Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Administration
Budget
Capacity Building
Communication
Community
Conservation
Credibility of the World Heritage ...
Inscriptions on the World Heritage ...
International Assistance
List of World Heritage in Danger
Operational Guidelines
Outstanding Universal Value
Partnerships
Periodic Reporting
Reinforced Monitoring
Reports
Tentative Lists
Working methods and tools
World Heritage Convention








2025 25 GA
2025 47 COM
2024 46 COM
2023 24 GA
2023 45 COM
2023 18 EXT.COM
2022 17 EXT.COM
2021 16 EXT.COM
2021 23 GA
2021 44 COM
2021 15 EXT.COM
2020 14 EXT.COM
2019 13 EXT.COM
2019 22 GA
2019 43 COM
2018 42 COM
2017 12 EXT.COM
2017 21 GA
2017 41 COM
2016 40 COM
2015 11 EXT.COM
2015 20 GA
2015 39 COM
2014 1 EXT.GA
2014 38 COM
2013 19 GA
2013 37 COM
2012 36 COM
2011 10 EXT.COM
2011 18 GA
2011 35 COM
2010 34 COM
2010 9 EXT.COM
2009 17 GA
2009 33 COM
2008 32 COM
2007 16 GA
2007 8 EXT.COM
2007 31 COM
2006 30 COM
2005 15 GA
2005 29 COM
2005 29 BUR
2004 7 EXT.COM
2004 7 EXT.BUR
2004 28 COM
2004 28 BUR
2003 14 GA
2003 27 COM
2003 27 BUR
2003 6 EXT.COM
2002 26 COM
2002 26 BUR
2001 25 COM
2001 25 EXT.BUR
2001 5 EXT.COM
2001 13 GA
2001 25 BUR
2000 24 COM
2000 24 EXT.BUR
2000 24 BUR(SPE)
2000 24 BUR
1999 23 COM
1999 23 EXT.BUR
1999 4 EXT.COM
1999 12 GA
1999 3 EXT.COM
1999 23 BUR
1998 22 COM
1998 22 EXT.BUR
1998 22 BUR
1997 21 COM
1997 21 EXT.BUR
1997 2 EXT.COM
1997 11 GA
1997 21 BUR
1996 20 COM
1996 20 EXT.BUR
1996 20 BUR
1995 19 COM
1995 19 EXT.BUR
1995 10 GA
1995 19 BUR
1994 18 COM
1994 18 EXT.BUR
1994 18 BUR
1993 17 COM
1993 17 EXT.BUR
1993 9 GA
1993 17 BUR
1992 16 COM
1992 16 BUR
1991 15 COM
1991 8 GA
1991 15 BUR
1990 14 COM
1990 14 BUR
1989 13 COM
1989 7 GA
1989 13 BUR
1988 12 COM
1988 12 BUR
1987 11 COM
1987 6 GA
1987 11 BUR
1986 10 COM
1986 10 BUR
1985 9 COM
1985 5 GA
1985 9 BUR
1984 8 COM
1984 8 BUR
1983 7 COM
1983 4 GA
1983 7 BUR
1982 6 COM
1982 6 BUR
1981 5 COM
1981 1 EXT.COM
1981 5 BUR
1980 3 GA
1980 4 COM
1980 4 BUR
1979 3 COM
1979 3 BUR
1979 2 BUR
1978 2 GA
1978 2 COM
1978 1 BUR
1977 1 COM
1976 1 GA

Decision CONF 001 VI.B
Puebla (Mexico)

The Bureau recalled that the case of Puebla was briefly discussed at the seventeenth session of the Committee. The Secretariat informed the Bureau that since then, it continued to receive letters and reports from individuals, associations and organizations on the rehabilitation plan for Puebla, particularly the so-called Rio San Francisco area.

A report was received on 28 March 1994 from the Mexican National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) that a regional development programme called ANGELOPOLIS is in preparation for an area of the State of Puebla including 14 municipalities and 35% of the population of the State of Puebla. It also reported that in the context of this regional development plan an urban rehabilitation project is planned for the Rio San Francisco area in Puebla which would include the development of a pedestrian area and the construction of hotels, a convention centre and commercial areas. The report re-affirmed the statement made by the Delegate of Mexico at the seventeenth session of the Committee, namely that to date no concrete proposals exist for the area concerned. It confirmed, however, that the proposal in Puebla would concern 27 of the 391 building blocks within the World Heritage site. The report stressed that the National Institute would create a special commission to evaluate future projects for this area.

The Bureau was also informed that the Director-General of UNESCO decided, at the request of the Governor of Puebla, to send an expert to Puebla to advise the municipal and'state authorities on the rehabilitation plans. This mission was undertaken in early June by an architect/urbanist from the University of Venice.

The draft mission report, which was received only a few days before the Bureau session and which includes an analysis of the urban structure and morphology of the historic centre of Puebla, concludes that the projected intervention would be valid in the sense that it would upgrade an area now partially abandoned and would re-establish the visual and functional links between the eastern and the western parts of the centre, but that the structure and morphology of the area should be maintained and reinforced, and should form the basis for future plans.

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that as a follow-up to the mission a request for technical assistance had been presented by the Government of Mexico to obtain the services of the expert who undertook the mission, for advice and guidance in the further development of the plans.

The Representative of ICOMOS informed the Bureau that it also had tried to examine the situation in Puebla through its national committee, but that it had not succeeded. He offered, however, ICOMOS' services and expertise in the evaluation of the expert mission report and the information received from the Mexican authorities.

The Bureau decided that at this point it could not form a clear opinion on the plans for Puebla and requested the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS to evaluate the reports and to report in more detail to the eighteenth session of the Committee.

Decision Code
CONF 001 VI.B
Themes
Conservation
States Parties 1
Year
1994
State of conservation reports
1994 Historic Centre of Puebla
Documents
WHC-94/CONF.001/10
Report of the Rapporteur
Context of Decision
WHC-94/CONF.001/10
top