CM – Liverpool was stripped of its World Heritage status after a ruling by UNESCO

The Unesco decision will undoubtedly be dismissed as a bourgeois overreaction by an unelected body, and given the regulations allowed in Edinburgh, the designation as a World Heritage Site seems largely ineffective anyway. But the act of removing Liverpool from the list is helping to cast a strong international spotlight on a city that has been willing to accept mediocre development for far too long. It’s a useful reminder that the world is watching.
– The guard

After an agency meeting in China on Wednesday, Liverpool failed to maintain its UNESCO World Heritage Site status.

The decision does not surprise those who have been trying for decades to develop an advance near the Victorian docks to prevent the city. UNESCO pointed to the « irreversible loss » of the historic value of the docks caused by multi-million pound projects, including the Museum of Liverpool and the new Everton football stadium.

UNESCO originally owned the city in 2004 on their list, but developments since then have resulted in changes to the city’s skyline that represented a « significant loss of authenticity and integrity, » leading to the agency’s decision that the city’s mayor has appealed can be.

Oliver Wainwright responded with a letter in which he denounced the idiosyncratic development impulses of the city, which he sees as « the consequences of a city under the spell of developers », the historical character of Liverpool in search of economic growth and political Destroyed capital.

Only two other websites were previously revoked. The Guardian has more about the UN judgment here.

Please show me a city that has not been content with mediocre development for far too long.

Undoubtedly the interventions were insensitive, not because they were mediocre ( although it is most likely) but because architecture is still plagued by the idea that the design of a building that is in harmony with a historical context should not look historical. As long as architects embrace this youthful idea of ​​ »originality, » the shrinking amount of historical and humane urbanism that remains will continue to be reserved for the rich.

Traditional urbanism like Liverpool’s is generally more humane than that for two reasons today’s. First, the scale was limited by the limits of traditional technology, and second, the buildings were typically designed to please passers-by. The reason these historic cities tend to become enclaves of the rich is because the market favors their characteristics over the inhuman and increasingly untenable cities we are building today.

Ah, you are suggesting that the rich BUY « historical and humane urbanism », not that they choose to build it. I agree. Interestingly, all of the very wealthy clients I’ve worked for in retail, apartment building, and residential have mostly preferred contemporary design styles with modernist-looking aesthetics, so I don’t think the architects are to blame, nor is money the solution.

Being on the UNESCO list turns a place into a dead open air museum where only the past is considered valuable, good for Liverpool to be relieved of that burden!

Of course, sites have to literally dead open air museums are to be protected, so we need SOMETHING like UNESCO to ex
is.

Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments from the entire website?