State of Conservation (SOC)
Hanseatic City of Lübeck (2004)
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property
Total Amount Ap proved:0USD
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Current conservation issues
A working group of German urban planning and architecture experts established by the City of Lübeck met during the last year to evaluate and advise on the construction plans of the new post office building. The status report prepared by the Mayor's Office Municipal Planning Division on 26 January 2004 states that the main construction of the new post office building is being finalized and the final decision on the façade and roofscape is foreseen in summer 2004. The report does not provide any documentation on the current shape of the building. The City authorities of Lübeck intend to invite an ICOMOS/UNESCO mission to assess the final results of the construction, once it is finished.
Concerning the council office site (city-house property) no new development planning was taken up due to a lack of investors and tenants. The City authorities of Lübeck declare being very interested in developing this lot and assure to involve experts from ICOMOS and UNESCO as soon as planning will be resumed. The State Party informed the Centre that a comprehensive management plan for the Old Town of Lübeck would be provided upon completion.
ICOMOS noted that, in principle, it is in favour of the building project replacing the old post office building and a secondary building by the construction of a commercial centre with an annex, as it underlines the functional continuity at this place of the historic city centre. The outline of the new buildings respects the historic ground plan of the city; the height and volume are also regarded as being acceptable. Yet the high complexity of the building is to be revised in respect to the roof: the form should be simplified and the material carefully reconsidered. ICOMOS accepts the glass façade of the building, yet reminding that the question of commercial signs has to be dealt with special attention in order to avoid negative impacts on the public space. Furthermore, ICOMOS considered the secondary building as too obtrusive in comparison to its function and therefore asks for a more restrained architectural expression.
ICOMOS took note of the modifications made to the initial building project and advises to integrate changes recommended by the expert group in 2002, especially those concerning the façade and roof. ICOMOS supported the State Party’s proposal to invite UNESCO/ICOMOS representatives to the site in order to study the revised building project once it is advanced. ICOMOS suggested to be kept informed on the progress of the constructions as well as on the new project for the secondary building.
Analysis and Conclusion
Link to the decision
The World Heritage Committee, 1. Thanking the German authorities for the timely submission of the report requested, 2. Welcomes the German authorities’ and the City of Lübeck’s offer to collaborate with the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS in the development of the plans for the buildings; 3. Requests the State Party to keep the World Heritage Committee informed of any new development plans likely to affect the property’s integrity.
Draft Decision: 28 COM 15B.88
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Thanking the German authorities for the timely submission of the report requested,
2. Welcomes the German authorities’ and the City of Lübeck’s offer to collaborate with the Centre and ICOMOS in the development of the plans for the buildings;
3. Requests the State Party to keep the World Heritage Committee informed of any new development plans likely to affect the property’s integrity.
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).