Why did these ugly buildings become a UNESCO cultural heritage in the first place? Isn't an entry in the history book enough that Liverpool was an important trading center?
@@nettcologne9186 The idea of the UNESCO status was to recognise the historic importance of a place and to protect it. The area is clearly defined on a map and includes all the relevant buildings, beautiful and ugly, as well as other locations that bear witness to the importance of the site. It's the historical importance as a whole that's important, not the architectural merit. Can I ask, which buildings did you find ugly? Can you put the minutes and seconds in the video. Many thanks for sharing your views. :)
@@AidanEyewitness Sorry, but have a look at the Taj Mahal, the pyramids of Giza, the Hohenzollern Castle. I think Liverpool is well served if it is even mentioned in history books.
@@nettcologne9186 Okay, I see what you mean. What you're referring to is the incompatibility of Liverpool with to those world heritage sites. They are quite different to Liverpool and arguably more important as they are more unique, more famous, more imposing and in the case of the Taj Mahal, more beautiful. This is a valid point. Thanks again. :)
Thanks for this, very interesting and well balanced information. I believe we need to press on with development in a sensitive manner. We don't need Unesco to validate how special the city is. The docks had been left to rot, the new stadium will help preserve lot of elements of the existing site whilst opening the area up in the future. Thanks again.
Thank you very much for that and thanks for the words of acknowledgement. i agree 100% with you and I think that most people in or connected with the Liverpool City Region will also agree.
When UNESCO removed their label - let’s face it that’s all it was, nothing changed, the site remained as derelict as it was for decades, decaying in front of our eyes. Everton’s plans have injected a massive programme of investment and construction to sit alongside this historic world leading area. It has kick started the next phase of keeping Liverpool at the very front of cutting edge design, engineering and development. Just as it did when these historic sites were built. So UNESCO were riding on the back of the investment that has has been made in Liverpool and done nothing when the city was on the edge of disaster and destruction in the early 1980’s. London went through something similar with its sky line / river front but London didn’t lose its status. UNESCO have already shown themselves to be administrators sitting behind desks that actually don’t improve the lives of anybody in Liverpool and I think this decision removes them even further from reality. I suspect they will come crawling back when the new extended Liverpool City landscape is finished and they actually see what the club has done to secure the history through cutting edge design and engineering. But I don’t care, the people don’t care and the visitors don’t care so boo hoo UNESCO you’ve just kicked a wasp nest and we tend to bite back in Liverpool.
UNESCO stopped Liverpool from getting investment. Each time a new building needed clearance UNESCO threatened removal of the status. This held Liverpool back.
Yes, that's an interesting observation. That is one of the burdens of being a UNESCO world heritage site. It's okay in some places but not in a big city that needs to develop. Many thanks for pointing that out.
I'm new to this channel and would like to add a couple of points to Aidan's argument. Firstly, I worked around Bramley-Moore Dock in the early seventies and it was derelict even then as its purpose was in bunkering coal to steamships (which by then were long gone). Talking of steamships Huskisson 2 Dock (less than one mile futher north) was filled in after 1000 tons of munitions was exploded on the SS Malakand in the blitz of 1941. The site is still known as the Malakand Site, so filling docks in is nothing new. Also, as beautiful as the facades of some of the grade 1 and 2 listed buildings Aidan filmed are the interior of these are often even more impressive, even those whose purpose was shipping and banking offices. If UNESCO representatives had bothered visiting the city I believe they could not have made this decision.
Many thanks for this information. It's always great to get an 'insider's' point of view. We can only speculate whether the UNESCO representatives would have changed their minds if they had come in person. I think it was very bad of them not to come and look for themselves, I think it takes away from the validity of their decision. However there are many people who think that if UNESCO are going to behave like that, when Liverpool is better off without the status. Thanks again for that very informative comment.
Evertons development of this area will only bring about more development of these unused docks, what's to stop private investment filling in unused docks and building appartments imagined on the Titanic hotel that will be in keeping with the maritime heritage. Wouldn't it be wonderful to see it developed all the way down to seaford docks and the road becoming an esplanade with restaurants, appartments and bars, the only sad thing is accross the water, what a shame that Birkenhead has fallen away, such magnificent buildings
You have some great ideas there. Maybe that will indeed happen. Then I can do another 'Then and Now' video. The docks on the Wirral side are in the early stages of development, so eventually they will become regenerated too. Many thanks!
Many thanks for your comment. I think it's true that the heritage status was difficult to manage alongside the need for the city to develop and expand. By the way, I have to say your videos about the railways around Liverpool are fascinating - extremely thorough and authoritative. I was on the Northern Line around New Strand and Oriel Road and I was looking out for some of the landmarks you mentioned. I'm not from Liverpool, I'm based in Stockport, but I'm a big fan of Liverpool. So I'm very honoured to have a comment from you! :)
@@AidanEyewitness thanks for your kind comments on my videos. The railways of Merseyside, especially the electric lines, have been largely ignored in terms of their history. This is something am trying to address in my videos
While I don’t disagree with many of the points you make in this video, it’s more about what you’ve omitted from it that’s pertinent. Over the years the waterfront has become a piecemeal mish mash of stark modernist designs that don’t even gell with each other never mind the more historic buildings on the waterfront. It’s clear that the local council, like here in Sheffield, puts short term development at any cost way ahead of the aesthetic appeal and long term sustainability of the city (why are there so few trees and other flora in the city? - a huge opportunity lost surely). However, I’m quite impressed with the proposals for EFC and think this is a good use in a very run down area. The new stadium will be far enough away from the historic central docks not to clash unpleasantly and just about find the filling in of the dock acceptable for these proposals as long as it doesn’t set a precedent.
Many thanks for sharing. People’s appraisal of the waterfront is very subjective. One person may dislike the contrast between old and new while another person might like it. Personally I like the waterfront, it’s my favourite place. As for trees, I have a dissenting view. I think there are too many! I’m a photographer and they often get in the way of my photograph, like those in front of the Adelphi. They’ve planted a load of saplings along The Strand as part of the redesigned layout. I was looking at them last night. I agree about the new stadium in Bramley-Moore Dock. The construction is well advanced and can be seen across the river from New Brighton. I must do a feature on Sheffield!
Excellent, thank you. Love the sober delivery. It has to be said that some of the new buildings around the waterfront are eyesores although, as you say, the reconstruction is MOSTLY right
Thanks! Yes the word ‘mostly’ is important! I am not going to let Liverpool City Council off the hook. I also re-recorded the bit ‘Liverpool is a city that - mostly - takes neglects and destroys its heritage’ to include mostly. Small words count! Many thanks!
When is the stadium due for completion? Disappointed there aren't any supertall skyscrapers in the developments or more importantly trams in Liverpool. Baffles me they didn't start the transit system in the 2000s.
I found this:”Construction of the nearly 53,000-seater on Liverpool's waterfront is scheduled to be completed before the start of the 2024/25 season, “ (stadiumdb.com). supertall skyscrapers usually require a local economy to match that high level. The supertram project failed because of bad planning I think. I’ll look into it. Many thanks. :)
@AidanEyewitness I found it too. Sorry! Yeah the financial and services economy isn't quite there. I guess I'd like to see our Frankfurt. Liverpool is probably not that place.
What UNESCO are not quite willing to understand, is that if you don't allow development, the money to conserve these buildings cannot be raised, as the economy stalls and then these amazing buildings are left to rot.. and whose fault is that? UNESCO of course. Now perhaps in hindsight, it was good that UNESCO delisted Liverpool, so we can get on with developing for the future, alongside conserving the past. Personally, don't much care for example that Mann Island blocks the view of the Three Graces, because while it does take some visual appeal away, it also encourages people to go up to the Three Graces and interact with them close up. Another point is, in the run-up to Capital of Culture in 2008 (lets also big up the EU with their ERDF because not enough people do despite its unbiased allocation process), St Georges Hall was becoming a little dirty and run down (plenty of videos and photos showing it), but, with a little funding, the building was beautifully cleaned and restored to it's former glory... does that sound like a city that doesn't care about its heritage UNESCO? I think in that sense.. I would say to UNESCO.. stop being pretenders and claiming to support something you clearly don't understand. It's alarming that an authority in conserving architecture has no interest in validating architecture (under the umbrella of a collective historical significance) where it matters and by thorough means of analysis. So please don't come crawling back to Liverpool to embarrass yourself.. I hope we will reject that, if it ever happens because we don't need to prove our historical validity to UNESCO.
I think my channel gets the best comments and yours is a case in point. Very well thought out and well written. I agree about ERDF, I've heard that support from the fund pretty much paid for the waterfront as we see it today. It was a steady and reliable funding source and that money would never have found its way to Liverpool any other way. I agree with everything you say about UNESCO. An investigation of the people running it and how they reach their decisions is needed. I agree Liverpool doesn't can do very well without it. In any case, once the title is given, in a sense it can't be erased. No one can 'unrecognise' the uniqueness and historic significance of the LIverpool Maritime City. Many thanks. Your comment deserves an AidanEyewitness sticker (I think I need to get some made!)
@@AidanEyewitness thanks for the reply, much appreciated. I was at the waterfront yesterday, generally around the Prince's Dock and Pier head area, but I feel there needs to be more density at ground level... it's great having the Lexington and other buildings with some oomph, but it feels very sterile and empty if the there is no development and landscaping and ground level. This maybe partially to do with conservation issues too though.
❤why was oriel chambers not mentioned built 1864 ,the worlds first building featuring metal framed glass curtained wall , which has since become the defining feature of sky scrapers around the world ,it is a grade 1 listed building
Yes, I have featured Oriel Chambers, it's a fantastic building, though it was criticised when first built. In this video I went on a tour around the perimeter of the UNESCO area taking a look at what I found. Many thanks.
Like you say. The travesty is that UNESCO never made a visit to the city. I don't think it's appropriate to delist unless a thorough investigation has been done. As you say, cities must develop and evolve to remain vibrant. The cores of most British cities are definitely more vibrant and attractive now than they were during the 70's and 80's, due to recent developments. As you point out, Liverpool wouldn't have what are probably it's most culturally significant buildings, The Three Graces, if city leaders had said we can't fill in the dock in the Pier Head area because it will alter the cultural heritage of the city. It always depends on the design and approach of the development - are they tearing down something of beauty to put up something less attractive? Does the development involve integrating and restoring what's already there?
Yes, I absolutely agree. These are questions that the UNESCO officials simply haven't engaged with. Liverpool was in a very bad place during the 1980s, but since then things have steadily improved. Support from the ERDF was crucial in the development of Liverpool, but credit must also be given to forward-thinking politicians like Michael Heseltine.
The gf and I went to Liverpool last year. We really wanted to like it but it was so rough and horrible modernity area the shopping area sticks put in mind. There are some beautiful buildings, my favourite being the Protestant cathedral but overall, it just seemed like a dead city. Very sad. Even by the dock area which is quite nice, there were still areas in this touristy hotspot that were run down. We were shocked as it didn’t seem like it would take much effort here as other parts already looked nice. We much preferred Leeds and Manchester but tbf, they too had shockingly rough areas.
I think I replied to your comment before but I think you've edited it - no worries. You're right, there are many locations within the city that are run down, even standing next to beautiful buildings. I wouldn't say Liverpool is dead, however, it depends when you visit and which parts. Manchester also has many rough areas - and from what I've seen so far, Leeds to. I hope to start featuring Leeds soon. Many thanks for your comment.
@@AidanEyewitness , yes, would like you to feature Leeds which is a city I have visited several times. The Victorian Arcades are probably the most beautiful I've ever seen, the exterior of The Market Hall is a wonderful confection of terra cotta and one can't forget the Corn Exchange. Some of the new developments are great too. I especially like the façade of the new John Lewis and the glass roof of the Trinity Centre is a nice modern contrast to the wedding cake tiers of the Holy Trinity Church.
@@ians3586 There is a reason why I plan to feature Leeds and that's because my daughter is going to study at university there. She's going to do Game Art. She's a very talented artist and is a very experienced gamer. So I'll be going on a fairly regular basis. Thanks for the tips, I'll keep them in mind, in fact I've copied and pasted your reply into my notes for the first Leeds feature, coming to a device near you - in a while!
I was born in Liverpool in '73 and lived there til '80, then moved back in '91 for 14 years. I moved south in '07, and as an Evertonian go back to watch EFC when I can. The city centre area has changed so much, and mostly for the better. It may not be as busy as Manchester (which is the economic capital of the North) but it is a much more pleasant city to walk around, especially on a summer's day. You're right about some run down areas, but there's far less of those than there used to be. All the Northern cities have such areas because of the decline of tradirional/heavy industry. You can't compare with London today where every scrap of land is at a premium. As for Bramley Moore dock.. well it's been a derelict eyesore for as long as I can remember. I used to cycle past it every day on my way into Uni from Bootle. Any objections to the new stadium on the basis of violating the heritage of the docks is IMO a ridiculous joke. Thank goodness the decision makers with power OK'd the development. It's going to be fantastic.. really looking forward to it.
No one goes to the UNESCO website when deciding which historical destinations to visit. I don't really see how they have too much relevance to tourism beyond reporting on preservation initiatives. They are absolutely not more relevant than bloggers, vloggers, travel review websites & marketplaces and I don't believe that the majority of people know precisely what they do. Sure, a lot of people have heard of UNESCO, but whatever they have on their lists wouldn't make much, if any difference to the tourist decision making process (as shown by Dresden) But if they delisted Liverpool from a list they feel is important because of a regeneration project, without bothering to find out every last thing about the people taking on the project, doesn't that seem like they need to do some regeneration of their own to make sure they don't become the Bramley Dock of organisations? Thanks for the information :)
Many thanks, you are making some excellent points here. We would expect the people at UNESCO to be experts in their field, but who exactly are the people who make the decisions? I've never seen any specific names. Maybe they are listed on the website. Who stands above UNESCO? Who is responsible for choosing the people who take the decisions? What is their connection to the United Nations? If they continue to delist sites, maybe they will come under scrutiny themselves. I think that should be happening now. The Gramley Dock of organisations - nicely expressed!
@@AidanEyewitness In my opinion, it's Tourists that stand above UNESCO. In reality, I really believe that the new Everton Stadium and the global appeal of the Premier League will do more to regenerate Liverpool's historic docks than UNESCO could do in a 1,000 years. Not to sound nasty about UNESCO or anything but even if they decided to keep Liverpool on their list, I don't see how it would facilitate any real world change to an area that, thanks to Everton's ambition, now has a real chance of a revival by attracting other Developers to provide added restaurant/bar/attraction facilities for visitors.
@@middleagedwomanwithahandba2795 Yes I agree 100% with you. Some great points very well expressed. Nothing to add (apart from ‘supersede’ - pardon, I’m a languages teacher!) Many thanks!
Yes, that's true and I've heard from insiders that Manchester City Council always avoided UNESCO status for that exact reason. Many thanks for your comment.
UNESCO is a facilitator for a well used template, otherwise called a travel brochure for the culturally vacuous who are led by the nose. The latter still come to Liverpool but on the city's own terms. By way of an anecdote, it is common knowledge that US cruise ship passengers walk from the dock to Liverpool 1 and reaching the Beatles statue commenting "I never knew the Fab Four were so tall 😮😅
Maybe, but it's up to cities to regenerate themselves. In the past, LIverpool definitely lost its financial status but things have been steadily getting better and better. Many thanks!
Personally I don't think anything would have pleased UNESCO apart from halting all development permanently. Leeds is getting more government help? I must investigate that. I'm planning a Leeds video soon.
Yes I see your point. They are not taking into consideration the need to modernise in the case of city centre heritage sites. It’s different when the site is in the middle of the countryside (or jungle!)
Development itself isn't bad as long as it isn't ugly and insensitive to its environment. The building shown in the two shots at 5:27 - 5:36 (to the right of the Albany Building and "No1 Tithebarn") literally looks like a prison. Buildings like that really detract from the beauty of the Victorian and Pre-War buildings you feature. Technology and our ability to build has progressed leaps and bounds beyond what the Victorians had. Why can't we consistently build structures that at least match the Victorians in terms of beauty so that generations from now will admire the handiwork of our generation?
Those are two separate buildings actually, but both in the 1960s functional style. I think the problem is that there is no generally accepted idea of what makes a good modern building, whereas in the Victorian era, you just made sure it had plenty of ornamentation, decorative features, including faces, balconies, ornate windows and other paraphernalia. Modernism threw all that out and went in for minimalism. The trouble is minimalism often degenerates into minimal effort, minimal imagination, minimal quality. I think there are many fantastic modernist buildings. One that springs to mind is The Chicago Federal Center (1974) designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.
@@AidanEyewitness Thanks for that clarification. I think it's interesting that large windows, whether you're talking about a modern or ancient building, often make a building more attractive. They seem to be the "eyes" of the building. They either reflect what surrounds it or show what's going on inside which adds visual interest to the building. They also connect the occupants of the building to their surroundings and of course provide them with the health benefits of natural light. That's partially why I don't brutalist structures. They are often fortress-like, closed off from their surroundings, unwelcoming.
@@ians3586 Very close to the location is the building named Oriel Chambers. It's a groundbreaking mid-19th century building with very large windows. It's one of the first buildings to be built around a framework. It was criticised at the time, but it looks superb. The ornamentation is restrained and the windows are very big. It must have looked revolutionary at the time. I hope to feature it in a future video - Revolutionary Buildings of Liverpool perhaps! For now, try looking it up online.
@@AidanEyewitness I had heard of it and seen photos when reading about the history of skyscrapers and the technology that made many of them possible (steel frames and curtain walls). Definitely will add to my bucket list of things to see in Liverpool.
@@ianclarke3627 Glad to hear that, but others have said it, including Mayor of Liverpool Joanne Anderson www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-mayor-slams-unesco-city-21105577
![ROSÉ (로제) - number one girl [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A9oByH9Ci24/mqdefault.jpg)
I love to read comments, so please post a comment! I always reply - often immediately. Many thanks! Vielen Dank!
Why did these ugly buildings become a UNESCO cultural heritage in the first place?
Isn't an entry in the history book enough that Liverpool was an important trading center?
@@nettcologne9186 The idea of the UNESCO status was to recognise the historic importance of a place and to protect it. The area is clearly defined on a map and includes all the relevant buildings, beautiful and ugly, as well as other locations that bear witness to the importance of the site. It's the historical importance as a whole that's important, not the architectural merit. Can I ask, which buildings did you find ugly? Can you put the minutes and seconds in the video. Many thanks for sharing your views. :)
@@AidanEyewitness Sorry, but have a look at the Taj Mahal, the pyramids of Giza, the Hohenzollern Castle.
I think Liverpool is well served if it is even mentioned in history books.
@@nettcologne9186 Okay, I see what you mean. What you're referring to is the incompatibility of Liverpool with to those world heritage sites. They are quite different to Liverpool and arguably more important as they are more unique, more famous, more imposing and in the case of the Taj Mahal, more beautiful. This is a valid point. Thanks again. :)
Thanks for this, very interesting and well balanced information. I believe we need to press on with development in a sensitive manner. We don't need Unesco to validate how special the city is. The docks had been left to rot, the new stadium will help preserve lot of elements of the existing site whilst opening the area up in the future.
Thanks again.
Thank you very much for that and thanks for the words of acknowledgement. i agree 100% with you and I think that most people in or connected with the Liverpool City Region will also agree.
When UNESCO removed their label - let’s face it that’s all it was, nothing changed, the site remained as derelict as it was for decades, decaying in front of our eyes.
Everton’s plans have injected a massive programme of investment and construction to sit alongside this historic world leading area. It has kick started the next phase of keeping Liverpool at the very front of cutting edge design, engineering and development. Just as it did when these historic sites were built.
So UNESCO were riding on the back of the investment that has has been made in Liverpool and done nothing when the city was on the edge of disaster and destruction in the early 1980’s.
London went through something similar with its sky line / river front but London didn’t lose its status.
UNESCO have already shown themselves to be administrators sitting behind desks that actually don’t improve the lives of anybody in Liverpool and I think this decision removes them even further from reality.
I suspect they will come crawling back when the new extended Liverpool City landscape is finished and they actually see what the club has done to secure the history through cutting edge design and engineering. But I don’t care, the people don’t care and the visitors don’t care so boo hoo UNESCO you’ve just kicked a wasp nest and we tend to bite back in Liverpool.
Fantastic comment, thanks very well expressed and I have nothing to add. You've nailed it!
UNESCO stopped Liverpool from getting investment. Each time a new building needed clearance UNESCO threatened removal of the status. This held Liverpool back.
Yes, that's an interesting observation. That is one of the burdens of being a UNESCO world heritage site. It's okay in some places but not in a big city that needs to develop. Many thanks for pointing that out.
I'm new to this channel and would like to add a couple of points to Aidan's argument. Firstly, I worked around Bramley-Moore Dock in the early seventies and it was derelict even then as its purpose was in bunkering coal to steamships (which by then were long gone). Talking of steamships Huskisson 2 Dock (less than one mile futher north) was filled in after 1000 tons of munitions was exploded on the SS Malakand in the blitz of 1941. The site is still known as the Malakand Site, so filling docks in is nothing new. Also, as beautiful as the facades of some of the grade 1 and 2 listed buildings Aidan filmed are the interior of these are often even more impressive, even those whose purpose was shipping and banking offices. If UNESCO representatives had bothered visiting the city I believe they could not have made this decision.
Many thanks for this information. It's always great to get an 'insider's' point of view. We can only speculate whether the UNESCO representatives would have changed their minds if they had come in person. I think it was very bad of them not to come and look for themselves, I think it takes away from the validity of their decision. However there are many people who think that if UNESCO are going to behave like that, when Liverpool is better off without the status. Thanks again for that very informative comment.
Thanks for this interesting information 👍about our beautiful City.
That's great, many thanks. Liverpool is a fabulous city and I will do all I can to highlight its beauty and unique character.
Evertons development of this area will only bring about more development of these unused docks, what's to stop private investment filling in unused docks and building appartments imagined on the Titanic hotel that will be in keeping with the maritime heritage. Wouldn't it be wonderful to see it developed all the way down to seaford docks and the road becoming an esplanade with restaurants, appartments and bars, the only sad thing is accross the water, what a shame that Birkenhead has fallen away, such magnificent buildings
You have some great ideas there. Maybe that will indeed happen. Then I can do another 'Then and Now' video. The docks on the Wirral side are in the early stages of development, so eventually they will become regenerated too. Many thanks!
Have you seen the grand plans for the city and from pier head down to the stadium.
A well thought out video. In some ways the heritage status was a millstone holding our city back.
Many thanks for your comment. I think it's true that the heritage status was difficult to manage alongside the need for the city to develop and expand. By the way, I have to say your videos about the railways around Liverpool are fascinating - extremely thorough and authoritative. I was on the Northern Line around New Strand and Oriel Road and I was looking out for some of the landmarks you mentioned. I'm not from Liverpool, I'm based in Stockport, but I'm a big fan of Liverpool. So I'm very honoured to have a comment from you! :)
@@AidanEyewitness thanks for your kind comments on my videos. The railways of Merseyside, especially the electric lines, have been largely ignored in terms of their history. This is something am trying to address in my videos
While I don’t disagree with many of the points you make in this video, it’s more about what you’ve omitted from it that’s pertinent.
Over the years the waterfront has become a piecemeal mish mash of stark modernist designs that don’t even gell with each other never mind the more historic buildings on the waterfront. It’s clear that the local council, like here in Sheffield, puts short term development at any cost way ahead of the aesthetic appeal and long term sustainability of the city (why are there so few trees and other flora in the city? - a huge opportunity lost surely).
However, I’m quite impressed with the proposals for EFC and think this is a good use in a very run down area. The new stadium will be far enough away from the historic central docks not to clash unpleasantly and just about find the filling in of the dock acceptable for these proposals as long as it doesn’t set a precedent.
Many thanks for sharing. People’s appraisal of the waterfront is very subjective. One person may dislike the contrast between old and new while another person might like it. Personally I like the waterfront, it’s my favourite place. As for trees, I have a dissenting view. I think there are too many! I’m a photographer and they often get in the way of my photograph, like those in front of the Adelphi. They’ve planted a load of saplings along The Strand as part of the redesigned layout. I was looking at them last night. I agree about the new stadium in Bramley-Moore Dock. The construction is well advanced and can be seen across the river from New Brighton. I must do a feature on Sheffield!
Excellent, thank you. Love the sober delivery. It has to be said that some of the new buildings around the waterfront are eyesores although, as you say, the reconstruction is MOSTLY right
Thanks! Yes the word ‘mostly’ is important! I am not going to let Liverpool City Council off the hook. I also re-recorded the bit ‘Liverpool is a city that - mostly - takes neglects and destroys its heritage’ to include mostly. Small words count! Many thanks!
When is the stadium due for completion? Disappointed there aren't any supertall skyscrapers in the developments or more importantly trams in Liverpool. Baffles me they didn't start the transit system in the 2000s.
I found this:”Construction of the nearly 53,000-seater on Liverpool's waterfront is scheduled to be completed before the start of the 2024/25 season, “ (stadiumdb.com). supertall skyscrapers usually require a local economy to match that high level. The supertram project failed because of bad planning I think. I’ll look into it. Many thanks. :)
@AidanEyewitness I found it too. Sorry! Yeah the financial and services economy isn't quite there. I guess I'd like to see our Frankfurt. Liverpool is probably not that place.
Because UNESCO was stopping them ,trams I believe we were not offered the funding
What UNESCO are not quite willing to understand, is that if you don't allow development, the money to conserve these buildings cannot be raised, as the economy stalls and then these amazing buildings are left to rot.. and whose fault is that? UNESCO of course. Now perhaps in hindsight, it was good that UNESCO delisted Liverpool, so we can get on with developing for the future, alongside conserving the past. Personally, don't much care for example that Mann Island blocks the view of the Three Graces, because while it does take some visual appeal away, it also encourages people to go up to the Three Graces and interact with them close up.
Another point is, in the run-up to Capital of Culture in 2008 (lets also big up the EU with their ERDF because not enough people do despite its unbiased allocation process), St Georges Hall was becoming a little dirty and run down (plenty of videos and photos showing it), but, with a little funding, the building was beautifully cleaned and restored to it's former glory... does that sound like a city that doesn't care about its heritage UNESCO?
I think in that sense.. I would say to UNESCO.. stop being pretenders and claiming to support something you clearly don't understand. It's alarming that an authority in conserving architecture has no interest in validating architecture (under the umbrella of a collective historical significance) where it matters and by thorough means of analysis. So please don't come crawling back to Liverpool to embarrass yourself.. I hope we will reject that, if it ever happens because we don't need to prove our historical validity to UNESCO.
I think my channel gets the best comments and yours is a case in point. Very well thought out and well written. I agree about ERDF, I've heard that support from the fund pretty much paid for the waterfront as we see it today. It was a steady and reliable funding source and that money would never have found its way to Liverpool any other way. I agree with everything you say about UNESCO. An investigation of the people running it and how they reach their decisions is needed. I agree Liverpool doesn't can do very well without it. In any case, once the title is given, in a sense it can't be erased. No one can 'unrecognise' the uniqueness and historic significance of the LIverpool Maritime City. Many thanks. Your comment deserves an AidanEyewitness sticker (I think I need to get some made!)
@@AidanEyewitness thanks for the reply, much appreciated. I was at the waterfront yesterday, generally around the Prince's Dock and Pier head area, but I feel there needs to be more density at ground level... it's great having the Lexington and other buildings with some oomph, but it feels very sterile and empty if the there is no development and landscaping and ground level. This maybe partially to do with conservation issues too though.
Excellent video thoroughly enjoyed it
Very glad to hear that! Many thanks for your comment!
Great video once again, thank you
Many thanks. Plenty more where that came from!
❤why was oriel chambers not mentioned built 1864 ,the worlds first building featuring metal framed glass curtained wall , which has since become the defining feature of sky scrapers around the world ,it is a grade 1 listed building
Yes, I have featured Oriel Chambers, it's a fantastic building, though it was criticised when first built. In this video I went on a tour around the perimeter of the UNESCO area taking a look at what I found. Many thanks.
I went to Liverpool once a long time ago it was nice then but it's come a long way since he early seventies an enjoyable video
Many thanks, I agree things have improved enormously since since tht time. Very gld you enjoyed the video.
Amazing video
Thank you very much!
Like you say. The travesty is that UNESCO never made a visit to the city. I don't think it's appropriate to delist unless a thorough investigation has been done. As you say, cities must develop and evolve to remain vibrant. The cores of most British cities are definitely more vibrant and attractive now than they were during the 70's and 80's, due to recent developments. As you point out, Liverpool wouldn't have what are probably it's most culturally significant buildings, The Three Graces, if city leaders had said we can't fill in the dock in the Pier Head area because it will alter the cultural heritage of the city. It always depends on the design and approach of the development - are they tearing down something of beauty to put up something less attractive? Does the development involve integrating and restoring what's already there?
Yes, I absolutely agree. These are questions that the UNESCO officials simply haven't engaged with. Liverpool was in a very bad place during the 1980s, but since then things have steadily improved. Support from the ERDF was crucial in the development of Liverpool, but credit must also be given to forward-thinking politicians like Michael Heseltine.
The gf and I went to Liverpool last year. We really wanted to like it but it was so rough and horrible modernity area the shopping area sticks put in mind. There are some beautiful buildings, my favourite being the Protestant cathedral but overall, it just seemed like a dead city. Very sad. Even by the dock area which is quite nice, there were still areas in this touristy hotspot that were run down. We were shocked as it didn’t seem like it would take much effort here as other parts already looked nice. We much preferred Leeds and Manchester but tbf, they too had shockingly rough areas.
I think I replied to your comment before but I think you've edited it - no worries. You're right, there are many locations within the city that are run down, even standing next to beautiful buildings. I wouldn't say Liverpool is dead, however, it depends when you visit and which parts. Manchester also has many rough areas - and from what I've seen so far, Leeds to. I hope to start featuring Leeds soon. Many thanks for your comment.
@@AidanEyewitness , yes, would like you to feature Leeds which is a city I have visited several times. The Victorian Arcades are probably the most beautiful I've ever seen, the exterior of The Market Hall is a wonderful confection of terra cotta and one can't forget the Corn Exchange. Some of the new developments are great too. I especially like the façade of the new John Lewis and the glass roof of the Trinity Centre is a nice modern contrast to the wedding cake tiers of the Holy Trinity Church.
@@ians3586 There is a reason why I plan to feature Leeds and that's because my daughter is going to study at university there. She's going to do Game Art. She's a very talented artist and is a very experienced gamer. So I'll be going on a fairly regular basis. Thanks for the tips, I'll keep them in mind, in fact I've copied and pasted your reply into my notes for the first Leeds feature, coming to a device near you - in a while!
I was born in Liverpool in '73 and lived there til '80, then moved back in '91 for 14 years. I moved south in '07, and as an Evertonian go back to watch EFC when I can. The city centre area has changed so much, and mostly for the better. It may not be as busy as Manchester (which is the economic capital of the North) but it is a much more pleasant city to walk around, especially on a summer's day. You're right about some run down areas, but there's far less of those than there used to be. All the Northern cities have such areas because of the decline of tradirional/heavy industry. You can't compare with London today where every scrap of land is at a premium. As for Bramley Moore dock.. well it's been a derelict eyesore for as long as I can remember. I used to cycle past it every day on my way into Uni from Bootle. Any objections to the new stadium on the basis of violating the heritage of the docks is IMO a ridiculous joke. Thank goodness the decision makers with power OK'd the development. It's going to be fantastic.. really looking forward to it.
Ide say the torys have helped to try kill the city again
No one goes to the UNESCO website when deciding which historical destinations to visit. I don't really see how they have too much relevance to tourism beyond reporting on preservation initiatives.
They are absolutely not more relevant than bloggers, vloggers, travel review websites & marketplaces and I don't believe that the majority of people know precisely what they do. Sure, a lot of people have heard of UNESCO, but whatever they have on their lists wouldn't make much, if any difference to the tourist decision making process (as shown by Dresden)
But if they delisted Liverpool from a list they feel is important because of a regeneration project, without bothering to find out every last thing about the people taking on the project, doesn't that seem like they need to do some regeneration of their own to make sure they don't become the Bramley Dock of organisations?
Thanks for the information :)
Many thanks, you are making some excellent points here. We would expect the people at UNESCO to be experts in their field, but who exactly are the people who make the decisions? I've never seen any specific names. Maybe they are listed on the website. Who stands above UNESCO? Who is responsible for choosing the people who take the decisions? What is their connection to the United Nations? If they continue to delist sites, maybe they will come under scrutiny themselves. I think that should be happening now. The Gramley Dock of organisations - nicely expressed!
@@AidanEyewitness In my opinion, it's Tourists that stand above UNESCO. In reality, I really believe that the new Everton Stadium and the global appeal of the Premier League will do more to regenerate Liverpool's historic docks than UNESCO could do in a 1,000 years. Not to sound nasty about UNESCO or anything but even if they decided to keep Liverpool on their list, I don't see how it would facilitate any real world change to an area that, thanks to Everton's ambition, now has a real chance of a revival by attracting other Developers to provide added restaurant/bar/attraction facilities for visitors.
@@middleagedwomanwithahandba2795 Yes I agree 100% with you. Some great points very well expressed. Nothing to add (apart from ‘supersede’ - pardon, I’m a languages teacher!) Many thanks!
@@AidanEyewitness Oh jeez. I did not know that. Fixed. Thank you :)
This title stopped Liverpool from expanding good riddance to them , and don't accept them back
Yes, that's true and I've heard from insiders that Manchester City Council always avoided UNESCO status for that exact reason. Many thanks for your comment.
@@AidanEyewitness and now Manchester is years ahead of us , the city is a great balance of old with new buildings and expanded so much
UNESCO is a facilitator for a well used template, otherwise called a travel brochure for the culturally vacuous who are led by the nose. The latter still come to Liverpool but on the city's own terms. By way of an anecdote, it is common knowledge that US cruise ship passengers walk from the dock to Liverpool 1 and reaching the Beatles statue commenting "I never knew the Fab Four were so tall 😮😅
If regeneration makes a city popular then other main cities could loose finacial status..just a thought.
Maybe, but it's up to cities to regenerate themselves. In the past, LIverpool definitely lost its financial status but things have been steadily getting better and better. Many thanks!
@@AidanEyewitness But the whole world sees London has the capital for buisness,although Liverpool is improving.
it didn't deserve to lose it! Liverpool needs help from the government on the same scale as Leeds is getting
Personally I don't think anything would have pleased UNESCO apart from halting all development permanently. Leeds is getting more government help? I must investigate that. I'm planning a Leeds video soon.
@@AidanEyewitness i just guessed at Leeds . last time i was there it looked like it was booming
@@gazriley624 I’ll research to see if Leeds has secured a lot of funding, possibly more than Liverpool.
Liverpool existed long before UNESCO.
Absolutely right! Hear hear!
If UNESCO had their way we'd all be living in the 19th century
Yes I see your point. They are not taking into consideration the need to modernise in the case of city centre heritage sites. It’s different when the site is in the middle of the countryside (or jungle!)
Development itself isn't bad as long as it isn't ugly and insensitive to its environment. The building shown in the two shots at 5:27 - 5:36 (to the right of the Albany Building and "No1 Tithebarn") literally looks like a prison. Buildings like that really detract from the beauty of the Victorian and Pre-War buildings you feature. Technology and our ability to build has progressed leaps and bounds beyond what the Victorians had. Why can't we consistently build structures that at least match the Victorians in terms of beauty so that generations from now will admire the handiwork of our generation?
Those are two separate buildings actually, but both in the 1960s functional style. I think the problem is that there is no generally accepted idea of what makes a good modern building, whereas in the Victorian era, you just made sure it had plenty of ornamentation, decorative features, including faces, balconies, ornate windows and other paraphernalia. Modernism threw all that out and went in for minimalism. The trouble is minimalism often degenerates into minimal effort, minimal imagination, minimal quality. I think there are many fantastic modernist buildings. One that springs to mind is The Chicago Federal Center (1974) designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.
@@AidanEyewitness Thanks for that clarification. I think it's interesting that large windows, whether you're talking about a modern or ancient building, often make a building more attractive. They seem to be the "eyes" of the building. They either reflect what surrounds it or show what's going on inside which adds visual interest to the building. They also connect the occupants of the building to their surroundings and of course provide them with the health benefits of natural light. That's partially why I don't brutalist structures. They are often fortress-like, closed off from their surroundings, unwelcoming.
@@ians3586 Very close to the location is the building named Oriel Chambers. It's a groundbreaking mid-19th century building with very large windows. It's one of the first buildings to be built around a framework. It was criticised at the time, but it looks superb. The ornamentation is restrained and the windows are very big. It must have looked revolutionary at the time. I hope to feature it in a future video - Revolutionary Buildings of Liverpool perhaps! For now, try looking it up online.
@@AidanEyewitness I had heard of it and seen photos when reading about the history of skyscrapers and the technology that made many of them possible (steel frames and curtain walls). Definitely will add to my bucket list of things to see in Liverpool.
@@ians3586 Definitely and I will prioritise it on my list of buildings to feature. :)
Hear hear
Many thanks for your comment!
@@AidanEyewitness not at all, totally agree and you're the first to say it .👍
@@ianclarke3627 Glad to hear that, but others have said it, including Mayor of Liverpool Joanne Anderson www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-mayor-slams-unesco-city-21105577