Liverpool Waters

[jets9]

I have doubts and major quibbles about Liverpool Waters, Peel, the city planning department and Uncle Joe, sometimes all at the same time but I also know a good thing when I see it.

Through the democratic process we already make all and sundry from the local shopkeeper to mega capitalists jump through the hoops of the planning process to gain the all important planning permission. That's one hell of a democratic lock on what goes on in our society and communities and that's alright as far as Iam concerned. On the other hand some people just don't get (or don't want to get) what capitalism is, never mind a free society/free enterprize.

For me Liverpool Waters is about economic activity, what brings it about, who makes it work and who sustains it. The stakes are always high and the crucial, blessed (and wilfully misunderstood) players are the shopkeepers and mega capitalists I mentioned earlier.

This city went into a period of painful decline because of a lack of economic activity, capitalist vigour and municipal vandalism. Liverpool Waters is a litmus test whether the destructive trioka of EH, Cabe and Department of Environment is brought to heel. It's well worth remembering that it's already happened once before when the magnificent, well designed, lawful, ethically funded Brunswick skyscraper was snuffed out on the stroke of politicians pen...(restricting views of the cathedral..my arse!)

Never again.

[macca_lad]

Originally Posted by Martin S

One thing you have to bear in mind when reading Rowan Moore's article is that these people don't live in a vacuum. It is highly likely that Moore will be on first name terms with the top brass at both EH and CABE and this article may well have come about following some dinner party in north London.

When I lived in London, I always enjoyed reading Moore's articles on London developments in the Evening Standard. Often, he was highly critical, as he is here but there is a difference. A London architectural critic writing in a London newspaper will be writing about places that his readers will be familiar with and Moore himself will be familiar with the development issues in that part of the world.

Liverpool is a different story altogether. Readers of the Observer and its sister paper the Guardian may well be puzzled how a city that is almost always portrayed in terms of crime, deprivation and boarded up houses has suddenly been transformed into the nation's foremost architectural gem. Does Moore really know enough about Liverpool to be making these sweeping statements or is he just echoing the London architectural establishment?

Moore doesn't really say anything new (and he repeats the untruth that the 'development towers will loom large behind the Three Graces' suggesting some bias here). Personally, I think that some of the criticisms are valid and, despite being a supporter, I do have my doubts about this development. However, this sort of criticism seems to be more like lightning bolts from Mt Olympus than the considered thoughts of someone who takes a great interest in the city of Liverpool.

If you read the comments section under the article, he actually leaves a message:

RowanMoore 6 May 2012 6:29PM

Just to put the record straight:
- funnily enough I do know Liverpool and have visited the site
- the proposed towers are considerably closer to the Three Graces than a mile
- the reason Peel aren't quoted is that they declined to comment
- anyone who thinks the £5.5 billion development in the images will be built as shown is smoking something strong
- the main point is that you can have job creation AND decent architecture as Liverpool One shows


RowanMoore 6 May 2012 6:33PM

Or, to put it another way, why should Liverpool accept a piece of lazy, derivative junk?

[macca_lad]

Originally Posted by jets9

I have doubts and major quibbles about Liverpool Waters, Peel, the city planning department and Uncle Joe, sometimes all at the same time but I also know a good thing when I see it.

Through the democratic process we already make all and sundry from the local shopkeeper to mega capitalists jump through the hoops of the planning process to gain the all important planning permission. That's one hell of a democratic lock on what goes on in our society and communities and that's alright as far as Iam concerned. On the other hand some people just don't get (or don't want to get) what capitalism is, never mind a free society/free enterprize.

For me Liverpool Waters is about economic activity, what brings it about, who makes it work and who sustains it. The stakes are always high and the crucial, blessed (and wilfully misunderstood) players are the shopkeepers and mega capitalists I mentioned earlier.

This city went into a period of painful decline because of a lack of economic activity, capitalist vigour and municipal vandalism. Liverpool Waters is a litmus test whether the destructive trioka of EH, Cabe and Department of Environment is brought to heel. It's well worth remembering that it's already happened once before when the magnificent, well designed, lawful, ethically funded Brunswick skyscraper was snuffed out on the stroke of politicians pen...(restricting views of the cathedral..my arse!)

Never again.

I'm not sure what your point is here:
Are you saying regulations are acceptable but that they shouldn't get in the way of development?

Or are you saying regulations should not get in the way of developments?

You seem to say both.

[design_man]

Originally Posted by macca_lad

...why should Liverpool accept a piece of lazy, derivative junk?

And who will pay for and build something better on most of those sites?

[STUBBY]

I've lost count of the number of times I've heard developers boast about something they want to build bringing thousands of jobs, which in many or maybe most cases have been huge over estimates.

In the case of Liverpool presumably, tourism which is an important industry, itself brings many jobs with it and if WHS was lost would that not potentially lose actual jobs rather than potential unproven claims of jobs tomorrow?

The point is made that where is the evidence that there are thousands of office jobs to be had and all that is required to bring them is to build big buildings and they will somehow appear?

Likewise is there a shortage of flats in this area and is yet more retail space needed that is just waiting to be fulfilled by this scheme? I don't know for sure of course but I doubt it.

Seems crazy to put at risk something unique for a load of off the peg tall buildings that in any event there isn't even funding for.

I could be wrong on all counts of course and perhaps those more expert in these things will point my errors out in due course.

[Joe the red]

Stubby

Potentially valid points but have a look at posts 2569 and 2570 to admire the heritage that will be lost. No bugger has set foot in there in decades.

NB the Tobacco Warehouse is not owned by Peel and will be unaffected, negatively at least, by any development.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by macca_lad

If you read the comments section under the article, he actually leaves a message:

RowanMoore 6 May 2012 6:29PM

Just to put the record straight:
- funnily enough I do know Liverpool and have visited the site
- the proposed towers are considerably closer to the Three Graces than a mile
- the reason Peel aren't quoted is that they declined to comment
- anyone who thinks the £5.5 billion development in the images will be built as shown is smoking something strong
- the main point is that you can have job creation AND decent architecture as Liverpool One shows


RowanMoore 6 May 2012 6:33PM

Or, to put it another way, why should Liverpool accept a piece of lazy, derivative junk?

I wouldn't disagree with too much that Moore says. I'm not going to apologise for saying that Moore had never visited Liverpool as I didn't.

Again, Liverpool Waters is much less than a mile from the Three Graces but what he wrote was that the development would 'loom large behind them' which suggests that the towers were going to be built in Castle Street. This is very misleading and, at best, is sloppy journalism.

This is really what I was getting at. He is writing for a very London-centric newspaper and it is highly likely that the majority of his readers will not have been to Liverpool or, at least, will not have any familiarity with either the site or the development proposal.

I guess that Peel should have been more forthcoming with a prominent architectural critic but there is enough on the Liverpool Waters website to contradict some of the assertions that Moore is making.

Where, for example, does he get the idea that all of these office jobs will 'suddenly' appear? Anyone who knows the development plan knows that it is over a period of thirty years and will respond to the economic cycle. The fact that Peel have already delivered Media City in economically depressed Salford is not mentioned.

Again, the development is merely a masterplan. The towers shown do not reflect any architect's proposals but merely the size and massing of the blocks. So Moore is right that the renders don't show what will be built but he doesn't need to do so in such insulting terms - he is a prominent architectural critic, not an internet forummer.

Calling the proposal 'lazy, derivative junk' when we haven't seen any design proposal for any building, just serves to polarise the argument. People like myself who are largely positive about the development will have concerns but be inhibited from expressing them because it is just feeding the naysayers. Lets keep the discussion civil - after all, it will or won't go ahead despite anything any of us might say.

[Khattab1]

Originally Posted by Paul D

It seems so many outsiders are against this because they are concerned for us but where were they when there was a managed decline? I never heard a peep.

Sums the whole argument up for me suddenly cambridge educated journalists are really worried about Liverpool pull the other one.

[Portobello Red]

Originally Posted by Tom Hughes

The World Heritage bong is worthless in comparison to reall prosperity and real jobs.

An almost exact replica of our Edwardian waterfront exists in Shanghai and is completely surrounded by an absolute jungle of scrapers.

I believe their character is enhanced by the contrast and backdrop.

jonathan.kang0205
image hosted on flickr

[Cheeky2xist]

and in response to Rowan Moore's criticisms of the plans the Guardian are taking a more positive spin on the plans....

Stormy Waters
A Liverpudlian response to Rowan Moore's criticisms of the Liverpool Waters plan


Not exactly lovely. But then the first dry dock, Albert dock and - to many at the time - the Three Graces weren't universally popular
Liverpool is still one of the most deprived cities in the UK, but it does have an economy that is slowly improving. Only last week, it jumped to fifth place in the table of cities most-visited from overseas. The 1,000 new jobs at the Jaguar Land Rover plant in Halewood are another welcome boost. Yet the fact that some 35,000 people applied for those vacancies shows how it still has a long way to go.

This is why ambitious projects like Liverpool Waters, the controversial plan for new offices, homes and other facilities around decaying northern dockland, are important. The biggest planning application ever submitted in Britain, seems on a fanastastically inhuman scale which naturally makes people uneasy, including The Observer's London-based Rowan Moore; but sometimes, especially when you're at the bottom, you have to think big.

When Liverpool's early leaders built the world's first enclosed wet dock, which opened in 1715, they mortgaged their entire modestly-sized town to build it. It was a big risk that paid off; so was Liverpool's pioneering of the world's first intercity railway, to Manchester, in the face of many who said that it would never work. Such risk-taking helped to build Liverpool. But it is something we seem to have lost over the last forty years.

There has also been a knee-jerk reaction against Liverpool Waters as a scheme of that instinctively mistrusted group, property developers, in this case Peel Holdings. This can be justified, as more often than not such organisations focus on profit above all else. Yet if property development for profit had never happened here, the historic docks that we now admire would have never been built.


The Three Graces. Influential contemporaries disliked them. Photograph: David Sillitoe for the Guardian
Grade 1-listed Albert Dock was not built to look nice. It was built to make money as a fireproof shed, that in 1846 was starkly modern and was criticised at the time by local historian J.A Picton for its brutal mediocrity.

Neither would have the famous 'Three Graces' on the city's Pier Head. Built on redundant dockland, the Graces were the Canary Wharf or Liverpool Waters of their day; early examples of corporate headquarters built in the latest trendy styles to aggrandise the businesses that constructed them. They were not universally popular with the critics at the time either. The Royal Liver Building was dismissed by Charles Reilly, professor of architecture at Liverpool University, thus:

A mass of grey granite to the cornice, it rose to the sky in two quite unnecessary towers, which can symbolise nothing but the power of advertisement.

Today's aggressive heritage lobby and aesthete critics are fond of proclaiming Liverpool's past innovations and achievements, with the hindsight which Reilly could not have. But they are as blinkered as he could be to the city's need to continue to innovate and develop. The threatened loss of the UNESCO World Heritage status which covers part of the site, if the development goes ahead, would be a blow. But the pluses and minuses of having the status are hard to quantify. Dresden in Germany also lost its World Heritage Site status when it built an important modern bridge. It remains a prosperous tourist magnet.

Meanwhile such critics seem content to oppose Liverpool Waters without offering any realistic alternative plan for this huge area, not even a notional one. That would condemn the historic structures in the northern docks to continue to rot for want of money or a reason for being. Nearly all these old buildings would be restored as part of Liverpool Waters, alongside new developments.

I believe that the Waters should be compared to Liverpool 1, the new shopping and leisure area developed by the Grosvenor Estate and opened four years ago. It too was heavily criticised during construction, but vox pop on its streets today and you would find few who would want to go back to the 1970s Moat House hotel, the wasteland car parks, concrete Paradise Street Bus station and the Argos Superstore that used to stand there.

Liverpool 1 created thousands of jobs and helped the city to leap from 14th to 5th in the UK's retail rankings, while not, as many predicted, destroying the traditional shopping areas of Church Street and Bold Street. It has also attracted dozens of new shops to Liverpool at a time when town centres nationally are collapsing, the development creating the demand. I didn't like Liverpool 1 while it was in gestation, but now I find it hard to argue now against its success in transforming Liverpool's town centre for the better.

I'm not Peel's PR. They have some questionable business arrangements, tend to rely heavily on outside investment and often build dull architecture; but again I turn to the critics and ask: what else do you suggest? No one else has any workable plans for the northern dock. So do we go for it? or do we duck the risk, let Liverpool's economy struggle along and allow an historic part of our city to rot indefinitely while wistfully hoping for something else?

Even as a supporter of the Waters, I admit that I will believe it all when I see it. But I never would have believed the developments that have already happened in contemporary Liverpool were possible a few years ago. The city and the Government should take a leaf out of our history and go for it. Critics should meanwhile put pen to paper or easel, to show us they think could go in its place.

Kenn Taylor is a writer and journalist based in Liverpool.

[buggedboy]

Well balanced piece, that. Excellent.

[Keayman]

Originally Posted by STUBBY

I've lost count of the number of times I've heard developers boast about something they want to build bringing thousands of jobs, which in many or maybe most cases have been huge over estimates.

In the case of Liverpool presumably, tourism which is an important industry, itself brings many jobs with it and if WHS was lost would that not potentially lose actual jobs rather than potential unproven claims of jobs tomorrow?

The point is made that where is the evidence that there are thousands of office jobs to be had and all that is required to bring them is to build big buildings and they will somehow appear?

Likewise is there a shortage of flats in this area and is yet more retail space needed that is just waiting to be fulfilled by this scheme? I don't know for sure of course but I doubt it.

Seems crazy to put at risk something unique for a load of off the peg tall buildings that in any event there isn't even funding for.

I could be wrong on all counts of course and perhaps those more expert in these things will point my errors out in due course.

Let's take the first point. Let's suppose no jobs at all are brought, (an impossibility anyway as jobs will be created by the very nature of the construction ) there will at least be something better on the site than what is there now, all at no cost to the taxpayer.

I'm at a loss to see where losing the much hyped up but unproven, (as far as tourist figures are concerned) WHS status could potentially lose jobs? People came here to see the football and the Beatles long before WHS and the only National Museums outside of London and events like the MSF and Sea odysey etc bring in the tourists regardless of WHS. Did we know Dresden had it and llost it or who else actually has it and would it sway you to go. We are Liverpool, WHS or not. (I personally think it's ridiculous to put us on a par with the Pyramids anyway)

Regarding whether or not more retails space or office jobs are required or will come or not is irrelevant and not our risk nor our city's. That is totally the risk taken by Peel as was it was the risk of Grosvenor regarding L1. In a lot of cases it is build it and they will come. One thing is for sure, if we don't then they certainly can't. Another thing, how come Peel can be portrayed as a cold, buisness, hearltess property developer, wily enough to trap our hapless city into believing in them - yet, on the other hand they cannot be given enough credit for having worked out the figures, I mean, they must be stupid to build all this property without even thinking they might fill it??? How hapless of them.

What is it exactly we are putting 'at risk'. A windswept oller surrounding long disused docks and the Victoria clock tower, all of which will be brought back into use and not hidden behind padlocked gates?

Perhaps we should also consider the local residents of Vauxhall who might at last be seeing some light at the end of the tunnel for a swathe of unused land that could bring prosperity and life back into the area.

One thing is correct for the detractors who love to say these grand plans will never be realised. They're right, because people like the preservation trust, CABE and Unesco will see to it with all the modifications that keep having to be made to the plans and that's not Peel's fault.

[Wallasey Dave]

I support LW but never again should such a large swathe of land be handed over to one company.

The lack of a competitive vision is telling.

Also, if people are concerned about jobs, I believe part of the north docks should have been turned over for heavy industry and manufacturing. Particularly for green energy. It is disgracfull that most of the green tech used in this country is manufactured in Denmark and Holland.

[Merseyrail]

Originally Posted by Cheeky2xist

and in response to Rowan Moore's criticisms of the plans the Guardian are taking a more positive spin on the plans....

No rapid-transit provision is in either Liverpool Waters or Wirral Waters - in a city with a rapid-transit network. In any other city in the world it would an essential part of the schemes. Are we to take this scheme seriously?

Merseyrail rapid-transit is essential to ensure the success of Liverpool Waters and Wirral Waters. They require direct Underground rail access to: Liverpool city centre, to each complex and to Liverpool John Lennon airport. There are no firm proposals to run rapid-transit rail into the two complexes, not even Metrolink type of tram-trains running on Merseyrail lines. The essential catalyst in the success of London's Docklands was the building of the Docklands Light Railway metro.Without the metro the scheme would not have succeeded.

The transport priority in Liverpool and Merseyside is rapid-transit connections between:

• Liverpool Waters
• Wirral Waters
• Liverpool City Centre Business District
• Liverpool City Centre Shopping District
• Liverpool John Lennon Airport
• Liverpool Lime Street Mainline Station
• Everton FC
• Liverpool FC

Extending Merseyrail to these key points and districts will ensure success of the two prime projects, Liverpool Waters and Wirral Waters, and ensure economic growth within Merseyside. The image of the city will be greatly enhanced and viewed as go-ahead.

The region and city has a rapid-transit rail network that is underground in Liverpool and Birkenhead. It is the busiest outside of London. What we see is only 40% of what it can be, as the city is littered with disused tunnels (3-4 miles of them) and reserved trackbed. Most cities are envious of such a setup, clearly Manchester. The obvious thing to do is extend Merseyrail. In true Liverpool style....Not a bit if it. The government were giving out money for tram schemes around the UK and so Liverpool jumped on the money bandwagon and designed a 100% stand alone street running tram system which never integrated with the Merseyrail rapid-transit network. Unbelievable!!!!

Manchester wanted an underground, the Picc-Vic, but it was too expensive, so turned to tram-trains, Metrolink. These used existing rail lines and stations and went on the streets across the city centre on segregated lines. They even have Metrolink platforms at Victoria station so it is easy to hop from a train to the tram. Anyone with vision would have adopted this idea and merged the trams with Meseyrail and ran tram-trains on the same tracks branching off when needed to the likes of Liverpool Waters to fill in gaps where the rails do not reach.

Does the council concentrate new developments around Merseyrail stations, the transport arteries, as other cities with rapid-transit do? No! Not a bit of it. Transport arteries and developments obviously must go hand in hand.

The mayor is a supporter of the tram system and wants it back on the agenda after the DfT rightfully cancelled it. He must be looking at votes rather than what is right for the city. Short termism. As Merseytram was to be built for the wrong reasons it would end up an expensive failure. A massive White Elephant. It is not fit for purpose. It does not integrate with the existing transport network.

The city hasn't much of a clue. No Direction, despite an organisation called Liverpool Vision.

This give us any low paid job at any cost attitude has ruined a once great city. Nothing built in the past 60 years is any good, except some of the recent distinctive buildings around Canning Dock and maybe the Catholic cathedral. St.John's precinct is an eyesore and a disaster as are: the court buildings in Castle St, the Churchill flyover, the Arena on an in-filled historic Kings Dock, the cheap anytown buildings in the south docks, etc, etc. None of it has done anything to push the city forwards. But a few short term, low paid jobs were created. Wow!

The city has the opportunity to catapult itself forwards if done properly. Second rate, cheap, tat design at Liverpool Waters, and Wirral Waters, will not do that. But a few short term jobs may be created. Wow!

We can have well paid jobs and quality design, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Rowan Moore's Observer article does home in on relevant points. Few experienced people have been in favour of this 3rd rate scheme. It is getting the balance right between heritage and modernity. Peel are primarily a LAND company. They stand to make a fortune from this by increased land values, their aim. Why do you think they want to fill in dock waters on every project they put forward? Water attracts yet bizzarely they do not propose to excavate any infilled waterways to make the projects attractive to buyers. Right now they are part filling in Wellington Dock which is in a World Heritage Site buffer zone. They want lucrative LAND!

This proposal stunk of 1980s London Docklands which was pure, cheap, quayside tat. Liverpool has seen enough tat in the south end docks and elsewhere.

These docks are a World Heritage Site. Peel and the Council know that. They know what it is all about and they know the rules. Yet Peel choose to ignore the rules then cry foul when people say no. They shout emotive words in a depression like "jobs" to get their way. Little, to none, of the proposal takes into account the heritage of the site. Liverpool is in danger of losing the World Heritage Site Status. This status made the world look twice at Liverpool realising the city was unique and not a working class slum hell hole as the southern based media portrayed. It was key in getting the European City of Culture in 2008, over the gripes of Oxford. It was key in promoting tourism in the city, which is now a major destination.

Modern day property developers are not like those of the 1700s before Income Tax when land was taxed. The lack of tax on profits from land attracts the worst kind of land speculators.

The Three Graces were not a major success. The desolate windswept environment they created around them, as opposed to neat protected dock that was there with its small boats, has been a problem for the city for 100 years with countless Pier Head makeovers. But they look good from Birkenhead and on post cards.

[Merseyrail]

Originally Posted by Wallasey Dave

I believe part of the north docks should have been turned over for heavy industry and manufacturing.

Merseyside is full of land available for heavy industry in manufacturing areas. Speke, Netherton, etc. Keep docks for what they were intended for? Ships and things that float.

[McGrath]

Absolutely, I reckon Nelson Dock could be in-filled to provide a terminus for HS2 or a 6-platform public transport interchange, but don't forget the links to new stations at Lodge Lane and elsewhere so the workers can get to their workplaces.

Rock 'n troll.

[Wallasey Dave]

Some valid points on extending Merseyrail and i'm sure eventually a business case will be there to extend to LW.

I think a LW/North - South strand running tram system would be better suited but I see no reason why a rail station could not be placed at LW too.

On the other hand....

"The Three Graces were not a major success. The desolate windswept environment they created around them, as opposed to neat protected dock that was there with its small boats, has been a problem for the city for 100 years with countless Pier Head makeovers. But they look good from Birkenhead and on post cards".

Ridiculous.

[Merseyrail]

Originally Posted by McGrath

Absolutely, I reckon Nelson Dock could be in-filled to provide a terminus for HS2

Fantastic. An HS2 that can float. A real boat train. Keep trolling and rolling. Keep em commin!

[Merseyrail]

Originally Posted by Wallasey Dave

I think a LW/North - South strand running tram system would be better suited but I see no reason why a rail station could not be placed at LW too.

It would have to be Metrolink type of tram-trains

"The Three Graces were not a major success. The desolate windswept environment they created around them, as opposed to neat protected dock that was there with its small boats, has been a problem for the city for 100 years with countless Pier Head makeovers. But they look good from Birkenhead and on post cards".

Ridiculous.

No they do look good from Birkenhead. I wonder when the next Pier Head revamp will be.

[ill tonkso]

Someone said Liverpool had the only National Museums outside of London... you do realise Liverpool only has one of many National Maritimes? Not too mention the National Football over in Bradford.