Jump to content


Photo

Clarence Dock Stadium Plan


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#1 thescore

thescore

    Lee Carsley

  • Members
  • 91 posts

Posted 13 Oct 2009 - 11:21

interesting stadium post on WSAG

Posted by Beechside on October 13, 2009, 7:38 am
swampy

first I've heard of this:
summary of the link in case it doesn't work.....

Expect an announcement by Peel Holdings (owners of Liverpool Waters scheme land) and the NWDA regarding Clarence Dock in the new year.

The old Mersey Docks & Harbour Company who owned the land before Peel went to the extent of hiring stadium designers to see about it's feasibility.

The CEO of MDHC said it was not only feasible, but also desirable saying that there needed to be a landmark building there that wasn't just more apartments, to kick start investment.

Planning documents for Liverpool Waters in late December.

It would be a multiple agency enablement including NWDA money. Peel would construct the stadium.
Clarence Dock is the dock to the left of Princes Dock (which is left of the Liver Buildings).

It's a brownfield site that is 30 acres larger than Kings Dock. Room for hotels, tower blocks and a supermarket.

Peel are looking at what the Melbourne Docklands development, where a stadium was used as a driver to get investment down to the docks, which had been unused and fell into disrepair since the 1980's due to containerisation taking the trade away.

The stadium at Melbourne attracts 2 million people a year and was a key driver to getting loads of companies to invest (Sony Erickson, Axa, etc).


  • 0

#2 Romey 1878

Romey 1878

    Mildo

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,198 posts

Posted 13 Oct 2009 - 11:26

I just read that myself. It'd be unbelievable if it was true; I was absolutely gutted when the Kings Dock stadium fell through.
  • 0

#3 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 13 Oct 2009 - 11:41

just need glossy pictures and i'll be needing new pants
  • 0

#4 Everton_Worshiper

Everton_Worshiper

    David Moyes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,337 posts

Posted 13 Oct 2009 - 12:11

If any truth in it and we are offered/involved before Liverpool then that would get me harder than Nugent scoring.
  • 0

#5 Louis

Louis

    Dixie Dean

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,611 posts

Posted 13 Oct 2009 - 12:24

I'm sure I've mentioned this :blink:. LCC bent Peel's ear over it, Peel wanted a shared stadium for increased footfall but it's still viable with one team.
  • 0

#6 duncanmckenzieismagic

duncanmckenzieismagic

    Howard Kendall

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,608 posts

Posted 13 Oct 2009 - 14:37

interesting stadium post on WSAG
Posted by Beechside on October 13, 2009, 7:38 am
swampy

first I've heard of this:
summary of the link in case it doesn't work.....

Expect an announcement by Peel Holdings (owners of Liverpool Waters scheme land) and the NWDA regarding Clarence Dock in the new year.

The old Mersey Docks & Harbour Company who owned the land before Peel went to the extent of hiring stadium designers to see about it's feasibility.

The CEO of MDHC said it was not only feasible, but also desirable saying that there needed to be a landmark building there that wasn't just more apartments, to kick start investment.

Planning documents for Liverpool Waters in late December.

It would be a multiple agency enablement including NWDA money. Peel would construct the stadium.
Clarence Dock is the dock to the left of Princes Dock (which is left of the Liver Buildings).

It's a brownfield site that is 30 acres larger than Kings Dock. Room for hotels, tower blocks and a supermarket.

Peel are looking at what the Melbourne Docklands development, where a stadium was used as a driver to get investment down to the docks, which had been unused and fell into disrepair since the 1980's due to containerisation taking the trade away.

The stadium at Melbourne attracts 2 million people a year and was a key driver to getting loads of companies to invest (Sony Erickson, Axa, etc).





What link????
  • 0

#7 Romey 1878

Romey 1878

    Mildo

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,198 posts

Posted 13 Oct 2009 - 14:41

What link????



It was in the original post.
  • 0

#8 duncanmckenzieismagic

duncanmckenzieismagic

    Howard Kendall

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,608 posts

Posted 13 Oct 2009 - 14:46

It was in the original post.




Lol just read it again and i still cant find it
  • 0

#9 Romey 1878

Romey 1878

    Mildo

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,198 posts

Posted 13 Oct 2009 - 14:48

Lol just read it again and i still cant find it



The original post from the site where The Score has copy and pasted it from.
  • 0

#10 Ian C

Ian C

    100% Guaranteed Irish

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,764 posts

Posted 13 Oct 2009 - 16:03

Anyone got a google maps of the site? :o
  • 0

#11 MikeO

MikeO

    Scars are tattoos with better stories.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,467 posts

Posted 13 Oct 2009 - 17:27

I'm sure I've mentioned this :blink:.

You have....it was also mentioned at the enquiry as one of KEIOC's favoured alternatives.

Grarghsies.....look on multimap. It's not marked (even on ordnance survey) but it's between Princes and Trafalgar. Pretty sure that's right.
  • 0

#12 Ian C

Ian C

    100% Guaranteed Irish

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,764 posts

Posted 13 Oct 2009 - 17:35

That's a pretty amazing spot. Hell I could walk from the boat :P
  • 0

#13 The Beard

The Beard

    Joe Royle

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,600 posts

Posted 13 Oct 2009 - 19:41

If that came off, it would satisfy the dreams of all of us. A new ground, great location and we don't become sock robbers :P . Now that would really pissof our neighbours :lol:
  • 0

#14 Louis

Louis

    Dixie Dean

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,611 posts

Posted 13 Oct 2009 - 21:03

Some old images from BRH Architects who had previously been fishing for the project (2004 I think):

Posted Image
Posted Image

Drawings by http://www.brh-architects.co.uk/

A feasibility study was apparently commissioned by Mersey Docks & Harbour Company at some poin. More recently Liverpool City Council were keen and felt it was a goer but the club had opted to go for Kirkby.

With Kirkby looking likely to be derailed, this could be many people's preferred destination.

NWDA will more than likely pay for a Vauxhall railway Station

As part of the Maritime Mercantile City site, it could be entitled to grants too.
  • 0

#15 Lowensda

Lowensda

    A force to be reckoned with, I reckon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,821 posts

Posted 14 Oct 2009 - 09:28

I'd be more than happy with this as a potential site than most suggested. It's class, unique and pretty big! What would it take for EFC to get hold of the permission to build on it, obviously pending the Kirby situation and LCC reluctance to do anything blue!?

Think about the naming of two possible stands (based on the artists impressions)

Dock End - Sounds intimidating but interesting

and,

The Mersey Side (Stand)- Like what i did there? :D

Edited by tenaciousj, 14 Oct 2009 - 09:31.

  • 0

#16 Lowensda

Lowensda

    A force to be reckoned with, I reckon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,821 posts

Posted 14 Oct 2009 - 09:29

That's a pretty amazing spot. Hell I could walk from the boat :P

Boat...you could swim in :D
  • 0

#17 MikeO

MikeO

    Scars are tattoos with better stories.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,467 posts

Posted 14 Oct 2009 - 09:52

We had all this last year :) .

http://www.toffeetal...ce&fromsearch=1
  • 0

#18 thescore

thescore

    Lee Carsley

  • Members
  • 91 posts

Posted 14 Oct 2009 - 10:24

http://members.board...1255435605.html hope the link works i am so crap at this.

this was on the poeples forum
  • 0

#19 MikeO

MikeO

    Scars are tattoos with better stories.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,467 posts

Posted 15 Oct 2009 - 18:43

Various people on Kipper reporting that Knowsley councillor Mal Sharp has said the decision will be announced tomorrow...or it may be one person has said it and others are repeating :unsure: .

No idea if there's any truth in it.
  • 0

#20 Everton_Worshiper

Everton_Worshiper

    David Moyes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,337 posts

Posted 15 Oct 2009 - 21:15

What decision though? Without any form of planning permission surely there isn't much to announce?
  • 0

#21 MikeO

MikeO

    Scars are tattoos with better stories.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,467 posts

Posted 15 Oct 2009 - 21:39

What decision though? Without any form of planning permission surely there isn't much to announce?

Sorry....unclear. The Kirkby decision is what I was talking about, just put it here because it was only a sniff of a rumour so I didn't want to start a new thread :) .
  • 0

#22 Louis

Louis

    Dixie Dean

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,611 posts

Posted 19 Oct 2009 - 17:26

Fan commissioned renderings...

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image
  • 0

#23 hafnia

hafnia

    Self-Proclaimed Oracle

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,093 posts

Posted 19 Oct 2009 - 17:47

That's almost dreamworthy, let's see if Blue Bill struggles to get investors if we were able to get that...
  • 0

#24 Romey 1878

Romey 1878

    Mildo

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,198 posts

Posted 19 Oct 2009 - 17:51

A fan can get plans like that drawn up and the club come up with that shitty Kirkby design? Jesus wept.
  • 0

#25 Everton_Worshiper

Everton_Worshiper

    David Moyes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,337 posts

Posted 19 Oct 2009 - 18:06

A fan can get plans like that drawn up and the club come up with that shitty Kirkby design? Jesus wept.


To be honest the surrounding area looks ace and the stadium looks, well, like an oval stadium. Looks like the drawings were more focused on the whole development rather than the stadium.

I think we would all love a dock side stadium providing the surrounding are is regenerated...just don't see it happening. :(
  • 0

#26 scouse

scouse

    Joe Royle

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,825 posts

Posted 20 Oct 2009 - 09:07

I think we would all love a dock side stadium providing the surrounding are is regenerated...just don't see it happening. :(


Have to agree here, this would be a dream for 99% of the fans and surely this would make us a more attractive proposition than moving to Kirkby, if Bill, as he always says has the fans interest at heart then surely he can see past his Tesco tinted goggles and explore the feasibility of a project like this, we all recall the buzz around the place when Kings Dock was beeing mooted and how different is the atmosphere now with Kirkby, it is sad to see so many Everton Fans at logger heads over what is best for the club. Surely a project like this would re unite all Evertonians. As the saying goes nothing ventured nothing gained, if Bill was able to pull this off then surely it would silence most critics amongst us..
  • 0

#27 StevO

StevO

    Blagging on the basis of knowledge

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,032 posts

Posted 20 Oct 2009 - 19:55

Have to agree here, this would be a dream for 99% of the fans and surely this would make us a more attractive proposition than moving to Kirkby, if Bill, as he always says has the fans interest at heart then surely he can see past his Tesco tinted goggles and explore the feasibility of a project like this, we all recall the buzz around the place when Kings Dock was beeing mooted and how different is the atmosphere now with Kirkby, it is sad to see so many Everton Fans at logger heads over what is best for the club. Surely a project like this would re unite all Evertonians. As the saying goes nothing ventured nothing gained, if Bill was able to pull this off then surely it would silence most critics amongst us..


i agree. if bill could get behind a project like this, im certain all would be forgiven. this may be a dream, and there are only a few people who can get this off the ground. if they get together and pull this off, it would be massively to the benefit of the club. something like this, if it had an original design and captured the atmosphere right, we could get more than 50,000 imo.
  • 0

#28 New Stadium

New Stadium

    Tony Hibbert

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 26 posts

Posted 21 Oct 2009 - 09:40

This is all fantasy land. The renders were put together by student, using CAD, prompted by an Evertonian on a Skyscraper forum. A notion of their fantasy. This stadium is on the top of the newly built Canal Link. Duh!!! Also some tall block is on the flats at West Waterloo Dock. Duh! There is no room around the stadium.

Some points to bring you down to earth:

  • Peel have no plans in Liverpool Waters to build a stadium. None on their web site. None on the Liverpoolwiki: Liverpool Waters
  • The Liverpool Waters web site shows no stadium.
  • UNESCO (the UN) have approved the outline, for the World Heritage Site, and no stadium is mentioned.
  • A stadium does not conform to the World Heritage status of the site.
  • The City council know of no stadium in the plans.
  • The council are to approve plans for Liverpool Waters in Dec' and no stadium is on them.
  • In London they will not grant PP permission to stadia unless rapid-transit rail is adjacent to shift half the capacity in an hour: Emirates is an e.g. - 5 stations are around it. Wembley stadium, with reduced capacity had to rebuild Wembley Park station to shift more fans by rapid-transit rail.
  • LFC cannot go over 60,000 (they want 75,000) on their stadium unless a new rapid-transit station is built on a newly opened Canada Dock branch line on Merseyrail metro. Extending Merseyrail metro
  • This stadium is hemmed-in for the crowds it would attract. A safety problem.
  • The stadium will be a nuisance to the residents who would buy the surround tall apartments. The stadium is a off-putting, as football fans have a poor reputation.
  • The stadium would encourage litter in the docks waters - environmental damage.
  • A large concrete lump used 25 days a year would kill the area dead - it is a World Heritage Site.
  • The stadium is exposed to the cutting Liverpool Bay winds.
  • The stadium is prone to corrosion exposed to wind lashed salt air.
  • The council, has talked again of a stadium share by both clubs. Walton Hall Park is the ideal location with rapid-transit rail run in, that could shift 3/4 of the capacity in an hour. If not WHP, it will be Stanley Park.
  • etc.
  • etc.

It is best to get out of fantasy land. This stadium notion on a World Heritage Site, is not firm or on paper of any sort.

Walton Hall Park with a rapid transit station, shifting 30-40,000 per hour, on a newly opened, mothballed, Outer Loop line is the best option. It will not meet with great opposition, as any proposal to build on a World Heritage Site would. The UN would have a lot to say if plans were submitted. The World Heritage Site is to promote the city and retain its heritage and history. A concrete lump will not do that at all.
Walton Hall Park
Also this about extending Mrseyrail and the Outer Loop Line:
http://tinyurl.com/E...rail-CLICK-HERE

Edited by New Stadium, 21 Oct 2009 - 11:10.

  • 0

#29 New Stadium

New Stadium

    Tony Hibbert

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 26 posts

Posted 21 Oct 2009 - 09:52

The Kings Dock Arena was planned before The UN came in and assessed the World Heritage Site. It was requested to be given a bye as it was already scheduled for an arena. The UN let it go. They should not have. The Arena is an abomination. A glorified IKEA shed next to the largest collection of grade 1 listed buildings in the country - Albert Dock. What an embarrassment. Look at this:
http://myweb.tiscali.../KingsDock.html

The Clarence Dock area is important to the city's history and heritage - no one with any civic pride would want a concrete footy ground anywhere near it!!!! 1.5 million starving Irish went through the dock gates in the famine - it is historic.

There are no discussions for a stadium at Clarence Dock/Liverpool Waters.

Lack of Joined Up Thinking over Kings Dock - which should NOT be repeated at Clarence Dock

The city could have had it all:

  • A vibrant residential and leisure complex on the quays of the Kings & Queens Dock branches, Dukes Dock and Coburg Dock.
  • An arena and associated hotels on the land side of Queens Dock's quays with an adjacent rapid-transit rail Merseyrail station.

What the city ended up with was a fantastic waterscape turned into a lack-lustre landscape with an arena looking like an IKEA shed with associated concrete multi-storey car park and hotels. A vibrant residential and leisure waterscape is lost.

It is abundantly clear the current Kings Dock arena project should have been built on the Baltic Triangle or the land side of the Queens Dock's quays only yards away across the Wapping Dock with an adjacent historic rapid-transit rail station served by a tunnel, built by Stephenson. The existing Kings, Dukes and Queens Branch Dock could have been excavated back to their original quays and a wonderful water based Amsterdam style of environment created.

The Kings and Queens Docks were the only docks that had branch dock piers projecting from the river wall into the expanse of Wapping Dock. These piers formed the quays with sheds being built upon and made up the branch docks. If top class buildings were built upon these piers with panoramic view restaurants on the pier ends, a dramatic sight would have been created from the Dock Road on the land side across the Queens and Wapping Dock waters with the Anglican cathedral behind. All this potential was squandered by lack of vision and bowing to short term money making objectives.

Ideal Location For Kings Dock Arena

Below: The tower is the proposed Queens Dock Tower. The picture is Queens Dock with Kings Dock to the right. On the land side of Queens Dock on the waters edge, where the tower is proposed, would have been an ideal location for the arena with a water facing aspect. The area within the red lines. The Queens Tower could have been located on one of the branch docks giving a superior location with superior views. The marked area is full of ramshakle industrial buildings awaiting clearance. Top right of the picture is where the arena was built. Where land tapers into the water is where the branch docks were filled in. Note that to the right of the Customs House built over the graving docks, one of the branch docks has been filled in to create a car park. The disused Wapping rail tunnel emerges to the bottom right just off picture, which is easily brought back into service serving the complex and surrounding districts.

Posted Image

Large footy grounds should be where there is lots of land around them for safety with an integrated rapid-transit rail station shifting at least half the capacity per hour. As is the case in London, with the Emirate and Wembley, where the station was rebuilt to shift more fans. Liverpool has such suitable sites, Walton Hall Park being one.

The heritage and history of Liverpool is more important than a misplaced footy ground and arena.

Edited by New Stadium, 21 Oct 2009 - 10:25.

  • 0

#30 Matt

Matt

    United we stand, divided we fall...

  • Cyber Steward
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,186 posts

Posted 21 Oct 2009 - 09:53

i still like the idea of copying the plans for Barca's new stadium, that jutts out into the sea. I was thinkin we could to the same with the Mersey, and use a tidal powerplant as the foundations/co-project, but then i was dreaming too.

http://www.cnplus.co...205577.article#

for those who havent seen it yet.

http://www.crosbyher...68459-24765449/

for my idea of support....

the proposed plans above look fantastic too, but just as unrealistic. I hope im proven wrong, one way or the other...
  • 0

#31 New Stadium

New Stadium

    Tony Hibbert

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 26 posts

Posted 21 Oct 2009 - 10:08

The Mersey is different to other rivers in that it is not funnel shaped. It has "narrows" between Liverpool and B'head. The narrows causes the tide to run fast. This keep this part deep water - 90 foot at low tide in the centre. The tide is the world's 4th highest at 32 foot. The tide dumps sand in the wide estuary as the water slows after the narrows. Hence the large sand banks. Any interference with this current would upset the balance of the river. It was interfered with when a channel was dredged to Eastham for the Manchester Ship Canal. The south end docks river banks started to silt up as the Wirral side took more current. Barca is in the Med which is like a lake.

Tidal power? It could be a barrage, which then is OK for a stadium in river water as the tide does not matter as the water is pretty still. If under-river turbines in the strong tidal current turning both ways then no playing with the rivers flow.

Edited by New Stadium, 21 Oct 2009 - 11:02.

  • 0

#32 duncanmckenzieismagic

duncanmckenzieismagic

    Howard Kendall

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,608 posts

Posted 21 Oct 2009 - 15:39

This is all fantasy land. The renders were put together by student, using CAD, prompted by an Evertonian on a Skyscraper forum. A notion of their fantasy. This stadium is on the top of the newly built Canal Link. Duh!!! Also some tall block is on the flats at West Waterloo Dock. Duh! There is no room around the stadium.

Some points to bring you down to earth:

  • Peel have no plans in Liverpool Waters to build a stadium. None on their web site. None on the Liverpoolwiki: Liverpool Waters
  • The Liverpool Waters web site shows no stadium.
  • UNESCO (the UN) have approved the outline, for the World Heritage Site, and no stadium is mentioned.
  • A stadium does not conform to the World Heritage status of the site.
  • The City council know of no stadium in the plans.
  • The council are to approve plans for Liverpool Waters in Dec' and no stadium is on them.
  • In London they will not grant PP permission to stadia unless rapid-transit rail is adjacent to shift half the capacity in an hour: Emirates is an e.g. - 5 stations are around it. Wembley stadium, with reduced capacity had to rebuild Wembley Park station to shift more fans by rapid-transit rail.
  • LFC cannot go over 60,000 (they want 75,000) on their stadium unless a new rapid-transit station is built on a newly opened Canada Dock branch line on Merseyrail metro. Extending Merseyrail metro
  • This stadium is hemmed-in for the crowds it would attract. A safety problem.
  • The stadium will be a nuisance to the residents who would buy the surround tall apartments. The stadium is a off-putting, as football fans have a poor reputation.
  • The stadium would encourage litter in the docks waters - environmental damage.
  • A large concrete lump used 25 days a year would kill the area dead - it is a World Heritage Site.
  • The stadium is exposed to the cutting Liverpool Bay winds.
  • The stadium is prone to corrosion exposed to wind lashed salt air.
  • The council, has talked again of a stadium share by both clubs. Walton Hall Park is the ideal location with rapid-transit rail run in, that could shift 3/4 of the capacity in an hour. If not WHP, it will be Stanley Park.
  • etc.
  • etc.

It is best to get out of fantasy land. This stadium notion on a World Heritage Site, is not firm or on paper of any sort.

Walton Hall Park with a rapid transit station, shifting 30-40,000 per hour, on a newly opened, mothballed, Outer Loop line is the best option. It will not meet with great opposition, as any proposal to build on a World Heritage Site would. The UN would have a lot to say if plans were submitted. The World Heritage Site is to promote the city and retain its heritage and history. A concrete lump will not do that at all.
Walton Hall Park
Also this about extending Mrseyrail and the Outer Loop Line:
http://tinyurl.com/E...rail-CLICK-HERE



Some might say that Everton & Liverpool are very much a part of this Cities history and heritage and a stadium there drawing so many people into the city would go a long way to promoting the city


Also as attractive a proposition as Walton Hall Park looks is the land there not considered to be green belt? This would mean LCC being very accomodating to EFC, something that has failed to happen so far

The other more important question is where would all the money come from to complete a project like that?

Edited by duncanmckenzieismagic, 21 Oct 2009 - 15:43.

  • 0

#33 New Stadium

New Stadium

    Tony Hibbert

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 26 posts

Posted 21 Oct 2009 - 15:55

Some might say that Everton & Liverpool are very much a part of this Cities history and heritage and a stadium there drawing so many people into the city would go a long way to promoting the city


I know footy fans tell them selves lies a lot, but are you serious? :) EFC & LFC have no history in Central Docks whatsoever. The history and heritage is of maritime importance. EFC & LFC has history in Walton though, and Walton Hall Park would get us a stadium or two and a great extension to Merseyrail metro.

I fail to see how a stadium in Central Dock would promote the city in general. The city's heritage is acknowledged as of “universal human significance” by the United Nations. Do you think the UN will be happy of the city allows a stadium to be slapped on that, when many suitable sites are available elsewhere in the city? They may remove the World Heritage Status from the city. The city has to follow the rules.

I know there are many philistines who would build a concrete lump on such an important heritage site. I am not one of them.

Walton Hall Park is not greenbelt and not listed as was Stanley Park. I would rather EFC & LFC were either end of WHP than LFC be on Stanley Park. Get it firmly in your head that no stadium will be a massive success unless rapid-transit rail with mainline rail connections is implemented. The Emirates is a great success because of the ease of access via a 5 surrounding stations. It runs at 100% capacity. Liverpool has rapid-transit rail, yet is ignoring it. London would not do such a thing. No rapid-transit to the stadium, no stadium!!!! Because it makes sense all around and the fans and clubs are the big winners.

Jonathan Brown, Merseyside Civic Society........

Seven miles of waterfront puts Liverpool on a par with world cities like Nice, Sydney or downtown Manhattan. At present we have still to develop sufficient civic vision to understand what that means in planning terms.

For instance, the Albert Dock’s water space is actually bigger than Trafalgar Square in London – stretching in each direction we are blessed with an extensive series of magnificent historic “water-squares”, unique in all the world. Magnificent because their setting overlooks the mighty Mersey, with the great metropolis of Liverpool rising up behind.

This legacy in stone is a gift from the past that our friends in other cities would die for. So, what have we spent the last two decades doing with those “water squares”, whose heritage is acknowledged as of “universal human significance” by the United Nations? What lessons have we learned since central government stepped in and saved the Albert Dock from demolition?

It is painful to say that we have spent much of that time filling many of the old docks in for car parking and “anytown” development, and allowed the rise of an exclusive, suburban-scale “apartmentopolis” of flats, forecourts for car dealerships and fast-food restaurants. The latest example of this lack of stewardship is the abominable multi-storey car park just up from the Liver Buildings on the Princes dock – an absolute eyesore, and the foolhardy proposals to fill in the Georgian Waterloo Dock.

The increasing outcry shows united concern at potential damage to what is not just one of Liverpool’s but the world’s prize heritage assets. We urgently need an ambitious and above all imaginative review of the riverfront’s potential.

Edited by New Stadium, 21 Oct 2009 - 16:05.

  • 0

#34 duncanmckenzieismagic

duncanmckenzieismagic

    Howard Kendall

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,608 posts

Posted 21 Oct 2009 - 16:04

I know footy fans tell them selves lies a lot, but are you serious? :) EFC & LFC have no history in Central Docks whatsoever. The history and heritage is of maritime importance. EFC & LFC has history in Walton though, and Walton Hall Park would get us a stadium or two and a great extension to Merseyrail metro.

I fail to see how a stadium in Central Dock would promote the city in general. The city's heritage is acknowledged as of “universal human significance” by the United Nations. Do you think the UN will be happy of the city allows a stadium to be slapped on that, when many suitable sites are available elsewhere in the city? They may remove the World Heritage Status from the city. The city has to follow the rules.

I know there are many philistines who would build a concrete lump on such an important heritage site. I am not one of them.

Jonathan Brown, Merseyside Civic Society........

Seven miles of waterfront puts Liverpool on a par with world cities like Nice, Sydney or downtown Manhattan. At present we have still to develop sufficient civic vision to understand what that means in planning terms.

For instance, the Albert Dock’s water space is actually bigger than Trafalgar Square in London – stretching in each direction we are blessed with an extensive series of magnificent historic “water-squares”, unique in all the world. Magnificent because their setting overlooks the mighty Mersey, with the great metropolis of Liverpool rising up behind.

This legacy in stone is a gift from the past that our friends in other cities would die for. So, what have we spent the last two decades doing with those “water squares”, whose heritage is acknowledged as of “universal human significance” by the United Nations? What lessons have we learned since central government stepped in and saved the Albert Dock from demolition?

It is painful to say that we have spent much of that time filling many of the old docks in for car parking and “anytown” development, and allowed the rise of an exclusive, suburban-scale “apartmentopolis” of flats, forecourts for car dealerships and fast-food restaurants. The latest example of this lack of stewardship is the abominable multi-storey car park just up from the Liver Buildings on the Princes dock – an absolute eyesore, and the foolhardy proposals to fill in the Georgian Waterloo Dock.

The increasing outcry shows united concern at potential damage to what is not just one of Liverpool’s but the world’s prize heritage assets. We urgently need an ambitious and above all imaginative review of the riverfront’s potential.



Ok so you dont agree with me that football is an important part of this Cities heritage and history

Would you care to address either of the 2 questions I asked?
  • 0

#35 New Stadium

New Stadium

    Tony Hibbert

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 26 posts

Posted 21 Oct 2009 - 16:17

Ok so you dont agree with me that football is an important part of this Cities heritage and history

Would you care to address either of the 2 questions I asked?


Your initial questions were answered. Central Dock's history and heritage is maritime - not sport!!!! Now to your later question. EFC & LFC are important, however not at the expense of something which is far more important - and important to the world. More people emigrated to America from Liverpool than any other port. The population of America was the largest human migration in history. Of world importance. And those docks were key to that. Hence why the UN came in. Liverpool is a very historic city, although most of the population haven't much of a clue about it.

Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the tourist.

Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in canals simply to view its modern museum describing how it once was?


No concrete lump should go on them. The Kings Dock IKEA shed-like Arena was bad enough. Once bitten.....

Funds? Read back. Many bodies would contribute. A stadium with rapid-transit access would bring in large revenues to pay back loans.

Edited by New Stadium, 21 Oct 2009 - 16:26.

  • 0

#36 MikeO

MikeO

    Scars are tattoos with better stories.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,467 posts

Posted 21 Oct 2009 - 16:27

Your initial questions were answered. Central Dock's history and heritage is maritime - not sport!!!!

So you object to the Beatles Story in Albert Dock because it's about musical heritage and not maritime?
  • 0

#37 New Stadium

New Stadium

    Tony Hibbert

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 26 posts

Posted 21 Oct 2009 - 16:36

So you object to the Beatles Story in Albert Dock because it's about musical heritage and not maritime?


Waywards minds here. The point is that a large concrete lump of a stadium should not go on a World Heritage Site destroying it, when there are many more suitable sites for a footy ground elsewhere in the city. Do you know what the World Heritage Site is about?
  • 0

#38 MikeO

MikeO

    Scars are tattoos with better stories.

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,467 posts

Posted 21 Oct 2009 - 16:39

Waywards minds here. The point is that a large concrete lump of a stadium should not go on a World Heritage Site destroying it, when there are many more suitable sites for a footy ground elsewhere in the city. Do you know what the World Heritage Site is about?

That wasn't my question :) .
  • 0

#39 New Stadium

New Stadium

    Tony Hibbert

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 26 posts

Posted 21 Oct 2009 - 16:42

That wasn't my question :) .


You needed to be brought back on topic. :)
  • 0

#40 duncanmckenzieismagic

duncanmckenzieismagic

    Howard Kendall

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,608 posts

Posted 21 Oct 2009 - 16:46

Your initial questions were answered. Central Dock's history and heritage is maritime - not sport!!!! Now to your later question. EFC & LFC are important, however not at the expense of something which is far more important - and important to the world. More people emigrated to America from Liverpool than any other port. The population of America was the largest human migration in history. Of world importance. And those docks were key to that. Hence why the UN came in. Liverpool is a very historic city, although most of the population haven't much of a clue about it.



No concrete lump should go on them. The Kings Dock IKEA shed-like Arena was bad enough. Once bitten.....

Funds? Read back. Many bodies would contribute. A stadium with rapid-transit access would bring in large revenues to pay back loans.



Lol Are you a politician because you side stepped my questions again


I didnt ask you wether or not you thought football was part of the cities history/heritage I stated that I thought that im my opinion it was and you disagreed which is your opinion and you are obviously entieled to it

I asked where the money would come from for the Walton Hall Park project and wether or not it was green belt and so a non starter.

You keep banging on about how everything at Clarence Dock has to be related to the maritime history of the city so what do u propose they should do with the sight seeing as though the city already has a meritime museum?

Oh and I might be showing my ignorance here because opera is not really my cup of tea but was Sydney in Australia really steeped in operatic history before they built the iconic Sydney Opera House?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users