>>150404886
>But it cost the entire area UNESCO status, didn’t it?
Indeed. Still, there's a reasonable argument to be made that the docklands being redeveloped were, bluntly, a post-industrial wasteland, and preserving things in that state is no use to anybody.
I'd agree with the preservationist argument if there were some example of irreplaceable architecture or 'thing' of value that were to be lost - and believe me I'm one of those 'if something was built for a given purpose, then it should remain fit for that purpose' people - but that's not been the case. I suppose I think the waterfront should be something that people can enjoy as something tangible, rather than as a ... museum piece kept underneath glass.