World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



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

2020/2021 WHC Livestream

 
 
Page  Page 3 of 40:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  ...  37  38  39  40  Next »

Author clyde
Partaker
#31 | Posted: 19 Jul 2021 10:08 
meltwaterfalls
Thanks Ian! Two thirds is quite difficult to reach .. but we'll wait and see!

Author nfmungard
Partaker
#32 | Posted: 19 Jul 2021 11:59 
As stated on whatsapp: 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. If this doesn't get you delisted, building a bridge kilometers off the main site, should not have created the fuzz it did.

Author Khuft
Partaker
#33 | Posted: 19 Jul 2021 12:59 
Funny how some of the state parties advocating a postponement of the Liverpool decision won't be there next year to decide, as their mandate will have expired... Funny also how Australia is reluctant to act upon the deletion recommendations - maybe with a view of overturning the Great Barrier Reef recommendation for inscription on WHL in Danger?

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#34 | Posted: 19 Jul 2021 13:51 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
Indeed, though the Dresden bridge was in the Core Zone too, but as you say less incongruous than the propossals in Liverpool.

I appreciate the stadium will be built in the core zone, (and the Bramley Moore/ Stanley Dock area is specifically identified in the WHS listing) but speaking from the perspective of a World Heritage Site traveller (rightly not the main focus of the World Heritage commitee, but of relevance to this community at least) I think the stadium isn't the part that would cause me the most issues.
-It is a way downstream from the main sites and what we would currently see if we were to visit this area is a wall behind which sit piles of sand in an essentially derelict wateland.
-The stadium designs may look pretty bold and colourful (they always are) but I think it would take quite a bit of effort to actually have the stadium affect ones view of Liverpool WHS main attractions at Pier Head/ Albert Dock and the grand edifaces of the city centre.

My main concern would be with the rather lacklustre high rises looming next to the three Graces, most of which are already built.

On the whole I think the stadium project from a heritage persepctive is enough to delist Liverpool, but from a visitor perspective, I don't think it would have much impact, or (if like me you also have a list of visited football grounds) actually enhance the visit.

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#35 | Posted: 20 Jul 2021 08:18 
Just in case anyone was wondering about a lack of updates today, there is no session on Tuesday.

Author jsamad
Partaker
#36 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 05:33 
Liverpool decision in next few minutes

Author elsslots
Admin
#37 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 05:35 
Secret ballot: 2 invalids, 1 absent
18 valid: 13 in favour, 5 against
Liverpool Deleted!

Author jsamad
Partaker
#38 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 05:37 
Liverpool has been deleted

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#39 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 06:06 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
elsslots:
Liverpool Deleted!

Oh well, I think from a heritage perspective it is justified, even if for us as visitors it wouldn't really have an impact.

They had plenty of warnings and still pressed ahead and even esculated the scale of development in the area so there can't be too many complaints, and UNESCO do have to have some teeth. Let's see if they use those beyond Europe.

Author elsslots
Admin
#40 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 06:12 
Kazakhstan under fire by ICOMOS for building "Kazakh Drama Theatre, Eastern Market (Caravanserai) and Hampton Hotel" next to the Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi. This will lie outside of the buffer zone.

Neighbour Kirgizstan, supported by Russia and others, has prepared an amendment to soften the text and avert a Reactive Monitoring Mission.

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#41 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 06:38 
Live Feed:
Mr Chair your microphone is off....

Mr Chair you are on mute....

Monsieur le Pr├ęsident, votre micro est ├ęteint...

Glad these meetings go as smoothly as my Zoom meetings.

Author Khuft
Partaker
#42 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 06:40 
meltwaterfalls:
and UNESCO do have to have some teeth. Let's see if they use those beyond Europe.

I feel it only went through because Norway pushed for a secret ballot. Delegates were less willing to commit to it when openly talking about the issue - I was feeling it was heading in the same direction as Selous (ie kick the can down the road).

Given all the statements about the needs for developing countries to be able to develop (also articulated in the current discussion around Kazakhstan), I'm sure non-European countries will be cut more slack in these issues...

Author elsslots
Admin
#43 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 07:27 
Kathmandu to be discussed to be put In Danger (again).

Author elsslots
Admin
#44 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 07:33 
Bahrain says in danger listing would actually be beneficial (it's not a negative appraisal), as it would allow for attracting more funds.

Author elsslots
Admin
#45 | Posted: 21 Jul 2021 07:36 | Edited by: elsslots 
Brazil opposes (again). Nepal is doing its best and just needs more help. Danger listing would be negative for tourism.

Page  Page 3 of 40:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  ...  37  38  39  40  Next » 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /
 2020/2021 WHC Livestream

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 ®
 ⇑