Civic work (18)
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/categories/category57.html

Aflaj
Padre Tembleque
Beemster Polder
Centennial Hall, Wroclaw
Curonian Spit (Why here?)
Woudagemaal
Kinderdijk
Moscow Kremlin
Madara Rider (Why here?)
Margravial Opera House, Bayreuth
Sokolovic Bridge
(Mt Qingcheng)/Dujiangyan
Palau de la Musica Catalana/Hospital de Sant Pau
Schokland
Shushtar
Su Nuraxi (Why here?)
Sydney Opera House
Westminster

My selection:

Centennial Hall - important in terms of modern architecture and sporting events.
Moscow Kremlin - to represent Russian mediaeval architecture. The best Kremlin.
Kinderdijk - the quintessential Dutch landscape, which demonstrates traditional flour production.
Schokland - perhaps the best example on the list of land reclamation.
Palau de la Musica Catalana/Hospital de Sant Pau - if I had to choose between Gaudi and this one, I would go for the first one, but this is exceptional enough to get at least a maybe.
Sydney Opera House - iconic modern architecture
Westminster - for the Parliament
Margravial Opera House - best preserved wooden theatre.

All the mills at Kinderdijk are for pumping water. This not the case for all Windmills in NL - the famous group at Zaanse Schans, for instance, were Mustard mills, Saw mills and Dye mills. So we have 2 WHS in NL for getting rid of water - this using wind technology and the Ir D.F. Woudagemaal using steam pumps. Beemster Polder also includes water pumping windmills. I would choose Kinderijk for a YES over both Schokland and Beemster as covering land reclamation and giving us a "traditional" essentially "Dutch" landscape with associated canals for channelling, controlling and disposing of water from an area below sea level..

As for the rest
-Aflaj - NO -we have a number of dry landscape water management WHS (also Mzab, Shushtar, Bam etc). I prefer Shushtar over this one.
-Padre Tembleque - NO - water management by Spain in its new colonies is a bit too niche - and is almost certainly (??) represented in one or other of the colonial towns anyway
-Centennial Hall, Wroclaw - MAYBE - is "fishing" in several ponds - one for its technology and another for its role as a purpose-built public space for exhibitions etc. Only on the former might it be significant "In this development, Max Berg's Centennial Hall is an avantgarde structure which opens new grounds in the use of the materials and in spatial conceptions. It is the largest dome structure in reinforced concrete built before the First World War" .... (and ....anticipates the large reinforced concrete structures in later 20th century, e.g. by Pier Luigi Nervi in Italy and others
around the world (ICOMOS).
-Curonian Spit (Why here?) - NO - This is another of those sites whose inscription logic crumbles (or at least is shown as inconsistent) on deeper investigation. Although nominated on mixed criteria it is actually inscribed solely on a single Cultural one. I cannot find the negative IUCN evaluation but the WHC decision states "Concerning natural values, the Committee noted that the Curonian Spit is an important site at the European scale and very significant within the Baltic Region as a whole. However, it was not considered to meet the criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List as a natural property." And the cultural OUV? "The Curonian Spit is an outstanding example of a landscape of sand dunes that is under constant threat from natural forces (wind and tide). After disastrous human interventions that menaced its survival the Spit was reclaimed by massive protection and stabilization works begun in the 19th century and still continuing to the present day.".
-Moscow Kremlin - YES. Incontrovertible but interesting that this is the only Category it has been assigned to!
-Madara Rider (Why here?)- NO - not really very significant and Bulgaria did well to get it inscribed so early in the history of WHS! It perhaps really ought to be considered with the Pictographs/glyphs?
-Margravial Opera House, Bayreuth - NO - There are opera houses in other sites and I find this provincial example standing on its own a bit too "niche"even if it does have some uncommon and rather fine features
-Sokolovic Bridge - NO - All a bit "regional". It doesn't represent anything new technologically. Its comparators are all part of wider WHS. ICOMOS AB states "The Višegrad Bridge is one of the major historic edifices of the Balkans and the South-East of Europe. In stylistic terms, it is emblematic of the Classical Ottoman period of the 16th century, and it offers parallels with the bridges of the Renaissance. The construction and assembly details are similar. Like the Renaissance bridges, it bears witness to the long duration of the influences of Roman antiquity on bridge building in Europe and the Middle East. The Višegrad Bridge is exactly contemporaneous with the Santa Trinita Bridge in Florence,"
- Mt Qingcheng)/Dujiangyan - MAYBE - yet another "water management" site. From quite early on (256BC) and a different geographical area from others we are considering. I feel that we probably have enough of these?
-Palau de la Musica Catalana/Hospital de Sant Pau - NO - Fine buildings (I visited in Oct for the first time. But I don't see them as having quite enough to be included to represent the period/ Barcelona etc
-Shushtar - MAYBE - I suspect that none of us know a great deal about this site!!
-Su Nuraxi (Why here?)
-Sydney Opera House - YES - its distinctiveness and its resultant iconic status around the World - as well perhaps as its "representation" of post colonial European Australia would seem to make it an essential inclusion
-Westminster - YES - even if the Religious aspects of this site aren't regarded as quite "cutting it" this "Mother of Parliaments" with its representation of the journey towards "parliamentary democracy" across many centuries would seem to clinch it

In my opinion:
Aflaj - really nice irrigation system, but I am afraid that it is not the good representative of this kind -- NO
Padre Tembleque - there are many aqueduct that are more impressive, the first in Latin America is not enough to be Top 200 -- NO
Beemster Polder - I really enjoyed Beemster for its pictureque Dutch landscape, but it is a bit too niche to represent Dutch land reclamation -- NO
Centennial Hall, Wroclaw - the big step of concrete construction, but is it worth to be Top 200, I am not sure -- MAYBE
Curonian Spit (Why here?) - cultural landscape on biggest sand spit in Europe, bit too regional -- NO
Woudagemaal - new technology replace windmill, great engineering, very unique but too niche --NO
Kinderdijk - very iconic for perfect Dutch landscape with nice windmills --MAYBE
Moscow Kremlin - definitely YES for architecture, history.
Madara Rider (Why here?) - national significant -- NO
Margravial Opera House, Bayreuth - beautiful opera house still confuse for its representation -- NO
Sokolovic Bridge - masterpiece of ottoman civil engineering, but I will prefer other Ottoman sites to represent -- NO
(Mt Qingcheng)/Dujiangyan - impressive but simple engineering but very hard to visually understand -- MAYBE
Palau de la Musica Catalana/Hospital de Sant Pau -- I like this site more than Gaudi's works, but to represent catalan unique architctural movement I will choose Gaudi for its more impact --NO
Schokland - its existence is the result of land reclamation, the story of struggle is very unique, but the visit experience is really dissapointing --NO
Shushtar - really interesting but I really have no idea to compare with other site --MAYBE
Su Nuraxi (Why here?) - Sardinia representative? --NO
Sydney Opera House - symbol of Australia, iconic architecture, world landmark -- YES
Westminster - world landmark Big Ben and symbol of British style parliamentary system -- YES

I also support Kremlin, Sydney opera house, Westminister for their iconic status. I also support Shushtar for its unique water management system

Moscow Kremlin - YES, iconic, representative Kremlin, and for historical importance.
Sydney Opera House - NO, a beautiful setting, a beautiful building, a sub-par interior, how important is it really to world architecture?
Westminster - YES, parliamentary democracy is of key importance.
Shushtar - YES, stunning, dates from the 3rd century and "It bears witness to the know-how of the Elamites and Mesopotamians as well as more recent Nabatean expertise and Roman building influence."
Kinderdijk - MAYBE, I feel at least one of the civic works in the Netherlands needs to be recognized for water management.

All others, no.

I'm trying to work out why somethings aren't included here. Why is Padre Tembleque here but not Pont du Gard, Segovia, Morelia or even Pontcycsyllte?

Wouldn't the Belgian Belfires be a better fit here than as military structures, especially as Moscow is here.

I feel like I am missing something obvious.

My selection:

Centennial Hall, Wroclaw
Moscow Kremlin
Westminster

Well -whilst not disputing that there are sites which could be better assigned and that maybe there could be different/new "Categories" which would better describe and bring together for easy comparison, "similar" sites, the aim with "Categories" was to try to establish what a site was PRIMARILY. The problems in doing this were similar to those we had with trying to identify what period a site came from PRIMARILY - many sites have many different facets and if one is not careful one could just replicate a large part of the Connections. We therefore tried to avoid having a second category for a site unless it was clearly justified and certainly not 3, 4 or more!
So -in relation the Padre Tembleque, Pont du Gard and Morelia - ok they ALL have Aqueducts. But Pont du Gard is primarily a "Roman archaeological site" which happens to be an aqueduct. Morelia is a "Colonial Town" which happens (like many others) to have an aqueduct , Padre Tembleque is ......... an Aqueduct!!! So - what to do with it??? If we introduced an "Aqueduct" category we just finish up duplicating the Connection" - and in any case e.g Morelia is surely correctly assigned as being PRIMARILY a "Colonial town"? As regards Pontcycyllte - alone among "Aqueducts" its purpose was primarily to assist trade - hence its assignment.
Tembleque could perhaps have been assigned to "Archaeological site" - but most of these relate to particular geographical areas/cultures/civilisations. We could have changed "Pre-columbian Arch sites" to include post Columbian sites? We also tried to avoid introducing too many categories with just a very small number of WHS assigned to them but we could introduce a new separate category of "Colonial Archaeological sites" - it could include e.g Padre Tembleque AND Leon Viejo for a start (plus Panama?) ... and then - Kilwa Kisiwani was a "colonial" site in Africa - bur doesn't seem "right" to mix it in? So lets limit the new category to "colonial archaeolgical sites in the Americas" - where do we stop!

Maybe the "Public works" category could have been better defined. It is really a "catch all" for "built" sites which are not towns/cities, religious buildings, archaeological sites belonging to a major civilisation etc etc etc but were created for the benefit of the populace!

As for
Belgian Belfries - yes they would probably be better here
The Kremlin/Red Square - it could be a "Palace" or a "Fortification". It also has religious buildings both inside and outside and the "Square" makes it a bit different from a pure "Military/Fortification" - although, on reflection, I might move it there.

Sites like Shushtar and the Aflaj have a historic/Archaeological aspect but are still (at least in part?) in use - that would seem to make assignment to an archaeological category inappropriate - but if we did would we use "near eastern" or introduce another geographical sub category?

I suggest that there is no fully correct answer which covers all sites/situations!! So -what do we do? Start assigning sites to "n" categories each to cover all their aspects? Abandon "Categorisation" on the basis that it can't ever be 100% correct? Introduce a lot more categories? Discuss the anomalies both in definition and assignment and, where we think we can do better, move/redefine whilst accepting that, in other cases, a judgement call has to be made which isn't entirely satisfactory?

For this particular exercise we already accepted that "similar" sites are going to be in other categories too and that we just have to "remember" and assess these - for sites whose assignment we think is anomalous/could be improved, Els has raised a topic on this Forum and we can pick up on these at a later date. In any case it is perhaps better to have gone through every Category before making changes to a few so that we have the entire "domain" in view

We are almost finished. Only ancient Roman sites are missing.

Hi assif - did you see my question to you under "Out or in doubt"?

Thanks for the explanation Solivagant. I guess there will always be inconsistencies but good to refocus on why they are assigned as they are. Though there do seem to be a few that have turned up in two categories I guess this is just ad hoc additions for this exercise.

My selection:

Kinderdijk (maybe, iconic)
Sydney Opera House
Westminster

This one needs a summary.

I'll do this