SkyscraperCity banner

741 - 760 of 791 Posts

·
Human Being
Joined
·
41,187 Posts
I think you’re right as they’ve posted a kind of cryptic fb post about it. I’m suprised it’s shutting for the reasons stated as the people who run it seem pretty laid back.
Yes, a bit too laid back from what I've heard......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,286 Posts
A planning application has been submitted to demolish the Galkoffs building on Pembroke Place, and the two other buildings attached to it that form a mini terrace between 29-33 Pembroke Place. The space this would provide would be used as a surface car park for the LSTM. The plans state they are seeking permanent planning permission for the car park, as while they do have a view to a full regeneration of this site, and their other car parks stretching up to Daulby Street, they have no idea when that might happen.

Number 29 (Galkoffs) is actually listed. However planning was granted for its demolition in 2015 for a sideways extension of Anson House that never happened, thereby setting a precedent. In addition, in the meantime, the removal of the Galkoffs tiled frontage for safe-keeping they claim has rendered the remainder of the building architecturally not worth keeping. In addition number 33 has collapsed at some point, just leaving the ground floor. Taken together, that is their justification for demolition.

To be honest, together with Lidl and its car park to the rear, this city block is a bit of a mess, and is vastly under-developed compared to what could comfortably sit there. While the LSTM undoubtedly do good work, I really can't be supportive of a plan that would see another surface car park added to a city centre area that is already plagued by them, and the loss of a building, that while in poor condition, I'm sure could be saved if the desire was there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,585 Posts
A planning application has been submitted to demolish the Galkoffs building on Pembroke Place, and the two other buildings attached to it that form a mini terrace between 29-33 Pembroke Place. The space this would provide would be used as a surface car park for the LSTM. The plans state they are seeking permanent planning permission for the car park, as while they do have a view to a full regeneration of this site, and their other car parks stretching up to Daulby Street, they have no idea when that might happen.

Number 29 (Galkoffs) is actually listed. However planning was granted for its demolition in 2015 for a sideways extension of Anson House that never happened, thereby setting a precedent. In addition, in the meantime, the removal of the Galkoffs tiled frontage for safe-keeping they claim has rendered the remainder of the building architecturally not worth keeping. In addition number 33 has collapsed at some point, just leaving the ground floor. Taken together, that is their justification for demolition.

To be honest, together with Lidl and its car park to the rear, this city block is a bit of a mess, and is vastly under-developed compared to what could comfortably sit there. While the LSTM undoubtedly do good work, I really can't be supportive of a plan that would see another surface car park added to a city centre area that is already plagued by them, and the loss of a building, that while in poor condition, I'm sure could be saved if the desire was there.

Anything is better than a Surface Car Park even a Bijou 3 storey one.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
The Reeds is now indeed shut sadly. One of the guys who run posted on Facebook that it wasn’t busy enough for them to afford it anymore which is a shame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,294 Posts
The lower end of London Road should be better connected to the Art Gallery and World Museum, the crossing between William Brown Street and that area is dangerous. Saying that there's nothing for people to see; I imagine visitors who are tempted over would find themselves disappointed. Lower London Road should have a couple of decent pubs, places where you get a coffee and a few bookshops (although Henry Bohn books are already there), at present it really detracts from the classical grandeur of Lime Street, is even see the lot flattened for an Ion style development.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,294 Posts
Probably but that one is no great loss. It needs more down there than itty bitty tat, at this rate it will take decades for this area to recover.
 

·
Just something
Joined
·
8,264 Posts
I think that you (we) can always talk down. I remember when 1... (one) building was under construction. In the mid 1970s ... a sort of ground Zero. Now we need + shall have an excellerated bounce. Not all of it will be phenomenal. Why should it. We never did have. Previously in the late 1900s it was just quick + similar. We are getting quicker. It doesn't have to be similar?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,035 Posts
Oh for goodness' sake. Is there a single problem that this forum does 't tbink can be solved using a wrecking ball and a sledgehammer ?

Liverpool is not being held back by small old buildings. It is being held back by its overall inability to attract investment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,294 Posts
Yes but Grosvenor took the wrecking ball to a fairly dismal Paradise Street in creating Liverpool One.
I'm not suggesting we tear London Road down just that it needs more ambitious plans than at present. Those little units sum it up perfectly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,035 Posts
Yes but Grosvenor took the wrecking ball to a fairly dismal Paradise Street in creating Liverpool One.
I'm not suggesting we tear London Road down just that it needs more ambitious plans than at present. Those little units sum it up perfectly.

The whole west side of Paradise Street needed flattening, and Grovesnor left most of what survived the war on its eastern side intact. Our problem is that thete is not currenrly anyone promising any kind of Grovesnor-scale investment in the city.

I should make clear that I don't want the London Road preserved in aspic. The lock-up shops are a depressing indictment of the state that part of the city has been allowed to get into. The block above them is one of the ugliest buildings in Liverpool. I'd be happy if everything in the area bounded by Camden Street, Islington, Norton Street and London Road was replaced by large scale commercial. The whole area needs a greater variety of business, most along that stretch at the moment being pretty low rent.

However, underneath the grime and the grot, there are numerous decent buildings remaining which would contribute to a decent streetscape if they were put to good use.

And new buildings alone don't guarantee anything. Look for example at the student flats which replaced the ratehe pleasant old Corporation electricity showrooms - the ground floor commercial space has never had a tenant. This is before we even xonsider the unfinished buildings. Why are we so keen to sweep away when most of the 'developers' engaged in Liverpool can't finish what they're already working on ?
 
741 - 760 of 791 Posts
Top