Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
thescore

Clarence Dock Stadium Plan

Recommended Posts

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

plan1g.th.jpg

plan2d.th.jpg

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/Extend-Merseyrail-CLICK-HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.co.uk/watercity/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:

 

  1. A vibrant residential and leisure complex on the quays of the Kings & Queens Dock branches, Dukes Dock and Coburg Dock.
  2. 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.

 

34q9tvr.jpg

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.uk/news/images-barcelona-fc-stadium-at-sea-plans/5205577.article#

 

for those who havent seen it yet.

 

http://www.crosbyherald.co.uk/news/crosby-news/2009/09/24/mersey-tidal-power-scheme-could-power-the-region-s-homes-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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/Extend-Merseyrail-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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

I didn't side step anything. You are unable to focus on the point in question. A trait of footy obsessives. You appear to want to destroy a World Heritage Site for the sake of s concrete footy ground - which can go in better sites anywhere.

 

Sydney Opera House as not on a World Heritage Site. Please focus. :)

 

The World Heritage Status has done wonders for the city - its image has climbed immensely from one of a crime ridden slum to one of history and heritage. No footy ground ever would do what that has done. Cruise liners call in - not to take passengers to footy games. BTW, football is no more important to the history of the city than football in any other major city. Most people in Liverpool do not go to footy matches. The attendances of the two clubs is less than thrilling and in history nothing to note either. Where you get this notion that football is paramount to the city is beyond me.

 

The World Heritage Site of Central Docks is far more important to the city to plonk a concrete lump of a footy ground on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't side step anything. You are unable to focus on the point in question. A trait of footy obsessives. You appear to want to destroy a World Heritage Site for the sake of s concrete footy ground - which can go in better sites anywhere.

 

 

 

Forgive me for accusing you of side stepping my questions but could you please remind me where you said we could get the money for the Walton Hall Project and whether or nor Walton Hall Park was deemed as green belt because I dont seem to be able to locate your previous answers

 

Also what exactly do you propose they should do with the site if it is restricted to maritime history seeing as though we already have a maritime museum?

Sydney Opera House as not on a World Heritage Site. Please focus. :)

 

The World Heritage Status has done wonders for the city - its image has climbed immensely from one of a crime ridden slum to one of history and heritage. No footy ground ever would do what that has done. Cruise liners call in - not to take passengers to footy games. BTW, football is no more important to the history of the city than football in any other major city. Most people in Liverpool do not go to footy matches. The attendances of the two clubs is less than thrilling and in history nothing to note either. Where you get this notion that football is paramount to the city is beyond me.

 

 

I am sorry you fell that the city of Liverpool is a "crime ridden slum" I live here and I am proud of where I come from and I certainly dont percieve my home as a slum

 

When did I say footall is paramount to the city? I think you need to practise what you preach and focus on the issues being discussed

 

I said that in my opinion football WAS A PART OF the cities history and heritage.

 

 

I also never once claimed that most of the people in this city do go to the game, but I do beleive that there is a significant enough number of people within the cities boundaries who do follow football for it to be considered part of our history/heritage

 

 

I am sorry if you think that football and football stadia are too working class for you but this doesnt mean it should be hidden away out of sight

 

If you dont mind me asking are you from Liverpool?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me for accusing you of side stepping my questions but could you please remind me where you said we could get the money for the Walton Hall Project and whether or nor Walton Hall Park was deemed as green belt because I dont seem to be able to locate your previous answers

 

EFC, NWDA, Dpt of Tabnsport fro the rail and any other other vested interest. Stop playing at being an amateur accountant. Footy fans know all about accountancy don't they?

 

Also what exactly do you propose they should do with the site if it is restricted to maritime history seeing as though we already have a maritime museum?

 

I am not proposing anything. I am saying a large concrete lump of a footy ground is totally inappropriate for the World Heritage Site. I am not a philistine and value the city's history and heritage. I am directed you to look up what the WHS is and means. It is best you do that. It is not just museums.

 

I am sorry you fell that the city of Liverpool is a "crime ridden slum" I live here and I am proud of where I come from and I certainly dont percieve my home as a slum

 

Sorry, it had an appalling reputation no matter what you thought. They think differently now. I doubt a stadium would have changed their views.

 

When did I say footall is paramount to the city? I think you need to practise what you preach and focus on the issues being discussed

 

It is clear you are set on destroying a World Heritage Site, because of narrow mined footy following. Anyone who values his city, the one you say you are proud of, would not want an inappropriate concrete lump of a footy ground on one of its most sacred sites..

 

I said that in my opinion football WAS A PART OF the cities history and heritage.

 

But it is way down the list.

 

I am sorry if you think that football and football stadia are too working class for you but this doesnt mean it should be hidden away out of sight

 

He on about class now! How confused :) It also doesn't mean a footy stadium destroys history and heritage either. It is hard to hide a large concrete lump.

 

It is clear you care more about footy than your city. Thank God most people in Liverpool are not like you.

 

If you dont mind me asking are you from Liverpool?

 

Liverpool 8. And I care about its history and heritage, despite being a footy fan. We can have a world renowned city if it is done right - and that is not building large concrete lumps on heritage sites. Did you read the Johnathan Brown's piece I posted? See this:

The future Amsterdam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who values his city, the one you say you are proud of, would not want an inappropriate concrete lump of a footy ground on one of its most sacred sites..

Sacred :mellow: ? I think you need to go for a lie down :unsure: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EFC, NWDA, Dpt of Tabnsport fro the rail and any other other vested interest. Stop playing at being an amateur accountant. Footy fans know all about accountancy don't they?

 

 

 

I am not proposing anything. I am saying a large concrete lump of a footy ground is totally inappropriate for the World Heritage Site. I am not a philistine and value the city's history and heritage. I am directed you to look up what the WHS is and means. It is best you do that. It is not just museums.

 

 

 

Sorry, it had an appalling reputation no matter what you thought. They think differently now. I doubt a stadium would have changed their views.

 

 

 

It is clear you are set on destroying a World Heritage Site, because of narrow mined footy following. Anyone who values his city, the one you say you are proud of, would not want an inappropriate concrete lump of a footy ground on one of its most sacred sites..

 

 

 

But it is way down the list.

 

 

 

He on about class now! How confused :) It also doesn't mean a footy stadium destroys history and heritage either. It is hard to hide a large concrete lump.

 

It is clear you care more about footy than your city. Thank God most people in Liverpool are not like you.

 

 

 

Liverpool 8. And I care about its history and heritage, despite being a footy fan. We can have a world renowned city if it is done right - and that is not building large concrete lumps on heritage sites. Did you read the Johnathan Brown's piece I posted? See this:

The future Amsterdam

 

 

So you are presuming the outside authorities will jump onboard with regards to finance

 

You have no answer to what your "maritime only" heritage site should encompass

 

You have no idea about Walton Hall Park being green belt

 

However you are an expert on the network rail ( train spotter maybe!)

 

Who, by the way thinks we dont now live in a slum crime ridden city and who exactly has changed that opinion?

 

And what makes you think I am alone in being proud of being a football fan and true scouser?

 

I was trying to avoid being crass and calling you a clueless twit.

 

However you are a clueless twit!

 

Go and find a train and crawl under it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this clip was taken from the liverpool echo 2008

 

A NEW twist to Everton's proposed ground move it emerged today that supermarket giant Sainsbury's considered building a new stadium.

 

The major store rival to Tesco, which is leading the Blues’ bid to relocate from Goodison Park to Kirkby, held meetings with Liverpool council leader Warren Bradley last August.

 

The group said today it was not progressing the plans, although did not rule out revisiting them if the Kirkby plan fell through.

 

The original proposal to build a ground on Walton Hall park was suggested by Liverpool businessman John Seddon, who set up Mersey Cablevision in the 1980s, which was eventually taken over and became Telewest.

 

He said: “Sainsbury’s were one of the people interested in the whole concept of Walton Hall park and took a serious interest, as Tesco have in Kirkby.

 

“They presented a brochure to myself and Liverpool council.”

 

Council leader Cllr Bradley said today that he rejected the proposal to build on park land but offered the neighbouring Longmoor Lane industrial estate as an alternative.

 

The Sainsbury’s document shows a section of the park earmarked for a store and Everton stadium, including car parking and a train station.

 

It reveals Sheffield architect Hadfield Cawkwell Davidson, Manchester development consultants NHR chartered surveyors and Manchester planning specialists Turley Associates worked on the ground scheme.

 

Mr Seddon added: “Following the meeting, Sainsbury’s withdrew but said if it did raise its head again they would be interested.

 

“I think Walton Hall park, even in spite of what Warren Bradley is saying, is a fabulous place for a ground. It is a no-mark park that has trouble with youths on motorbikes and is used by only a small amount of people.”

 

Cllr Bradley said today: “Mr Seddon came to see me about the possibility of Sainsbury’s building on Walton Hall park. I am against any proposal to build on parks but we could talk about the Longmoor Lane industrial estate just at the back. (whats stanley park then a car park)

“Sainsbury’s came to the table but obviously Everton have to be there as well. But if Kirkby is refused Everton will come back to the table and, presumably, Sainsbury’s. I assume a bidding war will start then with Tesco, and if Everton came to us and said we want to discuss something the council would be happy to facilitate that.”

 

A Sainsbury’s spokeswoman said: “We are not progressing these plans at this time, but if there are opportunities that are viable for a new store we would always consider them.”

 

Everton spokesman Ian Ross declined to comment.

 

A spokesman for KEIOC (Keep Everton in Our City) which is campaigning against the club’s move to Kirkby, said: “Everton should be looking at any proposed site. On a survey we are running Walton Hall park is coming out after Goodison Park as favourite.”

 

“We are trying to promote alternative sites and get Everton to consider them.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are presuming the outside authorities will jump onboard with regards to finance

 

You presuming they will not. Don't get into finance it is not your field.

 

You have no answer to what your "maritime only" heritage site should encompass

 

That is between the city and the UN. The UN gave the World Heritage Status - it was not to plonk a large lump on concrete on it. Have you looked at the WHS web site? Do you know what it is all about> It is clear you do not.

 

You have no idea about Walton Hall Park being green belt

 

It is not green belt. WHP is only one of highly suitable sites.

 

However you are an expert on the network rail ( train spotter maybe!)

 

Not into trains. I know what advances cities though - rapid transit. And I know what advances stadia - rapid-transit.

 

And what makes you think I am alone in being proud of being a football fan and true scouser?

 

Not that one again. Proud of Liverpool they shout!!! Yet wants to destroy its history and heritage because of a footy obsession. Some pride and concern that is.

 

I was trying to avoid being crass and calling you a clueless twit.

 

However you are a clueless twit!

 

Go and find a train and crawl under it

 

Reverting to personal insults so have lost the argument. Thanks. Now go and look at what the World Heritage site is about. Find out about Liverpool's history and heritage - in which football is a very minor player, despite what is bouncing around your obsessed mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in melbourne and the Docklands is sick!

The stadium is brilliant!

 

That says it all. Stadium is great, but destroyed a waterscape that could have been vibrant and a great attraction. We have partially done that in the south end docks with the arena. And footy fans want to do the same in Central Docks as well. Duh!

 

If the city makes the same mistake twice the UN may revoke the World Heritage Status. They has meeting with the city about 18 months - 2 years back about how they were applying the WHS. They were mumbling about Liverpool being the first to have the WHS revoked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this clip was taken from the liverpool echo 2008 [Walton Hall Park]

 

seddon-sketch.jpg

 

EFC-Sainsburys07.jpg

 

This proposal did not even have rapid-transit rail run in. A tunnel virtually hits the park. The Outer Loop runs right past it. Someone should have told them.

 

The curved of trees at the top of the site is the old trackbed. It is still there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That says it all. Stadium is great, but destroyed a waterscape that could have been vibrant and a great attraction. We have partially done that in the south end docks with the arena. And footy fans want to do the same in Central Docks as well. Duh!

 

If the city makes the same mistake twice the UN may revoke the World Heritage Status. They has meeting with the city about 18 months - 2 years back about how they were applying the WHS. They were mumbling about Liverpool being the first to have the WHS revoked.

i actually think etihad stadium makes our docklands so much better mate

 

if that wasn't there then the docklands would be a crap-hole mate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i actually think etihad stadium makes our docklands so much better mate

 

if that wasn't there then the docklands would be a crap-hole mate!

 

Well MATE!!! The waterfront at Melbourne , which is very different in layout to Central Docks, could have been a lot better. I know people in Melbourne and they say the stadium does little for the place. The stadium is a success because it is a well designed stadium - it would be a success in any location.

 

You said yourself the docklands is crap. It could have been far better without the concrete lump in the way.

 

In Liverpool we can have both. A vibrant dock area - a World Heritage Site - and a superb stadium in great location that takes minutes to get to from all over Merseyside.

 

Putting a stadium in Central Docks is akin tom putting nuclear powers station there. At leas the power station does not attract litter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well MATE!!! The waterfront at Melbourne , which is very different in layout to Central Docks, could have been a lot better. I know people in Melbourne and they say the stadium does little for the place. The stadium is a success because it is a well designed stadium - it would be a success in any location.

 

You said yourself the docklands is crap. It could have been far better without the concrete lump in the way.

 

In Liverpool we can have both. A vibrant dock area - a World Heritage Site - and a superb stadium in great location that takes minutes to get to from all over Merseyside.

 

Putting a stadium in Central Docks is akin tom putting nuclear powers station there. At leas the power station does not attract litter.

of course people are gonna say the stadium does very little for the place but the docklands is a success because of the stadium

 

for 6 months of the year about 50-100 thousand people travel to Etihad stadium which makes the docklands better because of the amount of people traveling there...

 

I like the docklands but if it wasnt for the stadium it wouldnt be as good because the place has been cleaned up alot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Docklands Stadium is the reason that the Melbourne Docklands became a success, it was the catalyst for the area. This is why Peel and Mersey Docks and Harbour Company before them both looked seriously into having a stadium on the site. They want as many people as possible in the area to make use of their facilities. Stadiums draw in tourists, especially in prominent locations and are some of the most viewed buildings in the world. A high profile building on Liverpool Waters would raise the reputation of the area.

 

Talks are still ongoing between interested parties. The SPD for the area has just been released, this actually makes it easier to get a stadium on the site because Peel can make an outline application for the whole area.

 

Please have a look at this:

 

http://www.b-e-x.com...Aymeric%20Magne,%20Stadia%20Consulting.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Docklands Stadium is the reason that the Melbourne Docklands became a success, it was the catalyst for the area. This is why Peel and Mersey Docks and Harbour Company before them both looked seriously into having a stadium on the site. They want as many people as possible in the area to make use of their facilities. Stadiums draw in tourists, especially in prominent locations and are some of the most viewed buildings in the world. A high profile building on Liverpool Waters would raise the reputation of the area.

 

Talks are still ongoing between interested parties. The SPD for the area has just been released, this actually makes it easier to get a stadium on the site because Peel can make an outline application for the whole area.

 

Please have a look at this:

 

http://www.b-e-x.com...Aymeric%20Magne,%20Stadia%20Consulting.pdf

 

You are talking through your rear end. Peel only want to make money and do not care about Liverpool's heritage. You are what Everton officials called said..."Evertonian knobheads".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are talking through your rear end. Peel only want to make money and do not care about Liverpool's heritage. You are what Everton officials called said..."Evertonian knobheads".

 

Who the hell is this guy? he's hillarious, i think you should run in politics, you're all talk and most of it's SH*TE! You put up a good talk but when people express their own opinions, you use personal insults and language to emphasise your point. i dont want someone like you to come on here and slag them off for it. This wont happen, put it to bed, your Whalton Hall, will NOT happen. You're fighting a stupid cause...its like telling Muslims to eat pork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are what Everton officials called said..."Evertonian knobheads".

 

Care to explain this comment?????? Sorry but I'm confused

 

Plus I'm sure you yourself said something like:

 

Reverting to personal insults so have lost the argument. Thanks.

 

Looks like you've lost the argument too then eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×