Never the twain shall meet?

On the one hand, we have Heritage turning down developments for the most ridiculous of reasons. On the other hand, we have Skyscraper wanting to turf out inner city residents from their two up two down houses.

Is there any middle ground?

Never the twain shall meet?

On the one hand, we have Heritage turning down developments for the most ridiculous of reasons. On the other hand, we have Skyscraper wanting to turf out inner city residents from their two up two down houses.

Is there any middle ground?

Tell us what you think.

It's like Communists and Fascists all over again. :D

What pisses me off most about the heritage freaks is that they'll do anything to stop new developments going ahead yet do nothing when the likes of Jamaica House fall into disrepair. I get the feeling they're too busy trying to impede modern progress to look after the city's old buildings. :bash:

Tell us what you think.

Kind of loses it's impact when you have to edit your message because you forgot to include the word "what"
Snort!:lol:

Kind of loses it's impact when you have to edit your message because you forgot to include the word "what"
Snort!:lol:

Oh "snort" indeed! Yes! how embarrassing!!!

*blushes*!!!

Oh "snort" indeed! Yes! how embarrassing!!!

*blushes*!!!
With your grammar school education, I expected better. 100 lines!:nuts:

I think that the worse thing we have in Liverpool is the dereliction of a lot of our heritage, which makes restoration very expensive and favours developers who would prefer to demolish. I don't think that we are yet in the situation where development itself threatens the heritage, although it is often presented that way.

For example, practically the whole of the Grosvenor development has been carried out with very little demolition of buildings of any architectural merit (even the demolition of Quiggins - if that is still on the cards - was mainly opposed due to the loss of the facility, rather than the loss of the building).

The only real heritage controversy was over the demolition of the Georgian house in Hannover Street, although that had been derelict for years and converted to a garage. It also had a coat of cement render, which would have made restoration of the original brickwork practically impossible.

In fact, derelict buildings, such as the Stanley building in Hannover Street are being restored by Grosvenor. Similarly, the Queens Square development was carried out on wasteland, except for the old Prudential Insurance and Post and Echo buildings, which were restored and incorporated into the development.

The massive Kings Waterfront and Princes Dock developments have not required a single building to be demolished and I doubt that anyone is going to miss Richmond House, the main victim of the tall building boom in the city.

Having said that, I am a bit disturbed at what is going on in Dale Street and Tithebarn Street. Whilst the large City Square office development required no demolition, small areas of wasteland (development sites?) have been created by removing some buildings that I feel should have been restored and incorporated into the streetscape. The worst example of that, as far as I am concerned, is the loss of the United Powers pub a few years ago. Hardly a landmark but a building that gave character to the street and provided a meeting place for office workers and residents.

By the way, if you're interested in skyscraper Nazis, check out the thread on the Burj Al Bait tower that is being built in Mecca. This is taller than the Sears Tower and is under construction a short distance from the Kaaba, the holiest site in Islam and the focus of Moslem prayer throughout the world. If the height wasn't bad enough, the design is a mix of a Stalin era Moscow skyscraper and a Las Vegas casino. To add insult to injury, they have decided to put a clock (largest in the world - natch) on the top. Apparently that is so the worshippers will know prayer times if the Mezzuins in the minarets lose their watches.

It is absolutely amazing and puts our heritage problems in perspective.

Brilliant post Martin, thanks.
I'll check out the Burj Al Bait tower:cheers:

I agree with Martin about incorporating existing buildings into proposed/exisiting developments. Lpl could even carve out a niche market in how this should be done and organise conferences at the Echo arena to teach others!

For me the problem arises from LCC losing sight of what an urban core is all about. By design or happy accident it stumbled on the right ingredients - the densely packed Gardens approach. You only have to look at the ones that have been saved/refurbished to immediately seewhat stunning pieces of urban architecture they are. Instead of shipping people out to places like Belle Vale and Cantril Farm in the 50s and 60s, more 'Gardens' type developments should have been built in the area between Parliament Street and Leeds Street in order to retain a densely populated central core and all that this gives rise to in terms of economic opportunities.

Anyway, we are where we are now. Instead of Kent/Gerard Gardens we have low density housing that is incongrous within a downtown area. My solution is to leave it where it is and build high density accomodation around it or in spaces within it. I can see that this could give rise to a number of tensions if the pre-existing local community saw the people moving in as 'outsiders' and the people moving saw the existing community in a stereotypical way. Hopefully both (all the various) communities could work together to ensure better social provision for all (healthcare, childcare, support for elders, etc).

In order for Liverpool's resurgence to have maximum effect for all the citizens of Liverpool and its metropolitan area great care needs to be taken with how the city cente is developed - effectively the area between Leeds Street and Parliament Street and as far east as we can take it, at least to the hospital.

If Liverpool's resurgence is even bigger than that then the city centre might cross Leeds Street and spread out as far as Kingsway, right along Prince Edwin Street and establishing its borders on Everton Road (Shaw Street definitetly) and getting as far into Kensington and Edge Hill as it can get away with. In order to achieve this, I would argue that we need to rule out building any more low density housing in this area.

Therefore, in terms of the original premise: Heritage Nutters and Skyscraper Naziz - my response would be neither. Just more population density afforded by the Kent/Gerard Gardens approach to housing in order to rebuild and sustain a successful urban metropolis.