The outcome of the 45th session of the committee has also been notable, however, for the places not approved for protection. On Friday, members voted against the notion that Venice be added to the heritage list. This was despite the recommendation of the World Heritage Centre (WHC), the convention’s permanent secretariat, which argued the city was at risk due to factors including mass tourism and climate change. — The Art Newspaper
A total of 42 new sites were added at the ongoing special session held in Riyadh this month. Three Ukrainian sites, including the 11th-century Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv, were also added last week at the start of the 15-day meeting.
The body’s recommendations to add Venice to the list of World Heritage in Danger sites was also denied at the outset, keeping it away from the dubious position despite criticism that city officials — who’ve just adopted a nominal daily entry fee trial — aren’t doing enough to resolve “long-standing but urgent issues” stemming from tourists’ overcrowding and climate change.
.jpg){kind=link}
1 Comment
Being designated a World Heritage Site seems like unquestionably a good thing but the impacts it can have on local communities and economic development can often be quite negative. It would be better if there was a more substantial fund for the maintenance/ upkeep/ repair of these sites that accompanied such designation.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.