Home Page link

Re: Iconic Tower rejected

Home| Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Architecture and Design - Building design/construction and related topics. 

Page 1 of 7       1 2 3 > last >> Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Re: Iconic Tower rejected John 01-17-2007
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by John on January 17, 2007, 8:38 am

>
> John wrote:
>> >
>> > John wrote:
>> >> http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk
>> >>
>> >> Go to Brunswick Quay on the menu
>> >
>> > Interesting tower imho. Do you know who the architects were? It
>> > didn't mention their names in the article.
>>
>> Simpson. They were invited to tender for the World Trade Centre.
>>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/main.jhtml?xml=/property/2006/11/14/ptowers14.xml
>>
>> Many people in Liverpool are pissed off at central government
>> interfering.
>> Hopefully, the developer will re-submitted with slight amendments, and
>> then
>> it will get through. I think a slim hope though.
>
> Small world, I know Ian Simpson. I just competed against him for a
> project in Australia.

The developer wanted a scaled down version of the tower to re-submit to
appease the idiot politicos. Simpson walked away. Good man.

http://tinyurl.com/368pjj



AppliancePartsPros.com, Inc.
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on January 17, 2007, 8:59 am

>
>>
>> John wrote:
>>> >
>>> > John wrote:
>>> >> http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk
>>> >>
>>> >> Go to Brunswick Quay on the menu
>>> >
>>> > Interesting tower imho. Do you know who the architects were? It
>>> > didn't mention their names in the article.
>>>
>>> Simpson. They were invited to tender for the World Trade Centre.
>>>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/main.jhtml?xml=/property/2006/11/14/ptowers14.xml
>>>
>>> Many people in Liverpool are pissed off at central government
>>> interfering.
>>> Hopefully, the developer will re-submitted with slight amendments, and
>>> then
>>> it will get through. I think a slim hope though.
>>
>> Small world, I know Ian Simpson. I just competed against him for a
>> project in Australia.
>
> The developer wanted a scaled down version of the tower to re-submit to
> appease the idiot politicos. Simpson walked away. Good man.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/368pjj

I have to say the same for the city. Good for them.

Why not pick someone who has to buy his eggs where the citizens do? The
rhetoric in the article looks like the a play on the civic insecurities of
the locals, and IMHO, that's quite self-serving. Confidence in one's own
judgment is a prerequisite to avoiding becoming the victim of the traveling
architectural all-stars, and any other hucksters out to make a buck and a
name for themselves.




Posted by John on January 17, 2007, 9:45 am

>
>>
>>>
>>> John wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > John wrote:
>>>> >> http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Go to Brunswick Quay on the menu
>>>> >
>>>> > Interesting tower imho. Do you know who the architects were? It
>>>> > didn't mention their names in the article.
>>>>
>>>> Simpson. They were invited to tender for the World Trade Centre.
>>>>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/main.jhtml?xml=/property/2006/11/14/ptowers14.xml
>>>>
>>>> Many people in Liverpool are pissed off at central government
>>>> interfering.
>>>> Hopefully, the developer will re-submitted with slight amendments, and
>>>> then
>>>> it will get through. I think a slim hope though.
>>>
>>> Small world, I know Ian Simpson. I just competed against him for a
>>> project in Australia.
>>
>> The developer wanted a scaled down version of the tower to re-submit to
>> appease the idiot politicos. Simpson walked away. Good man.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/368pjj
>
> I have to say the same for the city. Good for them.
>
> Why not pick someone who has to buy his eggs where the citizens do? The
> rhetoric in the article looks like the a play on the civic insecurities of
> the locals, and IMHO, that's quite self-serving. Confidence in one's own
> judgment is a prerequisite to avoiding becoming the victim of the
> traveling architectural all-stars, and any other hucksters out to make a
> buck and a name for themselves.

Ian Simpson, doesn't have anything to prove at all, and I agree with him,
and I am a local he is not. He reach semi final for the replacement World
Trade centre Towers in NY.

"Architecture of great quality can bring hope to a city and lift the
spirits - that was what we were trying to do. But obviously the client has
decided that because the city council has said they want to see something
less contentious and of a much lower scale and deliberately non-iconic, that
is what they will create."

A bland anywhere stumpy block will emerge on the site. Architects have more
constructive things to do than put together designs that they know will
never materialise. A top architect turning his back on a city gives a
blinking, lit up sign saying "Keep Clear Danger, Take Detour". A downward
spiral for the city.



Posted by John on January 20, 2007, 7:46 am


>>> Small world, I know Ian Simpson. I just competed against him for a
>>> project in Australia.
>>
>> The developer wanted a scaled down version of the tower to re-submit to
>> appease the idiot politicos. Simpson walked away. Good man.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/368pjj
>
> I have to say the same for the city. Good for them.
>
> Why not pick someone who has to buy his eggs where the citizens do? The
> rhetoric in the article looks like the a play on the civic insecurities of
> the locals, and IMHO, that's quite self-serving. Confidence in one's own
> judgment is a prerequisite to avoiding becoming the victim of the
> traveling architectural all-stars, and any other hucksters out to make a
> buck and a name for themselves.

The view in the city, rightly or wrongly, is that Simpson became a problem
when he went public with his frustrations on the dilly-dallying of the city
and the developers. A big no, no in Liverpool if you are seeking planning
approval. There are a lot of embarrassed faces in the city, for firstly
rejecting the tower twice (poorly party political, as all the Liberals said
no and all the Labour said yes) and then the politicos came around and
warmed to the idea with a new leader.

They didn't do themselves any favours at the shambles of clearing out the
existing tenants in the old converted warehouses. I would never blame
Simpson as he was understandably angry at the lack of progress, as we all
are here. Other cities are much smoother with planning, while Liverpool hums
and arhs a lot. Swathes of the city are a World Heritage Site so more
consideration has to be taken, however it is laborious and some developers
will not look at the city, as matters take years rather than months and each
time the planners feel they have to lop floors off a building, as with
Peli's building, or downscale just to justify their existence. Their ruling
rarely adds any value at all.

Let's hope we do get a super tower. I doubt it will be iconic or even tall
enough, more anywhere architecture. There is needless overt conservatism
curtailing advancement in a city which invented the modern skyscraper - the
world's first modern building, the first metal framed glass curtain walled
building, Oriel Chambers, 1864, Water St, Liverpool. 16 Cook St a year or so
later.


Posted by Michael Bulatovich on January 20, 2007, 9:45 am

> The view in the city, rightly or wrongly, is that Simpson became a problem
> when he went public with his frustrations on the dilly-dallying of the
> city and the developers. A big no, no in Liverpool if you are seeking
> planning approval. There are a lot of embarrassed faces in the city, for
> firstly rejecting the tower twice (poorly party political, as all the
> Liberals said no and all the Labour said yes)

You mean partisan, I think. Land use is inherantly political since the first
guy proclaimed himself 'chief', and stole someone else's land.

> They didn't do themselves any favours at the shambles of clearing out the
> existing tenants in the old converted warehouses. I would never blame
> Simpson as he was understandably angry at the lack of progress, as we all
> are here. Other cities are much smoother with planning, while Liverpool
> hums and arhs a lot. Swathes of the city are a World Heritage Site so more
> consideration has to be taken, however it is laborious and some developers
> will not look at the city, as matters take years rather than months and
> each time the planners feel they have to lop floors off a building, as
> with Peli's building, or downscale just to justify their existence. Their
> ruling rarely adds any value at all.
>
> Let's hope we do get a super tower.

Can I interest you in a monorail?



Page 1 of 7       1 2 3 > last >>
Similar ThreadsPosted
Re: Iconic Tower rejected January 21, 2007, 5:29 am
Gateway Art Tower November 21, 2008, 9:15 am
Eiffel Tower at Night (video) January 27, 2007, 11:12 pm
Eiffel Tower timelapse film June 12, 2008, 1:42 pm
Re: Eiffel Tower: Formula, Patrick Weidman? June 5, 2008, 12:42 am
Re: Eiffel Tower: Formula, Patrick Weidman? June 5, 2008, 1:02 am
Re: Eiffel Tower: Formula, Patrick Weidman? June 5, 2008, 7:07 pm
Time-lapse Video of Eiffel Tower at Dusk with Moon August 18, 2007, 5:08 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap