黑洞社区

In November 2011, a group of Unesco inspectors was dispatched from Paris on a three-day visit to Liverpool. They had been tasked with weighing up the future of the city鈥檚 World Heritage Site status after proposals were unveiled to build the country鈥檚 tallest skyscrapers outside London on Liverpool鈥檚 deprived, but listed, north docks.

The 拢5.5bn planning application by Peel Group was the largest in the UK at the time and would stretch for 2km along the historic waterfront, which once harboured 40% of the world鈥檚 trade but had, by the 21st century, become a largely abandoned wasteland. The three inspectors left with a clear message: Liverpool would be stripped of its World Heritage Site status unless the plans were radically changed. Four months later, the council approved them.

The inspectors鈥� trip was the start of a 10-year battle between Unesco and Liverpool which culminated last month with the city being deleted from the world heritage list 鈥� a decision that the council must have known was coming. A report in June by Unesco鈥檚 world heritage committee had recommended the move, saying 鈥渨ith deep regret鈥� that new developments on the city鈥檚 waterfront had caused a 鈥渟ignificant loss to its authenticity and integrity鈥� and that the process of further deterioration was 鈥渋rreversible鈥�.

Four months earlier, the city council had voted unanimously to approve Everton Football Club鈥檚 拢500m new stadium in Bramley-Moore Dock. Before the vote, Unesco鈥檚 World Heritage Site advisory body the International Council on Monuments and Sites had warned the scheme would have a 鈥渃ompletely unacceptable major adverse impact鈥� on the waterfront.

At the centre of the council鈥檚 repeated fingers-in-ears approach to the warnings is a tension between the city鈥檚 heritage and its need for regeneration. Writing for 黑洞社区, the new mayor, Joanne Anderson, describes Unesco鈥檚 decision as a 鈥渂itter disappointment鈥� but adds that she was 鈥渟imply not prepared鈥� to lose the opportunity to regenerate the north docks 鈥� one of the poorest areas in the UK 鈥� for the sake of a 鈥渉eritage label鈥�.

Her predecessor, Joe Anderson (no relation), had described the World Heritage Site status as just a 鈥渃ertificate on the wall鈥�.

In a statement following the decision, Peel Group said that Liverpool鈥檚 history remained intact. Describing the listed plots on which its megaproject is being built as 鈥渄isused brownfield land鈥�, it promised to 鈥渟how the world that regeneration and the protection of Liverpool鈥檚 heritage can happen together鈥�.

But these defiant reactions frame the argument as a trade off between regeneration and keeping the Unesco status. For many observers, it is the quality and scale of what the council has approved that is to blame for Unesco鈥檚 disapproval.

Sean Griffiths, professor of architecture and cities at the University of Westminster and co-founder of defunct practice Fat, told 黑洞社区 that the loss of the status was an inevitable outcome of Liverpool鈥檚 development policies. Griffiths, a Liverpool native, laments how the city鈥檚 planners opted for a 鈥渟ub-Zaha Hadid鈥� approach with a string of museums neighbouring the waterfront鈥檚 listed Three Graces buildings in an attempt to create eye-catching landmarks.

The result, he says, has been a 鈥渟prawling morass of so-called 鈥榝unky forms鈥� 鈥� which sit unhappily next to the early 20th-century blocks. 鈥淚t鈥檚 gimmicky stuff, the icon era of architecture. The way we regenerate a city is we do an icon, regardless of what the city鈥檚 actually like 鈥� but we鈥檙e Liverpool so we don鈥檛 actually get Zaha Hadid; we get a cheapskate version of it on a design-and-build contract.鈥�

The Dan Meis-designed Everton stadium resembles a 鈥渟paceship from a 1930s Flash Gordon episode that has landed on a warehouse roof鈥�, he says. 鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 have to be like that.鈥�

Others think that Unesco was too unforgiving, even if the schemes in question were poorly designed. Architecture writer Owen Hatherley calls the decision 鈥渁bsurd鈥�, arguing that, while Liverpool deserved better buildings, the waterfront is far from ruined.

The problem, he says, is a view that a World Heritage Site needs to be a place that is 鈥減ickled in aspic鈥�. He gives the example of Venice, where more than half of residents have relocated to the mainland since the 1980s. 鈥淭hat should be considered a disaster, but it isn鈥檛. It鈥檚 considered a success. You鈥檝e preserved the buildings of Venice; the city of Venice now lives in Mestre. That鈥檚 not a success.鈥�

Liverpool, like Venice, saw its city-centre population plummet in the second half of the 20th century. The two formerly dominant maritime trading centres have suffered a strikingly similar fate. But, while Venice now attracts 30 million overseas tourists a year, Liverpool hailed a tourist boom when just 800,000 visited from overseas in 2018.

Regeneration for Merseyside is a matter of survival. Hatherley says Unesco鈥檚 decision, which was taken last month in a meeting in China nearly 5,000 miles away, suggested that it was taken by people who 鈥渄on鈥檛 know Liverpool, people who haven鈥檛 been to Liverpool, people who don鈥檛 understand it as a city鈥�.

Now a debate has erupted over how useful World Heritage Site status is for a city such as Liverpool. Hatherley says that listings should be 鈥渕ore flexible, less tight-arsed and a bit more aware of the problems [they] can cause鈥�.

While the decision can be seen as an embarrassment for Liverpool and for the UK, Unesco might also not emerge from the scrap unscathed. 鈥淚 think the whole thing鈥檚 a clusterfuck and I don鈥檛 think anyone comes out well from it,鈥� Hatherley says.

In a blog post written on the day the move was announced, Anderson said the body had 鈥渕ade the wrong call and I think it will hurt them鈥�. As the world recovers from covid-19, redevelopment will play a major role. World Heritage Sites may be more cautious following Liverpool鈥檚 loss, but others might look again at their priorities.