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

Works of Antoni Gaudí

Spain
Factors affecting the property in 2013*
  • Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

Infrastructure project for a high-speed train tunnel 

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2013
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2013**

January 2010: Technical Reactive Monitoring Mission (ICOMOS)

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2013

On 1 February 2013, Spain submitted a report on the state of conservation of the property providing information concerning the tunnel and possible vibrations caused by high speed trains near the Casa Milà and the Sagrada Familia. The Spanish Railway Infrastructure Administration (ADIF) has confirmed that the Sant Sagrera Tunnel has been put in service in January 2013. The report points out that that there has been no soil compaction or other events affecting the property and that the property is in stable condition. The report informs also about the implementation of a Vibrational Monitoring Programme with the purpose of surveying and preventing any negative impact on the property. 

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2013

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies are of the view that the state of conservation of the property is being adequately addressed by the State Party. The State Party is encouraged to continue to monitor closely the state of conservation of the property and implement all relevant measures in order to prevent any threats to its Outstanding Universal Value.  

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2013
37 COM 7B.103
Omnibus Decision

 World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add,

2.  Recalling Decisions 34 COM 8B.6, 35 COM 7B.42, 35 COM 7B.63, 35 COM 7B.67, 35 COM 7B.68, 35 COM 7B.69, 35 COM 7B.73, 35 COM 7B.88, 35 COM 7B.94, 35 COM 7B.98, 35 COM 7B.102, 35 COM 7B.106, 35 COM 7B.109, 35 COM 7B.122, 35 COM 7B.127, 35 COM 7B.128, 35 COM 7B.131 and 35 COM 7B.133 , adopted at its 34th (Brasilia, 2010) and 35th (UNESCO, 2011) sessions respectively,

3.  Takes note with satisfaction  of the measures taken by the States Parties concerned to address its previous requests to mitigate the threats on the Outstanding Universal Value of the following World Heritage properties :

  • Old Town of Lijiang (China)
  • Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)
  • San Augustin Arhcaeological Park (Colombia)
  • Historic Centre of Český Krumlov (Czech Republic)
  • Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape (Hungary)
  • Taj Mahal (India)
  • Agra Fort (India)
  • Fatehpur Sikri (India)
  • Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park (India)
  • Prambanan Temple Compounds (Indonesia)
  • Monte San Giorgio (Italy / Switzerland)
  • Vilnius Historic centre (Lithuania)
  • Melaka and George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca (Malaysia)
  • Historic centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco (Mexico)
  • Camino real de Tierra Adentro (Mexico)
  • Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana (Peru)
  • City of Cuzco (Peru)
  • Churches of Moldavia (Romania)
  • Ensemble of the Ferrapontov Monastery (Russian Federation)
  • Island of Gorée (Senegal)
  • Works of Antoni Gaudi (Spain)

4.  Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;

5.  Reminds the States Parties concerned to inform the World Heritage Centre in due course about any major development project which may affect the Outstanding Universal Value of a property, before any irreversible commitments are made, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines .

Draft Decision:  37 COM 7B.103

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add,

2.  Recalling Decisions 34 COM 8B.6, 35 COM 7B.42, 35 COM 7B.63, 35 COM 7B.67, 35 COM 7B.68, 35 COM 7B.69, 35 COM 7B.73, 35 COM 7B.88, 35 COM 7B.94, 35 COM 7B.98, 35 COM 7B.102, 35 COM 7B.106, 35 COM 7B.109, 35 COM 7B.122, 35 COM 7B.127, 35 COM 7B.128, 35 COM 7B.131 and 35 COM 7B.133,adopted at its 34th (Brasilia, 2010) and 35th (UNESCO, 2011) sessions respectively,

3.  Takes note with satisfaction of the measures taken by the States Parties concerned to address its previous requests to mitigate the threats on the Outstanding Universal Value of the following World Heritage properties :

·  Old Town of Lijiang (China)

·  Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)

·  San Augustin Arhcaeological Park (Colombia)

·  Historic Centre of Český Krumlov (Czech Republic)

·  Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape (Hungary)

·  Taj Mahal (India)

·  Agra Fort (India)

·  Fatehpur Sikri (India)

·  Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park (India)

·  Prambanan Temple Compounds (Indonesia)

·  Monte San Giorgio (Italy / Switzerland)

·  Vilnius Historic centre (Lithuania)

·  Melaka and George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca (Malaysia)

·  Historic centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco (Mexico)

·  Camino real de Tierra Adentro (Mexico)

·  Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana (Peru)

·  City of Cuzco (Peru)

·  Churches of Moldavia (Romania)

·  Ensemble of the Ferrapontov Monastery (Russian Federation)

·  Island of Gorée (Senegal)

·  Works of Antoni Gaudi (Spain)

4.  Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;

5.  Reminds the States Parties concerned to inform the World Heritage Centre in due course about any major development project that may negatively impact the Outstanding Universal Value of a property, before any irreversible commitments are made, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines.

 

Report year: 2013
Spain
Date of Inscription: 1984
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)(ii)(iv)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 37COM (2013)
Exports

* : 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.


top