Liverpool loses its UNESCO world heritage status

[PTR 444]

Liverpool stripped of Unesco World Heritage status

The city is deleted from the much-coveted Unesco list because of developments on the waterfront.

www.bbc.co.uk

Liverpool has been stripped of its World Heritage status after a UN committee found developments threatened the value of the city's waterfront.

The decision was made following a secret ballot by the Unesco committee at a meeting in China.
Unesco had said that the developments, including the planned new Everton FC stadium, had resulted in a "serious deterioration" of the historic site.
The decision was described as "incomprehensible" by the city's mayor.
"Our World Heritage site has never been in better condition having benefitted from hundreds of millions of pounds of investment across dozens of listed buildings and the public realm," Joanne Anderson said.
She said she would work with the government to examine whether the city could appeal against the decision, which comes "a decade after Unesco last visited the city to see it with their own eyes".

I think it’s a shame that this happened over a few new buildings that will probably have blended in with age anyway. What do you think about this decision?

 

[AlterEgo]

People visited Liverpool because it was a great city and will continue to do so. Perhaps the city can now get on with some proper development without the noose of UNESCO hanging over it. People need homes and jobs, not to live in a simulacrum of 1902.

 

[Ianno87]

People visited Liverpool because it was a great city and will continue to do so. Perhaps the city can now get on with some proper development without the noose of UNESCO hanging over it. People need homes and jobs, not to live in a simulacrum of 1902.

You could probably have them *and* keep WH status.

 

[AlterEgo]

You could probably have them *and* keep WH status.

No, the decision to revoke was specifically because UNESCO considered the development of a literally unused dock area a threat to the heritage status of the rest of the area. That’s Liverpool Waters: £5.5bn of investment, 20,000 new apartments and thousands and thousands of jobs for Liverpool. They also didn’t like the fact a stadium was going to be built on - yes - another literally unused dock.

I’m glad the wasteland in Liverpool will be reanimated.

 

[Ianno87]

No, the decision to revoke was specifically because UNESCO considered the development of a literally unused dock area a threat to the heritage status of the rest of the area. That’s Liverpool Waters: £5.5bn of investment, 20,000 new apartments and thousands and thousands of jobs for Liverpool. They also didn’t like the fact a stadium was going to be built on - yes - another literally unused dock.

I’m glad the wasteland in Liverpool will be reanimated.

The development could till have happened but have been more "in keeping" perhaps.

 

[J-2739]

It does look rather striking. I like it, but I wonder if they fear that this development will encourage surrounding developments that will bring a threat to the architectural integrity of the area. Good for the economy though!

 

[ABB125]

According to the antis, this is proof that Stonehenge will be stripped of its WHS status when the A303 tunnel gets built. Right...

As for Liverpool, until recently I wasn't even aware that it was a WHS. Will it affect me, or how likely I am to go there? No.

 

[507021]

In all honesty, I can't say I'm bothered by the decision.

The city needs jobs and money more than it needs World Heritage Status.

 

[Senex]

Wasn't it a question of the views of the waterfront as well as the current proposals for Liverpool Waters and the Everton stadium? This photo published in today's Guardian (image: Carl Dickinson, Alamy Stock Images) rather shews the impact of modern architecture on the historic view that was a major aspect of the claim for World Heritage status. Isn't the question one of how far should modern architecture be expected to respect its surroundings and how far it should be entirely free to make its creator's statement, and isn't there also a question of the great gap in so many cases between public taste and what architects think it their progressive duty to create? The Liverpool case has certainly given rise to some interesting contributions to the debate in the Guardian.

 

[jfollows]

Whilst I'm not that bothered by the decision either, I had forgotten about this "status" anyway, I don't personally like many of the modern buildings in both Liverpool and Manchester which have been constructed recently. The huge Beetham Tower at the bottom end of Deansgate is uninteresting and unpleasant to look at, so I think there's a clear conflict between utility and appearance.

I moved into a converted warehouse in Manchester in 1996, I was lucky, but I spent the next years tolerating the construction racket from my locality. Now a 55 story block within yards of where I lived has been approved.

I'm glad I no longer live in Manchester. But I'm lucky in a variety of ways. In a number of years there will be people living in this new block who will enjoy their central location. So good luck to them.

But maybe I'm just getting old, but the skyline of both Manchester and Liverpool is pretty horrible these days, and I blame out-of-control construction of buildings with little architectural merit in my eyes. Carbuncles indeed.

So, for me, this revocation of "status" for Liverpool might make some people think more. But the consequence might therefore be less housing, more expensive housing, and higher council taxes.

 

[alex397]

I have mixed views on this. I recently visited Liverpool, and the waterfront was a great space. Some of the buildings are very ugly and obtrusive, such as that large black building blocking the view of the listed buildings. On closer inspection, the black panels are all fading so the quality doesn’t look good already.
Although the three historic buildings next to each other, including the Liver Building were well preserved and unobstructed from the river side. The area around the Albert Dock was also well preserved

Private Eye has been reporting on this for a few years I think, with Liverpool City Council being warned for a long time they could lose the world heritage status.
However, I’d also say a development such as the Everton stadium would be better than an empty dock. I wonder if they could have had the developments AND kept the WH status. I’d be interested in more details about exactly why the developments threatened the status and whether it was fair to remove it.

I know some will say it doesn’t matter it has lost the status - but I think it does. For example, I know of travellers who like to tick off as many UNESCO sites as possible. It won’t stop the majority of tourists coming though.

 

[AlterEgo]

The developments threatened the status because they’re large and don’t fit with the aesthetic of an abandoned dock. It’s not possible to build 20,000 apartments and 10,000 offices on such a space without it being very tall (up to 50 storeys). The fact it’ll be in a different style and overlooking the dock is what they don’t like. The football stadium isn’t going to fit with the abandoned dock aesthetic either because it’s, well, a massive football stadium.

The idea that those docks were better off empty as some sort of de-industrialisation scar is bonkers. What’s been proposed is maximising the use of the land to provide employment and housing. Young people aren’t getting on the property ladder and aren’t being able to build up capital. I say to hell with the WH status and build the new apartments and offices. Nobody is planning on demolishing the existing Albert Dock area. It’ll still be there.

 

[Senex]

There was a really interesting and perceptive (well, I found it so) article by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian about a month ago, touching on what you can and can't do with existing cityscapes and what works for people and what doesn't: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/25/liverpool-unesco-status-waterfront-government. From it:

"Liverpool ... remains one of England’s finest cities, and was delighted to be justly recognised as such by Unesco in 2004. But for half a century its architectural personality had been abused, ever since the communist town planner Graeme Shankland declared it “obsolete” and offered to rebuild it in the 1970s. He was duly commissioned to demolish two-thirds of the city centre for a maze of motorways, towers and slabs. He had barely started when the money ran out and Liverpool went into prolonged decline.
Since then, Liverpudlians and their friends have been at war with a demolition-obsessed council. Hundreds of acres of dignified inner suburbs have been flattened and still lie empty and derelict. Whole streets are boarded up. Council towers were erected and then pulled down as uninhabitable. The only booming sector has been student residences.
For all this, Liverpool’s capacity to rise from the ashes would always lie in its regeneration of the docks. There lay the ghosts of its greatness, as in the mighty Albert, Stanley and East Waterloo Docks and their quays, warehouses, portals and alleys. The challenge was to see them reborn as a focus of urbanity, creativity and leisure, like Bradford’s Saltaire or the waterfronts at Bristol, Plymouth or Edinburgh’s Leith."

"This is not a matter simply of aesthetics. Respecting history is now recognised as holding the key to long-term urban renewal. Go to any battered British city centre – in Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool – and the areas most buzzing with life are the few surviving historic neighbourhoods. They have a chemistry modern architecture seems unable to replicate. The model for Shankland’s Liverpool was London’s Barbican, its acres often silent as the grave."

Liverpool was indeed the gem amongst England's great commercial/industrial cities, and remained so after most of the others had been spoilt by the modern development, whether of office buildings or of what was supposed to be the wonderful new housing (now so often already coming down again). What a tragedy to see it go the way of Birmingham and Manchester.

 

[jfollows]

I recall going on a school trip to Liverpool, primarily for the museum and a trip on the ferry, in what must have been before September 1973 (when I changed school). The thing I noticed the most in the comparison between Liverpool and Manchester was the number of derelict/open spaces in Liverpool apparently resulting from bomb damage in World War 2, which just didn't exist in Manchester, not least because Liverpool was more heavily bombed.
But any blame for what has happened since then - and credit - seems indeed to be justly directed at what's happened since my school trip. Some of it good, of course.

 

[wireforever]

Liverpool is not the only city to have lost WHS due to redevelopment Dresden lost WHS because of this same reason both have new or proposed football stadiums near the WHS area and both cities were heavily bombed during WW2 .Perhaps the secret ballot voters don't like football!

 

[Ianigsy]

Some of the buildings are very ugly and obtrusive, such as that large black building blocking the view of the listed buildings. On closer inspection, the black panels are all fading so the quality doesn’t look good.

The ironic thing is that the large black building is the Open Eye Gallery, which has been established in the city for decades but never had a purpose built home until recently.

Everton will be blamed for it in any case!

 

[507021]

The ironic thing is that the large black building is the Open Eye Gallery, which has been established in the city for decades but never had a purpose built home until recently.

Everton will be blamed for it in any case!

Anyone who blames Everton is being ridiculous, and that's coming from someone who supports Liverpool.

Apart from the obvious jobs and money the new stadium will bring to the area, it strengthens the business case for a Merseyrail station in the Vauxhall area too.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Love Liverpool, it's the finest city in England in my opinion. Two magnificent cathedrals, the docklands and waterfront, The World Museum and St George's Hall area, great and very historic rail rsystem, etc.

The UNESCO deletion doesn't change my opinion of the city, never liked such taglines as World Heritage status can increase prices for tourists as well as create a sense of pride, which is can be nasty. Pride leads to arrogance and self praise which is toxic.

 

[AlterEgo]

Pride leads to arrogance and self praise which is toxic.

Good job that neither of these afflict the people of Liverpool (!!)

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Good job that neither of these afflict the people of Liverpool (!!)

Exactly, the people of Liverpool are good, friendly and down to Earth. Some elsewhere would act like total snobs if their area had UNESCO World Heritage status.

 

[Ianno87]

Exactly, the people of Liverpool are good, friendly and down to Earth. Some elsewhere would act like total snobs if their area had UNESCO World Heritage status.

Durham doesn't.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Durham doesn't.

Edinburgh does though, they brag about it as if it proves it's the best place ever.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

What value does UNESCO WHS status actually add to a location, other than bringing in tourists and potentially pricing locals out? If it means the place is essentially preserved in aspic for fear of losing said status, then at best it is nothing more than a tool to assist with gentrification.

Especially for somewhere like Liverpool, which has the "four lads who shook the world"* on its C.V.; and two historic football teams; and one of the world's most famous horse races... it doesn't NEED the status to bring folk in. For smaller places like Saltaire maybe it helps, but these places have to be living, breathing communities rather than museums.

*= you have to go over the water for the "Four Lads Who Shook the Wirral", a far better group anyway.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I don't normally bother with off-topic posts, but the Unesco World Heritage Bull **** gets my goat.

The whole nonsense is a total perversion of what it should be. It may have begun with good intentions, but today towns, cities, regions, governments and Unesco themselves know it's a total con-trick.

What they SHOULD be doing is going out and finding genuine heritage sites and campaigning to protect them. Most especially in countries with no effective rule of law.

What actually happens is unscrupulous folks in power lobby like mad to get their 'bit of real estate' graded as World Heritage Status so that it jumps in value by 10 - 20 - 50% because of its "new brand" and they reap the rewards, very often adding thousands of new dwellings, cafes, restaurant and other commercial places to make money.

There may be genuinely decent folk in the system, seeking to do the right thing, but the overall operation is a corruption of what it is supposed to be. A plague on all their houses.

 

[alex397]

S Exactly, the people of Liverpool are good, friendly and down to Earth. Some elsewhere would act like total snobs if their area had UNESCO World Heritage status.

I spent most of last week in Liverpool (and saw a lot of the Wirral too). Most people seemed really warm and friendly. I also had a few conversations with locals, which is rare for me. It makes a change from being down south!
Sorry, rather off topic, but I had to mention it!

I hope this doesn’t dent the tourist trade for the town. I doubt it will change levels of tourism at all significantly though. It has a lot to offer. Liverpool City Council should perhaps also focus on the basics though - the streets were noticeably filthy with broken glass everywhere I went.

 

[johnnychips]

Really, when you are making your travel decisions, does ‘oh, it’s a World Heritage Site’ come into it? I’m sure the Pyramids are, but everyone who’s been there has said it’s a sh*thole, and I’d rather listen to their opinion rather than be guided by some exalted status.

 

[birchesgreen]

I got to be honest i didn't even know the Pool had WHS status until this week.

 

[alex397]

Really, when you are making your travel decisions, does ‘oh, it’s a World Heritage Site’ come into it? I’m sure the Pyramids are, but everyone who’s been there has said it’s a sh*thole, and I’d rather listen to their opinion rather than be guided by some exalted status.

To most people, probably not. But I’m sure it would influence some people.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Really, when you are making your travel decisions, does ‘oh, it’s a World Heritage Site’ come into it? I’m sure the Pyramids are, but everyone who’s been there has said it’s a sh*thole, and I’d rather listen to their opinion rather than be guided by some exalted status.

I was on the sidelines of two "accreditations" or whatever they call them for World Heritage Site status back around 2000 or so, and believe it or not, Unesco officials actually boasted that yes, there are people who opt for a place simply because it is on the WH list.

In other words, if Mr and Mrs X when on tour saw a trip to the birth place of Izgod Eminajane - dubbed the Shakespeare of Lithuania - they wouldn't go.

But if the trip was labelled "The World Heritage site, the birth place of Izgod Eminajane .... etc " - they likely would. (this is a fictitious example, but you get my point).

My take on this is that for some, it gives them a special status feeling (ie they can boast about it), for others, it's some sort of certificate that it's worth seeing. I suppose for some it's both.

Sad? Yes, somewhat in my opinion, but that's humanity for us.

And Unesco officials build it up big - they're in business, and they want to expand, make money and feel important - and it's their brand.

And like a lot of 'branding' - it stinks IMO.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2021 ==

What value does UNESCO WHS status actually add to a location, other than bringing in tourists and potentially pricing locals out? If it means the place is essentially preserved in aspic for fear of losing said status, then at best it is nothing more than a tool to assist with gentrification.

Especially for somewhere like Liverpool, which has the "four lads who shook the world"* on its C.V.; and two historic football teams; and one of the world's most famous horse races... it doesn't NEED the status to bring folk in. For smaller places like Saltaire maybe it helps, but these places have to be living, breathing communities rather than museums.

*= you have to go over the water for the "Four Lads Who Shook the Wirral", a far better group anyway.

It may not need it - but alas, it will influence some folk to visit who would not otherwise.

 

[C J Snarzell]

As far as I'm concerned central Liverpool is one of the most attractive cities in the UK.

I once recall visiting Liverpool as a child in the 1980s and thinking how run down and uninviting it was.

However, the regeneration that started many years ago, has pushed Liverpool forward and created an almost different place to what it used to be.

If Liverpool has lost one of it's heritage labels - so what? I think the City has never looked better and will continue to improve thanks to future projects.

CJ