daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

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



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 28th, 2012, 06:36 PM   #1
westisbest
Justice for the 96
 
westisbest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Greater Liverpool
Posts: 3,810
Likes (Received): 29

Video - Anfield Regeneration (MArch)

Here is my final review video (some glitches as i was finalising it at 5am yesterday!)

Includes a re-design of the Anfield triangle which is bound by Walton Breck rd, Oakfield and Robson st.

A new Hotel/Conference facility on Anfield rd offers stunning views of the stadium roof scape as well as the city skyline.

A new bus depo includes match days links to JLA and a new business/community park utilising the land behind Notre Dame/including the existing building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ARqaT2Sos8
__________________
Liverpool FC

18 League Titles
5 European Cups
westisbest no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old November 28th, 2012, 10:55 PM   #2
the golden vision
Registered User
 
the golden vision's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,477
Likes (Received): 835

Very impressive.
__________________
'The Only Wealth is Life'
the golden vision está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2012, 11:45 PM   #3
Pablo Diablo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Manchester, Liverpool, Nottingham
Posts: 1,207
Likes (Received): 117

That's awesome!!

Is this based on a real council/mayoral plan or are they your ideas?
Pablo Diablo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2012, 09:34 AM   #4
westisbest
Justice for the 96
 
westisbest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Greater Liverpool
Posts: 3,810
Likes (Received): 29

I left the council's 'Anfield Village' out of it as that is already planned, and just based it around my own ideas and knowledge of the area. The main factor was infrastructure, and establishing a better road network, especially where Walton Breck bottle necks around the Total Garage.
__________________
Liverpool FC

18 League Titles
5 European Cups
westisbest no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2012, 10:40 AM   #5
redTom
Registered User
 
redTom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 390
Likes (Received): 5

Where has The Albert gone?
__________________
There are places i remember...
redTom no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2012, 02:58 PM   #6
Silver lass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 229
Likes (Received): 97

Love the idea of the view over the stadium and skyline.
Really good.
Silver lass no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2012, 03:21 PM   #7
westisbest
Justice for the 96
 
westisbest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Greater Liverpool
Posts: 3,810
Likes (Received): 29

One of the issues with the Albert, amongst other pubs along Walton Breck, is that their entrances spill out directly on to the road (the paving is only narrow) which is not the most ideal scenario on a match day. The idea is to relocate those pubs to the other side of the road, but set back. The albert also blocks the view of the stadium somewhat as you approach from Walton Breck (from North) wich spoils a good vista.

Not to everyone liking but opening up the area around the stadium as it expands was an essential ingredient to the design precedent.
__________________
Liverpool FC

18 League Titles
5 European Cups
westisbest no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2012, 05:07 PM   #8
urbansubrosa
Registered User
 
urbansubrosa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 79
Likes (Received): 68

great work that video, really well made!
__________________
facebook-500px-Google+-Linkedin-twitter
urbansubrosa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2012, 01:00 AM   #9
TybMwQ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 89
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by westisbest View Post
Here is my final review video (some glitches as i was finalising it at 5am yesterday!)

Includes a re-design of the Anfield triangle which is bound by Walton Breck rd, Oakfield and Robson st.

A new Hotel/Conference facility on Anfield rd offers stunning views of the stadium roof scape as well as the city skyline.

A new bus depo includes match days links to JLA and a new business/community park utilising the land behind Notre Dame/including the existing building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ARqaT2Sos8
Your beautifully-rendered video has bewitched and beguiled you.

The actual proposals have little relation to or understanding of the condition or requirement on the ground. You propose demolishing several streets (Skerries Road etc) that are fully occupied and relatively recently refurbished by the club. Where many people live and are happy to be and form the nucleus of a community.

Your hotel severely constricts any expansion of the Anfield Road End of the football ground and would dominate and overshadow a Victorian park that has been very recently restored

You show no expansion of the stadium in fact and have rather left various lumps of green presumably intended as usable open space. The other 'open spaces' are nothing much more than left over bits between buildings.

You have obliterated any chance of Walton Breck Road re-establishing itself as a decent local high street to service the local community and new residents or act as an addition to the matchday offer at the football ground.

Notwithstanding that the bulk of the properties you propose for demolition cannot be economically replaced, the housing you propose for it is pretty severe and demonstrates no feeling or sense of ownership, place or community.

The Rockfield Triangle and Anfield Village areas have been the subject of intensive public consultation (as has the whole area) and the houses there will be largely retained and refurbished.

One idea to link buses to the airport is not an integrated public transport strategy.

Last edited by TybMwQ; November 30th, 2012 at 02:04 AM.
TybMwQ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2012, 09:35 AM   #10
westisbest
Justice for the 96
 
westisbest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Greater Liverpool
Posts: 3,810
Likes (Received): 29

That is because, it is a university project, thus we are told it is our masterplan, and that future proposals and to some extend, work already underway should not narrow our vision for what we want to achieve.

The sense of community you suggest is long gone. Long terrace buildings keep communities contrived to within the road theface, where as creating a grid system similar to that of Cerda, you open up each block in more directions, allowing the possibility to interact with far more of the area, than if you were in a long road.

The hotel actually encourages the expansion. I have seen the plans for Anfield Village as i used to work for the company working on it! Keepmoat who are working for your housing (formally Arena Housing) and Fletchrose, who are working as a subbie to Keepmoat.

The Anfield road stand expands only to th other side of the road, in comparison to the Main stand which extends further and includes land for stadium owned parking.

As for blocking Liverpool's finest Victorian park (which it is) how so? That edge is bordered with high and dense trees. What view are you loosing exactly? From the park you would see the stadium anyway so there is no change there, and from Anfield road you never see the park at this point.

If anything you gain vistas towards the park as the roof terrace offers views both towards the park and stadium.
__________________
Liverpool FC

18 League Titles
5 European Cups
westisbest no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2012, 04:17 PM   #11
cchall1989
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by TybMwQ View Post
Your beautifully-rendered video has bewitched and beguiled you.

The actual proposals have little relation to or understanding of the condition or requirement on the ground. You propose demolishing several streets (Skerries Road etc) that are fully occupied and relatively recently refurbished by the club. Where many people live and are happy to be and form the nucleus of a community.

Your hotel severely constricts any expansion of the Anfield Road End of the football ground and would dominate and overshadow a Victorian park that has been very recently restored

You show no expansion of the stadium in fact and have rather left various lumps of green presumably intended as usable open space. The other 'open spaces' are nothing much more than left over bits between buildings.

You have obliterated any chance of Walton Breck Road re-establishing itself as a decent local high street to service the local community and new residents or act as an addition to the matchday offer at the football ground.

Notwithstanding that the bulk of the properties you propose for demolition cannot be economically replaced, the housing you propose for it is pretty severe and demonstrates no feeling or sense of ownership, place or community.

The Rockfield Triangle and Anfield Village areas have been the subject of intensive public consultation (as has the whole area) and the houses there will be largely retained and refurbished.

One idea to link buses to the airport is not an integrated public transport strategy.

Though I appreciate you taking the time to critique our design proposal, I must disagree with you on almost every aspect - as do three professional urban designers and several accredited architects.

Yes, we do propose the demolition of several streets, some occupied - however, to say that urban designs cannot be implemented due to the inability to remove some occupied buildings is false; Barcelona's entire masterplan cut into hundreds of occupied buildings with the promise of a better urban environment due to that sacrifice.

To those people being the 'nucleus' of the community - there isn't much of a community left among the rows upon rows of abandoned houses. This decline of community is one of the focal points of our scheme and, having lived in Anfield for many years myself, I understand first hand how the area has failed communally.

The expansion of the stadium is shown in the plan. The stadium currently has plans to expand to a 60,000 seater by means of expanding the stadium along the Anfield Road side up to the other side of the road; and up to Lothair Road demolishing several houses to do so.

Our hotel take this expansion up to the other side of the street into account and its form is derived from the new pedestrian movement through the site. It does not dominate the Victorian Park, nor does it overshadow the park for anyone. The park is already overshadowed by rows of existing houses along its edge and the hotel, being closer to an area of a large concrete car park - does not detract as much as you claim. It simply uses the park as a backdrop to provide vistas for the occupants.

Furthermore, the hotel would provide much needed business and commerce to a otherwise commercial dry area, whilst giving LFC the hotel that most other large football clubs already have at their stadiums.

Continuing on, Walton-Breck Road has very little chance of establishing itself as any form of high street if left to its own devices; the street is littered with abandoned shop fronts and residential properties providing nothing to the area but an eyesore. Our scheme gives it a new commercial front which refurbishes all the existing shops and gives them a new lease of life whilst relocating the church to a better location to allow for the creation of a civic square to house a more retailed set of buildings to 'service the local community' much better than a few failing shops.

Also, the areas around the stadium allow for much better spill out zones than currently exist as experienced on matchdays when the fans spill out across the road constricting traffic and any other movement through the area.

The properties demolished that cannot be replaced, are removed because they have failed as a residential collective. Through our interviews, the residents told us how they wished to go back to a time when the streets new every residents for 9 streets over and how they enjoyed street parties or having neighbours over. Now, the streets lie baron and unused, so retaining the housing that cause the failure is irresponsible as designers aiming to improve a community.

The new housing opens up the site for easier movement both pedestrian and vehicular as well as opening up the streets to give the community a larger front of social interaction in the hopes of bringing back the sense of community spirit that has since been lost. It also has many three storey properties as current urban design policies and studies have shown how higher densities in urban residencies have much a much stronger chance of being successful, sustainable areas.

Lastly, you mention the addition of one bus, [though our scheme has two new routes], as not being an integrated public transport strategy. However, the route to the airport is to allow higher visitor numbers to the area including on match days as currently, no airport services are available anywhere near Anfield and so, cut off the area altogether. The other route links the 17 and 19 services to allow a bridging of communities in an area where two services run almost parallel but never really allow any linking of the two areas.

The strategy for the public transport station is not to suggest that the area have forty new buses and all buses go through Anfield - it's to better culminate the areas bus service into a more easily accessible space that provides better amenities whilst waiting for a bus as well as providing more shelter on harsh weather days.

The bus station is a large physical presence which can begin to persuade the public to use public transport rather than relying on single vehicles thereby reducing carbon emissions on the site. There are a list of many other sustainable implications to the site, however I feel I've gone on long enough.
cchall1989 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2012, 03:01 AM   #12
TybMwQ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 89
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by westisbest View Post
That is because, it is a university project, thus we are told it is our masterplan, and that future proposals and to some extend, work already underway should not narrow our vision for what we want to achieve...
As I suspected. But if you don’t question what has been handed to you, you will waste your time there.

There is nothing wrong with broad vision and testing boundaries for private study but that’s where it’s best kept. Private.

The danger is the lack of self-awareness and self-critique makes it out into the real world where there is either a very rude awakening or catastrophic failure. Whilst in there I'm sure you want projects to be as real as possible and out here, you have a responsibility.

[BTW: The Cerdā has evolved out of totally different economic, social and climatic conditions. It's hard to see the relevance here. Nevertheless the fantastically long, wide and straight roads still dominate and the public realm is ruled by fantastically long, straight and dominant traffic and hot, hard pavements]


Quote:
Originally Posted by cchall1989 View Post
Though I appreciate you taking the time to critique our design proposal, I must disagree with you on almost every aspect - as do three professional urban designers and several accredited architects.

Yes, we do propose the demolition of several streets, some occupied - however, to say that urban designs cannot be implemented due to the inability to remove some occupied buildings is false; Barcelona's entire masterplan cut into hundreds of occupied buildings with the promise of a better urban environment due to that sacrifice.

To those people being the 'nucleus' of the community - there isn't much of a community left among the rows upon rows of abandoned houses. This decline of community is one of the focal points of our scheme and, having lived in Anfield for many years myself, I understand first hand how the area has failed communally.

The expansion of the stadium is shown in the plan. The stadium currently has plans to expand to a 60,000 seater by means of expanding the stadium along the Anfield Road side up to the other side of the road; and up to Lothair Road demolishing several houses to do so.

Our hotel take this expansion up to the other side of the street into account and its form is derived from the new pedestrian movement through the site. It does not dominate the Victorian Park, nor does it overshadow the park for anyone. The park is already overshadowed by rows of existing houses along its edge and the hotel, being closer to an area of a large concrete car park - does not detract as much as you claim. It simply uses the park as a backdrop to provide vistas for the occupants.

Furthermore, the hotel would provide much needed business and commerce to a otherwise commercial dry area, whilst giving LFC the hotel that most other large football clubs already have at their stadiums.

Continuing on, Walton-Breck Road has very little chance of establishing itself as any form of high street if left to its own devices; the street is littered with abandoned shop fronts and residential properties providing nothing to the area but an eyesore. Our scheme gives it a new commercial front which refurbishes all the existing shops and gives them a new lease of life whilst relocating the church to a better location to allow for the creation of a civic square to house a more retailed set of buildings to 'service the local community' much better than a few failing shops.

Also, the areas around the stadium allow for much better spill out zones than currently exist as experienced on matchdays when the fans spill out across the road constricting traffic and any other movement through the area.

The properties demolished that cannot be replaced, are removed because they have failed as a residential collective. Through our interviews, the residents told us how they wished to go back to a time when the streets new every residents for 9 streets over and how they enjoyed street parties or having neighbours over. Now, the streets lie baron and unused, so retaining the housing that cause the failure is irresponsible as designers aiming to improve a community.

The new housing opens up the site for easier movement both pedestrian and vehicular as well as opening up the streets to give the community a larger front of social interaction in the hopes of bringing back the sense of community spirit that has since been lost. It also has many three storey properties as current urban design policies and studies have shown how higher densities in urban residencies have much a much stronger chance of being successful, sustainable areas.

Lastly, you mention the addition of one bus, [though our scheme has two new routes], as not being an integrated public transport strategy. However, the route to the airport is to allow higher visitor numbers to the area including on match days as currently, no airport services are available anywhere near Anfield and so, cut off the area altogether. The other route links the 17 and 19 services to allow a bridging of communities in an area where two services run almost parallel but never really allow any linking of the two areas.

The strategy for the public transport station is not to suggest that the area have forty new buses and all buses go through Anfield - it's to better culminate the areas bus service into a more easily accessible space that provides better amenities whilst waiting for a bus as well as providing more shelter on harsh weather days.

The bus station is a large physical presence which can begin to persuade the public to use public transport rather than relying on single vehicles thereby reducing carbon emissions on the site. There are a list of many other sustainable implications to the site, however I feel I've gone on long enough.
I’ll pardon your disagreement as no doubt you know no better certainly if you are relying on others to tell you what is good or not good, what is bad or not bad without question or independent reasoning or supporting evidence.

Your (group) scheme lacks any understanding of the issues or the means to overcome them. It does not get any better because there is more than one of you. In fact it’s all the more worrying for it.

It’s wholly irresponsible of you to put such an unreasoned and unreasonable proposal in the public realm on the pretext that it is a supportable and sensible proposal backed up only by glossy and appealing visuals.

What you say is riddled with inconsistency and hopelessly hopeful wishful thinking.

I imagine it’s pretty easy to propose sacrifice on others behalf. It is after all ‘only’ a few streets. However, I can think of at least one other scheme in Barcelona (around the MACBA) that has retained the greater proportion of a once derelict area for the loss of a relatively small number of houses to great effect. Perhaps you mean there. The MACBA was beautifully and sensitively integrated in the surrounding urban fabric - much better than the Beaubourg in Paris (the Pompidou Centre). It seems some lessons have been learned in the intervening 50 or so years. However, you do not propose this. You propose wholesale demolition (a la Pompidou).

Meanwhile council are pursuing the only option which is financially and socially realistic, which is to say they are to refurbish and make good the community and the houses in which it lives. You prefer demolition without means of rebuilding. That way lies empty pockets, empty land, green patches and ‘temporary’ timber rails to keep off the scallies. We have enough of that in Liverpool.

You suggest that two buses will improve the carbon footprint of the scheme by encouraging air travel - mmmm... You propose demolition and removal of existing building fabric and carbon content (presumably to land fill or road construction - mmmm...) and replacing it with new materials and its associated carbon content brought in presumably by road - mmmm... A huge carbon cost.

You make no proposals for other modes of transport. You suggest providing a bus station encourages bus travel. Doubtful. More likely - frequent, safe, convenient, affordable and comfortable buses encourages bus travel. But as I said that is only one part of an integrated transport plan for the area (and the stadium).

You recall (via the residents) the old street pattern as the generator of a positive neighbourhood and at the same time want to clear it as a cause of the failure of the very same neighbourhood. You are confused. You need to understand what the residents are telling you rather better than that and be rather clearer as to what it is you are proposing that is so better or so different. Because, outside of the streets themselves, the housing has remarkably little cross-permeability and linkage within blocks and the public space is of remarkably low quality - desperately low quality. I’d go so far as to say that there isn’t a positive public space in the entire scheme...

...including the relationship with the park... with the completion of the park there is a great opportunity to ‘celebrate the event’ and create a sense of arrival on matchdays. Something CABE was particularly keen to encourage. But no. You block this with a hotel several storeys higher than the remaining two storey villas on the park (and yes, thus overshadowing the park - no doubt you know which way is north). I wonder what your professional urban designers really think about that.

You say you show an expanded anfield. It is not remotely easy to expand Anfield to 60,000 without crossing Anfield Road. You cannot expand the Centenary Stand. It is not technically viable. You have not attempted to cross Walton Breck Road You cannot surely expect to accommodate an additional 15,000 in the main stand alone (plus corners I suppose). I suppose you might achieve it (or some lesser capacity) but it is not desirable from a viewing point of view.

I have no problem with three storeys or even denser (and therefore more compact) neighbourhoods. They are a positive boon to the environment. But communities need support. They needs shops, schools, doctors, dentists, pubs, places of work, worship (even and meeting. They do not need a high street wiped out as you propose.

I do have an issue with unbroken, unrelenting and poor quality facades. They lack scope for individual expression They are barracks-like and depressing. Only the Georgians pulled long and high terraces off (with a great deal of variety in the detail and high quality public space and a terrific relationship between built form, sun heat and light, the plane tree and the seasons of the year). This scheme ain’t no neo neo-Georgian.

As you say, I could go on and in considerably more detail. But if you really want my advice, you should start questioning what you do (and what you are given) rigorously instead of viewing it through the satisfaction of achieving rose-tinted visuals and rely a little bit less on the encouragement of others who maybe don’t know quite as much as you think they do. Getting regeneration right is a brutal world and the penalties for failure are pretty harsh and pretty long-lasting.

As someone said, only doctors can [satisfactorily] bury their mistakes.

Last edited by TybMwQ; December 2nd, 2012 at 12:07 PM.
TybMwQ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2012, 04:04 AM   #13
Awayo
Support the Squirrels
 
Awayo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 15,526
Likes (Received): 701

Tsfhslsh is right. Westie's graduation thesis is a great threat to Liverpool.
Awayo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2012, 10:08 AM   #14
buggedboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 8,045
Likes (Received): 869

I Ronny.
__________________
TOTAL ESTIMATED VALUE OF REGENERATION PROJECTS ON SITE IN LIVERPOOL C.R. AS OF 7TH DECEMBER 2014: Ģ2.94bn.
buggedboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2012, 12:10 PM   #15
TybMwQ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 89
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Awayo View Post
Tsfhslsh is right. Westie's graduation thesis is a great threat to Liverpool.
Make light of it if you like but there is nothing new here as a 'thesis'. A theoretical proposition for a better reality. This is no addition to the debate and practice of inner city regeneration. This is same-o same-o. Seriously, this proposal replicates much that was so bad of the post-war clearance schemes that gave us 'estates' like this is in outlying areas of Liverpool.

Schemes that ripped the guts out of at least vibrant communities and poured them into estates without heart or centre and without the means of supporting the population that lived in them. Ask any resident that was uprooted from Kirkdale to Speke. It was a crime then and it's all the worse for suggesting it be repeated in the city now.

The biggest lesson that might be learned here is that academic study and self-congratulation can reinforce smug complacency and poor and ill-considered theory that can actually make it into the outside world (as graduated and therefore 'professionally accredited' practitioners) and that meaning well (in a thesis) is not the same as doing well (in reality) - just the opposite.

Last edited by TybMwQ; December 2nd, 2012 at 12:36 PM.
TybMwQ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2012, 05:18 PM   #16
cchall1989
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2
Likes (Received): 0

The thought that the proposal 'rips people from their homes' is an overstatement. the area shown with the block and grid system of new housing is actually already a derelict site of boarded up houses.
The plan also aims to retain and refurbish the Notre Dame against current plans to demolish it but there has been little mention of what the plan achieves, rather people try to pick apart faults without doing their own in depth analysis.
And in quick response, as my workload prevents me going into too much detail right now, after talks with the designers and planners in the Anfield regeneration projects at present as well as chief members of the liverpool board - the expansion of Anfield as shown on our plan is what is proposed for the 60000 seater. It extends two streets north and only across to the other side of the road on Anfield Road.
That's not our plan - that is what is proposed in reality.
cchall1989 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2012, 05:33 PM   #17
Pablo Diablo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Manchester, Liverpool, Nottingham
Posts: 1,207
Likes (Received): 117

Your plans for new housing to be dense townhouses on block/grid streets is exactly what the inner city should be! More people = more local shops/pubs/other amenities and therefore a vibrant community... exactly what all of Inner Liverpool used to be! If people would rather live in 2 storey suburban houses or bungalows with multiple gardens and a long driveway or garage then I'd suggest they look at some of the new builds or excellent refurbs in Norris Green.
Pablo Diablo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2012, 01:56 PM   #18
TybMwQ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 89
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by cchall1989 View Post
The thought that the proposal 'rips people from their homes' is an overstatement. the area shown with the block and grid system of new housing is actually already a derelict site of boarded up houses.
The plan also aims to retain and refurbish the Notre Dame against current plans to demolish it but there has been little mention of what the plan achieves, rather people try to pick apart faults without doing their own in depth analysis.
And in quick response, as my workload prevents me going into too much detail right now, after talks with the designers and planners in the Anfield regeneration projects at present as well as chief members of the liverpool board - the expansion of Anfield as shown on our plan is what is proposed for the 60000 seater. It extends two streets north and only across to the other side of the road on Anfield Road.
That's not our plan - that is what is proposed in reality.
There are a great number of boarded up properties in the area - as they have been in many other areas in Liverpool. The de facto response to date has been to demolish first and think afterwards. This may be an unkind reflection on the failure of HMRI but the result has been very considerable sums expended on demolition and abandonment awaiting ‘better days’ (see Smithdown Road for the latest example). The green grass and timber railings stretch for acres.

These plans achieve nothing more than that if they do not suggest a means to rebuild the houses that are demolished. There is nothing in the proposal that suggests that this building typology is any better or any more buildable than the existing terraced housing. As said, the only viable (and environmentally superior) way forward is the modification and refurbishment of the existing urban fabric. Much as is happening in the Anfield Village (Salisbury Triangle) and the Rockfield Triangle and elsewhere, after much tussle, debate and public consultation (the Welsh Streets). If you want to get into dropping names and board members... ask Joe Anderson. If you want your own mind on it, just consider how this scheme might be delivered.

These are the political and financial realities of the situation, which these proposals blithely disregard (under ‘instruction’ from tutors) in favour of a transplant from Barcelona (with scarce little adaptation) built for entirely different reasons, entirely different densities, entirely different ownership and in entirely different circumstances (not to mention climate).

A comparison of the benefits and failures of the building typologies would be rather more interesting than a transplant minus five floors lopped off the top. Are you completely unaware of the many prototype housing schemes that have come and gone in Liverpool - some of which look remarkably similar and have been spectacular failures?

These plans achieve rather less than that in laying waste to viable housing particularly around Skerries Road. These include ‘newly’ refurbished and highly successful homes. I wonder if these residents have been consulted. The argument in support is a bus station to better serve air traffic on at best, a twice-fortnightly basis. This couldn’t be any further from reality if it tried - really.

The reality of Anfield is that it will be extended much as you say but not as shown on the model. There is also the potential for further commercial development behind the main stand which is not taken into account. Notwithstanding, the detail of any design proposal for the stadium is neither final nor is it public and to say so is misleading in the extreme.

An academic comparison is entirely valid (if it drew out all these failings) but the suggestion that this proposition has any basis in reality is worrying as an MArch thesis. To return to the analogy with doctors, they are dealing with real lives and patients at this stage, were this is still playing with Lego blocks to produce a (literally) flashy video.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pablo Diablo View Post
Your plans for new housing to be dense townhouses on block/grid streets is exactly what the inner city should be! More people = more local shops/pubs/other amenities and therefore a vibrant community... exactly what all of Inner Liverpool used to be! If people would rather live in 2 storey suburban houses or bungalows with multiple gardens and a long driveway or garage then I'd suggest they look at some of the new builds or excellent refurbs in Norris Green.
I entirely agree that Noddy boxes ought to be in Noddy towns. Real cities need to reinforce the urban fabric (to provide a ‘coherent urban geography’) where people come together and are not driven apart behind suburban hedges. It’s just not this and it’s not achieved this way.

Last edited by TybMwQ; December 3rd, 2012 at 02:12 PM.
TybMwQ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2012, 10:02 AM   #19
baias
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: near bilbao, basque country
Posts: 482
Likes (Received): 105

the often cited barcelona urban planning model, which belongs to the decades in between the end of the 19th beginning of the 20th, was designed for the expansion of the central area on the demands and orders of the up and coming catalan bourgeoisie, with very undemocratic and very clear social reasons...and 100 years after it still is a ghetto for the rich or super rich, the dolce & gabana, calvin klein, hilfiger set.....

that said, I wander if you have ever been to the appalling working class neighbourhoods and dormitory towns encircling the real barcelona, where almost 2 million people live?
baias 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 10:36 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