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 2 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 20, 2007, 5:19 pm

>
>> 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?

That is in contention. Liverpool had the first elevated electric railway in
the late 1800s - it was superb. It ran the whole length of Liverpool Docks.
One end was actually underground. It was two levels with a goods rail line
underneath. There is talk of reintroducing a short section - probably a
monrail.

<http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/features/liverpool1.jpg>
<http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/l/liverpool_overhead_railway/lor_old7.jpg>
The red and white building to the right is the White Star Line offices (they
owned the Titanic and others)
<http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/l/liverpool_overhead_railway/index.shtml>



Posted by John on January 20, 2007, 6:04 pm

>
>>
>>> 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?
>
> That is in contention. Liverpool had the first elevated electric railway
> in the late 1800s - it was superb. It ran the whole length of Liverpool
> Docks. One end was actually underground. It was two levels with a goods
> rail line underneath. There is talk of reintroducing a short section -
> probably a monrail.
>
> <http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/features/liverpool1.jpg>
>
<http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/l/liverpool_overhead_railway/lor_old7.jpg>
> The red and white building to the right is the White Star Line offices
> (they owned the Titanic and others)
>
<http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/l/liverpool_overhead_railway/index.shtml>
>

The rejected tower. Brunswick Quay on the menu:
http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk/



Posted by Michael Bulatovich on January 20, 2007, 9:26 pm

> The rejected tower. Brunswick Quay on the menu:
> http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk/

We've seen the link to what scant documentation there is on this thing
earlier in the thread.

I live in a city with a few tall mistakes, and been to others with them, so
I'm sensitive to the issues of tall buildings where they meet grade. I
haven't seen anything but 3d renderings from great distances, and they don't
convince me of anything important.
--


MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca



Posted by Don on January 20, 2007, 10:38 pm

>
>> The rejected tower. Brunswick Quay on the menu:
>> http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk/
>
> We've seen the link to what scant documentation there is on this thing
> earlier in the thread.
>
> I live in a city with a few tall mistakes, and been to others with them,
> so I'm sensitive to the issues of tall buildings where they meet grade. I
> haven't seen anything but 3d renderings from great distances, and they
> don't convince me of anything important.

That was my assessment too.
Long distance pretty pictures won't convince the masses.
John has a problem with accepting that fact.



Posted by John on January 21, 2007, 5:27 am

>
>>
>>> The rejected tower. Brunswick Quay on the menu:
>>> http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk/
>>
>> We've seen the link to what scant documentation there is on this thing
>> earlier in the thread.
>>
>> I live in a city with a few tall mistakes, and been to others with them,
>> so I'm sensitive to the issues of tall buildings where they meet grade. I
>> haven't seen anything but 3d renderings from great distances, and they
>> don't convince me of anything important.
>
> That was my assessment too.
> Long distance pretty pictures won't convince the masses.
> John has a problem with accepting that fact.

The governments chief architect said the site was ideal for a tall building.
On a bend in a river, near where an escarpment falls away, water on two
sides - the river and the docks. It "is" a very good site indeed for a
tall - if you walked around the site you would see why. The more iconic the
tower the better. A golden opportunity lost.

The site is on reclaimed flat land. The Liverpool dock estate was built into
the river, not cut into the land.


Page 2 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