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 15th, 2012, 02:14 PM   #2401
Accura4Matalan
Registered User
 
Accura4Matalan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 12,330
Likes (Received): 329

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Savage View Post
This is very different imo than the other cases you both mention, Buggedboy and Keayman. Each of the projects you cite had a specific goal / reason which is obvious. Trafford Centre was a specific idea even if a risky project. Media City falls into this category too. Talk of the BBC moving out of London has actually been around for perhaps 15+ years but never materialised. Regardless of this, it was built with attracting the existing media away from their cramped, outdated premises into modern buildings in mind. Same applied to our own L1 project.

None of the above apply to LW as far as I can tell. This is a fundamental difference, unless I am mistaken. And I hate to be sceptical over this, as I am as keen as the next man to see this go ahead and succeed.

What we may end up with is a load of apartments which simple encourage folk to move out of older terraces in the surrounding areas. Peel won't care about that so long as they sell. We should, as it will leave those surrounding areas to rot.

So where is the business driver, rather than the property developer / speculator angle?

As you say, Peel are hardnosed business people.
Peel have a good track record of buying up larger sites and actually developing them. The area that MediaCity is on (previously known as Dock 9) now had outline planning permission for a large mixed use development (including tall buildings) with no specific business plan for several years before the BBC was even mentioned. This permission included the following proposal:

(Courtesy of skyscrapernews.com)


Obviously it took many years before Peel managed to attract the BBC, and its likely it will be much the same case with Liverpool, but it does prove that Peel don't simply buy land and sit on it, increasing the value with planning permission for hopeless proposals.
Accura4Matalan no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old February 15th, 2012, 02:38 PM   #2402
buggedboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,430
Likes (Received): 588

Cheers Westy. It is the same message that I hear from LCC every time I speak to them. It would be a hell of a u-turn if they backed down at this late stage. Remember that we are scheduled to have this decided at planning committee on 6th March, all being well. Not much time for E.H. to back down and save face, before they get ignored.
__________________
Liverpool Waters. Approved 4th March 2013.
buggedboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2012, 02:45 PM   #2403
bluesnapper
Registered User
 
bluesnapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 2,810
Likes (Received): 170

If LCC turn round and ignore EH/UNESCO/CABE and tell them real jobs are worth more than just certificates on the wall, will Peel then put the full blown high rise original version PA back into Planning?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by livermouse View Post
Isnt it time they closed this white Elephant and stop wasting money
bluesnapper no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2012, 02:54 PM   #2404
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 5,626
Likes (Received): 284

Quote:
Originally Posted by aek-94 View Post
They have, yes. This is the most recent aerial render of the development:

That looks mighty impressive! This development would be a fantastic addition to Liverpool, and really make it the grandest and most impressive city in the UK outside London. Not that Liverpool isn't great already.
Mr Bricks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 15th, 2012, 05:08 PM   #2405
Paul D
CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER
 
Paul D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 13,613
Likes (Received): 1603

Thanks for the info Adam,that's great news.Love it!!! come on Peel!!!
Paul D no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 16th, 2012, 05:57 PM   #2406
skillaz
Registered User
 
skillaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 155
Likes (Received): 6

will be great if this gets approved and building starts ASAP. if so, we could see a transformation of liverpool into a modern, highrise, enterprising city with flourishing business and tourism industry. it could even potentially attract investment for even more skyscrapers, if foriegn businesses see the potential (a sort of british shanghai, or vancouver? i mean peel did those as well didnt they? ) if this gets built, then liverpool has a bright future.
skillaz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2012, 02:11 PM   #2407
aek-94
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,151
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Peel record on architecture 'questionable'
Published this morning at 3:01 AM.


Liverpool plans a discredited model, says mayor campaigner

PEEL'S Liverpool and Wirral Waters plans represent a discredited global model of property development that died the day Lehman Brothers went bust.

So says Liverpool elected mayor wannabe Liam Fogarty who, in an interview with Architect's Journal, described the Port of Liverpool owner's record at delivering good architecture as “questionable”.

The prospective independent candidate for city mayor went on to express doubts about Peel's ambitious proposals for the North Docks, saying whoever ends up leading Liverpool should be prepared to stand up to the property giants.

“Liverpool Waters – and its sister scheme in Wirral – seem to me to represent a discredited global model of property development that died the day Lehman Brothers went bust,” he told the mag.

“There's a difference between a vision and a fantasy. I believe Peel's vision for their dockland estate has to be sustainable and truly connect with the deprived communities of North Liverpool.”

Fogarty also described the Liverpool Waters design, recently criticised by the Government's urban design watchdog CABE, as "just not good enough".

“Peel’s record at delivering good architecture is questionable. What is proposed for Peel Ports’ dock estate in Liverpool is mediocre and soulless. It’s just not good enough for our city. We shouldn’t be afraid to insist on the highest design standards.”

But it wasn't all bad: “Peel have done great things for Liverpool,” he said. “They transformed our airport, and their plans for a SuperPort to handle the new generation of container ships should be a huge boon to the city and city region."

Fogarty, who has not yet officially chucked his £500 deposit into the ring with his hat, added: “I want an honest partnership that will benefit both Peel and our city.

"But I also want to be the Mayor of Liverpool, not LiverPeel.”

No, that would be Sonia's slogan.
Source
aek-94 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2012, 02:20 PM   #2408
LNGCats
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,785
Likes (Received): 326

Liam Fogarty - brother of Shelia Fogarty who works in Peels offices presenting the 12noon until 2pm 5Live show.

On air now in fact.
__________________
I really do know fuck all

2+2=4 no matter what your opinion is

My favourite colour being red makes me no more or less intelligent than someone who prefers green.
LNGCats no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2012, 02:49 PM   #2409
buggedboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,430
Likes (Received): 588

There goes my vote.

He is entitled to his opinion and he is certainly more blanced than Wayne, but I'd rather trust Peel's assessment of what they think they can achieve than Mr Fogarty's. Bear in mind that this consent will be granting Peel the ability to develop buildings UP TO the heights they are asking for. Their intention is to get those heights, but if it turns out they can only develop 100 x 8 storey buildings, then that is what they will develop.

If the market is such that a 100 storey building can be borne and be sustainable, then it is incredulous that any city would want to hamper that.
__________________
Liverpool Waters. Approved 4th March 2013.
buggedboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2012, 11:47 PM   #2410
Moropool
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 244
Likes (Received): 23

I think he might have a point about the truly uninspiring architecture that peel have produced...

Maybe it's only me but I'm not entirely encouraged by the way he is linking development the north docks with deprivation in north Liverpool....

Surely we just need to go for the best possible outcome in LW and view it as a catalyst for north lpool as opposed to a Solution?
Moropool no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2012, 05:45 PM   #2411
skillaz
Registered User
 
skillaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 155
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moropool View Post
I think he might have a point about the truly uninspiring architecture that peel have produced...

Maybe it's only me but I'm not entirely encouraged by the way he is linking development the north docks with deprivation in north Liverpool....

Surely we just need to go for the best possible outcome in LW and view it as a catalyst for north lpool as opposed to a Solution?
you can thank unesco and EH for the architecture (if you dont like it, i dont see anything wrong with it) because peel have had to scale back their development proposal numerous times because they werent pleased (and still arent). their original plans had some amazing buildings in them. i think that, if its true that the unesco and EH voice could be ignored, then they should go for the original plans that were awe inspiring.
skillaz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2012, 09:22 AM   #2412
Howie_P
Registered User
 
Howie_P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kensington Liverpool
Posts: 2,271
Likes (Received): 71

Quote:
Peel Holdings issue ultimatum over £5.5bn Waters scheme as battle lines drawn over biggest development in Liverpool’s history
by David Bartlett, The Liverpool Post | Feb 23 2012 |


Liverpool Waters scheme

IT is the biggest development in the city’s history – and battle lines are now firmly drawn ahead of a vital planning hearing into the £5.5bn Liverpool Waters skyscraper scheme.

Peel Holdings have broken their silence after Unesco said the huge project to regenerate the city’s northern docklands would damage the city’s World Heritage Site “beyond repair”.

In an exclusive interview with the Liverpool Post, Peel Holdings director Lindsey Ashworth said:

• Unesco inspectors were ‘brainwashed’ by English Heritage;

• Peel will not fight a public inquiry should one be called;

• The firm has already compromised too much in making changes.
Full article here >>
Howie_P no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2012, 01:53 PM   #2413
Howie_P
Registered User
 
Howie_P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kensington Liverpool
Posts: 2,271
Likes (Received): 71

Quote:
English Heritage lodge formal objection to Liverpool waterfront development
High-rise scheme may jeopardise city's world heritage status
Helen Carter
The Guardian, Thursday 23 February 2012



The cruise liner Queen Elizabeth II at Liverpool docks in 2008. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

English Heritage has lodged a number of objections to a skyscraper plan for Liverpool's waterfront a month after Unesco inspectors warned the development threatened the city's world heritage status.
Full article here >>
Howie_P no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2012, 03:01 PM   #2414
Louis1986
Registered User
 
Louis1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 1,015
Likes (Received): 0

"But English Heritage has written to Liverpool city council expressing its concerns that a secondary cluster of tall buildings at Clarence Dock will introduce a large and strong vertical form that will "overwhelm the historic, horizontal character of the docklands generally".

Horizontal character? so basically they dont want anything built......
Louis1986 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2012, 03:30 PM   #2415
buggedboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,430
Likes (Received): 588

Bananas. That's like saying building Liverpool in the first place destroyed its rural character. The character of a city should never, ever remain the same.

I note that Wayne is saying that Peel are also destroying a key historical part of our city.....the dock wall.....WHAT?!

The dock wall is the historical equivalent of Scottie Road. Designed for a reason, but now ultimately an obstacle which ideally removed, or at least mitigated. The only difference is that Scotie road can still serve a purpose, with suitable changes.

The wall was hated by the people of Liverpool. It was designed to keep the people out, not include them in any way. Having attended several public meetings about this I can say with absolute authority that nobody outside of the heritage brigade give a toss about the dock wall.
__________________
Liverpool Waters. Approved 4th March 2013.
buggedboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2012, 03:38 PM   #2416
yoshef
I like beer.
 
yoshef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 10,932
Likes (Received): 327

"Horizontal character" - yes, because they're empty, derelict, abandonded. Horizontal as in dead. The original working docks were full of masts, funnels, cranes, chimneys, warehousing, not to mention the power station at Clarence Dock!
__________________
JFT96
yoshef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2012, 04:52 PM   #2417
HollyBlack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,291
Likes (Received): 43

Quote:
Originally Posted by buggedboy View Post
Bananas. That's like saying building Liverpool in the first place destroyed its rural character. The character of a city should never, ever remain the same.
I note that Wayne is saying that Peel are also destroying a key historical part of our city.....the dock wall.....WHAT?! ...
The dock wall was always a symbol of division and exclusion, it kept the people of Liverpool from enjoying the sights of the river.

In many ways it is very similar to the Berlin Wall. Yes, perhaps a token 50 yards of it needs to be kept as a historic monument somewhere so that future generations can picture what it was like. Just like the gates of Clarence dock. The rest of it can go, and the sooner the better. Reuse the bricks to build something for the people.
HollyBlack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2012, 05:42 PM   #2418
Rock Savage
Registered User
 
Rock Savage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,277
Likes (Received): 93

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoshef View Post
"Horizontal character" - yes, because they're empty, derelict, abandonded. Horizontal as in dead. The original working docks were full of masts, funnels, cranes, chimneys, warehousing, not to mention the power station at Clarence Dock!
Be fair though, EH wish to preserve our important status as a maritime museum frozen in time circa 1900 with all the bad parts taken out. Aids students on maritime history degree courses dontcha know.

EH have a quandary: allow Peel and risk losing some stuff over the next 50 years, or lose Peel and watch all that same stuff erode to dust over the same timescale.
Rock Savage no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2012, 06:14 PM   #2419
buggedboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,430
Likes (Received): 588

They won't lose anything under LW. Nothing of heritage value is being destroyed. Many buildings are being redeveloped and made open for the first time. It is this "setting" nonsense they keep going on about that drives me bananas. UNESCO have decided that Liverpool has a Victorian era character and that character should remain dominant for all time. No developments can subsume/significantly alter it. That is frankly the talk of people who should be locked in a padded cell.
__________________
Liverpool Waters. Approved 4th March 2013.
buggedboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2012, 01:50 AM   #2420
Skewed
Full of ideas....
 
Skewed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: London
Posts: 330
Likes (Received): 110

Quote:
Originally Posted by buggedboy View Post
They won't lose anything under LW. Nothing of heritage value is being destroyed. Many buildings are being redeveloped and made open for the first time. It is this "setting" nonsense they keep going on about that drives me bananas. UNESCO have decided that Liverpool has a Victorian era character and that character should remain dominant for all time. No developments can subsume/significantly alter it. That is frankly the talk of people who should be locked in a padded cell.
HERE HERE!
__________________
Forward thinking: Liverpool Ideas

Portfolio:

t-factory
Skewed 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 03:48 AM.


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