World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
Countries www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Countries /  
 

UK

 
 
Page  Page 11 of 12:  « Previous  1  ...  9  10  11  12  Next »

Author Jurre
Partaker
#151 | Posted: 16 Dec 2021 05:28 | Edited by: Jurre 
Can Liverpool bounce back from losing UNESCO World Heritage Site status?

Steve Rotherham obviously is no member of this site: "I've never been anywhere in the world and said I'm going to go there because it's a UNESCO World Heritage Site."

Author Astraftis
Partaker
#152 | Posted: 19 Dec 2021 18:40 
Jurre:
Can Liverpool bounce back from losing UNESCO World Heritage Site status?

Steve Rotherham obviously is no member of this site: "I've never been anywhere in the world and said I'm going to go there because it's a UNESCO World Heritage Site."

This is kind of a soap opera with a very high degree of saltiness.

Author Jurre
Partaker
#153 | Posted: 19 Dec 2021 20:44 
Astraftis:
This is kind of a soap opera with a very high degree of saltiness.

The saltiness is definitely real.

Author Jurre
Partaker
#154 | Posted: 27 Dec 2021 08:47 
Heritage, future and irreversible loss: Liverpool's years under the eye of UNESCO

A bit tendentious in the first paragraph, but then a more mitigated view on Liverpool's deletion from the List.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#155 | Posted: 12 Mar 2022 01:32 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Henderson Island
If any WHS travellers are setting off to visit then you need to know this ...... or you might miss it!!! I dont think we need to change our maps though.

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#156 | Posted: 26 Mar 2022 12:18 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Updated UK Tentative List

"The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will review the sites, and will publish a tentative list of potential nominees later this year. The next sites to be reviewed for Unesco status in 2024 are the Scottish Flow Country and Gracehill in Northern Ireland."

https://www.newschainonline.com/news/nominations-sought-for-uks-next-unesco-world-heritage-sites-261597

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/search-launched-for-the-next-unesco-world-heritage-sites

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#157 | Posted: 27 Mar 2022 18:20 
Open consultation
UNESCO World Heritage Sites - UK Tentative List Review

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/unesco-world-heritage-sites-uk-tentative-list-review

It will be interesting to see what nominations emerge and how large/small the update turns out to be.

2012 Update
Chatham Dockyard and its Defences (2012)
Creswell Crags (2012)
Darwin's Landscape Laboratory (2012)
England's Lake District (2012) *Inscribed
Gorham's Cave Complex (2012) *Inscribed
Island of St Helena (2012)
Jodrell Bank Observatory (2012) *Inscribed
Mousa, Old Scatness and Jarlshof: the Zenith of Iron Age Shetland (2012)
Slate Industry of North Wales (2012) *Inscribed
Flow Country (2012)
Forth Bridge (2012) *Inscribed
The Twin Monastery of Wearmouth Jarrow (2012)
Turks and Caicos Islands (2012)

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#158 | Posted: 23 Apr 2022 15:00 | Edited by: winterkjm 
There have been a couple reports indicating another attempt from York for the new UK Tentative List.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-61201301

Having visited the city in November 2007 (Flick Album), I do feel some nostalgia and/or affinity to York as one of the early historic centres I visited in Europe. Visiting as a day trip from Edinburgh, I had plenty of time to visit York Minster, the City Walls, St. Mary's Abbey, Clifford's Tower, and simply just walk the city centre before heading back North. I believe the perceived challenge of getting York inscribed is a bit overblown; produce an excellent dossier and it will have a fair chance at inscription.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#159 | Posted: 23 Apr 2022 15:21 | Edited by: Solivagant 
]
winterkjm:
There have been a couple reports indicating another attempt from York for the new UK Tentative List.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-61201301

See my comment regarding York's possible new attempt at getting on the UK T List posted here under the "WHS in the News topic" the other day. Sorry for "mixing" topics!

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#160 | Posted: 23 Apr 2022 17:07 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Solivagant:
I am already reading comments by locals that such inscription would condemn York to lack of future development a la Liverpool

I find this comparison though a bit strange since York has less than 50K people and Liverpool has half a million? "Future Development" in major cities are often quite different as compared to smaller cities like York. Which might warrant further discussion, whereas Liverpool was (at least partially) about modernizing parts of the city to meet the needs of current residents. York benefits from tourism greatly, but indeed could be harmed by an inscription because the cities infrastructure could be overwhelmed by visitors!

Does this description reflect the reality at all from your perspective? My view is categorically from an outsider's perspective and outdated at that, so I may just have a simple understanding of the positive or negative effects inscription may have on York. I do see the case as quite different as Liverpool, but I would certainly like to hear more about your view (and others from the UK) on the topic.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#161 | Posted: 24 Apr 2022 03:40 | Edited by: Solivagant 
winterkjm:
find this comparison though a bit strange since York has less than 50K people and Liverpool has half a million?.........I may just have a simple understanding of the positive or negative effects inscription may have on York. I do see the case as quite different as Liverpool, but I would like to hear more about your view on the topic.

Populations of York - 215k (and rising. Was 181k in 2001) v Liverpool - 500k (and stable) actually.....but I fully agree that the "development issues" in each are not the same. The Liverpool issue related to the redevelopment of a large and "dead" core area whereas future "redevelopment" in York seems more likely to relate to areas beyond any which might be "core". But even smaller York has its defunct industrial areas which need new uses - historically, though not now, it was "big" on Railways and Chocolate!! There will also be smaller issues even in the historic town centre which actually contains a mixture of buildings up to the 20thC and always faces choices regarding what to do with these when they outlive their original purpose...

The common issue in the eyes of many (I wouldn't hazard a guess as to %ages!) UK people across both sites relates more to that of whether the benefits gained are worth costs such as giving a body outside the control of the normal democratic institutions additional "power" to "intervene" (even if indirectly) regarding what is "good" development - especially given UNESCO's record on such matters (or at least that "record" as is perceived, rightly or wrongly, by many people). Any proposed development raises conflicting views. What does UNESCO "add" to the debate and resolution mechanisms in a country which already has pretty strong development controls which operate within a reasonable "envelope" of what should be regarded as "acceptable" in a domain where subjectivity and "taste" can lead to differing views. OK – many people will say that no country's institutions in such matters are perfect and it is good to have an external influence. Perhaps also "UNESCO" is often cited as a potential ally in situations where it (probably???) wouldn't actually interfere (I think of the Bath Rugby stadium issue!) and thus gets tarred unjustifiably with an anti-development brush! But UNESCO has allowed itself to be co-opted thus by its history of involvement in somewhat "petty" matters.

And UNESCO hasn't helped itself in the bigger battles it has chosen to intervene on. Has the Waldschlösschen Bridge as built really destroyed the Dresden-Elbe Valley OUV? Why on earth couldn't UNESCO realize that the Liverpool core area was unnecessarily large and come to an accommodation on altering the boundaries to allow a reasonable (if not magnificent) development in a run down area which wasn't central to the OUV of "Liverpool – Maritime city" as a whole but desperately needs such redevelopment? Is it purely coincidental that these 2 most (in)famous interventions have been in countries whose democratic institutions for deciding such matters and policies for setting limits are reasonably strong. And UNESCO doesn't just limit its interventions to the "Core" areas but slobbers like a Pavlovian dog to any suggestion of e.g tall buildings outside them with an almost irrational response....etc etc

So – WHS inscription can be seen as a bit of an uncertain bargain. You spend a lot of money up front making it (without any guarantee of success). You then get the "logo", you "join" the "same club as the Taj Mahal" etc etc (never the "same club as Iwami Ginzan" of course!) ...... and (hopefully) you get loads of extra Tourist $$$$$!! And for that you "pay" later in terms of some loss of control, providing an extra stick for opponents to "beat" proposed developments with and also, potentially, in getting too much (or the "wrong" type of) tourism. Is it worth it? Well each town/area makes its own choice. But it isn't a self evident "given" to take the logo if achievable!! I fully accept that, if you join a club, then you accept its rules and procedures - as Liverpool has had to do. But that doesn't preclude others from legitimately asking if they wish to be a member of a club with such rules operated in that way! Does York really need to hitch itself to a strategy based on even more "volume tourism" and subjecting itself to the vagaries of UNESCO views and politics on development matters? It is a highly desirable town to live in which needs high quality skilled jobs not more and more eateries or budget hotels. You describe York's merits well when recollecting your visit. They are already well protected and will still be there if York doesn't go for inscription - perhaps even more so!! Lots of countries and sites chase inscription for the "prestige" and to keep up with the competition of their perceived rivals. Neither Oxford nor Cambridge to date, for instance. have joined this game and I personally don't think York needs to either.

Author Liam
Partaker
#162 | Posted: 24 Apr 2022 09:07 
I think York would have been a great nomination... in 1987. But does the List need another European cityscape complete with grand cathedral? What makes York unique? Augsburg had to scrabble around for a water management system. Can York find a convincing golden thread to link Roman history to Viking settlement to key medieval city?

I don't forsee problems with domestic development for York - you just draw the boundaries carefully. The biggest issue anyone can find for Bath (a huge core zone larger than 8 other 'Great Spas of Europe' combined, capturing almost the entire city) relates to a rugby stadium. I don't think York *needs* WHS status - but neither did the Lake District, and I think the heritage of York is a lot easier to appreciate than the Lake District's OUV (as Els's review today demonstrates).

Still, it's nice to see one statement of intent. Birkenhead Park has been planning a bid for a number of years - but a lot of the team for that bid are veterans of Liverpool so their ardour may have been dampened somewhat...

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#163 | Posted: 24 Apr 2022 14:08 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Solivagant:
I personally don't think York needs to either.

Thank you for your thoughts and insight into the issue and it very well might turn out York's new candidacy does not amount to much.

IF a York nomination does make it on the UK Tentative List, what would be the best formation of a nomination dossier? When I say best, I mean both for OUV and what is actually best for the city and its residents? Would it be best to simply focus on York Minster (possibly St. Mary's Abbey as an adjacent component)? Medieval York? Or focus on the entire 2000 year history of the city: Historic Centre (mostly everything within the City Walls). The later would have the most impact on future development (height of buildings, new construction) and seems to be the path chosen by the city council (as viewed here).

This is a rudimentary summary of historic sites in York based partially on memory (plus old pictures) and a quick browse online. Feel free to share other components that would be considered.

Early Period (Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Dane/Viking)
- Portions of City Walls (Multangular Tower)
- York Minster (Undercroft)
- Roman Bath House (remains of a Roman bath underneath the house)
- Jorvik Archaeological Site (limited tangible remains on view)

Medieval York - 11th to 15th Century
- York City Walls (3.4 km) *primarily 12th - 14th century
- St Mary's Abbey (13th Century)
- York Minster (12th - 15th Century)
- York Castle/Clifford's Tower (13th Century)

Georgian Architecture in York 1714-1830
- The Mansion House (St. Helens Square)
- Fairfax House
- The Red House
- York Assembly Rooms

I am reminded of Frances nomination for 2023 "Maison Carrée de Nîmes (France)" which had previously been "Nîmes, Antiquity to the Present". The later focused on 2,000 years of history and today the plan is for a far narrower nomination. Perhaps York could simply focus on York Minster or sidestep the whole "Historic Centre" idea and focus on Medieval York: York Minster, St. Mary's Abbey, and the best preserved section of the City Wall (between Bootham Bar and Monk Bar)? This would even be contiguous, leaving much of the city outside of the world heritage property. I am afraid that York went too narrow a decade ago and is going too broad today!

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#164 | Posted: 25 Apr 2022 02:16 | Edited by: Solivagant 
winterkjm:
Perhaps York could simply focus on York Minster or sidestep the whole "Historic Centre" idea and focus on Medieval York: York Minster, St. Mary's Abbey, and the best preserved section of the City Wall (between Bootham Bar and Monk Bar)?

You certainly "know" your York!!! It sounds as if you have accessed the proposal from 2011 and the committee's view of it? If not, or if anyone else wishes to look, it can be found in this document - page 44. "SITE 6 CITY OF YORK: SUB-SURFACE ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPOSITS". The Committee concluded that "City of York: subsurface archaeological deposits did not have the potential to demonstrate OUV and recommends that City of York: subsurface archaeological deposits should not be included in the Tentative List. The Panel recommends that a nomination of the whole historic City, above and below ground, could be considered for a future Tentative List.". Which presumably left open the door for this latest possible attempt.

As for your question. IMO - despite the large number of Gothic Cathedrals inscribed already I couldn't really see how any nomination of that building could be refused... "No - not different enough from Chartres, Amiens, Reims etc etc.....doesn't add anything to the List. Rejected on grounds of lack of OUV".....no, not really!! The Great East Window alone should be enough , let alone all the other unique and important developmental features of the building.

The problem for the City Fathers might be that this wouldn't really inscribe "York". But, as we have seen around the World, the inscription of a small area doesn't prevent many towns and areas from claiming to be "World Heritage Cities" or from scattering signs with WHS logos everywhere, way beyond the inscribed boundaries!!! So perhaps that wouldn't matter - it would be the simplest and most direct route to inscription.

Your analogy of Nimes is an interesting one. I would fear that going for too large an area would, as Liam has said, create difficulties in finding "a convincing golden thread to link Roman history to Viking settlement to key medieval city"...let alone the buildings from all the periods thereafter! It would also raise the hackles of those concerned about excessive future developmental controls who don't even want a nomination. I don't know the answer but perhaps a compromise along the lines you suggest might be a way forward - except that it opens the possibility of rejection on the grounds that the "story" being told, and locations included, isn't complete.!!

winterkjm:
Feel free to share other components that would be considered.

Other mediaeval buildings are scattered around the city (which is itself the "problem". 1 or 2 could possibly be picked out as separate locations but it would all be a bit "artificial" and wouldn't really solve the problem of development controls on adjacent buildings)-
The Merchant Adventurers Hall deserves a special mention. Dating back to 1357 it is a fine late Mediaeval building which would certainly feature in the OUV of any wider nomination,
The Merchant Taylor's Hall is another.
The Mediaeval Parish Churches of York are also an important part of the story of Mediaeval York. 20 of the "original" 45 which existed within the Walls still survive!! A number are still in use as churches, others have been turned into Bars/Restaurants (e.g St Johns is now "Jalou" where you can do "DJ and cocktail master classes"!!) and even a Senior Citizens Centre (our "go to" place for a cheap soup and coffee as "Jalou" isn't really "our scene")!!

Author nfmungard
Partaker
#165 | Posted: 25 Apr 2022 10:03 | Edited by: nfmungard 
I would actually be in favour of inscribing York. The UK doesn't really have many cities or churches inscribed (Edinburgh, Bath, Canterbury) and York felt different to them. The cathedral is great, the Roman and Norman ruins are, too...

winterkjm:
I am reminded of Frances nomination for 2023 "Maison Carrée de Nîmes (France)" which had previously been "Nîmes, Antiquity to the Present".

France does have loads of old towns, Roman ruins, .. inscribed. That's the difference. Nimes is a joke considering that the area is already clustered with sites covering the same time span. I don't see a similar situation in York.

Solivagant:
As for your question. IMO - despite the large number of Gothic Cathedrals inscribed already I couldn't really see how any nomination of that building could be refused..

For some reason, I don't consider UK churches to look like their counterparts on the continent. I think York Cathedral would add something. Only similar church is Canterbury.

Solivagant:
Other mediaeval buildings are scattered around the city (which is itself the "problem". 1 or 2 could possibly be picked out as separate locations but it would all be a bit "artificial" and wouldn't really solve the problem of development controls on adjacent buildings)-

Only visited for half a day. I would assume the cathedral and its immediate vicinity, the motte, and the castle wall would make the cut plus a few gems/clusters within the city.

Liam:
I think York would have been a great nomination... in 1987. But does the List need another European cityscape complete with grand cathedral? What makes York unique? Augsburg had to scrabble around for a water management system.

Augsburg was bombed. As were plenty of historical places in Germany. The Fuggerei in original shape would have been a stellar WHS. But it's reconstructed as is most of the town. It should not have been inscribed, but regional pride would not accept it.

I think the UK is a peculiar area as their WHS skew so heavily towards industrialization and the list is still short (compared to Germany).

Solivagant:
And UNESCO hasn't helped itself in the bigger battles it has chosen to intervene on. Has the Waldschlösschen Bridge as built really destroyed the Dresden-Elbe Valley OUV? Why on earth couldn't UNESCO realize that the Liverpool core area was unnecessarily large and come to an accommodation on altering the boundaries to allow a reasonable (if not magnificent) development in a run down area which wasn't central to the OUV of "Liverpool

Two answers to your question:
1) The delisting was more about process than quality for Dresden. The local politicians really showed their disdain for Unesco and the delisting was the consequence. They could have worked out a solution. E.g., Cologne built skyscrapers across from the cathedral. They just approached it the Rhinish way, talking, understanding, ... The Saxons decided to tell Unesco to go f!"§$ themselves. What a surprise, that they were delisted.

2) In Liverpool's case, the same disdain for Unesco and Unesco's mandate (see newspaper titles) was mixed with landing a flying saucer (football stadium) in the buffer/core zone. A tiny bridge several kilometers up river does not make a difference. A huge football stadium does.

Page  Page 11 of 12:  « Previous  1  ...  9  10  11  12  Next » 
Countries www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Countries /
 UK

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message


 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

 
 
 
www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®
 ⇑