SkyscraperCity banner

7901 - 7920 of 8001 Posts

·
Liverpool, England.
Joined
·
12,277 Posts
Plans are altered all the time for various reasons. Our (Spurs') initial stadium plan in 2008 was withdrawn after heritage protests and the plans were altered. London skyscrapers are built with heritage concerns in mind already (especially with regard to St Paul's), and it's hardly unheard of for buildings to be reduced in scale because of this kind of thing.

Various threats were made from UNESCO and continue to be made. They haven't followed through but they haven't with Liverpool either and nor have Everton's plans been "stopped", so let's see how all this develops. If UNESCO follows through on its threat to Liverpool or if Everton's stadium is cancelled then it'll be different from London. As it is, it feels fairly similar at this stage. A few threats and a bit of a stand off but with the likelihood of approval in the end.

What I do find funny is people just assuming plans went through in London "without a murmur". It's up to Liverpool how it deals with UNESCO and its WHS, but some people are undermining their own arguments with fake news. And I say that as someone who supports this stadium development. (y)
You've got to remember though that London is one of the most powerful cities in the world. It's developers will be used to spending hundreds of millions, even billions and will have access to world-class architects and the cleverest lawyers in captivity.

I often think that some of the arguments put forward for tall buildings in the City of London sound a little precious. We hear how the slope on a building has been designed to protect an important view corridor or how a six storey block has been added to a fifty storey tower to 'respect the scale' of the surrounding buildings. I remember one developer submitting a plan for a huge rectangular office tower built right on top of the graceful curved roof of the newly opened Waterloo International Terminal - the architect pointed out the 'witty dialogue' between the two buildings.

We just can't get away with that sort of thing in Liverpool. Bramley Moore Dock is not even in the World Heritage Site but UNESCO don't accept a relaxing of restrictions in the 'buffer zone'.

It would be good for UNESCO or one of our heritage bodies to give some evidence of the value of WHS to Liverpool. As Jane pointed out, where were these heritage bodies when a zip-wire was being proposed for the roof of the Central Library?

I'm not saying that losing WHS would be a good thing for Liverpool because I think that losing the title would excite far more media attention than winning it ever did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,962 Posts
You've got to remember though that London is one of the most powerful cities in the world. It's developers will be used to spending hundreds of millions, even billions and will have access to world-class architects and the cleverest lawyers in captivity.

I often think that some of the arguments put forward for tall buildings in the City of London sound a little precious. We hear how the slope on a building has been designed to protect an important view corridor or how a six storey block has been added to a fifty storey tower to 'respect the scale' of the surrounding buildings. I remember one developer submitting a plan for a huge rectangular office tower built right on top of the graceful curved roof of the newly opened Waterloo International Terminal - the architect pointed out the 'witty dialogue' between the two buildings.

We just can't get away with that sort of thing in Liverpool. Bramley Moore Dock is not even in the World Heritage Site but UNESCO don't accept a relaxing of restrictions in the 'buffer zone'.

It would be good for UNESCO or one of our heritage bodies to give some evidence of the value of WHS to Liverpool. As Jane pointed out, where were these heritage bodies when a zip-wire was being proposed for the roof of the Central Library?

I'm not saying that losing WHS would be a good thing for Liverpool because I think that losing the title would excite far more media attention than winning it ever did.
Equally it may not be a good look for UNESCO if they stripped us of our status because we ignored their pathetic stance. This is the exact thing they should encourage in these circumstances. Bringing a once buzzing area back to life again and refurbishing some of the features that played a part in it's history.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,402 Posts
You've got to remember though that London is one of the most powerful cities in the world. It's developers will be used to spending hundreds of millions, even billions and will have access to world-class architects and the cleverest lawyers in captivity.

I often think that some of the arguments put forward for tall buildings in the City of London sound a little precious. We hear how the slope on a building has been designed to protect an important view corridor or how a six storey block has been added to a fifty storey tower to 'respect the scale' of the surrounding buildings. I remember one developer submitting a plan for a huge rectangular office tower built right on top of the graceful curved roof of the newly opened Waterloo International Terminal - the architect pointed out the 'witty dialogue' between the two buildings.

We just can't get away with that sort of thing in Liverpool. Bramley Moore Dock is not even in the World Heritage Site but UNESCO don't accept a relaxing of restrictions in the 'buffer zone'.

It would be good for UNESCO or one of our heritage bodies to give some evidence of the value of WHS to Liverpool. As Jane pointed out, where were these heritage bodies when a zip-wire was being proposed for the roof of the Central Library?

I'm not saying that losing WHS would be a good thing for Liverpool because I think that losing the title would excite far more media attention than winning it ever did.
There really is no more justification for WHS Martin there really isn't. It gives the city ZERO, full stop. There is nothing at all to justify retaining WHS and a ever increasing pile of evidence for it's removal. Liverpool in my view has lost a decade of growth due to the suffocating restrictions of organisations such as UNESCO that coupled with terrible local leadership make development in Liverpool either impossible or a place only dross can get through making it very easy for the local cowboys (if they finish the job that is)

Let's just look at this logically as you would anything else that's been in place for a long time, a review if you will. The tall buildings policy, buffer zones, world heritage sites...what has any of this achieved? which projects have seen a stronger outcome due to heritage consideration? have any of these frameworks and policies geared towards heritage enhanced the built environment? created more jobs? encouraged more investment?

I think local politicians are probably embarrassed to admit that we've fucked up as a city by ever pivoting so willingly and without question to a development strangling heritage first approach to such a large key part of central Liverpool - all the more laughable when you see how much terribly bland architecture and planning absurdities have been allowed to come forward or go through on the same watch as these groups yet without a hint of a raised eyebrow, so clearly if it's crap it's ok by WHS, if it's beneficial to the city OPPOSE IT! interesting wouldn't you say?

We need to GET RID of all the heritage frameworks before the city loses more investment and talent as no other city in the world would be this willing to turn away development to save wasteland.
 

·
Liverpool, England.
Joined
·
12,277 Posts
There really is no more justification for WHS Martin there really isn't. It gives the city ZERO, full stop. There is nothing at all to justify retaining WHS and a ever increasing pile of evidence for it's removal. Liverpool in my view has lost a decade of growth due to the suffocating restrictions of organisations such as UNESCO that coupled with terrible local leadership make development in Liverpool either impossible or a place only dross can get through making it very easy for the local cowboys (if they finish the job that is)

Let's just look at this logically as you would anything else that's been in place for a long time, a review if you will. The tall buildings policy, buffer zones, world heritage sites...what has any of this achieved? which projects have seen a stronger outcome due to heritage consideration? have any of these frameworks and policies geared towards heritage enhanced the built environment? created more jobs? encouraged more investment?

I think local politicians are probably embarrassed to admit that we've fucked up as a city by ever pivoting so willingly and without question to a development strangling heritage first approach to such a large key part of central Liverpool - all the more laughable when you see how much terribly bland architecture and planning absurdities have been allowed to come forward or go through on the same watch as these groups yet without a hint of a raised eyebrow, so clearly if it's crap it's ok by WHS, if it's beneficial to the city OPPOSE IT! interesting wouldn't you say?

We need to GET RID of all the heritage frameworks before the city loses more investment and talent as no other city in the world would be this willing to turn away development to save wasteland.
Ok. Maybe my attitude to WHS is similar to a person who puts up with toothache because he's scared of dentists. Then maybe getting rid of the title would not be as easy as people have been led to believe. How many episodes of Brookside ended with Jackie Corkhill saying 'That's it Jimmy, you've gone too far this time. I'm leaving you'? She was always in the next episode though.

When I ask the question, 'what has WHS done for us?', I don't mean to be rhetorical. I would like someone to defend the title and point out its benefits - but nobody seems to be doing that.

One final point. Whether you believe in WHS or not, the current situation with Bramley Moore Dock should never have arisen. If building on the dock was not appropriate due to WHS, the club should have been made aware of that at the beginning of the site selection process. How many years and millions of pounds have been spent developing this design only for it to be deemed unacceptable at the last moment? There must be some fault in the planning process for this to have happened.
 

·
Fugly
Joined
·
11,228 Posts
That's squarely on the quango's involved, Martin. They all had input during the design process.

For any of them to object when the proposal goes in should rightfully be laughed out of the chamber

Everton have bent over backwards to appease these twats, and have been spat in the face.

Maybe it's Everton's bargaining tool? Jump through every hoop, tick every box, get opposed when all the bogus criteria has been met. Have the quango's binned off completely and go ahead with the original 60k+ proposal, when everybody can see what a total shower of shite they have been for the city .
 

·
Just one higher...
Joined
·
274 Posts
Perhaps the club should threaten to leave the project and move the stadium out of the city, (as was the original plan).
It certainly wasnt my prefered option but perhaps its time to give the Council etc a serious nudge and let the city know how much they stand to lose by this endless inaction!
 

·
Registered
Blackboard Monitor
Joined
·
17,770 Posts
Perhaps the club should threaten to leave the project and move the stadium out of the city, (as was the original plan).
It certainly wasnt my prefered option but perhaps its time to give the Council etc a serious nudge and let the city know how much they stand to lose by this endless inaction!
Hahaha! The planning meeting for the stadium is literally in three days time, and the planning officer has recommended approval. No need to do anything stupid. 😂
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,646 Posts
Perhaps the club should threaten to leave the project and move the stadium out of the city, (as was the original plan).
It certainly wasnt my prefered option but perhaps its time to give the Council etc a serious nudge and let the city know how much they stand to lose by this endless inaction!
It's not the council that doesnt like it, the council is in full agreement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,277 Posts
Where do we think the funding will be coming from then? Usmanov? That's where I worry, not that the funding won't come but it will be of dubious origins and potentially stopped. Then again Manchester City have gotten away with blatant breaking of rules.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,841 Posts
I remember one developer submitting a plan for a huge rectangular office tower built right on top of the graceful curved roof of the newly opened Waterloo International Terminal - the architect pointed out the 'witty dialogue' between the two buildings.
Love this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,559 Posts
Does look fantastic this. Can you imagine the stream of planning applications coming in if/once this starts construction. Most important project in the city since Liverpool ONE and Liverpool 2 easily if it goes ahead.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,841 Posts
Yeah my guess is gates to restrict access after hours to the Mersey waterfront facing stand, and the car park. The rest of the site facing Nelson Dock and up by the pump station will be accessible 24/7. Non matchday access to open up the site for the people was part of the application/ethos of the project, to my understanding.
 

·
Fugly
Joined
·
11,228 Posts
Maybe they're closeable wind baffles, for particularly windy matchdays? Have people enter the ground under the steps, instead of being blown over the side of them..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,402 Posts
Yeah, this is the big one. A once in a lifetime opportunity for the city.
That's why there is the usual opposition to it ; D

So much land around this and a far more interesting landscape compared to the comparable kick the Olympic stadium gave to London Stratford, imagine the drone footage against a sunset on the river looking out to the Irish sea on a matchday! The only issue the city will have is a council wanting to build council bungalows right next to this thing and rejecting all else.
 
7901 - 7920 of 8001 Posts
Top