World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



| Begin | Reply | Search |             Start | The List | Community | Blog
Countries www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Countries /  
 

USA

 
 
Page  Page 23 of 24:  « Previous  1  ...  21  22  23  24  Next »

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#331 | Posted: 23 Dec 2018 00:06 
Ah alas our plans are on the trash heap again.

Dinosaur National Monument is closed so there we go.

Good job we come to visit family and friends or else this constantly closing down of parks would really start to destroy reasons to travel here.

I visited Belgium several times when it didn't have a government and was still able to do everything I wanted, alas not the same case here.

Anyway gives us more time to focus on Christmas activities I suppose.

Hope you manage to get something good out of your long weekend too!

Author mrayers
Partaker
#332 | Posted: 23 Dec 2018 00:13 | Edited by: mrayers 
Yes, that is very unfortunate. When I went to the Caverns web site this morning, I saw that the Caves were closed, and I felt bad for you (and embarrassed for the continued dysfunctionality of the system here).

I am keeping my fingers crossed, since my visit next month will be my one and only chance to see the Caverns.

Paquime is one that I have seen, and while it's not a major site, at least it would have been a pleasant alternative.

Hope your luck improves! (Edit: same to you, meltwaterfalls)

Author Colvin
Partaker
#333 | Posted: 23 Dec 2018 02:46 
Oh, wow. Sorry to hear both of your plans have been altered because of this shutdown, winterkjm and meltwaterfalls. The timing of this is rather awful, coming over Christmas.

I'm not confident any of this will be resolved before the new Congress is sworn in come January, but I sincerely hope it will be over by early January (and hopefully in time for your visit to Carlsbad, mrayers). I think a lot of Americans would like to see Congress lose their pay during shutdowns as an incentive to work harder and earlier to pass a budget and not run into scenarios like what we have now.

Author mrayers
Partaker
#334 | Posted: 28 Jan 2019 20:02 
to continue the topic of Carlsbad from above...

I haven't had much "good luck," in general, during the last couple of years, but maybe things are turning up for me now.

I booked my current trip in November, and this is one is primarily for birding, but, of course, I welcomed the chance to pick up a few WHSs along the way. Consequently, I decided to add a visit to Carlsbad Caverns after I had all my other destinations worked out, and it was not simple, given the fairly remote location of the Park.

Then the Clown Show in DC began in December, sadly fouling the plans of two veteran members. "Surely, this will be resolved by the time I arrive on Jan 26" I thought.

Well, on Friday the 25th I spent all morning killing time in the Dallas airport, and the news on the screens was mostly of the "No end in sight for the shutdown" variety. Nevertheless, I boarded the small, but expensive flight to Carlsbad I had booked. After arriving in the late afternoon, I picked up my bike, which I had shipped ahead, assembled it, and rode the 33 km to White's City, NM, the closest accommodation to the park.

Much to my surprise, when I checked in, the receptionist told me that the government had finally reopened, just hours before! But, would the Caves in the park be accessible during the next two days when I would be in the area? Well, of course the National Park Service is more efficient than the executive and legislature, and everything had already reopened on Saturday morning. :-) I decided to make my visit on Sunday, just to give them a little extra time.

It was a worthwhile visit, even with the extra tension, and the Caverns are definitely an excellent WHS. One benefit of visiting in January, the day after a long closure, was that the number of visitors was relatively low. When I walked into the cave through the natural entrance, I was the only human in sight for almost the entire way. Nice!

I hope that the dysfunctional US government doesn't ruin the future plans of any more community members (I myself have plans for two more national park WHSs this May), but I don't think we should be very optimistic about that.

Author Colvin
Partaker
#335 | Posted: 28 Jan 2019 21:28 
How awesome that your trip to Carlsbad worked out with the government reopening just in time! The visit sounds amazing - I'd take caverns without crowds any time if I had a choice! Hope your next park visits in May work out, too.

Author carlosarion
Partaker
#336 | Posted: 1 Feb 2019 00:43 
Chaco Culture and the surrounding area around it may be compromised if this pushes through:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/politics/feds-move-ahead-with-oil-and-gas-leases-n ear-world-heritage-site/article/542191

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#337 | Posted: 8 Jun 2019 12:30 
The 20th Century Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright [Extension]

I would be surprised if Japan did not pursue this transnational extension. In addition, The Frank Lloyd Trust may welcome additional FLW sites which have expressed interest.

"Buildings that may be considered for a future extension to the nomination are: Ward Willits House (Highland Park, Illinois, 1902), Tazaemon Yamamura House (Ashiya-shi, Japan, 1918), Alice Millard House / La Miniatura (Pasadena, California, 1923), S.C. Johnson Administration and Building and Research Tower (Racine, Wisconsin, 1935; 1944), Paul Hanna House/Honeycomb House (Stanford, California, 1936), Herbert and Katherine Jacobs House II (Madison, Wisconsin, 1946). The nomination dossier includes information on how these components could further contribute to the proposed outstanding universal value of the series and to the attributes that convey it. ICOMOS considers that, when the assessment of required conditions will be completed, these structures could enhance the integrity of the series." ICOMOS

Author mrayers
Partaker
#338 | Posted: 8 Jun 2019 14:46 
winterkjm:
S.C. Johnson Administration and Building and Research Tower

I have never seen this building in person, but I think it really needs to be added. I think it's one of Wright's best works.

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#339 | Posted: 8 Jun 2019 22:51 
Yeah I'm really happy to see FLW added to the list. It seemed odd that the SC Johnson Wax factory was removed from the original list of components. I hope it does eventually get added back in, but I won't hold my breath on it. Do we know why it was originally dropped (it may have already been discussed, I'm struggling to recall)

Author Colvin
Partaker
#340 | Posted: 9 Jun 2019 01:14 
The S.C. Johnson Wax Headquarters didn't make it onto the original list of ten sites for this proposal, but Frank Lloyd Wright's other major building with a tower, the Price Tower did make it onto the list. Both the Price Tower and the Marin County Civic Center were dropped when the nomination was revised to eight sites. I rather liked the Price Tower when I visited it in 2016, but it looks like the World Heritage Site evaluators view the Johnson Wax Headquarters as the more significant work to recommend for future inscription in an expansion, possibly because it includes both an innovative pillared workspace and Wright's first take on tower architecture. I'm just thrilled to finally see Wright getting recognition as a recommended example of cultural world heritage.

Author Zoe
Partaker
#341 | Posted: 9 Jun 2019 01:33 
And his workshop is not included either? On purpose?

Author vantcj1
Partaker
#342 | Posted: 10 Jun 2019 12:25 
winterkjm:
The 20th Century Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright

It's great to know that finally some of FLW's works will be inscribed. From a document you had published on the forum some time ago (the comparative analysis, I think) it was clear that there were chances to later increase the list of sites as an extension. All of them are worthy of inscription (especially the S.C. Johnson complex at Racine, WI) and it's great that ICOMOS has agreed on that potential.

As an aunt of mine lives in Oak Park, IL, very close to the Unionist Temple and many of his works, I look forward to go there in the future and maybe make a tour up to Wisconsin to see Taliesin and other works of him.

In 2001 I was in New York City on a one-day-tour from Massachussets and passed in front of the Guggenheim museum...I knew what it was, who had designed it and why it is so significant...but the museum was not covered in the tour and my travel partners were definitely not so interested in architecture...so, a near miss.

Author GaryArndt
Partaker
#343 | Posted: 10 Jun 2019 13:30 
I'm surprised that the S.C. Johnson building isn't on the list and the Guggenheim is. I get that the Guggenheim is more famous and in a populated area, but the S.C. Johnson building is far more important architecturally.

I live just 4 hours away from Taliesin, I grew up in Wisconsin, yet I've never been there! I think if/when this gets on the list, I'll finally have to make a trip down there to visit.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#344 | Posted: 14 Jun 2019 10:13 | Edited by: Solivagant 
GaryArndt:
I'm surprised that the S.C. Johnson building isn't on the list and the Guggenheim is. I get that the Guggenheim is more famous and in a populated area, but the S.C. Johnson building is far more important architecturally

Zoe:
And his workshop is not included either? On purpose?

It might be of interest to us WH travellers and "FLW-ophiles" to pull together and document the history of this Nomination as a means of trying to understand the inclusions and exclusions and possible reasons for them. Herewith -

a. The Sep 1990 US T List included 6 separate entries for FLW buildings. This was relatively early in the history of WHS and Tentative Lists so the latest "custom and practice" regarding serial sites was not in place. The 6 sites were - Unity Temple (UT), Robie (R), Taliesin (T), Taliesin West (TW), Fallingwater (FW) and the FLW "Home and Studios" (FLW H+S)

b. In 1991 the US actually nominated T and TW but they were referred pending a study into Modern Architecture nominations

c. In Jan 2008 the US put forward a new T List which included a single FLW entry consisting of 10 buildings – UT, R, T, TW, FW, Hollyhock (HH), the SCJ Admin Complex (SCJ), Guggenheim Museum (GM), Price Tower (PT) and Marin County Civic Centre (MC). I.e. compared with the 1990 list the FLW H+S had been dropped and there were 5 additions. Of the additions - HH was a relatively early work (1918-21), 3 others were late works (Design dates - GM 1943, PT 1952, MC 1957). The SCJ spanned a longer period from the mid 30s through to mid 40s across its 2 elements.

d. Sometime between Jan and Aug 2012 the Jacobs House (JH) was added to this T List entry, thus increasing it to 11 buildings. This was another "Mid career" building designed 1936. The addition wasn't publicised via a renewed date for the T List entry but just "appears" (source – Wayback Machine) - but a good "late addition" as it survived through to inscription!

e. However, the July 2016 nomination only included 10 buildings and excluded SCJ even though the T List has, until the present, continued to include 11 buildings including SCJ.

f. The 2019 nomination is for 8 buildings with PT and MC having been dropped from the 2016 nomination.

Looking just at SCJ, there was, as early as 2008, clearly an intention to include it – but it had already been excluded by 2016 without adverse comment in the evaluation of that nomination. This year's revised nomination evaluation includes the following comment – "Buildings that may be considered for a future extension to the nomination are ....... S.C. Johnson Administration and Building and Research Tower" and "ICOMOS encourages the State Party to proceed to the extension of the series in the future, when the conditions for the additional components are established.")

This latter comment would seem to imply that there is some impediment to the inclusion of SCJ. What might it be? A major issue regarding the non inscription of sites in the US has been the "power" given to private ownership which effectively prevents the State from limiting the use of property via Inscription if the owner doesn't agree. The selected buildings are all owned either by the Government (HH), a single private individual (JH) or a non-profit organisation (all the others). SCJ alone belongs to a Company – privately held by the Johnson family. The 2 sites removed since 2016 are Government (MC) and Non profit (PT). I wonder if there was some problem in getting the Johnson family to agree to the restrictions over the use of the buildings and surrounding land which would inevitably follow a WHS inscription?

I note that ALL 11 T List components of the serial property are listed on the "National Register of Historic Places" and recognized as "National Historic Landmarks". This is presented as being "the highest possible national protection" and sounds "great"! Nothing more would be needed surely? However, on looking up what it means in practice, it appears that the designation only "affects actions resulting from decision-making on a Federal level" - not in itself a very strong restriction!! As ICOMOS notes "The protective measures for each component of the series have been set out in the nomination dossier in detail. These comprehensive (but disparate measures) include conservation procedures, the designation of Historic Districts and Historic Landmark status, municipal zoning ordinances, covenant agreements, historic/cultural monument protection ordinances, charters, as well as deed restrictions and trust agreements". Perhaps SCJ doesn't have strong enough versions of the latter and its owners were just not prepared to agree to further restrictions? I can't find anything on the Web which points to a reason for the exclusion of FCJ when the US had originally (2008) wanted to include it and ICOMOS is clearly positively inclined towards it - can anyone else?

Another possibility is that SCJ has lost a degree of authenticity during its use as a company HQ across the decades with the changes and renovations which will have occurred. If that were the case ICOMOS would hardly have recommended its future inclusion? In fact ICOMOS has been remarkably tolerant of such alterations- "modern buildings have been the object of extensive restoration works, including replacement of original components parts, in order to respond adequately to functional requirements or adaptation to new uses" and "component sites present an acceptable degree of authenticity; the changes and replacements of material component parts must be understood as a means to keep their forms and uses."

Regarding the non inclusion of FLW's house and workshop as raised by Zoe. It appears that the US recognised as early as the revised T List of 2008 that the nomination of FLW buildings needed be far more than a homage to the great man. "Associative" sites such as his Workshop were never going to cut it unless they added something of OUV. It has taken the US some time to move away from "hero based" nominations (Washington's House/Farm??!!) and even the 2016 nomination failed largely because "Currently the only link put forward in the nomination dossier is that of the architect. It is places that are inscribed on the World Heritage List for the ideas and associations that they convey". The Workshop would not have been a good addition in the face of such comments!

Incidentally - the inscription of Unity Temple (UT), Robie (R), Taliesin (T), Taliesin West (TW), Fallingwater (FW) takes place almost 29 years after they first appeared on a T List!!! This seems a long time and leads me to wonder what the "record" is for length of time between first appearance on a TL and Inscription??? Perhaps we should have a "Connection" which includes the longest examples?? Greater than 25 years??? Depends on how many would be picked up I guess. ELS - can you analyse the List for length of time between T List appearance and inscription? We have the data for most cases if not 100%? There may be "problems" over "splittings" and "amalgamations" - but it would provide a good "starter"

Author elsslots
Admin
#345 | Posted: 14 Jun 2019 12:00 | Edited by: elsslots 
Solivagant:
ELS - can you analyse the List for length of time between T List appearance and inscription? We have the data for most cases if not 100%?

I don't think I have that data readily available - after a site becomes a WHS, the link with the previous TWHS disappears (and the TWHS info as well).
I can have a look at the Site History data, I add the info if it was known as part of a former TWHS (for example the 2007 Revision info at https://www.worldheritagesite.org/list/Primeval+Beech+Forests)

-> 35 years for former TWHS Monts Pollini (Italy 1982) to get into the Beech Forests WHS!
-> 27 years for Al Ahsa -> includes former TWHS Ibrahim Palace (Hufuf) and Sahud Palace (Al-Mabraz) both 1988

Page  Page 23 of 24:  « Previous  1  ...  21  22  23  24  Next » 
Countries www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Countries /
 USA

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message


 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

 
 
 
www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®
 ⇑