Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
I caught a falling star
Joined
·
2,325 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Right under the Council's window.

Get the Echo down.

Demand Iliad reinstate the facade they vandalised.

Hand in the photo's to the Council and a written protest against 1.cowboy developers with their underhand practices
2.and Council planning department incompetence to protect our city.

If we can't make a stand about issues like this, what can we make a stand against? No one else will do it, so if we care about the future of the City, we're obliged to make the effort I'd say.

Sign up. Sometime next week? Peaceful protest. A banner or two. Let Iliad know what a lot of people feel about them. Send a message out to the other cowboys that they won't act unnoticed.
 

·
Registered Abuser
Joined
·
2,834 Posts
I saw this in the paper, so stupid to wreck a little peice of our history like that. I'd much rather they used these kind of tactics to get the lime st gateway done, brick the bastards windows and burn the shitty leather and book shops down.

What building is planned to replace this victorian one?
 

·
Liverpool, England.
Joined
·
12,682 Posts
What they did was not illegal as they already had planning permission for the demolition of this section of the building.

However, what they did to the building was quite clearly deliberate vandalism to prevent that part being listed. Their claim that this was a part of the demolition process is obviously spurious. Demolition contractors do not smash up stone features on buildings prior to the main demolition. More likely, they would take these parts down carefully with the idea of selling them.
 

·
Let the Jam decide
Joined
·
2,184 Posts
Its fuckin wrong, why they couldnt at the very least used the facade and built behind. Its just another example of how crap this city is at A saving its heritage and not green lighting what should be built!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Do you know that deliberately destroying/damaging a listed building without listed building consent is a criminal offence that can, in the most serious cases, carry a prison term... Not suggesting that that might be the outcome here, but it's food for thought.

Even disregarding the heritage issues, (someone I work with cares little for heritage but even she agrees with this point), Is a developer who resorts to these kind of tactics really one who can be expected to put quality design foremost when building in such a prominent location, or will they just be in it for the money.

Ooh, someone's just put that particular news story on my desk... must read.

OK so it turns out it wasn't actually listed, but I'm pretty sure that buildings under consideration for listing have an interim protection to prevent this kind of thing happening, so the damage caused was either illegal, or at lest 'unlawful'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
I saw this in the paper, so stupid to wreck a little peice of our history like that. I'd much rather they used these kind of tactics to get the lime st gateway done, brick the bastards windows and burn the shitty leather and book shops down.

What building is planned to replace this victorian one?
Hey, Bohn's book shop is quality, and they have no objection to being moved to a better quality building either.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,269 Posts
Do you know that deliberately destroying/damaging a listed building without listed building consent is a criminal offence that can, in the most serious cases, carry a prison term... Not suggesting that that might be the outcome here, but it's food for thought.

Even disregarding the heritage issues, (someone I work with cares little for heritage but even she agrees with this point), Is a developer who resorts to these kind of tactics really one who can be expected to put quality design foremost when building in such a prominent location, or will they just be in it for the money.

Ooh, someone's just put that particular news story on my desk... must read.

OK so it turns out it wasn't actually listed, but I'm pretty sure that buildings under consideration for listing have an interim protection to prevent this kind of thing happening, so the damage caused was either illegal, or at lest 'unlawful'

but the final point is that the company had a demolition order... so they can simply say that they can take the building down in any way that they want.

The facia was going to be destroyed anyway.

Crazy that they where given permission to demolish in the first place, but there you go... 'Liverpool' again!

What could be said about the case now? Nothing really..... has 21CL died a death or is stuff happening?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
I went there on my lunch break. Sir Thomas Street is really one that has slipped under the radar when Castle Street and Rodney Street have been getting all the attention. The Square made by the Municipal Buildings, Victoria Street, Crosshall Street and Sir Thomas Street is (or was) an almost perfectly preserved area of Victorian Architecture even if 6 Sir Thomas Street isn't the finest example is is still part of that. Tinglings Buildings is the only blemish and if the square (car park) and rear elevation of the Municipal were better used as a public gardens then it would be perfect.
 

·
I caught a falling star
Joined
·
2,325 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Right under the Council's window.

Get the Echo down.

Demand Iliad reinstate the facade they vandalised.

Hand in the photo's to the Council and a written protest against 1.cowboy developers with their underhand practices
2.and Council planning department incompetence to protect our city.

If we can't make a stand about issues like this, what can we make a stand against? No one else will do it, so if we care about the future of the City, we're obliged to make the effort I'd say.

Sign up. Sometime next week? Peaceful protest. A banner or two. Let Iliad know what a lot of people feel about them. Send a message out to the other cowboys that they won't act unnoticed.
So to summarise from the results, maybe we get the cities we deserve because we're too lazy to actually fight for the things we "care" about.

That's a self-criticism too.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,269 Posts
So to summarise from the results, maybe we get the cities we deserve because we're too lazy to actually fight for the things we "care" about.

That's a self-criticism too.
the time to make any protest would have been when the plans where first proposed.. they weren't opposed (well, maybe by the usual trusted objectors, but certainly not the main statutory heritage bodies)... they went to committee with the demolition of the old building central to the plans, which where passed.... EH, or 'someone' started a rearguard action to list the portico thing... so it was 'accidentally' defaced to prevent the whole project being stalled.... the time to consider action ended when the project went to committee.... certainly not a few days after the Echo reported the stonework being damaged beyond repair and many, many months after the scheme was passed.

If there was genuine 'care' about this doorway (or the building that helps maintain a pristine Victorian scene, which I would rather the city had kept by the way) it should have been made clear at the start..... going down now is utterly futile and a complete waste of time...

Keep a sharper look out in the planning applications and tighten up principles on what you are, or are not, prepared to accept... and what you intend to do about this should some counter project, as they most certainly will be, be submitted in the future?

Liverpool will now get exactly what was intended when the plans where submitted.... always minus the portico and the rest of the building, leading to the elimination of the intact heritage aspect. This is a great shame for that small part of the district. I cannot see the new building being in any way a great improvement to the district, which as I have always said must be the prime decider on whether we lose old buildings and/or landscapes... but none of us said this at the time; we all knew the portico was going. Perhaps seeing it wrecked in the way it was is a little like watching the cow for your steak being butchered before you... but you know what happens when demolition is part of a scheme.. surely we all knew it?

Being reactionary...way after the event... is not a good way to highlight that you are on the ball... or are part of a group with its ears to the ground and a set of sound policies that guide!

PS if that Babaloo is you Dave... Hi there, give us a ring?
 

·
I caught a falling star
Joined
·
2,325 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
the time to make any protest would have been when the plans where first proposed.. they wheren't opposed... they went to committee with the demolition of the old building central to the plans, which where passed.... EH, or 'someone' started a rearguard action to list the portico thing... so it was 'accidentally' defaced to prevent the whole project being stalled.... the time to consider action ended when the project went to committee.... certainly not a few days after the Echo reported the stonework being damaged beyond repair and many, many months after the scheme was passed.

If there was genuine 'care' about this doorway (or the building that helps maintain a pristine Victorian scene, which I would rather the city had kept by the way) it should have been made clear at the start..... going down now is utterly futile and a complete waste of time... keep a sharper look out in the planning applications and tighten up principles on what you are, or are not, prepared to accept... and what you intend to do about this should some counter project be submitted? Liverpool will now get exactly what was intended when the plans where submitted.... always minus the portico and the rest of the building, leading to the elimination of the intact heritage aspect. This is a great shame for that small part of the district.

Being reactionary...way after the event... is not a good way to highlight that you are on the ball... or are part of a group with its ears to the ground and a set of sound policies that guide!
Valid criticsm but as an ordinary non-aligned member of the public I (naively) expect Council officials in the planning department, under to the guidance of EH to scan planning applications on our behalf. Sorry if that sounds lame but there you go...

As for protesting against the "lawful" trashing of the street and the sly nature of that act, pre-inspection, if we haven't seen it as it happened, we only know of these things after they've been reported- which was when I and a few number of the good citizens of this city got pissed off.

As I say, decent points Sebo, and good practice for an organisation to follow, but I don't think you can negate an ordinary individual's right to protest just because they don't have the time or the means to scan planning lists.
 

·
I caught a falling star
Joined
·
2,325 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
...besides just because you protest late doesn't mean any protest wouldn't achieve decisive effects. To contrary, I'm certain it would.

Letting buracratic concerns such as the "image" of an mooted pressure-group which will never actually be set-up, (certainly not from a web-site) isn't any excuse not to make a noise either.

You either care about the building or you don't. You either care about the preserving part of "going forward" or you don't.

Maybe, behind the attraction of debate and asserting contrary arguments against protest, is the fact that we don't really give a shit?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,269 Posts
I am not villiers... your instincts and sentiments are sound... I was just highlighting the futility of protesting after the event... which for me was not the vandalism...for that is what it was, but the failure of the planners, who are so heritage obsessed supposedly, to grant the scheme permission with no conditions... like the careful removal and selling/reusing the portico structure.

At the end of the day I would ask you to think abouot just what you would be protesting about with regards to that specific action the other week? I would also say that the issue is much more complex in the round, than you suggest below.. it is not a case of it being 'either/or'.. I would always argue that we should look at the quality and contribution to improvement any proposed replacement of old with new would make... if new is a radical improvement, then drop the old one...no probs.

A well thought out idea of what is right, with forsight and clarity about what stance CL21 or any other group would do in the face of such proposals, is essential.. that is my other main point.

As you all know I am not a person who is obsessed with heritage for heritage's sake, but permissions like that one are fucking criminal in my opinion, ESPECIALLY in the context of what they are allowing to replace that great little building.
 

·
I caught a falling star
Joined
·
2,325 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
The protest would be one highlighting the negligence of the both the Council planning dept. and EH.

However, equally, maybe for me more so, it would be a protest against the idea that just because the above mentioned organisations are very often quite crap, that developers don't themselves have a personal responsibilty and accountability for their actions and effect that they have on the fabric and the people of the city they impose themselves on, going beyond what they can legally get do or get away with.

Just because the gate to the city is, through incompetance, open doesn't mean you should get away with ransacking the place.

I want these people to feel pressure of a moral responsibilty enforced upon them by the spotlight of public expectation.

I think that would be a fucking great society.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,269 Posts
but according to their permissions to drop the building all the developers did was to start dismanteling it in a perculiar way... either way the portico would have ended up in the skip! You could say that the choice was forced on them after permission had been granted but plans where being hatched to backtrack... after all finance and timetables had been drawn up and paid for by the developer?

I just think thata protest about this specific action is misplaced now. What you could do is highlight the shortcomings and use this as an example of 'worst practice'...and typical of Liverpool's contradictory notions of heritage, conservation and WHS? That would then give you the opportunity to highlight the sorts of things we should be doing up front to prevent this type of action in the future...for example, why on earth it wasn't made a condition of the deal that the portico be removed so it could be reused somwhere is beyond me!
 

·
Liverpool, England.
Joined
·
12,682 Posts
What worries me is that there now seems to be a very black and white relationship between the developers and the heritage lobbies. If a building is listed then views to it must be protected, new buildings must have sympathetic materials and nothing remotely tall must be built within half a mile of it. If it isn't listed then you can do what you want.

Just because a heritage inspector or planner decides that a building is not of any particular architectural merit doesn't mean that it does not form part of a familiar landscape that people would like to see retained. How many people were happy to see the United Powers pub in Tithebarn Street demolished and replaced with a stretch of wasteland fit to park two or three cars on?

We almost lost the Littlewoods building in Edge Lane because some expert decided that it was not of sufficient merit as an Art Deco building to warrant preservation. Fortunately, Urban Splash had more respect for our heritage.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,269 Posts
Yes Martin. There is nothing wrong with analysing scenarios like that one and formulating an up front opinion that would hopefully influence thining and mindset of those in charge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,816 Posts
What worries me is that there now seems to be a very black and white relationship between the developers and the heritage lobbies. If a building is listed then views to it must be protected, new buildings must have sympathetic materials and nothing remotely tall must be built within half a mile of it. If it isn't listed then you can do what you want.

Just because a heritage inspector or planner decides that a building is not of any particular architectural merit doesn't mean that it does not form part of a familiar landscape that people would like to see retained. How many people were happy to see the United Powers pub in Tithebarn Street demolished and replaced with a stretch of wasteland fit to park two or three cars on?

We almost lost the Littlewoods building in Edge Lane because some expert decided that it was not of sufficient merit as an Art Deco building to warrant preservation. Fortunately, Urban Splash had more respect for our heritage.
Martin,unlisted buildings can be afforded protection within conservation areas or when they are situated alongside listed buildings.This fortunately has happened in Duke st recently where 147 -151 were refused an appilication to demolish because they adjoined listed buildings.Ultimately though it's up to the general public,if enough people object to proposals for demolition for unlisted buildings it can influence the planners.As regards the Sir Thomas st building i think there are couple of things that probaly swayed the planning manager in to passing the proposal:Firstly the building itself as well as not being listed,was of red brick,the rest of the buildings on Sir Thomas st are light coloured stone facades,also the building in my opinion bog standard Victoriana,apart from the doorcase,prettty bland.Secondly,commercial pressures,planners can't refuse planning applications without valid reasons and it appears the developers had put forward plans that "respected" the neighbouring listed buildings so it might've been hard for him to refuse planning permission.Personally i think he was wrong.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top