World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /  
 

2012 WHC

 
 
Page  Page 5 of 7:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next »

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#61 | Posted: 14 May 2012 06:38 
Durian:
The ugliest town in Belgium, La Louviere will now has 2 WHS

My Belgian friends actually laughed at me when I said I was going to la Louviere or the boat lifts. Sadly I wasn't as forward thinking as you, and will have to make an additional visit to some mining sites should they be inscribed.

You got me thinking about ugliest town with a (or multiple) WHS. Žďár nad Sázavou home of the Zelena Hora pilgrimage church is a pretty underwhelming place, but I don't think anything would top La Louviere, will have to have a think about that one.

Author elsslots
Admin
#62 | Posted: 14 May 2012 07:47 
You could actually quite like another part of the Walloon mining WHS, the Grand Hornu. Quite a pretty example of neoclassical architecture.

Author hubert
Partaker
#63 | Posted: 14 May 2012 09:40 
Reasonable recommendations as far as I can assess.
No recommendations or at least deferrals for the castles, churches, monasteries, vineyards etc.
Mining heritage seems to be a major issue this year, although 109 separate sites and 353 remarkable objects in the French nomination are a little overdone for my taste.
And I like that the Opera House Bayreuth is likely to be inscribed.
So let's see whether the WHC will follow the recommendations.

One nomination is missing on the list above:
Sacral Complex on the remains of the Roman Forum in Zadar (Croatia) Def

Author Khuft
Partaker
#64 | Posted: 14 May 2012 13:20 
hubert:
although 109 separate sites and 353 remarkable objects in the French nomination are a little overdone for my taste.


I thought so too - in particular because in the same document ICOMOS chides Russia for having failed to demonstrate how each of the 3 new kremlins (Astrakhan, Pskov and Uglich) add value to the list on top of the 4 kremlins already inscribed (Moscow, Kazan, Novgorod and Suzdal) and then goes on to state that each element of a serial nomination should add an element towards Outstanding Universal Value:
"ICOMOS recalls that in serial nominations each component part is required to substantially contribute to the Outstanding Universal Value of the series, although the Outstanding Universal Value is constituted by the series as a whole."


I find it hard to believe that each of the 109 sections of the French nomination are necessary for that (in particular since the Belgian nomination seems to be satisfied with 4 segments).

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#65 | Posted: 14 May 2012 13:56 
And there is ICOMOS acting all "high and mighty" telling the WHC to follow its recommendations!

The trouble with "experts" is that they like to believe in their own infallibility. I hope the WHC takes the opportunity to put ICOMOS in its place. It isn't the font of all wisdom on these matters.

Author Khuft
Partaker
#66 | Posted: 14 May 2012 14:50 | Edited by: Khuft 
Or maybe size simply matters, and one has just to overwhelm ICOMOS with information. Concerning the >100 French component parts (which I doubt ICOMOS analysed in detail), the following statement appears:

ICOMOS considers that the series' components have been chosen with care and method for their individual quality, the value and wealth of their testimonies, and their participation in perfectly described landscape ensembles.

Really?

ICOMOS is just as harsh with the Rajasthan nomination as with the kremlins - basically, they state that the selection is the wrong one and a broader selection of forts should have been chosen (in particular the nomination covers only hill forts, while there are also desert, forest and water forts). When analysing the individual criteria under which the sites are nominated, ICOMOS also seems dissatisfied with the five sites chosen to represent the hill forts sub-segment.

Maybe India would have had better chances in simply nominating all existing Rajput forts as components of a "Rajasthan military cultural landscape"... Wikipedia lists around 20 such forts - a comparatively low number if you think of it! :-)

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#67 | Posted: 14 May 2012 15:13 
I wonder what sort of review system ICOMOS operates on its reviewers to ensure consistent (and fair!) judgements? And what sort of training the experts get to ensure this.

I also get no sense that the World Heritage Centre has added any value to the process. We cannot of course know how many versions an AB's evaluation has gone through before it is submitted/published but one would have hoped that they would have taken some role in sorting out issues like those raised by Khuft in relation to the Mining, Kremlin and Fort nominations.

On reflection the process isn't really very "open".

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#68 | Posted: 14 May 2012 15:34 | Edited by: winterkjm 
I prefer nominations that are not overwhelming. One example is the Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings with 11 components. The nomination could easily include 75 Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings, but the nomination (in my view) is strengthened by only including exceptional sites that each independetly add to the nomination.

ICOMOS seems to prefer this approach with the Le Corbusier nomination as well. Strange that concerning some nominations 100+ components seem to be perfectly acceptable.

Author Khuft
Partaker
#69 | Posted: 14 May 2012 15:58 
No worries, me too.

And normally countries appear to stick to smaller series... The usual suspects seem to be France (which together with Belgium managed to get everything remotely looking like a belfry on the list) and of course Spain with the >700 components of the Iberian rock art site.

Spain is itching again, btw: for 2013, they had planned an extension of the Route of Santiago de Compostela with 356 components! Fortunately (or maybe frighteningly?), it was deemed incomplete...

Author Durian
Partaker
#70 | Posted: 15 May 2012 21:27 | Edited by: Durian 
To be fair to France, I think this is quite clever for their nomination, this can be compared to Belgium nomination of Major Mines of Wallonia, since if we look carefully in the Belgium nomination on the four sites, each site including many element not only mine, but school, hospice, church etc. that related to miners which actually can be nominated as a long serial number like french did but Belgium decided to group all these separate small sites into one big site to ICOMOS. In case of France, there are 13 mines in the nomination file which actually similar to Belgium, the french decided to nominate smaller individual site as a long series. The result is the nomination of small sites not the whole landscape that can exclude the element not relate to the mines, also smaller buffer zone and easier to manage.

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#71 | Posted: 15 May 2012 22:38 
In choosing how to best nominate a serial property there are often two paths (both with varying degrees of success). Spain chose to nominate a huge area that showcased numerous examples of ancient rock art.

Another approach could have been to nominate a group of cluster sites in the region. Korea took this path with the Dolmen nomination, 3 clusters instead of dozens of sperate locations. There are dolmens all over the Korean peninsula, (some are even more impressive than some inscribed dolmen. The 3 locations were chosen to show the greatest variety, quantity, and best-preserved examples of dolmen found in Korea. I am sure Spain could have chosen a similar path if they wanted to, and perhaps achieved the same result. Maybe this is more preference than sloppy nominations and France and Spain are not just nominating everything under the sun. Maybe...

Author hubert
Partaker
#72 | Posted: 16 May 2012 02:00 | Edited by: hubert 
Durian:
To be fair to France, I think this is quite clever for their nomination,


It certainly plays a major role, how such serial nominations can be managed. Particularly for industrial regions it is necessary to allow further development and to meet the requirements of the Unesco. There are several examples for such conflicts. To define more sites and smaller buffer zones could be a clever strategy. And the acceptance in the population is higher if every town can include some objects.
However, to include 124 workers' estates and social habitats, 26 religious buildings and (under the item 'other facilities') a signalling box sounds strange.

Good examples for different strategies are the efforts in Germany to nominate their industrial heritage
The nomination of the Erzgebirge mining region (transnational nominatiion is expected for 2015) shows a trend similar to the French approach: there are almost 60 sites on the list.
A different example: The Ruhr is working on an extension of the WHS Zollverein for the new German tentative list. The previous list includes only about 20 objects. The strategy is to select exceptional sites representing the different aspects of mining.

Author Durian
Partaker
#73 | Posted: 16 May 2012 04:05 | Edited by: Durian 
I agree with you both that the french and spanish strategy is not a good example to show the best example that deserve to be WHS. We may need to look how the development of each nomination, in recent year France and especially Spain seem to appreciate the idea of nomination the whole landscape that thankfully most of them rejected by ICOMOS and WHC. I will not surprise if the first idea of French mines nomination come from the idea of industrial cultural landscape, and the ICOMOS report seem to reflect this spirit also. But how come it change to become this long serie which seem that they nominate all element of industry is still not known, but Dresden incident seem to provide us a good guess for reason that France may try to avoid the problem of future development on that landscape especially the long cultural landscape like Dresden, or Loire Valley. Actually I quite admire that France even put the signal box on the list as these show that they really commit to protect all element!, there are many examples that the main elements of WHS are so well protect that the smaller sites next door are totally neglected, but again to be listed does not guarantee the protection at all.

Author elsslots
Admin
#74 | Posted: 16 May 2012 04:33 
"THE bid for a third World Heritage site for the North East (Wearmouth-Jarrow) has been dramatically withdrawn, it emerged last night."

Read More http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2012/05/16/concerns-see-nort h-east-world-heritage-bid-stopped-61634-30977421/#ixzz1v1HNKObI

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#75 | Posted: 16 May 2012 10:17 
I just had a read through the ICOMOS report on Wearmouth-Jarrow. It seems pretty fair to me, and pretty much mirrors my thoughts on the site (i.e. It is interesting well preserevd and presented, but not of Outstanding Universal Value in its present ruined/ buried state).

But I guess those involved have to say they have a number of concerns with it to save face.

Page  Page 5 of 7:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next » 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /
 2012 WHC

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 ®
 ⇑