2016 Update of the US Tentative List planned

The 2008 Tentative list included 14 nominations. By 2016, if all goes well there will still be 10 remaining nominations on the US Tentative list. Perhaps 5-10 additional candidates, but I doubt much more will be added in 2016. One must also wonder how the payment of membership dues might ultimately effect US participation.

http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/secretary-jewell-announces-nomination-of-san-an tonio-missions-as-world-heritage-site.cfm

http://www.nps.gov/oia/topics/worldheritage/tentativelist.htm

Just watched documentary about it and I know that there is no idea for US to nominate "The Gateway Arch" in St. Louis to be world heritage site. But 2015 will be the 50th anniversary of this iconic landmark, so maybe a good time for nomination? And I believe it has OUV for its engineering work and modern design as well as the grand successor of Ancient Roman arch!

I note that the WMF have added it to their "watch list" for 2014 of sites "at risk" "Eero Saarinen's Gateway Arch, a mid-century modern structure, was at risk due to "encroaching corrosion," the result of the challenges its extreme height and design presented for its preservation, the group said."

See http://www.wmf.org/project/jefferson-national-expansion-memorial
I find the poster downloadable from this site as a pdf quite amusing - you would think it was an "accolade"

So true, a great accomplishment to be on such prestigious World Monuments Watch list! a great pride of St. Louis :P

I find it fascinating the support sites like Mt. Rushmore and the Gateway Arch have on this forum.

Certainly stunning sites, yet they are also American icons. Both monuments celebrate and memorialize American individuals or achievements. (Some might argue a Eurocentric perspective) Are they too much "national" sites, or as some have argued, are they no different than some of the other iconic inscribed WHS?

There has been some spirited defense of the "worthiness" of these monuments being considered for world heritage inscription. As an American, both sites have great importance, but I (as do many) struggle to identify the OUV of such monuments. What is the angle one argues for the international importance of these sites? I assume more than one criteria would be argued. Indeed, for myself I haven't made up my mind.

I slightly hesitate support because of the (somewhat) problematic elements of both monuments. Westward Expansion is extremely important to American history, moreover, it is a history that is often viewed as a double-edged sword. While "Westward Expansion" contributed greatly to America as we know it, this expansion also signaled stolen land being passed from one Western power (or colonizer) to another by a piece of paper. Both parties had not mapped or explored the territory fully. Neither was there significant French or American settlements in the region. This region was almost exclusively populated by Native American tribes, but the land, largely unknown to their American counterparts was bought and "owned" because a piece of paper said so. A strange and bizarre concept to most tribal leaders.

Indeed, there was a key movement led by Tecumseh to fight against "Westward Expansion." He warned other tribes, "The American's will never stop."

On Uniting the First Nation Peoples - "Let us form one body, one heart, and defend to the last warrior our country, our homes, our liberty, and the graves of our fathers." Shawnee Leader Tecumseh

I think my support for pursuing world heritage would hinge on how the nominations were presented. If Mt. Rushmore was proposed, does it have support from the surrounding Native American community? What does one make of the alternative (Native funded) monument of Crazy Horse nearby? Concerning the Gateway Arch, how does this monument memorialize the complex nature of Westward Expansion and Jefferson? Which brings up another thought, how many Jefferson associated sites deserve world heritage inscription? Monticello, Independence Hall, Mt. Rushmore, and the Gateway Arch?

I visited the Gateway Arch and Mt. Rushmore in 2009. I enjoyed both visits very much. I think both sites are perhaps more deserving than several inscribed sites, but I still have reservations on world heritage inscription. Thoughts? I would love to read a justification for inscription portion in the nomination file.

A really good example of nationalistic monumental rock carving is Bisotun.

Perhaps we just need more time to separate the politics from the heritage.

1925 Mt. Rushmore
1965 Gateway Arch

Bisotun is about 2,500 years old and is an extinct culture. Yet, there is significant value to Bisotun for other reasons beyond a monument to one individual.

"The inscription is written in three languages. The oldest is an Elamite text referring to legends describing the king and the rebellions. This is followed by a Babylonian version of similar legends. The last phase of the inscription is particularly important, as it is here that Darius introduced for the first time the Old Persian version of his res gestae (things done). This is the only known monumental text of the Achaemenids to document the re-establishment of the Empire by Darius I. It also bears witness to the interchange of influences in the development of monumental art and writing in the region of the Persian Empire." UNESCO

Perhaps, in the future Mt. Rushmore and the Gateway Arch will demonstrate values unforeseen to us in 2014.

It need not necessarily go that far.

Let's just consider the justification for listing the Sydney Opera House under criterium 1:

Criterion (i): The Sydney Opera House is a great architectural work of the 20th century. It represents multiple strands of creativity, both in architectural form and structural design, a great urban sculpture carefully set in a remarkable waterscape and a world famous iconic building.

Certainly, a lot of it could also be applied e.g. to the Gateway Arch (or to the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, or indeed to the CCTV tower in Beijing). And I didn't even try hard - just imagine the justifications that could be "identified" with a 7-figure budget to prepare a nomination dossier :-)

But it isn't "celebrating"/"commemorating" the conquest of the Aboriginal Peoples of Australia!!
It is perhaps worth looking at Brasilia - Brazil could presumably easily have seen this city as representing the "mainfest destiny" of the Brazilian people to spread across the whole of the interior of the continent from Atlantic to the Andes (or nearly!!) but they didn't. It OUV has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to say about Brazil's history of conquest - and neither does the Sydney Opera House! Of course they are both creations of the victorious culture but their value lies elsewhere. Unfortunately the US seems too often to choose (or think of choosing in the cases we are considering in this discussion) cultural sites which are just too "self congratulatory" and which derive their OUV too much from the premise that the events they represent/commemorate are self evidently worth celebrating across the entire World!

Which sites do you mean? Let's not forget Mt. Rushmore, nor the Gateway Arch have ever been included in a US tentative list.

I do however have my squabbles with Mount Vernon and considering the Former Tentative list, which included the Washington Monument. Certainly, we can critique these 2 nominations. There has also been some debate about the inscribed property of Independence Hall, and its OUV here in this forum. Concerning Monticello, a deserving world heritage site in my opinion, yet the criteria statement is suspect and far too centered on the "greatness" of Jefferson, no?

Independence Hall (OUV)

Criterion (vi): The universal principles of the right to revolution and self-government as expressed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776) and Constitution (1787), which were debated, adopted, and signed in Independence Hall, have profoundly influenced lawmakers and politicians around the world. The fundamental concepts, format, and even substantive elements of the two documents have influenced governmental charters in many nations and even the United Nations Charter.

Monticello (OUV)

Criterion (i): Both Monticello and the University of Virginia reflect Jefferson's wide reading of classical and later works on architecture and design and also his careful study of the architecture of late 18th century Europe. As such they illustrate his wide diversity of interests.

Criterion (iv): With these buildings Thomas Jefferson made a significant contribution to neo-classicism, the 18th century movement that adapted the forms and details of classical architecture to contemporary buildings.

Criterion (vi): Monticello and the key buildings of the University of Virginia are directly and materially associated with the ideas and ideals of Thomas Jefferson. Both the university buildings and Monticello were directly inspired by principles, derived from his deep knowledge of classical architecture and philosophy.

As per the sites you discuss which needn't have been given quite the emphasis they were given. I haven't seen the documentation for the San Antonio missions yet and I hope that it draws a veil over the "events" surrounding the "Alamo"! But I bet many US citizens will think that that the nomination will have been for that Battle

But I accept that my phraseology wasn't of the best which is why i had slightly changed the wording to cover the sites we were discussing (but you seem to have "got in" just as I did so and "quoted" the original!) - which, as you correctly state haven't ever been on the T List and we are merely discussing the potential.

Well, that is your interpretation of the Gateway Arch, which certainly many Americans would not adhere to. It could also simply be seen/presented as an iconic sculpture-monument and impressive feat of engineering.

Winterkjm is right - neither site is on the US's tentative list, and neither is likely to be there soon (as one major requirement for compiling the 2016 US Tentative List is that the sites it includes should not focus on national achievements - certainly it's harder to argue for these two).

Nevertheless, the point you raise is questionable. Many sites on the list are ultimately linked to oppression in a way or another - consider only Cuzco, Mexico City, or the Forts of the coast of Ghana. The oppressive element does not reduce OUV, it may actually add to it. (Some sites, of course, are even inscribed because of that reason - Gorée, Robben Island, etc). In a century or so, the meaning of the Gateway Arch may have changed to encompass the various aspects of Western expansion - or maybe not.

A further question is whether hypotetically such a site might have such high OUV in other aspects as to render the oppressive element irrelevant. Take the Moscow Metro or the Transsiberian Railway: both clearly linked to one of the most oppressive regimes of the 20th century, yet both are considered astonishing feats of architecture / engineering. Similarly, the Casa del Fascio in Como was created as a showcase for Fascism in Italy - still it is considered an important piece of modernist architecture.

San Antonio Franciscan Missions (OUV)

Criterion (ii): The substantial remains of the extensive water distribution systems constructed to irrigate the labors at the San Antonio Mission complexes eminently illustrate an exceptionally important interchange between indigenous peoples, missionaries, and colonizers that contributed to a fundamental and permanent change in the cultures and values of all involved, but most dramatically in those of the Coahuiltecans and other indigenous hunter-gatherers who, in a matter of one generation, became successful settled agriculturalists.

Criterion (iii): The rapid interweaving of diverse peoples and cultures from two continents was advanced by the physical layouts of the five San Antonio Missions, which are inward-focused and located in close proximity to each other; the intensive communal activities such as construction and farming undertaken there; the widespread sharing of knowledge and skills among their inhabitants; and the early adoption of a common language and religion; all of which resulted in an identity neither wholly indigenous nor wholly Spanish that has proven exceptionally persistent and pervasive.

Criterion (iv): These five closely located eighteenth-century mission complexes, whose more than fifty standing structures, archaeological resources, and landscape features are unmatched in number and diversity among surviving Spanish colonial missions, is the most complete extant example of the Spanish Crown's global effort to colonize, evangelize, and defend its colonial empire, the largest in the world at that time. An outstanding illustration of a significant stage in human history, the San Antonio Missions fully and evocatively illustrate Spain's goal of creating secular, self-supporting communities of Spanish subjects loyal to the Crown and to the Roman Catholic Church.

Exactly, for me personally to support such a nomination the criteria would have to reflect a more nuanced view of OUV. It is another matter altogether in how American's may view the designation; which I believe Solivagant is alluding to specifically with the San Antonio Missions nomination. In American media articles the nomination is sometimes titled as "The Alamo" seeks world heritage designation, or some similar appellation. Or even criticizing the National Park Service for focusing more on the group of Missions, instead of the Alamo!


I think it is a widely held view in America that "Westward Expansion" and "Manifest Destiny" are essentially problematic in regards to the removal and negative impacts on Native American tribes. The diverse perspectives certainly vary on severity, which can also be influenced by the region of the United States you find yourself in.

I also do want to note, that at Mt. Rushmore and the Gateway Arch the interpretation at the site is NOT the same as when the monument was first built. Indeed the Civil Rights Movement occurred after both monuments were constructed. The story has evolved, and much of the information is presented far more objectively than one might expect. Despite my objections or areas of concern, I do not want to be represented as being against Mt. Rushmore or the Gateway Arch, which is not the case. Both are wonderful monuments to visit, and much can be learned from both sites. A world heritage nomination (if pursued) would be difficult, and it would require an OUV outside the original narrative of the monument. And as you mention, there might be different perspectives Americans adhere to, which certainly has been true with the San Antonio Missions nomination!

But it depends "whose" oppression on "whom", which "side" is making the nomination, for what reasons and to what extent the "oppressed" are recognised!

Cuzco is inscribed as an "amazing amalgam of the Inca capital and the colonial city"

Mexico has been very careful to try to give "equal billing" to both the mestizo (not just the "European") and the pre-Columbian cultures in its nominations.
a. Xochimilco runs alongside Mexico City in the same nomination
b. Oaxaca is paired with Monte Alban
c. Cholula was nominated with Puebla (but wasn't accepted)

The Forts of Ghana celebrate the OPPRESSED - not the oppressors!

If the St Louis Arch were ever to be put forward it would in my opinion have to be ENTIRELY on the basis of its architectural/techonlogical merit - and not in any way for what it "celebrates". As well as Brasilia, which I cited earlier, another possible comparator is the Melbourne Exhibition Building - This was built to celebrate 100 years of European settlement in Australia but Australia wisely doesn't major (or even "minor"!!) on this aspect!