X Close

Unesco is right to ditch Liverpool

Liverpool's architectural heritage is reflected in it's dubious architectural future. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

July 23, 2021 - 7:05am

It’s finally happened. Liverpool’s iconic waterfront and city centre — officially, the ‘Maritime Mercantile City’ — has been stripped of its UNESCO World Heritage status. This is only third time this has happened anywhere in the world.

According the the World Heritage Committee, the decision was made because of the “irreversible loss of attributes conveying the outstanding universal value of the property”. 

But what does this actually mean? It’s not like they’ve demolished the Albert Dock. The Three Graces are still standing. St George’s Hall remains in one piece. 

Rather, the problem is one of addition, not subtraction. The Committee is unhappy with new buildings going up in, and around, the World Heritage Site. In particular, there’s the Liverpool Waters project — a glassy, modernist redevelopment of the city’s northern docks. 

I wouldn’t describe it as the worst kind of spreadsheet architecture — there’s plenty worse. Nevertheless, the overall effect of this and other recent developments is to overwhelm the unmistakable with the unremarkable. 

Steve Rotherham, the Liverpool City Region metro mayor, is furious with UNESCO. In a statement, he said that “places like Liverpool should not be faced with the binary choice between maintaining heritage status or regenerating left behind communities – and the wealth of jobs and opportunities that come with it.”

No, they shouldn’t. But the actual “binary choice” here is the one forced upon us by architects and planners: beautiful old buildings versus ugly new ones. 

There is no good reason why we can’t have new development in a style that harmonises with a city’s definitive architecture. The decision to maximise aesthetic discord is an ideological one — a modernist bigotry that slanders respect for the past as pastiche. 

Of course, if one were to apply the doctrine of contrasts to the modernists’ favourite buildings then they’d be the first to complain. Personally, I think a Mock Tudor extension to Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater would be hilarious, but I doubt they’d they see the joke. 

Another argument against the UNESCO decision is that a city should not be a museum. But that’s wrong — a museum is exactly what a city is. What we build lasts far beyond our lifespans (or ought to). A city, therefore, is an accumulation of bequests from long-dead generations. 

Before we build we need to think not just about our immediate needs, but about what our monuments will say about us in centuries to come. And the more important the city and the more prestigious the location, the harder we need to think. 

As well as respecting the heritage we’ve already got, we should striving to create the heritage of the future. 


Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.

peterfranklin_

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

10 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Andrew D
Andrew D
2 years ago

I think the silence suggests we all agree, Mr Franklin!

Sharon Overy
Sharon Overy
2 years ago

Totally agree. I’ve seen arguments that Liverpool has some splendid buildings, and it has, but they’ve missed the point that it’s the overall effect of the scene, as it were, that has been marred by modernism.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
2 years ago

” “You have built here what you or anyone might have built anywhere else, but you have destroyed what was unique in the world.””

Charles V, on another UNESCO site about 500 years ago….

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
2 years ago

It is slightly difficult to imagine that there have been no other similar developments anywhere else in the world, given that it is the case that so many cities now look indistinguishable.

I do therefore suspect that this decision is at at least partly motivated by their views on post-Brexit Britain. Many global institutions and not only European ones appear to have such a strong animosity to Brexit.

Andrew D
Andrew D
2 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

Don’t disagree with the last sentence, but it’s only fair to add that Unesco have been threatening to do this since 2012. And their reasons were sound – planning in Liverpool has been corrupt and a shambles for decades

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
2 years ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Good to see at least one organization maintaining standards and adhering to its founding principles.

Allie McBeth
Allie McBeth
2 years ago

Absolutely spot on

Jane Watson
Jane Watson
2 years ago

I go to Liverpool regularly, and it’s a lot smarter now than when Toxteth was razed to the ground 40 years ago.

Chris Martin
Chris Martin
2 years ago

This is a political decision. Like many UN bodies this World Heritage Quango has as it’s stock-in-trade a vision to denigrate Britain. Maybe it’s what they see as payback for our imperial past? Rather like those UN equalities people who lambast the Uk for racism and discrimination against women, yet who never say anything about China or the Middle East. Most comments I have seen about this come from people who have plainly never been to Liverpool, or who play on the stereotypes. The Liverpool Waterfront is and will remain utterly dramatic – it is breathtaking and there are few cities with equal. Yet the reality is that alongside the classic buildings there remains much dereliction because the waterfront was one of the largest sets of docks in the world. The Everton stadium that has attracted so much adverse comment is a mile from the Three Graces and the land is derelict and behind a large wall. Liverpool Council is right to say the city has to develop and redevelop. This decision is a nonsense. It’s like saying the Tower of London shouldn’t be listed because of the Shard or the Gherkin! If London can have its heritage and new development alongside its river, surely Liverpool can.

Roger Inkpen
Roger Inkpen
2 years ago

I don’t know Liverpool well enough to understand the extent of the heritage area. The area around Albert Dock has been well preserved, but how far along the dock frontage does the former Unesco area cover? I understand the new Everton stadium will be a mile away – so it might be visible, but what counts as ‘spoiling the view’? The Tower of London is still on the list, but is surrounded by hideous buildings!