3 ms·

> Liverpool has seen more peaks and troughs than most, and it's a city which has changed immeasurably since 2004 when the World Heritage Status was conferred.

by leg100 5y ago

> Liverpool has seen more peaks and troughs than most, and it's a city which has changed immeasurably since 2004 when the World Heritage Status was conferred. > Back then, there was no Liverpool One shopping centre, no hint that Everton would consider building a multi-million pound waterfront stadium and its year as European Capital of Culture hadn't happened. The city has changed. Who gives a flying toss. Pretty much every city on earth has a ubiquitous monolithic shopping centre. It doesn't mean shit. Nor does a big football stadium (and how does "considering" building a stadium "change" a city?).

soco 5y ago
They are free to have them of course, nobody ever argued with that. But don't pretend the monolithic shopping centre is "world heritage". It's very simple - it doesn't look anymore like it was 30 years ago when it qualified.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > But don't pretend the monolithic shopping centre is "world heritage" Nobody's pretending that - you're responding to an imaginary argument.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> Who gives a flying toss. Pretty much every city on earth has a ubiquitous monolithic shopping centre. It doesn't mean shit. Nor does a big football stadium (and how does "considering" building a stadium "change" a city?). I don't think that's what the author really means and I don't know if you're not familiar with Liverpool. 'Changed' doesn't mean 'they just built another shopping centre'. Liverpool before the Duke built Liverpool One was in another bad slump, after many bad slumps for many decades. The change wasn't the new shopping centre, it was generally the start of a bit more confidence and optimism in the whole city. Lots of things came together to make that change, and it's certainly in a better place now. Possibly they think the world heritage status, as well as the Paradise development, were means to ends.
airhead969 5y ago
City cores are typically concrete, commercial wastelands. The "good stuff" that brings character to a city overall is almost never megadevelopments, but preserving neighborhoods. East Austin is an example.

by leg100 5y ago

soco 5y ago

They are free to have them of course, nobody ever argued with that. But don't pretend the monolithic shopping centre is "world heritage". It's very simple - it doesn't look anymore like it was 30 years ago when it qualified.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> But don't pretend the monolithic shopping centre is "world heritage" Nobody's pretending that - you're responding to an imaginary argument.

chrisseaton 5y ago

> Who gives a flying toss. Pretty much every city on earth has a ubiquitous monolithic shopping centre. It doesn't mean shit. Nor does a big football stadium (and how does "considering" building a stadium "change" a city?). I don't think that's what the author really means and I don't know if you're not familiar with Liverpool. 'Changed' doesn't mean 'they just built another shopping centre'. Liverpool before the Duke built Liverpool One was in another bad slump, after many bad slumps for many decades. The change wasn't the new shopping centre, it was generally the start of a bit more confidence and optimism in the whole city. Lots of things came together to make that change, and it's certainly in a better place now. Possibly they think the world heritage status, as well as the Paradise development, were means to ends.

airhead969 5y ago

City cores are typically concrete, commercial wastelands. The "good stuff" that brings character to a city overall is almost never megadevelopments, but preserving neighborhoods. East Austin is an example.