Topic: Liverpool has lost it's world heritage status!

[Jonathan Hall ☆☆☆☆☆☆]

What building was that?

[Red Beret]

What building was that?

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_method=full%26objectid=19123868%26siteid=50061-name_page.html

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

Illiad demolished a building in a conservation zone, in Sir Thomas Street, to build a boutique hotel.  It wasn't listed and campaigners requested some Heritage dude come up to assess the facade for listing.  About a week before he turned up, Illiad had the facade trashed - "prepatory work for demolition" - so there was nothing left to list.

That was a fucking shocker that, go past it about three times a week and the new building front is ugly as hell.

[Big Red Richie]

THE GOVERNMENT’S architecture advisors CABE have issued a highly critical verdict on Peel's £5.5bn Liverpool Waters skyscraper scheme.
 
The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (Cabe) said the masterplan to regenerate the city’s northern derelict docklands were “weakly expressed”.
 
The advisors also said the masterplan would not ensure that well designed buildings were erected throughout the 30-year lifespan of the Peel Holdings project.
 
The Cabe report follows a highly critical report from Unesco inspectors that said the Three Graces would play “second violin” to the huge development if it is approved.

The inspectors also warned Liverpool’s World Heritage Site would be “damaged beyond repair” if the plan goes ahead.
 
The plans – which include 9,000 apartments and the 55-storey Shanghai Tower – are due before Liverpool’s planning committee in March.
 
Heritage campaigner Wayne Colquhoun said: “We need this planning application delayed so, if we choose to object, we can do so in a fair and reasonable manner.”
 
Cabe, which was also critical of Liverpool Waters in February last year, are now demanding the plans be improved.
 
The latest Cabe report states:
 
“We do no yet have the confidence that the parameters will provide a sound basis by which to control design quality across the Liverpool Waters site.
 
“The outline planning application does not make clear how Liverpool Waters will achieve truly sustainable economic development.”
 
The report concludes: “Generic statements, such as ‘buildings will generally face south’ are not helpful and give little confidence that this has been considered as fully as it needs to be.”


Read More http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/02/07/peel-s-5-5bn-liverpool-waters-masterplan-criticised-by-government-architecture-advisors-cabe-100252-30279111/#ixzz1lh1nRz4K







Has anyone studdied the plans in any great detail?  As it seems to me that most people on here are pushing the  'it creates jobs for the city', line quite a bit.

One of my major concerns about the whole Liverpool Waters project is that Peel are in this for Peel, and not for the city.

Don't get me wrong, Peel are wrapping it all up in a 'whats good for Peel is good for the city', wrapper, but I don't buy it.

This particular line screams out at me, and It's something I've been a bit concerned about since the whole project hit the headlines.

“The outline planning application does not make clear how Liverpool Waters will achieve truly sustainable economic development.”
[/i]

As with Liverpool one, and the Ropewalks project. Most of the big civil engineering and building companies, have they're own teams and workforce, and do very limited or none existant recruitment within the area they are building.  On the contrary, most of them have their own teams and workforce that move around the country from project to project, and very few jobs for the building and building services trades are created for local people. 

The odd few that are, are just token jobs to appease the politicians and unions.


So to ask the question?  How many jobs for the local community will be created by the whole Liverpool Waters project, both in the construction of it, and in the long term running and manning of the buildings, shops, bars , restaurants et al, after it is completed.

No one's saying that the North end of the city doesn't need regeneration. Of course it does, and has for decades, but Is it as big a cash cow for the city, as Peel would have us all believe, or is it just mealy mouthed words in order to get the thing built.

[Red Beret]

I never liked the way Peel tried to torpedo King Edward Tower, just because it would be close to Shanghai tower and (apparently) taller.

[Pistolero]

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_method=full%26objectid=19123868%26siteid=50061-name_page.html

a warning that, left to their own devices, property developers and bent shortsighted councilors would happily flatten the Liver Buildings if it lead to an increase in profit margins..

for that reason I welcome Unesco policing the decision makers..

[Pistolero]

Interesting piece from Streetsofliverpool




A mother walking with her children through a derelict docklands. Like a frame from one of the ‘kitchen sink’ films of the early 1960s, it brilliant captures the dying moments of a once-bustling port. I am not sure about the location. My first thoughts were the granaries which once dominated the southern end of the docks but, on closer examination, Birkenhead docks might be the answer.

 My reason for using the photograph, apart from its dramatic quality, is to illustrate the dilemma faced by the City Council in deciding on the merits of Peel Holding’s plans for the Liverpool Waters scheme.
 The report that the Unesco team was potentially minded to withdraw World Heritage status should the scheme go ahead without serious modifications raised a storm of adverse comments on the Liverpool Echo forum.

The consensus seemed to point to Liverpool going the way of development and foregoing the hard won World Heritage accolade. (Of course there were the usual anonymous posters suggesting banning all Unesco officials from Liverpool permanently – but that, sadly, is the norm of internet forums). The basic argument is whether outsiders have the right to challenge Liverpool’s future by imposing conditions on any future development. Peel is seen as representing a golden future with the promise of thousands of jobs and the badly needed regeneration of north Liverpool.

 In my opinion, there is a different scenario. Peel have already stated that their plan is a 50 year plan – hardly immediate development. The time scale makes no sense if plans are being put forward now that cannot be fundamentally changed (which is Peel’s position – stating they have already compromised on the number of high rise buildings and that the economics of the development will not add up otherwise). So far, the whole plan is speculative – no major commercial parties have been announced who might underpin Liverpool Waters. All we have seen are fairly wild artist impressions of what might be. In other words, is there any substance to Peel’s case or is it just a case of getting planning permission for the old-fashioned carte blanche approach to planning (the kind that blighted Liverpool in the 1960s and 70s – allowing whole areas from St John’s Market, Derby Square/South Castle Street and the Georgian quarter around the University to be removed wholesale)?

 Of course most of Peel’s land is already cleared, which is an important distinction, but should we just sit back and let them do what they think is best (for themselves or the city?).

 What is essential is that Liverpool gets it right and it must take the necessary time to make an informed decision. If Liverpool Waters is a 50 year plan, what is the problem in having a public inquiry and allowing anyone who is concerned to see Peel’s proposals in detail. I have never heard of a development planned over half a century before – even over a decade there are significant changes in economic circumstances to say nothing about architectural tastes. The argument must be about a sustainable and sensitive development that brings back Stanley Dock and other important features into proper focus. Skyscrapers are not necessarily the answer. Very few are architectural masterpieces, most are uninspiring filing cabinets in the sky (especially in Manhatten, London or Shanghai).

The Unesco officials are right to be concerned – Liverpool’s heritage is too important to be railroaded by speculative developers.


http://streetsofliverpool.co.uk/page/2/

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Nice article. even better pic

[Big Red Richie]

THESE images show the dramatic way Liverpool’s skyline could change over the next 30 years.
 
Peel Holdings, which wants to transform the city’s northern docklands in a £5.5bn development, released the pictures ahead of a public exhibition to showcase the plans.
 
Liverpool council’s planning committee will vote on the huge scheme a week on Tuesday, March 6.
 
The two-day public exhibition opens tomorrow and will show new hi-tech graphics and video imagery of the project.
 
Peel hopes the exhibition will galvanise public opinion in favour of the scheme which promises to create 20,000 jobs over 30 years.
 
The project features 9,000 apartments, hundreds of offices, hotels, bars and a cruise terminal, as well as the 55-storey Shanghai Tower.
 
But opponents believe the scheme is too big and does not pay enough respect to the heritage of the docklands, which partly sit in the city’s World Heritage Site (WHS).
 
Unesco, which oversees World Heritage Sites, said the Three Graces would be forced to play “second violin” to this scheme if it went ahead without changes.
 
And English Heritage, the government’s conservation advisors, have now formally objected to the project.
 
But the body said it was for others to decide whether the “significant” loss of heritage was outweighed by the economic benefits.
 
Henry Owen-John, regional head of English Heritage, said: “We are not in a position to judge what the balance is between heritage, which we know about, and economic development, which we know less about.”
 


English Heritage’s objection means even if Liverpool council grants planning permission for the project it will still be referred to Communities Secretary Eric Pickles for him to consider whether there should be a public inquiry.
 
The body said plans will cause “substantial harm” to the outstanding universal value of the WHS, and under planning policies should only be justified in “wholly exceptional” circumstances.
 
It maintained its opposition to a secondary cluster of buildings around Clarence Dock, saying it would “overwhelm the historic horizontal character of the docklands”.
 
The project would also “detract from the historic primacy of the (Three Graces) and will harm the setting of the Stanley Dock warehouses” by obscuring key views, English Heritage said.
 
Historic ground surfaces and dock edges would be lost because of the need to raise levels to minimise flood risk, as will be required by law.
 
Peel development director Lindsey Ashworth today said: “There are overwhelming reasons why it should be given a favourable wind.
 
“We are not disturbing any archeology, there are about 200 buildings in the scheme and every building has moved since the original application.
 
“I have made massive compromises to the scheme and English Heritage have not made one.
 
“I don’t think it will lose the World Heritage Site status, I am convinced that it will not.
 
“When the (Unesco inspectors) came their minds had been made up, they had been substantially influenced by the English Heritage side of things.”
 
He insisted it was not in Peel’s interests to build poorly designed buildings, because they would struggle to attract tenants.
 
“If it goes to a public inquiry we will walk away, because that is the government saying it is not capable of making a decision. The government should either pass or fail it, but sending it to a public inquiry is the wrong thing to do.”
 
He said if a public inquiry is called the company would be happy to carry on with the sister project Wirral Waters on the other side of the Mersey, which already has planning permission.
 
The exhibition will be at 52 Lord Street, opposite BHS on Friday and Saturday, 10am to 4pm.


Read More http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/02/23/peel-release-liverpool-waters-images-showing-city-skyline-in-30-years-100252-30387505/#ixzz1nDUMxTjo

[Red Beret]

Historic ground surfaces and dock edges would be lost because of the need to raise levels to minimise flood risk, as will be required by law.

That's enough for me to oppose it right there.

[Danny Boys Dad]

Looking at that picture the Liverpool Waters developments would be a fair way from the Three Graces so not sure why they think it would be a problem.

Those Mann Island buildings are horrible though, don't know how they got through without the sort of fuss this is causing. You could argue that the damage has already been done and they should just get on with it.

Historic ground surfaces and dock edges would be lost because of the need to raise levels to minimise flood risk, as will be required by law.

That's enough for me to oppose it right there.

They've already built on or filled in a lot of the docks, this new development would preserve some of them.

That '20,000 jobs over 30 years' might be misleading, would like to see a breakdown of what sort of jobs they are and whether they are permanent jobs or temporary construction jobs.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Looking at that picture the Liverpool Waters developments would be a fair way from the Three Graces so not sure why they think it would be a problem.

Those Mann Island buildings are horrible though, don't know how they got through without the sort of fuss this is causing. You could argue that the damage has already been done and they should just get on with it.

They've already built on or filled in a lot of the docks, this new development would preserve some of them.

That '20,000 jobs over 30 years' might be misleading, would like to see a breakdown of what sort of jobs they are and whether they are permanent jobs or temporary construction jobs.

The WHS consists of far more than just the 3G though

[Danny Boys Dad]

The WHS consists of far more than just the 3G though

The only bit that I can see would be affected is Stanley Dock and the Princes Dock areas but they are a bit of an eyesore at the moment and won't they be renovated and brought back into use by this development? The other bits around St Georges Hall, Castle Street and Rope Walks aren't affected.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

The only bit that I can see would be affected is Stanley Dock and the Princes Dock areas but they are a bit of an eyesore at the moment and won't they be renovated and brought back into use by this development? The other bits around St Georges Hall, Castle Street and Rope Walks aren't affected.

Which is why you get this stand-off I guess.  EH and UNESCO want the renovation but not at the expense of the renovated buildings being blocked from view or dominated by new builds.  Peel want to do what the fuck they want with their investment.

[Big Red Richie]

Here we go.

Peel - back us, or we might pull out.



In other words, we'll ride rough-shod over everyone to get our way, and if you won't give us our way, we'll bully you into it, or take our ball home.

    Pricks.
 

If anyone really think that Peel are in this for Liverpool, you are sorely mistaken.

Peel are in this for Peel, and quite frankly, couldn't give a shit about Liverpool, other than the city being their gateway to the cash-cow they want.


Did anyone see the Inside Out North West programme, on Monday?

There's a good ten minute slot about Peel and it's plans for the length of the Mersey over the next fifty years.


Still a good insight into Peel though.  Here's the iplayer link.    1 minute - 11minute

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01cdjpm/Inside_Out_North_West_20_02_2012/

[Red Beret]

They've already built on or filled in a lot of the docks, this new development would preserve some of them.

That '20,000 jobs over 30 years' might be misleading, would like to see a breakdown of what sort of jobs they are and whether they are permanent jobs or temporary construction jobs.

Leaving them alone will preserve ALL of them.

I don't mind a couple of skyscrapers, set back from the waterfront, but these proposals are too much.  Waterfront condos built on old dockland just isn't a good idea imo.  But I've not trusted Peel for a long time.

[Danny Boys Dad]

Leaving them alone will preserve ALL of them.

I don't mind a couple of skyscrapers, set back from the waterfront, but these proposals are too much.  Waterfront condos built on old dockland just isn't a good idea imo.  But I've not trusted Peel for a long time.

I know what you mean but they are being left to rot at the moment, wouldn't it be better to bring them back to life in some way?

I would love to have seen some sort of marina development around Collingwood Dock and Stanley Dock, keeping the historic features but making it used again but it's Peel's decision what they do with the area.

Not convinced about this project though, can't see how the city needs another 9,000 apartments and would be worried about the effect on other parts of the city if this development sucked in investment.

[Red Beret]

I know what you mean but they are being left to rot at the moment, wouldn't it be better to bring them back to life in some way?

I would love to have seen some sort of marina development around Collingwood Dock and Stanley Dock, keeping the historic features but making it used again but it's Peel's decision what they do with the area.

Not convinced about this project though, can't see how the city needs another 9,000 apartments and would be worried about the effect on other parts of the city if this development sucked in investment.

You can invest AND preserve.  From what I can see, preservation isn't too high on Peel's agenda.  This isn't like a hundred years ago where there was no problem filling in George's Dock to build the Liver Building.  I've walked along there many times and the historic dock wall, the remnants of the overhead railway, the tramlines in the cobbles... it's all very evocative.  It will all be buried forever under tons of concrete to build riverside condos that most local people wont see the insides of... unless they're hiring cleaners.

[Big Red Richie]

The catch-22 the council have though is that Peel own all of the land.


Peel says we want this.  If the council object, then peel take their ball home, and decide not to build on the plot for the next fifty years, yet also refusing to sell the land to anyone who would build a project that is sympathetic to the history and historic setting.

Basically, Peel hold most of the cards.


They get their way, or they block anyone else wanting to use the land. In the meantime the area rots for another 20-30 years.

Even if you tried to compulory purchase the land - we are talking about a vast area of land - there is no way Peel would not fight it all the way, which in itself would take years and go to at least one, if not more public inquiries.

Peel will get their way, one way or another, and it won't nessesarily be whats in the interests of Liverpool. 

[Red Beret]

Let it rot then.  Would rather leave it as it is.

[Big Red Richie]

HUGE plans to regenerate Liverpool’s northern docklands are set to be approved next week.
 
Council officials have recommended the city’s planning committee approve the £5.5bn Liverpool Waters project, by Peel Holdings, on Tuesday.
 
The project features 9,000 apartments, hundreds of offices, hotels, bars and a  cruise terminal  as well as the 55-storey Shanghai Tower.
 

In a 513 page report officials said: “The Liverpool Waters proposals are clearly unique and have the potential to change the future of the city.
 
“The development proposed is on an unprecedented scale almost beyond living experience which if delivered would transform the city’s waterfront, creating a new international business destination, expand the city’s economy and regenerate north Liverpool.”
 
In the case the plans are approved, as widely expected, the application will have to be referred to Communities Secretary Eric Pickles to see if he wants to call a public inquiry.
 
The council report also states that because of the opposition to the plans from conservation watchdogs English Heritage and Unesco, over concerns about the impact on the city’s World Heritage Site, that the scheme may also have to be referred to Culture Secretary Jeremy C*nt.
 
Peel Holdings have warned that they will walk away from the scheme if a public inquiry is called, and instead concentrate exclusively on Wirral Waters – a similar project in Birkenhead that already has planning permission.


Read More http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news//tm_headline=liverpool-waters-project-set-to-be-approved-video-of-the-peel-holdings-scheme%26method=full%26objectid=30423321%26siteid=100252-name_page.html#ixzz1nhjgGyfj





So get used to a lot more of this kind of shit.   




PARTS of Liverpool’s historic dock boundary wall could be knocked down to create access for a huge £5.5bn skyscraper development.
 
Peel Holdings, which wants to regenerate the northern docklands, has applied for listed building consent to enlarge an existing opening in the dock wall and create a new hole in the Grade II listed structure, which runs along Waterloo Road and Regent Road.
 
The company wants to enlarge a pedestrian entrance at Bath Street near the Malmaison Hotel at Princes Dock and create a new opening in Regent Road opposite Dublin Street.
 
The firm said that it had applied for the permission to ease traffic into its Liverpool Waters scheme which features 9,000 apartments, hundreds of offices, hotels, bars and a cruise terminal as well as the 55-storey Shanghai Tower.
 

The huge project is expected to be given planning permission next week.
 
The dock wall application will be dealt with separately.
 
Development director Lindsey Ashworth said: “There are enough holes in the wall to make the scheme work, but we are doing this because of traffic.”
 
A report by Peel states: “The proposed works that form the subject of the listed building consent application will provide public benefits that outweigh any harm resulting from physical impact.”
 
Campaigner Wayne Colquhoun, of Liverpool Preservation Trust, said: “The dock wall should be sacrosanct. It has been there for 150 years, why do they need to break into it?”


Read More http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/02/28/peel-apply-to-knock-holes-in-historic-dock-wall-100252-30419244/#ixzz1nhkE5uXz

[Rafette]

Campaigner Wayne Colquhoun, of Liverpool Preservation Trust, said: “The dock wall should be sacrosanct. It has been there for 150 years, why do they need to break into it?”

I drive along the Dock Road every day and I think the dock wall, in parts, is a total eyesore. It's got bits partially knocked in, mismatched railings and gates, bits blocked off here and there, paint on bits of it...I'd welcome something that would make it look tidier. It's a shame the preservation trust had not been as active preventing it falling into such a state

[Cesar]

So get used to a lot more of this kind of shit.   




PARTS of Liverpool’s historic dock boundary wall could be knocked down to create access for a huge £5.5bn skyscraper development.
 
Peel Holdings, which wants to regenerate the northern docklands, has applied for listed building consent to enlarge an existing opening in the dock wall and create a new hole in the Grade II listed structure, which runs along Waterloo Road and Regent Road.
 
The company wants to enlarge a pedestrian entrance at Bath Street near the Malmaison Hotel at Princes Dock and create a new opening in Regent Road opposite Dublin Street.
 
The firm said that it had applied for the permission to ease traffic into its Liverpool Waters scheme which features 9,000 apartments, hundreds of offices, hotels, bars and a cruise terminal as well as the 55-storey Shanghai Tower.
 

The huge project is expected to be given planning permission next week.
 
The dock wall application will be dealt with separately.
 
Development director Lindsey Ashworth said: “There are enough holes in the wall to make the scheme work, but we are doing this because of traffic.”
 
A report by Peel states: “The proposed works that form the subject of the listed building consent application will provide public benefits that outweigh any harm resulting from physical impact.”
 
Campaigner Wayne Colquhoun, of Liverpool Preservation Trust, said: “The dock wall should be sacrosanct. It has been there for 150 years, why do they need to break into it?”


Read More http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/02/28/peel-apply-to-knock-holes-in-historic-dock-wall-100252-30419244/#ixzz1nhkE5uXz

It's just a frigging wall though, isn't it? What does it actually offer to anybody? It's not like the 3 graces, it's not an attraction. We don't see thousands of tourists flocking around a big red brick wall going "ooh that's a lovely wall, if only we had one of these in China".

[Big Red Richie]

Well excuse fucking me.     Big or small, if they want to drive a JCB through a grade II listed structure.

[Jonathan Hall ☆☆☆☆☆☆]

Well excuse fucking me.     Big or small, if they want to drive a JCB through a grade II listed structure.

Only carrying out what the council have done for the last 40 years...

[Big Red Richie]

Who knows mate, maybe I'm just a bit over sensative about our city's heritage.  Weather it be the council or anyone else, as far as I'm concerned, every single brick thats knocked down or removed is one less bit of our history.

Thats not to say you can mothball a city, you can't, but every bit of heritage that is in good enough nick to be saved, should be, in my opinion.  The building or structures that are not feasable to be saved, fine, but knocking holes in structures that are structuraly sound makes no sense to me.



I suspect that if or when peel get the go ahead for their larger scheme, there will be cultural vandalism on a grand scale.



But what the fuck do I know.   It's only a wall.

[Cesar]

Sorry if I seemed a bit facetious, I didn't mean too..

The bit they want to expand has already had a big hole knocked in it, and they've kindly nailed a sign above saying "Princes Dock", which is nice of them. The damage there has been done, if it enables a bit of access to build on the bit behind the wall where there is nothing but some gravel and a pay and display car park (so the damage there has DEFINITELY already been done) then it may go some way to improve the image of this part of the waterfront (anything that is built tall enough to block out the view of the Criminal Records Bureau building must be an improvement!)

I'm not saying they should jib off the whole thing and smack a starbucks along the way, but as Rafette mentioned above, a lot of it has been messed up already, and if the work they can do will improve it than I'm for it

[Rafette]

(anything that is built tall enough to block out the view of the Criminal Records Bureau building must be an improvement!)

If they smashed that to the ground I wouldn't be too upset- that's where I work!

[Cesar]

If they smashed that to the ground I wouldn't be too upset- that's where I work!

I worked there myself for a while... this is why I'd be happy to see the bastard levelled too! I was in the Crapita section, where I was told I must lie to people on a daily basis on the whereabouts of their Disclosures.

[Pistolero]

But what the fuck do I know.   It's only a wall.

you know a lot my friend....the Barbarians are at the dock gates

[Red Beret]

I drive along the Dock Road every day and I think the dock wall, in parts, is a total eyesore. It's got bits partially knocked in, mismatched railings and gates, bits blocked off here and there, paint on bits of it...I'd welcome something that would make it look tidier. It's a shame the preservation trust had not been as active preventing it falling into such a state

There's a big difference between tidying it up and driving an effing bulldozer through it.  Did you see those pictures I posted up showing the last in-situ pieces of horizontal Overhead Railway?  What odds they'll still be there after Peel's had a chance to 'tidy' things up??

EDIT: Also, remember Peel own all of that area.  Who then is responsible for maintaining the wall in good condition?  They are.  Wont be the first listed building in the city left to wrack and ruin because the owner either can't be arsed or intentionally runs it into the ground.  Look at St Andrews Church.

[Phatz]

Can someone clarify this for me please?

Are we losing our world heritage status?

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Can someone clarify this for me please?

Are we losing our world heritage status?

I very much doubt it.  The threat of withdrawal is pretty much their only bargaining chip against the developers dollars.  If they have lost the first battle I would assume that they will continue to fight to ensure that whatever final plans are released are in keeping rather than simply walking away.

[Robotforaday]

The fact that Peel holdings are continually acting like spoiled brats over this makes me suspicious of their motives. Problem with this city is that we've been economically squeezed for so long (and we're being continually reminded of it), so anybody who promises jobs is treated as a saviour, without people rationally considering whether developments are sustainable and whether yuppification is the right route for us.

"they wanna bulldoze half of hope street and build a giant tescos and a block of student flats? really?" "jobs, innit"

"Jobs" is just used as a killer argument, when it simply isn't. What overdevelopment really means is increasingly more and more of the city is being lost and taken from people who actually use and care about the city. We're finding ourselves 'zoned out', and we're cheering it on because of the misguided impression that it's going to bring a goldrush. Then one day when the developers lose interest, we'll look around and won't be able to tell the difference between Liverpool and any other British post-war hole in the ground.

I call bullshit. Yes, that part of town is 'underdeveloped', but that's not an excuse to get it horribly wrong in a way that detracts from the whole city. If Peel don't respect Liverpool enough to do this properly, they can fuck off.

[Giovanni]

Well excuse fucking me.     Big or small, if they want to drive a JCB through a grade II listed structure.

I think i'll sleep easy at night at the thought of a historic wall being nomore if they deliver on their promises of jobs for the city.

Whats more important really? 30,000 local jobs? Or a wall thats been around for a long time?

[Red Beret]

The fact that Peel holdings are continually acting like spoiled brats over this makes me suspicious of their motives. Problem with this city is that we've been economically squeezed for so long (and we're being continually reminded of it), so anybody who promises jobs is treated as a saviour, without people rationally considering whether developments are sustainable and whether yuppification is the right route for us.

"they wanna bulldoze half of hope street and build a giant tescos and a block of student flats? really?" "jobs, innit"

"Jobs" is just used as a killer argument, when it simply isn't. What overdevelopment really means is increasingly more and more of the city is being lost and taken from people who actually use and care about the city. We're finding ourselves 'zoned out', and we're cheering it on because of the misguided impression that it's going to bring a goldrush. Then one day when the developers lose interest, we'll look around and won't be able to tell the difference between Liverpool and any other British post-war hole in the ground.

I call bullshit. Yes, that part of town is 'underdeveloped', but that's not an excuse to get it horribly wrong in a way that detracts from the whole city. If Peel don't respect Liverpool enough to do this properly, they can fuck off.

Agree totally.  We've lost so much over the past 60 years and so many times were promises made that it was in a good cause and that what would come after would make it worthwhile.  At best it turned out to be incompetence of the highest order; at worst, out right lies.

None of this is for us.  They only need scousers to man the check outs and the bars.  An underclass in our own city.  They can fuck right off.  I'd rather leave things as they are.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I think i'll sleep easy at night at the thought of a historic wall being nomore if they deliver on their promises of jobs for the city.

Whats more important really? 30,000 local jobs? Or a wall thats been around for a long time?

Bullshit or a historical structure you mean.

Peel have just plucked an impressive number out of the air to bandy around as an argument winner.  30,000 local jobs my arse.

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

Whats more important really? 30,000 local jobs? Or a wall thats been around for a long time?

It's an absolute bollocks figure that, and it's blatantly obvious that most people will come from outside to do these developments anyway - for instance, I heard a group of lads on the train, scousers, all discussing how much work they'd been doing at the Olympics, building, cranes etc. - they will be part of the 80,000 'local jobs for local people' Boris promised to Londoners a few years back. Don't tell me it doesn't work both ways because it does.

It's fuck all in real, permanent terms, the contribution made by this scheme to the Merseyside labour market to be honest.

[the 92A]

I've changed my opinions on this, I started being in total support of skyscrapers on the Northern Docks. I love nice buildings and don't believe just because they're modern they can't have integrity and be beautiful in their own right, I love the Echo building which is so of it's time. I don't want Liverpool wrapped in aspic and was quite anoyed at what I saw as Unesco denying us the opportunity to grow. However as this has gone on I'm becoming more and more concerned over Peel Holdings who in my opinion are adopting a bullying tone and who's motives I'm begining to question.

[alfonso]

Liverpool Waters – review

If it goes ahead, the multibillion-pound Liverpool Waters scheme will destroy the city's historic character

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/may/06/liverpool-waters-review-rowan-moore