Liverpool Lost Its U.N. World Heritage Status. Now It's Thriving.
The English city protects its historical sites while embracing growth and redevelopment.

In 2021, Liverpool made global headlines when the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) revoked its World Heritage status, citing new development along the waterfront as causing the "serious deterioration and irreversible loss" of the area's historic value. Losing UNESCO's designation, though, only fueled the city's commitment to preserving its heritage while embracing growth.
The Royal Albert Dock is one of Liverpool's most iconic landmarks. When it first opened in 1846, it revolutionized global trade with its innovative design. Constructed entirely from cast iron, stone, and brick, the dock became the world's first noncombustible warehouse system. It was equipped with the world's first hydraulic cranes, halving the time to load and unload ships. The dock quickly dominated world trade, handling valuable cargo such as cotton, silk, brandy, and tobacco.
But just 50 years later, advances in shipping technology rendered the docks obsolete. After serving as a base for the British Atlantic Fleet and suffering damage during World War II, the dock sat neglected for decades—until its revitalization. In 1982, a regeneration deal transformed the dock into a vibrant hub of commercial, leisure, and residential activity. The site was restored, warehouses were repurposed into shops, restaurants, and museums, and the waterfront was reborn as a cornerstone of Liverpool's identity.
Liverpool received UNESCO World Heritage status in 2004. The designation recognized the city's historical significance in world ports and architecture, placing it in the same category as the Great Wall of China and the Taj Mahal. Liverpool's heritage site was divided into six areas, with the waterfront—home to the Royal Albert Dock—holding particular importance. In total, 380 features and 138 hectares (about 340 acres) were protected under this status.
Nearly two decades later, Liverpool became the third city to lose its World Heritage status, following the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary in Oman and Dresden's Elbe Valley in Germany. UNESCO argues that years of development irreparably damaged the Victorian waterfront. Initial objections arose when plans were unveiled to transform the docks north of the Royal Albert Dock into a mixed-use development, which UNESCO believed would threaten the site's heritage criteria.
Tensions escalated with the proposal to build Everton Football Club's approximately $973 million stadium in the north docks—an area that had been in decline for decades. The project's backers promised to revitalize one of Liverpool's poorest neighborhoods while preserving historical elements of the docks. But plans for the 52,888-seat stadium included partially filling in one of the historic docks—a move UNESCO deemed unacceptable. The stadium would significantly alter the city's skyline, the agency insisted, and lead to a "serious deterioration" of Liverpool's historical identity. In a 13–5 vote, UNESCO removed Liverpool from the World Heritage register.
Joanne Anderson, Liverpool's mayor at the time, called UNESCO's decision "incomprehensible," arguing that the organization would prefer to see a "derelict wasteland" than new development that could bring jobs and visitors to the city. Steve Rotheram, the metro mayor of the Liverpool City Region, said the decision didn't "reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground," emphasizing that Liverpool shouldn't have to choose between heritage and regeneration. After all, other historically significant sites, such as the Tower of London, have retained their World Heritage status even as high-rise construction has altered their surroundings.
Anderson noted that, at the time of UNESCO's decision, Liverpool's heritage sites had "never been in better condition, benefiting from hundreds of millions of pounds of investment across dozens of listed buildings and the public realm." In 2021, only 2.5 percent of the city's historic buildings were in disrepair, compared to 13 percent in 2000.
Despite the UNESCO delisting, Liverpool remains steadfast in its efforts to preserve the city's historical sites while embracing urban regeneration projects. Many ongoing developments are set to be completed in 2024, including the revitalization of the Canning Dock. Other projects are set to break ground soon.
As the Liverpool City Council proudly asserts, the city might have lost its UNESCO designation, but it remains the "supreme example of a commercial port of the time of Britain's greatest influence." Alan Smith, Liverpool's head of heritage preservation and development, declared that the city "didn't need" the heritage designation. "UNESCO may take our status, but you will never take our buildings," he added.
The Royal Albert Docks are a prime example of how Liverpool has successfully blended historic preservation with modern development. Studies show that repurposing the dock had minimal impact on its heritage value and, in some cases, even helped protect and enhance it. Instead of being abandoned, the docks are a vibrant destination where visitors can experience their rich history while enjoying a cup of coffee.
While UNESCO may have preferred that certain areas remain unchanged, the evolution of the waterfront continues to be central to Liverpool's cultural and economic life. Today, the area boasts several attractions, including the Merseyside Maritime Museum, Tate Liverpool, The Beatles Story Museum, and the International Slavery Museum. The area is also a bustling hub of hotels, restaurants, and shops, and a popular stop for the city's tourist hop-on hop-off buses.
Since losing its heritage status, Liverpool's tourism industry has grown by 21 percent, contributing $8.1 billion to the local economy. The city's job market has also grown by 13 percent since 2022, a testament to the city's ongoing growth and resilience.
Liverpool's identity continues to evolve, with the Royal Albert Dock at the heart of this transformation. The city has shown that it's possible to honor the past while building for the future—a balance that many cities aspire to but few achieve as seamlessly as Liverpool.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "No Longer a World Heritage Site, Liverpool Evolves and Thrives."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Being left alone by the UN is the best possible outcome.
Yup. So what if UNESCO delisted it. What was Liverpool getting by being listed in the first place and who asked the UN to do it?
Time to DOGE the UN, a cesspool of corruption.
Yeah abolish the UN and let the Liverpuddlians do whatever the fuck they want.
While UNESCO may have preferred that certain areas remain unchanged, the evolution of the waterfront continues to be central to Liverpool's cultural and economic life.
'course, you'll need to learn Arabic to enjoy any of it now.
US needs to leave the UN and STOP paying for it. When the US stops funding it, it won’t last long. The UN sounds nice as a concept, in reality it’s just a west-hating bunch of envious grifters.
It's not nice as a concept. The five permanent members with their veto were bizarre in 1945 for anything but a WW II victors stance. Its intentions were not good, they were "victors tell losers".
We should certainly zero out our donations, and tell them to move elsewhere and start paying their parking tickets.
"We should certainly zero out our donations,"
The US dominates the UN. Why rock the boat? Out of spite?
Why not just as a way to not waste money? You got a problem with not wasting money? You like wasting money?
Of course you do. You're a fucking statist.
"You're a fucking statist."
At least I know a thing or two about how to run an empire. The UN furthers the aims of the empire, like it or not. And you will pay for it, like it or not.
"Resistance is futile"?
Bluster and name calling is futile, but I wouldn't call it resistance.
The US should pull out of the UN.
The UN is THE largest kleptocracy in the history of our tortured planet.
Plus, it would save the American taxpayers billions of dollars.
So, those are two reasons why the DC swamp pigs will refuse to have the US leave the UN.
These historical associations are all grifters. "Stop changing" doesn't work with any people or organization. If those stick-in-the-muds want to preserve buildings as impractical expensive shells, they should buy the damn things themselves instead of using coercive government to tell other people what to do with their money and property, and oh by the way, still pay property taxes, and if they try to sell it to get away from all that expense and hassle, joke's on them, because they'll lose their shirt in the transaction since no one else wants to deal with white elephants either. Too bad! Shouldn't have built anything useful if you didn't want government telling you what to do with it. But of course, if you hadn't done anything useful with it, government would condemn it and take it over by eminent domain.
Government just plain sucks. Too bad this article completely ignores that.
"The English city protects its ..."
"the city's commitment"
"Liverpool remains steadfast"
No, jackass, people do those things. Individuals protect their property, make commitments, and remain steadfast.
The only honest statements in the whole article:
Individualism is a lost cause at this rag. Sucking up to government is all that matters. Bragging on government telling individuals what to do with their property is not libertarian or minarchist or anything remotely appropriate for free minds and free markets.
The Royal Albert Docks are not owned by an individual. It's owned by a real estate development company. A collectivity, to be specific. Preserving treasures from the past is a monumental task, and to expect an individual to shoulder such a burden alone is unreasonable. It takes concerted effort of many if it's to be done properly.
Uhhhh ... I've highlighted the pars you missed.
Granted, your statist mind might not grasp the context of the third one. You're still 0-2 for the obvious ones that even the dimmest of statists should recognize as statist organizations.
Thank you for highlighting the pars I missed. Your statist mind is kind and considerate and not all that dim.
We have a small town nearby where a "Historic Group" had it designated an "Historical District". The "Group" had to approve any changes or renovations to the buildings in the "District". Fort a few years it went well, until the leadership of the "Group" changed. They went power mad and had to control everything from the color of the paint on the houses to they types of flowers in the yards. Now the "District" is composed of abandon buildings. The Owners can't afford to keep them to the "Group's" standards and nobody else will buy them for the same reason.
And somehow people never grasp the concept of private property, that if they truly want to control all this "historic" property, they should just buy it, or negotiate an easement or covenant. Instead, they jump right into having the government do it by diktat.
"The Royal Albert Docks are a prime example of how Liverpool has successfully blended historic preservation with modern development."
Not really. Modern development in shipping means containerization. Liverpool, fearing the job loss that the modernization would entail, refused, leaving rival ports to be containerized. If modernization means turning antiquated infrastructure into boutiques and cafes, then it makes more sense.
Defund the UN.
These UNESCO cunts sound like the same elitist snobs who relocated Indians and hillbillies out of the US national parks, in order to create a more "natural" and pleasantly pastoral vision for the elites to enjoy.
UN funding should be limited to bonds backed by unpaid parking tickets.
"Liverpool Lost Its U.N. World Heritage Status. Now It's Thriving."
Are you listening, American mayors of large cities?
Dump the laughable UN status, and you just might start to thrive.
Oh, wait.
I keep forgetting the powers that be in large cities love to be told what to do, when to do it and how to do it like the mindless slaves to The State they are.
My bad.
How else will they get invited to Davos and Aspen, and be seen kneeling in front of our Global Masters?
After the American empire dies, the only positive legacy it will leave to history is the UN. That doesn't mean this UNESCO zoning commission is worth a shot. But it's funny as hell that you Bircher Mises clowns object so much to the idea that the US government was restrained by the UN
Officially, there are no empires now, only 190-plus nation-states.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/14/empires-with-expiration-dates/#:~:text=Today%2C%20there%20are%20no%20empires%2C%20at%20least%20not%20officially.
Only an empire could have made it possible to create an institution like the UN
I would compare it to large game in Africa. Regulated big game hunting has been the best method to preserve their animals, while the absolutist stances have only encouraged poachers and corruption, as well as pushing farmers to harming wildlife just to protect their crops and herds.