, this issue is unlikely to go away as, even though the SBC is no longer there, the site is still designated for commercial use although the activities that border the site include residential, offices and a hotel and (now) a beauty salon).

Ruth Kelly's decision overturned several of the inspector's recommendations and she seemed to place undue emphasis on the view from Tranmere- a factor that would affect only a handful of people. As she had not visited the site (certainly not in the course of her decision making), it has always been a mystery to me why she decided as she did.

In the light of recent events, I am beginning to wonder if there was some other factor that would have biased the minister against this particular developer.

As for colouring in the patch of land, this is a rather curt dismissal of the principle of land-use planning - about which those formerly employed at Brunswick business park might have a different opinion.

Indeed they would. Business Centre being ripped apart last Thursday:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/9052/bsbcxy7.jpg

Doug thanks for posting , for what I thought was an entry for the Turner Prize:lol: It makes my efforts back on Central Village look like a Van Gough:ohno:

hmm more crappy drawings..I really hate architects who think they are artists.

As for colouring in the patch of land, this is a rather curt dismissal of the principle of land-use planning - about which those formerly employed at Brunswick business park might have a different opinion.



I think that there should always be an onus on the planners to justify any land use designation in the context of the proposal being made. That is why I do tend to see this as just colouring in a patch of land on the map.

Obviously, in certain circumstances, land use planning is a very necessary tool of the planning process. We don't want to see industrial developments in Sefton Park or housing estates crowding round the port or airport and stifling their future growth - however, in this case I am not sure that it serves any great purpose.

The Brunswick Business Park was, I believe, created by the Merseyside Development Corporation in the 80s to provide employment in an area that had suffered following the closure of the South Docks. In those days, nobody would have dreamed that a developer would want to construct a major mixed use development on the site.

Now though, as the city has developed considerably since those days, we have to ask if the designation for industrial use is still beneficial to the economy of the area.

We don't yet know the mix of residential and commercial activities planned for the latest development but I would imagine that a mixture of offices, shops and a hotel plus the demand created by the apartment residents would result in more jobs than were contained within the Small Business Centre.

Back in the days when John MK was telling us that all of the docks should be re-excavated to create a 'city on the water', I pointed out that it would mean closure of the Brunswick Business Park and consequent loss of jobs. I got the standard response 'You have no imagination'.

Then, Doug Roberts and myself did a tour of the old Toxteth and Harrington Docks site and began to realise that JMK had a point. There was a great potential in the area to develop into something far more beneficial to the city than just a small industrial estate. Maybe not for ten or twenty years - but there was that potential. As for the present tenants, they could be relocated in an area more suited to that sort of activity. Provided that was done in a planned and efficient way, there should be no reason to complain.

I accept that the area should be deemed as industrial and commercial as a means of preventing piecemeal development of apartments - but when the possibility comes along for a more economically vital activity - the planning process should have the flexibility to respond.

Martin, it's about timing and the type of jobs being created.

The closure of Brunswick Small Business Centre lost a building full of local people with small and profitable businesses started by themselves. It was an incubator for what might have become the future success of Liverpool.

No amount of poncy apartments (which would have been left empty as most are around the city) or high grade office space (for which Liverpool cannot fill the space it already and Brunswick is a highly unsuitable location), or shitty retail jobs (that will never create any real wealth for the city) were worth demolishing this beacon of opportunity.

I found it a disgrace how Macro were allowed to buy, run down, and now demolish the Business Centre. All with the complicity of Liverpool City Council. There are no concrete plans in place for the site and I fear the current downturn will lead to this space being left empty for many years to come.

It is exactly in such downturns that buildings such as the Business Centre are necessary to spark the flames of renewal.

When the next Toxteth riots come along will politicians make more bold promises, perhaps build another Business Centre, only for it to be torn down again once big business and profit blind them of what the people really need?

I fear that this will be the case.

Martin, it's about timing and the type of jobs being created.

The closure of Brunswick Small Business Centre lost a building full of local people with small and profitable businesses started by themselves. It was an incubator for what might have become the future success of Liverpool.

No amount of poncy apartments (which would have been left empty as most are around the city) or high grade office space (for which Liverpool cannot fill the space it already and Brunswick is a highly unsuitable location), or shitty retail jobs (that will never create any real wealth for the city) were worth demolishing this beacon of opportunity.

I found it a disgrace how Macro were allowed to buy, run down, and now demolish the Business Centre. All with the complicity of Liverpool City Council. There are no concrete plans in place for the site and I fear the current downturn will lead to this space being left empty for many years to come.

It is exactly in such downturns that buildings such as the Business Centre are necessary to spark the flames of renewal.

When the next Toxteth riots come along will politicians make more bold promises, perhaps build another Business Centre, only for it to be torn down again once big business and profit blind them of what the people really need?

I fear that this will be the case.

One question that I have is just what happened to the tenants of the Small Business Centre. How many of them went out of business and how many moved to other units within the city?

It was always my fear that we would end up with the Small Business Centre demolished and no Brunswick Quay Tower - the worse of both worlds. It is an irony that the planning process could lead to the tower being rejected but could not stop the demolition of the Small Business Centre. For once, we can't blame Liverpool City Council for this - they did not own the building and, as it was not listed, were powerless to prevent its closure and demolition.

Maybe one solution to this would be to bring in a listing process for architecturally unimportant but socially useful buildings.

All the same, I don't accept that the Brunswick Quay Tower would not have been a worthy replacement for the Small Business Centre. Most city centre apartments are not empty and office space in the city is attracting greater rental per square foot. The office space proposed (in the second planning submission) would have probably employed as many people as the Small Business Centre and on top of that would have been a hotel and retail space. The prestige nature and location of the tower would have made it a magnet for apartment buyers and poncy apartments pay poncy council tax.

I coudn't give you an accurate reply about where the tenants ended up. I know a few of them (3?) are now in the Queen's Dock Business Centre and I know that a couple went out of business (either because their business was intrinsically linked with the business centre or the paltry compensation offered by Maro wasn't enough to replace fixed capital items).

The great thing about the Business Centre was that it offered lower and more flexible terms than you'd find elsewhere. Ideal for start-up businesses.

Not sure your licence idea would be practical in practice.

My qualms are with the fact that the council couldn't prevent the destruction of a local business centre opened up in such calamitous circumstances. Perhaps the rioters should have threatened not to stop until a legal guarantee was in place?

I think we will have to agree to disagree on the city centre apartment question for the time being. In my experience most of these are empty, with out of city owners waiting on capital appreciation which may well never happen. Poncy apartments do not bring in council tax if they are lying empty. We are sure to hear far more about this in the future so I'm going to let future events resolve this dispute!

The owners of apartments are obliged to pay both council tax and maintenance charge whether they live in the apartment or not.

The apartment is the basic unit of city centre living. You can't build houses with gardens in city centres as they take up too much land.

That Liverpool is now embracing city centre living is, in my opinion, a good thing. Many cities have done this for years.

Whatever you think of how Maro behaved over the Brunswick Quay tower, the vast majority of apartments built in this city have been in either empty offices or warehouses or on previously derelict land.

Just take a walk around the Brunswick Business Park and you will see that the vast majority of businesses are ones related to the city centre living market.

It is all very well to see apartment living as 'poncy' but that is just inverted snobbery. If people did not live in apartments in central Liverpool, they would probably be living outside the city and spending their money elsewhere.

high grade office space (for which Liverpool cannot fill the space it already and Brunswick is a highly unsuitable location)

Which high grade office space is Liverpool unable to fill?

Martin, it's about timing and the type of jobs being created.

The closure of Brunswick Small Business Centre lost a building full of local people with small and profitable businesses started by themselves. It was an incubator for what might have become the future success of Liverpool.

No amount of poncy apartments (which would have been left empty as most are around the city) or high grade office space (for which Liverpool cannot fill the space it already and Brunswick is a highly unsuitable location), or shitty retail jobs (that will never create any real wealth for the city) were worth demolishing this beacon of opportunity.

I found it a disgrace how Macro were allowed to buy, run down, and now demolish the Business Centre. All with the complicity of Liverpool City Council. There are no concrete plans in place for the site and I fear the current downturn will lead to this space being left empty for many years to come.

It is exactly in such downturns that buildings such as the Business Centre are necessary to spark the flames of renewal.

When the next Toxteth riots come along will politicians make more bold promises, perhaps build another Business Centre, only for it to be torn down again once big business and profit blind them of what the people really need?

I fear that this will be the case.

So no silver lining, ever, anywhere in Liverpool?

Oh well - I'd better start preparing for the next set of riots then.

So no silver lining, ever, anywhere in Liverpool?

Oh well - I'd better start preparing for the next set of riots then.


I've mentioned elsewhere about the myth surrounding the swathes of empty apartments. 35% empty is pretty good in terms of the city centre stock as a whole, particularly as you need to build an oversupply into the system to absorb future increases in demand.

Also, "shitty" retail jobs will do far more than some think to regenerate Liverpool.

They will provide many many people with work they could not get before and the mere presence of more shops makes the city better to live in. This in turn will make people move here, even if their job is elsewhere. The more people who move here, the more attractive is to businesses wanting to get hold of their money (e.g. professional services/restaurants/wealth management).

People will be more willing to open their own bars/shops/businesses to get hold of the pennies of visitors and those taking up these new retail jobs. Those people will make their own money off the back of those working in the shops and often they will earn more than them.

They in turn will need other businesses (web design, promotion, accountancy etc) to support their business. That in turn creates further wealth....etc etc etc.


Furthermore, even when Liverpool was at it's peak the number of what some would call "blue collar" low grade dock jobs massively outnumbered the number of executive jobs. The Pyramid is always widest at its base so the idea that this service industry model is somehow terrible compare to what we had before is slightly wide of the mark.

Well said BB ; )

Agree Bugged a very sensible post!

Very good reply Bugged.

I really have no idea of just how many apartments should be built in the city centre. Not that long ago, many people would have said that there would have been no demand at all for city centre living in Liverpool. Now, we get nervous about the number of apartments that are being built or are in the planning system.

The point is though that the more people who live in the city centre, the more attractive it becomes as a place to live. More people means more footfall for shops, bars, cafes etc and larger audiences for cinemas, theatres etc. As these facilities are sustained and added to, the more people want to live in the centre and the more popular and secure it becomes.

The attractiveness of Liverpool City Centre should improve considerably over the next year as facilities such as the Grosvenor development come on line, streets are opened up and we have the ACC in operation.

As to the question of where all these people are going to come from, it makes sense to look at the statistics. Liverpool has an area of some 40 square miles and a population of 440,000. That gives a density of some 11,000 people to the square mile. The city centre population given that it is spread over an area of about 1 square mile is presently around 13,000 and so is therefore hardly greater than the rest of the city, bearing in mind that this includes parks, industrial estates and the airport.

As for the fact that most apartments are occupied by single people or couples without children - these form the majority of households in modern Britain. Even given a future city centre population of 25,000, that would only be just over 5% of the city population.

Consider also that Liverpool City Centre is the focus of a city region of some 2 million people and the figures can be seen in perspective. There is only one other location that can compete with Liverpool in the North West and that is Manchester, which also has a thriving apartment market.

At the end of the day, it will be the market that determines how many apartments are built. If there are two many, prices will go down and more people will be attracted into the area. If there are too few, prices will go up and more will be built.

Taken from Place North West

250608

Maro Developments is preparing to submit new plans for the controversial Brunswick Quay site in Liverpool two years after the original designs were thrown out after a public inquiry.

Apparently they are mid rise. we knew they were working on plans from those twee drawings. They have obviously firmed them up in the intervening period and are ready to go.

Fair play for sticking with the city really, after all they had to put up with.

Hmmph. It's not quite long enough for the bitterness to have fully warn off, but I guess it'd be good to see something going up on this site. 20-25 storeys would be acceptable (if the actual designs are of a high enough quality) and help to pull the skyline south down the river.

It'll be interesting to see what they come up with,I wont dwell too much on the past if there's a couple of talls around the 20/25 storey mark,I just hope they're decent and any bars and restaurants offer great views of the river.Great to see this project is still very much alive though.

This sites so annoying lately,it never works.:bash:

This fuckin sites doing my head in.:bash:

nah would much rather leave the site untouched until such a time that such an iconic building (the original design) can be constructed. even if it takes years for the status quo to change. there are far too many 20-22 floor "watered down" towers under construction/awaiting construction as it is. quality not quantity.

I reckon we don't count our chickens here. We're assuming that Maro's, or perhaps more accurately, Place North West's definition of mid-rise is similar to what we may think. It could be as small as seven storeys. :ohno:

This fuckin sites doing my head in.:bash:

:lol:That's more like it Paul! annoyings not the word.

:lol:That's more like it Paul! annoyings not the word.

:lol:That was after my fourth attempt at posting.