|
Posted by John on January 22, 2007, 6:15 am
>
>
>>> http://i12.tinypic.com/48pnuj6.jpg
>>>
>>> The red lines are around three infilled docks - Toxteth, Harrington and
>>> Herculaneum. The parallel sheds are old transit sheds that were on the
>>> quays, the docks have been filled in creating a large land mass between
>>> the sheds. The triangular white shed to the north of the red line is
>>> the site, near the river locks. To the south of the site is the infilled
>>> Toxteth Dock. To the north of the red line is Brunswick Dock which is
>>> filled with water. The site will have water around it on three sides.
>>> It think it meets grade very well. Some of the sheds were scheduled for
>>> demolition.
>>
>> I'm not asking you to make a case for the project, and I don't want to be
>> the voice of opposition to it, but a satellite photo doesn't make the
>> case for the building any better that does a 3d montage from a mile away,
>> IMHO. When reclaiming abandoned, formerly industrial, wastelands there is
>> often a contingent that will argue that 'anything is better than what's
>> there now". This is not the forward thinking that you need to build
>> cities. This is 'urban panic'.
>
> 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.
>
>> Each large building affect everything that comes after it, and if you
>> make a really big mistake, it'll take generations to correct it. I'm not
>> sure you understand what I mean about the relation to grade,
>
> Relation to grade is an open book here as the area around is open to
> development.
>
>> and I'm not sure I understand what is so important about the first tall
>> building going up in this area having to be 'iconic' (whatever that
>> means.)
>
> 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.
>
>> Successful cities are made primarily of successful 'fabric'- individual
>> bits of building that share numerous values and attitudes towards the
>> public realm. Within that fabric, opportunism exist to make building that
>> are special, either because of the site, the purpose, or the vision of
>> the designer, or any combination of these. To try to start out making
>> icons might set in motion a 'higher, louder, faster' dynamic which has
>> ruined a number of young North American cities. You don't want to live in
>> wall-to-wall special.
>
> 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.
>
>> From what I've seen there is nothing particularly 'iconic' about that
>> design. It's *big*. Is that it?
>
> 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's office space for rent. That can't be it.
>
> It is mixed use: hotel, residential and some offices.
>
>> At the urban scale, as a piece of sculpture, I've seen worse, but this is
>> only a very small piece of the puzzle. It doesn't seem to possess any
>> detail that can't be rendered at 1:500.
>>
>> What, for example, are they finely texture brownish blocks to the right
>> of the red rectangle? Are those rowhouses? I hope not.
>
> They are, and quite a way away.
>
>> That big blank podium of this design would require some serious
>> transitional elements not to complete dominate that fabric.
>
> 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.
> http://i1.tinypic.com/2m6twup.jpg
>
>> Another question: Is there a published plan for the redevelopment of the
>> area including massing? How does this project fit into that plan? How
>> good *is* that plan?
>
> 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.
>
>> If someone is now prepared to pile that many floors on one site, it may
>> be that a patient attitude to the pace of development would be prudent,
>> as there will surely be others who might do a more sensitive reading of
>> the spirit of the place.
>
> 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.
> http://i16.tinypic.com/2vcxi4o.jpg
>
> BTW, Birkenhead Docks has this proposed - four 50 floor blocks and others:
> http://i18.tinypic.com/3zh49zq.jpg
>
>> Have you got any direct stake in this thing?
>
> Financial? No. My stake is that I was born about 750 yards from it.
>
> ----
> http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk
Look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma4lBz_ArNw
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap