Colonial urban landscape (49)
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/categories/category34.html

Antigua Guatemala
Arequipa
Bridgetown
Camaguey
Campeche
Cartagena
Goa (already under churches)
Cidade Velha
Cienfuegos
Colonia del Sacramento
Coro
Diamantina
Goias
Grand-Bassam
Guanajuato
Mozambique
Saint-Louis
Levuka
Lima
Macao
Mazagan
Melaka/Georgetown
Oaxaca (and Montalban)
Havana
Lunenburg
Galle
Olinda
Ouro Preto
Panama
Paramaribo
Potosi
Puebla
Quebec
Queretaro
Quito
Leon Viejo
Salvador de Bahia
San Cristobal
Cuenca (Ecuador)
Mompox
Santo Domingo
Sao Luis
St. George
Sucre
Tlacotalpan
Trinidad/Los Ingenios
Vigan
Willemstad
Zacatecas

Additionally: Luang Prabang, Rabat

I would also add the category Latin-American townscapes (4):
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/categories/category53.html

Cusco
Mexico City/Xochimilco
Sao Francisco
San Miguel de Allende

My selection:

Lima and Quito for the best Spanish architecture in SA.
Santo Domingo/Trinidad for the best Spanish architecture in the Caribbean.
Guanajuato and Puebla for the best Spanish architecture in Mesoamerica.
Cuzco and Mexico City for the best examples of urban continuity.
Ouro Preto and Salvador for the best Portuguese architecture in SA.
Willemstad for the best Dutch example.
Quebec for the best French example in the Americas.
Melaka/Georgetown and Luang Prabang for good SE Asian examples.
Goa for a south Asian example.
Lunenburg for the best British example in North America/Caribbean.
Rabat for North Africa.
Grand Bassam and Mozambique for Subsaharan Africa.

My selection:

Antigua Guatemala (Central America)
Lima and Sucre (S America)
Goa (Indian subcontinent)

I'm not a fan of colonial cities so most won't make it in my top 200

Seems an overrepresented category as well. I'll try and limit my choices, though I visited a number of them and like several very much.

I choose the following on a mix of importance and 'looks', ordered by colonizing country:
Spanish-colonial: Santo Domingo (oldest colonial city in the Americas), Arequipa (reflects the later period, fusion), Puebla (best-preserved Mexican example)
British-colonial: Melaka & Georgetown (also multicultural European colonial influences)
French-colonial: Québec (seat for the French colony of New France)
Dutch-colonial: Paramaribo
Portuguese-colonial: Sao Luis (largest and best preserved heritages of colonial Portuguese architecture of all Latin America), Ouro Preto (great baroque cityscape)

Just don't forget Cusco and Mexico City can only be voted for here. I assume most would be in support of these two.


I completely agree, yet if this is again the chance to let some non-European sites in.

Quebec (for Canada)
Cuzco & Ouro Preto (for South America)
Mexico City & Puebla (for Mexico)
Macao (for East Asia)

Should the WHS La Fortaleza and San Juan National Historic Site in Puerto Rico be included here? Or is fortifications more appropriate?

I support:
- Salvador de Bahia for its impressive european architecture with african feeling in Brazil.
- Ouro Preto, stunning portugese colonial town, almost like medieval city.
- Quebec, best french colonial city.
- Mexico City for its culture, architecture and Aztec heritages.
- Melaka, unique Sino-Portuguese art with Malay culture.

A tough one as they all seem so similar when looking at them online... I'd go for:

Antigua Guatemala - picturesque because of the ruins
Cartagena - combination of colonial architecture and large fortifications (wonder why this is not in the military category)
Goa (already under churches) - Portuguese colonial architecture + introduction of Catholicism to Asia
Macao - Colonial architecture in a Chinese setting
Melaka/Georgetown - Colonial architecture in SE Asia
Havana - for me the most iconic Spanish Caribbean city
Ouro Preto - outstanding Baroque city, irrespective of whether it is colonial or not
Potosi - not sure if this is already included somewhere else; for me the quintessential colonial mining site
Puebla - outstanding planned city in Mexico with rich architecture
Quito - "largest, least-altered and best preserved historic centre" in Latin America, according to Wikipedia; from what little I know about it, it looks more impressive and interesting than any other South American colonial city
Willemstad - if architecture was a dessert, Willemstad would be the sugar icing; this site can by itself represent all of the Lesser Antilles
Luang Prabang - I would select it for its temples rather than for French colonial architecture
Cusco - remains of Inca capital smothered by colonial buildings
Mexico City/Xochimilco - remains of Aztec capital smothered by colonial buildings (incl the gigantic Zocalo square and its adjoining buildings)

I also agree to this. Thats why we have not got any remarkable push for anyone except Mexico -city.

Summarizing:

Antigua Guatemala
Arequipa
Bridgetown
Camaguey
Campeche
Cartagena - already in under maritime cities
Goa - Portuguese colonial architecture + introduction of Catholicism to Asia
Cidade Velha
Cienfuegos
Colonia del Sacramento
Coro
Diamantina
Goias
Grand-Bassam
Guanajuato
Mozambique
Saint-Louis
Levuka
Lima
Macao - Colonial architecture in a Chinese setting
Mazagan
Melaka/Georgetown - unique Sino-Portuguese art with Malay culture
Oaxaca (and Montalban)
Havana
Lunenburg
Galle
Olinda
Ouro Preto - outstanding Baroque city
Panama
Paramaribo
Potosi - already in under Mines
Puebla - outstanding planned city in Mexico with rich architecture
Quebec - best french colonial city
Queretaro
Quito - "largest, least-altered and best preserved historic centre" in Latin America
Leon Viejo
Salvador de Bahia - for its impressive european architecture with african feeling in Brazil
San Cristobal
Cuenca (Ecuador)
Mompox
Santo Domingo - oldest colonial city in the Americas
Sao Luis
St. George
Sucre
Tlacotalpan
Trinidad/Los Ingenios
Vigan
Willemstad - represent all of the Lesser Antilles
Zacatecas

Cusco - remains of Inca capital smothered by colonial buildings
Mexico City/Xochimilco - for its culture, architecture and Aztec heritages
Sao Francisco
San Miguel de Allende

We need a couple more opinions here. Also, starting from 49 sites, we can select a bigger total. Even when we believe this is an overrepresented category, we could still look at about 20% (so 10 sites for the A-list).

This is an enormous category to go through thoroughly. It is amazing to note that, if we add Assif's extra 6 (+ Rabat and Morelia) to the original 49 we get to 57 – or over 5% of ALL WHS!! Also of course, by definition, almost none of these are in "Europe" (although e.g San Cristobal is part of Spain etc). So, in so far as we cull this group severely we would be significantly reducing the geographic %age of sites located outside of Europe! It is perhaps also worth mentioning that the Colonies represented here are all "European" – e.g the Turkish Empire with all its "Ottoman" towns is covered elsewhere.

How best to divide this list for consideration? Assif has reasonably identified "Colonising Country" and "Region colonised" as 2 factors. But, to what extent should we try to "fill the grid"- are all empires and regions justifying of inclusion? We surely have to consider the value of what is present rather than just finding the best of a poor bunch to represent Empire X in region Y? Some sites are very "of" the Empire which created them and others (at least in their Nomination case) try to emphasise their "Fusion" aspect in which indigenous traditions get built upon and/or mixed – it seems a reasonable factor to look at. And then there is "period" to consider – the European empires existed and expanded over the 16th to the 20th Centuries – it may be that the earliest colonising examples (from whatever continent) justify inclusion for their historical remains but, where the "colonisation" extended over centuries, the later examples have to represent something "special" to the country in which they developed

LATIN AMERICA – 32 plus 4 "townscapes" plus Morelia = 37 of which YES = 9, MAYBE = 7, NO = 21)
-Antigua Guatemala – MAYBE - Have visited – a very attractive town both in location and "feel". Is it not the "equal" in its way of attractive towns in Europe which are remaining on our List?
-Arequipa – NO – Have visited - Certainly "unusual" for its white volcanic rock and it too is overlooked by a fine volcano, but not really that "special" within the category in other ways - the "usual" mix of Convents and Churches
-Camaguey – NO – The Nomination emphasises its "unusual radius-concentric urban model", 18C growth and number of Churches – Not enough?
-Campeche – NO – "Fortified" and built on earlier Mayan town. Not enough?
-Cartagena - YES – represents an early fortified city in the early days of the Spanish American empire
-Cienfuegos – MAYBE – only founded in 1819 so a 19C planned city
-Colonia del Sacramento – NO – Have visited – I don't find its "Portuguese Empire" credentials strong enough in terms of what remains on the ground. This "speciality" of being at the limits of that Empire is a bit "niche" and Portugal has much better further north!
-Coro – NO – very "early (goes back to 1527) and claims unusual "Earthen" construction and "rich fusion of local traditions with Spanish Mudéjar and Dutch architectural techniques." But –little remaining (and certainly not at the Port several kms away)
-Diamantina – NO – Have visited – an attractive square but not a great deal else?
-Goias – NO - 18C town founded on "Gold" – Haven't visited but I presume its merits are "trumped" by Ouro Preto?
-Guanajuato – YES – Have visited - archetypal "Mexican" town from 18C which has developed beyond its purely Spanish colonial roots
-Lima – NO - Its oldest elements are its Convent and its Cathedral – the rest is fairly standard 17/18C Latin America?
-Oaxaca (and Montalban) – NO Have visited - not on this Criterion. Oaxaca is pleasant/interesting but not that special in Latin American terms. BUT – if we exclude this type of town we also need to ensure that we don't include European towns of similar value!!
-Havana – NO – Have visited -its main aspect is the Castle of the 3 Kings. We have other better candidates for this
-Olinda – MAYBE?? – Haven't visited and I genuinely don't know. Having just read the AB Eval I was surprised to note that ICOMOS asked for a deferral whist a comparison was done across "the Spanish/Portuguese colonial domain"!! I get the feeling that Salvador might be better.
-Ouro Preto – YES – Have visited- seems the best of the Latin American "mining towns" for its extensive preservation and architectural homogeneity
-Panama – NO – Have visited. Not for its Casco Viejo but possibly for its early site – except the Santo Domingo can claim that aspect?
-Potosi – YES – for its historical importance and its "mountain"
-Puebla – YES – as a well preserved purely Spanish (ie differentiated from Mex city) colonial city
-Queretaro – NO – Have visited – the "Fusion" aspect in the Nomination isn't very convincing
-Quito – MAYBE – it is 40 years since I was there. Others say its centre is "well preserved"
-Leon Viejo – NO – Have visited - am tempted to give it a MAYBE because it is just so early but it really isn't that important in the grand scheme and neither do its extant remains excite.
-Salvador de Bahia – MAYBE – seems to offer something a bit "extra"? "characterized by its faithfulness to the 16th century plan, the densitv of its monuments, and the homogeneity of its construction on a hilly and picturesque site which exalts the urban scenery by providing plunging and ascending views of incomparable beauty. In addition to a number of major buildings..." (AB Eval)
-San Cristobal (Canaries) – NO – Have visited – there are certainly rather more "early" buildings than I had been expecting and a very pleasant atmosphere but nothing really special
-Cuenca (Ecuador) – NO – Have visited but really can't remember anything that "special" above/instead of other LA colonial towns
-Mompox – MAYBE – I rather like its "remoteness"/ lack of development and it is high on my "to visit" list. I worry that t gets excluded because none of us knows enough about it!
-Santo Domingo – YES – Have visited - we need a very early Spanish American Empire town. I think this beats Leon Viejo and Panama
-Sao Luis – MAYBE – Haven't visited and the site is not well known. Reading about it with its long period of development from 1615 and then preservation by economic downturn makes me think that it could be a "Yes"
-Sucre – NO –can't discover anything to justify its inclusion but would defer to someone who has been there and can do so!
-Tlacotalpan – NO – Have visited – a 19C sleepy timewarp but only of regional significance
-Trinidad/Los Ingenios – YES – have been there- Attractive, historic, well preserved (at least in terms of its centre not having been significantly altered (unless things have changed over 20 years!)
-Zacatecas – NO – Have Visited – another attractive "Mexican town" clearly demonstrating its Spanish origins

Plus from Latin American Townscapes
-Cusco – YES – for its pre- Colombian remains and also for its representation of the superimposition of an alternative culture's architecture (which actually per se isn't that special)
-Mexico City/Xochimilco – YES for both its pre-Colombian and its Colonail architecture
-Sao Francisco – NO – compared with Brazil's other candidates this doesn't really add anything
-San Miguel de Allende – NO – Have Visited – great expat "escape" location but not really special architecturally. I am almost persuaded by the inclusion of Atotonilco's indigenous church but not quite

Plus from Urban Planning
-Morelia – NO – Have visited – Its "speciality" is the fact that it was an early example of Spanish new "town planning" and as a result was very "Spanish" in feel. It is said to have a lot of its "original" pink stone buildings extant, but, as I remember it much of it was 18th C and later and simply continued to use the local pink stone. It has its "iconic" aqueduct but so do many others. As a result it is difficult to raise it "above" other Mexican colonial cities. (NB Els – This another site where ICOMOS recommended "deferral until.." but the WHC just went ahead and "inscribed with a request to do...")

OTHER IN AMERICAS (6 of which YES = 2, MAYBE = 2, NO = 2)
-Bridgetown – NO – Have visited – contains a lot of "military" and much of the centre us an unfortunate mixture of modern and not well preserved
-Willemstad – MAYBE – have visited – the waterfront and its querky pontoon bridge are attractive and there are other good "dutch" influenced areas which can be sought out. A choice needs to be made v Paramaribo I feel
-Quebec – YES – Have visited – a fine historic city with both French and English influences
-St. George – NO – seems to be mainly about "Forts". OK British forts may be different from thosr of other nations but it all seems a bit "niche"!
-Paramaribo – MAYBE – have visited. The Brick Fort area and the wooden buildings immediately surrounding it are its highlight. Needs a choice v Willemstad
-Lunenburg – YES – have had to rely on the ICOMOS eval "it may fairly be claimed that Lunenburg is the only one of over twenty British settlements in North America to retain all the elements of its original plan virtually intact, as a result of the remarkable way in which its population, vocation, and development have remained unchanged for over two centuries. As such, therefore, it is the best surviving example of this colonial settlement phenomenon." I have assessed it on that basis plus the feeling that a "British" American colonial town is needed

IN AFRICA (6 – of which YES = 0, MAYBE = 3, NO = 3)
-Mazagan – MAYBE – for its Portuguese and Moroccan fusion.
-Cidade Velha - NO - Have visited – It is fair enough to give Cape Verde a WHS but its significance in history or in architecture is not enough to get it into our reduced List
-Mozambique – NO – I haven't visited – if it gets included then it does so on its Swahili basis in comparison with its competitors from there rather than its Portuguese. .
CONTINUED on next post (Saint-Louis)

CONTINUED from prev post

-Saint-Louis – MAYBE – Haven't visited and it is difficult to find many photos etc on the Web . Primarily a 19C creation. The AB says "Through its history as a capital city, Saint-Louis has also acquired a more important architectural heritage than could be found in the other towns of West Africa.". It would be nce to have a French W African site –could this be it? It needs to be compared with Grand Bassam.
-Grand-Bassam – MAYBE – The AB evaluation has quite a good comparison section which provides useful info on colonial sites as far apart as Bridgetown Barbados and Zanzibar but, particularly in respect of Grand Bassam v St Louis, it is inconclusive!! See – "The architecture of Saint-Louis includes private houses with patios and large public buildings influenced by styles in metropolitan France, such as Modern Art and Neo-Classicism. There are also houses with a first-floor gallery, as at Grand-Bassam, but these are far fewer in number. In this respect, GrandBassam clearly has architectural specificity, through the sober and systematic functional approach of the houses with galleries and verandas"
-Rabat – NO – Have visited but don't really remember its "new town". It all seems a bit conritved by Morocco to gets it Capital on the List. It (probably?) does have OUV but isn't special enough for our "A" List

IN ASIA/OCEANIA (7 – of which YES = 2, MAYBE = 4, NO = 1)
-Goa – MAYBE - Have visited – But it isn't strictly an "Urban Landscape" since only religious buildings are inscribed. They do however form a fine collection among the forests. They could "represent" the transfer of Christianity to parts of the Indian subcontinent across the Centuries but are not really that significant in so doing.
-Galle- MAYBE - have visited – Primarily consists of "fortifications" plus a small area containing couple of Churches (English and Dutch). I got no great feeling of a colonial town. Let alone a Dutch one.
-Macao – NO – A ruined church and a casino!
-Vigan – YES - see "Vigan belongs to a group of important South-East Asian trading cities in which Asian and European elements blend together, such as Malacca, Macau, Singapore, and Hoi An. Closest to it is probably Hoi An, where the same pattern of shop-houses influenced strongly from China can be observed. Vigan is, however, unique in that it is the only town in this group in which the rigid Spanish colonial checkerboard street pattern survives intact. The only surviving parallels in this respect are to be found in Latin America, but these do not exhibit the multi-cultural fusion that Vigan demonstrates." (AB). See https://www.google.com/search?q=vigan+photos&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahU KEwip5sujrPfJAhUE7RQKHX2VD_AQsAQIHA
-Melaka/Georgetown – MAYBE - Have visited GT. "The State Party extended the comparative analysis to include Vigan, Philippines .... The main differences identified are related to historical significance, since Vigan was established by the Spaniards as a trade centre while Melaka and George Town were at the same time trade centres and fortresses...With regard to urban and architectural aspects, Vigan exhibits especially Spanish traditions that produced a homogeneous streetscape; in contrast, the nominated properties exhibit a mixture of architectural styles adapted to the local climate and cultures." i.e Doesn't find a great case for Mel/GT over Vigan
-Levuka – MAYBE – the AB comments that this site "accords with the ..strategy of achieving a balanced ....list". And this is the only way really by which it could be considered for our "A" List. It does seem the "best" of what is available "ICOMOS considers that the narrow flat and linear layout of Levuka's Beach Street facing east towards the deep sea port, the backdrop of massive dark basalt volcanic cliffs, the encirclement of volcanic rim as sea reefs, brilliant green tropical palms, flowers & vegetation, series of streams, bridges, stairs and gardens make Levuka stand out in the Pacific region as a visually dramatic combination of buildings and landscape.", See nice photos https://www.google.com/search?q=levuka+photos&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ah UKEwjVwJfs8fbJAhVJyRQKHVtnC2UQsAQIHA
-Luang Prabang – YES - Have visited – as with most "westerners" I suspect, it was for the Monasteries that I remember it – though we did stay in one of the Colonial Villas. The 2 aspects add up to justify inclusion I feel.

So, in Total YES = 14, MAYBE = 16, NO = 27.

On the issue of Paramaribo versus Willemstad:
- Reading the Paramaribo nomination file, Paramaribo is more "Dutch" in its architecture and urban pattern than Willemstad (which - how terribly - as a Dutch colonial town has Spanish elements in its architecture). "As a result of its location in marshy country the urban pattern of Paramaribo is an example of Dutch civil engineering and town planning."
- Paramaribo is also renowned for its fine wooden architecture, which makes it unique "within the `family' of cities from the period of Dutch colonial expansion (1600 - 1800)". These well-preserved wooden buildings are among the largest and most important in Paramaribo's city center, and are still in active use such as the presidential palace and cathedral.

So while the row of colourful houses of Willemstad may be more iconic, I think that Paramaribo would mean a broader representation of Dutch colonial heritage.

Was planning on making a lengthy post, but I agree with all of Solivagant's nominations except I believe that Quito (for the truly fantastic quality of preservation) and Paramaribo (as the most outstanding representation of a Transatlantic Dutch colony, the unique wooden architectonic character is quite fine, and I find it superior to the Churches of Chiloe which are less important and a different category, but not altogether dissimilar) are a solid YES.

I agree with Els that while Willemstad reminds one immediately of a Dutch town with its port and typical gabled row-houses, Paramaribo is a more fully-realized and unique representation. I would go MAYBE on Willemstad and YES on Paramaribo.