Kings Dock -

Kings Dock

Blue Kipper has been involved with the "Everton for Kings Dock" movement from the start.

Wednesday, 8th May 2002, to an interview with Rob Burns of English Heritage between 3.00 pm and 4.15 pm. I am pleased to report he was welcoming and courteous throughout and did not seek to evade any question I posed. At the end of the interview I was invited to maintain contact when relevant questions are raised during future developments.

That said, matters of fact notwithstanding, any opinions expressed in this piece are my own and not those of Rob Burns or English Heritage.

(a) English Heritage are NOT delaying the project through architectural and planning objections. They do have comments to make but it appears these could probably be easily accommodated if everyone involved approaches the issues in a co-operative spirit. The project is far too important to be obstructed by mere design ego.

(b) Implications otherwise in the local media are simply wrong. In my opinion this means the local media once again failed to do their job when they failed to ask the right questions at the right time. Nothing new there, then. Since when do we expect the Echo and the Post to be anything other than full of half-informed nonsense and cheap shots?

(c) Seems to me it would be fair to assume the delays are largely for non-design reasons. I have already offered my opinion as to the cause of the delays.

Skidmore , Owings and Merrill Inc. first consulted English Heritage about the site during preparation of the "Strategic Regeneration Framework" document published in July 2000 as part of a planning commission from Liverpool Vision. They agreed on the general principles of a stadium/arena for the site, mixed use and a high standard of architectural design and planning. These principles inform all design observations made by EH.

Of course there comes a point in any design criticism when it is fuelled by subjectivism. But I have to say I found no major difference of opinion with him when it came to looking at the Master Plan drawings and some rudimentary building sections. In fact you can argue this kind of thing ad infinitum. Many professionals do. In the end it won't be decided on the grounds of aesthetics, desirable though that may be to sensitive guardians of our culture. There's too much at stake.

EfKD have long argued the administrative set-up for the project is far too secretive and complicated. This applies to the bidding process and most of the succeeding events. Virtually all of this has been out of the control of Everton Football Club.

The club are responsible for the appointment of the Consultants Team. And this is the team English Heritage have dealt with:

Hepher-Dixon. Responsible for co-ordination and overview.
EDAW. Urban planning.
HOK. Stadium design.
Ellis-Williams. Design of non-stadium/arena elements.

There has been no communication with city councillors or members of parliament to discuss the project. Initial contact was made with English Partnerships (who own the site) but none at all with the North West Development Agency. Their contact with Liverpool Vision has been minimal and only as much as required to be kept up to date on the scheme. There has been no contact with local residents.

Discussions have taken place with Liverpool City Planning Department, with whom so far there appears to be broad agreement. The Department may appoint independent consultants to deal with the project to ensure there can be no accusations of bias.

English Heritage were consulted by Taylor-Young during preparation of the development bid documents and terms of reference. They reviewed the competing designs and made their comments. In their opinion of the competing bids Houston Securities proposals were least compliant with the terms of reference. But it won nevertheless.

Following the successful bid, first meetings took place within about three months and were attended by HOK and Ellis-Williams. Since then there have been about four meetings and the design has been amended on three occasions. The design is still evolving. The next presentation is due to take place in mid-June of this year.

As we all know, the main design change was relocation of the stadium/arena to the southern end of the site and its turning through ninety degrees. The sliding pitch now moves out on the long south side of the stadium/arena.

Bearing in mind the design is still evolving, some of the English Heritage review comments are as follows:

(a) STADIUM/ARENA.
· External design and appearance are not considered iconic. The location demands more positive design treatment.
· More colour and articulation of form is desirable. Grey is the dominant colour at present.
· No satisfactory proposals for the reserved sliding pitch area while the pitch is insitu inside the stadium. This area cannot be left unattractive or untreated.
· For various reasons a shared stadium is impractical. However, it is necessary to show why as part of the holistic planning proposal. (This won't be too difficult!)

(b) NON-STADIUM.
· Not sufficient mixed use. Heavy bias toward residential on upper floors. Remainder is mostly retail and office space at ground and first floor levels. More consideration required to make the area more of a "city quarter" with more constant use.
· Articulated form is acceptable for buildings immediately adjacent to the waterside. These are considered compatible with adjoining horizontal and vertical design emphases along the waterfront. Only non-waterside buildings provide conceptual design problems.
· Non-waterside buildings are considered to have bland footprints and poor layout for attractive lines of sight to the stadium.
· Roads infrastructure is inconsistent and obstructed by too many ramps to underground car parks. The latter are in addition to a multi-storey car park for 600.
· Landscaping is considered sparse and unimaginative.
· A multi-storey hotel immediately adjacent to the stadium is considered too high.
· Three plots immediately adjacent to the stadium appear to be "after-thoughts" and of little relevance.

My impression is that English Heritage are not obstructive and have not delayed the project through out of date, bloody-minded or bureaucratic attitudes. They have simply fulfilled their working brief. Sure, some of the review comments might be considered esoteric or ecletic, maybe even arcane. But I do believe their intentions are honourable and helpful. I do not believe they will object to a properly considered and thought-through project.