Liverpool Waters

[Howie_P]

Liverpool Waters – review

If it goes ahead, the multibillion-pound Liverpool Waters scheme will destroy the city's historic character


Rowan Moore
The Observer, Sunday 6 May 2012


Liverpool Waters: 'a wannabe Dubai, or a Shanghai-lite'.

"We just want to be left alone, to make our own judgments," says Joe Anderson, the forthright, newly minted, directly elected mayor of Liverpool and before that leader of the city's council. He is talking about Liverpool Waters, a development at the scale of Canary Wharf and designed like Dubai, covering 60 hectares with clusters of skyscrapers and 1.7 million sq metres of offices, homes and shopping. It will create, says Anderson, 17,000 jobs and bring in £5.5bn of investment.

His only problem is that the proposed development partly straddles a world heritage site, and includes within its boundary some of the mightiest docks and warehouses of the Industrial Revolution. Just outside are the Three Graces, the majestic Edwardian commercial buildings that, along with its two cathedrals, define the image of the city. Being a world heritage site means that new development has to respect and enhance what is called its "outstanding universal value", something which Unesco says the development signally fails to do. English Heritage and Cabe (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment ) have persistently objected to aspects of the scheme, despite which Liverpool city council granted it outline planning permission in March. The question now is whether Eric Pickles, as secretary of state for communities and local government, decides to hold a public inquiry.

According to Unesco, the outstanding universal value of the site "would be irreversibly damaged if the development goes ahead". English Heritage says that "the setting of some of Liverpool's most significant historic buildings will be severely compromised, the archaeological remains of parts of the historic docks are at risk of destruction, and the city's historic urban landscape will be permanently unbalanced". It also says that the information provided by the developer, the Peel Group, and the architectural practice, Chapman Taylor, is not sufficient for an application of this importance, and that their assessments are inadequate.

Cabe says that the scheme neither "articulates a vision for Liverpool Waters" nor demonstrates how its elements "have been integrated into a coherent whole". The developer's "design principles" are not "organised or expressed in a meaningful way" and do not give confidence that they "will provide a sound basis by which to control design quality". It says that the official guidance for proposing tall buildings has not been followed. It's unusual to find so much unanimity among the various bodies charged with expressing views on major projects. What they are saying, in their measured consultee-speak, is that it stinks.

Looking at the proposals you can see their point. The development's towers would loom large behind the Three Graces and, large though they are, the old warehouses would become bits of flotsam in a sea of what, until it is proved otherwise, looks like very average commercial development. There is no sign whatsoever of an attempt to make a relationship between the new buildings and the old. Instead, from its first proposals five years ago, Peel has kept proposing essentially the same thing: a wannabe Dubai, or a Shanghai-lite, plonked carelessly next to the historic buildings. Anderson talks of reviving the pride of the city's forefathers, but there is little pride in these knock-offs of other cities.

Liverpool city council and Peel jointly agreed that their aim was an "aspirational scheme" which will "create a new sense of place", but there is nothing in the images to suggest anything other than generic blandness. Also, that it would "integrate" the site's heritage with "exciting and sustainable new development". It doesn't. And that it would "draw on the unique identity of the site and the city to… reinforce Liverpool's strong identity". Again there is absolutely no sign of this. These words are products of a busy day at the flannel factory.

It's not just that the designs are not very good, but also that Peel has declined requests by Cabe and English Heritage to demonstrate fully how it would achieve the sort of architectural quality and sensitivity to the past which everyone in theory agrees is a good thing. (Nor, for that matter, would it answer a simple request for information for this article.)

The planning permission it has is for an outline scheme, with detailed design to be decided later. It permits a lot of big buildings without showing the architectural genius by which it would make them beautiful. The burden of proof is with Peel to show that dense clusterings of very large buildings would not trash the surroundings, but that proof has not been supplied. Possibly because it's impossible to prove this point – that there is such a thing as too big and too tall on this site which no amount of design can massage away.

There are, of course, all those jobs, and it would be a rash and heartless politician who would snatch away thousands of potential livelihoods from Liverpudlians for the sake of what Anderson has called "a certificate on the wall in the town hall", by which he means the world heritage site status. Except that this is to make the large assumptions that Peel will find £5.5bn of capital that it doesn't currently have, and that Liverpool will suddenly discover enough office demand to fill this massive development.

A more likely outcome is that the favourable planning permission will allow the Peel Group to write up the value of the site on its balance sheets. It will have also established principles, if they can be called that, that will allow Peel to do almost whatever it wants with the site in the future. Liverpool would lose twice – the city wouldn't get all the promised jobs, and its heritage would be compromised.

It is in fact possible to have both development and respect for the past. Anderson says that this is his aim, and that Liverpool Waters achieves it. That Unesco, Cabe and English Heritage, plus several other bodies, disagree with him is, he says, "a matter of opinion", which ignores the fact that theirs are considered expert opinions that are in theory given weight by the planning process. It is not that they should always have the last word, but when there is such a chorus of disapproval on such a significant site, it demands to be addressed more seriously than has so far happened.

Anderson also urges me to look at Peel's original proposals to see how many concessions it has made. I do, and I see that they were even more overbearing than the present ones, but not fundamentally different. I see one of the oldest ploys in developers' books: start with something more than outrageous, with the aim of achieving the merely outrageous. Liverpool should be smart enough not to fall for that one.

Pickles will be lobbied to the effect that he should encourage business and localism and leave Liverpool Waters alone, but if ever a project demanded a public inquiry it is this. It is a site of national and international importance – as the world heritage site designation recognises – where serious and legitimate concerns have been raised, and have not been adequately dealt with by the local authority. According to the World Heritage Convention, signed by Britain, the government "has a duty to protect, conserve, present and transmit the property to future generations". Waving Peel's project through would not fulfil this duty.

Source: The Observer

[HollyBlack]

... and includes within its boundary some of the mightiest docks and warehouses of the Industrial Revolution.

Absurd.
That was true 30 or 40 years ago, it isn't true now, they are gone, demolished and filled by daylight robbery vandals.

[the golden vision]

There's still a cluster of historic warhouses remaining but i disagree with EH and Cabe that vistas of them from the river should be protected, Peel and their 'plans' are another mattter entirely.

I'm not quite sure in whose interests Big Joe is operating but it's starting to look like it ain't for the greater good. This glorified sinecure of Mayor(Tory sop) has a whiff of Tammany Hall and more than a whiff of a huge, undemocratic, power trip for J.A, methinks it's all going to end in tears

[macca_lad]

I am against this scheme because it's not upfront. I don't trust people that are holding something back and peels pie in the sky promises are meaningless.

The lure of jobs however is very powerful and it seems to have won over large swathes of the population, to the extent that 60% trust Joe on this. That said I don't know how they thought up creating 17000 jobs.

Joe is now tied to this scheme and has to push it through, his plan for creating 20000 new jobs in his manifesto is basically this development. Peel have him just were they want him and by making the noises they'll pull out if it goes to a public inquiry, they're manipulating people into thinking the choice is between jobs or no jobs. A prosperous future and no future.

I don't like that this becomes a development versus anti-development argument. I just don't feel reassured by the project at all. I wrote to the council planning department about this development and never got a response or saw any indication my views had been considered at all with the speed they approved this development.

[Medi73#!]

Originally Posted by Howie_P

Source: The Observer

Nice for the concern, now fuck off

[McGrath]

^
The author of the article seems rather upset that Peel felt him unimportant enough not to respond! How many people read the Observer?

EH, CABE, Rowan Moore and 'Piloti' (Private Eye) don't have, and never will have, to live with what's there now. If the buildings end up being mediocre, so what? Better to have a mediocre building providing jobs than a mildly interesting historical wasteland providing none. As for non-tangible advantages/disadvantages, there is plenty of "sense of place" in the rest of the city to get by. All you have around that part of town now is a "sense of waste".

As for being suspicious about Peel...... here in Liverpool we have even less trust in the statutory bodies assigned as guardians of our heritage.

[bluesnapper]

As things stand now the area of what will become Liverpool Waters brings to the table very few jobs and very little money to the city.

The scheme is a win win situation seeing as though we have no other 'game in town'.

[macca_lad]

Originally Posted by McGrath

^
The author of the article seems rather upset that Peel felt him unimportant enough not to respond! How many people read the Observer?

EH, CABE, Rowan Moore and 'Piloti' (Private Eye) don't have, and never will have, to live with what's there now. If the buildings end up being mediocre, so what? Better to have a mediocre building providing jobs than a mildly interesting historical wasteland providing none. As for non-tangible advantages/disadvantages, there is plenty of "sense of place" in the rest of the city to get by. All you have around that part of town now is a "sense of waste".

As for being suspicious about Peel...... here in Liverpool we have even less trust in the statutory bodies assigned as guardians of our heritage.

I don't agree with that, I value English Heritage not giving up on this despite opposition from an army of pawns that have been mobilised against them on this project by Peel and Anderson's inflammatory comments. What BBC Radio Merseyside's Roger Phillips has been doing by making this a development versus anti-development issue is a disservice to the city and the hope of finding an amicable solution.

Liverpool can have it both ways but Anderson has persistently opposed this. Why has Anderson has let this problem drag on and on to it's inevitable conclusion where it will probably be called in for an inquiry? It is either arrogance, stupidity or laziness. He's had more than enough time, enough warnings and reports about this issue to try and reach a compromise between Peel and UNESCO but he hasn't even tried to find a compromise. He thinks Peel have compromised enough already. English Heritage and UNESCO are the experts and the government has a commitment were it cannot fail to listen to take account of their views, so it is obliged to call it in.

For some inexplicable reason Anderson has decided it is WHS or Peel and that this city isn't big enough for the both of them. If I was UNESCO I would be doing my level best to torpedo Liverpool Waters, Anderson has made it personal and shown a lot of disrespect to WHS by calling it a plaque on the wall. It's like a red rag to a bull.

[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.

[Medi73#!]

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.

Well said Paul, its ludicrous to hear all of this when the opposition to the development is based on heritage concerns when anyone who knows the area knows its an urban wasteland so its all a nonsense, as for Peel's intentions that's a different matter and this should be what the debate is focused on imo.

[design_man]

"the setting of some of Liverpool's most significant historic buildings will be severely compromised, the archaeological remains of parts of the historic docks are at risk of destruction, and the city's historic urban landscape will be permanently unbalanced".

The setting of some significant historic buildings will change, as it always does in cities over time. It is a matter of personal opinion whether the change represents an enhancement or detraction. Personally I think the plans enhance the setting of important historic sites, especially Stanley Dock, but it's not an objective thing. Who the hell do CABE and English Heritage think they are setting out their eccentric views as if they were facts? Some views matter to some people and not to others, there is no right or wrong in this.

Archeological remains are destroyed every day in the normal course of business - otherwise we couldn't build in cities as we could never put foundations down for new buildings. What is important is that there is proper archeology and recording of anything significant that was / is there, not that we prevent all further development.
Utter madness.

A historic urban landscape does not exist, there is no such thing: the landscape is the current one, it is ever changing, and incorporates all previous development. To imply that it's fixed, and is some type of "balance", is pure whimsy. They use phrases that just have no meaning.

The annoying thing is that the organisations and people who are making such ignorant mischief as funded by the tax payer. So here we are, in a desperate situation of national economic emergency, with a developer who is prepared to invest a lot in one of our cities most in need of investment, and we have tax-payer funded opposition to growth on frankly spurious grounds.

I'll be happy to see the WHS certificate ceremonially tossed into Princes Dock when work starts on a new high rise there. I am impatient to see work start, every day of delay is dangerous to the economy and future of the city.

[Medi73#!]

That's a very good post

[macca_lad]

Originally Posted by design_man

"the setting of some of Liverpool's most significant historic buildings will be severely compromised, the archaeological remains of parts of the historic docks are at risk of destruction, and the city's historic urban landscape will be permanently unbalanced".

The setting of some significant historic buildings will change, as it always does in cities over time. It is a matter of personal opinion whether the change represents an enhancement or detraction. Personally I think the plans enhance the setting of important historic sites, especially Stanley Dock, but it's not an objective thing. Who the hell do CABE and English Heritage think they are setting out their eccentric views as if they were facts? Some views matter to some people and not to others, there is no right or wrong in this.

Archeological remains are destroyed every day in the normal course of business - otherwise we couldn't build in cities as we could never put foundations down for new buildings. What is important is that there is proper archeology and recording of anything significant that was / is there, not that we prevent all further development.
Utter madness.

A historic urban landscape does not exist, there is no such thing: the landscape is the current one, it is ever changing, and incorporates all previous development. To imply that it's fixed, and is some type of "balance", is pure whimsy. They use phrases that just have no meaning.

The annoying thing is that the organisations and people who are making such ignorant mischief as funded by the tax payer. So here we are, in a desperate situation of national economic emergency, with a developer who is prepared to invest a lot in one of our cities most in need of investment, and we have tax-payer funded opposition to growth on frankly spurious grounds.

I'll be happy to see the WHS certificate ceremonially tossed into Princes Dock when work starts on a new high rise there. I am impatient to see work start, every day of delay is dangerous to the economy and future of the city.

English Heritage and CABE are objective. Their views are respected and whether you acknowledge it or not, the government will listen to those concerns.

Basically, you're saying this is nothing to do with heritage and culture. Well, that's not your call. Only in 2008 this city was European Capital of Culture, do we toss that down the road now that it no longer suits us? What kind of legacy are we leaving here? People are proud of the WHS and we are proud because we are Liverpool and unique not Dubai or Shanghai.

If this is all about economics, let's look at the economics. When will these buildings be built? Who say's 17000 jobs will be created? How do we know this? How much demand is there for this office space? How many empty appartments are there already in the city centre? Peel hasn't committed to anything, but a 30 year pipe dream if it suits them. To the contrary, they are threatening to pull the plug if they don't get what they want.

The economics argument is riddled with holes. Yet here you are like Peel, stamping your feet and decrying a lost opportunity. That is not satisfactory and wouldn't pass anyone's test of how it benefits the city. If Peel are so determined to get this development through why are they proving so difficult to get firm answers from, to have all their information scrutinised? They're hardly helping us to support it.

We need to press pause on this development, get some more information and firm commitments from Peel, to get an agreement with UNESCO and that is what a public inquiry will do, get answers.

[Medi73#!]

Originally Posted by macca_lad

English Heritage and CABE are objective. Their views are respected and whether you acknowledge it or not, the government will listen to those concerns.

Basically, you're saying this is nothing to do with heritage and culture. Well, that's not your call. Only in 2008 this city was European Capital of Culture, do we toss that down the road now that it no longer suits us? What kind of legacy are we leaving here? People are proud of the WHS and we are proud because we are Liverpool and unique not Dubai or Shanghai.

If this is all about economics, let's look at the economics. When will these buildings be built? Who say's 17000 jobs will be created? How do we know this? How much demand is there for this office space? How many empty appartments are there already in the city centre? Peel hasn't committed to anything, but a 30 year pipe dream if it suits them. To the contrary, they are threatening to pull the plug if they don't get what they want.

The economics argument is riddled with holes. Yet here you are like Peel, stamping your feet and decrying a lost opportunity. That is not satisfactory and wouldn't pass anyone's test of how it benefits the city. If Peel are so determined to get this development through why are they proving so difficult to get firm answers from, to have all their information scrutinised? They're hardly helping us to support it.

We need to press pause on this development, get some more information and firm commitments from Peel, to get an agreement with UNESCO and that is what a public inquiry will do, get answers.

Your arguments about Peel's motives may have some validity, but those about UNESCO are baseless, its ridiculous to attempt to 'compromise' with the heritage lobby when they are so anti tall building and no matter how much you limit talls it will never satisfy them. As I also said above the reasoning behind this is because its near a WHS when in fact its not. Its up the road in a derelict wasteland.

[macca_lad]

Originally Posted by Medi73#!

Your arguments about Peel's motives may have some validity, but those about UNESCO are baseless, its ridiculous to attempt to 'compromise' with the heritage lobby when they are so anti tall building and no matter how much you limit talls it will never satisfy them. As I also said above the reasoning behind this is because its near a WHS when in fact its not. Its up the road in a derelict wasteland.

I don't know if a compromise is possible but I do know that so far there has been no negotiation because Peel has decided it doesn't want to. By Anderson taking sides so quickly, there's a big problem here now as to who can get these parties together for the good of the city to work on a constructive way forward. At present this plan is going to get shot down. I don't know how the government could do otherwise.

If Anderson wants the development badly it is remarkable that he's doing nothing about it. It's the same thing he did over the cruise terminal. For the best part of 16 months after he was elected leader of the council he left it up in the air whether to pay the money back or not, until the government made a decision for him. Be proactive, Joe, solve the problems now and don't leave them for someone else to make.

If this development goes down the drain, I will hold Anderson responsible for it not English Heritage or UNESCO. Anderson needs to bring Peel to the table and be seen to be making reasonable concessions. If they had done this, I'm sure the government would think twice before calling it in for an inquiry. It is because Anderson and Peel have done nothing, that the government has to call it in.

[design_man]

Originally Posted by macca_lad

English Heritage and CABE are objective. Their views are respected and whether you acknowledge it or not, the government will listen to those concerns.

Basically, you're saying this is nothing to do with heritage and culture. Well, that's not your call. Only in 2008 this city was European Capital of Culture, do we toss that down the road now that it no longer suits us? What kind of legacy are we leaving here? People are proud of the WHS and we are proud because we are Liverpool and unique not Dubai or Shanghai.

If this is all about economics, let's look at the economics. When will these buildings be built? Who say's 17000 jobs will be created? How do we know this? How much demand is there for this office space? How many empty appartments are there already in the city centre? Peel hasn't committed to anything, but a 30 year pipe dream if it suits them. To the contrary, they are threatening to pull the plug if they don't get what they want.

The economics argument is riddled with holes. Yet here you are like Peel, stamping your feet and decrying a lost opportunity. That is not satisfactory and wouldn't pass anyone's test of how it benefits the city. If Peel are so determined to get this development through why are they proving so difficult to get firm answers from, to have all their information scrutinised? They're hardly helping us to support it.

We need to press pause on this development, get some more information and firm commitments from Peel, to get an agreement with UNESCO and that is what a public inquiry will do, get answers.

I think in a formal sense the views of CABE and EH are treated as "expert", although it's in an area where expertise is entirely subjective and is based upon ideas of good taste.

Nobody can know how this development will pan out, or how successful Peel and the city will be in attracting quality new employment. It would be ridiculous to forecast figures with too much accuracy. However, without a good pipeline of development the city won't attract any significant new investment in the coming years. Inward investors don't commission new buildings, they look at what is available, and there is very little in Liverpool currently. So what is the problem? They say they will put up a big office block, and that is great. No-one else is building one, the likes of Beetham would only put up blocks of pokey flats.

Peel aren't in it to just put up some empty blocks, they are proven long-term investors and developers, not a "Beetham" type outfit that simply liquidates subsidiaries once a scheme gets into trouble. Why should they have to prove to you or me or the city who their future tenants will be? Indeed, how can they? They don't even know which businesses will be looking for space in 10 years time. It's just an impossible and unreasonable burden to place on any developer.

I'm certain I won't like a lot of this, I hate Princes Dock, I regard a lot of high rise as pointless and destructive in English cities where mid-rise would work a lot better. I am sure the architecture will be bland, that costs will be minimised, and we'll all have a jolly good moan about it. I've often criticised the depressing nature of Princes Dock and put up links to far better planning and architecture in cities like Copenhagen. But we are in Britain, not Denmark, and these is nothing Liverpool can realistically do to change the standard developer solution that it and other British cities, if they are lucky, receive.

I do, however, think it will be in Peel's own commercial self-interest to look quite carefully at quality of life and quality of environment issues if they want the residential blocks to become valuable and sought-after. There are lessons to be learned from the previous bubble about what people actually want from a city centre home, and they'd be well advise to learn those and integrate those standards into the specification for their new blocks.

But just as this will be a bit bland and will minimise costs, it was ever thus! The vast bulk of the Victorian and Edwardian built city was shoddy, generic, bland and cheap. Why should the city, in its now impoverished state, be able to demand and afford the highest quality buildings and design standards in all new building? It's fantasy - users have to pay, and Liverpool isn't a rich city so of course the buildings aren't going to be luxurious and have vast sums lavished on architectural features that aren't necessary.

Quite frankly I regard any further resistance as intolerable. Vast swathes close to the city centre have been derelict or significantly under-utilised for decades now. All those unused sites are a drag, contributing to the depopulation and job-loss that has impoverished the city. None of those sites are contributing properly to the tax base of the city. They just have to be brought back into productive use as quickly as possible - in a sustainable and economic way. Heritage and culture are not free, they cost money, and the city can't be looking to the Treasury to provide a stipend to keep things ticking over, it needs wealth so it can conserve, preserve and celebrate its special nature.

So who is to do it? If there is a rival plan to Peel, let me know. If another developer will buy a load of the Peel landholdings and build a better scheme, tell me who that is. I'd like to know why the economics will work better for another developer if they won't work for Peel (and, incidentally, it needs to be a developer who knows how to make a profit....the last thing we want is a company over-committing and then going bust).

The time to care was Mann Island, nothing that happens a mile up river really matters in comparison. If we couldn't get proper quality of design there, why should we have it on the toys-r-us site?

[Medi73#!]

Peel are being unreasonable saying they will walk away if its called in, but EH are being more unreasonable objecting to a development which has no impact on a whs because its nowhere near it just out of an ideological dislike of modern buildings, especially when they are negligent over real at risk heritage in Liverpool.

[0151]

Peel are threatening to walk away because most of the potential parties in line to provide funding are from china, they are the ones threatening to walk away. China is keen to invest globally in areas with scope for growth, however they are not willing to wait for Liverpool/the UK to rabble on for years through red tape. Their investment money is good anywhere in the world.

There was no need for the peel to build the Trafford centre before it was built, and there was no demand for thousands of apartments and offices in Salford before media city and Salford queys, but look at how successful they are now.

[Tom Hughes]

The city needs to fully exploit the waterfront to show off talls better than any other UK, or even European city can. One or two iconic towers could well set the ball rolling.... and provide the focus and critical mass to allow this offshoot of the city-centre to really blossom and function. 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. This is predominently derelict site, with little or nothing of value.... it is an almost complete blank canvass..... There really isn't a sensible argument against having talls there IMO. How it all connects with the existing (tiny) business district is an issue, but it is the kind of speculative expansion project that can give the city centre the size of business district and contemporary architectural portfolio it merits. It's been said before, but it's worth saying again, and again..... none of the graces would exist now if similar non-progressive views were allowed to prosper 100yrs ago. Is manchester city council sponsoring EH?

[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.