Unesco’s decision will no doubt be shrugged off as the prissy overreaction of an unelected body and, given what has been allowed in Edinburgh, the world heritage designation seems largely ineffectual anyway. But the act of striking Liverpool off the list helps to shine a powerful international spotlight on a city that has been happy to embrace mediocre development for far too long. It is a useful reminder that the world is watching. — The Guardian
Liverpool has failed to retain its status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site following a meeting by the agency Wednesday in China.
The decision comes as no surprise to those who have for decades now been trying to prevent encroaching development near the city’s Victorian-era docks. UNESCO pointed to the “irreversible loss” of the docks’ historical value brought on by several multi-million pound projects including the Museum of Liverpool and new Everton football stadium.
UNESCO had originally placed the city on its list in 2004, but the slew of development that has taken place since brought on changes to the city skyline constituting a “significant loss to its authenticity and integrity” that lead to the agency’s decision which the city’s mayor has said could be appealed.
Oliver Wainwright responded with a missive decrying the city’s headstrong development pushes he views as “the consequences of a city in thrall to developers” that have destroyed Liverpool’s historic character in the search for economic growth and political capital.
Only two other sites have been stripped of the status before. The Guardian has more on the UN’s ruling here.
14 Comments
Someone please show me a city that hasn't been happy to embrace mediocre development for far too long.
No doubt the intrusions where insensitive not because they're mediocre (although most probably are) but because architecture is still plagued by the idea that designing a building to harmonize with a historic context shouldn't look historic. So long as architects embrace this juvenile idea of 'originality', the shrinking amount of historic and humane urbanism left will continue to become the preserve of the wealthy few.
Please provide examples where the wealthy have opted to build "historic and humane urbanism"
Traditional urbanism like Liverpool's is generally more humane than today's because of two reasons. First, the scale was circumscribed by the limits of traditional technology and second the buildings where typically designed to please the passerby. The reason these historic cities tend to become enclaves of the wealthy is because that the market favors their characteristics relative to the inhumane and increasingly unsustainable cities we tend to build today.
Ah, you're suggesting the wealthy PURCHASE the "historic and humane urbanism," not that they choose to build it. I concur. On an interesting note, all of the ultra wealthy clients I have worked for in retail, multi-family, and residential have overwhelmingly preferred contemporary design styles with modernist-looking aesthetics, so I don't think the Architects are the guilty party, nor is money the solution.
The wealthy like both modernist and traditional aesthetics. I was referring more to traditional urbanism, which tends to be composed of traditionally styled buildings, although not necessarily historic styles. Where there is no traditional urbanism, the wealthy might even prefer modernist styles simply because there are so few good traditionally trained architects, again, part of the problem. It's not tradition vs. modern (as modernism is now a historic style and new traditional architecture is as modern as if done in a modernist style) , it's that we don't train architects to do traditional styles well...thus the problem with places like Liverpool. The reason people think they are museums is they don't have the vision to see that all styles are valid, thanks to the continued brainwashing in their schooling. Time to move beyond the old and tired modernist framing of what is "of our time" while also rejecting the bullshit culture war certain classicists traffic in.
Training people in Vetruvian orders is a full time gig.
Being on the UNESCO list turns a place into a dead open air museum, where only the past is considered of value, good for Liverpool to be free of this burden!
Of course sites that are literally dead open air museums need to be protected, so we need SOMETHING like UNESCO to ex ist.
That’s the thing, they are not dead, they become dead because all life, all initiative and all development is sucked out of those sites...
*looks at egyptian ruins*
Nobody lives in those ruins...
"Of course sites that are literally dead open air museums need to be protected, so we need SOMETHING like UNESCO to exist"
I think we both mean the same thing here...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.