Oh I agree on that one.

If it does come down though I see no reason why the granite can`t be used some how in situ.....after all the `Turrets` look ok - as does `Victoria Clock Tower` so I`m sure there is no need for them to go to waste.

A few little rockeries maybe ..... :)

In see no reason why these walls cannot be a part of new buildings, maybe build on the Dock road itself - obviously not load bearing. Windows can be cut into them. Then they do not act as a barrier fencing the docks off from the city beyond. I bit of imagination can come up with some exciting proposals.

In see no reason why these walls cannot be a part of new buildings, maybe build on the Dock road itself - obviously not load bearing. Windows can be cut into them. Then they do not act as a barrier fencing the docks off from the city beyond. I bit of imagination can come up with some exciting proposals.

Snap, my own thoughts precisely. I think that could work really well.

"Bring back the overhead....."

That`s what I say.

But something a bit more cutting edge.

With the proposed amount of money coming into `Merseyrail` I can`t see why they can`t sling shot `left` (at `Stanley Dock`?) on the `Northern Line` into the `Central Docks` and rejoin the `Northern Line` to `Southport` further down the docks.

They could run alternative services `Southport Express` and `Southport via Liverpool Central Docks`.

But then I`ve suggested that before - I see no reason why we can`t do a `Canary Wharf` Docklands either.

Bah ..... :bash:

:) :cheers:

Bah, Bah and Bah again ..... bring back `Merseytram` ..... :bash:

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

You could indeed, but then the limiting aspect of them being wallls would still be there. I love the walls, I also love the dreiliction.... though not enough to see these areas prevented come to life again. I don't see the value of cutting holes and suspending buildings over and around them..... they are walls. If they are important they are important in their entirety. If they are TAHT important then you leave them alone... if they're not, then why frig around... in instances like the walls once you compromise you become compromised!

They where built as impermeable barriers and are very good at their job... if they don't go they will continue doing there job wonderfully well... restricted site with preserved walls, or a chance to utilise the best in our ongoing urban renaissance? IMO both are not possible, so it's one or the other, the walls or the renaissance.

I have said many times on this forum that I see the Central docks and the way they are approached with regards to redevelopment as the most important decision the city makes. If they fuck it up, or they start needlessly jumping through 'preservation' hoops then we will lose the massive potential these docks have. Sure, we may see 'development' but we see development in the South Docks... minimalist benefits, all the excess was sucked out by quick returns and 'heritage' (well most off the apartments LOOK old fashioned is the rationale)

Drop the walls and over the next 50 years we could see the city grow acrtoss the docks, north end and bootle... fuck around and all we will get will be a residential estate and some barge stops!

Pie; If we go with something as cutting edge and futuristic as the overhead railway was when first built we will be alright.... that is Liverpool's 'tradition' If we do, no doubt there will be a clamoour to have 19th C carraiges trundling up and down though... to 'maintain the embience'

Liverpool just doesn't think of itself as a city any longer... everything's a fucking heritage ride!

That's fair enough John and if you follow back through enough of these threads you will see that most of us on here are not 60s' obsessed 'knock em all down' loons at all, but rather passionate about the city, its history and believe in strong conseervation policies.. but!

That sounds encouraging :)


You agreed with my point before about taking the Central Docks walls down so as to fully release the potential of the docks, one of the main benifits being that you could keep more of the basins intact and still get the amount of development needed to make possible to develop in the first place?


On reflection the French walls can stay and developments can go around or even over them, obliterating the dock road at those points.

We have something special to preserve, and you appear to want to obliterate parts of that to fit in maybe some high rises tat a developer wants to shoehorn in on the cheap.

The docks have to stay totally intact to preserve the waterway network of a new Amsterdam or Venice…and they are also historic to boot. Kings and Dukes Docks were destroyed because some idiots, council and developers, had no imagination on how to use the sites.

We keep the heritage we have, and when looking at the whole scale of the Dock network there isn’t that much of it, or more like, much of it left. There are plenty of docks with an abundance of space, and even more space when spreading onto and over the Dock Road, to build anything anybody wants and as high they want. Why destroy old historic, and appealing buildings? Doesn’t make sense.

Most Liverpudlians really don’t realise what they have.

Pie, I wonder if the "northern line" could be light-railway-ised, and a branch created to sort of replicate the LOR?

It could branch off the existing Northern Line (I don't know the line, but somewhere around St Michaels?) to follow the old LOR route from around Herculaneum Dock, and be a largely ground level route up the Dock Road until it approaches Kings Dock, where it could rise up above the street, staying overhead as far as the new Central Docks before spurring back to join the main northern line at Sandhills?

Also, if the whole line was made a light rail one, presumably it would be cheaper and easier to build a spur to the Airport? In that way there could be a direct light rail link from the Airport to centre, and it would connect the big new city centre locations (Kings Dock, Princess Dock, Central Docks) to one another, and to the airport and the Northern Line (so up to Southport, Ormskirk etc).

In the historic centre, the overhead structure and stations could be built in the style of old LOR, to make it fit in more and reduce objections from EH etc.

"Bring back the overhead....."

That`s what I say.

But something a bit more cutting edge.

With the proposed amount of money coming into `Merseyrail` I can`t see why they can`t sling shot `left` (at `Stanley Dock`?) on the `Northern Line` into the `Central Docks` and rejoin the `Northern Line` to `Southport` further down the docks.


Overhead? Please. Keeping the waterways intact can initiate a waterbus through the whole docks when it become populated. Much more appealling.

See the current Rail Revolution thread - the Waterloo tunnel emerges near Central Docks. The potential is enormous.

But there are no fucking (angst!) walls in Venice or Amsterdam, other than those formed by the walls of buildings facing onto the canals and squares!

Bath St is more important then the walls anyway, so why aren't you arsed about it?

I also question this notion of yours, of a Venice or Amsterdam of the North thing about the docks. These cities are built around these systems, they cut through and shape the whole inner core of these cities.... Liverpool docks are just slithers, stuck onto the river front and don't engage in the city ata all... another bloody reason to be done with the walls actually to create as much integration with the dock areas and the rest of the city as possible... so by wanting to retain the wallls you are frustrating your own wishes for this Venice or Amsterdam of the north.. even the tiny bit we could conceivably have!

"There are plenty of docks with an abundance of space, and even more space when spreading onto and over the Dock Road, to build anything anybody wants and as high they want."

But the walls stop you doing this... this is my central point, my absolute and only point for suggesting they go. Why do you think I propose demolishing the walls? There are one or two clues in my previous rambles...it is not because I don't like the look of them... or because they are antwaky!

if you build at the side of the basins then you are going to have to rip out tons of vital 'heritage' that is directly connected to the docks... railway lines, dock machinary, bollards, cobbled internal streets... all sorts... how can we preseerve everything and yet still see then revive in the way you envision? It is either all integral, so ALL must be kept, or there are some things that would be able to be lost... and of all this I say we only need to lose the walls... much less damaging than what you propose.

As for your 'either/or' when it comes to overhead railway or river/dock taxis what's wrong with having both!

Excellent idea poli.. this could indeed be done... hopefully with the whole system for merseyrail going light. I think there is an ideological opposition to this within merseytravel.. I was told by the boss that it is heavy, is staying heavy to maintain those engineering jobs associated with heavy. A light system could go all round the city, but there is this barrier.. another one... of both mindset and physical infrastructure.

John, do you believe that we should keep all of our systems heavy, because it is traditional? water taxis where also never a feature or the docks in ye olde days either. The whole 'French walls' issue is moot, as the Princes has largely been completed.... we must learn lessons from this however so as not to repeat the needless over concentration on 'heritage' further north, in the Central docks.

Liverpool just doesn't think of itself as a city any longer... everything's a fucking heritage ride!

You seem to think that anything that is old and protected is a hindrance to progress. It is not at all. Many cheapo developers have cried foul because they would have to employ a decent imaginative architect or they just clearly want something on the cheap to maximise profits. Whatever is built is there for along time, so it has to be right and the old must be preserved for obvious reasons. Developers should work around what is there, not want to rip it down to some half backed scheme in. I would like see a specific example of where heritage buildings have hindered a brilliant scheme. There are masses of examples of cheap tat being built with historic warehouses demolished and docks filled in – even the Kings Dock complex destroyed a historic 1700s dock. Enough is enough. It has to stop now. No more docks filled in and filled in docks excavated.

Imagine if the Albert Docks were demolished immediately post WW2? What a loss to te nation that would have been. It is worth keeping what we have. There is square mile after square mile of dockland to build anything at all anyone wants - within reason of couse.

For gawd sake get real......the only wall which is going to cause a problem in this city is the ugly one backing onto Bold Street and which will overlook the Central Vlllage development......part of the span which held up the roof at Cental Station. It's dirty and rather ugly, not listed and is going to take the shine of that sparkly water feature. It's going to have to cleaned or(as the developers Ballymore want) removed piecemeal by the shops on Bold St to open up their rear potential.

Now your just being stupid John. How can you say such a thing when most posts on this forum are punctuated with calls for conservation.... I am just not as anally preservationsit as you seem to be.... and then at other times, not so. it is a fair point about much development that has gone on over the years in Liverpool.. i.e. bad development after knocking down good old stock.. nobody has really said that this is a 'good thing' now, have they?.. check the heritage principles I actually outlined below?

trouble is now that good development is being screwed up too.

Don't really get your point Jets.. do you think we can keep the dock walls up in central and still gain the maximum potential from them?

But there are no fucking (angst!) walls in Venice or Amsterdam, other than those formed by the walls of buildings facing onto the canals and squares!

Bath St is more important then the walls anyway, so why aren't you arsed about it?

"There are plenty of docks with an abundance of space, and even more space when spreading onto and over the Dock Road, to build anything anybody wants and as high they want."

But the walls stop you doing this

As for your 'either/or' when it comes to overhead railway or river/dock taxis what's wrong with having both!


I would love both. However I don’t see the money available, or justification, for an overhead railway. Any money can be better used. It is a matter of priorities. There are two very long disused tunnels laying there waiting to be used. Provision could be left to install an overhead railway along the dock length if that is what is envisaged. But developers would have leave space for it.


John, do you believe that we should keep all of our systems heavy, because it is traditional? water taxis where also never a feature or the docks in ye olde days either. The whole 'French walls' issue is moot, as the Princes has largely been completed.... we must learn lessons from this however so as not to repeat the needless over concentration on 'heritage' further north, in the Central docks.

Water buses are great idea when the docks change their use to leisure and residential. They never had them when the docks were operational because they were not needed. No one lived there.

The French wall issue is not a real issue overall, although a mistake was made at Princes Dock – yet another one. This reflects that there is no firm policy on the development of the dock complex – I have only ever read wishy-washy documents. When looking at the whole dock complex there is so little of the wall that is pales into insignificance. And as be mentioned, developments can be enhanced by including the walls in the docks and across the docks road into the land beyond.

The crazy thing when you read the World Heritage Managment Plan is how important historic parts are conveniently left out, while rubbish is left in.

For example, for me one of the most impressive things about Liverpool is the quantity and scale of the docks. The waterspaces and quays should have all have been preserved under the WHS plan. Even if that unfortunately means not necessarily excavating them yet, but making sure that no new developments destroy their buried remains, (as per the old dock has been protected under the new hotel in the PSDA).

Instead the morons who devised this plan have left out a number of interesting and historic docks but made the WHS run a few feet around a wall!!!

Also, surely the to cathedrals should have been included?

Sorry John, water buses won't work. They would be too slow, don't interchange easily with other modes, and unfortunately there will be a lock system that will make it impossible for them to cross the Pier Head. Yes, the very thing that damned link ought to facilitate, it will not.

Water buses are expensive to operate, and I was talking about a serious public transport solution here. Have you been to Copenhagen, incidentally? If not, you'll love it - they have really understood how to plan a city around water.

The LOR is very much a part of the history of the docks, and I'd like to see it reintroduced as branch of the Northern Line.

there are all sorts of individual sites around Liverpool that could be designated WHS. We made the foul mistake (not a mistake in the minds of those who crafted it) of roping in whole districts, that like you say, are mainly full of crap.

you must remember though what WHS is about... why are the cathedrals of universal heritage value? They may be precious to us and we will always conserve them but they have played no role in world development, or are so ancient that they are the only remains of long gone civilisations.

WHS is not, and should not be, a wishy washy local heritage initiative. The same argument goes for ST George's Hall.. great for us, important as part of the story of Liverpool's commercial growth and Imperial growth of the British Empire etc... but a World Heritage Site? Surely we are not that deluded to see these buildings as genuine candidates for WHS?

Things like local buildings are in real danger of diluting the value of the whole WHS campaign.

For me the areas that could be genuine WHS would include
Crown St Station
The Pierhead/Castle St/ Albert Dock district, that would also include the old dock... this is mainly symbolc and representative, it is not the inherent value in any of the structures themselves, except for the old dock... having this WHS (with no buffer zone) would not damage the city
The prehistoric footsteps that emerge from under Formby Beach every now and then

There are other sites and areas that must be preserved... but they are not WHS, we need other tools and initiatives to maintain them!

Now your just being stupid John. How can you say such a thing when most posts on this forum are punctuated with calls for conservation.... I am just not as anally preservationsit as you seem to be.... and then at other times, not so. it is a fair point about much development that has gone on over the years in Liverpool.. i.e. bad development after knocking down good old stock.. nobody has really said that this is a 'good thing' now, have they?.. check the heritage principles I actually outlined below?

trouble is now that good development is being screwed up too.


Good development can go anywhere. Just keep developers from screwing around with historic buildings and taking the cheapo way out...and encourage them to use some creative architects. These outside developers are only in it for the profits – they have no emotional connection to Liverpool and couldn’t give a hoot. The answer, is not bending to the profits of fast buck developers. Imagine if Princes Dock still retained its original warehouse and they were converted to flats, shops, etc. The new high rises could have gone o the Dock Road minus the wall there. Here is Princes half tide:
http://www.**************************/oldhambros/princes.htm

Many said the old docks were too claustrophobic to justify demolition. Parts could have been removed like large archways through them to open them up.

Too much narrow mindedness and shear vandalism has occurred. We have to protect what is left.


Don't really get your point Jets.. do you think we can keep the dock walls up in central and still gain the maximum potential from them?

Yes we can. Imagination. Imagination.

As an aside I would love to see the jetty at Princes resurfaced and repopulated with those little yellow clapperboard buildings it used to have.. bit of a fishemans wharf to complement the whopping mini manhattan we should have had there.

I agree entirely with you that so much has of quality and importance has been lost, usually to be replaced with utter shite... but drawing a line now and saving EVERYTHING, shit as well as the good stuff is surely just as wrong?

lastly, I used my imagination to come up with the idea of dropping the walls in order to enable better development and more of the remaining heritage assets actually. I use my imagination to envision all osrts of ideas about Liverpool's revival. John, we ALL use our imaginations... you may disagree with the notions people come up with, but you are not the only one with 'imagination'. I disagree with many of your notions.. but I certainly wouldn't accuse you of having a lack of imagination... lots of other things maybe, but not that!

I agree entirely with you that so much has of quality and importance has been lost, usually to be replaced with utter shite... but drawing a line now and saving EVERYTHING, shit as well as the good stuff is surely just as wrong?


Even if some crap is kept, it will mean the best will remain too. Far too much vandalism has gone on in the past. The city has to be saved from its destructive self. You can say this is a national issue to preserve those docks, as they meant so much to the country as a whole


lastly, I used my imagination to come up with the idea of dropping the walls in order to enable better development

Use your imagination to come up with developments incorporating the French walls. Much better. ;)

As an aside I would love to see the jetty at Princes resurfaced and repopulated with those little yellow clapperboard buildings it used to have.. bit of a fishemans wharf to complement the whopping mini manhattan we should have had there.
I agree entirely with you that so much has of quality and importance has been lost, usually to be replaced with utter shite... but drawing a line now and saving EVERYTHING, shit as well as the good stuff is surely just as wrong?

lastly, I used my imagination to come up with the idea of dropping the walls in order to enable better development and more of the remaining heritage assets actually. I use my imagination to envision all osrts of ideas about Liverpool's revival. John, we ALL use our imaginations... you may disagree with the notions people come up with, but you are not the only one with 'imagination'. I disagree with many of your notions.. but I certainly wouldn't accuse you of having a lack of imagination... lots of other things maybe, but not that!

Good point Tony,don't you think that even in it's present delapidated and decaying state it looks very atmospheric.

I think it is stunningly beautiful. Sums up everything about Liverpool as far as I'm concerned. The history, maritime might, global reach of it's community... everything. I probably have more pictures of that than any other structure downtown!

I wish they would do something about the small booth though.. looks great askew as it is, but it will fall down and disappear soon if nothing is done. An expert on these things told me that the structure is still in excellent condition and could simply be redecked and utilised.

John... the walls must go... or all your heritage will eventually rot away into the river!

Keeping everything in order to save the good stuff is hardly good policy... why not just concentrate all your resources onto saving the good stuff?

If you have a generous set of criteria for what constitutes 'good' , i.e historic or architectural importance we could easily manage to keep everything we should... includiing street layout and connectivity, something of immense vaue that you do not seem too bothered about?

As an aside I would love to see the jetty at Princes resurfaced and repopulated with those little yellow clapperboard buildings it used to have.. bit of a fishemans wharf to complement the whopping mini manhattan we should have had there.



http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6266916390&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

Not a great photo, but I was interested in that card, didn't bid though, a fiver seems a bit steep as it's got marks on it.

I think it is stunningly beautiful. Sums up everything about Liverpool as far as I'm concerned. The history, maritime might, global reach of it's community... everything. I probably have more pictures of that than any other structure downtown!

I wish they would do something about the small booth though.. looks great askew as it is, but it will fall down and disappear soon if nothing is done. An expert on these things told me that the structure is still in excellent condition and could simply be redecked and utilised.
John... the walls must go... or all your heritage will eventually rot away into the river!

Keeping everything in order to save the good stuff is hardly good policy... why not just concentrate all your resources onto saving the good stuff?

If you have a generous set of criteria for what constitutes 'good' , i.e historic or architectural importance we could easily manage to keep everything we should... includiing street layout and connectivity, something of immense vaue that you do not seem too bothered about?

That's really good news.
Amazing how long it's lasted.

there are all sorts of individual sites around Liverpool that could be designated WHS. We made the foul mistake (not a mistake in the minds of those who crafted it) of roping in whole districts, that like you say, are mainly full of crap.

you must remember though what WHS is about...

WHS is not, and should not be, a wishy washy local heritage initiative. The same argument goes for ST George's Hall.. great for us, important as part of the story of Liverpool's commercial growth and Imperial growth of the British Empire etc... but a World Heritage Site? Surely we are not that deluded to see these buildings as genuine candidates for WHS?

St Georges Hall (?) Boooooo Hisssssss .....

It is the finest `Village Hall` in all England - not to mention the finest `Neo Classical` building in all Europe.....("Worthy of ancient Athens" Quote - Queen Victoria) and the first `air conditioned` building in the world?

And you worry about a few `bits of jetty` that could be replaced any day of the week by `Tysons` or `Laing O`Rourke` (but the history would remain.....)

Boooooooo Hissssssss :) :cheers:

http://www.visitliverpool.com/site/product-p8033
St George's Hall is unique in terms of its architecture, function and history.

"Surely we are not that deluded to see these buildings as genuine candidates for WHS?"

Err, actually yes!

Wow, a squash tournament? I had no idea it was used for anything, let alone sports.

There was a tv company from Bristol there on Wednesday filming something and I wasn't allowed in to have a nosey. Anyone know what this could have been?

Wow, a squash tournament? I had no idea it was used for anything, let alone sports.

There was a tv company from Bristol there on Wednesday filming something and I wasn't allowed in to have a nosey. Anyone know what this could have been?

It'll be the biggest squash tournament in Europe and one of the top six in the world in terms of prize money and world ranking status and will be live on sky. :)

Might pop down then. Used to play a bit of squash at school but haven't played since I took a squash ball in the face from about 6 yards from the other player!

I love St george's hall too.... but can it really be as important to the world as the pyramids, stonehenge, or even things like Mohenjadaro, St Petersburg Abgkor wat.

I have said this millions of times but;

First you have to remember what a WHS is, what the initiative was created for and look at the original listings

Then look at individual or groups of buildings in Liverpool and tell me do they really fit this particular bill?

This is not, of course, to deny their architectural splendour, innovation or importance to Liverpool as it crafted its role in the 19th century, but?

http://whc.unesco.org/en/about/ then check out the list of sites.

This one below is actually better. read through, go slowly, senence by sentence.

After each sentence stop and think; what does it conjour up... and then would these types of strict archeological and preservationist strictures be anything other than damaging to the city's need to continue growing and changing.
http://www.deh.gov.au/heritage/worldheritage/convention.html

It is not up to LCC as to how they interprate it.. as has been said to me by some.. what arrogance and conceit. This link sets out clearly what the inscriptions are supposed to protect.

One reason why I could go along with the idea that the Pierhead etc could be a site as this would be symbolic/representative of Liverpool's contribution to the world heritage.. Apart from the old dock though, nothing in that site would be of actual material worth, purely symbolic of Liverpool.

As wayne C says, you wouldn't put apartments by stonehenge... and he is right ... it is protection of those sorts of sites that WHS is all about..

Not only was Liverpool's vastly inflated 'site' a con, it is also dangerous to the whole WHS initiative as every wank council now sees it as worth lobbying to get on this list, but with no understanding of what the initiative is supposed to achieve. they are practiced now in coming up with the same blag documents we did to con the judges, most of whoome do not visit the site before deciding.

We go round and round in circles about this particular initiative, but it not just a badge that says, hey Liverpool you really are an important city with a great history.. it is a tight initiative that is crafted to preserve ancient sites and internationally significant buildings.... if they get slack in the interpratation for Liverpool then that is going to possibly backfire whenthe really important sites are threatened....

As wayne C says, you wouldn't put apartments by stonehenge... and he is right ... it is protection of those sorts of sites that WHS is all about..

Apparently apartments will be built at the waterfront by Downing in the P.O.L. building, and WHS or E.H. have not prevented this from happening...!

Liverpool is a city, and has developed like one for many years, unlike Stonehenge, so Wayne is deluded, unfortunately so are many people who agree with him. The changing use of these building's should help to avoid the "Museumification" of these areas.

Apparently apartments will be built at the waterfront by Downing in the P.O.L. building, and WHS or E.H. have not prevented this from happening...!.

Downing first proposal was a glass fronted elevation to the roof top apartments that they proposed for the P.O.L. building. it looked dreadful.
English Heritage and the city planners amongst others were not happy, and forced a redesign which in fact returns the roof line behind the balstrade wall to what the building looked like pre-war. So not all EH work is non-productive.

if they put their resources to things like this then it would be a positive contribution they could make...also, more than just the roofline being reinstated, the scheme is actually putting back the apartments that wewre there before the war! Downtown living a new phenomenon..don't you beleive it!

if they put their resources to things like this then it would be a positive contribution they could make...also, more than just the roofline being reinstated, the scheme is actually putting back the apartments that wewre there before the war! Downtown living a new phenomenon..don't you beleive it!

Tony, at last we agree on something, :)

English Heritage have made a contribution to the city, helping to finance a "building at risk" officer, Townscape Heritage Initiative to name but two.
EH should stick to just this , and should not try and dictate to the city what buildings it will allow. They are way out of their depth and our elected councillors should call their bluff, when EH scream "WHS or Conservation Area, you cann`t build that here ", ignore their rantings and ink -up the big approved stamp.

LoL! at last.

this is why I differentiate by calling the groups and individuals involved in the extreme plans to WHS, characterisations, etc 'heritage freaks'... most of the heritage community are simply daft sentimentalists who you can usually discuss things with... the 'freak' wing are like Stalinists. As I have also said, when it comes to history and conservation I place myself in the daft sentimentalist category.

A new stadium for the bloos near Sandhills would have a massive effect on that part of town and help to infill between the Central Dock area and Bootle. Imagine the downtown, central docks (say 8 to 20 stories), football stadium with 8/10/12 storey blocks in the vicinity then Bootle with a couple of new towers. A canyon from old Hall Street to Bootle Strand and a tasty cross river panorama to boot.


I see i'm joining the debate having only recently registering for this site, quite late here but I care very deeply about Liverpool's dock system.

My dad was a docker for 25+ years so I have a respect and sentimentality about it. I also care very much about the development of our waterfront since, now living on the Wirral, it is something I enjoy everytime I walk along the Wirral front.

Quite simply there is nothing more beautiful than the site of the Liverpool waterfront, all lit up, straight on from Woodside....or at the angle walking from New Brighton downwards seeing the Liverbuildings at the same angle the ships must see coming in from the sea.

I've stated my opinion elsewhere but to repeat I agree with the above, that an excellent use for this site would be the new Everton stadium. In my wildest dreams I imagine the city with not one, but 2 world class stadiums. Liverpool should be granted theirs and Everton in partnership with Peel Holdings should be helped by the City Council to develop Central Docks....as long as the plans are as impressive if not even more grand than the Kings Dock scheme.

I see no reason why this could not happen:

1. Peel are already in talks with Everton about "a number of sites" and are reported to be paying for feasibility studies (unheard of!) as a sweetner for Everton, acorrding to the Echo.

2. As a brownfield site the club and Peel would get tax breaks and possibly European Objective One funding as well.

3. Residential and hotel complexes could be built to further reduce the costs on EFC and bring about a quicker return for Peel.

4. An intergrated transport policy could see an extension of the PSDA bus network along the front to Central docks connecting with a new Merseytravel train statuon connecting to the northern line. Central Docks is perfectly located for this.

5. My understanding, through reading these forums, is that EH and the heritage brigade object to tall buildings being built that my be detrimental to the 3 graces and general waterfront. I also understand that there may be height restrictions in place at Central Docks specifically. A waterfront stadium would solve this problem by being low level (compared to skyscrapers).

6. I feel it would send out a statment about Liverpool as a city. Liverpool is best known for it's sporting success and it's musical success, as it is for it's maritime history. To frame the 3 graces with a world class sports stadium and a magnificent concert arena on either side would be fantastic in my opinion.

The only problem is, liverpool is the best football team in the area, so our stadium should really be built on the waterfront!!

Oh dear another case of my D* is bigger than your d* erm :runaway:

Leaving that aside, whilst I would dearly love to see both teams have riverfront stadiums - just for the drama of it - I would hate to see them leave their present homes (totally for sentamental and jealous reasons) as living off `Utting Avenue` (well I did, once upon a time.....) I`d hate to see the crowds go.

It would be the death knell for the area.

If they move they leave the present stadia behind for a future `four city` footie team / sports city - bring on Accrington Stanley. lol

:cheers:

Oh dear another case of my D* is bigger than your d* erm :runaway:

Leaving that aside, whilst I would dearly love to see both teams have riverfront stadiums - just for the drama of it - I would hate to see them leave their present homes (totally for sentamental and jealous reasons) as living off `Utting Avenue` (well I did, once upon a time.....) I`d hate to see the crowds go.

It would be the death knell for the area.

If they move they leave the present stadia behind for a future `four city` footie team / sports city - bring on Accrington Stanley. lol

:cheers:

JOHN... Local resident!!!!

The only problem is, liverpool is the best football team in the area, so our stadium should really be built on the waterfront!!


Your board wants to stay in Anfield. Fortunately our board is more pragmatic and open minded.

:cheers: :cheers: JOHN... Local resident!!!!

LOL - Very sadly not now but I was and I have very very very fond memories.

From the corner shops to the hot pies to the crowds and the roar.

And the `old people` watching the `crowds from their gates.`

:) :cheers:

Fortunately our board is more pragmatic and open minded.
And WTF does that mean in English? You're moving where? :)

The only problem is, liverpool is the best football team in the area, so our stadium should really be built on the waterfront!!

As a stadium is there for around 70 to 100 years it should be Everton who get prime spot. The aristocrats of football: One of the founding members of the league, played in more top-flight seasons than any other club. In the top-flight: accumulated more points, won more games, scored more goals, played more games. invented the goalnet, first purpose built football ground. No 9 years in the 2nd division.

Looks like Everton are No. 1 in Liverpool to me.

Oh dear, more my D*s bigger than you d* though in this case John does have a point. (Historically.) :) :cheers: :bash: :runaway:

Total
S G W D L F A P
1. Liverpool 100 3992 1873 973 1146 6830 - 5013 4719
2. Manchester United 101 4024 1860 979 1185 6883 - 5271 4699
3. Arsenal 100 3992 1781 1001 1210 6602 - 5142 4563
4. Aston Villa 105 4128 1738 960 1430 6828 - 5981 4436
5. Wolverhampton Wanderers 105 4234 1717 983 1534 6898 - 6301 4417
6. Sunderland 103 4142 1689 1010 1443 6556 - 5924 4388
7. Preston North End 105 4270 1661 1064 1545 6438 - 6092 4386
8. Everton 105 4116 1682 1015 1419 6590 - 5845 4379
9. Burnley 105 4254 1652 1024 1578 6363 - 6332 4328
10. West Bromwich Albion 105 4224 1645 1030 1549 6548 - 6220 4320
11. Blackburn Rovers 105 4184 1645 1024 1515 6510 - 6229 4314
12. Bolton Wanderers 105 4218 1648 1014 1556 6351 - 6074 4310
13. Sheffield United 101 4132 1645 1014 1473 6419 - 6061 4304
14. Manchester City 101 4066 1648 989 1429 6622 - 5950 4285
15. Newcastle United 100 4016 1663 935 1418 6420 - 5719 4261
16. Derby County 105 4172 1627 1000 1545 6511 - 6227 4254
17. Notts County 105 4296 1587 1059 1650 6194 - 6355 4233
18. Sheffield Wednesday 101 4084 1573 1021 1490 6171 - 5966 4167
19. Birmingham City 101 4114 1556 1017 1541 5999 - 5874 4129
20. Grimsby Town 100 4182 1582 950 1650 6067 - 6295 4114
21. Bury 99 4162 1553 1005 1604 6033 - 6090 4111
22. Nottingham Forest 101 4080 1530 1031 1519 5961 - 5870 4091
23. Bristol City 92 3924 1526 1006 1392 5662 - 5374 4058
24. Leicester City 99 4020 1483 1028 1509 6082 - 6219 3994
25. Blackpool 96 4020 1482 999 1539 5813 - 5893 3963
26. Barnsley 95 4048 1463 1032 1553 5701 - 6048 3958
27. Lincoln City 97 4054 1467 976 1611 5967 - 6264 3910
28. Stockport County 92 4000 1458 979 1563 5618 - 5812 3895
29. Stoke City 97 3944 1451 975 1518 5421 - 5618 3877
30. Middlesbrough 94 3858 1460 942 1456 5803 - 5638 3862
31. Hull City 88 3784 1428 1004 1352 5420 - 5180 3860
32. Bradford City 90 3912 1432 992 1488 5566 - 5633 3856
33. Port Vale 91 3904 1389 1014 1501 5327 - 5607 3792
34. Chelsea 88 3614 1414 956 1244 5466 - 5160 3784
35. Chesterfield 86 3734 1431 910 1393 5287 - 5169 3772
36. Tottenham Hotspur 85 3492 1438 857 1197 5681 - 4945 3733
37. Oldham Athletic 86 3724 1365 965 1394 5365 - 5435 3695
38. Huddersfield Town 83 3572 1376 931 1265 5074 - 4795 3683
39. Fulham 86 3640 1373 913 1354 5353 - 5169 3659
40. Reading 77 3444 1389 851 1204 5178 - 4800 3629

S = seasons spent in English League/Premier League, G = games played,
W = games won, D = games drawn, L = games lost, F = goals scored,
A = goals conceded, P = points (2 pts for a win)

© Copyright Heikki Pietarinen and RSSSF 1997/2004
You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the author. All rights reserved.

You really are nothing more than a wind up merchant.

Be great to see a stadium take form around the Central Docks up to Kirkdale area, something that could be a real economic driver for the area bringing retails, hotels, B&Bs, shops etc to the area.

As a stadium is there for around 70 to 100 years it should be Everton who get prime spot. The aristocrats of football: One of the founding members of the league, played in more top-flight seasons than any other club. In the top-flight: accumulated more points, won more games, scored more goals, played more games. invented the goalnet, first purpose built football ground. No 9 years in the 2nd division.

Looks like Everton are No. 1 in Liverpool to me.

But Everton are pygmies compared to liverpool FC in the world of football. It's unfair, but I don't care and think it's fucking hilarious :) :cheers:

Oh yes you do, in any case `even more off topic` what pictures did you show `Condi`?

Oh yes you do, in any case `even more off topic` what pictures did you show `Condi`?
This is meant either for me or some other dickhead, but who?

Not wanting to get involved in a slanging match with reds, I have already stated I hope they get their wish....BUT!

This idea of Everton as the poor relation in the city is laughable. Evertons debts, pre selling Rooney, were considerable addmitedly. HOWEVER! They were secured against a 25 year mortgage style agreement. The club was never in risk and now occupies the Delottie list for the top 20 richest clubs in the world. A large portion of that long term, secured debt is now paid off.

Compare this to Liverpool who are AT LEAST 18m in debt as it is....unsecured, have to find £200mill (and rising) to fund their completely private funded stadium, as steel prices rise....have to find £30m a year in transfer money at least to satisfy the manager and compete with top european clubs and have THE highest rising wage bill outside of Chelsea in the premiership. There is no guarantee that the board as it stands will still be in place as every other month there is talk of takeover bids from builders, US processed foods companies and the Thailand goverment/businesses/individuals.

Everton on paper are by far the safer, cheaper and attractive option, particularly as I have mentioned if they make a deal with Peel. Remember Everton do not need to own their stadium to make more money from gates and executive boxes. The stadium could be owned by Peel and used for multi purpose year round events and conferencing. The club could simply run the footballing side of things.

Again not wanting to slate Liverpool, their plans look amazing, but if the council try and treat Everton FC like the poor relation they may find they'll get a shock....'cos if anyone looks like going broke in the long run it ain't us!

Of the three options facing the club, he (Keith Wyness) admitted: "Our own stadium is probably the furthest advanced."


The ECHO revealed on Monday that property giant Peel Holdings had approached Everton with an offer to build them a ground at Switch Island.


Mr Wyness confirmed: "Switch Island is one of these options, but developers come to us all the time.


"I am listening to everyone, but the key thing is realistic delivery. If you make the decision, you are stuck with it for 50 or 60 years."


And he hinted the club may prefer not to own a new ground: "Leaseback is one possible formula. Another is forming a stadium company to build it and we pay a management fee and would never own it, just lease it."


He also indicated finance might not be as much a hurdle now. Yesterday Everton was named for the first time in the top 20 world clubs in turnover and he said: "We are a different club compared with a year or so ago. We think the bank would probably lend money to us rather than the team across the park."

This is meant either for me or some other dickhead, but who?

Erm,

Didn`t you get to show your pics of LVPL to Condi?

Rats arse if you didn`t. :bash:

Quote from a Liverpool player recently reported in national newspapers.

"I have been here three years and always when I go out in Liverpool I meet Everton fans. Everywhere I go, everyone I meet is an Everton fan.

The bigger number of people in Liverpool are Everton fans. Liverpool fans come from everywhere in the world.

When you go to Goodison it is only Liverpool people.

The Everton people I meet would always talk to me, mostly about the derby.

Those fans are good to me. We speak and joke. They love it. That is why I love English football."

I ask the neutrals on here: Have a look at the Kings Dock pictures (and I appreciate that it was a slightly different proposition to Central Docks) and tell me that it wasn't a great shame that it fell through.

http://www.toffeeweb.com/images/club/kings-dock/artist_imp1a.jpghttp://www.toffeeweb.com/images/club/kings-dock/artist_imp2a.jpghttp://www.toffeeweb.com/images/club/kings-dock/modela.jpghttp://www.toffeeweb.com/images/club/kings-dock/new-stadium_1a.jpg

Wouldn't you rather see something on a level as grand as this, than the usual reduced storey handicapped by EH meddling "skyscraper" or drab block of flats.

I ask the neutrals on here: Have a look at the Kings Dock pictures (and I appreciate that it was a slightly different proposition to Central Docks) and tell me that it wasn't a great shame that it fell through.

http://www.toffeeweb.com/images/club/kings-dock/artist_imp1a.jpghttp://www.toffeeweb.com/images/club/kings-dock/artist_imp2a.jpghttp://www.toffeeweb.com/images/club/kings-dock/modela.jpghttp://www.toffeeweb.com/images/club/kings-dock/new-stadium_1a.jpg

Wouldn't you rather see something on a level as grand as this, than the usual reduced storey handicapped by EH meddling "skyscraper" or drab block of flats.

Unfortunately it didn`t happen at `Kings` let us still hope that it happens - even at `Goodison.`

If not within `Central Dock` which would be rather interesting......

It would give `Kings Dock arena` a run for its money for sure.

:) :cheers:

Liverpool has always been much more than a two horse race.

I ask the neutrals on here: Have a look at the Kings Dock pictures (and I appreciate that it was a slightly different proposition to Central Docks) and tell me that it wasn't a great shame that it fell through.

http://www.toffeeweb.com/images/club/kings-dock/artist_imp1a.jpghttp://www.toffeeweb.com/images/club/kings-dock/artist_imp2a.jpghttp://www.toffeeweb.com/images/club/kings-dock/modela.jpghttp://www.toffeeweb.com/images/club/kings-dock/new-stadium_1a.jpg

Wouldn't you rather see something on a level as grand as this, than the usual reduced storey handicapped by EH meddling "skyscraper" or drab block of flats.
<Green Eyed Monster>I'm glad it fell through. The thought of the Bluenoses having having such a good looking stadium in that location would have been intolerable! :)</Green Eyed Monster>

Total
S G W D L F A P
1. Liverpool 100 3992 1873 973 1146 6830 - 5013 4719
2. Manchester United 101 4024 1860 979 1185 6883 - 5271 4699
3. Arsenal 100 3992 1781 1001 1210 6602 - 5142 4563
4. Aston Villa 105 4128 1738 960 1430 6828 - 5981 4436
5. Wolverhampton Wanderers 105 4234 1717 983 1534 6898 - 6301 4417
6. Sunderland 103 4142 1689 1010 1443 6556 - 5924 4388
7. Preston North End 105 4270 1661 1064 1545 6438 - 6092 4386
8. Everton 105 4116 1682 1015 1419 6590 - 5845 4379
9. Burnley 105 4254 1652 1024 1578 6363 - 6332 4328
10. West Bromwich Albion 105 4224 1645 1030 1549 6548 - 6220 4320
11. Blackburn Rovers 105 4184 1645 1024 1515 6510 - 6229 4314
12. Bolton Wanderers 105 4218 1648 1014 1556 6351 - 6074 4310
13. Sheffield United 101 4132 1645 1014 1473 6419 - 6061 4304
14. Manchester City 101 4066 1648 989 1429 6622 - 5950 4285
15. Newcastle United 100 4016 1663 935 1418 6420 - 5719 4261
16. Derby County 105 4172 1627 1000 1545 6511 - 6227 4254
17. Notts County 105 4296 1587 1059 1650 6194 - 6355 4233
18. Sheffield Wednesday 101 4084 1573 1021 1490 6171 - 5966 4167
19. Birmingham City 101 4114 1556 1017 1541 5999 - 5874 4129
20. Grimsby Town 100 4182 1582 950 1650 6067 - 6295 4114
21. Bury 99 4162 1553 1005 1604 6033 - 6090 4111
22. Nottingham Forest 101 4080 1530 1031 1519 5961 - 5870 4091
23. Bristol City 92 3924 1526 1006 1392 5662 - 5374 4058
24. Leicester City 99 4020 1483 1028 1509 6082 - 6219 3994
25. Blackpool 96 4020 1482 999 1539 5813 - 5893 3963
26. Barnsley 95 4048 1463 1032 1553 5701 - 6048 3958
27. Lincoln City 97 4054 1467 976 1611 5967 - 6264 3910
28. Stockport County 92 4000 1458 979 1563 5618 - 5812 3895
29. Stoke City 97 3944 1451 975 1518 5421 - 5618 3877
30. Middlesbrough 94 3858 1460 942 1456 5803 - 5638 3862
31. Hull City 88 3784 1428 1004 1352 5420 - 5180 3860
32. Bradford City 90 3912 1432 992 1488 5566 - 5633 3856
33. Port Vale 91 3904 1389 1014 1501 5327 - 5607 3792
34. Chelsea 88 3614 1414 956 1244 5466 - 5160 3784
35. Chesterfield 86 3734 1431 910 1393 5287 - 5169 3772
36. Tottenham Hotspur 85 3492 1438 857 1197 5681 - 4945 3733
37. Oldham Athletic 86 3724 1365 965 1394 5365 - 5435 3695
38. Huddersfield Town 83 3572 1376 931 1265 5074 - 4795 3683
39. Fulham 86 3640 1373 913 1354 5353 - 5169 3659
40. Reading 77 3444 1389 851 1204 5178 - 4800 3629

S = seasons spent in English League/Premier League, G = games played,
W = games won, D = games drawn, L = games lost, F = goals scored,
A = goals conceded, P = points (2 pts for a win)

© Copyright Heikki Pietarinen and RSSSF 1997/2004
You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the author. All rights reserved.

You really are nothing more than a wind up merchant.

Be great to see a stadium take form around the Central Docks up to Kirkdale area, something that could be a real economic driver for the area bringing retails, hotels, B&Bs, shops etc to the area.
Where's the real table Toad,the one that just counts top flight football.

Where's the real table Toad,the one that just counts top flight football.
Lazy boy :)
Get off your arse and google it yourself :)

As a stadium is there for around 70 to 100 years it should be Everton who get prime spot. The aristocrats of football: One of the founding members of the league, played in more top-flight seasons than any other club. In the top-flight: accumulated more points, won more games, scored more goals, played more games. invented the goalnet, first purpose built football ground. No 9 years in the 2nd division.

Looks like Everton are No. 1 in Liverpool to me.


At last!
The real reason behind your opposition for the Stanley Park redevelopment for LFC.
You're a Blue.
Nothing wrong with that by the way but please don't try and fool us by your 'Football Stadiums cause blight' nonsense.

The quotes are from Stinky, a very crude move to distance himself from Liverpool as he begs for a transfer!

My views on the Kings Dock stadium are that it was the only proposal that met the brief and I thought fitting the site quite well, although I was never convinced it was the RIGHT plan for the site - not diverse enough and issues over dispersal of the crowds from the immediate vicinity would have to be answered.

I'd love to see the proposal rekindled though, to get a 55k + stadium and a very large, very adaptable and flexible arena in the city would be a major coup, delivering Everton the home they require and further enhancing the city's event offering.

Lazy boy :)
Get off your arse and google it yourself :)
sarcasm and irony are way over your head,keep it simple for you.

At last!
The real reason behind your opposition for the Stanley Park redevelopment for LFC.
You're a Blue.
Nothing wrong with that by the way but please don't try and fool us by your 'Football Stadiums cause blight' nonsense.

I'm just stating facts over the past 130 years or so. I am against Everton or Liverpool being on a grade 2 listed park, and in either Walton or Anfield. The pair of them should be forced or cajoled out.

Where's the real table Toad,the one that just counts top flight football.

Here it is:

Uniform Table Calculated at 2 points for each win; 1 point for a draw — correct to May 2004
Yrs Pl W D L F A Pts

1. Everton 101 3948 1605 970 1373 6242 - 5588 4180
2. Liverpool 89 3564 1630 891 1043 5853 - 4442 4151
3. Arsenal 87 3564 1565 928 1071 5777 - 4592 4058
4. Aston Villa 93 3614 1508 828 1278 6072 - 5416 3844
5. Manchester United 79 3208 1454 811 943 5450 - 4305 3719
6. Newcastle United 74 2970 1182 717 1071 4622 - 4281 3081
7. Manchester City 75 3050 1138 761 1151 4640 - 4637 3037
8. Sunderland 75 2922 1162 670 1090 4719 - 4483 2994
9. Tottenham Hotspur 69 2824 1127 685 1012 4428 - 4094 2939
10. Chelsea 69 2828 1031 754 1043 4143 - 4273 2816

Here it is:

Uniform Table Calculated at 2 points for each win; 1 point for a draw — correct to May 2004
Yrs Pl W D L F A Pts

1. Everton 101 3948 1605 970 1373 6242 - 5588 4180
2. Liverpool 89 3564 1630 891 1043 5853 - 4442 4151
3. Arsenal 87 3564 1565 928 1071 5777 - 4592 4058
4. Aston Villa 93 3614 1508 828 1278 6072 - 5416 3844
5. Manchester United 79 3208 1454 811 943 5450 - 4305 3719
6. Newcastle United 74 2970 1182 717 1071 4622 - 4281 3081
7. Manchester City 75 3050 1138 761 1151 4640 - 4637 3037
8. Sunderland 75 2922 1162 670 1090 4719 - 4483 2994
9. Tottenham Hotspur 69 2824 1127 685 1012 4428 - 4094 2939
10. Chelsea 69 2828 1031 754 1043 4143 - 4273 2816Nice one John,the only table that matters.

But Everton are pygmies compared to liverpool FC in the world of football. It's unfair, but I don't care and think it's fucking hilarious :) :cheers:

You are looking at a short term spike in LFC. Over 130 years Everton have maintained the the top status of any club. They top the Al Time Top-Flight table. You can't get any higher than that. To promote Everton as the second best club in Liverpool is laughable when looking over history - and more people living in Liverpool support Everton than Liverpool

All this is just silly and childish anyway, as this just detracts from the core points. Both clubs should be out of their areas and into suitable sites

Central Docks John, what about Central Docks?

Nice one John,the only table that matters.

Everton's historical record is amazing. If they are relegated for 7 years and get back up they still have more seasons in the top-flight than any other club. That 101 season figure is the most important - being there consistently competing at the top and always playing against the top teams week in week out. That means the club always served up top class football at Goodison Park to their fans.

That puts Everton right alongside or more likely above Liverpool over history. So when the red and while scarf people look down on Everton as a lesser club they had better look at continuing history.

What does this prove? The point: no favours should be given to Liverpool FC by the council. Both clubs are treated equally.

Agree John. I wouldn't swap any amount of trophies for one season out of the top flight. That and our tradition of playing entertaining football for most of our history makes us the real aristocrats of not just Merseyside but English football.

but should we knock those walls down?

but should we knock those walls down?

The walls of Goodison Park and Anfield? Yes. The French Walls? No. Everton are becoming in danger of the Bullens Road stand becoming listed it is that old, - an Archibald Leitch structure. Well Glasgow Rangers have pretty well preserved one, so wooden Bullens can go.

Errm, getting back on the subject, here's a few pics for John MK. Taken last week :)

http://www.**************************/centapril001.jpg

http://www.**************************/centapril002.jpg

http://www.**************************/centapril003.jpg

http://www.**************************/centapril004.jpg

Errm, getting back on the subject, here's a few pics for John MK. Taken last week :)


I know what you mean Dave. Depressing. All those filled in docks.

Definately knock the wall down, it's devisive and unneccessary. By all means retain a stretch with a plaque or something (god knows why though) but there's absolutely no requirement for the wall but every reason to take it down.

Definately knock the wall down, it's devisive and unneccessary. By all means retain a stretch with a plaque or something (god knows why though) but there's absolutely no requirement for the wall but every reason to take it down.

Build over and around it. Make it a part of the area rather than a barrier - a focal point. Imagination please - imagination.

How about gaps in it?

I'd like to a street frontage myself and no wall.

just imagine John, you destroyed a vital and contiguous piece of heritage when you ripped out all the connetcor pipes to the 1830 main you mentioned on another thread.. if the story and the archeology is everything then you should have left them.. even if that meant the folks in the building getting blown up!
Toad is right.

just imagine John, you destroyed a vital and contiguous piece of heritage when you ripped out all the connetcor pipes to the 1830 main you mentioned on another thread.. if the story and the archeology is everything then you should have left them.. even if that meant the folks in the building getting blown up!
Toad is right.

I never physically ripped them out. The 1830 mains gas pipe running down Upper Parli’ St is still there. One each side If I recall, about 3 foot into the road from the kerb. A hidden piece of pipe is not heritage. I suppose a length can be put in an engineering museum somewhere.

In service pipes is not archaeology. It is living dynamic history, like old train tunnels still in use.

How about gaps in it?

I'd like to a street frontage myself and no wall.

You could put arches into it, to allow free movement to and fro.

See what I mean? As soon as you accept stupid notions all sorts of ridiculous notions are put forward and sometimes implemented... If you stick holes in it or arches, put buildings over it etc... it loses it's integrity anyway.... so just be done with it and drop it.

See what I mean? As soon as you accept stupid notions all sorts of ridiculous notions are put forward and sometimes implemented... If you stick holes in it or arches, put buildings over it etc... it loses it's integrity anyway.... so just be done with it and drop it.

Once gone it is gone for ever. Get it? I am only one about the stone French walls.

Stone walls?

It's arse end brick.

I bet it's been repointed more times than Michael Jacksons nose.

I bet it's been repointed more times than Michael Jacksons nose. :laugh:

I know what you mean Dave. Depressing. All those filled in docks.

Just wait till the Skyscrapers go up,then no one will miss the water.

The Dock Wall, which has become the subject of this thread, raises some very interesting questions and poses difficult challenges from heritage and urbanist points of view. In my opinion the solution of demolishing it is crude and simplistic.

Firstly, the fact that its security function is no longer required is beside the point. The Lyceum was no longer used as a library, but was still worth preserving.

It is very true, though, that the wall is a barrier to the integration of the docks with the city. It violates, as Tony has suggested, two cardinal principles of ‘new urbanism’, namely active frontages and permeability. These are good principles, but not I think the only relevant ones.

What I find difficult to accept is the ‘all or nothing’ view that Tony is advancing (there have been signs of this from others too, e.g. Martin in his comments on the London Eye, which to my mind is a matter of compromise not of hypocrisy). That is, the view that making some openings in the wall, or bridging over it, or incorporating it to some extent into adjacent structures, is a ‘stupid’ or ‘ridiculous notion’, and that if it cannot be retained completely intact it should simply be ‘dropped’. There seems to be a yearning in this argument for conservation bodies really to be the ‘heritage nazis’ they are wrongly made out to be – perhaps because that would make them easier to oppose.

Heritage is important, and even though lip-service is paid to this idea by e.g. the proponents of the ‘C21 Society’ no-one has thought it through. It isn’t, and can’t be, a matter of total preservation of the past. The past is gone, and we experience its surviving traces with eyes that are inescapably of the present, and in a context that is provided by the present. That doesn’t make these traces worthless. The canalside cottages now incorporated into the Radisson hotel are obviously perceived differently to how they used to be, and they obviously function differently, but they still help to evoke an idea of the historical layers of the city, stimulate the imagination, and give some depth and complexity to the sense of place.

Sense of place is what conservation is about, in my view. What, in the end, is a city for? The dominant view now is that it’s an economic driver, but the deeper question is why? Unlike in Victorian times, when cities were the exclusive sites of the most dynamic sectors of the economy, nowadays these sectors can readily be located elsewhere, such as at city edges, or for that matter abroad. Why come to the city, as a visitor or an employer? To enjoy its density: density of people; the resulting density of consumption opportunities; density of uses; density of buildings. But most fundamentally, I would say, density of meanings. The homogenizing thrust of exclusively market-led development eliminates this. In particular, it eliminates the layers of meaning that are provided by surviving structures and townscape from the past. No-one on the forum would doubt, I assume, the strength of Liverpool as a provider of a sense of place. Its surviving historic structures, rightly recognized as of world significance, are a major contributor to that.

Back to the wall. I share with John-MK (and I think Tony) the view that the docks are a huge resource. Not just as a land bank (as much of London docklands has become) but as a source of meaning and sense of place. The dock wall is part of this sense, expressing the historic relationship of the docks to the city and helping to define the specific dock environment, much of which still survives. It lacks the eye-pleasing beauty of the Taj Mahal, to be sure, but like much of the dock spaces and dock architecture its massive austereness has its own appeal. Making it more permeable is, as John says, a major design challenge, and it certainly involves compromise, but there are good reasons for accepting that challenge and not just sweeping it away.

Back to the wall. I share with John-MK (and I think Tony) the view that the docks are a huge resource.

There appears to be little vision. There should be an end goal. An aim. An objective......to make Liverpool an Amsterdam or Venice. This can be done cheaply, as the water infrastructure is there. That objective must have a framework into which all must operate. The prime one is to keep all waterways, docks etc. Without the waterways all will be lost. Getting rid of half of them, all will be lost. Far too many historic docks have been filling to form cars parks and build tat on. They are the future of this citys regeneration and future for the next 100 years.

Many here get hard ons looking at pictures of stainless clad towers. This overrides all common sense, sense of history and perspective - very short term. Towers can be built anywhere, as they are around the world. Building them around, or over, historic waterways makes them 10 times more attractive and maintains the desired Amsterdam feel and environment we desperately need.

How will that feel and environment lend itself or indeed stimulate the levels of economic activity required by the present metropolitan area, let alone enable growth and development of the region?

There appears to be little vision. There should be an end goal. An aim. An objective......to make Liverpool an Amsterdam or Venice.

If you desire to live in an Amsterdam or Venice,why not go and live there?
This is Liverpool and we will evolve in our own way.

By filling in some of the disused Docks all will not be lost,we have enough to satisfy our needs without this myopic viewpoint you have.

I agree with your sentiments actualy Lathom. I would like to assure you that I take conservation seriousley. You have to understand that it is also not the whole of the heritage/conservation community I have in my sights ( I know most of them, so I would be offending a hell of a lot of people if I was bracketing all of them), rather it IS only the nazi extreme that are pressing for preservationsit principles in the city right now. I have made mention of this not only in this thread but in many of my contributions to this forum.

What I have tried to develop throughout this debate about the Central docks is the case that in order to preserve the maximum heritage value in the area and still see valuable development that aids the wider city regeneration that something has to give. I am stating that it is the walls that would be the most likely sacrifice for the reasons I have outlined below. I am aware that I have been a little bombastic, but I would plead that is has, in the main been in response to how my initial statements have been countered... responses typical of a certain forumer across most of their contributions.

I am not making the case at all that the walls should go becasue they are old and smelly and of no value..., simply that the whole district must be considered and some heritage assets will be lost regardless.. I am saying these are the easiest ones to lose in any cost/benefit analysis.

Due to the fundamental reasons for the walls construction, accomodating them into the type of open, integrated, heritage sympathetic, urbanist scheme I would like to see evolve up there becomes impossible to keep other than mere remnants... my plea on that score is that once the main bulk of the wall has been destroyed it makes no sense to keep any. It would be impossible to read their context and history in any way that would not be available in records or the line of replacement structures and buildings.

If you retain the walls you will have to lose to much value that a properly integrated project could bring to the area... including some other aspect of the areas history, basinside machinary, rail tracks or what ever.. weighing up the options I say taht the walls would be best to lose as by doing so we can create positives.. losing anything else will result in only loss to create development sites.

Gateways could be kept and the line of the wall would be reflected in the line of new buildings that could face the street and help to reanimate and revive the wider area.....

Why no interest in Bath St, as all the ideas for building over the walls etc would ruin its functionality and of course, its own vital integrity... another on the downside ofattempts to retain the walls!

If you desire to live in an Amsterdam or Venice,why not go and live there?


Ax I have said you lack imagination of any description. Why should I go to Amsterdam, when we can, in quite a short timeframe have better in Liverpool. You really have no idea have you.

If you want a Manchester then it is only 35 miles away. Guess what? Even Manchester were not dumb enough to fill in all their docks, although filling in any of them was a crass mistake too, which I’m sure they now realise.

There you go, jump the train now. Solid ground beneath and earth all around and tall towers – just what you want. What a way to get your jollies.

yearning in this argument for conservation bodies really to be the ‘heritage nazis’ they are wrongly made out to be

Look at the Mann Island proposal. Look! Not one dock has been filled in, came up with imaginative ideas around them.

http://img332.imageshack.us/img332/7568/dsc015020qn.jpg

All proposal that ivolves filling in docks should be knocked back ASAP - even those given planning permission.

The walls or the docks?

I think the "Vat-ican is a good example of a new building being built over an historic/impressive dock. The entire dock can be seen and used beneath the building. Has anyone got a good picture to show this...!

Very zoomed in image not so good.
http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/6224/zthevatican29jr.jpg

I agree, save the layout of the docks as much as possible, just build above them. This will look more impressive/unique to Liverpool than bland flat space.

I think the "Vat-ican is a good example of a new building being built over an historic/impressive dock. The entire dock can be seen and used beneath the building. Has anyone got a good picture to show this...!

Very zoomed in image not so good.
http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/6224/zthevatican29jr.jpg

I agree, save the layout of the docks as much as possible, just build above them. This will look more impressive/unique to Liverpool than bland flat space.

That is the way, but look at the dock filled in to the right to put cars on. Totally disgusting.

That dock should be excavated and returned to water.

Ax I have said you lack imagination of any description. Why should I go to Amsterdam, when we can, in quite a short timeframe have better in Liverpool. You really have no idea have you.

If you want a Manchester then it is only 35 miles away. Guess what? Even Manchester were not dumb enough to fill in all their docks, although filling in any of them was a crass mistake too, which I’m sure they now realise.

There you go, jump the train now. Solid ground beneath and earth all around and tall towers – just what you want. What a way to get your jollies.

You really are thick aren't you.
No one has suggested filling in all the Docks but if we can get a really good Skyscraper district on the so called Central docks then I think it is worthwile to lose a bit of water.
Why you should go to Amsterdam is because you are obviously in awe of the place.
I repeat we shouldn't aim to become another Amsterdam or Venice that is not very imaginative at all.

Your last point is just too silly for a reply.

That is the way, but look at the dock filled in to the right to put cars on. Totally disgusting.

That dock should be excavated and returned to water.


no arena then, and the arena is a much more vital necessity to the city than Kings Dock would be now.

I think the "Vat-ican is a good example of a new building being built over an historic/impressive dock. The entire dock can be seen and used beneath the building. Has anyone got a good picture to show this...!

Very zoomed in image not so good.
http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/6224/zthevatican29jr.jpg

I agree, save the layout of the docks as much as possible, just build above them. This will look more impressive/unique to Liverpool than bland flat space.


Don't mind that at all,apart from the poor quality of the building.
At the time we were promised stunning architecture,don't think we got it.

That carpark to the right i can let off because it will be developed with talls as part of the Arena development, and it has been like this for many years now. If there are suitable quality plans that will involve restoring any filled in docks then i would be happy to see that sort of thing happen.

no arena then, and the arena is a much more vital necessity to the city than Kings Dock would be now.

The area could be on the Dock Rd or further back, where there is an abundance of land with ramshakle industrial buildings on it waiting to be cleared. The docks could have the hotel/shopping and residential aspects around them. Much better indeed. Putting a stadium, which consumes a lot of land, on historic docks is a crass idea. No one half sane would do it - except in Liverpool, where any half baked cheap and nasty proposal get accepted. Submit tat and a filled in dock and they fall over themselves around you. Submit a triangular 60 floor tower which does not fill in a dock and wants water around it, and they turn it down. As far as I am concerned that Kings Dock project should be stopped right now, the dock excavated and the lot totally redesigned - they can get what they want working with the docks not obliterating them. They originally filled in Kings Dock to put cars on.

The area could be on the Dock Rd or further back, where there is an abundance of land with ramshakle industrial buildings on it waiting to be cleared. The docks could have the hotel/shopping and residential aspects around them. Much better indeed. Putting a stadium, which consumes a lot of land, on historic docks is a crass idea. No one half sane would do it - except in Liverpool, where any half baked cheap and nasty proposal get accepted. Submit tat and a filled in dock and they fall over themselves around you. Submit a triangular 60 floor tower which does not fill in a dock and wants water around it, and they turn it down. As far as I am concerned that Kings Dock project should be stopped right now, the dock excavated and the lot totally redesigned - they can get what they want working with the docks not obliterating them. They originally filled in Kings Dock to put cars on.

docklands arena London

That carpark to the right i can let off because it will be developed with talls as part of the Arena development


They can put the talls anywhere. They can also put then over the docks as they have to pile down anyhow even on dry land - the docks are made out of rammed in wooden piles.


and it has been like this for many years now. If there are suitable quality plans that will involve restoring any filled in docks then i would be happy to see that sort of thing happen.

Because they filled it to put cars on so that’s OK by you then. The fact they date from the 1700s doesn’t come into then. Wow.

The docks should be sacrosanct. All proposals should be around or over them with suitable bridges where necessary. Having no firm strong policy encourages cheapo developers to fill them and build tat. The docks are full tat and filled-in docks

The docks should be sacrosanct. All proposals should be around or over them with suitable bridges where necessary. Having no firm strong policy encourages cheapo developers to fill them and build tat. The docks are full tat and filled-in docks

John-MK, the south end dock system has survived almost intact, yes some parts of the Kings were filled in awaiting future developments (Arena site) but the remainder, Canning, Albert, Salthouse,Duke`s, Wapping ,Queens,Coburg and Brunswick are all intact with developments built around them ,not over them. If I recall , the plan for these docks was to infill certain small docks, to build a land bank, but to retain the remainder so forming an inland waterway.

the docks are made out of rammed in wooden piles.
I always understood that the Mersey Docks, both north and south and Birkenhead, were made of granite walls and clay bottoms. I think the clay used is the same as used in the construction of the canals. I could be wrong though.

I always understood that the Mersey Docks, both north and south and Birkenhead, were made of granite walls and clay bottoms. I think the clay used is the same as used in the construction of the canals. I could be wrong though.

I am not sure about all the docks, but Albert Dock is built on timber piles.

and.. the river side warehouse rises and falls with the tide by a few inches!!

I am not sure about all the docks, but Albert Dock is built on timber piles.
I read somewhere that Hartley used almost 14,000 piles of beech timber.

I think that was one of the problems with the proposal to drain / fill-in the dock, that the timber piles would rot........something about them needing the oxygen in water. It's the same in Venice I suppose. I seem to remember that the need to return water to the Dock was seen as quite urgent, to prevent damage to the timber underneath. Personally, I can't say I understand the science of that, as you'd think water would rot them.

I think that was one of the problems with the proposal to drain / fill-in the dock, that the timber piles would rot........something about them needing the oxygen in water. It's the same in Venice I suppose. I seem to remember that the need to return water to the Dock was seen as quite urgent, to prevent damage to the timber underneath. Personally, I can't say I understand the science of that, as you'd think water would rot them.

Correct Poli, the Albert Dock was made tidal by removing the dock gates, to save on money, the dock then started to silt up, so exposing the timber piles. Not sure what timber was used, beech has been mentioned, but could have been greenheart or oak, a close grained timber fully immersed in water is ok but should it become exposed it can shrink,crack and decay.
The Albert was saved by new dock gates and the water level being returned to its original level.

Correct Poli, the Albert Dock was made tidal by removing the dock gates, to save on money, the dock then started to silt up, so exposing the timber piles. Not sure what timber was used, beech has been mentioned, but could have been greenheart or oak, a close grained timber fully immersed in water is ok but should it become exposed it can shrink,crack and decay.
The Albert was saved by new dock gates and the water level being returned to its original level.

Making Albert tidal was to make it rot to demolish it. Prompted by the heritage Nazis, as some here call them, the government stepped in and saved it.

John-MK, the south end dock system has survived almost intact, yes some parts of the Kings were filled in awaiting future developments (Arena site) but the remainder, Canning, Albert, Salthouse,Duke`s, Wapping ,Queens,Coburg and Brunswick are all intact with developments built around them ,not over them. If I recall , the plan for these docks was to infill certain small docks, to build a land bank, but to retain the remainder so forming an inland waterway.

Dukes Dock has totally gone, so has Kings, Toxteth, Harrington and Herculaneum. Also some smaller graving docks too. The south end has taken a pounding – a good third has gone. Disgusting.

If that is how the north end is going to end up, and look what has happened at Waterloo, Trafalgar and Victoria, then there isn't much hope. The idiots in charge will allow the greatest legacy Liverpool has ever known to be ruined and not used to its maximum potential. I fear the worst. Well we await filled in docks and tat to come.

The Heritage people are not strong enough.

I always understood that the Mersey Docks, both north and south and Birkenhead, were made of granite walls and clay bottoms. I think the clay used is the same as used in the construction of the canals. I could be wrong though.

The Herculaneum was cut into a cliff by dynamiting. Stanley dock was cut into the rock. Al the rest were built on wooden piles into the river bed.

Birkenhead Dock were built by locking in Wallasey pool – a natural inlet running about 4 miles inland. It was called the Great Float and later East and West Float. Bidston Dock, at the far end of West Float, was cut into the rock in the 1930s. Clay was used at the bottom of the docks with granite quays. Likewise Port Sunlight used a natural inlet, but now filled in. Queen Eliz dock at Eastham was cut into rock, as were Garston Docks.

Dukes Dock has totally gone, so has Kings, Toxteth, Harrington and Herculaneum. Also some smaller graving docks too. The south end has taken a pounding – a good third has gone. Disgusting.

If that is how the north end is going to end up, and look what has happened at Waterloo, Trafalgar and Victoria, then there isn't much hope. The idiots in charge will allow the greatest legacy Liverpool has ever known to be ruined and not used to its maximum potential. I fear the worst. Well we await filled in docks and tat to come.

The Heritage people are not strong enough.

My knowledge of the complete south docks is somewhat limited, I accept that Kings is gone but doesn`t Dukes ( or a bit of it ) still survive?
It was way back in the early 70`s ( I think) that these docks were left to rot, but also inevitable that some docks would be filled to increase the land area that could be developed. We may have lost some docks but to build on the old footprint of all the docks being retained would have proved difficult and expensive, only the "Vatican" has built over water, not a beautiful building but it is in a interesting setting.

As for the "heritage people" 30/40 years ago they were also letting the city rot by allowing destruction of many fine buildings, it was also the time that very few people were interested in conservation and saving our heritage.

Times have changed for the better ,but I doubt that they have changed sufficiently to satisfy your " rose-tinted "view of our docks, that is not meant to be critical of your point of view, I just think that what you would like to is impractical and unviable. At least what is left is all Grade 1 or 2 protected

My knowledge of the complete south docks is somewhat limited, I accept that Kings is gone but doesn`t Dukes ( or a bit of it ) still survive?
It was way back in the early 70`s ( I think) that these docks were left to rot, but also inevitable that some docks would be filled to increase the land area that could be developed. We may have lost some docks but to build on the old footprint of all the docks being retained would have proved difficult and expensive, only the "Vatican" has built over water, not a beautiful building but it is in a interesting setting.


It is not inevitable that the docks have to be filled in at all. The new buildings require piles run though the wooden piles of the docks (the land) and into the bedrock beneath. This piling can be through land on the dock or through the water. It doesn’t make any difference. The new building at the docks are supported by the bedrock and in reality are not “on” the land around the docks, as the land there does not support the buildings.


As for the "heritage people" 30/40 years ago they were also letting the city rot by allowing destruction of many fine buildings, it was also the time that very few people were interested in conservation and saving our heritage.


The city was allowing the destruction. The Georgian Society have constantly bitched and lobbied to get laws changed because of what has happened in Liverpool.


Times have changed for the better ,but I doubt that they have changed sufficiently to satisfy your " rose-tinted "view of our docks, that is not meant to be critical of your point of view, I just think that what you would like to is impractical and unviable. At least what is left is all Grade 1 or 2 protected

What is “rose tinted” about leaving docks alone? You have been sucked in by propaganda that says it is inevitable that docks have to be filled in. This is put around by the council and developers, who want a cheapo way out to make a lot of lolly. Do they care about history and heritage and making Liverpool a world class city with waterways comparable with Amsterdam? Me thinks not.

You have not questioned why at all, just going along with this ridiculous notion of squandering our history and heritage and preventing a world class waterway city from emerging.

Personally I like various water spaces in urban settings - they add vitality.

They are not putting in the `canal water feature` in the `Central Village` proposal just out of the goodness of their heart.....it will attract people.

The fact that the PSDA is to make a feature of the original `old dock` wall is also testamony to our very long maritime interests - and building out into the river. You could argue that if we hadn`t historically filled in the `old dock` that we wouldn`t have much of a city centre - or that if we hadn`t filled in `Georges Dock and passage` that we wouldn`t have a `historic` Pier Head.

Again personally I would like to see as much of our docklands water space retained as possible - there is far too much derilict land already in the area for the need to arbitetarily sacrifice this unique water space enmass.

Nevertheless with `imagination` I believe that we can indeed `weld` the waterspace and the new infrastructure to the city to the beneifit of everybody - without having to use a ball and chain as the very first option.

Kings Dock I support because it will add to the area and attract more people to enjoy the waterfront but I also think that there are lessons that can be learned.

It would have been beneficial long term to have extended the `Leeds - Liverpool Canal into the PSDA - which was at one time considered.`

However I think we still have enough water space to play with for the moment to keep every one content.

Now if we can just build a few `talls` in the river.....and add a few bridges and piers!

:runaway:

Personally I like various water spaces in urban settings - they add vitality.

They are not putting in the `canal water feature` in the `Central Village` proposal just out of the goodness of their heart.....it will attract people.

The fact that the PSDA is to make a feature of the original `old dock` wall is also testamony to our very long maritime interests - and building out into the river. You could argue that if we hadn`t historically filled in the `old dock` that we wouldn`t have much of a city centre - or that if we hadn`t filled in `Georges Dock and passage` that we wouldn`t have a `historic` Pier Head.

Again personally I would like to see as much of our docklands water space retained as possible - there is far too much derilict land already in the area for the need to arbitetarily sacrifice this unique water space enmass.

Nevertheless with `imagination` I believe that we can indeed `weld` the waterspace and the new infrastructure to the city to the beneifit of everybody - without having to use a ball and chain as the very first option.

Kings Dock I support because it will add to the area and attract more people to enjoy the waterfront but I also think that there are lessons that can be learned.

It would have been beneficial long term to have extended the `Leeds - Liverpool Canal into the PSDA - which was at one time considered.`

However I think we still have enough water space to play with for the moment to keep every one content.

Now if we can just build a few `talls` in the river.....and add a few bridges and piers!

:runaway:

Pietari,about the most sensible post on this subject so far.
People need to stop being so obsessed with what has been lost and concentrate on what can be achieved from now on.

I particularly agree with your point about Georges dock as to excavate that would mean losing the Pier Head buildings.

Personally I like various water spaces in urban settings - they add vitality.


Exactly. And Liverpool has it in abundance, but….30 to 40% of the South End docks have already been filled in for tat.

Again personally I would like to see as much of our docklands water space retained as possible - there is far too much derelict land already in the area for the need to arbitetarily sacrifice this unique water space enmass.

Yep. The whole of the Dock complex has a Dock Road running along side. This road is now in most of the length surplus to requirements. It was to facilitate large vehicles and trains with heavy loads. The area inland from the Dock Road along most of its length is filled with empty lots, derelict buildings and ramshackle industrial buildings. This road and the land beyond can be used for large scale projects that require a large land area – stadia and the likes.

As you identify, there is no need whatsoever to fill in any dock whatsoever as there is an abundance of land available. Buildings can go around or over docks making Liverpool a world class city of unique waterways.

Developers have taken the easy way out and the council allowed them to do it. Toxteth and Harrington docks can be excavated without too much hassle and should be when the industrial buildings go. If the Herculaneum Dock was left in place that would have been a superb end location for canal boat dwellers. In London they have special places for these and the character they add is beyond question. Every year Little Venice has a canal boat festival and the area is superb.

It is all down to an end vision and putting in place the criteria to achieve that – which Liverpool doesn’t have. Bumbling Scousers as the rest of the country views us.


Nevertheless with `imagination` I believe that we can indeed `weld` the waterspace and the new infrastructure to the city to the beneifit of everybody - without having to use a ball and chain as the very first option.


Yes. And it wouldn’t take much imagination either.


Kings Dock I support because it will add to the area and attract more people to enjoy the waterfront but I also think that there are lessons that can be learned.


I don’t support that at all, as they could got what they wanted and left the waterways and excavated the docks there. The project should be cancelled right now. The lessons to be learnt are not to touch the waterways and excavate existing historic docks


It would have been beneficial long term to have extended the `Leeds - Liverpool Canal into the PSDA - which was at one time considered.`

However I think we still have enough water space to play with for the moment to keep every one content.


Exactly. We have an abundance of waterways, so why cut oanther waterway while filling in others? It just doesn’t make sense.


Now if we can just build a few `talls` in the river.....and add a few bridges and piers!


One could be on the sand banks in the estuary, away from shipping lanes. Liverpool needs a bridge. In the 1920s a very high suspension bridge was proposed that had Upper Parliament St as its feeder road. Thank God that never happened.

Recently a bridge was proposed from Garston across the sand banks, being multi piered. This would have taken traffic near directly into JLA. They then decided to use the short hop at Runcorn.

The Mersey barrage is still on “hold”, not scrapped. This would generate electricity and create a roadway/railway too. The river would still be tidal, as the tides would be used to turn turbines. Seaforth Dock would need entrance would need to be directly into the river and not via the Gladstone Dock.

On the sandbanks in the estuary a large statue of Neptune was proposed. Talls could be on the barrage too.

Just a thought about the Princes Dock wall.
There really is no difference between this and the South Docks,apart from the wall being a listed structure.
The only points of entry to the South docks estate are the actual Dock entrances themselves.
In between these entrances are Buildings,Walls Fences etc..,you cannot just walk across the road and enter the dock estate willy nilly.
So if we are saying there must be gaps made in the wall then we must also address the access issue along the whole dock estate,apart of course from the working docks.
I'm not expressing a view about whether there should be gaps or not just that we think about the entirety of the Docks rather than one section.

and.. the river side warehouse rises and falls with the tide by a few inches!!
Wow! you learn something every day. Thanks for this very inteteresting piece of Liverpool history.

The thing is aswell, there is no need to excavate the old docks. the fact of the matter is, most of the docks we still have are empty, and need some kind of activity to get them back into use (water sports, water restaurants etc) but unless there are plans to do this, then it is pointless in bringing back the south docks that have been filled in.

The thing is aswell, there is no need to excavate the old docks. the fact of the matter is, most of the docks we still have are empty, and need some kind of activity to get them back into use (water sports, water restaurants etc) but unless there are plans to do this, then it is pointless in bringing back the south docks that have been filled in.

I did say when proposals come in and the light industrial stuff is on its way out. They must also let developers know that the docks are to be excavated, so they can design around them. Some developers would like more water around their developments. It does make them more attractive.

[B]
What is “rose tinted” about leaving docks alone? You have been sucked in by propaganda that says it is inevitable that docks have to be filled in. This is put around by the council and developers, who want a cheapo way out to make a lot of lolly. Do they care about history and heritage and making Liverpool a world class city with waterways comparable with Amsterdam? Me thinks not.

You have not questioned why at all, just going along with this ridiculous notion of squandering our history and heritage and preventing a world class waterway city from emerging.

Sorry John, I have not been sucked in by propaganda, many of the old graving docks and Kings had a few , would have been very isolated bits of land with poor access. Sure you can build almost anything on a piled construction, but to link these sites would have required a fair number of bridges. Even with the infilling of some of these docks there is still a fair body of water available for recreational purposes.

I do not consider it was squandering our history and heritage, by turning a vast deralict wasteland into an area that could be used for housing ,business ,leisure use and open up the waterfront to public access.
There is still plenty of water left and the arena development would not have happened if Kings had been retained as built.

Out of anyone out there who has been to Amsterdam, who'se first thought was, "bloody hell, this is just like Liverpool docks!"

When the docks have been filled in they still exist.... it's archeology the.. nothing is lost... archeologists rebury most finds again in order to protect them.

If we dropped the walls however we we wouldn't have to go round and round in these stupic circles... for the practical reasons I have listed more than once... You have not connected these two once John. And I muxt say this cheapo developer angle is getting on my nerves, I don't think you will find a defence of the 'tat' that was built on the south docks anywhere in the forum, never mind this bleedin' thread!

Out of anyone out there who has been to Amsterdam, who'se first thought was, "bloody hell, this is just like Liverpool docks!"


Venice is not like Amsterdam either, yet they are both full of waterways. If Liverpool kept all its waterways and built around and on them, it would be unique to Liverpool. All the waterways must remain at all costs.


When the docks have been filled in they still exist.... it's archeology the.. nothing is lost... archeologists rebury most finds again in order to protect them.


Wow! So fill the docks in, and make the city look like Manchester and we can pretend we see them under the concrete. How abstract. That is novel indeed.


If we dropped the walls however we we wouldn't have to go round and round in these stupic circles...


What circles? Simple – the waterways stay. Not complicated at all.


for the practical reasons I have listed more than once... You have not connected these two once John. And I muxt say this cheapo developer angle is getting on my nerves, I don't think you will find a defence of the 'tat' that was built on the south docks anywhere in the forum, never mind this bleedin' thread!

Most of what has been built, not preserved like Albert, is tat. Can you show me unique well designed wow factor buildings? I am waiting. I can show you 30-40% of the south end docks been filled in with much tat on them and docks in the north end been filled in awaiting uninspiring tat again. Get real look.

Sorry John, I have not been sucked in by propaganda,


We will have to agree to disagree on that.

many of the old graving docks and Kings had a few , would have been very isolated bits of land with poor access. Sure you can build almost anything on a piled construction, but to link these sites would have required a fair number of bridges.

That makes it all the more interesting, water everywhere. Buildings can be built over graving Docks, as one already has.


I do not consider it was squandering our history and heritage, by turning a vast deralict wasteland into an area that could be used for housing ,business ,leisure use and open up the waterfront to public access.

It is squandering our history and heritage as many of the waterways have gone. Getting rid of them is squandering them, no matter what is put on top, for what use.


There is still plenty of water left and the arena development would not have happened if Kings had been retained as built.

The arena would have happened. All they had to do was put it over the sold land of the Dock Road and beyond. Put it near the end of the Wapping tunnel and offer a rail station and they would have jumped at it.

If you want a Manchester then say so. Those with vision want all waterways to form a complete unique residential/leisure/commercial area full of vitality intertwined with water retaining full history and heritage. A total system that will be world famous and the envy of 99% of cities in the world. Easy, simple, all there waiting. No need to dig things out, all you do is leave them alone. People with half a brain can see this, yet the dickheads who run Liverpool can’t see sweet FA. They should get in a Frenchman to head the transformation. They do this far better than what we do. The French designed Sefton Park and the Metropolitan cathedral.

Thanks John, you have just proven that you do not read or digest other posts properly.

I stated a fact that the dock basins are not destroyed when they are filled in... something I have not supported doing.

Venice and Amsterdam have systems running through them, interlinking and defining districts... Liverpool's docks are stuck onto the watefront and literally just follow the line of the river.. so we have plenty of water, as has been pointed out toyou many times through this thread. And these walls completely cut the estate off from the rest of the city, so no chance of integrating the water and city at all... so you can't have your Venice by keeping your walls.

if we filled in every dock we would never look like Manchester as all those plots are one the ..., er, watefront... theres a fucking great river infront of the docks in case you hadn't noticed.

As for the tat.. that was exactly the point I made..i.e. no decent architecture at all... no wow buildings... so why ask me to name any? you don't read the posts!

The whole point of this thread was to look at how we could maximise the redevelopment of the central docks as a fantastic contribution to the city and aid its revival, with great districts, with loads of open basins... lots of heritage and great buildings.... why do you continue to assert you are the only one on this forum with
a. 'imagination' and vision?
b. the desire to see only good architecture?
c. yours are the only good ideas?

You firstly stated (quite vehemently) that the walls should go, then retracted this... fair enough, but hardly well thought through. You say the walls are sacrosanct, but you reckon the road that defined the line of the wall is expendable! You skirt the issue of other heritage assets would have to be lost if these buildings you say you want around the basins edges where built... so why are these also expendable?

God... I'm fed up!

Thanks John, you have just proven that you do not read or digest other posts properly.

I do.


I stated a fact that the dock basins are not destroyed when they are filled in... something I have not supported.


But you can’t see them for concrete and tat on them. Are the council going to issue us with X-ray glasses to see these conctreted over docks?


Venice and Amsterdam have systems running through them, interlinking and defining districts... Liverpool's docks are stuck onto the watefront and literally just follow the line of the river.. so we have plenty of water, as has been pointed out toyou many times through this thread.


Plenty of water in the river, yes. The long line of waterways is what makes Liverpool unique, and all should remain. It is actually wide enough al;ong most of its length. It can also be extended inland if need be. Digging out a large trench these days is not difficult at all. San Antonio in Texas made a network of canals purely for leisure purposes. We frigging well fill them in.


if we filled in every dock we would never look like Manchester as all those plots are one the ..., er, watefront... theres a fucking great river infront of the docks in case you hadn't noticed.


The uniqueness has gone. The uniqueness that oozes history and heritage.


As for the tat.. that was exactly the point I made..i.e. no decent architecture at all... no wow buildings... so why ask me to name any?


30-40% of the south end Docks has gone and what for? Most here are saying it is worth it to get developments – we are selling our souls to profiteers, and we get nothing in return.


The whole point of this thread was to look at how we could maximise the redevelopment of the central docks as a fantastic contribution to the city and aid its revival, with great districts, with loads of open basins... lots of heritage and great buildings.... why do you continue to assert you are the only one with
a. 'imagination' and
b. the desire to see only good architecture?


Only about two others have come up with any sort of vision. That is why. Much of Central Docks is being filled in.


You firstly stated (quite vehemently) that the walls should go, then retracted this... fair enough, but hardly well thought through. You say the walls are sacrosanct, but you reckon the road that defined the line of the wall is expendable! You skirt the issue of other heritage assets would have to be lost if these buildings you say you want around the basins edges where built... so why are these also expendable?


I said the French walls, which are small part of the total.


God... I'm fed up!

Thinking is not hard.

....we are selling our souls to profiteers, and we get nothing in return.

Regeneration.

There's alot of people living in Speke, Birkinhead, Widnes and Warrington that would like to move back to Liverpool if only there was somewhere for them to move to.... do you want em to pull up in a caravan and set up business in a tent....

Regeneration.

There's alot of people living in Speke, Birkinhead, Widnes and Warrington that would like to move back to Liverpool if only there was somewhere for them to move to.... do you want em to pull up in a caravan and set up business in a tent....

You must read and at least get some of the points.

Venice is not like Amsterdam either, yet they are both full of waterways. If Liverpool kept all its waterways and built around and on them, it would be unique to Liverpool. All the waterways must remain at all costs.



Wow! So fill the docks in, and make the city look like Manchester and we can pretend we see them under the concrete. How abstract. That is novel indeed.



What circles? Simple – the waterways stay. Not complicated at all.



Most of what has been built, not preserved like Albert, is tat. Can you show me unique well designed wow factor buildings? I am waiting. I can show you 30-40% of the south end docks been filled in with much tat on them and docks in the north end been filled in awaiting uninspiring tat again. Get real look.


You are a Paranoid Myopic.
Why would filling in some of the Docks(and remember no one apart from yourself has suggested filling them all in) make us look like Manchester?
As has been mentioned before we have an enormous river running along the edge of our Skyline.

We are not Venice or Amsterdam,we are Liverpool.

Don't blame the 'Tat' on the filling in of the Docks,rather blame the planners and designers for letting it happen.

Brighten up!

I drove along the dock road today and nothing will change my mind about the wall.

It does what it was designed to do - cuts the docks and river off from the people and the city. It's devisive. The wall was built for a reason - to stop thefts and smuggling, it was for security of the goods and so customs and excise could make sure they got their cut. What reason is there for it now?

As for filling in the docks, I've got mixed views on this, they can enhance the living and working environment and form a massive edge for Liverpool as we progress through the 21st century. Birmingham, Leeds and even Manchester with their extensive docklands would kill for them. At the same time they have to sit in the modern context - they are not the be all and end all of the economics in these areas now - they're features. Access and capability to build suficient developments are the key to the docks being utilised by people again, it would be great if some form of leisure and commercial taxis for instance could use these waterways and help to link the new districts together but we can retain things just for the sake of it.

You are a Paranoid Myopic.
Why would filling in some of the Docks(and remember no one apart from yourself has suggested filling them all in)

If you have read what I wrote many times, I have nor suggested filling them in at all. I will have snip all the rest of you now.

<snip>

30-40% of the south end Docks has gone and what for? Most here are saying it is worth it to get developments – we are selling our souls to profiteers, and we get nothing in return.

I read this bit. I get it. Liverpool gets regeneration.












That wouldn't be you in disguise would it blubber?

If you have read what I wrote many times, I have nor suggested filling them in at all. I will have snip all the rest of you now.

<snip>

So the post I replied to about filling in the Docks to look like Manchester was your attempt at sarcasim.
Sorry,should have realised.

Right... her's some facts I have gleaned from this thread.

Nobody has said it is preferable to fill in the dock basins rather than utilise them, just that a few have said that it would be possiblly advantagious to fill in one or two.

EVERYONE has agreed that the development in the south end docks is absolutely shite... all of it

NOBODY has said that the developments are great, an improvement or even.. so what?

Everyone understands the historical significance of the docks and the potential that they have.

Most have actually agreed with your basic premis, the point of departure is on how we give most value to the potential to benefit the city.

Here is a nice pic of Amsterdam that explains it's history
http://www.bma.amsterdam.nl/adam/uk/intro/intro.html


Finally - did you mean to say that you only insist that the French Walls should stay and that the rest, further up the complex could indeed go?
That has been the only point I have said about losing 'heritage' as to retain the walls is too heavy a compromise on what an overall scheme could provide in Central Docks INCLUDING maximising preservation of the heritage assets up there. Even a small redevelopment would mean loss of some assets... my statement is that out of the assets to be lost then the walls should be the ones to go as the benefits to be had are extremely good, whilst losing any of the other assets would be simply losing the heritage assets... the roads, the rail lines, machenary etc.

Right... her's some facts I have gleaned from this thread.

EVERYONE has agreed that the development in the south end docks is absolutely shite... all of it

NOBODY has said that the developments are great, an improvement or even.. so what?

Everyone understands the historical significance of the docks and the potential that they have.

Most have actually agreed with your basic premis, the point of departure is on how we give most value to the potential to benefit the city.

EVERYONE has agreed that the development in the south end docks is absolutely shite... all of it

I`m not sure I`d go that far but I would have preferred to have seen more intensive development from the start within the redevelopment of the South Docks.

I do think however that the current developments have to be put into context.

When the `Marina` and the various housing developments went in - the local economy was still heavily depressed and they did help to kick start the repopulation of the downtown water front in a similar way that the `students` were helping to repopulate the likes of `L8` and the city centre.

It is much too easy to jump on a new band wagon for greater investment when it wasn`t on offer previously. The Albert Dock was a London based investment of £100m and they still haven`t got it right. Too posh too quick and they largely forgot the weekend wanderer. (along with the PSDA it may now prosper.)

I wasn`t a big fan of the `£20m Customs and Excise HQ (The Vatican)` but it was never the less redevelopment and reinvestment.

The `Kings Dock` redevelopment has been plagued with set backs whilst the likes of Salford Quays has previously forged ahead.

Now at least we are experiencing a substantial reinvestment that might make a real difference - which is also obviously why the `Pier Head` and `Princes Docks` and the `Central Docks` must be better planned and enhanced with more than what went before.

I think we all agree that `Liverpool` is currently in a `cycle` of very positive and considerable renewal.

City centre - Downtown
Water front and dockside and suburban.

And wether or not we go back to the `Liverpool 1984 International Garden Festival` or forward to the `European Capital of Culture of 2008` or wish to embrace or refuse `World Heritage Status` - they have all contributed to were we are today.

Yes, we are currently in a `cycle` of very possitive and considerable renewal.

Logically the `dock wall(s)` North and South are a problem and should go.

What we don`t need IMO in any way is a fragmented second class city attached to a wealthy second water front city aka some sort of `Judge Dredd` future Megacity.

As a statement of `History` it could be argued that the `French wall should stay.`

Personally I would be very sad to see them go as I have walked their length so many times and peeked into the mystery beyond.

The ongoing question for the moment at least as we know is does it divide us or weave us together as a city?

Maybe a lot of it will depend on the quality of the `Peel Master Plan` and the direction it takes the city in....and the LCC must ensure it connects to the rest of the city but most especially the `Northern` end and up the valley because it is that important.

In the mean time we already know that the back draft or wash of new development will change what went before ..... even if it was only twenty years ago and not two hundred.

can somebody upload a picture, and draw on it, the actual area that central docks is, because from the pics in earlier on in the thread, its hard to make out how vast this site is

I was told by the old timer on the security gate that NO PICTURES are allowed, to my astonishment I asked him was this a Kitgrove policy?? he said yes but couldn't give me any further information. If this is true then Kitgrove are bang out of order!! makes you think what have they got to hide?? you can hardly miss Stanley Dock!! I took these pics anyway and stuff Kitgrove!!


http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/1448/stanleydock28ma.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/4250/stanleydock37hr.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


I love this bridge, I wonder when it was last raised?? does the machinery still work, if not EH should get a grip and spend some of the taxpayers money and fix it!!


http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/1581/stanleydock43mc.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/249/stanleydock57in.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/3875/stanleydock70cs.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/304/stanleydock89tx.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/1272/stanleydock108iw.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Wasnt that bridge part of the old overhead railway? - if so, it defo should be preserved!

No I don't think so, maybe someone (Martin maybe) can confirm that, I think it was built to allow ship access into Stanley Dock.

I wonder if Kitgrove have any plans to actually go through with their plans for Stanley Dock. Well done Doug to sneak in and get some pictures :)

F*cking Nora, it's huuuuuuge! Is it [Stanley Dock] currently vacant? And are there any plans to redevelop it?

Yep. Check Martins Development summary for details.

[QUOTE=Doug Roberts]http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/1272/stanleydock108iw.jpg


That bridge reminds me of the working bridges in Birkenhead which were refurbed years ago and are a vital transport link across the 12 quys.


http://www.astro.livjm.ac.uk/contact/images/tram-bridge1.jpg

http://www.umcus.org/~discjirm/walks/walk_pics/Digital/20030419/Small/P20034191703.JPG

http://homepages.enterprise.net/hyland/maps/interest/02_dock_bridge.jpg

Great pics, Doug and Evertonian:)

Cracking pics Doug. I think this website's been mentioned before, but well worth another visit for the Stanley Dock pics.
http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk/Tour_03/Tour03_13.html

BTW Done an image search for Bascule Bridge and got these results (http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial_s&q=Bascule+Bridge&btnG=Search)

Its like a palace...

Keep it as it is I say!

Great comment from everyone, Dave I had no idea this is called a Bascule Bridge thanks for the info.

I remember years ago watching suicidal maniacs jumping off the top of the grain silo into the dock. Entertaining, but scary as hell!

Any pics of what it looks like inside the upper levels?

Its like a palace...

Keep it as it is I say!

No we'll have to see this one developed I'm afraid,I think it's one of Liverpool's best buildings without doubt,I absolutely love it. :cheers:

:bash: I was told by the old timer on the security gate that NO PICTURES are allowed, to my astonishment I asked him was this a Kitgrove policy?? he said yes but couldn't give me any further information. If this is true then Kitgrove are bang out of order!! makes you think what have they got to hide?? you can hardly miss Stanley Dock!! I took these pics anyway and stuff Kitgrove!!


http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/1448/stanleydock28ma.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/4250/stanleydock37hr.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


I love this bridge, I wonder when it was last raised?? does the machinery still work, if not EH should get a grip and spend some of the taxpayers money and fix it!!


http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/1581/stanleydock43mc.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/249/stanleydock57in.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/3875/stanleydock70cs.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/304/stanleydock89tx.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/1272/stanleydock108iw.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Doug,

There is NO photographic COPY RIGHT to the exterior of a building.

Admittedly there is a copy right to the interior - but in this day and age who would know what building it was in?

Bland. :bash: :bash: :bash:

Apart from that I used to work in `Lamb & Watts` as a teenager on `Great Howard Street` just over the road by the `Cow` and `Bull` pubs .....

As far as I know `Lamb & Watts` had the last working `cooperage in Liverpool`

I hated and loved working down by the docks.

I was in the computer department.

Din't take long, did it?

Peel plan to build city dock towersSep 7 2006




Exclusive By Larry Neild, Daily Post


LIVERPOOL'S derelict Central Docks is to be developed with skyscrapers to mirror the Manhattan skyline proposed for Wirral.

The Daily Post can reveal that senior executives from Peel Holdings have already shown their vision for Liverpool's waterfront to council leader Cllr Warren Bradley and chief executive Colin Hilton.

The aim by Peel, owners of the docks as well as Liverpool John Lennon Airport, is to create a stunning high-rise waterfront gateway on both sides of the Mersey.

Buildings of up to 50-storeys high will be a dominant feature of the waterfront, stretching from Central Docks towards Princes Dock, which is also part of the Peel land ownership.

Peel's master plan for Central Docks is expected to be presented to city councillors within weeks. Then the public will be given a chance to the vision for the waterfront for themselves.




Story continues

ADVERTISEMENT




On Tuesday, the privatelyowned company announced details of its £4.5bn plan to create a mini-Manhattan based on Birkenhead Docks to be known as Wirral Waters. Few people realised that, behind the scenes, Peel's director of development, Lindsey Ashworth, had already created a wider master plan embracing both sides of the river.


Last night, Mr Ashworth said: "We are trying to do something spectacular on both sides of the river. Our aim is to develop the Wirral and Liverpool waterfronts simultaneously.


"The schemes we have in mind for Central and Princes will be on a similar level to what we propose in Wirral.


"We want to create clusters of skyscrapers on both sides of the river. That will ensure the Mersey as a waterfront is up there with the very best in the world.


"Until recently, Liverpool had a provisional policy of high-rise buildings, but things have changed. We see skyscrapers as making a bold statement about an area.


"When I first visited Central Docks, I was amazed at its dereliction and the fact that it is just not being used.


"But the site is outstanding and it beggars belief that nothing has happened on the site. It was easier for us to unveil our plans for Wirral first, but our ambitions for Liverpool are not far behind. We are talking about initiatives that can take as long as 30 years to come to fruition. Our wide masterplan takes account of a long timescale and making the most of the waterfronts."


New buildings proposed for Princes Dock are likely to be taller than originally envisaged, as part of the evolving skyscraper strategy for the waterfront.


Last night, city council leader Cllr Warren Bradley said: "I want to see a European-style scheme along the waterfront and I am impressed by what Peel is talking about. The Central and North docks areas are a huge development site and we are talking about a massive project for Liverpool.


"John Whittaker (chairman of Peel) has a reputation for delivering, and I am looking forward to seeing the master plan for this side of the river.


"Liverpool City Council will make sure the facilities are in place to ensure this scheme moved forward. I view Peel as a perfect partner in a regeneration strategy."

Front page DP:

Senior executives from Peel Holdings have already shown their vision for Liverpool's waterfront to council leader Cllr. Warren Bradley and chief Executive Colin Hilton.

The aim is to create a stunning high rise waterfront gateway on both sides of the river. Buildings up to 50 storeys high will be a dominant feature of the waterfront stretching from Central Docks towards Princes Dock.

Peel's master plan is to be presented to city councillors within weeks, then the public will have a chance to see the vision for the waterfont themselves. When Peel made it's announcement on Tuesday about their scheme for Wirral Waters, few realised that behind the scenes Peel had already created a wider master plan embracing both sides of the river.

Last night Peel director Lindsey Ashworth said "We are trying to do something spectacular on both sides of the river. Our aim is to develop Wirral and Liverpool waterfonts simultaneously. The schemes we have in mind for Central and Princes will be on a similar level to what we proposed for the Wirral. We want clusters of skyscrapers on both sides of the river. That will ensure that the Mersey is up there with the very best in the world"

"Until recently Liverpool had a provisional policy of high-rise buildings but things have changed. We see skyscrapers as making a bold statement about an area. When I first visited Central Docks, I was amazed at its dereliction and the fact that nothing had been done. But it beggars belief that nothing has happened on the site. It was easier for us to unveil our Wirral plans first, but our ambition for Liverpool is not far behind. We are talking about initiatives that can take 30 years to come to fruition"


New buildings proposed for Princes Dock are likely to be taller than originally envisaged as part ot he evolving skyscraper strategy for the waterfront.


Warren Bradley said "I want to see a European-style scheme along the waterfront and I am impressed by what Peel is talking about. The central and North Docks areas are a huge development site and we are talking about a massive project for Liverpool. LCC will make sure the facilities are in place to ensure this scheme moves forward. I view Peel as a perfect partner in a regeneration strategy"

I've just been looking at that on the front of the Daily Post and it ties in with what I've always said no one can or will touch our Waterfront when its potential is realised.

Potentially very good news, but until the plan is seen.....

Din't take long, did it?

Peel plan to build city dock towersSep 7 2006




Exclusive By Larry Neild, Daily Post


LIVERPOOL'S derelict Central Docks is to be developed with skyscrapers to mirror the Manhattan skyline proposed for Wirral.

The Daily Post can reveal that senior executives from Peel Holdings have already shown their vision for Liverpool's waterfront to council leader Cllr Warren Bradley and chief executive Colin Hilton.

The aim by Peel, owners of the docks as well as Liverpool John Lennon Airport, is to create a stunning high-rise waterfront gateway on both sides of the Mersey.

Buildings of up to 50-storeys high will be a dominant feature of the waterfront, stretching from Central Docks towards Princes Dock, which is also part of the Peel land ownership.

Peel's master plan for Central Docks is expected to be presented to city councillors within weeks. Then the public will be given a chance to the vision for the waterfront for themselves.




Story continues

ADVERTISEMENT




On Tuesday, the privatelyowned company announced details of its £4.5bn plan to create a mini-Manhattan based on Birkenhead Docks to be known as Wirral Waters. Few people realised that, behind the scenes, Peel's director of development, Lindsey Ashworth, had already created a wider master plan embracing both sides of the river.


Last night, Mr Ashworth said: "We are trying to do something spectacular on both sides of the river. Our aim is to develop the Wirral and Liverpool waterfronts simultaneously.


"The schemes we have in mind for Central and Princes will be on a similar level to what we propose in Wirral.


"We want to create clusters of skyscrapers on both sides of the river. That will ensure the Mersey as a waterfront is up there with the very best in the world.


"Until recently, Liverpool had a provisional policy of high-rise buildings, but things have changed. We see skyscrapers as making a bold statement about an area.


"When I first visited Central Docks, I was amazed at its dereliction and the fact that it is just not being used.


"But the site is outstanding and it beggars belief that nothing has happened on the site. It was easier for us to unveil our plans for Wirral first, but our ambitions for Liverpool are not far behind. We are talking about initiatives that can take as long as 30 years to come to fruition. Our wide masterplan takes account of a long timescale and making the most of the waterfronts."


New buildings proposed for Princes Dock are likely to be taller than originally envisaged, as part of the evolving skyscraper strategy for the waterfront.


Last night, city council leader Cllr Warren Bradley said: "I want to see a European-style scheme along the waterfront and I am impressed by what Peel is talking about. The Central and North docks areas are a huge development site and we are talking about a massive project for Liverpool.


"John Whittaker (chairman of Peel) has a reputation for delivering, and I am looking forward to seeing the master plan for this side of the river.


"Liverpool City Council will make sure the facilities are in place to ensure this scheme moved forward. I view Peel as a perfect partner in a regeneration strategy."


westie far from me to be the person to criticise you but could this not have gone in the central docks one that is already open... also i urge a bit of caution as this does not tell us a great deal that we already know. Peel are going to develop the central docks area.....

the encouraging part in this article are warren brady's comments... cant help but agree with Paul D that we will have a waterfront skyline that will stretch from central docks all the way down to brunswick dock... are you watching manchester? :cheers:

50 storeys PLUS don't you mean?

any less would not have the manhatan impact it does on the left bank!

Also, Liverpool's main problem has been with 'plans'... we don't want them, particularly ones over 35 years!

We need frameworks and indicative outlines etc... the intention to build big, where, if the market is there, they will get built according to the best designs, architects and technology when the decision is made!

New buildings proposed for Princes Dock are likely to be taller than originally envisaged, as part of the evolving skyscraper strategy for the waterfront.

Does this mean we may see the back of all the low rise crap on Princes Dock
and what do Peel have planned for that plot of land by PD they recently bought.It's only a matter of time before they buy that Costco/Toys R Us site and develop it in the same way just wait and see,a couple of 50 storey towers would be perfect for there. :cheers:

"To assist in attracting the great cruise liners back to Liverpool we require appropriate but large scale magnificent waterfront development."

Peel Holdings 19/07/06. :okay:

Paul I think we've already seen Peel's growing ambition in plot 3A Princes Docks, I think they will continue their upward moves along the rest of the dock area. I cannot see LCC being able or willing to prevent this vision from happening now.

I feel very confident this will happen and as I said on the Wirral Waters thread a 30 year rolling programme doesn't bother me, this will be completed in phases with blocks of developments being tackled maybe a couple at a time. Who knows within that 30 year span the ambition of the city may even increase.

It will be great to see Peel's plans, things I want to see are:

NIRAH set up for business in a central location near the river.
Overhead railway rebuilt and threading through the new downtown areas.
And of course a couple of dozen gleaming new towers.

I'm inclined to believe it will happen too I agree with you it will be hard to say no to the vision that Peel have presented to Wirral and are about to present to Liverpool,maybe they can get Grovenor on board they said they were keen to remain in Liverpool after PSDA was finished.

cant help but agree with Paul D that we will have a waterfront skyline that will stretch from central docks all the way down to brunswick dock... are you watching manchester? :cheers:

Fisrtly, drop the Manchester bit. The only time we should be concerned about them is when they do something that effects us. Otherwise treat thenm as if they are Kiev.

Secondly, Peel do not own the South End docks. If the Brunswick Quay tower appeal is successful. Then expect high rises at Toxteth and Harrington Docks - hope excavating the dosk and reinstating the water aspect to any developments. This end is more appealing with Otterspool prom and park a short walk away.

"To assist in attracting the great cruise liners back to Liverpool we require appropriate but large scale magnificent waterfront development."

Peel Holdings 19/07/06. :okay:

The devil is in the detail. :)

I don't care about cruise liners visiting the city, I am more concerned that the population live around a world-class water centric city. You don't put the cart before the horse. Get the basics right and the rest will naturally follow - cruise liners and all.

The devil is in the detail. :)

I don't care about cruise liners visiting the city, I am more concerned that the population live around a world-class water centric city. You don't put the cart before the horse. Get the basics right and the rest will naturally follow - cruise liners and all.


COTW i am staggered ... i agree with u!

Will this not require some filling in of the docks? The maps I see of Central Docks reveal thin strips of land, but much water. What of transport access? Could roads be built across the water?

The devil is in the detail. :)

I don't care about cruise liners visiting the city, I am more concerned that the population live around a world-class water centric city. You don't put the cart before the horse. Get the basics right and the rest will naturally follow - cruise liners and all.

Its symbiotic, surely. How can you build a 'world class water-centric' city by neglecting what could be a great source of income? More cruise liners leads to more tourism, leads to more money, jobs and prosperity - resulting in more and more ambitious developments.

Will this not require some filling in of the docks? The maps I see of Central Docks reveal thin strips of land, but much water. What of transport access? Could roads be built across the water?

Don't start John off please :) the development will be for Central and Princes Docks and all the land in front of the Beetham Towers.

COTW i am staggered ... i agree with u!

You'll get there eventually. :)

Din't take long, did it?

Peel plan to build city dock towersSep 7 2006




Exclusive By Larry Neild, Daily Post



New buildings proposed for Princes Dock are likely to be taller than originally envisaged, as part of the evolving skyscraper strategy for the waterfront.




Brilliant news but a little intrigued by the Princes Dock reference.
How many more sites are left here?
Does it mean existing plans ie site 3a will be revised upwards?

Will this not require some filling in of the docks? The maps I see of Central Docks reveal thin strips of land, but much water. What of transport access? Could roads be built across the water?

Cars, cars, figging cars, that is the problem. This obession with the auromobile. They ruined the south end developments. Concrete muti-floor car parks have been built right on the waters edge at Kings and Princes Docks. They should be for people and to a human scale - walking, like at Albert Dock. Amazing that Albert Dock is the only dock that has vitality - the rest of them are dead because they are full of cars - and the wrong types of buildings too (built for cars). The only roads into the docks should be service roads only.

There are two disused rail tunnels, the Waterloo and Wapping, that serve the South End and Central Docks. These can be brought back to use on the Merseyrail underground.

What maps have you been looking at? The Central Docks has a very large mass of land where Clarence, Trafalgar and Victoria docks were filled in...and the scum want to fill in West Waterloo Dock as well.

If these people can't design around waterways to make a water-centric environment then they should give up and give it to people who can...like the Germans. World renowned cities are famous and attract milions of visitirs because of their scale is human - everywhere is walking.

See this site: Save Liverpool Docks (http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk)
Click on "Poor and Lifeless New Dockside Developments" on the menu. Also click on "Kings Dock - How Not to Do It". Look at them will give you an insight of how not to do it.

Liverpool and the Wirral are at a critical stage in their development. What happens in the next few years will affect the area for decades to come. It has to be done right. We don't want some souless place full of cars and roads.

Jesus, 50+ storeys on both sides of the rive and lots of 'em, I can't wait to see renders of this, it looked good on the Wirral with nothing to compliment it. It will look amazing on the Liverpool waterfront with the rest of the skyline complimenting it. I'm just wondering if you can actually see the buildings in this picture in the distant left..

http://www.clichedesigns.co.uk/bidston1.jpg

i can. where is that?

Liverpool ofcourse..Birkenhead on the right Liverpool in the distance, the 'picture' is taken from Bidston retail center. Hopefully the view in 30 years time.

This is amazing news Europes best skyline is a possibilty.

I'd say with this, Wirral waters and other individual developments europes best skyline is almost certain, it would deffinately be up there with Frankfurt/London/Paris if everything goes to plan.

London has some great buildings but they seem wrongly positioned Liverpool has a better location for a great skyline.

"To assist in attracting the great cruise liners back to Liverpool we requireAnd "magnificent tall buildings" notwithstanding, Liverpool also needs cultural, hospitality and retail facilities to remain open past 1700 hours. Cruise passengers can see tall buildings from the Hudson and Huang Pu Rivers, Hong Kong and Sydney Harbours etc., but also don't wish to only window shop after 5:00pm or be chased out of museums and galleries about the same time and left to wander deserted streets. Liverpool needs more vibrancy downtown after [Tea] time. Daylight lingers past 10:00pm through Liverpool's summer, cruise pax have dollars to spend and can't spend if there is nothing open to spend on. Liverpool needs to take a leaf out of the books of Barcelona, Marseille, Toronto, Hong Kong etc. Cruise lines listen to pax and if the feedback is that Liverpool is dead after 5:00pm then the ships will up anchor and set sail early, with plenty of money yet unspent.

Keep the museums and galleries open till 7:00pm and the stores open till 9:00pm. Hire entertainers (minstrels/jugglers/magicians/poets) to entertain visitors in the downtown streets and squares. Make it that people want to stay and enjoy themselves and want to return and tell their friends to visit. By the way, people, other than the drinking crowd also helps cut down on violence in the downtown.

All sounds very promising, but I hope that whatever Peel do, they show a HUGE amount of respect in terms of landscaping to the Stanley Dock warehouse. It would be nice if they built a park around the complex so that the public can continue to admire the awesome structure.

This is amazing news Europes best skyline is a possibilty.I have visited almost every major European sea port and say, without fear of contradiction, that Liverpool's skyline is already "Europe best".

Sorry accy, but what a really shite idea!~!!!

It goes against everything urbanist that we talk about on this site....... fucking landscaping to be able to view the asset???? Fecking hell... I know it is hot today but?

:|


No, seriously. Stanley Dock is not a building that deserves to be put in the shade. There should be some form of decent landscaping around it. Lucky for us, it happens to be the perfect place to put an urban park upon which a new skyscraper cluster could be centred around.

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/exhibitions/worldheritagecity/graphics/large/stanleydocktobware.jpg

And "magnificent tall buildings" notwithstanding, Liverpool also needs cultural, hospitality and retail facilities to remain open past 1700 hours. Cruise passengers can see tall buildings from the Hudson and Huang Pu Rivers, Hong Kong and Sydney Harbours etc., but also don't wish to only window shop after 5:00pm or be chased out of museums and galleries about the same time and left to wander deserted streets. Liverpool needs more vibrancy downtown after [Tea] time. Daylight lingers past 10:00pm through Liverpool's summer, cruise pax have dollars to spend and can't spend if there is nothing open to spend on. Liverpool needs to take a leaf out of the books of Barcelona, Marseille, Toronto, Hong Kong etc. Cruise lines listen to pax and if the feedback is that Liverpool is dead after 5:00pm then the ships will up anchor and set sail early, with plenty of money yet unspent.

Keep the museums and galleries open till 7:00pm and the stores open till 9:00pm. Hire entertainers (minstrels/jugglers/magicians/poets) to entertain visitors in the downtown streets and squares. Make it that people want to stay and enjoy themselves and want to return and tell their friends to visit. By the way, people, other than the drinking crowd also helps cut down on violence in the downtown.

Totally agree with you sloyne, Liverpool needs to crack this one before it's ever going to become a cosmopolitan metropolis of evening life and activity. The alive after five is a good initiative, but needs further embracing and expanding, and as you say it should extend to galleries as well. FACT has been leading the way on this for quite a while, keeping it's galleries open later to accommodate the shopper/cinema goer cross over, and now it's cafe is also staying open later. This needs to replicated on mass across the city and we need to move away from the very dichotomous work/drink split we currently have which leaves a ghost town between 6-9pm.

My wife and I went for a wander down to pier head at about 7pm a few weeks ago, and despite it being a lovely warm, light evening the place was deserted bar a few scallies and the odd hobo. It was really depressing and very 'uninviting', I really hope the new museum will encourage lots more evening activity at pier head, and hopefully the PSDP will start a new trend of evening shopping once they realise there's a hell of a lot of money to be made between 6-9pm! :cheers:

I have to admit i am almost certain both this and the worral devlopment wil get the green light but for me that is a problem i mean studyin now is hard enough but once cinstruction starts on these i will hav no study time, nor any money so to speak as either mersey ferries or mersey rail will have that;)

I have to admit i am almost certain both this and the worral devlopment wil get the green light but for me that is a problem i mean studyin now is hard enough but once cinstruction starts on these i will hav no study time, nor any money so to speak as either mersey ferries or mersey rail will have that;)


this is why i think your great dont ever change westie your an SSC legend!

i try my best and i need to take more time with typing as a lot of letters are missing from my posts:(

Worral development? Has the hideous bastard bought a barbell set? :?

You don't have a wireless keyboard do you Westie? They're notoriously shite.

Totally agree with you sloyne, Liverpool needs to crack this one before it's ever going to become a cosmopolitan metropolis of evening life and activity. The alive after five is a good initiative, but needs further embracing and expanding, and as you say it should extend to galleries as well. FACT has been leading the way on this for quite a while, keeping it's galleries open later to accommodate the shopper/cinema goer cross over, and now it's cafe is also staying open later. This needs to replicated on mass across the city and we need to move away from the very dichotomous work/drink split we currently have which leaves a ghost town between 6-9pm.

My wife and I went for a wander down to pier head at about 7pm a few weeks ago, and despite it being a lovely warm, light evening the place was deserted bar a few scallies and the odd hobo. It was really depressing and very 'uninviting', I really hope the new museum will encourage lots more evening activity at pier head, and hopefully the PSDP will start a new trend of evening shopping once they realise there's a hell of a lot of money to be made between 6-9pm! :cheers:

Surprised you expected anything different. The bars on the dock are open that time and on that particular evening all the tables would have been on the dockside outside babycream - a perfect position from which to watch the sunset. There's plenty of life in town after 5.30pm. You just need to know where to find it, or rather where you won't find it (Pier Head, Lord Street ...)

Well i can't wait to see some plans for this one, i think Liverpool can pull this off, and suck in investment and jobs and people, and talent to become a very strong European city.

Absolutely great pictures there Doug, the first one reminds me of a really evil looking Charlie and the Chocolate factory!! :)

The Stanley Docks must, i mean must be preserved like the Albert Dock, its so beautiful. It would make for an amazing studio, or major offices.


simply magnificent, beautiful

I knew we'd see something for the Liverpool side, excellent! Imagine if one of these 50 storey towes was an office building! :)

"Buildings of up to 50-storeys high will be a dominant feature of the waterfront, stretching from Central Docks towards Princes Dock, which is also part of the Peel land ownership."

Does this mean that there will be another dominant feature, they would have said "the dominant feature" otherwise

:|


No, seriously. Stanley Dock is not a building that deserves to be put in the shade. There should be some form of decent landscaping around it. Lucky for us, it happens to be the perfect place to put an urban park upon which a new skyscraper cluster could be centred around.

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/exhibitions/worldheritagecity/graphics/large/stanleydocktobware.jpg

Stick the `park` on the `roof` which would give excellent views of all of the surrounding developments..... :cheers:

Now that `Central Docks` is back on the agenda and some development vision is emerging, this really must be the opportune time for the `LCC` to show that it also mean business and on the back of the `CBD` etc start to plan the full renewal and reintergration of the North of the city into the fabric of it`s disconnected downtown.

No more vast swaths of demolition until the money is in place for the renewal and the plans approved.

Surprised you expected anything different. The bars on the dock are open that time and on that particular evening all the tables would have been on the dockside outside babycream - a perfect position from which to watch the sunset. There's plenty of life in town after 5.30pm. You just need to know where to find it, or rather where you won't find it (Pier Head, Lord Street ...)

But why shouldn't I expect different? That's excatly the place I would expect to find life after 5:30pm - on the 'most historic water front in the country'. They'd even closed off the public footpath between the docks and pier head! That's rediculous! The whole point of this discussion was that tourists coming off cruise ships should find a vibrant, lively city at any time, night or day and not have to 'know where to find' (which they inevitably won't) - it should be right there at Pier Head. This is why I'm excited about pretty much any development at that end of town right now and why I love the idea of a continuous, multi-use dockland stretching from central docks right down to Brunswick docks and on into the old festival site!

The sooner that museum gets built and they do something with Mann Island (I'm begining to care less and less about 'what' these days) the better.

Peel steps up docks project
Published on Jul 13 2006 PEEL Holdings, owner of the Mersey Docks & Harbour Company, has started consolidating its landholdings in the Central Docks area of North Liverpool.

Peel acquired MDHC for £771m late last year and with the operations of the Port of Liverpool took on its 2,000-acre property estate, 300 acres of it available for development.

The Salford-based developer is now in the process of acquiring land outside of MDHC ownership to link up the area for comprehensive redevelopment.

At 70 acres Central Docks is seen as the linchpin in the MDHC development portfolio: it has outline planning permission for 300,000 sq ft of offices and industrial space, 2,000 homes, shops, pubs, restaurants and a marina.

It is understood Peel has approached Kitgrove, the subsidiary of Richcliff which owns Stanley Dock, the problematic 12-acre site in the heart of the area. Stanley Dock contains the 1m sq ft Tobacco Warehouse, and two smaller warehouses to the north and south.

The interior darkness and low ceilings make conversion of the Tobacco Ware-house impossible without vast public subsidy. Peel and Kitgrove declined to comment.

Looks like the old Stanley is getting torched then... acidentally. :|

I'd love Peel to do a panoramic render from Central Docks to the Anglican Cathedral when they release their vision for Central and Princes docks that'd be some sight that.

Looks like the old Stanley is getting torched then... acidentally. :|

Yep. Could do. Peel Holdings also own Clydeport Properties who own the Greenock Docks where similar "renovation" plans were in place, and where an
"unexplained" fire torched a listed warehouse.

All accidental of course - spontaneous combustion no doubt.

but!..............ah, forget it....

See what they proposed in Chicago.

Could be done at Stanley dock or something similar.
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2492/unionstationvr5.jpg

But why shouldn't I expect different? That's excatly the place I would expect to find life after 5:30pm - on the 'most historic water front in the country'. They'd even closed off the public footpath between the docks and pier head! That's rediculous! The whole point of this discussion was that tourists coming off cruise ships should find a vibrant, lively city at any time, night or day and not have to 'know where to find' (which they inevitably won't) - it should be right there at Pier Head. This is why I'm excited about pretty much any development at that end of town right now and why I love the idea of a continuous, multi-use dockland stretching from central docks right down to Brunswick docks and on into the old festival site!

The sooner that museum gets built and they do something with Mann Island (I'm begining to care less and less about 'what' these days) the better.

I thought you were talking about NOW, not several years from now or aspirationally about what should be. If I want large and empty, a tad monumental, a pisshead or four after 6pm, I would go to the Pier Head, and I would enjoy it too. A great city is about moods. Vibrant has its place but so does monumental and deserted :yes:

Hats off to Peel - they sure know how to get endless free publicity :cheers:

See what they proposed in Chicago.

Could be done at Stanley dock or something similar.
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2492/unionstationvr5.jpg

This would suite Liverpool nicely in the right place.....it would make `India Buildings` and `Martins Bank` buildings etc look a bit small though..... :)

This would suite Liverpool nicely in the right place.....it would make `India Buildings` and `Martins Bank` buildings etc look a bit small though..... :)

Small maybe but perfectly formed.

It's been nearly 7 weeks since we heard anything, im getting a bit impatient!

However, i would prefer them to reveal it in sections. A few buildings at a time, it would give us more to look forward to, rather than been given them all in one big go

That's Costco and it's car park.

I believe that directly underneath is the dockside end of the Waterloo Tunnel.

A public park with a rail station entrance bringing this, OR a line serving Liverpool Waters would be great.

http://www.building.co.uk/Pictures/web/v/k/r/CMYKCENTRAL_DOCKS.jpg

That's Costco and it's car park.

I believe that directly underneath is the dockside end of the Waterloo Tunnel.

A public park with a rail station entrance bringing this, OR a line serving Liverpool Waters would be great.

Is that Kenwright's new design in the foreground?

They couldn't afford it.

How long will Costco remain there? It seems a silly use of prime land.

Evertonian:
"A public park with a rail station entrance bringing this, OR a line serving Liverpool Waters would be great."
That sounds fantastic, with maybe a tower at the edge. The tunnel runs from edge hill doesn't it? That would be a very handy line.

Interesting picture. I added some lines.

The Waterloo tunnel portal can be seen in the photo. To the left of Cosco is the road, then the Northern Line rail track, which can be seen running underground into the city centre. The brown bick structure is the tunnel. There is a tunnel under the road to the old Waterloo Goods yard, which must be still there as the bushes behind Cosco may cover it. The good yard is in red.

A line can come out of the Waterloo Tunnel and into Liverpool Waters, circle around the buildings and even carry on north and join the Northern Line. It can then leave the site and join the Northern Line south of the tunnel. All in yellow. Light rail trains would probably be needed.

As an extra, the dotted yellow maybe to serve the Crusie liner terminal, Pier Head, Museum and Albert Dock. It could be elevated. I doubt that would be done, but easy to do.

http://i48.tinypic.com/7301s2.jpg

ta, ta

My friend Mr Qualtrough wonders whether any dock or water channel infilling would be necessary to complete Mr Mogan's light rail scheme.

It would serve a football stadium in the area splendidly well, I'm sure.

It would serve a football stadium in the area splendidly well, I'm sure.

Great idea.

My friend Mr Qualtrough wonders whether any dock or water channel infilling would be necessary to complete Mr Mogan's light rail scheme.

It would serve a football stadium in the area splendidly well, I'm sure.

It looks too small for a stadium. Hell to get out of with 60,000 plus. It is also a World Heritage Site, so many difficulties. Not going to happen as Peel have bigger fish to fry.

I noticed in the Kirkby inquiry that the stadium in the Loop was so tight they proposed that fans got around it by using the underside of the incline that has the seats "inside" the stadium (H&S issues?). That excludes lucrative fans facilities such as resuarants, bars, cafes, etc, which is what made Man U so rich. All clubs are going the quality facility route.

Accessing the Liverpool Waters is very easy using light-rail Docklands trains.

just how many train lines can a city have? :lol:

just how many train lines can a city have? :lol:

:lol:

I guess it could make better use of the ones it once had. :dunno:

If a designated rail/tram/overhead link to the central docks is a link too far how about a kind of travelator from a station on the Northern line to a point within the central docks?

Thousands of people walk the long distance from the Central line at Bank to the Circle and District lines at Monument every day without too much fuss so it's wouldn't be too big an ask.

Forget the skyscrapers, Peel have seemingly figured out a way to make money from the Central Docks without resorting to actually building anything. It seems the travelling showmen John Collins & David Taylor will be presenting a Valentine's Fair at Clarence Dock between 12th-21st February. It seems an odd place to site a fair to be honest, but presumably Peel must have tempted them somehow. Anyway, it's one option to keep the family amused over half-term I suppose.

wasnt there a mono rail in one of the Liverpool waters renders?

wasnt there a mono rail in one of the Liverpool waters renders?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/Martin_S/DevelopmentSummary/liverpoolwaters2.jpg

You can just see it in this one, Kat. The idea was to run a monorail link all the way down to LJLA.

From the colour of the carriages it looks as though Merseyrail is slated to provide the monorail service.

:runaway:

I personally hope nothing like that every gets built. Would much rather have a dense urban fabric than having aload of towers just for the sake of having towers. Also what is it with Architects and bloody birds?

I personally hope nothing like that every gets built. Would much rather have a dense urban fabric than having aload of towers just for the sake of having towers. Also what is it with Architects and bloody birds?


Don't worry, it wont!

city of shiny dildoes!

It seems the travelling showmen John Collins & David Taylor will be presenting a Valentine's Fair at Clarence Dock between 12th-21st February.

With reference to the above, and to the following - http://www.johncollinsfunfairs.com/Liverpool_Valentines_fair_vouchers.html - (which contains money-off vouchers for the fair, if anyone's interested), it seems despite the departure of the Liverpool ONE wheel, the city will soon have two wheels, albeit temporarily, as the Kings Dock wheel will be up, as will another wheel visiting with the Clarence Dock fun fair.

From the Echo -

Liverpool dock road to re-open after two years following bascule bridge facelift

Feb 16 2010 by Neil Hodgson, Liverpool Echo

LIVERPOOL’S famous bascule bridge will be renovated – rather than demolished – in a move that will see a section of the dock road re-opened to traffic for the first time in more than two years.

Land owner Peel Holdings shut the section between Paisley Street and Blackstone Street in May 2008 with the intention of knocking down the 78-year-old bridge said to have become unsafe due to corrosion.

The bridge crossing over Stanley Dock is the only surviving example of a rolling bascule lifting bridge in Liverpool.

Now after talks between Peel and Liverpool council it was decided to renovate the landmark instead.

Work is expected to begin on March 1. And Peel hopes to re-open the road to traffic by the end of June at the latest.

Article continues here - http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/02/16/liverpool-dock-road-to-re-open-after-two-years-following-bascule-bridge-facelift-100252-25841204/

Good news that it's to be renovated rather than demolished.

Bad news that it's taken 2 years. I wonder who is paying for the renovation.

From the Daily Post -

New £200m waste water treatment plant proposed for Liverpool’s northern docks

A NEW £200m waste treatment plant is set to be built on the banks of the River Mersey to continue improving its water quality.

United Utilities will submit plans later this year for the new complex in Liverpool’s northern docklands.

The scheme involves draining Wellington Dock and partially reclaiming it to create a huge plant capable of handling 11,000 litres of wastewater a second – the equivalent of re-fuelling the average family car 200 times every second.

United Utilities said the new facility will deliver environmental improvements to the Mersey and will serve homes and businesses from Crosby to Speke.

Article continues here - http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2011/04/15/new-200m-waste-water-treatment-plant-proposed-for-liverpool-s-northern-docks-92534-28524556/