Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Fascinating Liverpool pictures


stringvest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, stringvest said:

I see they're going to put a Hooters in one of the gorgeous buildings on Water Street.  Someone really needs to shoot this council leadership - they are fucking criminal.

NZ House it is mate. Apparently Joanne Anderson voted against it and spoke out about but the planners still put it through!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Creator Supreme said:

NZ House it is mate. Apparently Joanne Anderson voted against it and spoke out about but the planners still put it through!

Terrible.  Can we train the weapons on the planners instead?  In fact, thinking about what those cunts have facilitated over the last 40 years, the guillotine is more apt.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That article on the old demolished buildings is terribly sad, i agree. I broke my leg when i was 5 years old and got taken to Myrtle Street Hospital, and then later on i was transferred to Heswall Children's Hospital, to this day i have no idea why, i can only assume it was for the recuperation phase or that they had more room there. My only memory of the Heswall one was that they had an old fire engine and potentially other vehicles for the kids to play in in the grounds. Both hospitals are sadly no more...

Myrtle Street Hospital | Liverpool history, Liverpool england, Liverpool  home

Photo of Heswall, Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital c1965

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

British Grand Prix FIA Formula One World Championship race, Aintree Circuit, Aintree, Liverpool, England July 21, 1962
75 laps on 3 mile/4.828 km road course. #40 Tony SETTEMBER - Emeryson Cars - Emeryson 1004 61 Climax FPF L4 1.5
Start 19th finished 11th. Coming off Railway straight about to cross the Melling Road.

 

614B73A5-1FD3-4603-8932-C27CB64F510F.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Creator Supreme said:

I used to work in the Cotton Exchange. The frontage on Old Hall Street now isn't the worst thing I've ever seen, but it's a fucking monstrosity compared to the original.

 

https://images.app.goo.gl/4tXuWgKEuD5Lz65N7

It's interesting to see how coy they are on the subject of the people who were picking the cotton for those early decades of the booming growth of the Liverpool cotton trade.

https://ica-ltd.org/about-ica/our-history/1939-2004/

 

("I might have mentioned slaves once, but I think I got away with it.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/02/2022 at 12:39, Creator Supreme said:

NZ House it is mate. Apparently Joanne Anderson voted against it and spoke out about but the planners still put it through!

You can't dictate which users use a building under planning except in the most specific of circumstances (htis wouldn't be one of those). But you can control what the use is. 

 

E.g. A Butchers, or even a flagship retail shop like John Lewis can become an Ann Summers or a Sex shop, with no change of use required no planning control. Just like an old pub can become a Spoons. Just a change of operator, nothing else. Licencing can control that to a point, the landlord/landowner can control that in total

 

If the use was deemed acceptable under policies dictated by the government and local council, then its fine. I assume its the user rather than the use you object to?

 

Agree it looks cheap, but its solidly not the planners fault. 

On 17/02/2022 at 12:43, stringvest said:

Terrible.  Can we train the weapons on the planners instead?  In fact, thinking about what those cunts have facilitated over the last 40 years, the guillotine is more apt.

I think you'll find the land owners/developers financed it, the architects designed it, the politicians approved it. All of these parties had a greater impact on the subject. The planners perhaps shaped it, perhaps improved it, perhaps made it worse, but they are not the most culpable.

 

They work in a framework (the policies) provided by elected officials and decision at the executive level are decided by elected officials. Maybe these non-expert politicians shouldn't be making these policies and decisions, because we know they're already sick of experts and know better, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, RJ Fan club said:

You can't dictate which users use a building under planning except in the most specific of circumstances (htis wouldn't be one of those). But you can control what the use is. 

 

E.g. A Butchers, or even a flagship retail shop like John Lewis can become an Ann Summers or a Sex shop, with no change of use required no planning control. Just like an old pub can become a Spoons. Just a change of operator, nothing else. Licencing can control that to a point, the landlord/landowner can control that in total

 

If the use was deemed acceptable under policies dictated by the government and local council, then its fine. I assume its the user rather than the use you object to?

 

Agree it looks cheap, but its solidly not the planners fault. 

I think you'll find the land owners/developers financed it, the architects designed it, the politicians approved it. All of these parties had a greater impact on the subject. The planners perhaps shaped it, perhaps improved it, perhaps made it worse, but they are not the most culpable.

 

They work in a framework (the policies) provided by elected officials and decision at the executive level are decided by elected officials. Maybe these non-expert politicians shouldn't be making these policies and decisions, because we know they're already sick of experts and know better, right?

You probably know better than me mate, I know she spoke against it, maybe I misread about who'd approved it, apologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Creator Supreme said:

You probably know better than me mate, I know she spoke against it, maybe I misread about who'd approved it, apologies.

Not at. No issue here 
 

She doubtlessly did speak against it, but those councillors voting on it are politicians not planners. 

 

The whole system is set up that the planning laws are made by politicians, policies chosen by politicians and then most important or contentious decisions made against that framework by politicians.
 

So it’s kind of annoying to hear that ‘planners’ are to blame. it’s just a lazy trope that suits everyone to blame someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...