Liverpool City Council has decided, as the
democratically elected representatives, to approve the Peel Holdings Ltd’s
development proposal, Liverpool Waters. In doing so it has placed itself on the
front-line of a national cultural conflict. The division centres upon the value
that the community, the nation and the various special interest groups place
upon the architectural and cultural inheritance of any and all communities in
the United Kingdom.
English Heritage’s power and influence has grown
phenomenally since the 1970’s to the point that it has been able to shape Britain’s capacity to
respond to change. Culturally, Great Britain has, since the end of empire
following World War Two, rejected much of modernism, building upon late 19th
century reaction to the changes that industrialisation brought. The
self-presented positive image of Britain has been dominated
by architecture and the environment, and the impulse to preserve a bucolic
past. As Britain struggled with the
loss of international status and the decline of economic power, Britain’s establishment
resisted change and egalitarianism, and sought to maintain the advantages that
the inheritors of the feudal elite enjoyed.
Thus while the British elites were content to utilise
the products of industrial Britain, such as machine
guns and Dreadnought battle ships, they rejected the centres that produced
them. The only residual component of these centres that is regarded as valuable
today is the major municipal and commercial architecture of that period. Liverpool and Merseyside
exemplify this. Britain’s cultural elites
valued the “Journeyman with his pack horse coming over the hill” and produced
the Arts & Crafts Movement. It had no significant equivalent for Bauhaus or
any of the other movements across industrialised Europe. Their dominance
of education and the media ensured their political dominance, and led
ultimately to Britain’s loss of its
industrial and commercial lead.
Those factions, like English heritage, that demand that
Liverpool and Merseyside preserve for posterity the 19th
century city environment are the same that repeatedly remind everyone that Liverpool’s wealth was built
on slavery. This assertion carries with it a sense of assignment of guilt
specific to Liverpool and its current inhabitants. It is not
entirely dissimilar to the unfair opprobrium directed towards young Germans
regarding the Holocaust. It is conveniently ignored that the entirety of Britain, and especially
the City of London, benefited from
slavery.
This repeated concentration on the slave trade, leads
to other events and developments being overlooked. Merseyside, like many other
northern industrial and commercial centres, was also a centre for positive
innovation and social progress. It was not by chance that today’s Russell Group
of universities was overwhelmingly located in the industrial north. Whether it
is the world’s first School of Tropical Medicine, Birkenhead Park, “Penny in the Pound”
worker health insurance or any number of construction innovations, Liverpool’s commitment to
innovation led the world, and arguably had more importance globally than any of
the physical environment that English Heritage and UNESCO seek to preserve. Liverpool’s current city
environment was the product of a culture committed to innovation and modernity of
its day, and reflected the community’s culture. Liverpool’s culture was
centred upon trade and sustained through the employment it created.
Since World War Two Liverpool has struggled to redefine
itself and recover from the impact of the extensive bombing damage, changes in
international trade and an almost constant stream of negativism directed at by
the UK’s media. That Liverpool has survived as a
city at all is quite surprising, given that by the 1980’s even the British
government was willing to voice consideration of formally abandoning it. Thus
while the nation, and international bodies like UNESCO, place inordinate value
upon a number of buildings in Liverpool, it does not
exhibit the same degree of interest or value for the people of Liverpool nor their ability
to sustain this architectural inheritance.
It is as though English Heritage and UNESCO regard Liverpool and other
communities as little more than theme parks that visitors may descend upon for
their entertainment. They are indifferent to the well-being of the community
that lives in and around these architectural edifices they value so much. They
have no interest in how these environments will be sustained. As publicly
funded bodies their existence is informed by their own culture that posits them
as “Guardians of the Public Interest”, yet neither of them is subject to the
democratic process. They arrogate to themselves the right to define the “Public
Interest” that they are defending. In their arrogance they assume that all
“right thinking” communities will place priority upon the preservation of
environmental inheritance above that of community well-being and economic
development.
The Liverpool Waters development offers Liverpool the opportunity to
turn around its fortunes and once more emerge as a commercial powerhouse, able
to provide all of its communities with gainful employment and a decent standard
of living. As commercial operator Peel Holdings Ltd is driven by the need to
generate profits and cannot call upon a vast public purse to fund its
activities, unlike English Heritage and others. As a developer Peel Holdings
has a prime interest in ensuring that these developments are successful and
self-sustaining. The by-product of such a major development should be the
heightening of Liverpool & Merseyside’s international profile as a place to
do business, and thus attract greater inward investment and be a catalyst for
wider regeneration. But it is at a price, and that price is the destruction of
some part of the older environment and changes in the city’s appearance.
English Heritage is threatening to seek Ministerial
intervention and a public enquiry, and with it a delay at best to the renaissance
of Liverpool. Peel Holdings Ltd has, understandably, stated that
they will abandon the development if this occurs. Understandably because they
cannot stand still waiting for the process to end, while there are business
opportunities elsewhere. If this occurs, then the market will respond
accordingly and relegate Liverpool to the league of
cities where developers cannot turn a profit. Once that occurs, then Liverpool residents might as
well abandon the city as they will have effectively lost control of it. They
will be like the impoverished aristocrat who finds themselves owner of a grand
pile, unable to dispose of it but unable to maintain it.
English Heritage, and to a lesser extent UNESCO,
demonstrate their total disdain for the democratic process and the expression
of the popular will. Further neither English Heritage nr UNESCO show any
consideration for the balance between authority and responsibility. Liverpool’s built
environment is the product of Liverpool’s communities, and
remains responsible for it. Yet knowing that Liverpool’s democratic leadership
have considered all the issues openly and decided to pursue a path towards city
revival, English Heritage has determined to ignore that and seek to oppose the
proposed development.
Although English Heritage might claim that its mandate
affords it the responsibility for challenging proposals it finds unacceptable,
it is in fact authority and power that it possesses. It has no responsibility
for the consequences arising from its actions. It will not compensate Liverpool and its
inhabitants for the lost opportunities, neither will it reimburse Liverpool for the
maintenance of the current city environment. The management and officers of
English Heritage will not live in the urban decay of Kensington or any other
run down part of Liverpool, and more than they will stand in
the dole queues for the want of work.
UNESCO’s threat to down-grade Liverpool’ status as a
“World Heritage Site” is, for most Liverpool residents,
probably fairly meaningless. What proportion of Liverpool’s inhabitants
derives its income from this status and city tourism? Tourism and other service
sector employment is notoriously insecure and poorly paid, and is often dependent
upon other industries to create wealth to sustain the city environment that it
relies on.
English Heritage and UNESCO regard Liverpool’s inheritance
solely in terms of its built environment, and in doing so show disregard for
its powerful and creative community-based culture. Towards the end of last year
I attended the final evening of the Liverpool Music Week and witnessed in
microcosm the spirit of Merseyside culture in the form of the “Infinite Love Orchestra”
performance as an example of international, collaborative, innovative
professionalism. It was a small “brick” of an intangible and constantly
evolving inheritance of very distinctive culture that is Merseyside. It cannot
be listed for preservation, nor awarded some accreditation by UNESCO, yet it is
upon these inherent values that Liverpool will experience a
renaissance.
I believe that Liverpool is at a crossroads
and whatever is the outcome of this will determine whether it will experience a
revival or simply drift endlessly into irrevocable decline. It is clash between
cultures and communities. If Liverpool inhabitants simply
stand silently hoping that the government will do the right thing and quickly
consider all the factors, then they are probably in for disappointment. English
Heritage knows that if it can force a public inquiry then it can stop this development
dead in its tracks, and that Peel Holdings Ltd will walk away.
I urge the people of Liverpool to vocally take a
stand and express their will very publicly. Their democratic representatives
have made a decision on their behalf, which an unrepresentative quango, English
Heritage, is seeking to overturn.
The government has placed special emphasis upon local
decision making and the strengthening of local communities, where those
communities take authority and responsibility for their futures. In making the
decision for Liverpool to approve this development, Liverpool
Council signaled its will, and that of the people of Liverpool, to take the
responsibility for their future. It is therefore the duty of this government to
respect that expression and support that decision.
Ultimately this is not about some old buildings, or a
cityscape, it is about democracy and communities taking responsibility for
building a sustainable future. English Heritage has had its opportunities to
articulate its objections and offer a viable alternative. Having lost the
argument, it should gracefully accept the will of the Liverpool people and work
with them to find some common ground to preserve what it values.
No comments:
Post a Comment