An inscription marking Liverpool's status as a World Heritage city is being unveiled at the town hall.

A special ceremony will be held on Monday when the official Unesco certificate will be displayed.

English Heritage Chairman Sir Neil Cossons and Lord Mayor, Councillor Alan Dean, are among those who will attend.

The Unesco document will go on public display in the town hall. Five copies are to be given to public buildings within the World Heritage Site.

A reprint of the nomination document - the key work in the city's bid - is also going on public sale for the first time.

Councillor Warren Bradley, leader of the city council, said: "We are proud that we were awarded this status as it acknowledges our outstanding architecture and we should display that fact as widely as possible."

Universal value

Liverpool's bid to become a World Heritage Site was approved by the United Nations in China in 2004.

The area covered includes the waterfront, the commercial district - an area of warehouses and merchants' houses around Duke Street - and the cultural quarter around William Brown Street.

The honour followed Liverpool's successful bid to be European Capital of Culture in 2008.

The city's bid was based on Liverpool as a maritime mercantile city and reflected the city's significance as a commercial port at the time of Britain's greatest global influence.

World Heritage Sites are selected by Unesco's World Heritage Committee.

They have to be sites recognised as being of outstanding universal value.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4683332.stm)

RELATED INTERNET LINKS:

Liverpool City Council (http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/)
Unesco (http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=15006&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html)
Capital of Culture (http://www.liverpoolculture.com/)
Images of Liverpool's waterfront (http://www.freefoto.com/browse.jsp?id=37-02-0)

FOUR historic properties around Liverpool's Hope Street area are to undergo a multi-million pound redevelopment.

The buildings' owner, Liverpool John Moores University, has appointed Merseyside-based Maghull Developments, a subsidiary of the Maghull Group, as its development partner.

Maghull beat off competition from rival developers which were believed to have included Urban Splash, Iliad and UK Land & Property, to secure the deal.

The portfolio comprises four properties in the Hope Street area including the Grade II listed former Liverpool Art College building at 68 Hope Street, once attended by John Lennon.

The other properties within the portfolio include the Hahnemann Building, Josephine Butler House and the Grade II listed building, 2 Blackburne Place.

They are all located within, or fringe three conservation areas at Rodney Street, Canning and Mount Pleasant, within the Hope Street corridor.

Under the preferred developer status Maghull will work closely with Liverpool JMU to purchase the portfolio and sympathetically refurbish the properties for mixed-use purposes including residential, commercial and retail uses.

The firm's managing director, Michael Hanlon, told the Daily Post: "The refurbishment and redevelopment of this suite of buildings will play a significant role in the on-going renaissance of Liverpool, up to and beyond Capital of Culture.

"We intend to work in partnership with Liverpool JMU to deliver a first-class development solution for these significant buildings which are a part of Liverpool's heritage."

Maghull's proposals for the Hope Street Portfolio include the sympathetic conversion of Liverpool's 55,000sq ft, former Art College into 18 luxury apartments with the remaining space, including the inner courtyard, refurbished to provide further arts related and theatre space.

The Maghull Group has a mixed-use property portfolio valued at £100m and is undertaking various commercial and residential development schemes throughout the North West with an investment value in excess of £275m.

Professor Michael Brown, vice-chancellor of Liverpool JMU, said: "We have to release our elderly building stock in order to develop new and modern facilities for our students. Maghull Developments prepared an excellent submission and I am sure they will really make their mark in this area of Liverpool."

tonymcdonough@dailypost.co.uk

THE official certificate inscribing Liverpool as a World Heritage City was unveiled at Liverpool Town Hall last night.

The city was granted World Heritage status in July 2004 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco).

Liverpool's World Heritage Site incorporates the waterfront, the commercial district around Duke Street and the cultural quarter surrounding William Brown Street. Pier Head, Stanley Dock, Waterloo Dock and Wapping Dock are all included.

City council leader Cllr Warren Bradley was present at the ceremony along with the Lord Mayor, Cllr Alan Dean, English Heritage chairman Sir Neil Cossons and the Vice Chancellor of Liverpool University, Professor Drummond Bone.

Cllr Bradley was delighted at what he described as "another trophy for the city" and he admitted to an immense feeling of civic pride as the plaque was revealed. However, he insisted that now was the time to look ahead to further developments.

He said: "We have to make sure that the architecture of the future is as good as the past. We do have some carbuncles around this city which Unesco actually picked up on, and any person in the street notices daily, and we have to make sure we don't make those mistakes in the future.

"We've seen an increase in tourism over the last couple of years - whether it's on the back of Unesco's decision or on the back of what we've achieved elsewhere, I'm not sure.

"There's been a massive change. We've made ourselves more approachable and with our partners we've raised the visitor profile of the city.

"If we continue in this vein, we will achieve what we want: Liverpool as a premier European and world city."

Liverpool World Heritage Site officer Jonathan Hinchcliffe added: "The certificate is another reminder of Liverpool's outstanding universal world value.

"We're delighted to receive the certificate from Unesco and now we want the public and visitors to be able to easily recognise it as a World Heritage Site."

There is a feeling among some critics, not least ICOMOS, the UK branch of an international group which advises Unesco on world heritage sites, that the proposed new Museum of Liverpool is unsuitable for the waterfront, especially now that it is a World Heritage Site, because of its radical design.

Cllr Bradley rejected such criticism: "It may look a bit different, but isn't that what architecture's about? Let's be more inventive and modern.

"The irony is that people didn't like the Liver Buildings when they were first built because they didn't appear to fit in with the waterfront. Now they don't like the museum design because it doesn't fit in with the Liver Buildings.

"It's about learning to live with change and modernisation. We are living in the 21st century, after all."

After failing to secure £15m from the Heritage Lottery Fund for the contents of the museum, plans are currently being held back.

A new proposal will be made to the fund in July. The design stage of the building is complete and ready to go on site once funding for the contents is secured.

Source (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=16675043%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26headline=liverpool%2dgiven%2dits%2dheritage%2dsi te%2dstatus-name_page.html)

A delegation of MPs is visiting Liverpool on Monday (today) as part of an inquiry into protecting and preserving the UK's heritage.

Members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee will tour some of the city's historic areas and buildings.

The committee decided to hold a session outside London and picked Liverpool because it said the city council has shown heritage knowledge and expertise.

It will be taking evidence from several North West bodies.

The committee will tour buildings including Chambre Hardman's House in Rodney Street, the Ropewalks area, the World Heritage site and the Welsh streets.

'Rare meeting'

"It is comparatively rare that parliamentary committees meet outside Westminster so the fact that is taking place here is recognition that Liverpool has something to offer on issues relating to heritage," said Councillor Berni Turner, the council's environment and heritage executive member.

Committee members will take evidence from Liverpool and Manchester City Councils, Liverpool Vision, Northwest Regional Development Agency (Renew NW) and English Partnerships.

Liverpool council has already given evidence on heritage to the government Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee.

;)

Liverpool's World Heritage Status, has it been good for the City or not? Would it bother u if we lost the title? Would loosing the title allow the City of grow without current restrictions?

Heritage Interference and Public Anger:

http://www.residentialreview.co.uk/downloads/resrev_10.pdf

Read the above article.

WORLD heritage officials are to meet in July to discuss the future of Liverpool's prestigious title (http://www.yoliverpool.com/liverpoolworldheritagesite.html)in the light of major development plans along the city's waterfront, the Daily Post can reveal.

The city could be stripped of its status if the Unesco board in charge object to the design of developments, including the contentious X-museum planned for Mann Island (http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?t=262).

It is understood projects due to come under scrutiny will also include proposed tower blocks on former Mersey Docks and Harbour Board land near the Pier Head. The committee could order projects to be dropped or amended.

Members will consider detailed reports about how the site is being managed and how proposed developments will affect the views around its site.

Dr Mechtild Rossler, chief of world heritage for Europe and North America, said: "The committee can request a mission visit, put a site on the danger list, or take it off the list.

"It could take up to half a day of discussions. We look at new developments and any other potential problems."

The meeting will be held just one month before work starts on the museum site, which would be the biggest transformation of the city's historic waterfront for a century.

Plans for the building were generated after the city's showpiece development for 2008, the doomed Cloud construction that was to be the Fourth Grace, collapsed.

Its replacement has also invoked strong opposition and a number of setbacks, including Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell's decision to reject its bid for £11.4m to finance the interior of the building.

But last month it was given £32.7m to cover the exterior construction costs.

Wayne Colquhoun, from the Liverpool Preservation Trust, has written to Unesco, the organisation that granted the city's waterfront world heritage status, to ask it to be put on the at-risk register.

He said: "They can stop this before it is too late and makes the city a laughing stock. If we had put up some modern monstrosity in the 1960s, can you imagine how ridiculous it would look now?"

"This site should not be used as a shop window to sell ourselves to property developers."

The city was granted World Heritage status (http://www.yoliverpool.com/liverpoolworldheritagesite.html)in July, 2004. The site incorporates the waterfront, the commercial district and the cultural quarter surrounding William Brown Street, Pier Head, Stanley Dock, Waterloo Dock and Wapping Dock. A spokesman for Liverpool City Council said: "An objection has been made to Unesco, which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will reply to.

"We would point out that when Liverpool was awarded the accolade Unesco were well aware that site was scheduled for development with the Cloud at the time and that did not prevent the inscription of world heritage site."

No one from NML was available for comment.

samlister@liverpool.com

When proposals are forwarded to fill in docks to create land to build upon there appears no real strong objections by the people of Liverpool. In places like Amsterdam, Hamburg, etc, this would be an incitement to riot. About half the south end docks have been filled in and much of the Central Docks too and no one batted an eyelid. Yet strangely there is masses of land available to build in Liverpool - the city is littered with brownfield sites.

A stadium is being built on an in-filled historic dock dating from the 1700s at Kings Dock – yet no one protested. Strangely it was generally regarded as a good thing. The much needed arena complex could easily have been built on the adjacent Baltic Triangle site opposite on the land side of the dock waterways with a water frontage. The site is a superior location for such a project. If this project on 1700s waterways was planned for Hamburg or Amsterdam there would be mass protests. Why do Liverpudlians have this apathy towards their dock waterway, river history and heritage?

The reason is that Liverpudlians generally have never had an affinity with the river, the water. The term Mersey or river was never used by the people, it was always termed The Water. Only those who worked the dock system and seamen had this attachment to the river, ships and dock complex. The city was effectively isolated from the water by a long 20 foot high dock road wall stretching 7.5 miles. The public were excluded from this dock area and could not even see the ships, only their masts above the dock sheds. This exclusion of the population to river and dock waterway access was noted by Ian Naine in his 1960s BBC urban planning series Naine's North. He considered this a major planning error.

The city centre was a triangle with only a small section facing the river at triangle point - this river exposure being only a matter of a few hundred yards in length at the Pier Head. The city centre was basically a inland city centre, and could have been Leeds, Birmingham, etc. Outsiders entering Liverpool and walking around the centre were unaware that a massive stretch of water was near – as were the locals too. Liverpool only had a slight nautical feel to it, which was strange for a city that was one of the largest ports in the world, and at one point the largest.

People on the Wirral have a firm attachment to water and the river, more so than Liverpudlians, as they were not excluded from the Birkenhead docks system or the river itself. Wallasey is bordered on three sides by water.

The value of the dock waterways systems, on both sides of the river should be instilled into the people of Liverpool. They should know the value, history and what they can bring in a massive way to the future of the city. Then when incompetent planners, politicians and developers want to fill in waterways mass protest would kill the notion at birth.

The city on the water, on the redundant dock waterways, we were promised, should be appreciated by the people of Liverpool and they should force this issue. More education of the people is required.

.

The city on the water, on the redundant dock waterways, we were promised should be appreciated by the people of Liverpool and they should force this issue. More education of the people is required.

.

I agree, I have always lived on the Leeds Liverpool canal and walked up and down there from Bootle to past Maghull.
That is one thing I miss living in London.... the water! Thames just doesnt cut it, although steeped in history which I do find interesting, nothing like home though.

I agree, I have always lived on the Leeds Liverpool canal and walked up and down there from Bootle to past Maghull.
That is one thing I miss living in London.... the water! Thames just doesnt cut it, although steeped in history which I do find interesting, nothing like home though.

Londoners have more affinity with the Thames than Liverpudlians with the Mersey. Because they saw the Thames that much more often. They went over bridges on the Thames, walked besides it. Something Liverpudlians never did as they were isolated from The Water, as they called it. The Water, that elusive stuff that was there but could not be seen by most.

The later generation because of the Albert, Otterspool and Brunswick Docks are getting to know the river better than the previous generations, who only had the Pier Head to see water.

I remember saying to a group of fellas, "down at the river". One replied confused, "what river?". He was from Huyton though, but his Dad did work on the docks. I replied to him, "the Mississippi, what other river is there around here".

I agree, I have always lived on the Leeds Liverpool canal and walked up and down there from Bootle to past Maghull.
That is one thing I miss living in London.... the water! Thames just doesnt cut it, although steeped in history which I do find interesting, nothing like home though.


Why don't you move back?:Colorz_Grey_PDT_16:

What do you think of Lady Doreen Jones soft obsession with retaining every brick of the dock wall.. which would directly lead to piss poor development in the rest of the redundant docks.. or more likely, infilling to create sufficient space on which to develop decent stuff?

Look at what Hamburg values and keeps:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Speicherstadt3glp.JPG/800px-Speicherstadt3glp.JPG

Cool picture!

Hamburgs Overhead Railway in the 1930s. Hamburg is 68 miles from the sea and large Ocean going vessels reach the port. They call it a harbour, while really it is only a collection of docks/warfs.

http://www.timetableimages.com/maritime/images/ha-04.jpg

What do you think of Lady Doreen Jones soft obsession with retaining every brick of the dock wall..

She is a soft cow.

A lesson on how to develop waterways in Hamburg. I like the overhanging buildings.

http://0pointer.de/photos/galleries/Hamburg%20Harbour/lq/img-24.jpg

Ok, so how do we stop the infills for ever???? I went up the dock road yesterday to the display of tall ships. I confess I was more interested in seeing the docks as they are usually out of bounds. I have long believed that the waterfront walk should be extended as far as possible. To be landscaped and opened up for all the people of Liverpool. The dock fringes themselves provide enough land for mixed use building. I have seen what Peel squeeze on to small plots of land in Glasgow and frankly their tetris mentality should be a warning of things to come. Q.. How long was Kings dock filled before it was settled enough to build on as this will apply if IF they get to fill in Waterloo west dock??

Ok, so how do we stop the infills for ever????


It is political. Enough people have to shout loud enough to stop it.


I went up the dock road yesterday to the display of tall ships. I confess I was more interested in seeing the docks as they are usually out of bounds. I have long believed that the waterfront walk should be extended as far as possible. To be landscaped and opened up for all the people of Liverpool. The dock fringes themselves provide enough land for mixed use building. I have seen what Peel squeeze on to small plots of land in Glasgow and frankly their tetris mentality should be a warning of things to come. Q.. How long was Kings dock filled before it was settled enough to build on as this will apply if IF they get to fill in Waterloo west dock??

The historic 1700s Kings Dock was filled in, in the 1980s, to make a car park. Yes a car park would you believe.

all we can hope is that those we have left, stay like that.

I was just over in Hamburg .. got a bowl of Labskause... seen the docks.....I even went outside the city centre....

any pics?

all we can hope is that those we have left, stay like that.

Enough people shouting can make a difference. British Waterways are trying it on over West Waterloo Dock thinking there is total apathy about the waterways, so they can get away with it. They have assessed how the Liverpool public view the waterways.

I was just over in Hamburg .. got a bowl of Labskause.


What did it taste like?


.. seen the docks.....I even went outside the city centre....

It is a superb city. They really have done a great job on it. An example of how to do it for Liverpool, along with Amsterdam. Yet Hamburg is 68 miles from the sea and yet it feels like "sea port" not a "river port", which it is.

I doubt Liverpool will learn from Hamburg. There is no historical evidence that Liverpool has done anything right in the past 60 years, apart from keep the Albert Dock - which was forced on us by the government, otherwise that would be some concrete car park as well.

The do nothing city image continues

The do nothing city image continues

Lets stay positive, lets celebrate what we have whilst embracing opportunites as they arrise.

Lets stay positive, lets celebrate what we have whilst embracing opportunites as they arrise.

I think what we have will dissapear.

I think you mean hopefull not positive. The city has a poor image of indecision, and when decisions are made usually not the right ones. Unfortunately that is the case. You can only hope things will get better. I wish I had your optimism.

I think what we have will dissapear.

I think you mean hopefull not positive. The city has a poor image of indecision, and when decisions are made usually not the right ones. Unfortunately that is the case. You can only hope things will get better. I wish I had your optimism.

We've got to, I'm still here in the middle of it all...I do enjoy your posts about the docks John, really interesting and certainly have opened my eyes.

Hamburg seems lovely but a bit inaccesable? I've never been.

We've got to, I'm still here in the middle of it all...I do enjoy your posts about the docks John, really interesting and certainly have opened my eyes.

Hamburg seems lovely but a bit inaccesable? I've never been.

Inaccessible? It is Germany's second largest city. There is water everywhere. The older wharfs and docks have been converted and preserved. The city of Manchester, another inland city, really wanted to be Hamburg – Manchester is 46 miles from the sea up a 36 mile long canal.

It amazed me that Hamburg is Europe’s second largest port and 68 mile from the sea via a narrow river. Many of the docks there are about the same size as the south end docks, and Manchester Docks. How come they can make it work and we can't ?

Oh I forgot, the government built up Flexistowe to kill us – a small backwater port 40 years ago. Hamburg never had that problem. Geoffrey Howe wrote a paper “Managing the Decline of Liverpool as a major Metropolitan Area”. The Tories wanted to kill Liverpool, they always wanted to. The decline was contrived.

A mixed economy city slides down rapidly? How? It was pushed with big thump.

Q.. How long was Kings dock filled before it was settled enough to build on

Below clearly shows the mass of waterways filled in to put a stadium, concrete car park and tatty hotels on. All these could have gone to the right, either on or over the Dock Road on the Baltic Triangle. The Wapping tunnel emerges just near giving a station on the Baltic Triangle site too. Ideal for a stadium.

No one is questioning the need for these much needed facilities, they are just in the wrong place. We could have had all the cake and ate it with the stadium complex still fronting the docks from the land side, and a vibrant dockside community around the intertwining dock waterways of Dukes, Kings and Queens Docks.

The only building taking advantage of the waterways is the Customs building which straddles the Queens Graving Dock, but does not take full advantage of the length of quays available.

http://www.kingswaterfrontliverpool.com/imagebank/images/detail/105170.jpg

This picture below shows all the waterways intact except for the 1700s Dukes Dock, next to the Albert Dock, that has been filled in to put cars on, yes put cars on - the cars can be seen in the picture. Imagine building on these quays overhanging buildings like those at Hamburg, all the height of the Albert Dock at the top of the picture – all along all of the quays creating a vibrant water based community. Far better than a concrete stadium wich will not be used 365 days a year. If this stadium was planned for Hamburg or Amsterdam there would be mass protest - try to build it and riots.

It is asinine projects like this that clearly indicate that the planners have no idea of basic planning or any idea of how to maximise the greatest legacy the city has known - never mind the historical and heritage aspect of the waterways. It doesn’t give hope for the rest of the dock waterways to give us a Hamburg or Amsterdam.

http://www.kingswaterfrontliverpool.co.uk/images/background1.jpg

I think you had a letter in tonights Liverpool Echo, Waterways.

any pics?

Oh aye yeah on one of the disposables (one of a hundred)... we went for the first two England games, stayed in Liege (you may have heard of it in the news recently) in Belgium, we visted Flanders Dunkirk etc...

Hamburgs great, a German Liverpool......come out of the centre... and you think..where did it all go wrong... one massive Scottie rd/Bootle.....bombed destroyed, and forgotten, by the developers. :(

Great people, and they love scousers :)

I think you had a letter in tonights Liverpool Echo, Waterways.

Yep. Here is is...

Save the docks

THE proposal by British Waterways to fill in West Waterloo dock at the 11th hour shows contempt for Liverpool's history and heritage.

Harrington, Herculaneum, Toxteth, parts of Queens, Kings, Dukes, Victoria and Trafalgar docks have been filled in within the past few decades. A city on the water we were promised the redundant historic docks would be. How? With no water?

The city should have it cast in concrete that no docks or waterways are to be filled in. We can't throw away our valuable legacy.

Yep. Here is is...

Save the docks

THE proposal by British Waterways to fill in West Waterloo dock at the 11th hour shows contempt for Liverpool's history and heritage.

Harrington, Herculaneum, Toxteth, parts of Queens, Kings, Dukes, Victoria and Trafalgar docks have been filled in within the past few decades. A city on the water we were promised the redundant historic docks would be. How? With no water?

The city should have it cast in concrete that no docks or waterways are to be filled in. We can't throw away our valuable legacy.

Find it here (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/echoletters/tm_objectid=17331378%26method=full%26siteid=50061% 26page=2%26headline=your%2dletters%2d%2d4th%2djuly %2d2006-name_page.html)

Yep. Here is is...

Save the docks

THE proposal by British Waterways to fill in West Waterloo dock at the 11th hour shows contempt for Liverpool's history and heritage.

Harrington, Herculaneum, Toxteth, parts of Queens, Kings, Dukes, Victoria and Trafalgar docks have been filled in within the past few decades. A city on the water we were promised the redundant historic docks would be. How? With no water?

The city should have it cast in concrete that no docks or waterways are to be filled in. We can't throw away our valuable legacy.

Fine and straight to the point letter, Waterways.

Fine and straight to the point letter, Waterways.

Is- right Waterways, well played fella :celb (23):

If they let me swim in it then I'll appreciate it.:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

Has anyone come to Liverpool because it has world heritage status who wouldn't have come otherwise?

There's a fundamental difference between Liverpool's waterfront and the Pyramids or the Great Wall of China, and that's that the waterfront is still a developing area, it's still 'living', it shouldn't be preserved in aspic for future generations at the expense of creating something worthwhile for the generation in the here and now.

It's recognition.

Has anyone come to Liverpool because it has world heritage status who wouldn't have come otherwise?


What it has done is raise the image of the city. An ignorant southern neighbour of mine, a Londoner, said Liverpool is a dump. Firstly I said that is a cheek coming from a Londoner and asked him if he had been around Brixton and Kings Cross lately. Then I told him that Liverpool has the European Capital of Culture in 2008. He went quiet and said he didn't know. I also told him large swathes of the city centre and the dock waterways are World Heritage sites set by UNESCO, the largest in the UK. He said it’s still a dump. I felt like smacking the ignorant sod, but said you haven’t been there have you? Then sang Boiled Beef and Carrots to him with my thumbs in make believe top waste coat pockets.

This pillock is a pure ignorant sod - few like him. But he is typical in his view of Liverpool. 2008 and WHS has raised the profile of Liverpool enormously.


There's a fundamental difference between Liverpool's waterfront and the Pyramids or the Great Wall of China, and that's that the waterfront is still a developing area, it's still 'living', it shouldn't be preserved in aspic for future generations at the expense of creating something worthwhile for the generation in the here and now.

The waterways and docks should be left alone and any in-filled docks excavated. Harrington, Toxteth, Victoria, Trafalgar and Clarence Docks can all be easily excavated and the water and quays reinstated as they are still there. Parts of the Heculanuem can also be excavated too. It is criminal what has been done to the dock waterways. Many were laid down in the 1700s – historic to say the least - and now have car parks on them.

The pyramids served no useful purpose – although the Great Pyramid is said to be a large ram-pump. Raising millions of gallons of water from a now dried up lake. Not 100% proven though. The other pyramids were just tombs – gravestones.

Also the pyramids were just large, well, err, pyramids in shape. The Great Wall of China was a defence mechanism. The Liverpool dock waterways is a highly useful construction that created wealth and advancement.

In construction terms and size Liverpool docks (and Birkenhead Docks – let’s not forget them) is equal to these ancient structure. Apart from the Herculaneum and Stanley Docks, all were built out into the river on wooden piles and granite rock from a special quarry in Scotland owned by MDHB, for the sea walls and quays. Liverpool docks was the first and only large scale interconnected dock waterway system in the world. Ships could travel 5 miles within the docks without entering the tidal river. It was the key to the industrial revolution – without the docks raw materials and finished goods could not be efficiently handled into and out of the country. Liverpool made Manchester and all the other industrial towns – without the efficient deep water Liverpool docks these places would still be villages.

The steam engine made the docks into a giant complex. The engines pumped water in and out of locks and impounded the docks when high tide levels were low.

The Docks were key in peopling America as ¾ of all immigrants that went to the North America went via the Liverpool Docks. Even the Landing stage was the world largest floating structure. The docks were key in people migration in world history.

Few appreciate these points – and sadly few in Liverpool as well. We have something equivalent to the pyramids but fail to realise it and treat the waterways with contempt.

Has anyone come to Liverpool because it has world heritage status who wouldn't have come otherwise?

There's a fundamental difference between Liverpool's waterfront and the Pyramids or the Great Wall of China, and that's that the waterfront is still a developing area, it's still 'living', it shouldn't be preserved in aspic for future generations at the expense of creating something worthwhile for the generation in the here and now.


Spot on Lydia. Successful cities are mindful of their past but not at the expense of future development. The world heritage badge a meaningless bauble that threatens to stifle progress and thwart the new 'iconic' architecture that we might otherwise be leaving as a legacy to future Liverpudlians. There has to be life after the 3 graces.

The city’s bid was based on Liverpool as a maritime mercantile city and reflected the city’s significance as a commercial port at the time of Britain’s greatest global influence. I wouldn't call it meaningless bauble despite the disadvantages it may have brought to future developments but lets be honest, what was being built before we were awarded c of c and WHS? Not a lot.

At the moment - billions in the City Centre.

Spot on Lydia. Successful cities are mindful of their past but not at the expense of future development. The world heritage badge a meaningless bauble that threatens to stifle progress and thwart the new 'iconic' architecture that we might otherwise be leaving as a legacy to future Liverpudlians. There has to be life after the 3 graces.

World Heritage is not stopping iconic architecture it is the city doing that. The centre was a triangle with one point at the Pier Head - a very small water frontage. Now the opportunity is there to spread the centre down the dock waterways from Central Docks to Queens – I’m afraid that ridiculous stadium will act as the boundary of the centre at the south end. Large lifeless concrete structures usually do – delimiters.

People think iconic architecture has to be behind the Liver Bldgs. Best have it along the waterways. Look at Princes Dock – no restrictions and look at the mess there. A report would say: nice effort can do better.

All too many blame the WHS as the problem, it is not at all.

What it has done is raise the image of the city... I also told him large swathes of the city centre and the dock waterways are World Heritage sites set by UNESCO, the largest in the UK. He said it’s still a dump.

Done a great job then hasn't it?

There are few people that don't believe that Liverpool had a glorious past - we need them to believe it has a glorious future.

Sod it, let's scrap world heritage status and call it a 'World Innovation Site' - The docks, the waterways and the buildings were cutting edge technology when they were designed and built!!

Done a great job then hasn't it?

There are few people that don't believe that Liverpool had a glorious past - we need them to believe it has a glorious future.

Sod it, let's scrap world heritage status and call it a 'World Innovation Site' - The docks, the waterways and the buildings were cutting edge technology when they were designed and built!!

There is no doubt the Heritage badge has made is big impression. That is clear.

The docks and buildings were cutting edge at the trime, that is clear too. Many think that some 50 floor anonymous glass block has to go in place of a building built in the 1700s. But we can still have the old and cutting edge the new. It is not either or.

The new will have to go along the waterways which will change the city centre. Then teh feel of the city will be more water based, instead of an inland city feel which we have now.

Done a great job then hasn't it?

There are few people that don't believe that Liverpool had a glorious past - we need them to believe it has a glorious future.

Sod it, let's scrap world heritage status and call it a 'World Innovation Site' - The docks, the waterways and the buildings were cutting edge technology when they were designed and built!!

WE don't exacly have a blank canvas to work from here Lydia. In the years running up to C of C and when the WHS was awarded, we had plenty of free space around the docks etc. Where was this glorious future?

WHS status will preserve and protect. There are plenty of areas around the city that could be developed in innovative ways.

Liverpool's glorious past is debatable, whats not is Liverpools impact internationally through the centuries.

The docks and buildings were cutting edge at the trime, that is clear too. Many think that some 50 floor anonymous glass block has to go in place of a building built in the 1700s. But we can still have the old and cutting edge the new. It is not either or. .

That's what I mean though - what is there is innovative and what should go beside it should be equally so. I'm no fan of building buildings for the sake of it.

Iv'e always felt that Liverpool has some splendid old buildings & that generally they were taken care of,indeed i would go as far as saying it is rich in Archealogical terms,with its fine buildings,monuments & statues,magnificent parks etc.Of course these were all built at a time when a lot more thought & a lot more time was spent on things like that.
The detail that went into them,ornate carvings,stylish designs,& magnificent stonework still astounds people to this day,given the lack of machinery they had at their disposal at that time.
Ive always felt that to stick a car park in the middle of such monuments of beauty is an insult & a travesty,& shows you the mindset of city planners & designers who now reign above us.They don't seem to have any sense of pride,common sense,or decency when it comes to the crunch.
Sadly it is happening all over the place.Just when you think things are moving in the right direction some p*****k comes along & destroys centuries of beauty in the name of progress.
What i would like to see is closer co-operation between, city planners,designers & conservation groups.Perhaps even a legal requirement that representatives from conservation groups,historical societies & residents associations are involved & consulted before everything is lost.
Car parks should only be built on the outskirts of our cities & people could then get shuttle buses,cycle or even walk into the city centre.
I will no doubt be accused of getting in the way of progress,but if we carry on as we are we will all lose out in the end.
Lets open up the remaining docks & put them to good & productive use again.

hello again kev..

great information for ex pats and locals...

well done, keep us informed...

Lemmo...:037:

The city and Peel Holdings are violating the World Heritage Site agreement they signed up to. See:

http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk

This World Heritage status isn't doin' us any favours. :sad:

This World Heritage status isn't doin' us any favours. :sad:

Maybe time to let it go?

It has also called for strategic plans covering future development that set out clear policies for the skyline and river front.

I think it's time to let it go because this museum will cost £65 million,when is being a WHS going to make us that amount of money (it wont) and why are they going on about the skyline does that mean before we've even seen the plans for Central Docks these are going to put their oar in and have them altered? Will World Class suddenly become mediocre if they are allowed to have a say get rid now.:disgust:

I think it's time to let it go because this museum will cost £65 million,when is being a WHS going to make us that amount of money (it wont) and why are they going on about the skyline does that mean before we've even seen the plans for Central Docks these are going to put their oar in and have them altered? Will World Class suddenly become mediocre if they are allowed to have a say get rid now.:disgust:

It looks well - not too good at all. World class architecture may be worth sticking out for.

I read money. That is all I have ever read about 2008 and WHS. How much money it will bring in - in the short term. Protect the WHS parts, develop around the WHS sympathetically and the money just comes in anyway as a matter of course - as long as the heritage is taken advantage of and not used as a tatty way of gaining money by cheap a tatty tourist things. Quality is the word.

Central Docks? There is all the South End Docks to build high rises upon. The ticky-tacky flats can go,, the Brunswick Quay tower can be built. Toxteth and Harrington Docks can be excavated and built around. Why screw up a World Heritage Site when there is just no need to, and we can have all anyway. But Peel don't own the South End Docks. We now have Liverpeel. They seem to get what they want which most of the time is at odds with the rest of us.

What UNESCO say is right. I am all for the World Heritage Site Status. The best thing ever to happened to the city. UNESCO have it right.

Maybe time to let it go?

It is time to re-inforce World Heritage Status

Its time for Liverpool to give up this phoney title.
Its time to tell UNESCO to get lost - we'll build our city like we want and not how some outsiders think it should be.
All this hollow, meaningless, laughable title does is give local heritage freaks a reason to whinge about any attempt to drag the city into the modern era.
These minor, obscure interest groups such as the Victorian Society should be sent back in a time machine to the 1800's where they belong.

Its time for Liverpool to give up this phoney title.


The city applied for it.


Its time to tell UNESCO to get lost - we'll build our city like we want and not how some outsiders think it should be.


Well the track record of urban planning over the past 100 years in Liverpool is dire. It needs outsiders to see what we have that is valuable and force us to keep it. The locals are no good at that. After all we asked them to do it, and good job they are doing so far. They have been alerted to the destruction of marine life in the docks and the plans to fill some in.

World Heritage Status is a great thing. They don't throw them around like confetti. Why do you think Manchester is trying for parts of their city?

Good point Waterways it was a magnificant title to have received for very good reasons.

However, a redeveloping city cocooned in a Heritage bubble? I'm not sure, maybe other cities will continue without hinderance to develop how they want to.

Good point Waterways it was a magnificant title to have received for very good reasons.

However, a redeveloping city cocooned in a Heritage bubble? I'm not sure, maybe other cities will continue without hinderance to develop how they want to.

When Liverpool was given the European City of Culture, the rest of the country laughed. "Slum Liverpool full of Chavs and Scallies has culture?" Many comedians made jokes about the award. It was regarded as a fix or a joke, the image of Liverpool was so low. After UNESCO awarded the status I never hear them anymore. People sat up and looked and though maybe the place does have something.

WHS was the only thing that made people look. It is the only thing that matters to the city. People blamed UNESCO for the council's stupidity - the anti tall buildings policy.

Tall buildings can be built anywhere at anytime, an interconnected dock waterway can't - history and heritage can't. The interconnected dock waterways and WHS are the most important things we have. Without them we are destined for a Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham type of future.

We are in the WHS club. We asked for it. We have to abide by the rules. We are abusing this privilege. That is simple. If you want inappropriate developments and tall towers for tall towers sake, then other faceless cities offer that in abundance. Liverpool has something special that every other city in Europe would drool over. A ready made interconnected waterways ready to be built on so we can live around, backed up by history and heritage.

A legacy that will catapult the city into one of the world's most renowned water-centric cities. That should not be squandered because of some half baked mis-fitting architecture and raw concrete and glass tall towers, violating rules we said we would abide by in the first place - rules we asked for.

What will Liverpool gain by being thrown out of the World Heritage club? The city will become a laughing stock if the status is removed. If it is removed, I hope the government takes away 2008, as the city would be clearly incompetent. There was reservations in government circles that the city was not good enough to handle 2008, so far they are being proven right by WHS violations.

What do UNESCO gain? What they gain is a clear message to the world that they will not be taken for a ride and be treated with contempt. That the status is not a way to develop quick bucks for a city and shark developers.

The Heritage zone are not that great in size, There is lots of places tall buildings can be built, like most of the south end docks. Inside the zone abide by the rules and exceed the spirit of World Heritage Status. Very simple. It works.

Why do some people want to commit suicide. Unless they are on the pay of shark developers. :(

but does the status mean that we get buildings of a world class nature, or simply to fit in with the Liver buildings

When Liverpool was given the European City of Culture, the rest of the country laughed. "Slum Liverpool full of Chavs and Scallies has culture?" Many comedians made jokes about the award.

How wrong people can be :rolleyes:

LAST week's Labour Party conference put the host city Manchester in the spotlight.

Tony Blair appeared on Andrew Marr's Sunday AM politics show and took the opportunity to praise the city as one of the best places in Europe. Last week's Sunday Times described how Manchester had not allowed any desire to preserve its Victorian past to stand in the way of progress.

As a result, the city has an air of completeness about it that is still lacking in regional neighbour Liverpool, just 35 miles down the motorway.

Liverpool is taking longer to redevelop itself. One reason for this is the more fragile condition of the local economy, but many property developers have argued that one of the reasons for Liverpool's relative slowness is the drawn-out planning process that can delay and even completely scupper new investment.

Property values have risen sharply in Liverpool in the past five years. This has resulted in numerous proposals being put forward to modernise and rejuvenate the city centre. Yet every time a significant project is mooted, objectors crop up to oppose it on conservation grounds.The problem has become so acute and the heritage groups have become so influential, that they are now often included in the initial planning process, given their say right from the start so as to prevent delays later.

The one thing Liverpool is not short of is heritage groups. These include statutory bodies such as English Heritage and the Commission for the Built Environment and Architecture and lots of local bodies such as the Merseyside Civic Society, Liverpool Preservation Trust, Victorian Society, Georgian Society, Save our Cities and the Twentieth Century Society.

Then there are ad hoc groups like the New Brighton Heritage Action Group and, as if all these weren't enough, an outfit called ICOMOS-UK is responsible to Unesco for policing the city's world heritage status. Often, these conservationists stand in the way of progress and redevelopment, as with the New Brighton group's success in preventing Neptune's £70m scheme for the Wirral town's waterfront.

Another example of scuppered proposals is Chieftain Development's plan for a 30-storey tower close to Lime Street station. This was turned down by a government inspector after a public enquiry on heritage grounds and that it was too close to the nearby Lime Street Gateway scheme proposed by English Partnerships.

Liverpool Preservation Trust is objecting to Neptune's Mann Island scheme and the nearby new Liverpool Museum proposal. Just last month, CABE raised objections to the Mersey Property Group's 26-storey building planned for Princes Dock just to the north of the Pier Head.

Liverpool Vision is the urban regeneration company responsible for overseeing the redevelopment of Liverpool city centre.

Its chief executive Jim Gill said of the heritage lobby: "It's got the ability to hold the system to blackmail. A strong objection from English Heritage is very powerful at opening up the risk of a public enquiry and all the time and cost that goes with that."

The Mersey Property Group's steel and glass tower has been opposed on the grounds that it is "joyless".

This despite the fact that it is wedged between another architecturally unremarkable tower built by City Lofts and a multi-storey car park. There are three substantial buildings between the Mersey Property Group tower and the Royal Liver Building.COMMENTING on why City Loft's scheme should proceed and Mersey Property Group's not, Ian Pollitt, chief executive of the Princes Dock Development Company, owned by Peel Holdings, said: "I don't understand it. It's farther away from the Liver Building than Unity's 30-storey tower."

He added that the scheme was no closer than Beetham's 40-storey West Tower under construction on the other side of the main dock road.

PDDC is also having to contend with objections to a 25-storey tower planned as part of New World Square on the site of the Isle of Man ferry terminal in the south east corner of the dock. This tower is right on the boundary of the official world heritage site and forms part of the buffer zone that is meant to protect the Pier Head from developments that might compromise its heritage status.

Mr Pollitt said: "CABE are very much in support of the scheme. They are happy with the height of it. It's the planners (at Liverpool City Council) who have the problem with the height of it."

Henry Owen-John, English Heritage's planning and development director for the North West, said the fact that arguments about heritage and conservation issues could be heard resounding around Merseyside is in itself a sign of progress. Ten years ago, much of what was worth preserving was being knocked down because decades of disuse had resulted in buildings becoming too dangerous and having no economic value.

"There were more listed buildings being demolished in Liverpool than any other city," he said."Since then there has been an upturn. These are the sort of problems we enjoy having to deal with. These are the circumstances that allow us to retain the architectural heritage of the city."

He points to Neptune's conversion of the art deco former Liverpool Airport terminal building into a Marriott hotel and Urban Splash's conversion of the Collegiate school on Shaw Street into apartments as examples of good compromises between the demands of development and conservation. There has been agreement on the shape of the new Museum of Liverpool at Mann Island. "That's an example of how we support innovative, modern architecture," he said.

MR OWEN-JOHN insists that ultimately conservationists like him share the same goals as property developers.

"We are all passionate about Liverpool. We want to see it succeed."

English Heritage flexed its muscles last year when it objected to Mere Park's proposed residential and retail development near Central Station, known as Central Village. Part of it faced on to Bold Street and was deemed very close to the Ropewalks conservation area, with its many listed buildings, including the Lyceum. As a result of English Heritage's objections, the scheme was reconfigured, reducing the height of the proposed 40-storey tower.

Mr Owen-John insists this scheme is a fine example of how the conservation body has been able to have a positive impact on proposals.

He said: "They have told us that they are happier with the revised scheme."

Mr Gill is not so sure though. He says: "I think the quality of that scheme has suffered as a result of the changes made to it.

"That was the view of Liverpool Vision board. The developer was a bit more pragmatic about it. The changes made the building easier to build. There was more space and it made it more viable. But from the point of view of the aesthetics, it's my view that something was lost."

MR GILL, however, insisted that relations between developers and heritage groups were by and large mature.

The claim is concurred with by Mr Owen-John, who says there are fewer public spats these days because most disagreements are ironed out in private before planning permission is sought.

Mr Gill added: "We need to establish principles that allow heritage and development to go side by side.

"We need to take the subjective out of it."

Mr Gill insists that many developers see issues of architectural merit and heritage as adding to the value of their projects.

In the past, when property values were lower, developers would be looking to make a quick return on an unambitious project. Now with higher values they are increasingly interested in bigger and longer term projects.

He points to the St Paul's Square project, saying that it will be a quality environment that will attract end users and apartment dwellers alike for its commercial and retail offering.

"Developers now want to create a sense of place. Quality can add value and that is a sign of a mature development market," said Mr Gill.

billgleeson@dailypost.co.uk

TWO men who will help

decide the fate of Liverpool’s cherished World Heritage Site arrive in the city today on a four-day fact-finding mission.

They will be compiling a key

report about the impact of proposals for a multi-million pound plan for a new museum and residential and mixed-use development on Mann Island.

Their

report will be considered next July, almost nine months after the scheduled start date on the new Museum of Liverpool.

Liverpool’s own heritage site

custodian, John Hinchliffe, said the Mann Island scheme would not pose a threat to the World Heritage Site status.

It is a view not shared by Wayne

Colquhoun, of the Merseyside Preservation Trust. He wrote to Unesco, the body that grants WHS status, because of his concerns over developments close to the

Pier Head.

He will be meeting Michel Bonnette, from Quebec, representing Icomos, the International Committee on Monuments and Statues, and American

Ron van Oers, who represents Unesco, the body which runs world heritage sites.

Liverpool City Council say it will be an opportunity to demonstrate

that the city is complying with Unesco guidelines for protecting the world heritage site.

They will be shown the waterfront, as well as St George’s

Hall, Rope Walks, the Grosvenor project and the Bluecoat. They will also visit Sefton Park Palm House and the old airport terminal.

Mr Hinchliffe, the

council’s World Heritage Officer, said: "They are coming to Liverpool as guests of the State because World Heritage Status is granted to a country, though in

essence the city council is hosting the visit. They will be given a comprehensive look at Liverpool’s heritage. Our view is that the Mann Island scheme

complies with guidelines. The meeting in Vienna last year, which I attended, was to discuss contemporary buildings close to world heritage sites. The meeting

issued a memorandum, and I believe our schemes are in accord with that.

"The two representatives will make up their own minds and report back to their

respective organisations, and they will produce a report for a meeting next July of the World Heritage Committee. We are not contemplating that our World

heritage status is at risk. The new buildings on Mann Island will have an impact, but the side view from the Albert Dock of the Three Graces is an accidental

view. At one time there were large warehouses on Mann Island. Our point is that the Three Graces were always intended to be seen from the river."

But

Mr Colquhoun takes a different view and said he fears that Liverpool is potentially in danger of being the first ever location to be stripped of World

Heritage status.

He said: "Last year, in Vienna, the World Heritage Committee noted with great concern the proposal for the new museum and the three

new buildings proposed for Mann Island."

"That committee demanded a mission to Liverpool to consider the impact of these proposals on the World

Heritage property. The plan is to start work on the museum within weeks and the mission’s report will not be considered until next July. It is a disaster

waiting to happen. If work starts on the museum before the report is presented we intend to seek a legal injunction to stop it."

"The two representatives will make up their own minds and report

back to their respective organisations, and they will produce a report for a meeting next July of the World Heritage Committee. We are not contemplating that

our World heritage status is at risk. The new buildings on Mann Island will have an impact, but the side view from the Albert Dock of the Three Graces is an

accidental view. At one time there were large warehouses on Mann Island. Our point is that the Three Graces were always intended to be seen from the

river."

Maybe this accidental view is like looking through the keyhole then. The view of the three graces from side via Albert Dock is

stunning and must be preserved whether it came about via demolition a few decades ago or not. The view was on TV every morning via the Richard & Judy show.

It was what countered the negative "Liverpool is a slum" propaganda coming out of London and Manchester.

It was what countered the negative "Liverpool is a slum" propaganda coming out of London

and Manchester.

For heavens sake can we get over this pathetic 'everybody hates us' self-indulgence. It's that type of whinging that

perpetuates the stereotypes of Liverpool as a maudlin basketcase. London and Manchester don't have the time or the interest to pump out any sort of

propaganda about Liverpool, they're too busy being thriving, world-class cities!

Also in reference to the 'they don't hand these things out like

confetti' comment posted some time back I would just point out that there are currently 27 world heritage sites for the UK. They include such

glittering tourist attractions as 'Heart of Neolithic Orkney', Saltaire, Blaenavon Industrial Landscape and New Lanark. I don't recall many stories about

stampedes of eager tourists revitalisng the local economies of any of them.

If we`want to be treated like a serious, significant and successful city

then we need to start acting like one. I for one don't aspire to live in a theme park, an archeological dig or a heritage village. Liverpool needs to move

forward. We should acknowledge the best of our past but not let it become a roadblock to a better future. So lets's have more outrageous designs and

controversial buildings, let's fill the city with them if we can - they will send out the message loud and clear that Liverpool is a place where things are

hapening - and not just a place where things used to happen!

Fingers and toes crossed that the UNESCO inspectors do us a favour and revoke our status

asap.

For heavens sake can we get over this pathetic 'everybody hates us'

self-indulgence. It's that type of whinging that perpetuates the stereotypes of Liverpool as a maudlin basketcase. London and Manchester don't have the

time or the interest to pump out any sort of propaganda about Liverpool, they're too busy being thriving, world-class cities!


You

haven't read newpapers then. Most people elsewhere think Liverpool is some sort of slum. They don't know about the WHS or that Liverpool is Euro Capital

of Culture.


Also in reference to the 'they don't hand these things out like confetti' comment posted some time back I would just point

out that there are currently 27 world heritage sites for the UK. They include such glittering tourist attractions as 'Heart of Neolithic Orkney',

Saltaire, Blaenavon Industrial Landscape and New Lanark. I don't recall many stories about stampedes of eager tourists revitalisng the local economies of

any of them.


Well if Liverpool promoted the WHS - most of the centre is in the zone or buffer and no other city has this - then matters

may turn faster.


If we`want to be treated like a serious, significant and successful city then we need to start acting like one. I for one

don't aspire to live in a theme park, an archeological dig or a heritage village. Liverpool needs to move forward. We should acknowledge the best of our

past but not let it become a roadblock to a better future.


Yep, and you must also recognise what you have and promote that - heritage

comes to mind.


So lets's have more outrageous designs and controversial buildings, let's fill the city with them if we can - they will

send out the message loud and clear that Liverpool is a place where things are hapening - and not just a place where things used to

happen!


That would be nice. However, Apart from the Met Cathedral nothing new in Liverpool in 60 years been any good at all. Full of

cheap tat. The Beetham Tower is second rate and RSA is well.....

The only good things about Liverpool are old, so we must play on that and preserve

the good of the old. Play on our strengths.


Fingers and toes crossed that the UNESCO inspectors do us a favour and revoke our status

asap.


Then the city will fall rapidly back to top scally city UK. WHS made the world sit up and look. People thought maybe they have

something there and it is worth a visit and maybe worth investing in property development too. Take that away and the property investment money will dry up.

Back to stage one again.

You haven't

read newpapers then. Most people elsewhere think Liverpool is some sort of slum. They don't know about the WHS or that Liverpool is Euro Capital of

Culture.Patras (in Greece) is European Capital of Culture :)

Most people elsewhere think Liverpool is some sort of slum. They don't know about the WHS or that Liverpool is Euro Capital of Culture.



Apart from the Met Cathedral nothing new in Liverpool in 60 years been any good at all. Full of cheap tat. The Beetham Tower is second rate and RSA

is well.....

The only good things about Liverpool are old, so we must play on that and preserve the good of the old. Play on our

strengths.

WHS made the world sit up and look. People thought maybe they have something there and it is worth a visit and maybe worth

investing in property development too. Take that away and the property investment money will dry up. Back to stage one again.


Well which

is it? Either people don't know about WHS or it made them sit up and look - it can't be both.

In fact the truth is probably that a few people are

aware of it and it really is of no significance to them at all.

People go to see the Taj Mahal because it is the Taj Mahal, not because it has

some sort of UNESCO blue badge!

These meaningless baubles and titles are fine as long as they don't have a negative impact on the future

development of the city. Of themselves, they will generate little or nothing for Liverpool.

If we are to become the city that we once were the

responsibility is ours and ours alone, outside organizations will not regenerate us economically, socially or culturally. As ever, Liverpool people

hold their own future in their own hands.

As for:

"The only good things about Liverpool are old, so we must play on that and preserve the

good of the old. Play on our strengths."

I'm sorry but any hope you had of being taken seriously just went out of the window. To suggest that

there is nothing positive happening in the city and that nothing of any merit has been built in 60 years is pathetic. The past is the past, we live in the

present and - like it or not - are moving towards the future. having a 'stop the world I want to get off' attitude may be great for getting you a guest

slot on Grumpy old men but it's of no use to Liverpool!

Well said Gerrydoyle:037:

Well which is it? Either people don't know about WHS or it made them

sit up and look - it can't be both.


The average with 2.4 kids doesn't. Those with money to invest do.


These

meaningless baubles and titles


WHS is far from meaningless.


are fine as long as they don't have a negative impact on

the future development of the city. Of themselves, they will generate little or nothing for Liverpool.


If the city can't accomdate WHS,

make the best of it, and accommodate the future, they should give the running of the place to someone else.


"The only good things about

Liverpool are old, so we must play on that and preserve the good of the old. Play on our strengths."

I'm sorry but any hope you had of being

taken seriously just went out of the window. To suggest that there is nothing positive happening in the city and that nothing of any merit has been built in

60 years is pathetic.


Apart from the Met Cathedral name me a modern building that is half decent? Stop arm waving and babbling. Look.




The past is the past, we live in the present and - like it or not - are moving towards the future. having a 'stop the world I want to

get off' attitude may be great for getting you a guest slot on Grumpy old men but it's of no use to Liverpool!

You clearly have no idea of

what WHS is all about. WHS is great badge to wear and will project the city forwards.

i hope the museum gets the go ahead its a great design, and the mann island design is growing on me

everytime i see it.

i hope the museum gets the go ahead its a great design, and the mann island design is growing on me everytime i see

it.

It is great design, however like the Kings Dock, in the wrong place.

See http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk

Go

the the Kings Dock page.

The average with 2.4 kids doesn't.

Those with money to invest do.

You clearly have no idea of what WHS is all about. WHS is great badge to wear and will project the city

forwards.

So it's just the plebs that don't understand what a fabulous boon WHS is? Well thank heavens they have the self-appointed heritage

patrol looking out for them.

Patronising drivel.

In terms of not knowing what WHS is all about, by your own admission almost nobody knows!

It's a badge, a bauble a christmas cracker prize. It adds nothing to the fabric, offer or reality of the city.

Before it became stereotyped as a

shrinking, sinking and self-pitying dump, Liverpool was viewed as a confident, dynamic, innovative and ballsy metropolis. That's the part of our past that

we need to focus on, to honour and to ressurrect. Real people live here, real families that need real regeneration and real facilities. What they need is an

improved environment that meets their needs and enables their dreams. They don't want to be helpless bystanders in a perfectly preserved picture post card.



Thriving cities are messy, silk purses and sows ears exist side by side - just look at London, Paris and especially New York. We're not illustrating

chocolate boxes here.

The wierdest thing about your - changing and contradictary - arguments is that they sound totally alien to the irreverent &

inventive Liverpool that I know and love. Truth is they sound like the sort of NIMBY rubbish that's more suited to the home counties. God forbid that we

should ever sink so low!

World Heritage status ‘not at risk’
Oct 18

2006
by Larry Neild, Liverpool Daily Post

LIVERPOOL is not at risk of losing its coveted World Heritage Status, city officials

insisted last night as two key officials arrived at the start of a four-day mission.

But John Hinchliffe, the council's World Heritage Officer, said

if the Paris-based World Heritage Committee disapproved of plans for Mann Island they have the power to place Liverpool's status on an "in danger"

list.

Although the two-man delegation will spend three days touring key cultural sites in the city, multi-million pound development plans for the

sensitive Mann Island site will be a focal point.

Although the delegation will be carefully examining how Liverpool is managing the World Heritage

Site, agreed by UNESCO in 2004, they will carefully examine the implications of the proposed Museum of Liverpool and mixed-use development alongside on the

site of the former Road Range garage.

Critics of the Mann Island development wrote to the World heritage Centre's headquarters to express alarm at

the proposed

schemes.

Story continues (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpooldailypost/news/regionalnews/tm_headline=world-heritage-status-%2D%2D8216%2Dnot-at-risk%2D%2D

8217%2D%26method=full%26objectid=17949156%26siteid =50061-name_page.html#story_continue)...

So it's just the plebs that don't understand what a fabulous boon WHS is?




..and philistines as well.


Before it became stereotyped as a shrinking, sinking and self-pitying dump, Liverpool was

viewed as a confident, dynamic, innovative and ballsy metropolis.


Pre-WW2 and possibly pre-WW1. Read my post onthis thread. That will

clear things up for you.

..and philistines as well.

LMAO - Just what we need Liverpool's very own Brian Sewell.

I obviously missed the

meeting when everyone agreed on a uniform, pre-war aesthetic for the city :rolleyes:

LMAO - Just what we need Liverpool's very

own Brian Sewell.

I obviously missed the meeting

You have obviously missed a hell of a lot.

You have obviously missed a hell of a lot.

Ok I give in. Your repartee is as turgid and limited as your arguments. If

we go one more round it seems that you'll be down to single syllables. Pity 'cos it's a discussion worth exploring - with an informed opposition...


:rolleyes:

Ok I give in. Your repartee is as turgid and limited as

your arguments.

You clearly have no argument at all. You have no idea what WHS gives to the city and how it can be incorporated into the

future. You just focus on high rise tat. In the past few years the city has demolished 4 high-rises (good looking ones too).

Seen it all before in

the 1960s. Wonderful artists impressions and then the tat arrived. The same with Beetham.

So Liverpool isn't the only Heritage Site to be under close watch from

UNESCO....The Tower of London is on the verge of being placed on the United Nation's Heritage in Danger List, according to

Unesco.

The UN's cultural organisation fears the 900-year-old Tower has become overshadowed by skyscrapers which are threatening its historical

value.

New developments "appear not to respect" the Tower's location, it said.

Experts are visiting the UK to assess threats to the Tower and other

sites like Liverpool's Waterfront.

They will also look at the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey.

'Losing value'

The Tower of London,

built by William the Conqueror, is among 830 sites across the world which have been granted World Heritage Site status by Unesco.

In July, Unesco's World

Heritage Committee said it was "concerned" by new developments were overshadowing heritage sites and that London's planning policies to protect the Tower

were not "applied effectively".

World Heritage Committee member Kishore Rao told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "If you have modern buildings coming up

all around it and people - pedestrians - can't view a certain historic building against the skyline or in relation to other historic buildings in the

vicinity, then it loses the value.

"You don't only maintain the authenticity of the site - that means that the structure itself is not damaged or

modified - but also that it is presented in its historical context."

Neville Shulman, a member of the UK Culture Committee for Unesco, said: "Once you

lose the views, you start to lose the intrinsic value of the buildings and suddenly people start to think about demolishing, altering, changing in many

different ways."

The leader of Liverpool City Council, Warren Bradley, said he had had positive discussions with the inspectors when they visited the city

this week.

"Next July we'll get a full report back," he said.

"I'm very confident that what they'll say is what we want to hear, that is carry on

Liverpool, carry on regenerating, carry on building on the back of World Heritage site status and we'll see you in the future."

Unesco has asked the UK

to submit a report of its efforts to protect the Tower of London by February 2007.

LIVERPOOL

City Council leader Warren Bradley last night said he was confident the city would not be placed on an "endangered" list risking its precious world heritage

status.

Cllr Bradley spoke after representatives from ICOMOS, the International Committee on Monuments and Statues, and Unesco, the body which runs world

heritage sites, came to view the city's controversial Mann Island site.

The delegation, which spent four days in the city last week, have the power to

place Liverpool's World Heritage status on an "in danger" list if they disapprove of the awaited X-museum and other developments planned for Mann

Island.

They will not be publishing a report on their findings until next year, but last night Cllr Bradley said initial feedback had been positive.

He

echoed the confidence of city officials who last week said the waterfront's world heritage status was safe, ahead of the delegation visit.Cllr Bradley said:

"The report is not being considered for some time but the reaction of the visitors was positive.

"I am confident they are satisfied with our plans for

Mann Island and they don't pose any risk to our world heritage status."

Cllr Bradley said further feedback from the two delegates is expected today, in

time for a planning application for two "cheese wedge" blocks on Mann Island to be considered tomorrow.

City planners have recommended the application

for approval.

The delegation came to Liverpool to examine how the city is managing the World Heritage Site, agreed by UNESCO in 2004.

But the main

focus of the tour was the proposed Museum of Liverpool and mixed-use development alongside on the site of the former Road Range garage.

Their report will

be considered next July, almost nine months after the scheduled start date on the new Museum of Liverpool.

Wayne Colquhoun, who established Merseyside's

Preservation Trust, says he does not agree with Cllr Bradley that the outcome of the report will be positive.

He wrote to Unesco, the body that grants

WHS status, because of his concerns over developments close to the Pier Head.

Mr Colquhoun, who had a 15 minute meeting with the delegates, said: "I

handed them a 200-page document, which took me five days to prepare.

"The delegates told me that Liverpool City Council had admitted it had made

mistakes. I believe they will put Liverpool on the 'in danger' register.

"It is my view that this is the only way to stop the people who are running

this city.."

The city council view is that before the World Heritage Site was approved Unesco was aware of plans to redevelop Mann Island.

Critics of

the museum development wrote to the World Heritage Centre's headquarters to express alarm at the proposed schemes.

Dr David Fleming, director of

National Museums Liverpool said: "Modern architecture isn't easy, not everybody likes it and it takes time to get used to it.

"Everybody was against the

Liver Buildings when they were first proposed and being built, now they are the city's favourite buildings. They are iconic.

"We don't know what they

will decide to do, but it is scaremongering to say they have come here to take away our world heritage status. The important thing to remember is that we

have all the permission we need to build the museum. Unesco do not have the power to stop us building."

Tomorrow, councillors on the city's planning

committee will be shown the first views of what the new-look Pier Head area will look like when the £65m Museum of Liverpool and the commercial scheme on

Mann Island are added.

source (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpooldailypost/news/regionalnews/tm_headline=world-heritage-status-is-safe%2D-insists-city%2Ds-leader-%26method=

full%26objectid=17976806%26siteid=50061-name_page.html)......

Heritage title ‘not in danger’
Oct 24 2006
by Nick Coligan, Liverpool

Echo

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/jun2006/3/4/1076BD99-06B8-B1E8-C7008E7D0D4A3989.jpg

LIVERPOOL’S world

heritage status will NOT be threatened by controversial developments planned for the waterfront, experts revealed today.

After a three-day

investigation, leading architecture experts from Unesco said the plans for an X-shaped museum and black granite apartment blocks on the waterfront would not

damage the city’s prestigious title.

But the team believes the council must work harder in the future to make sure any plans for the world heritage

site respect historic buildings such as the Three Graces.

Liverpool currently shares the same status as the likes of the Egyptian pyramids, the Taj

Mahal and

Stonehenge.

Story continues (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpoolecho/news/echonews/tm_headline=heritage-title-%2D%2D8216%2Dnot-in-danger%2D%2D8217%2D%26m

ethod=full%26objectid=17982565%26siteid=50061-name_page.html#story_continue)...

Waterfront is 'not under threat'

Liverpool's historic waterfront appears unlikely to lose its

World Heritage Site status.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39119000/jpg/_39119030_liverpool.203.index.jpg
The

waterfront is home to the
"three graces"

Inspectors from the United Nations' cultural organisation Unesco spent three days in the city last

week.

They were assessing the threat to the site's status from plans to develop the area around the "three graces" with futuristic buildings.



The city council said Unesco's report was positive and said the area was "considered not to be under threat".

The full report will be

considered by the World Heritage Committee next year.

'Very positive'

Liverpool City Council welcomed the preliminary findings and

said the comments would be "taken on board".

Councillor Warren Bradley, council leader, said: "Generally this a very positive report and we are

encouraged by its mains findings.

"We recognise that these are preliminary views but we believe that along with our partners we have convinced the

delegation that we are managing the World Heritage site well and are paying heed to its stipulations when considering new developments.

"However,

they make recommendations on what we need to do to take forward the management of the site and we will be taking on board those comments."

The

recommendations include making the views of interest groups public and providing better guidance to

developers.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42232000/jpg/_42232448_mann_devp203.jpg
Futuristic buildings are planned

for
Mann island site

The three graces consist of the Port of Liverpool, Cunard and Royal Liver buildings - the latter famous for its Liver

birds.

A decision to build several wedge-shaped granite buildings at Mann Island, next to the three graces, was delayed by councillors on Tuesday.



A council spokesman said the committee would now hear the application on 7 November.

If the buildings got the go-ahead they would sit next to

the controversial X-shaped Museum of Liverpool.

In July, Unesco's World Heritage Committee said it was "concerned" that new developments were

overshadowing heritage sites.

The Taj Mahal, the Pyramids and the Tower of London are also world heritage sites.

The Tower is also in the

spotlight as Unesco fears the 900-year-old building has become overshadowed by skyscrapers which are threatening its historical value.

Source:

BBC NEWS | Merseyside (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6083260.stm)

Extracts from the UNESCO prelim report:

When the site

was nominated, it was accompanied by a management plan, which set out the framework for future development. That does not seem to have been translated into

detailed development plans for discrete areas of the city. Currently there is no master plan for the waterfront, for instance.





7. The Committee’s concern is that along with this large-scale development, Liverpool’s Outstanding Universal Value may

be jeopardized, or lost all together.



As regards the Mann Island Project, located behind the Museum, this also suffered

from a similar lack of thoroughly prepared architectural design guidelines that could have produced a design proposal more compatible with its sensitive

location and important architectural neighbours. Also this architect had a lot of room for interpretation.



Mission’s

Recommendations

2. Requests that the Municipal Council should improve its methods for the management of new developments inside the site inscribed

on the World Heritage List and its buffer zone, particularly as regards the rules to be applied for the construction of new buildings. To this effect,

the mission recommends that the Committee should remind the Council that it must keep its promise that it would rapidly have a set of Supplementary Planning

Documents covering these sectors produced and adopted; the mission suggests that the Council should be required to inform the Committee of the timetable for

the implementation of the works, and that the Council should indicate how the Committee will be consulted and enabled to express its view on the issue.



3. Asks that measures be taken by the Municipal Council to raise the population's awareness of the motives which formed the basis for the city's

inclusion in the World Heritage List, and in particular to ensure that the property developers and the building professionals who intervene on the site

are aware of these motives. The outstanding universal value which the city is recognised as possessing through its inclusion should be statutorily

indicated in all calls for proposals, architectural competitions and professional contracts issued or awarded by the city or its partners which relate to

projects situated inside the site or in its buffer zone, and it should be made compulsory for the developers and professionals concerned to take this value

into account when drawing up their proposals.

A full report will be prepared and submitted before December 15, 2006.

The city took a

well deserved slap on the wrist. Read between the lines, they are saying get your act together or we will take action next time.

Waterfront is 'not under threat'

Liverpool's historic

waterfront appears unlikely to lose its World Heritage Site

status.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39119000/jpg/_39119030_liverpool.203.index.jpg
The waterfront is home to

the
"three graces"


The Tower is also in the spotlight as Unesco fears the 900-year-old building has become overshadowed by skyscrapers

which are threatening its historical value.

Source: BBC NEWS |

Merseyside (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6083260.stm)

What goes around, comes around.
Wasn't the Tower of London the tallest building in London (apart from churches) for

hundreds of years?

"...The outstanding universal value which the city is recognised as possessing through its inclusion should be statutorily indicated in all

calls for proposals, architectural competitions and professional contracts issued or awarded by the city or its partners which relate to projects situated

inside the site or in its buffer zone, and it should be made compulsory for the developers and professionals concerned to take this value into account when

drawing up their proposals...."

In Plain English, pull your finger out, Liverpool City Council!

"...The outstanding universal value which

the city is recognised as possessing through its inclusion should be statutorily indicated in all calls for proposals, architectural competitions and

professional contracts issued or awarded by the city or its partners which relate to projects situated inside the site or in its buffer zone, and it should

be made compulsory for the developers and professionals concerned to take this value into account when drawing up their proposals...."

In Plain

English, pull your finger out, Liverpool City Council!

They are collectively pure amateurs. That

includes the quangos like Liverpool Vision. It is frightening how those paid six figure salaries to provide 'vision' appear to be blessed with anything

but.

Jim Gill, Chief Executive, Liverpool Vision said: "Refurbishment started on the Albert Dock 22 years ago, and it has stayed in splendid

isolation. If you look at it on its own, it is a wonderful restoration but I think it has failed as part of a broader regeneration package because nothing

has happened around it."

So the Albert Dock is a failure? And this man is in charge of such an
organisation? My God! Because Liverpool Vision

have failed to do anything around the dock of any merit the docks must be a failure - what twisted logic. What spin.

No doubt in the 60s and 70s they

would have been among the Philistines pressing for Hartley's masterpiece at Albert Dock to be dynamited into the dock, for the building of the Polytechnic

and its car-park.

They got their way on the Brindley designed 1700s warehouses adjacent to Albert at Dukes Dock. Thank God the city had the likes of

Quentin Hughes who could see what was obvious to all but those in power.

How many million visitors per year does the iconic 'regeneration failure'

welcome I wonder.... somewhat more than the Liverpool Vision Centre and 08 Place put together, I would guess!!

A real regeneration failure is on the

part of the City for leaving the Strand as a windswept urban motorway. Other failures are allowing tat like the 'Cell Block H' washing machine blocks to

be excreted at random on the quaysides and allowing a large concrete stadium to be built next to the largest collecting of protected buildings in the UK.



Having promised to deliver the Everton Stadium, Fourth Grace and Tram links, Liverpool Vision should be familiar with regeneration

failures.

.

Regarding Quentin Hughes, I found this 1963 news cutting in one of his books.



http://www.liverpoolpictorial.co.uk/newscut.jpg

The full UNESCO Preliminary Report is here. Link in News colunm on the

top right:
http://www.saveliverpooldocks.co.uk

The proposal to extend the World Heritage Conservation Area due to mass response over in-filling proposals

of West Waterloo Dock was met with summary dismissal by the LibDem Council. Quite disgraceful - at least there should have been a discussion/debate on the

matter given the extent of the concerns that have been raised over proposals of infilling of West Waterloo Dock.

As technically the matter has not

been fully rejected or replaced by an alternative it can be raised again at the Area Committee as a means of aserting pressure once again. The local MP - MPs

have clout - may take up the cause as she is certainly supportive.

you have to wonder what the people in charge are actually thinking don't you! nice article that BTW scouserdave

you have to wonder

what the people in charge are actually thinking don't you! nice article that BTW scouserdave

UNESCO have criticised the city for not having a

strategic plan for the docks. What we have is land pacelled up and open to the highest bidder of tat builings. "Wanna fill in a dock as well Guv?" "Laid

out in the 1700s but do you care Guv when you can make 4 million on the land it makes?" "We may be able to fit you in Guv."

Meanwhile, we keep firing

both barrels footwards by demonising as 'anti-development' the very people and groups who best understand our extraordinary development potential.



Doubtless similar tactics were used against the lone voices protesting against the Piggeries and streets in the sky during the 60s and 70s, mistakes

we are still paying for twenty years after their embarassing excesses were dynamited.

The following was originally posted on another thread:New labour has knocked back countless tall buildings for LiverpoolIt is the Manchester based English Heritage quango that trunkates Liverpool's proposed tall buildings and the Lib/Dem majority on Liverpool City Council kneel to EH's decision. The problem, therefore, is with a Manchester based quango and a local Lib/Dem council.

One other point; EH alter designs by some of the worlds greatest architects, architects that other cities are trying to get to design buildings in their own cities. This Manchester based quango have ordered offerings by the likes of Norman Foster, Cesar Pelli, David Leiberskind and Frank Gherry to be altered, some so signifficantly that at least one architect has refused to submit a design and withdrew from the contract. I know both Toronto and San Diego have boasted at getting Cesar Pelli to design buildings in their respective cities, yet Manchester based English Heritage, who think they are better architects than Pelli, have had his design for the Liverpool 1 project lowered by a number of story's.

I thought English Heritage was charged with protecting Englands historic built environment and not interfering with the building heritage of future Liverpool generations. The interference of this quango and the aquiesance of a weak council will condemn future generations of Liverpudlians to a city with uniformly squat buildings of an inferior design with no architectural merit whatsoever. And yet, this Manchester based quango is silent when Liverpool's historic docks are filled in and gerry-built structures placed above them.

I wonder, if not city council and the local press, just who will stand up to the English Heritage quango and who will speak out for Liverpool's future built environment?:disgust:

English heritage should just stick to what they know, this has got beyond the joke now. There are so many buildings of fantastic merit that are laying in decay, partly because no-one can touch them because of ridiculous listed status guidelines that are not protecting, only pushing new ideas out of the equation and leaving these buildings to rot, and also because far to much of english heritage's attention and main focus appears to be on interfering with the new!

Their priorities are all wrong and I think they are loosing the purpose and trying to find a new one!

Down with EH:celb (23): :PDT_Xtremez_12:

www.toria-thethreegraces.blogspot.com

(this is my web page i designed with info on proposed ideas just to let you refresh your memory as to how things are going to look on the pier head in the near future)

There should be more calls for more comunity led as apposed to consumer led tourism initiatives which do not devalue local cultures....

it has been said that Liverpool is a city that has allowed the heritagization of its public spaces to erode any sense of local heritage and identity....

what are your views of the museum being built next to the three graces?

Do you think that the new building will dominate or compliment the historic pier head buildings? because in the UNESCO websites recommendations it firmly states that:

The state party, in applying its planning procedures rigourously assure that:

1) the height of any new construction in the world heritage property not exceed that of structures in the immediate surroundings

2) The character of any new construction respect the qualities of the historic area

3) New construction at the pier head should NOT DOMINATE but COMPLIMENT the historic pier head buildings...

if you take a look at the proposed ideas and think more into the history of the three graces... the meaning and importance of them and what they symbolize to the city as a whole... do you really think that building this museum right next to them is a good idea or not????

im studying this at university for my dissertation and i'm looking for some qualatative feedback......

Pleas Help me........

thanks

vicky

Hello Vicky

Glad you made it into the site okay. Great to have you here.

The Liver Buildings and the other two "Graces" are world famous, and to many the Liver Buildings with the Liver Birds are what Liverpool is all about to the rest of the world (along with the story of the Beatles and a sense of the city's music and maritime heritages, etc.). Thus it would be a tragedy if the Three Graces are dwarfed by other more modern buildings, as I am afraid is beginning to happen, or that the proposed museum detracts from rather than compliments the existing architectural gems.

I wish you the best with your project as I am sure we all do.

Chris George

www.toria-thethreegraces.blogspot.com

(this is my web page i designed with info on proposed ideas just to let you refresh your memory as to how things are going to look on the pier head in the near future)

There should be more calls for more comunity led as apposed to consumer led tourism initiatives which do not devalue local cultures....

it has been said that Liverpool is a city that has allowed the heritagization of its public spaces to erode any sense of local heritage and identity....

what are your views of the museum being built next to the three graces?

Do you think that the new building will dominate or compliment the historic pier head buildings? because in the UNESCO websites recommendations it firmly states that:

The state party, in applying its planning procedures rigourously assure that:

1) the height of any new construction in the world heritage property not exceed that of structures in the immediate surroundings

2) The character of any new construction respect the qualities of the historic area

3) New construction at the pier head should NOT DOMINATE but COMPLIMENT the historic pier head buildings...

if you take a look at the proposed ideas and think more into the history of the three graces... the meaning and importance of them and what they symbolize to the city as a whole... do you really think that building this museum right next to them is a good idea or not????

im studying this at university for my dissertation and i'm looking for some qualatative feedback......

Pleas Help me........

thanks

vicky


Fair enough Vicky but what might be interesting is that maybe you tell us what you think about the proposals.

1.Good luck for the project.
2.Try using a spellcheck.

imho, the cloud was too overpowering, was escalating in cost and there were no plans for its use, it's interior. The new museum is lower and set more to the side so will not interfere as much, the black apartment blocks are set back from the waterfront behind the museum. My only gripe is that the footprint of the museum is not big enough to exhibit a lot more of what we could instead of building more apartments to the rear.

imho, the cloud was too overpowering, was escalating in cost and there were no plans for its use, it's interior. The new museum is lower and set more to the side so will not interfere as much, the black apartment blocks are set back from the waterfront behind the museum. My only gripe is that the footprint of the museum is not big enough to exhibit a lot more of what we could instead of building more apartments to the rear.

I agree. I think the new museum compliments the three graces and will show that Liverpool is capable of moving forward whilst protecting our heritage at the same time. At first I didn't like the Mann Island project but the new design has grown on me and I actually like it. Overall, I think the museum and other buildings are a good idea and will make a very interesting addition to Liverpool's waterfront.

t has been said that Liverpool is a city that has allowed the heritagization of its public spaces to erode any sense of local heritage and identity....
Has it? Just googled "heritagization" and I'm still none the wiser.
Welcome on board Vicky.

Try 'heritagization of the pubic places' and see what that comes up with :shock:

Has it? Just googled "heritagization" and I'm still none the wiser.
Welcome on board Vicky.

A book I was studying during my lit review, "issues in cultural tourism studies' Melanie. K. Smith. it states: Walsh(1992:135) is cynical about the potential benefits of cultural regeneration particularly in industrial cities, stating that 'Herotigization of space in deprived regions is not designed to provide locals with cultural services, but rather to wallpaper over the cracks of inner city decay in an attempt to attract revenue of one sort or another'.

He cites Liverpool as a city that has allowed the 'heritigization of its public spaces to erode any sense of local heritage and identity'.

He describes the Albert Dock as 'a dehistoricized place, a contrived place, and a form of ersate tourism'.... this where visitors to Liverpool do not encounter the Real Liverpool or real people because they have all been displaced.

:gossip:

I went to the Pier Head last week, and there was only me and Johnny Walker there.
A World Heritage Site, and it's always deserted!
Oh, for the days when all the buses went to the Pier Head, and it was really buzzing.

Try 'heritagization of the pubic places' and see what that comes up with :shock:
"Pubic?" Ged mate, you've been looking at the rude Yo banner for too long.:celb (23):
http://www.liverpoolpictorial.co.uk/banner001.jpg

I agree Phil, though it's always busy when the sun is out, if not just for 1000 goths and moshers and the landing stage is missing don't forget.

To reply to Bazzara. I'm not interested in what some no mark said. No one has been misplaced from the Albert dock as no one lived there and what's been done with it is better than the decay it was seeing in the 1970s for instance.

Granted it will never be as busy as its heydey but that's because of how the docks have moved on. As for public spaces, look at our fantastic parks - there's plenty of open spaces if you look for them, little niches like St Lukes, St Nicks, The Roscoe place off Mount pleasant, St. John's gardens - it is the bustling city centre after all.

[QUOTE=Ged;37221]
To reply to Bazzara. I'm not interested in what some no mark said.

i agree... i think its comlete rubbish aswell.... however i wanted to see if anyone agreed with this cynical view!... any more views would be very much appreciated!!! Vicky x

I was speaking to someone in work last night, and they have no access to internet so i am posting on behalf of him.....

Chris from NewCastle.. text message::gossip:

""Some people are so hung up about things. what they forget about is that they have to make buildings to suit with our time. look at it this way as i mentioned earlier about your two great cathedrals. 1 traditional and the other very modern but both rich in glory and magnificent in themselves. they also compliment the other with Hope st uniting them together. it's just exactly the same as the three graces and this new museum with the pier head uniting the old with the new. i don't know if i'm talking a load of **** but hey ho!""

When i read this text it did seem to make quite clear sense to me and i was thinking along the same way he was... however i'm still not 100% convinced!!

Liverpool was a city for 700 years BEFORE the the so-called 3 graces were built.
Nice as the Pier Head is, it can't be allowed to govern the height or style of any new development, close to it or anywhere else in the city.
The Liver Buildings is, in my opinion, an ugly, grey, Soviet-style lump that is no more than an office block and is only saved by its majestic clock towers.
It is so overrated by people who know nothing about architecture. God knows how it has become so iconic.
It hides a far more beautiful building in its shadow, the Tower Building.