Kings Dock Mill Phases 2 & 3 | Hurst Street | Mixed Use

[the golden vision]

Originally Posted by Toadboy

Great pics, get on Autobiography of a Liverpool Slummy if you haven't already, written about a lad growing up round there at the beginning of the 20th century.

I like the massing and scale of what's proposed, as said earlier it'll be the quality of the materials used that will make it. We don't want that Leeds look or even the slightly less cheap Lego Manchester look.

Good one. Most of the residential stuff in those pic are "Courts" replaced in the mid 1930's by the tenements.

[Portobello Red]

Originally Posted by buggedboy

these blocks are another example of the anti-architecture that we have here due to lower returns per sq ft. The hampton is the same. Other examples include the spectrum building on duke st and the mount pleasant building containing tesco. No detail. A cheap pallete and poor choice of materials, coupled with zero design features.

I feel the same way about this.

I think some of the architects are out of their depth and don't have much of a clue what to do apart from relentless red brick.

It really is a wasted opportunity for this part of town.

[the golden vision]

Originally Posted by jets9

GV's post 35 and those 30's pics....sometimes I wish people wouldn't post stuff like that....so sad and which brings home how much has been lost and in so many ways.

On a more positive note, when developments like this starting popping up north of leeds street, then things will be really motoring.

I know, it's depressing looking at them sometimes. It was just to give people some idea of the scale/massing and density the area once had. I remember hearing the late Quentin Hughes speaking on radio and him saying one of the saddest things to happen to the city's fabric was the loss of scale along parts ot the waterfront. Hopefully these schemes around the Baltic Triangle can be repeated up around Waterloo rd/Regent rd to at least restore the scale. (McGrath,not mine ,no doubt someone will be about copyright)

[the golden vision]

I wouldn't be surprised if developers/architects are being advised that nearer Wapping/Chaloner st,red brick is the preferred material. It's certainly more acceptable here than further in to town. There could be more use of polychrome brickwork.

[Portobello Red]

Originally Posted by the golden vision

There could be more use of polychrome brickwork.

That could look even worse.

The brick work here would look better mixed with light stone.

The orange coloured 'tango' bricks don't even match the surrounding warehouses.

At least they could give us a respite from the red brick - maybe something like Grosvenor's 'Waterside' development at Chelsea Bridge:








image hosted on flickr

[buggedboy]

That beige looks so much better. It looks smart and basically looks like the building has had much more spent on it.

[the golden vision]

Porto Red... i mean blues and yellows just to break up the featureless expanses or red brick.

[Lathom]

I see little justification for the negativity that most of these responses (excepting Chris’s) reveal.

For a start, this developer deserves credit for actually delivering something in the present climate, as they have done with phase 1. And while one might wonder just how many hotel permissions will end up being implemented, this developer, again, has a track record.

I have no sympathy, as I have said before, with the prevailing redbrickophobia. People keep saying that brick cladding is cheap. Rainscreen, rendered blockwork, precast panels and a number of other options are cheaper. Those who harbour a fantasy of Liverpool as the Athens of the north are welcome to it, but anyone with their eyes open can see that Liverpool is a strongly red-brick city. I wouldn’t like to see it in Water Street of course, but in this location, with the enormous brick pile of the Wapping warehouse right across the street, the objection strikes me as ridiculous. (Though I do agree with GV that some use of polychrome would be nice from time to time: that is also traditional in Liverpool. But not with Porto that we need to be importing large areas of London yellow brick.)

I’m not entirely convinced by the mirror glass on the front face of the hotel, though the use of it on balconies is unusual. But I can see the idea, given the long range of the Wapping warehouse: if the angles are right, it could create an interesting corridor effect.

I can’t see the big problem with having four parking spaces on Hurst Street, though greenery would I agree be better.

Most of all I think this proposal along with the existing phase recreates some of the canyon-like enclosure that we can see in the old photos. I also like the diversity of uses. I doubt they read stuff like this, but I’d like to offer the developer strong encouragement instead of a battery of criticism.

[buggedboy]

I agree that the mix of uses is great and a welcome consequence on the collapse of teh residential bubble. I also don't have an objection to red brick in principle, despite disagreeing with you about Liverpool being a red brick city. Maybe there's quite a bit in the sticks, but not in town.

In any event, it isn't just the colour, its the quality. Brick can be good, if done properly. Unfortunately the only cases where it has been done well are Carsatelli and the Georgian terraces. At a pinch I'd accept Manhattan Place etc. However, in general the choice leads to poor results e.g. Hanover St car park.

I'll hold my nose and take it though because were still not in a position to be too fussy and the land values around there will hopefully be driven up as the area develop, allowing developers to be more imaginative with their proposals.

[JohnnyLeigh]

I think this is okay too, certainly not thrilling and it could be better yes, but as a starting point in that area its perfectly reasonable.

I understand the hesitancy and desire to wait for something better, but this doesn't look like another dolls house disaster, this looks like it might be decent.

Of course hopefully it will be tweaked to improve it further

[Lathom]

I was a bit unfair to Porto in my post above. There is after all plenty of yellow brick already in use in Liverpool, quite attractively - at Kensington Fields, for example. He is right that a bit of variation wouldn't go amiss. Still, just as it would be odd to say about a building on London, 'Oh no, not more yellow brick' - because it is the main vernacular material - so the corresponding response in Liverpool strikes me as unjustified, and particularly so in this location.

[Portobello Red]

Originally Posted by Lathom

I have no sympathy, as I have said before, with the prevailing redbrickophobia. People keep saying that brick cladding is cheap. Rainscreen, rendered blockwork, precast panels and a number of other options are cheaper. Those who harbour a fantasy of Liverpool as the Athens of the north are welcome to it, but anyone with their eyes open can see that Liverpool is a strongly red-brick city. I wouldn’t like to see it in Water Street of course, but in this location, with the enormous brick pile of the Wapping warehouse right across the street, the objection strikes me as ridiculous. (Though I do agree with GV that some use of polychrome would be nice from time to time: that is also traditional in Liverpool. But not with Porto that we need to be importing large areas of London yellow brick.)

So a large swathe of Liverpool will look like a Barrat housing estate in the South East of England, with featureless buildings with little signs of imagination or progress.

The red brick doesn't even match the neighbouring docks.

Every bland city has got this type of development by the bucket load - and when done on a large scale it looks bad - really bad.

[Chris B]

I've just been having a closer look at the planning documents, specifically those that detail each proposed floor plan. The car park will consist of just 13 spaces, with the remaining space being shown to be a shared surface, so I don't think it's anything to get too annoyed over.

Meanwhile, the planning document that states, 'development of a 13 storey youth hostel building, car park, residential apartments, retail units' I think is just ambiguous, as it could be interpreted as the youth hostel being 13 storeys. However all the above will form one single building, with the youth hostel element in the rear corner of the site, and the apartments forming the 13 storey element overlooking the hotel.

[Villiers Terrace]

Originally Posted by Lathom

I see little justification for the negativity that most of these responses (excepting Chris’s) reveal.

It's called criticism Lathom. Debate. Much of it pretty reasoned and pretty constructive. It's part of a healthy dialogue between developer and the general populus for whom their economic activities affect the settings in which we live. It's important.

Are you really happy for this stretch of Wapping to be home to a clutch of stand-alone buildings, all perched away from the street behind their own grassy knolls? This Mabel Fletcher Tech College-a-like on Wapping for instance?

And wouldn't it be fantastic if, for once British developers spent just a little time thinking about their contribution in forming streetscapes, such as, here, perhaps acknowleging the presence of Quay House and creating an appropriate response to it?

[crisis]

Originally Posted by Doug Roberts

Seems like a lot of red brick in this design, good to see a frontage onto Wapping.

Lets be clear here that the plan and renders seem to represent 2 different designs. The plan isn't great, the building on the strand doesnt have the straight facade that the render does, and in the render the block towards the YHA and car park is bigger with more wings.

The render is very passable, the strand block works quite well on the site with that mirrored facade and sharp corner. With regards to the grass moat that we have been warned about, I don't see it here the buildings all seem to follow the streets very well (in the render, but not in the plan)

[crisis]

Originally Posted by Chris B

From the Planning Documents -



The new development seems to be part of a larger regeneration scheme that started with the Hampton by Hilton/Apartments development. Given the developer of that has managed to get the scheme approved, built, and operating in the midst of a severe economic downturn, I'm confident that the next two phases should come to pass as well.

Heres that wonky plan. Which one does the planning app refer to, the plan or the renders?

[Chris B]

Having looked through the planning documents, the site plan above seems to be the only one to show a stepped frontage along Wapping. All of the other documents such as the renders and the floor plans show a straight frontage along Wapping. Based on that, I'm inclined to think the renders and floor plans with the straight frontage are the correct impressions of the scheme.

In addition, it's one thing to provide quite a basic site plan, which largely only exists to show roughly what will go where, and what will form each phase, and then to turn around and say, 'Oh wait, that was just an early version of the plan'. I doubt the council would have much issue with that, and potentially it may even have been the council who during initial talks requested a straight frontage. It's a whole other thing to provide a dozen or so renders and floor plans with a straight frontage, and then go ahead and build a stepped frontage, even if it did appear like that on a single basic document submitted with the application.

Furthermore, the site plan doesn't make any mention of the residential care home, for which they are requesting outline planning permission. This is to be located in the block marked 'car park phase 3' on the site plan. This too, along with other discrepancies, like the layout of the car park/drop-off/lay-by area for the hotel leads me to believe that the site plan above is an early version of the scheme, which is now outdated. As such, I think it's safe to say that the scheme in the renders, importantly with the straight frontage along Wapping, is the one we should expect to see.

[Villiers Terrace]

Originally Posted by crisis

With regards to the grass moat that we have been warned about, I don't see it here

???? Really??

See that green stuff in front of the shiney block separating it from Wapping?

That's a grass moat.


P.S. Do you really think it neccessary to copy and paste 5 large renders everyone's seen and already there on the previous page, to illustrate a point which has, again, already been made?

[yoshef]

The grass verge and tarmac path along wapping are already there. It needs some proper paving.

[Villiers Terrace]

Originally Posted by yoshef

The grass verge and tarmac path along wapping are already there. It needs some proper paving.

Interesting. But the render still indicates a building with its own (slim) moating behind the present fence.

Whether this is just a graphic representation thing (because of the nature of the bend in the present path and borders, means that to depict a staight line frontage you have to in-fill the gap with more green, so seemingly, more border), or whether they actually do intend to build set-back, behind that fence remains to be seen doesn't it?