At long last!! the DP reports that Langtree have been chosen as the developers for this very important location. A 10/12 storey building is to be planned on this 1/4 acre site, 85,000 sq ft of grade A office and 15,000 sq ft of retail and leisure, hopefully a new Coopers for some waterfront meet ups!!. Liverpool Vision's Jim Gill said "Langtree demonstrated real imagination and a strong commercial approach in their propsal. Their track record in delivering positive change in urban areas was also an important consideration in our final recommendation"

I hope this is going to be a real top class job, nothing else will do for great site.

Can't wait to see this bite the dust!! what a dump.


http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/1665/kingstonhse22ua.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7464/kingstonhse14ti.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6738/kingstonhse42nt.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Now if only the owners of next door, Halifax Hse. could be persuaded to dynamite that crap hole, we'd be on a roll. This building will look even worse sandwiched between the new Kingston building and the Pelli tower it has to go and soon!!


http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9549/halifaxhse16la.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

It'd be nice if they could take the Halifax down brick by brick and place it in the new Liverpool Museum, as a warning to future generations. :)

Great news Doug! Been waiting for this one for a long time, looking forward to the renders. The Halifax had been doomed since the day it was built. A new, decent sized building in place of the Figure Factory is the final nail in the coffin, it really is going to look like a dolls house when it's dwarfed by it's new neighbours in both scale and quality. Halifax must know that they're sitting on a gold mine on that site, once the entire row has been rennovated this site's value must have trebbled in the last year or so, it's simple economics that a low-quality, low-rise building won't earn as much money as a high-quality mid-rise on the same site.

They should either sell the site and move into funky premises elsewhere, or else rebuild twice the size and rent out the other half of the building. Either way I don't think it's going to be round much longer...

Why's it got a satellite dish? They watching tv in there all day or something?

Just to clarify, does this development include the Figure Factory?

It does indeed TOM. :)

Awayo, I'm sure they wanted to make it look like a council house.

Really good news,this is one of the true 'grot spots' in Liverpool.

Yes!! at last.:nocrook:

Developer chosen to revamp key city site

Here's the full story,I probably hate this more than concorse house.

A LANDMARK 12-storey office building for the run-down James Street area of Liverpool city centre has moved a step closer - after a preferred developer was selected for the scheme.

Liverpool Vision and the North West Development Agency (NWDA) have chosen Langtree to lead the redevelopment of the site, currently occupied by Kingston House, on the corner of James Street and The Strand.

Langtree beat off competition from three other shortlisted companies - UK Land and Property, FT Patten (Holdings) in partnership with Eric Wright Group and HBG Properties.

Kingston House is a 1960s office building owned by the NWDA. The brief for the quarter-acre site offered the opportunity to create a landmark high-quality office building of between 10 and 12 storeys with active retail or leisure uses at street level.

The prominent location means that a high-quality building was a significant factor in selection of the preferred scheme and development partner.


Liverpool Vision chief executive Jim Gill said: "Liverpool city centre is growing rapidly and major development opportunities of this nature are increasingly scarce.


"We were very impressed by the obvious commitment of all the shortlisted developers and the quality of the proposals presented to us.


"Langtree demonstrated real imagination and a strong commercial approach in their proposal. Their track record in delivering positive change in urban areas was also an important consideration in our final recommendation."


The proposals to build 85,000 sq ft of Grade A office space and 15,000sq ft of retail/leisure space will now go through a detailed development and design process prior to being submitted for planning permission to the city council in the autumn.


Martin Lloyd, NWDA head of property, said: "The agency now looks forward to seeing detailed proposals that will maximise the potential of the site, and working together with both Liverpool Vision and Langtree for the delivery of this important project."


John Downes, managing director of Langtree, added: "We have very much enjoyed the opportunities and challenges that we have faced in the development of similar projects, such as Forty Sprin-gardens in Manchester city centre, and we are confident in our team's ability to ensure that Kingston House will be delivered to the highest standard."

In 1999/2000 Yorkshire architects Carey Neiwman produced plans for a 18 floor appartment building for this site, remember seeing them on the AJ+ website. Would of been better than a stumpy 12.

Wouldn't have been 'appropriate' I bet, Begbie. Imagine the Halifax sandwiched between that and and the Pelli tower. :)

It would show the Halifax up for what it really is, a disgrace!! it downgrades that stretch of the Strand.

It would show the Halifax up for what it really is, a disgrace!! it downgrades that stretch of the Strand.

Its days are definitely numbered though.:cheers:

I think a 12 storey building of high enough qaulity will sit well on that site, it, going to be quite an impressive drive down the dock road soon..

just a quick design idea for the site.....................

always good to visualise.....

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1092140/b6a.jpg

Sy, is there another City Lofts planned for the half-tide dock, or am I getting confused with the Alex?

They haven't submitted a design yet have they?

Unfortunately they have Villiers. Find the 'bad architecture' thread. Its number one with a bullet. :(

Oh aye..I remember, it's that red thing with the dodgy 'crazy' assymetrical windows at the end isn't it?

Scheisse.

Odd that they can do a decent job with the Prinnie Dock one, then envisage that shed...

Has'nt Halifax already announced that the jobs were being moved/lost from the building on the strand and they were moving out of it-maybe a sale of the land is planned already.

hopefully we will get something to complement Pelli and hide the law courts building from the strand.

Thanks for the picture idea, but as it says it can be between 10-12 stories, how good would it look if it had an added feature on top of the building? Imagine the new building having a pyramid shape plonked on top, so many buildings lack something on top IMO

Fantastic! One less post-war abomination to worry about.

yeah true, it would be nice to see more buildings with spires or capped with some interesting feature or point. symmetrey in architecture would be good as well, for instance most or our older buildings have a sense of order and symmetry whilst still being interesting and powerful. There is this insistance now on jittery, unordered 'messy looking facades, which can look really good, but it smacks of desperation, as if modern architecture, like society today, has to be messed up to be heared (deep)

When you consider its location, this has to be the worst building in Liverpool city centre. Even if this was renovated it would still be the worst.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7464/kingstonhse14ti.jpg

Thanks for the picture idea, but as it says it can be between 10-12 stories, how good would it look if it had an added feature on top of the building? Imagine the new building having a pyramid shape plonked on top, so many buildings lack something on top IMO

Great news, as this is a corner site , this aspect should be highlighted, with a 16 storey corner steping down to 12 on both elevations.

Thanks for the picture idea, but as it says it can be between 10-12 stories, how good would it look if it had an added feature on top of the building? Imagine the new building having a pyramid shape plonked on top, so many buildings lack something on top IMO

Yeah,Like more floors.:lol:

[QUOTE=Doug Roberts;11414225]At long last!! the DP reports that Langtree have been chosen as the developers for this very important location.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6738/kingstonhse42nt.jpg (http://imageshack.us)QUOTE]


Doug, does the footprint of Kingston House include this carpark ?

Woody, I'm not sure? the article does say the site is 1/4 of an acre and I reckon that is much bigger than the footprint of the current building. If I had to guess I would say yes, be interesting to see images of Langtree's scheme.

Thanks Doug, I hope Langtree are quicker at producing renders than their efforts at the festival site.

One of the main hold ups with this site was what to do with the angled walkway coming from the building on the right. This is an emergency escape route, there was a long drawn out debate about what to do and of course who pays!!

I hope the walkway problem is now resolved, and that Langtree will include a bigger and better Coopers Emporium, :drunk: but I somehow think we may get a ponsy wine bar:cheers2:

I wish they would "drop" this monster now, throw some grass and trees on it because I will be surprised if they start building within the next 18 months:no:

Here's an arial view of the site.

The bit in red is Kingston House, the bit in yellow is the adjacent car park and I'm not sure if the bit in green is part of the site as well?

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/2789/image96zl.jpg

is the car park going aswell?

That's what we're trying to assertain Dupster. Hopefully yes! Logically it looks like the carpark ringed in yellow is part of the Kingston House land...

Whatever goes up there I hope it has some ground floor activity. It's sadly lacking in most of the other buildings along The Strand.

Agree 100% Billy. Could also do with something like the Head of Steam in the ground floor of the tower buildings. I know Ma Kents is around the back, but the frontage is lacking down there.

Good point Billy, it's certainly not a pedestrain friendly stretch at the moment, I think they should have sunk that entire section of the strand and converted the space into a pedestrian park (although I doubt Sebo would agree!)

Agree 100% Billy. Could also do with something like the Head of Steam in the ground floor of the tower buildings. I know Ma Kents is around the back, but the frontage is lacking down there.

was there not talk of the Uk's biggest la[p dnacing club down there at one time or am i confusing reality with my dreams?

was there not talk of the Uk's biggest la[p dnacing club down there at one time or am i confusing reality with my dreams?

I only know this becuase its an LA company and the owner is now in jail ....honest !! but yes Spearmint Rhino was going to open there . They have them everywhere here - theyre like Starbucks - one one every corner.:banana:

Fantastic! One less post-war abomination to worry about.

I thought she'd had a nasty accident - fell from 51 floors up or something :nuts:

I only know this becuase its an LA company and the owner is now in jail ....honest !! but yes Spearmint Rhino was going to open there . They have them everywhere here - theyre like Starbucks - one one every corner.:banana:

One of the strippers from Captain Creme's in LA once wanted me to put together a website for her :o

only know this becuase its an LA company and the owner is now in jail ....honest !! but yes Spearmint Rhino was going to open there

It was probably for practical reasons. Those glazed cladding tiles would be easily wiped down...

Here's an arial view of the site.

The bit in red is Kingston House, the bit in yellow is the adjacent car park and I'm not sure if the bit in green is part of the site as well?

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/2789/image96zl.jpg

Tom, both the red & green is Kingston House, the taller green building was the semans hotel, when this whole site was run by , The Mersey Mission to Seaman. It was that carpark next door that I wasn`t sure of, thanks for the aerial

This aerial shot also shows just how big the site of the " Dollshouse" is next door, the actual building only covers about 30% of the site the rest being carpark, sure needs a 17storey block to match the Pelli building

I thought she'd had a nasty accident - fell from 51 floors up or something :nuts:
I wish I was killing two birds with one stone. :D

Image of the 'new' Kingston House from the morning's Vision supplement in the DP, bit futuristic for Liverpool, wonder if this will make it past the planners and the usual objectors??


http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/1397/p1000219el1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

but it's not April fools day yet...:bash:

Love the way you have kept the historically important steps, i'll bet Wayne Colcwhohaloween had a say in keeping them...!

Bring it on. :cheers:

Surely thats a joke. I'm all for futuristic buildings, but it kind of remind me of one of the pair of tall buildings on Barcelona's beachfront.

It was built in the early 90's and is a luxury hotel. However, as a piece of architecture it has dated horrendously.

I think it's the externalised girder thing that I dont like.

Anotehr worry is that it was Langtree that won the contract to develop this site.

They also won the contract to develop 86-90 Duke St (opposite the Monro).

That was back in 2003. It's still derelict.

Had my employers bid been successful for that site we'd be occupying a new shiny building now.

Not sure about Langtree.
www.barcelona-tourist-guide.com/albums-en/beach-barceloneta/pages/beach-barceloneta-19_jpg.html

Looks like the architect ate a bit too much cheese the night before he had that 'vision' - we need a sleek modern building on that site, not something that looks like it's dropped out of a 1980's Star Treck set!

That's one of the worst renders I've ever seen (and we've seen some corkers on this site!) - it's impossible to get a good idea of the shape and structure of the building, or even do a proper floor count. And the colours are horrendous! I can't see anything like that getting planning permission, and good job too. Now, clad it in some decent materials and give us some proper renders and then we can talk...

I think it's 'shockingly' good.:cheers:

i think this may be a somewhat old vision as i remember this being in the papers a year and a half ago!! Can't see it.... much as i like it!

If the Lloyd Building can be built in the City of London and the Pompidou in historic right-bank Beaubourg. Liverpool is full of history and of great architectural importance but it's has little on those places. Built it!

I remember seeing an image for that site about 3 years ago. It was on a web-designers site.

The building itself was about 20 stories, sleek and slim and far superior to that thing.

Maybe its the render but I really have to "try" to like that. It's far too Miami.

I like the concept, we need more architecture and variation.

looks like something off the Jetsons, i like it :)

I really quite like, no idea why :lol: . I guess its better than a boring glass box?

Image of the 'new' Kingston House from the morning's Vision supplement in the DP, bit futuristic for Liverpool, wonder if this will make it past the planners and the usual objectors??



__________________
Doug Roberts

That'll never get through planning, EH will screw it over!

I can live with it but I am sure this is the scheme proposed several years ago. This is about 15 storeys whilst the accompanying text in Vision magazine refers to the proposed scheme being 12 storeys. Also, I remember those ringed spikes, which are a reference to a detail on the White Star building.

i knew i seen it before thanks for backing me up martin!

Image of the 'new' Kingston House from the morning's Vision supplement in the DP, bit futuristic for Liverpool, wonder if this will make it past the planners and the usual objectors??


http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/1397/p1000219el1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


C'mon lads, it's absolutely and definitively horrid.
Typical of the sort of tacky stuff we might have been throwing up in the bad old days of the late eighties. (had we actually been building anything during that era)

A tacky eyesore from day one with a nailed-on built-in obsolescence factor guaranteeing it's demolition within 20/25 years...

Not important mind as I'm sure the Kingston house we actually get will have a bit of quality about it, given the location.

C'mon lads, it's absolutely and definitively horrid.
Typical of the sort of tacky stuff we might have been throwing up in the bad old days of the late eighties. (had we actually been building anything during that era)

A tacky eyesore from day one with a nailed-on built-in obsolescence factor guaranteeing it's demolition within 20/25 years...

Not important mind as I'm sure the Kingston house we actually get will have a bit of quality about it, given the location.

Yes I agree it's shite,this particular building wont happen anyway,not a chance surely.

Yes I agree it's shite,this particular building wont happen anyway,not a chance surely.

YUK, I do not like this render, reminds me of a set from Flash Gordon ( or was that Flesh Gordon :yes: ) the word mish mash certainly applies to this gaudy crap. Not a hope in hell of this getting the nod. :nono: That poor demented Wayne:gaah: can sleep easy in his bed tonight:goodnight

With Busta & Martin's comments in mind, I wonder if the DP has just thrown this image from it's archive into the Vision mag??

YUK, I do not like this render, reminds me of a set from Flash Gordon ( or was that Flesh Gordon :yes: ) the word mish mash certainly applies to this gaudy crap. Not a hope in hell of this getting the nod. :nono: That poor demented Wayne:gaah: can sleep easy in his bed tonight:goodnight

All we need now is Brian Blessed on the top of the building with a revolving combat disc and spikes and scallies fighting on it. That would pull in the tourists though.

Anyway, it looks a bit weird to say the least, not liking all that purple glass stuff

Doug you could be right, this location needs a dramatic structure, but I would think that Nigel Lee is thinking that across the road we will have a rather grey conservative office block ( part of the Mann Island scheme) ,with Albion House and Rowse`s ventilation tower on the other two corners there is no way this monstrosity would sit well with these three buildings. A 12 storey glass tower with maybe a higher corner feature would be more acceptable in this sensitive location.

With Busta & Martin's comments in mind, I wonder if the DP has just thrown this image from it's archive into the Vision mag??

Yep just another example of poor journalism again!

It`s certainly different from what I would expect on this historically important junction.....hee hee hee.

It`s got potential though :nuts:

Great find by Ste, hope you don't mind me repeat posting on this thread.

I think this looks great, the simple clean lines of the frontage sit really well with Albion House and it takes in all the car park area and does away with those 'orrible steps!! let's hope this is the scheme put forward for planning permission. One minor amendment maybe required, a restored Coopers pub on the ground floor :)


http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/9494/kingstonhseimage2kd0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1659/kingstonhseimage3wg6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/8582/kingstonhseimage4zn5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Thumbs up! Thats gr8!

One thing that the existing Kingston House (otherwise not a very attractive building) does well is to express the colour palette of the adjacent Albion House. This design makes some attempt to do likewise with the grey solid cladding and some pinkish glass panels, but overall the effect is weak and could be strengthened. A good feature is the setting back of the northern block to expose more of the south elevation of Albion House.

One thing that the existing Kingston House (otherwise not a very attractive building) does well is to express the colour palette of the adjacent Albion House. This design makes some attempt to do likewise with the grey solid cladding and some pinkish glass panels, but overall the effect is weak and could be strengthened. A good feature is the setting back of the northern block to expose more of the south elevation of Albion House.

Albion House (the White Star building) is Albion House - it never has, never could and never should "blend" with its neighbours. Part of its attraction is that it is essentially quirky. The site you describe as adjacent is across a wide road, and what will be put there is a different building. It's not an annex of Albion House, or extension, or mirror. This is "blending gone mad", the notion that somehow it nees to "express the colour palette of the adjacent Albion House".

This design has some integrity. I hope that as with the New World Square fiasco, the city planners do not spoil a good proposal by imposing their own frayed and amatuer views on what this should look like. If they wanted to become architects, or artists, or designers - and had the talent to do so - then they had that choice. Planners are not typically trained in aesthetics, and deploy amatuer and rather nerdish instincts ("make everything blend, make things conform one to another) in the absence of any training or strong instincts in that area.

Not calling you a planner, by the way, heavens forbid, it's just that sometimes you write a bit like a planner.

The new design looks great, the height and massing is spot on along with the materials. Let’s hope it gets through the system without any problems.

And liverpolitan not every planner is like that, I happen to be a qualified planner, (though I have chosen to work in regeneration) and rest assured I don't deploy amateur and rather nerdish instincts :ohno:

The new design looks great, the height and massing is spot on along with the materials. Let’s hope it gets through the system without any problems.

And liverpolitan not every planner is like that, I happen to be a qualified planner, (though I have chosen to work in regeneration) and rest assured I don't deploy amateur and rather nerdish instincts :ohno:

Sorry Marko, I was criticising the profession of planning and its practice, rather than individuals who are planners. I'm sure some planners have brilliant taste and refined aesthetic sensibilities - I'm just questioning why they apply them in their job. Subjective judgements about what colour looks best near another colour, if they must be made at all, should not be dressed up as professional judgements by people whose training doesn't involve an artistic education. That's my opinion anyway.

I agree whole heartedly with Liverpolitan (I am also a planner working in regeneration incidentally.) However, I do not think it is the case that a planning officer would make these sorts of aesthetic judgements and I have certainly never met one who has thrown down their flowery hankerchief
and exlaimed "Why! The colour of this new building is different to that building nearby; we must refuse it, this instance!"

However, the planning process does not just involve the planning officers who process the planning application; it also consists of related professionals such as conservation officers. I think a conservation officer (commenting on an application that affects, or is in the vicinity of, a listed building) would make these sorts of aesthetic judgements.

The planner can then take account of such a comment. Perhaps Liverpool's problem is in having too many listed buildings; combined with conservation experts who go OTT with the wet lettuced, and totally ridiculous aesthetic judgements. I could be wrong, although I agree it is such a stupid thing to judge an application on and in fact will harm Albion House (-why have a new building that stops it from standing out!?)

I think it is very important for the planners to have a say on the aesthetic look of the building, though I would agree more of them need to train up on Urban Design as it is key for the profession.

UrbaniseD I don't think Liverpool having to many Conservations areas and Listed buildings is a large problem, I work very closely with the conservation officers in my job and they welcome new design concepts that makes the building stand out. As one Conservation officer said the other day to me "a lot of people need to grow some balls in this profession" which I think is true. A lot of them are stuck in a mundane world and can not see how new exciting architecture can bring great results.

I for one could never be a DC officer and feel I made the right choice going into regeneration, I always find myself arguing with the planning officers over design, height etc.

I think Liverpool have just suffered due to having a large proportion of really poor staff and for some reason jumping through hoops for EH which I never get. Also having a very weak Planning Manager like Liverpool does not help.

So why not challenge the planning department and make them justify their crap decissions?

Planners are not typically trained in aesthetics, and deploy amatuer and rather nerdish instincts ("make everything blend, make things conform one to another) in the absence of any training or strong instincts in that area.

Not calling you a planner, by the way, heavens forbid, it's just that sometimes you write a bit like a planner.

rest assured I don't deploy amateur and rather nerdish instincts/

I have certainly never met one who has thrown down their flowery hankerchief and exlaimed "Why! The colour of this new building is different to that building nearby; we must refuse it, this instance!"


It seems impossible for me to post even the most innocuous of views on buildings without provoking this kind of unpleasant reaction. Given that most of what is posted on the forum consists of people's opinions I can't understand why this should be. Why is it not OK to comment on colour relationships but OK to say, without any substantiation, 'This design has some integrity'? What does that even mean?

My opinion here is I think quite standard and likely to be widespread among architects not just planners. Yesterday I was in town. In Temple Square (as Martin has said, it is an excellent if unobtrusive piece of regeneration) the new Falconer Chester offices have a red-panelled wing that, I noticed, echoes the colour of the Victorian red-brick building on the opposite corner. I doubt this was an accident. I think even if one doesn't notice it it adds to the appeal of the whole ensemble. Have I offended anyone by making this observation? It is exactly the same as my observation about the Kingston House proposal.

I don't actually mind being taken for a planner. I'm glad that my amateur musings should suggest this comparison with trained professionals. I do however mind a bit the suggestion that I would waste my time lying about it if I really were one.

As for being nerdish, I confess to it. But I don't think anyone who spends much time contributing to a skyscraper discussion group can really escape that charge.

You can say what you like about these buildings and their style, that's what this forum is about, but people will have different views to others, and maybe use terms that might come across a bit insulting.

Do all planners have flowery handkerchiefs...! and do they throw them down in an "i'm free" sort of way...!, using words like "preposterous", "poppycock", and the all time classic, "That Erection is an abomination my darling".

Urbo does. He wears it round his head as a bandana, just like Bret Michaels, lead singer of ponce metal band, Poison. In the office as well!

http://www.metalmasters.net/images/bret_m1.jpg

^^

Amazingly fast wit for an internet forum.

:rofl:

Or has this image been stored on you P.C. for a long time...! Hmmm... :sly:

Langtree chose very well for the Kingston House architect I think. They got Gordon Carey of Carey Jones Architects who is a past master at offices in prominent and tight city centre sites. top marks all round.

Langtree chose very well for the Kingston House architect I think. They got Gordon Carey of Carey Jones Architects who is a past master at offices in prominent and tight city centre sites. top marks all round.

The idea is for a 10/12 storey building, but this one looks more like 14, or do we not count the double height foyer, or is a reduction likeley...!

Yes Lathom, but your opinions sound absolutely ridiculous, except perhaps to those who happen to share the same sort of narrow, absurd aesthetic preferences. You garner the reaction that you do because some (I say "some") of the things you come out with are totally irrational.

I say that Albion House would be spoiled by your ideas. It wouldn't be as unqiue if the building next to it had to conform to the same shades. I'm sorry, but I just find your colour co-ordination totally mindless and autistic. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I just cannot rationalise that view point.

Why the hell should two buildings reflect one another??? Can you answer that?

Otherwise, what is the point in even bothering to express such a frivolous opinion!? It is like me logging on to say "Guess what everyone? I like that building that has been proposed, and I just love Cadbury's Creme Eggs!!"

The fact that Martin may or may not share your views on colour coordination doesn't make it a good idea.

Awayo, I don't know who that guy-thing is, and am worried that you do. Also, I said "flowery" handkercief.

Why is it not OK to comment on colour relationships but OK to say, without any substantiation, 'This design has some integrity'?



Fair enough - sorry Lathom

I do agree with you Urb's on the fact that why should a building have to match or somehow make reference to the building next to it. It is a weird concept to me, i can only think it stems from new builds in olde world areas where people want to keep everything looking the same and not moving forward. I'm not against making some reference, but against the demands that a reference should be made otherwise the proposal is heresey and the architect should be punished for it.

One thing that the existing Kingston House (otherwise not a very attractive building) does well is to express the colour palette of the adjacent Albion House. This design makes some attempt to do likewise with the grey solid cladding and some pinkish glass panels, but overall the effect is weak and could be strengthened. A good feature is the setting back of the northern block to expose more of the south elevation of Albion House.


I disagree, that will spoil the streetscape, and this road has the potential to turn into a really grand avenue. They should stick to the building line. Older buildings don't need clearings around them to allow a better view, they just fit in as they always have. Reverance of this nature spoils the street. Anyone who really wants to see Albion House (and I hope everyone does) will be able to see it just fine without this poor building being forced to bow and curtsey to it.

Juxt. Read something about this last night and turns out the pic above is not by Gordon Carey - it was one of the failed bidder's architects. doesn't mean it can't be copied! probably expalins the height discrepancy.

So the pic above isnt the chosen design then?

If not, what is? Why would the losing competitor put up a losing design on their website?

Confused.

It was too good to be true - I was suspicious that so many of us (who often disagree) liked it. Just the same as New World Square, that received universal acclaim here, and was of course far far too good for the city planners to tolerate. As soon as something dignified and appropriate comes along, the powers that be decide they want something second rate. I'm not saying that what emerges will be second-rate, necessarily, but let's face it, it's a distinct possibility from the planning authority that approved the Dolls House. I think they'll go for a sort of bridging concept to unite the 80s "interpretation of a dock wharf warehouse" look of the Halifax Dolls House with the eccentric drabness of Albion House. So something like a turned-on-its-head version of the new phase of City Lofts is probably what we are getting: mostly red brick, random window placements, and a design that contrives to combine bulk and humility so as not to diminish the more established designs of the Dolls House and Albion House.

90% of architect's designs don't get built. they still use their pretty pictures to sell themselves though. concepts darling. like the fourth grace, all on show even though there's only one winner.

the above was by Buttress Fuller Alsop Williams which would suggest Fourth Grace The Cloud punky Will Alsop's firm.

Given the importance of trying to halt the nonsense which has been visited upon the built envrironment of Strand/Wapping in recent years and
if the chosen design for this site turns out to be a "Halifax 2", or some other desecration on this already sullied thoroughfare, then is it to much to ask that we could get our collective s*** together to make this 21cl's first campaign?

It was too good to be true - I was suspicious that so many of us (who often disagree) liked it. Just the same as New World Square, that received universal acclaim here, and was of course far far too good for the city planners to tolerate. As soon as something dignified and appropriate comes along, the powers that be decide they want something second rate. I'm not saying that what emerges will be second-rate, necessarily, but let's face it, it's a distinct possibility from the planning authority that approved the Dolls House. I think they'll go for a sort of bridging concept to unite the 80s "interpretation of a dock wharf warehouse" look of the Halifax Dolls House with the eccentric drabness of Albion House. So something like a turned-on-its-head version of the new phase of City Lofts is probably what we are getting: mostly red brick, random window placements, and a design that contrives to combine bulk and humility so as not to diminish the more established designs of the Dolls House and Albion House.

:hahaha:

A 12 storey glass tower with maybe a higher corner feature would be more acceptable in this sensitive location.

who`s a clever boy::banana: Love this design, Albion House? with this glass beauty ,you will get TWO , one real and one a reflection from this glass tower

I`m with you Doug, a "watering hole " on the ground floor would be perfect:cheers:

Yes Lathom, but your opinions sound absolutely ridiculous, except perhaps to those who happen to share the same sort of narrow, absurd aesthetic preferences. You garner the reaction that you do because some (I say "some") of the things you come out with are totally irrational.

I say that Albion House would be spoiled by your ideas. It wouldn't be as unqiue if the building next to it had to conform to the same shades. I'm sorry, but I just find your colour co-ordination totally mindless and autistic. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I just cannot rationalise that view point.

Why the hell should two buildings reflect one another??? Can you answer that?

Otherwise, what is the point in even bothering to express such a frivolous opinion!? It is like me logging on to say "Guess what everyone? I like that building that has been proposed, and I just love Cadbury's Creme Eggs!!"

The fact that Martin may or may not share your views on colour coordination doesn't make it a good idea.

Awayo, I don't know who that guy-thing is, and am worried that you do. Also, I said "flowery" handkercief.

A difference of opinion is one thing, but that my views are 'absolutely ridiculous', 'absurd', 'totally irrational', 'mindless and autistic' (not a word I think should be used as a term of abuse), 'frivolous'? It all seems rather an over-reaction, and I remain puzzled by it.

The idea of the rationality or otherwise of someone's aesthetic preferences is problematic to begin with. Aside from that, there is the suggestion that mine are somehow extreme and outlandish. I think, to the contrary, that referencing nearby buildings is a very widely held architectural design principle. I gave an example; there are many others. It is not a question of precisely matching or copying, and it can be done more or less subtly and imaginatively (it was done rather crudely, I would say, by the 'Flash Gordon' design, with its turrets and banding). Apart from the fact that it’s quite a common notion, I would defend it on the grounds I already mentioned, that it creates pleasing harmonies and a sense of fit even when not explicitly noticed.

What, I wonder, are your principles of good design? Let us see them and be impressed by their transparent 'rationality'.

I don’t know what Martin's views on colour co-ordination are; they may well differ from mine. I mentioned him because he had commented favourably on Temple Square, a little-noticed but excellent development. I suppose I was trying to be chummy. I attempt this from time to time on the forum, but invariably some Mr Angry like you pipes up, furiously banging away at the punctuation marks on his keyboard, and generally making me wonder why bother. But at the very least, I am entitled to my opinion.

Fair enough - sorry Lathom

liverpolitan -

I appreciate the apology. It seems we disagree on the question of building line (a bit of planning lingo on your part, by the way!). I certainly don’t think your preference is 'irrational', but here I think overly rigid compliance with the building line principle would be too costly to an important element of views of the city centre from the south.

It's worth pondering for a moment what exactly is the significance of the building line anyway. As far as I can figure out, it is about getting buildings to respect their neighbours and creating a sense of their harmonious relationship. In other words, it is precisely a case of the principle of contextual sensitivity for which you have criticized me in the past. Like any implication of that principle, it can always be applied with excessive rigidity.

That is the most despicably abominable post that I have ever read!

I am now locking myself into my lavatory and I won't come out until Wakes week.

A difference of opinion is one thing, but that my views are 'absolutely ridiculous', 'absurd', 'totally irrational', 'mindless and autistic' (not a word I think should be used as a term of abuse), 'frivolous'? It all seems rather an over-reaction, and I remain puzzled by it.

The idea of the rationality or otherwise of someone's aesthetic preferences is problematic to begin with. Aside from that, there is the suggestion that mine are somehow extreme and outlandish. I think, to the contrary, that referencing nearby buildings is a very widely held architectural design principle. I gave an example; there are many others. It is not a question of precisely matching or copying, and it can be done more or less subtly and imaginatively (it was done rather crudely, I would say, by the 'Flash Gordon' design, with its turrets and banding). Apart from the fact that it’s quite a common notion, I would defend it on the grounds I already mentioned, that it creates pleasing harmonies and a sense of fit even when not explicitly noticed.

What, I wonder, are your principles of good design? Let us see them and be impressed by their transparent 'rationality'.

I don’t know what Martin's views on colour co-ordination are; they may well differ from mine. I mentioned him because he had commented favourably on Temple Square, a little-noticed but excellent development. I suppose I was trying to be chummy. I attempt this from time to time on the forum, but invariably some Mr Angry like you pipes up, furiously banging away at the punctuation marks on his keyboard, and generally making me wonder why bother. But at the very least, I am entitled to my opinion.

What do you mean by "pleasing harmonies and a sense of fit when not explicitly noticed"?

You want to know my principles of "good design"? I don't really have any to be honest. My only principles are that providing the land-use of a building is appropriate to its setting (e.g. not having a noisy, polluting factory in the business district), and providing a building meets all statutory building regulations, then it can look however the designer wishes, providing they spend as much money on it as is possible for them to do so.

Most of Liverpool's very finest buildings (and those deserving of any mention on an international level), don't bother trying to establish "pleasing harmonies and a sense of fit when not explicitly noticed." Indeed, it is Liverpool's most embarrassing and cretinous buildings that have tried to do this. Granted, numerous buildings in Liverpool's old business district may confuse you as they utilise portland stone finishes, but this wasn't done so that the buildings referenced one another, it was simply because the owners wanted their buildings clad (or built entirely of) the most oppulent and fasionable materials of the time. It was about showing off wealth and I believe that this tried and tested tradition should continue; it is the only way the city can continue to evolve as something worth visiting, looking at, taking pictures of.

So my principle is that those wishing to develop new buildings should seek to utilise the highest quality materials and finishes possible. The amount of detail and the exact colours of the facades would be entirely up to them. For me, an urban landscape that is mixed up and heterogenous would look best, but I wouldn't expect this to come about by design; only if numerous developers (following profits in the market place) happened to choose this. The market should be left to decide as far possible. I would sooner be surprised than know the appearance of my surroundings were determined by some elitist aesthete treating my environment like the contents of their wardrobe.

You will no doubt try to say "oh, well what is your rationale for saying that markets and money should decide. Why shouldn't planners get to have a say on how new buildings are designed?" My answer is that cities only ever formed as hubs in which people could trade and make money. The great cities are those were lots of money has accumulated, and this is reflected in the built environment of those places. Liverpool is a point in case; when there was lots of money and many, many different individuals all exercising their own design preferences, a grand environment with a mish mash of styles was created; and it is this historic environment that still makes Liverpool worth visiting, in my honest opinion. The design of more recent additions (controlled by Liverpool's seeminly second rate planners) have been pretty awful in the main. The doll's house on the strand; Commutation Plaza; and numerous other instances of pastiche and red brick philistinism (some of which are in the making right now.)

Granted, some areas, such as Lime St plateau and the old business district were a product of wealthy people not just seeking profit but also being philanthropic, and sometimes working with the city corporation and trying to create a general appearance. However, these people had knowledge of how wealth is generated and of what was fashionable at the time. They were not bureaucrats trying to making everything look the same as though it is a design principle and an end in itself. This idea that a new building today should try to look like a building that is 100 years old is just taking things way further than they were ever applied in the old days and only ever seems to have disgusting consequences.

I rest my case.

That is the most despicably abominable post that I have ever read!

I am now locking myself into my lavatory and I won't come out until Wakes week.

...that is a bit Lancastrian sounding. You will be eating Eccles cakes next.

This idea that a new building today should try to look like a building that is 100 years old is just taking things way further than they were ever applied in the old days and only ever seems to have disgusting consequences.


Good post, and I agree with much of your view on this. Districts tend to look similar because of two things: scale of development, and fashion. Because there was a craze for "American-style" white-clad buildings in the early 1900s, which were hugely fashionable......and there was a need and the money to build on a large scale, a district emerged that has the distinctive appearance we now recognise. (Albion House is, incidentally, just slightly older, and appears to me more English in inspiration than many of its neighbours, and is itself incongruous with the prevailing aesthetic of that area as it consolidated in the early 20th century). The Lime Street plateau was, as you point out, a conscious attempt to create a harmonious ensemble - with a bit of squinting and imagination it could transport one briefly to Rome. Personally I do not revere the classic revival as some do, and regard it as a nice bit of fun, just as many currently regard the post modernism of 20 years ago as lacking authenticity or "seriousness"........as though somehow buildings and cities cannot be as absurd and whimsical as the people who live in them.

I've raised before the notion that cities had implicit informal "masterplans" that preceded the more professional type of formal plans that have been commonplace since the late 1940s. This is the notion that professional and commercial elites in cities (including landowners, major employers, political and cultural elites) sometimes developed a consensus on how areas of their city should look, and that such informal consensus tended to result in districts with what we are in this discussion calling "harmony".......that is that buildings in an area of the city tend to be not dissimilar in scale and style and even colour. The reason I put harmony in inverted commas is that the language we use reflects our personal tastes - some might use the term homogeneity in place of harmony, and regard the notion of "harmony" as a loaded one.

But another term for this is of course fashion.........people tend to like fashions and follow them, and that is a less sociological and more straightforward explanation for why the old commercial centre looks like it does, and why Lime Street looks as it does. This explains why Princes Dock and the Beetham zone looks as it does: the buildings are fashionable to the era, and that entire district is being rebuilt at the same time so perhaps inevitably there will be a degree of "harmony" (or homogeneity) in the overall result. One can imagine in 50 years time a poor developer being forced to abandon taste and fashion to produce something that sits harmoniously with Beetham West.

To further confuse things, fashion is often retro: Gothic was singularly retro, Classic revivalism was singularly retro, and Art Deco / Post Modern (the latter of which Liverpool sadly missed out on) were both more anarchically retospective, drawing widely on whatever took the architects fancy. In its own rather insipid way Princes Dock is retro, mimicking aspects of modernism.

I agree that once an era is gone, it's gone. It is absurd to produce pastiche modern buildings that look a little bit old. It's as silly as parents buying trendy clothes to wear when their teenage kids have friends round, or teenagers dressing up in middle aged style to go to a family wedding. (Families that "colour code" their dress can look a bit sinister - anyone remember those pictures of Fergie and her two ugly daughters dressed in harmonising style up until a couple of years ago? Both she and her children looked ridiculous). Different generations need to do their thing, or risk embarrassing themselves. The "colour coding" ethos that has absurdly infected Liverpool planning for twenty years is an example of this. There are perceived to be distinctive "red" and "white" and "gold" areas (Red for brick warehouses, White for the stone faced commercial district, Gold for the stone of the Plateau) but to try to require a modern developer and architect to conform to such old fashions is sterilising. And my disagreement with Lathom about Albion House was partly about this, with his view (I think) that the new building should in some way reflect the colours of Albion House.

One further observation from me, before I get my breakfast. I have noticed how everyone seems enchanted by a new view, which is of the old commercial core (including Tower Buildings) from the south (from the vantage point of say Mann Island), with Unity and then Beetham West rising behind it. It is a pleasing view, soon to be lost by the tall controversial block of flats on the Mann Island site. I have noticed that everyone seems to be photographing this new view and enjoying it.

Now, a while ago, Lathom was arguing (with reference to New World Square) for just such an aesthetic.......the idea that building heights should be controlled because in that way you can mould or sculpt the skyline to create a pleasing effect. He was making this argument, I think, in defence of the finally agreed New World Square design and against the original plan that many of us liked. Unfortunately, from my point of view, he was also making the argument in terms other than height. He was opposed to design features that failed to "reference" (read "respect"?) neighbours, with the idea that a curvey effect is unacceptable unless the neighbouring buildings are curvey, and yet again the evil colour code presumption was there - the original plan many liked had the temerity to not be white in a "white zone", whereas the agreed proposal was white. I'm not picking on Lathom, it's just that he happens to be an articulate advocate for much of the current planning orthodoxy in Liverpool, so it is some of his views I take issue with, not Lathom himself. Also, I am simply disagreeing with him, I am not saying he is wrong.

However, this issue of "height sculpting" (not form, style or colour) is something where I broadly agree with him, and not with some of the "if the market wants to build tall, let it do so anywhere". I think it's vital that the "old" city graduates into the "new" city, and height controls are critical to create such an effect. It's not so much a problem of blocking views, which EH are obsessed with, as with scale and proportion. If two vacant places on the Pier Head (one next to the Liver Building, the other next to the Dock Office) had both been developed 5 years ago with 60 storey offices, I think the result would be highly unfortunate. They would make the three older buildings look like little Dolls Houses, and destroy a highly satisfactory urban vista and feel. Equally, if we allowed a 50 storey tower to replace Gambier Terrace, the overall impact would probably not be good. I think most people accept that some kind of height controls are necessary, and it's a question of what controls and where. I'm not in favour of the petty and destructive reductions we have been witnessing which are very damaging, as with the Peli building which has effectively been mutilated. But I don't favour the colour and style dictats of EH and Liverpool planners, which sterilise the creative and regenerating impulse that development should bring to the city.

Excellent posts Liverpolitan.

At this juncture I would like to apologise to Lathom for seeming to be agressive in my response to his views (and I wouldn't want to be made to face the wall by dinner lady Awayo ;)

Here's the thing. Most, if not all, people on this forum (with the exception of Lathom) usually oppose the aesthetic and interfering sensibilities of Liverpool's planning personnel, especially in their approach to new developments. Just to emphasise, it is one of the reasons so many people supported a 21st Century Liverpool group.

We have all been angry about the loss of Brunswick Quay; inteferences with other developments; and the creation of utter tat around the city. We are often, and rightly, bemused when striking or progressive developments are intefered with and turned in to things that are underwhleming. We hate the likes of what is proposed on Waterloo (?) Dock (-that vile wobbly windowed thing, which is supposed to be in harmony with the 200 year old warehouses, but will really just look cheap and pathetic.)

It isn't just the people on this forum. Everybody I discuss these things with in the real world agrees that numerous planning interventions in Liverpool are stupid. How can so many people be wrong? Remember, its not just these people I refer to (including forummers here) who usually disagree with the planning department's aesthetics, it is also the trained and reputable professionals who put proposals forward- architects, planning consultants, developers wishing to create successful buildings. HOW CAN ALL OF THESE PEOPLE BE WRONG??

And yet the planning officials, who have usually only done a degree in town planning (and perhaps additional low calibre courses such as 'Urban Design') are right?

The reason I, and others, get worked up by these views expressed by the planning department (and Lathom) is that we feel that they are limiting the potential of the city to regenerate and its ability to start being wealthy and prosperous again after so, so long. In fact, usually very frivolous and dubious aesthetic views, which no planning official (or Lathom) is able to justify beyond saying "well its just my taste", are what are damaging the city's potential at this time of growth. The narrow and dubious views of a very small group of people (against the views of everybody I know, plus trained architects, developers, etc) are shaping the city. If anything it is just totally undemocratic, but I wouln't mind this if the ideas were ones that were not so insulting as to have hardly any rationale behind them.

It is for this reason Lathom that you sometimes receive a harsh response from myself and some others. Not because you are a representative of Liverpool council (you say you are not and we should just take you on your word there), but you do agree with many of their decisions and are therefore a representative (if you will) of those ideas. Ideas that most, if not all, of the people I know (including many private sector professionals) think are damaging, both from an aesthetic and an economic/regeneration point of view. It is nothing personal against you, it is just that many people passionately believe that the ideas expressed by yourself and exercised by the council are harmful and unnecessary. They may just be ideas, but they have real-life consequences.

I explained in my last post why exactly I thought these ideas you represent are wrong. What I am trying to do here is explain why most, if not all (from my experience), disagree with what you say and get passionate and sometimes angry by these ideas.

I hope this makes sense and am sorry if I have caused offence previously.

http://www.metalmasters.net/images/bret_m1.jpg

Call me old fashioned but I think `Brittany Spears` has really let herself go.....:ohno:

Were Brittany spears carried by Asterix?

Great find by Ste, hope you don't mind me repeat posting on this thread.

I think this looks great, the simple clean lines of the frontage sit really well with Albion House and it takes in all the car park area and does away with those 'orrible steps!! let's hope this is the scheme put forward for planning permission. One minor amendment maybe required, a restored Coopers pub on the ground floor :)


http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/9494/kingstonhseimage2kd0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1659/kingstonhseimage3wg6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/8582/kingstonhseimage4zn5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I do agree that this looks like a quality developement - though definately on the safe side......and will add much of the `this is a city` feel to that part of the waterfront.

If that isn't the final design and the heritage police get hold of it, we will see a reduction in height, and a change to red brick with referenced bands of white brick to match next door, but with odd shaped miss-aligned windows, just to show they are with the current design times man.

I am grateful that responses have got a bit more measured. Perhaps it therefore won’t provoke too much hostility if I respond further myself.

By ‘pleasing harmonies and a sense of fit [even] when not explicitly noticed’ I mean pretty much what these words mean in the dictionary. They are, I freely admit, terms of aesthetic appreciation, but they are not unique to me.

UrbaniseD’s design criterion of developers spending as much money as they can afford is obviously unworkable. Are planners to be given the right to examine developers’ bank balances? It is an attempt to smuggle in aesthetic principles, such as distaste for the cladding on the Malmaison, without admitting it. What if all they can afford is concrete blocks? Would a rash of buildings like the Unite residences be acceptable? I don’t share the assumption that red brick only ever appears as an imposition by planners, never as the developer’s preference (nor am I congenitally averse to it as a building material).

There are, it is true, some good buildings that do not make reference to their surroundings. St George’s Hall did not, though of course it stemmed from a well established tradition. To my mind the range of buildings on William Brown Street that echo it constitute a ‘pleasing harmony’. Not an outrageous suggestion, surely. ‘Iconic’ buildings, I suppose, are defined by this relative absence of contextual reference (though even Sydney Opera House refers to the harbour’s sailboats). There may be a case for these sometimes. When they are built, they then provide a context for the lesser buildings that surround them, and thereby offer design cues. Good architects work creatively with these, and bad ones achieve mere pastiche. I object to the latter as much as anybody else, but again I doubt that it is exclusively planners who bring it about. Again, I would suggest that the kind of considerations I have advanced are ones architects themselves use.

The point that Liverpool managed perfectly well without planners in Victorian times (putting aside the disastrous effects of this deficit on housing) is superficially appealing and is often made, but my view is that times are now different: cities can no longer rely on unregulated economic forces. For a start, planning policies are required to concentrate investment in city centres rather than suburban edges, where much of it would naturally go. Beyond that, there is the question of how cities compete with each other. Unregulated building would be bound to create homogeneity, as market forces inevitably do. This is why I agree with planners’ frequent evocation of ‘townscape’ considerations. The question I would pose is, what is good about Liverpool? Why should anyone invest or move there, rather than Leeds or Manchester? Not, according to Urb’s and l-pol’s recent contributions, because of the attractions of the population, for whom they seem to have a good deal of disdain. Not, either, because it has (or would have had) the ‘second tallest tower in the north of England’ (hardly a world-shaking claim). Pretty much, I would say, because of its built heritage. Cities in general nowadays need an aesthetic justification as the economic one is insufficient, and fortunately Liverpool has what it takes to meet that need. Planners (and EH, whose contributions I also largely support) seem to recognize this.

This discussion has got some way from the merits of the Kingston House design, which I only mildly criticized. The planners might love it for all I know (in which case no doubt some forumers will discover it is ‘tat’ after all).

I acknowledge UrbaniseD’s explanation of why people get mad at my posts (and his apology): I am seen as a proxy for the Planning Department, who themselves make little public defence of their decisions (they probably aren’t allowed to). But as I’ve said before, it’s a forum not a chorus. It should be possible even to defend Liverpool planners.

I am grateful that responses have got a bit more measured. Perhaps it therefore won’t provoke too much hostility if I respond further myself.

By ‘pleasing harmonies and a sense of fit [even] when not explicitly noticed’ I mean pretty much what these words mean in the dictionary. They are, I freely admit, terms of aesthetic appreciation, but they are not unique to me.

UrbaniseD’s design criterion of developers spending as much money as they can afford is obviously unworkable. Are planners to be given the right to examine developers’ bank balances? It is an attempt to smuggle in aesthetic principles, such as distaste for the cladding on the Malmaison, without admitting it. What if all they can afford is concrete blocks? Would a rash of buildings like the Unite residences be acceptable? I don’t share the assumption that red brick only ever appears as an imposition by planners, never as the developer’s preference (nor am I congenitally averse to it as a building material).

There are, it is true, some good buildings that do not make reference to their surroundings. St George’s Hall did not, though of course it stemmed from a well established tradition. To my mind the range of buildings on William Brown Street that echo it constitute a ‘pleasing harmony’. Not an outrageous suggestion, surely. ‘Iconic’ buildings, I suppose, are defined by this relative absence of contextual reference (though even Sydney Opera House refers to the harbour’s sailboats). There may be a case for these sometimes. When they are built, they then provide a context for the lesser buildings that surround them, and thereby offer design cues. Good architects work creatively with these, and bad ones achieve mere pastiche. I object to the latter as much as anybody else, but again I doubt that it is exclusively planners who bring it about. Again, I would suggest that the kind of considerations I have advanced are ones architects themselves use.

The point that Liverpool managed perfectly well without planners in Victorian times (putting aside the disastrous effects of this deficit on housing) is superficially appealing and is often made, but my view is that times are now different: cities can no longer rely on unregulated economic forces. For a start, planning policies are required to concentrate investment in city centres rather than suburban edges, where much of it would naturally go. Beyond that, there is the question of how cities compete with each other. Unregulated building would be bound to create homogeneity, as market forces inevitably do. This is why I agree with planners’ frequent evocation of ‘townscape’ considerations. The question I would pose is, what is good about Liverpool? Why should anyone invest or move there, rather than Leeds or Manchester? Not, according to Urb’s and l-pol’s recent contributions, because of the attractions of the population, for whom they seem to have a good deal of disdain. Not, either, because it has (or would have had) the ‘second tallest tower in the north of England’ (hardly a world-shaking claim). Pretty much, I would say, because of its built heritage. Cities in general nowadays need an aesthetic justification as the economic one is insufficient, and fortunately Liverpool has what it takes to meet that need. Planners (and EH, whose contributions I also largely support) seem to recognize this.

This discussion has got some way from the merits of the Kingston House design, which I only mildly criticized. The planners might love it for all I know (in which case no doubt some forumers will discover it is ‘tat’ after all).

I acknowledge UrbaniseD’s explanation of why people get mad at my posts (and his apology): I am seen as a proxy for the Planning Department, who themselves make little public defence of their decisions (they probably aren’t allowed to). But as I’ve said before, it’s a forum not a chorus. It should be possible even to defend Liverpool planners.

Lathom,

I can only assume from your convoluted response that you either misunderstood my posts, or are short on ways of responding to the points I raised.

I never said that planners should have to assess a developers ability to provide "high quality and expensive" developments. My point was that planners should not involve themselves with such aesthetic judgements in the first place. You readily admit that these considerations are subjective. Therefore, why should one person (the planner), impose their view when there may be millions of people who disagree and find their tastes offensive? This is what repeatedly happens in Liverpool. Misguided heritage obsession results in quality, architect-designed developments being interfered with and spoiled by ill informed (and often rather naive) aesthetic interventions. We all know about these, one that springs to mind was the mindless reduction in height of the One Park West building, designed by non other than Caesar Peli. There are numerous other examples. On aesthetic matters such as this I believe it is best that planners do not intervene. After all, look at the response on this forum to the building under discussion. Everybody thinks it is great, so why should somebody in the planning department (assuming they are minded to) be able to come along and jeopardise the scheme by imposing their tastes on to it?

The point I was making is that your proposed interventions (and you believe that planners should intervene in this regard) regarding the shades of facing materials (and other minutiae), is harmful to Liverpool. It is harmful because it imposes the narrow taste preferences of one person on to many people; it assumes that a planner can know better than trained architects what looks right in a given context; and it also potentially hinders investment in a city where it is desperately needed.

Also, you devote some of your post to discussing the need for planners per se. But I never said we should be without planners, I am simply saying they should steer clear of untestable aesthetic interventions.

That is my response to you and I hope in future you can have the decency to stick to the point and not misrepresent what I have said in seaparate subject threads. I have the highest respect for the people of Liverpool; and those that I have any disdain for (criminals and the like), I do also for their counterparts in other areas.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Ut congue feugiat leo. Nulla dolor dolor, tincidunt et, tristique at, condimentum eget, dui. Aliquam erat volutpat. Etiam nec nunc. Nulla vestibulum vulputate felis. Aliquam varius. Mauris erat turpis, ornare eu, lacinia ut, egestas eu, enim. Quisque feugiat massa vel augue. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Morbi nec lorem quis sapien lobortis molestie.

Morbi sagittis diam eget sem. Quisque turpis. Cras a enim non magna placerat tempor. Aenean sodales leo eu leo. Curabitur elementum turpis pretium ante. Suspendisse interdum. Nullam sapien nibh, venenatis sit amet, ultricies blandit, cursus id, pede. Cras scelerisque. Etiam eu pede. Nam hendrerit, felis non dapibus dictum, lorem augue malesuada odio, et convallis tellus tortor sollicitudin dolor. In orci urna, tristique a, pellentesque lacinia, iaculis et, massa. In scelerisque mi nec est. Nunc id velit. Donec at erat sit amet nisi tincidunt malesuada.

Suspendisse bibendum molestie lacus. Suspendisse quis dui. Quisque erat. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Donec cursus magna id lacus. Sed vulputate volutpat nulla. Sed condimentum purus ac erat. Maecenas eu elit quis dolor tincidunt lobortis. Mauris metus libero, dignissim at, fringilla eget, faucibus ac, neque. Nunc a justo. Integer ac est. Pellentesque non velit. Proin mollis volutpat eros. Donec ligula. Proin interdum. Sed et augue. Fusce vel mi. Etiam lacus.

Sed eros metus, sagittis id, pellentesque id, commodo quis, mi. Maecenas in nulla. Curabitur convallis suscipit justo. Duis vulputate consectetuer turpis. Sed fringilla justo. Proin gravida risus aliquet est. Donec hendrerit diam at justo. Donec nibh dui, auctor sit amet, feugiat aliquam, fringilla nec, pede. Sed lobortis. Donec in ipsum a tellus vestibulum malesuada. Maecenas quis lorem. Vivamus mattis congue tellus. Phasellus id magna a orci vehicula convallis. Vestibulum ut nunc. Nunc dignissim, risus ac adipiscing euismod, nulla sem tristique velit, in sagittis lorem turpis ut justo. Ut eget ipsum. Nullam sollicitudin velit sed risus. Sed nec ipsum. Nulla leo arcu, tincidunt vitae, faucibus et, ultricies nec, sapien. Sed aliquet odio eget lectus.

Nam non sapien. Ut a urna porttitor libero congue vehicula. Quisque urna velit, porta mattis, ornare porta, molestie eu, purus. Maecenas orci libero, tempor id, tristique nec, tristique dictum, sem. Aenean elit leo, dictum vitae, tempor in, mattis non, dui. Ut consectetuer sagittis lectus. Maecenas tempor, diam non pellentesque commodo, erat nisl vestibulum turpis, quis congue pede nisi non felis. Nunc sagittis. Nullam mollis suscipit quam. Nullam at mi. Maecenas purus. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Phasellus suscipit. Nunc aliquam, mauris et scelerisque accumsan, tortor elit luctus mi, vitae placerat risus augue quis nunc. Sed molestie pede eget justo.

Lathom,

After all, look at the response on this forum to the building under discussion. Everybody thinks it is great.

Without wishing to be pedantic, that's not entirely correct.

Also, on this 'role of planners' debate, let's not get ourselves polarised into extremes- the history of European city-building and infrastructure design is illuminated by gifted visionaries who excercised an a kind of artistic "benevalent dictorship" on proceedings to great effect.

It's quite another matter finding those gifted and visionary planners I'll grant you.

Great find by Ste, hope you don't mind me repeat posting on this thread.

I think this looks great, the simple clean lines of the frontage sit really well with Albion House and it takes in all the car park area and does away with those 'orrible steps!! let's hope this is the scheme put forward for planning permission. One minor amendment maybe required, a restored Coopers pub on the ground floor :)


http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/9494/kingstonhseimage2kd0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1659/kingstonhseimage3wg6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/8582/kingstonhseimage4zn5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I like this design and think it works very well It looks like the architect has correctly IMO designed it and it's massing as part of the long composition of the Strand and in this context it works very well. It also works well in making an individual statement which differs from the White Star building across James street which is unique and should always retain this. It would have been very easy to go pastiche as mentioned already. I can never understand this appproach as all that ends up happening is that some of the visual quality of the building that is supposedly being 'protected' is lost.
My one concern about this building is the ground floor of the south elevation which seems to have a bare wall facing the strand. The strand is a unique and unusual feature for a city in this country and should be taken advantage of with retail and leisure facilities at ground floor level. The requests for a reurn of Coopers are truly justifired

I agree that liveley activity as provided by Coopers should be encouraged in this building. Just look at the Halifax dolls house also, it's ground level is effectively a dead space carpark, behind a wall with some holes in, very nasty and low quality for such a busy location.

If no Coopers in this new building, then definately an option to put it into the ground/basement floors of Albion house, with apartments/hotel/offices above.

I wish that something could be done about that whole block from the pub at the end by the courts, right the way down to Kingston. All of the 'houses' there are pretty low grade and tacky. Not a great look as one of the main roads onto the strand and the waterfront....or as one comes out of James Street train station opposite.

It would be great if that whole block could be knocked down and some major buildings could go up there. It would be great to see a few clubs and high class bars on the lower floors and office and/or residential above.

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/1397/p1000219el1.jpg

I am one of the apparently few people who actually liked this design. Over the top probably and would have inspired loads of moaning letters to the Echo if ever built but I believe it was right for the site.

The problem I see with the Kingston House site is that it has had a very bland building there for as long as anyone can remember. However, that corner and Albion House together announce a major gateway into the city - it needs to be marked in some way.

What this design does in a very light hearted way is to refer to Albion House without becoming in any way a pastiche of it.

Just look at the various elements: most obvious is the 'streaky bacon' effect but notice also the round corner tower that reflects the circular turrets, the fully glazed and set back top storeys reflecting the stepped dormer windows and the weird ringed masts reflecting a similar detail on top of the domes. Even the 'top heavy' profile of Albion House is referenced.

The point is that this is a completely modern building that can never be accused of being a mere pastiche of the old. What I think it would do would be to 'pick out' the referenced details on Albion House and therefore draw attention to it. How successful that would be, I can't say but it is similar to how interior designers use colours to create harmony between different parts of the design.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1659/kingstonhseimage3wg6.jpg
The replacement design is a great improvement on the existing and I think the height and massing are just right. However, this is not an iconic building and it would help if there was some reference in the design to its neighbours so that it fits well into that particular site.

OK, I'm not that bothered that it doesn't relate to the Halifax 'dolls house' but the only building in the vicinity whose design it seems to relate to is Beetham Plaza. However, that may well change by the time the new Kingston House is completed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/Martin_S/DevelopmentSummary/mannisland1.jpg

Notice the similarity? I think this new Kingston House has been designed to harmonise with the office building forming the closest part of the Mann Island Development. Together these two 13/14 storey buildings are going to frame the entrance to the central section of the Strand - the most impressive section featuring the Three Graces. It will also be a gateway to this new dramatic urban space to be created by the Mann Island Development in conjunction with the existing Port of Liverpool building and the Georges Dock Gate tunnel ventilator.

Interesting times.

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/1397/p1000219el1.jpg

I am one of the apparently few people who actually liked this design. Over the top probably and would have inspired loads of moaning letters to the Echo if ever built but I believe it was right for the site.

The problem I see with the Kingston House site is that it has had a very bland building there for as long as anyone can remember. However, that corner and Albion House together announce a major gateway into the city - it needs to be marked in some way.

What this design does in a very light hearted way is to refer to Albion House without becoming in any way a pastiche of it.

Just look at the various elements: most obvious is the 'streaky bacon' effect but notice also the round corner tower that reflects the circular turrets, the fully glazed and set back top storeys reflecting the stepped dormer windows and the weird ringed masts reflecting a similar detail on top of the domes. Even the 'top heavy' profile of Albion House is referenced.

The point is that this is a completely modern building that can never be accused of being a mere pastiche of the old. What I think it would do would be to 'pick out' the referenced details on Albion House and therefore draw attention to it. How successful that would be, I can't say but it is similar to how interior designers use colours to create harmony between different parts of the design.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1659/kingstonhseimage3wg6.jpg
The replacement design is a great improvement on the existing and I think the height and massing are just right. However, this is not an iconic building and it would help if there was some reference in the design to its neighbours so that it fits well into that particular site.

OK, I'm not that bothered that it doesn't relate to the Halifax 'dolls house' but the only building in the vicinity whose design it seems to relate to is Beetham Plaza. However, that may well change by the time the new Kingston House is completed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/Martin_S/DevelopmentSummary/mannisland1.jpg

Notice the similarity? I think this new Kingston House has been designed to harmonise with the office building forming the closest part of the Mann Island Development. Together these two 13/14 storey buildings are going to frame the entrance to the central section of the Strand - the most impressive section featuring the Three Graces. It will also be a gateway to this new dramatic urban space to be created by the Mann Island Development in conjunction with the existing Port of Liverpool building and the Georges Dock Gate tunnel ventilator.

Interesting times.

Yes, Martin, if you actually study the building it's quite interesting.As woody has said,it looks like something off Flash Gordon.It definitley has an Art Deco theme to it as well as the other subtleties you refer to. Remember it's actually facing the Art deco ventilation shaft and it's art deco furniture(the street lamps)So it's a modern building with subtle references to it's surroundings without be slavish. Can we have that one please.:) (the 1st render)

Yes, Martin, if you actually study the building it's quite interesting.As woody has said,it looks like something off Flash Gordon.It definitley has an Art Deco theme to it as well as the other subtleties you refer to. Remember it's actually facing the Art deco ventilation shaft and it's art deco furniture(the street lamps)So it's a modern building with subtle references to it's surroundings without be slavish. Can we have that one please.:) (the 1st render)

Well boys I agree with you both, would love to see this built, but not on this site the second render is a " safe design" so to complement ( ugh) the Mann Island office block just across the Strand and as such would give Nigel Lee no sleepless nights. Build it up in Moorfields to kick start the urgent regeneration that this area so badly needs, its one part of the city centre that could accomodate some daring architecture without causing the heritage police palputations, although whinging Wayne might disagree:nuts:

I see no signs in these plans, Mann Island / Kingston House etc to incorporate any additional entry / exit points for access below the Strand to James Street Merseysrail.

It was muted quite some time ago now that any redevelopments in the immediate vercinity of James Street station should facilitate better access to Merseyrail and within the new developments, thus helping to breakdown the barrier that the Strand had become.

Surely like `Central Village` having a substancial rail facilty within mere yards of a new build should encourage a partnership to increase traffic flow into and out of the area.

If you merely take a leaf out of Londons book, rail stations provide a mix of retail space leading into the new developments and this is surely what the `Strand` needs and could expand on via links to `James Street` station.

I see no signs in these plans, Mann Island / Kingston House etc to incorporate any additional entry / exit points for access below the Strand to James Street Merseysrail.

It was muted quite some time ago now that any redevelopments in the immediate vercinity of James Street station should facilitate better access to Merseyrail and within the new developments, thus helping to breakdown the barrier that the Strand had become.

Surely like `Central Village` having a substancial rail facilty within mere yards of a new build should encourage a partnership to increase traffic flow into and out of the area.

If you merely take a leaf out of Londons book, rail stations provide a mix of retail space leading into the new developments and this is surely what the `Strand` needs and could expand on via links to `James Street` station.

Sounds a good idea Pietari. The Fourth Grace was originally to have had an underground connection to James Street but it was dropped at an early stage due to the complexity of providing it. I think there are a lot of subterranean obstacles under James Street such as the old tunnel from the Castle to the foreshore.

All the same, the more entrances that an underground station can have, the better. It would be nice to see Moorfields having an entrance in Dale Street rather than an upstairs one down a side street.

Interesting observations Martin. I notice that no storm of protest arose from your deployment of the 'flowery handkerchief'.

It's a difficult question where referencing ends and pastiche begins. For me the Flash Gordon scheme gets uncomfortably close; I think it slightly cheapens Albion House. Certainly the Halifax is way over the line, apart from being ridiculously small-scaled.

I've been wanting to make the following observation for quite some time, and this thread is now becoming a place for it: that the drive along the uncompleted 'Ring Road' from King Edward Street to Sefton St (or in the other direction) is one of the best urban drives you can have anywhere. The road is often castigated for its unfriendliness to pedestrians and for severing the Pier Head from the city, and these are certainly important considerations, but the experience of driving is also part of the experience of a city. This road is broad and impressive, and its gentle curvature unfolds an astonishing sequence of varied and superb buildings and views that could almost have been designed with theatrical impression in mind. Moreover, it is in the process of improving dramatically from even its current magnificence, with the ACC, the new Chavasse Park and the forthcoming gateway towers to the south.

The pedestrian can have something of this experience, but of course more slowly and tiringly: it really needs a car to appreciate properly. I can think of very few if any urban drives comparable to it.

Interesting observations Martin. I notice that no storm of protest arose from your deployment of the 'flowery handkerchief'.

It's a difficult question where referencing ends and pastiche begins. For me the Flash Gordon scheme gets uncomfortably close; I think it slightly cheapens Albion House. Certainly the Halifax is way over the line, apart from being ridiculously small-scaled.

I've been wanting to make the following observation for quite some time, and this thread is now becoming a place for it: that the drive along the uncompleted 'Ring Road' from King Edward Street to Sefton St (or in the other direction) is one of the best urban drives you can have anywhere. The road is often castigated for its unfriendliness to pedestrians and for severing the Pier Head from the city, and these are certainly important considerations, but the experience of driving is also part of the experience of a city. This road is broad and impressive, and its gentle curvature unfolds an astonishing sequence of varied and superb buildings and views that could almost have been designed with theatrical impression in mind. Moreover, it is in the process of improving dramatically from even its current magnificence, with the ACC, the new Chavasse Park and the forthcoming gateway towers to the south.

The pedestrian can have something of this experience, but of course more slowly and tiringly: it really needs a car to appreciate properly. I can think of very few if any urban drives comparable to it.

Here here! Well said that man. Everytime I drive along that road I think the same thing. And the pedestrian issue could be easily resolved with some decent crossings, or even some light new 'walkover' structures... but everytime I go down that road I'm really grateful that it's there and that I get to enjoy such an amazing series of views and buildings.. and it's getting better all the time. The addition of the new Beetham tower and developments on Princess Dock have totally transformed the urban landscape from the drivers perspective, I can't wait until that road becomes the best urban highway in the country!

Another thought I had was how well suited Liverpool is for a full marathon - just imagine running the final stretch along that road! The ariel shots would be amazing!

Interesting observations Martin. I notice that no storm of protest arose from your deployment of the 'flowery handkerchief'.

It's a difficult question where referencing ends and pastiche begins. For me the Flash Gordon scheme gets uncomfortably close; I think it slightly cheapens Albion House. Certainly the Halifax is way over the line, apart from being ridiculously small-scaled.

I've been wanting to make the following observation for quite some time, and this thread is now becoming a place for it: that the drive along the uncompleted 'Ring Road' from King Edward Street to Sefton St (or in the other direction) is one of the best urban drives you can have anywhere. The road is often castigated for its unfriendliness to pedestrians and for severing the Pier Head from the city, and these are certainly important considerations, but the experience of driving is also part of the experience of a city. This road is broad and impressive, and its gentle curvature unfolds an astonishing sequence of varied and superb buildings and views that could almost have been designed with theatrical impression in mind. Moreover, it is in the process of improving dramatically from even its current magnificence, with the ACC, the new Chavasse Park and the forthcoming gateway towers to the south.

The pedestrian can have something of this experience, but of course more slowly and tiringly: it really needs a car to appreciate properly. I can think of very few if any urban drives comparable to it.

I think Poli and UrbaniseD are overstretched on other threads at the moment so we can wave these flowery handkerchiefs for a while.

I'm not too upset that the previous Albion House scheme has been replaced but I am convinced that Liverpool needs a fair number of buildings that grab our attention and whether, we like them or not, we don't ignore them. I suppose with Mann Island and the Museum of Liverpool, we are beginning to get some challenging designs and so things are changing.

I agree about the Strand. This is an amazing highway. I drive along it practically every day so I may be a bit jaded but all the same it is fantastic to see such a variety of buildings. I always love the view of the Liver Building you get from the exit to the Mersey Tunnel dock branch - what a first impression of the city. It is always great to look up the side streets such as Dale Street and Brunswick Street and see the magnificent buildings that the city has to offer.

That is why I really like the office block part of the Mann Island development. It will extend the view corridor and, what with the Pelli towers and, hopefully, the L1 development, we will have a very long urban highway, practically unparalleled in Britain.

The Strand route is brilliant, very exciting when entering the city from the south end and it's 'offer' is being extended starting back in Sefton St. with Vermont Tower and hopefully soon Queens Dock tower.

A major effort is needed by the city to plant mature trees along parts of this road, they would make such a difference and improve the air quality.

I don't think LCC will ever go with pedestrian bridges or subways, it seems like they have put their money on the 'Super-crossings' Where are they? why are they taking such a long time?

Couldn't agree more doug, the strand is where everything is happening at the moment and key to it's success is the access from one side to the other. I really hope lcc are working on something.
I noticed Keppie Massie are advertising the Norton Scrap site as a development opportunity. Should imagine we'll see something of a similar size to Sefton St on there.
Some trees along there would be great too, a european style boulevard. The strand will be unrecognisable in 3 years.

So we don't forget, a couple of shots of KH taken yesterday:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/Martin_S/Kingston%20House/070428-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/Martin_S/Kingston%20House/070428-2.jpg

When originally built, this building was the Mersey Mission to Seamen and had a large neon cross in the space where the 'Figure Factory' sign is, which was a landmark in the night view of the waterfront.

However much we dislike a building, we can't forget that once architects, planners and developers saw this as the most appropriate development for the site, including the pedestrian walkway to the side which would once have allowed people to walk from the Pier Head to the bottom of James Street by Coopers without crossing a road.

Lathom has pointed out that the selection of materials would have been made to relect Albion House. All the same, the site does seem to be crying out for an at least ten storey building, if only to hide the rather unattractive buildings behind it.

Martin a couple of gooduns for the archives, How could we ever forget this sad building.........it housed Coopers a rather atmospheric watering hole.
That gable end next to the walkway looks like a temporary structure almost as if this elevation was planned to continue along the Strand.

Martin a couple of gooduns for the archives, How could we ever forget this sad building.........it housed Coopers a rather atmospheric watering hole.
That gable end next to the walkway looks like a temporary structure almost as if this elevation was planned to continue along the Strand.

Who could ever forget Coopers. Must be the only place in recent years where I have gone into a crowd of drunken revellers listening to a live band and found myself the youngest person there.

Does look like there may have been plans for an extension, or it may have been where the building abutted an older demolished structure.

Who could ever forget Coopers. Must be the only place in recent years where I have gone into a crowd of drunken revellers listening to a live band and found myself the youngest person there.

Does look like there may have been plans for an extension, or it may have been where the building abutted an older demolished structure.

LOL, yes Martin and you had to leave your "zimmer frame" outside:lol:

It could have abutted a long gone structure, the old warehouses along the Strand would have been about 6 storeys high

Martin, also don't forget that was half 12 in the morning!!

I had some very good times in `Coopers`, teee heee heee :cheers:

Coopers, for a long time when we were anywere near the waterfront, the cry would ring out.....................

"One last pint in Coopers ,before they shut it down"

Well we managed a fair number of " last pints" before the BELL was rung for the final time back in 2006, and this photo of my very last pint that I supped last August Bank Holiday.................a lasting memory of the Mathew Street Festival:cheers:

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/9283/p8280528cd2.jpg

That's one sad and lonely looking last Coopers pint.....:cry:

Is that one quarter full or three quarters empty?

Is that one quarter full or three quarters empty?


Thats ..............One Quarter full:cheers: :cheers:

My middle name is not ....positive ....for nothing:banana:

Woody that's a great pic, symbolic and a bit sad but I'm uplifted by the thought of a new Coopers, sat outside in the sunshine with one of the best urban views in Britain to stare at, the developers must put a new boozer there it maybe we should start an e-mail campaign?

Item from the Executive Board, seemingly another example of a landowner holding out for an unreasonable price and causing a time-consuming and costly CPO procedure. The walkway is to go.

http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/Published/C00000282/M00006838/AI00040171/$REG27KingstonHouseCPO.docA.ps.pdf

Item from the Executive Board, seemingly another example of a landowner holding out for an unreasonable price and causing a time-consuming and costly CPO procedure. The walkway is to go.

http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/Published/C00000282/M00006838/AI00040171/$REG27KingstonHouseCPO.docA.ps.pdf

Confirm what the walkway is, is it something connected to rear of buildings, or the slope walkway from courts down to road....!!!!

This is the structure thats causing the hold up............

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/6703/liverpoolwander20100704rn5.jpg

Access to the walkway is via Derby Square and through a broken hoarding....

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/980/liverpoolwander20100704ie8.jpg

The sooner this walkway is gone the better, but in the meantime it does offer a good vantage point of the Strand and waterfront for photos.........

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/5346/liverpoolwander20100704zm4.jpg

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/8464/liverpoolwander20100704to9.jpg

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/1918/liverpoolwander20100704eq3.jpg

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/6973/liverpoolwander20100704yn3.jpg

Great pics Woody.

These were taken a few months ago.


http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/gedfleming/ANY%20PHOTOS/DSC_0154.jpg


http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/gedfleming/ANY%20PHOTOS/DSC_0151.jpg


http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/gedfleming/ANY%20PHOTOS/DSC_0143.jpg



http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/gedfleming/ANY%20PHOTOS/DSC_0144-1.jpg


http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/gedfleming/ANY%20PHOTOS/DSC_0149.jpg


http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/gedfleming/ANY%20PHOTOS/DSC_0148.jpg


http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/gedfleming/ANY%20PHOTOS/DSC_0147.jpg


http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/gedfleming/ANY%20PHOTOS/DSC_0145.jpg

Cheers Ged, love that old bus (crap colour) :lol:, I remember the old days that you could chase a bus and grab that nice big bar, or jump off before its stopped, :nuts:

Cheers Ged, love that old bus (crap colour) :lol:, I remember the old days that you could chase a bus and grab that nice big bar, or jump off before its stopped, :nuts:


Ahhh the old days eh...When I wus a Lad me marrrrrrr an me..Lol

That's one hell of a bus route from there ;) ... who says we don't have excellent transport links with London?

Took me a while to find this thread, its been sometime since it was last commented on.

I dont know about you, but im getting a little bored of looking at an oversized Paul McCartney.

Like alot of you, i was of the belief this project was cancelled or Postponed.

But i found this image on the Langtree Website, dated from Oct 2008.

http://www.langtreegroupplc.co.uk/assets/_files/cached/img/960x250/oct_08/Kingston_House_CGI1223656012.jpg

Apologies if this picture has been posted already, but its new to me.

very different from the origional design. i THINK i like it, but not as much as the previous one... they would look nice side by side (I know im living in a dream world) :)

i havnt seen that before, but i like it! It reminds me of St Pauls Square a bit too!

This is much better, but i wouldnt hold my breath. I have no idea why Langtree get selected by LV all the time. They have a terrible track record on delivery. Go look at 86 - 90 Duke St for example.

I haven't seen that render before either. It doesn't look too bad. Nothing outstanding, but acceptable for that site. I think the most important thing it would bring is a building of proper scale on that part of The Strand. With One Park West a little further along, and the new Merseytravel building soon to appear across the road, the current building, and the vacant site next to it will look increasingly out of place. Let's hope we see some action sooner rather than later.

Just one question though, what is with the white apartment looking building being reflected in the lower front windows on that render?

I like the angular bits to the render... will go with the pyramids appearing across the road as well as One Park West. Hope it happens!

Just one question though, what is with the white apartment looking building being reflected in the lower front windows on that render?

i have no idea mate... im still a tad confused by the Tree on the very top floor WTF?

The Tree means its a green building, *ROFL*
kat

The Tree means its a green building, *ROFL*
kat

That or a new High spec canabis farm, The More i look at this render the more of a botch job it seems. Which validates Buggedboys comment.

That render's sweating buckets to make yet another shitty new-build not look like the blot on the tourist area it would be.

Replace blots with blots.

Not good enough, but par the course.

If that red cladding was some kind of brushed metal it would look ace. However, I doubt it.

If that red cladding was some kind of brushed metal it would look ace. However, I doubt it.

I assumed it was from the render. If so, then it would be a good little development imo.

Slightly dubious about the "arty" style of the render though.

that renders appears to only occupy the Kingston House footprint, i take it the waste of space and remaining "walkways in the sky" stairs adjacent are staying?

Id like to add that Ropewalks Circle 109 is reflected in the office space windows on the ground floor to the right - sorry for being pedantic, but it bugs me when visualisation artists are lazy ; )

that renders appears to only occupy the Kingston House footprint, i take it the waste of space and remaining "walkways in the sky" stairs adjacent are staying?

Id like to add that Ropewalks Circle 109 is reflected in the office space windows on the ground floor to the right - sorry for being pedantic, but it bugs me when visualisation artists are lazy ; )

Isn't that space (plus the Halifax dolls house) earmarked for the new court building? There is a decision still to be made on whether to site it there or near Moorfields

No where near as nice as the previous proposal, but.. its still alright and just the right density to beef up the Strand

From the Planning Explorer -

Application Number - 09F/2708
Site Address - Kingston House James Street Liverpool L2 7NX
Proposal - To erect 2.4m high paladin fence around perimeter of site
Applicant - Northwest Development

For anyone not sure what paladin fencing looks like, it's this - http://www.fence-tech.co.uk/page.asp?pid=46

Presumably this means we shouldn't expect much, if anything, to happen with this site any time soon, otherwise they would just erect conventional hoardings, and not go to the expense of a proper steel fence.

This site needs a high quality solid office building, something along the lines of CW, good quality materials, modern but not to in your face. I really wish someone would sort out Albion House, such a sad waste and considering its history

just to put this in the right thread :)

Sorry folks I can't find the thread for Kingston House, but it looks as though demolition has begun. :)

That's good news, although with no active proposals in place for the site, it looks like we may be losing one vacant site (when the Travelodge gets underway next month), only for another one to appear next door. Still, a decent building next to a vacant site is probably better than an ugly building next to a vacant site, so I suppose it will still be an improvement.

EDIT - I've just checked, and the application submitted last December to erect a 2.4m fence around the perimeter of the site was refused on the grounds that -

1. The proposal to erect 2.4 metre high black paladin security fencing around the James Street (northern) and Strand Street (western) boundaries of the application site is considered wholly inappropriate. The proposed boundary treatment, by virtue of its design and materials, would be of poor architectural quality and constitute incongruous and overly prominent features that fail to respect local distinctiveness. The fencing would adversely affect important views and vistas into and out of the adjacent Castle Street and Albert Dock Conservation Areas and the associated Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Site, which comprise a number of local landmark buildings, including the Grade II* listed Albion House and the 3 no. Grade I & II* listed 'Three Grace' buildings. Furthermore, the proposal would fail to offer a suitable long-term regeneration solution for a derelict brownfield site that currently has a negative impact upon the character and setting of its historic surroundings.

2. The proposal would set an undesirable precedent for further unsuitable boundary treatments in this historic area, which would further detract from the historic character and setting of the Castle Street and Albert Dock Conservation Areas, as well as the Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Site, which have recently experienced significant physical and visual enhancement.

Link - http://northgate.liverpool.gov.uk/DocumentExplorer/Application/stream.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2F10.8.21.67%2FNorthgate%2FDocumentExplorer%2FDocumentStream%2FDocumentStream.aspx%3Fname%3Dpacorr%255cappage%255cnotice%255c2736846.doc%26unique%3D743790%26type%3DMVMPRD_DC_PLANAPP (requires .pdf)

Does this mean that they're demolishing the Figure Factory building as well? Please say it does.

^^

Yes. The plans for the fencing above show that the intention is to level the entire site.

Oh thank god, cheers.

Does this mean that they're demolishing the Figure Factory building as well? Please say it does.


Does this mean we can elavate the Figure Factory and Kingston House above the Doll's House in our hit list?

No visible signs of demolition at the moment so no picture update although scaffolding is being erected as we speak.

No visible signs of demolition at the moment so no picture update although scaffolding is being erected as we speak.

Isn't the scaffolding just around the Figure Factory rather than Kingston House?

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/3677/p1010261h.jpg

Yes. Walked past there earlier and there was no sign of any imminent demolition of Kingston House but I'll monitor any changes. Either way it's a start.

Edit: didn't hang around for too long as there was a ne'er do well on the opposite corner taking photos. ;)

Yeah, I always tell my kids to be careful in town you never know who's around!! :)

Will be sad to see this go:ohno:

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc242/woody43/liverpool%202010/PageantofPowerontheStrand25-5-20-21.jpg

just to put this in the right thread :)

Yosef, many thanks for relocating this ! :cheers:

Ok... I am totally confused with what is going on here

1)Is it the scary futuristic building going here
2)The nice glass/steel office building going here
3) The other glass office building (redish one)
4) Travel lodge?

^^

In short, nothing is going here. There is currently no planning permission in place to allow anyone to build anything on the site. The Travelodge will be going on the surface car park site that is just out of shot to the right on Woody's photo above, and should be on-site in the next few weeks.

http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/assets/_files/cached/img/402x256.275/may_10/pnw__1274976921_Kingston_House.jpg
Demolition work on the 1960s building started this week | SkyScraperCity.com

Demolition of Kingston House begins
27 May 2010, 17:16
Michael Hunt

Control Demolition Group is carrying out the work to demolish the forty year old building, which dominates the corner between James Street and The Strand in Liverpool city centre.

The North West Development Agency, which owns the building, has confirmed demolition work is being carried out but said there is no plan for development.

The NWDA said it will tidy up the site ready for potential development in the future once the building has been demolished.

The upper floors have been vacant for a number of years following the closure of a women-only health club, known as the Figure Factory. The Coopers Emporium bar previously occupied the ground floor of what was once a hotel.

In the past week, scaffolding had been put around the building to begin the demolition.

The site has been earmarked by Liverpool Vision, the economic development agency for the city, as a prominent location for development. Developer Langtree has been linked to the building but NWDA could not confirm whether it is still involved.

Kingston House is located opposite Neptune and Countryside's Mann Island apartments, due to complete this summer, and near to Liverpool's World Heritage waterfront site and new Museum of Liverpool, due open in 2011.

Source: Place North West (http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/archive/6276-demolition-of-kingston-house-begins.html)

So another surface car park is to be expected then? Probably better than what is there currently, although I'd prefer maybe some greenery until a permanent solution is found.

With this new commie-wannabe council I guess we'll be seeing more surface car parks in and around the city centre over the next few years. (Sincerely hope I'm wrong!)

What's all a bit depressing about this site is that while the demolition is to be welcomed, there remains no indication of anything being worked up to go on the site. Indeed, the NWDA applied for, but were thankfully refused permission, to put a permanent steel fence around the site. Clearly you don't do that if you have any reason to believe the site will be developed in the short to medium-term. This is a prime site, yet there's absolutely nothing coming forward for it. The NWDA has been sitting on the site for some time now. If they can't find something suitable for it, then maybe they should let it go to market. Even in the current economic climate, I'd be surprised if someone wasn't interested.

If the site is to be undeveloped for an extended length of time, rather than the (rightly) rejected barriers surely this an opportunity for some greenery and seating ? A bit draughty though on that corner.

Does anyone know whether the exposed buildings behind will look like. Often an ugly building which gives the impression of urban build up is better to look at than an empty plot with an exposed side... This is an important site which will become even more important when Mann Island is finished

What's all a bit depressing about this site is that while the demolition is to be welcomed, there remains no indication of anything being worked up to go on the site. Indeed, the NWDA applied for, but were thankfully refused permission, to put a permanent steel fence around the site. Clearly you don't do that if you have any reason to believe the site will be developed in the short to medium-term. This is a prime site, yet there's absolutely nothing coming forward for it. The NWDA has been sitting on the site for some time now. If they can't find something suitable for it, then maybe they should let it go to market. Even in the current economic climate, I'd be surprised if someone wasn't interested.

I agree, its such a prime site and should of been redeveloped years ago, this together with Albion House should be high quality office space, and a gateway if you like to James Street and the rest of town

^^

In short, nothing is going here. There is currently no planning permission in place to allow anyone to build anything on the site. The Travelodge will be going on the surface car park site that is just out of shot to the right on Woody's photo above, and should be on-site in the next few weeks.

Travelodge site............

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc242/woody43/liverpool%202010/PageantofPowerontheStrand25-5-20-30.jpg

The cleared Kingston House site could be used as a compound during the construction on the adjacent Hotel.

Just across the road is Moor House, also under wraps, but for a very different reason, it looks like a re-clad. not sure, but isn`t this to be a Hotel.....

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc242/woody43/liverpool%202010/MathewstreetFestival24-8-08sunday01.jpg

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc242/woody43/liverpool%202010/Liverpoolvisit24May08046.jpg

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc242/woody43/liverpool%202010/PageantofPowerontheStrand25-5-20-20.jpg

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc242/woody43/liverpool%202010/PageantofPowerontheStrand25-5-20-19.jpg

Just across the road is Moor House, also under wraps, but for a very different reason, it looks like a re-clad. not sure, but isn`t this to be a Hotel.....

Yep. Moor House is being converted into a Days Inn hotel by Sanguine Hospitality Management, the same people behind the Hotel Indigo on Chapel Street - http://www.sanguinehospitality.com/daysinn-liverpool.html

Chris, cheers for the link

Can anyone can grab a photo of the site today? Drove past the site at 9am this morning and there's a yellow JCB sat atop a pile of rubble in the middle of the building smashing through walls. It all looked a bit gung ho rather than a controlled demolition job.

Not sure the folk staying above the Liverpool would be in for a good night's sleep :lol:

Can anyone can grab a photo of the site today? Drove past the site at 9am this morning and there's a yellow JCB sat atop a pile of rubble in the middle of the building smashing through walls. It all looked a bit gung ho rather than a controlled demolition job.
Good, that hideous building doesn't deserve a civilised demolition! :)

Can anyone can grab a photo of the site today? Drove past the site at 9am this morning and there's a yellow JCB sat atop a pile of rubble in the middle of the building smashing through walls. It all looked a bit gung ho rather than a controlled demolition job.

Found this on Flickr:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4051/4674741926_fbeb192ff6_b.jpg
RobJW (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rjrob/4674741926/in/pool-52242121198@N01)

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/465/p1020776y.jpg

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/7809/p1020777c.jpg

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/7264/p1020778f.jpg

Does anyone know what the glass panel samples are all about that have been hoisted up in front of the Halifax 'dolls house' building??? Sign of things to come?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I noticed those. Possibly something to do with the Travelodge, or maybe even the mann island office building?

Very very odd....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very very odd....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It looks like your pictures aren't appearing, 21C.

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x167/yoshef/P1070966.jpg

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x167/yoshef/P1070964.jpg

It looks like your pictures aren't appearing, 21C.

I know, i should have taken a picture but I was in a hurry....

I know, i should have taken a picture but I was in a hurry....

Oops! Sorry, I thought your posts were meant to include pictures. My mistake!

I'm glad Kingston House is finally coming down. It's been a long time coming!

Notorious Liverpool city centre eyesore starts to be demolished
Jun 17 2010 by David Bartlett, Liverpool Daily Post

AN EYESORE corner of Liverpool’s World Heritage Site is set to be transformed into an office block with space for 500 workers.

Work has finally started to demolish the 1960s Kingston House, on the corner of The Strand and James Street, in Liverpool city centre.

The Northwest Development Agency, which owns the former home of Cooper’s Emporium and the Figure Factory, said it wanted to clear up the site ahead of a planning application later this year.

It comes more than two years after the shabby overhead walkway across The Strand, that was linked to the building, was demolished.

Cabinet member for regeneration and transport Malcolm Kennedy said: “It is a horrible building, and you could hardly think it was a good thing to keep the building.

“It will prove to be very good news when we see the new development going up.

“This is an example of the city council working with partners to deal with a problem in the city centre with the support of the NWDA.

“The city centre would not have been transformed in the way it has without the assistance of the NWDA.”

In January, 2007, developers Langtree won a competition to redevelop the site into a 12-storey office building.

The brief for the quarter-acre site offered the opportunity to create a landmark high-quality office building of between 10 and 12 storeys with active retail or leisure uses at street level. The prominent location means that a high-quality building was a significant factor in selection of the preferred scheme and development partner.

The proposals to build 85,000 sq ft of Grade A office space and 15,000sq ft of retail/leisure space were originally set to be submitted for planning permission in the autumn of 2007.

Continues (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/06/17/notorious-liverpool-city-centre-eyesore-starts-to-be-demolished-92534-26668663/2/) >>

It comes more than two years after the shabby overhead walkway across The Strand, that was linked to the building, was demolished.

Do the thick bastards at the DP even visit their own city? :bash:

That is pretty unforgivable really. Dear oh dear.

As to the wider story, I have a feeling we won't see an aopplication for a while to be honest. The statement from Langtree is just to appease people. Even if we get one, I can't see them developing for at least 18 months.

You couldn't make it up but it speaks volumes about what passes for 'local media' in the city.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8836/p1010345p.jpg


http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/5388/p1010346i.jpg


Wondering if there is still an issue with the ramp and the steps, contractor seems to have avoided them.


http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/926/p1010347p.jpg


http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/5124/p1010348m.jpg

Wondering if there is still an issue with the ramp and the steps, contractor seems to have avoided them.

Thanks for the update Doug. :cheers:

Funnily enough, I was just going to post a comment about the ramp and steps. Does anyone know the specifics? Is it under separate ownership, or are they just leaving it for now due to the proximity to the Travelodge site, until as such time as they can co-ordinate the works? I really hope we aren't going to end up with a vacant site and a new Travelodge separated by a derelict and completely redundant concrete ramp.

As for Kingston House, it looks like the remaining sections will be taken down manually, which I suppose given the constraints of the site was to be expected.

Isn't the ramp a fire exit for the building behind? I'm sure I read that somewhere.

Isn't the ramp a fire exit for the building behind? I'm sure I read that somewhere.


No , it's not used by that building as there are several other exits.

It would have been be fantastic to see that whole block redeveloped, I think 21c posted some ideas a while back. Graham house is a bloody horrible building in what should be a prime site... don't even get me started on James St!! Just a pity Liverpool vision could only secure coopers and Kingston house really. You would hope that the chance to redevelop an entire city block would have brought some real interest from developers.

That said the travel lodge could turn out quite well looking at some of the renders.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4017/4682302967_1bdc122a23_b.jpg
Some Driftwood (http://www.flickr.com/photos/arthurjohnpicton/4682302967/in/pool-52242121198@N01)


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4117/4752795725_1eedc97bbe_b.jpg
brian.mason32 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/33593746@N03/4752795725/in/pool-52242121198@N01)

One from this morning for what it's worth. Unfortunately it looks like the steps might be with us for a while yet.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/2664/p1020794r.jpg

annoying isn't it, we spend all that time recycling our milk bottles and then all this goes to landfill...

^^

Does it? I thought there was actually a fair bit of money to be made by contractors by selling on materials recovered from demolished buildings, most notably steel to be melted down, and masonry to be turned into hardcore, whereas they'd have to pay to dump it into landfill.

I'd be shocked if the rubble wasn't put through an aggregate crusher and used as hardcore/6F2 and sold on. If it was an active site they would probably use it for the construction.

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7734/p1010386f.jpg


Part of the stairs/ramp is on the Travelodge site, I bet they are not best pleased with this situation, my guess is the stairs will remain in tact until the main Kingston House site is re-developed.

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/9721/p1010388k.jpg

http://web.onetel.net.uk/~howardpaterson/uploads/X_IMG_0103.jpg

http://web.onetel.net.uk/~howardpaterson/uploads/X_IMG_0102.jpg

Please tell me that pile of shit behind it is going too?

If the Kingston House site is going to remain undeveloped for any significant period then we'll start to wish it hadn't been pulled down. What's now been exposed behind it looks even worse...

If it's going to remain undeveloped for a while it might be a good idea to turn it into a public 'square' - with lots of instant greenery a la Chavasse park. If for some reason the dreadful walkway has to stay then glam it up - turn it into an asset.

To be honest, although the largely red brick building behind is nothing to shout about architecturally, if that's what we have to look at until the Travelodge is complete, and this site is re-developed, then fine. I can think of much less presentable buildings, including the one under-going demolition, that we could have to put up with.

As for turning the site into a park, while a nice idea, my concern with that is that if it takes a few years before any action is taken towards re-developing this site, by then people may decide they quite like having a park there, and then actively campaign against any re-development due to loss of green space. It will be difficult enough to get any new building through planning on this site due to it being more or less literally across the road from the WHS, without giving the objectors more ammo.

As for the steps and ramp. I hope the NWDA are making inroads into the process to acquire them, as you'd like to think any re-development would directly abut the Travelodge (which was designed so as not to prevent this from happening), and thus they will need ownership sooner or later anyway, hopefully sooner so they can be demolished too.

A planning application is going in this year for that spot, though when we actually see development is anyone's guess.

To be honest, although the largely red brick building behind is nothing to shout about architecturally, if that's what we have to look at until the Travelodge is complete, and this site is re-developed, then fine. I can think of much less presentable buildings, including the one under-going demolition, that we could have to put up with.


Oh, if that's the case then fine. So is the building with the white cladding panels the back half of Kingston House, and therefore going imminently? I had thought it was a separate building left standing between the red brick building (which doesn't look too bad) and the recently-demolished Kingston. But if you're saying they haven't finished demolition yet and that white-clad thing is about to go too, then phew!

^^

Yes. If you look at this photo by Doug, you can see the white clad building behind is part of Kingston House, and thus will also be coming down.

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/3677/p1010261h.jpg

In addition if you look at this photo below, again by Doug, the lower floors of the white clad building are now 'open' because of some demolition work already carried out. Furthermore, the part of the building closest to James Street has been shrouded with scaffolding and blue mesh, like the part of the building on the corner of The Strand/James Street, suggesting it will be taken down manually.

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/9721/p1010388k.jpg

In other words, the ugliest thing we're going tp be left with is the steps and ramp.

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc242/woody43/pier%20head/LiverpoolPrideParadeTerraceBarPierHead7Aug2010187.jpg

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc242/woody43/pier%20head/LiverpoolPrideParadeTerraceBarPierHead7Aug2010192.jpg

The demo. seems to have stalled, not much removed in the past 4 weeks.
May-be they are doing an internal strip of the tower?, its likely that the walkway will stay in place ( to protect the Travel Lodge site ) until the site has been levelled.

Noticed today that the excavator, which has been idle for some time has now been removed. Can't imagine they will leave the site in its present condition so that is probably a good sign.

There was a yellow digger moving stuff around there today when I passed.

Noticed today that the excavator, which has been idle for some time has now been removed. Can't imagine they will leave the site in its present condition so that is probably a good sign.


Thanks for info ,Martin, maybe the contractor has gone bust?

We need a Demobot from 'I Robot' that would make short work of the this sucker!


http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3508/p1010534xq.jpg


http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/7228/p1010539p.jpg

Thanks for info ,Martin, maybe the contractor has gone bust?

I believe it is set to join the building further up the strand as 'The Art of Recession'

I think that they are working on the taller block to the rear. The elevation facing James Street appears to have been lowered by two storeys. Perhaps this is a delicate part of the work that they have to complete before tackling the rest of the building.

Is there an asbestos problem? The building's of the right vintage.

I had another look this morning and there was somebody working on the tower section.

I doubt that the delay would be down to asbestos, as that is normally removed ahead of any demolition work. Maybe they have discovered some that they didn't expect but, if so, I normally the building would be shrouded in sheeting to stop the dust spreading.

I think the most likely explanation is that this is a delicate part of the job and they are having to take the tower section down with hand tools to avoid debris falling onto the street below.

I think the most likely explanation is that this is a delicate part of the job and they are having to take the tower section down with hand tools to avoid debris falling onto the street below.

So why don't they go at it a different way so any debris would fall inward, away from the street? It'd only hit the tax office that way, so no harm done. :lol:

Some heavy artillery on site today - looks like a long-armed concrete nibbler and excavator. Things should be speeding up.

Nibbler & co. on site this morning.



http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/3537/p1010546o.jpg

Small demolition crew on site today. No nibbler unfortunately

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/8931/p1020874e.jpg

Do you think theres any point in getting our hopes up that a high spec building could be raised here? It would have to be surely. Why would anyone bother to demolish this thing just to throw something up equally medicocre.

^^

This cropped up on Langtree's (the preferred developer) website in late 2008. Not sure of the current situation.

http://www.langtreegroupplc.co.uk/assets/_files/cached/img/960x250/oct_08/Kingston_House_CGI1223656012.jpg

Kinda like a bigger Kingston House.

Seems to me that the demolition company has changed. It began with the oddly-named Controlled Demolition, then after many weeks their plant disappeared. Hopefully, we will now see this abortion of a building disappear, but no sign of anything to replace it yet.:ohno:

Controlled Demolition went belly up.

There was a period of several weeks when there was no activity at all, but for the last week we have seen quite a lot going on with the nibbler and excavator working away and steel cutting taking place in the Strand side block.

O'Brienr Demolition are making great progress-on Thursday there were four pieces of plant, including a nibbler being used as a crane, on site. Half of the tower block is now down and preparations are evident for the remainder:cheers:

Sunday morning, weather overcast and lashing it down:nuts:

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc242/woody43/liverpool%202010/Liverpoolvisit3-10-10025.jpg

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc242/woody43/liverpool%202010/Liverpoolvisit3-10-10028.jpg

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc242/woody43/liverpool%202010/Liverpoolvisit3-10-10030.jpg

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc242/woody43/liverpool%202010/Liverpoolvisit3-10-10040.jpg

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc242/woody43/liverpool%202010/Liverpoolvisit3-10-10046.jpg

Wow. Its only now you can see what a massive vacant site this actually will be. They have to build a really hight spec building here. No more mediocre crap. This site demands something massive and unique.

Great photos by the way Woody.

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/5338/p1010548ai.jpg


http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/4043/p1010550dn.jpg

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/816/p1020913v.jpg

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/4592/p1020914b.jpg

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/2605/p1020915a.jpg

Not too far to go now. The tax offices will soon be revealed in their full glory.

Every time I see the state of Albion house I feel like weeping :(

Albion House will surely be occupied soon. With Mann Island across the road, this site turning up opposite, and the new Days Inn behind, it'll become a prime spot.

Albion House has a serious issue of under investment, it needs a lot of modernising. If that can be done then it's a great location for a business.

I think I would prefer this left open and concentrate on Albion House. Maybe extensions and add-ons and a sleek black glass look.

Also, maybe the new travelodge could be extended and something done about the breezeblock side. A nice curve from the front would be nice.

Albion House has a serious issue of under investment, it needs a lot of modernising. If that can be done then it's a great location for a business.

My guess is the floorplan etc doesn't lend itself to the needs of a modern business but it would make an ace hotel. I can imagine a lot of people would appreciate and be attracted to the history of the place

The White Star Hotel!

If I was rich enough Id love to do something like that.

:nuts::nuts:oops

Did I mean Graeme House there.

God, I sound like I'm in me 90's:)No offence Woody.

My guess is the floorplan etc doesn't lend itself to the needs of a modern business but it would make an ace hotel. I can imagine a lot of people would appreciate and be attracted to the history of the place

The White Star Hotel!

If I was rich enough Id love to do something like that.

I agree with the hotel.

I believe the owner (or the owner about 10 years ago) didn't want to modernise with ducting, lifts, sorting the floors out etc. as he wanted to preserve the integrity of the building. Very noble but how can it be maintained without an income?

Every time I see the state of Albion house I feel like weeping :(

I beleive this building should become a Maritime centre, the home of Mersey Maritime, dedicated to assisting Liverpools maritime sector, with meeting rooms, conference facilities and small offices. It should have a small specialist team who can assist Liverpool's many small forwarders and agents to remain competative.

I believe it should also be used by LJMU's Maritime Courses, of which there are a few, for study and to improve the quality and facilities of the courses. Liverpool has an amazing maritime opportunity and it needs to be developed and exploited like the culture and beatles sectors.

Albion House is an excellent building which should be used to encourge Liverpool's Sustained Revival.

Really good ideas.

:nuts::nuts:oops

Did I mean Graeme House there.

God, I sound like I'm in me 90's:)No offence Woody.

Non taken Poolcool, but I must inform you that I am only 2/3 of the way to the 90`s:lol:

Without labouring the point, these forums are far better appreciated and informative without the need of using "shop floor " language. :cheers:.......