II. 1 Introduction

II.3 Statement of Authenticity / Integrity

Download 363.5 Kb.
Size363.5 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   26
II.3 Statement of Authenticity / Integrity

(See Section 2 of the current Nomination Form and Section 4 of the original Form)
3a) In addition to meeting one or more of the criteria, which justify inscription on the World Heritage List, a natural or cultural property must meet the appropriate conditions of authenticity and/or integrity, as defined in clauses 24b and 44b of the Operational Guidelines for Implementing the World Heritage Convention. If at the time of inscribing the property on the World Heritage list, the State Party and the International Council on Monuments and Sites, ICOMOS and/or the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, IUCN, evaluated the authenticity and integrity of the property, please cite those evaluations here. (Please quote directly from the nomination, Committee minutes and the Advisory Body's evaluation.)

According to the nomination, "today, with the exception of occasional moisture problems, Monticello is structurally sound and in excellent condition. The property withstands a large visitation. On an annual basis, more than half a million people visit the property and walk through the rooms on the first floor. The level of visitation makes heavy demands on the property, necessitating a continuous effort to monitor its condition and make repairs as necessary."
And, for the Jeffersonian precinct at the University of Virginia the nomination stated the following: "beginning in the late 1970s, the University's awareness of accelerating decline within the Jeffersonian Precinct prompted urgent requests for financial assistance from the General Assembly [State legislature] of the Commonwealth of Virginia. In 1982, special deferred maintenance funding, earmarked for the Jeffersonian Precinct, was forthcoming, signaling a similar understanding by the state government. Subsequent university actions establishing a special board to address matters of fund-raising and curatorship and creating within the university an architectural/curatorial post to handle preservation and restoration work on the site have served to establish a comprehensive preservation/restoration program. The result of these events has been a rapid increase in activity at the site. By the end of 1987, all roofs will be watertight. Attendant restoration of wood roof and cornice members, where necessary, will also be completed. By July 1986, extensive restoration work had been carried out at two of the ten pavilions, Pavilions III and VIII. Limited work had been conducted at five others. In all cases, the work has resulted from the need to keep the buildings in constant use, major repairs to pavilions being feasible only every decade, as occupants change. Where more extensive efforts have been mounted, sufficient research has been done to allow for well-documented restorations."
The nomination continues: "in the summer of 1986, the National Endowment for the Arts awarded the University $30,000 [USD] toward the preparation of an historic structures report. It is anticipated that from four to five years will be required to prepare an exhaustive survey and analysis. In the meantime, restoration work and research will be carried out simultaneously on a project by project basis."     

3b) Have there been significant changes in the authenticity or integrity of the property since inscription?

3b1) If YES, please describe the changes to the authenticity or integrity and name the main causes.
See the attached Restoration Chronology for Monticello, which is the full document spanning the years 1923-present. For the Academical Village see Murray Howards attached document detailing restoration work done from 1984-2002. 

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   26

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page