Taller Elysian Fields scheme gets go ahead

3933 Views 44 Replies 15 Participants Last post by Tony Sebo, Apr 14, 2006

Tony Sebo

Discussion Starter · Apr 13, 2006

I put this on the Liverpool thread then thought it deserves its own.. so apologies for repetition

Liverpool developer Iliad, have had their appeal against EH upheld by the planning inspector.

The original taller Elysian Fields scheme was backed by Liverpool Vision and even the planners, but had to withdraw support in response to pressure from EH who used the 'threat' to the WHS (Lathom!!!)

The planing inspectorate dismissed EH claims as a load of groundelss wank and the taller scheme will now go ahead on the former community college site in back Colquitt st!

The nut has finally been cracked and if we get our arses in gear we may be able to help shape the new planning environment in the city... the heritage freaks (yes, those on the extreme of the community, the ones who have held sway, Lathom, John MK) have finally been exposed and notions are changing at last.

EH will have to be a lot more focused in future to ensure that they are not completely dismissed from the planning and conservation agenda... if they behave themselves they may have something valuable to contribute to the conservation drive we sorely need!

See less See more

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

Blabbernsmoke

· #2 · Apr 13, 2006

The planning system in itself is not opposed to tall buildings or bold designs, or proposals that are not in-keeping.

Unfortunately, the perverted and depraved notions espoused by the brain-dead in EH (and the puppies, LCC members) have introduced ridiculous notions such as heritage obsession.

I commend the inspectorate's decision, which show there is sense beyond the narrow circles governing Liverpool's development.

:cheers:

See less See more

kung_fuzi

· #3 · Apr 13, 2006

Tony,this might be a well used response by myself but, :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

JUXTAPOL

· #4 · Apr 13, 2006

Yes...Thanks for that cracking little Easter Egg of news. :cheers:

Maybe E.H. have been found out, by the planning dept as hindering rather than helping Liverpool develop.

John-MK

· #5 · Apr 13, 2006

Tony Sebo said:
I put this on the Liverpool thread then thought it deserves its own.. so apologies for repetition

Liverpool developer Iliad, have had their appeal against EH upheld by the planning inspector.

The original taller Elysian Fields scheme was backed by Liverpool Vision and even the planners, but had to withdraw support in response to pressure from EH who used the 'threat' to the WHS (Lathom!!!)

The planing inspectorate dismissed EH claims as a load of groundelss wank and the taller scheme will now go ahead on the former community college site in back Colquitt st!

The nut has finally been cracked and if we get our arses in gear we may be able to help shape the new planning environment in the city... the heritage freaks (yes, those on the extreme of the community, the ones who have held sway, Lathom, John MK) have finally been exposed and notions are changing at last.

You really don't get it do you? Historic buildings, all docks and historic area stay. FULL STOP. There is enough scope to build as many hard-on towers as you like keep the history and heritage. You want top obliterate everything to fit in towers. This is totally foolish.

This is silly 1960s notions, when fine old buildings were erased to put in crap and tat, and much had to be torn down. Generally, we are making the same mistakes yet again. This is very sad. This makes for a poor future.

See less See more

Tony Sebo

Discussion Starter · #6 · Apr 13, 2006

That's a cracker that John.... slagging off 60s' notions, whilst bemoaning the replacement of an awful 60s' building with a building that is exemplary in its contribution to reviving the area it is to be placed in. I know thins as I advised the developers when they were devising the original scheme..not the one that is now going ahead, which is still less than we could originally have had because of inteference, but still a cracking building.

As for the other posts.. spot on. EH have been caught out by their own excesses (freakery!) and we will see their influence much less now than we have had to suffer over the last few years... who knows we even end up with a logical redefined WHS?

Conservation is of immense value when we are looking at growing our city, heritage landscaping and it's associated freakery are appallingly bad..insane actually... just thought I would add that reminder for the really fucking thick!

See less See more

John-MK

· #7 · Apr 13, 2006

Tony Sebo said:
That's a cracker that John.... slagging off 60s' notions, whilst bemoaning the replacement of an awful 60s' building with a building that is exemplary in its contribution to reviving the area it is to be placed in.

Tony, my remarks were for your usual contempt for EH. If a listing was not placed on the Albert Docks and the government came in to get the dock water locked in, the idiots running this great city would have demolished the Albert Dock and built their usual cheap and nasty tat, and laughed all the way.

We are lucky external people with sense have stepped in, saw what the city has and said stop this crap, you can't go any further.

See less See more

Tony Sebo

Discussion Starter · #8 · Apr 13, 2006

But John, you keep accusing people on this forum of sanctioning, if not actively calling for, that type of nonsense. I can't remember anyone saying we should have knocked down the Albert Dock.

Can you genuinely not understand that because I am vehemently opposed to the excesses of EH, that does not mean that I want to knock everything down? Individual building conservation is good.. some buildings can go, but in the main not. Please explain to me how you see my utter contempt for the mad axsesses of the extreme ideas being promoted by the heritage community in the city as being wrong?

Can you not understand that because I do not think that new buildings have to pay complete homage to any old structures in an are that I do not respect my city's history and the buildings in which this is manifest?

You jumped on the news of the bigger Elysian Fields project getting permission as though it is going to ruin the district and that we all applaud this? That completely misses the point of it all.

See less See more

John-MK

· #9 · Apr 13, 2006

Tony Sebo said:
But John, you keep accusing people on this forum of sanctioning, if not actively calling for, that type of nonsense. I can't remember anyone saying we should have knocked down the Albert Dock.

The point is that external protection bodies saved the Albert Dock. The locals would have pulled it down. EH is trying to stop the locals screwing things up again.

Can you genuinely not understand that because I am vehemently opposed to the excesses of EH, that does not mean that I want to knock everything down? Individual building conservation is good.. some buildings can go, but in the main not.

Just leave EH to do their job. There is enough scope to work around what they value.

Can you not understand that because I do not think that new buildings have to pay complete homage to any old structures in an are that I do not respect my city's history and the buildings in which this is manifest?

New buildings can compliment the old and be very different - the Playhouse is one example. But they are few and far between. I can't stand Prince Charles, but with the National gallery in Trafalgar Square he was spot on. Ever stood there a night and looked up. An out of sorts building would have been disastrous.

You jumped on the news of the bigger Elysian Fields project getting permission as though it is going to ruin the district and that we all applaud this? That completely misses the point of it all.

No, I jumped on your comments on EH.

See less See more

Tony Sebo

Discussion Starter · #10 · Apr 13, 2006

But John, tht's like voting for the SWP because you have a bit of a social consience! I stand by everything I have said... not actually aimed entirely at EH, rather the heritage extremists they have inspired... the curernt heritage agenda with regards to laning and building is utterly damamging to the city's ability to build a future.

Also, EH didn't save the Albert Dock, I am not sure that they actually existed as a statutory body then.. others did that, it just does not extrapolate that just because someone with an appreciation of conservation stopped the idea of knocking down the Albert Dock that EH in 2006 should be given free rein to impose what ever nonsense they want to do...

do you know what they want to do actually?

See less See more

John-MK

· #11 · Apr 13, 2006

Tony Sebo said:
But John, tht's like voting for the SWP because you have a bit of a social consience! I stand by everything I have said... not actually aimed entirely at EH, rather the heritage extremists they have inspired... the curernt heritage agenda with regards to laning and building is utterly damamging to the city's ability to build a future.

Also, EH didn't save the Albert Dock, I am not sure that they actually existed as a statutory body then.. others did that, it just does not extrapolate that just because someone with an appreciation of conservation stopped the idea of knocking down the Albert Dock that EH in 2006 should be given free rein to impose what ever nonsense they want to do...

do you know what they want to do actually?

The point is that the Albert Dock was saved by external bodies who saw more value in these buildings than the locals.

EH are not ruining anything at all. They protecting the samall valuable bits we have. You can build high concrete and glass anywhere in the remainder. Not difficult to understand.

See less See more

Tony Sebo

Discussion Starter · #12 · Apr 13, 2006

John-MK said:
The point is that the Albert Dock was saved by external bodies who saw more value in these buildings than the locals.

EH are not ruining anything at all. They protecting the samall valuable bits we have. You can build high concrete and glass anywhere in the remainder. Not difficult to understand.

No they are not John - they are coming up with crazy schemes to limit development across the city that would appear on the skyline, they are drafting neighbourhood characterisations that would limit new buildings to only ape what is already there, and they have produced an 'X' list of buildings they want to see go that includes 6 out of 10 downtown buildings... oddly enough, none of the ones you quite rightly condemn as tat are on this list, as these were crafted to look olde worlde... you really are backing the wrong folk in your desire to see sound conservation policy.

In essence, what is Liverpool about?

See less See more

the golden vision

· #13 · Apr 13, 2006

John, the problem with EH is that their main role is to protect historic buildings.For a start,their record in Liverpool is disgraceful regarding this.Liverpool has lost more "listed" buildings in the last 20 years than any other city in Britain,these buildings have beeen lost,not through developers,but sheer neglect.One of things that really grates with people with EH, is the "ropewalks" area has dozens of derelict "listed" buildings which have lain there for decades, while EH object to a tower at central station that would obscure views of this dereliction.EH are overplaying their hand in Liverpool,stunting the city's growth.Liverpool is experiencing it's widest regeneration in decades,god knows we've waited long enough! Liverpool has to maximize it's potential now.Nobody is more conservation minded than myself,i love liverpool's historic architecture, but i agree with Sebo on this,the city has to develop naturally and not be turned into some larger version of Chester.

See less See more

John-MK

· #14 · Apr 13, 2006 (Edited)

the golden vision said:
John, the problem with EH is that their main role is to protect historic buildings.For a start,their record in Liverpool is disgraceful regarding this.Liverpool has lost more "listed" buildings in the last 20 years than any other city in Britain,these buildings have beeen lost,not through developers,but sheer neglect.

The problem is not the protection organisations, it is the laws of the land. Pittsburg had similar dereliction problems to Liverpool yet introduced Land Value Tax. Hey presto the buildings were sold or renovated. Do a Google on Georgism for LVT.

One of things that really grates with people with EH, is the "ropewalks" area has dozens of derelict "listed" buildings which have lain there for decades, while EH object to a tower at central station that would obscure views of this dereliction.EH are overplaying their hand in Liverpool,stunting the city's growth.Liverpool is experiencing it's widest regeneration in decades,god knows we've waited long enough! Liverpool has to maximize it's potential now.Nobody is more conservation minded than myself,i love liverpool's historic architecture, but i agree with Sebo on this,the city has to develop naturally and not be turned into some larger version of Chester.

EH don’t always get their way – they are not the almighty on this. But most of what they say is pretty well right.

The problem is when a boom comes, rash decisions are made because the money is there, and then mistakes are made. I have seen a lifetime of them. Look at what happened to Cases Street, one of the oldest streets in the city and that was recently. Liverpool has a very poor record and outside bodies have to come in to protect the city from its inhabitants.

See less See more

John-MK

· #15 · Apr 13, 2006

Tony Sebo said:
In essence, what is Liverpool about?

Liverpool is not about anything. It is about people living in a city. What they have of value is worth keeping instead of ruining it.

Tony Sebo

Discussion Starter · #16 · Apr 13, 2006

John-MK said:
Liverpool is not about anything. It is about people living in a city. What they have of value is worth keeping instead of ruining it.

and their talents and potential to build a future facilitated?

have you ever seen the film 'grounhog day'?

the golden vision

· #17 · Apr 13, 2006

John-MK said:
The problem is not the protection organisations, it is the laws of the land. Pittsburg had similar dereliction problems to Liverpool yet introduced Land Value Tax. Hey presto the buildings were sold or renovated. Do a Google on Georgism for LVT.

EH don’t always get their way – they are not the almighty on this. But most of what they say is pretty well right.

The problem is when a boom comes, rash decisions are made because the money is there, and then mistakes are made. I have seen a lifetime of them. Look at what happened to Cases Street, one of the oldest streets in the city and that was recently. Liverpool has a very poor record and outside bodies have to come in to protect the city from its inhabitants.

EH are not the almighty but they have an inordinate amount of influnece in Liverpool because of a weak and conservative planning dept and a cowardly bunch of councillors.I agree to a extent,that the city has to be protected from itself, the Albert Dock was under threat of demolition in 60's and the demolition of the "sailors home" was in inexcusable but some of the recent rejections for developments and down sizing,plus the green light for the absolute shite (hotels) for the King's Dock and EH and the planning dept lose all crediblity.

See less See more

b4mmy

· #18 · Apr 13, 2006

John-MK said:
...outside bodies have to come in to protect the city from its inhabitants.

Tripe

Gareth

· #19 · Apr 13, 2006

Common sense prevails! :applause:

Let's hope this is a sign of things to come.

Doug Roberts

· #20 · Apr 14, 2006

This is an excellent piece of news, in 5 years from now when Elysian Fields is complete I think we'll look back to this and wonder what all the fuss was about. EL will be a positive addition to the Ropewalks area it replaced a fairly horrible building that was becoming derelict.

English Heritage should now re-appraise it's role within Liverpool WHS and focus on the buildings that are really in need of their attention.

See less See more

1 - 20 of 45 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.