Iconic Tower rejected

[Michael Bulatovich]

And another thing....That podium isn't above-grade parking, is it?

[John]

It was rejected twice by the planners (political), so no panic at all. Brunswick Dock is residential, except for the tower's site. The south ends docks and the land beyond need to regenerate quickly. This tower would have been the catalyst to attract further investment to this area. They are lining up to build in the centre. There is not enough construction companies to do the work. If the city did not have a height limit on buildings, the city would resemble New York by now - even in 1950 they rejected a city centre 50 floor plus glass block that looked like the Pan-Am building in NY.

Relation to grade is an open book here as the area around is open to development.

If you are going to do it then have that stands out in an attractive way. Brutalist Communist architecture stood out, however I would want it near me.

Wall to wall special is fine to me, rather than way to wall bland anycity, anywhere out-of-the-box architecture. What you are saying build bland have the odd iconic building. Best do the best you can at all times. Every building should be designed to be special in some way. Cheapo speculative dross made by fast buck money men should be discouraged. This tower is clearly not one of those.

It is big and it is different that is clear. It is not an off-the-shelf complete with instructions anywhere, anycity block. It is sail shaped to give a maritime feel to an old maritime city, which none of the new building around the quays are. They could be anywhere in England and more suited to the edge of an inland town.

The views from the tower would be stunning, right into the North Wales hills and out into Liverpool Bay.

It is mixed use: hotel, residential and some offices.

They are, and quite a way away.

There is water and a road between the tower and buildings on the hinderland.

Below: Ignore the old school in the foreground. The site it to the top right, to the left of the yellow houses. The two sheds with the white roofs. The area, as you can see is quite sparsely populated inland. The docks can be the focus of the area encouraging further development.

No plan. UNESCO criticised the city for not having one, not even for the World Heritage Sites. Everything is ad-hoc, on an as submitted basis.

The city built apartments on the docks quays and failed rendering the area dead - the wrong type of designs completely. This tower will bring a mass of people into the area adding needed vibrancy.

Below: A view from the opposite bank to Liverpool through Birkenhead Docks. In the foreground is a ship with a red coloured hull - this is approx 20,000 tons, to give an idea of scale of things. The sea is to the left. On the Liverpool bank to the right the white coloured sheds can be seen. To the left of these is the proposed tower site.

BTW, Birkenhead Docks has this proposed - four 50 floor blocks and others:

Financial? No. My stake is that I was born about 750 yards from it.

[John]

Look at this:

[Michael Bulatovich]

That's incredible. That is the issue you need to address first, before discussing any individual initiative. On this you should "giddyup". How can anyone say this thing is or isn't appropriate without a clue of the shape of the future? It's not sexy as an issue, but I'd suggest it's primary for your citizens.

Our local planners have just finally done an about face on height, after decades of "height = bad/always", implemented in the most mind-numbingly thoughtless way, but it's not all good news. The idiots have switched their focus (now they're all green), but they are still around, screwing things up, and we have a whole generation of almost-tall buildings that are stumpy-looking like in the video.

BTW, I disagree strongly on the 'everybody's special' school of urban design you've espoused. It's a conversation where everyone is screaming, and no one is listening. Joni Mitchell wrote, "You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone", and what you've got to lose is something we don't have: history. (Yeah, I know you can't eat it....)

[John]

The dock water spaces are vast. I estimate the water spaces lost in the Wirral opposite and Liverpool amount to the size of Venice. If someone comes up with big idea to make money from a commercial setup that creates a handful of jobs they may build. World Heritage Status stopped a lot of this - well not all as they have selective amnesia. A Dock dating from the

1700s was filled in to build a small stadium, which is under construction right now. See the web site.

The dock water spaces are best used for people to live around in vibrant communities and the commercial aspects on the land side. Obvious eh? The Liverpool Docks are vast - 7.5 miles in length with only about 3 miles of it still commercial - usually vast container and bulk carriers. The port is being extended out into the bay to accommodate Post-Panamax container ships.

This water space is the future. Other cities in the world would drool at the Liverpool's legacy - yet the city just about values them and has filled many in willy nilly.

The Brunswick Quay Tower was submitted when there was a height restriction policy, however well away from the WHS. After adverse publicity the city dropped its stance, which they said they never had anyway (they think we are fools), after a new leader with different views came in. Then a London minister dropped the plan which was openly being reported as going through on a rubber stamp. If it was submitted today it would have gone through.

The city say OK build high, but then English Heritage step in, who can delay like hell and get a scheme referred to London - they actually approved Brunswick Quay. Then UNESCO step in on the World Heritage Status sites and the buffers, which collectively is large. So we had the city, EH and UNESCO all having a prod, which meant some developers just don't bother with the city. They will look at Brunswick Quay and say "they turned that down!" and that took years. They just don't want the hassle. Brunswick Quay was a local developer who wanted to set a stamp on the city, others would have walked.

You design and build to the best you can. A city must have minimum standards and not go below that.

History will bring in the bread - tourism is being promoted like hell. We have a hell of a lot to lose.

From a child I have seen a largely Victorian city disappear before my eyes, with some wonderful old buildings, and near whole districts, have had bulldozers run through them. 200 year old buildings are left empty, rot and fall down. We are saying keep what we have and the rest is do as you like. A dynamic city has to change otherwise we end up like Venice - a dead city. I have seen a world city slide down in front of my eyes - not nice to see.

Ian Nairn (architectural writer), Britain's Changing Towns, 1967: "The scale and resilience of the buildings and people [of Liverpool] is amazing - it is a world city, far more so than London or Manchester. It doesn't feel like anywhere else in Lancashire: comparisons always end up overseas - Dublin, or Boston, or Hamburg. The city is tremendous, and so, right up to the First World War, were the abilities of the architects who built over it - the less said about the last forty years the better.. The centre is humane and convenient to walk around in, but never loses its scale. And, in spite of the [Luftwaffe] bombings and the carelessness, it is still full of superb buildings. Fifty years ago it must have outdone anything in England."

Note: "outdone anything in England", including London.

London Illustrated News - 1886: 'Liverpool, thanks to modern science & commercial enterprise, to the spirit & intelligence of the townsmen, & to the administration of the mersey docks & harbour board, has become a wonder of the world. It is the New York of Europe, a world city rather than merely British provincial'.

Here is the Birkenhead Docks proposal opposite Liverpool - no height restrictions (the original link did not work)

.

[Michael Bulatovich]

It's not a quality question in the first instance for me. It is a "vision thing". It's the big picture. It's public space, and quality of life, etc.

Any links to support that? I like to see it. I know Boston pretty well.

On a single glance this proposal seems much more convincing.There is plenty of room for transition in scale, and it's already in place to some degree. These areas are already scaled up from the smaller stuff surrounding it. The whacky buildings float on a barge in the middle of the river. Are those containers in front?

[John]

Yes, and the city is poor on that. The city needs a decent open square, there was ample opportunity to create one, and they put a shopping complex on the space. An urban throughway runs through the centre at the docks. This can easily be a Ramblas as in Barcelona.

Well some pictures. Most are about 4 years out of date. Much building has gone on 4 years:

One of the world's largest brick buildings at Stanley Dock. Derelict and being converted to apartments - a Heritage Site.

Birkenhead Docks have a narrow river frontage and move 2.5 miles inland with land all around. Ideal for development. Liverpool docks run with the riverbank with a river one side. They are big and deep and the shape is wonderful - a natural pool walled off at the river and locked in.

Wallasey Dock is filled in and cars on it. This is the parking area for the Irish roll on, roll off ferries, which are in the river on a floating stage. The tides are 32 foot, the 4th largest in the world. The ferries are to move to the Liverpool side of the river. In summer an unexploded 1000 lb German bomb was found in front of the ferries in the river mud. When exploded in the bay it made one hell of a water fountain.

[Michael Bulatovich]

One day I'm going to visit.

[John]

Wait for a few years as its Europe's biggest construction site. This year is the 800th birthday, next year the city hosts the European City of Culture. The best is yet to come - we think, we hope.

[Don]

28 years ago I said 'One day I'll come back to Germany'. Still haven't got around to it.......

[John]

Liverpool is on the way.

[Michael Bulatovich]

I was going to say something like that.

[Don]

....but you never got around to it. LOL

[Michael Bulatovich]

I was going to say something like that.

[John]

See what I mean....

"A SKYSCRAPER planned for Liverpool's waterfront will be reduced from 37 to

30 storeys, following scathing criticism in a report by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)."

The city planners, UNESCO, English Heritage and CABE all stick their oars in. Would you develop in Liverpool?

A stumpy city emerges.

[John]

It appears London do what the hell it likes, while other cities cannot. London must not have direct competition.

Ironically a Liverpool company is building this "Shard of Glass", but unable to build such a building in their city.

[Michael Bulatovich]

I have seen the future! Turn back before it's too late!

[HVS]

On 22 Jan 2007, Michael Bulatovich wrote

When I was in Toronto about 5 years ago, I took a picture of a sort- of-medium-height building (downtown; probably around Wellington St W or Front Street, visible from a south-west angle) which at its top had the most undecided collection of references.

I can probably locate the picture, but you may well know what I'm talking about: a very standard tower to about 6 or 8 floors below the top -- and then finished off with what for all the world looked like a re-used design for a suburban house or something.

It was really, deeply, weird...

[Michael Bulatovich]

It doesn't immediately come to mind, Harvey. What's "medium height"?

[HVS]

On 28 Jan 2007, Michael Bulatovich wrote

Sorry -- I meant "medium" for the general height of the buildings it sat amongst; average for that part of the skyline (as opposed to notably taller, or clearly low-rise).

I'll see if I can dig out the picture.