Context 170 - December 2021

C O N T E X T 1 7 0 : D E C E M B E R 2 0 2 1 35 What was Unesco up to in Liverpool? In July Liverpool became only the third place to lose its world heritage status. Ian Wray and Dave Chetwyn, both based in the city, reflect on what happened there and why. A city is not a museum Ian Wray writes: On 7 July 2004 ‘Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City’, with much civic celebration, was inscribed in the list of Unesco world heritage sites. Only 17 years on, Unesco has removed the status, claiming that irretrievable damage has been caused to the site’s outstanding universal value by new developments. Liverpool’s recently elected new city mayor Joanne Anderson (Britain’s first black woman city mayor) had campaigned vigorously for retaining the world heritage site, to no avail. It is an incredibly sad loss, not just for Liverpool, but for the UK as whole, for the Liverpool site was part of Britain’s national cultural heritage, not just Liverpool’s. Indeed, it is a serious blow for the wider conser- vation movement. What was the basis for designating Liverpool as a world heritage site? The site was designated on the basis of the initial statement of outstanding universal value, reflecting the city’s pivotal role in world history. Views and townscape were not mentioned, and there was only one reference to architecture: ‘the minor detailing of architecture such as original pulleys 1 …’ Liverpool’s global significance rested on the development of innovative port technolo- gies, the building up of the British empire, the abhorrent slave trade, and Liverpool’s global and cultural trading connections. However, not long after inscription (and without public con- sultation) the statement of outstanding universal value was amended by Unesco to place emphasis on structures, architecture, buildings – and thus ‘views’ – rather than culture and history 2 . Thus the apparently immutable statement of outstand- ing universal value was reconfigured by heritage experts. Who is responsible for protecting the UK’s world heritage? The UK government is responsible, as the relevant ‘state party’ and signatory to the Unesco World Heritage Convention. The convention is clear about the government’s responsibilities, set- ting out the duties of state parties in identifying potential sites and their role in protecting and conserving them: ‘By signing the convention, each country pledges to conserve not only the world heritage sites situated on its territory, but also to protect its national heritage. the state parties are encouraged to integrate the protection of the cultural and natural heritage into regional planning programmes, set up staff and services at their sites, undertake scientific and technical conservation research, and adopt measures which give this heritage a function in the day-to-day life of the community’ 3 . Why was Unesco so concerned about Liverpool? It had two concerns, both relating entirely to the derelict and disused North Docks, which are partly in the site and partly in the ‘buffer zone’ around the site.The first concern was the outline planning permission for Liverpool Waters, which included proposals for tall buildings on the waterfront. All of these proposed tall buildings Liverpool’s waterfront: the Lexington Tower is behind the cruise- liner funnel and to the right. Other tall buildings are in the 1960s city centre plan office expansion zone (Photo: Liverpool City Council) References 1 The inscription statement can be found in the Appendix of LiverpoolWorld Heritage City (2014), ed Peter de Figueiredo, Liverpool: Bluecoat Press. 2 The author is not aware who instigated and drafted the changes, but presumably both English Heritage and Unesco officials were involved. 3The 1972World Heritage Convention https://whc.unesco.org/ en/convention/