[Pietari]

Hi All,

This may be of interest for `downtowners.`

See the `latest news` section for the `Glass bridge` competition.

http://www.g0ifk.u-net.com/

Hope Street Quarter.

Regards.

Pietari. :runaway:

 

[woody]

Thanks for a very interesting post Pietari, Will the chosen design get built for 2008?

 

[liverpolitan]

Oh for Gods Sake, I am absolutely ****ing sick of this. What is it with some people that there is a perfectly formed and working public place and they want to muck it up? There is no ****ing need for a pedestrian bridge across that cemetary, it would just ruin it. I really do despair of people - are they so bored that they have to just dream up new threats to the environment where none already exist? All those drawings are a ****ing disgrace and those who drew them need a good slapping. I cant be doing with this.

If there is any spare cash and talent (and by the look of it, the talent thing may be a bit of a problem) in the pedestrian bridge building department, could these ****heads please consider that the city centre is currently SPLIT IN TWO by the dock road, and there is an urgent need to find ways of improving pedestrian access and integration between the former dockland estate and surrounding areas of the city centre?

PS Pietari, not having a go, thanks for drawing this to everyones attention - and welcome to the Forum - but the city has only just, and luckily, escaped a disastrous curvey canal at the pier head. It seems it's open season to design stupid, unecessary and inappropriate structures around the city's most revered buildings.

 

[Accura4Matalan]

Any pictures of what it looks like at current?

 

[woody]

Is that a yes or no..........

Oh for Gods Sake, I am absolutely ****ing sick of this. What is it with some people that there is a perfectly formed and working public place and they want to muck it up? There is no ****ing need for a pedestrian bridge across that cemetary, it would just ruin it. I really do despair of people - are they so bored that they have to just dream up new threats to the environment where none already exist? All those drawings are a ****ing disgrace and those who drew them need a good slapping. I cant be doing with this.

Come on dont beat about the bush, which one do you like

 

[woody]

NOW ,your talking

If there is any spare cash and talent (and by the look of it, the talent thing may be a bit of a problem) in the pedestrian bridge building department, could these ****heads please consider that the city centre is currently SPLIT IN TWO by the dock road, and there is an urgent need to find ways of improving pedestrian access and integration between the former dockland estate and surrounding areas of the city centre?

Yes , with you on this, I am not convinced about "at grade crossing of the Strand" a compitition to design a bridge from Old Hall St across King Eddy St and into the Princes Dock would be more useful. Would link up with that super steel bridge across the dock.

 

[liverpolitan]

To quote the site referred to -
"This is not a new idea; the great Victorian Architect Gilbert Scott included for a sandstone bridge into the Welsford Porch of the Liverpool Anglican Cathedral"

The current cathedral has worked out very differently from the original plans in many respects. But, if a bridge is deemed necessary (and it is not) it must be in the style of the cathedral, and of sandstone. Nothing else can possibly work, or last the test of time in terms of aesthetic acceptability. Those drawings do seriously make me feel ill. Within 20 years any of those structures will look so faddish, dated and inappropriate that there will be a public campaign to demolish. Imagine a cheap and grimy 60s concrete bridge there - a lot of people in the 1960s would have thought "great, how modern - how apt", but now we think "how crap".

Are we going to rely upon English Heritage to require a bit of common sense on this one as well?

The annoying thing about daft ideas is that they waste a huge deal of energy and resources to defeat or make safe.

But, given the fad for ****ing up the great bulidings with stupid ideas, how about a steel and glass bridge connecting St Georges Hall witih St Johns Market?

 

[Scarecrow]

I agree with Polly on this one. If they have the funds and really want a bridge, go for a Tolkienesque one that matches the cathedral, and looks like part of it. On the Wigwam, they used materials and designs that were sympathetic with the cathedral and it works well. A modern glass bridge at the Anglican would look just as inappropriate as a red sandstone gothic staircase at the Metropolitan cathedral.

 

[kev]

I'm all for building bridges :bash:

Great site for history and heritage

 

[liverpolitan]

Just kidding. "I want that one":

Timeless, Tasteful and Tactful. This one only got an "honourable mention". Fools, what do they know?

Yes, I know the floor appears to be missing from the bridge, but people were to be given giant suction things, to attach to their feet and hands, and would progress on all fours, sticking and clinging to the glass walls of the bridge using those suction devices. It is the modern way.

The people who decided on 20th January 2004 that this deserved an "honourable mention" were:

Professor of Architecture, Mads Gaardboe, FRSA (Chair).
Professor Cecilia Crighton, Director, FRSA.
Revd, Ian Lawrence, Liberal Catholic Church, Hope Street.
Mrs Hilary Burrage, Chair of Hopes Association.
Mr Roger Phillips, BBC Northwest.
Mr Ian Wroot, Architect and Technical Designer of Princes Dock Bridge.
Mr Gary Brown, Architect.
Dr Rob MacDonald, Reader in Architecture, RIBA,.FRSA.
Mr John Elcock, Manager of the Cube Gallery

I wonder if any of them could be enticed to come to this site and share with us why this design idea merited an "honourable mention"?

 

[kev]

Just kidding. "I want that one":

Timeless, Tasteful and Tactful. This one only got an "honorouable mention". Fools, what do they know?

Yes, I know the floor appears to be missing from the bridge, but people were to be given giant suction things, to attach to their feet and hands, and would walk along the glass walls of the bridge using those. It is the modern way.

Looks like a giant insect ready to pounce!

:runaway:

 

[Toadboy]

Looks like a 'humane' rat trap.

 

[woody]

I knew you would like one......

Just kidding. "I want that one":

Thank GOD for that,, but would be ok across King Eddy St

 

[Pietari]

Gee whizz that bridge!

Yes a bit contary to the generally held belief that Liverpool Cathederal has the second best aspect in the country due to the `quarry` that is Mount Sion.

(Incidentally Durham Cathedral is considered to have the finest vista from where it also sits on high.)

Nevertheless the original `bridge design` over St James Cemetary by Giles Gilbert Scott had some merit and `glass` seems a nice `light` alternative idea......but as currently proposed rather iffy....and needs a bit more of a `blending` with the original concept should it get any further.....don`t you think.

Some of the `honourable designs` are much too similar to the one over the "Princes Dock" which although not glass just about gets away with it at water level.

Lets not forget that the proposed `super museum` at the Albert Dock (Maritime Musem and the new (?) Slavery Museum in the Granada Studio aka Dock Office) does also envisages a linking glass bridge between the two grade 1 listed buildings.

As a blast from the past "Walkways in the sky" do seem a `good idea` but then way back in the 60`s so did the planned and abandoned three and four level multi lane `ring road` for which at `ground zero` one three quarters completed remains a tad blighted - lets hope `Merseytram` fairs better upon completion and does not resemble too much Manchesters Picadilly Gardens wire sky either.

For Liverpool all of this does however point to the problems of innovation and invention when you are trying to re grow a city (centre etc) that has previously had the stuffing largely knocked out of it....been previously dumped on repeatedly...and also casually written off too many times during the process.

It should however be a good thing to bring more of a focus to what is now St James Park (bridge included where possible) and bring it into every day use as it is a valuable haven and full of interest and it should not be beyond the wit of man (or woman) to devise a fitting intergration at various levels to the benefit of the area and the Cathedral which are largely quite seperate and which can generally appear quite deserted.

Pop in a `bandstand` and a few deck chairs etc.

:bash: :cheers: :runaway:

It`s good `ere init!

please see:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/localhistory/journey/underground/cemetery/history.shtml

and also

http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/localhistory/journey/underground/cemetery/tunnels.shtml#q

If you are unaware of the location and history etc

Nice pic at

http://www.visitliverpool.com/displayproduct.asp?productkey=9023

 

[thudbucket]

Just kidding. "I want that one":

Timeless, Tasteful and Tactful. This one only got an "honourable mention". Fools, what do they know?

Yes, I know the floor appears to be missing from the bridge, but people were to be given giant suction things, to attach to their feet and hands, and would progress on all fours, sticking and clinging to the glass walls of the bridge using those suction devices. It is the modern way.

The people who decided on 20th January 2004 that this deserved an "honourable mention" were:

Professor of Architecture, Mads Gaardboe, FRSA (Chair).
Professor Cecilia Crighton, Director, FRSA.
Revd, Ian Lawrence, Liberal Catholic Church, Hope Street.
Mrs Hilary Burrage, Chair of Hopes Association.
Mr Roger Phillips, BBC Northwest.
Mr Ian Wroot, Architect and Technical Designer of Princes Dock Bridge.
Mr Gary Brown, Architect.
Dr Rob MacDonald, Reader in Architecture, RIBA,.FRSA.
Mr John Elcock, Manager of the Cube Gallery

I wonder if any of them could be enticed to come to this site and share with us why this design idea merited an "honourable mention"?

Oh my God, how absolutely dreadful - it will totally destroy the wonderful ambience the Gradens have right now. And Huskisson will be spinning in his grave (yes, he's still there). The "great and the good" mentioned above should hang their heads - yes, I am annoyed.

 

[Steve C]

Weird. I had a wonder around the cemetry at the weekend and I thought about the bridge proposals and meant to ask on here whether there had been any news!

Don't think much to the designs. None of them do the cathedral justice.

 

[liverpolitan]

My last pic of the Anglican Cathedral.

 

[Pietari]

Nice pic - Liverpolitan.

and thank you for your welcome!

Was the `artistic bluring` intentional or one too many (if there is such a thing.)

Best wishes.

:cheers: :runaway:

 

[liverpolitan]

I was on the ferry using a zoom with no tripod, and the boat was moving. But I still like blurry pics, so its not entirely accidental.

I have been thinking more about this. The person responsible claims to have had the idea "suggested" to him during a walk, it's not clear from that account (on the link you provided) if that was by another person, or maybe there is some deliberate ambiguity there to imply it may have been God talking. "Build a crap bridge" said God.

But if you look at the timing of this, I wonder if there is some slightly less exalted motivation. Maybe they were just subconsciously jealous of the splendid new steps the Catholics were getting, so thought "hah, if the Papists are getting new steps we will get a ****** great big bridge". Well, not in those words precisely, but it's a bit suspicious to me that this idea should have been "suggested" at such a time. And in time, the Catholics will say "well if the Prods are getting a glass and steel bridge, we need a 1,000 feet tall spiral staircase next to our cathedral, to represent the steps up to heaven....made of steel and glass, and disappearing into the clouds.." And it will just go on and on, and in the end, to create peace, they will agree to join up the structures surrounding their cathedrals with a new steel and glass pedestrian bridge that links the two cathedrals, 300 feet above Hope Street.

Haven't had time to google the panel, get E-Mail addreses or that kind of thing, but anyone with endless free time (Accy - you need a good school project, surely?) could do that though - and politely invite them come and discuss the issue here? Would be great to see some serious debate about these aesthetic issues with those who have been involved in an architectural panel. I really really want to know what it was that made them give that particular entry an "honourable mention". A couple of the finalists are better, but it's still a bad idea, so you can't generate a happy outcome from a bad idea.

 

[scouserdave]

Just kidding. "I want that one":

Timeless, Tasteful and Tactful. This one only got an "honourable mention". Fools, what do they know?

Yes, I know the floor appears to be missing from the bridge, but people were to be given giant suction things, to attach to their feet and hands, and would progress on all fours, sticking and clinging to the glass walls of the bridge using those suction devices. It is the modern way.

The people who decided on 20th January 2004 that this deserved an "honourable mention" were:

Professor of Architecture, Mads Gaardboe, FRSA (Chair).
Professor Cecilia Crighton, Director, FRSA.
Revd, Ian Lawrence, Liberal Catholic Church, Hope Street.
Mrs Hilary Burrage, Chair of Hopes Association.
Mr Roger Phillips, BBC Northwest.
Mr Ian Wroot, Architect and Technical Designer of Princes Dock Bridge.
Mr Gary Brown, Architect.
Dr Rob MacDonald, Reader in Architecture, RIBA,.FRSA.
Mr John Elcock, Manager of the Cube Gallery

I wonder if any of them could be enticed to come to this site and share with us why this design idea merited an "honourable mention"?

Oh ****. This is beyond belief. How can any sane person give this steaming hemorrhoid veined turd an "honourable mention?" Revd Ian Lawrence is excepted because he's one us left footers and is probably insane