Dear UNESCO: Don’t Fence Us In

Back in the city to discuss Peel's Liverpool Waters proposals, UNESCO is warning of withdrawing Liverpool's World Heritage status. David Lloyd asks should we be worried? Or are these the inevitable growing pains of a restless and dynamic city?

Who fancies a little quiz? Here’s an easy one to start with: Which English city with ambitions to be a world player again, recently spent thousands on a new campaign aimed at changing perceptions, and encouraging greater inward investment? Here’s a clue: within its glossy marketing material the city described itself as:

“Enterprising, innovative…a city that invents and reinvents itself…

Honest, real people with a dry, self-deprecating sense of humour and a quirky accent that’s often mimicked, seldom perfected…who are skilled, pragmatic, thoughtful and warm.”

Too easy? We thought so. Yes, it’s Birmingham.

How can you successfully, and distinctively, sell a city? It’s an issue Liverpool Vision tackled recently, with their ‘It’s Liverpool’ campaign. On the whole, it’s something we approve of. It’s what cities have to do these days, if they’re to survive, grow and fight for their place at the top table.

In the past, things were so much easier.

Firstly, cities could be identified by their industry: the potteries of Staffordshire, the cotton mills of Manchester, the docks of Liverpool.

Then, when all that industry went east, cities began to focus their marketing campaigns on their location. Warrington was ‘at the heart of the country’s motorway network’, Northampton was ‘just an hour from London’, Brussels was at ‘the crossroads of Europe’.

Now, of course, we don’t travel by motorway, but by broadband. Fibre optic. Cell towers. So it doesn’t matter where we are. What’s important is what we’re like. If it was a person, what person would it be? How many friends would we have on Facebook?

These days, it’s all about the ‘experience economy’.

So, increasingly, messages are starting to zone in on a city’s emotional pull: its DNA. ‘Basel Beats Differently’, ‘I AMsterdam’, ‘It’s Liverpool’.

So it struck us as curious that, on the It’s Liverpool website’s homepage, the very first sentence began: ‘To those who have visited our World Heritage Waterfront…’

And we wondered: Is six acres of embalmed heritage the best way to set out our stall for the future?’ It’s something we’ll find out soon enough…

This week, Liverpool sees yet another UNESCO delegation arrive in the city, with ‘extreme concern’ over Peel’s plans for the Liverpool Waters development in the north docks.

Council leader, Joe Anderson has said: “We believe it is perfectly possible to retain the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage site, while at the same time reflecting the growing needs of a thriving and developing city.”

For its part, UNESCO has urged the city “to ensure that these proposals are not approved, as failure to do so could lead to consideration of the loss of the Outstanding Universal Value of the property.”

Of course we were honoured when UNESCO pinned the ‘world heritage’ badge on us. We love a good world heritage site. Our favourite is the Neolithic Heart of Orkney. But, unless we’re very much mistaken, Kirkwall has no plans to convince developers to erect a multi-billion pound new network of offices, shops, houses and transport hubs.

It doesn’t need to. Orkney knows which side of the line it’s on when it comes to all important question - what are we, a museum or a metropolis?

And we think it’s about time we did too.

Of all of Liverpool’s zones, our waterfront has always been our most dynamic. We’re a maritime city. Our waterfront is our main artery.

What would have happened if, three hundred years ago, UNESCO came to honour some pre-Mercantile City huddle of ancient burial sites with a clause forbidding us to build anything too radical in their shadow? The good burghers of our hungrily growing city would have sent them and their clauses packing. They knew, as we should too, that to grow, thrive and reach out to the rest of the trading world, progress was far more important than preservation.

Which is why we constantly need to balance any Heritage status with our hopes for the future. Preserve our history, yes: but focus on the fabric that remains, not the decaying sites that surround them. We have over 300 Listed buildings at risk. We need an injection of cash into the local economy to save them.

Iliad’s Layla hotel has, forever, ruined the only complete Victorian street facade in Liverpool, and there’s no sign of its completion. The Maghull Group took chisels to the beautiful Josephine Butler house. These are the real horror stories of the city. English Heritage objected to a skyscraper rising from the wastelands behind Lewis’s, fearing it would ruin the atmosphere of the Ropewalks. I’d say the stabbing and shooter bars of Concert Square did a better job of ruining that particular part of town.

Yes, we were pioneers in modern dock technology. But, three hundred years later, those docks are still standing, surrounded by an entropy of wasteland. The city surrounding them has been broken up, battered and torn, in a meltdown that’s lasted the best part of a century.

We’re not saying pull down the Liver Buildings (although plenty did when they were unveiled a century ago. As they tutted with indignation over the flashy facades of Castle Street) but we are arguing for a city that’s allowed to grow around them. For a city that’s a melting pot of business, leisure, living and decompression zones. Of historic quarters and modern plazas. A place for tourists, citizens and commuters to collide, cross-pollinate and, one hopes, create an experience that’s eminently livable.

In its elegant simplicity, It’s Liverpool – together with the supporting site and glossy booklet – aims to convey a kaleidoscopic, adaptable and welcoming city. And it’s these traits that have always propelled us forward.

“The great thing about great cities,” says Urban Planning guru Geoffrey West, author of Superlinear Cities, “is that, as they grow, the space of opportunity, the space of functions, the space of jobs just continually increases. They open up. Great cities are tolerant of extraordinary diversity.The bigger the city, the faster they innovate. If they don’t grow, they die.”

We have an opportunity with Peel. Few cities are quite so fortunate. Their plans are not perfect yet and, God knows, Mann Island is far from ideal. But it’s breathing life back - with galleries and shops and flats in a once windblown corner of town.

But we get the feeling that it’s a short window of opportunity. If we’d have dithered just a year longer, what’s the betting Liverpool ONE would never have happened? Ask Preston.

“A city wishing to compete for attention in the global market place needs to undertake a wide-ranging audit of all the qualities that differentiate it from others,” says Price Waterhouse Coopers, in their extensive Cities and Local Government Network initiative.

To compete on the world stage, they say, cities need to have a clear understanding of where they’re heading. Not where they’ve been.

“The ‘experience economy’ is an increasingly important concept in understanding what makes one city different to another. It’s about the emotions people experience when they spend time in a particular place. Creativity – the bedrock of the experience economy – cannot be ‘bought in’. Instead, city planners have to tease out their city’s unique qualities, and invest in nurturing and developing them.” You just can’t have an ‘experience’ in a look-but-don’t-touch museum.

There is no single plan for creating a successful city brand, they say. Instead, cities need to ask what will attract the attention of the world to their city and, more importantly, what will keep it there?

Our World Heritage Site will continue to attract day trippers and cruise liners. But it won’t attract investment, and it won’t create new jobs. In short, it’s the city’s soul we need to support and nurture. Not its skyline.

Barcelona is blessed with UNESCO status for its collection of works by Gaudi. But it relentlessly pushes forward - its plans for the next decade are simple: “An economy based on the development of a value added and innovative culture depending on the growth of new industries: such as audio-visual, design and creativity.”

If you visit Barcelona you can feel that call to arms everywhere you go in the city. It’s visceral. And it’s something you can feel here, too. Oh, and nowhere in its 15 year strategy document does Barcelona mention it’s lovely old town. Nor its UNESCO heritage.

Does Barcelona think twice about investing in a gleaming new skyscraper next to a curvaceous Gaudi apartment block? No. Does Beijing worry that some of its finest, UNESCO listed teahouses and temples are huddled within a labyrinth of neon-bathed bar streets? No. If anything, the juxtaposition only serves to strengthen these historic touchstones set within a restless city.

There is a whole world of competition out there - and UNESCO adds another 30 or so World Heritage Sites to its list every year. If Liverpool really wants a future, it needs to look to it without fear. We’ve been shrinking for too long. We need to start growing again.

If we were ever given the job of re-branding the city (yeah, unlikely), we know what our slogan would be:

Liverpool - Continuity through change.



Your Comments

22 Comments so far

  1. Al says:

    nice one Dave. Encouraging debate like nobody else around. and discuss…

  2. Ian C says:

    If you drive like just two minutes north of the pier head you can see how much we’ve shrunk. The city is in dire need of investment and while Peel are hardly stain free at least they’ve done more to the city than any public funding can do. They should be reigned in, but encouraged and given enough support. We can’t dine off the beatles and our history for ever.

  3. Argybargy says:

    The key here is diversity. The question we should ask Unesco is, why can’t the old and new co-exist? They must to allow our city to grow and it’s people to prosper. There is no reason why the Liverpool Waters project cannot enhance the WHS.

  4. Chris says:

    What annoys me most is all the buildings that have been destroyed without a complaint from English Heritage. Surface car parks all over the city centre where previously there were Georgian or Victorian buildings.

    Then there is the idea that it would be possible to build a building that is more incongruous than the current brutalist sandstone RSA/Daily Post & ECHO building. If that doesn’t interfere with World Heritage Status then Peel should just build a series of enormous sandstone KGB headquarters along the river front.

  5. Robin says:

    I have a number of worries about the Peel development. It’s not really clear to me where the demand is for 50,000 more people in the city - or how the city will support them. And there’s a lot of empty space in Liverpool as it is. Certainly a new development has the potential to attract new business, but really? It looks like the equivalent of five Canary Wharfs.

    Do we have the demand? Do we have the infrastructure? Do we have the weather? I’m prepared to be convinced on these subjects, but I’m not at present.

    Secondly, I think the proportion of them is so vast it’s ludicrous. It’s sci-fi. They absolutely dward everything along the waterfront. In their current - predicted - form they’re glass-and-concrete absurdities.

    The most important point concerns UNESCO. I don’t think anyone has ever claimed that having a World Heritage Site is good for business or tourism. That isn’t the point. The point is that world-class areas are protected from the worst ravages of profit-driven business or blinkered councils (and, let’s face it, Liverpool councils do not have a good track record).

    Without that protection I fear for what the unsavoury combination of developers and our beloved council leader would conspire to do to the city centre - Liverpool already takes an annual bashing in various architectural reviews; we’ve currently got the Mann Island pyramids and merseytravel building to chew on when it comes to our planning decisions.

    The WHO listing should act as a brake on poorly-conceived developments - plenty have been circulating around the waterfront for the last decade - where no others exist (although how certain buildings got through of late is a mystery).

    This brings me to the way this debate has been framed - as either/or. This seems to be a construct of those agitating for the Peel development - and a totally false dichotomy. Peel decided to submit a development that could not fail to challenge UNESCO, for reasons only known to themselves. There was an alternative - to conceive a development that doesn’t act as gigantic FU to Liverpool’s skyline and waterfront.

    Clearly Peel finds Liverpool an amenable place to do business - it wants to sink ten billion quid into the city. This is, surely, a good thing. Liverpool can’t survive on hand-outs and the public sector and tourism baubles - private investment that encourages a trickle-down throughout the local economy can only be positive. But Peel is a business; they’re not sinking billions of pounds into the area out of the goodness of their hearts, they’re here to make money.

    By greenlighting their plans, we’re allowing them to make money on our turf. The proviso should be that they develop responsibly - attempting to drive a cart and horses through the world heritage site doesn’t strike me as responsible. If the waterfront gets delisted it won’t just be the north docks developments we need to worry about; not in a city with leaders as hungry for cash - and as blind to reckless developments - as ours are.

  6. KT says:

    Thank god for some decent, well-thought out analysis of this situation. The brutal fact is tho, it’s Peel or nothing. No one else is coming forward with a plan like this, no one else has the money, and if a tiny minority or extremist anti-development nutters derail it, God knows what sort of future we can hope for, and God knows who is going to come forward to restore the crumbling dock infrastructure which will be gone pretty soon unless someone does something. We need checks and balances on this sort of development, but we need to back it also. If this had happend 10 years ago maybe the BBC would be moving to Bootle not Salford.

  7. Rich says:

    This is a really well written article, the best I’ve read on the subject. Well done Seven Streets. Robin, if you think allowing people to make money on our turf is wrong, welcome to capitalism. This is how it works, and we need to be welcoming more of it instead of constantly relying on public money. It’s how the world works. I’m not saying Peel are the saviours of the city but I know for a fact they’re the best shot we’ve got and over here on the Wirral they’re the only contenders, and together, Wirral and Liverpool could be a formidable force. So it is either or. It’s either say yes, or sink.

  8. Robin says:

    Rich - you seem to have misread my comment. If I said if - and I made it fairly clear that I thought we should - we welcome Peel onto our land we ensure they do it in a way that’s generally amenable to the city.

    That’s called regulation - and it’s the way that every capitalist democracy in the whole word works.

  9. David Thompson says:

    I agree with many of the comments, this is an excellent and thought provoking article. Thank you.

  10. Excellent piece. Another thoughtful and stimulating article from Sevenstreets. This topic chimes very much with the final talk in the recent series of debates held in the World Heritage site called ’3 Talks in the 3 Graces’ and run by Engage Liverpool which speaks from the experience of apartment residents in the city centre and waterfront. The final talk is being held on Thursday 8th December in the Port of Liverpool Building from 5.30pm and is entitled ‘Investing The City - from Liverpool One to Liverpool Waters’. Anyone wanting to participate should register first with http://www.engageliverpool.com
    Sadly despite great efforts Peel wasn’t willing to put up anyone to take part. The debate is being led by Liverpool University’s Prof David Shaw and panelists include Rod Holmes (ex-Grosvenor), Mike Taylor (Liverpool Vision) and Cllr Nick Small (Cabinet member for Empolyment, Enterprise and Skills). City centre residents are trying very seriously to influence the next stage of development from the experience and expertise of those actually living with the consequences of the decisions made by previous administrations, planners and developers. We have a lot to say! The problem has been finding stakeholders who are willing to listen. We are committed to raising the debate about city living and thereby helping to make the city centre and waterfront a better place for people to live in, do business in and relax in.

  11. R S Davies says:

    As an emigrant Scouser, it seems to me that Liverpool has found itself trapped between two falling walls, walls created by forces outside of Merseyside and having little sympathy or indeed empathy for Liverpool and less interest in the consequences.

    On one hand there are the Heritage Fascists wedded to the notion that the past products must be preserved for posterity. They have constructed an albatross of listed buildings that hangs around the neck of a very weary ancient mariner.

    On the other is a nation that benefited enormously from the wealth that Liverpool created in its heyday, that largely abandoned it once the Atlantic trade declined and the global industrial balance changed.

    Liverpool was forged at a time when regional city power was at its height, and Liverpool exploited this to innovate in many ways. The entrepreneurs of that time swept away the past with alacrity and created things like the School of Tropical Medicine, the Women’s Hospital, the vast array of major public buildings and space. Although Anglo-Saxon fingers point at Liverpool’s involvement int he slave trade, and yet overlook that it was also some of the city merchants that funded the Anti-Slavery activism. To listen to them one would think that the flow of money from Liverpool to the City of London was untainted by this association with an obscene trade, and that the London beneficiaries are somehow absolved of any similar culpability. What vision did it take to form the Liverpool “Penny in the Pound” health insurance scheme in 1871 when the rest of the country demanded that the working man present himself as a supplicant to the medieval Poor Law panels? Aren’t these the things that UNESCO should proclaim the city for?

    If UNESCO can only regard Liverpool as an ossified entity, defined by some grand buildings constructed at a time long gone, then perhaps Liverpool would be better to tear them down. I doubt that the Liverpool merchants who constructed these premises, with their commitment to the city community, ever imagined that they would become like so many anchors dragging the mud and weeds. I believe they would have bravely asserted that Liverpool does things its own way with scant reference to the rest of the country or the world. It tips its hat to no man.

    Have we not learnt that behind the back-slapping patronising celebration of all things Scouse that pops up in the media from time to time, merely masks a long antipathy towards the area? It’s not just the Sun and Hillsborough. Merseyside has contributed its men, and women, in disproportionate numbers to the armed forces and merchant marine in times of national crisis. After the war even Mancunians, the perpetual rivals, acknowledged that Liverpool had been battered like almost nowhere else, having seen the smoke and flame rising up upon the horizon. The recompense for this past and current sacrifice has been at best begrudging and inadequate. Centralisation of power and influence over the last century largely stripped Liverpool of the dynamic to make its own future, and reduced it to a state of eternal dependency.

    Liverpool is a city populated by the descendants of those who fled the oppression and lack of opportunity of feudal tribalism. Have Liverpudlians fallen so low that they have become peasants, who on bended knee listen to the whims and prejudices of self-appointed representatives of elites? The grandees of UNESCO and English Heritage will not live with the consequences of their actions, not for them the daily struggle to survive, nor the vistas of derelict redundant warehouses, nor the bill for feeding the heritage albatross.

    If Liverpool needs this vast edifice to attract investment and create work, then build it. Let UNESCO take away its awards, Liverpool cannot be a vast museum if it is to prosper. Government has been and is indifferent, as are the national arbiters of taste. Liverpool can only look to itself to mark its path and shape its future.

  12. David says:

    Great post, RS: You’re right, of course, as I was flailing around and trying to say, it’s our intangible qualities - our mortar, not our bricks, that holds us together and needs to be preserved if we’re to have a future. I’m not anti preservation, per se, but very, very, wary of NGO’s. We’ve had quite enough of them over the years. Preservation should equal survival. If it doesn’t, then you’ve no foundation for *any* sort of future.

  13. CHAS says:

    Brilliant post, RS. Do us all a great favour just e-mail your post to unesco all that has to be said is contained in your post. If that dontwork they are just not listening,

  14. RS Davies says:

    Chas I would happily send UNESCO the text, if you’ve a contact.
    I think we should keep the best of Liverpool’s architecture but only in a living breathing environment - not like some dead fish in aspic. (It is my one joy when bringing peopkle to Liverpool to take them around to see the sites and talk about how it was and what the buildings did - does anyone else remember the blokes in brown warehouse coats pushing barrows with tea-chests just behind Bold Street, when Mantuna Tea was still going?) I truly believe that part of any buildings and environments story is how people modified it to meet their changing needs and desires.
    I recall listening to heritage people talking about the town of Lewes in Sussex, and they wanted it to be frozen as it is. Yet anyone could readily see that over the centuries these beautiful buildings had been chopped & changed about, and had an amazing history to tell. The other problem is, just how does Merseyside one of the poorest places in Europe maintain all these buildings that UNESCO etc want kept?
    BTW Ta very much for your kind comments

  15. David says:

    RS: Email: Ron Van Oers at [email protected]

  16. Richard HJ says:

    I wish we had such interesting debate and comment on similar(ish) Manchester websites. A pleasure to read.

  17. TheLiverpolitan says:

    really good read and intelligent debate…unlike self-servers on both sides making a show of our city

  18. Wonderful response RS. Many thanks for such insisive comments and such clear insight. Please do send the piece off to Ron Van Oers.

  19. David says:

    I’m now a member of Engage, Gerry. Be warned ;)

  20. R S Davies says:

    Dear People - I wonder if Mr. Van Oers will reply?
    If he does I’ll post it here. All good things!

  21. R S Davies says:

    Alternatively if UNESCO wont budge, the entire city “as is” could be sold to Disney to become a theme park. Of course there’s be some big eared bugger called Mickey Scouse and everyone would have to learn to speak “Liverpudlian” with a Dick Van Dyke accent. Think of all the jobs that would be created as caricature Scousers! All them “Poor but Dishonest” people strolling up and down as merry as you like.
    There could be Yankee clipper ships in the abandoned docks, barrels and sacks being loaded and unloaded all day, and dockers pinching stuff to take home. Then there’d be docker’s house with silver candelabra and a glossy black Steinway in the front parlour. And every hour they burst into sentimental songs and dance all over the cobble stones.
    There could be a WW2 themed park along Jamaica Street with the Luftwaffe flying overhead etc. Of course there’d be non-stop Beatles music for the older (& naturally wealtheir) foreign tourists.
    And we’d all be dead happy…. honest.
    I do apologize but sometimes I need a touch of surrealism to remind me of the reality we all face. Alternatively I’m a bloody genius and have found the solution for all of Liverpool’s woes.


Share your view

Post a comment

Belle Vue: A night at the dogs

— Moral dilemmas, incomprehensible race cards and extortionate beer. Robin Brown goes to the dogs.

Notable & noticed
13 November 2011

Liverpool Music Week closing party at the CUC

— Liverpool Music Week was a brilliant expression and celebration of Liverpool...

02 November 2011

Liverpool on television

— Desperate Scousewives is just the latest in a long line of TV series about Liverpool. But do they do our city justice. We don a...

Our picks

Doom shake the room: Demdike Stare at Kazimier

The city's best audio/visual gang, HIVE Collective, put on an extra special night of immersive creepiness this month.

Son shine: Seun Kuti & Egypt 80, The Kazimier

The son of heroic Afrobeat star Fela Kuti brings his legendary Egypt 80 band to Liverpool Music Week. It's also something of a homecoming...

Hometown boy: Paul McCartney at Echo Arena

Another former Beatle makes a live return to the city, booking in a show at the Echo Arena this winter. And no, it's not Ringo. Phew!

A reward: Julian Cope at Stanley Theatre

Pop star, poet and cultural chameleon: the legendary Julian Cope does it all and is rightly revered for it. He visits the city for a rare live appearance this autumn.
The best of Sevenstreets, directly to your inbox

© 2010 Sevenstreets.com | All rights reserved