They did and the new complex has pushed it over the edge- it was derelict and really couldn't have been left. Most of the roads are being changed now - Lime Street is the same
It's not they managed to maintain Albert Dock but this site isn't the same- it is run down. Some of the buildings have been maintained. The Titanic Hotel is a great example but there is a lot of waste ground around it
I thought it was a combination. They were warned about the initial monstrosities and then ignored that and are planning further development
Still manged to keep it though at the time - if they were that bad they would have done it then. This is the straw that broke camel's back
From what I can gather, it's not the fact that they are redeveloping the area, it's the manner in which they're doing it. The plans I've seen for that stadium are ugly as sin and to be honest I can see why UNESCO have taken issue with it.
Everton to submit revised designs for new stadium after objections | Everton | The Guardian They did retain Albert Dock, yes. But the plans (certainly a year ago, unless revised since) were to fill in the dock where the Everton Stadium is planned for. Heritage shouldn't be confused with commerce or bringing back into use. There are plenty of examples of renovations which haven't preserved heritage. There's been a battle to develop the foundry site in East London which made the bell for Big Ben. The plans may add economic and commercial use.... but that doesn't retain heritage.
Never said it didn't but to be fair this is waste land with nothing it for years - buildings in tact have been redeveloped. As I said Titanic Hotel is a great example- majority of the land is waste land
But thats the point of heritage. There are ruins across the country which are protected by heritage status. They aren't used, other than they still stand to remind us of our past. The question then shifts to whether that heritage is important enough to retain and demonstrate to future generations. And how much of it is retained, if any. My point being, if you commercially develop something, you lose the heritage greatly. It may be of more use, but the past is largely lost. By developing that area in such an unsympathetic way, the area rightly loses its unesco listing. it may be commercially more useful and you will certainly have more people using it. But it again cuts to the debate of whether people should do more to protect things (heritage, environment, planet) or id they should do whatever is commercially expedient.
There wasn't anything that's the point - there isn't much in Barnsley to show our industrial heritage. The sites were levelled and then like Woolley moved on and developed. Some of those buildings have been developed round there
Nobody said you should- at the minute it's trying to balance what is there and what someone wants to do with it. Can't see many others offering 5.5 billion to develop the site. Look at places like Manchester which is going upwards rather than maintaining its industrial heritage. If you like cranes you'll love Manchester
No, the point is that the planned developments aren't in keeping with the heritage of that area, they could have drawn up something that was sympathetic to the area but they went with a modern eyesore. It sounds like UNESCO gave them several warnings regarding this (and other developments) but they've been ignored.
The docks in Liverpool are man made. The dock itself, the area enclosing a square body of water is heritage. An area which was fundamental in the development and prosperity in a time for the city of Liverpool. It may not conveniently have lots of old or interesting buildings sat upon it (anymore), but that's not to say it wasn't an area of significant history. That the stadium development is set up to fill in the dock, is to destroy or significantly alter that site of heritage. Thats the point UNESCO, Victorian Society et al have made. I walked past a site in London at the weekend in Rotherhithe. It was an old palace. It was built in something like 1340 and today is very low level ruins and was only discovered back in the 80s. It's left to stand in a square area of green close to the Thames path. Thats retaining heritage. If they put some steel structure around it, a big glass ball sitting atop and sold ice cream from the middle of it.... that wouldn't be retaining heritage.
Lots of interesting debate in this thread and enjoyed reading it. Sits at the heart of my job as a Head of Regeneration in an historic city. This isn't aimed at this post, was just the end one but a few thoughts: The key to preserving our heritage long term is to allow it to evolve and have purposes that fit with modern society and 21st century life. Cities are living things, and places for people, and any historic building that we may revere was put there because it served a purpose at the time. And often will have replaced something that had ceased to serve a purpose. We need to be careful of Disneyfication, where cities become living museums at the expense of the people who live there. Plus our historic buildings will only be saved from falling in to repair if they have a use. Often the best way to respect heritage areas and historic buildings is to contrast with modern architecture, allowing a clear reading of the history of the area and interpretation of what came when. This can even be within a single building (see the Reichstag in Berlin). The worst architectural outcomes stem from attempts not to detract from the old, which results in building bland inoffensive buildings that have no merit or quality. In doing so we fail to create our own layers of history. When was the last genuinely brilliant building built in our historic towns and cities.? Architecture is subjective. What one person values others may not. Personally I think the war waged on (high quality) brutalism is one of the most teriible acts of vandalism that has been done to our heritage. But that is absolutely my personal opinion. See Welbeck Street car park for a lost gem, and Park Hill flats for a triumphant refurbishment (though with many viability challenges to come in future phases). Modern architecture done well can be absolutely incredible. One of my favourite buildings is Kengo Kuma's new V&A Museum in Dundee. I was surprised to see the Sage in Newcastle referenced negatively on this thread which, along with the astounding reuse of the historic Baltic building, has transformed the area. And on Liverpool I think the new developments are a mixed bag. But to leave a vast area of the waterfront with absolutely no use and purpose in a city that was so hard hit economically by the loss of the industry that left it behind was untenable. Liverpool had to play the hand it was dealt, particularly through austerity where public funding was non existent.
Warsaw old town is a UNESCO World Heritage site; as you say though, in my opinion,it has been Disneyfied. Nothing there is much more than 50 years old.
I've had some great times in Liverpool & a few scary ones. (Coming back from Anfield on a coach, after our 0-0- draw stands out). Have a load of footie / music mates in Edge Hill. Top people.
The Whitechapel bell foundry is an awesome place. I cheekily asked for a look around some years back. Surprisingly small, considering what they do. A real hive of activity & of course, a very hot dusty place. Some brilliant old Cockney fellas, when I visited. Worked there all their lives. They famously cast Big Ben. Which is the name of the bell, not the Westminster Tower. Just off to check a few facts. Will return.. Edit.. Yep, thought so. They left that site in 2017, after 450 years. They made the Liberty Bell too, but that cracked..! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitechapel_Bell_Foundry
I agree with quite a bit of that, but as you rightly say, there is so much subjective about the world we see and the man built part of that in particular. There are some superb buildings and a very small number where modern has dovetailed successfully with the old. But there are vast swathes of urban butchery committed in the name of progress. I don't know if you've seen the area that was cleared around Battersea Power Station and whats been thrown up (in some cases that could be deemed literal!) around it. My particular stance with the docks at Liverpool, and this is pretty close to those who objected to the development, is that if you take heritage and remove it or do something that impinges it, don't expect to retain your kitemarks that highlight it as something of historical note and worth. The danger we face is that our population burgeons and the need for living space means great compromises and things we should try and retain are lost forever. Thats the problem with heritage. Once its gone its gone.
