Total Eclipse of the Heart
Those pesky MPs blacked out less of their expense claims than we're currently doing of our world heritage waterfront...
Imagine this. You were the custodian of a city viewpoint that adorned a thousand calendars, had snappers from Toronto to Tokyo ooh-ing and ah-ing behind their Fuji Finepix, and sharing their holiday photos with friends across the globe. That, through a thousand Flikr updates, our city went viral.
Imagine that UNESCO had given said cluster of civic pride a coveted World Heritage status - ranking it alongside the Alhambra in Spain, The Statue of Liberty, the Medina of Marrakesh…
And then try to figure out what thought process (if any) it would need to arrive at the decision to black it out.
Not only that, but to obscure this with a graceless, leaden hulk that wouldn’t get past first base on a RIBA Correspondence Course.
There is, among architects, a raging debate about context. Zaha Hadid says it’s bollocks - that buildings don’t have a duty to ‘blend in’ but to ‘respond’ to their immediate urban condition. We tend to agree. But even she wouldn’t be arrogant enough to block out the competition. But, then, she is a world class architect. Not a school boy who got lucky with a design competition.
Liverpool is a complex city. This is not a complex debate. Mann Island is not a complex building. It’s a jagged little pill. And we’re all going to have to swallow it. At least, until it the next one comes along.
Still, Steven Gerrard loves it. He’s snapped up two luxury apartments. Good to know that, for some, that view will remain - if only from their bedroom window.
Ironic, isn’t it, that even through the fires of Blitz, the ‘Geermans’ didn’t obliterate the Three Graces. It was our friendly fire what did for ‘em.
So, in response to the outrage, Sevenstreets postulates what damage this implanted cell would create, should other city councils be quite so myopic. Reminds us of that scene at the end of 2010, a Space Odyssey… appropriately enough.
RSS
Haha - very funny. I was pretty excited for this building, but it’s becoming a real eyesore.
What an absolute disgrace that building is. The greatest square mile of architecture in the UK looks as if some quasi-fucked up alien ship has landed in front of it. The view of the Three Graces, when sat outside the Pumphouse pub on a sunny day nursing a pint, was THE archetypal viewpoint in the city. And now its gone. A shambles and a abomination. Heads should fucking roll.
Actually - it looks pretty good next to the pyramids
‘Damaged Borg cube’ is the simile you’re looking for, Crab
Margi Clarke, bless her, dubbed them the Black Coffins. I think that is apt as it is certainly the death of the best view in Liverpool.
If you want to know who passed the plans for Mann Island look no further than Lady Doreen Jones. As LibDem chair of the Planning Committee in 2006 she used her casting vote after a 4-4 split from the councillors. There were cries of SHAME from the public gallery as she approved this act of civic vandalism.
The worst thing is - the image at the top of this piece (which is great, by the way - and kudos on the site) is only the official computer generated mockup of it. In real life it looks even worse.
Here is a couple of pieces we did earlier on the three black slugs and the white coffin down on our world heritage site imagine if they had done this to the Taj Mahal or the Pyramids the world outrage that would have ensued.
http://liverpoolpreservationtrust.blogspot.com/search/label/Mann%20Island
Cheers. It’s odd how people only seem to have woken up to this now… wonder what they thought was going on there? Very sad.
I cant believe these abominations were passed.
No more archway postcards. (Do people still send postcards? They should. But not of these.)
i do. I have them flown in from various countries. Saves the expense and palava of holidays.
Spot on. The best thing we could do is bang a compulsory purchase order on them and knock them down.
Maybe Steve G has bought the top top and might do us a favour and dismantle them???
What you are looking at is the result of planners trying there upmost to dance around heritage-lead objections, UNESCO and various other “advisory” panels who give there point of view.
A lot of time and effort on the part of the architect went into this design to ensure that it met the brief as well as the demands of the local authorities.
All of the buildings on the waterfont (including the ones we obsess about as icons) have resulted in blocking a view, filling in a dock etc etc.
These buildings represent the city today. Bold, contrasting, different, stick out, stand in the way and shout “F**k off” to everyone who objects.
Isnt this what Liverpool is actually famous for?
Michael, that sounds like you’re saying ‘this is a building compromised by committee’ - I was 100% behind The Cloud. That did shout ‘fuck off’ but this one, it doesn’t shout anything particularly worth hearing, does it? If you’re going to stick your head above the parapet, you need to wear a fancy hat.
I think it does say something. The design has a number of interesting features.
Its materiality is one which allows the past to reflect across the black panelling and the arrangement is again following this magic number we seem to have in Liverpool for clusters - 3
3 graces, the three 60′s office blocks that cluster around old hall st, and now these three building types.
I do appreciated a view has been lost but this is a typical reaction, not necessarily the wrong reaction and it to say as such shouldnt be taken as a challenge.
The architecture is of its day. As were the three graces and other design we have seen across the city over the last 100 years that we have come to either love or hate (or somewhere in between)
Again, if Liverpool had ever given any time to complaints of lost views and interupted vista’s we would not have the Anglican Cathedral (blocking the views to Wales for the georgian terraces)
We would have cancelled St johns tower due to its proximity to St georges hall.
We would have also cancelled the Royal Liver building for fear of it blocking the views of the Goree pizzas and requiring filling in a dock.
We need to embrace new architecture. Opposing constantly has only lead to missed opportunities and more recently, the downsizing of Liverpool one - again to appease some misguided romanticised notion of city that no longer exists.
PS, i liked the cloud too, although after seeing what happens to Will Alsops architecture on a visit to one of his mesh clad buildings in London, I dont think it would have looked pretty after 12 months - more a tangled mess of pigeon feathers rust.
There is always one, isn’t there.
Make it two then.
God, this website’s so cynical! I thought I was a cynic but I’m obviously just a lightweight.
Tell me this - can you still walk comfortably around our beloved three graces and view them? Yes. If you stand with your back to the river and look at them front-on is the view obscured? No. Is it necessary to see the three graces from London Road? No!
I agree that anything being built in Liverpool’s most prominent site needs to be good. I love the new Museum of Liverpool Life. I can’t say I ‘love’ the new black-clad buildings but I do think they are original and modern.
I’m not aware of any classic buildings that were demolished to make way for the new ones. Any great modern city should blend beautiful old buildings with newer architecture that shows we’ve still got our eye on the ball. The fact that we’re having this debate proves that the new buildings are anything but bland! Liverpool is not a bland, beige city. It’s a city of character, colour and personality.
How about taking a look around the website? There’s plenty of non-cynical stuff on here.
Try this one on for size:
http://www.sevenstreets.com/city-living/feature-city-living/shape-of-things-to-com/
But that’s the problem, Sir Snot, the new buildings *are* bland. And they’re anything but modern. They’re ten years out of date before they’re even completed. Give us real, exciting and original new structures worthy of the spot (and whatever you say, a waterfront location demands an iconic building, whether it’s Liverpool, Sydney or Shanghai) and you’ll get no complaints from us. Cynical? We try not to be. Opinionated? That’s as much a part of our DNA as it is with anyone in this city. As it should be.
If you’re not cynical then where are the positive comments in your above arcticle? You may not like the new buildings but tell me - if they’re unoriginal and bland - please cite what OTHER building they look like?
It’s a fine balance between iconic and vulgar. Personally, I thought the ‘Cloud’ design by Alsop was a monstrosity. There’s too much vulgarity in our city. Go out on a Saturday night in our great city and tell me do the girls dress with style? NO WAY MATE. They look like transvestites! Too much fake tan. Too much make-up. 6” platform shoes. Bright pink mini dresses. Am I being cynical or am I stating the embarrassing truth?
Oh God, maybe that’s another debate for you….
It shares DNA with these:
http://www.egodesign.ca/en/article.php?article_id=222
http://www.nextjet.se/Assets/0,1020,956779,00.jpg
http://closedstacks.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/ext.jpg
http://www.kunstmuseum.li/?page=2148&lan=en
http://simplyhousingaround.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/1.jpg
http://devule.com/modern/soundhouse-facade-design-architecture-image.jpg
and it’s not as inspired as this
http://pentagram.com/en/new/2009/11/new-work-the-cooper-union.php
You’re right. I’d agree that the new Lpool building’s quite similar to Libeskind’s building. I’ve never heard of Libeskind’s building before and neither has any non-anorak in Liverpool. It’s also 6000 miles away!
Have you ever seen the interior of Leeds town hall? It’s an absolute ringer for St George’s Hall. I don’t think that’s damaged either building’s reputation. You don’t design an ‘iconic’ building. It either becomes one or it doesn’t.
I’m a new convert to this site and I think it’s great. I’d just prefer it if it was a bit more positive. It’s important to highlight things that are wrong but we’ve also got a lot to celebrate in our city don’t you think?
The whiny article about the reaturant dress code was needless. The place sounds so awful I don’t know why you’d want to go there anyway. You may not like dress codes but some of us DO. Remember dress down Fridays? Remember that workers actually found it HELPFUL to have a dress code and went back to how they were dressed before. If I go the bank I don’t want to be served by someone in a football shirt (it actually happened one Friday).
If you and your friends go to, say, the Panoramic for dinner on your mum’s 60th birthday all dressed up for the special occasion do you want some people in trackies and baseball caps on the next table? It kind of kills the moment for me I have to say. You feel overdressed and they probably feel underdressed.
Equally, I love those great neighbourhood places like The Tavern or down Lark Lane where you don’t need to make an effort. If you stand on the Kop you don’t wear a f**king suit right? It’s all about dressing the right way for the right occasion.
Very few people are able to do it these days.
That piece isn’t about dress codes; it’s about disability. You either didn’t read it properly or have misunderstood it.
Apologies. There were several references to dress codes in the article which is what I picked up on. Sorry for your mate, though. The situation simply required a manager with common sense.