From the well respected, by me anyway, Tom Hughes, via Toffeeweb.
The problem regarding UNESCO is the size and rather arbitrary nature of its WHS boundaries. No-one wants to see fine old buildings lost, but almost all of those on the dock estate have either been preserved, were lost years ago or were of little architectural value anyway.
The last remaining features are the actual bodies of water and quaysides themselves, and there lies the crux of their argument. They're actually advocating the protection of a space. A type of space that is notoriously difficult to develop for anything other than marinas, residential or high rise commercial as the available footprints are often so tight, and the greatest area is given to water. Again, lots of these spaces have already been lost, and indeed most of the original central docks were infilled over 100yrs ago to build the Pier Head and its 3 graces, and the original Customs House long before that, but several more central docks have been filled in the past 30yrs, and as a result the perceived value of these remaining monumental central dock quaysides has been elevated.
BMD is at the periphery of the WHS, next to equally historic docks that now accommodate a sewage plant (A wholly insensitive development in practically every sense that I think just predates the WHS award). At just over 1 mile from the Pier head the site is at the very edge of where the club can derive any real geographic/logistical benefits. Having attended the recent previews, and sat through a presentation where the transport plan consisted of 0.8m walk to Sandhills (as Vauxhall stn isn't happening) or over a mile walk to town, and there will be some shuttlebuses (because private bus companies will see it as a commercial opportunity), it could probably be said that at best there are only limited logistical/transport benefits at this site (if any). Which to be honest, combined with the obvious planning minefield, to me begs the question as to how this site got past the first stage of any selection process in the first place.
The latest costing appears to be in the region of £600m, for just 52k capacity. Expansion to 62k via rail seats is fanciful (imo), would require a change of law, and even then at 1.5:1 ratio, would require 20,000 rail seats (out of 52k). In anycase, Colin Chong indicated that it has been a struggle modelling people movement in and around the site at just 52k, so again is 60k+ realistic?
The club are faced with a £30-40m bill just to preserve those Quaysides by raising them above a flood plain (?). The USM King Canute stadium, on the (broken) banks of the royal blue mersey?
(Key point here IMO)
If the stadium is going to be the redevelopment catalyst for the whole Liverpool waters scheme beyond Waterloo dock, then why didn't we go for the already filled in sections south of Trafalgar Dock, and adjacent to the 10 streets development. Only half a mile from the Pier head, much closer to all transport hubs, faster turnarounds for shuttles and more realistic walking distances. If we're the enabler, why have we plumped for the least convenient, most problematic and expensive site, that might never allow for expansion? In otherwords, there are more issues than just WHS and UNESCO, which we've always known about
