If we bulldozed the Taj mahal and put a football stadium there, it would rightly be stripped of its status. I don't know why Liverpool thinks they would be special except;
> "I find it incomprehensible that Unesco would rather Bramley Moore Dock remain a derelict wasteland, rather than making a positive contribution to the city's future and that of its residents," she said.
This isn't a binary decision. Instead of leaving a world heritage site to decay to a point where it's the cheapest place in the city to bulldoze and buolda football stadium, investing in maintaining the area would " make a positive contribution to the city's future" to use their words.
Liverpool culture in general is to see itself as something a bit different to the rest of the UK, and to have a bit of a defiant attitude to authority and what anyone else thinks. There's a lot of historical and political reasons why, some that are still very raw in people's minds.
> Instead of leaving a world heritage site to decay to a point where it's the cheapest place in the city to bulldoze and buolda football stadium
Right - they should have maintained and used the docks in sympathy with their heritage, rather than just erasing them entirely.
Manchester also has 2 football stadiums but neither of them are easily accessible from the city centre, so for other large sporting and entertainment events a stadium on the dock would be much better than the alternatives in the North West.
Liverpool clearly lost interest in the World Heritage state and decided to go in another direction. Have the cake and eat it too.
> s. The lower is directly connected to the dockland architecture, its brickwork being inspired directly by the nearby Stanley Dock. Also, the latticework brick facade would be a loose tribute to Archibald Leitch (whose works include Goodison), sometimes called the father of English stadia. In a later iteration the latticework pattern was simplified and strengthened by Pattern Design.
They even made a token effort to be in keeping, and then planned  to be the view across the waterfront. Insanity!
I'm not sure anyone can really be that surprised. Sounds like Liverpool made a very intentional trade off and will have to live with it.
The historic docks are hard to redevelop. The Albert Dock was successfully redeveloped and includes museums and an art gallery, along with various cafes and tourist destinations. That can't be repeated for the whole waterfront.
Although the docks are historically _important_, they're not really that interesting to visit. They are immediately adjacent to both the city centre and light industrial sites further to the north, but don't add any value in their own right. Sympathetic redevelopment might have been possible in some cases, but I think the city would benefit more from development of something of modern relevance. I'm not totally convinced by the Liverpool Waters plans, but they're at least more likely to generate sustainable economic activity.
> Back then, there was no Liverpool One shopping centre, no hint that Everton would consider building a multi-million pound waterfront stadium and its year as European Capital of Culture hadn't happened. The city has changed.
Who gives a flying toss. Pretty much every city on earth has a ubiquitous monolithic shopping centre. It doesn't mean shit. Nor does a big football stadium (and how does "considering" building a stadium "change" a city?).
Nobody's pretending that - you're responding to an imaginary argument.
I don't think that's what the author really means and I don't know if you're not familiar with Liverpool. 'Changed' doesn't mean 'they just built another shopping centre'. Liverpool before the Duke built Liverpool One was in another bad slump, after many bad slumps for many decades. The change wasn't the new shopping centre, it was generally the start of a bit more confidence and optimism in the whole city. Lots of things came together to make that change, and it's certainly in a better place now. Possibly they think the world heritage status, as well as the Paradise development, were means to ends.
Sounds like this city never managed to leverage the past to their benefit and thus made the right call to move on. Own your decision.
Wikipedia also has an image of the listed building on the dock (a type of UK protection for historic buildings): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bramley-Moore_Dock
According to the development plan, the listed tower will be re-developed as well.
Currently, the entire site is inaccessible (including the listed building), and sits behind locked gates.
He seams to not understand what heritage means. Liverpool can renovate as much as they like, they can even tear down the older buildings if they like, but they can’t be a UNESCO heritage site while doing so, and that should be obvious to everyone.
The 'remodelling' missed me by less than an hour.
this is a very callous way to refer to terrorists detonating a 3300lb bomb in the middle of a city centre, which injured 212 people
I don't think Americans would be very pleased if you referred to 9/11 as "Saudi remodelling"
The sentiment comes from the Labour MP Terry Rooney ("The best thing that ever happened to Manchester"), although it was widely echoed by many people with similar dry humour.
Liverpool is a working city, not a museum. By all means it should be respectful to its heritage, but also respectful to continue the the development that made that city worthy of UNESCO status in the first place, and continue it.
If anything, not developing a progressive industrial city, keeping up with the times, would be worthy of removal of UNESCO status.
The city made the right choice.
As someone who is neither an architect nor personally involved in UNESCO I've no idea what they would have considered acceptable or compatible with World Heritage status, but I am sure that there is some way that land could have been developed in a way that wouldn't have drawn their ire (like not planning a 55000 seat stadium, for example). Whether Liverpool would have considered such a development worth it or not, I don't know.
Thanks for sharing that photo from The Guardian. Parent is right, Liverpool isn't a museum, but no point listing it as one in that case
Also, the article is quite slanted and plays the usual trope of the plucky English standing up to the evil foreigners. That’s stupid and unnecessarily inflammatory, though unfortunately not unsurprising from the Beeb.
I don't know if you literally don't know what UNESCO is, but the point is the opposite of promoting 'progressive industrial' development of historical sites.
Plus aren’t other major industrial sites heritage sites? Saltaire? So I don’t see the irony that you do.
UNESCO heritage doesn't mean never changing cities but preserving the heritage places to keep their historical value. You can't habe a historical dock and change it so it doesn't look like the original and still want to call this UNESCO heritage.