BCD 2018

28 C AT H E D R A L COMMU N C I AT I O N S C E L E B R AT I N G T W E N T Y F I V E Y E A R S O F T H E B U I L D I N G CO N S E R VAT I O N D I R E C TO R Y 1 9 9 3 – 2 0 1 8 of Liverpool Waters and its potential impact on the outstanding universal value of the site was expressed and a reactive monitoring mission was requested. Thus, in November 2011, a second UNESCO-ICOMOS mission to the Liverpool World Heritage Site was invited. It concluded that ‘if the proposed Liverpool Waters scheme as outlined during the mission would be implemented, the world heritage property would be irreversibly damaged, due to a serious deterioration of its architectural and town- planning coherence, a serious loss of historical authenticity, and an important loss of cultural significance’. It recommended that the principal stakeholders (Liverpool City Council, Peel Holdings and EH) work out an adjusted scheme including the mission’s observations. But, in March 2012 Liverpool City Council granted outline planning consent to Liverpool Waters. Consequently, during its 36th session in June of the same year, the World Heritage Committee placed the WHS of Liverpool on the UNESCO List of World Heritage in Danger, a position that has been restated at subsequent sessions. The last was the 41st session in July 2017, when the committee asked the state party (the DCMS) to resubmit, by 1 February 2018, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property in line with previous recommendations, particularly the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (2011), and with a view to considering the deletion of Liverpool WHS from the World Heritage List at its 24th session if the ongoing large-scale projects continue. The Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Site Management Plan 2017–2024 explains the geographic locations and outstanding universal value criteria of the WHS and its buffer zone. Moreover, the five key themes comprising the Statement of Attributes for the Heritage Site of Liverpool, established in 2011, were underlined to highlight the city’s historic importance as a port and cultural exchange city. Despite acknowledging the key achievements and future plans in the world heritage site and buffer zone, the management plan fails to introduce contemporary socio-cultural values within its heritage-led regeneration process. Despite its clear objectives, implementation strategies and a cultural framework, the Liverpool management plan focusses on rebranding the city as a centre of investment and presenting it as a tourist centre. It proposes involvement of the community as a key stakeholder, but fails to address the question of how the community values the site, for example as the home of the Beatles, Liverpool Football Club, multi-cultural festivals and other local intangible characteristics of the city which are a source of identity values and civic pride. References to the specifics of the UK’s planning and heritage management policy are also overlooked. Liverpool was also branded as the European Capital of Culture in 2008, but this should be integrated with its current and inclusive socio-cultural values in order to achieve heritage-led sustainable urban development. Since 2004, Liverpool has used heritage as a catalyst to attract investment. However, this investment has threatened the outstanding universal value of this site. Indeed, the Liverpool World Heritage Site should be perceived as a dynamic system of both built and intangible heritage (social, cultural and traditional practice and knowledge) in order to sustain its inclusive values for current and future generations. Moreover, investment in the city and the introduction of new innovative projects, rather than taking away from the original structure, should add more value to the city (economic, touristic etc) and at the same time respect the existing social, cultural and environmental context. Therefore a strategy to find a good balance between heritage conservation, economic growth and social inclusion should be developed. Designation based on UNESCO’s outstanding universal values is significant, but designation alone cannot ensure the socio- cultural sustainability of a city. Further Information EAHTR, Investing in Heritage: A Guide to Successful Urban Regeneration , Norwich, 2007 English Heritage, The Use of Historic Buildings in Regeneration: A Toolkit of Good Practice , 2013 F Bandarin and R van Oers, The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing Heritage in an Urban Century , Wiley Blackwell, Chichester, 2012 P Drury and AMcPherson, Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment , English Heritage, London, 2008 MDe La Torre, Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage: Values and Economics of Cultural Heritage , Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, 2002 UNESCO, Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage , 1972 (http://whc.unesco.org/en/ conventiontext) ATAA ALSALLOUM PhD is a lecturer at the University of Liverpool’s School of Architecture. Her doctorate at Liverpool focussed on developing an assessment model for world heritage cities. Her master’s thesis at the University of Damascus examined the design of new neighbourhoods adjacent to historic cities. Her teaching and research interests are focussed on cultural heritage studies. Regeneration on Liverpool’s waterfront: the long low sweep of 3XN’s Museum of Liverpool to the left, and Broadway Malyan’s glossy black wedge-shaped Latitude Building in the centre: the two towers of the Royal Liver Building and the dome of the Port of Liverpool Building can be seen behind the tall office block at 1 Mann Island to the right (Photo: Peter de Figueiredo)