World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers

Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
General discussions about WHS Forum / General discussions about WHS /  

Irish T List additions

Author Solivagant
#1 | Posted: 12 Apr 2010 11:40 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I came across an article today regarding some new building development in Dublin - This, it was said, would detract from Dublin's UNESCO bid. ( 560.html )
Strange - I didn't know that Dublin was on Ireland's T List!
It appears that Ireland officially added 3 sites including Dublin as recently as 4 days ago (8 April 2010). But the other 2 (The Burren and Ceide fields) had been on Ireland's T list since 1992!! Perhaps they have been altered in scope/size?

So the number of European capitals which have rejected the possiblity of going for WHS inscription reduces still further! Amsterdam to come this year and now Dublin getting in on the act.

So which are left to gain an inscription? Below is the result of a quick trawl through my mental map of Europe and the current T List (so I may have missed something/got something wrong!!)

Not on T List
Reykjavik, Oslo, Helsinki, Madrid, Podgorica, Belgrade, Zagreb, Ljubljana, Monaco, Vaduz, Chisinau, Bucharest, Bratislava, Tirana, Yerevan and Nicosia (though I have never seen how Cyprus can count as "Europe")

T List only
Amsterdam, Dublin, Copenhagen, Sarajevo, Minsk, Tblisi

Author meltwaterfalls
#2 | Posted: 12 Apr 2010 12:34 
I'm really interested in that Dublin bid. I thought about in many times when I lived there but never thought there was the will for it.

I think the Tourism factor really is playing out with this propossal. In saying that there are some fine parts to the city, and I am very happy to see North Great George's street getting a mention as this was one of Dublin lovliest streets but was off many tourists radar due to it being in the less fashionable North Side of the city.

I will pour over this with great details.

Interesting points about the European capitals that have so far not gone up for inscription.

Regarding Helsinki wouldn't Suomenlinna count as Helsinki?

I guess Andorra could be added as well.

Author Solivagant
#3 | Posted: 12 Apr 2010 13:15 
Yes - apparently Suomenlinna is within the Helsinki city boundaries - The only Andorran site is also partly within the boundaries of the capital.

Author david
#4 | Posted: 12 Apr 2010 13:15 
I found the complete new irish tentative list here:,21466,en.htm

Author Khuft
#5 | Posted: 12 Apr 2010 13:21 
That's indeed quite interesting... Been to Dublin recently, and I was actually surprised - I didn't expect very much, but it proved to be quite interesting (in case you like Georgian architecture).

Re the other capitals you mention:
- Reykjavik: Iceland has only started participating in the WHC relatively recently, and it makes sense that they first focus on their incomparable natural sites.
- Oslo: Norway, on the other hand, was "inactive" between 1985 (when Alta was inscribed) and 2004 (Vega island); their TL is still relatively short, so who knows whether Oslo might not make an appearance soon...
- Helsinki: Helsinki is actually already represented via Suomenlinna (it's on an island in the harbour of Helsinki). Though Helsinki's neo-classical Senate Square and/or it's early modern architecture (e.g. train station; Alvar Aalto's buildings) might someday tempt Finnish authorities to re-propose Helsinki.
- Madrid: Madrid is a relatively new city (for Spanish standards), so there are less potential interesting sites in the city. Maybe the Gran Via, with its Belle Epoque/early 20th century buildings would be worth a WH seal? Though Paris's Grand Boulevards & Opera Garnier would be more representative of that architectural era (or Buenos Aires, for that matter). In all, I can't see Madrid becoming a WHS anytime soon - and Spain anyway seems to have thousands of other sites they want to inscribe... Final thought on this: Spain has for years pursued a strategy of getting WHS for all its diverse regions - and the Madrid Region already has a few (Escorial; Aranjuez). Maybe these are considered as sufficient to represent Madrid.
- Podgorica: Montenegro has no TL yet, as it is a relatively new country. No clue whether Podgorica has any worthwhile monuments - it's not even the former royal capital (that was Cetinje, apparently... maybe that city will make it on the TL?).
- Belgrade: I think Serbia is still sulking over the loss of Kosovo and has been quite isolated in the recent past. The TL currently only includes natural sites... I'm sure that once Serbia becomes more engaged in the WHC again, it will expand its TL to someday include Belgrade.
- Zagreb: given Croatia's love for proposing its various cities for inscription, it is indeed strange that Zagreb is not even on the TL.
- Ljubljana: Slovenia may rather at some point go for a Joze Plecnik serial site that might include that architect's landmarks in Ljubljana, Prague and Vienna - they already put his unrealized "Cathedral of Freedom" on one of the Euro coins.
- You could also add the following ex-Jugoslavian capitals: Skopje, Pristina (though Kosovo, of course, is not yet a member of UNESCO). Also, you forgot Albania's Tirana. I must admit that none of the 3 sounds very touristy...
- Monaco & Vaduz: probably for both the problem is that their most WH-worthy site is the prince's castle, which is still in the personal domain of the sovereign...
- Chisinau: tough one - I have absolutely no idea about what Chisinau has as landmarks...
- Bucharest: Ceausescu did a great job in destroying large parts of Bucharest, so presumably its prospects for WH fame are slim... Maybe one day the Palace of the People/Palace of Parliament will be considered worthy - as a testimony to megalomania (not unlike the Cheops pyramid and the original 7 world wonders, after all). Maybe this could work - Minsk is proposing its Soviet era architecture for inscription, after all.
- Bratislava: actually Bratislava is represented in Slovakia's TL - under the rather mysterious nomination "The Memorial of Chatam Sófer". Given Slovakia's quite long TL, it seems that Slovaks have really considered everything they have (e.g. "Fungal Flora of Bukovske Hills"; "the concept of the lenticular town core of Kosice"; "Pasture sites of Slovakia") and the fact that Bratislava does not appear directly may point to the fact that Slovak authorities realised that in general Bratislava would have limited prospects of winning WH status (its major site - the castle - is after all less impressive than the ones of Prague, Vienna or Budapest). So focusing on the Memorial of Chatam Sofer (= an old Jewish cemetery) is actually a clever way of getting a WH accolade for Bratislava nevertheless: it would be a distinctively Jewish site (one of the few in Europe! Normally jewish monuments are included in wider nominations of "historical centers of X"); it's associated with a major figure of European Judaism (the first site to be explicitly so); and it's a cemetery (only Stockholm's cemetery currently has WH status on its own, so there's room for more). Let's see whether the Slovaks are succesful with this...
- Depending on whether you consider Turkey to be European or not, Ankara would also be an example for your list.

Author Khuft
#6 | Posted: 12 Apr 2010 13:22 
Just saw you added Tirana - so sorry for that. But Skopje is still missing :-)

Author david
#7 | Posted: 12 Apr 2010 16:23 | Edited by: david 
Out of the capitals you cited I have been to Madrid, Bratislava, Ljubljana and Vaduz. In Madrid I think the Royal Palace is the most world-class place because of its extraordinary architecture by Filippo Juvarra and extraordinary interiors with for example frescoes by Giambattista Tiepolo and Anton Raphael Mengs (so an international team of very important artists that for example reminds Wurzburg) but iits nomination wouldn't make the WHC so happy because European palaces are generally thought to be over-represented on the WHL; maybe also other world-class sites could be found there. Bratislava is a really nice city but there it is not neither as a whole nor considering individual sites world-class and I think the memorial of Chatham Sofer (even if I haven't visited it) really doesn't stand any chance. However one of the two Roman sites of the "Limes Romanus" TL site, that of Rusovce, is situated within the territory of Bratislava and it is certainly supposed to get inscribed as part of the WHS "Frontiers of the Roman Empire" even before being proposed. Ljubljana is once again a beautiful city but only the buildings by Plecnik deserve to get inscribed. Vaduz is on the other hand an absolutely common Alpine village with an absolutely common Alpine castle so no chances with it.

Author meltwaterfalls
#8 | Posted: 15 Apr 2010 09:40 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
Back on the Irish T list issue, the new version feels a little muddled, however I do think they do present the best that Ireland has to offer interms of viable inscriptions.
This page has the full nominations:
Thanks for finding the initial link David.

Clonmacnoise is on there twice. Admittedly it is the finest of the Early Medieval sites that I have visited in Ireland but it seems odd to have it there by itself and as part of a serial site. Maybe they have been taking hint's from France on double inscriptions.

I think the serial sites make a lot of sense and have more of a chance of getting inscribed, I especially like the addition of Glendalough to the list.

It is also good to find out which forts are included in the Western Stone Forts proposal, and I am happy that I have actually reviewed one that is included.

On the subject of the Dublin proposal, I do like it, but it seems a little muddled and lacking any real focus. There are a lot of strengths but the description seems to flip around without really concentrating attention on specific places. I do like the fact that the location given as the focus is Henrietta St. which is a slightly 'ropey' part of the city (I speak not disparagingly of that as I used to live just a short walk away from it).
I think there could be something in expanding the evolution of the city from Georgian grandeur – Tenement squalor and the literary awakening that arose from it. This is all hinted at in the proposal but isn't really hammered home.
It leaves me wondering if this was something of a rush job. The Dublin of 2010 has a different outlook to the Dublin of the preceding 15 years or so. Then the focus was all on regeneration and building of huge grand towers and development opportunities. I'm wondering if the end of the Celtic Tiger and the hard times presented to property investors has brought about this sudden interest in preserving the heritage of Georgian Dublin.

I would be surprised if many of these end up on the list, however maybe the focus in on heritage in Ireland has been re-shifted and the renewing of the tentative list maybe the first step in the ramping up of inscriptions to help promote tourism.

Author Solivagant
#9 | Posted: 8 Jun 2010 03:36 | Edited by: Solivagant 
For future reference.
Some background as to why Killarney Park, Clara Bog, Blasket Islands and Aran Islands failed to survive the recent revamp of the Eire T List

Author Solivagant
#10 | Posted: 16 Jun 2010 06:27 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Nice new (launched a few days ago) site on all matters World Heritage - Irish!!

The minutes of the Expert Advisory Group putting together the new Irish T List are interesting generally as showing the sorts of issues which all countries need to take into account. They had advice from a UNESCO expert - a Dr Jokilehto. Find under "Publications".
The Nov 08 meeting introduces the "themes" considered for the Irish T list and the April 2009 one has a review of a whole lot of other sites which were considered - many of which I, for one, was unaware of. Some are "killed off" but others are "left open" for possible incorporation into future Irish T Lists after more research etc

Author Solivagant
#11 | Posted: 22 Feb 2011 14:26 | Edited by: Solivagant 
The "Céide Fields and North West Mayo Boglands" figured quite significantly in a BBC2 program on Wed Feb 16 - episode 2 from the series "A History of Ancient Britain" . It is well worth looking at on iPlayer if you have access (only available for 15 days after broadcast so 1 week has almost passed!) and also well worth finding out more by other means if you don't (for a start see ) !!
I was certainly unaware of the size/significance of this Irish T List site (perhaps the phrase "North West Mayo Boglands" put me off!!!). This what Wiki says about the place
"The site is the most extensive Stone Age site in the world and contains the oldest known field systems in the world. Using various dating methods, it was discovered that the creation and development of the Céide Fields goes back some five and a half thousand years" . I note it hasn't been reviewed on this site yet despite the regular presence of at least 1 "Hibernophile"!!

The whole TV series is well worth looking at by anyone interested in Ancient Europe. Despite the title it does venture beyond the "British Isles" (which geographic term normally includes the island of Ireland) in order to put the British sites in context -eg Neanderthal and Carnac so far among others.
This link leads to a site which accompanies the series
The series intends going through to 5th century AD - having started at the Ice Ages - a number of Britain's WHS are therefore likely to figure
This link leads to episode 2 on iPlayer containing the visit to Ceide Fields pisode_2/

Author meltwaterfalls
#12 | Posted: 14 Jul 2011 12:30 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
I was just poking around on, which is actually a pretty useful resource.

I came across a publication called Tentative List and World Heritage Status

It gave a decent introduction to many of the issues involved, without getting too academic. There was one bit I was interested in though.

Discussions are underway in the World Heritage Committee regarding the serial listing of
sites which are already separately inscribed on the List. France is currently considering
this option to combine several of its cathedrals into a single serial nomination. By linking
up individual World Heritage sites into one World Heritage serial listing, the European
numerical bias of the List could be reduced by sinking the amount of World Heritage
listings, while not reducing the actual number of protected sites under the World Heritage
Convention. This measure would not reduce the cultural/natural significance of each
individual site nor diminish the prestige value of the listings.

The nomination of cultural routes is another way of linking similar sites into one serial
listing. This type of World Heritage site should be based on historical cultural routes
such as the Route of Santiago de Compostela in Spain, inscribed on the list in 1993.
Cultural routes also have great potential as transnational nominations. France has its own
Routes of Santiago de Compostela World Heritage site, inscribed since 1998.
Discussions are now progressing between the two States Parties to join up these two
separate sites into one listing in the form of a transnational cultural route property.

I really hope this will come to something and it can help bring a little more balance to the list. The Santiago issue seems astoundingly obvious to most of us, but at least there is some discussion going on relating to it. It looks like perhaps the nordic countries are taking a lead as wel with the recent additions to the T-List that seem to indicate Viking sites may be joined into one serial site.
I'm not holding my breath but maybe it can lead to something.

That Irish World Heritage website actually seems pretty useful, so I may do a little more exploring.

Author Solivagant
#13 | Posted: 14 Jul 2011 15:48 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Sounds like "sleight of hand" to me which will not be as easy in practice as in theory!! Also whether it will really convince non European countries that they are thus being moved towards a fairer distribution of sites is another matter -are they really that naive!!

Merging sites hasn't happened often - I can only think of Te Wahipounamu which was created from Fjordland and Mt Cook - but it also had quite a large chunk of intervening land added too.

According to the Operational guidelines "Boundary alterations" are supposed to go through a full evaluation unless "minor". I can't see countries wanting to open up that can of worms again.

Also in many cases the Statement of OUV would need amending. You can't just use the OUV statement from one site or double up with the statements of 2 or more. A site containing say, 5, cathedrals surely has a different OUV from the separate statements of 5 different cathedrals? Or a serial nomination of 5 Viking sites is more than the sum of the original 4 old ones plus the new - or at least it ought to be or the amalgamation adds nothing concrete.

And then there is the issue of the Management regime for the combined/serial site. ICOMOS/IUCN seem to see it as very important that a single "site", even if containing multiple "locations", has a single management structure - certainly within one country. Now some multiple sites may have got away with less than this in the past but would that be allowed in future?

It will be interesting to see if anything comes of this - other than very much at the "edges" e.g a few combined routes. And can you see France/Spain NOT taking the opportunity to slip in sites in a few more communes etc to give even more locations the right to label themselves as WHS. If they were seen doing that it would cause some raised eybrows among non-European states I would expect!

Regading just the route of Santiago de Compostela. Spain could of course "show willing" and merge in Santiago itself and Burgos Cathedral thus reducing its total of sites by 2 without even getting involved with France. But this is what it said in 1993
"The Bureau requested the competent Spanish authorities to envisage the possibility of combining under one nomination the two sites already on the World Heritage List (e.g.
Burgos Cathedral (316) and the Old Town of SaintJacques-de-Compostelle (347) and the site
presently being proposed (The Path of Saint Jacques-de-Compostelle).
Session (1993): The Committee inscribed the site on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii), (iv) and (vi). In response to a suggestion made by the Bureau, the Delegate of Spain informed the Committee that Spain would like to maintain the already inscribed sites of Santiago de Compostela and Burgos Cathedral as separate properties on the World Heritage List in view of their individual and particular uniqueness."
(my emphasis)
And they were allowed to get away with it!!

General discussions about WHS Forum / General discussions about WHS /
 Irish T List additions

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. Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®