World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
General discussions about WHS www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / General discussions about WHS /  
 

Nominations for 2010

 
 
Page  Page 3 of 4:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  Next »

Author Walter
Partaker
#31 | Posted: 22 Mar 2010 14:12 
They is a site in dutch about Amsterdam's nomination
http://www.centrum.amsterdam.nl/wonen/monumenten_en/unesco
with a downloadable map (bottom right) of the nominated area.

As I don't understand Dutch, I am not sure it is accurate.
But it seems to uncludes mcuh of the interesting canal area of Amsterdam.

Author elsslots
Admin
#32 | Posted: 22 Mar 2010 14:58 
It says that the canalzone is the core nomination, and the rest of the historic inner city is the buffer zone

Author Durian
Partaker
#33 | Posted: 22 Mar 2010 20:19 | Edited by: Durian 
Thank you very much for your information. It is very interesting that the core zone is not include famous sites like Dam square, Nieuw Markt, train station or even the red light district! The buffer zone is understandable to exclude the modern stadhuis from the core zone, but Rijkmuseum, not even in the buffer zone! But at least all tourists who pay for canal tour can be sured that they really visit the core zone of world heritage site, if Amsterdam becomes one!

Author Khuft
Partaker
#34 | Posted: 23 Mar 2010 18:28 
That's indeed a bit surprising - the description on the WHC website does mention Dam Square, Rokin street, and even the train station and the Amsterdam Bourse by Berlage (finished only in 1903)...

http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/469/

If the nomination focuses on the medieval and the 17th century city though, as the first sentences of the description state, it's understandable that the train station, the Bourse, and Rijksmuseum would be excluded from the core or even the buffer zone (the Rijksmuseum was finished in 1885 in neo-renaissance style).

Could it be that the Dutch government decided to reduce the core area after the filing of the Tentative List?

Author Durian
Partaker
#35 | Posted: 23 Mar 2010 20:53 
Khuft:
Could it be that the Dutch government decided to reduce the core area after the filing of the Tentative List?


I'm not sure about that, but does anyone know what was the reason why Unesco rejected Amsterdam during the 90's nomination?

I personal believe that the buffer zone is the area of landscape integrity from the core zone which should be included to protect and make the core zone utmost perfect to be inscribed as WHS. In case of urban landscape in recent year nomination, there are many good examples - Sydney Opera House, the buffer zone covered the Harbour Bridge and almost whole inner Sydney Harbour; Genoa, its buffer zone is actually whole historic city; Mantua, its buffer zone covered all the three Lakes surrounding the city. So I expected this kind of landscape integrity to be put in Amsterdam buffer zone plan as other European cities' nomination did and that why I'm surprised that Rijkmuseum is not included as the straight view from the inner city toward the museum is truly a rare vista in the city liked Amsterdam

Author elsslots
Admin
#36 | Posted: 14 Apr 2010 10:55 | Edited by: elsslots 
Amsterdam City Council rejects ICOMOS advise to limit core zone to canals

Oh oh - this may cost them the nomination I guess.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#37 | Posted: 14 Apr 2010 16:50 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Els - Is there any chance that you could clarify the "Dunglish" (and the background/geography) of this Google translation of the article you cited, so as to clarify why the "powers-that-be" seem so reluctant to do what ICOMOS wants! After all, the usual request from ICOMOS is for the the size of nominated areas to be INCREASED! One might have thought that the opportunity to gain WHS inscription with a SMALLER area would have been grasped with alacrity since it means far less hassle etc whilst still giving the "whole" of Amsterdam the title in most people's minds :-

"Alderman Hans Gerson (PvdA, Monuments):''This section is part of it, for historical buildings around it, because the original seventeenth-century town planning concerns. We should not overestimate the empty places by subway construction have emerged.''
UNESCO Fact is that the entire right bank of the river outside the heritage area should continue. Gerson:''Our answer is that the Amstel with both banks and the piece to Roeterseiland essential to the concept.''
Sensitivity criticized the plan of the central district two monuments on the Binnengasthuis Land abort. But that explains Amsterdam ignore. Gerson:''The district has already made. A reliable government can be difficult to come back here. We can not legally be reversed.''
Only two elements make a gesture Amsterdam. One is that the bicycle shed next to Central Station following the refurbishment of the square is not above the "line height" of the station should be.
A second guideline is to remove the reconstruction of the Herring. UNESCO has long been opposed to rebuilding and reconstruction and value authenticity. Here is the church do agree. Gerson:''The heritage, the public should show something original. No reconstructed tower with a sign: "This is like the object that this was ever a few feet away. Reconstruction only in cities where war has destroyed half the city.''The alderman is - "just like connoisseurs" - rebuilding the tower is not brilliant plan "and speaks of" a purely UNESCO position.


If I understand the translation correctly, Meneer Gerson appears to be saying that
a. Legally it is to late to make adjustments to reduce the boundary. Do you understand why? One might have understood it if he had said that it was too late to increase it!
b. The entire concept depends on the areas already identified being included particularly both banks of the Amstel. Any idea why?
c. 2 "concessions" have been made - The rebuilding of the "Herring tower" would appear to have been relevant but the first of these by the central station is surely outside the "canal area" as we understood from the map of the proposed area previously published anyway? By the way -that map seems to have "disappeared" from the latest version of the link you provided above -can you "find" it again?
Correct????

Author elsslots
Admin
#38 | Posted: 15 Apr 2010 00:42 | Edited by: elsslots 
Here is the area on Google Maps . The red marker is on Roeterseiland, within the area on the right side of the river Amstel that ICOMOS wants to leave out of the nomination. In the same area also is a large road called Weesperstraat, which ICOMOS calls "ugly and messy".

(if you do not see a red marker, search for "Roeterseiland Amsterdam").

- There are 2 17th century buildings on the Binnengasthuisterrein of which already has been decided that they will be demolished. Legally it's too late to come back on that decision. ICOMOS obviously wants that stopped.
- The City of Amsterdam says that the right bank of the Amstel is an essential part of the 17th century city planning, although parts of it have empty spaces because of the construction of the metro
- One of the concessions is that the bicycle parking (!) next to the Central Station will be limited in height. This map shows the whole nomination in red, with its core zone limited by a yellow line. The Central Station indeed is located in the buffer zone.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#39 | Posted: 15 Apr 2010 04:42 | Edited by: Solivagant 
So there are just 2 "outstanding" issues
a. The demolition of 2 buildings which legally can no longer be stopped -even though ICOMOS is unhappy
b. The area on the far side of the Amstel which is currently included in the nomination but which ICOMOS doesn't want.

It seems a "no brainer"! The "trans-Amstel" area is given up (it could always come back in later as an extension depending on how matters/politics pan out over the next few years!) and ICOMOS is left looking "exposed" over a small matter of a couple of buildings and a democratic process already concluded. ICOMOS has the choice of looking very petty over a such an issue as the reason for excluding a site which most of the WHC is likely to regard as a "feather" in the scheme's cap! NL would be able to call the ICOMOS bluff if it insisted on objecting to inscription having already concurred with its larger issues - even, God forbid, to the extent of capping the space for bicycle parking. Greater sacrifice cannot be asked of the Amsterdam people!!!

Author Durian
Partaker
#40 | Posted: 31 May 2010 11:06 
Ahh! It is almost July, the month of new world heritage site, so I think it's time to start finding some news leak!

I found the spanish report claimed that Ichnites site got a positive report from UNESCO (or I should say IUCN) (www.elcorreodeburgos.com/noticias/2010-05-19/las-icnitas-reciben-el-espaldarazo-de-l os-evaluadores-de-la-unesco).

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#41 | Posted: 7 Jun 2010 12:40 | Edited by: Solivagant 
So the nomination for Hahoe and Yangdong has run into a "problem" - but S Korea hopes to address it in time for the July WHC rather than wait a year! I hope they succeed as I "have" Hahoe!

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2921477

Author david
Partaker
#42 | Posted: 16 Jun 2010 11:53 

Author elsslots
Admin
#43 | Posted: 21 Jun 2010 09:39 

Author Durian
Partaker
#44 | Posted: 22 Jun 2010 08:43 
If the news is true, congratulations to Netherlands, this year we are going to have at least one world class site to be inscribed :) and I hope other real world class sites to be in the list like Jantar Mantar and Papahanaumouakea.

Author Durian
Partaker
#45 | Posted: 9 Jul 2010 09:08 
News from Indian newspaper reported that ICOMOS is OK with Jantar Mantar , but deferred the Matheran Railways.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article498773.ece

Page  Page 3 of 4:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  Next » 
General discussions about WHS www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / General discussions about WHS /
 Nominations for 2010

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 ®
 ⇑