I’ve received some more pictures from Dave Evans of the Liverpool crane collapse at Chandler’s Wharf, which give a better impression of the extent of the damage.
The extent of the damage is more obvious from these pictures. Makes it seem even more extraordinary no-one was killed.
This extraordinary image comes from Sparkle Media and shows a crane collapsed across a building near the Albert Dock in Liverpool.
This is by my reckoning the third crane collapse in Liverpool in recent years. There are reports that the driver is injured but alive and there are people trapped in the building. Here’s hoping everyone gets out unscathed.
Liverpool’s citizen journalists are providing superb coverage of the event, which you can follow here.
There’s an interesting blog on the Daily Post’s website by Peter Elson concerning a book by Anna Minton that looks at the built environment in the UK, taking in a look at Liverpool One and its effects in Liverpool.
GROUND Control: Fear and Happiness in the Twenty First Century investigates ownership of various projects around the city, most notably the mass demolition of houses down Edge Lane and Liverpool One.
These projects are funded and owned by private money and the potential ramifications of leaving town planning to people for whom the bottom line is the, er, bottom line.
There are clear pros and cons to these huge investments of private cash into the city, but the clear danger is in building estates that pander to commercial needs, rather than the needs of society.
Despite the fact that seemingly no-one in Liverpool – including either club or either set of fans – want Liverpool and Everton FC, Councillor Warren Is-This-My-Best-Side? Bradley is still dead set on the two clubs joining forces, now using the 2018 World Cup bid to convince the two teams to form what’s likely to be an uncomfortable joint tenancy, assuming it happens.
The situation is not straightforward. Everton is keen to press ahead with a rather unloved proposal to build a new stadium in Kirkby, South Merseyside, on which the government will have the final say.
Meanwhile Liverpool – deeply in debt and owned by warring entrepreneurs George Gillet and Tom Hicks – favours building a new 60,000 stadium in Stanley Park, though a date for leaving Anfield seems no closer than it did five years ago.
Bluenose Bradley is keen on the groundshare idea, and the North West Development Agency is thought to pressuring both teams to accept the groundshare proposal, waving the carrot of a healthy injection of cash if the two clubs obey.
Muddying the waters is the fact that Liverpool, via Gillet and Hicks, owes a significant chunk of cash to RBS, which is itself essentially owned by the government.
I’d suggest that Liverpool watchers should start turning their eyes toward the hallowed gates of Liverpool One over the next few weeks.
It’s the time of the year when commercial rents are due and bets are being taken on which high-street names are likely to go to the big white-washed window in the sky.
For some reason that escapes me, commercial landlords collect payments at quarterly intervals, meaning colossal outgoing for tenants every three months.
Pair that to poor trading conditions, and the fact that the post-Christmas lull is a traditionally-slow one, and you’re going to get casualties.
There’s some fascinating stuff over at How Do regarding the conception of the new logo, which has been given a rather mixed reception.
Since my media nodes, and time, are naturally limited I failed to get any sort of inside scoop, but How Do reports a number of interesting factoids, including:
• Finch was originally to be awarded the pitch without it being put out to tender, resulting in some understandable consternation from other agencies in the region
• A second pitching stage saw three agencies bidding for the roll-out of the branding and launch, using the logo already designed by Finch
• An original strapline reading ‘Alive with Imagination’ was removed when it met with ‘a pretty poor reception from everyone unfortunate enough to have seen it’
• A number of companies competed for various components of the brief, which seems bafflingly complicated
• Phil Redmond has had nothing to do with the branding. He is apparently in a huff after disagreeing with the direction of the branding
“So, we need a logo that mixes the old with the new, the vibrant with the classical, old architecture versus the new architecture. The Beatles AND The Wombats, The Cavern AND Cream, Protestant AND Catholic, Liverpool AND Everton, Yosser Hughes AND Danielle Lloyd, Yin AND Yang, forward not backward, blue and, er, light blue.”
“And we need to have some horrible tower blocks in it for, y’know, business and shit.”
“How about a two-tone pictures of some cool Liverpool landmarks, plus those shit tower blocks?”
“Wouldn’t that look like the Thames TV logo?”
“Yes. But lets get some slebs in to tell us what they think of it. Say Abby from The Zutons, that bloke from Cream, some woman who owns a boutique and the director of the school for Tropical Medicine.”
“What have they got to do with it?”
“Absolutely nothing, but we’ll call them brand ambassadors and say they form a wide cross-section of Liverpool society.”
“Love it! OK, I’ll send this down to design. By the way, how much are we going to charge for this?”
“Oooh. 50 grand? Plus £20K for research. There’s a recession on after all…”
Liverpool CC has received two stars out of four from the Audit Commission for 2008, along with the judgment that as a council it is ‘improving well’. While this rating still leaves LCC in the bottom 20 per cent of the UK’s councils, it’s a distinct improvement on the slamming it received last year.
I’m inordinately amused by Liverpool’s new slogan – Liverpool: The UK’s third favourite city
I’ve just been for a walk around the new Tesco on Hanover Street, as people seem to do when a shop opens nearby. “Have you been to the new Tesco?” they ask, as if there’s something other than a busy and joyless stress experience waiting for you when you inevitably go.