Does Liverpool Need Tall Buildings?

Of all UK cities, Liverpool can claim more than most to be the father of the skyscraper, with Peter Ellis's early work in Oriel Chambers (1864) influencing Burnham and Root's pioneering buildings later that century in Chicago.

Later, the Anglican Cathedral (1904) and The Royal Liver Building (1908) introduced innovative methods of constructing large superstructures for which Liverpool and the UK should be grateful, as the spiritual and commercial devotion that Built Big resulted in two of the country's greatest buildings.

New kids on the block such as Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester have only very recently understood the significance of building big as a means to court inward investment and develop their respective brands as places to do business.

Even Brighton and Sheffield have entered the fray, the latter just last month rejected plans for a 32-storey development at Arundel Gate, the former however giving approval for two 25-storey towers by Frank Gehry. Where would you rather invest?

Many tall buildings in proposal or in development across the UK sit cheek by jowl to under-developed land, so the Manhattan model of building tall as a consequence of high land values doesn't always hold water. But we live in an age where inter-city competitiveness matches anything our Victorian predecessors had to contend with and the new Hilton at Deansgate or Holloway Circus act as powerful totems in glass and steel. The media is filled with images of their construction; in time their residents will fill the theatres and restaurants with their trade.

Tall buildings are not of course the panacea for urban regeneration, and planning committees who rush headlong into reaching for the clouds may rightly be accused of living with their heads in them, but the re-population and densification or our metropolitan centres are key precepts.

Liverpool is already addressing many of the related issues to metropolitan revival: major investment in utilities, genuine mixing of uses, encouraging downtown living, a robust cultural programme and promoting the Liverpool brand - in isolation, tall buildings seldom work, but as the heart of a beating metropolis, they are not only appropriate, they are essential.

If Liverpool is serious about flexing its cultural and economic muscle over the next twenty years then like if or not, tall buildings are increasingly going to be a yardstick over which we may be measured. In planning terms from 1982-2002, the city suffered the repute of being the Authority of Least Resistance and many of our most execrable buildings are a consequence of this desperation for investment, at any cost.

No-one wants to repeat these mistakes, but now when you have architects of real quality backed by major investment are we yet seriously in the position where we can turn down the offer? I think not. Tall buildings are emblematic of Liverpool's urban regeneration, not predicated by it.

Liverpudlians are characterised by the pride in their city, but the evidence is overwhelming not only in the letters pages of this paper, but in public consultation, and on the street, that this isn't reflected in a civic movement that wishes to pickle the city in aspic. Rather it is one that feels energised and proud in the cranes swinging high above their heads in Chapel Street and one that wants the city to compete, nationally and internationally.

The notion that Liverpool is England's finest Victorian City is erroneous, it is an amazing city with some fine Victorian buildings - but it's first and foremost a City, not a heritage theme park. Large and tall structures are the defining aspects in the built environment that say Town, or City - and I for one, like Bright Lights and Big City.

No part of this article may be reproduced without written consent from the author email
http://www.johnelcock.com

[home]