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

Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin

Germany
Factors affecting the property in 1995*
  • Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure
  • Housing
  • Legal framework
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1995
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1995

The Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin were inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1990. The site was extended to include the Saveur Church and the Sacrow Castle in 1992. A mission to the site was carried out by ICOMOS, the World Heritage Centre and German experts in 1993 and a seminar was held on the "Development of the Potsdam Manmade Landscape" with support from the World Heritage Fund in 1994. The full report of the Seminar was presented by the German Council for Land Stewardship (Deutscher Rat für Landespflege) to the World Heritage Centre. The report reveals the landscape history of the site, which is an exceptionally designed landscape and includes not only the Park itself, but also the Potsdam cultural landscape which is threatened by urban pressure. The Seminar recommended the following:

- to enlarge the site to include the "Neuer Garten", the Babelsberger Park, the Russian Colony/Kapellenberg/Pfingstberg and the Bornimer Feldflur;

- to acknowledge the ensemble character of the Park and its surrounding cultural landscape as a buffer zone;

- to review development projects of the city planners of Potsdam which may threaten the values of the site by current traffic planning (including international waterways) and construction projects. Characteristic sight connections would be affected;

- to review the legal protection situation of the site.

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 1995

The Bureau may wish to recommend to the Committee that the German authorities be asked to provide a full state of conservation report of the site, including statements concerning, legal protection, current planning and development of Potsdam, review of possible extension of the site and the future development of guiding principles to protect the Potsdam World Heritage site and its surrounding cultural landscape.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1995
19 COM VII.C.2.37/33
SOC: Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany)

VII.37 Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany)

The Committee took note of the report provided by the Secretariat and invited the German authorities to provide a full state of conservation report on the site, including statements concerning legal protection, current planning and development of Potsdam, as well as information on possible extensions of the site and/or buffer zones adjacent to the site.

The Secretariat requests the Committee to take note of the following correction to be made in document WHC-95/CONF. 203/5 .Add page 2.: the first of the four recommendations made by the German Council for Land Stewardship (Deutscher Rat für Landespflege) should read as follows:

- to enlarge the site: especially the "Neuer Garten" and the "Babelsberger Park" should be extended, the connection "Russische Kolonie/Kapellenberg/Pfingstberg" should be integrated and the "Bornimer (Lennesche) Feldflur" should be added.

The Secretariat recommends the Committee to take note of the written information provided by the Secretariat and to adopt the following:

"The Committee took note of the report provided by the Secretariat and requested the German authorities to provide a full state of conservation report on the site, including statements concerning legal protection, current planning and development of Potsdam, review of possible extension of the site and the future development of guiding principles to protect the Potsdam World Heritage site and its surrounding cultural landscape."

Report year: 1995
Germany
Date of Inscription: 1990
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)(ii)(iv)
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