|
UNESCO
Preliminary Report Investigation of City of Liverpool World Heritage Status October 2006 |
|
This report gives the city a
slap on the wrist. It is saying you have it, and keep it by
getting your act together.
It is embrasssing to the city that the United Nations has to suggest simple points of how to plan. UNESCO received many letters of concern from organisations and individuals. UNESCO put some of the concerns raised to the city who never replied. Extracts From Report
Nor have any of the proposed buildings now being considered emerged from agreed design briefs. As regards the Mann Island Project, located behind the Museum, this also suffered from a similar lack of thoroughly prepared architectural design guidelines that could have produced a design proposal more compatible with its sensitive location and important architectural neighbours. Also this architect had a lot of room for interpretation. Requests that the Municipal Council should improve its methods for the management of new developments inside the site inscribed on the World Heritage List and its buffer zone, particularly as regards the rules to be applied for the construction of new buildings. The Committee’s concern is that along with this large-scale development, Liverpool’s Outstanding Universal Value may be jeopardized, or lost all together. Misleading Points
The report states generally: "Liverpool as a port city is a remarkable survival, complete with many docks, waterfront buildings, warehouses, and commercial and cultural centres." It further states: "urban morphology of docks, harbour and related structures and historic buildings remains intact." The two statements are misleading. Liverpool and the Wirral have lost an an amazing acreage of dock water space. This is hardly "remarkable survival". In Liverpool's now non-commercial docks, Herculaneum, Toxteth, Harrington, Kings, parts of Dukes,parts of Queens, Manchester, Trafalgar, Victoria and Clarence Docks have been filled in. That is half of the South End Docks and a large part of Central Docks have disappeared. These water spaces can be re-instated quite easily to claw back history and create the City On The Water. Branch docks in the remaining active commercial docks have also been filled in too. If many of these commercial docks become redundant they will join the current docks earmarked for development, and will suffer the same docks in-filling problems. Many of these currently active docks are as equally eligible for World Heritage Status. The city must be aware of land by stealth by sharp developers who may in-fill dock water spaces before making them redundant to raise the price of the generated land for residential use. UNESCO must also be aware of these water spaces and bring them into the Heritage buffer zone. |
UNESCO
Preliminary Report
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Organisation des Nations Unies pour l‘éducation, la science et la culture Centre du patrimoine mondial World Heritage Centre PRELIMINARY REPORT On the Reactive Monitoring mission of UNESCO-ICOMOS to Liverpool–Maritime Mercantile City, UK, 18 - 20 October 2006 By Mr. Michel Bonnette (ICOMOS) and Dr. Ron van Oers (UNESCO), 20 October 2006. This Preliminary Report has been produced ahead of the Final Report to facilitate the Liverpool City Council’s debate on Tuesday 24 October 2006 on proposed new development schemes. Background to the Mission and TOR 1. At the invitation of the Government of the United Kingdom (by letter dated 5 October 2006), a joint UNESCO-ICOMOS mission was carried out, as requested by the World Heritage Committee at its 30th session (30 COM 7B.93), to review the state of conservation of the World Heritage site of the Maritime Mercantile City, United Kingdom, inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2004. 2. Main aspects for review and discussion as identified in the Terms of Reference:
A significant number of letters have been received at the World Heritage Centre from private citizens and community groups on new developments, which were transmitted to the State Party for comments and to ICOMOS for review. At the time of preparation of this report, there has been no response from the State Party. The concerns expressed included a scheme for a new extension to the Museum in 2005. This is a large, asymmetrical building, sited just to the south of the Three Graces and projecting forward from them towards the River Mersey. This proposal was given planning permission in December 2005. The design has attracted some adverse comments locally for its prominent setting and dominant form and for its impact on the Three Graces and the River Mersey waterfront. Two further building projects are now being considered which could also have an adverse impact. The first is a tall tower at Central Station. The second is a group of three large buildings on the waterfront just to the south of the proposed new Museum on Mann Island. There is also a scheme for a new canal along the waterfront. The thrust of the World Heritage Committee statement for the Pier Head was that any new buildings should not seek to challenge the dominance of the existing Three Graces but rather should complement them and the overall historic quarter. ICOMOS does not consider that the proposed museum building follows this recommendation. Its slanting and sliding monolithic form has been designed to be seen. The massive scale and asymmetry of its components dwarfs the rhythmic architectural detail of the Three Graces, even though the proposed building is much lower. Liverpool as a port city is a remarkable survival, complete with many docks, waterfront buildings, warehouses, and commercial and cultural centres. It is now thriving as a future European Capital of Culture and there is great enthusiasm for re-development in and around the World Heritage site. A large number of development projects are currently being considered. When the site was nominated, it was accompanied by a management plan, which set out the framework for future development. That does not seem to have been translated into detailed development plans for discrete areas of the city. Currently there is no master plan for the waterfront, for instance. Nor have any of the proposed buildings now being considered emerged from agreed design briefs. All major development schemes within the World Heritage site should emerge from a structured process that sets out the constraints and context, as well as desired spatial improvements within an agreed brief. 4. Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City was inscribed in 2004 during the 28th session of the World Heritage Committee (Suzhou, China) based on Cultural criteria (ii), (iii), (iv):
Empire and became the major port for the mass movement of people, e.g. slaves and emigrants from northern Europe to America. Liverpool was a pioneer in the development of modern dock technology, transport systems, and port management. The listed sites feature a great number of significant commercial, civic and public buildings, including St George’s Plateau. 5. It is important to note that at the time of its inscription, the WH Committee had a lengthy debate on foreseen new developments within the World Heritage site, in particular the ‘Pier Head’ and ‘Fourth Grace’ development project. Several Committee Members expressed their anxiety (WHC-04/28.COM/26, pp. 224-226) that such development was reminiscent of the case of Vienna, where much time, energy and lengthy negotiations had been necessary to avoid skyscrapers with a certain height (Delegation of Lebanon); that such development projects should not be accepted by the elders of Liverpool (Delegation of Kuwait); that any development should be in line with the character of the place and, as a general rule, new buildings should not be higher than existing ones (ICOMOS); that any development should be in harmony with the historic character of the site (Chairperson); but that apparently there was no legal framework in place by which to determine whether or not a project was in harmony with the character of the site (Delegations of Lebanon; The Netherlands), and the recommendation was put forward that monitoring of urban development processes would be necessary (Delegation of Norway). When thanking the Committee for its decision to inscribe the site, the representative of Liverpool City Council “assured the Committee that its observations and recommendations would guide the city’s development process.” (WHC-04/28.COM/26, p. 226) Current State of Affairs 6. The mission was impressed by the comprehensive programme put together by the State Party of the UK and the City Council of Liverpool, which allowed it to discuss issues with a wide range of stakeholders representing various disciplines among which investment and project development, planning, architectural design, building renovation, heritage conservation, urban management, public information, research and education, and grassroots civil society. During these discussions, the mission recognized that next to the complexities related to the conservation of living cities and city centres, urban regeneration has equally complex dynamics, and marrying the two poses considerable challenges to all those involved in the process. The urban renaissance that Liverpool is currently experiencing is remarkable and profound, no doubt spurred on in part by its listing as a World Heritage site. The potential for development that has been generated should be welcomed and utilized – in the most sensible way, not at all cost. It is of the utmost importance therefore to balance short-term solutions as a response to economic buoyancy with long-term values upon which society rests. 7. The Committee’s concern is that along with this large-scale development, Liverpool’s Outstanding Universal Value may be jeopardized, or lost all together. The mission’s purpose therefore was to maintain dialogue, started during the site’s inscription, to assist national and local authorities in finding appropriate ways to reconcile conservation and development in the spirit of international cooperation as embodied in the 1972 World Heritage Convention. 8. The mission was impressed by the planning system put in place for public and professional consultations, review and approval of development proposals, following democratic principles and a high degree of transparancy. However, mission and counterpart recognized that improving this system to provide better guidance and involve more partners, in particular local communities, was key. 9. The approach
taken in the
process of planning and review is based on Committee documents
referring to
urban development, in particular the Budapest Declaration (adopted in
2002) and
the Vienna Memorandum (adopted in 2005). However, the mission would
like to
point out that references to these documents have been selective and
pragmatic:
the interpretation given is rather one-sided, focusing primarily on the
need
for high-quality architecture to complement the historic environment,
instead
of recognizing that these documents also call for harmonious
integration, based
on respect for the inherited townscape. 10. Background
documents provided
to the mission and discussions on site repeatedly referred to the fact
that the
City Council was promoting “high-quality design”,
which, with all due respect
to the genuine intention behind it, is rather generic and open to wide
interpretation. It seemed to the mission that there was in fact little
attempt
to capture the spirit of place embodied in the structural permanencies
of the
site and to translate this into guiding principles that would stimulate
contemporary design in continuity with its immediate built-up
surroundings –
without proper guidance with respect to the significance and spirit of
place put
down in thorough descriptions as part of design briefs, architects can
hardly
be blamed for designs that are primarily self-referential, rather than
sympathetically
responding to, and so complementing the inherited townscape. State
of conservation of the site
in its widest urban context, its integrity and authenticity, in
relation to
current construction projects in its neighbourhood, in particular the
new
Museum building project next to the Three Graces 11. The state of
conservation of
the World Heritage site is good as the docks and port areas, as well as
the
city’s significant historic buildings, are either restored
and well-maintained,
or part of a programme of rehabilitation, all carefully planned and
executed.
The wider urban context includes areas that suffered damage in WW II
and, due
to the economic decline in the 1960s and 70s, further deteriorated or
became
part of poorly planned infrastructure development and filled in with
buildings
of a poor urban and architectural design. In particular these areas are
currently under planning for development and regeneration. 12. In further
assessing this
item, the mission took special note of the site’s inscription
criteria and
Statement of Significance emphasizing development of modern dock
technology,
transport systems, and port management. Significant commercial and
public
buildings are mentioned as supporting material evidence of the
city’s historic
legacy. It is therefore important to recognize that uniformity or
coherence in
townplanning schemes or architectural styles is NOT featured as part of
the
site’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). Since all
development schemes under
consideration and presented to the mission do not alter or change, nor
compromise the urban morphology of harbour and port areas with related
structures and public buildings in any significant way, the OUV is
considered
NOT to be under threat. Following
Operational Guidelines
paragraph 179 on ascertained danger to cultural properties, the mission
concluded
that there was: Furthermore,
following the same
paragraph on potential danger, there was: a) No modification
of juridical
status of the property diminishing the degree of its protection; b) No lack of
conservation policy; c) No threatening
effects of regional
planning projects; d) No threatening
effects of town
planning. The
system put in place by the UK
Government and the Liverpool City Council is comprehensive and complex,
with an
overall planning framework, consultative processes and a wide range of
partnerships, including English Heritage and CABE, who are consulted on
each
individual development project. However, the mission and its
counterparts
agreed that there was room for improvement, in particular where it
concerned
better guidance of development projects (Local Development Frameworks)
in terms
of regulatory measures. Currently each project is totally open for
discussion
starting from square one, whereas World Heritage status should call for
the
introduction of a stricter regime of planning control based on a
thorough
analysis and description of townscape characteristics, wider values and
sense
of place. These then should be taken as a point of departure for the
debate on
each development initiative, effectively raising the bar and
pre-empting the
need to discuss poorly planned initiatives. This would enable the
establishment
of consensus upstream over the extent and range of development in and
around
the World Heritage site, and ways and means to achieve this.
Furthermore, this
would avoid developers testing the city authorities’
momentous capability and stamina
to stand by their principles and vision, with a relief from pressures
that a
completely open debate put on authorities’ shoulders. Other
benefits would
include more consistency in decision-making and bringing more clarity
to the
public at large, including developers, local heritage conservation
groups and
the WH Committee. Following discussion with the mission on this issue,
the City
Council has agreed to revise its programme to produce supplementary
planning
documents (the Liverpool Local Development Scheme) in relation to the
World
Heritage site and to give it high priority – the mission was
given a letter on 13. With regard to
the Museum
Project next to the Three Graces the mission observed that:•
With respect to
height, as debated during the Committee’s 28th session
(Suzhou, China), the
project is respectful – it does not exceed the height of the
Three Graces;•
With respect to the project being complementary to the Three Graces,
the City
Council and its partners, including English Heritage, are of the
opinion that
the project complements the site;• With respect to the
dominance of the Museum
building, the architect and City Council with partners are of the
opinion that
it is not challenging the “iconic Three
Graces”;• Apparently there is a lot of
room for interpretation, in particular what is regarded “to
complement” and “to
dominate”;• Therefore, in the absence of specific
architectural design
guidelines referring to highly sensitive areas in terms of existing
cultural-historic values, in particular Outstanding Universal Value and
its
translation, room for interpretation will remain with corresponding
intense
debates, including those in the WH Committee, on the appropriateness of
each
design – whether it concerns the current one or the next. 14. In this light,
the mission
strongly recommends a brief for architects that would include a far
wider range
of parameters, involving aspects such as history of development, urban
morphology, structural relationships, plot patterns, functional
connections,
views to and from, orientation, massing, scale, rhythm, fenestration,
roof
form, texture, material expression, colour schemes – all
elements to be
properly analyzed, described and taken into consideration when
designing in a
highly sensitive, historic environment to ensure a degree of
compatibility and
integration. The current design for the Museum took particular note of
height,
views and detailing, but to the mission’s opinion this is not
enough. When this
was expressed to the architect and the City Council, the discussion
evolved
primarily between having the choice for pastiche, which was strongly
oppposed
to, and contrast – the favoured one. The mission beliefs
however that there are
many options in between these two extremes, such as harmonious
integration
utilizing a contemporary architectural expression that sympathetically
refers
to the historic environment, but not necessarily copies it –
a fine example of
this was shown to the mission in the project for the restoration and
rehabilitation
of the Bluecoat Arts Centre, where a subtle, contemporary addition was
designed
as attachment to Liverpool’s oldest surviving building
(dating from 1717) that
blended, rather than contrasted. 15. The emphasis on
the
introduction of iconic architecture, architectural statements, or
signature
buildings as the expression of contemporary culture of the 21st century
was an
important argument for the City Council and its partners to select the
current
design for the new Museum, as opposed to considering that continuity
and
harmonious integration into the existing townscape could be equally
innovative
and challenging to the talent and capabilities of the architect. As
regards the
Mann Island Project, located behind the Museum, this also suffered from
a
similar lack of thoroughly prepared architectural design guidelines
that could
have produced a design proposal more compatible with its sensitive
location and
important architectural neighbours. Also this architect had a lot of
room for interpretation. This
being said, the mission feels
that although it is sympathetic to concerns of certain groups and
individuals,
including ICOMOS-UK, it would be inappropriate to oppose to these
design
proposals, because there are no direct threats to the Outstanding
Universal
Value of the site, and there is consensus among the City Council and
its
partners, including English Heritage, that these designs are indeed
appropriate. The mission, however, would strongly recommend an improved
process, as outlined above, involving site analyses and descriptions
with
inclusion of a wide set of parameters to take into account to minimize
controversy and to bridge historic environment and contemporary
architectural
interventions, as clearly outlined in the Vienna Memorandum. 16. Concerning the other development proposals, being Lime Street Gateway, Ropewalks and Paradise Project, the mission is of the opinion that site analyses were comprehensive and sensitive to the site’s requirements, economically, functionally and culturally. There was consensus between City Council and partners about appropriateness. However, here as with the Museum and Mann Island Projects stated before, a thorough design brief for architects would be, or would have been beneficial, even though these sites do not seem to be as sensitive as the waterfront. By any means, respect for the silhouette and skyline of the inherited townscape remains of the utmost importance and the mission strongly supports the position of the City Council that no buildings should exceed in height the ‘shoulders’ of the Anglican Cathedral in the backdrop. The mission: 1. Recommends to the
Municipal Council that it should be cautious in its decisions
concerning the
start of works for the projects of the National Museum of Liverpool
Life and of
the residential and commercial buildings of 2. Requests that the
Municipal
Council should improve its methods for the management of new
developments inside
the site inscribed on the World Heritage List and its buffer zone,
particularly
as regards the rules to be applied for the construction of new
buildings. To
this effect, the mission recommends that the Committee should remind
the
Council that it must keep its promise that it would rapidly have a set
of
Supplementary Planning Documents covering these sectors produced and
adopted;
the mission suggests that the Council should be required to inform the
Committee of the timetable for the implementation of the works, and
that the
Council should indicate how the Committee will be consulted and enabled
to
express its view on the issue. 3. Asks that
measures be taken by
the Municipal Council to raise the population's awareness of the
motives which
formed the basis for the city's inclusion in the World Heritage List,
and in
particular to ensure that the property developers and the building
professionals who intervene on the site are aware of these motives. The
outstanding universal value which the city is recognised as possessing
through its inclusion should be statutorily indicated in all
calls for
proposals, architectural competitions and professional contracts issued
or
awarded by the city or its partners which relate to projects situated
inside
the site or in its buffer zone, and it should be made compulsory for
the
developers and professionals concerned to take this value into account
when
drawing up their proposals. A
full report will be prepared and
submitted before |
|