04:00, 19 Nov 2025<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0_West-TowerBrook-StreetPic-Andrew-Teebay.jpg\")
(Image: Andrew Teebay Liverpool Echo)<\/p>\n
Comparisons between Liverpool and Manchester can feel overdone and aren\u2019t always fair, as the cities differ in population, culture, and economy. Yet in economic performance, regeneration and development, Liverpool often lags behind<\/a> its North West neighbour, which is currently outpacing the rest of the country. Liverpool Echo readers have been discussing the differences between the economic fortunes of the two cities.<\/p>\n Manchester\u2019s skyline has transformed dramatically in recent years. Where Beetham Tower was once the lone skyscraper, the city now has 26 high-rises over 100 metres tall and eight completed skyscrapers, a visible sign of its economic boom. Liverpool\u2019s skyline remains iconic, with the Three Graces a symbol of its history, but in terms of modern development the city falls behind.<\/p>\n The lack of very tall buildings was highlighted at a recent planning committee meeting, where councillors approved Packaged Living\u2019s plans for over 430 new flats in two blocks at Old Hall Street, replacing a former data centre. While councillors welcomed the economic boost, some questioned why the buildings couldn\u2019t exceed 25 and 19 storeys.<\/p>\n Cllr Peter Norris asked the developer, \u201cWhere is the ambition?\u201d Adam Hall of Falconer Chester Hall explained that Liverpool is \u201cchallenging\u201d in terms of construction and financial viability. \u201cThere is a threshold where buildings top out\u2014extra floors don\u2019t generate profit,\u201d he said. Factors such as wind, lift speeds, and structural design all play a role, meaning \u201c25 storeys is about where Liverpool tops out.\u201d<\/p>\n Change is possible, however. Plans for the King Edward Triangle include a 60-storey tower, which would be the city\u2019s tallest if realised. Cllr Nick Small, cabinet member for growth and economy, added: \u201cWe want taller buildings in the right parts of the city, and our Tall Buildings Policy will assist with that.\u201d<\/p>\n Commenter C00C00CaJ00B says: \u201cI don’t understand the infatuation with tall buildings. Concrete, Steel & Glass. Debatable architectural merit. Leave them for Manchester, Liverpool has its own special character.\u201d<\/p>\n Polymath agrees: \u201cManchester feels claustrophobic. Don\u2019t ruin the feel of Liverpool.\u201d<\/p>\n Neilldavies adds: \u201cInvestment is one thing, but Manchester has lost much of its character in recent years thanks to all the tower blocks. They dwarf historic structures in close proximity and some of them stand part-empty too. Liverpool needs to move forward but development should always be sympathetic to the surroundings.\u201d<\/p>\n Twentytimes206 thinks: \u201cIt\u2019s all talk, promises of this and that. Just build it. They haven\u2019t a clue. The waterfront could look amazing with more skyscrapers, even better than the place at the other end of Lancashire. Sort it or get out. There is one plot by the Merseyrail<\/a> underground that is just the base and has not been touched in years. Embarrassing, just like the planners.\u201d<\/p>\n Didimention agrees: \u201cThe city needs some new office space, but it doesn\u2019t necessarily need to be high-rise buildings.\u201d<\/p>\n Askingquestions asks: \u201cWho will actually live in these new developments? Most new buildings are filled with students because the council has focused on residential projects instead of attracting people to the city through jobs. For years employers have been leaving Liverpool. We need new offices and a workforce first, like Manchester and Leeds did, but our council seems to ignore this, believing that simply building homes will bring people in. It won\u2019t. With so many proposals in the pipeline, it is set to crash unless more people are working in the city.\u201d<\/p>\n Inspector71 complains: \u201cA city that cannot fix its roads or clear its streets wants to build skyscrapers? But of course, the city centre is considered more important than anywhere else.\u201d<\/p>\n Jagger16 points out: \u201cWe don’t need high rectangular blocks of concrete with windows just to take part in this imaginary competition with Manchester or anywhere else. Does it matter if some poor unemployed guy in Manchester can say to some poor unemployed guy in Liverpool”Hey we’ve got more higher buildings than you.” There’s more to worry about.\u201d<\/p>\n Corona adds: \u201cManchester has focussed on developments that will create jobs whereas Liverpool seems mostly focussed on building houses and apartments.\u201d<\/p>\n Marod thinks: \u201cManchester might have skyscrapers but it has no soul.\u201d<\/p>\n