Central Docks [Archive] - SkyscraperCity

scouserdave

September 28th, 2005, 10:41 PM

Tommy,
here's a few pics :cheers:

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/liverpoolimage2%20251.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/liverpoolimage2%20256.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/Image6.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/liverpoolimage2%20232.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/liverpoolimage2%20233.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/liverpoolimage2%20231.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/liverpoolimage2%20240.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/liverpoolimage2%20230.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/liverpoolimage2%20204.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/liverpoolimage2%20223.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/liverpoolimage2%20205.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/liverpoolimage2%20170.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/liverpoolimage2%20172.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/unity%20175.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/unity%20171.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/unity%20172.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/unity%20180.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/unity%20187.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/unity%20183.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/unity%20208.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/unity%20164.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/unity%20205.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/unity%20209.jpg

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/unity%20207.jpg

maggie

September 28th, 2005, 11:05 PM

love that clocktower, and wonder if theyl keep those old rail tracks there as a kind of heritage feature to contrast the office buildings that will go up round there

scouserdave

September 28th, 2005, 11:24 PM

Maggie, the Victoria Tower is a Grade 2 listed building, so it's safe for the moment.

"The Victoria Tower, Salisbury Dock, by Jesse Hartley, is dated 1848. It is constructed of granite of irregular shaped blocks and takes the form of an octagon with a high tapered circular base which is pierced by round arched openings. Above the base is a string moulding and narrow slits at the first floor below a continuous balcony carried on stone brackets. Higher again are eight circular clock faces and long open slits and round eyes at the top. The tower is crowned by a projecting castellated parapet carried on corbels"
Ref: Buildings of Liverpool ISBN 0 9506178 0 6

woody

September 29th, 2005, 12:04 AM

Dave, great set of pics. I bet PEEL have already surveyed every square metre to see how many towers they could build.

maggie

September 29th, 2005, 12:07 AM

indeed... itl be great to see the city centre develop further north.. plus this area isnt residential.. has no views to obstruct.. just think of what might become of this site

Liverdude

September 29th, 2005, 12:10 AM

Let's take a look at what's happening at Salford Quays LINK (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=261595) :)

maggie

September 29th, 2005, 12:15 AM

Let's take a look at what's happening at Salford Quays LINK (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=261595) :)
yup.. thats a cool glimps at what might be headed our way.. and soon.. theres not much of princes dock left to developp now.. it would be cool if grosvenor took on stanley dock as their next big project in liverpool

scouserdave

September 29th, 2005, 12:32 AM

yup.. thats a cool glimps at what might be headed our way.. and soon.. theres not much of princes dock left to developp now.. it would be cool if grosvenor took on stanley dock as their next big project in liverpool

If the Liverpool Canal Link is still a goer, they have to do something with the north and south warehouses in the dock asap.

tommygunn

September 29th, 2005, 11:02 AM

Thank for the pics dave this is really exciting the regenaration is spreading all over great news.

JUXTAPOL

September 29th, 2005, 07:51 PM

Let's hope that a public path will be available along the regenerated waterfront to continue from the PierHead north through all this when it is developed. Is there a plan to do/implement this...!

woody

September 29th, 2005, 09:24 PM

Let's hope that a public path will be available along the regenerated waterfront to continue from the PierHead north through all this when it is developed. Is there a plan to do/implement this...!

I hav`nt seen a plan, but I would expect that public waterfront access, would be mandatory in any future planning permissions in the Central docks.
The Mersey Waterfront organisation is responsible for regeneratng the 120 km of river and coast line and its aim is to make as much of that 120km open to the public.

Blabbernsmoke

September 29th, 2005, 09:34 PM

The problem with the waterfront promenade at present is that for at least 3 months of the year it is bombarded with colossal coastal winds. My friend and I were at Princes Dock last April and we had to take sanctuary behind one of the office buildings. I was thinking that perhaps between Albert and Central Docks a transparent barrier (of approx 2 meters height) could be erected behind the present metal hand rails. If it were made retractable it could be lowered (or even removed) during the Spring and Summer periods.

Now is this a feasible idea or do I need to just toughen up a bit?

Scarecrow

September 30th, 2005, 11:16 AM

You're just a girly Blab. :) It might be worth looking into though, a deterrant to suicides etc in that part of the city. My missus hates walking down there when the weather is crap because a) Her hair gets in a mess, even when its tied back, and b) Its too windy to use a brolly when its pissing down. You might as well be on Scafell Pike.

Pietari

October 4th, 2005, 01:50 AM

Who remembers the `Three Ugly Sisters` at Clarence Dock Power Station?

a trio of 300 ft chimneys at the former Clarence Dock power station known as the Three ugly sisters was recently brought down to earth in spectacular fashion

http://www.btinternet.com/~philipbparker/picture_gallery_3.htm

The famous Liverpool landmark "Clarence Dock Power Station" behind the award winning B & I Terminal building at Waterloo Dock. The Passenger ferry "Munster" berthed alongside the lift on lift off container berth, the Ship to Shore container crane was moved to Seaforth's S6 berth in the late 1980's.

http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.php?show=ConGallery.91

Photograph of an industrial site, with large concrete blocks and train tracks nearest the camera. On the reverse of the print there is written 'Dock construction on Liverpool, new Clarence Dock, super power generating station in the background'.

http://www.localhistory.scit.wlv.ac.uk/genealogy/Parker/OverheadRailway.htm

The party ascended a platform, speeches were made and the presentation of a small silver inkstand was made to Lord Salisbury, who started the electric current of 2,000 horse power which magically draws the trains over the lines. When the ceremony was over the party accompanied Lord Salisbury to Sandon Station where a specially decorated train was waiting to convey them on the first official trip on the line. The remainder of the party travelled to Clarence Dock Station where two trains were waiting to take them over the same route.

DEMOLITION OF THE SISTERS.

http://www.oldhambros.co.uk/page6.html

One of Liverpool's more prominent landmarks - a trio of 300 ft chimneys at the former Clarence Dock power station known as the Three ugly sisters was recently brought down to earth in spectacular fashion recently by demolition Contractor Oldham Bros.
The three towers which are almost as tall as the Liver Building and can be seen from 25 miles out to sea,

were demolished at four second intervals.

The honour of 'pushing the button' was the winning prize of a raffle organised by a local charity, the Merseyside Youth Association. The event was a complete success and the technique will be used as a blue print for similar events. Oldham Bros. bought the former power station in 1981 and is now in the last phase of site clearance

scouserdave

November 10th, 2005, 01:23 AM

Loads of activity this morning

http://www.**************************/northnov001.jpg

http://www.**************************/northnov002.jpg

Awayo

November 10th, 2005, 01:27 AM

Toadboy

November 10th, 2005, 01:29 AM

Isn't it the Grosvener works? I think they are using Central Docks for storage, crushing and stuff.

Awayo

November 10th, 2005, 01:35 AM

That's basically what I thought, yeah. Cheers.

I was just hoping that a lightning-fast Peel updated masterplan plus individual buildings designs had been submitted and been given permission, and an immediate start on site had happened - all without my having read about it.

Pietari

November 10th, 2005, 08:16 AM

westisbest

November 10th, 2005, 09:08 AM

Damn i was getting excited when i saw those pictures

nicksanderson

November 10th, 2005, 05:44 PM

So is there any news on Stanley (?) dock redevelopment - the huge building that has the Sunday market - it's my favourite building Liverpool and I'd hate to see it lost!

General Zod

November 10th, 2005, 05:47 PM

So is there any news on Stanley (?) dock redevelopment - the huge building that has the Sunday market - it's my favourite building Liverpool and I'd hate to see it lost!

I presume things will move on in this area as soon as the Leeds Liverpool canal link is on the move. The owners may be waiting for this development before moveing on their own one.

nicksanderson

November 10th, 2005, 08:12 PM

woody

November 11th, 2005, 02:56 AM

^^ What's going on there. Are they just using the space for storage for things to do with the other developments elsewhere? I know that they are breaking down demolished bits of buildings into aggregates or something like that on that site.

Awayo, the main activity ,see pic 1, is assembley of reinforcement cages, the rebar arrives in long lengths with smaller pre-bent sections to be wired up into predetermined profiles, to make beams and columns. This work requires a fair bit of space for stock ,assembley and storage of finished cages prior to delivery to site.

The second pic shows a lorry delivering rebar ,with finished beams/columns on either side of the lorry.

Super J

November 17th, 2005, 11:31 AM

From Property Week...

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

Dock exchange

Peel Holdings has taken over the Mersey Docks & Harbour Company, so prepare to see acres of unused dock land overhauled. Paul Unger reports

11.11.2005

By Paul Unger

The old lady of the sea is about to get a modern makeover. The £771m acquisition of the publicly listed Mersey Docks & Harbour Company by Peel Holdings (see box top right) represents a clash of cultures that has intrigued the north-west market.

Owned and chaired by John Whittaker (see factfile), Peel has a reputation for shrewd and subtle relationship-building to get its way. However, it refuses to talk about its plans. By contrast, Mersey Docks, the UK’s second largest ports group, is often berated for taking a lumbering and irritable approach to property development.

‘Mersey Docks has always been isolated and at odds with the local property scene,’ says one Liverpool office agent who asked not to be named. ‘It was formed as the port authority [which it remains] and that old-fashioned approach is still in the nature of the company.’

The performance of the core ports business shows Mersey Docks is no slouch, however. Whittaker and his bankers will welcome the 20% profit margins and the efficiency of its operations. In the year to December 2004, Mersey Docks made £55.5m pretax profit on turnover of £326m. Indeed, the Port of Liverpool handles more cargo than ever:

32 million tonnes a year compared with 20 million tonnes in 1970.

Dock work

However, Peel’s business model is about oiling the twin engines of ongoing operations and surplus property assets tied up in port and airport estates. Land at the Port of Liverpool consists of 2,000 acres (809 ha) on both banks of the river Mersey. This includes 4m sq ft (371,600 sq m) of warehousing. More than 300 acres (121 ha) is available for development.

Mersey Docks also operates ports in Medway and Heysham, where it holds 830 acres (336 ha) and 116 acres (48 ha) respectively, though not all of it is developable.

David Savage, development director at Liverpool-based Maghull Developments, says: ‘Peel really sweated the assets of Manchester Ship Canal Company [the Ship Canal] by buying it cheaply and obtaining higher-value planning consents for high-profile schemes.

‘There is clearly value in the development potential of Mersey Docks but at the premium Whittaker has had to pay, it is not going to be the same game as the Ship Canal.’

Insiders say Whittaker tried to buy Mersey Docks in the late 1980s when he could have bought it at a much-reduced price, but ended up buying the Ship Canal instead.

The similarities between the Ship Canal and Mersey Docks deals are telling. Both held land in old industrial waterfront settings, regarded by many as problematic and requiring heavy public sector co-operation.

While Peel has transformed the Ship Canal banks into a world-class and genuinely mixed-use destination at Salford Quays, home to the Lowry Centre, and Imperial War Museum North, as well as vast amounts of offices and housing, Mersey Docks has been far slower to deliver.

Three offices and a hotel have been finished by subsidiary Princes Dock Development Company and housing towers and another hotel are under construction. Princes Dock Development Company began as a joint venture with David McLean Developments, before a £9m buyout by Mersey Docks in 2002. Many doubt Mersey Docks could have done it alone.

Most tellingly, the 70 acre (31 ha) opportunity at Central Docks to the north of Princes Dock remains untouched. It took Mersey Docks and neighbouring landowner English Partnerships three years to win planning consent for 323,000 sq ft (30,000 sq m) of offices and industrial space, 2,000 homes, shops, pubs, restaurants, and a marina at Central Docks.

A bitter and public row unfolded between the firm and local authority planners who were unsure of how to regenerate the run-down wider area of north Liverpool.

The proposed cruise liner terminal at Princes Dock was ultimately used as a pawn by Mersey Docks to win council favour. Central Docks gained outline planning consent in 2003, but no detailed plans have followed. Work on the cruise liner terminal has still not yet started amid wrangles over funding and access to land.

The consensus in Liverpool is that Peel will initially turn its attention to the lucrative residential element of Central Docks.

One Liverpool developer, who also asked not to be named, says: ‘Hats off to Mersey Docks for doing something at Princes Dock, but the quality is very poor for a waterfront of this city’s standard. Hopefully Peel can come and say, “We want to do something fantastic,” and get all the partners and other landowners in the north end to say the same.’

Late starter

Looking outside Central Docks, market watchers predict the remaining two office plots of Princes Dock will be put on hold unless a prelet arises, because of a recent surge in the supply pipeline. The large corner plot at Princes Dock is to be developed by London-based Lead Asset Strategies as a £130m mixed-use scheme of flats, leisure and a hotel and business centre.

Across the River Mersey in Wirral, Mersey Docks holds tantalising questions for Peel at Birkenhead docks, alongside its Twelve Quays ferry terminal (pictured above left). The in-filled Bidston Dock is the same size as Princes Dock and undeveloped. Mersey Docks also owns a 50% stake in Northwestern Shiprepairers & Shipbuilders. It was the main tenant of the former Cammell Laird shipyard, acquired by Reddington Finance in two deals in 2001 and 2003 for a controversial residential-led scheme that was opposed by Mersey Docks.

Peel’s plans have hardly started. The only comment from Whittaker has been in an earlier press statement at the time of the takeover’s conclusion: ‘The combination of Mersey with Peel’s existing port operations and property development activities offers exciting future opportunities for both groups.’

Well, Mr Whittaker, whatever it is you have planned, the region’s marketplace is more than a little excited at the prospect of finding out.

Diary of a deal

November 2004
Mersey Docks & Harbour Company confirms preliminary takeover approach, which several newspapers identify as coming from global buyout specialist CVC Capital Partners.

December 2004
Peel buys 1.9m shares in Mersey Docks to take its stake to 11.7%. Mersey Docks is already in negotiations with CVC.

February 2005
Mersey Docks confirms approach from Peel that may lead to a cash offer of £10 a share, exceeding CVC’s offer. Mersey Docks recommends Peel’s offer.

May 2005
Due diligence is completed and Peel begins Office of Fair Trading notification process.

September 2005
Takeover completes following regulatory approval. Mersey Docks delists to become part of Peel Holdings.

The rise of peel holdings

In 1973 Bury-born John Whittaker bought a textile mill business, known as Peel, and converted the redundant mill buildings into an industrial estate.

Peel acquired the Manchester Ship Canal Company in 1987, principally to build the Trafford Centre on its banks, five miles outside Manchester.

Whittaker, a tax exile in the Isle of Man, holds 75% of the shares, and the Olayan family from Saudi Arabia, owns the rest.

Peel’s divisions include the 1.4m sq ft (130,060 sq m) Trafford Centre; a UK property investment and land portfolio consisting of 5m sq ft (464,500 sq m) and 14,000 acres (5,570 ha) of undeveloped land; four regional airports, including Liverpool John Lennon airport, and the ports of Clydeport (Hunterston, Glasgow, Greenock and Ardrossan); and the Manchester Ship Canal Company.

Group turnover in the year to April 2004 was £214.5m, producing pretax profit of £29.4m. No accounts have been filed since Peel was taken private last year after a spell on AIM. The investment portfolio was valued at £2.1bn and £1.23bn was accounted for by the Trafford Centre.

Blabbernsmoke

November 17th, 2005, 07:43 PM

Thanks for the article and pic Super J. I like the green bits and the docks on the picture. That entire plot has "Huge Regeneration Project" written all over it. :cheers:

Toadboy

November 17th, 2005, 09:23 PM

Doesn't that also indicate that Peel will sit on princes dock and under develop it to increase it's land value by developing and creating a new downtown area in Central Docks?

Great for Peel but not so great for Liverpool?

scouserdave

November 17th, 2005, 10:00 PM

A couple of pics taken last week.

http://www.**************************/cent001.jpg

http://www.**************************/cent002.jpg

westisbest

November 17th, 2005, 10:22 PM

arrrrrrrr r lovely buildings^^

westisbest

November 17th, 2005, 10:28 PM

So are we getting some good developments on central docks then

liverpolitan

November 17th, 2005, 10:51 PM

[QUOTE=Super J]From Property Week...

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

Thanks for posting that pic Super J

What is that big white shed near the ventilation shaft of the Mersey tunnel? Can it be got rid of, together with the car park and associated nearby sheds?

That area would be ideal for a city park. We are stuffing the inner / north area of the city with office workers and residents, and yet there is no park. That is an obstacle to growth, because it reduces quality of life, attractiveness of area, and ultimately residential as well as office values. That site (I've crudely spray painted it green below) looks severely under-utilised, and could provide not just a green oasis, but a place for people to walk their dogs, paddle, play basketball, sunbathe, all the things a good city park provides. I don't mean some ornamental or grand civic park, but a real, well-designed modern park that people will actually use all hours of the day, every day of the week.

Good quality, well-designed inner city parkland is not only useful and valuable to residents and office workers, it is also a tourist draw (sometimes but not always if parts of the park are used for funfairs). The Royal Parks in London are extensively used by tourists, as a place to chill out, get away from the city for an hour or two, relax. Copenhagen, Paris and New York also have great inner city parks - designed for use and enjoyment rather than show, that make them more attractive and 'liveable' to visitors as well as residents. Hands up anyone who has been to New York and not enjoyed a bit of calm in Central Park?

What do others think? Is it possible? Or am I going to learn that the shed is listed, and that Liverpool can't actually afford any new parkland, and every spare inch is required for carparks and the "hostile" planting around them (so-called because it's dense and hard to walk through).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v634/qwerty1234520012000/CMYKCENTRAL_DOCKS_new_park.jpg

scouserdave

November 17th, 2005, 10:56 PM

There goes Costco, Toys R Us and King Eddies :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v634/qwerty1234520012000/CMYKCENTRAL_DOCKS_new_park.jpg

Blabbernsmoke

November 17th, 2005, 11:10 PM

Poli, I don't think there is a park problem in that part of the city. Anybody living in that area have lots of historic docks to walk around, and a waterfront promenade to go jogging down. They even have a world heritage site within walking distance.

Besides, I'm sure the almighty Peel will include all the provisions of a good development once they develop your plot.

liverpolitan

November 17th, 2005, 11:19 PM

Blabbern, are you joking? You have just been saying how windswept and inhospitable the riverfront is during winter.

Imagine how grand it would look, it would become like Central Park, with properties overlooking it growing in value (a new spate of high rise residential towers could be built to the north of it), and imagine the views and ambience driving into town, with the sheds and grime gone, it would look more like driving down Park Lane.

Imagine the evening fun fair - did you visit Copenhagen during your Grand Tour and see how the Tivoli Gardens works in the summer?

How can you imagine building a great new Liverpool based upon the crass exploitation of the dock estate, and not want to find creative and useful ways to link that to the city and add value to it? Did Victorians imagine they could build cities without laying out generous new parks and gardens?

Have you visited central London parks at weekends, or those in other cities, and seen how extensively they are used? Do you really think that someone paying £200k for a flatlet with no balcony will not appreciate a real park within walking distance, rather than your vision of them jogging a circular route round a windswept prom and a multi-storey car park, around a privately owned and isolated estate where gates are locked at dusk in winter?

I've named it now. It's Central Park, Liverpool. It's got to happen. Toys r Us can fuck off.

Steve C

November 17th, 2005, 11:24 PM

I agree with Poli.

I suggested a while back that the bungalows between the Baltic Triangle/Paradise Street/Ropewalks be knocked down and replaced with a high quality park, which would then be flanked by tall buildings - many of them residential, thus creating a more desireable area for families to live.

Another park on this side would be in an almost semetrical position and would benefit the area with the offices going up.

I know this sounds simplistic, but on Sim City 5, placing parks in the centre of areas attracts high density. Therefore it must work in real life :cheers:

But seriously though, some more green spaces in the city centre are needed. Its all very well have tall office buildings, but cities aren't just about concrete. We're not talking about bulldozing loads of the city and planting some grass, but some open spaces of genuine quality that are useable are needed if the city centre is to function better.

tommygunn

November 17th, 2005, 11:27 PM

Well i think its sounds a good idea anything that gets rid of bungalows and toys r us stores cant be bad.

tommygunn

November 17th, 2005, 11:31 PM

By the way if you wanted to attract the super richyou could make the park theirs only like in chelsea an apartment and your own park.

Steve C

November 17th, 2005, 11:38 PM

Here we go, stick me and Poli in charge and we'll have no probs :cheers:

http://img421.imageshack.us/img421/5189/mf491dl.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Toadboy

November 17th, 2005, 11:44 PM

I can see how a park would work there, but it would need a greater masterplan to get economic activity and life around it and let's face it there's room to do it.

Blabbernsmoke

November 17th, 2005, 11:47 PM

But we don't know yet that Peel won't provide such a public space. When we finally see some plans for this area there could be a park.- Perhaps Peel will say "Well LP and Steve C were right, we will make more money this way." Wind is always going to be a problem along the river. The only solution would be to have a park completely surrounded by buildings.

Chris B

November 17th, 2005, 11:47 PM

I have to agree with Poli, a new large park is just what the city centre needs. The old Chevasse Park was alright, and I'm sure the new one will be good too. However despite being the only sizable green area for miles around, it's still too small (or will be anyway). Although a crude edit, the pic Poli posted gives a great idea of what is possible.

One criticism though - I'm not sure about the Tivoli Gardens comparison - some of the rides at Tivoli Gardens would not look out of place at Alton Towers or some similar theme park. I don't think something like Tivoli would be in keeping with Liverpool's style.I think a pure park with no cheessy add-ons would be far better. One of my concerns about the new Chevasse Park is that it will be very noisy and not at all peaceful with all the new buildings surrounding it. A new larger park could offer an alternative to this.

tommygunn

November 17th, 2005, 11:52 PM

Toadboy

November 18th, 2005, 12:01 AM

"Hats off to Mersey Docks for doing something at Princes Dock, but the quality is very poor for a waterfront of this city’s standard"

Does anyone else agree if Manchester had these brilliant sites there would be more daring projects being built 50 mike towers.

Salford Quays?

Mersey Docks and Harbour made a serious error in developing Princes Dock and being slow to develop Central Docks, but that wasn't their core business. Peel is all about land/property development. If Peel think that a park will drive land values up then they'll consider it or support it but the chances are the waterfront location, canals and docks will be sufficient to maximise their potential yield anyway.

tommygunn

November 18th, 2005, 12:05 AM

Salford Quays?

Mersey Docks and Harbour made a serious error in developing Princes Dock and being slow to develop Central Docks, but that wasn't their core business. Peel is all about land/property development. If Peel think that a park will drive land values up then they'll consider it or support it but the chances are the waterfront location, canals and docks will be sufficient to maximise their potential yield anyway.
Your comparing salford qauys to liverpools waterfront surely not.

Toadboy

November 18th, 2005, 12:11 AM

No, I'm comparing prime available development space.

When you've got it by the bucket full like Liverpool, it must be as daunting as having none. It hasn't been managed very well at all but at the same time when there's hectares and hectares of desolate and derilict land/buildings, where do you start?

There's plenty of tat, shite and mistakes in Manchester.

tommygunn

November 18th, 2005, 12:15 AM

Toadboy

November 18th, 2005, 12:19 AM

That's as much to do with economic activity as city leaders/planners, we are crying out for visionary leadership though and people who demand change and improvement rather than think of reasons why not.

Liverdude

November 18th, 2005, 12:22 AM

I want to see something like this.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/quays_point1.jpg

Toadboy

November 18th, 2005, 12:26 AM

Aye, that'd fill the spot, would Liverpool be able to take that level of development on a single site at the moment? Maybe but I reckon we're at least 5 years off.

Blabbernsmoke

November 18th, 2005, 12:27 AM

I dig that :cheers:

Blabbernsmoke

November 18th, 2005, 12:28 AM

Aye, that'd fill the spot, would Liverpool be able to take that level of development on a single site at the moment? Maybe but I reckon we're at least 5 years off.

I think Brunswick Quay is a more bold and exciting proposal than that and the city is turning it away!

Fitzroy

November 18th, 2005, 12:31 AM

As someone who visits both cities reasonably often, I agree that Manchester is currently ahead but certainly not 'miles ahead' and probably not for much longer. I love Manchester but Liverpool feels much more like a real city, at least to me. Cities aren't just about having a clutch of tall buildings although this forum might suggest otherwise! Above all they are about a sense of place. You only have to open your eyes in the city centre to know that you are in Liverpool (cathedrals, three graces, etc. loom at you). Manchester's impact isn't quite so immediate.

tommygunn

November 18th, 2005, 12:32 AM

Id love to see this

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid194/p23149f12ab5cdc5470bdc9eb968006c1/f16acd9a.jpg

tommygunn

November 18th, 2005, 12:35 AM

Toadboy

November 18th, 2005, 12:37 AM

True.

Doug Roberts

November 18th, 2005, 01:16 PM

I have to say I think this thread has produced some brilliant ideas.

Thanks to Super J for putting up the aerial picture, Liverpolitan for his inspired park idea and lastly Steve C for the 2 park vision shown on the render. Great contributions from all.

This is exactly the type of creative, imaginative masterplan the LCC planners should be working towards!! chuck out the old thinking attached to the Unitary Development plan, that plan was for a different place at a different time. It is ideas like this that LCC should be urgently putting into place now to take Liverpool beyond 2008.

I have yet to see from LCC, any masterplans or ideas designed for beyond 2008 (LV have St. Pauls and Central Business area but these areas are well defined and within existing boundaries) hopefully companies like Peel, Beetham, Maro, Downing, Ilyad can push the limits of our becalmed planning community to greater heights.

Maybe there is a role for Liverpool Vision?? its brief was to concentrate its attention on city centre Liverpool which was fine in 1999 but seems very limited now. The city centre has grown and I think LV's brief needs to stay with the flow and cast it's net wider.

Chris B

November 18th, 2005, 11:32 PM

^^

Some good points raised there Doug. I agree LV would be more effective if their work was a little more widespread and varied like Urban Splash. Compare the Garston Matchworks to the Seel Street Church for instance - both Urban Splash projects. The city council does seem to be resting on it's laurels. It's doing enough to keep the cogs ticking over on projects leading to 2008, but nothing beyond that.

With regard to developers I can see Beetham, Grosvenor, Peel and Illiad staying around for years, with their projects popping up all over the city. However I can easily see Maro and Chieftan walking away if their towers are rejected again. (I haven't mentioned Downing as they are still something of an unknown quantity). Even if LCC were to put 100% effort in, they still need LV, Urban Splash, and the host of developers mentioned if they are to continue to sell Liverpool as a vibrant, developing, forward-thinking city.

woody

November 18th, 2005, 11:58 PM

I have to say I think this thread has produced some brilliant ideas.

Maybe there is a role for Liverpool Vision?? its brief was to concentrate its attention on city centre Liverpool which was fine in 1999 but seems very limited now. The city centre has grown and I think LV's brief needs to stay with the flow and cast it's net wider.

Agree Doug, some great ideas being thrown on the table. I do not think Liverpool Vision should spread its wings. They are responsible for only one of five Strategic Investment Areas ( SIA) The other four are run by Liverpool Land Development Company (LLDC) and two of these SIA`s almost run into LV`s territory namely Atlantic Gateway ( north of Leeds St) and Edge Lane.
The only area that LV could take over would be south of Parliment St, site of Project X, this proposed development would seem to be extending the downtown area south in the same way that the Reach Development moved the centre north by jumping over Leeds St.

LV should continue to promote the downtown area, as there is still plenty of plots/ sites to sort out, and continue to encourage and assisst ALL developers to invest in the city. LV and LLDC must co-operate as they share the same desire to see the centre and principle Gateway areas regenerated.

woody

November 19th, 2005, 12:11 AM

^^

. (I haven't mentioned Downing as they are still something of an unknown quantity). .

Chris, I think your comment is a tad unfair on Downing, they have invested in this city on many developments and each subsequent developments gets bigger and more daring, Port of Liverpool Building a perfect example.

The sad fact IMO is he gets less PRESS for actual`y building something that another local developer :bash: who in 20 years has built F**K ALL, anybody need 3 guess to name this prat?????

Scarecrow

November 19th, 2005, 12:41 AM

Is he a fat, bearded, kerb-crawler by any chance? :?

Chris B

November 19th, 2005, 01:55 AM

each subsequent developments gets bigger and more daring, Port of Liverpool Building a perfect example.

The sad fact IMO is he gets less PRESS...

Perhaps that's the problem, other developers are getting the column inches, making it appear that Downing are more recent, and a smaller outfit. Point taken.

woody

November 19th, 2005, 02:15 AM

Is he a fat, bearded, kerb-crawler by any chance? :?

Could be!!!!!!!!

woody

November 19th, 2005, 02:23 AM

Perhaps that's the problem, other developers are getting the column inches, making it appear that Downing are more recent, and a smaller outfit. Point taken.

Downing just do what they promise to do, with very little fuss, apart from the ownership problems on the Scandinavian Hotel site . The apparant" less column inches "does not appear to have affected their increasing presence in the city.

JUXTAPOL

November 19th, 2005, 03:23 AM

Is it Frenson who are only one notch up from the bottom, The Walton Group, in terms of inactivity and inability to complete any decent projects.

Scarecrow

November 19th, 2005, 11:24 AM

Aye. They're letting Duke Street fall to bits so they can knock up any arl shite. :rant:

woody

November 20th, 2005, 10:13 PM

Is it Frenson who are only one notch up from the bottom, The Walton Group, in terms of inactivity and inability to complete any decent projects.

Yep, they are not much better, soon they will be happily sitting on mounds of bricks, as one by one their buildings crumble. They do seem to have a problem with the renovation of their properties ,..............

Frenson have 13 sites in the Ropewalks area, with Planning approval on 9 sites, revised approval sought on 3 sites and they are ON site at 1 location only.

Chris B

November 20th, 2005, 10:32 PM

Was it Frenson who owned the Stanley Buildings on Hanover Street? Now safe thanks to Grosvenor? I thought I read that somewhere.

the golden vision

November 20th, 2005, 11:21 PM

Yep, they are not much better, soon they will be happily sitting on mounds of bricks, as one by one their buildings crumble. They do seem to have a problem with the renovation of their properties ,..............

Frenson have 13 sites in the Ropewalks area, with Planning approval on 9 sites, revised approval sought on 3 sites and they are ON site at 1 location only.
I think the site they're working on is the Whitehouse on the corner of Duke st and the adjoining building which partially collapsed a few weeks ago. The next step for Frenson is a compulsory purchase order from the council. They've owned these properties since the mid eighties and have done nothing.

bustcapl

November 21st, 2005, 11:12 AM

just been watching their value rise an awful lot recently!

westisbest

November 21st, 2005, 06:48 PM

My 500th POST!!! sorry, i think that developing this area well will make the city centre grow even bigger, presuming shops are added, just imagine the potential for how big are city centre could be

Paul D

November 30th, 2005, 01:31 PM

Peel Holdings will now have complete ownership of Central Docks when they sort out the cruise liner facility with the council after they have purchased a plot of land off them,progress can now be made on this site now I would imagine. :cheers:

maggie

November 30th, 2005, 01:48 PM

Id love to see this

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid194/p23149f12ab5cdc5470bdc9eb968006c1/f16acd9a.jpg
isnt that the small tower being built by north greenwich

Veinticinco

November 30th, 2005, 03:59 PM

isnt that the small tower being built by north greenwich
that looks very alike beetham west - except ours is much bigger :cheers:

scouserdave

November 30th, 2005, 04:31 PM

I'd advise those who take an interest in the Central Dock area (as it is) to take as many pics as they can within the next 6 months.

Ste

November 30th, 2005, 09:42 PM

Why's that davey boi? you reckon Peel are gona get there teeth into the site asap?

Paul D

November 30th, 2005, 10:17 PM

I do but maybe it'll take a bit more than 6 months,they have said their priority was to fill the last 2(?) remaining plots on Princes Dock and one is expected to be approved next week(the 9 story block) so I shouldn't imagine the last plot on prinny dock will take long to fill,then it's all systems go. :)

LiverOdysea

November 30th, 2005, 10:22 PM

yer more than six months, i agree with you Paul D

Red scouser

November 30th, 2005, 10:47 PM

http://img348.imageshack.us/img348/5462/princesmap0ba.jpg

LiverOdysea

November 30th, 2005, 10:58 PM

How old/New is that

Louis1986

November 30th, 2005, 11:53 PM

i think thats quite old

woody

December 1st, 2005, 12:59 AM

How old/New is that

This revised masterplan was published in July 2002, since then there has been many changes, for example- plot 4 the MSCP was increased in height, as was the Malmaison Hotel on plot5, Plots 1 + 2 was filled by the City Lofts Towers and plot 12 is now to be 25 storey Alex Tower in place of the planned 17 storey tower. Current proposals : plot 7 is the site of New World Square,which has been with the planning dept. since early September. Plot 13 is the site of City Lofts (phase 2) 9 storey block which will be approved at next weeks planning committee meeting.

Red scouser

December 1st, 2005, 01:04 AM

woody

December 1st, 2005, 01:08 AM

Posted the masterplan just to get an overview of the Princes Dock site. Lets hope we will have some good interesting proposals for the remaining undeveloped plots. Then Princes Dock will real come to life.

Amen to that, a cruise liner / irish ferry terminal building would look good on Plot 11 :)

Yapachoo

December 1st, 2005, 03:47 AM

Has NWS been recommended for approval?! I like it but when first saw a render I couldn't help thinking the planning mafia would just laugh at it, escpecially considering poroximity to our almighty WHS?

I mean it's high quality and ambitious for god sake!

Yapachoo

December 1st, 2005, 03:48 AM

Oops read your post wrong Woody!!

When will NWS get its recommendation and verdict?

bluesnapper

December 21st, 2005, 06:02 PM

Tony Sebo

December 21st, 2005, 06:06 PM

North of Chapel St to Boundary St - from the river to Everton brow ---- our new metropolis?
Would make sense, except the shrewed fuckers who drew up the WHS looped it out to Stanley Dock along the wall so that they could veto anything too metropolitan here too!

So will everton be allowed to build a ground as long as it doesn't go higher than the surrounding sheds...like they imposed on the KD stadium (the concert thing that is)?

Paul D

December 21st, 2005, 06:40 PM

Everton always come out with stuff like this when the team hits a new low,is this another smokescreen to avert our attention to the teams on-field failings?I hope it's genuine but I'll believe it when I see it,this seems to be the best way to view developments in Liverpool,I hope it's true though.

General Zod

December 21st, 2005, 06:47 PM

I hear that Everton FC are now looking at building a new stadium complex costing £125million with a capacity of 50,000.

The complex is said to bring in up to £100million per annum from the football side of things together with income from shops and apartments, both of which will form part of the complex.

A new built stadium is said to be the most deliverable of three options (the other two being redeveloping Goodison and a ground share).

The likely location is said to be the Central Docks.

It is early days yet. Who said it would go on central docks? No objections to that at all but aren't people just jumping to that conclusion because their old provisional Kings dock site is now occupied?

I seriously wish the WH status would just fu** off. Does anyone vocally welcome it? It is holding things back. Glad they have gone ahead with the museum. I hope it forces UNESCO to revoke the WH status so we can move on. If the museum turns out to be a crap building of tomorrow then just knock it down in 30 years time.

Blabbernsmoke

January 19th, 2006, 08:38 PM

I got some info on the Tobacco warehouse today, although I'm sure it's stuff I've heard on here. It's an update anyway.

Apparently Peel had planned to redevelop the site but their proposal was knocked back; EH were reluctant to allow the proposed demolition (-I'm not sure how much.) The building is Grade I Listed and in a conservation area and World Heritage Site. With that many layers of protection then re-developing the place is always going to be a problem. Especially as the floor to ceiling heights in the warehouse are only 7 or 8 feet, or something. I'm not sure if it's structurally possible to remove some floors in the building, or whether this would conflict with the legal protection of the building.

I can't wait til the day the city spreads from Princes Dock, past the Waterloo Docks and then onto the Central Docks area taking in Stanley Dock. The development potential is staggering. There is lots of cleared and flat land; there are beautiful historic buildings; the area is adjacent to a major and dramatic water course and the docks, and a regenerating city centre. In Leeds they build the posh places near the canal as water courses make for more desirbale development and values.- think about the potential then for the Central Docks!

I think the city will spread over this land, and I'm certain that developers would fight to have a free hand there if it were not for all the protection and the fact that the council meddles so much. I'm not suggesting that the historic features shouldn't be preserved, but I reckon things would've already started there if there wasn't so much interference.

I think this picture taken by Dave shows how the powers that be need to start changing their methods and strategies. - Just looks at the potential!!!!!

http://www.**************************/centraldocks/images/liverpoolimage2%20251.jpg

It's amazing how much the city has shrunk. This used to be working land, earning money for people and being productive. If the city is to expand and grow again into these derelict recesses (and it will start to happen to some extent in the near future) there needs to be more freedom from quangos, councillors and other bureaucrats.

Louis1986

January 19th, 2006, 11:06 PM

It is early days yet. Who said it would go on central docks? No objections to that at all but aren't people just jumping to that conclusion because their old provisional Kings dock site is now occupied?

I seriously wish the WH status would just fu** off. Does anyone vocally welcome it? It is holding things back. Glad they have gone ahead with the museum. I hope it forces UNESCO to revoke the WH status so we can move on. If the museum turns out to be a crap building of tomorrow then just knock it down in 30 years time.

They should build their stadium there, itll do what the city of Manchester Stadium has done in Eastlands.

Scarecrow

January 20th, 2006, 11:20 AM

There're no decent pubs up there Louis. You can fuck right off if you think I'll go the Goat for a pre-match bevvy. :)

Blabbs, I think Kitgrove own the Stanley Dock warehouses, and not Peel. The problem might lie with them.

Tony Sebo

January 21st, 2006, 12:15 PM

At present Bunnyman. Just think what could be there if it was to lead to the renaissance of the whole area?

Blabbernsmoke

January 21st, 2006, 01:45 PM

Blabbs, I think Kitgrove own the Stanley Dock warehouses, and not Peel. The problem might lie with them.

It might be wise to disregard everything I said in that case. :ohno:

Although, I think even the most progressive developers would have difficulty gaining acceptance to change a building that is so wrapped in cotton wool.

Gazzab

February 8th, 2006, 12:43 AM

scouserdave

March 1st, 2006, 01:21 AM

Just got back from Mancland. Keep your eye out for this area. Apparently it's all kicking off in 2007 :cheers:
http://www.**************************/central001.jpg

Louis1986

March 1st, 2006, 01:32 AM

exciting news

Tony Sebo

March 1st, 2006, 01:48 AM

This is the site of most importance to the long term potential of the city, not silly KD. If they get this wrong... wrong density, heritager driven, single use etc then it will ruin any potential for real growth. battery Park is a good template, even if it takes 50 years for the market to be avle to provide the right density.

the irony is that if they did take the high density, long timeline they could make the same profits every yrear for 50 years...rather than developing it all in one go...once it's done then, it's done.

London Doclklands..even the albert dock are good examples of taking the long view...unlike KD and paradise, were the push by the council is to 'have it all done in one go...for 08'!

Skyscraper city in the north end...what a picture that would be... what a city too actualy.

richie1878

March 1st, 2006, 01:49 AM

Is the bottom left bit of that pic Dave where the new City Lofts is going?

I wonder just how much of the remaining Princes' dock sites will have been planned for by 2007?

scouserdave

March 1st, 2006, 01:52 AM

^^
I took this pic from the top of City Lofts

scouserdave

March 1st, 2006, 01:56 AM

Skyscraper city in the north end...what a picture that would be... what a city too actualy.
Fuckinell To'! :bow:

richie1878

March 1st, 2006, 02:02 AM

^^
I took this pic from the top of City Lofts

I meant the new City Lofts development, I think it was meant to be starting around March, if I remember rightly. Around 8 stories'ish.

bluesnapper

March 1st, 2006, 02:17 AM

Just got back from Mancland. Keep your eye out for this area. Apparently it's all kicking off in 2007 :cheers:

Kicking off as in new football stadium?

Gareth

March 1st, 2006, 02:19 AM

Fuckinell To'! :bow:

So come on then Dave, you've got beans to spill! :)

the golden vision

March 1st, 2006, 02:19 AM

Excellent photo. The corner were the artic is,is the site for the 9 storey apartments. That 4 storey shite on Waterloo dock, i remember the planning objections from the residents in Waterloo warehouse,complaining about loss of views across the river,the original scheme was larger,varying heights,4-7 storeys. The planning commitee gave in to the residents. Now that dock originally had warehouses on 3 sides,all of them 6 storeys,why didn't EH and the planning commitee want to restore the "integrity" of the original dock and allow the original application. Because they are spineless fucking hypocrites!

Tony Sebo

March 1st, 2006, 02:30 AM

Spot on... the obsession is with scaling back development - as 'tall' or 'big' to them is synonymous with 'modern' - and not really keeping it 'appropriate at all.

So you must keep your proposals matching next door buildings...i.e. ye ancient single storey borough pig sty but you can build the crowne plaza next to an early skyscraper (always a much exagerated claim in truth)... so utterly out of keeping in scale, massing, roofline, materials...you name it.

They have countered that smaller buildings do not 'impact' in the same way... John Elcock and I have organised an interesting walk for the last two architecture weeks swhowing that they bloody do... title of walks were 'no such thing as neutral impact architecture'... we could have titled it 'bad architecture is bad architecture'

the golden vision

March 1st, 2006, 02:43 AM

What's even worse is the incompetency, i've seen comments from the planning manager about scale and height in the ropewalks, the recent development at the bottom of Duke st opposite the Ayrton Lab building has been restricted to 7 storeys. Doesn't the idiot know there were warehouses all around Duke st of 8 storeys until the seventies.

Dicky Sam's

March 1st, 2006, 02:03 PM

Kicking off as in new football stadium?

Let's hope so - a joint stadium! (I'm probably in the minority here!!)

If its EFC's new stadium - fine - much more suitable location than Kings Dock. Also nearer to the North End of the city where there is (in my opinion) a higher proportion of bluenoses.

In fact its an ideal place for a footy stadium... decent rail links, non-suburban, waterfront setting.

Tell us more please Dave!

Toadboy

March 1st, 2006, 02:39 PM

I'd say too small for a football stadium.

As for the site, some of the proposals/ideas for Kings Dock at the time the Everton Stadium idea won the day could be a blueprint for the thinking here. Evertons Stadium met the design brief set by the corpy etc. but didn't really address the site, I'm not sure the current use of Kings Dock is ideal.

Central Docks has some much potential, not just as a stand alone but it can knit the whole area between Bootle and Downtown Liverpool together, there will have to be reasons for people to go there other than once a week football matches, people just going home to shoe box flats, people working in tin shed call centres - this calls for real downtown thinking and not vacant urban plot methodology.

Shame the Overhead Railway isn't in place...

scouserdave

April 6th, 2006, 12:33 AM

Some activity around Princes Half Tide dock today. Pics are a bit shit as I was shooting into the sun

http://www.**************************/centralapril001.jpg

http://www.**************************/centralapril002.jpg

A.D.Williams

April 6th, 2006, 12:36 AM

Not bad pictures even with the sun in the 'wrong' place.

:)

woody

April 6th, 2006, 12:40 AM

[QUOTE=scouserdave]Some activity around Princes Half Tide dock today. Pics are a bit shit as I was shooting into the sun

Why not wait Dave ,until the sun goes down :crazy2:

That activity must be the temporary access to the half tide dock, they have to construct a ramp to enable the HTD to be part infilled to leave a water depth of 2M.

Tony Sebo

April 6th, 2006, 02:14 AM

Let's hope so - a joint stadium! (I'm probably in the minority here!!)

If its EFC's new stadium - fine - much more suitable location than Kings Dock. Also nearer to the North End of the city where there is (in my opinion) a higher proportion of bluenoses.

In fact its an ideal place for a footy stadium... decent rail links, non-suburban, waterfront setting.

Tell us more please Dave!

I'm with you on that issue Dicky Sam!

John-MK

April 6th, 2006, 03:05 AM

Just got back from Mancland. Keep your eye out for this area. Apparently it's all kicking off in 2007 :cheers:
http://www.**************************/central001.jpg

All they have to do is excavate the section they filled in and submit plans to suit. They are to leave a canal for barges there. Why? Why do they fill them in? Unnecessary. They have all the land they want on the Dock Rd and beyond. The docks are unique and cannot be replaced. They are also full of history too. Leave the docks alone.

Pietari

April 6th, 2006, 12:40 PM

Totally agree `Save the water space`!

Just build higher.....or even place a few buildings (Vertical islands) in there.

John-MK

April 6th, 2006, 01:20 PM

Totally agree `Save the water space`!

Just build higher.....or even place a few buildings (Vertical islands) in there.

The above picture shows the obliteration of Trafalgar Dock and most of Victoria Dock. These all date back to the late 1700/early 1800s. They even ripped down an historic warehouse to build those cheap looking flats in Waterloo Dock clearly see on the photo above. The identical warehouses of what were ripped down were left opposite and converted to flats. Why weren’t the demolosihed warehouses converted and why were they demolished? It just doesn’t make sense at all. The filled in docks above are historic. Clarence Dock was filled in to build the power station on, which itself has now gone – thank God.

Now Henshaw has gone (what a pillock and good riddance), it is a matter of getting the replacement to recognise that the Docks cannot be filled in at all, anywhere, and filled in docks excavated, including the historic Old Dock which is going to have a car park on it, yes a car park, another car park on another historic dock – they value cars rather than history and heritage.

Some South end docks were filled in to create parking for a few cars. Docks dating from the mid 1700s. People who do this must have some sort of brain damage. It should be possible to travel by boat from Seaforth to Harrington. Boats of all types should actively be encouraged in docks – docks with just water are rather bland. The Herculaneum is now filled and awful houses on it. Our forefathers would turn in their graves if they knew what these fools have done. There is still a lot to be saved and no more appalling mistakes should be made and previous mistakes undone – the city has had far too many fools at the helm in the past.

Build high on these old Docks, build across them creating water under buildings, but NEVER fill them in. I have no faith in the city whatsoever to preserve the docks, and make them a showcase for the world to envy, come to visit and want to live there.

Dello

April 6th, 2006, 01:23 PM

Totally agree, in fact the plans that I have seen include the filling in of Trafalgar Dock as well!!!

Tony Sebo

April 6th, 2006, 02:42 PM

What an interesting threada!
Central docks are much more important to the long term prospects of the city than KD ever was.

In filled docks simply become just another boring development site.

scouserdave

April 6th, 2006, 02:51 PM

They have all the land they want on the Dock Rd and beyond.
What the fuck does that mean?

kung_fuzi

April 6th, 2006, 02:55 PM

Not saying this will happen but if you had the choice of retaining water filled docks or 5 or 6 50/60storey towers,which would you choose?

John-MK

April 6th, 2006, 03:04 PM

Not saying this will happen but if you had the choice of retaining water filled docks or 5 or 6 50/60storey towers,which would you choose?

It is not a case or either/or. The historic docks can be retained and high rise and low rise modern buildings be next to, or above them. The two can go side by side. It appears you have succumbed to the whims of the idiot planners who have directed people's views to their way of how matters should be.

I would rather put a Frenchman in charge of planning of the docks and the immediate environs beyond. They tend to have it knowing how to get the best of such locations, while the Brits only have half a clue at best. We need the best in charge of such an important aspect of Liverpool - no matter where they come from.

scouserdave

April 6th, 2006, 03:05 PM

Not saying this will happen but if you had the choice of retaining water filled docks or 5 or 6 50/60storey towers,which would you choose?
The Docks south of Bramley Moore haven't been used for years. Fill them all in from there, leaving space for the canal link. In fact fill in Bramley Moore as well. The ships that used to be moored there have moved further north since a few scals pushed their cars into the dock last year.

John-MK

April 6th, 2006, 03:11 PM

John-MK: They have all the land they want on the Dock Rd and beyond.
What the fuck does that mean?

Pretty well what it said. If they are desperate for land they can spread inland across and on the Dock Road - the Dock Rd isolates the docks from the city beyond, look at Albert Dock being isolated from the centre. There is no need to fill docks in to obtain land to build.

The way they are going, the dock complex will eventually be just a collection of building on in-filled docks with the odd dock visible here and there. What a waste of the legacy our forefathers left us. The rot has to stop right now and mistakes undone with excavating the Harrington and Toxteth Docks to start with. Bidston Dock too, along with the infills in the South End docks to make frigging car parks. Can you see docks in the USA dating from the mid 1700s being filled in? Not in million years!!!!#

Louis1986

April 6th, 2006, 03:18 PM

Pretty well what it said. If they are desperate for land they can spread inland across and on the Dock Road - the Dock Rd isolates the docks from the city beyond, look at Albert Dock being isolated from the centre. There is no need to fill docks in to obtain land to build.

The way they are going, the dock complex will eventually be just a collection of building on in-filled docks with the odd dock visible here and there. What a waste of the legacy our forefathers left us. The rot has to stop right now and mistakes undone with excavating the Harrington and Toxteth Docks to start with. Bidston Dock too, along with the infills in the South End docks to make frigging car parks. Can you see docks in the USA dating from the mid 1700s being filled in? Not in million years!!!!#

yeah i agree, the docks are a part of Liverpool's legacy and should be preserved, but modern buildings should be built by them.

John-MK

April 6th, 2006, 03:20 PM

The Docks south of Bramley Moore haven't been used for years. Fill them all in from there, leaving space for the canal link. In fact fill in Bramley Moore as well. The ships that used to be moored there have moved further north since a few scals pushed their cars into the dock last year.

Sir, you are a Phistine!!! Do you like stone cladding on terraced houses as well? :) Because these 1700s docks have not been used for years doesn’t mean they have to be obliterated to put a high rise on or cheap tacky developer tat on. Anyone with half an imagination can think of ways of leaving the docks and adding smart modern buildings giving a suberb quality of life for all around. The two complementing each other.

scouserdave

April 6th, 2006, 03:23 PM

kung_fuzi

April 6th, 2006, 03:33 PM

It is not a case or either/or. The historic docks can be retained and high rise and low rise modern buildings be next to, or above them. The two can go side by side. It appears you have succumbed to the whims of the idiot planners who have directed people's views to their way of how matters should be.

I would rather put a Frenchman in charge of planning of the docks and the immediate environs beyond. They tend to have it knowing how to get the best of such locations, while the Brits only have half a clue at best. We need the best in charge of such an important aspect of Liverpool - no matter where they come from.

If it came down to a matter of either/or and that was the planners final decision,which would you choose?

John-MK

April 6th, 2006, 03:35 PM

But they are not desperate for land.

Then why are they filling in docks?

When you write "Dock Road", which roads do you mean? ?

The one running 7 miles next to the Docks.

Regarding Albert Dock, the "centre" will be repositioned to take into account Paradise, surely?

I'm using the present situation at Albert Dock as an explicit example. Currently the Dock Rd at Albert Dock isolates Albert from the centre, as it does to all the docks its entire length – 7.5 miles. The Dock Road was built as a service access road for the docks and has now outlived its usefulness – it is now a negative aspect into merging the docks with the city beyond.

scouserdave

April 6th, 2006, 03:35 PM

Sir, you are a Phistine!!! Do you like stone cladding on terraced houses as well? :) Because these 1700s docks have not been used for years doesn’t mean they have to be obliterated to put a high rise on or cheap tacky developer tat on. Anyone with half an imagination can think of ways of leaving the docks and adding smart modern buildings giving a suberb quality of life for all around. The two complementing each other.

If you're referring to Princes Dock, that wasn't opened until 1821. Thanks to an Act of Parliament being passed allowing the filling in of the Old Dock. :)

Liverdude

April 6th, 2006, 03:38 PM

Where would the Liver, Port of Liverpool and Cunard buildings be if Georges Dock wasn't filled in in 1900? :?

scouserdave

April 6th, 2006, 03:38 PM

Then why are they filling in docks?

The one running 7 miles next to the Docks.

I'm using the present situation at Albert Dock as an explicit example. Currently the Dock Rd at Albert Dock isolates Albert from the centre, as it does to all the docks its entire length – 7.5 miles. The Dock Road was built as a service access road for the docks and has now outlived its usefulness – it is now a negative aspect into merging the docks with the city beyond.
Which Docks are in use nowadays? Simple question.

John-MK

April 6th, 2006, 03:39 PM

If you're referring to Princes Dock, that wasn't opened until 1821. Thanks to an Act of Parliament being passed allowing the filling in of the Old Dock. :)

Yes, the north end Docks tend to be early 1800s, while the south end 1700s:
http://www.liverpool2007.org.uk/docks/docks2.htm

kung_fuzi

April 6th, 2006, 03:40 PM

The Dock Road was built as a service access road for the docks and has now outlived its usefulness

A bit like the Docks themselves really.

John-MK

April 6th, 2006, 03:44 PM

Which Docks are in use nowadays? Simple question.

You really don't get this do you? It doesn't matter if they used or not, when they were used or when they ceased to used, etc. They are there, they are historic, they are a legacy left to us. This legacy should not be misused or wasted. We owe that to our forfathers who created and worked those docks - the finest mercentile dock complex in the world. You can always put 50 floor towers on the Dock Road if that is what you want, and around the docks low rise. Best of both.

scouserdave

April 6th, 2006, 03:45 PM

the north end Docks tend to be early 1800s
http://www.liverpool2007.org.uk/docks/docks2.htm
"Tend to be"
LOL! :hilarious

kung_fuzi

April 6th, 2006, 03:45 PM

Where would the Liver, Port of Liverpool and Cunard buildings be if Georges Dock wasn't filled in in 1900? :?

Very good point.
What do we want to do with the disused docks,keep them as a museum or build on them.
To fill in the dock at Salford Quays would be criminal as that's the only bit of water they have.
Here in Liverpool we don't really need the water features of the docks,unless used for recreation purposes because we have a huge River just the other side of the dock wall.

John-MK

April 6th, 2006, 03:47 PM

A bit like the Docks themselves really.

The docks have not outlived their usefulness at all. They are changing their function that's all - or should do if the idiots in charge stop filling them in to build tat. Short term thinking nearly always fails.

scouserdave

April 6th, 2006, 03:52 PM

You really don't get this do you? It doesn't matter if they used or not, when they were used or when they ceased to used, etc. They are there, they are historic, they are a legacy left to us. This legacy should not be misused or wasted. We owe that to our forfathers who created and worked those docks - the finest mercentile dock complex in the world. You can always put 50 floor towers on the Dock Road if that is what you want, and around the docks low rise. Best of both.

If Liverpolitan was online, I'm sure he'd agree with me :)

John-MK

April 6th, 2006, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Liverdude
Where would the Liver, Port of Liverpool and Cunard buildings be if Georges Dock wasn't filled in in 1900?

Very good point.

The three graces would have been further back with the dock in front making it even more attractive. Bum move.

What do we want to do with the disused docks,keep them as a museum or build on them.

Build around them. That is obvious.

To fill in the dock at Salford Quays would be criminal as that's the only bit of water they have.
Here in Liverpool we don't really need the water features of the docks,unless used for recreation purposes because we have a huge River just the other side of the dock wall.

You don't get this at all. You could say the same about Venice and Amsterdam couldn't you. But they kept the waterways and they are world famous because of it - and they are very attractive cities attracting people from all over the world, because of it. It you want wall to wall faceless towers, then emigrate to NY and HK. That will do you.

John-MK

April 6th, 2006, 03:57 PM

If Liverpolitan was online, I'm sure he'd agree with me :)

Oh no!!! Not another Philistine. We have two on this thread right now.

Pietari

April 6th, 2006, 03:57 PM

No one would approve of filling in `Salthouse` of `Canning` - admittedly filling in `Kings` has created opportunity.

But in the future regarding `Princes` and `Central Docks` I can see no reason why so much water space should be lost.

People like living by `water` - quite apart from the `Riverfront` we have the `dock fronts` - we must realise before it is too late that we have the benefit of very exciting and multiple water fronts.

You wont find too many of the `London Docks` being filled in.

Rather they use the space to enhance the drama of the city scape - which is what we should be doing.

You only have to look at the various pictures already posted on this forum of the various reflections and the depth of vista even from the Albert Dock / Canning and Salthouse to Princes to see how the `Talls` are enhanced.

We are by no means in a position of it must be `either / or` it can and must be both.

Riverside / dock side living and working and investing will be grately degraded if too much of the existing water space is removed.

The docks do actually show and impress just how much bigger the city has been - now the various developents should express and reflect that ongoing ambition.

scouserdave

April 6th, 2006, 03:58 PM

The docks have not outlived their usefulness at all. They are changing their function that's all
Are they? Please tell me how?

John-MK

April 6th, 2006, 04:00 PM

Are they? Please tell me how?

Have you seen Albert Dock? Didn't you take picture at Princes Dock as well? Have you see what is there? You are not good at this sort of thing are you? :)

kung_fuzi

April 6th, 2006, 04:03 PM

The three graces would have been further back with the dock in front making it even more attractive. Bum move.

They wern't and didn't need to be,the Mersey in front of them is all they need.

Build around them. That is obvious.

What is this obsession with building around them,if we didn't have the River Mersey o.k i could see your point but we do.

You don't get this at all. You could say the same about Venice and Amsterdam couldn't you. But they kept the waterways and they are world famous because of it - and they are very attractive cities attracting peopel from all over the world, because of it. It you want wall to wall faceless towers, then emigrate to NY and HK. That will do you.

They are full of canals,we are not.

John-MK

April 6th, 2006, 04:05 PM

kung_fuzi

April 6th, 2006, 04:37 PM

John-MK

April 6th, 2006, 04:53 PM

I don't think anyone has suggested filling in Albert,Salthouse or Canning Docks.
They do as you say enhance the city centre buildings.
But the so called Central docks are a different thing altogether

They are not different. They are historic docks. They should not be filled in. It is very simple really.

kung_fuzi

April 6th, 2006, 05:32 PM

It may well be simple to you but the so called Central Docks represent a great development opportunity.
If they can find a way to keep a water feature then fine,if not no bother.

Some of the Docks are quite usefull,Seaforth,Gladstone,Canada,they're full of Ships.
Albert is full of shops.
Salthouse and Wapping offer nice vistas of certain Buildings.

They kept a water feature at Herculaneum but surrounded by rubbish flats.

What purpose Toxteth and Harrington would serve i don't know apart from keeping them for sentimental value but there is a limit as to how many we should retain for that purpose.

As I posted in another thread I would have loved the Old Dock to have been reinstated and a canal running from it along Paradise St which of course was created by filling in the Pool.

John-MK

April 6th, 2006, 06:02 PM

It may well be simple to you

It is very simple to anyone with common sense.

but the so called Central Docks represent a great development opportunity.
If they can find a way to keep a water feature then fine,if not no bother.

So we squander our heritage and history because some short sighted quick buck fool wants to make money. I can't believe this.

Some of the Docks are quite usefull, Seaforth, Gladstone, Canada,they're full of Ships.
Albert is full of shops.
Salthouse and Wapping offer nice vistas of certain Buildings.

They kept a water feature at Herculaneum but surrounded by rubbish flats.

What purpose Toxteth and Harrington would serve i don't know apart from keeping them for sentimental value but there is a limit as to how many we should retain for that purpose.

Limit what limit? Stop making things up as you go along. You are short of joined up thinking. Liverpool can become a Venice or Amsterdam, a showcase for the world, a place that improves the quality of life of the people, instead people like you think we have to fill the waterways in to fit some tat in. I find you one of the more limited thinkers on this forum. Sad. :(

As I posted in another thread I would have loved the Old Dock to have been reinstated and a canal running from it along Paradise St which of course was created by filling in the Pool.

Tony Sebo

April 6th, 2006, 06:14 PM

John. It is a good idea to try and avoid constantly, and insultingly questioning people's competence when you counter other peoples ideas about things you may be passionate about. Criticise the point by all means, but leave the personal stuff hey?

This is a forum and discussion group... if we all had the same ideas then there would be no use for it. Cut the crappy dismisals please?

kung_fuzi

April 7th, 2006, 10:25 AM

It is very simple to anyone with common sense.

So we squander our heritage and history because some short sighted quick buck fool wants to make money. I can't believe this.

Limit what limit? Stop making things up as you go along. You are short of joined up thinking. Liverpool can become a Venice or Amsterdam, a showcase for the world, a place that improves the quality of life of the people, instead people like you think we have to fill the waterways in to fit some tat in. I find you one of the more limited thinkers on this forum. Sad. :(

John,you never really answer the points.
Does that show Your limitations?

liverpolitan

April 7th, 2006, 10:51 AM

I don't think anyone has suggested filling in Albert,Salthouse or Canning Docks.

I suggested filling in Salthouse Dock a few months ago on another thread, and I still favour that (even if it stuffs the daft canal link - does that need Salthouse a a rat-run for these bloody bargers?)

It's a pointless piece of water, and represents a visual barrier between the Albert Dock and PSDA. It should be turned into a public space for gardens, fun fair, ice-skating ring / christmas fare in November/December, weekend street market. (Incidenally, whatever happened to the proposal to bring a ferris wheel to Liverpool? That could go there as well).

I really believe the biggest planning challenge the city faces is integrating the Dock Estate into the rest of the city, and this is the one Dock I believe should be sacrificed specifically to that end. It could be renamed Salthouse Place. I daresay significant amount of dock walls and other artefacts would be salvaged and used in the new public place, so it could preserve some of its heritage - and who knows what would be found during archaeological work. It could possibly be recessed a bit, say 5 feet, to retain the form of a Dock.

(PS Kung I agree with you that the canal should be re-routed round the back of the Pier Head - which was always the only sensible option - and I love your idea about re-creating the Old Dock. Could we re-create Gorree Piazzas at the same time? Or, if we can't have them, how about a rebuild of the Customs House? And Canning Place? I remember as a child I had a picture book of Old Liverpool and there were pictures of Canning Place, which had great narrow warehouses around it, and was cobbled. Okay, it would be a series of new buildings, but the great big tower in St Marks Square in Venice was entirely rebuilt a hundred years ago after it fell down one night, and the Germans effectively rebuilt some of their ancient churches from scratch after the War with just a few of the original bricks left...)

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 11:42 AM

John,you never really answer the points.
Does that show Your limitations?

The points are not thought out so not wortbwhile.

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 12:18 PM

I suggested filling in Salthouse Dock a few months ago on another thread, and I still favour that (even if it stuffs the daft canal link - does that need Salthouse a a rat-run for these bloody bargers?)

Salthouse dates from the 1700s. Are you serious? I think you are.

There is an abundance of land inland over the Dock Road crying out for development and regeneration too and that means open space as well. Why do people have this obsession of filling in Docks? This brilliant legacy. Doesn’t anyone in Liverpool have any vision at all? Just about everything is piecemeal and poorly thought out. Have a final vision of how the docks should be, with them all intact. Are you saying we don’t have that vision and capability? If not, then we employ people from elsewhere who have and can.

There is great scope for Salthouse if that Dock Road is remove at that point. There is even the end of the Waapping tunnel to build a train station as well. All it needs is some “imagination”.

I really believe the biggest planning challenge the city faces is integrating the Dock Estate into the rest of the city,

The big problem is having an end vision of how the end result of docks should be, including merging them into the city beyond. Eliminating and redirecting the dock road is the way to merge the two.

I remember as a child I had a picture book of Old Liverpool and there were pictures of Canning Place, which had great narrow warehouses around it, and was cobbled.

I don’t remember the Custom House as I am too young – I used to play in the ruins. The walls were about 4 foot thick and the cellars were still intact – until the late 1960s. The rubble was totally removed and the cellar walls left leaving a maze and wide walls to run and jump across. I remember all the rest of the area and Sewills the chronometer makers with all the brass clocks and telescopes in the window (I think they are still going, the oldest timepiece makers in the world – I have a Sewills watch).

Okay, it would be a series of new buildings, but the great big tower in St Marks Square in Venice was entirely rebuilt a hundred years ago after it fell down one night, and the Germans effectively rebuilt some of their ancient churches from scratch after the War with just a few of the original bricks left...)

The Poles totally rebuilt central Warsaw as it was, to say to can’t destroy us. It is best to uncover the Old Dock and allow small boats to enter. They could rebuild the surrounds and shops as it was:
Old Dock (http://www.mersey-gateway.org/server.php?show=conMediaFile.2925)

To re-iterate. No docks should be filled in at all. Existing filled docks should be excavated and built around. Englsh Heritage are not doing a good enough job to stop this rot.

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 12:33 PM

Existing filled docks should be excavated and built around. Englsh Heritage are not doing a good enough job to stop this rot.

The Heculaneum looked like this. All of this could have been left and buildings, tall (as tall as you like) and short built around the warfs. Instead we now have a filled in Dock and tat flats on it.

Heculaneum Dock (http://www.toxteth.net/places/liverpool/general/images/lavrock%205.jpg)

It make some people weep to see such destruction and wasted opportunities.

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 12:37 PM

Heculaneum Dock (http://www.toxteth.net/places/liverpool/general/images/lavrock%205.jpg)

BTW, the old overhead railway bridge can be seen entering the Dingle tunnel in this 1907 photo. The Dingle underground station can be brought back into use by building a bridge out of the tunnel taking the line down to groiund level and joining the Merseyrail line beneath. Not expensive to do at all, as the station and tunnel is already there.

liverpolitan

April 7th, 2006, 12:50 PM

There is great scope for Salthouse if that Dock Road is remove at that point. There is even the end of the Waapping tunnel to build a train station as well. All it needs is some “imagination”.

The big problem is having an end vision of how the end result of docks should be, including merging them into the city beyond. Eliminating and redirecting the dock road is the way to merge the two.

To re-iterate. No docks should be filled in at all. Existing filled docks should be excavated and built around. Englsh Heritage are not doing a good enough job to stop this rot.

John, I generally agree (Docks should be preserved, and where possible used) but I don't accept that all Docks must be preserved as they were or currently are. Should Seaforth Dock be protected as well? If not, why not? Where do you draw the line? What is old enough to demand preservation, and what can be changed? Should Seaforth be part of your vision for the whole dock estate?

It would not be practicable to re-route the Dock Road, which is itself a historic thoroughfare - as much as the Docks. So it seems you are valuing some things more highly than others. It would be a crime to Liverpool's heritage to do away with the Dock Road.

We both agree that it is good if the dock estate that is integrated (within reason) into the rest of the city centre. I say "within reason" because its separateness is both a strength as well as a weakness. It is a weakness if it deters pedestrian traffic and visitors, or a sense of not being a proper part of the city. It is a strength, however, in that properly connected it can still retain that special air of being a bit different than the rest of the city. Your proposals for the Dock Road would actually spoil that great sense of "separateness" that currently exists.

The critical route to sort out is between Paradise Street and Albert Dock / Pier Head. It's essential that this is seemless for pedestrians. As I have said, the Dock could actually be preserved in terms of its upper Dock walls and dockside, but filled and drained so it's only a few feet deep - none of the Docks are as they were when built anyway, all have been changed one way or another.

You are right, I am entirely serious, and I'd not object if some of the lower grade and less interesting old buildings that the Maritime museum use and that clutter up the Albert /Canning Dock area were removed. Being old isn't enough, we also have to consider the utilitarian, commercial or aesthetic purpose of individual buildings. Heritage zoning is a blunt and clumsy approach - each structure has to be considered on its merits.

liverpolitan

April 7th, 2006, 12:55 PM

The Heculaneum looked like this. All of this could have been left and buildings, tall (as tall as you like) and short built around the warfs. Instead we now have a filled in Dock and tat flats on it.

Heculaneum Dock (http://www.toxteth.net/places/liverpool/general/images/lavrock%205.jpg)

It make some people weep to see such destruction and wasted opportunities.

John, it wasn't very old or historic, it certainly wasn't special in architectural terms; some would consider it ugly. The only thing I like about it is its name, which is very romantic.

This is a fantastic site, you probably already know it - got a good page on Herculaneum Dock and its history. It's got some of scouserdaves excellent pics on it.

http://www.toxteth.net/places/liverpool/docks/herculaneum.htm

sloyne

April 7th, 2006, 01:01 PM

It make some people weep to see such destruction.
No pun intended, of course :)

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 01:18 PM

John, it wasn't very old or historic, it certainly wasn't special in architectural terms; some would consider it ugly. The only thing I like about it is its name, which is very romantic.

The Herc Dock had no warehouses, as casements were cut into the cliff face. Nevertheless the layout lends it self to some great scope if some imagination is applied. The original Herc Dock was small and served a Copper works. The area is historic with the dock shown dating from the 1850/60s

This is a fantastic site, you probably already know it - got a good page on Herculaneum Dock and its history. It's got some of scouserdaves excellent pics on it.

http://www.toxteth.net/places/liverpool/docks/herculaneum.htm

I contribute to the site when I can. My family is from Liverpool 1 and 8. Paul who runs the site has done some brilliant work and is an example of how to do such a site. He defined the original boundary of Toxteth Park. The old accepted books on it had it wrong. He still has a hell of a way to go and knows it, but he slowly adds to it as time moves on, with contributions from as far as Australia. Has Scouserdave got some recent Herc dock flats pics?

Pietari

April 7th, 2006, 01:21 PM

Good work!

Although I still want to see `Brunswick Tower` built and the `1984 International Garden Festival Gardens` brought back into use.

`Toccy` is the very natural extension of the city centre (downtown) and with an amazing history that has just been trashed.

"Princes Avenue" would make for a fabulous hotel district linking the downtown to the parks etc. Think of how many `boutique` style / type hotels it could contain?

It would help to regenerate nightlife and resturants and spill down the side streets.

Far too many buildings in the area are still under utilised even after some years of investment.

I know some people aren`t too happy walking around the district but I have never had any problem what so ever.

You can just imagine all those horse drawn carriages (New York style etc) plodding up from the waterfront on their way back to the hotels or a spin around `Princes` or `Sefton Park`.

In a year or two there could be an `Inn on the Park` or a ` Hilton` - more importantly a local revival that can`t be moved to some retail business park at the drop of someones pen.

Huge amounts of facilities have been lost to the area - it`s time to get them back.

kung_fuzi

April 7th, 2006, 01:33 PM

The points are not thought out so not wortbwhile.

You see there is your problem.

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 01:35 PM

John, I generally agree (Docks should be preserved, and where possible used) but I don't accept that all Docks must be preserved as they were or currently are. Should Seaforth Dock be protected as well? If not, why not? Where do you draw the line? What is old enough to demand preservation, and what can be changed? Should Seaforth be part of your vision for the whole dock estate?

Seaforth is a working dynamic Dock with plans to expand. When it is at the end of its life then it should be incorporated with the residential/commercial spread up to the north end. Until then commerce rules around there.

It would not be practicable to re-route the Dock Road, which is itself a historic thoroughfare - as much as the Docks. So it seems you are valuing some things more highly than others. It would be a crime to Liverpool's heritage to do away with the Dock Road.

You largely obliterate the Dock road, by building on it. It is not historic as it is only tarmac. The docks in importance outstrip that road 1000 fold.

We both agree that it is good if the dock estate that is integrated (within reason) into the rest of the city centre.

And the city beyond along its length.

I say "within reason" because its separateness is both a strength as well as a weakness. It is a weakness if it deters pedestrian traffic and visitors, or a sense of not being a proper part of the city. It is a strength, however, in that properly connected it can still retain that special air of being a bit different than the rest of the city. Your proposals for the Dock Road would actually spoil that great sense of "separateness" that currently exists.

You have just countered yourself: “We both agree that it is good if the dock estate that is integrated (within reason) into the rest of the city centre.”

The critical route to sort out is between Paradise Street and Albert Dock / Pier Head. It's essential that this is seemless for pedestrians. As I have said, the Dock could actually be preserved in terms of its upper Dock walls and dockside, but filled and drained so it's only a few feet deep - none of the Docks are as they were when built anyway, all have been changed one way or another.

It doesn’t mean they have to be obliterated to allow a bland glass tower. The Dock rd in the centre is a hindrance indeed and much along the whole length of the docks

You are right, I am entirely serious, and I'd not object if some of the lower grade and less interesting old buildings that the Maritime museum use and that clutter up the Albert /Canning Dock area were removed. Being old isn't enough, we also have to consider the utilitarian, commercial or aesthetic purpose of individual buildings. Heritage zoning is a blunt and clumsy approach - each structure has to be considered on its merits.

Some of the buildings are just old and not much more. However the docks are very different indeed to the surrounding structures. They are history, the heritage, the attraction, the appeal, they are the core, they are the life, they are reason we are here – they stay.

scouserdave

April 7th, 2006, 02:19 PM

John, when was the last time you visited Central Docks and what was your impression?

scouserdave

April 7th, 2006, 02:35 PM

John, it wasn't very old or historic, it certainly wasn't special in architectural terms; some would consider it ugly. The only thing I like about it is its name, which is very romantic.

This is a fantastic site, you probably already know it - got a good page on Herculaneum Dock and its history. It's got some of scouserdaves excellent pics on it.

http://www.toxteth.net/places/liverpool/docks/herculaneum.htm
Thanks Pol :cheers:
Been waiting for an excuse to post these pics. :)
Jan 2006

http://www.**************************/excuse001.jpg

http://www.**************************/excuse002.jpg

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 02:40 PM

John, when was the last time you visited Central Docks and what was your impression?

I walked around the whole lot last Autumn before the winter set in. I had mixed emotions. One of rage seeing docks needlessly filled in, one of joy to the see the potential of the whole place, one of satisfaction that some of the old docks and warehouse are out of the clutches of the demolition idiots. One of no-confidence that the city could do it right.

Apart from the Albert Dock, one of a plethora of docks in the world’s first purpose built mercantile dock system, what have they done real good job on? OK, every dock can’t be a tourist attraction, but the residential building has been sadly lacking. But at least the docks were left.

On a broader note, we have a whole unique dock complex waiting to transform and catapult the city to a new level, yet the inmates running asylum will never realise this as long as they have holes in their bums.

scouserdave

April 7th, 2006, 02:50 PM

we have a whole unique dock complex waiting to transform and catapult the city to a new level
In your opinion, what should be done to transform it?

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 03:12 PM

In your opinion, what should be done to transform it?

Most of it is just common sense. A scope document highlighting the future should be cast in concrete.

Keep all docks and excavate those filled in.
The complex to be for residential, leisure and commerce only, with a leaning to leisure and residential.
Merge the complex into the adjoining city where practical, rather than have a city within a city.
Preserve unique buildings. Build sympathetically around unique and protected buildings.
Carte blanche on the rest in style and height - the more adventurous the better.
Desist from developer looking tat around the docks.
Encourage water transport, with navigation along the whole length of the docks – the unique aspect of the dock complex was that ships could traverse the docks while inside the complex. Discharge in one dock and steam up to another dock, without entering the tidal river, to load.

scouserdave

April 7th, 2006, 03:20 PM

Most of it is just common sense. A scope document highlighting the future should be cast in concrete.

Keep all docks and excavate those filled in.
The complex to be for residential, leisure and commerce only, with a leaning to leisure and residential.
Merge the complex into the adjoining city where practical, rather than have a city within a city.
Preserve unique buildings. Build sympathetically around unique and protected buildings.
Carte blanche on the rest in style and height - the more adventurous the better.
Desist from developer looking tat around the docks.
Encourage water transport, with navigation along the whole length of the docks – the unique aspect of the dock complex was that ships could traverse the docks while inside the complex. Discharge in one dock and steam up to another dock, without entering the tidal river, to load.

Fuck me! :applause:
Less of the slagging off from now on John. We all love Liverpool. Some of us just have differing views as to how the city will look in the next 100 years :cheers:

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 03:30 PM

Some of us just have differing views as to how the city will look in the next 100 years :cheers:

What's yours? Besides waterless and and tall towers?

scouserdave

April 7th, 2006, 03:33 PM

What's yours? Besides waterless and and tall towers?
After your last post, I'm with you mate :cheers:
Just wish you wouldn't slag people off who disagree with you. Makes you look like a right knobhead.

kung_fuzi

April 7th, 2006, 03:34 PM

(PS Kung I agree with you that the canal should be re-routed round the back of the Pier Head - which was always the only sensible option - and I love your idea about re-creating the Old Dock. Could we re-create Gorree Piazzas at the same time? Or, if we can't have them, how about a rebuild of the Customs House? And Canning Place? I remember as a child I had a picture book of Old Liverpool and there were pictures of Canning Place, which had great narrow warehouses around it, and was cobbled. Okay, it would be a series of new buildings, but the great big tower in St Marks Square in Venice was entirely rebuilt a hundred years ago after it fell down one night, and the Germans effectively rebuilt some of their ancient churches from scratch after the War with just a few of the original bricks left...)

Poli,didn't really mean that canal although I agree with you.
I meant a canal leading from a restored Old Dock and running the length of Paradise St.
Paradise St as I said was created by the stopping up and filling of the Pool which ran inland from the Mersey at that point.

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 03:38 PM

Fuck me! :applause:
Some of us just have differing views as to how the city will look in the next 100 years :cheers:

One thing that Liverpool has to be aware of is isolating the river from the city beyond by tall towers. Along the south bank of Thames tall blocks were constructed along it banks. The people behind bitterly complained that they were treated with contempt as these tall blocks act as a barrier between them and the river, being like a 200 foot wall.

We could be in danger on committing the same mistake.

kung_fuzi

April 7th, 2006, 03:42 PM

BTW, the old overhead railway bridge can be seen entering the Dingle tunnel in this 1907 photo. The Dingle underground station can be brought back into use by building a bridge out of the tunnel taking the line down to groiund level and joining the Merseyrail line beneath. Not expensive to do at all, as the station and tunnel is already there.

Are you sure that would be viable?
After all most of the bus routes that pass Dingle Underground Station travel along Aigburth Road from Garston thereby passing numerous stations enroute.
taking that into consideration I don't think it would attract a significant amount of extra passengers.

scouserdave

April 7th, 2006, 03:52 PM

One thing that Liverpool has to be aware of is isolating the river from the city beyond by tall towers. Along the south bank of Thames tall blocks were constructed along it banks. The people behind bitterly complained that they were treated with contempt as these tall blocks act as a barrier between them and the river, being like a 200 foot wall.

We could be in danger on committing the same mistake.

If you're going to quote me, bear in mind this little treasure from personal experience :)

Just wish you wouldn't slag people off who disagree with you. Makes you look like a right knobhead.

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 04:24 PM

Are you sure that would be viable?
After all most of the bus routes that pass Dingle Underground Station travel along Aigburth Road from Garston thereby passing numerous stations enroute.
taking that into consideration I don't think it would attract a significant amount of extra passengers.

Of course it would need a study. The Merseyrail line that runs from Garston to Brunswick Stn does not have any station in major local centres. For e.g., St. Michael’s station would be better on Aigburth Rd – certainly attracting more passengers for sure. Many people who live at the far end of Lark Lane do not go to St Michael’s as it is just that too far to walk. They stop at Aigburth Rd and take a bus rather than walk all the way down to the station. The Dingle station is right on a main road. In fact on demolition of the Overhead it should have been incorporated into the line to Central station, as the population in the late 1950s would have supported the station – direct into the centre.

All is in place. A revamp at the Dingle station, the bridge out of the tunnel and bit of track relaying and all is there. Another disused legacy reused. That can't be that expensive to do. But is there enough people around to use it? Probably in a few years time the city picks up.

Originally the overhead underground line was to go through Dingle and onto, I think, Lodge Lane. They had plans to actually do that, and I think a part of getting permission to bore the tunnel they had to go further inland. No reason why the tunnel cannot be extended in the future if demand is there, to a local centre such as Smithdown Rd near the Brook House pub or whatever – even connect onto the main line in and out of Liverpool here. It will take people right into Central Station and beyond. Indeed a station could be built at Herculaneum again.

In London, one way to raise the real estate price is put a fast rail link to the centre. The Jubilee Line extension raised property price an amazing amount around the new stations, so much so, that a special tax was suggested to claw back the profits made on the real estate to pay for the rail infrastructure put in place. The increased value of the property sold was far more than what the line and stations cost.

One way to regenerate the Dingle area is put in a fast rail link to the centre. It can be a regeneration aspect - proactive not reactive.

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by scouserdave
Just wish you wouldn't slag people off who disagree with you. Makes you look like a right knobhead.

If you're going to quote me, bear in mind this little treasure from personal experience :)

Who is slagging who off here, and where?

kung_fuzi

April 7th, 2006, 04:31 PM

Of course it would need a study. The Merseyrail line that runs from Garston to Brunswick Stn does not have any station in major local centres. For e.g., St. Michael’s station would be better on Aigburth Rd – certainly attracting more passengers for sure. Many people who live at the far end of Lark Lane do not go to St Michael’s as it is just that too far to walk. They stop at Aigburth Rd and take a bus rather than walk all the way down to the station. The Dingle station is right on a main road. In fact on demolition of the Overhead it should have been incorporated into the line to Central station, as the population in the late 1950s would have supported the station – direct into the centre.

All is in place. A revamp at the Dingle station, the bridge out of the tunnel and bit of track relaying and all is there. Another disused legacy reused. That can't be that expensive to do. But is there enough people around to use it? Probably in a few years time the city picks up.

Originally the overhead underground line was to go through Dingle and onto, I think, Lodge Lane. They had plans to actually do that, and I think a part of getting permission to bore the tunnel they had to go further inland. No reason why the tunnel cannot be extended in the future if demand is there, to a local centre such as Smithdown Rd near the Brook House pub or whatever – even connect onto the main line in and out of Liverpool here. It will take people right into Central Station and beyond. Indeed a station could be built at Herculaneum again.

In London, one way to raise the real estate price is put a fast rail link to the centre. The Jubilee Line extension raised property price an amazing amount around the new stations, so much so, that a special tax was suggested to claw back the profits made on the real estate to pay for the rail infrastructure put in place. The increased value of the property sold was far more than what the line and stations cost.

One way to regenerate the Dingle area is put in a fast rail link to the centre. It can be a regeneration aspect - proactive not reactive.

If that were to happen I would be with you although tunneling costs seem to be prohibitive these days.

Awayo

April 7th, 2006, 04:59 PM

Who is slagging who off here, and where?

I called John, "King of the Mongomen". Here.

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 05:03 PM

I called John, "King of the Mongomen". Here.

The forum retard come in. Such wit.

scouserdave

April 7th, 2006, 05:12 PM

John, the next time you're in Liverpool, let me know and I'll give you a tour of Central Docks.

the golden vision

April 7th, 2006, 05:13 PM

Welcome John, but stop sitting on the fence on everything. :)

Dello

April 7th, 2006, 05:24 PM

Awayo

April 7th, 2006, 05:28 PM

Didn't they create a much reduced and shallow recreation of Herculaneum at the City Quay development?

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 05:32 PM

John, the next time you're in Liverpool, let me know and I'll give you a tour of Central Docks.

Been there.

Toadboy

April 7th, 2006, 05:37 PM

Didn't they create a much reduced and shallow recreation of Herculaneum at the City Quay development?

They created a pond that Percy Thrower would have been proud of in his Blue Peter Italian Sunken Garden.

kung_fuzi

April 7th, 2006, 05:38 PM

I heard at one time someone was proposing to build an Airport runway on the southern docks with a terminal near the City Centre.
That would have been something.

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 05:39 PM

In my mind the effect of filling docks in is best seen when you look at Herculaneum, Toxteth and Harrington Docks. I am sure they would have been far more attractive development sites if the water ways had of been preserved. Herculanum depresses me. The buildings are just crap and pay no notice of the docks great history.

It is depressing at the Herc and Harrigton. Harrington and Toxteth docks can be excavated to 2 metres depth for leisure craft, so all is not lost there. With those two docks the mistake can be undone, quite easily.

What has happened at the Herc is really not what want, or need, in the dock complex at all. What we need is Brunswick Tower and the docks excavated.

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 05:41 PM

I heard at one time someone was proposing to build an Airport runway on the southern docks with a terminal near the City Centre.
That would have been something.

Something to blow up I hope you mean.

Awayo

April 7th, 2006, 06:16 PM

They created a pond that Percy Thrower would have been proud of in his Blue Peter Italian Sunken Garden.

Cheers Toad. Found this pic on the net:

http://www.artfullodger-liverpool.co.uk/images/cityq1.jpg

I like the squirty thing, but its not exactly a magnificant expanse of water.

liverpolitan

April 7th, 2006, 06:24 PM

As good an opportunity as I will ever find to show off my Herculaneum Fridge Magnets. Yes, they exist, on my fridge.

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/8068/p1030225a6hz.jpg

scouserdave

April 7th, 2006, 06:34 PM

Been there.
I don't believe you.
Did you take any shots of the area? Of course you didn't. You didn't bring your camera, did you? :)

Pietari

April 7th, 2006, 06:36 PM

The important thing is that we still do in fact have the docks.

(It was in fact the lack of investment that saved the `Liverpool South Docks` from inappropriate redevelopment in the 1960s and 1970s that led by accident to the saving and retention of the largest set of sailing ship quaysides in Europe - from which we have also benefitted by the appearance of the `Talls ships` over the later years.....which has probably led back / forward to the idea / reinvention of the new `Cruise liner` terminal.)

There will no doubt be some reinvention - even the docks did occasionally merge to form bigger docks and some docks where just reshaped according to need.

However if we hold the general premise that the current docks are really rather unique because of a variety of historical factors I`m quite sure that they will continue, not only to be of profound interest but also earn their own keep and provide additional facilites, homes and jobs and leisure for many many years to come.

Indeed be the impetus to rebuild behind and beyond the North and Central and Southern docks a much more dynamic city.

What we must ensure is that the docks do not become some sort of gated city only to be used by the few at the expence of the many.

I personally look forward to very many exciting schemes within the dock side areas including Birkenhead and elsewhere on the river.

And more `ferries` relinking both sides and along the river banks and quaysides.....and LJLA etc.

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 07:22 PM

Good post.

The important thing is that we still do in fact have the docks.

(It was in fact the lack of investment that saved the `Liverpool South Docks` from inappropriate redevelopment in the 1960s and 1970s that led by accident to the saving and retention of the largest set of sailing ship quaysides in Europe - from which we have also benefitted by the appearance of the `Talls ships` over the later years.....which has probably led back / forward to the idea / reinvention of the new `Cruise liner` terminal.)

After WW2 ships were getting larger as all welded construction took hold. It was clear the south end Docks would decline because of the lock gate sizes and requiring a deeper river channel requiring expensive constant dredging. The Dingle Oil Terminal reverted to a barge off shore for ships to moor and pump oil ashore.

Around Albert dock has been defunct since WW2 – it was used to moor up Corvettes in the Battle of the Atlantic. Not much ever went in or out, just the odd small ship to moor up. Although the warehouses were used, ships didn’t offload or load directly into them, because they were built for sailing ships and cargo handling wasn’t suitable enough. The odd coaster or smallish ocean going vessel used Salthouse or Canning Docks. From Albert Dock south was used by largish ships and very busy too at one stage. I recall standing between Toxteth and Harrington and seeing all berths full with ships.

The docks were well equipped, but trade moved to containers. Many cargos can’t be containerised: bulk, liquid, etc. At Coburg Dock a new modern pillarless yellow shed was built to help curb the decline. It never helped much so no more were built. The non container trade went elsewhere. Confidence in the port went and trade went too, egged on by the government who wanted Felixstowe the major port, running roads into a fishing village. Although better management and promotion of the docks would have helped – they just sat back and said we are Liverpool with everything.

There will no doubt be some reinvention - even the docks did occasionally merge to form bigger docks and some docks where just reshaped according to need.

However if we hold the general premise that the current docks are really rather unique because of a variety of historical factors I`m quite sure that they will continue, not only to be of profound interest but also earn their own keep and provide additional facilites, homes and jobs and leisure for many many years to come.

Indeed be the impetus to rebuild behind and beyond the North and Central and Southern docks a much more dynamic city.

That is the case along the whole length. All the South end docks can have developments around them that spread across the Dock Road. The Dock Road is largely not required as parallel roads can serve the Dock areas once developed: Get Howard St, Park Lane, Mill St, etc. Few large articulators would use the dock areas any more.

What we must ensure is that the docks do not become some sort of gated city only to be used by the few at the expence of the many.

Yep, largely eliminate the Dock road and seamlessly merge the two. I wonder what would happen if that government wanted to set up shop here?

I personally look forward to very many exciting schemes within the dock side areas including Birkenhead and elsewhere on the river.

And more `ferries` relinking both sides and along the river banks and quaysides.....and LJLA etc.

liverpolitan

April 7th, 2006, 07:33 PM

The Dock Road is largely not required as parallel roads can serve the Dock areas once developed: Get Howard St, Park Lane, Mill St, etc. Few large articulators would use the dock areas any more.

Yep, largely eliminate the Dock road and seamlessly merge the two. I wonder what would happen if that government wanted to set up shop here?

The Dock Road (and particularly the southern and central stretch) is an important part of urban history and culture in this country, and not a road to be dismissed lightly. The application of tarmac and electric lighting do not in any sense change the essence of this important and historic thoroughfare.

Incidentally, have you ever walked the Dock Road? I walked the Northern stretch (Pier Head to Bootle) for the first time a couple of years ago, and it's a magical experience.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7738/grimshaw2rx.jpg

scouserdave

April 7th, 2006, 07:41 PM

Slightly OT
http://www.aisliverpool.org.uk/

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 07:51 PM

The Dock Road (and particularly the southern and central stretch) is an important part of urban history and culture in this country, and not a road to be dismissed lightly. The application of tarmac and electric lighting do not in any sense change the essence of this important and historic thoroughfare.

If the Dock Road had all the historic buildings along it, as in that famous painting, I would agree. But it doesn't and it is no Watling Street. It is now just tarmac that acts as a barrier. I try hard to see your piont but for the life of me can't.

Incidentally, have you ever walked the Dock Road? I walked the Northern stretch (Pier Head to Bootle) for the first time a couple of years ago, and it's a magical experience.

I have walked the southern section countless times as a kid, and the whole length countless times on a bike.

Pietari

April 7th, 2006, 07:58 PM

Slightly OT
http://www.aisliverpool.org.uk/

Cheers Dave,

Just really cool ..... ta!

Like having a `train set` .....

Except it`s erm on water ..... `with boats!`

:cheers:

kung_fuzi

April 7th, 2006, 07:58 PM

Something to blow up I hope you mean.

No,quite a novel idea really.

liverpolitan

April 7th, 2006, 08:07 PM

I try hard to see your piont but for the life of me can't.

Thanks for trying :)

When you cycle that road, do you believe that history is all around you?

http://img431.imageshack.us/img431/3082/books90458herdmanjmed9nc.jpg

Or, for a modern view of what I think may be the same place:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andylyons/26974108/in/set-613754/

The photographer is Andy Lyons, he's very good: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andylyons/sets/613754/

I'm not a "road" fanatic - I don't drive I and hate cars and their domination of our towns. But I believe that certain roads are special, they have such importance that even when they change they don't lose their importance. They are the built-form equivalent of ancient rivers and streams. I am not claiming that the Dock Road in Liverpool is as important as the Silk Road in human history, but it's a central part of Liverpool's history. The very idea that it could be stopped and built on is appalling to me.

This person enjoyed his walk down the Dock Road. http://www.pbase.com/sandpiper/image/28720161

Edited: this guy is good - see htttp://www.pbase.com/sandpiper/well_contained

He also has a "Liverpool" gallery that is good. In my opinion his pics aren't as good as Scouserdave's or Oranges, but I do think they are nice.

Tony Sebo

April 7th, 2006, 08:37 PM

The road is vital to the integrity of the space as much as the buildings (fucking hell, I sound like EH)

It is importnat that we save as much as is desirable form the whole system, including the basins themselves. I think a point missed by many but suggested by john a while back is that you could put buildings in the water... one good solution to the fact that there isn't much land around the basins themselves on which to build. Some of the docks further north are just too big to utilise in their entirity, so how about some islands or spurs into them?

One thing I would say though, if we are to be able to both get good buildings at a rate that makes it financially possible, I say the dock wall has to come down.

The Princes Dock's massive potential has been extremely undermined by the insistance on keeping the wall intact. They have recently has to concede a new entrance opposite the Lady's walk, but this does not stop development land being so meagre on the wall/road side. If the wall went along the whole central system then the buildings on the road side could face onto the street like the Liver Bdg... this would also nearly double most development plots between basin and roadside. The line of the buildings would be the heritage reference to the line of the wall and plaques could be used etc.

If the wall did indeed go then a comprehensive, gridded system of streets could then integrate the city right to the waterfront in a logical manner. You have to remember why the wall was built and then you can begin to be a little more sympathetic to the notion of its removal. It was not built to stop the occasional docker being off with a couple of bananas, rather it was insisted upon by the government to stop cargo owners escaping tax and duties and also from double booking cargo. The isolation, the severely restricted entrance and exits, the sheer physical barrier was done on purpose and if it is ever to relate to the rest of the city, the dock estate wall must come down.

What is more important? a viable future (retaining most of the basins and features etc) as an integral and dynamic part of the greater city... and by doing this we only lose the wall, we don't even lose its line... or leaving the lot to decay? only of use to future archeologists to explore the history of the city that used to be on the river, but slowly died and ebbed away, just like the ships!

John. I would disagree with your take about an airport going in the docks as proposed some time ago. I think that you make the same mistake on prioritising one 'port (sea) for another (air). Stupid arse bessie Bradock made the same fundamental mistake (maybe in response to the very scheme you dismissed?) Liverpool is a seaport, not an airport!... then the ships went and the airplances went to manc... then the 70s' happend....I don't need to go on, do I?

liverpolitan

April 7th, 2006, 08:40 PM

Agree about the dock wall, but there is a gradient problem at Princess Dock, so simply removing the wall won't entirely solve that. But large sections of it should go, I agree with you. Old or not, it's a barrier, it's purpose is no longer valid.

liverpolitan

April 7th, 2006, 08:42 PM

A STOLPORT (Short take off and landing) runway over the South Docks would have been interesting - Albert Dock could have been the first Grade One listed airport terminal in England.

Tony Sebo

April 7th, 2006, 08:52 PM

There is a gradient issue at Princes (and maybe with some others the further north you go?) but nothing a good engineer and some steps instead of streets couldn't have sorted.

I think the important point to bear in mind is that not everything can be saved and still see the docks viably utilised and removing the dock wall actually opens up all sorts of positive urban opportunities, far outweighing any possible 'heritage' needs.

Martin S

April 7th, 2006, 09:15 PM

The only redeeming feature of that wall is the ornate police boxes at the entrances. Otherwise, it is just a dull brick structure albeit built by prisoners from the Napoleonic Wars.

Before the dock was built, that area was known as the North Shore and was a bathing beach in the 19c. There is a charming WG Herdman drawing showing the Wishing Gate pub that stood adjacent to a windmill on the site. Generations of Liverpudlians would have come to that spot to wish passengers on ships leaving the port a safe journey.

There was also a fort that is mentioned in Melville's Redburn but was already gone when Melville visited Liverpool.

Change is part of our heritage.

Tony Sebo

April 7th, 2006, 09:23 PM

Spot on Martin

Give me a call if you can sometime over the weekend?

Pietari

April 7th, 2006, 10:03 PM

[QUOTE=liverpolitan]

http://img431.imageshack.us/img431/3082/books90458herdmanjmed9nc.jpg

Pietari

April 7th, 2006, 10:30 PM

I must admit that I very unfortunately agree that large parts of the dock road wall must come down for the greater good of the city.

The various gate houses etc should and must stay however and any walling taken down should be incorporated into the various new developments for the sake of continuity - with descriptions of where the `stones` came from.

But I would still say only the `necessary` walling.

When we say they just don`t build them like that anymore - you have to believe it.

It is essential that the new developments are not used to create `gated communities` and that the new dock side / river side redevelopments are accessable to the whole city in a way that the docks previously were not.

To that end - if we intend to take down the `North` and `Central` dock walls - some retrospective attention must also be applied to the new developments in the South Docks in order to re open them up also.

kung_fuzi

April 7th, 2006, 10:52 PM

If you remove the Princes Dock wall then the traffic problem must also be addressed.
Maybe more 'Super Crossings'?

Tony Sebo

April 7th, 2006, 11:22 PM

If you think through the aesthetics Pie of what you suggested then you may change your mind! The dock walls, especially those furth North are wonderful constructions, the way they use irregular shaped stones they look like Aztec walls... but they are walls. just imagine how foul a substantial building wold look using the design?

Also, just imagine how sad bits of unconnected walls would look scattered along the dock road... No, just be done and celebrate the new buildings. Think of the 'planning gain' that could be squeezed from developers who build on these particualt plots? You could demand an architectural orgasm on every site... much better than a bit of wall, kept for .....what for?

your post sneaked in there Kung Fuzi whilst I was writing mine. this is an important point aand why I have said that I do not agree with the strand part of the inner ring road being put underground along the Pierhead... it ALL needs to be sorted out.
It should be made into a simple boulevard... with plenty of super crossings (or crossings, as they are known in most places) and plenty of junctions that aare part of continuous urban form, crafting blocks... yes... exactly the same way NYC expanded into its dockland at battery park and west and presumably just how you get to the newly exanded reclaimed land in HK.

jets9

April 7th, 2006, 11:33 PM

I'm no fan of EH or the way WHS has been foisted on Liverpool, but getting rid of the wall just isn't worth the candle.....it would attract huge amounts negative publicity, tie up thousands of hours of key officer/movers time and for what? For a very small gain in development potential.

As for the dock road.....don't go there. Merseytravel and the transport planning fascists are campaigning by stealth against motor transport. Phase one is now complete, effectivelly doing everything to discourage cars approaching the city centre and having that mad anti motorist, anti freedom, anti development philosophy enshrined into official policy. The city centre ring road and stretches of the dock road exist to siphon traffic away from the centre, so that is the predominant need of the city and fanciful anti development, anti car theories should come way down any wish list.

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 11:45 PM

The road is vital to the integrity of the space as much as the buildings (fucking hell, I sound like EH)

Bessie Braddock was an MP until the early mid 1960s. She was right at the time - to an extent. Liverpool was a major seaport - containerisation has not arrived by then, which killed the port, not air flight. Bessie had gone by the time containerisation had come. BTW, as a kid I won an arts competition and Bessie was on the stage with the Lord Mayor and shook my hand.

Mistakes were made. In 1945 Liverpool airport was the best equipped by a mile in the country. A new art deco terminal, etc. Bad management and short sightedness killed the passenger liner trade. It was coming all could see except Liverpool council with their heads up their bums. Since 1945 Liverpool has been a catalogue of missed opportunities and mismanagement. Although whether it could have fought of the hatred of Westminster is another matter.

You are right the walls must come down in parts. Why were they there? For security only. Liverpool was a highly secure port. The long walls at Wapping we called the French wall. I found out later French prisoners of war built them. These fucking walls isolated us from the river and dock – I have no respect for them at all. If they come down I will shed no tears. They are remaining at Princes Dock to keep out the scallies – Liverpool has a whole army of those idiots. Security men are to be on parts of the streets of the Paradise project after completion to keep out the scallies. Hopefully I time these degenerates will disappear or be rehoused on the outskirts from harms way, and the walls will come down and security men disappear.

In Birkenhead you could go right into the docks, but not in Liverpool. Each dock had a gate and a policeman keeping you out. We had to go to Grafton St and look over the cliffs at the water and dock or walk to Albert, Canning and Salthouse docks to see water. These docks had no security as they were largely unused – used to play in the ruins of the Albert Dock. All we saw of the docks was the funnels of the ships over the sheds and the noise of horns. I could recognise: Harrison Line, Palm Line, Elder Dempster, etc, but only ever saw the funnels and the smell of the grain they unloaded at the Coburg silo

Use the south docks as an airport? The noise No. 1 is a problem and well… it is just a daft idea when Speke is there. Why? I have flow from London City and was not impressed. BTW, those docks were far larger than anything in Liverpool. They were a white elephant built during the depression to give employment, as these large docks could not take large ships as the Thames was too shallow and narrow. Use the dock complex to make a Venice of flat, leisure and commerce, not frigging airports. JLA is with a few minutes reach.

The Dock road is not sacrosanct. It is just a road and must be rerouted or obliterated in parts.

If anything I would extend these water ways inland not fill them in. Imagine the Herc could have been a canal longboat haven, adding an extra dimension to Liverpool. But we have tat flats instead.

John-MK

April 7th, 2006, 11:51 PM

Phase one is now complete, effectivelly doing everything to discourage cars approaching the city centre and having that mad anti motorist, anti freedom

Since when has driving a car and freedom been one and the same? Cars restrict many people's freedoms. In fact it makes the lives of many a misery. The car was a 20th century curse. BTW, I drive.

Tony Sebo

April 7th, 2006, 11:52 PM

The benefits would be enourmous. it is not just a simple case of the buildings being 6 yards wider etc, it would change the whole configuration of the way the building can relate to the site... and if the wall's gone, to the street and the rest of the district. You only have to think of how profound the benificial changes were for Old Hall St when the RSA and Echo bdgs were reconfigurated to address the street by the development of city exchange?

leaving the wall, as in the Princes Dock means that the site to develop becomes a slither... you need rear access, developments are parred to the bone, and then there is a wall. The arrangement makes you treat the site like a business park.

Imagine if they would have had to have built the Liver bdg behind a wall.. all that fancy stuff, entrances and making the building take the whole block, facing out on all sides would not have happened, on the Goree side at least. How differently would the architects have approached that site if they were constrained by a massively high and long wall along the back of the east side of the site?

Imagine if malmaison and city lofts would have been allowed to be built right up to the paving line of bath St.. how much better would that street now function, how these same buildings if allowed to touch the pavement line could have actually helped to reanimate this currently dead street... and how much nicer the buildings could have been? (not that there is anything wrong with their water facing sides!)

As we keep on saying here, buildings work best when they are allowed to face the street and have ground floor commercial, retail, entrances etc... the walls have to go IMO.

My point about Braddock was not so much in defence of this proposed docklands airport, which I have never actually heard of before, more the mind numbingly lack of vision to see the potential at all.... why either/or why didn't she think.. we are both, we want both - we shall have both?

One final point about dock and filling in their basins. I would like to see as many kept and used as possible too... but maybe not ALL and of course, those that have been filled in have at least not been destroyed... they are still there for the historical record. It would be nice to see some of them dug out though... and loads of the crap on them dropped as well.

Pietari

April 8th, 2006, 12:02 AM

One thing I will say is that the area is undoubtedly outstanding and we mustn`t sell it short.

Because in the end we`ll regret it - it`s an absolute gold mine - not just in human interest but in city and maritime `place scape` which is a treasure and `unique` and should be handled with care - regardless of EH or WHS.

It`s a `Unique` Liverpool place and that is all the more important.

Tony Sebo

April 8th, 2006, 12:26 AM

Exactly.. the irony is that the biggest threat to the docks fulfilling their potential, thus leading to lots of its vitally important heritage assets... is their 'heritage'

I have just mentioned Old Hall St. Imagine how poor our history and Old Hall St today would be if all it had to show for 800 years of history was one single shitty medieval hall? The fact that there is nothing physical left of this fascinating history does not mean that history did not happen. And as for physical remnants, isn't that poor little buildiing, that I used to love, a sham?
it look ridiculous stuck onto the front of the hotel and beetham tower like some east midlands pub extension! Better that it should have been knocked down... or if it really was THAT IMPORATANT to Liverpools story then they should have resfused planning permission and made some sort of 'history experience' instead.... it was not that important... and now the city is stuck with another stupid heritage inspired imposition!

John-MK

April 8th, 2006, 12:51 AM

Exactly.. the irony is that the biggest threat to the docks fulfilling their potential, thus leading to lots of its vitally important heritage assets... is their 'heritage'

How? Far too much of our heritage has been ruined: docks filled in, unique warehouses levelled to build tat, etc.

I have just mentioned Old Hall St. Imagine how poor our history and Old Hall St today would be if all it had to show for 800 years of history was one single shitty medieval hall? The fact that there is nothing physical left of this fascinating history does not mean that history did not happen. And as for physical remnants, isn't that poor little buildiing, that I used to love, a sham?
it look ridiculous stuck onto the front of the hotel and beetham tower like some east midlands pub extension! Better that it should have been knocked down... or if it really was THAT IMPORATANT to Liverpool’s story then they should have resfused planning permission and made some sort of 'history experience' instead.... it was not that important... and now the city is stuck with another stupid heritage inspired imposition!

Because, one historical hall was obliterated does not mean we have to keep on being Philistines. Keep the best of what we have and build on that. EH are not strong enough as far too much official vandalism has occurred. Ever been to France where they don’t pull down anything old? Nearly all towns have an old quarter, which tends to buzz. They protected the old and put all around it - having a medieval old quarter is common in France. France is a far superior country to the UK. Their towns and cities leave ours standing. I have spent a hell of a lot of time in France being to all parts. From country villages to large cities they make us look like incompetent fools. They have a superior planning system than the UK.

The UK system is geared to ram people into urban areas – only 7.5% of the UK is settled and 2.5% paved. The richest people in the UK are land owners. What a surprise! They produce little and become mega rich on taking rent. The French have no strong distinction of urban and country as in the UK. The World Heritage Site status may do what the French do without it – so the status may work. A very good thing. Those you advocate getting rid of it, with Liverpool’s appalling record on most things in planning are very naïve indeed.

It is not as if Liverpool doesn’t land to built towers on is it? Land it has in abundance. WHS is saving Liverpool from themselves – the potential of the docks has hardly been scratched, yet a raft of docks has already been filled in and far too much tat built around, or on, the docks.

A historic manor house was demolished in 1960 to make way for the Ford car factory. Of all the land around there at the time, why? Why oh why? Liverpool Philistinia rules again. I know! let’s fill in the docks for fun.

Pietari

April 8th, 2006, 10:44 AM

scouserdave

April 8th, 2006, 11:14 AM

The Dock walls in this area are Grade 2 listed, so there isn't much chance of them coming down.

Tony Sebo

April 8th, 2006, 11:32 AM

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!

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?

You have said, not least when you agreed with that point, that we do not have to keep every brick still in place that is more than a few decades old? Sound conservation policy is not about absolute preservation of everything, so do you agree that you can indeed be selective... i.e. lose the walls so as to be able to preserve and utilise the basins for example?

One of the principles we have discussed on this thread is that of having to prove the case that replacement would be a real material, functional and aesthetic improvement for the city before agreement was reached to drop an old building and replace with new. A good example of this is the old house that has been domolished in Hanover St. By dropping that Grosvenor are able to bring the whole block back to life, create a new building that is a great improvement to downtown on all of the above measures, so in this case demolition was acceptable, even though there was mounting evidence that there were some interesting historic associations connected with it. Now that the building has gone, the history still remains... a plaque on the new building will suffice and the city will work better.

I am in full agreement with your basic sentiment, but unanalysed, it is these sorts of sentiments that have landed us in such hot water with WHS and EH having a stranglehold on planning matters in the city.

What EH are doing in the city is attempting to recreate historic environments. Not only are they trying to impose thier asthetically stilted sense of appropriate design on the city centre with regards to individual sites, they are trying to landscape the look of the city, its skyline and streetscape in a fashion that has never actually occured in the city... all this instead of coming up with sound building conservation measures and chasing abuses. The situation with the Friary of St mary of the Angels in Everton is a horrible example that is going on right now!

I would how ever add that it is only downtown where restricitive planning that only takes account of 'heritage' is emmensley damaging and that in other parts of the city, the principles of much that EH promotes is valid. As downtown is our exploratory and incubator the heritage principle becomes a suffocating burden.

Do we continue Liverpool's architectural tradition of incremental, though sometimes profound change and growth... or do we build a facsimile of a 19th century port as inspired probably by a sketch in a Treasure Island story book one of the bastards picked up when they were 14?

It is extremely easy to slip into sanctioning the mad exsesses being imposed by not thinking through sentiment and love of city... which you can be sure of John.. on here we ALL share.

Dave and Pie, your last points are corect of course, the walls are listed, in fact they make up the WHS site that extends beyond the Tobacco warehouse and Stanley dock complpex.. so they are MORE than listed, they are on the UNESCO preservation list. But like I say, if we could develop a sane conservation policy could be developd where cases could occasionally be made for demolition and replacement we would all be much better off. Ironically I feel that this would als lead to more of our historic environment beind saved than currently possible. Most of the gateways are actually alright to keep in my scenario, as they open out at logical places, i.e they terminate at the end of the internal streets around the dock system, so most of them would probably be able to be kept as features.... if we want?

liverpolitan

April 8th, 2006, 12:15 PM

The whole conservation mania is just that, a mania. It defies nature and life itself - which is fluid, everything constantly forming, deforming, disintegrating and reforming. Glass is molten, wood dieing, concrete desiccating. The notion that because something is old it must not be allowed to crumble is absurd - it should only be preserved because it is of unique value that outweighs the potential value of what would replace it. What should Berlin have done with its wall? It was iconic, world famous, and the physical manifestation of the most dramatic period of that city's history. The English Heritage mindset would tend to say "Keep it all", and also to keep the "dead zone" of minefields and barbed wire around it, as context. They would not understand that Berlin, the city, predates the wall and has a life beyond it. (Obviously I am not suggesting EH have a remit for Germany, I am talking about a mindset).

I'm a fan of the better parts of the dock wall, but not all of it, and can see no case for retaining every inch of wall that was inherited. Broadly, I suppose the policy should be to retain the docks, retain the Dock road, and retain the Dock walls. Broadly. But in places the Docks have rightly been filled in, made shallow or otherwise changed. And in places - many places - long stretches of dead wall are detrimental to regeneration and they need to be removed. It would be perfectly possible to punch holes in them for more gates, or in places to integrate them into new structures, which would need windows and doors.

The biggest problem has been Princess Dock, and I agree with Tony Sebo that the existence of the wall has led to pretty shabby "back yard" uses at the back of developments there. To be honest, I think it's a bit late to do anything now, and I also agree with whoever it was ages ago on this thread who said there are other priorities. In the case of Princess Dock, the design of the development compounds the problem of the wall with poor quality pedestrian access to the develpoment anyway - and it's really poor that you have basically only one way in at the Pier Head end. A lot of the street layout has been influenced by business parks, and the desire to make it easy to drive into. Individual buildings in the development suffer from this also, such as the Crowne Plaza Hotel, whose main entrance is designed basically for people arriving by car. Also, this business of closing large areas of the dock estate at night, gating etc is well within the powers of the city council to deal with. They ought to be forming agreements to make such areas open 24 hours a day, notwithstanding issues of private ownership and rights of way. I'd concentrate on getting those things right, rather than the wall.