Liverpool delisting continued.......
It might be of interest to Forum members to know that the planned stadium in what was Bramley-Moore Dock which led to Liverpool's delisting hosted its first game last night (an unimportant under 18 friendly!!).

Reviews are mainly positive .......(My "bolds")
"There is an otherworldliness to the arena as it sits on what was once – and in neighbouring surroundings still is – a desolate industrial wasteland on the docks. Everton are not just leaving the Victorian grandeur of Goodison Park for a plush residence. The club are effectively relocating by jumping from the 19th into the 21st century. The concept of this brilliant, shiny megastructure at the heart of a heritage site is an emblem of the modern retro vibe which embodies the design."

"Visible from the fringes of Liverpool city centre, the walk along the connecting Regent Road to Bramley-Moore Dock offers the first hint of a regeneration which, the club claim, will be worth an estimated £1.3 billion to the UK economy during the stadium's lifespan. The dock's initial purpose when constructed in 1848 was to expand the city's dock system to the north. Now 177 years on, it is the bloom of commercial activity which is anticipated as bars and restaurants inevitably follow the foot-flow on match days, accelerating £650 million growth in this previously neglected area of the city.[i]"

"[i]In keeping with a modern retro theme, the nods to Liverpool's maritime history are plentiful. The Grade II listed Hydraulic Tower and Engine Room has been restored for £55 million and is a centrepiece of the fan plaza near the entrance."

"The clue is in the name, yet it is hard to imagine now that Bramley Moore dock was an abandoned, neglected body of water 1,303 days ago. Twelve unexploded anti-aircraft shells from the second world war still lurked in the depths, waiting to be removed by the Royal Navy, when Everton took possession of the site on 26 July 2021. Less than four years later a magnificent, imposing, futuristic stadium has opened on the banks of the River Mersey. A torturous journey decades in the making has been worth every step"

"£55m of that sum was spent preserving and restoring heritage works at Bramley-Moore, including the original dock walls that remain under the stadium, the railway tracks that carried coal to steamships on the Mersey and the Grade II-listed hydraulic tower that forms a symbolic part of a 17,000-capacity outdoor plaza. The infill of the dock took three months"

"Architecturally, Everton Stadium is the most striking, ambitious addition to the Liverpool waterfront since the Three Graces were built in the early 1900s. They were also built on an infilled dock, St George's."

Personally I remain of the view that ICOMOS/UNESCO made a mistake with the decision to delist Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City (as they did regarding Dresden Elbe Valley). The Liverpool core zone had no need to extend as far as Bramley-Moore...... and what else was going to be built in the unloved derelict area it had become? Greater flexibility should have been shown by UNESCO/ICOMOS to reduce the boundaries with acceptance that the remaining areas were easily enough to support the site's OUV as per its name and its ethos of perpetual change to reflect economic reality (without which the 3 Graces themselves would not have been built). Whatever was going to be built anew was going to raise hackles - this may not be the best stadium architecture in the World (though what, apart from their historic "associative values" related to World Cups and Olympics makes the Munich and Mexico stadia so wonderful in comparison?) and Nan has enjoyed comparing it to a UFO ("If Liverpool can land a UFO (football stadium) in the WHS core zone and won't be delisted, Unesco can book flights to Dresden and apologize.") but far worse things have happened to WHS around the World and UNESCO/ICOMOS still have to come to terms with how "Heritage Cities" handle contemporary development needs - whether to derelict areas or for the needs of traffic.

I would concur nowadays. Originally, it felt like state parties ignoring the world heritage status and restrictions should not be accepted and there needed to be consequences (delisting). But in both cases, I have a hard time with the practical, overzealous restrictions placed on the sites and cities:

* Liverpool -> The surrounding area was indeed "desolate" and needed some development. There was no OUV in having a desolate area. Indeed, it's probably a better protection for the site to be embedded in an urban fabric.

* Dresden -> With last year's bridge collapse, the maximalist position of Unesco to prevent any bridging of the Elbe seems even more questionable. It's an urban area, people need to traverse the river. We can't install ferries to give it a more historic 18th century flavour.

In addition, these restrictions were only placed on the UK and Germany. Shakhrisyabz should have been delisted given the massive changes to the core axis of the site. But it wasn't and then this whole exercise is moot.

I believe the idea is that "developed" nations have money to do better, whereas others like the mentioned Uzbekistan, do not. So they get away with stuff.

For Shakhrisyabz the status is that they have to submit a "significant boundary modification or a new nomination" - this could have been an option for Liverpool too. For Liverpool, I think a lot of stubbornness came into play. The UK could have explored other options, such as boundary modification or even finding support among other member states to oppose the decision proposed by ICOMOS.

Els, lets put Shakhrisyabz in perspective. They bullldozed the central axis without obtaining pre approvals from Unesco. I was very vocal on landing an UFO next to Liverpool's dock, but the UFO at least landed in an already bulldozed wasteland. I would argue both are on the same level.


Not really an argument here as Uzbekistan actively spent money to tear down the neighborhoods. The cheaper alternative would have been to do nothing.

If rules are enforced unequally, pedantic for some, more than lenient for others, they lose their justification.

If so, that confirms that there would have been a way out for Liverpool but the UK chose not to use it.

It did and was told "no". ..."The possibility of changing the World Heritage Site boundary and buffer zone to remove the derelict docks was ruled out. In UNESCO a preservationist ethos prevailed – which would have been perfectly acceptable for a historic monument, ruin, or even parkland. It was exemplified by the negative response to even the possibility of tall buildings close to those already in place" (Wray - from doc linked below)

These documents describe the issues and the stances of the various parties reasonably well I think - it was indeed a "sorry saga" with mistakes made from the very beginning in setting the original boundaries.....

a. "Lessons from a sorry world heritage saga" (Ian Wray - written Nov/Dec 2021)

b. "I've been chronicling Liverpool's renaissance for 40 years – here's why the city's Unesco status should not have been removed" (Prof Michael Parkinson July 2021 - also read his earlier article from Jun 2021 just before the decision -Liverpool, UNESCO and World Heritage status – what next?" linked at the end of the first.)

I see no evidence to justify the assertion that "there would have been a way out for Liverpool but the UK chose not to use it" if that "way out" was to agree to a change in boundaries.

Both documents highlight the wide divergence of opinion among heritage professionals about how to handle developments in "living cities" - which was the essence of my original point. Liverpool for some reason or another came up against a very hard line approach. Whether UK could have argued successfully against it at the WHC, who knows. Perhaps it didn't want to take the risk of a "double defeat" based on what it knew about the support it might have got from the WHC (i.e the original recommendation AND a failure to overturn it).

As for Shakhrisyabz - who knows why the "amended area" approach is being allowed for it when it wasn't for Liverpool. It could be that Uzbekistan is indeed being given more latitude. It might be that the "hard liners" in UNESCO/ICOMOS are less in control either from changes in personnel or just the development of ideas on this matter within the Heritage Community

The problem is a bit that we see the debate mostly from the moment when it had already hardened. The article by Wray does give a good insight in what have could been done differently in the beginning.

https://www.caymancompass.com/2025/12/22/little-cayman-could-gain-unesco-world-heritage-status-by-2030/

"Little Cayman could gain UNESCO World Heritage status by 2030" - already on UK's T List

elsslots

While this would be appealing to the divers in the group, it may not be attractive to others given the high cost of traveling to the "little" island.

City of York Council November 2025

"York's bid has been successfully selected by DCMS to request a preliminary assessment of a potential nomination direct from the UNESCO World Heritage Committee with a formal response, including a report, is expected in October 2025. It is anticipated that UNESCO will invite further clarification, with the final nomination then be submitted for a decision by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in 2030. WHSG anticipate providing a more detailed view of next steps to Executive in January 2026."

So we might expect some news this month and perhaps a clear date if ICOMOS gave their stamp of approval.