Liverpool Waters

[Tom Hughes]

Originally Posted by Evertonian

When you loook at it like THAt....



....it just looks massively underwhelming.

Seriously, whats to complain about!? No way the heritage brigade are getting their way on this one.

To be fair, I think if you view any city from the air the effect can be lessened. I also think the blocks around the more northern docks are too small to be sustainable..... they appear to be only a few storeys high, which would probably put them in purely marina only level development. Hardly the destination status metropolis promised.

[buggedboy]

I wanted them bigger too, but those northern blocks are slightly taller than Albert Dock. Not insignificant hut could deck be improved.

[Romania1]

The way to make it work is to get talls on the land side of the Dock Rd and make the dock waters the residential leisure sector. That means getting rid of the bungalows and the ramshackle businesses.

[tommygunn]

Think it looks great its a huge development.

[tommygunn]

Originally Posted by Romania1

The way to make it work is to get talls on the land side of the Dock Rd and make the dock waters the residential leisure sector. That means getting rid of the bungalows and the ramshackle businesses.

Why were bungalows built all over the city centre anyway?

[buggedboy]

In an attempt to get someone to live there at all, during the bad old days.

[tommygunn]

Originally Posted by buggedboy

In an attempt to get someone to live there at all, during the bad old days.

Why are they still there?they should demolished to forget that part of the cities history.Plus there sat on prime land that high density office blocks and apartments should be on.

[Joe the red]

I tend to agree but only to a point. You don't think there is enough (potentially) being built in LW?

Also bearing in mind that places much more central like Pall Mall are still lying vacant, there might not be the level of speculation / investment around that you seem to imply exists to justify rasing communities to the ground, like has already happened to them when the Eldon and Athol Streets and their environs were demolished.

Once these plots have been exhausted and the 400-600 yard "buffer zone" north of Leeds St has been better utilised also, it might become a more relevant option, but it will be at least a couple decades before that is the case.

I would also be looking at the likes of Costco before turfing residents out onto the street.

[tommygunn]

Originally Posted by Joe the red

I tend to agree but only to a point. You don't think there is enough (potentially) being built in LW?

Also bearing in mind that places much more central like Pall Mall are still lying vacant, there might not be the level of speculation / investment around that you seem to imply exists to justify rasing communities to the ground, like has already happened to them when the Eldon and Athol Streets and their environs were demolished.

Once these plots have been exhausted and the 400-600 yard "buffer zone" north of Leeds St has been better utilised also, it might become a more relevant option, but it will be at least a couple decades before that is the case.

I would also be looking at the likes of Costco before turfing residents out onto the street.

Very good points but come on bungalows in the city centre only in Liverpool will you see that.

[yoshef]

Originally Posted by TheFly

Eastlands (Man City/Adug), City Centre, Salford Quays... 3 sites already done with Pomona docks to built on only?

Still, this could be very, very interesting.

Also.....Liverpool or Wirral? Which would you pick!? With a view of the city or with better connections? Could be quite funny, may have been better to have two developers and not just Peel to introduce a bit of competition across the Mersey boundary?

There would be a distinctly different feel to both city centres, because of the river and waterspaces. The LW scheme is set out so that it's just a waterfront extension of the existing business district. That would give a central city waterfront of almost 2.5 miles, just on the Liverpool side, from the new exhibition centre to end of the LW site.


copyright Peel

WW site will have much more of an 'out of town' feel about it, but even then the site is only about 1 mile from the Liver Building, facing it almost directly over water. If they do build up the LW side of the water, it will make quite spectacular view from the the WW site.

image hosted on flickr

copyright chirsmid259

[tommygunn]

Starting too think Romania1 is right i dont think these guys want too use their own money hope it doesnt all fall through.

[buggedboy]

Originally Posted by tommygunn

Why are they still there?they should demolished to forget that part of the cities history.Plus there sat on prime land that high density office blocks and apartments should be on.

I think many of them are now owner occupied and are pretty well kept, all things being equal. Pressure may come to bear in the future for them to relocate but the political kick off would be too great at this stage. There are so many vacant sites in town that need redeveloping before calls begin to go up for them to move.

[LABlue]

Originally Posted by tommygunn

Starting too think Romania1 is right i dont think these guys want too use their own money hope it doesnt all fall through.

I dont know how much money they really have. Certainly not enough to carry this out. Developers make money from development by getting development fees for taking the risk of up front work (planning etc) . Its not that common for them to retain ownership. They need to sell on to raise funds for the next projects, land acquisition etc.

[tommygunn]

Originally Posted by LABlue

I dont know how much money they really have. Certainly not enough to carry this out. Developers make money from development by getting development fees for taking the risk of up front work (planning etc) . Its not that common for them to retain ownership. They need to sell on to raise funds for the next projects, land acquisition etc.

They could build at least one tower just too get the project started they havent spent a penny of their money have they.The chinese are not stupid if they think they are being ripped off they will just walk away thats my worry.

[Evertonian]

Originally Posted by yoshef

There would be a distinctly different feel to both city centres, because of the river and waterspaces. The LW scheme is set out so that it's just a waterfront extension of the existing business district. That would give a central city waterfront of almost 2.5 miles, just on the Liverpool side, from the new exhibition centre to end of the LW site.

With a large dock wall blocking much of it from the city.

WW site will have much more of an 'out of town' feel about it, but even then the site is only about 1 mile from the Liver Building, facing it almost directly over water. If they do build up the LW side of the water, it will make quite spectacular view from the the WW site.

Utter nonesense. Wirral Waters is slap bang next to Birkenhead and will be much easier to tie in to both Birkenhead and Seacombe. There's no dock wall blocking it off so it won't have an "out of town" feel to it whatsoever. It will be part of the new city of Birkenhead.

Where you do make a valid point is in your second picture and your assertion that the sites are so close together in proximity.

A true city over two sides of a river COULD be possible with excellent interconnection if a few obstacles are overcome such as the tolls and a ferry link at Clarence Docks, or a section of the Peel liner terminal. A rapid rail station at nearby Seacombe would also help the L&WW scheme feel very much like part of the one city.

Looking at that latter picture (and living in a complete fanstasy Sim-City John MK world) it would be amazing if money was no object and a bridge could be buiot from Leeds Street straight over the river to 12 quays/Wirral Waters.

Sadly I can't see any of that happening and I think the schemes, for a number of reasons i've stated before, some practical, some politicalm will develop seperately of each other and eventually there will be city status for Birkenhead. That's not neccessarily a problem if that competition breeds speedy development.

[Gareth]

Develop separately? You mean like Manchester & Salford?

[Evertonian]

No I mean like, develop seperately like the Labour ran city of Liverpool and the Tory ran borough of Wirral with a tolled road and a river cutting off both sides.

[Gareth]

You are aware that Salford & Manchester have separate councils too?

[LABlue]

Originally Posted by tommygunn

They could build at least one tower just too get the project started they havent spent a penny of their money have they.The chinese are not stupid if they think they are being ripped off they will just walk away thats my worry.

They had to buy the land and the work to get planning etc costs millions so yes they have spent money.

They probably dont have sufficient anyway to build a tower - each building is set up as a separate ltd company and they would need to raise project debt which needs pre-lets to support the debt service. No one is building on spec at the moment.

Think about Mann Island the developer there needed to sign up Merseytravel to get the office block going. Other office and residential developments are facing the same issue - its a bit tough to single out Peel. There are other developers who are more about land banking in the city (Frenson, Walton etc)

A couple of years wait may be frustrating to us who want to see a start but on a 20-30 year project its not a big deal.

[Evertonian]

Originally Posted by Gareth

You are aware that Salford & Manchester have separate councils too?

Is there a river and a tolled road in between them?

Gareth i'm failing to see what what your point here is mate.