Commentary
Why Liverpool needs to raise its sights on tall buildings
Liverpool’s uneasy relationship with tall buildings is nothing new, with debates reigniting every few years over whether they enrich or erode the city’s character, writes Darren Muir of Pegasus Group.
From the Royal Liver Building – once the tallest in Europe yet dismissed as “ugly” and “out of scale” – to today’s skyline debates, the conversation too often gets reduced to binaries of skyscrapers versus skylines, preservation versus progress.
In reality, cities that fail to embrace ambitious vertical growth risk stagnation. Tall buildings are not a novelty. In the right location, they are a necessity. They bring density where land is tight, unlock investment in housing and offices, and provide the kind of iconic statements that global investors and occupiers look for. Manchester’s skyline is proof that height, when handled well, can define a city’s ambition and show it’s open for business. The question is whether Liverpool, and indeed the wider North West, can afford to sit on the sidelines.
Credit Infinite 3D
Of course, it’s not as simple as “build tall everywhere.” Height needs context, a planning framework, and a robust design conversation that is relevant to that specific location. That’s where too many projects fall down – they spark controversy because there is no shared vision, no agreed rules of engagement between developers, planners, local authorities and the public. At Pegasus Group, we’ve seen both sides – the resistance that comes from uncertainty, and the momentum that emerges when stakeholders are brought together early, with a clear evidence base on design, viability, heritage, and the development’s impact and value on the ground.
Liverpool is at a turning point. The groundwork has already been laid through the Tall Buildings Supplementary Planning Document, providing a framework for where height can be supported in the city. If an applicant chooses to veer from this guidance, then robust justification is needed. The next step is ensuring that the upcoming Local Plan update and future planning guidance strike the right balance – they must demand quality but not box the city into a corner with unviable, rigid requirements. Policy should enable design ambition and creativity rather than constrain it, otherwise Liverpool risks missing the opportunity to capture the benefits that tall buildings can deliver.
There are encouraging signs in Liverpool. The city council has publicly backed the proposed King Edward Triangle skyscraper cluster – a bold statement of intent that could transform perceptions of the city’s ambition on the international stage. They have also agreed to accept Brownfield Infrastructure Land grant funding from Homes England and act as the accountable body on behalf of Peel Waters for Central Park and its supporting infrastructure to help deliver more than 2,000 homes in another tall building cluster. This support provides clarity to the market, signalling that Liverpool is serious about high-quality tall buildings as a driver of regeneration. The challenge now is to maintain momentum, turning this early commitment into deliverable projects that attract direct investment and give developers the confidence to follow suit.
Credit: Brock Carmichael
It’s time for a grown-up conversation. We need to move past debates about whether tall buildings are inherently “good” or “bad” and instead focus on deliverability and long-term value. The number of storeys should not be the obsession. What matters is if a scheme can be built, will last, and benefit the city’s future. This is where such projects can really leave their legacy, helping to attract much-needed investment into North Liverpool. The debate should be evidence-led, not emotive. Planning consultancies, local authorities, and investors must collaborate to get this right – because the cost of standing still is too high.
Bringing tall buildings forward is tougher than ever. The Building Safety Act has rightly raised the bar on accountability but also added time and complexity to approvals, while rising construction costs and shifting market demand make viability harder to prove. That’s why flexible phasing and meanwhile uses, whether cultural, community or commercial, are so valuable, keeping sites active and income flowing while long-term plans take shape. They can also help shape the communities that will be here to stay.
To help unlock delivery, it’s vital that local authorities get behind the vision of a masterplan early, giving developers confidence and reducing risk. Close collaboration, through proactive pre-app engagement, flexible phasing, and forward-thinking ambition, can speed up the process and give tall buildings the best chance of becoming a reality.
At Pegasus Group, our team is working across the North West to unlock tall building projects – helping developers navigate planning policy and legislation, heritage sensitivities, Environmental Impact Assessments, economic business cases, design review, and public perception. We’ve learned that with the right strategy, tall buildings can respect heritage, strengthen skylines, and catalyse regeneration. But it requires courage – from developers to propose them, and from decision-makers to back them. Liverpool’s new Local Plan presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to set the tone for growth. Get it right, and it can drive investment, attract global capital, and position the city as a genuine competitor on the international stage. Get it wrong – by insisting on unviable requirements that box developers in – and investors will look elsewhere, leaving Liverpool at risk of stagnation while other cities move forward.
The question is whether Liverpool has the confidence to seize this moment. With the right policy framework and positive thinking, height can be a catalyst for growth, investment, and pride. But hesitation, over-regulation, or an obsession with the wrong details could see opportunity slip away. This is the time for ambition, and the city cannot afford to look down when the world is looking up.
- Darren Muir is director-planning at Pegasus Group
this really depends on the area. they dont want to do what Manchester has done and let tall buildings be built everywhere including the conservation areas, it ruins the character of the area. tall buildings look best in clusters
By Anonymous
Liverpool needs to start acting like a major city rather than a village. Manchester wants to be like New York while Liverpool wants to be Runcorn.
By JT
The Building Safety Act has to be sorted out as things are moving even more slowly in Liverpool. We are lucky that Davos/TJ Morris are willing to invest big in the King Edward Triangle , in addition they have purchased the Norton site over at Baltic which can accommodate about 30 floors. Then of course we have Legacie who you’d think would love to develop at least one tall, but in the meantime keep things ticking over picking up many stalled sites.
By Anonymous
For goodness sake why is Liverpool still talking about this now in 2025.
By Anonymous
The council can put out statements backing the King Edward Triangle development, but it’s no use if Samantha Campbell and her lot at the planning department are hell bent on putting as many obstacles in the way to block development in the City.
By Anonymous
Nuala Gallagher
Sophie Bevan
Samantha Campbell
Andrea Dimba
These people are in charge of pushing Liverpools regeneration and yet there are only 4 working cranes on the skyline. Compare this to other cities who are comfortably in double figures. What have the above done to earn their salary?
By Anonymous
Glad to see this Liverpool does need more quality high buildings, however I support Liverpools decision to focus on clusters , they look much better and allow the city to grow whilst retaining its character. We don’t want to follow Manchester random approach. , high buildings definitely.but in the right places
By George
Large parts of Manchester’s architecture are already similar to Brooklyn. It doesn’t need the tall buildings.
Can’t deny it’s growing economy and wider ambitions though.
By Anonymous
Agreed Darren, the conversation needs to be about the quality of the building design – does the silhouette enhance the Liverpool skyline, are the materials and detailing appropriate and robust and, of course, the right place-making of the spaces around, rather than focusing on a specific height.
By Adam Hall - Falconer Chester Hall
If any city is made for Talls, it’s Liverpool. It is blessed with the best urban view in England, and a few towers behind its existing waterfront would enhance that view.
By Elephant
Liverpool doesn’t need these very tall buildings. It’s best served conserving the past and building new low rise.
By Ray Henderson
LCC needs to stop knocking developers back who want to build and invest on fly tipped derelict land and create homes, jobs and tax revenue – the Nextdom proposed development being a good example. What’s going on with Packaged Livings planning application for two towers at the end of Old Hall Street/Leeds Street, this was lodged in 2023?! Not really sending out a positive message.
By GetItBuilt!
@ 1.48pm, Darren Muir has just fully explained why you are wrong and why Liverpool needs to stop living in the past as we’re going nowhere if we don’t.
By Anonymous
The reality is that Liverpool’s planning team have zero understanding of development economics; respond slowly to just about anything; focus on minor issues whilst failing to see or understand the big picture; and spend more time talking a good game than actually delivering one. Have I missed anything?
By Anonymous
Build them as tall as you like and get City Region based consultants designing them.
By Frank Tesling
Tall buildings are not some missing link to automatic prosperity. North West and merseyside population is in a trajectory to age, population to decline and productivity to fall. Move towards liveability index related growth and investment. Win investment from local pension fund holders like universities and attract people to stay and live here.
By Noname
Totally Disagree..Better Quality Building Materials,.Better Design..(less Throw up Panel Architecture)..And Completed Buildings on Time are the Goals
By John lynn
Imagine if Howard Bernstein and Manchester had Liverpool waterfront. It would be the best in Europe. Shame there is no vision or ambition in Liverpool.
By Carl
Well done Darren great article . We are blessed with a world famous waterfront ripe for development but cursed with truly awful LLC particularly the self serving planners. If the leader or any senior figures within LCC really want progress , jobs , etc go and have a look at Manchester , good luck to them its just criminal to see our city becoming a relative backwater especially as its self inflicted. A complete clear out at the planning is needed as a matter of urgency, professionalise it with local forward thinking architects , developers , universities etc on a volunteer basis. A common purpose for progression , quality and acceptance that building must not be capped at 12 stories . I wont hold my breath
By Paul - woolton
Great article by Darren from Pegasus and I totally agree with the comments made by both himself and Paul Woolton @9.47. I feel sure though that there must be some people in LCC planning who joined the team with high hopes of changing attitudes to progress there and with high hopes of actually being able to make things happen only to find that the negativity of those above them and around them means that their hopes and ideals are soon dashed. Many years ago our great city’s postmark said ‘Liverpool, city of change and challenge’ with an outline of St Johns beacon on it. Sadly LCC attitude is now one of ‘Liverpool, afraid to change and not willing to allow challenge’ in terms of design and types of buildings. Liverpool was once called ‘the gateway to the Atlantic!’ Thanks to LCC it is very sadly now more like the back door to it!
By Brendan R
To think it was Liverpool that invented the Skyscraper, once had it’s own Stock Exchange and was a force. Look what type of people are running your city now.
By Anonymous
Excellent article Darren. Great to be working with you on King Edward Triangle.
@Place North West, I think it contributors are going to name officers at the council in a disparaging way, I think they should have to attribute the comment to their own name, rather than hide behind the cloak of anonymity.
By Andy Delaney
The Guardian has an alternative view in its June 2023 article “What lose rise Paris can teach London about quality of life”.
And the four Council employees listed work extremely hard in trying to deal with a huge array of competing interests. They are not employed just to pander to the skyscraper enthusiasts.
But the comments section of PNW is no place for rational debate.
Have a nice day everyone
By Miss Ann Thrope
Surely the planning officers aren’t to blame most of the time? The councillors on the Planning Committee keep knocking things back and appear to be anti-business, anti-growth and rooted firmly in the politics of the 1970’s and 80’s. Manchester has, in my opinion, made some mistakes with its ‘build anywhere as long as you build high’ approach, but at least there’s a demand to invest there, and the proactive approach of their public sector is part of the reason for that. Whilst Liverpool seems to be seeking the moral high ground at the expense of investment and growth, who’s the winner in the end? There has to be a better way and a middle ground other than just saying no constantly, but that has to include a Planning Committee that actually facilitates activity on the ground and understands that height can work in Liverpool without automatically being detrimental.
By Anonymous
@Andy Delaney. I imagine most commentors are tax paying residents fairly asking what they are getting for their money. Planning documents and decisions are open to the public and the planning teams nit picking is there for all who care to look to see. Accountability in public serving officers is important.
By Liverpool resident.
Manchesters tall buildings are largely in clusters around the periphery of the city centre..Jackson St , Greengate and maybe the end of Gt Jackson street. Only one or two have escaped elsewhere and they wouldn’t be called ‘tall’ anymore by Manchester standards. A cluster on the waterfront in Liverpool would indeed look good.
By Anonymous
What we are dealing with here in Liverpool is elements of a perfect storm going back to the late 1970s when our then Council shunned the private sector and scared it away,even the docks were under threat. We still have remnants of that Council attitude now when we hear of greedy developers and profit mongers, so in my view some of these elements thought up ways of holding up developers with height restrictions, over- egging the heritage factor, deeming scrubland in the inner-city to be leisure areas where wildlife flourished when in reality they were places to “exercise” the dog, plus insisting on certain design features that blend with the status quo, in more recent times we have the demand for 20% affordability which is much too high. We also have dubious, rogue elements, owning land and property with no intention to build and these are left empty for years as land banking.
Darren Muir knows his business, he knows the market, and he knows Liverpool, we can still keep our heritage but we can also work with developers and investors in building tall as we have plenty of land to do it, starting with the King Edward Triangle.
By Anonymous
There isn’t the demand to justify more tall resi blocks in Liverpool, and certainly not at the price points needed to justify the additional construction costs of going tall. The prices existing stock generally go for really aren’t high, and that doesn’t take into account how much ends up as AirBnBs rather than for homes or even long-term investments.
There also aren’t the numbers of international students to justify the sort of PBSA skyscrapers going up in Manchester.
There are huge numbers of sites that could be developed in and around the city centre, so not the pressure on sites or inflated land values or the need to go for the highest densities possible.
If there was money to be made from going tall, it wouldn’t really matter what LCC thinks, because it would be worth challenging them or going to appeal.
And there is the issue of the existing character of the city centre which is really valued by people who aren’t the SkyscraperCity “get in built” armchair fanboys, who it seems are always so much better informed than everyone else…
By Skyscrapper
@ Liverpool Resident – thanks for your message in support of ‘Anonymous’. My comment wasn’t on naming the officers. They are all name checked regularly on Place NW. I just thought that if ‘Anonymous’ is asking public officers to be accountable, then maybe they would also want to be accountable for their own comments.
By Andy Delaney
When I read articles like this it reminds how as a country we memory whole the fact that a non-trivial part of the prosperity of London and South East is driven by the City of London. If you go to the City with a credible growth opportunity that requires a 1M sq ft of new space they’ll find a way to get it built between more Roman remains, listed buildings, historic churches and national landmarks than practically anywhere else in the UK, that’s without talking about Canary .Wharf If Liverpool wants to be a more prosperous place it needs to get serious about tall buildings.
By Rich X
@ Anon 12.14pm, there is only so much Nuala Gallagher and Sophie Bevan can do to attract development and investment to the City if outside forces are against them. But where we do have a lot of local control and influence is in the Planning Dept and Planning Committee, and these have been instrumental in putting off a fair amount of investment here. On another note Central Government, both Labour and Tory, have ignored Liverpool in relocating 1000s of Civil Service posts, preferring Manc or the North East especially.
By Anonymous
It’s a collective failure of local governance over decades, worsened in recent years by the clashing egos in the Council and Combined Authority. Disjointed, uncoordinated, unwillingness to work outside of their silos.
By Anonymous
Thanks for the kind words and comments. It’s great to see such lively debate. Working with LCC officers daily, it’s clear we have far more in common than than that which we disagree on. Where we do disagree, which is going to be inevitable when discussing the range of considerations for multi-million / billion-pound developments, it is always discussed professionally and with a view of reaching an agreed solution. The ‘us versus them’ narrative implied in some of these comments is not the reality I experience. We must continue to work as one team. That includes holding each other accountable in a professional and constructive way. Compromise is not a dirty word. Onwards and upwards!
By Darren Muir - Pegasus Group
“Liverpool is serious about high-quality tall buildings as a driver of regeneration” – do you know something we don’t?
By Anonymous