Hope Street Maghull Developments Please Help

[Babaloo]

I don't think it's a 60s eyesore but I do think that the square looked better before it was built and the option of rennovating/rebuilding that side of the sqaure should have been taken up - the university, sadly, was determined to have its way. It knew best. Abercromby Square (and gardens) in its glory was a site to behold. Whenever you see people taking photographs of the square it's not very often that you see them pointing their camera towards the east side. It's almost as though they are pretending that it doesn't exist. I have yet to come upon a serious architerctural book (that wasn't specifically celebrating the 60s) that claims that this building compliments the square in any way. Hepworth's sculpture seems to get a better press.

[Babaloo]

Thanks to Chris for posting this:

and here are the emails -


Quote:
From: Philip Coppell, Sent: 10 April 2008

IT is an absolute disgrace that your company has been allowed to build that eyesore on Mytle St. (sic). You are no better than those builders who “modernise” terraced houses.

Destroying the appearance of a line of terrace houses by putting rendering over brick. This development is totally unsuitable for the area and it makes me wonder what you did to get planning permission. Please leave Liverpool alone as you are only in it for the money and I hope that the present credit crunch bankrupts your company and this obscene development never sees the

From: Michael Hanlon, Sent: 10 April 2008

Dear Philip,

Thank you for your exquisite email below which I presume refers to the granting of planning permission to redevelop the Josephine Butler House site at the junction of Hope Street and Myrtle Street.

Are you always so ignorant? If your wife thinks you are a f*****g ignorant pig then perhaps someone can refer you to a specialist who may be able to help you.

However, if you are as ignorant as I think you are and are beyond medical help then we could always make room for you in the foundations within the new development? From what I have heard about you from several colleagues of yours this course of action would delight many of your peers, and most certainly your wife.

Please let me know should you wish to discuss face to face your snide comments regarding what we may have done to secure planning consent for the scheme... but the short answer is more than two years of very high level discussions and negotiations with the Planning Director and Officers, Conservation Officers, Highways Officers, English Heritage and a whole raft of local consultation groups, many of which consist of time wasting w*****s like you who seem to think they are experts in heritage and regeneration and that professional people like myself and English Heritage don’t have a clue. Well guess what d***head, you are wrong.

It’s been hard work but it will be worth it to develop a first class modern mixed use scheme which will bring delight into so many people’s lives, create in excess of £60m of investment and over 200 jobs for local people.

Finally, there is more chance of John Lennon giving a guest appearance next Friday night at one of your poxy tour do’s than the credit crunch bankrupting our business, so if you don’t like our proposals then that’s hard lines for you , so why don’t you f**k off and seek medical help for your condition too.

My contact numbers are below should you wish to discuss any of the above in greater detail, or arrange a meeting face to face.

Regards, Mike.

Class act, even allowing for the provocation there's still something of the night about Scanlon's reply.

True colours shining through.

[Babaloo]

Originally Posted by Villiers Terrace

I think from the amount of times he mentions them, Mike owes EH everything he has regarding this frankly bizarre aquiescence on behalf our beloved council to allow him to destroy some more of the city's superior architecture to build his glorified Barrett-shed opposite the Philharmonic.

I say he owes EH everything, but it's rather H.M.Government he should thank for for cutting back EH funding to the extent that when Scanlon cannily poached their staff to help him cut all all the corners he needed to, they gladly jumped that sinking ship to take their place on Mike's pay-roll.

Phew!! Quick thinking Mike!

(And yes, it is how it happened.)

I blame Thatcher - she made selling one's soul to the devil for a decent price socially acceptable.

[Babaloo]

Originally Posted by jets9

I think that's wrong.......Abercromby Square was intact right up to the 1960's with the lovely georgian portico church still standing and then came the apalling senate house and wholesale demolition. One of the three great acts of 60's cultural vandalism together with the demolition of the Cotton exchange and the Sailors Home.

My sentiments exactly. The Cotton Exchange in particular serves as an illustration of what happens when people slavishly give themselves up to notions of modernity.

[scouseyuppie01]

Originally Posted by Babaloo

Thanks to Chris for posting this:



Class act, even allowing for the provocation there's still something of the night about Scanlon's reply.

True colours shining through.

i love that, really, i do.

Someone who simply cuts through all the waffle and says it like it is:

Heritage buffs who seek to undermine authority and pose their largely 'uninformed' opinion on the planning system in the aim to railroad investment for their own aesthetic gratification.

If Mike Hanlon could just articulate it better, it would have been class! ; )

[Villiers Terrace]

Originally Posted by scouseyuppie01

Someone who simply cuts through all the waffle and says it like it is

What, you mean the "200 jobs" (!!??), "the 60m pound of investment" (???), "the 5-star boutique hotel" (?!?), the "delight" (arf!)which this building will bring...erm..somehow.

Do you really believe that's "how it is"?




..

[Villiers Terrace]

Originally Posted by scouseyuppie01

Heritage buffs who seek to undermine authority

Sorry, what 'authority' are we talking about here? The same one which was severely undermined when Maghull unlawfuly decided to hack into JBH?

Or are you talking about an imaginary "authority" where everyone has the right to do what the fugg the want?

[scouseyuppie01]

Originally Posted by Villiers Terrace

What, you mean the "200 jobs" (!!??), "the 60m pound of investment" (???), "the 5-star boutique hotel" (?!?), the "delight" (arf!)which this building will bring...erm..somehow.

Do you really believe that's "how it is"?




But yeah, I agree, he's a great role-model for thick Billy bullshitters everywhere.

this is obviously something you are getting passionate about, so im not going to go further into it. Only to say, if we view all investors, developers etc as bully's because they want to invest in Liverpool then we really will loose the plot as a city. ITS BUSINESS! Maghull Developments should not have been so colourful with its language, but the fact remains that to get things done in Liverpool its a nightmare, we have to let go of the past and stop harping on about past mistakes as a stick to beat progress with.

When the new development is up, vibrancy, jobs and activity on the site it will be a different point of view. So much negativity, and yet, as ever, no suggestions of an alternative, no constructive advise, just an army of heritage fanatics who are actually, doing the city more damage than good, and why? because they have too much time on their hands and because they can.


PS, by authority i mean planning, developers, architects and anyone with an actual informed background or knowledge in their respective fields and think past their front paths because they are paid too.

[jets9]

Originally Posted by Martin S

Its one thing to hurl insults at a building that you have only seen as a small rendering but in the case of Senate House, it is a building that has been around for around 40 years and has stood the test of time. I have never heard anyone say that it is some 60s eyesore that needs to be demolished. It is now an accepted part of the square, as much as the other three sides.

That may be because the great majority of people have no knowledge of the beauty that was lost for its construction........put the two together, Senate House and the lovely porticoed St Catharine's and I know that the overwhelming majority would choose the latter

[scouseyuppie01]

Originally Posted by jets9

That may be because the great majority of people have no knowledge of the beauty that was lost for its construction........put the two together, Senate House and the lovely porticoed St Catharine's and I know that the overwhelming majority would choose the latter

you see, here it is again, and I really do think this is a tug between old and young. Most of the time, you wont catch anyone under 30 with the placards out . Im sick of seeing protests about development, and im sick of defending Liverpool at seminars, meetings and events when people in the profession still have a negative image of our "difficult" development climate.

I wish sometimes that those with the memory of the past glories use that informed memory to think about the hole that Liverpool once was, with NOTHING happening, no development, no investment.....ive no doubt the same people who complain and look the gift horse in the mouth now are the same people who at the time will have complained and moaned that there was no investment during the 1980's etc.....

Almost every development I can think of in the city has been moaned at, complained about, undermined and tweaked as a result of over-vocal voluntary self appointed "enthusiasts" who have become hindrance rather than a help to regeneration.

I will never believe the preservation of a relic is an excuse to leave a whole site vacant when jobs, investment and growth are at stake.

But I guess i think for the future, the heritage lobby are obsessed with the past. Maybe it is a generational thing.

[jets9]

Originally Posted by scouseyuppie01

you see, here it is again, and I really do think this is a tug between old and young. Most of the time, you wont catch anyone under 30 with the placards out . Im sick of seeing protests about development, and im sick of defending Liverpool at seminars, meetings and events when people in the profession still have a negative image of our "difficult" development climate.

I wish sometimes that those with the memory of the past glories use that informed memory to think about the hole that Liverpool once was, with NOTHING happening, no development, no investment.....ive no doubt the same people who complain and look the gift horse in the mouth now are the same people who at the time will have complained and moaned that there was no investment during the 1980's etc.....

Almost every development I can think of in the city has been moaned at, complained about, undermined and tweaked as a result of over-vocal voluntary self appointed "enthusiasts" who have become hindrance rather than a help to regeneration.

I will never believe the preservation of a relic is an excuse to leave a whole site vacant when jobs, investment and growth are at stake.

But I guess i think for the future, the heritage lobby are obsessed with the past. Maybe it is a generational thing.

That is an extremly selective view both of history and the city's development,

The point here re Abercromby Square is that it was the swinging 60's, there was oodles of money sloshing around and the university authorities had a very large canvas to work with on the eastern edge of the city centre. Yet they wilfully, deliberatly destroyed the integrity of a fine Gerogian Square, which even in the mad cap 60's was readily understood as a good thing in its own right.

I fully appreciate the imperitive of economic activity, career/job creation and architectural modernism and innovation But that doesn't mean that those in authority put their own cv ambitions ahead of the intrinsic interests of the city.

[scouseyuppie01]

Originally Posted by jets9

That is an extremly selective view both of history and the city's development,

The point here re Abercromby Square is that it was the swinging 60's, there was oodles of money sloshing around and the university authorities had a very large canvas to work with on the eastern edge of the city centre. Yet they wilfully, deliberatly destroyed the integrity of a fine Gerogian Square, which even in the mad cap 60's was readily understood as a good thing in its own right.

I fully appreciate the imperitive of economic activity, career/job creation and architectural modernism and innovation But that doesn't mean that those in authority put their own cv ambitions ahead of the intrinsic interests of the city.

granted. However this isnt the 1960's and concrete is no longer the be all and end all, and believe it or not, architecture does and must adapt to new trends and economics. The general theme here suggests that no matter what, any development here is of great damage to the area. To preserve constantly suggests a mis-trust and fear of new architecture and general acceptance that we can never surpass yesterday.

My only fear is that if you get right to the core of the heritage lobby, they wont be happy unless we start to build the same as we did before, same style, and probably by the same
methods as the georgian and victorian architects.

It is a regressive attitude and worrying.

Modern architecture really is restricted in its expression and its ability to create a new trend as it constantly chizzled to "fit in" and be "sympathetic" to its surroundings. The great irony is that the most dominant buildings in Liverpool are all completely different in style and attitude to the other.

I can guarantee, had the attitude taken here on the forum, and indeed with the various heritage groups been as alive in the Victorian era, Georgian, Edwardian, the art deco era and the 1960;s, many of the landmarks we see today would not exist.

The liver building today would be opposed as it would include the infilling of an "historic Dock"

The Anglican Cathedral would be denied as a result of blocking "views and vistas of the Catherine St area"

St georges hall would be denied for "overshadowing brownlow hill and the loss of the historic but surplus lime kilns"

Should i go on.

If i see another crazy group of people hit the press with protests for a local wildlife preserve instead of investment so they can walk their dog, or the retaining of a building simply because its "old" and the view will be missed i think i'll scream. This investment is securing a vibrant city for the future. Heritage of real note and functional worth should always be maintained. Ive yet to see one successful outcome of the heritage lobby except to hold up a project and result in it being watered down. ; (

[interpreter]

Is it a case of, that is now history... there is now a 60's building in part of Abercromby sq... i have come to rather admire it in some ways and has been improved by the recent developement into creating a larger library... i've seen it weekly for the last 4 years as i'm at uni... oh and i'm 42...
We do need to move on and yes there is also a case for protection of old buildings but not just because they are old... i liked JBH and thought it was to be incorporated into the new project on the corner of Hope st... but i still look forward to seeing the new building create a new statement on that corner. Not all the folks can be happy at the same time.

[scouseyuppie01]

Originally Posted by interpreter

Is it a case of, that is now history... there is now a 60's building in part of Abercromby sq... i have come to rather admire it in some ways and has been improved by the recent developement into creating a larger library... i've seen it weekly for the last 4 years as i'm at uni... oh and i'm 42...
We do need to move on and yes there is also a case for protection of old buildings but not just because they are old... i liked JBH and thought it was to be incorporated into the new project on the corner of Hope st... but i still look forward to seeing the new building create a new statement on that corner. Not all the folks can be happy at the same time.

indeed, and this isnt an ageist rant from me btw....; )

[interpreter]

I know... i was just letting the general reader know... not that age should be important!!

[Martin S]

Originally Posted by Babaloo

I don't think it's a 60s eyesore but I do think that the square looked better before it was built and the option of rennovating/rebuilding that side of the sqaure should have been taken up - the university, sadly, was determined to have its way. It knew best. Abercromby Square (and gardens) in its glory was a site to behold. Whenever you see people taking photographs of the square it's not very often that you see them pointing their camera towards the east side. It's almost as though they are pretending that it doesn't exist. I have yet to come upon a serious architerctural book (that wasn't specifically celebrating the 60s) that claims that this building compliments the square in any way. Hepworth's sculpture seems to get a better press.

Well, I was pretty young when they demolished the far side of the square so I don't remember what it looked like. I am sure that a collonaded Georgian church would have been a fine sight and, yes, I am sure that the integrity of the square would have been greater with the original buildings in place. However, there are some important issues here, which have a bearing on the Maghull development.

Let's not forget that the church had been bombed out during WWII. No doubt it could have been restored (as St Nicholas was) but would that have been the best solution for Abercromby Square in its new role as a part of the University of Liverpool?

It is unlikely that the restored church would have continued as a church given the much lower residential population of the area and so we would be faced with a restored building that would need considerable modification to fulfill modern needs.

Of the buildings in Abercromby Square, most, if not all, are now used for University purposes, not for their original residential purpose. If you have ever worked in a converted house, you will know how inconvenient these buildings can be as offices unless they are drastically modified inside.

I think that the decision to demolish the eastern part of the square would have been taken reluctantly but as a sensible way of developing modern university offices in a traditional setting without comprehensive redevelopment. Personally, I don't think they made a bad job of it. The Hepworth sculpture may be the most eye-catching part of the building but would it be there if Senate House wasn't there?

[JUXTAPOL]

Originally Posted by scouseyuppie01

this is obviously something you are getting passionate about, so im not going to go further into it. Only to say, if we view all investors, developers etc as bully's because they want to invest in Liverpool then we really will loose the plot as a city. ITS BUSINESS! Maghull Developments should not have been so colourful with its language, but the fact remains that to get things done in Liverpool its a nightmare, we have to let go of the past and stop harping on about past mistakes as a stick to beat progress with.

When the new development is up, vibrancy, jobs and activity on the site it will be a different point of view. So much negativity, and yet, as ever, no suggestions of an alternative, no constructive advise, just an army of heritage fanatics who are actually, doing the city more damage than good, and why? because they have too much time on their hands and because they can.


PS, by authority i mean planning, developers, architects and anyone with an actual informed background or knowledge in their respective fields and think past their front paths because they are paid too.

I can understand and agree something shouldn't be kept because it is old, but wouldn't mind so much if they came up with something that wasn't restricted by Heritage guidelines, whilst at the same time ignoring existing heritage, and was such a good development that i thought, yes demolish JBH that new proposal is great.

I will wait to see it in the flesh now, or for better renders before deciding if i like it, but i agree, this will see a surface carpark developed and bring life and scale to that corner.

[eyeam]

scouseyuppie seems to be confusing the issue massively here just so he can have a little rant about heritage groups and NIMBYs.

I, and I'm sure most other people, are against losing two good quality buildings which will be replaced by one that looks to be a cheap, mediocre building. Whether said existing buildings are new or old is largely beside the point. The quality is what I'm bothered about.

[Villiers Terrace]

Originally Posted by eyeam

scouseyuppie seems to be confusing the issue massively here just so he can have a little rant about heritage groups and NIMBYs

Well spotted.

I think it's some kind of residual hurt from the Dale St. discussion (in which, I believe, the consensus was that he was being somewhat misguided) masquerading badly as, ahem..'informed' comment about this one.


Pretty pointless, and I have to say, just a little bit tedious.

[scouseyuppie01]

Originally Posted by Villiers Terrace

Well spotted.

I think it's some kind of residual hurt from the Dale St. discussion (in which, I believe, the consensus was that he was being somewhat misguided) masquerading badly as, ahem..'informed' comment about this one.


Pretty pointless, and I have to say, just a little bit tedious.

oh dear vt, i had you in higher regard up until that comment. Fact on here at times is that if you dont like someone's opinion you feel the need to drag it down.

Im entitled to my opinion just as you are, that was a poor attempt at discrediting my point.