I can also think of the two people I saw casually shagging in the Ropewalks; the girl squatting down in the middle of Slater Street to have a piss; the bloke taking a slash in the middle of the dancefloor in the Raz (I like to think it was his own pithy, or pissy, comment on the rotten place).

I can think of innumerable fights and immeasurable numbers of people so drunk they can’t stand, talk or understand what’s happening. Great fun.

Ok, let’s get things in perspective. ‘Twas always thus, and Liverpool’s appetite for a big night out is legendary, going back centuries. Further, is Liverpool any worse than any other UK city? Probably not.

But I have seen a huge increase in the number of drunken people and incidents over the years in the city. When I first came here, back in 1997, I frequently went to Modo and Heebiejeebies. The former was an achingly cool bar that was quiet, chic and relatively undiscovered. It served cocktails named after Tony Benn. The latter an underground jazz bar that also hosted some top nights in the form of Soundbombing and Chrome.

I think it’s fair to say that both have changed beyond any recognition. Whereas the Ropewalks used to be a network of cool hideaways – a haven from the horrors of Mathew Street or the overly-studenty Hope Street area – it’s now a stinking, filthy rat-run of shit bars promising cheap inebriation, barring a few exceptions.

Why such an intense concentration of drinking pits has been allowed to develop, I can’t say. But the results are plain for everyone to see. Merseyside Police are currently trying to close one of the bars on Concert Square, a place called The Office they say is ‘rotten to the core’, which has seen an entertaining mix of fighting, underage drinking and violence from bouncers.

Why is anyone surprised? How could it possibly be any other way? Are we seriously supposed to believe that the people responsible for licensing bars in Liverpool are currently scratching their heads and wondering why people are getting drunk and fighting in one of the most heavily-concentrated drinking areas in the country?

An article in the Echo also highlights another issue among Liverpool’s nightlife hotspots, namely ‘roided-up bouncers intent on smashing some hapless students in the face.

I can probably count a dozen incidents where my friends have had incidents with bouncers in Liverpool, most of which end with me placating a raging doorman like you would a particularly angry fighting dog – palms raised, backing away, crooning a lullaby. Well, you get the picture.

In one incident, a bouncer ran about 100 yards down the road after a friend of mine before punching him in the face and running back to the door of the bar where he worked.

Again, this seems to be growing issue in the city centre. Merseyside Police certainly see to think so, as a solicitor representing the police force suggests.

“These are the clear actions of doormen inflaming the situation,” says Martin Forshaw.

“There is no attempt to constrain. Instead there are kicks and punches being flung.”

Not so, says the brief representing The Office, who claims that ‘almost half of the incidents were dealt with correctly by the doorstaff of Combined Security Services’. Almost half eh? So less than 50 per cent. What manner of incidents can be described as being dealt with ‘incorrectly’, I wonder?

It’s easy to write this little rant of mine off as one disaffected punter, one blog against a sea of satisfied customers, but if you don’t believe me take a look at the comments on the Echo’s article.

The bars, the clubs, the violence and the whole sickening spectacle of it all are symptoms, but Liverpool’s city centre – and, increasingly, its outlying areas – should never have been allowed to get in this state in the first place.

I’m unsure whether this is a bit of publicity stunt, or simply because of twattery.

Although there are reports elsewhere that suggest businessman Billy Palmer wants to keep the mural and convert the pub into a shop and bar, The Grauniad reports that Palmer wants to get rid of the rat and turn the building into ‘luxury flats’.

I suspect, and I hope I’m right, that this is a bit of scouse ribbing on the part of Palmer, who presumably know how well talk of more ‘luxury flats’ will go down in Chinatown, especially if that involves destroying some quite brilliant public art.

The Grauniad also reports that the rat on the side of the Whitehouse is ‘holding a machine gun’, which suggests a spot of remote copy filing to me, so I don’t know how much faith we can put in its reporting on this matter.

If he’s serious Palmer wouldn’t be the first to try to destroy the Banksy rat – which is clearly holding a marker pen that it has used to scrawl all over the building, for anyone doubting the meaning of the image – after Liverpool’s idiot City Council decided it was going to destroy it a few years ago.

Personally I’m all for keeping the artwork as is, derelict building and all. I’ve watched with dismay as the Ropewalks veers towards another cut-and-shut luxury flat and drinking pit grid.

The council has recently put together some sort of steering group to make sure Ropewalks doesn’t fall into disrepair, though I don’t think they’re talking about the disgusting state of Concert Square and Slater Street on a Friday night.

Bars and binge drinking may be the price of progress, but there are 101 derelict buildings in Ropewalks that the council could look at before its starts OK-ing the destruction of public works of art that bring something unique to the area, beyond the array of Jackson Pollocks that pebble dash the area in the early hours.

The other two corners of Berry Street and Duke Street would be a start.

• Image courtesy of Dave the Pap

It seems unpleasantly ironic that at a time when Liverpool is supposedly getting back on its feet, the store boasting the ‘Liverpool Resurgent’ statue is conceding defeat.

The fact that Liverpool’s resurgence was marked by a bloke with his cock out did not go unnoticed by locals and visitors, with the store regularly referred to as Dickie Lewis’s
In one of my first blogs a couple of years I remarked that the likely closure of Lewis’s to make way for another leisure/retail/lifestyle hub/haven/paradise was a rather depressing state of affairs and, sure enough, it’s come to pass.

It’s also a bit of a coincidence that a new exhibition of the store open in Liverpool this week, supported by a website detailing the experiences and memories of former staff.

Theoretically, Lewis’s could reopen in two year’s time, once extensive renovations on the building as part of the Merepark redevelopment are completed, but I’ll send Piers Morgan flowers by post if that happens.

People will mutter that this is the price of progress, and though it’s happening for different reasons the closure reflects the difficulties other parts of the city centre are experiencing.

Decreasing footfall spells trouble for areas like Lime Street, Clayton Square and St John’s market, a part of town rapidly becoming dirty, congested and fundamentally unpleasant.

Merepark’s Central Village, which will include the Lewis’s building, is set to redress the cash drain towards Liverpool One, but it’s not clear to me whether the city can support so many different retail/leisure/lifestyle hubs – is there genuinely enough cash being spent to go around Liverpool’s various city-centre areas?

How will the Cavern Walks, the Albert Dock or Met Quarter fare then? And what will the knock-on effect be on Liverpool One?

It remains to be seen, but as this kind city-wide regeneration is predicated on attracting people from other towns and cities it at least makes sense that one of Liverpool’s biggest transport hub gets a makeover.

Stand by for more QParks, Starbucks and Aparthotels. And a fucking massive concrete and glass skyscraper.

It was, financially, a good deal for Everton and an affordable way out of a crumbling ground badly served by surrounding infrastructure.

But it was also a good few miles away from Goodison and came with a bundle of other leisure and retail strings attached.

Communities secretary, John Denham, was apparently worries about the negative impact on surrounding areas of a vast out-of-town development.

It’s almost enough to make one what Liverpool One’s management team made of it all.

So, Everton are still looking for a way out, having ruled out tarting up Goodison. So is Liverpool, but it’s by far the more resistant of the two to any notions of ground sharing.

LFC is still banking on Stanley Park, but it’s now faced with a council and regional development agency keen on a shared ground.

I suspect that will also be the government’s view, with a mind on a 2018 Olympic bid, having turned down Kirkby.

LFC remain tight-lipped. I suspect a groundshare is a financially-attractive option but it’s likely to be a hard-sell to Reds.

So, the situation is unchanged. A goundshare may be still be the least-worst option for both clubs, and it’s moved a significant step closer to reality.

I’ve followed Smit ever since I read his book on Eden, an extraordinary, inspirational book about one man’s fight with nature, administrators, economics, common sense and received wisdom.

I read the book as I, along with two friends, were in the process of battling various Quangos, competitors, truculent advertisers, the dole office and abject penury to produce the magazine that eventually became Black+White.

The similarities don’t really go much beyond that, as Smit managed to build the eighth wonder of the world and we produced eight copies of the listings guide which was a critical success but a commercial disaster.

Still, I took a lot of the lessons learned to heart and have remained inordinately impressed by Smit, a likeable, charismatic, forward-thinking, self-deprecating and extremely able man.

Smit’s talk was based loosely on the theme of the environment and took the influence of Liverpool biologist Tony Bradshaw as a starting point.

But the talk soon veered away towards a more general approach ( I hesitate to use the word ‘holistic’, because it’s bloody awful), taking aim at nothing less than the entire received wisdom of politics, administration, housing, ecology and work.

With Heligan and Eden under his belt, Smit is now helping to save Mauritius (or, more accurately, helping Mauritius to save itself) and is involved in the bidding to build an eco town.

I hope he succeeds. Smit’s message is optimistic on the environment – he’s simply that kind of guy. I’m less optimistic, because while the likes of Smit are thought of highly they’re rarely indulged at the highest levels.

I get the impression that Smit’s approach to red tape, pessimism, realpolitik, vested interests, intransigence, institutionalism and rank stupidity would blow through the corridors of power like a cleansing hurricane if allowed – but how do you change decades of entrenched interests and mindsets?

During his talk I was reminded of Adam Curtis’s documentary on game theory – The Trap – which proposed the idea of government, civil service, people and business essentially at war with one another and themselves, thus maintaining a deliberate status quo.

Curtis’ documentary looks at the two concepts of liberty: positive liberty, involving the empowerment of people to take control of their own destinies; and negative liberty, the freedom to live a life free from the restraints of others.

Its a subtle distinction, but Smit’s talk seemed to me to propose a shift from the latter to the former, and his credentials and rhetoric indicate that, if there’s anyone capable of catalysing this transformation, it’s him.

We need more like him but, as a questioner pointed out, few of the rest of us are Tim Smits, as I found out several years ago.

• You can watch the first part of The Trap and watch Smit’s lecture at these respective links.

Others have been more forceful in their views, and now the building has won the Carbuncle Cup, an architecture magazine’s award for the worst new building. Incidentally, One Park West – a building I think may be worse – was also nominated.

The ferry building is described as ‘a shining example of bad architecture and bad planning’ on the Building Design website. As I’ve said before, what constitutes bad architecture is open to debate and not something I’m qualified to judge.

But it should have been clear all along that the siting of the building as it has appeared was problematic at best: in front of the three graces and slap bang in the middle of a UNESCO World Fricking Heritage site.

Anyway, for the record, here’s what some of yer actual architects think:

“The winner is the building that shows how bad architecture and bad planning can combine to produce something truly awful — a building so ugly it can turn human flesh to stone or at the very least make grown men cry.”

“…in thrall to some horribly misconceived idea of the avant–garde.”

“It is such an amazing site, directly in front of the Three Graces, but the architects seem barely to have noticed. It is like letting a bad second-year student build next to St Peter’s.”

“This is bad patronage by an ignorant council which thinks having jazzy architecture is putting the city on the map again.”

And there you have it. Another finger levelled at the council, or at least the collection of QUANGOs, lobby groups and other interests that seem to have a hand in deciding what gets built and where in the city. Once again, Liverpool looks like a basket case thanks to its leaders.

I’ll leave the last word to Building Design:

“When you go there you think: oh no, I can’t believe they’ve done that.”

Quite.

Not on an ad hoc basis, you understand, but as part of some competition to win some vouchers. It’s a bloody big wall, so it might be fun if you’re into that sort of thing, but my holiday last week has meant that the deadline is pretty close – 3rd September (a week today).

More details here: Top Man blog.

Indeed, that’s what architects seem to think too.

The Planners should hang their heads in shame at the ruination of the view from the Albert Dock, and from the ferries, prior to resigning their positions.

And these.

The result is this anti-context, anti-scale, uncivilised building, exuding a staggering lack of decorum on the benighted World Heritage Site that is Liverpool’s waterfront.

And these:

Some of the most crass development I have ever viewed is crammed into a tiny area along the waterfront in and adjacent to the World Heritage Site.

And Liverpool’s bloggers.

This is part of the biggest architectural disaster to my city since the Blitz of the Second World War. I am ashamed of what they have done to the World Heritage Site in the name of progress.

Such judgements are necessarily subjective, and though I’m reserving judgement for now on the new Liverpool Museum, I can’t possibly see how the Mann Island Developments buildings or new ferry terminal can be judged to be sympathetic to the surrounding area.

In some ways I quite like the Mann Island buildings, but they seem to me totally at odds with the surrounding areas, as if two damaged Borg cubes have suddenly crashed down to Earth on the site of the ill-fated Fourth Grace.

The buildings, along with the museum, almost completely obscure the view of the Three Graces from the viewpoint of the Albert Dock, and add an intrusive full stop to the waterfront’s narrative from Birkenhead.

If you add Liverpool’s One Park West, Alexandra Tower, the new Hilton, Beetham Tower and the proposed King Edward Tower it’s enough to make you wonder exactly what UNESCO is doing. What on earth must the proposals that have been shot down look like?

As for the Mersey Ferry building, UNESCO seems assured that the building fits in with the surrounding buildings because it’s clad in the same materials. Again, I’m puzzled as to how this thought process came about.

There’s a danger that among buildings like the Three Graces it becomes almost impossible to construct any new structures, as there’s an inherent difficulty in competing with those buildings.

To try and replicate their style would be the wrong decision, but any new bulding runs the risk of being judged in comparison to three of the finest examples of Edwardian architecture in the world.

As such, designing new buildings to sit alongisde them must feel like a bit of a hiding to nothing, as Will Alsop found out with his Cloud.

Nevertheless, I’m surprised that pretty much all of the new developments sharing the waterfront have been approved, including the ferry terminal, Mann Island and the hopeless One Park West buildings. I’m a bit dubious about the new Liverpool Museum too, if I’m honest.

None are particularly sympathetic to the Three Graces, and while there’s something to be said for contrasting architectural styles sharing that space, the waterfront’s in danger of becoming a cluttered hodge-podge of styles, colours and materials.

New buildings, particularly in protected areas, are always likely to attract a kneejerk reaction, but in the case of the new UNESCO-approved waterfront I’ll be surprised if there’s not a movement in a couple of decades to tear down half of them.

There’s such a confusing array of QUANGOS, agencies, interest groups and local government involved that it’s practically impossible to work out who’s ultimately responsible for making these decisions too.

It’s the only reason I can think why so many people have sleepwalked into green-lighting all of these unsympathetic, unlovely buildings.

• Museum of Liverpool building by John Valente. Mersey Ferry Terminal building by Neill Shenton. Both images licensed through Creative Commons.

Grayling, who once claimed that Gary Neville was a good role model for Liverpool youngsters, says that a tram network in the city would need to be based on a successful initial route – saying a South Liverpool route through the suburbs to John Lennon airport would make more sense.

The persistently-favoured first route is the Line One Kirkby route, which seems to amount to an FDR-style social engineering project.

The Tories have made a big thing under Dave Cameron of pretending to be interested in the environment, and Grayling has spent the last couple of years slamming Labour for not pressing ahead with Liverpool’s tram network, while saying the Tories would build trams, ooh, everywhere.

Grayling has probably had a look at the public finances, and at the rubbish plans for Liverpool’s trams network and decided that not backing the plans was probably a good idea on Alistair Darling’s part.

Merseytravel’s botched planning of the project over the last few years has cost £70m and left the company in some difficulty, though it blamed personal agendas at Liverpool City Council for much of the problems (who’d've thunk eh?).

Needless to say, the whole thing devolved into a huge and public slanging match that resulted in then-Transport Minister Alistair Darling refusing to hand over a promised £170m in 2005 after costs spiraled well beyond initial estimates.

The plans initially came to light in 2001, when I was still editing Liverpool’s Student Newspaper, er, Liverpool Student.

Via some Department for Transport squirming over exactly how much it would hand over, Merseyside’s five councils were told to go back and resubmit their plans. When the DfT found Merseytravel’s funding plans wanting, it withdrew its promised cash.

Fast forward nearly four years and Merseytravel has the legal power to build Merseytram only until February 2010. Another white elephant – Everton’s mooted move to Kirkby – has kept the Line One project on the boil, while the government’s public project plans, designed to circulate money around construction industries, have also rekindled interest.

Merseytravel now says it will cost £430m to build the line – around £200m over the initial costs back in 2001.

The Liverpool Echo says Grayling ‘MUST’ go ahead with the Line One plans, which are ‘much-needed’. Are they? Arguably, yes. Are they feasible? I don’t think so.

The thinking behind Line One is that it would provide easier access for Knowsley residents to transport, and therefore jobs. This is laudable social planning, but it’s only workable if it’s heavily subsidised. Can Mersytravel get the required cash? That looked dubious five years. It now looks impossible.

The fact that Capital of Cuture 2008 has already passed by, as has the second wave of EU Objective One money, means the Merseytram project has missed the, er, boat.

Add to that the fact that various other grants from various other funding bodies were initially required, and you have more problems.

Match all of this to a debilitating recession, and the problems involved in Line One become clear.

Even if, by some miracle, Merseytravel were able to actually build the line, its estimates on usage are now based on data years out of date and out-of-kilter with current economic conditions.

Much of the preparatory work is complete, and not all of that £70m would be wasted if Line One went ahead now, but I’d be loathe to throw a wodge of cash at an outfit derided by auditors at making such a mess of initial plans.

So, for me, Line One still looks as far away as it ever did. To Grayling too, no doubt. The likelihood of a Tory government next year pretty much scotches Merseytram for good.

Labour may be tempted to pump cash into such schemes to get people working and money circulating, but the Conservatives won’t.

• Anyway, David Bartlett did much of the running covering this story and unearthing various documents relating to the failed proposals, in-fighting and wasted cash, so goto Dale Street Blues for more information.

• The Inspector’s Report into Line One can be found here: http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/articleimages/Merseytram%20Inspectors%20report.pdf.

It is almost overwhelmingly favourable, and I was particularly amused by Mr and Mrs Johnson’s misunderstanding of imperial and metric measures and conditions 17 and 18 of the building of Line One – bat and vole surveys.

• Images of the routes can be found here.