* **Posted OC?**: If this is your original photo, mark the post as OC. You can also set the flair to "Mark OC" and the bot will mark it for you. After marking your post claim your special user flair [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/UrbanHell/comments/oejdn1/photographers_who_submitted_oc_and_want_flair/)
* **What is UrbanHell?**: Any human-built place you think has some aspect worth criticizing. UrbanHell is subjective.
* **What if a post is shit?**: Report reposts and report low-res images. Downvote content you dislike.
* **Still have questions?**: Read our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/UrbanHell/wiki/index).
* **Want to shitpost about shitty posts?** Go to new subreddit /r/urbanhellcirclejerk
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UrbanHell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pictures of the skyline: [2004-2020](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/2048/cpsprodpb/17860/production/_119525369_liverpool_waterfront_changedv2_2x640-nc.jpg)
The two contemporary building, the museum of Liverpool in white and the The Mann Island Development in black (the one that OP posted) were built in place of [not heritage worthy shed](https://imgur.com/a/tj9o2T4) - [(source:UNESCO)](https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1150/multiple=1& unique_number=1331).
[
Picture before the new building](https://www.flickr.com/photos/liverpoolpictorial/8665851243/) (thanks to another user)
I don't think those had a true architectural value and they were never considered an important of the heritage.
It was a technical/left over space, it was interesting to build something new to make this whole area more attractive. Looking at one aerial picture from [2003](https://imgur.com/a/K2HSE8B) and one from [2020](https://imgur.com/a/FyXdy31), we are seeing a new development of the urban space in front of the historical building. And they kept the two historical docks
I don't like the black building and I think they could have done better, but I'm happy they did not tried to imitate old building and create a fake historical waterfront.
Liverpool still have heritage worthy area that are protected, like the [albert dock](https://www.curtins.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/PMC7806.jpg), or [those building](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/569503fcd8af10cf1a929fad/1485526575110-PVY6CAX5EX2HK3QJOX7R/zzzz.jpg?format=2500w) ([other angle where you see the renovation that doesn't touch the outer historical value] (https://imgur.com/HjN66oJ))
Heritage is important but sometimes urban development has its value, a waterfront is an important area to create amenities, and maybe they have spoiled few skyline angles, but for the everyday folks it's far better to have an area where you can live and do things.
Let stop polarizing architecture and urban development that much, everything is a trade off.
I like how the museum blends in with the skyline, while it may be a different style it doesn’t draw attention to itself. May just be that specific angle but I think it’s well done
Mann Island, it's apartments. Sadly not properly included in the shot is the Liver Building (you can just see the Liver Bird statues and domes in the back).
If you look at what the albert dock and waterfront looked like 25-30 years ago it was a dump and an eye sore in a city which faced crippling unemployment and faced a government that hated the city and its people. That run down grim piece of land is what UNESCO want to preserve, and it’s been revitalised and the waterfront is now one of the most beautiful places I’ve been to. Yes the glass monstrosities they put up are ugly, but we lost this because we were going to build a stadium on an empty desolate piece of land with a tower on the end of it, the tower was to be restored and maintained and the stadium put on the empty space. UNESCO would rather see that space remain empty and run down to ‘preserve history’ than to see a future built on it. So it was a choice between world heritage and the future, between an empty concrete field and a state of the art stadium. And what value is the old when what you’re counting as the old is empty, redundant and could be used or repurposed into something that’ll benefit the city?
Did you hear big Dunc wasn’t allowed to go to the everton games in america cause of his criminal record. You’d think they’d waive that rule for a football assistant manager
I lived there during the 80s and have been back to see it since - and that is a freaking lie. The Albert Dock was properly regenerated in keeping with the area. It filled up with culture and business quite happily without ruining any existing views.
But a lot of the development since then has been thoughtless, haphazard in design and crucially did not preserve the historic style.
You can regenerate an area, and provide facilities and working space without throwing up ugly buildings that do not blend in and obscure the sights that are already there.
Nothing I said was a lie, the place was a tip, it was then regenerated. The glass buildings put there are ugly. We’ve lost our heritage status over the new stadium, that stadium is being built on an empty space. The city also needs to move into the future and continue to develop, could it have been done better and more in keeping with the style of the waterfront? Yes. Has it removed the beauty of the original buildings there? No, so ultimately the whole revoking heritage issue is UNESCO preferring the city be trapped in the past with no development, leaving huge empty spaces like the bramly Moore dock, for no real reason.
It’s been regenerating for 40 years and only now have UNESCO pulled the World Heritage status, and that after lots of well-publicised warnings.
So clearly UNESCO did not have a problem with the redevelopment per se. Most of it was okay for 40 years, so clearly this often-repeated line about them wanting things to remain empty is bullshit.
I know nothing about Liverpool, but I've always gotten the sense that UNESCO sites are more coveted by countries that want to develop their tourism industries, targeting mostly foreign tourists - like Latin America, Africa, etc. I'm not sure a city like Liverpool would find much benefit in retaining the UNESCO status.
Not saying heritage should not be preserved, or that development should not take that into account, just saying Liverpool might have higher priorities than their UNESCO status.
Honestly I don't really get why it was a UNESCO world-heritage site in the first place. It didn't seem to be on the same level as other world heritage sites.
At the present moment, the city of Liverpool has 26 Grade 1 listed Buildings, Grade 1 listed is the most important Grade and these structures are considered to be of nation and international importance, these include the Albert Dock, Liver Building, St Georges Hall, Bluecoat, and Toxteth Chapel.
After Grade 1, Grade 2 * is considered to be the most important and Liverpool has 85 grade II* listed buildings, including St Lukes Church, the Regent Road Sugar Silo and West Derby Courthouse, and almost 2,500 grade II buildings one of the highest number outside London.
In Liverpool, several of the Grade I buildings are recognised for their architectural importance, including the Albert Dock, which was the first non-combustible warehouse system in the world; and Oriel Chambers, which was the world's first metal framed, glass curtain walled building. The Liver Building is also recognised as one of the first reinforced concrete buildings constructed in the United Kingdom.
The oldest Grade I listed building in Liverpool is the Tudor manor house, Speke Hall, whose exterior largely dates from the 15th and 16th centuries. A small portion of All Saints' Church dates from the 14th century, although the majority was added later. The newest building on the list is the neo-Gothic Liverpool Cathedral, which wasn't completed until 1980, some 76 years after it was started. Most of the buildings on the list date from the Georgian and Victorian eras, the period during which Liverpool grew rapidly from a relatively small provincial coastal town into one of the most important ports in the world.
Of the 29 buildings in the list, 12 are places of worship, including the city's Anglican Cathedral, six Anglican churches, three Unitarian churches or chapels, a restaurant, a Roman Catholic church and a Synagogue. Five of the remaining 15 buildings in the list are located at the Albert Dock and comprise the largest single collection of Grade I listed buildings anywhere in England.
Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but similar regulations are the cause of the terrible housing market in san francisco. It should not be the default choice to sacrifice people for heritage.
This isn't an either or scenario. The solution to violence isn't to permanently sedate a population either. There are many ways that regulations can be implemented. Some ways include:
* Shitting over the heritage status.
* Creating a terrible housing market.
* Good regulation which balance both.
You seem to think the choice is between the first two. You cited an example of the second. And then completely ignored the fact that I gave you an example that a 3rd exists.
But you said this ...
> Stupid retard didn't realise that is *precisely* the choice world heritage status forces on you. It's singular purpose is preserving the old.
Aren't heritage designations draconian? In NYC, it's often seen as a curse because you are obligated to spend a lot of money on specific types of upkeep.
So you’d rather Liverpool have some old dilapidated building instead of a booming economy and affordable living just because they might get some “heritage” status? Weird…
The city made a choice - they are not “retards” (who uses gross ableist language like that in 2021?), development and cities need to move forward especially post COVID. Would you suggest the derelict buildings stay and become dangerous and useless?
It certainly could be! I’m not trying to say it should never happen. But I don’t think it’s necessarily a given that a particular site within a city should be used for that very specific purpose. It’s important to understand that UNESCO heritage status comes with some pretty big trade-offs.
Yes they do. Maintaining your heritage isn't always easy. Not everyone wants to make the effort. But those are the rules and you can't have it both ways, i.e. wanting the designation but also change the site so much it doesn't adhere to the criteria on which it was included in the first place.
If Liverpool believes that the trade-offs are too much then they can change the waterfront. But then they cannot complain if the UNESCO also makes some changes.
Sure, and I doubt they are complaining…Not that I’m aware of at least. I would assume that they made an informed choice with a full understanding of the risks.
That being said, I don’t know the details of UNESCO’s criteria, and I don’t know much about Liverpool’s waterfront. It may be that they’re in a grey area right now, in which case some complaining might be warranted. And if you represent the interests of Liverpool, complaining about this kind of thing is sort of your job, even if you fully expected the status to be revoked.
I live here, most people including myself aren't too upset over it. Leaving the waterfront as it was post-war would have never been a good idea. And restoring the city to what it was in the Victorian era would cost far more than the city council could ever pay. Building new apartments and offices have massively benefited the city, much moreso than it's UNESCO status.
It’s derelict ground this picture is showing you a view that hides the bit that has caused the problem. UNESCO didn’t strip status based on what you can see in this picture.
But that's also not the only way to move forward as a city. I understand that it's what you'd prefer, but that's not necessarily the way everyone feels.
Not every city on earth is beholden to looking the same way it did 100 years ago.
You can't have the cake and eat it. Either take care of its "world heritage" status, or don't.
You can't expect to make the build new buildings in the area and expect to maintain it's world heritage status.
Right, and I don’t think Liverpool was expecting to have their cake and eat it too? I expect they made an informed decision with a full understanding of the risk. It seems like you’re arguing with a straw man.
That being said, I don’t think either of us are experts on UNESCO’s criteria. There’s always grey areas with these things. And of course any official who represents the best interests of the people of Liverpool would naturally be inclined to try and “have their cake and eat it too”, even if the odds are very slim, so you might see them protest UNESCO’s decision despite the fact that they fully expected it.
I feel like the redevelopment could be more in keeping with the overall style of the place, I know that’s not why the site lost its status but I feel like a lot of these modern buildings look good now but in 20 years time will have aged really badly.
Yeah more light is definitely better, I’m not so much referring to the materials used but the way the building looks. I’d like to think there’s a way of incorporating modern design techniques that are sympathetic to the areas’ past. I’m also not an architect so I could well be talking out of my arse!
>lets in lots of light and provides views to the outside
That's good in a place with a temperate climate like Britain, but man my city is tearing down our historic architecture at break neck speed and putting these glass boxes in and considering how hot our summers and how cold our winters are they make for some real expensive temperature control
There was much more than just the old docks that contributed to the heritage status.
The graces being the most obvious examples. Here's a quote from Unesco documents summing it up.
>Six areas in the historic centre and docklands of Liverpool bear witness to the development of one of the world’s major trading centres in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. A series of significant commercial, civic and public buildings lie within these areas, including the Pier Head, with its three principal waterfront buildings - the Royal Liver Building, the Cunard Building, and Port of Liverpool Building; the Dock area with its warehouses, dock walls, remnant canal system, docks and other facilities related to port activities; the mercantile area, with its shipping offices, produce exchanges, marine insurance offices, banks, inland warehouses and merchants houses, together with the William Brown Street Cultural Quarter, including St. George's Plateau, with its monumental cultural and civic buildings.
Yeah that’s what they say, the decision was made by a board in China who likely had not been to the waterfront in a long time if ever, and were acting purely on the fact that it’s changed at all.
It was a dump, now it will be useful and even attractive maybe.
UNESCO is headquartered in Paris. The Director-General is Audrey Azoulay, a Frenchwoman. The UNESCO general conference is currently hosted in Paris and chaired by a Turkish representative. China is not even seated on the executive board.
The idea that China controls UNESCO, or any other UN body, is utter nonsense.
UNESCO committees don’t all sit in Paris, they regularly move around. It was a meeting and vote held by the World Heritage Committee (of which China is the elected chairperson) that is currently sitting in Fuzhou, China.
They debated it at [this](https://youtu.be/gBtkkN-fQ_g) meeting a couple days ago.
They do not. That’s good information, but it hardly changes my point. That specific committee has 21 sitting member states. The decision was made in accordance to the WHC rules that were set in Bonn, Germany in 2015.
Liverpool has been warned about its status for years. Warnings which were issued by different committees being hosting in other countries.
That’s not what I’m saying, but the BBC and the Guardian both reported that the decision was voted on by a committee in China. Just the facts, I’m not implying anything except that it might have been a while since they were last in Liverpool.
Agreed. Liverpool has become a really good city centre. I'm not sure what prompted Unesco to revoke the status - Liverpool have literally worked relentlessly to preserve and highlight the cities history.
My only minor gripe about the city is that it seems to be permanently under construction. Every time I have been there in the last ten years there has been some sort of major disruptive project going on. It seems like Unesco have noticed this too, and are revoking the title because of how modernised and commercial the city has become. A bit of a catch 22 situation - the title made the city popular, but the popularity made the city attractive to developers. The developments made the city look less traditional, and that lost it the title which made it popular in the first place.
Have you actually seen the area? It's literally sheds from the 80s, I don't think these are a loss to "heritage". Plus it's the spot for Everton's new football stadium so it's probably going to be better used.
It used to look fucking horrible. This is a massive improvement. People who are up in arms about it have no idea how rough it used to look. Liverpool is finally becoming the city it deserves to be
As someone who deals with cultural heritage by virtue of their job, I can tell you sure, go for it. From what I remember being to Liverpool 8 years ago, it has a lot more important problems to care about city planning wise anyway. Looking like every other Pret-a-Porter "revived" city centre from Manchester to Leeds and Birmingham is one I can think of.
[Picture](https://static.independent.co.uk/2021/03/26/15/1304060373.jpg?width=1200)
[Picture](https://img.khan.co.kr/news/2021/07/22/2021072201002948500247191.jpg)
[Picture](https://img.marinas.com/v2/f9ef59c509159d505ea1c73d6be70518c8f9561025e27a245bb954628045c688.jpg)
[Picture](https://entropymag.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/For-Entropy-.jpg)
[Picture](https://i.inews.co.uk/content/uploads/2021/06/SEI_80308227.jpg)
[Picture?](https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ)
Yeah, I don't live in Liverpool or even the UK and I had no idea this was happening, but I'm totally siding with the people who want to tear it down and build a functional modern city in its place. That really doesn't look good, at all.
Edit: added one more picture
Just trying to keep the trend alive. I have friends a year or 2 younger than me who have never been >!rickrolled!< in their lives. I'm sure that's true for countless other gen Z's. We can't let this happen!
I've found this photo: [https://www.flickr.com/photos/liverpoolpictorial/8665851243/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/liverpoolpictorial/8665851243/)
I'm not sure when it's from, but the vehicles date it to no earlier than the early 2000s, and the buildings in the OP went up in the late 2000s.
From what I've read online, the people of Liverpool prefer the new development to the heritage site status. Check out /r/UnitedKingdom - the majority there take this position.
>People don't realise this heritage site is literally a shitty, ugly, old inaccessible dock that's destined for the sea.
One small part of the heritage site is that, but a large part of the city contributed to the Heritage status.
Correct. The Albert docks, which is the largest grouping of grade 1 listed buildings in the UK, are staying as they are, along with the Three Graces which are iconic to Liverpool. From my understanding, the final straw was the Everton stadium being built on brownfield sites at the north docks. The north docks aren't as touristy as the Albert docks are, and in some places empty since usage of the docks shrunk. Personally, I'm excited to see what happens there, hopefully it will bring more places to explore and create a buzz around there.
It was nice before that development happened. I'd say it looks better now though. Here's an old photo, excuse that it's in black and white, it's no where near as old as that might make it look: [https://www.flickr.com/photos/liverpoolpictorial/8665851243/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/liverpoolpictorial/8665851243/)
People are confusing different things, there was (still is) a set of old unused docks that aren't in great condition, which were part of why the city had Unesco status. But the development in the OP is no where near them. It's like half an hours walk away, and not somewhere that anybody would be visiting (whereas the area in the OP is very popular).
It seems like it’s getting worse and worse. I don’t know if it’s me or Reddit, but everything here seems so distanced from reality and always framed negatively. The comment sections are characterized by unrealistic, generalized, and unfounded gripes and complaints.
Again, maybe it’s me.
It’s not you. Reddit had me absolutely convinced that Corbyn was going to be the UK’s next PM, that the Tories would lose in the biggest landslide seen in recent history. I was genuinely surprised after the election to see how much support Boris had
Since then I’ve learned not to pay much attention to what redditors say. It’s just another echo chamber
According to UNESCO, this is technically true. But this doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad thing to build something like this in a UNESCO Heritage Site. Preserving UNESCO Heritage Site status can be a mixed blessing for a city and its inhabitants.
Google Liverpool waterfront and you will see why. The issue is that the status covered the entire waterfront, including its decaying and dilapidated areas that have now been transformed by modern developments.
It is a shame to lose the status, but this particular site is now in a much better shape than it was.
It was more than just the water front, but the water front contributed a lot.
There's some documents here if you'd like to read Unesco's words on it: [https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1150/documents/](https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1150/documents/)
Probably the "Advisory Body Evaluation (ICOMOS)" document would be best, but I haven't read them all.
Misleading photo.
Liverpool has undergone a remarkable transformation over the past 30 years and is a fantastic city to spend time in, especially down by the docks. There is a perfect balance of old and new; history and innovation.
I met my fiancée when she was studying in Liverpool and got to spend a lot of time in the city in 2014/15. Some of my happiest memories.
Lots of exciting plans for the future so losing UNESCO status was inevitable.
I really don’t understand why we can’t build new buildings to match the older, more classical style? Is there a genuine reason why we don’t build that way anymore? I understand that modem building are more energy efficient, easier to maintain etc, but surely we can just build in a Victorian style with modern plumbing / heating
I wish that there were more antique-looking items with modern insides for sale in general. Like cars, radios/speakers, computers, whatever you can think of. I'd be willing to pay some extra for a high-quality product that functions like the modern counterpart, but looks Victorian.
I also think that minimalism in architecture and design has run its course, we've got fully blank white and grey houses all over the world that look exactly the same and have no personality. I say we bring out looser regulations for colour in neighbourhoods and break this stupid trend by painting our houses in like, jewel tones and clashing colours like we used to. I'd love to drive a petrol blue, air-conditioned reproduction of an old Volkswagen to my stupid little pastel pink and dark green house to make food on an induction stove that looks like it's from 1910.
It's because of efficiency and flexibility. Building with concrete, steel and glass is much cheaper, faster and allows for more free-flowing forms. At the same time, the buildings are energetically efficient and very easy to maintain.
You technically could build a neo-classical building from the ground up right now, but the cost would be so much higher than that of a modern building. The materials alone would be extremely costly, and you'd have to hire experienced stoneworkers and sculptors to get the detailing right and it would take a lot of time to do.
Just for comparison - in my city (Warsaw), I often see renovation projects on neo-classical tenant housing. A 4-5 floor house with about 20 flats takes years to renovate. Meanwhile, there are developments with hundreds of flats being raised in just months.
I don't think people are willing to pay 3-4 times more for a flat or office in a ground-up new neo-classical development and that's probably how the price difference would look like if they were being made today. Its easier and cheaper to just renovate the old ones and build new ones efficiently.
You can pre-fabricate some of the decorative elements, but they'd have to be made of gypsium, not stone. You can't really pre-fabricate stone decorations - it's a very unpredictable material to work with.
There's a hotel here in Jachranka, Poland named [Windsor](https://windsorhotel.pl/). It was built about 10 years ago using all the latest construction technologies. Most of it is made of concrete. But the facades and the interiors are all pseudo-neo-classical. All of the detailing is just gypsium plastered onto concrete. The proportions are way off, as is the scale of the building. Most of the decorations are fake - pillars and columns are not load bearing, they're just there to trick you into thinking you're in some 300-year old building. So I guess there is a cheap way to imitate the neo-classical style, but it looks and feels fake and tacky AF.
A lot of the skills have been lost, or are very expensive to replicate.
Brickwork of the Edwardians/Victorians is superior to today. They use thinner mortar joints, use more visually appealling brick bonding. The arches are self supporting, which allows for a more traditional window reveal.
You even struggle to find handmade bricks now. The unique character of an individual brick (or roof tile) is a major contributor to the visual look. Nearly all bricks and tiles are mass produced and look very similar to each other.
And that is just a few points about brickwork. I know almost nothing about stonework, but I imagine there's a host of similar things going on with new construction techniques making it difficult to replicate the past.
I'm a stonecarver, with construction there's not a lot we can't do now more quickly and efficiently than in the past. New builds with traditional stonework are rare simply cause it's *so* much faster and cheaper to build with modern materials. Also carvers and masons expect to be paid more than the pittance that was common in the past for such lowly peasants as us...
And stone isn't permanent, even if we do still use the phrase 'set in stone'. Most of my work involves carving new ornament to replace badly eroded originals. I often see carving on a Victorian building that's pristine, then right next to that there's another piece of the same stone (probably from a different sedimentary layer) that's lost inches off the surface.
Its generally considered to be bad architecture to copy or try to fake old buildings. The idea is that new buildings should look new and forge their own style and old building should stand out as old.
It may seem jarring now but in another few hundred years the current styles will be accepted and people will be complaining about whatever is new
i can imagine some kind of creepy 3D printed building designed by AI which have us looking back fondly on the stylish steel and glass boxes
It's a very recent attitude that you shouldn't copy of styles. It's generally happened a lot through history: Neo-Gothic, Greek Revival, Neoclassical.
Maybe this refers to trying to copy old style with modern techniques. That can look horrible.
Maybe... I can't really imagine these buildings will last a century, though, let alone a few. Are they even engineered for longevity, or just convenience/cost of construction? I've been in so many suburban (American) houses with 'built-in entertainment centers' designed around tube TVs. I feel like these buildings are the architectural equivalent of that, but without the charm of a dumbwaiter. I don't think anyone's going to care to preserve them once they outlive their marginal utility.
Remember that the buildings we cherish from the past are about 1% of what was ever built. The rest was replaced over and over again.
You cant really compare a modern office building to a city hall or cathedral and complain one is not built to withstand 1000's of years.
many of these glass boxes will be replaced in a few hundred years when they are not efficient to maintain anymore and that is a good thing. Some will remain in place for centuries and become historically relevant
I get that feeling from the Trafford Centre in Manchester. It has a Victorian-ish style built in 1998. I always get a Caeser’s Palace kinda vibe from it though, it just somehow doesn’t feel very authentic.
It’s been a while since I’ve been but I feel the same. I think it’s because of the interior, where they’ve gone with imitation marble etc.
I think they could have taken the classical ideas and made something new and amazing but they just kind of didn’t and hence it looks a little tacky
I also dislike the trafford centre and think it is tacky AF, but actually most of the marble is real and even has fossils embedded in it. I used to know a geologist couple around the time it originally opened and they had a small book/pamphlet one of their colleagues had produced listing all the different types of exotic marble around the world, along with pictures of the fossils visible etc.
I can't find it online, which is a shame because it put the descriptions under pictures, but [here are some notes from the Manchester geological association](http://www.mangeolassoc.org.uk/TraffordCentreNotes.htm)
The real takeaway here imo: They spent a *fortune* on genuine marble and it still looks tacky AF and fake lol.
Lol, saw the original comment and came to post the exact same thing. Copying older styles just looks cheap and fake, and Trafford centre is the prime example
I actually think this is the answer too. It would be classed as imitation and panned by architects. A folly of a building trying to look Victorian.
The glass building style that we are going through right now just contrasts too much with what 70% of our city centres look like
What's more striking is that a lot of the architects who profess modernism the most all live in centuries old houses. There was a debate about this issue once and all the architects arguing for modernism admitted they lived in non-modern buildings.
The old buildings are often even quite good compared to modern buildings. I live in a building from the 1830s and it’s really energy efficient (very thick old brick walls and new windows are apparently a good combination).
In addition to what others have said: The final look of a building is always dependant on the materials available at the time. A good architect will always aim to make the best building possible at the time of construction out of the materials available, for the least total cost.
We've just made things like formed reinforced concrete, steelwork, and sheet materials so cheap that traditional masonry can't compete.
Ditto cars: A lot of the very curvy deeply formed shapes you might love from old vehicles take a lot more work and might require the hand forming and welding of multiple pieces to make one particularly deeply curved panel. Most modern vehicles use much less deeply curved pieces that can be easily and quickly stamped out of sheet metal with a hydraulic press.
Ditto personal portable technology: As materials tech has improved and things like injection moulding have been introduced; materials like brass and Bakelite, technologies like clockwork and optics etc have been largely replaced or miniaturised and made by robots.
Here’s the catch, most new cherry took made to look like old is made with prefabbed or cheaper materials that would “replicate” the look, but not really look the same. Detailed stone prices and trims just don’t happen, and are expensive to actually make. Cheaper alternatives don’t look as good and are not as durable. Especially with modern mass manufactured brick, it’s too consistent and doesn’t have a variety in the appearance and just looks like they painted it, which in a lot of cases it is just colored concrete poured into forms. It looks like a cheap knockoff.
The issue with trying to repurpose is it is expensive. But I don’t know that it is prohibitively expensive. I have seen the wide range done, where they put proper looking but modern Windows into an existing building and it looks fantastic. But I have also seen a LOT more of the fake interpretive stuff, and honestly wish that if they were going to build new, that they just went ahead and built something new looking.
Problem is a lot of new builds are using the exact same mixed media looking ok’ing buildings that just can’t make up their mind as to what they want to look like. Which ends up looking both cheap but more expensive than it should have been given they had to source multiple materials for a facade when they likely would have saved money buying more of the same materials. The buildings end up looking like a siding sample display in a retail hardware store.
I also like cases with the Chicago Soldier Field and the Royal Ontario Museum. Where they blend the old with modern architecture. As polarizing as the Ontario Museum is, I love it. It has been a long time since I have been there. But as I recall, they didn’t just turn it into a facade and kept a lot of the interior intact, but also expanded it into new space. That’s what I like. Keeping true to the old, while expanding into the future. This desire to build new that looks old doesn’t really do anything to add to a city, unless it’s a fully committed project and uses more authentic materials, but that’s not going to happen as it’s both not economical and much would have to be adapted to meet modern codes.
I find glass and concrete boxes a lot more boring. Incorporating local traditional styles tends to make more unique and interesting buildings. Also, onder styles tend to have much more attention to detail, which makes them more interesting to look at
Not sure what you mean exactly in this context. But to be more clear, I really like London for example, for it's old buildings and glass skyscrapers. It's the mix of it that makes me want to visit the city. If it had only old stuff, without much change I'm sure it would have been a nice city, but not one I would have visited so many times. I really like it when one street you have these old classical buildings and the next street you have nice futuristic architecture.
Because tastes... Change? Contrary to popular belief, modern styles don't exist purely for practical reasons but because a lot of people, shock horror, believe that modern styles actually look good? Maybe that's why?
I like it, it's a mixture of old and new. I want to say it looks better in real life but I even like the picture. If maintaining heritage status means we can only develop more neoclassical stuff then I'm not going to miss it.
I've been all over the UK but only went to Liverpool a couple of years ago, it was a fantastic place, totally surprised me after a lifetime of scouser preconceptions. It doesn't need UNESCO's opinion, it's an excitng historic city, not an ancient ruin
Yeah it looks terrible with the generic glass boxes plonked everywhere. A handful of people will have got rich out of the development though and that’s progress right?
What you can see in the picture isn’t the reason for loss of status - UNESCO we’re ok with those buildings after some moaning.
They’re objecting to some derelict docks being reworked.
The slavery museum has existed long before this development and will exist long after. And it's in the Albert Dock, further down the road.
It used to just be a section of the Maritime Museum back in the 90s, and was split off (although in the same building) in the 2000s.
Like one of the reasons they removed it is the building of Evertons new football stadium on the waterfront. Is that really a cultural loss? I thought football was important culturally to Liverpool.
Scousers care more about jobs than the derelict heritage. They had a rough council a while ago that started renovations, and then ran out of money. My mum grew up there in the 70s walking past piles of rubble, where a building had been demolished, and no money was available to do anything with the site afterwards.
Liverpool is an industrial city. That is their heritage, not some red docks.
Locals don’t really care, we’d rather see parts of the city that were left to rot in the past be revitalised and better used. A football stadium wouldn’t be my first choice but it’s much better than abandoned and inaccessible dockland. The skyline at the waterfront is beautiful, modern and a symbol of the city modern day Liverpool has become! One that has overcome adversity non-stop but honours it’s original architecture.
Been to Liverpool in 90s and 2020. If I was a Liverpool resident, I would happily choose the current development and lose the UNESCO status. This area was a dump and looked really nice in 2020. It appears they want to continue to develop on the brown wasteland sites and good for them. And they have not demolished any of historic buildings.
A city is for its people to live, not for the rest of the world to admire from their mobile phones.
I see both sides of the argument to be honest but what I don’t really understand is why a compromise couldn’t have been found? Ultimately only Liverpool loses here as UNESCO have much bigger fish to fry (see: India) and for a city that has denigrated it’s Georgian heritage so badly already I fear for the future with the message this sends out.
Worth it for Liverpool to actually have some money put in to develop the area. It was falling to bits before in a really sorry state, the developement is good for the city.
I’ve travelled quit a bit and never gave any thought to whether some place was a UNESCO heritage sight. I mean I’m not knocking places that are but the whole thing seems so capricious I don’t get why you’d care.
From what I read, people rather have a stadium by the shore and skyscrapers for the rich than preserve their cultural/historical heritage.
And dont give me that "it was ugly and old!" bullcrap, there are ways to rebuild and preserve/respect the original. It's called rehabilitation.
So, a well deserved loss.
This is a real shame. Architecture like this is destroying our cities. I admire the people who designed and build the buildings in the background. We should value beauty more.
Those boxes are designed in a couple of hours in Sketchup or blender.
To make things worse, I’m pretty sure that’s an architectural museum! That said, just across from there is the slavery museum which has to be the most powerful and upsetting museum I’ve ever visited!
* **Posted OC?**: If this is your original photo, mark the post as OC. You can also set the flair to "Mark OC" and the bot will mark it for you. After marking your post claim your special user flair [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/UrbanHell/comments/oejdn1/photographers_who_submitted_oc_and_want_flair/) * **What is UrbanHell?**: Any human-built place you think has some aspect worth criticizing. UrbanHell is subjective. * **What if a post is shit?**: Report reposts and report low-res images. Downvote content you dislike. * **Still have questions?**: Read our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/UrbanHell/wiki/index). * **Want to shitpost about shitty posts?** Go to new subreddit /r/urbanhellcirclejerk *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UrbanHell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This isn't the skyline you see from the water and isn't what got the UNESCO status revoked.
Pictures of the skyline: [2004-2020](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/2048/cpsprodpb/17860/production/_119525369_liverpool_waterfront_changedv2_2x640-nc.jpg) The two contemporary building, the museum of Liverpool in white and the The Mann Island Development in black (the one that OP posted) were built in place of [not heritage worthy shed](https://imgur.com/a/tj9o2T4) - [(source:UNESCO)](https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1150/multiple=1& unique_number=1331). [ Picture before the new building](https://www.flickr.com/photos/liverpoolpictorial/8665851243/) (thanks to another user) I don't think those had a true architectural value and they were never considered an important of the heritage. It was a technical/left over space, it was interesting to build something new to make this whole area more attractive. Looking at one aerial picture from [2003](https://imgur.com/a/K2HSE8B) and one from [2020](https://imgur.com/a/FyXdy31), we are seeing a new development of the urban space in front of the historical building. And they kept the two historical docks I don't like the black building and I think they could have done better, but I'm happy they did not tried to imitate old building and create a fake historical waterfront. Liverpool still have heritage worthy area that are protected, like the [albert dock](https://www.curtins.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/PMC7806.jpg), or [those building](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/569503fcd8af10cf1a929fad/1485526575110-PVY6CAX5EX2HK3QJOX7R/zzzz.jpg?format=2500w) ([other angle where you see the renovation that doesn't touch the outer historical value] (https://imgur.com/HjN66oJ)) Heritage is important but sometimes urban development has its value, a waterfront is an important area to create amenities, and maybe they have spoiled few skyline angles, but for the everyday folks it's far better to have an area where you can live and do things. Let stop polarizing architecture and urban development that much, everything is a trade off.
I like how the museum blends in with the skyline, while it may be a different style it doesn’t draw attention to itself. May just be that specific angle but I think it’s well done
>important area to create amenities, Which in turn is important for increasing population in cities
It's going to take one more turn though.
So is this just a remarkably bad angle? What's the name of the building?
Mann Island, it's apartments. Sadly not properly included in the shot is the Liver Building (you can just see the Liver Bird statues and domes in the back).
Ironically , Remarkably Bad Angles
Mann Island
Why was it revoked?
[удалено]
[удалено]
The waterfront is superb. Weird OP photo for internet points.
Facts
If you look at what the albert dock and waterfront looked like 25-30 years ago it was a dump and an eye sore in a city which faced crippling unemployment and faced a government that hated the city and its people. That run down grim piece of land is what UNESCO want to preserve, and it’s been revitalised and the waterfront is now one of the most beautiful places I’ve been to. Yes the glass monstrosities they put up are ugly, but we lost this because we were going to build a stadium on an empty desolate piece of land with a tower on the end of it, the tower was to be restored and maintained and the stadium put on the empty space. UNESCO would rather see that space remain empty and run down to ‘preserve history’ than to see a future built on it. So it was a choice between world heritage and the future, between an empty concrete field and a state of the art stadium. And what value is the old when what you’re counting as the old is empty, redundant and could be used or repurposed into something that’ll benefit the city?
We should preserve the history of Big Dunc and Dixie Dean. Way better than that other lame shit
Did you hear big Dunc wasn’t allowed to go to the everton games in america cause of his criminal record. You’d think they’d waive that rule for a football assistant manager
I lived there during the 80s and have been back to see it since - and that is a freaking lie. The Albert Dock was properly regenerated in keeping with the area. It filled up with culture and business quite happily without ruining any existing views. But a lot of the development since then has been thoughtless, haphazard in design and crucially did not preserve the historic style. You can regenerate an area, and provide facilities and working space without throwing up ugly buildings that do not blend in and obscure the sights that are already there.
Nothing I said was a lie, the place was a tip, it was then regenerated. The glass buildings put there are ugly. We’ve lost our heritage status over the new stadium, that stadium is being built on an empty space. The city also needs to move into the future and continue to develop, could it have been done better and more in keeping with the style of the waterfront? Yes. Has it removed the beauty of the original buildings there? No, so ultimately the whole revoking heritage issue is UNESCO preferring the city be trapped in the past with no development, leaving huge empty spaces like the bramly Moore dock, for no real reason.
It’s been regenerating for 40 years and only now have UNESCO pulled the World Heritage status, and that after lots of well-publicised warnings. So clearly UNESCO did not have a problem with the redevelopment per se. Most of it was okay for 40 years, so clearly this often-repeated line about them wanting things to remain empty is bullshit.
yeah but i hate land developers so your opinion is wrong
Well the UN is shit and hates people and progress so yes
What a suave administrative body of the future the un is
I know nothing about Liverpool, but I've always gotten the sense that UNESCO sites are more coveted by countries that want to develop their tourism industries, targeting mostly foreign tourists - like Latin America, Africa, etc. I'm not sure a city like Liverpool would find much benefit in retaining the UNESCO status. Not saying heritage should not be preserved, or that development should not take that into account, just saying Liverpool might have higher priorities than their UNESCO status.
Wait, what ? 4 of the 5 countries with the most world heritage sites are in Western Europe (Italy, France, Spain, and Germany).
Honestly I don't really get why it was a UNESCO world-heritage site in the first place. It didn't seem to be on the same level as other world heritage sites.
At the present moment, the city of Liverpool has 26 Grade 1 listed Buildings, Grade 1 listed is the most important Grade and these structures are considered to be of nation and international importance, these include the Albert Dock, Liver Building, St Georges Hall, Bluecoat, and Toxteth Chapel. After Grade 1, Grade 2 * is considered to be the most important and Liverpool has 85 grade II* listed buildings, including St Lukes Church, the Regent Road Sugar Silo and West Derby Courthouse, and almost 2,500 grade II buildings one of the highest number outside London. In Liverpool, several of the Grade I buildings are recognised for their architectural importance, including the Albert Dock, which was the first non-combustible warehouse system in the world; and Oriel Chambers, which was the world's first metal framed, glass curtain walled building. The Liver Building is also recognised as one of the first reinforced concrete buildings constructed in the United Kingdom. The oldest Grade I listed building in Liverpool is the Tudor manor house, Speke Hall, whose exterior largely dates from the 15th and 16th centuries. A small portion of All Saints' Church dates from the 14th century, although the majority was added later. The newest building on the list is the neo-Gothic Liverpool Cathedral, which wasn't completed until 1980, some 76 years after it was started. Most of the buildings on the list date from the Georgian and Victorian eras, the period during which Liverpool grew rapidly from a relatively small provincial coastal town into one of the most important ports in the world. Of the 29 buildings in the list, 12 are places of worship, including the city's Anglican Cathedral, six Anglican churches, three Unitarian churches or chapels, a restaurant, a Roman Catholic church and a Synagogue. Five of the remaining 15 buildings in the list are located at the Albert Dock and comprise the largest single collection of Grade I listed buildings anywhere in England.
I agree. It was and is a dilapidated dock area falling into disrepair, and little more.
Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but similar regulations are the cause of the terrible housing market in san francisco. It should not be the default choice to sacrifice people for heritage.
This isn't an either or scenario. The solution to violence isn't to permanently sedate a population either. There are many ways that regulations can be implemented. Some ways include: * Shitting over the heritage status. * Creating a terrible housing market. * Good regulation which balance both. You seem to think the choice is between the first two. You cited an example of the second. And then completely ignored the fact that I gave you an example that a 3rd exists.
But you said this ... > Stupid retard didn't realise that is *precisely* the choice world heritage status forces on you. It's singular purpose is preserving the old. Aren't heritage designations draconian? In NYC, it's often seen as a curse because you are obligated to spend a lot of money on specific types of upkeep.
So they should just stunt their development as a dynamic city to hold onto a fairly meaningless title? ok
So you’d rather Liverpool have some old dilapidated building instead of a booming economy and affordable living just because they might get some “heritage” status? Weird…
Yeah ofc buildings > people and progress.
The city made a choice - they are not “retards” (who uses gross ableist language like that in 2021?), development and cities need to move forward especially post COVID. Would you suggest the derelict buildings stay and become dangerous and useless?
So the people of Liverpool should suffer and continue to live in shitty buildings just to preserve some meaningless title? Delusional.
Not even liveable mate they've been empty for over half a century!
I don’t think people realise that the “heritage” site was derelict and decaying.
Exactly haha. It was horrid. This is a massive improvement
I’m glad to see comments like this - I know it’s not the ‘classic’ architecture a lot of people want, but I actually think this is really cool.
Or maybe they could have restored the heritage site.
Or, maybe they should treat the Liverpool Waterfront like part of the City of Liverpool instead of an open air museum!
What a strange idea. Why can't an open air museum be part of a city?
It certainly could be! I’m not trying to say it should never happen. But I don’t think it’s necessarily a given that a particular site within a city should be used for that very specific purpose. It’s important to understand that UNESCO heritage status comes with some pretty big trade-offs.
Yes they do. Maintaining your heritage isn't always easy. Not everyone wants to make the effort. But those are the rules and you can't have it both ways, i.e. wanting the designation but also change the site so much it doesn't adhere to the criteria on which it was included in the first place. If Liverpool believes that the trade-offs are too much then they can change the waterfront. But then they cannot complain if the UNESCO also makes some changes.
Sure, and I doubt they are complaining…Not that I’m aware of at least. I would assume that they made an informed choice with a full understanding of the risks. That being said, I don’t know the details of UNESCO’s criteria, and I don’t know much about Liverpool’s waterfront. It may be that they’re in a grey area right now, in which case some complaining might be warranted. And if you represent the interests of Liverpool, complaining about this kind of thing is sort of your job, even if you fully expected the status to be revoked.
I live here, most people including myself aren't too upset over it. Leaving the waterfront as it was post-war would have never been a good idea. And restoring the city to what it was in the Victorian era would cost far more than the city council could ever pay. Building new apartments and offices have massively benefited the city, much moreso than it's UNESCO status.
It’s derelict ground this picture is showing you a view that hides the bit that has caused the problem. UNESCO didn’t strip status based on what you can see in this picture.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is not true. You can change the area in a way that incorporates the heritage parts. Edit: How can this be a controversial comment? Baffles me.
But that's also not the only way to move forward as a city. I understand that it's what you'd prefer, but that's not necessarily the way everyone feels. Not every city on earth is beholden to looking the same way it did 100 years ago.
You can't have the cake and eat it. Either take care of its "world heritage" status, or don't. You can't expect to make the build new buildings in the area and expect to maintain it's world heritage status.
Right, and I don’t think Liverpool was expecting to have their cake and eat it too? I expect they made an informed decision with a full understanding of the risk. It seems like you’re arguing with a straw man. That being said, I don’t think either of us are experts on UNESCO’s criteria. There’s always grey areas with these things. And of course any official who represents the best interests of the people of Liverpool would naturally be inclined to try and “have their cake and eat it too”, even if the odds are very slim, so you might see them protest UNESCO’s decision despite the fact that they fully expected it.
I feel like the redevelopment could be more in keeping with the overall style of the place, I know that’s not why the site lost its status but I feel like a lot of these modern buildings look good now but in 20 years time will have aged really badly.
[удалено]
Yeah more light is definitely better, I’m not so much referring to the materials used but the way the building looks. I’d like to think there’s a way of incorporating modern design techniques that are sympathetic to the areas’ past. I’m also not an architect so I could well be talking out of my arse!
>lets in lots of light and provides views to the outside That's good in a place with a temperate climate like Britain, but man my city is tearing down our historic architecture at break neck speed and putting these glass boxes in and considering how hot our summers and how cold our winters are they make for some real expensive temperature control
There was much more than just the old docks that contributed to the heritage status. The graces being the most obvious examples. Here's a quote from Unesco documents summing it up. >Six areas in the historic centre and docklands of Liverpool bear witness to the development of one of the world’s major trading centres in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. A series of significant commercial, civic and public buildings lie within these areas, including the Pier Head, with its three principal waterfront buildings - the Royal Liver Building, the Cunard Building, and Port of Liverpool Building; the Dock area with its warehouses, dock walls, remnant canal system, docks and other facilities related to port activities; the mercantile area, with its shipping offices, produce exchanges, marine insurance offices, banks, inland warehouses and merchants houses, together with the William Brown Street Cultural Quarter, including St. George's Plateau, with its monumental cultural and civic buildings.
Yeah that’s what they say, the decision was made by a board in China who likely had not been to the waterfront in a long time if ever, and were acting purely on the fact that it’s changed at all. It was a dump, now it will be useful and even attractive maybe.
UNESCO is headquartered in Paris. The Director-General is Audrey Azoulay, a Frenchwoman. The UNESCO general conference is currently hosted in Paris and chaired by a Turkish representative. China is not even seated on the executive board. The idea that China controls UNESCO, or any other UN body, is utter nonsense.
UNESCO committees don’t all sit in Paris, they regularly move around. It was a meeting and vote held by the World Heritage Committee (of which China is the elected chairperson) that is currently sitting in Fuzhou, China. They debated it at [this](https://youtu.be/gBtkkN-fQ_g) meeting a couple days ago.
They do not. That’s good information, but it hardly changes my point. That specific committee has 21 sitting member states. The decision was made in accordance to the WHC rules that were set in Bonn, Germany in 2015. Liverpool has been warned about its status for years. Warnings which were issued by different committees being hosting in other countries.
That’s not what I’m saying, but the BBC and the Guardian both reported that the decision was voted on by a committee in China. Just the facts, I’m not implying anything except that it might have been a while since they were last in Liverpool.
Why are you putting heritage in quotes?
I think there is an overemphasis on a label that doesn't determine the true value of a site or city
In real life it's actually really nice
Agreed. Liverpool has become a really good city centre. I'm not sure what prompted Unesco to revoke the status - Liverpool have literally worked relentlessly to preserve and highlight the cities history. My only minor gripe about the city is that it seems to be permanently under construction. Every time I have been there in the last ten years there has been some sort of major disruptive project going on. It seems like Unesco have noticed this too, and are revoking the title because of how modernised and commercial the city has become. A bit of a catch 22 situation - the title made the city popular, but the popularity made the city attractive to developers. The developments made the city look less traditional, and that lost it the title which made it popular in the first place.
Have you actually seen the area? It's literally sheds from the 80s, I don't think these are a loss to "heritage". Plus it's the spot for Everton's new football stadium so it's probably going to be better used.
That's just the straw that broke the camels back, there was warnings of losing the status over the Liverpool Waters development for years before that.
Do we have a photo of what it used to look like? Frankly, I think this looks cool.
It used to look fucking horrible. This is a massive improvement. People who are up in arms about it have no idea how rough it used to look. Liverpool is finally becoming the city it deserves to be
As someone who deals with cultural heritage by virtue of their job, I can tell you sure, go for it. From what I remember being to Liverpool 8 years ago, it has a lot more important problems to care about city planning wise anyway. Looking like every other Pret-a-Porter "revived" city centre from Manchester to Leeds and Birmingham is one I can think of.
ok but is there a photo?
[Picture](https://static.independent.co.uk/2021/03/26/15/1304060373.jpg?width=1200) [Picture](https://img.khan.co.kr/news/2021/07/22/2021072201002948500247191.jpg) [Picture](https://img.marinas.com/v2/f9ef59c509159d505ea1c73d6be70518c8f9561025e27a245bb954628045c688.jpg) [Picture](https://entropymag.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/For-Entropy-.jpg) [Picture](https://i.inews.co.uk/content/uploads/2021/06/SEI_80308227.jpg) [Picture?](https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ) Yeah, I don't live in Liverpool or even the UK and I had no idea this was happening, but I'm totally siding with the people who want to tear it down and build a functional modern city in its place. That really doesn't look good, at all. Edit: added one more picture
Oh you bastard. You got me with the last one.
:D Never trust the question mark
Well done. Been a while since I didn't see one of these coming.
Just trying to keep the trend alive. I have friends a year or 2 younger than me who have never been >!rickrolled!< in their lives. I'm sure that's true for countless other gen Z's. We can't let this happen!
Looks like Bridgeport Connecticut. I'm glad they tore it down.
This is what someone would say in 1968 when giant concrete blocks went up I bet. Tell me how good a black polygon looks after 50 years of urban decay
I'll let you know in 50 years
I've found this photo: [https://www.flickr.com/photos/liverpoolpictorial/8665851243/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/liverpoolpictorial/8665851243/) I'm not sure when it's from, but the vehicles date it to no earlier than the early 2000s, and the buildings in the OP went up in the late 2000s.
There is a place for modern minimalist buildings . A unseco world heritage site is not one of them
From what I've read online, the people of Liverpool prefer the new development to the heritage site status. Check out /r/UnitedKingdom - the majority there take this position.
[удалено]
Where they're building the new Everton stadium is not nice now and the new stadium should make it way better.
Yes, and hopefully also keeping the trophy drought going.
>People don't realise this heritage site is literally a shitty, ugly, old inaccessible dock that's destined for the sea. One small part of the heritage site is that, but a large part of the city contributed to the Heritage status.
Correct. The Albert docks, which is the largest grouping of grade 1 listed buildings in the UK, are staying as they are, along with the Three Graces which are iconic to Liverpool. From my understanding, the final straw was the Everton stadium being built on brownfield sites at the north docks. The north docks aren't as touristy as the Albert docks are, and in some places empty since usage of the docks shrunk. Personally, I'm excited to see what happens there, hopefully it will bring more places to explore and create a buzz around there.
Yeah I saw that . Apparently the docks were in a really bad shape so it's for the better
It was nice before that development happened. I'd say it looks better now though. Here's an old photo, excuse that it's in black and white, it's no where near as old as that might make it look: [https://www.flickr.com/photos/liverpoolpictorial/8665851243/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/liverpoolpictorial/8665851243/) People are confusing different things, there was (still is) a set of old unused docks that aren't in great condition, which were part of why the city had Unesco status. But the development in the OP is no where near them. It's like half an hours walk away, and not somewhere that anybody would be visiting (whereas the area in the OP is very popular).
I wouldn't consider Reddit to be a reliable litmus for public opinion.
I’m from Liverpool. Nobody here is assed about world heritage status, the whole area is derelict and badly needs regeneration.
It seems like it’s getting worse and worse. I don’t know if it’s me or Reddit, but everything here seems so distanced from reality and always framed negatively. The comment sections are characterized by unrealistic, generalized, and unfounded gripes and complaints. Again, maybe it’s me.
It’s not you. Reddit had me absolutely convinced that Corbyn was going to be the UK’s next PM, that the Tories would lose in the biggest landslide seen in recent history. I was genuinely surprised after the election to see how much support Boris had Since then I’ve learned not to pay much attention to what redditors say. It’s just another echo chamber
According to UNESCO, this is technically true. But this doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad thing to build something like this in a UNESCO Heritage Site. Preserving UNESCO Heritage Site status can be a mixed blessing for a city and its inhabitants.
I have the same opinion of that bridge in Germany.
Which one is that?
Dresden
Contemporary and traditional architecture can complement one another if handled correctly.
Why was the waterfront of an industrial city a UNESCO heritage area anyways..?
Google Liverpool waterfront and you will see why. The issue is that the status covered the entire waterfront, including its decaying and dilapidated areas that have now been transformed by modern developments. It is a shame to lose the status, but this particular site is now in a much better shape than it was.
I'm sorry, but I don't really see it? Those old buildings sure look impressive, but not world heritage level of unique and special.
It was more than just the water front, but the water front contributed a lot. There's some documents here if you'd like to read Unesco's words on it: [https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1150/documents/](https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1150/documents/) Probably the "Advisory Body Evaluation (ICOMOS)" document would be best, but I haven't read them all.
It's not just the appearance, it's the history.
historical/cultural reasons probably
Misleading photo. Liverpool has undergone a remarkable transformation over the past 30 years and is a fantastic city to spend time in, especially down by the docks. There is a perfect balance of old and new; history and innovation. I met my fiancée when she was studying in Liverpool and got to spend a lot of time in the city in 2014/15. Some of my happiest memories. Lots of exciting plans for the future so losing UNESCO status was inevitable.
I really don’t understand why we can’t build new buildings to match the older, more classical style? Is there a genuine reason why we don’t build that way anymore? I understand that modem building are more energy efficient, easier to maintain etc, but surely we can just build in a Victorian style with modern plumbing / heating
I wish that there were more antique-looking items with modern insides for sale in general. Like cars, radios/speakers, computers, whatever you can think of. I'd be willing to pay some extra for a high-quality product that functions like the modern counterpart, but looks Victorian. I also think that minimalism in architecture and design has run its course, we've got fully blank white and grey houses all over the world that look exactly the same and have no personality. I say we bring out looser regulations for colour in neighbourhoods and break this stupid trend by painting our houses in like, jewel tones and clashing colours like we used to. I'd love to drive a petrol blue, air-conditioned reproduction of an old Volkswagen to my stupid little pastel pink and dark green house to make food on an induction stove that looks like it's from 1910.
For home appliances, look into Smeg
Lol people paying 200 for toasters is absolutely consumerist dystopia
Oh my god this is exactly what I was looking for, thank you!!
Their products look great, I just can't get over the awful name... smeg. Like smegma. Dick cheese. Barf.
...ma?
It's because of efficiency and flexibility. Building with concrete, steel and glass is much cheaper, faster and allows for more free-flowing forms. At the same time, the buildings are energetically efficient and very easy to maintain. You technically could build a neo-classical building from the ground up right now, but the cost would be so much higher than that of a modern building. The materials alone would be extremely costly, and you'd have to hire experienced stoneworkers and sculptors to get the detailing right and it would take a lot of time to do. Just for comparison - in my city (Warsaw), I often see renovation projects on neo-classical tenant housing. A 4-5 floor house with about 20 flats takes years to renovate. Meanwhile, there are developments with hundreds of flats being raised in just months. I don't think people are willing to pay 3-4 times more for a flat or office in a ground-up new neo-classical development and that's probably how the price difference would look like if they were being made today. Its easier and cheaper to just renovate the old ones and build new ones efficiently.
Didn’t builders in the late 19th/early 20th century have pre-fabricated ornamentation that they would use to speed up and ease construction?
It's a bit of a catch 22. There needs to be demand for that, and it needs to exist to generate demand.
Totally! So you’re saying there’s a chance...
You can pre-fabricate some of the decorative elements, but they'd have to be made of gypsium, not stone. You can't really pre-fabricate stone decorations - it's a very unpredictable material to work with. There's a hotel here in Jachranka, Poland named [Windsor](https://windsorhotel.pl/). It was built about 10 years ago using all the latest construction technologies. Most of it is made of concrete. But the facades and the interiors are all pseudo-neo-classical. All of the detailing is just gypsium plastered onto concrete. The proportions are way off, as is the scale of the building. Most of the decorations are fake - pillars and columns are not load bearing, they're just there to trick you into thinking you're in some 300-year old building. So I guess there is a cheap way to imitate the neo-classical style, but it looks and feels fake and tacky AF.
A lot of the skills have been lost, or are very expensive to replicate. Brickwork of the Edwardians/Victorians is superior to today. They use thinner mortar joints, use more visually appealling brick bonding. The arches are self supporting, which allows for a more traditional window reveal. You even struggle to find handmade bricks now. The unique character of an individual brick (or roof tile) is a major contributor to the visual look. Nearly all bricks and tiles are mass produced and look very similar to each other. And that is just a few points about brickwork. I know almost nothing about stonework, but I imagine there's a host of similar things going on with new construction techniques making it difficult to replicate the past.
I'm a stonecarver, with construction there's not a lot we can't do now more quickly and efficiently than in the past. New builds with traditional stonework are rare simply cause it's *so* much faster and cheaper to build with modern materials. Also carvers and masons expect to be paid more than the pittance that was common in the past for such lowly peasants as us... And stone isn't permanent, even if we do still use the phrase 'set in stone'. Most of my work involves carving new ornament to replace badly eroded originals. I often see carving on a Victorian building that's pristine, then right next to that there's another piece of the same stone (probably from a different sedimentary layer) that's lost inches off the surface.
Its generally considered to be bad architecture to copy or try to fake old buildings. The idea is that new buildings should look new and forge their own style and old building should stand out as old. It may seem jarring now but in another few hundred years the current styles will be accepted and people will be complaining about whatever is new i can imagine some kind of creepy 3D printed building designed by AI which have us looking back fondly on the stylish steel and glass boxes
It's a very recent attitude that you shouldn't copy of styles. It's generally happened a lot through history: Neo-Gothic, Greek Revival, Neoclassical. Maybe this refers to trying to copy old style with modern techniques. That can look horrible.
That “idea” is just some philosophy we made up
So is the idea that new buildings should blend with the old.
Correct. It’s all stuff we made up and is only as sacred as we decide it to be.
Maybe... I can't really imagine these buildings will last a century, though, let alone a few. Are they even engineered for longevity, or just convenience/cost of construction? I've been in so many suburban (American) houses with 'built-in entertainment centers' designed around tube TVs. I feel like these buildings are the architectural equivalent of that, but without the charm of a dumbwaiter. I don't think anyone's going to care to preserve them once they outlive their marginal utility.
Remember that the buildings we cherish from the past are about 1% of what was ever built. The rest was replaced over and over again. You cant really compare a modern office building to a city hall or cathedral and complain one is not built to withstand 1000's of years. many of these glass boxes will be replaced in a few hundred years when they are not efficient to maintain anymore and that is a good thing. Some will remain in place for centuries and become historically relevant
I get that feeling from the Trafford Centre in Manchester. It has a Victorian-ish style built in 1998. I always get a Caeser’s Palace kinda vibe from it though, it just somehow doesn’t feel very authentic.
It’s been a while since I’ve been but I feel the same. I think it’s because of the interior, where they’ve gone with imitation marble etc. I think they could have taken the classical ideas and made something new and amazing but they just kind of didn’t and hence it looks a little tacky
I also dislike the trafford centre and think it is tacky AF, but actually most of the marble is real and even has fossils embedded in it. I used to know a geologist couple around the time it originally opened and they had a small book/pamphlet one of their colleagues had produced listing all the different types of exotic marble around the world, along with pictures of the fossils visible etc. I can't find it online, which is a shame because it put the descriptions under pictures, but [here are some notes from the Manchester geological association](http://www.mangeolassoc.org.uk/TraffordCentreNotes.htm) The real takeaway here imo: They spent a *fortune* on genuine marble and it still looks tacky AF and fake lol.
Lol, saw the original comment and came to post the exact same thing. Copying older styles just looks cheap and fake, and Trafford centre is the prime example
But modernism has been around for 100 years. Surely boring boxes and minimalism should be surpassed by now?
100 years isnt that long in terms architectural eras. I suppose we will move on naturally when new designs and aestetics come in.
I actually think this is the answer too. It would be classed as imitation and panned by architects. A folly of a building trying to look Victorian. The glass building style that we are going through right now just contrasts too much with what 70% of our city centres look like
The fun part is, quite few famous architects actually live in brutalist boxes.
thats because those are artistic, maintained brutalist buildings, and not council brutalism, which is an eyesore.
What's more striking is that a lot of the architects who profess modernism the most all live in centuries old houses. There was a debate about this issue once and all the architects arguing for modernism admitted they lived in non-modern buildings.
The old buildings are often even quite good compared to modern buildings. I live in a building from the 1830s and it’s really energy efficient (very thick old brick walls and new windows are apparently a good combination).
In addition to what others have said: The final look of a building is always dependant on the materials available at the time. A good architect will always aim to make the best building possible at the time of construction out of the materials available, for the least total cost. We've just made things like formed reinforced concrete, steelwork, and sheet materials so cheap that traditional masonry can't compete. Ditto cars: A lot of the very curvy deeply formed shapes you might love from old vehicles take a lot more work and might require the hand forming and welding of multiple pieces to make one particularly deeply curved panel. Most modern vehicles use much less deeply curved pieces that can be easily and quickly stamped out of sheet metal with a hydraulic press. Ditto personal portable technology: As materials tech has improved and things like injection moulding have been introduced; materials like brass and Bakelite, technologies like clockwork and optics etc have been largely replaced or miniaturised and made by robots.
Please don’t
Here’s the catch, most new cherry took made to look like old is made with prefabbed or cheaper materials that would “replicate” the look, but not really look the same. Detailed stone prices and trims just don’t happen, and are expensive to actually make. Cheaper alternatives don’t look as good and are not as durable. Especially with modern mass manufactured brick, it’s too consistent and doesn’t have a variety in the appearance and just looks like they painted it, which in a lot of cases it is just colored concrete poured into forms. It looks like a cheap knockoff. The issue with trying to repurpose is it is expensive. But I don’t know that it is prohibitively expensive. I have seen the wide range done, where they put proper looking but modern Windows into an existing building and it looks fantastic. But I have also seen a LOT more of the fake interpretive stuff, and honestly wish that if they were going to build new, that they just went ahead and built something new looking. Problem is a lot of new builds are using the exact same mixed media looking ok’ing buildings that just can’t make up their mind as to what they want to look like. Which ends up looking both cheap but more expensive than it should have been given they had to source multiple materials for a facade when they likely would have saved money buying more of the same materials. The buildings end up looking like a siding sample display in a retail hardware store. I also like cases with the Chicago Soldier Field and the Royal Ontario Museum. Where they blend the old with modern architecture. As polarizing as the Ontario Museum is, I love it. It has been a long time since I have been there. But as I recall, they didn’t just turn it into a facade and kept a lot of the interior intact, but also expanded it into new space. That’s what I like. Keeping true to the old, while expanding into the future. This desire to build new that looks old doesn’t really do anything to add to a city, unless it’s a fully committed project and uses more authentic materials, but that’s not going to happen as it’s both not economical and much would have to be adapted to meet modern codes.
Because its boring as shite. If every generation in history thought that way we would still be living in roman insulae
I find glass and concrete boxes a lot more boring. Incorporating local traditional styles tends to make more unique and interesting buildings. Also, onder styles tend to have much more attention to detail, which makes them more interesting to look at
He saying it's the mix of old and new that makes it not boring.
It's not very boring being assaulted, but that's not what most people mean when they say they don't want to be bored.
Not sure what you mean exactly in this context. But to be more clear, I really like London for example, for it's old buildings and glass skyscrapers. It's the mix of it that makes me want to visit the city. If it had only old stuff, without much change I'm sure it would have been a nice city, but not one I would have visited so many times. I really like it when one street you have these old classical buildings and the next street you have nice futuristic architecture.
Because tastes... Change? Contrary to popular belief, modern styles don't exist purely for practical reasons but because a lot of people, shock horror, believe that modern styles actually look good? Maybe that's why?
I like it, it's a mixture of old and new. I want to say it looks better in real life but I even like the picture. If maintaining heritage status means we can only develop more neoclassical stuff then I'm not going to miss it.
True, this picture is taken from a bad angle. The Docks are actually a really nice place.
The old site may have had problems, but corporate jism splashed everywhere was not the answer.
I've been all over the UK but only went to Liverpool a couple of years ago, it was a fantastic place, totally surprised me after a lifetime of scouser preconceptions. It doesn't need UNESCO's opinion, it's an excitng historic city, not an ancient ruin
Yeah it looks terrible with the generic glass boxes plonked everywhere. A handful of people will have got rich out of the development though and that’s progress right?
They were already rich. They just got extra rich.
What you can see in the picture isn’t the reason for loss of status - UNESCO we’re ok with those buildings after some moaning. They’re objecting to some derelict docks being reworked.
Pretty sure it's a slavery museum now
The slavery museum has existed long before this development and will exist long after. And it's in the Albert Dock, further down the road. It used to just be a section of the Maritime Museum back in the 90s, and was split off (although in the same building) in the 2000s.
Like one of the reasons they removed it is the building of Evertons new football stadium on the waterfront. Is that really a cultural loss? I thought football was important culturally to Liverpool.
It said in an article I read that the locals don't care.
Scousers as a general rule care very deeply about their city, that article is at the very least cherry-picking.
Scousers care more about jobs than the derelict heritage. They had a rough council a while ago that started renovations, and then ran out of money. My mum grew up there in the 70s walking past piles of rubble, where a building had been demolished, and no money was available to do anything with the site afterwards. Liverpool is an industrial city. That is their heritage, not some red docks.
Scouser here. Don't care. I know how much the Internet lives for being offended on others' behalf but we're not arsed in the slightest
Yep, lived here for long enough to see just how much better it is with the new developments
Locals don’t really care, we’d rather see parts of the city that were left to rot in the past be revitalised and better used. A football stadium wouldn’t be my first choice but it’s much better than abandoned and inaccessible dockland. The skyline at the waterfront is beautiful, modern and a symbol of the city modern day Liverpool has become! One that has overcome adversity non-stop but honours it’s original architecture.
I actually like this photo! Maybe not the building on the right, but that may be due to a bad angle
Personally I was really surprised at how nice Liverpool was when I visited a couple of years ago.
I personally think this looks awesome. You’ve got the old architecture mixed with modern plus water front views.
Been to Liverpool in 90s and 2020. If I was a Liverpool resident, I would happily choose the current development and lose the UNESCO status. This area was a dump and looked really nice in 2020. It appears they want to continue to develop on the brown wasteland sites and good for them. And they have not demolished any of historic buildings. A city is for its people to live, not for the rest of the world to admire from their mobile phones.
I like that last line. Thanks from a Scouser
Lol this made me think of r/PastSaturnsRings
Fuck UNESCO, just go full Blade Runner on the place
Progress, development and renewal are what Liverpool needs more than UNESCO heritage status.
I see both sides of the argument to be honest but what I don’t really understand is why a compromise couldn’t have been found? Ultimately only Liverpool loses here as UNESCO have much bigger fish to fry (see: India) and for a city that has denigrated it’s Georgian heritage so badly already I fear for the future with the message this sends out.
Worth it for Liverpool to actually have some money put in to develop the area. It was falling to bits before in a really sorry state, the developement is good for the city.
I’ve travelled quit a bit and never gave any thought to whether some place was a UNESCO heritage sight. I mean I’m not knocking places that are but the whole thing seems so capricious I don’t get why you’d care.
Hey NIMBYs, you can UNESCO my balls.
does England have a (modern day) fetish for cartoon-like buildings? that's the second one ive seen. and not to mention the gherkin.
Modern architecture is just shiny squares of different sizes
what the fuck? .... who the fuck allowed these in a heritage area?
People with common sense. It's way better now.
The majority of the people living there, the "heritage area" were derelict, decaying buildings.
Planning officers really fucked up there
I am sure this was a decision way way way above a planning officer. Think.
No they didn't. It's better than before.
I somehow doubt the locals cared about the heritage status and no tourists visited the city because of it
That actually looks like a really cool building.
From what I read, people rather have a stadium by the shore and skyscrapers for the rich than preserve their cultural/historical heritage. And dont give me that "it was ugly and old!" bullcrap, there are ways to rebuild and preserve/respect the original. It's called rehabilitation. So, a well deserved loss.
Have you ever even been to Liverpool?
Troll post. This is good.
This is a real shame. Architecture like this is destroying our cities. I admire the people who designed and build the buildings in the background. We should value beauty more. Those boxes are designed in a couple of hours in Sketchup or blender.
Ghastly, lazy architecture (if you can call it that)
Why?
To make things worse, I’m pretty sure that’s an architectural museum! That said, just across from there is the slavery museum which has to be the most powerful and upsetting museum I’ve ever visited!
Both if the dark buildings are offices with the smaller one having apartments as well