In the post

Julian, Becka, and I had lunch in town today, as we do so often. We treated ourselves to very nice smoothies afterwards. Smoothie Revolution, a tiny shop on Hardman Street, equipped with a few chiller cabinets and an array of electrical blenders, a take-away just for fruit juices or smoothies, freshly made. Then I cycled home to do some work, and found a letter from the council, individually written to me. It's the answer to a letter I had written some time ago where I outlined my objections and concerns about the proposed demolition, and especially on the consultation process. I thought that the interviews with residents the council had comissioned could never give a true picture about what people here think about the plans. My letter, I requested, should become part of the report councillors are given before they make the decision on Lovell's plans. This request is granted I am informed. I have to go through the points the South Central Neighbourhood Management Team Leader(Interim)(And people think we Germans have long words. How about this on a name's badge?) gives as answers to my letter. By skim reading I have the impression that it picks up some points I made, but does not really answer them. Take point 8 for example:

Lovell's newbuild construction will be required to meet Building Regulations standards of energy efficiency. Due to Government policy these standards have risen sgnificantly in recent years.

Thats the answer to something quoted from my letter:

Not only in the light of recent studies into climate change housing development has to be sustainable: Plans for new houses have to make best use of resources and incorporate measures for energy conservation. The current standards are not sufficient. The building industry simply can't carry on as it has done for decades. Lovell's plans do not reflect any of these requirements: Suggested houses are of conventional build, no measures are proposed to be especially energy saving. Demolition plans have to take into account the amount of build in energy in the existing houses, which would be lost. Imagination from Lovell does not reach far enough to improve the energy efficiency of the existing housing stock, even where they are promising to keep and refurbish houses.

My point is that you have to go beyond current building standards if you are serious about tackling climate change. I might be digging a hole here for myself: the enery efficiency of these terraces with their solid walls, single pane sash windows, probably insufficient loft insulation can hardly compete with a low carbon house. There's an interesting article in Green Futures of March/April 2006 about the apparent conflict between heritage and environment.

"Can't stop our ageing homes from wasting heat? Then replace them as fast as possible, and move Britain on to a lower carbon path. In a nutshell, that's the case for demolition. But it smacks of barbarism to the conservationists, who are even loath to let a major energy makeover spoil our housing heritage. We ask rival protagonists to set out their stalls - and look for common ground."

Certainly Lovell does not fall into any of these categories: They are not conservationists, they want to demolish these houses. Even houses they claim to keep their version of conservation only amounts to keeping the facades, the house behind still has to go. (I hate this kind of pseudo conservation. A house is not just it's face to the street!). Lovell is also not interested in the environmental issues of their new houses: Before an Open Day event this summer where Lovell showed us their maps I had tried to find anything in Lovell's portfolio that would give them environmental credentials. I found very little. Asking about it I was told that "if the client pays for it, we do it. But here the client doesn't want to pay for it." Rubbish.

Sunny afternoon

Four of us went to the Town Hall on Dale Street this afternoon to leaflet a council meeting. Eleanor and Hazel had put this leaflet together, in colour. They used photos from the 'Cairns Street in Bloom' competition in the summer, where we had put the mad cap idea of making our street look lovely against all odds into practice. I should really tell you about this event that gave this blog it's name more. Promised... but not in this post. We managed to hand out most of the leaflets Eleanor had colour-copied on her own expenses. I will ask her to scan the leaflet in so I can publish it here as well. The ushers in town hall, one of them looking highly decorated, with a white navy style cap, and decorated with what looked like medals on his immaculate double breasted uniform where friendly and chatty. The admiral of the ushers was interested in our leaflets and accepted a copy.
Most councillors took one. I am pretty sure Marilyn Fielding, responsible for Neighbourhoods and Housing in the executive board of the council was one of them. She's also got a letter from me some weeks ago. This letter went to a number of addresses. The councillor on the executive board I had it addressed to was Peter Millea, responsible for Regeneration and Transport. Little did I know that Renewal as in Neighbourhood Renewal Area does not fall into his department, but it's Neighbourhood that I should have targeted. Peter Millea kindly informed me that he had past the letter on to Marylin Fielding. No reaction from her though. Town Hall in Liverpool has a prominent location; standing in the entrance area I could look down Water Street and see the Mersey glistening in the late afternoon sun and thirty minutes standing there and trying to chat up our local government representatives was made enjoyable that way.
Later in the evening I went to a joint meeting by Duncan Society, Merseyside Environmental Trust and Liverpool Friends of the Earth. The occasion was the launch of their report into sustainability and regeneration, you can download it from their website. (Now I spent 15min to find a link to the download... will have to add it later.)
I was bullied into saying something about Granby street and the campaign to save our homes on that meeting. It somehow fitted into the meeting, so I muttered something about 'demolition' - 'want to keep our homes' - 'developer's profit' - 'council doesn't listen' - 'people are suffering from this' into the microphone. I am not a good public speaker, I can get completely muddled up in my string of words, but Becca, a friend, was appreciative.

Meeting in the street

This evening we had a meeting in the street. I think it was initiated by Elaine Stewart, Neighbourhood Manager for South Central Liverpool.
Eleanor, my neighbour, had managed to get a structural engineer to come out just before, and he had very kindly agreed to give us his opinion on how the bay window problem can be solved. Nearly all neighbours in the street came along, we also had a councillor Alan Dean, and an engineer from 20/20, who are contracted for carrying out property maintenance for the council.
The experts, the engineer from 20/20 and our engineer disagreed: 20/20 said that the bays would have to come down, and he suggested to take the stone work (big sand stone lintels and columns) carefully down and store them inside the house for a potential future use for a rebuilt bay. Our engineer said that it would be possible to use steel bands that can keep the structure from falling down. It would be temporary, but can save the bays fow now, and keep the overall look of the street.
The residents prefer the steel band solution, but the 20/20 man was not convinced. He tried to get our man to give him in writing that it is safe, how he would recommend it should be done, and say which contractors would do the work. As if it is suddenly our responsibility to maintain the council's properties. All he could offer was to build a mock bay, maybe from plywood, with windows painted on them. (He said they have done that in Anfield, or was it Aintree?).
'For godsake no...' was Eleanors reaction. The idea of a boarded up house, brick wall where a door was with 'painted on' windows, including curtains, ridiculous!
We managed to talk 20/20 and Elaine Stewart into at least considering the steel band option, and to explain to us in writing whatever decision they are going to take. I asked them if the builders who were here last week, with a JCB, would have tried to keep the sand stone intact. The answer was no, I guess they would have been smashed and probably would now be landfill, or ground up to hard core. That is at least a little victory, that they say they want to save the stone work.
Then we got a little distracted by discussing other options on how you can keep a wall from falling on somebodies head. Steel wires, pulling the whole thing from inside the house with a ratchet? Two metal bands? Three metal bands? "That would be the Rolls Royce job!"
What about cost? All in all not expensive, whatever you do, assured us Mr. 20/20.
It was a good meeting I thought, everybody could join in. The council reps seemed to take our concerns seriously.

Echos

The Liverpool Echo had an article yesterday, with a picture! And last night I had a phone call on my mobile from somebody who's name I did not understand. A 'Housing Steering Group', polititcal party I think, but I could not understand through the crackling ether which one. I will find out tomorrow, when I give him a call back. He asked for a briefing from me or somebody in my street on what is going on.

We come in peace! (Mars Attacks, Film by Tim Burton, 1996)

We must have alarmed some people with our curiosity into the builders activity this morning. The doorbell rang just after I had finished my breakfast and was packing my bag for the short trip down south.
"We work for the council and we don't know what happened this morning, but some residents must have come out and scared the builders away." - "We want to assure you that the fact that we have to demolish these bay windows has nothing to do with the proposals for the area." Words from council workers I had never met before.
So, lets look at this claim in a little detail:
The bays are peeling away from facades they have been attached to for the best part of last century, we can see that. Gaps and cracks on the houses that are boarded up look especially bad, they are not been lived in for a long time, another fact we can't ignore. Whose houses are they? They used to be social housing, managed by housing associations. Liverpool city council bought them all, and 'secured' them. 'Securing a property' is the wording they use, 'tinning up' is much more evocative: when new, shiny corrugated iron, with time getting grubby, rusty. Like tins without labels and bulging lids; they will explode, no doubt. But who would bet on how much longer it takes for a bulging tin to burst? Same with structural movements in a house. A wall bulges out, foundations subbside, cracks appear. But when does a house finally collapse? The council says: "Now!". What do you do if you get worried about a crack in your house? You get advice, you get it fixed before it is too late. Unless you really want to see your house fall down. Then all you have to worry about is that nobody get's hurt. Isn't that what the council is doing? Yes, they have a duty of care, they would be in deep trouble if a playing kid would be buried under rubble from a house that is in their responsibility. The next best thing to collapse is demolition, a controlled collape.

Can you see my line of argument? The partial demolition has to do with the proposed complete demolition. Look at it the other way: If this corner of Liverpool would be considered as a valuable, important part of the city, as being the home of an exciting mix of people from different cultural backgrounds, people that deserve to be heard, people and houses with more stories to tell than a questionaire can reflect, then the council would be in trouble for letting deterioration on their own houses come that far that demolition is their only option! (Written on the train to London)

"Knockin'em down is deerer..."

Yes, that's what the builders who are contracted to knock down the bay windows on some houses in my street just told me. It's Monday morning and I had to go to get some milk for my poridge. (I normally don't have to go out to buy milk, because I get a door step delivery. The service is prompt, but the milk I got in this morning wss off... but that is another story, must not digress.) I walked past a white builder's van outside and two men in builder's attire with the expression on their faces that says "hmm that'll gonna cost you...". I turned back and started chatting to them. So, houses in my street are dangerous, bricks and sand stone lintels might fall, glass shatter. But instead of fixing the problem by repairing and trying to keep what is there, the builders are contracted to demolish and fill the big hole in with concrete blocks. It will look horenduous, and I will post pictures, but no time to do it today. I am going away for a few days, and when I am back the street will proably have changed it's appearance.

A leaning Bay

On Friday my neighbour met some official looking guys on the street who said they have to demolish the bay windows of some houses in my street. They are dangerous and could fall on somebody or something. How lucky for the council that this happens just before a meeting where the executive board will decide on the approval of the developer Lovell's plans for my neighbourhood. My street would be eradicated, completely demolished. That some houses have to be propped up will give the developer some credibility in their claim that houses in my street can't be repaired. I spend some of my day in getting phone numbers from structural engineers to give us a second opinion. Is the urgency really required? We can see that there are gaps and cracks, but these are not new, and probably looked the same just a few month ago, and they might look the same in a few month if the houses are left standing (or leaning). Interesting is that my neighbours, including me, are very suspicious of any action the council takes. We don't believe that this is only about protecting us from collapsing bay windows, it will bolster their position. I also managed to speak to a councillor who will put a question to the executive board of the council about this sudden urgency. I will post his question and hopefully any asnwers here in due course.