|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on January 22, 2007, 1:51 pm
> @news5.newsguy.com...
>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>>> Look at this:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma4lBz_ArNw
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> You design and build to the best you can. A city must have minimum
> standards and not go below that.
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.
> 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.
Any links to support that? I like to see it. I know Boston pretty well.
>
> Here is the Birkenhead Docks proposal opposite Liverpool - no height
> restrictions (the original link did not work)
> <http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/WirralWaters-1.jpg>
> <http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/WirralWaters.html>
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?
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap