daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy (aug.2, 2013) | DMCA policy | flipboard magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Projects and Construction > Liverpool Metro Area

Liverpool Metro Area 'Scouse Scrapers for both sides of the Mersey



Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 2nd, 2010, 01:51 PM   #501
Babaloo
Fiat Lux
 
Babaloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,598
Likes (Received): 0

I guess the advantage of setting long term goals is that you claim to be always in the process of attaining them.

In a city that struggles to fill the office space it has, and at a time prior to an age of austerity that will involve slashing thousands of public service jobs, and in a region (not London) in which towers thus far have been residential (and even these have struggled to attract buyers) then a 200m+ office tower in this location is certainly a very interesting proposition.
Babaloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old February 3rd, 2010, 03:35 PM   #502
TommyMogan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 423
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babaloo View Post
I guess the advantage of setting long term goals is that you claim to be always in the process of attaining them.

In a city that struggles to fill the office space it has, and at a time prior to an age of austerity that will involve slashing thousands of public service jobs, and in a region (not London) in which towers thus far have been residential (and even these have struggled to attract buyers) then a 200m+ office tower in this location is certainly a very interesting proposition.
Office space will be filled if the transport infrastructure is installed. Rapid-transit to the airport direct, and all other points. An airport station will increase flights from Liverpool making the city more attractive. The knock-on is that business will the attractiveness as well and come.

They need to get money away from London spending on transport. Economists have laid down figures to show that London's succes is overrated and it is just a sponge on the provinces. The figures should be presented to Whitehall and politicoes.

Liverrpool could introduce land value tax to fund the transport, as land prices will rise around new metro staions. London were considering it, but they hired dickhead woman economist who went another route. Sydney did it to fund the Olympics.

Anoyone who thinks trams will promote the city and create growth is in dinkey-toy-land. The sort that never misses James May's programmes.
TommyMogan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 9th, 2010, 12:15 AM   #503
chilliz
Registered User
 
chilliz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Britain, unfortunately.
Posts: 1,430
Likes (Received): 1

is this project dead? Has it got any hope in the near future?
chilliz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 9th, 2010, 08:08 PM   #504
TommyMogan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 423
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by chilliz View Post
is this project dead? Has it got any hope in the near future?
It is one the back burner. They wanted it as the catalyst to attract others - as Docklands in London did. They wanted to put it in Princes Half-Tide Dock. What it meant that most of the water was gone. Peel nothing of deep water Liverpool knowing nothjing of the history and culture. They are into creating land, where none was to make money.

They were told no tower will be in the dock. They say it will be south of Clarence Dock - which is filled in.
TommyMogan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 9th, 2010, 08:43 PM   #505
Evertonian
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,319
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyMogan View Post
It is one the back burner. They wanted it as the catalyst to attract others
The wrong strategy entirely was followed.

Instead of listening to the council and the NWDA and learning from the clear example of Melbourne Docks and building a stadium, we'll now have to wait another 5 years for this recession to end.

Meanwhile the Liverpool Waters site will remain derelict and a fire risk. More money could be made from clearing the Stanley Tobbacco site for example, as a land grab, than by a bit of water being filled in for a narrow base tower. It would release an incredible amount of square footage and mean heritage rules and regulations wouldn't have to be followed in a no doubt ridiculously expensive refurb. Far better and cheaper for it to have an accident and burn down, cleared and then a cheap new build in it's place....or just sweat the land for all its worth.

Theres 2 clubs that need stadia. One that needs to move to a new build IMEDIATELY. Theres the NWDA offer to build rapid rail to serve a waterfront stadium. There's room there for an 80,000 seat stadium which could be used 24/7 for all kinds of events including major concerts. There would be scope to reopen the waterloo tunnel to serve the complex.

Yet Peel knocked the idea back.

My firm belief is that Shanghai Tower will never be built.
Evertonian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2010, 03:39 PM   #506
TommyMogan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 423
Likes (Received): 0

A large concrete structure used 25 days a year in a World Heritage Site? Wow! Such a Philistine act!!!! Some vision and sense of history there. But wht do you expect from football obsessives.
TommyMogan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2010, 05:30 PM   #507
Evertonian
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,319
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyMogan View Post
A large concrete structure used 25 days a year in a World Heritage Site? Wow! Such a Philistine act!!!! Some vision and sense of history there. But wht do you expect from football obsessives.
No a large concrete structure capable of attracting major sporting finals, the world cup, champions league, major concerts and with resturants, museum, retail and community fascilities built within the concourses being used 24/7 as at Emirates and the Melbourne Docklands stadium.

Triggering millions of visitors per year as per Melbourne and triggering further investment.

Instead it will be empty for the next 5 years. Let's hope Peel dont get their way and arent allowed to sweat the land for another 5 years.
Evertonian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2010, 06:48 PM   #508
JohnnyLeigh
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 573
Likes (Received): 8

Evertonian just ignore him
JohnnyLeigh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2010, 07:55 PM   #509
TommyMogan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 423
Likes (Received): 0

her one who wants large concrete structures that attract 1000s all at once so big money men can rfattle tills. We need vibrancy on the World Heritage Site, not a mechanism for big business to cream it in at our historical expense.

Footy grounds are best in the sticks, awy from people, with rapid-taransit serving them. They are all a frigging nuisance. The clubs can make more money as they have a captive audience then.
TommyMogan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010, 10:17 AM   #510
Poolcool
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: LIVERPOOL BAY
Posts: 445
Likes (Received): 0

Does anyone know if there were other interested parties,to buy the MDHC , before peel got their hands on it. Is there anyone out there now who might want it.
Poolcool no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010, 01:25 PM   #511
Evertonian
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,319
Likes (Received): 0

My hope would be for a Manchester City style deal where a club (EFC or LFC) would be bought with a view to a future land regeneration deal.

At City there was a £1billion scheme anounced by the owners who will put in place to completely regenerate the area around the stadium in Eastlands. It looks very exciting.

Would love to see something happen with one of our clubs where the orginal NWDA scheme would be built, which was for a world class stadium (used 24/7), office, retail, a refurb of the tobbacco house and a large rapid rail station at Vauxhall.

Twice Peel have turned down the idea. Recently there was a meeting between them and Joe Anderson, Warren Bradley, the guy from Liverpool Vision and the NWDA where the plan was pressed.

It's hardly the plan of a few "football obsessives". It's a regional development goal of a some very powerfull bodies and politicians.

I give it a few more years before Peel have to admit defeat on Shanghai Tower, without a major enabling scheme being in place such as the stadium, they won't attract the investment.

We know Johns objections to football, football fans, working class people, etc. My post is to highlight what many people might not know, which is that there has been a credible alternative masterplan for this site.
Evertonian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010, 01:48 PM   #512
Evertonian
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,319
Likes (Received): 0

Theres a pressing need for 2 clubs for a stadium solution. In Everton's case theres a desperate need for space for a new build with enabling retail around. Bill Kenwright repeated again yesterday the need for a new build, stating that although Goodison was "the best ground in the world", it would be cheaper and more sensible to build a new fascility.

This could be built pretty much imediatelt with full cross party political support and a new rail station built for the city by the NWDA.

Shanghai Tower meanwhile looks at least a decade away, based on our economy being one of the slowest in the world to grow out of this recession. We won't get funding for skyscrapers like this in a period of bust, without Liverpool first offering an anchor scheme....as they did in Melbourne.

Everything else will follow on. This is the original NWDA MDHC masterplan. It could be tweaked to fit in with Liverpool Waters and still have towers at a later date when the market allows....


http://www.nsno.co.uk/e107_images/ne...ages/plan1.jpg

http://www.nsno.co.uk/e107_images/ne...ages/plan2.jpg
Evertonian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010, 03:55 PM   #513
guenuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 887
Likes (Received): 2

stadiums can be a bit of a dead space though if a football match isn't on which is most of the time when you think about it, just like the Arena. What I don't get is that there is a persistent call for ashared stadia and a stadium on the docks and wherevere else but where is the money supposed to come from? neither club have a pot to piss in, I could say I'll build a magical kingdom and it has as much chance of being built as the new anfield does while hicks and gillett stay at the club.
guenuk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010, 08:01 PM   #514
Evertonian
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,319
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by guenuk View Post
stadiums can be a bit of a dead space though if a football match isn't on which is most of the time when you think about it, just like the Arena.
The idea would be for a stadium that would be multi use and would be used as often as possible. Forget the traditional football stadium model. Think more along the failed Kings Dock scheme, which was in turn based on the Amsterdam Arena which is used regularly for concerts and major events. Everton need to follow this model to maximise profits.

Look at Melbourne Docklands stadium. It's multi use and the prime example to follow. 2 million visitors a year and hardly a "dead space".


Quote:
What I don't get is that there is a persistent call for ashared stadia and a stadium on the docks and wherevere else but where is the money supposed to come from? neither club have a pot to piss in, I could say I'll build a magical kingdom and it has as much chance of being built as the new anfield does while hicks and gillett stay at the club.
Could not the same be said for this tower? Clearly the money isn't there. Arguably the NEED is not there.

Liverpool is going to get it's arse well and truly kicked in the next few years with thousands of civil service jobs, on which we rely on in this jobs market, gone. The idea that Liverpool has a need for the second tallest skyscraper in Britain and one of the largest in Europe, when we have neither the population to fill it and when there is an over abundance of similar schemes already massively undersubscribed is laughable.

This tower won't be built within the next 10 years. Meanwhile the site will remain derelict. Meanwhile we have clubs in the city desperately needing fascilities pretty much imediately.

Everton FC gave assurances they could afford £80 million towards Kirkby. They insisted they could get the moeny. There was enabling to come from Tesco and there was said to be a Japanese sponsor ready to give a very strong naming rights deal. The NWDA masterplan above gives space right next to the stadium designated for retail. I see no reason why a similar deal to Kirkby, or even Kings Dock, with multiple agencies on board, couldn't be followed.

For me it's a case of, how long do we allow this site to remain derelict and at risk (given that, as John is always pointing out, a heritage site that needs looking after)???

I personally feel that this site needs to be developed, not left derelict while pipe dreams are followed, when theres a groundmove ready to go on site imediately and when there is regional and local political will to make it happen.
Evertonian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2010, 09:22 PM   #515
Evertonian
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,319
Likes (Received): 0

That Manchester City deal....



Manchester City have signed a £1billion agreement with Manchester City Council to develop land around their Eastlands stadium.

The massive scheme will transform one of the poorest areas of the city, creating thousands of jobs as the site is turned into a world class sports and leisure complex.
Almost since the moment Sheikh Mansour completed his takeover of City in 2008 there have been suggestions that he wanted to develop spare land around the stadium, with a new training ground among the ideas that have been mentioned.

That plan is now set to reach fruition as part of the wider project, with AC Milan's luxurious Milanello complex the template for a centre which will include training pitches and state-of-the-art medical facilities.

In addition, the club will look into the financial viability of extending the stadium from its current 48,000 capacity.

The first phase of the development will involve a 'market place-style fan zone', on Joe Mercer Way, the current approach to the stadium.

With a Metrolink stop set to be incorporated at the Sport City side as part of the current expansion of the local transport network, ample opportunity for further development is envisaged within a three-way partnership between City, the council and New east Manchester.

'Manchester City has been and always will be at the heart of the community it serves in the City of Manchester,' said City chief executive Garry Cook.

'The longer term considerations for the area reflect the long term commitment of our owners to the club and the community it serves.'
While manager Roberto Mancini is happy with the club's current training ground he welcomes the new initiative.

He said: 'This is a good thing for the club and the city, although I am happy with this facility (Carrington). But if we can improve (the training ground) it will be better for me and the players.'



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...#ixzz0i5Ohf8jX
Evertonian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2011, 04:32 AM   #516
Jim856796
The Q&A Guy
 
Jim856796's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Citizen of the World
Posts: 7,240
Likes (Received): 101

There already is a "Shanghai Tower" under construction in, of course, Shanghai, but this post is about Liverpool's Shanghai Tower.

Liverpool's Shanghai Tower should have a minimum of 200 m, 60 floors, and a 1,000,000 sq ft floor area. It would also contain Liverpool's first five-star hotel. The Liverpool Waters scheme should contain another 5-star hotel in a standalone building.
__________________
I honestly think all development projects must be dashing, sustainable, and futureproof.

You support the good projects... and oppose the bad.
Jim856796 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2011, 06:12 AM   #517
gothicform
Bossman
 
gothicform's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: s****horpe
Posts: 30,296
Likes (Received): 1800

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim856796 View Post
There already is a "Shanghai Tower" under construction in, of course, Shanghai, but this post is about Liverpool's Shanghai Tower.

Liverpool's Shanghai Tower should have a minimum of 200 m, 60 floors, and a 1,000,000 sq ft floor area. It would also contain Liverpool's first five-star hotel. The Liverpool Waters scheme should contain another 5-star hotel in a standalone building.
the masterplan from peel says 195.65 metres if i remember properly.
gothicform no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 17th, 2011, 09:17 AM   #518
aarhusforever
EU citizen
 
aarhusforever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Aarhus/Europe
Posts: 5,740
Likes (Received): 5369

This project must be realized! Let's keep our fingers crossed
__________________
EUROPE - many states - one nation

Aarhus - the second largest city in Denmark

Aarhus...my Aarhus
aarhusforever no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2013, 07:34 PM   #519
Dreamer
Let the Jam decide
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: LIVERPOOL!
Posts: 1,483
Likes (Received): 57

I know I'm bumping this thread but following the recent trip by the chancellor to China I would have expected news about this following the investment in Manchester Airport and other developments
__________________
Liber8
Dreamer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2013, 01:38 AM   #520
Centurio
Registered User
 
Centurio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 1,485
Likes (Received): 360

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
I know I'm bumping this thread but following the recent trip by the chancellor to China I would have expected news about this following the investment in Manchester Airport and other developments
Maybe an FOI request asking for a copy of any agenda/minutes of discussions held while there concerning Liverpool Waters/Wirral Waters?
__________________
-
Centurio no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu