|
|
Post by johnoakes on Aug 31, 2009 22:38:26 GMT 1
;D
I think the glazier wore Picasso's glasses.LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by Biggles on Sept 1, 2009 1:08:03 GMT 1
Are those pictures of a Cruise Ship at the Ferry terminal, or a Ferry at the Cruise Terminal just so I dont get confused crossing the River sometime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox Echo on Sept 12, 2009 14:11:32 GMT 1
This photo taken from the ferry shows just what a bad planning decision it was to allow this carbuncle in this heritage location. The closer you get to the landing stage the worse it gets as the building starts to completely obscure the frontage of the classic Cunard Building. And I once thought nothing could be worse on this site then the former chinese restaurant............ Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by ronturner on Sept 13, 2009 6:11:10 GMT 1
Thanks for the photo. Now I see what all the fuss it about. It is a carbuncle.
|
|
|
|
Post by davel on Sept 13, 2009 18:17:26 GMT 1
It looks like, from that angle, the Cunard building has gained a big mouth!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox Echo on Sept 13, 2009 22:23:44 GMT 1
What makes things even worse is the fact that the building serves no real purpose. It does not even lead directly down to the excuse for a landing stage, which is sited slightly further to the north. You have to go back out in the rain to get to that!
The ground floor sells tacky souvenirs, whilst the upper floor has been sub-let as a poor man's sub-branch of the Beatles Story, which is a bit ironic give that it was not them but Gerry Marsden who made the ferry famous. It's not as if the building was needed to sell ferry tickets, which, like the tunnels, have always been sold at the termini on the Wirral side.
It appears that the separate cruise liner stage is capable of dealing with well in excess of 1000 passengers at a time without having any terminal building, so why does the ferry need one to serve a comparative handful?
|
|
