Alexandra Tower | Princes Dock | 88m | 27 floors

[design_man]

Originally Posted by T0M

Excellent post ferge, you can always be relied on for an outstanding positive attitude! And I agree, this will help increase the density in the area, and will only block views from a very specific location, namely in the middle of the mersey! So I can live with that..

A "positive" response, let's all by "positive" hey? Yeah, we have a great density of empty flats now. Great.

[Martin S]

Design Man - Have you really been reading through 1,500 posts to find people who agree with you? I look through the photos sometimes for the construction photo gallery and it takes me ages.

[Mostly Lurking]

Wow, design_man, you are even more pathetic than I thought to be digging around such old topics only to post negative comments.

Why don't you start a new one in the Liverpool forum (not this one) about housing provision, the BTL market, empty apartments etc etc?

[and-r]

i dont really see what the big deal with some empty flats is, we're in the middle of a deep recession, canary wharf was empty when it first started out, it didn't have any negative effect on its locality, only the developer had their fingers burnt in going bankrupt and it was bought by another company and expanded massively after the recession. thats the risk there always is with property developments, however there are only a handful of half empty new builds in liverpool which is nothing compared to the massive amount in leeds and manchester and shouldnt really be that difficult to fill after the economy picks up.

[m:design]

Exactly, as usual there are those who are short sighted and find the negative in anything new, or, not to their taste ; )

[design_man]

Originally Posted by Mostly Lurking

Wow, design_man, you are even more pathetic than I thought....

Such rudeness!

[design_man]

Originally Posted by Martin S

Design Man - Have you really been reading through 1,500 posts to find people who agree with you? I look through the photos sometimes for the construction photo gallery and it takes me ages.

Why do you ask? Do you think it is not a good thing, and a courteous one, to do just a little research before posting on a thread?

It actually doesn't take long to look for some representative postings, you don't have to read it all - and an awful lot is photos or just purely descriptive posting, so you get to know which posters are "conversationalists" and those that are not, which makes it far quicker to scan. Actually, you are not much of a conversationalist, tending to describe rather than analyse - which isn't to criticise, there is a healthy ecology on fora between different types of contributors.

But this "have you really spent time...." thing is also a bit symptomatic of a trait I have noticed in your postings, which is to personalise to the individual you disagree with (or agree with for that matter) rather than to confront the actual issues. It's an easy temptation to give into, and we are all guilty sometimes, but I think your best posts are where you don't comment on the person, but comment on the subject.

[design_man]

Originally Posted by m:design

Exactly, as usual there are those who are short sighted and find the negative in anything new, or, not to their taste ; )

Those with foresight were those who realised this design model was inappropriate, out-dated and unsuited to the city. Nothing negative about proposing that the city avoids mistakes and builds communities that real people will wish to live in. Princes Dock is a major mistake and lost opportunity - nothing negative about pointing that out. The sooner a new master plan is created the better.

Why not argue the real issues here instead of criticising others for being negative?

[m:design]

Originally Posted by design_man

Those with foresight were those who realised this design model was inappropriate, out-dated and unsuited to the city. Nothing negative about proposing that the city avoids mistakes and builds communities that real people will wish to live in. Princes Dock is a major mistake and lost opportunity - nothing negative about pointing that out. The sooner a new master plan is created the better.

Why not argue the real issues here instead of criticising others for being negative?

Im sorry, the last time I looked I was real, as are the people I know who live in that building. And so too are my family who live in Anfield, Speke and various other parts of the city - I myself lived happily a stones throw from it for 2 years.

This development was not a mistake and you are being negative. Your not discussing it, your just attacking it because its not the sort of home you want to live in or it represents a class of "fake people" you dont seem to be fond of.

These homes are will become spaces in which more people will want to live as and when the economy picks up.

You make no suggestion of an alternative. What would you like to see here? bungalows? eldonian Villages? cozy notions of homes for the people on the waterfront?

Alot of criticism for these spaces and yet, never a solid and financially viable proposal ever put forward for the 15-20 years these spaces such as Princes Dock laid redundant.

All city's are a process of trial and error and yes,mistakes will be made. However whether we like it or not we are to see a growing number of people from all over the country and beyond choose to live in this city as the economy improves and Liverpool's new fresh identity attracts new people.

Some of these will want to live in houses, some in the suburbs, some in apartments - Just like Princes dock.

[Evertonian]

Princes Dock could have done with something with a cutting edge design like the Mann Island blocks. That way Princes Dock would have been rejuvenated and the WHS Pier Head zone would have been left alone and landscaped in a manner that would have meant that heritage people would have been happy.

[Splendidineogh]

Originally Posted by Evertonian

Princes Dock could have done with something with a cutting edge design like the Mann Island blocks. That way Princes Dock would have been rejuvenated and the WHS Pier Head zone would have been left alone and landscaped in a manner that would have meant that heritage people would have been happy.

I agree. Or maybe some development at the Pier Head, but more conservative and less imposing. The black blocks would have been better at that baron dock to the north (Prices I think, as you say).

[ferge]

Originally Posted by and-r

i dont really see what the big deal with some empty flats is, we're in the middle of a deep recession, canary wharf was empty when it first started out, it didn't have any negative effect on its locality, only the developer had their fingers burnt in going bankrupt and it was bought by another company and expanded massively after the recession. thats the risk there always is with property developments, however there are only a handful of half empty new builds in liverpool which is nothing compared to the massive amount in leeds and manchester and shouldnt really be that difficult to fill after the economy picks up.

I agree, I'm not quite sure why or when this argument sprung up.. but from what I'm gathering is that architectural taste is being used as prove of success? (in design man's case).. in that an empty building is an ugly building?

The fact is who would know how occupied a building is unless they paid close attention? (watching for movement/lights on at night) other than that if you were to pass it in the car or be sat by the pierhead, would you be any the wiser? no.. because it is a new, well-built and well-maintained development.

I'm not sure what design man's objectives are because I've yet to see any signs of praise or positivity in his posts, (care to prove me otherwise if you wish, this is by no means a personal attack). But I do sense its a case of 'whatever we build will fail, because no one likes new stuff'. It's a mantra that echoes across our town's and cities and I find it increasingly poisoness.

The same thing has recently happened in Wigan with its new £150 million Modus-built shopping centre, because Modus have gone into Administration, the 'NIMBY neysayers' are all mouthing off with 'we told you so!' despite the fact that the development itself is a great success for the town, has brought it slightly more into the 21st century and has provided countless new unskilled jobs (which most people around here need)..

I just don't understand, if you don't like it then fine but the trouble for you is, these buildings will keep going on up and cities like Liverpool will see an abundance of new, daring pieces of architecture and it would be outrageous to deprive it of them..

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by design_man

Why do you ask? Do you think it is not a good thing, and a courteous one, to do just a little research before posting on a thread?

It actually doesn't take long to look for some representative postings, you don't have to read it all - and an awful lot is photos or just purely descriptive posting, so you get to know which posters are "conversationalists" and those that are not, which makes it far quicker to scan. Actually, you are not much of a conversationalist, tending to describe rather than analyse - which isn't to criticise, there is a healthy ecology on fora between different types of contributors.

But this "have you really spent time...." thing is also a bit symptomatic of a trait I have noticed in your postings, which is to personalise to the individual you disagree with (or agree with for that matter) rather than to confront the actual issues. It's an easy temptation to give into, and we are all guilty sometimes, but I think your best posts are where you don't comment on the person, but comment on the subject.

I don't know DM, I wouldn't have thought it was a particular trait of mine to personalise subjects. If someone comes up with an argument that I don't agree with, it is in my nature to attack the argument not the individual. In fact, on some of the transport threads, I have been accused (erroneously) of self-interest on many occasions but I just don't respond to that. If there is a good case to be made for a particular subject, the personal interests of the person making that case should be secondary.

However, in the case of certain forummers, personality inevitably becomes an issue and the argument takes a back seat. You do get a feeling when there is a hidden agenda and that usually comes across when there is a blanket negativity about a subject.

By 'hidden agenda', I don't necessarily mean some concealed commercial or political interest but just an intransigent way of thinking that always leads to the same conclusions.

I may be more into description than analysis (although in order to describe something you have to analyse it first) but I don't see that you are a particularly strong example of an analytical forummer - unless you consider calling things 'cheap', 'tawdry' or 'inept' is analysis. Being negative and calling yourself 'Design Man' is a way of implying an authority that you may not possess.

I think that some of the strongest analytical forummers on the Liverpool SSC are Woody and Lathom. They don't spring to conclusions but try and understand why a particular building or detail has been carried out in a particular way. They are by no means always positive, but if they are negative, they back up that negativity with some serious reasoning.

A good example would be the 'chicken wire' cladding on Alexandra Tower. You look at it and say 'cheap and nasty' typical of modern Liverpool. A more analytical forummer might question whether the architect was making an attempt at visually separating the two different functions of the building - living space and car storage and was emphasising the industrial function of the latter rather than housing cars behind lines of false window openings - as is often the case. Doesn't mean that you have to like the end result - just that you have given it some serious thought rather than leaping to conclusions.

[Lathom]

Originally Posted by Martin S

I don't know DM, I wouldn't have thought it was a particular trait of mine to personalise subjects. If someone comes up with an argument that I don't agree with, it is in my nature to attack the argument not the individual. In fact, on some of the transport threads, I have been accused (erroneously) of self-interest on many occasions but I just don't respond to that. If there is a good case to be made for a particular subject, the personal interests of the person making that case should be secondary.

However, in the case of certain forummers, personality inevitably becomes an issue and the argument takes a back seat. You do get a feeling when there is a hidden agenda and that usually comes across when there is a blanket negativity about a subject.

By 'hidden agenda', I don't necessarily mean some concealed commercial or political interest but just an intransigent way of thinking that always leads to the same conclusions.

I may be more into description than analysis (although in order to describe something you have to analyse it first) but I don't see that you are a particularly strong example of an analytical forummer - unless you consider calling things 'cheap', 'tawdry' or 'inept' is analysis. Being negative and calling yourself 'Design Man' is a way of implying an authority that you may not possess.

I think that some of the strongest analytical forummers on the Liverpool SSC are Woody and Lathom. They don't spring to conclusions but try and understand why a particular building or detail has been carried out in a particular way. They are by no means always positive, but if they are negative, they back up that negativity with some serious reasoning.

A good example would be the 'chicken wire' cladding on Alexandra Tower. You look at it and say 'cheap and nasty' typical of modern Liverpool. A more analytical forummer might question whether the architect was making an attempt at visually separating the two different functions of the building - living space and car storage and was emphasising the industrial function of the latter rather than housing cars behind lines of false window openings - as is often the case. Doesn't mean that you have to like the end result - just that you have given it some serious thought rather than leaping to conclusions.

Very kind. I've never been in a gang before!

[Tony Sebo]

I can't make head nor tails of the argument below, so I'll just add my thoughts. Princes dock was developed in a fantastically bad way in its early stages, but it now contains two of the few genuinely architecturally interesting buildings that have been built downtown.

Malmaison is very good; and when I saw Alex completed, for the first time, just a few weeks ago it properly impressed me. It has presence and a decent enough scale.

Much of the site has been wasted, and I have always thought that the Crowne Plaza should be demolished asap... it is shite! It does need to be developed as a community, rather than a set piece for some architectural wizzes.

[Rock Savage]

Originally Posted by Tony Sebo

I can't make head nor tails of the argument below, so I'll just add my thoughts. Princes dock was developed in a fantastically bad way in its early stages, but it now contains two of the few genuinely architecturally interesting buildings that have been built downtown.

Malmaison is very good; and when I saw Alex completed, for the first time, just a few weeks ago it properly impressed me. It has presence and a decent enough scale.

Much of the site has been wasted, and I have always thought that the Crowne Plaza should be demolished asap... it is shite! It does need to be developed as a community, rather than a set piece for some architectural wizzes.

Malmaison aside, the rest is poor, including the Alex, at least from its river view.

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by Tony Sebo

I can't make head nor tails of the argument below, so I'll just add my thoughts. Princes dock was developed in a fantastically bad way in its early stages, but it now contains two of the few genuinely architecturally interesting buildings that have been built downtown.

Malmaison is very good; and when I saw Alex completed, for the first time, just a few weeks ago it properly impressed me. It has presence and a decent enough scale.

Much of the site has been wasted, and I have always thought that the Crowne Plaza should be demolished asap... it is shite! It does need to be developed as a community, rather than a set piece for some architectural wizzes.

Have to agree with you Tony. The hotel and office buildings just do not do anything for the site. The first office building (nearest the Pier Head) tries very hard with its giant canopy, external glazed lifts, curved roof and balconies but all these features belong on a much bigger building. The second building is just too bland and business park like to do anything for a riverside setting. The third block is my favourite of the three as they have been more adventurous with the glazing and the form of the building. Even so, it is a case of 'could do better'.

I suppose the problem with Princes Dock is that it is one of the earliest of the Liverpool development areas of the current regeneration and the fact that people would actually build anything of any size in Liverpool was a cause for celebration.

[Tobylvp]

Originally Posted by design_man

Those with foresight were those who realised this design model was inappropriate, out-dated and unsuited to the city. Nothing negative about proposing that the city avoids mistakes and builds communities that real people will wish to live in. Princes Dock is a major mistake and lost opportunity - nothing negative about pointing that out. The sooner a new master plan is created the better.

Why not argue the real issues here instead of criticising others for being negative?

Well here is someone who agrees with Design Man. Princes Dock was a major lost opportunity. It is salvageable.
Firstly, the abomination of the multi-storey car park needs to be demolished. The mental state of the approvers is called into question. The dock needs to be back to its historic full deep water depths from the inland barge depths it now mockingly is, and accommodate tall and historic ships. These basic points is can only attract quality developers.

Design Man is right, there is no overall planning, no master plan, no strategy. There is a recently published guidance document, which is better than nothing. The City, Peel and British Waterways have recklessly discarded the history and heritage of the city to accumulate wealth. The results of their endeavours are all too obvious.

In Liverpool there has been desecration and destruction of much of the central features which made the city one of the greatest trading centres and renowned maritime ports the world has known.

Concerned Liverpudlians like Design Man should contrast the Continental approach to conservation with the short term objectives of those driving the city's so-called redevelopment areas. Wealthy business interests in collusion with local and national political interests too often dictate, behind closed doors, grandiose philistine money making schemes, not to the glorification of those who worked in and built the city’s wealth over centuries, or to enhance a vibrant waterscape, but to that of a few who today seek their own accumulation of wealth. All appear obsessed with a new world of ad-hoc modernism with notions of the past swept clean and relegated to the confines of a museum, a modern museum of course.

The city has held a fascination for many and given sympathetic conservation and restoration of its past, will continue to do so for countless others among generations to come long after the city's well deserved 20th century musical successes have faded.

[ragazzo_013]

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=785036

[Mostly Lurking]

Originally Posted by ragazzo_013

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=785036

Spammer.