NPR

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:40 pm**

Bit harsh taking the World Heritage rating away. Sure if you look from the other side of the river then you will see a lot of new high-rise stuff in their vicinity but once you’re on the Pier Head it doesn’t impair on the Three Graces. Allegedly UNESCO haven’t been there for ten years.
As the mayor has said you can’t expect L’pool to make a binary choice between keeping WH status and building the hotels and offices needed to keep people in work.

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:56 pm**

Hasn’t there been mega corruption in regards to those new buildings? In which case, no.

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 7:06 pm**

I've never felt the urge to visit Liverpool with or without UNESCO World Heritage status. It's full of Liverpudlians for starters.

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 7:09 pm**

Slick wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:56 pm Hasn’t there been mega corruption in regards to those new buildings? In which case, no.

There are certainly allegations that are being investigated but that should be dealt with the via the courts. The argument about the effect of those buildings on the landscape has nothing to do with the possible crimes of developers and councillors.
The possibility of removing WH status has been bouncing around for a few years, as far as I'm aware well before the latest scandal came to light.

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 7:48 pm**

GogLais wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 7:09 pm
Slick wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:56 pm Hasn’t there been mega corruption in regards to those new buildings? In which case, no.
There are certainly allegations that are being investigated but that should be dealt with the via the courts. The argument about the effect of those buildings on the landscape has nothing to do with the possible crimes of developers and councillors.
The possibility of removing WH status has been bouncing around for a few years, as far as I'm aware well before the latest scandal came to light.

Unless planning permission for the buildings was corrupted as well of course

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:09 pm**

The point of the listing is that it stays the same, no sympathy as it has clearly been signalled for a while - NYT references first warnings from 2012.

The choice is binary - it stays the same and stays listed, it materially changes its status changes. Does Liverpool want to modernise a segment of city and create new history or a maintain a historical landmark?

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:36 pm**

TheNatalShark wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:09 pm The point of the listing is that it stays the same, no sympathy as it has clearly been signalled for a while - NYT references first warnings from 2012.

The choice is binary - it stays the same and stays listed, it materially changes its status changes. Does Liverpool want to modernise a segment of city and create new history or a maintain a historical landmark?

Time flies but I think most of the buildings that UNESCO objects to were there before 2012. Liverpool obviously wants to do both, as most cities would. UNESCO no doubt has different parameters from mine but I don’t think the view of the buildings in question has been ruined. The classical view from the Pier Head is unaffected.

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 9:10 pm**

GogLais wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:36 pm
TheNatalShark wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:09 pm The point of the listing is that it stays the same, no sympathy as it has clearly been signalled for a while - NYT references first warnings from 2012.

The choice is binary - it stays the same and stays listed, it materially changes its status changes. Does Liverpool want to modernise a segment of city and create new history or a maintain a historical landmark?
Time flies but I think most of the buildings that UNESCO objects to were there before 2012. Liverpool obviously wants to do both, as most cities would. UNESCO no doubt has different parameters from mine but I don’t think the view of the buildings in question has been ruined. The classical view from the Pier Head is unaffected.

Nah, you're wrong there. About dates and views.The planning permission was pushed through despite the opposition of parties that advise UNESCO. This was mentioned.

The scouse side of my family said this could only be expected

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 9:43 pm**

Must admit that what I hadn’t realised is that the World Heritage site is far bigger than I thought, not just the Pier Head, which is what the media focuses on. In that case my sympathy is reduced. As you were.
Let’s hope North Wales Slate gets WHS instead.

Posted: **Wed Jul 21, 2021 10:35 pm**

Happyhooker wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 9:10 pm
GogLais wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:36 pm
TheNatalShark wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:09 pm The point of the listing is that it stays the same, no sympathy as it has clearly been signalled for a while - NYT references first warnings from 2012.

The choice is binary - it stays the same and stays listed, it materially changes its status changes. Does Liverpool want to modernise a segment of city and create new history or a maintain a historical landmark?
Time flies but I think most of the buildings that UNESCO objects to were there before 2012. Liverpool obviously wants to do both, as most cities would. UNESCO no doubt has different parameters from mine but I don’t think the view of the buildings in question has been ruined. The classical view from the Pier Head is unaffected.
Nah, you're wrong there. About dates and views.The planning permission was pushed through despite the opposition of parties that advise UNESCO. This was mentioned.

The scouse side of my family said this could only be expected

That’s really sad news

That you have a Liverpudlian side of the family

Posted: **Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:21 am**

Sefton will be raging!

Posted: **Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:51 am**

GogLais wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:36 pm
TheNatalShark wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:09 pm The point of the listing is that it stays the same, no sympathy as it has clearly been signalled for a while - NYT references first warnings from 2012.

The choice is binary - it stays the same and stays listed, it materially changes its status changes. Does Liverpool want to modernise a segment of city and create new history or a maintain a historical landmark?
Time flies but I think most of the buildings that UNESCO objects to were there before 2012. Liverpool obviously wants to do both, as most cities would. UNESCO no doubt has different parameters from mine but I don’t think the view of the buildings in question has been ruined. The classical view from the Pier Head is unaffected.

UNESCO’s major objection is to the new stadium at Bramley Moore Dock for Everton. Planning permission was only granted for this in March, and work hasn’t started yet. Liverpool Council was warned that the location of the Stadium would jeopardise its UNESCO status, but decided redevelopment was more important, so it was their choice. Consequently, no sympathy at all.

Posted: **Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:03 am**

Lobby wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 8:51 am
GogLais wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:36 pm
TheNatalShark wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:09 pm The point of the listing is that it stays the same, no sympathy as it has clearly been signalled for a while - NYT references first warnings from 2012.

The choice is binary - it stays the same and stays listed, it materially changes its status changes. Does Liverpool want to modernise a segment of city and create new history or a maintain a historical landmark?
Time flies but I think most of the buildings that UNESCO objects to were there before 2012. Liverpool obviously wants to do both, as most cities would. UNESCO no doubt has different parameters from mine but I don’t think the view of the buildings in question has been ruined. The classical view from the Pier Head is unaffected.
UNESCO’s major objection is to the new stadium at Bramley Moore Dock for Everton. Planning permission was only granted for this in March, and work hasn’t started yet. Liverpool Council was warned that the location of the Stadium would jeopardise its UNESCO status, but decided redevelopment was more important, so it was their choice. Consequently, no sympathy at all.

Yes, as I've said I hadn't realised the WHS extended that far north. I still think it's putting places like Liverpool between a rock and a hard place but that's the way it is.

Posted: **Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:22 am**

I see that the only other comparable place that has lost WH status is Dresden Elbe, which lost it because the local authority put in a four-lane bridge across the valley. WHS status might boost tourist numbers to North Wales Slate but I guess Liverpool and Dresden are high profile enough to get along without it.

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 12:09 pm**

Liverpool's loss is the Gog's gain

Wales' slate landscape wins World Heritage status

An area famed for its slate industry has joined Egypt's Pyramids, India's Taj Mahal and the Grand Canyon to become a Unesco World Heritage Site.

The slate landscape of north-west Wales has become the UK's 33rd site on the prestigious list after the World Heritage Committee approved the UK bid.

They have awarded more than 30 new inscriptions to cultural and natural bids worldwide already this week.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson had backed the area's "remarkable uniqueness".

It comes after Liverpool lost its World Heritage status earlier in July when the Unesco committee meeting in China ruled development threatened the value of its waterfront.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-57986167

Posted: **Wed Jul 28, 2021 12:46 pm**

tabascoboy wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 12:09 pm Liverpool's loss is the Gog's gain

And if anybody says they're the same ....

Posted: **Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:37 pm**

Bleanau ffestiniog is a depressingly grim and grey area, that makes Garnlydan in Ebbw Vale (that I just cycled through...and man it doesn't get any better) look and feel like Tenby.
Driving through Bleanau ffestiniog just feels like you are being face fucked by a joyless misery despairing creature from a Dr Who episode.
Why the fuck couldn't they not just put all that shit on the back of a wagon and dump it in the sea, and plant some nice trees there?
Build a nice leisure centre and a nice mountain lodge..out of wood, and not fucking Slate.

Posted: **Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:23 pm**

Line6 HXFX wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:37 pm Bleanau ffestiniog is a depressingly grim and grey area, that makes Garnlydan in Ebbw Vale (that I just cycled through...and man it doesn't get any better) look and feel like Tenby.
Driving through Bleanau ffestiniog just feels like you are being face fucked by a joyless misery despairing creature from a Dr Who episode.
Why the fuck couldn't they not just put all that shit on the back of a wagon and dump it in the sea, and plant some nice trees there?
Build a nice leisure centre and a nice mountain lodge..out of wood, and not fucking Slate.

Blaenau looks the way it does and like many other places in Wales do because capitalists came along, made huge profits and left dereliction behind them. I thought you’d be more sympathetic.

Posted: **Sat Jul 31, 2021 9:48 am**

GogLais wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:23 pm
Line6 HXFX wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:37 pm Bleanau ffestiniog is a depressingly grim and grey area, that makes Garnlydan in Ebbw Vale (that I just cycled through...and man it doesn't get any better) look and feel like Tenby.
Driving through Bleanau ffestiniog just feels like you are being face fucked by a joyless misery despairing creature from a Dr Who episode.
Why the fuck couldn't they not just put all that shit on the back of a wagon and dump it in the sea, and plant some nice trees there?
Build a nice leisure centre and a nice mountain lodge..out of wood, and not fucking Slate.
Blaenau looks the way it does and like many other places in Wales do because capitalists came along, made huge profits and left dereliction behind them. I thought you’d be more sympathetic.

Like the scarred and desolate areas in South Wales, the slate areas like Blaenau were raped and stripped of their natural assets and left for the most part to rot.
Capitalism used and abused the areas, chewed them up and spat them out and for good measure did not even give them scraps from the table to sustain them.

Posted: **Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:25 pm**

Slick wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:56 pm Hasn’t there been mega corruption in regards to those new buildings? In which case, no.

Needs more Derek Hatton.

NPR

Sympathy for Liverpool?

Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?

Re: Sympathy for Liverpool?