New Everton Stadium

[peteblue]

WHS is way overstated in importance to Liverpool and any tourism. My wife is from a small Welsh town which also has WHS and it attracts no one. It is what is in Liverpool that attracts people, not some badge or label that gets given out all over the place.....

 

[Goat]

WHS is way overstated in importance to Liverpool and any tourism. My wife is from a small Welsh town which also has WHS and it attracts no one. It is what is in Liverpool that attracts people, not some badge or label that gets given out all over the place.....

According to Dave nobody visited Liverpool before 2004 when it was given WHS status.

 

[Blue Juice]

I feel the type of people that would visit Liverpool because it's a WHS would contribute far less to the local economy than those that would literally live in the areas that are reclaimed

 

[davek]

Will UNESCO have prior visibility of the stadium plans, or is this just a gentle reminder, with knowledge that plans are due soon?

I'm not sure mate. It might be about the rest of the development as much as the stadium. I suspect they'd be well in the loop over designs though.

 

[davek]

But none of it has anything to do with us.

They are meeting next month, our stadium isnt even built.

The stadium would be THE most outstanding building on the waterfront heading north from the Pier Head. Of course plans for that will be an important consideration.

 

[Goat]

The stadium would be THE most outstanding building on the waterfront heading north from the Pier Head. Of course plans for that will be an important consideration.

They cant take away WHS based on a building that hasnt been built.

FFS.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

From the well respected, by me anyway, Tom Hughes, via Toffeeweb.

The problem regarding UNESCO is the size and rather arbitrary nature of its WHS boundaries. No-one wants to see fine old buildings lost, but almost all of those on the dock estate have either been preserved, were lost years ago or were of little architectural value anyway.
The last remaining features are the actual bodies of water and quaysides themselves, and there lies the crux of their argument. They're actually advocating the protection of a space. A type of space that is notoriously difficult to develop for anything other than marinas, residential or high rise commercial as the available footprints are often so tight, and the greatest area is given to water. Again, lots of these spaces have already been lost, and indeed most of the original central docks were infilled over 100yrs ago to build the Pier Head and its 3 graces, and the original Customs House long before that, but several more central docks have been filled in the past 30yrs, and as a result the perceived value of these remaining monumental central dock quaysides has been elevated.

BMD is at the periphery of the WHS, next to equally historic docks that now accommodate a sewage plant (A wholly insensitive development in practically every sense that I think just predates the WHS award). At just over 1 mile from the Pier head the site is at the very edge of where the club can derive any real geographic/logistical benefits. Having attended the recent previews, and sat through a presentation where the transport plan consisted of 0.8m walk to Sandhills (as Vauxhall stn isn't happening) or over a mile walk to town, and there will be some shuttlebuses (because private bus companies will see it as a commercial opportunity), it could probably be said that at best there are only limited logistical/transport benefits at this site (if any). Which to be honest, combined with the obvious planning minefield, to me begs the question as to how this site got past the first stage of any selection process in the first place.

The latest costing appears to be in the region of £600m, for just 52k capacity. Expansion to 62k via rail seats is fanciful (imo), would require a change of law, and even then at 1.5:1 ratio, would require 20,000 rail seats (out of 52k). In anycase, Colin Chong indicated that it has been a struggle modelling people movement in and around the site at just 52k, so again is 60k+ realistic?

The club are faced with a £30-40m bill just to preserve those Quaysides by raising them above a flood plain (?). The USM King Canute stadium, on the (broken) banks of the royal blue mersey?

(Key point here IMO)

If the stadium is going to be the redevelopment catalyst for the whole Liverpool waters scheme beyond Waterloo dock, then why didn't we go for the already filled in sections south of Trafalgar Dock, and adjacent to the 10 streets development. Only half a mile from the Pier head, much closer to all transport hubs, faster turnarounds for shuttles and more realistic walking distances. If we're the enabler, why have we plumped for the least convenient, most problematic and expensive site, that might never allow for expansion? In otherwords, there are more issues than just WHS and UNESCO, which we've always known about

It's all just so Everton

 

[davek]

Dave I just give up with you, your saying basically WHS brings half our tourism into Liverpool and its" pitiful that Evertonians are that desperate to get a new stadium built, that they throw all reason out of the window."
Dave I put that your that desperate that this stadium won't be built, because then you'd be proven right wouldn't you.
Your just trying to save face. Think you would be gutted if it was ever built, you'd just try and find something else to moan about.

That's completely wrong. I'm desperate for ut to happen. It would be a game changer.

I just dont buy into any belief that the divvies running EFC can achieve it.

But all that's by-the-by over WHS. It is an issue and a big obstacle to clear. I suggest people stop saying stuff like "it wont be missed if it goes" - because that really isn't politically in play as an option.

 

[davek]

They cant take away WHS based on a building that hasnt been built.

FFS.

Projecting forward they will make a decision based on any concrete plans to develop with PP. This year they'll get another shot across the bow, but the decision to build in a simpatico fashion WONT go away. Ask some of the lads on here like @Jacko93 who are familiar with the behind the scenes goings on of BMD, they'll confirm that.

 

[Goat]

Projecting forward they will make a decision based on any concrete plans to develop with PP. Tghis year they'll get another shot across the bow, but the decision to build in a simpatico fashio WONT go away. Ask some of the lads on here who are familiar with the behind the scenes goings on of BMD, they'll confirm that.

Confirm what?

Is this post even English?

 

[GwladysBlue]

UNESCO should be told where to go by the Council. We’re continually falling further behind cities such as Birmingham and Manchester. Derelict docks aren’t going to be making up the money shortfall anytime soon.

Heritage does have a place in a forward thinking, progressive city, but should not compromise any future developments.

I say this in regards to Liverpool Waters as a whole, not just regarding our proposed stadium. The city needs this development to go ahead.

 

[davek]

Confirm what?

Is this post even English?

Confirm that UNESCO's opinion is one that should be noted and complied with.

 

[davek]

From the well respected, by me anyway, Tom Hughes, via Toffeeweb.

The problem regarding UNESCO is the size and rather arbitrary nature of its WHS boundaries. No-one wants to see fine old buildings lost, but almost all of those on the dock estate have either been preserved, were lost years ago or were of little architectural value anyway.
The last remaining features are the actual bodies of water and quaysides themselves, and there lies the crux of their argument. They're actually advocating the protection of a space. A type of space that is notoriously difficult to develop for anything other than marinas, residential or high rise commercial as the available footprints are often so tight, and the greatest area is given to water. Again, lots of these spaces have already been lost, and indeed most of the original central docks were infilled over 100yrs ago to build the Pier Head and its 3 graces, and the original Customs House long before that, but several more central docks have been filled in the past 30yrs, and as a result the perceived value of these remaining monumental central dock quaysides has been elevated.

BMD is at the periphery of the WHS, next to equally historic docks that now accommodate a sewage plant (A wholly insensitive development in practically every sense that I think just predates the WHS award). At just over 1 mile from the Pier head the site is at the very edge of where the club can derive any real geographic/logistical benefits. Having attended the recent previews, and sat through a presentation where the transport plan consisted of 0.8m walk to Sandhills (as Vauxhall stn isn't happening) or over a mile walk to town, and there will be some shuttlebuses (because private bus companies will see it as a commercial opportunity), it could probably be said that at best there are only limited logistical/transport benefits at this site (if any). Which to be honest, combined with the obvious planning minefield, to me begs the question as to how this site got past the first stage of any selection process in the first place.

The latest costing appears to be in the region of £600m, for just 52k capacity. Expansion to 62k via rail seats is fanciful (imo), would require a change of law, and even then at 1.5:1 ratio, would require 20,000 rail seats (out of 52k). In anycase, Colin Chong indicated that it has been a struggle modelling people movement in and around the site at just 52k, so again is 60k+ realistic?

The club are faced with a £30-40m bill just to preserve those Quaysides by raising them above a flood plain (?). The USM King Canute stadium, on the (broken) banks of the royal blue mersey?

(Key point here IMO)

If the stadium is going to be the redevelopment catalyst for the whole Liverpool waters scheme beyond Waterloo dock, then why didn't we go for the already filled in sections south of Trafalgar Dock, and adjacent to the 10 streets development. Only half a mile from the Pier head, much closer to all transport hubs, faster turnarounds for shuttles and more realistic walking distances. If we're the enabler, why have we plumped for the least convenient, most problematic and expensive site, that might never allow for expansion? In otherwords, there are more issues than just WHS and UNESCO, which we've always known about

Thanks for the post degsy. That should be mandatory reading for any supporter of the club interested in the BMD development.

Tom Hughes knows his stuff. He might want GP redeveloped as a first desire, but he isn't a Luddite and would be on board with this if it were logistically and financially possible.

 

[Sliced Bread]

GOT meet up first game at Bramley Moore, Dave's buying the first round.

 

[4737carlin]

UNESCO should be told where to go by the Council. We’re continually falling further behind cities such as Birmingham and Manchester. Derelict docks aren’t going to be making up the money shortfall anytime soon.

Heritage does have a place in a forward thinking, progressive city, but should not compromise any future developments.

I say this in regards to Liverpool Waters as a whole, not just regarding our proposed stadium. The city needs this development to go ahead.

I dont think the council care about UNESCO, theres plenty of things they could of not done to keep them happy but they dont care, they just press on, not that this is always a good thing