Post-mediaeval European towns (36)
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/categories/category46.html

Amsterdam
Ubeda/Baeza
Bordeaux
Budapest (better under urban continuity)
Christiansfeld
Luxembourg City
Weimar
Dubrovnik (better under urban continuity)
Florence
Brussels - Grand Place
Guimaraes (better only under mediaeval)
Holasovice (better under rural)
Holloko (better under rural)
Ibiza
Kutna Hora (better only under mediaeval, or urban continuity)
La Chaux-de-Fonds/Le Locle (better under industry and town planning)
Mostar
Nancy
Berne (better only under mediaeval)
Rauma
Paris (better under urban continuity and city planning)
Röros
Riga (better under urban continuity)
San Marino (better under mediaeval)
Hamburg
St. Petersburg
Trebic (better under mediaeval)
Urbino
Val di Noto
Valletta
Vicenza
Vienna (better under urban continuity, city planning)
Vilnius
Vlkolinec (better under rural)
Yaroslavl
Zamosc

My selection:

Amsterdam - Yes, for its architecture and historical importance.
Ubeda/Baeza - better examples of Renaissance. No.
Bordeaux - Better examples of historicism. No.
Budapest (better under urban continuity) - Yes. Visually impressive, important in urban planning.
Christiansfeld - No. Too much of a niche.
Luxembourg City - No. Beautiful, but we already have enough examples of European fortifications (Vauban, Carcassonne).
Weimar - No. Mostly important for its role in German intellectual life of the 18th century (so mostly intangible). Icomos was against.
Dubrovnik (better under urban continuity) - an impressive town, not as significant as other European towns, but very beautiful. I would give it a Yes.
Florence - Iconic. Yes.
Brussels - Grand Place - No. I like it, but it isn't that significant.
Guimaraes (better only under mediaeval) - No.
Holasovice (better under rural) - No. Better representations of rural architecture.
Holloko (better under rural) - A nice example of European rural architecture, but I think examples from other parts of the world are better. No.
Ibiza - No. Not that significant.
Kutna Hora (better only under mediaeval, or urban continuity) - Mostly known for its mediaeval architecture in connection to the mines. No.
La Chaux-de-Fonds/Le Locle (better under industry and town planning) - Yes. An interesting angle.
Mostar - I like it a lot, but better examples of Ottoman architecture. No.
Nancy - A nice representation of 18th century architecture, but I don't think it is that significant on a global scale. No.
Berne (better only under mediaeval) - No.
Rauma - No.
Paris (better under urban continuity and city planning) - Yes, iconic. Important for town planning.
Röros - No.
Riga (better under urban continuity) - I like both mediaeval and Art Nouveau parts. A maybe for the Art Nouveau alone.
San Marino (better under mediaeval) - No.
Hamburg - Interesting for the modern architecture, but better examples elsewhere in the world (e.g. Chicago, Napier). A maybe, since it might be the best representation currently on the list??
St. Petersburg - Yes as an excellent example of 18th century architecture and as a representation (together with Moscow) of one of the largest empires in the world.
Trebic (better under mediaeval) - a bit of a niche. No.
Urbino - Despite having excellent Renaissance architecture we already have both Ferrara and Florence. I think that should be enough. No.
Val di Noto - Maybe, for Baroque town planning.
Valletta - No.
Vicenza - Yes, for Palladio's influential work.
Vienna (better under urban continuity, city planning) - Yes, mostly for the Ring.
Vilnius - No.
Vlkolinec (better under rural) - No. Same as with Holloko.
Yaroslavl - No. St. Petersburg is enough for post-mediaeval Russia.
Zamosc - No. I prefer the Italian originals.

I'm not quite sure what's the time frame on this one. From medieval to late 19th/begin 20th century? Imo 19th/20th century should be excluded/ discussed in its own category.

Amsterdam: Y significant, iconic and intact

Ubeda/Baeza: N "the best-preserved examples of Italian Renaissance architecture in Spain" isn't something special. Italian Renaissance is important of course but Florence is representing that just fine. Just because this one is in Spain doesn't change that.

Bordeaux: N French architecture is better represented by others

Budapest (better under urban continuity): Maybe Its 19th century architecture is what matters imo so if there is a category like that I would go for that one. Same applies for Paris and Vienna.

Christiansfeld: N Morovian settlement is not that important and I think the aliens would agree

Luxembourg City: N better representations elsewhere

Weimar: N It's only inscribed with some buildings and a cementary

Dubrovnik (better under urban continuity) N already in medieval town category

Florence Y Iconic, important, intact. Renaissance town par exellance

Brussels - Grand Place N It's only a square, architecture similar as Amsterdam

Guimaraes (better only under mediaeval). Maybe I still have my doubts like I had in the medieval category

Holasovice (better under rural) N too small better under rural indeed

Holloko (better under rural) N see above

Ibiza N It's inscribed for an important part because of its natural aspects

Kutna Hora (better only under mediaeval, or urban continuity): N Said no in the medieval category before and like tostick with that

La Chaux-de-Fonds/Le Locle (better under industry and town planning) N I do like 19th century architecture but this one is an exception.

Mostar: N Dubrovnik already got my vote

Nancy: N Not inscribed as a town but because of its squares.

Berne (better only under mediaeval) Maybe I haven't lost my soft spot on this one

Rauma: Maybe I have some doubts about its importance but should be considered for its wooden architecture imo which isn't reprresented by others

Paris (better under urban continuity and city planning) Mabe see my comments above

Röros: N Prefer Rauma in this case

Riga (better under urban continuity): Maybe 19th century. Would definitely make my top 200 because of its Art Nouveau

San Marino (better under mediaeval) N better examples elsewhere

Hamburg: N 19th century (very nice because of the Chilehaus though)

St. Petersburg: Y significant, iconic, intact

Trebic (better under mediaeval)N The jewish part isn't a feature that important imo

Urbino: N better examples elsewhere

Val di Noto: Y Exellent representation of the Baroque era

Valletta: N Better examples elsewhere

Vicenza: N Difficult. I would understand the support of Palladian style in architecture.

Vienna (better under urban continuity, city planning) Maybe 19th century. Bit similar as Budapest though. ienna would get my vote

Vilnius: N Nice but better examples elsewhere

Vlkolinec (better under rural) N too small and rural

Yaroslavl: N better examples elsewhere

Zamosc; N better examples elsewhere

I'd follow Assif, with a few exceptions:
- La Chaux-de-Fonds - N - not really that special in my opinion
- Mostar - Y - mainly for its iconic bridge
- Riga - Y - for medieval and Art Nouveau

Hi echwel. Mind the fact that for the time being (and until the end of this enterprise) we have no special categories for rural architecture and for 19th century Europe. These were comments to be discussed later when we reassess the categories. If you find Paris, Budapest and Vienna should get a Yes for their 19th century architecture this would be the proper place to do it for now. If you ask why at the moment they are all lumped together with Renaissance cities in the same category mind you that for other areas of the world we just have towns in general with no period distinction at all.

Ok, in that case Paris, Vienna and Riga will get my nod for the next round.

Agree with most of the above .
So (whatever their Categories)
YES for Amsterdam, Florence, Paris, St Petersburg, Vienna. There can't really be any argument about any of them can there?
Those receiving differing opinions above
-Budapest - YES - contrast across the 2 sides of the river, great location and the 19C "modernity
-Chaux de Fonds - NO - too niche
-Riga - MAYBE - I would be interested to hear arguments on Art Nouveau in relation to it and the Horta houses. Art Nouveau is "nice" but something of an architectural sub genre and at most deserves one site? I tend to prefer the generic (ie Riga) to the specific (ie Horta) - IMO Horta isn't so "world class" that his canon needs/justifies a special inscription
-Dubrovnik - YES - it is rather fine in its architecture and location
-Hamburg - MAYBE - I am still conflicted between Liverpool which I see as a better overall 19c Port and Hamburg which has the 20C Chilehaus. I note this comment by ICOMOS in its AB eval regarding the warehouse areas of Hamburg v Liverpool "The resulting set of comparative properties therefore appears Euro-centric and somewhat arbitrary, despite a sincere endeavour to present a comprehensive, worldwide picture. The values associated with Speicherstadt's post-war layer of reconstructions have not been addressed. Liverpool, as an inscribed World Heritage property, could have been compared in greater detail to highlight both similarities and differences."
-Mostar - NO - if the Bridge hadn't been blown up and rebuilt I doubt we would be considering it?
-Val di Noto - MAYBE - I can't avoid the feeling that this nomination was a way of giving as many Sicilian towns as possible an inscription! I have visited a couple (at least) before they were inscribed and am not a great lover of Baroque so possibly didn't pay enough attention. Am prepared to accept them if the "Baroque aficionados" say so!

And NO for all the others

My selection (Mainly reason explained above)

Amsterdam
Florence
Paris
St Petersburg
Vienna
Budapest
Dubrovnik
Brussels

My selection:

Budapest
Dubrovnik
Florence
Mostar
Paris
Valletta
Vienna
San Marino
Riga

Have just been re-reading through this rather long list and comparing the views!
I wonder if I/we have been too hard on Valletta? Could it not at least justify a "maybe"?
Perhaps I was rushing things by the time I got down alphabetically to "V"!!
The city is wonderfully situated on its peninsula and possesses a fine coherence in its stone and architecture.
It has been said that " there are better examples elsewhere". I am not disagreeing but would be interested to know which these might be? Presumably other post Mediaeval owns on the Mediterranean and/or towns with both post Mediaeval and earlier remains - this "wider" coverage potentially strengthening their case??

Being on the road and only typing on a smart phone makes full range of comments tough. I've already twice lost a reply to Solivagant on Art Nouveau :(

Still I find this category tough, these are the sites I love going to but I'm not sure how many examples we need, but I think the discussion above is getting the balance right.

On Riga I think I would put it as a maybe also this is based on recent experience as we were there a couple of weeks ago. The old town is nice but Tallinn's is better. In regards to the art nouveau it really is an impressive ensemble and probably the best collection anywhere.

However I feel there are better single examples of art nouveau buildings on the list, namely the Horta houses, stoclet palace and Barcelona's two sites. There aren't any especially art nouveau aspects to the planning of Riga's new town, and the Guadi sites in Eixample would cover that better.
Throw in some fine single building's in Prague and Vienna and I'm not really sure Riga's great collection of art nouveau is going to bring much that won't be caught by other sites. Lovely place and well, well worth a visit.

@ Solivagent:

I haven't visited Valletta but I would say the towns of Corfu, Rhodos and Val di Noto have somewhat of the same features Valletta has. Corfu for its fortifications and British architecture, Rhodos for its fortifications and knights/crusader architecture and the towns of Val di Noto for their overall look/colours which are kind of similar with Valletta. Of the latter one could argue the towns of Val di Noto are baroque while Valletta is Renaissance but I think that's food for experts, most likely the average tourist won't notice much of a difference. Besides that, renaissance has been covered as well on our list.

That doesn't make Valletta an unworthy WHS of course but it would not make my personal 200.

In my opinion:

Amsterdam - Unique cityscape, web-canal system, striking architectures -- YES
Ubeda/Baeza - Iberian significant only -- NO
Bordeaux - another beautiful french towns -- NO
Budapest (better under urban continuity) -- its post medieval part is one of the best -- YES
Christiansfeld - too niche -- NO
Luxembourg City - its location and fortification is quite stunning but the city itself is nothing special -- NO
Weimar - this WHS representing idea not the architecture, a bit too niche -- NO
Dubrovnik (better under urban continuity) - perfect preserved city of Adriatic -- YES
Florence - the city of Renaissnace with hundreds of atristic masterpieces and development -- YES
Brussels - Grand Place - one of the most stunning city square of Europe, but there are many similar sights -- NO
Guimaraes (better only under mediaeval) - birthplace of Portugal and that's all -- NO
Holasovice (better under rural) - it cannot be considered as a town -- NO
Holloko (better under rural) - it cannot be considered as a town -- NO
Ibiza - mediocre historical sights -- NO
Kutna Hora (better only under mediaeval, or urban continuity) - A really nce town but Prague is a better representative of Czech -- NO
La Chaux-de-Fonds/Le Locle (better under industry and town planning) - too niche -- NO
Mostar - a bridge that next generation will forget -- NO
Nancy - beautiful squares that should not be in TOP 200 -- NO
Berne (better only under mediaeval) - nice town but really lack of highlight or masterpiece -- NO
Rauma - too typical scandinavian town -- NO
Paris (better under urban continuity and city planning) -- world icon, many msterpieces -- YES
Röros - too typical scandinavian town -- NO
Riga (better under urban continuity) -- its art nouveau is really nice but is it make the city very unique? -- NO
San Marino (better under mediaeval) -- interesting but if it is not a city-state, it will similar to other Italian hill town -- NO
Hamburg - masterpeice port brick architecture, bit too niche -- NO
St. Petersburg - masterpiece of city design, stunning palace -- YES
Trebic (better under mediaeval) - regional significant only -- NO
Urbino - another beautiful Italian town -- NO
Val di Noto - Italian Baroque can be find in many part of Italy -- NO
Valletta - too similar with many Italian cities, only location and fortification really make it more interesting -- NO
Vicenza - Palladian architecture is very important, but the idea of this achitecture can be found around the world -- NO
Vienna (better under urban continuity, city planning) -- YES
Vilnius - nothing really stand out from nice european cities -- NO
Vlkolinec (better under rural) - too small and nothing really significant -- NO
Yaroslavl - typical russian town in a quick glance -- NO
Zamosc - another nice well preserved old town in eastern europe -- NO

My selection:

Amsterdam
Bordeaux
Budapest
Luxembourg City
Florence
Brussels
Ibiza
Riga
St. Petersburg
Vienna

This one should be summarized.