The city of Dresden got rid of its UNESCO/World heritage site status into the name of progress and jobs , the city of Liverpool can do the same.
Why exactly must we keep the run down docks in question as they are for the sake of "heritage" ? I understand the preservation of buildings and sites which hold significant cultural relevance or interest but I can't see how that applies here.
They're not part of any kind of heritage preservation status. This isn't the Kings Dock 2, this is further along the edge of the Mersey.
Yes
@Julius Geezer and many in the city, including big Joe are pushing to get rid of the UNESCO WH Status as they see it as holding back the city's future developments. From the research I've done with them, there are active and ongoing attempts within the council to look beyond the UNESCO limitations. UNESCO obviously don't like that and are trying to do things on their own terms, which is why we've remained on the '
World Heritage in Danger' list for years now.
@Brennan Whilst having the badge of UNESCO is still seen as good for the city's tourism, this was more the case 10 years ago than it is now. Since 2008, the WH status has become a minor factor in bringing people in to the city, and so that's why we've seen a push for investment like Peel's Liverpool Waters to go ahead, and why there still seems to be optimism surrounding any stadium at the waterfront. But it isn't as simple as that. There are agencies like Historic England and even the state government who see the protection of the waterfront as superior to infrastructural investment, and that's where attempts at devolution become interesting. They argue that any developments along this stretch to the North would "irreversibly damage" the skyline (largely around building heights- so it would be interesting to see whether a proposed stadium would pass these current restrictions), and a threat to "historic authenticity" which is a ludicrously subjective statement as can be expected.
@BoysInBlue From reading the Echo article, it sounds like they may try to incorporate it in to the Peel project, in which case I'd see it as seriously unlikely. Peel are practically UNESCO's public enemy no.1, so we'd have to ditch the status of quick to get anything done. If it is actually further down like you say (is there a link for that?) then it would have slightly more legs perhaps. Transport would be a big hurdle though with what's already there, plus you're limited in building back towards the city in that case.
These drafts, discussions, oppositions, responses and re-drafts go on for beards, which makes me think that when Joe was saying he was "confident" of a stadium being built within 3 years, he wasn't favouring the Docks.
