Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you agree with the decision to remove Liverpool from the World Heritage Site list?
Liverpool is not a museum and nor is it's waterfront.
The Everton Stadium is in a run down disused docks area, and the city has every right to create jobs and invest in such areas.
The Peel waterfront has also not gone ahead, other than a few new buildings, whilst the project is mainly a few mid size blocks and apartments in run down docks, which are well away from the historic water front buildings such as the Liver building.
Can you imagine if UNESCO had given the NYC or Baltimore or Boston waterfront World Heritage status thereby stopping all new developments.
As Liverpool council stated, " it's a city not defined by labels".
As for UNESCO, it's led by Chinese officials and the decision was made in China, and country that has built vast cities and infrastructure on an industrial scale, yet punishes Liverpool for relatively minor projects and in terms of Everton's stadium it does not even impact the waterfront.
The UK is currently trying to built a road tunnel in order to by-pass Stonehenge, and ease traffic near the ancient monument, however UNESCO have threatened to remove the world heritage status of Stonehenge, if the UK goes ahead.
Stonehenge is being threatened with removal, not because the tunnel has any impact on Stonehenge, but because the tunnel might impact other separate possible prehistoric underground workings.
The tunnel is designed to actually improve the landscape and to return it back to the original landscape without a busy congested road running close to the monument, however UNESCO don't see it this way and have threatened to strip it of it's world heritage status.
The Stonehenge tunnel is currently the subject of a High Court review and legal battle.
There have also been numerous threats by UNESCO in relation to the Tower of London, however the projects that threatened the Towers status have largely been rejected and never built due to planning laws and rejection of projects.
Last edited by Brave New World; 07-24-2021 at 03:46 AM..
This decision seems a bit spiteful to me, nevertheless I doubt the Scousers will be losing much sleep over this, in fact they'll benefit FAR more from the football stadium than they ever did from being a member of some made up appreciation society. :-)
It seems over the top for a UNESCO committee to expect a large metropolitan city (like Liverpool) to remain frozen in a time capsule, instead of developing and adapting the city resources for the people that live and work there. Sure, Liverpool wants to attract tourists because they contribute to the economy and success of a city. I doubt if the UNESCO decision will have a huge impact on the number of tourists that will visit Liverpool over the long run. Most tourists, both foreign and domestic, don't pick their destinations solely off a list of "World Heritage Sites".
I was in Dresden for a day trip visit about a week ago, on a semi-rainy Saturday. Dresden is a former UNESCO world heritage area that got removed (a decade ago) from the list for the same reasons as the Liverpool decision. Here in Saxony, the Covid infection rate has been low lately and many restrictions for museum visits, shopping, and dining (especially outdoor dining) have been lifted. Dresden looked "almost normal" walking around the city center pedestrian zone, with lots of tourists around. It is still a first-rate visitor destination, regardless of getting dropped from a UNESCO list. I also noticed restoration projects at the Zwinger Palace and the Augustus Bridge. The bridge restoration has been going on for 3 years and looks like it could last a few more. It takes a huge amount of preventative restoration to keep old structures from falling apart, and I doubt if the UNESCO people balance that effort with a certain amount of new development that is eventually needed in cities on the world heritage site list.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,187 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19518
Quote:
Originally Posted by recycled
It seems over the top for a UNESCO committee to expect a large metropolitan city (like Liverpool) to remain frozen in a time capsule, instead of developing and adapting the city resources for the people that live and work there. Sure, Liverpool wants to attract tourists because they contribute to the economy and success of a city. I doubt if the UNESCO decision will have a huge impact on the number of tourists that will visit Liverpool over the long run. Most tourists, both foreign and domestic, don't pick their destinations solely off a list of "World Heritage Sites".
I was in Dresden for a day trip visit about a week ago, on a semi-rainy Saturday. Dresden is a former UNESCO world heritage area that got removed (a decade ago) from the list for the same reasons as the Liverpool decision. Here in Saxony, the Covid infection rate has been low lately and many restrictions for museum visits, shopping, and dining (especially outdoor dining) have been lifted. Dresden looked "almost normal" walking around the city center pedestrian zone, with lots of tourists around. It is still a first-rate visitor destination, regardless of getting dropped from a UNESCO list. I also noticed restoration projects at the Zwinger Palace and the Augustus Bridge. The bridge restoration has been going on for 3 years and looks like it could last a few more. It takes a huge amount of preventative restoration to keep old structures from falling apart, and I doubt if the UNESCO people balance that effort with a certain amount of new development that is eventually needed in cities on the world heritage site list.
The city of Liverpool has the right to make it better for its place, in terms of job opportunities, infrastructure, etc.
UNESCO has the right to remove Liverpool from its list.
I'm not sure about the significance of being an UNESCO site these days. It seems to me a lot of not so exciting places made their list recently.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
