Limiting the building boom; lost opportunities or saved from despoilation?

[Tony Sebo]

How many sq ft of development do you think our deluded ideas about 'in keeping' amongst our planners , heritage bods and building 'visionaries, cost us during the recent boom in building development?



With the boom now firmly over we can now attempt analyse to see if it caused needless loss of oportunity, or as the more conservation minded might view it, saved the city from despolation.

What particular scheme do you really think would have made a difference to the city and what schemes that where killed off or severely stymied would you have liked to have seen take place in all its glory?


Would the skyline have looked better or worse if all the proposals touted had got planning and been constructed?

Would the city be functioning better (or at least downtown anyway)?



Your thoughts gentlemen?

[the golden vision]

Firstly,i'm not being party political because i don't think Labour would've done anything different but the planning dept at LCC has cost this city hundreds of millions of pounds of investment. Probably half a million sq ft of office space(whether it would be occupied is another matter but at least it would be available) leisure,retail and residential,another million. The lengthy delays through interference from EH and CABE. The best or rather worst example was the original plans for Central Station. The 38 storey tower,knocked back after objections from EH,which were: the building would interfere with sightlines between the cathedrals and even better.... dwarf the historic Ropewalks...that's the area that listing buildings supposedly under the aegis of EH are falling into the street as we speak. The delays and re-designs on that development mean it will probably never be built. Brunswick Quay..monumental planning mistake. Some developments did need re-designing but the delays of a year or more in some cases were negligent. To sum up the weak and subservient planning dept fell right into EH 's game plan for Liverpool. Which was: to appear hands on but instead of carrying out their designated remit,which is to protect historic buildings,first and foremost those under threat.EH seen a way of abrogating their primary obligation in to unduly influencing the planning process on new build in Liverpool.

[m:design]

In a way im glad we lost opportunities as it will be a lesson to complacent nimby's putting personal taste before the needs of the many and the need for the city to move forward.

They are lost opportunities, but lets hope next time round we can keep recent events and what we have learnt from them fresh in our minds. Although, I feel there will always be a Wayne, Elizabeth etc etc all battling against change in some form or for some reason.

Brunswick Quay SHOULD have gone ahead. Ridiculous embaressment for the city and a lost opportunity to expand the reach of the city centre.

Central Station should not have been tampered with as it might be up and running today.

Lime st - well, we all know what went on their and Im only thankful Chieftan didnt pull out all together.

Princes Dock - plot 3A massing yes, although the design wasnt spectacular.

Trams (i havent got the strength for that debate)

And then there are those schemes which should have been looked into and moved forward faster by our creaking and slow planning system, such as redevelopment of the business district which is still mini compared to our neighbours and still has BAGS of space around it such as the Former Exchange station site and moorfields.

The city centre is looking amazing for the first time in my lifetime (which at 25 isnt very long) but you only have to watch boys from the black stuff to see that what we are today proves that modern design, change and regeneration of disused and functionless spaces has to happen and that to complain that someone (god forbid) might make a profit out of this change is madness.

Once this deep recession as it is being muted, passes, lets hope the next round of change in the city will finally see us in the premier league of world cities once again, now that we have a real solid base to build from in our built environment.

[Bay City]

Originally Posted by the golden vision

Firstly,i'm not being party political because i don't think Labour would've done anything different

I am apolitical when it comes to the city - as long as the Tories are not in power. The Brunswick Quay tower had all objections, bar one, Lib-Dems. All Labour councillors were for it. The local councillor that covers Kings Dock, was loudly against the scheme, a Luddite, NIMBY, etc he was called, and favoured the Ician Group's excellent proposal of apartments, hotels, conference centre and small arena, by excavating some of the in-filled docks and and creating a small network of canals. It was rejected as we all know and what emerged is a disgrace when you look at the potential of the whole immediate waterscape.

Comparing Lib-Dem and Labour, Labour have more ideas and go - and I have communicated with many of both sides.

The city should have pushed the underground rail system as the tempter to get developers into areas where CABE and EH have little to no impact. High profile rapid transit transport infrastructure is ultra important in expanding a city - Maro chose Brunswick Dock as it has an underground station adjacent - although overground at that point. Eventually it would extend to the airport - another tempter. Developers want the city to add their part in what they are doing, add value, which is understandable. Those who want to develop in areas where they know EH, etc, will interfere would know this anyhow.

The city planning department should have hired a top Frenchman, with a track record, to run the show. They have vision and get things done with an uncanny ability to mix the modern with the old. The realistic truth is the local planners just haven't got it.