Why Dresden Lost Its UNESCO World Heritage Status
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 жов 2022
- In this video, we delve into the story of how Dresden, a city in Saxony, Germany, lost its UNESCO World Heritage Site status. The Waldschlösschen Bridge, built in the early 2000s, played a crucial role in stripping the Dresden Elbe Valley of its status. Discover the history and significance of this controversial build, for which plans had been around since long before the bombing of Dresden. What came out of the conflict that garnered international attention would not only affect tourism in Dresden, but also set a precedent for future UNESCO disputes.
If you want to learn more about UNESCO click here:
www.unesco.org/en
_____________________________________________
Footage:
Stock footage provided by Videvo, downloaded from www.videvo.net
Hellerau - Screenshots from Google Maps
The remaining footage was captured by the channel creator.
Audio:
artlist.io/
GEAR IN THIS VIDEO:
Camera: www.dpreview.com/products/fuj...
Gimball: www.priceboon.com/product/zhi...
Lens: www.dpreview.com/products/fuj...
Microphone: www.photographypls.com/ultima...
Memory Card: www.cameramemoryspeed.com/rev...
_____________________________________________
About:
This channel deals with topics concerning architecture and city design. The aim is to broadcast interesting and peculiar structures as well as to challenge current standards within the field. If you (like me) have a passion for the subject, consider checking out some of my other videos!
I also have a homepage!
tinyhauss.com/
What you fail to mention, though, is the fact, that UNESCO knew about the bridge when they approved the heritage status of the valley.
now THAT is a plot twist and a half!
They knew about the project. The bridge did not exist yet.
So giving heritage status was UNESCO way of stopping bridge construction?
@@KumarNikhilsmore Like we trust you'll think a bit more and use a tunel
This video suggested that they did know.
As a Dresden citizen I can say that the bridge was and is an absolute win for the city and also for tourists. People in the comments say that it destroys the historic old city but actually you can see the bridge only if you look into the opposite direction of the old city. Because of this bridge, a lot of traffic could be redirected to go around the old city while many other bridges have been or are now closed for renovation, because, you guessed it, old bridges tend to wear off the older they get and need a lot of maintainance. Dresden is known in the world already for some reason or the other. May it be the old city and its architectural achievements, sad happenings from '45 or the Elbe river and its surroundings. It does not desperately need the world heritage title like a small village behind and over the hill. With or without the title it is a beautiful city with a lot of places to rest with a beautiful view and lots and lots of green nearly everywhere you look. It is a big city but at the same time not as cold and lifeless as some other city centers around the world. And the Waldschlösschenbrücke contributes to that. (Also it is my way of getting to work at the city border in only 12 Minutes from the center where I live, would have never been possible without it)
Why not make the design more beautiful and in touch with the old architecture? It was that simple, but no we had to build in a grandiose design that was probably 2x more expensive
@@Nostalg1a have you ever seen the Carolabrücke which is actually in the old town between the old bridges? That's an ugly and boring design. In comparison the Waldschlösschenbrücke has a language of design which seems very simple but not entirely boring and that clearly does not try to emulate a way of building bridges as it was done hundrets of years ago. It is build in a way to intelligently guide a lot of traffic over the river and in all the years I have never once seen a traffic jam near this one. Especially compared to the also not very antique looking bridge further upstream which is still old but does not resemble the old city. This one is also an actually pretty bad bridge in its function of guiding traffic. Doesn't matter if you're a pedestrian, cyclist or in a car, the bridge always feels very narrow and not as trustworthy while when I am on the Waldschlösschenbrücke I feel like I could do donuts in the car while from outside it actually does not look as monumental as it feels when you're actually on it. Also the bridge upstream is almost contantly jammed up either because of roadwork or because it is just too narrow for 2023 traffic. And after nearly 10 years of being there the design of the Waldschlösschenbrücke has not aged badly in any way, it still feels and looks like a modern, well built bridge (except the illumination at night, that is not the best possible execution, I'll admit that). And making it look old for the sake of it for example with the use of saxony famous sandstone would have taken a lot more finance in the long run in terms of maintainance and also it would have taken even longer to construct
@@godinski Steel is more expensive to create and maintain than stone firstly, and a good design following traditional forms would always be better, even the old bridge which isn't good for car (I assume because cars weren't yet invented) yet no one wants to replace it because it is beautiful.
The new one might be extremely functional but lacks the most important aspect in sustainability, beauty and cohesion with the existing old town, such isn't subjective because UNESCO recognized that.
And even if we were to prolong the modern myth that traditional ways of building are more expensive, it would have saved more money on the long run since the title helps on the restoration and maintenance of the buildings along side the valley.
@@Nostalg1a "a good design following traditional forms is always better" might be a huge stretch into your personal perception. I cannot recall any new buildings in Dresden that did this in the past years just for the sake of looking antique. Dresden shows a lot of achitectural evolution through time right next to each other and it works because there is a lot of history that happened here. And Sandstone might be cheaper to get but it is definitely more expensive in building, reinforcement, maintainance in case of keeping it clean and again, the new bridge is not even within the bounds of the old city. Not even close. It is next to the modern hospital and on the other side there is a lot of nothing/green. For sandstone to be the main material is would for sure have been way more bulky and taken a lot more off the view of the meadows than the sleak bridge in the modern design. Also it would have taken a lot more time which wasn't really at hand because all the other bridges were already falling apart and are under construction most of the time since then. Same thing would most likely have applied to the tunnel idea plus maintainance on tunnels are a pain in the ass. The bridge only took that long because it was blocked that many times by people opposing it. Also most of the old buildings alongside the river are owned privately anyway and btw the yearly fund of the UNESCO is barely 4 million $US. Not for one sight but for all of them. That's like 3000$ a year for every site. It would have changed nothing in case of money. And as I said before. Tourists coming to Dresden were never here because of the world heritage but because of the unique way Dresden looks and its old town... From which you cannot even see the Waldschlösschenbrücke anyway
@@Nostalg1a if you believe the bridge not to be pretty, I can respect that. But the bridge definitely is not the eye-cancer-inducing killer of nature and bringer of all evil it was made up back then. It is just a well needed bridge that a majority of 21 entitled people did not like and to which practical use does not play a role. And it is by far not the place people should think about when it comes to architectural bullshit and eyesores in Dresden.
I’m surprised Philadelphia, USA hasn’t lost its status yet…developers have been tearing down historic buildings at record paces.
Only Independence Hall is a UNESCO world heritage site, and it has been unaffected.
@@dennisshaykevich3451 Philadelphia is a “unesco world heritage city.” It is the only one in the US. Part of the criteria for this is the city needs a world heritage site which it also has as you mentioned
I think because in this case the whole valley is the historical sight not just one location. So when they build the bridge it’s actually affecting the heritage sight. Unlike in Philly where all the gentrification is away from the unesco sights. Btw you must not be from the area because no one from Philly says the whole name hahahahahhaahhaha
They kept Philadelphia on the list because it retained its title of junkie capital of the United States.
@@nickygmp_350 Philadelphia is not a "World Heritage City". There are two in the US, and neither of them is Philadelphia.
Yeah. But we really needed that bridge. It’s sad that they cut down those old trees but otherwise getting around the city was kinda annoying. There was on bridge, then a really big gap where there was only 1 ferry. And then 5 bridges next to each other. We needed a bridge. Especially for cyclist’s! And just because we don’t have the title doesn’t make our valley ugly. It’s still gorgeous and a great place to see.
Yeah, well, not sure how it is in Germany, but losing UNESCO status primarily removes funding and protection rather than some nebulous 'beauty' or even attractiveness for tourists. I really wonder how the location will fare now that it's easier for any kind of (industrial) projects to take place there. The problem, to me, isn't starting with a bridge, it's how it'll end.
Then again, perhaps the region also has national-level protections in place to ensure something like that doesn't happen. I sure hope so.
@@maelos61 in germany we have pretty strict rules for historic buildings in place, so I wouldnt worry about protection.
Why not make the design of the bridge more beautiful and in touch with the old architecture? It was that simple, but no we had to build in a grandiose design that was probably 2x more expensive
The valley is so much more worse off now because of the bridge. A better solution would be to just build a bridge in an appeasing architectural style (like midevil) -but that runs the issue of taking to long. They should've just improved traffic with the city by replacing cars with public transit, or building a metro tunnel where bike lanes can run adjacent to the railroad tracks.
I always wondered why they couldnt just... design a beautiful historic-looking bridge to preserve the beauty of its surroundings? I mean, its literally in the middle of the city. Every time we drive over the bridge I feel sad. Yes, a bridge was definitely needed, the traffic is so much better. But why cant people just make beautiful things anymore? It's so out of place :(
I think the city was right to proceed with the bridge and prioritize the quality of life, movement of people and health of their residents over tourists. It's a key connection where people can bike and walk to the other side of the city and provides greater benefits to the city (health, environmental, reducing congestion, economic) than increased tourism. I think the UNESCO stamp helps with tourism but it's not the only reason people choose to travel to culturally significant sites. Given the city worked to receive the stamp I think they could have worked with UNESCO to design a bridge that was more aesthetically in line with the architecture in the valley and in a way that didn't detract from it's 'beauty' as they see it, working with them as stakeholders so they could both build the bridge and keep the title. The video makes it seem like the city just proceeded with the bridge and left the title in the hands of UNESCO.
But to me this says more about UNESCO's role as an organization than Dresden's priorities as a city. One of UNESCO's guiding principles is to "transform behaviours and values that reverse and halt the decline of biodiversity... to make peace with nature". Punishing a city by removing a cultural title for building a sustainable transportation bridge that promotes health and environmental leadership, seems to me a misalignment of UNESCO's priorities rather than the city's.
I for one care not for tourists. I wish for cities to be beautiful to make the people who live in them happy. Traffic be damned!
If quality of life was a priority, the choice would have been to reduce traffic, not to increase it from induced demand as it will happen shortly.
And you could have had a pedestrian/bikes bridge instead. Smaller, quieter, cleaner, cheaper, sexier, better smelling, and so on.
@@FlushGorgon economic activity and opportunity is an increased quality of life, and an increase in prosperity and living standards.
This is on a macro level. I feel like there's a much larger argument for efficient cities, and induced traffic is not a proven thesis here only speculation.
A said, a tunnel would have served the traffic equally well without impacting the designation at all. In the meantime, a light pedestrian/bike bridge would have not been considered so damaging. IE, the longest span of the Waldschlösschen Bridge is only of 148m. The Bach Long "glass bridge", in Vietnam, has a span of 632m. The designation would have not been lost due to a reduced version of that.
Instead, the Waldschlösschen Bridge is not only "a bridge". It's the biggest and most impacting of all the bridges in Dresden.
@@ayoCC Induced demand is 100% proven. I will not stand the likes of you bad infrastructure apologist!
If you want to reduce car traffic make cars redundant. This is a fact.
I am from another city that also lost its world heritage status, Liverpool. As far as I'm concerned it was well worth it, Liverpool was historically a very poor and neglected city and the construction project that led to the loss of the world heritage status played no small part in the regeneration of the city and transforming it into what it is today. In my opinion these world heritage sites are something of a racket pressuring cities into not improving the lives of it's citizens for some abstract goal of preserving the feel of the place.
The UN - and UNESCO by extension - was not very renowned for being practical, was it? 😄
Bri'ish
Visited liverpool for the first time just a couple days ago, absolutely loved the city I can’t understand why it has a bad rep with some people especially from down south who think the universe ends further north than Oxford. Coming from Birmingham I thought it was a massive step up so can confirm this unesco stuff has had very little impact on the city
Liverpool doesn’t need it. It’s a famous city regardless known for many things. Personally as an American I know it was an important port where most immigrants from Europe passed thru on their way to New York City.
@@CountingStars333 Guys please laugh he said the funny word guys please laugh
As a citizen of Dresden I cannot remember that the city losing World Heritage Status has never made any impact on my life WHATSOEVER, but that bridge I’ve been using more times than I can count, I think it’s the bridge I’ve crossed the most out of all in the city and overall this bridge has made a great improvement to my life in this city, I don’t even think it’s as ugly as many people say, so I congratulate the city on their choice, and UNESCO can go stick some world heritage up their culture hole
Not having visited Dresden for quite a while, I don't remember crossing it (I do remember the poor state of its upstream neighbour "Das Blaue Wunder").
Not being that close to the place any more, my information is very limited, comments I heard were mostly negative, the new bridge serving a minority. (Also, lesser horseshoe bat allegedly sighted should have prevented construction)
Glad it's not as useless as those predicted.
Your attitude shows why people are gradually losing respect for your nation. You were environmental leaders once.
@@Ph34rNoB33r Blaues Wunder is being renovated for years now, it's a very involved process. I'm sad they cut out the small riveted fences adjacent to the drive lanes but they were too far gone i suppose, they should replace those, and get their act together with the coloring scheme, they repainted in two stages and they did not use the same blue, but maybe they repaint the whole thing when they are done with everything else.
@@ericconnor8419 Cry about it Eric. It's his city, and he would rather have a better city than a label by UNESCO
@@ericconnor8419 We don't cancel entire countries, that's why Germany was rebuilt! Your comment is so out of touch with civilization.
It is really interesting how non Dresdners feel the need to tell us how bad the bridge is while all the Dresdners (me included) see the functionality and neccisity. I also do not think she is ugly. In MY opinion she is very elegant and not as massive as an old style bridge would have looked (which is really not important since it is located far from the old town).
it is not a beauty in my opion - which also a result of the Unesco discussion: the arch of the bridge is weirdly shallow, which was probably done to reduce its visual impact.
Even weirder is the fact that the bridge ends up in a tunnel on the northern bank, which really leads to the question why they didn't extend the a tunnel underneath the river and solved the bridge problem this way.
@@henningbartels6245 you really dont know how expensive is building a tunnel, under the river? thats even more
Don't pretend that bridge is some work of art, it's literally the only bridge modern architects/engineers are able to build. It's got nothing to do with "ow we could have chosen an old style bridge but we cent with this for aesthetics", the fact is they literally wouldn't know how to build anything else than a steel bridge.
And it is hideous.
It is ugly don't be proud you have wrecked a beautiful area.
@@ericconnor8419 it's a fine bridge. it's not special
Being born and raised in Dresden, I think that the bridge took nothing from the Elbe valley, except for the UNESCO title. I have always been very excited about the bridge and I am still. For pedestrians it opens new opportunities to explore the area and in general I think the bridge is good to look at. When it was finished, I remember how amazed I was about the bridge fitting so well into the surrounding landscape, especially lining up perfectly with the hills in the background (as seen in your video as well). Looking at the river banks which were, in my understanding, the main point of the world heritage area, the bridge is actually not very invasive given its almost free floating design. Lastly in terms of traffic, even though new roads/bridges don't reduce traffic but rather increase it, I'm sure that the new bridge helped easing traffic in the central area of the city, especially since the very old bridges in the center had to be renewed.
So again, I think the bridge didn't take anything from the area. Does it provide something? A little. After all, without the world heritage title there wouldn't have been so much fuzz about the whole thing. But the title also sparked discussion, which made quite a few changes to the design and construction of the bridge. So after all I'm seeing a slight win for the city :)
Oh, I frogot to mention one point that's important to me personally. I do see this bridge as a piece of art and certainly as an expression of culture as well. While protecting existing sites of culture is important, we are not done developing, this is not the end. So adding new pieces of culture to the existing ones is something we should persue. There is nothing worse than getting stuck in conservation, especially for the Dresden mentality, which tends to be looking too much back into the past.
Here in Mexico we have the "Estadio Olimpico Universitario" which one of our top league teams uses every week. Is in a bad condition but because it has the Unesco title, they can't repair it. Sometimes you have to choose between usability or aesthetics. I fully agree on repair it, mostly because its a place they use constantly
Don't forget the HORRIBLE bycicle/walking infraestructure throughout whole CU that cannot be intervened due to this status...
Bro, UNESCO let you repair your world heritage zone and buildings, the problem is the politics that want to use another material that is not the original for the sake to earn extra bucks and do corruption
It sounds like an excuse. World heritage sites MUST be mantained, and that includes repairing. By not repairing it, you risk to lose the WHS status.
This is super well made! I thought you'd at least have 500k subs with such high quality, consistent content as yours. I truly hope you get the audience you deserve!
With high regards, Yours Truly me; with thanks from Sweden!
Thanks to the bridge, my father got to keep his hand and didn't bleed out since the route for ambulances from the main hospital to the other side of the river was reduced by 10 to 30 minutes (depending on traffic) those 10 to 30 minutes SAFE LIFES on a daily basis! Never forget that!
As another plus for many citizens, it reduced my friend's drive to work from 45 minutes to just 20... (For all you eco activists, try thinking of it as tons of CO2 saved long term)
Tbh no tourist gives a shit about unesco stamps. It’s annoying when a city takes that as an important thing to keep sacrificing well being and a more attractive city. Happened in my county,unesco basically banned public transport in the old town of our second lagerst city
sound like Penang lol
In which way does it affect the City of Dresden to lose that Heritage Site? NONE!
I am from Dresden and from what I can say loosing that title did change nothing.
First: My mother works as a tourist guide and she constantly asks her tourist groups whether they actually KNOW about that. Most of them don't even know. So who cares?
Second: As already stated before, the original application for the Title CONTAINED the bridge, so actually UNESCO granted the title although the Elbe Valley was NOT in the shape it was supposed to be.
Third: Corruption... UNESCO grants and removes the titles based on who is paying them most. At first they had no problem with the bridge because, like stated before, the bridge was included in the application form. On the other hand there was another case in another city in Germany where a big part of the historic town was to be granted heritage site title. Then there was the plan to build a modern looking hotel in this area and UNESCO insisted on NOT building it because it would jeopardize the plan to grant the title... However after a certain amount of money was transfered to UNESCO, they "suddenly" changed their minds.... Same goes for Dresden. There have been a lot of people posting concerns about that bridge.. Most of them being not even citizens of Dresden and completely ignoring the advantages of the bridge concerning traffic issues. Those people (mostly prominent people) just used this discussion for self profilation... And I am pretty sure some of them "spend" a little money....
So in the end UNESCO lost a lot of it's creditability and reputation for this. And most people in Dresden are NOT that happy with another application because they feel like UNESCO is interfering with the city's development...
the argumentation is a bit twisted - asking tourist about a non-existent title. How should they know about if the title don't exist right now and therefore is not part of a current marketing concept for the city.
Can you also make a Video on how Liverpool lost its World Heritage Status?
maybe they could have compromised and went with a historic style bridge instead of a modern design. It is obvious the bridge was needed, and if people are so massively in support of it its a good thing it was built, but just building it differently might have been the way to go
No it wasn't possible. 1. Because of the cost. 2. Because of the flood of 2002 with more than 9 m and 3. Because of shipping
The bridge is absolutely neccesary fot traffic in Dresden and it looks actually pretty good. Dresden lost the World Heritage Status due to a combination of die hard German bridge opponents and Germany bashing of developing contries. In Dresden, no one cares anymore. The Elbe Valley is still extremely beautiful and the tourists are still coming.
How on earth did you manage to get so many views in that short time with just two videos? This is incredible!
If "preserving the city" goes against the citizens then I'd say it's not worth it. The people at UNESCO should start considering that maybe freezing it in time is not the best way of keeping heritage for the next generations...
especially since the title is only bragging rights, UNESCO certainly didnt really care when the buddha statues in afghanistan were blown up
@@felixmustermann790 what are they gonna do? point their finger and say "bad boy" to the Taliban?
I think that the people of Dresden don't want to live in a museum only. A city needs also the possibility to develop itself. And Waldschlößchenbrücke is really not a monstrosity. It fits very well in the surrounding as a discreet arch bridge.
It doesn't. It's ugly asf, and living in a "museum" is a good thing as you are not surrounded by horrible modern architecture. A metro tunnel as well as banning cars would've been a far better solution.
@@Limosethe It does! Nobody can tell me that this is an ugly bridge. If so, then any other bridge in Dresden must be ugly, too. To my opinion some people are only against it on principle, because it is new.
@@peterpferdproductions1043 "It does!" - What's this in reference to."
"Nobody can tell me it's an ugly bridge" - I and the video just did. Live with it
"If so, then other bridges in Dresden must be ugly, too." - This is a fallacy because if one thing exists in one state, it doesn't mean that others also exist in that state. It also seems you are pretending to know what I think, for which you clearly do not. Anywase, Historical bridges are much nicer looking and you haven't even addressed my point that banning cars or building a Metro/cycling tunnel would've been the better solution.
"Some people are against it because it is new" - Nope. It's ugly, got the city stripped of it's world heritage status and was an inefficient solution.
@@Limosethe Archtict of this bridge made a good job. The bridge is not obstruisve at all. There is e. g. also Carolabrücke in Dresden (similar style, only without arch) and nobody gets upset about it. If you would have built a tunnel, you won't see anything at all. But - beside the questions of costs - it is just about to show this new bridge to the world! Majority of people of Dresden are the same opinion (see refendum 2005). So the bridge was built, people of Dresden can be proud to have a new bridge and also that they had the courage to refuse to be blackmailed by UNESCO. For UNESCO it was an evidence of incapacity.
@@peterpferdproductions1043 If you would have built a tunnel- (Since you apparently live in that area, not me) -You would still continue to see an un-obstructed river where old trees would still be alive... and the idea that UNESCO bullies anybody is resounding nonsense. UNESCO is an international organization which serves the purpose of protecting the integrity and beauty of Historical sites, or places with significant Natural beauty which can serve Humanity. To construe this as bullying, would be like to say that conservationists bully hunters into not exterminating endangered species, with an inflection of bias towards the poachers as someone who does not care about endangered wildlife.
Congrats on the new channel! Love the content-keep it up!!
UNESCO got it badly wrong indeed. Dresden was basically destroyed in World War. That so much has been rebuilt according to how it once was is something that should be deeply admired. I remember when the beautiful Frauenkircke was in complete ruins along with the inner city palace and so many other buildings. They have all been beautifully restored. Rather than criticising Dresden, the city authorities should be praised. Shame UNESCO.
I really don't know if UNESCO really kept its integrity when they are ignoring their own criteria things.
The more I learn about it, it really starts looking like UNESCO was simply pissed that people at Dresden cared more of their own lives than what UNESCO had to say
Nice Video, as a citizen of Dresden i did not knew about all of this
really?
People who say they should have built a tunnel instead not only neglect the hlighly increased cost of a tunnel but also the fact that tunnels are very unfriendly to pedastrians and bicycleriders alike which are modes of travel we should encourage, not discourage. You would trade the beautiful view from the bridge and the sunlight for a noisy, dark, liminal space that smells of piss. Also notice how there are stairs going down the arches directly on both sides, better connecting the riverbanks (2:03). I applaud the city of Dresden for building that bridge.
I really love this video and I hope you make more of this kind!
Thank you! The plan for this channel is to post both contents like this, and like my last video. This summer I did get to film a few cool places which I look forward to share with the rest of you!
Has anyone read "Slaughter House 5" , By Kurt Vonnegut? He was an American POW in Dresden when it was bombed by the USA/british
He survived and wrote a book about it. It's a great story about PTSD.
the city will go on with or without the heritage title.
If I were a resident of Dresden, I wouldn't care what UNESCO thinks.
While the bridge is not ideal due its bland modernist design, Dresden has more pressing aesthetic problems:
1) The area of the city center that was reconstructed after the war is minuscule. It is unfortunately surrounded by commie blocks and vast grey streets, which to this day characterize most parts of what used to be the city center (see at 3:15 of this video for example).
2) Even in the tiny area that was reconstructed, modernist architects and city planners willingly destroyed the overall impression by allowing "modern interpretations" and "contrasts", on top of an often sloppy reconstruction that is far from authentic (see at 1:16 of this video for example).
I applaud the sensible decision by Dresden to not burn money on a tunnel, just for the sake of trying to freeze time.
I think there's a good argument for making the old town a heritage site. Idk if they have to be at least x years old or something, but a great city rebuilt from the ashes after being totally destroyed, and as a symbol of reunification, seems like quite a heritage. Maybe in a hundred years it'll be old enough to be acknowledged as such.
1:05 It's Kultusministerkonferenz, not Kulturministerkonferenz. (Kultus is often split into two main branches, Education and Culture/Religion.)
2:55 You left out a major step. In 1910, the bridge was already planned and commissioned. I have an old city map from 1910, where the planned bridge is drawn in. Both ends of the planned bridge were built accordingly in 1910, with recesses for the bridge to fit in. Due to the first World War, the bridge wasn't built. During the whole 20th century, planning the Waldschlösschenbrücke was a popular topic for a master's thesis in Architecture at the Technical University of Dresden (I've seen many of them on public display in the Architecture building in the 1980ies and 1990ies). To use only the Nazi plan as the next historical step is slightly tendentious.
5:05 The tunnel was generally a bad idea. It would only accommodate cars, not bicycles and pedestrians, for whom the detour to a neighboring bridge was especially cumbersome. Additionally, the northern end of the tunnel would have been very long and very steep, as there are hills on the northern side. While the Elbe river has an elevation of 109 m at Waldschlösschenbrücke, the current exit of the Waldschlösschentunnel is at 142 m elevation. If we want a tunnel under the Elbe river, we have to go at least 10 m deep. So we have to overcome 43 m of height difference. With a maximum allowed incline of 5% in road tunnels, the northern end of the Waldschlösschentunnel would have to be at least 2150 m long. Also, connections to Bautzner Landstrasse (B 6) would have been of similar length.
Preservation is all well and good, but unfortunately those pesky living people have needs too. The needs of the living have to come first.
As some one who worked in Dresden in the late 90's I must say I never crossed the Elbe - the work then on the Frauenkirche from a pile of rubble was spectacular. The changes made from 89 when I had first visited were huge and I can believe that small items like a much needed bridge would have been of lesser interest -Unesco = Bureaucracy how much should a city invest?
i live 1km away from this bridge, i can tell you this bridge is really necessary otherwise i would have to drive 5km detour
Imagine first losing the World Heritage Status to a bridge and then losing the saxony cultural treasure to the Berlin Mob. The biggest diamonds heist in german history.
Totally approve the bridge. Local "World Heritage Status" location is totally neglected because professional restoration is toooooooo expensive, and at the same time residents who live nearby can't do any repairs themselves again because of prices, endless approvals. So as the result - falling pieces from balconies and walls, crappy windows, rusted roofs, ...
I got so distracted by L'amour est un oiseau rebelle on the background , that I lost trail of what was being said 😅😂
They could have build a non-modern bridge that integrated in the landscape better. Except, I think they literally can't. We've got structures around that were build by people 2000 years ago, but the only way modern architects/engineers know how to build something that can survive longer than a decade is out of glass and steel.
No it wasn't possible. 1. Because of the cost. 2. Because of the flood of 2002 with more than 9 m and 3. Because of shipping
What if Dresden had decided to build a premodernist stone bridge or 19th century iron girder bridge instead?
No it wasn't possible. 1. Because of the cost. 2. Because of the flood of 2002 with more than 9 m and 3. Because of shipping
@@MonkeyDRuffy82 Isn't it interesting that things that were affordable in the 19th century are not considered so today, although productivity is supposed to have increased multifold since then?
Anyway, I understand where you're taking this. Please note, however, that drawbridges have been perfectly possible to construct for thousands of years, including as steel girders or other elaborately ornamented designs from the pre-modernist era.
Very interesting my dear!
good content; please drop the distracting music tracts.
If you go back in time the people who built these UNESCO world heritage sites would ask us to build and improve on what they built. I’m 100% with preserving these heritages, but UNESCO must understand there’re people living there that they need to improve their standard of living. Maybe working together to preserve and improve on what’s exciting. Human nature is always to build and rebuild. After all, hundreds of years from now this bridge will be protected as a heritage site.
While adding more road to help with traffic is always a questionable decision, I think prohibiting building bridges in general is a bad move. A crossing is needed, and the only reasonable non-bridge solution would be an electric pedestrian and bike ferry + potentially a tunnel for the cars.
I think the incentives need to be better, or they need to get off their hardline attitude. Not granting another title because one was lost because of a useful and somewhat needed civil project would not just be petty, but actually be harmful to the conservation effort in general. Because then any city who lost their status once, could just be like "well, we aint going to get the title back anyway, so might as well replace this old [insert building] to build something more functional"
I lived in Leipzig for 7 years, so visited Dresden around the same amount of times and never saw that bridge except for once, when I crossed it by car. Lmao
While UNESCO in a whole is good, and obviously world heritage sites to have qualifications to have the designation mean anything, it seems wrong for a place to be punished for (at least, what this video shows) a piece of important and needed infrastructure that didn't have any better possible alternatives.
But there were alternatives....
@@ohauss No it wasn't possible. 1. Because of the cost. 2. Because of the flood of 2002 with more than 9 m and 3. Because of shipping
would the solution have been creating a traditional style bridge?
Unfortunately no, because of navigability restrictions. The span required would have required modern building techniques, so even if they gave it a pastiche of historic design, it would have been fake, which is arguably worse than just having an obviously new bridge.
I've seen this argument multiple times in the comments and I don't get it. You do know why no one builds old style architecture like that anymore, right? Because it's expensive to build and maintain. And in modern times, city planners are (or, let's say, should be) accountable to the public. Utility and efficiency come first. Otherwise you could be accused of burning public funds for a style over substance project.
People need to get where they need to be. Other people's feelings don't really matter. If they can't find a way to feel good about their community having happier people, that's too bad.
Imagine if the Rhaetian Railway removed its unesco Spiral viaduct and replaced it with one of those concrete bridges you can see in Zurich or whatever
Yeah, that really would be absolutely nothing like this situation at all tbh
If any change can remove the UNESCO listing, how come Rome and several other old cities are still on it? They have electricity, a far better sewage and water system, proper paved roads, etc compared to the old ones. Anyway, most of Dresden was destroyed in WW2, so the reconstructed city is not really an old city. All cities are constantly evolving, some buildings stay more or less the same from the outside but very rarely from the inside. Just think, very few buildings had flush toilets in the 19th century, but today you would not be allowed to renovate an old building without electric wiring, flushing toilets, fire alarms, etc. My grandparents lived in a mud-brick house without piped water and electricity, today human rights people would complain if the government would allow people to live like that.
It was totally bullshit that this bridge "destroyed" the river valley.
It's a beautiful bridge, that fits perfectly
What's the other site that lost its status?
Liverpool
Dresden:"Bride > Unesco!" ngl I do stand by them, wth you supposed to do not touch anything that becomes a heritage site? what if they turn an old city into one, you would get a lot of complaining if someone needs a new roof (yeah they could get an identical one to before but then you have to hope you can find the materials for it) or wants a balcony cause that is now impossible... they should look if it affects the area in any major way, just let rome make the colloseum pink with red dots, and france turn the eiffeltower into a huge spotlight if they want to, a lot of it's value still stands it just changed slightly.
Dresden is an impressive place to visit. Why did they not exclude the section where the bridge was going to be when sending in the application? It's not as if there is anything of great interest along that stretch?
Was there any of Dresden left after the war to heritage list ?
The places that where bombed down where the disticts where the people lived densly and the industrial disticts as well as infastructure importand to the war like the train stations. I don't think the river valley where only very few very rich people live was an attractive target.
I study urban development in Lübeck, another UNESCO site. Except for us its huge parts of the old town island and sights lines onto the church towers.... inside of which you basically cant build anything larger than 4 stories.
Essentially the entire city is covered by those sight lines (at least the parts where we could still build more housing), and it makes it nearly impossible to solve our crippling lack of flats.
In principle im sympathetic to the Idea od UNESCO. But the execution is really misguided in some places. Yes, we should preserve and do delicate balancing for historic sites.
But we cannot freeze cities in time, theyre living organisms that need to adapt to the demands of their inhabitants over time and provide space for the things of tomorrow. While preserving the past. And UNESCO makes that very hard at times.
I'd take the bridge to improve life rather an arbitrary title that didn't really don anything.
beautiful bridge btw, really well designed to fit the surrounding.
A city is a living and breathing structure and you can't just take part of it and ban any changes or additions to it because of "historical value". If Dresden needed a bridge, it's good that it got one.
Even the humblest, most crappy bridge is a marvel of human development. How jaded are these people that they think it subtracts from anything? Especially this one, it looks clean and it isn't some kind of eyesore.
Maybe Dresden should have waited to apply for World Heritage Listing after the bridge was built, on the single criterion they had remaining after the bridge knocked out the others.
Do you guys still know wayne?
they could make a tram tunnel / whatever improvement in transit system which would make the same effect.
No it wasn't possible. 1. Because of the cost. 2. Because of the flood of 2002 with more than 9 m and 3. Because of shipping
@@MonkeyDRuffy82 1 they had money for bridge which isn't cheap 2 flood does not poses a threat to the bridge? 3 what do you mean by shipping? Tunnel does not interfere with it either
@@dominik262 A Tunnel is way more expansive then a bridge. And how cares anyway? The People living there Voted yes for it and still seem to think it was a good Thing. So there isn't any Problem.
Showing the building at 3:18 as an example for bad aesthetic really hurts me being one of my favorite buildings close to the Pirnaischer Platz in Dresden. (They finally started renovating it a few months ago so it will become more "clean" soon)
Yo must find shoe boxes the pinnacle of art then
Another reason for delaying the building of the bridge was some rare bat species they saw there. I think it was a good decision to build it and reduce the traffic jams through the inner city which would have been much more annoying for the historical sights.
Nobody saw that bat since the Bridge was build.
I live i Bruges, Belgium and i really want Bruges to ditch it's UNESCO label.
It's makes it nearly impossible to adapt our city to the future. For every cityproject UNESCO needs to give it's approval.
Only because we want a certain label. I don't think it even matters for tourists if something is labeled as UNESCO. And even then, it's our city that we need to be able to live in
@@alicunte5624 I am sure some americans never heard of Bruges
Support
Honestly, unless it’s really a tourism spot, hellbend on keeping the heritage title while the life of it’s citizen is badly affected is not a good idea at all.
Been drunk below that bridge so often, never knew about the UNESCO Part, lol
Now it's the *Former* UNESCO World Heritage Status, come for the controversy, stay for the lovely pubs and affordable schnitzel.
You know, it is possible to build a bridge that looks old but is modern. These Germans did a mistake and built a new bridge that looks new.
3:18 That graffity is still there, but alas, they closed the Lidl :(
You misuse the phrase "begs the question". It doesn't mean "invites the question", it's a concept in logic and it means to assume the thing you are trying to prove.
But the rebuilt Old Town of Warsaw is on the Unesco Heritage list, so how come Dresden is not?
We should remember that throughout our human history there were no UNESCO type meddling organizations. Progress was lauded and it's obvious from the comments that this great city needed the progress. The loss is the UN's, not Dresden's.
A lot of Structures in Europe doesn’t deserve UNESCO World Heritage designation because it’s not culturally or historically significant. Just pretty old buildings.
Interesting.
Next time you make a video, TURN THE DAMN MUZAK DOWN so we can hear the commentary without straining!
Had they built the bridge in 1909 nobody would have cared.
Eh, it's a nice bridge. The issue is the original designation being too broad. A whole valley or city (Liverpool) shouldn't be designated in the first place.
Dresden is such an important city that this one needs not the UNESCO World Heritage Status.
This seems so pointlessly reactionary from UNESCO - the Bridge doesn't damage or obscure the urban development or intellectual heritage cited in the first two met criteria; surely their desire to 'preserve' needs to be specific. What is to be preserved, and what would violate that? Otherwise they can deem any change of any sort sufficient for stripping the title, no matter how unrelated to the heritage claim. You could remove the world heritage status of a Cathedral's stained glass because an underground metro line passes underneath it, or because they reconfigured the pedestrian crossing outside.
So agree with you..
I have been to Dresden and I have to say that the bridge doesn't really fit into the historic aesthetic of the old town. A tunnel would have really fit in better, even though I think that we should be looking at ways to decrease the number of cars instead of increasing them. Maybe the traffic could have been decreased by prioritizing public transport or banning cars in the old town.
Bruh, not the us you can already go anywhere with public transport by this point
But won't tunnel cost to much not to mention is soil firm enough there ? In our area tunnel collapsed bcz soil was too wet though thankfully tunnel did get completed just overbudgeted
@@shivanshna7618 I consider Germany a rich country so they should be able to afford a tunnel. I don't know much about tunnels but I feel like if you can build a tunnel under the Bosphorus and English channel it should be possible to build one under a river.
A tunnel was not possible bc the soil under the river made it impossible.
And Dresden already was and is the city with the best public transport in Germany.
Also don't forget that pedestrians, cyclists and public transport also use the bridge.
You have been to Dresden but that doesn't make you knowledgable about the city. In fact, thr birdge is barely seen from the historic old town. It's sourrounded by soviet-era apartment blocks. Why spend x times the amount for a bridge on a useless tunnel?
Good to see germans didnt lose theire attitude after World Wars...
Great video but why have music and speech at the same time. Very annoying, not even German music.
The bridge might be ugly but it makes sense
I mean regardless of the UNESCO status, they could've and should've made a better looking bridge
I don't see anything wrong with either side's choice. City population wanted a bridge, so they got a bridge. UNESCO wanted to preserve the whole point of conservation of these sites, so they pulled the status to ensure that standard was kept.
UNESCO's World Heritage status wouldn't mean much if they didn't do that. It wasn't a hostile act, it was just both parties doing what was best for both themselves.
3:20 What's so horrible about this building? It looks okay, has lots of apartments--all of which get a balcony and many a good view--and was probably quite cheap to build? Houses are for their inhabitants, not for being tourist attractions. In fact, tourists tend to fuck those beautiful cities full of ornamented buildings quite badly and make them uninhabitable for actual residents (e.g. Prague, Venice, etc.).
Its not an unattractive bridge, in fact it is somewhat elegant. You could say its a suitable modern addition to ongoing story of the valley.
I genuinely surprised that the East Germans didn't destroy all the old buildings.
Huh. Didn't know UNESCO could revoke that status
As a citizen of Dresden, That bridge cured my aids, brought my wife back and paid for my kids tuition. 10/10.
Because their slogan was if you are naked Dresden
I just realized It is still a heritage site even if Unesco doesn’t agree.
4:22 Just a small consideration here, and i aint tryin to say ya have to do this... Feel free to take it just as a thowt exercise
But here you express the common phrase of "falling on deaf ears", but i wud assume ofc that the politicians were not in fact deaf. So why then argue they were as if to dismiss the actual problem? These concerns did not fall on deaf ears; they fell on closed ears.
Closed may seem odd there at first as we dont currently think of bein able to close ones ears, but it is evocative and clear in its meaning still. Come to think of it, one cud even say "fell on covered ears" for a similarly evocative and clear meaning of someone havin their hands clasped over their ears and perhaps even goin "lalalalala i cant hear you" if a particularly unwillin to listen person.
I bring this up mainly as we english spkers oft have a tendency to use words which are very inaccurate and oft have links to things like disability/otherness and viewin such as inherently detrimental.
Deaf politicians here wud likely have actually listened to their constituents and taken to heart their concerns rather than simply go ahead with the project bcuz its the more popular choice; they tend to have a lot of exp with bein the small voice not listened to when the majority wants smth one way
An 8 lain motor highway in DDR?
Thats like one for every *_Trabant!_*
🤮
That is an *awesome* bridge I would love to have in my city!
Oh well it's not like Germany is lacking in UNESCO sites. When you have so many the status loses its value.
I think they should have just built a nicer bridge in a historical style.
The bridge looks soulless and quite meh from my point of view.