CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
"
Marion Williams, director of the Cockburn Association, said the status was something people had “worked hard” to achieve.
“People thought it was important,” she said. “It’s not just something where somebody turned up in Edinburgh and said, ‘Oh, this is pretty, let’s give it heritage status’.”
But Councillor Cameron Rose, previously a key figure on the city’s planning committee, insisted it “wasn’t crucial” to the Capital’s success.
"
Good topic for debate.
I will be honest, I like the fact that there are no motorways cutting through the centre of Edinburgh, but that was also the case before 'WHS' arrived on the scene in 1995.
Seems to bring a lot of hot air and many column inches in the local papers, but apart from that I am a bit unclear what benefits it brings.
Do people actually visit Edinburgh because it is a WHS city??
Or do they not mind that they will be staying in a new luxury hotel which some may call ugly before visiting the Castle / historic sights etc?
I really dont know, but am probably more on Camerson Rose side.
"Do people actually visit Edinburgh because it is a WHS city??
Or do they not mind that they will be staying in a new luxury hotel which some may call ugly before visiting the Castle / historic sights etc?"
I think that's a fair point, in that at the moment WHS probably means more to the residents as, in theory, it stops monstrous hotels and the like being built. But if those hotels and other buildings start to proliferate would it then have the same draw? So not so much visiting because it's a WHS, but rather for the effects of it having the status?
We visited quite a few sites in Greece last year that were protected, but it's a remarkably different situation having an ancient burial chamber in the middle of nowhere, with no-one living near, and no chance of anyone wanting to build a motorway through it.
@WC Yes, and what they might need to do in Edinburgh is to be more specific about certain buildings and sites that are classed as WHS.
This is entirely possible, some towns in France have parts of them designated as WHS but other parts of the same towns are industrial and architectural nightmares !
The World Heritage status offers no additional protection to the city's historic environment. That comes through the planning system and the policies and priorities of the Council of the day (or not). Personally, I think it is nice to have, but would be no great loss. That said, I don't think the city is in danger of losing the status. I think the current "crisis" is a lot of hot air caused by a few blowhards.
Poor though they may be, Caltongate and the St James developments are an improvement on what was there when Edinburgh gained world heritage status. The Royal High development is all still to play for.
"Do people actually visit Edinburgh because it is a WHS city??"
Yes, but far more visit because of the things that have made it qualify to be a WHS.
There will always be a tension between preservation/conservation and development/improvement. It's unfortunate that the latter is usually led by developers/architects who want to make a mark (and money).
Edinburgh is fortunate not to have been bombed and too slow to build its proposed inner ring roads when they were fashionable throughout the UK.
In mainland Europe after WW2 road networks were built but many cities - even ones that were extensively destroyed - rebuilt in keeping with what had been there previously.
WH status hasn't really made Edinburgh say "no" enough, and now ScotGov has policies broadly in favour of development/ers (without adequately explaining its notion of 'sustainable development').
It can of course be argued that anything is better than a gap site (Edinburgh, notoriously, used to have quite a few) and better than a rundown bus garage/arts venue.
In the past development was fairly random and people now like the way (in many places) contrasting styles and ages jostle together.
But Edinburgh is the city of the formal New Town (I'm sure some people would have preferred the green fields to have remained at the time it was built) and the relatively coherent Old Town.
Edinburgh has avoided the towers and status buildings of London - which most people would regard as a good thing.
Few will miss what is currently on and behind Leith Street, but if the orange peel hotel is built the joke will be on the city.
The proposed hotel opposite St. Andrew House is fairly gross - irrespective of the setting, though the possibility of it reflects badly on the City (particularly, but not only, the Council) and its failure to make good use of what is there.
Edinburgh doesn't really deserve WH status unless it's just for a collection of legacy buildings.
I think the WHS is very important, for a number of reasons, but mainly because it seems to be one of the few really important sticks that the council and their planning department can be beaten with to try and prevent some of their potentially worst decisions. If it wasn't for the WHS, they'd probably already be breaking ground on the Golden Jobby at St. James Centre and the Rickety Pintglass at the RHS.
Anything that has the gravitas and clout to act as a straightjacket for the worst excesses of urban planning and development in Edinburgh is a good thing; even though it's not been particularly effective regards to things like the redevelopment of the south side of St. Andrew Square, Hotel Missoni, SoCo, Caltongategate etc.
There's two parties that realistically have a shot at forming the administration of the city these days and I don't think either the SNP or Labour want to be the party that went down in history as being the ones that lost the WHS (although currently they're both on the hook). Once it's gone, it's gone. It ain't coming back. It's a boundary that's crossed that a world heritage body has arbited as being "too far".
The reality is that the big developers are driven only by the £ signs, not by a burning desire to do what's good or right for the city. They don't care if they put limestone cladding up on a huge and prominent new development in a city centre predominantly faced with Craigleith sandstone, because limestone is cheaper and easier to source. If the planning department is weak / incompetent / poorly resourced / ambivalent or whatever, the WHS should act as a force that allows them to be much more dictatorial to developers trying to pull a fast one or cut corners with regards to materials or construction stytles in big new developments.
Strolling through the financial district of Manchester around Spinningfields and Hardman Boulevard on Monday I wouldn't have known I was in any other big city if it hadn't been for knowing where I'd gotten off of the train. I thought it merciful that Edinburgh had been spared the worst of the high-rise excesses that seem to be ubiquitous elsewhere.
If the WHS engenders a mindset amongst residents that we've got something special on our own doorsteps, something that's fairly unique and unusual then that must be a good thing if it gets so many people involved in responding to planning consultations on some frankly outrageous developments that the council is probably desperate to rubber-stamp through to get some gap sites off their hands, get a few short term bucks in and lose a 1970s eyesore (which ironically was built as something modern and futuristic and which I'm sure people were told at the time was the cutting edge of contemporary architecture, so deal with it).
"the Rickety Pintglass at the RHS"
Or the Bronze Cowpat as it has been dubbed.
"The World Heritage status offers no additional protection to the city's historic environment. That comes through the planning system and the policies and priorities of the Council of the day (or not)"
That's sort of what my 'in theory' was aimed at, I should have been clearer, apologies. It's as kaputnik mentioned, it's a stick that can at least be used.
"This is entirely possible, some towns in France have parts of them designated as WHS but other parts of the same towns are industrial and architectural nightmares !"
Is that not sort of the case in Edinburgh as well? It's specifically just the Old Town and New Town, all else is fair game? You're spot on though, France is an excellent example of bits of cities being wonderful remnants of the past, but just a few miles towards the outskirts and its all factories and Mad Max-esque desolation...
People who complain about the British planning system do need to visit France to have their eyes opened a bit...
I'm pretty much in agreement with comments above. It's an external check on unsympathetic development, but not a huge amount more than that. Egg on face of the Council if it's lost, but little more.
About 10 years ago I printed off the UNESCO WHS list and a pal and I ticked off the places we'd been to. I did very well on Greece, France, a few German places, a smattering of China, US etc. As a result, what's on the list is at the back of my mind when I'm on holiday - if it's something's on the list it's probably worth a look - but no more than that. I'm not booking holidays just to add to my ticks on the list.
I can't imagine there are many tourist who come to Edinburgh because of the WHS, except members of the International Council on Monuments and Sites... (and for those others that do, they'll probably still visit on the way to the Forth Bridge).
Scheduled Monuments and Cat A Listed Buildings are matters for HES (what Historic Scotland used to be before it merged with RCAHMS), not the council. SMs and Cat A buildings are both deemed to be Nationally Important and duly carry a lot of weight in the planning process (I speak as a former archaeologist).
More widely, WHS status shines a light on places that might not otherwise get attention. Maybe not such an issue for Edinburgh, which is already on the big stage. Definitely a consideration for parts of Scotland with nowt much else to attract visitors (eg Croy possesses one of the most remarkable stretches of the Antonine Wall, a WHS, as it's cut into solid rock).
Losing WHS Status would be embarrassing for the city and Scotland more widely. If nothing else, it kicks away another buttress against bad development.
Poor though they may be, Caltongate and the St James developments are an improvement on what was there.
I think you've hit the nail on the head of what seems to be one of the principles of the Edinburgh planning system when it comes to big and potentially controvertial new developments; if it passes the "well, it's better than what was there before" test then that's just fine, carry on.
Just because what was there before was "bad" or just "not good", it shouldn't be an excuse for the council not demanding the very highest standards and sympathy from big new developments being pushed by the organisations that have the architectural skill to deliver them and more importantly the big finance.
kaputnik - couldn't agree more. The Council seem unusually scared that the money men will do a runner if they demand higher standards from major new developments. There is a pile of cash to made from property investments in Edinburgh. If one developer doesn't think it can wring enough profit from a site while meeting the required standards, I'm sure another will be happy to take a punt.
The concern that we can't discourage 6* hotels and the like, when the city if crying out for sites to develop new homes, seems mad. It isn't the Council's job to maximise developer profits, but to enhance the city for all.
"It isn't the Council's job to maximise developer profits, but to enhance the city for all."
You might be wrong there...
The lease deal on the Royal High seems 'generous'.
'Incentives' for Harvey Nicks etc.
chdot - the 1p a year rent for the Waverley Market, on a 125 year lease, is my personal favourite.
Well didn't David Murray nearly manage to buy the whole thing for 40p at one point because of wording in a draft land long leases bill around common good land (which Waverley Market sits on)?
Answer; yes, he did. The council would have been obliged to sell the site to Murray for a proportion of its book value (which is £1), as he had 173 years left to run on the long leasehold. The wording of the act was amended in time to raise the threshold for obligatory sale of long leases to 175 years, thereby excluding the Waverley Market from the act.
For further reading, see the "Poor Had No Lawyers" by Andy Wightman (topically; he rides a bike, but not in the book), particularly if you are (as I was) under the impression that land reform is only relevant to the countryside, to crofters or to lairds.
@Morningsider, it's a 206 year lease which expires in 2188! (The original 125 year lease was extended in 1989)
"Do people actually visit Edinburgh because it is a WHS city??"
PS's post, above, suggests that this may be true for some people at least.
It's human nature to tick things/collect things. At least, human nature for a subset (probably mainly male) of humans.
But it's a minefield - how do you count a site as 'bagged'?
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=1&topic=12
"It isn't the Council's job to maximise developer profits, but to enhance the city for all."
No but simply giving planning consent/change of use can make a big financial difference, which is why councils try to get benefits - cash for pedestrian crossings etc.
The more experienced developers probably drive the hardest bargains...
"
The proposals have been lodged by club owner Tommy Diresta and would see the value of the site soar if planning permission is secured.
"
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/luxury-flats-plan-at-lap-dance-club-1-3917518
"
Surging Edinburgh tourism may make city ‘hollow city-museum shell’
Heritage watchdogs have warned that the Capital is at risk of being overrun with tourists – just weeks before the 70th anniversary of its festivals is celebrated.
Experts have claimed that “commercial over-exploitation” of the city centre is posing a serious threat to the “authenticity” of the Edinburgh World Heritage site.
"
the Capital is at risk of being overrun with tourist
We'd better pedestrianise it then.
Interesting philosophical question: What is an authentic city?
What is an authentic city?
Closer to home, why do tourists come to Edinburgh?
My experience, of friends-as-tourists, is that Edinburgh is: the Castle, Princes Street Gardens, Calton Hill, the Royal Mile, Holyrood, and Arthur's Seat. 'Authentic' is then taken to mean anything, but mainly architecture, that dates to earlier than about 1850. Newer needs to be remarkable in some way; newer needs to be in the guidebooks for a reason, otherwise people won't associate it with the city they're visiting, and it won't feature in the city's modern history as they see it.
Perhaps 'authenticity' is a proportion of the age of a place, or perhaps the harmonicity of integration of redevelopment. Is Birmingham an authentic city, when you go to the city centre and marvel at the cutting edge buildings made of stainless steel and glass, and only in your guidebook do you learn about the canals and t'mills and everything that used to be there. Is Glasgow still authentic, having lost almost all of its shipbuilding and having a motorway gash through its middle, but having retained the roots of its east end, and Kelvingrove, while now having 'big' developments like the BBC and the Hydro?
"Interesting philosophical question: What is an authentic city?"
How about 'if you can define it, it probably isn't'.
The problem with Edinburgh and plenty of other 'world class cities' is that there is a difficult balance between preserve/conserve/enhance/atttract (visitors) and the consequences, and how to manage them.
Having said that, this 'Edinburgh' is a very small fraction of the whole.
Is it for 'tourists', residents - long standing and more recent - or for commercial interests?
Clearly all (and more). It is the job of 'the City' (politicians and officials) to do their best to manage all this.
Easier said than done of course when cities/councils in the UK generally have fewer powers than many elsewhere in the world.
Edinburgh is a big theme park for architecture rather than roller coasters. I love walking through the new town, like being on a Disney set of ye olde regency, or the old town ye jacobins by name.
Authentic is one word, quaint, another, atmospheric baronial tenements built on land closure and clearances, leaching into beautiful Georgian architecture built on the slave trade. Are other words for it.
Edinburgh works for me because of the hills and the compact site, though sprawling into west Lothian now. Will stay relatively separate becUse of river to the north hills to the south. Won't become Leeds Bradford. Where no gap exists now between the two.
Walk up the crags or Arthur's seat and the psychogeography is there to behold.
"I love walking through the new town"
Is that just the bits without through traffic?
There have been many attempts to sell 'Edinburgh' as the Old Town and the New Town.
But there's clearly too much architecture for most people as they seldom move further north than George Street and Multrees Walk.
"
Psychogeography is an approach to geography that emphasizes playfulness and "drifting" around urban environments. It has links to the Situationist International.
Psychogeography was defined in 1955
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychogeography
I keep meaning to take more interest in this as it is clearly a mash of art, science, politics and perhaps mysticism - so serious and fun with perhaps some useful insights.
I'm sure Patrick Geddes would approve.
Doesn't 'Heritage' relate to the past. If so then unless you are destroying the past bits (ie architecture etc) then how is the Heritage affected?
@chdot, yes. Was buying a book in waterstones the other Friday after work, had time to kill before work night out. Went straight down to India Street, then down the steps that go to the private residence, but then on to Stockbridge, hada laff at some trousers in a shop called Dick's, went back up the steps, whilst being watched by tourists trying to figure them out. Went into Kay's Bar, all purple corded military gents, then struck out through the breeze block of Jamaica Mews, former slum tenements. On along Cumberland then London St and found a square off Gayfield Sq I did not know about, maybe Swan's Sq? Then that bit of rubber that often features in these annals, thence to Joseph Pearce. Call it flanneuring or stravaigin. It was mightily fine
Iain Sinclair is the doyen of psychogeography. He prefers walking, e.g. Round the M25. But the film Robinson is worth watching, though it is driving rather than walking.
Sinclair also good on bits of lost London. See my attempt at sub-Sinclair wandering in previous post.
"
"In Geddes's vision, any redemption from the plight of the industrial city is achievable only if the historic city, the Old Town of Edinburgh in this case, becomes recognised as the place to achieve any improvement of the city"
"
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts