Date post: | 11-Apr-2017 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | adrian-juscikowski |
View: | 175 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Stanley Dock
Heritage Interpretation and Management Plan
Produced by
Chris Han, Adrian Juscikowski and Megan Atkinson
May 2015
Contents 1. Purpose of the Plan
2. History and Description of Stanley Dock
3. Assessment of Significance and Summary of Current Condition
4. Implementation and Monitoring
5. Management Issues
6. Aims and Objectives
7. Bibliography
1 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN The purpose of this document is to establish a heritage management plan for Stanley Dock in
Liverpool which, at the time of writing, is undergoing a regeneration project due to be completed in
2020 [online] (Regeneration Investment Organisation). The document will assess the significance of
the dock’s built heritage and suggest various forms of heritage and cultural interpretation for the
site as a means of attracting visitors and providing them with a quality experience and understanding
of its importance (Ballantyne 1998).
2 HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF STANLEY DOCK
2.1 LIVERPOOL AS A PORT CITYThe city of Liverpool quickly expanded as a result of the growth in the 19 th century global maritime
network (Milne 2006). Due to the expansion in Irish Sea and Atlantic trades from the early 19 th
century, Liverpool’s great maritime age became well established with the development of a frontier
of docks (Milne 2006) (Fig. 1). The commercial docks that characteristically dominate Liverpool’s
waterfront were necessary because the River Mersey was too rough to handle shipping on and
therefore efficient cargo loading and unloading required sheltered anchorages and storage facilities.
The only way to create these conditions on the Mersey was to build enclosed docks (Milne 2006).
Fig. 1 Map of Liverpool’s frontier of docks along the River Mersey, showing the date each dock was
established (Milne 2006: 268)
2.2 SITE PLAN OF STANLEY DOCK
Fig. 2 Present day OS Map (1:2500) of Stanley Dock system, which connects to Collingwood Dock on
the left and the Leeds and Liverpool Canal on the right [online] (Digimap)
Built to connect the Leeds and Liverpool canal with the dock system, Stanley Dock is the only existing
inland Liverpool dock (Towers 2011). It is situated in the Vauxhall area of Liverpool, which lies in the
northern part of Liverpool’s dock system (Fig. 1). It compromises of a central dock and three
buildings: the recently converted North warehouse, the Tobacco warehouse and the South
warehouse (Fig. 2). The north warehouse is grade II* listed and the other buildings are grade II listed.
The dock lies within Liverpool City Council’s ‘Stanley Dock Conservation Area’ and is included in
UNESCO’s World Heritage Site for Liverpool (Liverpool City Council 2004). Other buildings and
features that are grade II listed within the site include the Hydraulic Tower (Fig. 3) and the Gate
Watchman’s Huts (Fig. 4) at the entrance points.
Fig. 3 View of the grade II listed Hydraulic Tower on the north side of the dock (Authors 2015)
Fig. 4 View of a Gate Watchman’s Hut on the north entrance to the dock complex (Authors 2015)
2.3 HISTORY OF STANLEY DOCKThe Stanley Dock complex was designed and engineered by Jesse Hartley in 1848 as part of
Liverpool’s rapid growth as a port city (Towers 2011). The mid-19th century complex compromised of
a north and south warehouse either side of the dock and a wall that surrounded the complex (Fig. 5).
The north and south warehouses demonstrate Hartley’s influential architectural style, as seen in the
arches and columns (Fig. 6 and 7) that are a very similar style to Albert Dock.
Fig. 5 1890s OS Map (1:2500) of Stanley Dock before the Tobacco Warehouse was built in 1901
[online] (Digimap)
Fig. 6 Photograph of Stanley Dock north warehouse, designed by Jesse Hartley in 1848 (Authors
2015)
Fig. 7 View of the south end warehouse that was designed by Jesse Hartley in 1848 (Authors 2015)
The warehouses were used to store various goods that were unloaded from incoming boats from the
international trade (Milne 2006). The north warehouse (Fig. 6) was used to store vast vats of rum
until this warehouse was severely damaged by bombing in the Second World War (Titanic Hotel
Liverpool 2013). In 1901 Stanley Dock was partially infilled and the Tobacco Warehouse was built in
front of the south warehouse (Towers 2011) (Fig. 8 and 9). The building’s massing overshadows the
original warehouses and is argued to be the largest brick warehouse in Europe (Towers 2011).
Fig. 8 1920s OS map (1: 1800) of Stanley Dock showing the later infill with the Tobacco warehouse
[online] (Digimap)
Fig. 9 View of the Tobacco Warehouse at Stanley Dock (Authors 2015)
In the post-war era, employment reform, financial crisis of dock owners and changes in shipping
methods dramatically reshaped Liverpool’s docks (Murden 2006 and Tallon 2013). Stanley Dock
continued to be used until 1980 when it closed down and fell into a state of dereliction and disrepair
(Towers 2011). A proposal for a regeneration project was approved in 2007 to turn the site into a
mixed use site of both commercial and residential units (Liverpool Vision 2013). The north
warehouse was successfully converted into a luxury hotel in 2014 and the adaptation of the rest of
the site aims to be completed by 2020 [online] (Regeneration Investment Organisation).
2.4 LIVERPOOL’S DOCK WORKERS AND COMMUNITIES
Fig. 10 View of dockers at work in Liverpool (Towers 2011: 98)
Due to the fluctuation of trade in port cities, the labour employment system of ‘casualism’ was
deeply entrenched in Liverpool’s docks until reform occurred from the 1960s (Wilson 1972). In the
19th century, men looking for dock work (known as dockers) would present themselves at the docks’
hiring stands, which operated in the morning or the middle of the day (Milne 2006). Depending on
the shipments that had arrived, the foremen would hire the required number of dockers to load and
unload shipments, then send away the rest (Wilson 1972). As can be seen in Fig. 10, it is often
claimed that dock work was unskilled labour requiring no more than ‘mere muscle’, but on the other
hand many people have argued that the work was actually specialised depending on the type of
cargo that was being handled (Phillips and Whiteside 1985). At Stanley Dock there was variation in
the type of cargo, but it became synonymous with tobacco storage from the early 20 th century
because the Tobacco Warehouse was built in 1901 (Towers 2011) (Fig. 11). However, the elusive
nature of what is defined as ‘skill’ in this instance is believed to have perpetuated the casual system
of employment in relation to the docks (Phillips and Whiteside 1985). ‘Much work on the Merseyside
was relatively unregulated and potentially dangerous and accidents and illness which interrupted
employment was common’ (Milne 2006: 204); the port employers were not responsible for the
welfare of the casual labourers which they only employed for the hours worked or tons moved
(Wilson 1972).
Fig. 11 View of dock workers organising cargo in the Stanley Dock Tobacco warehouse (Towers 2011:
100)
Due to the unpredictable available work, a close proximity to the docks was required to ensure that
the men could easily present themselves in the morning at the hiring stands (Milne 2006).
Consequently, ‘living within walking distance of the docks was almost essential’ (Milne 2006: 204)
because dockers had to know when a boat was coming in and work would be available (Pooley
2006). The casual nature of the labour and fluctuations in trade, meant that dockers gained an
irregular income – ranging from 5 to 26 shillings a week (Milne 2006). Therefore, the housing near
the dock had to be relatively cheap because of the massive variation in wages (Milne 2006).
Condensed terraced housing rapidly developed nearby and simultaneous to the development of the
docks (Pooley 2006). It became iconic to Liverpool’s 19th century morphological development (Pooley
2006) (Fig. 12). It was known as slum terraced housing because the overcrowding (Fig. 13) and
poverty led to poor health and the quick spread of disease. In the 1930s, attempts were made by
Liverpool City Council to alleviate these problems by creating new peripheral housing estates but the
dock workers were unwilling to move to these estates as they would lose out on the local knowledge
of available dock work (Pooley 2006).
Fig. 12 Picture of the typical crowded terraced housing that was in a close proximity to Liverpool’s
docks (Milne 2006: 209)
Fig. 13 1890s OS Map of condensed terraced in the Vauxhall area to the north of Stanley Dock [online] (Digimap)
In 1913 it was recorded that nearly 50% of Liverpool’s dockers earned less than 15 shillings a week
(Phillips and Whiteside 1985). The effects of casualism impacted the families of dockers in many
ways (Wilson 1972). The fluctuations in the dockers’ wages meant that many families were on the
border of acute poverty (Wilson 1972), having only two meals of bread and margarine a day (Milne
2006). As a result, many dockers liked to rely on secondary sources of income which was usually
acquired by the women of household either through domestic craft industries (Wilson 1972) or they
gained employment as live-in domestic servants for wealthier families (Milne 2006). In addition,
casualism is believed to have become cyclical in dockers’ families because the children grew up
undernourished, stunted and poorly clothed and subsequently went on to seek unskilled labour
themselves (Wilson 1972).
In 1967 Liverpool dock workers held the longest strike in comparison to other dockers in Britain in
order to achieve a level of fairness in pay through decasualization (Murden 2006). The employment
reforms that occurred that year, through the National Dock Labour Board, assigned port employers
with permanent employees, which for the first time placed responsibility for the provision of work
on these employers (Mellish 1972). The 1967 decasualization led to an increase in employment for
dockers nationwide, with 20,511 registered dockers recorded in the first year (Mellish 1972).
However, wider geo-political influences on port trade threw dockers into the midst of a bigger crisis
due to containerisation (Murden 2006). Container cargo vessels were able to maximise the earning
capacity of shipping through standardised dimensions, but they also became mechanised and
required fewer dockers to manually load the cargo (Wilson 1972). Sidled with the physical damage
to docks from the Second World War and financial crisis of dock owners, the emptying of
warehouses and closure of Liverpool and nationwide docks began in the 1970s (Murden 2006).
Overall, the availability of dockers’ work was heavily reliant on the fluctuations in the trade system
from the outset. Dockers were an integral part of the port system throughout Liverpool and Britain’s
period of industrial dominance, but their conditions of work and living were not reflective of their
importance. Reform arguably occurred too late as globalisation had shifted the way trade was
organised and the docks were unable to respond to this change leading to their eventual closure
(Milne 2006). Since the 1980s, famous waterfront regeneration projects have become characteristic
of a process of urban renaissance in the UK (Tallon 2013). The dockers no longer remain a visible
part of our heritage, but their place of work continues to contribute to the built heritage of port
cities.
3 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE AND SUMMARY OF CURRENT CONDITION
3.1 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE By using Historic England’s (2008) Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance, this document will
consider how the following heritage values – evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal –
amount to the significance of the site.
Evidential value
‘Evidential value derives from the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity’
(Historic England 2008: 28).
The main evidential value that Stanley Dock possesses is its tangible connection to Liverpool and the
nation’s industrial heritage. Although there are some architectural flourishes, the warehouses are
clearly built for function rather than form. In addition, there has been limited 20 th century
developments that have obscured its evidential significance as a dock complex, and therefore, it
remains as one of the few complete inland dock systems in Liverpool. Moreover, the site still
contains its original wall with gate watchman’s huts (Fig. 14) that are grade II listed within the
conservation area. However, the demolition of the surrounding slum terraced housing has
diminished the evidential value of the historical urban morphology that was crucial to Liverpool’s
development in the 19th century. This has greatly eroded the evidential connection of the dockers’
working conditions and living arrangements.
Fig. 14 The gatekeeper towers for Stanley Dock are grade II listed as part of the original wall (Authors
2015)
Fig. 15 The North warehouse, which has been converted into the Titanic warehouse, has Hartley’s
characteristic architectural style of arches and columns (Authors 2015)
The dock’s connection to the architect and engineer Jesse Hartley [online] (Regeneration Investment
Organisation) is evident in the architectural style of the arches and columns (Fig. 15) – which creates
connotations to the famous Grade I listed Albert Dock complex also in Liverpool. Its layout and
existing buildings and machinery (Fig. 16) help give an insight into the environment for the
waterfront workers in the Industrial Revolution and yield evidence about the past human activity of
the space.
Fig. 16 View of the Tobacco warehouse and visible machinery (Authors 2015)
Consequently, the evidential value of Stanley Dock is one of its most important heritage values
because it shows the later infill of the dock with the building of the Tobacco Warehouse in 1901 (Fig,
16), remains in its original entirety and provides evidence of the industrial development of the city
and the country. But the surrounding demolition of 19th century housing has impacted the way the
landscape can be understood in terms of its connection to the community.
Historical value
‘Historical value derives from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be
connected through a place to the present. It tends to be illustrative or associative’ (Historic England
2008: 28).
Stanley Dock’s historical value lies in its associative connections to the industrial and maritime
workers. Additionally, it has both an illustrative and associative connection to the architectural style
of Jesse Hartley because of the characteristic arches and columns that are similar to Albert Dock (Fig.
15). It has remained an accurate representation of 19th century and very early 20th century
warehouse and dock complexes, but its significance has been diminished by the influence of wider
economic changes and its subsequent disuse and dereliction since the late 20 th century.
Fig. 17 View of the connection to the Leeds-Liverpool canal at the east side of the dock (Authors
2015)
It has been designated a heritage asset at local, national and international scales: Stanley Dock
Conservation Area by Liverpool City Council, Grade II and II* listed buildings and a World Heritage
Site by UNESCO in 2004. Its industrial connections are therefore widely recognised as influential
parts of the collective industrial heritages. Furthermore, it has illustrative historical connections to
the Leeds-Liverpool canal (Fig. 17) and therefore also has important historical connections to the
development of the canal network.
Aesthetic value
‘Aesthetic value derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation
from a place’ (Historic England 2008: 30).
People will draw sensory stimulation from the red brick building material that is characteristic of
Liverpool’s 19th century industrial buildings. Furthermore, the massing of the buildings are significant
to the aesthetic value, as the Tobacco Warehouse is the largest brick warehouse in Europe (Towers
2011). The massing also mirrors the socio-economic prowess and dominance the city had up until
the late 20th century (Towers 2011). People will also draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from
the sublime associations of the architectural design of the complex that is juxtaposed with the visible
waterfront of the River Mersey. In addition, surrounding designated features such as the grade II
listed Victoria clock tower in Collingwood Dock (Fig. 18) add to the aesthetic value because it
highlights how Liverpool’s waterway systems and docks were interconnected.
Fig. 18 View of Collingwood Dock, which is connected to the west of Stanley Dock, and its grade II
listed Victoria clock tower [online] (Pennine Waterways)
The complex’s aesthetic authenticity has been untouched by 20th century development and the
machinery and buildings remain visible for the public. Many of the original windows have been
reused in the recently regenerated North warehouse and the same process will be applied to the
South warehouses (Liverpool Vision 2013) – which increases the ‘authenticity’ of the aesthetic value.
However, with the obsolescence and abandonment of the docks since the late 1980s (Towers 2011)
the aesthetic value has been eroded by the lack of maintenance and the state of disrepair that some
parts currently exist in (Fig. 19).
Fig. 19 View of the Tobacco Warehouse in the current, 2015, state of disrepair and abandonment
(Authors 2015)
Communal value
‘Communal value derives from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom
it figures in their collective experience or memory. Communal values are closely bound up with
historical (particularly associative) and aesthetic values, but tend to have additional and specific
aspects’ (Historic England 2008: 31).
Since the 1980s the Stanley Dock complex fell into a state of disrepair and dereliction (Fig. 19) and,
like many other industrial buildings, became a symbol of economic decline and low prosperity (Strike
1994). Previously, the dock area was a place only for workers (Towers 2011) and therefore, with the
current regeneration project underway, the site will become more accessible to the public and once
more be a symbol of economic prosperity. This will greatly add to its communal value as people can
better understand its historical significance and reap aesthetic and evidential value from the existing
fabric.
People will relate to the dock complex because it remains a symbol of Liverpool’s industrial heritage
and relates to the city’s historical development. This is integral to defining people’s ‘sense of place’
(Historic England 2008). The space is recognised at all heritage designation scales – local, national
and global – which means the community will make associative connections through the site to the
important role and dramatic changes to society that occurred in the Industrial Revolution (Historic
England 2011).
The regeneration project may negatively impact the legibility of the buildings and how they were
originally used, but because their use is obsolete in the ‘New Economy’ (Tallon 2013), it is the most
viable option to ensure that the buildings continue to be tied up with the community’s cultural
meanings and memories of the space. As previously mentioned, its tangible connection to the
community has been removed and therefore the site on the one hand remains ever more important
as it is a remnant but also contradictorily represents a disconnection to the city. Therefore, an
interpretation of the site would be useful to communicate information and not negatively impact
the legibility of the site for the community (Historic England 2013).
3.2 SUMMARY OF CURRENT CONDITION The site is currently in a partially completed stage. The north warehouse has been converted into a
hotel and conference centre (Fig. 20). The Tobacco warehouse (Fig. 21) and south warehouse,
however, remain in a derelict condition. But work is underway to convert these warehouses into
apartments
Fig. 20 The recently regenerated grade II* north warehouse has been converted into a hotel and
conference centre
Fig. 21 Work is currently underway to convert the abandoned and derelict grade II Tobacco
Warehouse into an apartment complex (Liverpool Vision 2013)
4 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
4.1 INTERPRETATION MATERIAL By evaluating existing dock interpretation, such as that already offered at Albert Dock in Liverpool,
the authors found this focused on the international narrative of dock systems: colonialism, trade and
slavery [online] (National Museums Liverpool). The authors identified there was a ‘gap’ in the
heritage interpretation of local and, even, national narratives of the dock systems. As previously
mentioned, the evidence of the Stanley Dock’s connection to its working community has been
greatly eroded. Therefore, the suggested heritage and cultural interpretation material will
incorporate previously excluded memories into the public sphere (Macdonald 2009) and emphasise
some of the lost historical evidence by focusing on dock workers and their communities.
Interpretation Boards
Three interpretation boards will be placed around the site each covering a different topic: history of
the site (Fig. 22), life of a docker (Fig. 23) and dockland communities.
Fig. 22 Sample of the ‘History of the Site’ interpretation board (Created by Authors 2015)
Fig. 23 Sample of the ‘Life of a Docker & Trade’ interpretation board (Created by Authors 2015)
To ensure the interpretation is fully appreciated, the interpretation boards should be strategically
placed so they are visible but not obstructing important historical views (Hems 2006). The authors
have suggested that the interpretation boards should be placed in three locations (Fig. 24). The
boards will be angled rather than standing vertically at 90 degrees, as seen in the example in Fig. 25.
This will contribute to the conservation of the site’s significance.
Fig. 24 Map of the location of interpretation boards [online] (Digimap). Annotated by the authors.
Fig. 25 View of the angle of interpretation board that will be used at the Stanley Dock [online]
(Shelley Signs)
Phone and Tablet App
It could be considered there is often a conflict between heritage interpretation and conservation;
the former tries to engage with site visitors, whilst the latter attempts to reduce permanent damage
to the historic fabric of buildings (Hems 2006). Modern technology could be a way to overcome this
conflict (Bath 2006). The use of technology has many benefits: it allows off-site interpretation, the
reduction of damage caused by visitors, it does not create unsightly intrusions to the landscape,
different narratives can be easily represented and a wider demographic can be accessed (Bath 2006).
It is proposed that a ‘Stanley Dock’ app will be used to interpret the site (Fig. 26). The app will be
operable on both a smartphone and tablet. Historic information about dock workers and their
communities can be found on the app and used offsite (Fig. 27). However, an additional map feature
will allow the visitor to interpret the site as they walk around it – it will use GPS to identify where the
user is located (Fig. 28). The app will then show historic pictures of the part of the site they are
looking at (Fig. 29). A prototype of this app can be found at: https://marvelapp.com/b4121h
Fig. 26 Sample of the front page of the Stanley Dock app (Created by Authors 2015)
Fig. 27 Sample view of the dockland communities information page on the app (Created by Authors
2015)
Fig. 28 Sample view of the map gallery section of the app (Created by Authors 2015)
Fig. 29 Sample view of a historic picture that will be given to the user of the app (Created by Authors
2015)
Themed Tours
It is recognised that building a trip around a particular theme such as heritage or culture offers the
opportunity for a true connection with a region, historical event or other areas of special interest
(About Travel 2015). Heritage tourism is a growing industry in the UK, as towns and cities look for
innovative ways to capitalise on their historic assets and to promote them as part of a package that
differentiates them from other places (Tallon 2013).
Themed tours can last for an afternoon, day or weekend. Most themed tours are led by experts who
provide special insight into the events, places and people related to the theme (About Travel 2015).
The main company for this type of heritage interpretation in Liverpool City Centre is provided by the
popular Visit England quality assured theatrically led ghost and history tour company Shiverpool.
Their tours explore the city's most famous locations whilst also telling the history of the site during
an entertaining and theatrical performance. The tours are inclusive and have no age limits; they are
popular all year round and have scheduled tours every week of the year (Shiverpool 2015). A
partnership with Shiverpool would be the ideal way to access an already established client base and
growing audience.
There are a number of reported hauntings in Stanley Dock and its warehouses throughout its history.
As part of the Shiverpool Tours they would tie in these ghost stories with the historical aspect of the
site, including information about the workers, local residents and the conditions in which they lived
and worked. The company also offers the option for coach or mini bus tours, which could be used for
the short journey to Stanley Dock from the city centre. The tours can accommodate up to 40 people
at a time and are offered at various times throughout the day, again ensuring that a wide audience
and age range can be targeted. Temporary and non-intrusive modes of interpretation, such as tours
and re-enactments, are a good way of increasing people’s understanding of the site without
permanently impacting the fabric of the buildings (Hems 2006).
4.2 MONITORING AND EVALUATION Heritage is a concept always in flux, and ‘new things become heritage all the time’ (Howard 2003:
186). Therefore in order to remain ‘relevant’, it is important that the suggested interpretation of the
site is regularly reviewed and analysed. The site interpreters should frequently ask ‘why do we
interpret?’ rather than just ‘how?’ (Ballantyne 1998: 10).
In the early stages of its implementation, the plan should be reviewed every 6 months and then take
a longer review plan if believed necessary. Feedback should be collected on site by questionnaires
and interviews with visitors and should aim to identify the motivational needs of the visitors (Trainer
et al. 2012). In addition, the ‘Stanley Dock app’ should offer an optional feedback prompt to users
and for the themed tours an optional feedback sheet will be sent to people who booked onto the
tours via e-mail. This information should be collated with the on-site data to create a tailored and
needs-based interpretation program for Stanley Dock (Trainer et al. 2012).
5 MANAGEMENT ISSUES
5.1 ACCESS
Fig. 30 Map of present day Stanley Dock, the boundary wall to the site is highlighted in red which
shows the main entrance and access points to the site (Liverpool Vision 2013)
‘[E]veryone should be able to enjoy easy and inclusive access to the historic environment’ (Historic
England 2012: 5). As this plan offers an interpretation for Stanley Dock, management issues of easy
access and safety need to be considered to ensure the site can be equally appreciated in a safe
manner. The walls around the dock complex offer 6 entrance points, but there is limited available
space for onsite parking for heritage visitors (Fig. 30). The surrounding streets have available on-
street parking, but encouraging this may cause problems for the local residents and businesses. As a
result, it is suggested that public transport to the site is encouraged; the nearest train station,
Sandhills, is less than a 15 minute walk and a taxi boat or shuttle bus between Albert Dock and
Stanley Dock could be established.
5.2 SAFETY
Fig. 31 Photograph of the cobble stones at the south end warehouse of Stanley Dock (Authors 2015)
Currently, the navigation of the site would require walking on uneven cobble stones (Fig. 31).
Cobbles can be difficult for disabled people to walk on, will restrict wheelchair use around the site
and may create a trip hazard for visitors (Historic England 2012). The authors suggest that a smooth
path or paving stones (similar to those currently used in Albert Dock or at the North warehouse (Fig.
32)) should be laid down to allow easy access around the site. However to conserve the significance
of the site, these should only be laid down around the dock and en route to exit and entrance points.
In addition, secure railings around the unprotected dock and waterway connections (Fig. 33) will be
implemented so that visitors can view the heritage values without being put at risk.
Fig. 32 View of the walkway next to the regenerated north warehouse at Stanley Dock that has used
paving stones for improved access through the site (Authors 2015)
Fig. 33 Photograph of the Tobacco warehouse and entrance point to Stanley Dock from Collingwood
Dock (Authors 2015)
Conservation is about managing change to best sustain the heritage’s significance, whilst also
recognising there are opportunities to reveal its qualities for present and future generations (Historic
England 2013). Although some of the suggested changes, such as those to the cobble stones, may
decrease aspects of the significance at Stanley Dock there are greater cultural gains to be reaped
from allowing the interpretation of the site to be equally accessed by everyone (Historic England
2013). And as is outlined in the guidance, ‘[t]here are no standard solutions because every access
improvement must be assessed in the context of its own site.’ (Historic England 2013: 41)
6 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
6.1 HERITAGE INTERPRETATION ‘Interpretation has played a crucial role in regenerating declining urban, industrial and rural areas
through tourism and conservation programmes. Equally though, it has been accused of trivialising
history and inculcating within the public a reactionary, superficial and romantic view of the past’
(Uzzell 1998: 11). The aim of this interpretation plan is to attract visitors to the site and educate
them in the social history of the docks, looking specifically at Liverpool but also offering a comment
on the workers that played a crucial role in the collective heritage of Britain’s industrial and maritime
age. The plan will acknowledge that by presenting the past and present as separate concepts,
historical narratives can inadvertently offer an idyllic and misrepresentative view of the past
(Hewison 1987). However, the aim of this plan is to ensure that Stanley Dock’s built heritage is
demonstrated as significant because of its evidence of the past industrial age but to also highlight its
potential to continue contributing to Liverpool’s economic prosperity. The interpretation aims to
offer an analytical view of dock workers: their roles within the dock and the standards of living and
work.
6.2 VISITOR DEMOGRAPHICSApproximately 5.8 million people visited Liverpool’s Albert Dock waterfront in 2013 and this figure
has been steadily increasing since 2010 [online] (McDonough 2014). It is clear from the statistics that
waterfront and industrial sites are important visitor attractions in heritage tourism. The authors
have, subsequently, identified this as a growing heritage market to tap into. But the interpretation
offered at Stanley Dock will consider a different waterfront narrative than the one currently offered
at Albert Dock to avoid repetition and a disengaging visitor experience.
Visitor research shows that the major demographic visiting heritage sites is an older population aged
50 or over (Richards 1999), classified as ‘Affluent Greys’, they contribute to 7.9% of the population
(CACI 2007). In addition, ‘Secure Families’ that are 15.5% of the population are often targeted in
heritage tourism (CACI 2007). Therefore, the authors decided to tailor the various interpretations to
allow different demographics, from older adults to children, to ‘experience new things’ and ‘learn
new things’ – which are identified as the main motivations for visitors (Richards 1999). However,
there is a massive ‘gap’ in attracting other demographics of the population to heritage interpretation
sites. This includes young adults, such as ‘Educated Urbanites’ (CACI 2007), and working class
families. Consequently, it is believed that the use of modern technology will help broaden the
demographic of the heritage interpretation to create a more inclusive experience.
As part of the National Curriculum, students in Key Stage 3 (ages 11-14) deepen their knowledge of
and understanding of the political power and conflicts in 19th and 20th century British and
international history (Department for Education 2013). This can include ‘Britain as the first industrial
nation’ (DoE 2013: 4) and its impact on society. Consequently, the interpretation information offered
about industrialisation, the development of Liverpool as a port city and the role of its waterfront
workers at the interpretation boards and on the app will be tailored to an audience of Key Stages 3
and above. The Shiverpool company will be able to offer an engaging experience that will attract a
wider demographic and could be used for younger educational audience as a result.
6.3 SUMMARY In summary, the main aims and objectives of the management and interpretation plan include:
1. Attract visitors, locals and ‘day trippers’, to the site to increase the understanding of its
significance
2. Create an enjoyable and inclusive experience for affluent greys, families and KS3+
educational visitors
3. Aim to also engage young adult and working class demographics that are often overlooked
in heritage tourism visitor profiles
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY About Travel (2015) Themed Tours [online] Found at:
http://seniortravel.about.com/od/typesoftravelforseniors/a/Themed-Travel.htm [Date accessed
29th May 2015]
Ballantyne, R. (1998) Problems and prospects for heritage and environmental interpretation in the
new millennium: an introduction, in Uzzell, D. and Ballantyne, R. (eds) Contemporary Issues in
Heritage and Environmental Interpretation: Problems and Prospects, The Stationary Office: London
Bath, B. (2006) The use of new technology in the interpretation of historic landscapes, in Hems, A.
and Blockley, M. (eds) Heritage Interpretation, Routledge: London
CACI (2007) Acorn: Smarter Consumer Classification, Found at:
http://www.esds.ac.uk/doc/6069/mrdoc/pdf/6069_acorn_userguide.pdf [Date Accessed 27th May
2015]
Department for Education (2013) National Curriculum in England: History Programmes of Study for
Key Stage 3, Found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239075/
SECONDARY_national_curriculum_-_History.pdf [Date Accessed 22nd May 2015]
Digimap [online] Present day OS Map of Stanley Dock (1:2500), Found at:
http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/os [Date Accessed 2nd May 2015]
Digimap [online] Historic Roam, Found at: http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/ancientroam/historic [Date
Accessed 2nd May 2015]
Hems, A. (2006) Introduction, in Hems, A. and Blockley, M. (eds) Heritage Interpretation, Routledge:
London
Hewison, R. (1987) The Heritage Industry, Methuen: London
Historic England (2008) Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance
Historic England (2011) Designation Listing Selection Guide to Industrial Structures
Historic England (2012) Easy Access to Historic Buildings
Historic England (2013) Easy Access to Historic Landscapes
Howard, P. (2003) Heritage: Management, Interpretation and Identity, Continuum: London
Liverpool City Council (2004) Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City: Official Map and Guide, Found
at: http://www.liverpoolworldheritage.com/images/printable_map_with_street_names.pdf [Date
Accessed 2nd May 2015]
Liverpool Vision (2013) Stanley Dock: Liverpool, Found at: http://www.liverpoolvision.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03/Stanley-Dock-A4-2pp.pdf [Date Accessed 1st May 2015]
Macdonald, S. (2009) Unsettling Memories: intervention and controversy over difficult public
heritage, in Peralta, E. and Anico, M. (eds) Heritage and Identity in the Twenty-First Century, Oxon:
Routledge
McDonough, T. [online] (2014) Albert Dock visitor numbers rise for the fourth year in a row, Found
at: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/business/albert-dock-visitor-numbers-rise-6539972 [Date
Accessed 21st May 2015]
Mellish, M. (1972) The Docks after Devlin, Heinemann Educational Books: London
Milne, G.J. (2006) Maritime Liverpool, in Belchem, J. (ed) Liverpool 800: Culture, Character and
History, Liverpool University Press: Liverpool
Murden, J. (2006) ‘City of Change and Challenge’: Liverpool since 1945, in Belchem, J. (ed) Liverpool
800: Culture, Character and History, Liverpool University Press: Liverpool
National Museums Liverpool [online] International Slavery Museum, Found at:
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/index.aspx [Date Accessed 2nd May 2015]
National Museums Liverpool [online] Merseyside Maritime Museum, Found at:
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/index.aspx [Date Accessed 2nd May 2015]
Pennine Waterways [online] Liverpool Canal Link, Found at:
http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/liverpoolcanallink/link61.htm [Date Accessed 6th May 2015]
Phillips, G. and Whiteside, N. (1985) Casual Labour: the unemployment question in the port
transport industry 1880-1970, Clarendon Press: Oxford
Pooley, C.G. (2006) Living in Liverpool: The Modern City, in Belchem, J. (ed) Liverpool 800: Culture,
Character and History, Liverpool University Press: Liverpool
Regeneration Investment Organisation [online] Regeneration Project: Stanley Dock – Liverpool,
Found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regeneration-project-stanley-docks-
liverpool-gdv-130m/regeneration-project-stanley-docks-liverpool-gdv-130m [Date Accessed 1st May
2015]
Richards, G. (1999) Heritage Visitor Attractions in Europe: A Visitor Profile, Interpretation, 4(3), pp.
9-13
Shelley Signs [online] Shelley Signs Interpretation Boards, Found at:
http://www.shelleysigns.co.uk/overview/interpretation-board/ [Date Accessed 27th May 2015]
Shiverpool (2015) About Shiverpool [online] Found at: http://www.shiverpool.co.uk/about.aspx
[Date accessed 29th May 2015]
Strike, J. (1994) Architecture in Conservation, Routledge: London
Tallon, A. (2013) Urban Regeneration, (2nd edition), Routledge: London
Titantic Hotel Liverpool (2013) Built to Last…Here to Stay, Found at:
http://www.millsmediagroup.com/Downloads/Titanic%20and%20Rum%20Warehouse%20Fact
%20Sheet.pdf [Date Accessed 27th May 2015]
Towers, B. (2011) Waterfront Blues: The Rise and Fall of Liverpool’s Dockland, Carnegie Publishing
Ltd: London
Trainer, L., Steele-Inama, M. and Christopher, A. (2012) Uncovering Visitor Identity: a citywide
utilization of the Falk visitor-identity model, Journal of Museum Education, 37 (1), pp. 101-114
Uzzell, D. (1998) Interpreting our Heritage: a theoretical interpretation, in Uzzell, D. and Ballantyne,
R. (eds) Contemporary Issues in Heritage and Environmental Interpretation: Problems and Prospects,
The Stationary Office: London
Wilson, D.F. (1972) Dockers: the impact of industrial change, Fontana: Suffolk