Nice idea. Devonshire Road and Belvidere Road are already as you envisage they could be. Princes Road is more Mixed. You can walk from the Metropolitan cathedral to Aigburth Vale without losing sight of high quality and elegant accomodation and for those of you from the North End of the city, elsewhere, who keep on spouting this shit about Liverpool being a working class city, the middle classes are well established along these three roads. You'll be hard pressed to find a decent flat in Devonshire Road, Belvidere Road, Sunnyside for less than 200K. Don't want to see the terraced streets from Upper Warwick Street to North Hill Street changed. They're quite funky. Windsor Street needs a major make over. It would certainly be easier to acheive than sorting out the area south of Park Road so maybe it's a good place to start.
Princes Avenue “Axis of Desire” Masterplan
I would like to see a 20 year masterplan for the Princes Avenue Axis, making this thoroughfare a centrepiece for regeneration of L8 and beyond. (Dave’s got a great picture that shows most of this area in his “above the rooftops” section of his website……I’ve got some not as good pics of that view but can’t find them, if I can I will put one up).
I’ve always loved this road, my Dad was brought up in Jermyn Street, a little road that runs off its north side. I think Princes Avenue is the greatest untapped asset the city possesses, although planning and housing policy has totally failed to seize on that.
My vision is of an up-market inner-suburb, of the sort found in cities like Hamburg (I only discovered that city quite recently, so sorry if I keep going on about it). Nearest equivalent I can think of for those who know London would be the feel of parts of Highgate, although I am talking about a more modern and higher density zone.
Concentrating on an area half a mile either side of Princes Avenue, the notion I have is of a high density, compact and largely (but not exclusively) residential area. It would be more mixed socially than it is now, so people currently there in social housing and low quality private rented could remain in the area if they wanted (but at higher densities) but I’m after more middle class people living there as well. It could provide a style of living currently missing in the city centre, a calm and quiet prosperous style of life but still within walking distance of the University / city centre area. It would be especially suitable for people who want to raise families without moving to the suburbs, but who have out-grown a 2 bed city centre flat without a balcony.
A combination of pure fake Victoriana and restoration should sympathetically bulk-up and where necessary actually re-create the streets immediately off Princes Avenue, giving way quickly to classy modern apartment blocks – a standard European 4 – 6 storey model, with good landscaping, generously sized balconies, a real inner suburb with tree-lined roads and prosperous, well maintained communal gardens.
Commercial premises would be interspersed, as I see this area as potentially being an attractive location to spin-off R&D type companies from the University – medical research companies, small pharmaceutical research centres, maybe things like foreign language schools as well. It could provide a very nice location for such businesses, without the nonsense of thinking “business park”. The two universities, as and when they have opportunities to grow again, both in terms of teaching/research and residential buildings, should be encouraged to build in this zone.
In terms of where it is, I see a zone bounded by Upper Parliament Street, Princes Road, perhaps Windsor Street in the south, and Belvedere Road at the park end, being the area to concentrate on initially. There would need to be comprehensive redevelopment on a large scale as there is a very large amount of low-density, red-brick semi-detached housing that is totally unsuitable and that has destroyed the street plan, plus higher density blocks that need replacing or remodelling (pity the New Heartlands housing market renewal initiative hadn’t been tasked with doing this – they actually have the money to do something useful like this, at least to kick-start it).
Some extremely interesting old shots of the area (I think from the late 70s maybe???) here: http://www.arklo.com/1982_36Views/36Views_p16.htm
However, some action should be taken on the North side also: but at good densities, and applying the same principles that the developments need to ensure social and ethnic and every other type of mixing. Partial-gentrification, of a form that keeps the existing people and makes their quality of life better as well as bringing in lots of newcomers with more resources.
Ideally, a tram would run down Princes Avenue, but the plan doesn’t need that. The Road, however, as the centrepiece, should be restored, with good quality lighting throughout to make the most of its grand features and scale. All the trees need those nice blue lights they use in New York a lot (I think I recently saw some in St John’s Gardens….or was I imagining it?)
To me such a plan fits the bill. It would stretch the city centre, and create a new axis of desire between Hope Street and Princes / Sefton Park. It would be a magnet to attract and retain the types of people who can create businesses and jobs in the city, and provide a natural stepping zone for the newcomers in the city towers to move into. It would provide an entirely new style of living opportunity near the centre, as well as a new type of business location that could attract inward investors. It would kick-start a genuine process of recreating L8, an area that in the long term has fantastic potential as a prosperous inner city district far removed from its current role.
I’ve always loved this road, my Dad was brought up in Jermyn Street, a little road that runs off its north side. I think Princes Avenue is the greatest untapped asset the city possesses, although planning and housing policy has totally failed to seize on that.
My vision is of an up-market inner-suburb, of the sort found in cities like Hamburg (I only discovered that city quite recently, so sorry if I keep going on about it). Nearest equivalent I can think of for those who know London would be the feel of parts of Highgate, although I am talking about a more modern and higher density zone.
Concentrating on an area half a mile either side of Princes Avenue, the notion I have is of a high density, compact and largely (but not exclusively) residential area. It would be more mixed socially than it is now, so people currently there in social housing and low quality private rented could remain in the area if they wanted (but at higher densities) but I’m after more middle class people living there as well. It could provide a style of living currently missing in the city centre, a calm and quiet prosperous style of life but still within walking distance of the University / city centre area. It would be especially suitable for people who want to raise families without moving to the suburbs, but who have out-grown a 2 bed city centre flat without a balcony.
A combination of pure fake Victoriana and restoration should sympathetically bulk-up and where necessary actually re-create the streets immediately off Princes Avenue, giving way quickly to classy modern apartment blocks – a standard European 4 – 6 storey model, with good landscaping, generously sized balconies, a real inner suburb with tree-lined roads and prosperous, well maintained communal gardens.
Commercial premises would be interspersed, as I see this area as potentially being an attractive location to spin-off R&D type companies from the University – medical research companies, small pharmaceutical research centres, maybe things like foreign language schools as well. It could provide a very nice location for such businesses, without the nonsense of thinking “business park”. The two universities, as and when they have opportunities to grow again, both in terms of teaching/research and residential buildings, should be encouraged to build in this zone.
In terms of where it is, I see a zone bounded by Upper Parliament Street, Princes Road, perhaps Windsor Street in the south, and Belvedere Road at the park end, being the area to concentrate on initially. There would need to be comprehensive redevelopment on a large scale as there is a very large amount of low-density, red-brick semi-detached housing that is totally unsuitable and that has destroyed the street plan, plus higher density blocks that need replacing or remodelling (pity the New Heartlands housing market renewal initiative hadn’t been tasked with doing this – they actually have the money to do something useful like this, at least to kick-start it).
Some extremely interesting old shots of the area (I think from the late 70s maybe???) here: http://www.arklo.com/1982_36Views/36Views_p16.htm
However, some action should be taken on the North side also: but at good densities, and applying the same principles that the developments need to ensure social and ethnic and every other type of mixing. Partial-gentrification, of a form that keeps the existing people and makes their quality of life better as well as bringing in lots of newcomers with more resources.
Ideally, a tram would run down Princes Avenue, but the plan doesn’t need that. The Road, however, as the centrepiece, should be restored, with good quality lighting throughout to make the most of its grand features and scale. All the trees need those nice blue lights they use in New York a lot (I think I recently saw some in St John’s Gardens….or was I imagining it?)
To me such a plan fits the bill. It would stretch the city centre, and create a new axis of desire between Hope Street and Princes / Sefton Park. It would be a magnet to attract and retain the types of people who can create businesses and jobs in the city, and provide a natural stepping zone for the newcomers in the city towers to move into. It would provide an entirely new style of living opportunity near the centre, as well as a new type of business location that could attract inward investors. It would kick-start a genuine process of recreating L8, an area that in the long term has fantastic potential as a prosperous inner city district far removed from its current role.
1 - 20 of 165 Posts
Thanks L8, you know the area about a million times better than I do, so glad you see potential in the idea (or rather, that it's building on something already there). The houses in the terraced streets (that are left) on the north side could be converted (again, this is the kind of thing New Heartlands should have been doing), for example into very nice 1 beds, by knocking internal walls down, and there are loads of good examples of how to create communal gardens out of back yards.
Interesting site from Austria showing what can be done with existing tower blocks - this kind of thing might work in L8?
http://www.archidose.org/Mar03/031703c.html
Interesting site from Austria showing what can be done with existing tower blocks - this kind of thing might work in L8?
http://www.archidose.org/Mar03/031703c.html
Good thread poli. This area has huge potential, has all the attributes of a **** off cosmopolitan and vibrant district that all great cities have. Density needs to be substantially upped and commerce reintroduced in as much ground floor areas as possible. I have always thought that the central reservation could be used for some sort of leisure as well, like you see in many French cities... even if it is just a few chairs and chess tables.
The links down to the river could be described once again as part of any masterplan, so the area could be exanded to the waters edge incrementally, reviving Park Rd in time. For the same reason it would be important to see parliament as a hub, rather than a red line.
The route you just mentioned though L8 reminds me when the national express buses first started leaving direct from Skelhorne St instead of calling at Edge Lane... it seemed they picked out the seediest route to take the buses through this part of town!
If the basic concept was shown to be sound enough it could be taken over to Everton even though it has about 1% of its old layout and buildings left! then kenny, Vauxhall, Edge Hill....etc?
The links down to the river could be described once again as part of any masterplan, so the area could be exanded to the waters edge incrementally, reviving Park Rd in time. For the same reason it would be important to see parliament as a hub, rather than a red line.
The route you just mentioned though L8 reminds me when the national express buses first started leaving direct from Skelhorne St instead of calling at Edge Lane... it seemed they picked out the seediest route to take the buses through this part of town!
If the basic concept was shown to be sound enough it could be taken over to Everton even though it has about 1% of its old layout and buildings left! then kenny, Vauxhall, Edge Hill....etc?
He's buried some pics also in his "Eldorado" series.......
http://www.arklo.com/Eldorado/die06.htm
http://www.arklo.com/Eldorado/die06.htm
If this wasn`t URBAN living - nothing was .....
If anybody still doesn`t recognise the `past` of this area not to mention it`s `future` then maybe we should all pack up and go home.
If this wasn`t URBAN living - nothing was.
That is not to say it was `URBAN Business` - we`d done that previously in `Bold Street` and `Duke Street` etc.
But what potential.
If anybody still doesn`t recognise the `past` of this area not to mention it`s `future` then maybe we should all pack up and go home.
If this wasn`t URBAN living - nothing was.
That is not to say it was `URBAN Business` - we`d done that previously in `Bold Street` and `Duke Street` etc.
But what potential.
All at the same time.Tony Sebo said:Good thread poli.
If the basic concept was shown to be sound enough it could be taken over to Everton even though it has about 1% of its old layout and buildings left! then kenny, Vauxhall, Edge Hill....etc?
I suppose the reality of changing an entire district will be hard and involve some difficult decisions. Assuming there isn't a huge amount of cash to pay for this, it will be necessary to incentivise the market to work in this area. I've thought through some of the issues while at the supermarket this afternoon, but it all comes out as sounding a bit nasty. I am not keen on anything that stresses people out or forces people to move from their home or community, but obviously a transformational strategy does involve change for a lot of people. Here are a few ideas I have come up with for how the Masterplan could enable such transformation:
The Vision
L8 is to become a prosperous inner-city suburb (with per capita income above city average) offering a high quality of life and business environment suited to a winning European city. It is to be a civilised, sophisticated and high density suburb offering a new style of living, more akin to the types of inner suburb continental cities have enjoyed. Within 20 years, it will be home to an additional 10,0000 population and an additional 2,000 jobs.
The template
1. Density to rise, to at least 50 people/households per hectare on average (is that the right figure? I keep hearing 40 or 50 quoted, but is that household or person, and acre or hectare?)
2. Street plan to be restored, with a presumption that the pre-1945 street plan is to be used in any redevelopment.
3. Community to become more mixed, socially and economically.
4. Higher value added business uses to be preferred and low value added business uses refused. Unsuitable businesses to be offered basic support in relocation.
5. Social housing to decrease year on year until it is lower than the city average – through stock disposal, sales and growing the private rented and affordable housing market.
6. Development values to be consistently higher than normal for residential development in the city, including quality of design, quality of public spaces and places, and extensive greening / tree-planting.
Methods
1. Private developers to be allowed to buy up social or other housing or other land / premises if they have fundable proposals that meet the template – all they must do is guarantee to offer existing residents accommodation of equivalent worth, utility and amenity within Liverpool.
2. Any ward failing to experience year-on-year improvement in social mix data to be subject to stock disposal and/or demolition/re-build. Mono-tenure areas with more than 100 households to be sold to developers on an auction basis over a period of 10 years, for redevelopment that conforms to the development template.
The Vision
L8 is to become a prosperous inner-city suburb (with per capita income above city average) offering a high quality of life and business environment suited to a winning European city. It is to be a civilised, sophisticated and high density suburb offering a new style of living, more akin to the types of inner suburb continental cities have enjoyed. Within 20 years, it will be home to an additional 10,0000 population and an additional 2,000 jobs.
The template
1. Density to rise, to at least 50 people/households per hectare on average (is that the right figure? I keep hearing 40 or 50 quoted, but is that household or person, and acre or hectare?)
2. Street plan to be restored, with a presumption that the pre-1945 street plan is to be used in any redevelopment.
3. Community to become more mixed, socially and economically.
4. Higher value added business uses to be preferred and low value added business uses refused. Unsuitable businesses to be offered basic support in relocation.
5. Social housing to decrease year on year until it is lower than the city average – through stock disposal, sales and growing the private rented and affordable housing market.
6. Development values to be consistently higher than normal for residential development in the city, including quality of design, quality of public spaces and places, and extensive greening / tree-planting.
Methods
1. Private developers to be allowed to buy up social or other housing or other land / premises if they have fundable proposals that meet the template – all they must do is guarantee to offer existing residents accommodation of equivalent worth, utility and amenity within Liverpool.
2. Any ward failing to experience year-on-year improvement in social mix data to be subject to stock disposal and/or demolition/re-build. Mono-tenure areas with more than 100 households to be sold to developers on an auction basis over a period of 10 years, for redevelopment that conforms to the development template.
Just a bit draconian! Setting targets that are bound to fail will undermine an otherwise worthwhile endeavour! Rebuilding is costly and often produces something worse than before. Are we still talking faux Victoriana/Edwardian here. Any room for a bit of warehouse gothic?liverpolitan said:The Vision
L8 is to become a prosperous inner-city suburb (with per capita income above city average) offering a high quality of life and business environment suited to a winning European city. It is to be a civilised, sophisticated and high density suburb offering a new style of living, more akin to the types of inner suburb continental cities have enjoyed. Within 20 years, it will be home to an additional 10,0000 population and an additional 2,000 jobs.
... Community to become more mixed, socially and economically: any ward failing to show year-on-year improvement in social mix data to be subject to stock disposal and/or demolition/re-build. Mono-tenure areas with more than 100 households to be eradicated within 5 years.
Why not offer part ownership to exisiting corpy tenants on condition that they maintain the property etc. Incentivise the poor for God's sake!Social housing to decrease year on year until it is lower than the city average – through stock disposal, sales and growing the private rented and affordable housing market.
This reads like a recipe for getting the working class out and the middle class in! I would add 8 to the end of your sentence. I would settle for the social mix that currently exists in L17 being a template for everywhere in the city!Methods
Private developers to be allowed to buy up social or other housing or other land / premises if they have fundable proposals that meet the template – all they must do is guarantee to offer existing residents accommodation of equivalent worth, utility and amenity within Liverpool.
The off the cuff nature of your thinking shows! But hey, that's the fun! No doubt there is no intentional leaning towards social cleansing but it could be read that way. The main problem will be removing the low density, comfortable, semi detached social housing and bungalows that exist in pockets throughout L8. The current occupants will need to be offered something better than what they have now otherwise you won't shift them.
I agree with you that as far as possible it's good to offer people a home within the same district (but in reality it needs to be a wider area): we are talking about redevelopment of a strategically important resource for the whole city. The area needs to be rebuilt, and people and businesses have to move when areas are rebuilt. It's always been the case, and nowadays it's done more humanely than in the past.Liverpool8 said:The main problem will be removing the low density, comfortable, semi detached social housing and bungalows that exist in pockets throughout L8. The current occupants will need to be offered something better than what they have now otherwise you won't shift them.
Sorry to anyone in a social-rented bungalow with a garden in such an area, but you can't please everyone all the time. The district would need some kind of urban development corporation vehicle with legal powers - compulsory purchase of bungalow dwellers if they own them, re-housing options if they are a tenant of a social landlord. That is why the rehousing offer needs to be wider than just L8 - bungalows need to be removed from inner and central Liverpool, in the main, so those who want a bungalow may well be looking at Liverpool (or a deal with Knowsley, to widen choice). We can't let bungalow dwellers stifle necessary regeneration.
I am thinking of nearly all of Liverpool 8 being rebuilt, the whole place, not just a few streets. That involves a huge amount of population churn. Sorry, I know that will be unwelcome and disruptive to some. I'm sure nearly all who wanted to stay could - and would have better housing, a better environment and live in a totally better place. That is not social cleansing, that is social improvement.
I said it sounded a bit nasty, and it does - but I don't see an alternative. L8 cannot be left, it's been left for too long. A poor, ugly and depressing suburb is no good for its inhabitants or for the city centre it is attached to. I don't care if some current locals like it as it is - a lot don't, a huge number have chosen to leave because they don't like it. So how can it be recreated without billions of public money? If you have a better idea (than incentivising the market to operate within a framework that guarantees people at least something) then I'm all ears!
No greater sacrifice can a district make than it lays down its humble poor to be shipped out to Knowsley, and worse for the greater good of a city! Come take our boulevards (well, one boulevard) and parks and gentrify them for the greater glory of Liverpool. Please gaffer, take me first. Sounds to me as though Liverpool 8 is in danger of being raped in order to be paraded as a trophy bride. Mr Liverpolitan, don't think you're playful at all, not at all. That's not to say I disaprove of your axis of desire for this part of town. It just occurs to me that you might have not factored in that the current inhabitants of the city's most culturally diverse district have their own axes of desire which need to be respected, and more importantly, worked with.
If any plan was to be an effective 'regeneration' there would no need to decant anybody at all, this would be actually counter productive s far as I saw. Surely 'regeneration' is about more than shifting housing stock?
Opportunities lay way beyond the provision of buildings. The only way people are going to be convinced that higher density areas work better in creating community though, is to begin building some, with the whole range of associated enterprise and social programmes in order to tap the potential that comes from building at higher density. If people's sense of aspiration is tapped, then they would want to exchange one form of housing for another. As I have mentioned before, people have paid a high social price for those semis and gardens... it also begins to explain what I meant by 'Norris Green.
Low density social housing estates become impossible to live in, that is why vaste swathes of good housing in the suburbs are being organically vacated (abandoned) whilst even in the poorest parts of the inner core vacancy rates are only similar where an RSL is skewerinbg the market. When people can see that higher density around Park Rd, say, gives a better community life and support structures than their semis, people will aspire to live there... or have their estate likewise converted.
But it can't be solely about physical plans. As with any policy higher density only provides potential.. but at least it provides that. I used to say years ago to some of the community groups I have worked with in Everton that it would be no use providing the density and commercial space if all this were given over to WH SMiths and Kumars and they stay passive, low income recipients of a little more convenience. If there is potential being generated (critical mass to maintain business and social services etc) then why not help communities to develop the tools amongst those who wish to to tap this generative potential for themselves... and their community? business for some, jobs for others. amenity for everyone. One curious aspect of the area being discussed is that unlike nearly every other area that attracts migrants, there are hardly any ethnic business... we need to look at why this is... one answer lies in the physical dysfunctionalism of the area.
If this dynamic is being utilised then there would be more pressure for the likes of youth and training organisations to deliver... slow, incremental, but definitely an upward path rather than stagnation or continued managed decline. Transport being improved becomes more than a subsidised Merseytravel 'happy bus' that is arranged for no real reason other to bring money through one of their departments... middle class leaches utilising continued failure in their delivery of 'regeneration initiatives' in order to build their carreers for another round of grants becomes less tenable... impact begins to become a reality.
Substantially upping the density of an area is also useful as it will change the make up of the area, people who have been marrooned in ghettos for years could once again have neighbours who have a job or run their own business. As I say though, there is no need or reason to remove people completely, why would we want to do that? I can only suggest an otline here of linked initiatives that could work with the potential higher density neighbourhoods provide, but I am not prescribing any sort of utopia. Some will still be dirt poor, but a smaller proportion of those now in Princes would remain in that condition.. many more could be helped to get out of their current condition ... and if they do get on there would be no reason to leave their now healthy district as they have to leave their crapholes now when folk get a bit of fortune. There are loadds of other things that could be brough to bare that I have forgotten to mention here on which to build a truly 'holistic' agenda together.
All sorts of nice social and environmental initiatives could then actually begin to deliver as well, pushing the anti up a little further still.
Enterprise, density, social services... none of these work in isolation, but begin to combine them, work with the potential reaslised and interesting things can begin to happen.
This is what has worked quite well in NYC's east Village... yuppies in, but old industry and blue collar folk not pushed out.. helped by community organisations to tap the new wealth being generated and coming into the area etc... neither social cleansing nor socialst 'solidarity' (dirt poor, but unsullied by capitalism)
Potential...that's all, but gives a better chance than no potential at all.
Opportunities lay way beyond the provision of buildings. The only way people are going to be convinced that higher density areas work better in creating community though, is to begin building some, with the whole range of associated enterprise and social programmes in order to tap the potential that comes from building at higher density. If people's sense of aspiration is tapped, then they would want to exchange one form of housing for another. As I have mentioned before, people have paid a high social price for those semis and gardens... it also begins to explain what I meant by 'Norris Green.
Low density social housing estates become impossible to live in, that is why vaste swathes of good housing in the suburbs are being organically vacated (abandoned) whilst even in the poorest parts of the inner core vacancy rates are only similar where an RSL is skewerinbg the market. When people can see that higher density around Park Rd, say, gives a better community life and support structures than their semis, people will aspire to live there... or have their estate likewise converted.
But it can't be solely about physical plans. As with any policy higher density only provides potential.. but at least it provides that. I used to say years ago to some of the community groups I have worked with in Everton that it would be no use providing the density and commercial space if all this were given over to WH SMiths and Kumars and they stay passive, low income recipients of a little more convenience. If there is potential being generated (critical mass to maintain business and social services etc) then why not help communities to develop the tools amongst those who wish to to tap this generative potential for themselves... and their community? business for some, jobs for others. amenity for everyone. One curious aspect of the area being discussed is that unlike nearly every other area that attracts migrants, there are hardly any ethnic business... we need to look at why this is... one answer lies in the physical dysfunctionalism of the area.
If this dynamic is being utilised then there would be more pressure for the likes of youth and training organisations to deliver... slow, incremental, but definitely an upward path rather than stagnation or continued managed decline. Transport being improved becomes more than a subsidised Merseytravel 'happy bus' that is arranged for no real reason other to bring money through one of their departments... middle class leaches utilising continued failure in their delivery of 'regeneration initiatives' in order to build their carreers for another round of grants becomes less tenable... impact begins to become a reality.
Substantially upping the density of an area is also useful as it will change the make up of the area, people who have been marrooned in ghettos for years could once again have neighbours who have a job or run their own business. As I say though, there is no need or reason to remove people completely, why would we want to do that? I can only suggest an otline here of linked initiatives that could work with the potential higher density neighbourhoods provide, but I am not prescribing any sort of utopia. Some will still be dirt poor, but a smaller proportion of those now in Princes would remain in that condition.. many more could be helped to get out of their current condition ... and if they do get on there would be no reason to leave their now healthy district as they have to leave their crapholes now when folk get a bit of fortune. There are loadds of other things that could be brough to bare that I have forgotten to mention here on which to build a truly 'holistic' agenda together.
All sorts of nice social and environmental initiatives could then actually begin to deliver as well, pushing the anti up a little further still.
Enterprise, density, social services... none of these work in isolation, but begin to combine them, work with the potential reaslised and interesting things can begin to happen.
This is what has worked quite well in NYC's east Village... yuppies in, but old industry and blue collar folk not pushed out.. helped by community organisations to tap the new wealth being generated and coming into the area etc... neither social cleansing nor socialst 'solidarity' (dirt poor, but unsullied by capitalism)
Potential...that's all, but gives a better chance than no potential at all.
Why bother to give the courtesy of a reply to this idiot's suggestion?liverpolitan said:I agree with you that as far as possible it's good to offer people a home within the same district (but in reality it needs to be a wider area): we are talking about redevelopment of a strategically important resource for the whole city. The area needs to be rebuilt, and people and businesses have to move when areas are rebuilt. It's always been the case, and nowadays it's done more humanely than in the past.
Sorry to anyone in a social-rented bungalow with a garden in such an area, but you can't please everyone all the time. The district would need some kind of urban development corporation vehicle with legal powers - compulsory purchase of bungalow dwellers if they own them, re-housing options if they are a tenant of a social landlord. That is why the rehousing offer needs to be wider than just L8 - bungalows need to be removed from inner and central Liverpool, in the main, so those who want a bungalow may well be looking at Liverpool (or a deal with Knowsley, to widen choice). We can't let bungalow dwellers stifle necessary regeneration.
I am thinking of nearly all of Liverpool 8 being rebuilt, the whole place, not just a few streets. That involves a huge amount of population churn. Sorry, I know that will be unwelcome and disruptive to some. I'm sure nearly all who wanted to stay could - and would have better housing, a better environment and live in a totally better place. That is not social cleansing, that is social improvement.
I said it sounded a bit nasty, and it does - but I don't see an alternative. L8 cannot be left, it's been left for too long. A poor, ugly and depressing suburb is no good for its inhabitants or for the city centre it is attached to. I don't care if some current locals like it as it is - a lot don't, a huge number have chosen to leave because they don't like it. So how can it be recreated without billions of public money? If you have a better idea (than incentivising the market to operate within a framework that guarantees people at least something) then I'm all ears!
:applause:Tony, agree completely with your analysis. Can't decide whether Liverpolitan is engaging in a flight of fancy in the manner of Liverpool = capital of the UK, or he is actually serious. Perhaps he doesn't realise just how large L8 is geographically. What started out as an idea to maximise the potential of Princes Avenue rapidly became, whilst he was out shopping, a masterplan for the rebuilding of an entire district! Have to admire his imagination, I guess.
@ScouserD: who, Poli or Tocky? There's quite a good debate going on on this thread, with interesting contributions from both, I think.
I was under the impression he condoned the compulsory purchase of properties and shipping people out. I wonder about both L8 and Liverpolitan recently.Liverpool8 said::applause:Tony, agree completely with your analysis. Can't decide whether Liverpolitan is engaging in a flight of fancy in the manner of Liverpool = capital of the UK, or he is actually serious. Perhaps he doesn't realise just how large L8 is geographically. What started out as an idea to maximise the potential of Princes Avenue rapidly became, whilst he was out shopping, a masterplan for the rebuilding of an entire district! Have to admire his imagination, I guess.
So what are your views on shipping people out to outlying areas by compulsory purchasing their houses?Awayo said:@ScouserD: who, Poli or Tocky? There's quite a good debate going on on this thread, with interesting contributions from both, I think.
I've read **** all from you? Engage in the debate if it's so interesting.
scouserdave said:I was under the impression he condoned the compulsory purchase of properties and shipping people out. I wonder about both L8 and Liverpolitan recently.
Where does Tony state this in his above post? I must confess that this is my general impression of him but his analysis above seems more holisitic and supportive. Especially the bit about there being no need to decant anyone. Just in case there's an absence of clarity on this matter. Totally against compulsory purchase and shipping people out. Will read Tony's post again in case I misread it.
PS - thanks for your concern, Dave.
You're welcome. I can't answer your question about Tony, because he never suggested such a thing. I suggest you read the posts in this thread again. How lazy of you to make such an elementary error.Liverpool8 said:Where does Tony state this in his above post? I must confess that this is my general impression of him but his analysis above seems more holisitic and supportive. Especially the bit about there being no need to decant anyone. Just in case there's an absence of clarity on this matter. Totally against compulsory purchase and shipping people out. Will read Tony's post again in case I misread it.
PS - thanks for your concern, Dave.
I am lazy. I will re-read the thread again!scouserdave said:You're welcome. I can't answer your question about Tony, because he never suggested such a thing. I suggest you read the posts in this thread again. How lazy of you to make such an elementary error.
1 - 20 of 165 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
SkyscraperCity Forum
A forum community dedicated to skyscrapers, towers, highrises, construction, and city planning enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about structures, styles, reviews, scale, transportation, skylines, architecture, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Katarzyna DJ
6904 Replies
calatravavx
3090 Replies
Srdjan Adamovic
1673 Replies
Recommended Communities
