Architect gives clear explanation as to why city is lagging behind Manchester when it comes to tall buildings
Liverpool’s tallest building, The West Tower(Image: Andrew Teebay Liverpool Echo)
Comparisons between Liverpool and Manchester can get a little tired and are not always fair. These are two very different cities with different sized populations and different cultures and economies.
But when it comes to the topics of economic performance, regeneration and development, Liverpool can often be seen as struggling to compete with its larger North West rival, which is currently outpacing the rest of the country when it comes to growth. And if you travel to both city centres, you will see a clear visualisation of this.
In recent years, Manchester’s skyline has changed dramatically. For many years, the Beetham Tower, which houses the city’s Hilton Hotel, was a single skyscraper in the Manchester sky, but the city down the M62 from us now boasts 26 high-rise buildings above 100 metres tall and eight completed skyscrapers. This is not the only sign of an economic boom – but it certainly is one.
Liverpool’s skyline is an iconic one of course, with the three graces a globally recognisable symbol of the city’s history and heritage – but when it comes to more recent developments, the city lags behind its neighbour.
In fact the only building you would probably label as a skyscraper (if we discount St John’s Beacon) is the city’s tallest building, the 40-storey West Tower, which was completed in the mid-2000s.
The issue of Liverpool’s lack of very tall buildings, was raised at a planning committee meeting this past week.
The committee was discussing – and would go on to enthusiastically approve – plans from Packaged Living for more than 430 new apartments inside two major new development blocks at the end of Old Hall Street, where a former data centre currently stands.
While the councillors on the committee all recognised how important these plans will be for both the economic development of the city – there were questions about why the buildings couldn’t have risen higher than the 25 and 19 storeys that they are proposed to be.
Cllr Peter Norris asked the developer “where is the ambition” when it comes to creating taller buildings and received an enlightening response.
The Manchester skyline is ever expanding(Image: bardhok – stock.adobe.com)
Speaking on behalf of the developer was Adam Hall, the managing director at architect firm Falconer Chester Hall, which has offices in Liverpool.
Speaking about the city’s lack of skyscrapers, Mr Hall described Liverpool as a “challenging place to make work in viability and construction terms.”
He told the meeting: “I can tell you from very close anecdotal experience that there is a threshold where buildings in Liverpool top out – when you build extra floors and a developer doesn’t make any money.
“That’s because of technical efficiencies of construction, wind in our windy city, lift speeds, structural design etc etc.”
Mr Hall said that at the moment “25 storeys is about where Liverpool tops out.”
Liverpool’s tallest building, The West Tower(Image: Andrew Teebay Liverpool Echo)
He added: “Beyond that, it’s not really worth a developer building any higher sadly. I think we would all like to see taller buildings in Liverpool. I am a great believer in tall buildings, having designed quite a few of them, but there is development economics at work here.”
This does not to mean that things cannot or will not change in Liverpool. For instance, the exciting plans for the King Edward Triangle development include a 60-storey tower, set to take over as the city’s tallest building if it ever becomes reality.
Cllr Nick Small, the council’s cabinet member for growth and economy said: “We want to see taller buildings in the right parts of the city and we have a Tall Buildings Policy that will help with that.
“The King Edward Triangle development will see the first 50+ storey building in the city and will be a real landmark. It is important to get that first one delivered, which will drive investor confidence.”