Liverpool Architecture Index 2005

Brunswick Quay
Architect: Ian Simpson Architects
Developer: Maro Developments

Links
ISA
Maro
Emporis

A £70m residential tower planned for a site in Liverpool's otherwise underwhelming south docks. At 51 stories (166m) it would be by far the tallest residential building in Liverpool and one of the tallest in the UK.


Brunswick Quay:
original image credit: Ian Simpson Architects

Jan 05: The Planning Department recommend refusal of this development to the Planning Committee. For details of this decision, check out the agenda and notes for the planning committee meeting on the LCC website.

Jan 27: Breaking News: we understand the scheme has been rejected on the basis that it falls outside the 3 development control 'zones' of tall buildings that the council has put forward in its [anti]-tall buildings policy. homepage

The following article posted just a few days before now seems rather ironic. We wonder what will Mr Simpson and Mr Alsop be saying about Liverpool to their architectural friends around the World.

 

From little acorns.....? posted 19/1/05
We don't want to try and read too much into this week's decision by the planning committee to defer their decision on the Maro proposals at Brunswich Quay, but could this be the first murmurings, the merest glimmer of light that indicates that Liverpool and those we elect to serve us is ready to launch itself back onto the world stage proper instead of consigning the city to the lost world of heritagisation and so to do that we need to be thinking about how the city grows somewhat differently to what our own planners have been advocating?

This decision could easily have been to reject the scheme, as every policy, guidence, assumption and opinion either proposed or actually currently dictating development in the city is 'logically' skewered towards rejection. When your own planners come out so forcefully against it you would expect that members of the committee should feel that 'well we pay these guys to give us their professional advice, so we should go along with their recommendations...?'...but no. Something happened within that body of people to think that rejecting schemes, of undoubted first rate design, just doesn't make sense, in spite of the whole raft of policies that dictate that they should.

Could it be that they are realising that a city that wants to reclaim at least some of its former glory should be encouraging, welcoming such undoubtedly first class proposals. That a dynamic commercial city should not be applying ideas on 'townscape' and skylines that have been crafted to preserve and sanctify Georgian market towns, especially as Liverpool trancesnded this to become a city with a world role more than a century ago and that to try and to attempt to turn it back into a township is a nonsense? That perhaps we should be taking a more expansive, expressive approach?

The mindset that has recently been at play, and has had such a detrimental impact is surely causing our former giants of the city council to turn in their graves. Much of the policy that we have developed or intend to do so is borne of timerous, dogmatic and ignorant attitudes, professional advice mired in 'regionalist' inspired fatalism that Liverpool has no future and must play second (or third or even fourth) fiddle in the North West. That Manchester is the powerhouse and our designated role is to be visitor destination.

Liverpool has a bright future as a city of international eminence...if only we would set that out as the benchmark, rather than a series of crude, provincial and irrelevant policies aimed at preserving our 'town status' Liverpool has compounded the misery of the last twenty five years of decline by afflicting totally unecesary restrictions on itself. This is what happens when you leave 'town planners' to get on with the job of 'city building'

It is ironic that instead of seeking to emulate the aspirations and determination shown by previous city leaders whose decisions impacted globally, we just seek to preserve some of the remnants that was the manifestation of this global. Perhaps we are witnessing a change? Perhaps the members of the planning committee are beginining to wake up to the fact that this is indeed our city's potential and that they can take up the mantle that is their predecessors most important legacy...i.e a global profile from which to rebuild a global presence?

We congratulate the committee's decision to think through the scheme and its contribution to the city's future. Lets hope that they have realised that the current path is damaging and that a decision that reveals their aspiration is for the city to move on and back to new glories is made instead of being brow beaten into accepting thinking that only sees sense in parody.

And for the Planning Committee: whilst cogitating on your final decision with regards to the proposal we would assure that Liverpool aspires to international status, buildings like this will definitely do no harm at all to this aspiration.

Being passionate about conservation does not necesitate suffocating yourself in a whole raft of irrelevant 'heritage' codices.

The only precident that this could set would be for international standard buildings to grace the watefront and improve the skyline...anything else and we will be joining all in the chorus to 'get rid'!

That the idea of Liverpool's waterfront 'plane' being that of low-rise buildings is itself only a construct...and one that hasalready led to the worst buildings in the city over the past 15 years (Customs and Excise, Halifax Building, Campinile Hotel..) Brunswick Quay would set a new, and positive benchmark for our remarkable city..

---

Check out these links that show the attitude real cities have to tall residential towers...
www.ny.com/shopping/malls/trump.html
http://www.emporis.com
and plans for even taller!
http://www.emaar.com
how come these cities don't mind being 'ruined' by such investment? Perhaps they're just not so historic maybe?!

Some of the less tenacious objections to the scheme included those in the report of the Economic Regeneration and Planning Strategy Select Committee of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (September 2004) who suggest that" There is inadequate treatment [in the applicant’s analysis (ed.)] of the view from Rock Park"

Rock Park is a conservation area on the Wirral waterfront with a cluster of fine Victorian private residences - and a four lane bypass which was carved through it in the 1970's.

We are however delighted that WMBC recognize: "Overall the impact on views is considered to be beneficial and enhancing, adding a major landmark feature"

The principle objection of Wirral outside of visual impact appears to be a concern what would "the regeneration impact [be] of such a proposal on the Housing Market Renewal Initiative and the need to focus major new development on the core of the conurbation, in the city centre".

Isn't HMRI the same initiative designed to "replace obsolete housing with modern sustainable accommodation through demolition, refurbishment and new building". Whilst not in the pathfinder area - does this matter? Have you visited the Dingle recently?

Whilst DL recognize Brunswick Quay is not an example of 'community housing":
- It represents £70m of inward investment from the private sector in an area of poor infrastructure and housing specification.
- It will provide high-quality public realm as a catalyst for urban regeneration (remember Concert Square?)

Perhaps more importantly, lest the politicans forget any aspiration in the local community to do well, and live in Brunswick Quay and start to rebuild the wealth of Liverpool.

Back to Architecture Homepage

Please email us with news of contemporary, challenging or tall buildings that need our support.

The Downtown Organisation supports intensification of development, design innovation, tall buildings and mixed-use schema as these in general make a positive contribution to the establishment of a city-scape both for the establishment of a 21st century city and for the tradition of metropolitan-scale development in Liverpool.