World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



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

Developed since inscription

 
Author Solivagant
Partaker
#1 | Posted: 7 Sep 2009 03:33 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Given UNESCO/ICOMOS's well known dislike of contemporary developments within inscribed areas and all the recent/current causes celebres re Dresden, Koln, Seville, Graz, Edinburgh, Bath, Rhine valley, Bordeaux, St Petersburg, Georgetown etc etc etc it could be interesting to try to develop a "connection" for those sites where a "Significant Development" HAS taken place without delisting, placing on the danger list, general warnings etc etc. It might also help us understand the sorts of developments which are regarded as acceptable or which get pushed through without any UNESCO action.

We already have a "connection" for "Built in the 20th Century" so we could limit connections to developments taking place since Jan 1 2000. An alternative would be to have "Developments taking place since inscription" which perhaps more strongly captures the point of interest (and also leaves the other Connection to those sites genuinely inscribed as being built in 20th century) . I personally would favour this approach which would mean removing Kazan to the new "connection" (The Kul Sharif mosque was opened in 2005 whilst Kazan was inscribed in 2000)

My first 3 are with completion/opening dates)
Venice - Ponte di Calatrava across the Grand Canal (2008)
Kazan - Kul Sharif Mosque inside the Kremlin (2005)
St Petersburg - "Flood protection Facility complex" passes through the inscribed Northern forts of Kronstadt (still under construction but northern section from Kronstadt was opened in Dec 2007)

We would need to frame the definition to avoid counting every small development hence the suggestion for "significant" (since "significance" depends on a range of matters including size, location, what was "knocked down" to build it etc etc). The development would need to be within the inscribed area rather than the buffer zone or elsewhere in the neighbourhood!

Does anyone know if the Zada Hadid development on the location of the former Kommod-Haus in Graz is going ahead/underway?

Author Nem
Partaker
#2 | Posted: 7 Sep 2009 10:39 | Edited by: Nem 
Except surely it isn't contemporary development per se which UNESCO 'dislikes'? It's 'naff' (see other thread) developments, ones which it feels will in some way spoil the OUV, integrity and authenticity.


http://www.patrimoniocastillayleon.org/salamanca/documentos/whc/2006/MemorandumVienna .doc

Author Nem
Partaker
#3 | Posted: 7 Sep 2009 11:49 
PS - an interesting aside regarding developments in Bath

http://www.bathheritagewatchdog.org/western.htm

which may also apply re Edinburgh.

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#4 | Posted: 7 Sep 2009 14:18 
Actually Graz is a good example of significant development that has added to the OUV (well in my book anyway). The Kunsthaus and the exceptionally beautiful Murinsel were built 4 years after inscription. However they are now an integral part of Graz appeal.
Would this support the view that Dresden was delisted because it's bridge was ugly, and not because it was a new development? ;)

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#5 | Posted: 8 Sep 2009 03:39 | Edited by: Solivagant 
So Els - we have 4 sites now for this connection.

We can also add Edinburgh as the Scottish Parliament building is within the inscribed area and was also constructed AFTER Edinburgh's 1995 inscription (Built 1999-2004 at great expense -414 million against initial estimates of 10-40 million! ). As for its merits - well it is all a matter of judgement really .....! Graz (see below) received a "yellow card" warning for building the Kunsthaus without notifying UNESCO but I can find no evidence that Edinburgh notified its intentions re the Parliament building - Does Nem have any knowledge on the matter? The issue has in any case been overtaken by more pressing new developments!

Re the Kunsthaus and Murinsel
Despite the fact that NO map of the inscribed areas of Graz is included in the documentation (they are in an annex - not provided!) there is no doubt that the Kunsthaus and Mursinsel ARE both within the core inscribed area of Graz. See
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2005/mis931-2005.pdf
"Graz was named the "European Cultural Capital" in 2003. The construction of the "Kunsthaus" (Art Exhibition Hall) was one of the projects within the framework of this event. The new construction is situated on the opposite side of the river Mur from the Historic Centre, but still within the core zone of the World Heritage Site"

Graz received a "warning" however for building the Kunsthaus without "permission". "The City of Graz is accepting that it was an error not to have contacted UNESCO and ICOMOS in advance concerning construction and other projects that affected the Historic Centre, such as the Kunsthaus,....."

UNESCO, in its "wisdom", decided that the structures were acceptable however, although the reasons given for the Kunsthaus rest more on the fact that the Austrian Government OKed it rather than that it is a fine building very suitable per se for the area! Also a matter of accepting a fait accompli I guess and at least winning the "future promise"!
"Graz has a long tradition of including modern architecture of high quality within the historic parts of the city. Following this tradition, the Bundesdenkmalamt (Federal Office of Historic Monuments), which is responsible for changes to the "Eisernes Haus," gave its permission for the consutruction of the "Kunsthaus" by decree of 10.8.2001. The "Mur-Insel" is another new construction in the middle of the Murau River. Despite its 21st century shape, it does not harm the historic complex as a contemporary addition."

Author Nem
Partaker
#6 | Posted: 8 Sep 2009 05:41 | Edited by: Nem 
I don't know that UNESCO was notified re the Scottish Parliament either, probably not as City of Edinburgh Council failed to notify it of more recent developments also. It's taken a long while for the council to recognise that it has obligations to World Heritage as well as it being a nice thing to attract tourists!

This was in the heady days before so much went pear shaped

http://www.holyroodinquiry.org/documentary_evidence/Edinburgh_Council/EC-1-107_TO_123 .pdf

including Queensbury House, which many thought butchered for its new role.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/building/queensberryHouse.htm

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-14.htm

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-00.htm

The inquiry (BBC digest)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3622267.stm

A very new development is the contentious Hotel Missoni, partly situated on the Royal Mile. However, it is doubtful that this could be considered to affect the OUV, authenticity and integrity of the WHS. It replaced a 20th century building by Robert Matthew which was refused a listing; many people disliked that and wanted to see it demolished. I suspect in time the Missoni will be demolished also.

Connections www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Connections /
 Developed since inscription

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 ®
 ⇑