|
Home > Archive > Architecture > January 2007 > Iconic Tower rejected
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Iconic Tower rejected
|
|
|
|
|
|
John wrote:
> http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk
>
> Go to Brunswick Quay on the menu
Interesting tower imho. Do you know who the architects were? It
didn't mention their names in the article.
| |
|
|
"Cato" <cato_the_stoic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163779740.308981.240590@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> John wrote:
>
> Interesting tower imho. Do you know who the architects were? It
> didn't mention their names in the article.
Simpson. They were invited to tender for the World Trade Centre.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property...4/ptowers14.xml
Many people in Liverpool are pissed off at central government interfering.
Hopefully, the developer will re-submitted with slight amendments, and then
it will get through. I think a slim hope though.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2006-11-17, 1:25 pm |
| "Cato" <cato_the_stoic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163779740.308981.240590@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> John wrote:
>
> Interesting tower imho. Do you know who the architects were? It
> didn't mention their names in the article.
Interesting is a ambiguous word. It looks like a massing model with mullions
to me. If it is as articulate at the bottom as it is up above, I'd think it
was a problem. Maybe some other drawings would convince me otherwise.
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
|
| On 17 Nov 2006, John wrote
>
> "Cato" <cato_the_stoic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1163779740.308981.240590@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Simpson. They were invited to tender for the World Trade Centre.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property...=/property/2006
> /11/14/ptowers14.xml
>
> Many people in Liverpool are pissed off at central government
> interfering.
WTF?? It was the Liverpool *council* who originally turned it down.
The appeal to central government was against the local authority's
refusal -- it backs the local authority, which is a funny way to
"interfere", as it changed nothing at all.
Would you have preferred that there had been no central government
appeal available against the local Council's decision to refuse?
| |
|
|
"HVS" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns987EAE7198A56whhvans@80.5.182.99...
> On 17 Nov 2006, John wrote
>
>
> WTF?? It was the Liverpool *council* who originally turned it down.
By one vote.
> The appeal to central government was against the local authority's
> refusal -- it backs the local authority, which is a funny way to
> "interfere", as it changed nothing at all.
Ruth Kelly was told to pass it by the planning inspector, so someone has
told her to do otherwise and she used a ridiculous World Heritage Site
excuse. The proposal is a long way from the Heritage site. Her grounds for
rejection are laughable they are so inaccurate. BTW, English Heritage never
objected or UNESCO either.
> Would you have preferred that there
> had been no central government
> appeal available against the local
> Council's decision to refuse?
I would prefer they have no role in the affairs of cities at all - not their
business. The cities are capable of running their own affairs, planning and
appeals. It is not overtly party political as all those who originally
objected on the committee were LibDems and those for all Labour. Kelly is
Labour.
| |
|
| On 17 Nov 2006, John wrote
> "HVS" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns987EAE7198A56whhvans@80.5.182.99...
[color=darkred]
>
> By one vote.
One vote or five isn't the point: it wasn't a central government
decision to refuse the original application.
>
> Ruth Kelly was told to pass it by the planning inspector,
??? The Planning Inspector doesn't "tell" a Secretary of State to
do anything.
The Planning Inspectorate -- part of central government -- advises,
it doesn't instruct.
-snip-
>
> I would prefer they have no role in the affairs of cities at all
> - not their business. The cities are capable of running their
> own affairs, planning and appeals.
So I take it that's a "yes --- there should be no appeal to central
government against local decisions".
And that, inevitably, includes the Planning Inspectorate, which is
an advisory arm of central government.
You can't have it both ways.
Either central government involvement -- in the form of the PI as
much as the Secretary of State -- is a Bad Thing, in which case you
should be happy to live with the Council's original decision; or
it is a Desirable Appeal against narrowly-taken local decisions, in
which case you don't get to whinge that they shouldn't be involved
when the decision goes against you.
| |
|
|
John wrote:
> "Cato" <cato_the_stoic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1163779740.308981.240590@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Simpson. They were invited to tender for the World Trade Centre.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property...4/ptowers14.xml
>
> Many people in Liverpool are pissed off at central government interfering.
> Hopefully, the developer will re-submitted with slight amendments, and then
> it will get through. I think a slim hope though.
Small world, I know Ian Simpson. I just competed against him for a
project in Australia.
| |
|
| I've looked at your website a couple of times and would like to give
you an outsider's view of the site and your strategy.
To an American, being "New Amsterdam" isn't saying much. Heck, I would
never even thought of docks in Amsterdam. Amsterdam is known for ....
well you know ... plus maybe soccer. So when I say that, I thought
"wow, England is getting much more liberal. And where are they going
to put the windmills?".
Instead of being against filling in the docks and for "saving" them
(whatever that means), why not be "for" something and come up with a
development idea so good that saving the docks becomes such an obvious
part of the plan that it is taken as a given?
I'll give you an example. We have a city in Ohio named Cleveland. It
is on Lake Erie, one of the Great Lakes. It is in what was called The
Rustbelt and much of the north-east de-industrialized. Cleveland
became known as "The Mistake on the Lake". Among their many successful
development efforts, the somehow got the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
It draws all kinds of tourists for the exhibits plus they have major
performances, inductions, etc. The Hall of Fame is right on the
waterfront.
http://www.rockhall.com/museum/about.asp
So why not find a great idea like this and use that to save what you
want to save and to re-invigorate your community.
Of course I used that idea because it seems like Liverpool not only
launched a fleet to the new world, but also launched a band or two.
There are lots of other examples. San Antonio, Texas has its
Riverwalk. Baltimore, Maryland has its Inner Harbor. etc. etc.
John wrote:
> http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk
>
> Go to Brunswick Quay on the menu
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-11-17, 1:25 pm |
|
Pat wrote:
> I've looked at your website a couple of times and would like to give
> you an outsider's view of the site and your strategy.
>
> To an American, being "New Amsterdam" isn't saying much. Heck, I would
> never even thought of docks in Amsterdam. Amsterdam is known for ....
> well you know ... plus maybe soccer. So when I say that, I thought
> "wow, England is getting much more liberal. And where are they going
> to put the windmills?".
Say Pat {pat}, you're sounding embarassingly provential,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam
Amsterdam makes Vegas look Amish!
> Instead of being against filling in the docks and for "saving" them
> (whatever that means), why not be "for" something and come up with a
> development idea so good that saving the docks becomes such an obvious
> part of the plan that it is taken as a given?
>
> I'll give you an example. We have a city in Ohio named Cleveland. It
> is on Lake Erie, one of the Great Lakes. It is in what was called The
> Rustbelt and much of the north-east de-industrialized. Cleveland
> became known as "The Mistake on the Lake". Among their many successful
> development efforts, the somehow got the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
> It draws all kinds of tourists for the exhibits plus they have major
> performances, inductions, etc. The Hall of Fame is right on the
> waterfront.
>
> http://www.rockhall.com/museum/about.asp
>
> So why not find a great idea like this and use that to save what you
> want to save and to re-invigorate your community.
>
> Of course I used that idea because it seems like Liverpool not only
> launched a fleet to the new world, but also launched a band or two.
>
> There are lots of other examples. San Antonio, Texas has its
> Riverwalk. Baltimore, Maryland has its Inner Harbor. etc. etc.
Not to mention in Mecca you can stampede muslims,
now that's a hoot, them arabs really know how to put
on a party, squish-squish fun for most, now that's a
serious tourist attraction.
Ken
| |
|
|
"HVS" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns987EB8F63A646whhvans@62.253.170.163...
>
> ??? The Planning Inspector doesn't "tell" a Secretary of State to
> do anything.
>
> The Planning Inspectorate -- part of central government -- advises,
> it doesn't instruct.
OK, advises, which is tantamount to the same thing. They rarely go against
him.
>
> So I take it that's a "yes --- there
> should be no appeal to central
> government against local decisions".
Yep, and appeal locally. In this case, the case for the proposal was so
strong it would have gone through with a local appeal.
> You can't have it both ways.
You can. Keep it local and get London out of everyone's hair.
| |
|
|
"Cato" <cato_the_stoic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163787346.834228.227760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> John wrote:
>
> Small world, I know Ian Simpson. I just competed against him for a
> project in Australia.
Which one? The block he lives in, in Manchester is a Beetham Tower - atop
heavy affair. Not bad but rather slabbish. Beetham are a Liverpool company
and built in all the cities. The highest residential tower in Europe is in
Manchester, and the London Beetham will top that again, yet the city Beetham
are based in, keeps lopping off floors of any proposal, or just plain
rejects them. If there was no restriction Liverpool would be full of 60
floor towers. Liverpool is Europe's largest construction site.
A few years back Ian Simpson attacked Liverpool council with a vengeance
over Brunswick Quay saying, in Manchester, where he is based, it would have
been dusted off quicko. Lots of Liverpool's centre and much of the dock
water spaces are World Heritage Sites or buffers. Then English Heritage put
their oar in as well as every other Tom, Dick ... Manchester has no such
constraints so a comparison is unfair. Manchester has a lot to do as
previous to the construction boom, there was no icon buildings at all. A
very forgettable place.
BTW, what did you think of the tower. I thought it superb for the location.
On the riverfront with docks one side and the river the other. I was born
about 500 metres from where it was to go.
| |
|
| "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:1163787653.581094.181230@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I've looked at your website a couple of times and would like to give
> you an outsider's view of the site and your strategy.
>
> To an American, being "New Amsterdam"
> isn't saying much. Heck, I would
> never even thought of docks in Amsterdam.
> Amsterdam is known for ....
> well you know ... plus maybe soccer.
> So when I say that, I thought
> "wow, England is getting much more liberal.
> And where are they going to put the windmills?".
I can't account for your views on Amsterdam. I never thought of a red light
quarter.
> Instead of being against filling in
> the docks and for "saving" them
> (whatever that means),
From being filled in. I haven't the exact acreage figures yet, however I
reckon the docks filled in, in Liverpool and Wirral is more water space than
Venice. It is that bad.
> why not be "for" something and come up with a
> development idea so good that saving the
> docks becomes such an obvious
> part of the plan that it is taken as a given?
That is the next step. A sort of manifesto. The site is still being worked
on. Aage on the in-filed docks is on the go. It takes losts of maps and
pictures. I have a lot of support for politicos and academics and others.
> I'll give you an example. We have a city in Ohio named Cleveland. It
> is on Lake Erie, one of the Great Lakes. It is in what was called The
> Rustbelt and much of the north-east de-industrialized. Cleveland
> became known as "The Mistake on the Lake". Among their many successful
> development efforts, the somehow got the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
> It draws all kinds of tourists for the exhibits plus they have major
> performances, inductions, etc. The Hall of Fame is right on the
> waterfront.
>
> http://www.rockhall.com/museum/about.asp
>
> So why not find a great idea like this and use that to save what you
> want to save and to re-invigorate your community.
We have Matthew St and the Beatles - can you beat that? The Albert Dock at
Liverpool is great tourist attraction and rocks. Read the poor housing page.
Near the centre the docks are World Heritage so cannot be screwed about with
that much. Many Americans are weary of eliminating the Waterloo docks as
they were the centre of emigration to the new world. 1.3 million starving
Irish during the famine came to Liverpool within a few years via Clarence
Dock (many dead on arrival, a mass grave of 7,500 is in Liverpool) - and
then left after a time to other cities or America. If you have Irish in you
they would have most probably have been in these docks at some time.
Important to world history, and your own.
> Of course I used that idea because
> it seems like Liverpool not only
> launched a fleet to the new world,
> but also launched a band or two.
And we still do. We were also the unofficial port for the Confederate navy.
Look at the Brunswick Dock page. The picture of the south end waterfront.
Between were the tower was to be built and the opposite bank, the last
official lowering of the Confederate flag was undertaken on the CSS
Shenandoah - it was the stainless banner. Opposite is Lairds shipyard (the
white building and cranes). This is where CCS Alabama was built and the
Laird Rams (Abe Lincoln threatening war and all).
See when Liverpool was Dixie. I used to live opposite Commander Bulloch's
grave. The idiot local blacks desecrated it because of the slave connection.
<http://www.csa-dixie.com/liverpool_dixie/index.htm>
> There are lots of other examples. San Antonio, Texas has its
> Riverwalk. Baltimore, Maryland has its Inner Harbor. etc. etc.
Yep. Liverpool needs to look at what others are doing. I was amazed at how
many local politicians didn't know what Hamburg was doing. Amazing.
Thanks for the comments appreciated.
| |
|
|
John wrote:
> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> news:1163787653.581094.181230@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I can't account for your views on Amsterdam. I never thought of a red light
> quarter.
Hey, there's money to be made ....
As I said, over here, Amsterdam isn't known for its docks.
>
>
> From being filled in. I haven't the exact acreage figures yet, however I
> reckon the docks filled in, in Liverpool and Wirral is more water space than
> Venice. It is that bad.
>
>
> That is the next step. A sort of manifesto. The site is still being worked
> on. Aage on the in-filed docks is on the go. It takes losts of maps and
> pictures. I have a lot of support for politicos and academics and others.
>
>
> We have Matthew St and the Beatles - can you beat that? The Albert Dock at
> Liverpool is great tourist attraction and rocks. Read the poor housing page.
> Near the centre the docks are World Heritage so cannot be screwed about with
> that much. Many Americans are weary of eliminating the Waterloo docks as
> they were the centre of emigration to the new world.
And many more would say, "LIverpool has docks?". More yet would say
"Isn't that where the Beetles are from" and the rest would say
"Liverpool, I've heard of it. Where is it again?" Plus, of couse a
few would say, "yeah, I have a Liver Pool. They're great and last
forever."
1.3 million starving
> Irish during the famine came to Liverpool within a few years via Clarence
> Dock (many dead on arrival, a mass grave of 7,500 is in Liverpool) - and
> then left after a time to other cities or America. If you have Irish in you
> they would have most probably have been in these docks at some time.
> Important to world history, and your own.
We have Ellis Island on this site. That's our focus, not Liverpool.
>
>
> And we still do. We were also the unofficial port for the Confederate navy.
> Look at the Brunswick Dock page. The picture of the south end waterfront.
> Between were the tower was to be built and the opposite bank, the last
> official lowering of the Confederate flag was undertaken on the CSS
> Shenandoah - it was the stainless banner. Opposite is Lairds shipyard (the
> white building and cranes). This is where CCS Alabama was built and the
> Laird Rams (Abe Lincoln threatening war and all).
The Merrimack and the Monitor is as far as most people go with Civil
War navies.
>
> See when Liverpool was Dixie. I used to live opposite Commander Bulloch's
> grave. The idiot local blacks desecrated it because of the slave connection.
> <http://www.csa-dixie.com/liverpool_dixie/index.htm>
>
>
> Yep. Liverpool needs to look at what others are doing. I was amazed at how
> many local politicians didn't know what Hamburg was doing. Amazing.
Hamburg isn't doing much. It avoided most of the snow in October
Suprise Blizzard and the Buffalo Bills play just over the border in
...... oh, you mean that OTHER Hamburg. Sorry.
>
> Thanks for the comments appreciated.
Can you claim that the Beatles are a bigger part of World Heritage than
the docks and therefore put up an English Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
over there?
| |
|
| On 17 Nov 2006, John wrote
>
> "HVS" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns987EB8F63A646whhvans@62.253.170.163...
>
>
> OK, advises, which is tantamount to the same thing.
Nope; different thing entirely.
-snip-
>
> Yep, and appeal locally.
Which entirley rules out the Planning Inspectorate: that's a
central government operation, not a local one.
> In this case, the case for the proposal was so strong it would
> have gone through with a local appeal.
>
> You can. Keep it local and get London out of everyone's hair.
But that's not what you seem to be complaining about.
You seemed very happy to have London -- in the form of the Planning
Inspectorate -- step in to recommend over-ruling the local
decision.
If you were consistent, you should object to the PI recommending
against the Council.
| |
|
|
John wrote:
> "HVS" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns987EB8F63A646whhvans@62.253.170.163...
>
>
> OK, advises, which is tantamount to the same thing. They rarely go against
> him.
>
>
> Yep, and appeal locally. In this case, the case for the proposal was so
> strong it would have gone through with a local appeal.
>
>
> You can. Keep it local and get London out of everyone's hair.
Agreed. We did that a couple of hundred years ago. :-)
| |
|
|
"HVS" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns987ECF1BFD64Fwhhvans@80.5.182.99...
>
> Which entirley rules out the
> Planning Inspectorate:
Sounds good to me.
>
> But that's not what you seem to
> be complaining about.
The gripe is two-fold. The local one for naively rejecting such a top rate
proposal and London who should not be involved at all.
> You seemed very happy to have London -- in the form of the Planning
> Inspectorate -- step in to recommend over-ruling the local
> decision.
I don't want them there at all. Local is local and they should be more
concerned about Iraq.
| |
|
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:1163795262.233907.22440@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> John wrote:
>
> Agreed. We did that a couple of hundred years ago. :-)
Oh in the civil war in British America. I don't blame them. The Irish were
pissed off too. The UK is the most centralised country in the western
world.
| |
|
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:1163794824.722305.51160@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> John wrote:
>
> Hey, there's money to be made ....
If you are into that sort of thing.
> As I said, over here, Amsterdam isn't known for its docks.
Do you mean Americans don't know there is canals there?
>
> And many more would say, "LIverpool has docks?". More yet would say
> "Isn't that where the Beetles are from" and the rest would say
> "Liverpool, I've heard of it. Where is it again?" Plus, of couse a
> few would say, "yeah, I have a Liver Pool. They're great and last
> forever."
>
> 1.3 million starving
>
> We have Ellis Island on this site. That's our focus, not Liverpool.
Ellis island was late in the game South St port on the lower east side was
where the early landing were. By the emails I get for Americans they do
thing a lot of Liverpool. More people left Liverpool for the new world
than any other port. Also 2/3 of al slaves that went from Africa to the
Americas were in Liverpool ships. So more a
again. But there again, Americans think that being the Wal-Mart of war they
won WW2 too. ;-)
>
> The Merrimack and the Monitor is as far as most people go with Civil
> War navies.
US Civil War history is being re-written.
>
> Hamburg isn't doing much. It avoided most of the snow in October
> Suprise Blizzard and the Buffalo Bills play just over the border in
> ..... oh, you mean that OTHER Hamburg. Sorry.
Yep there is a world outside the US. And they are better at town planning
too.
>
> Can you claim that the Beatles are
> a bigger part of World Heritage than
> the docks and therefore put up an
> English Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
> over there?
There is a Beatles museum at the Albert Dock. Every August the whole centre
is closed down to cars and stages put up everywhere, even in the docks, and
a big party starts. Great time. It is so full we never tell the Yanks, as
they may take it to overflowing. :-)
| |
|
| On 17 Nov 2006, John wrote
>
> "HVS" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns987ECF1BFD64Fwhhvans@80.5.182.99...
>
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
>
> The gripe is two-fold. The local one for naively rejecting such
> a top rate proposal and London who should not be involved at
> all.
>
>
> I don't want them there at all. Local is local and they should
> be more concerned about Iraq.
Fine. Then don't -- as you specifically did -- use the Planning
Inspector's advice as some sort of cudgel to beat the Secretary of
State with.
That sort of inconsistency makes you look foolish, and undermines
your case.
| |
|
|
John wrote:
> "Cato" <cato_the_stoic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1163787346.834228.227760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Which one? The block he lives in, in Manchester is a Beetham Tower - atop
> heavy affair. Not bad but rather slabbish. Beetham are a Liverpool company
> and built in all the cities. The highest residential tower in Europe is in
> Manchester, and the London Beetham will top that again, yet the city Beetham
> are based in, keeps lopping off floors of any proposal, or just plain
> rejects them. If there was no restriction Liverpool would be full of 60
> floor towers. Liverpool is Europe's largest construction site.
>
> A few years back Ian Simpson attacked Liverpool council with a vengeance
> over Brunswick Quay saying, in Manchester, where he is based, it would have
> been dusted off quicko. Lots of Liverpool's centre and much of the dock
> water spaces are World Heritage Sites or buffers. Then English Heritage put
> their oar in as well as every other Tom, Dick ... Manchester has no such
> constraints so a comparison is unfair. Manchester has a lot to do as
> previous to the construction boom, there was no icon buildings at all. A
> very forgettable place.
>
> BTW, what did you think of the tower. I thought it superb for the location.
> On the riverfront with docks one side and the river the other. I was born
> about 500 metres from where it was to go.
I can't really give any specifics details on the project in Australia
right now because we're under a confidentiality agreement. Maybe when
the winner is announced in a few weeks I'll post something, unless we
don't we win the commission of course. ;-)
I like the form of the buildings, although the way they are meeting the
ground looks a bit akward to me. I'd need to see some more drawings.
I think the site is pretty nice though. It's hard to go wrong with a
waterfront project, at least from a visibility point of view.
| |
|
|
"HVS" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns987ED6BB3B9BBwhhvans@80.5.182.99...
> On 17 Nov 2006, John wrote
>
>
> Fine. Then don't -- as you specifically did -- use the Planning
> Inspector's advice as some sort of cudgel to beat the Secretary of
> State with.
Her so-called expert said OK, she said no - all in London. As it stands she
is a fool, as the excuses given were so inaccurate they were laughable.
| |
|
|
"Cato" <cato_the_stoic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163798211.979448.201260@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> John wrote:
>
> I can't really give any specifics details on the project in Australia
> right now because we're under a confidentiality agreement. Maybe when
> the winner is announced in a few weeks I'll post something, unless we
> don't we win the commission of course. ;-)
>
> I like the form of the buildings, although the way they are meeting the
> ground looks a bit akward to me. I'd need to see some more drawings.
> I think the site is pretty nice though. It's hard to go wrong with a
> waterfront project, at least from a visibility point of view.
It is also on the side of the river lock gates too, so the small boats
passing continuously on each high tide - a very nice view for the residents.
The wider ship locks are blocked off, although they can be put back and
brought back into commission. The US Liberty Ships would enter that lock in
WW2 as well as men-o-war.
| |
|
| On 17 Nov 2006, John wrote
>
> "HVS" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns987ED6BB3B9BBwhhvans@80.5.182.99...
>
>
> Her so-called expert said OK, she said no - all in London.
Precisely: and if you don't want London involved, don't call central
government representatives expert in support of your case.
I have an overwhelmingly strong feeling that if both elements of
central government -- PI and Secretary of State -- had agreed that
they should reverse your local Council's refusal, you'd not be
whinging about the unfairness of London sticking its nose where it
doesn't belong.
| |
|
|
"HVS" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns987EDE562F592whhvans@62.253.170.163...
> On 17 Nov 2006, John wrote
>
>
> Precisely: and if you don't want London involved, don't call central
> government representatives expert in support of your case.
I am highlighting the stupidly of the woman in this particular case. She was
whittering on about the World Heritage Status, when the project is nowhere
near the zone and the nearest structure a large gas holder - the tower in
blocking sight lines in historic buildings she said. She has never been
there to know.
> I have an overwhelmingly strong feeling that if both elements of
> central government -- PI and Secretary of State -- had agreed that
> they should reverse your local Council's refusal, you'd not be
> whinging about the unfairness of London sticking its nose where it
> doesn't belong.
Nope. I am a confirmed federal republican. Which means get the capital out
of your hair, as the Yankies did. Most hate Washington poking their nose
in.
| |
|
| On 17 Nov 2006, John wrote
> "HVS" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns987EDE562F592whhvans@62.253.170.163...
>
> Nope. I am a confirmed federal republican. Which means get the
> capital out of your hair, as the Yankies did.
You didn't appear to object to the appeal being heard by a central
government functionary -- until it was turned down.
Then you called -- in support of your case -- the advice of a central
government functionary.
And now you say that you think central government functionaries have
a right cheek to be involved at all in the decision.
You're either muddle-headed, or disingenuous.
| |
|
| "John"> wrote
> BTW, what did you think of the tower.
Brings to mind that place in Dubai.
| |
|
|
"HVS" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns987EE334BA8E3whhvans@80.5.182.99...
> On 17 Nov 2006, John wrote
>
>
>
> You didn't appear to object to the appeal being heard by a central
> government functionary -- until it was turned down.
I don't like the system FULL STOP. I made that clear.
> Then you called -- in support of
> your case -- the advice of a central
> government functionary.
No. Read again.
> And now you say that you think
> central government functionaries have
> a right cheek to be involved at all in the decision.
They should not be involved at al. None of their business. There is enough
problems with Iraq with screwing up Liverpool as well.
> You're either muddle-headed, or disingenuous.
You can't see clear points. stop digging yourself in.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2006-11-17, 5:25 pm |
|
"John" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:455e32f8$0$97245$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> I am highlighting the stupidly of the woman in this particular case. She
> was whittering on about the World Heritage Status, when the project is
> nowhere near the zone and the nearest structure a large gas holder - the
> tower in blocking sight lines in historic buildings she said.
Sadly, where I live, that tower would be sitting derelict for decades while
some wannabe-architect/bureaucrat who values it as a memento of our
industrial past blocks every attempt to tear it down, and put up something
useful. Wave after wave of tax dollars would be spent trying to promote
adaptive reuse, while the thing rusts and crumbles and there are no takers
because it isn't play money that's required. Meanwhile the lawful owner is
deprived the right to make the best use of his/her asset, or worse, it's
expropriated for the public good.
| |
|
| On 17 Nov 2006, John wrote
> "HVS" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns987EE334BA8E3whhvans@80.5.182.99...
>
> No. Read again.
If you insist. You wrote:
(quote)
Ruth Kelly was told to pass it by the planning inspector, so someone
has told her to do otherwise
(/quote)
That's calling on the opinion of the PI -- a central government
functionary -- in support of the case that the SoS should not have
refused approval.
Your turn.
| |
|
|
"HVS" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns987EE784E69BEwhhvans@62.253.170.163...
> On 17 Nov 2006, John wrote
>
>
>
> If you insist. You wrote:
>
> (quote)
>
> Ruth Kelly was told to pass it by the planning inspector, so someone
> has told her to do otherwise
>
> (/quote)
>
> That's calling on the opinion of the PI -- a central government
> functionary -- in support of the case that the SoS should not have
> refused approval.
>
> Your turn.
Whether she approved it or not, the system is wrong. Then read the grounds
why she refused and it is clear she has never seen the site.
| |
|
|
"Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
news:ejld000256t@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> "John" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:455e32f8$0$97245$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> Sadly, where I live, that tower would be sitting derelict for decades
> while some wannabe-architect/bureaucrat who values it as a memento of our
> industrial past blocks every attempt to tear it down, and put up something
> useful. Wave after wave of tax dollars would be spent trying to promote
> adaptive reuse, while the thing rusts and crumbles and there are no takers
> because it isn't play money that's required. Meanwhile the lawful owner is
> deprived the right to make the best use of his/her asset, or worse, it's
> expropriated for the public good.
It seems there are a lot of people with a lot of money to waste near you.
| |
|
| "Michael Bulatovich"> wrote
> "John"> wrote in message
>
> Sadly, where I live, that tower would be sitting derelict for decades
> while some wannabe-architect/bureaucrat who values it as a memento of our
> industrial past blocks every attempt to tear it down, and put up something
> useful. Wave after wave of tax dollars would be spent trying to promote
> adaptive reuse, while the thing rusts and crumbles and there are no takers
> because it isn't play money that's required. Meanwhile the lawful owner is
> deprived the right to make the best use of his/her asset, or worse, it's
> expropriated for the public good.
The world is becoming increasingly a nicer place to live day by day innit?
Maybe they should just levy a *Line of View* tax on the tower owner and be
done with it. <s>
| |
|
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:ejle0s015nu@news3.newsguy.com...
> "Michael Bulatovich"> wrote
>
> The world is becoming increasingly a nicer place to live day by day innit?
> Maybe they should just levy a *Line of View* tax on the tower owner and be
> done with it. <s>
In UK planning a "view" is not admissible in planning. You are not entitled
to a view. Wd have only just allowed people to have natural light in their
homes
| |
|
|
"HVS" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns987EEA4C4EC02whhvans@62.253.170.163...
> On 17 Nov 2006, John wrote
>
>
> I assume you objected strenuously
I haven't objected to anything yet. As letter will go to Whitehall though.
I'm sure they will file and forget.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2006-11-17, 5:25 pm |
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:ejle0s015nu@news3.newsguy.com...
> "Michael Bulatovich"> wrote
>
> The world is becoming increasingly a nicer place to live day by day innit?
You know Don, I generally think it is, but it has it's Orwellian and
Kafkaesque corners where bureaucrats are keeping themselves busy.
| |
|
|
"Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
news:ejlelg027rf@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:ejle0s015nu@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> You know Don, I generally think it is, but it has it's Orwellian and
> Kafkaesque corners where bureaucrats are keeping themselves busy.
Yep, shuffling paper and attempting to justify their existence.
>
>
| |
|
|
"John" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:455e3fbb$0$97226$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:ejle0s015nu@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> In UK planning a "view" is not admissible in planning. You are not
> entitled to a view. Wd have only just allowed people to have natural light
> in their homes
Now thats the John I wanna hear about.
Just think, in about 10 years you too will have deeply etched vertical
furrows on your brow like me, and then you too will realize that its all
about YOU. heh
| |
|
|
"John" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM> wrote
> Whether she approved it or not, the system is wrong. Then read the grounds
> why she refused and it is clear she has never seen the site.
It doesn't matter John.
She's in a place of power and you're not.
Isn't this clear?
This isn't worth your effort.
Believe it or not you and Harvey are on the same side, but he has long term
historical knowledge on his side and that simply cannot be competed with.
| |
|
|
"John" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM> wrote
> I'm sure they will file and forget.
Now you're catching on.
Onward........
| |
|
|
"John" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:455e3df1$1$97232$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
> news:ejld000256t@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> It seems there are a lot of people with a lot of money to waste near you.
Yep.
They're called *voters*.
They propagate the dance around the cannibal pot.
| |
|
|
John wrote:
> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> news:1163794824.722305.51160@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> If you are into that sort of thing.
>
>
> Do you mean Americans don't know there is canals there?
Nope. There is the Erie Canal. The Panama Canal. The Suez Canal. I
think there are some on Mars, too. But Amsterdam ... no. But if it's
any consolation, the Erie Canal goes through Amsterdam, NY. So don't
build your hopes on "New Amsterdam", which happens to be the original
name of New York City (that whole settled-by-the-Dutch thing).
>
>
> Ellis island was late in the game South St port on the lower east side was
> where the early landing were. By the emails I get for Americans they do
> thing a lot of Liverpool. More people left Liverpool for the new world
> than any other port. Also 2/3 of al slaves that went from Africa to the
> Americas were in Liverpool ships. So more a
> again. But there again, Americans think that being the Wal-Mart of war they
> won WW2 too. ;-)
We did win WWII. I know because I saw "Patton" last week. "A Bridge
Too Far" was also on. That was an English thing, wasn't it.
>
>
> US Civil War history is being re-written.
Great. I didn't learn much the first time. Now I'm going to have to
learn all new stuff?
>
>
> Yep there is a world outside the US. And they are better at town planning
> too.
So I've heard. I think it's called Canada. :-)
>
>
> There is a Beatles museum at the Albert Dock. Every August the whole centre
> is closed down to cars and stages put up everywhere, even in the docks, and
> a big party starts. Great time. It is so full we never tell the Yanks, as
> they may take it to overflowing. :-)
| |
|
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:ejln1o01jqg@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> "John" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM> wrote
>
> It doesn't matter John.
> She's in a place of power and you're not.
> Isn't this clear?
> This isn't worth your effort.
The developer still has two options. The House of Lords or the European
Parliament. It is clear they didn't get a fair appeal as the conclusions are
grossly inaccurate. If I was them I would be lining up the next stage. Or
maybe they will say let's go somewhere else. The wanted this tower built
and then excavate the part or all of adjacent Toxteth Dock and develop there
too. So it may be worth their while going for the next stage.
The developer is Maro, owned by retail giant Matalan. The owner is a local
man, so it may be personal for him and he may run with it. I hope he does.
| |
|
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:1163820210.888771.311140@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nope. There is the Erie Canal.
Where is that?
> The Panama Canal.
I've heard of that. The one that the Liverpool school of Tropical Medicine
got finished.
> The Suez Canal.
Been there.
> I think there are some on Mars, too.
Have you seen them?
> But Amsterdam ... no.
Believe me they have lots of them - and windmills to make the canals work.
>
> We did win WWII. I know because
> I saw "Patton" last week. "A Bridge
> Too Far" was also on. That was an
> English thing, wasn't it.
An British made film that fell short of telling the proper story - as they
do. The British airborne units at Arnhem held off tanks for 11 or 12 days
with hand weapons and never surrendered until they had no ammunition.
>
> Great. I didn't learn much the first time. Now I'm going to have to
> learn all new stuff?
You are never too old to learn.
>
> So I've heard. I think it's called Canada. :-)
Isn't that and English Country or US state?
| |
|
|
John wrote:
> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> news:1163820210.888771.311140@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
Are you sure you don't mean dikes ... it's known for that ... both
kinds ;-)
[color=darkred]
Erie Canal is actual kind of interesting. It is what allowed the
midwest (back then, the west) to be settled. It is the only place on
the east coast you can get into the interior without going over
mountains. The stuck a canal in that linked the Great Lakes with NYC
via the Mohawk and Hudson rivers. About 400 miles. It allowed goods
to move via water, which was cheap. The the RR came along and they
stuck them next to the canal in many areas because it was flat and
developable. Then the roads came so they stuck an interstate right
near the canal because of the same reasons -- flat, level, straight,
plus it went near developed towns by that time. When they put together
flight corridors for jets, they go right over the same area from areas
like Buffalo to NYC. It is nowheres near straight. So it is a small
area that has most of the major transportation systems going side by
side. Interesting if nothing else.
[color=darkred]
>
> Where is that?
>
>
> I've heard of that. The one that the Liverpool school of Tropical Medicine
> got finished.
>
>
> Been there.
>
>
> Have you seen them?
Was there last week but the film did come out. Too bad. Nice place to
visit but I would want to live there.
>
>
> Believe me they have lots of them - and windmills to make the canals work.
So the windmills aren't there just as a tourist attraction? Are the
canals for irrigation or boats?
>
>
> An British made film that fell short of telling the proper story - as they
> do. The British airborne units at Arnhem held off tanks for 11 or 12 days
> with hand weapons and never surrendered until they had no ammunition.
>
>
> You are never too old to learn.
True, but our schools aren't big on that. They are more for bloat and
bureacracy.
>
>
> Isn't that and English Country or US state?
I don't think Canada is a US state, at least yet. I think too many
Canadians watch US TV that comes across the border. They see the
arsons and homocides in Buffalo, Rochester, Detroit and other border
towns and it scares them off. Besides, they would have to stop saying
"eh" and switch to "okay" to be Americanized, but "eh" is their
national word. They use it at the end of every sentence, like a
period. (okay, a bit of an exagaration, but not much, eh)
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2006-11-18, 9:25 am |
|
"John" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:455e3fbb$0$97226$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:ejle0s015nu@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> In UK planning a "view" is not admissible in planning. You are not
> entitled to a view. Wd have only just allowed people to have natural light
> in their homes
Here, honestly, they often make it up as they go along. Immigration is
fuelling a construction boom that has lasted with little respite for 40
years, so the reality is that there is a lot of money to be made building
things, and so the bureaucrats have a lot of leverage alone in their ability
to delay projects. Time is money.
I have been instructed on occasion to completely ignore the applicable
zoning by-laws because the current staff, with Czar-like urban design
ambitions, didn't like them, but hadn't got around to changing them. Once I,
and the neighbor's architect, were told to present something antithetical
to the laws in place. When the neighbor did he was pilloried by the local
population, including some institutions with resources, who liked the
(sub)urban form they had bought into and wanted to preserve it.
He ended up wasting much time and money, and finally had to threaten to go
over the heads of the locals to the provincial (appeals) authority with a
proposal that basically complied with the municipality's by-laws. The city
staff blinked first, and this story points out the value of having some kind
of appeal of 'local decisions'.
"Local" is not always "right". Anyone who's designed in a small municipality
with few, if any, qualified staff would appreciate this. Ditto for the
big-town ward of some grand-standing local councilor building his name
recognition.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2006-11-18, 9:25 am |
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:ejln7g01k0s@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> "John" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:455e3df1$1$97232$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> Yep.
> They're called *voters*.
> They propagate the dance around the cannibal pot.
It's actually the small subset of voters who organize themselves and get
involved for one reason or another. It's a rich city, in a rich country, and
if you know how, you can direct the general sloshing-around of tax money way
out of proportion with your real support among the rest of the electorate,
but rather proportionate to the amount of noise you can make.
There is a rusting brickyard in a river valley near me that was expropriated
from developers in the early 90's. Every few years another ridiculous idea
surfaces about how the relics of brick production can be preserved NEAR A
SUBWAY LINE, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of a city of 4 million. The last one I
heard was that they wanted to turn the big brick-drying sheds into hockey
rinks. The trouble was that they had decided that the sheds had to remain
open within 6 feet of grade, since they were originally, so anyone could
wander through the facility from the dark ravines that surround the site.
There is a shortage of hockey rinks in the city, but the buildings were too
small for hockey (DOH!), and no one was going to put their kids in such a
compromising situation. The fact that open buildings held bricks inside a
secured compound, doesn't push it's way into the delirium. Apparently the
security can be removed, kids could be dragged off into the dark seclusion
of the ravines, but the buildings can not be enclosed. They're a piece of
history.
It's now about 15 years that this thing stands there frozen, quietly
siphoning off tax dollars, while not earning a cent. Most tax-payers don't
even know they own it. Politicians are afraid of the organized whackos who's
playground this has become, so they are quiet, and all the while some of the
most expensive private homes in the city lie at the top of the ravine with
breath-taking views overlooking the valley......
| |
|
|
"Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
news:ejn5ab02eo4@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> "John" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:455e3fbb$0$97226$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> Here, honestly, they often make it up as they go along. Immigration is
> fuelling a construction boom that has lasted with little respite for 40
> years, so the reality is that there is a lot of money to be made building
> things, and so the bureaucrats have a lot of leverage alone in their
> ability to delay projects. Time is money.
>
> I have been instructed on occasion to completely ignore the applicable
> zoning by-laws because the current staff, with Czar-like urban design
> ambitions, didn't like them, but hadn't got around to changing them. Once
> I, and the neighbor's architect, were told to present something
> antithetical to the laws in place. When the neighbor did he was pilloried
> by the local population, including some institutions with resources, who
> liked the (sub)urban form they had bought into and wanted to preserve it.
>
> He ended up wasting much time and money, and finally had to threaten to go
> over the heads of the locals to the provincial (appeals) authority with a
> proposal that basically complied with the municipality's by-laws. The city
> staff blinked first, and this story points out the value of having some
> kind of appeal of 'local decisions'.
>
> "Local" is not always "right". Anyone who's designed in a small
> municipality with few, if any, qualified staff would appreciate this.
> Ditto for the big-town ward of some grand-standing local councilor
> building his name recognition.
There are laws and standards (which tend to be advisory). There is no
perfect system, however strict laws, procedures and guidelines will reduce
the local "interpretation" problems. Also on appeal if the local planners
lose they should pay all the applicants cost, inc legal. That will sharpen
the wits. Planners should be helping applicants not hinder.
The UK has a Stalinist planning system, based on quotas - so you don't know
how lucky you are. Only 7.5% of the land is settled and 0.66% of the
population own 70% of the land. An artificial land shortage occurs which
raises land prices to on average 2/3 of the house price. We live in rabbit
hutches as a consequence.
Go to this site and under the menu click on the land article. That is an
overview. Then there are three pdf links on the left. If you want more read
them in that order. At least read the first. If you think you have it bad
look at us.
http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk
| |
|
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:1163858737.082626.226930@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Erie Canal is actual kind of interesting. It is what allowed the
> midwest (back then, the west) to be settled. It is the only place on
> the east coast you can get into the interior without going over
> mountains. The stuck a canal in that linked the Great Lakes with NYC
> via the Mohawk and Hudson rivers. About 400 miles. It allowed goods
> to move via water, which was cheap. The the RR came along and they
> stuck them next to the canal in many areas because it was flat and
> developable. Then the roads came so they stuck an interstate right
> near the canal because of the same reasons -- flat, level, straight,
> plus it went near developed towns by that time. When they put together
> flight corridors for jets, they go right over the same area from areas
> like Buffalo to NYC. It is nowheres near straight. So it is a small
> area that has most of the major transportation systems going side by
> side. Interesting if nothing else.
Sounds like the Leeds-Liverpool canal across the Pennies - built in the
1700s. The only place it can go across with ease, so they all follow after.
>
> So the windmills aren't there
> just as a tourist attraction? Are the
> canals for irrigation or boats?
The windmills pump water using free energy. For boats and irrigation I
believe.
>
>
> True, but our schools aren't big on that.
> They are more for bloat and
> bureacracy.
>
>
> I don't think Canada is a US state, at least yet. I think too many
> Canadians watch US TV that comes across the border. They see the
> arsons and homocides in Buffalo, Rochester, Detroit and other border
> towns and it scares them off.
Do they put razor wire up?
> Besides, they would have to stop saying
> "eh" and switch to "okay" to be Americanized,
> but "eh" is their national word. They use
> it at the end of every sentence, like a
> period. (okay, a bit of an exagaration, but
> not much, eh)
Not much different to saying OK after each word..or check it out.
| |
|
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:1163787653.581094.181230@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I've looked at your website a
> couple of times and would like to give
> you an outsider's view of the site
> and your strategy.
> Instead of being against filling in
> the docks and for "saving" them
> (whatever that means), why not be
> "for" something
I looked at the site and what is obvious tio me may not be to others. So I
looked at the front page. Below the pictures it says in red:
"
This Web Site Promotes:
* The preservation of the existing dock network and waterspaces - the jewels
in Liverpool's crown
* Excavation of infilled docks to reclaim waterspaces, our history and
heritage
* The construction of the new Amsterdam at Liverpool and Wirral
"
I don't think it can be much clearer indicting what the web sites aim is.
Or have I missed something?
http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk
| |
| Warm Worm 2006-11-18, 5:25 pm |
| Michael Bulatovich wrote:
> "Don"
>
> It's actually the small subset of voters who organize themselves and get
> involved for one reason or another. It's a rich city, in a rich country, and
> if you know how, you can direct the general sloshing-around of tax money way
> out of proportion with your real support among the rest of the electorate,
> but rather proportionate to the amount of noise you can make.
Or maybe that the squeeky wheel *is also* the grease...
I am wondering if there might be some kind of moral/ethical
conflict-of-interest in both owning a large company, and at the same
time holding office (and being in a position to influence the
company)... or, while I'm at it, in merging parties... or in crossing
over to another, "opposing", party.
| |
| Warm Worm 2006-11-18, 5:25 pm |
|
John wrote:
> "Michael Bulatovich"
>
> There are laws and standards (which tend to be advisory). There is no
> perfect system, however strict laws, procedures and guidelines will reduce
> the local "interpretation" problems. Also on appeal if the local planners
> lose they should pay all the applicants cost, inc legal. That will sharpen
> the wits. Planners should be helping applicants not hinder.
>
> The UK has a Stalinist planning system, based on quotas - so you don't know
> how lucky you are. Only 7.5% of the land is settled and 0.66% of the
> population own 70% of the land. An artificial land shortage occurs which
> raises land prices to on average 2/3 of the house price. We live in rabbit
> hutches as a consequence.
Joseph Stalin, the raving Stalinist? ;D
Did you read my 'Freemarket Magic' thread?
That sounds like some kind of Pareto effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
> Go to this site and under the menu click on the land article. That is an
> overview. Then there are three pdf links on the left. If you want more read
> them in that order. At least read the first. If you think you have it bad
> look at us.
> http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk
| |
| Warm Worm 2006-11-18, 5:25 pm |
|
John wrote:
> "Michael Bulatovich"
>
> There are laws and standards (which tend to be advisory). There is no
> perfect system, however strict laws, procedures and guidelines will reduce
> the local "interpretation" problems. Also on appeal if the local planners
> lose they should pay all the applicants cost, inc legal. That will sharpen
> the wits. Planners should be helping applicants not hinder.
>
> The UK has a Stalinist planning system, based on quotas - so you don't know
> how lucky you are. Only 7.5% of the land is settled and 0.66% of the
> population own 70% of the land. An artificial land shortage occurs which
> raises land prices to on average 2/3 of the house price. We live in rabbit
> hutches as a consequence.
Joseph Stalin, the raving Stalinist?
Did you read my 'Freemarket Magic' thread?
That sounds like some kind of Pareto effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
The "circus" ;) seems to require a most delicate and exceedingly
difficult balancing act.
| |
| Warm Worm 2006-11-18, 5:25 pm |
|
John wrote:
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
> news:ejlelg027rf@news4.newsguy.com...
>
"Yep, shuffling paper and attempting to justify their [vested business
interests'] existence."
| |
|
|
"Warm Worm" <glomerol@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1163884683.872084.4XXXX@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> John wrote:
>
> Joseph Stalin, the raving Stalinist?
> Did you read my 'Freemarket Magic' thread?
> That sounds like some kind of Pareto effect:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
>
> The "circus" ;) seems to require a most delicate and exceedingly
> difficult balancing act.
80:20. We used this in projects. 80% is the easiest bit. Get that done
first and the customer sees something fast and his confidence is gained,
then not much happens as the difficult 20% is done. But by then you have his
confidence and he will believe you.
Note: 80:20 does not mean the fastest way of doing something. A good client
rep who knows the game will dictate how it is done to the best speed and
cost and throws 80:20 out of the window. 80:20 is to convince and con the
ignorant.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2006-11-18, 5:25 pm |
|
"John" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:455f43de$0$97230$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> The UK has a Stalinist planning system, based on quotas - so you don't
> know how lucky you are. Only 7.5% of the land is settled and 0.66% of the
> population own 70% of the land. An artificial land shortage occurs which
> raises land prices to on average 2/3 of the house price. We live in rabbit
> hutches as a consequence.
We had our "family compact" 100 years ago. For the most part they were so
dim-witted that their crown bestowed real estate holdings have been
distributed.
BTW, I'm not sure the percentage, but land is a large component of the cost
of a house here to.
I'll check out the link.
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
|
| "Warm Worm"> wrote
> I am wondering if there might be some kind of moral/ethical
> conflict-of-interest in both owning a large company, and at the same
> time holding office (and being in a position to influence the
> company)... or, while I'm at it, in merging parties... or in crossing
> over to another, "opposing", party.
Yes, there are laws about this sort of thing.
I'm watching a city councilman down in Cape Coral wriggle around cause of
one such deal.
He's also a realtor and he charged a Miami broker $216k to run interference
on a piece of commercial property, that the city was interested in
purchasing for a school, so that the price could rise. He is presently being
investigated. He has been in a variety of misdealing over the past few years
but because he's hispanic he quickly plays the race card and the powers that
be shuts their caves. This time though I suspect he may have went to far
cause the Miami broker has filed a formal complaint with the Florida
business authorities in Tallahassee, the capital.
| |
|
| Government minister Ruth Kelly has decided to reject Maro Developments plans
for a skyscraper at Brunswick Quay in Liverpool.
The ministers controversial decision comes despite the advice from the
planners who carried out the public inquiry and wrote the final report
recommending that it be approved.
At the crux of the decision is the fear that the tower would block views of
Liverpools two cathedrals from some areas across the River Wirral, a
certainty given that if you put one object between the viewer and the
further away object it will always appear in-between from one angle.
The ironic thing, as images clearly show, is that the tower is unique
amongst Liverpool skyscraper proposals in being nowhere near a world
heritage site. The second illustration has been prepared to show exactly
where this tower is in relation to Liverpool when looking across the Wirral.
Despite praising the "excellent inherent architectural merit" of the scheme,
she believed that "the harm to the setting of the World Heritage site, and
to the setting of and views from listed buildings and conservation areas,
weighs against the proposal."
In other-words, even if your proposal has the best architecture on offer it
can be refused if seen from or too a world heritage site. This turns on the
head the previous decisions by John Prescott who preceded Kelly when he
refused to call in developments such as the Minerva Building.
Kelly already has form for a less than logical approach to the planning
system. Having backed a housing development in her capacity as a minister
she proceeded to oppose it as the local m.p carrying out the nice trick of
being for and against something at the same time.
The decision also conflicts with the reasons Liverpool Council originally
refused planning permission, namely that Brunswick Quay broke their unitary
development plan by being where it was by not being in a residential zone.
The planners at Liverpool City Council refused to accept that it was of
sufficiently high quality to approve it because these reasons counted
against.
The minister has managed to argue against their grounds for refusal whilst
at the same time coming up with new grounds that do not actually concern
Liverpool City Council, a novel piece of governing that would make Yes
Minister proud.
This ruling probably marks the end of the line for the Ian Simpson designed
development. Maro Developments have pushed hard to get it through the
planning system with the local council voting against it both times. Their
only hope was an approval via a public inquiry and now that direction has
been closed off there are few places left they can go.
<http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=781>
Below: The renders clearly shows the tower would be nowhere near any World
Heritage Site or historic building. The nearest structures are a gas holder
and flour mill. Yep!!
<http://www.skyscrapernews.com/image...nquiry_pic2.jpg>
| |
|
| "John"> wrote
> Government minister Ruth Kelly has decided to reject Maro Developments
> plans for a skyscraper at Brunswick Quay in Liverpool.
>
> http://www.skyscrapernews.com/image...nquiry_pic2.jpg>
Sorta dominates the skyline doesn't it?
Its more than twice as high as anything else there.
I bet thats why she doesn't like it.
I think it looks cool.
| |
|
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:ejq3om01ied@news3.newsguy.com...
> "John"> wrote
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/image...nquiry_pic2.jpg>
[color=darkred]
> Sorta dominates the skyline doesn't it?
No. It enhances it.
> Its more than twice as high as anything else there.
> I bet thats why she doesn't like it.
She doesn't like it because she has never been to the site to look and she
is an idiot. Her husband is under investigation over fraud.
Look at this from land side. To the right are apartments on the river front.
next to them are two sheds with white roofs. That is the site. Now it
really is interfering isn't it. Nothing is around there, as you can see.
<http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercit...oxtethDocks.jpg>
> I think it looks cool.
Cool it is.
As there isn't much around there anyway, even at half the height it would be
twice the height of the industrial structures around.
This was to be the catalyst that would attract more high quality development
to the dock waterspaces at that point. The pano picture is north to the left
south to the right. 1/2 mile away to the south there is a park on the
riverfront with a promenade. Perfect.
The picture does not show the high rises to the north which have been given
permission. Everything in Liverpool is stumped to 15 to 20 floors.
Developers can't maximise their investment and cut back on fittings in the
entrance halls. Marble goes and bare painted plaster comes in when floors
are lopped off.
| |
|
| "John"> wrote
> "Don"> wrote
>
> http://www.skyscrapernews.com/image...nquiry_pic2.jpg>
>
>
> No. It enhances it.
Sort of like putting 27 mattboards on a 9x12 picture and a 24x36 frame.
>
> She doesn't like it because she has never been to the site to look and she
> is an idiot.
She may well indeed be and idiot, but I haven't been to the site either and
I think the tower looks huge.
What is your interest in all of this?
| |
|
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:ejqqp201230@news4.newsguy.com...
> "John"> wrote
>
> Sort of like putting 27 mattboards on a 9x12 picture and a 24x36 frame.
>
>
> She may well indeed be and idiot,
That she is.
> but I haven't been to the site either and I think the tower looks huge.
> What is your interest in all of this?
I live there and was born about 500 metres from where it was to be built and
have seen the waterways I was brought up, full of ocean going ships, being
filled in gradually. A few 22 floor tower are being built further towards
the city centre. The sites are being cleared now.
http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk
Go to the Brunswick Quay page. Look at the map. The block Sefton
St/Stanhope St (where Hitler's brother lived) this being built:
<http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...rmontTower4.jpg>
It would not look isolated once built...and it would attract further
developments. There is so much going on at Liverpool there isn't enough
companies to do the work. 800,000 Poles are in the UK working. The Polish
government complained that there isn't any construction people left in the
country.
The developers who own the site say they still will develop the site.
Whether this means a new 15 floor project or a re-pencil of the existing and
then re-submitted or they take the matter to the House of Lords or the EU,
they have not said. They are probably taking legal advice right now.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2006-11-19, 8:25 pm |
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:ejqqp201230@news4.newsguy.com...
> "John"> wrote
>
> Sort of like putting 27 mattboards on a 9x12 picture and a 24x36 frame.
>
>
> She may well indeed be and idiot, but I haven't been to the site either
> and I think the tower looks huge.
Still nothing at grade, close up.
| |
|
|
"Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
news:ejqutk01hka@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:ejqqp201230@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> Still nothing at grade, close up.
Well here one view from the rear and the idiot minister who rejected it.
<http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/...thkelly2we5.jpg>
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2006-11-20, 3:25 am |
|
"John" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:456104e4$0$97254$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
> news:ejqutk01hka@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> Well here one view from the rear and the idiot minister who rejected it.
> <http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/...thkelly2we5.jpg>
>
Sorry John. I appreciate that it's not your job to sell this thing over the
internet, but it does not seem to "land" very well. The images all seem to
me to be semi-material, and concerned with the 'sculptural' aspects of it as
a tall thing seen from far away.... "a big shiny building over there". How a
big building meets the ground and forms public space are important aspects
of urban architecture. I've yet to see anything at all convincing on this
front from this project.
You keep focusing on the economic benefits of the development for the area,
and I'm sure I don't know how bad things are in Liverpool right now, but if
someone is prepared to draw stuff like this for your part of the world, you
might have more leverage than you might imagine in demanding real urbanism
from your development sector over there. It may not be as sexy as the
montages, but will have profound repercussions far into the future as the
area is developed.
| |
|
|
"Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
news:ejrcb301sfo@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> "John" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:456104e4$0$97254$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> Sorry John. I appreciate that it's not your job to sell this thing over
> the internet, but it does not seem to "land" very well. The images all
> seem to me to be semi-material, and concerned with the 'sculptural'
> aspects of it as a tall thing seen from far away.... "a big shiny building
> over there". How a big building meets the ground and forms public space
> are important aspects of urban architecture. I've yet to see anything at
> all convincing on this front from this project.
>
> You keep focusing on the economic benefits of the development for the
> area, and I'm sure I don't know how bad things are in Liverpool right now,
Remember Pittsburgh at its worse?
> but if someone is prepared to draw stuff like this for your part of the
> world, you might have more leverage than you might imagine in demanding
> real urbanism from your development sector over there. It may not be as
> sexy as the montages, but will have profound repercussions far into the
> future as the area is developed.
Urbanism on dock waterways - been done adjacent to the site, however not
very well at all with low rise apartments and small terraced houses. A
disaster as the water spaces are lifeless. They decided where to put the
cars first, then the people. A big injection of people is needed, which a
high rise brings and will turn matters around. And there is a riverfront
park not too far, so not wall to wall masonry. The developers want to
develop adjacent in-filled docks, and some excavating here and there too, to
add further value and inject vibrancy.
The project was not turned down for the points you highlighted - rather
different points to do with World Heritage, etc, which are so inaccurate
they are laughable.
| |
|
| You have to keep in mind that you can't force "funkyness" to happen.
No matter how much YOU want vibrant activity on the water/waterfront,
it wont happen unless others do to and they are drawn the spot. But
this happens all by itself and I don't believe very many people have
very much luck forcing it to happen. But if you want to try, remember
that "retail follows roofs". So you have to have people there before
anything happens. Then it is sort of hoping the stars align.
When you force things, you get Disneyland. Great attraction and lots
of activity, but something artificial about it. When you don't do it
right, you get Euro-Disney.
As for your World Heritage Site. In the long run, that's probably a
bigger detriment than benefit. Like Historic Districts, it restricts
what you can do to keep it tied to the past instead of letting you set
you sites on the future.
I think in the end it will be awfully hard to do major development if
you are tied to the past and nobody will allow you to do anything.
People don't want what we had in the past. If they did, we'd still be
reading by oil light and eating salt pork 8 days a week. Instead, I
think you want some sort of major attraction on the water.
Of course, you could institutionalize the history as a tourist
attraction as something like this:
http://www.mysticseaport.org/
Good luck with it.
John wrote:
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
> news:ejrcb301sfo@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> Remember Pittsburgh at its worse?
>
>
> Urbanism on dock waterways - been done adjacent to the site, however not
> very well at all with low rise apartments and small terraced houses. A
> disaster as the water spaces are lifeless. They decided where to put the
> cars first, then the people. A big injection of people is needed, which a
> high rise brings and will turn matters around. And there is a riverfront
> park not too far, so not wall to wall masonry. The developers want to
> develop adjacent in-filled docks, and some excavating here and there too, to
> add further value and inject vibrancy.
>
> The project was not turned down for the points you highlighted - rather
> different points to do with World Heritage, etc, which are so inaccurate
> they are laughable.
| |
|
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:1164027181.741822.138890@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> You have to keep in mind that you
> can't force "funkyness" to happen.
You can nudge it along.
> No matter how much YOU want vibrant
> activity on the water/waterfront,
> it wont happen unless others do to
> and they are drawn the spot. But
> this happens all by itself and I don't
> believe very many people have
> very much luck forcing it to happen.
You need peopel there. This tower would add many people to the area.
> But if you want to try, remember
> that "retail follows roofs". So you have
> to have people there before
> anything happens. Then it is sort of
> hoping the stars align.
Yep.
> When you force things, you get
> Disneyland. Great attraction and lots
> of activity, but something artificial about it.
> When you don't do it right, you get Euro-Disney.
The artificial bit is that no one lives in Disney.
> As for your World Heritage Site. In the long
> run, that's probably a bigger detriment than
> benefit. Like Historic Districts, it restricts
> what you can do to keep it tied to the past
> instead of letting you set you sites on the future.
The benefits of World Heritage are many, and it is matter of working with
it, not against it. This tower was well away from zone and buffer zone so
respecting World Heritage. Working with it. With World Heritage you may find
that expansion occurs elsewhere in the city. Liverpool had a triangular
city centre with one point at the Pier Head, where ocean liners berthed.
The centre is changing along the riverfront reversing the triangle. World
Heritage is not a hindrance at all, it is stupid ministers who think a tower
well away is near the zone. You can't cater for stupidity.
> I think in the end it will be awfully
> hard to do major development if
> you are tied to the past and nobody
> will allow you to do anything.
That is a problem. After this many are wanting the city to be the first to
hand the title back as it will hold up progress. As I say, in reality it is
not a problem, as the zones are well defined. Liverpool is still a large
commercial city, it is not York or Chester - once powerhouses in their day
but now museum pieces.
> People don't want what we had in
> the past. If they did, we'd still be
> reading by oil light and eating salt
> pork 8 days a week. Instead,
People liked the human scale environment the past gave - today cars
predominate.
> I think you want some sort of major
> attraction on the water.
All it needs is to put the people around the water spaces. There is lots of
brownfiedl land adjacent on the land side for "major attractions"
> Of course, you could institutionalize the history as a tourist
> attraction as something like this:
> http://www.mysticseaport.org/
No thanks. Liverpool has this, which is real:
http://www.albertdock.com/ and the Merseyside maritime Museum:
<http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ummary/mol1.jpg>
<http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ummary/mol2.jpg>
<http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/...nisland1es4.jpg>
<http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/i...D05FE3AEFD1.jpg>
> Good luck with it.
Luck we need from the fools within and without.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2006-11-20, 9:25 am |
| You sum up my feelings pretty well. Where are you, Pat?
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:1164027181.741822.138890@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> You have to keep in mind that you can't force "funkyness" to happen.
> No matter how much YOU want vibrant activity on the water/waterfront,
> it wont happen unless others do to and they are drawn the spot. But
> this happens all by itself and I don't believe very many people have
> very much luck forcing it to happen. But if you want to try, remember
> that "retail follows roofs". So you have to have people there before
> anything happens. Then it is sort of hoping the stars align.
>
> When you force things, you get Disneyland. Great attraction and lots
> of activity, but something artificial about it. When you don't do it
> right, you get Euro-Disney.
>
> As for your World Heritage Site. In the long run, that's probably a
> bigger detriment than benefit. Like Historic Districts, it restricts
> what you can do to keep it tied to the past instead of letting you set
> you sites on the future.
>
> I think in the end it will be awfully hard to do major development if
> you are tied to the past and nobody will allow you to do anything.
> People don't want what we had in the past. If they did, we'd still be
> reading by oil light and eating salt pork 8 days a week. Instead, I
> think you want some sort of major attraction on the water.
>
> Of course, you could institutionalize the history as a tourist
> attraction as something like this:
> http://www.mysticseaport.org/
>
> Good luck with it.
>
>
>
>
> John wrote:
>
| |
|
|
"John" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:4561ad9d$0$97216$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> news:1164027181.741822.138890@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
[color=darkred]
Here are some of the developments:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToXr...related&search=>
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2006-11-20, 9:25 am |
|
"John" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:45617894$0$97224$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in message
> news:ejrcb301sfo@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> Remember Pittsburgh at its worse?
Yeah, pretty well. Numerous friends lived there during that period. I even
once thought about moving there when it looked like real estate here was
heading out of reach, before the last big correction. Interesting situation
for a city, and crazy topography. The bold print in the real estate section
reads, "Level Lot!"
>
> Urbanism on dock waterways - been done adjacent to the site, however not
> very well at all with low rise apartments and small terraced houses. A
> disaster as the water spaces are lifeless. They decided where to put the
> cars first, then the people. A big injection of people is needed, which a
> high rise brings and will turn matters around.
Dealing with the cars first is a pretty common engineering-driven mistake:
provide for cars and you get cars. However, thinking that you "just add
people" to make a delicious urban setting is overly simplistic. If the only
means of arrival is auto because the surrounding belt is a void, and you
want to develop starting in the middle, then you have to deal with it, of
course. The mistakes you make will plague the city for generations. Have
Liverpool's urban design people conducted any kind of comprehensive study of
other 'turn-around' cities to plot out the successful, and not-so-successful
strategies? They should.
Despite the pain of the economic dislocation you say is current there, I'd
suggest that a patient and considered approach is needed in transforming a
city....either that or megalomaniacal vision together with absolute power
and unlimited money. Historically that has worked too, to a more limited
extent, and with mixed results.
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
| |
|
| Actually, I'm not very far from you. I'm 10 miles south of
Ellicottville, or as Canadians say "ski country" down in NY. I'm about
a hour south of Buffalo near the Pennsylvania border and just off the
Allegany Reservation of the Seneca Nation of Indians. I travel some so
I see a lot from other areas. I took the kids to Mystic CT this
summer, etc. Tomorrow I'm heading to eastern NY for a few days --
zooming along the Thruway/Erie Canal corridor.
Michael Bulatovich wrote:[color=darkred]
> You sum up my feelings pretty well. Where are you, Pat?
> --
>
>
> MichaelB
> www.michaelbulatovich.ca
>
> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> news:1164027181.741822.138890@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2006-11-20, 1:25 pm |
| Oh. Pretty. Around Salamanca?
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news | | |