I think the silence suggests we all agree, Mr Franklin!
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
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
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.
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
Good to see at least one organization maintaining standards and adhering to its founding principles.
Allie McBeth
2 years ago
Absolutely spot on
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
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
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!
I think the silence suggests we all agree, Mr Franklin!
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.
” “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….
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.
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
Good to see at least one organization maintaining standards and adhering to its founding principles.
Absolutely spot on
I go to Liverpool regularly, and it’s a lot smarter now than when Toxteth was razed to the ground 40 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.
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!