Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg and Related Groups of Monuments
Factors affecting the property in 1993*
- Changes in traditional ways of life and knowledge system
- Financial resources
- Legal framework
- Management activities
- Management systems/ management plan
- Other Threats:
Steady deterioration of the city's pysical environment; Large-scale rehabilitation project for the Hermitage
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1993
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 1993**
1993: 2 expert missions
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1993
[Oral report by ICOMOS and the Secretariat]
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1993
17 BUR VIII.2
Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg (Russia)
ICOMOS reported on various factors of a financial and socio-economic nature that threaten the site and hinder its proper conservation. : COMOS reported however, that there is little need to send individual experts or groups of experts on urban heritage, given the comprehensive and carefully reasoned analysis and diagnosis on the conservation problems prepared by the local authorities and group of professionals.
ICOMOS suggested, given the analysis and diagnosis that is already available in Saint Petersburg and other cities in the world, to organize a symposium on heritage conservation in major urban/metropolitan areas. The Rapporteur and the Delegate fromSenegal supported the suggestion, indicating that the problems in Saint Petersburg are in fact similar to those in the Medinas of Fez and Tunis, which would call for a regional/inter-regional approach. The Bureau recommended that the Centre and ICOMOS look into the possibilities of organizing (a) small seminar(s) on urban heritage conservation in urban/metropolitan areas.
17 COM X
SOC: The Hermitage, St. Petersburg (Russian Federation)
The Hermitage, St. Petersburg (Russian Federation)
At the request of the authorities of the Russian Federation, the Director-General decided to launch a large scale project for the rehabilitation of the Hermitage Museum. Two missions were organized in 1993 in which experts of the Kimbell Art Museum of Houston, and the Metropolitan Museum, New York, (USA) participated. Furthermore, UNESCO requested a consultant engineering firm in Edinburgh, (UK), to identify different components for a rehabilitation programme for the Hermitage Museum. This group of architects/engineers visited the site in September and November 1993 to prepare, together with Russian specialists, the rehabilitation programme for the buildings of the complex. A progress report would be submitted for information to the Bureau.
17 COM X
SOC: St. Petersburg (Russian Federation)
St. Petersburg (Russian Federation)
ICOMOS reported to the Bureau at its seventeenth session on its review of factors related to the steady deterioration of the physical environment of the city. The Bureau supported the ICOMOS recommendation to explore ways and means to encourage exchange between the city's specialists and outside experts. An ICOMOS mission undertaken in June 1993 identified the following key problems: insufficient public resources, changing function of the city, housing and ecological problems, unplanned urban development, lack of appropriate management and heritage legislation, lack of adequate documentation and lack of public involvement. These problems, however, were very well understood by local authorities and experts. ICOMOS proposed to organize an evaluation workshop in St. Petersburg in June 1994 with the participation of about 25 Russian professionals or municipal planners and ten outside professionals from Central and Western Europe. ICOMOS had included funding support for this meeting in its budget for 1994. In response to a question from the Delegate of Thailand, the ICOMOS Representative underlined that the situation in St. Petersburg is critical, but that improvement could be expected. The Committee endorsed this proposal for an expert meeting.
No draft Decision
Documents examined by the Committee17COM (1993)
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”).
** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.