Independent Evaluation of the Visual Impact of the planned Rhine

Transcrição

Independent Evaluation of the Visual Impact
of the planned Rhine Bridge
between Wellmich and Fellen
on the Integrity of the World Heritage Property
“Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
Publishing information
Client
Rhineland-Palatinate Ministry of Economic Affairs, Transport, Agriculture and Viticulture
Stiftsstraße 9, D- 55116 Mainz, www.mwvlw.rlp.de
Prof. Siegfried Englert
and:
Rhineland-Palatinate Ministry of Education, Science, Youth and Culture
Mittlere Bleiche 61, D-55116 Mainz, www.mbwjk.rlp.de
Prof. Joachim Hofmann-Göttig
(Rhineland-Palatinate UNESCO World Heritage Representative)
Coordination
Klaus Noll
(Rhineland-Palatinate Ministry of Economic Affairs, Transport, Agriculture and Viticulture)
Hilmar Reinemann
(Rhineland-Palatinate Ministry of Economic Affairs, Transport, Agriculture and Viticulture)
Dr. Christian Schüler-Beigang
(Head of the World Heritage Office in the Rhineland-Palatinate Ministry of Education,
Science, Youth and Culture)
Steering committee
Dr. Birgitta Ringbeck
(Delegate of Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Lander)
Christopher Young, PhD, FSA
(English Heritage, Head of International Advice)
Olivier Poisson
(World Heritage Committee)
Authors
Institut für Städtebau und Landesplanung (Institute for Urban Design and Regional Planning)
RWTH Aachen University – Faculty of Architecture
Wüllnerstr. 5b, D-52062 Aachen, www.isl.rwth-aachen.de
Dipl.-Ing. (graduate of engineering) Michael Kloos
Dipl.-Ing. (graduate of engineering) Bauassessor Christine Korus
Dipl.-Ing. (graduate of engeneering) Philipp Tebart
Prof. Kunibert Wachten, Dipl.-Ing. (graduate of engineering)
in cooperation with:
WGF Landschaftsarchitekten (landscape architects)
Vordere Cramergasse 11, D-90489 Nürnberg, www.wgf-nuernberg.de
Prof. Gerd Aufmkolk, Dipl.-Ing. (graduate of engineering)
with landscape architect Manuela Scheuerer and landscape architect Christoph Gräßle,
Nürnberger Str. 61, 90762 Furth
Visualisation / Technical support
Chair for computer aided architectural design (CAAD)
Schinkelstraße 1, D-52062 Aachen, www. caad.arch.rwth-aachen.de
Prof. Peter Russell
In cooperation with:
V-Cube
Lochnerstrasse 7, D- 52064 Aachen, www.v-cube.de
Dipl.-Ing. (graduate of engineering) Hendrik Daniel
Dipl.-Ing. (graduate of engineering) Andreas Walther
Dipl.-Ing. (graduate of engineering) Jonas Schwarzenhölzer
Dipl.-Ing. (graduate of engineering) Eva Hollmann
Contents
Abstract / Draft Statement of “Outstanding Universal Value”
8
PART I: BASIC INFORMATION
1
Overview
19
1.1
Goal and background of the study
19
1.2
The area of the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley“
19
1.3
History of the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley“
22
1.4
Planning background of the Rhine bridge to be examined
23
1.5
Wider region of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley“ and the narrower examination area
27
1.6
Remarks concerning the authenticity and visual integrity of the World Heritage Property
“Upper Middle Rhine Valley“
33
1.7
Summary
40
2
Methodology of the Independent Evaluation
41
2.1
Examination structure
41
2.2
Comments on the study in terms of contents
42
2.3
Result
47
3
Formal Analysis
48
3.1
Criteria for the inclusion of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in the World Heritage List
48
3.2
The “Outstanding Universal Value” of the World Heritage Property
“Upper Middle Rhine Valley” and contradictions within the Advisory Body Evaluation
49
3.3
Joint World Heritage Centre - ICOMOS Advisory Mission 2008
51
3.4
Decisions of the World Heritage Committee in 2008 und 2009
54
3.5
Present state of affairs
58
3.6
Conclusion
58
4
“Upper Middle Rhine Valley” Bridge Construction Project
59
4.1
Reason for planning and project history
59
4.2
Rhine Bridge Competition – April 2009
62
4.3
Conclusion
64
Part II: Analysis of Content of the Overall Situation of the
World Heritage Property and the narrower examination Area
5
Analysis of Special Cultural History Factors and their Evaluation
67
5.1
Early history
67
5.2
The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as part of the Roman Empire (50 BC - 4th century AD.)
67
5.3
The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in the Middle Ages (5th – 15th century AD)
69
5.4
The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” at the beginning of modern history and as part of the
Départment of Rhine-et-Moselle (16th century – 1814)
73
5.5
The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as part of Prussia and the German Empire (1815-1918)
74
5.6
The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in the 20th century
78
5.7
The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as a World Heritage property (from 2002)
81
5.8
Conclusion
83
6
Symbolic Values and Visual Integrity of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
87
6.1
Historical representations of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in European painting
88
6.2
View relationships of cultural and historic significance in the narrower examination area
6.3
Summary: Culturally and historically significant viewing points in the narrower
examination area
10 6
6.4
Everyday Perception
10 8
7
Analysis of the Landscape and the Visual Integrity of the
Unesco World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley“
10 9
7.1
Method of Analysis
10 9
7.2
Arrangement and assessment of the narrower examination area
within the total area of the World Heritage property
116
7.3
Conclusion
12 3
101
8Nature Area, Cultural and Historical Development and View Relationships
in the Narrower Examination Area
12 5
8.1
Natural characteristics of the narrower examination area
12 5
8.2
Cultural-historical development of the narrower examination area
12 7
8.3
Traditional life, land use forms and communication
13 2
8.4
Relevant viewing relationships and viewing points in the narrower
examination area
13 3
8.5
Conclusion
13 6
Part III: Field of Vision Analyses, Documentation
and Assessment
9
Visualisations and Evaluations
13 8
9.1
Categories of perception and selected visual points
13 8
9.2
Comments on the documentation of visualisations
14 0
9.3
Documentation of the visualisations of lookout points
14 0
9.4
Summary of the visualisation results
17 8
9.5
Conclusion
17 9
10
Recommendations
18 0
10.1
Pressure for change due to the general trend of development at the
World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
18 0
10.2
Master plan “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
18 4
11
Attachment
18 6
11.1
Literature
18 6
11.2
Links
18 8
11.3
Figures
18 8
page 8
V I S “ U p p e r M i d d l e R h i n e Va l l ey ”
Abstract
Independent evaluation of the visual impact of the planned Rhine bridge between Wellmich and
Fellen on the integrity of the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
The task of this independent evaluation commissioned by the state of Rhineland-Palatinate is to determine whether the realisation of the planned Rhine bridge between the locations Fellen and Wellmich will
have a negative impact on the “Outstanding Universal Value” (OUV), the visual integrity and the authenticity of the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. The examination principally leads to
the result that the construction of the planned bridge will not have a negative impact.
This result is based on the following methodical examination steps:
Basic evaluation and “formal analysis”:
•
First the area of the World Heritage property is documented and the more narrow area of examination defined.
•
This is followed by the consideration of the criteria of “Outstanding Universal Value” as the foundation for evaluating the impact of the planned Rhine bridge on the cultural landscape of the “Upper
Middle Rhine Valley”. In addition, the significant characteristics of the authenticity and visual integrity
of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” are named.
•
Finally, the planned Rhine bridge is explained in terms of its location and design.
Analysis of content:
•
First an examination of the entire “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” (development in terms of cultural history and cultural landscapecultural landscape, art history and current pictorial representations) is
carried out.
•
This is followed by a more detailed consideration of the more narrowly defined area of examination
(characteristics of natural spaces, cultural history characteristics, specific patterns of perception).
Visualisation and evaluation:
•
From the selected standpoints and visual corridors, visualisations of the planned Rhine bridge within
the context of the landscape that provide a realistic picture will be generated on the basis of a 3D
computer model.
•
Finally, the visual impact of the planned Rhine bridge will be evaluated on the basis of the individual
examination steps, before summarising recommendations are made.
1. “Outstanding Universal Value” and contradictions within the Advisory Body Evaluation
The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” has been included in the World Heritage List according to the following
criteria defined in the World Heritage Convention of 1972:1
1 See: UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Advisory Board Evaluation, Rhine Valley (Germany) No. 1066 (1066.pdf/pdfObjekt), 2002
Institute for Urban Design and Regional Planning RW TH Aachen Universit y
•
page 9
Criterion ii: “As one of the most important transport routes in Europe, the Middle Rhine Valley has for
two millennia facilitated the exchange of culture between the Mediterranean region and the north.”
•
Criterion iv: “The Middle Rhine Valley is an outstanding organic cultural landscape, the presentday character of which is determined both by its geomorphologic and geological setting and by the
human interventions, such as settlements, transport, infrastructure, and land-use, that it has undergone over two thousand years.”
•
Criterion v: “The Middle Rhine Valley is an outstanding example of an evolving traditional way of
life and means of communication in a narrow river valley. The terracing of its steep slopes in particular has shaped the landscape in many ways for more than two millennia. However, this form of
land-use is under threat from the socio-economic pressures of the present day.”
In the Advisory Body Evaluation, the importance of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is also emphasised
as a location of the “Rhine Romanticism”, although this aspect is not defined as an “Outstanding Universal Value”. There are therefore contradictions within the Advisory Body Evaluation.
The varying assessments of the consequences of the planned Rhine bridge of the joint UNESCO-ICOMOS Mission 2008 (“ICOMOS’ point of view” vs. “UNESCO’s point of view”) can presumably be traced
back to these contradictions, or respectively to the differing interpretations of the “OUV” of the World
Heritage property.
In strictly formal terms, however, it should be noted that the negative evaluation of the bridge plan by the
experts from ICOMOS International in the joint UNESCO-ICOMOS Mission Report 2008, who emphasize
the importance of the Upper Rhine Middle Valley as an associative “romantic cultural landscape”, is not
based on the criteria of the “OUV” of the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”.
Nonetheless, the aspect of “Rhine Romanticism” will be examined in this independent evaluation, both
with respect to the World Heritage property as a whole and to the more narrowly defined area of examination, because this plays a central role for the visual integrity of the World Heritage property. In addition
to this, there are close connections with criterion ii of the “OUV” (“Transport corridor”). However, this examination shows that the sub-area of the World Heritage property directly affected by the planned Rhine
bridge does not play a significant role in this context.
2. Cultural landscapes within the World Heritage Convention
The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” has been included as a landscape in the World Heritage List as a cultural
landscape that has evolved organically (“organically evolving landscape”), whereby the sub-category of
“continuing landscape” applies. The development of an enduring cultural landscape in the sense of the
World Heritage Convention is never concluded. The application of the Convention strives neither for the
reconstruction nor the “freezing” of historical or ideal conditions. Intended is instead the maintenance of
page 10
the defined “Outstanding Universal Value” through inclusion in the World Heritage List and to harmonise
these with the sustainable continued development of the World Heritage property.
Principally and in formal terms, the erection of a new, permanent Rhine crossing in the “Upper Middle
Rhine Valley” is therefore compatible with the definition of a “continuing cultural landscape” in the context
of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
3. Significance of a permanent Rhine crossing
The idea of suggesting the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as a World Heritage property is closely connected
with the structural problems of the area. It has developed, just as the idea of a permanent Rhine crossing
has developed, with the birth of a serious will in the last thirty years to develop the region on both sides
of the Rhine in a sustainable and comprehensive fashion. This documents a new concept of self and
space. The development of space on both sides of the river, as well as the linking with the hinterland of
the Rhine Valley, especially with the high plateaus, is here an important prerequisite for the sustained
further development of the entire World Heritage property.
In this connection, the construction of a bridge in the Middle Rhine Valley wished for by the local joint
board is considered one of the most important measures. This should incorporate both sides of the
Rhine into the geographical centre of the World Heritage property and create a balance between the
left side of the Rhine, which is more favoured in terms of transport and economy, and the less favoured
right side of the Rhine.
A tunnel is not practical for pedestrians and cyclists and would involve considerable intervention in nature
and the landscape (e.g. excavation), although this would have no direct impact on the visual integrity of
the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. The existing ferries are operated privately and involve costs for users.
There is also no ferry service at night. The quality of the connection provided by a tunnel or ferries is
therefore viewed less favourably than that of a bridge at the local level.
4. Design and location of the planned bridge
The design for the planned bridge is the result of a competition with international participants and a highranking jury. The selected design attempts in its lines and minimised construction height to ensure a
contemporary form of expression in terms of design and construction, while at the same time ensuring
an integration into the cultural landscape of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” that has a gentle impact
on the landscape.
In its shape, the planned bridge takes up the landscape context in which it is being erected. With its “flat”
design, it also represents a component of the Rhine bank zones, which have always been and still are
characterised by constant change.
page 11
Due to the location selected and the low height of the planned Rhine bridge, the historical visual relationships and landscape qualities within the more narrowly defined examination area remain principally
undisturbed. This artistically and culturally important area between St. Goar and St. Goarshausen; the
visual relationships in the direction of Burg (castle) Maus and the more distant visual relationships between the castles of Rheinfels, Katz and Maus are also not impaired.
5. The more narrowly defined examination area in the context of the World Heritage property
Due to the visual connections, the section of the Rhine extending from the Lorelei downstream to the
communities of Hirzenach and Kestert is examined more closely as a potentially affected area.
In order to be able to evaluate the visual qualities or sensitivity of the more narrowly defined examination area and to place its value in a relationship with the entire World Heritage area, useable evaluation
criteria are defined on the basis of an analysis of the cultural history, cultural landscape and art history
(pictorial) of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”.
The cultural history analysis makes clear that the settlement pattern, which is characteristic to the present day, including that of the castles towering over the landscape and the significant cultural landscape
of land usage forms (viticulture, coppicing) originated in the Middle Ages. In this phase, the towns had a
close spatial-functional and economical relationship with the Rhine, which was at the same time the most
important connection between many, mostly trans-Rhine territories in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”.
Since the beginning of the 19th century, the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” between Koblenz and Bingen/
Mainz has been part of a transport corridor that, as in the time of the Romans, links the northern and
southern parts of Europe with one another. Koblenz and Mainz are the most important cities. Initially the
Rhine alone assumed the central transport function, including for regional transport. From the mid 19th
century this was supplemented by roads running parallel to the Rhine and especially by the railway. The
substitution of the waterway with rails and roads for regional transport means that relationships between
the two sides of the Rhine increasingly dissolved and lost in importance. The individual towns in the valley successively lost their spatial and functional connection to the water.
The planned Rhine bridge is located close to St. Goar and St. Goarshausen, where, due to the favourable positioning of two opposing, V-shaped valleys, a ferry connection has existed since at least the Middle
Ages, which has made an exchange between both sides of Rhine and the respective hinterlands possible.
The bridge location thus takes up a historical principle of development, but is at the same time far enough
downstream that the cultural-historically “charged” area between the castles of Katz, Maus and Rheinfels
with their respective settlements are not disturbed. Even the face to face location of Wellmich and Fellen
is only marginally affected by the planned Rhine bridge.
In the cultural landscape analysis, the entire area of the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is looked at with the question in mind of which characteristic sections of the Rhine Valley can be diffe-
page 12
rentiated in the landscape image and in the morphology, and what value the individual sections have in the
context of the entire area. The elevation scheme of the landscape area is also examined more closely and
thereby shows a typical trisection as layers lying on top of one another, making an effective visual impression: river and banks, settlements and transport, and the slopes.
The cultural landscape analysis confirms the comparatively minor value of the affected section of the Rhine,
which had already been demonstrated in the cultural historical analysis. The bridge thus principally lies in
an area that is relatively insensitive to disruption. Due to its low height, it also doesn’t visually impair the
intact and characteristic slopes. It is to be assigned to the middle layer, which is characterised by the development dynamic in terms of settlement and transport.
The analysis of graphic illustrations of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” clearly shows that, in correspondence with the cultural historical and cultural landscape analysis, the area between Lorelei and Wellmich
appears significantly more often in historical and current pictorial representations than the area to the north
between Hirzenach/Kestert and Fellen and Wellmich, in which the Rhine bridge is planned. This affected
section plays no significant role for typical pictorial motifs.
The consequences for the authenticity and the visual integrity in the more narrowly defined examination
area result exclusively for the section between Hirzenach/Kestert and Fellen/Wellmich, which, when viewed
against the background of art and cultural history, as well as against aspects of the cultural landscape analyses, can principally be classified as less sensitive. The only pictorial motif relevant here with reference to
art history is the view from Fellen to Wellmich. However, in comparison to other places in the Rhine Valley,
this is hardly prominent and is also not impaired by the planned Rhine bridge.
6. Visualisation and evaluation
In the context of the visualisation study, the following categories of perception with respect to viewpoints
are classified as relevant on the basis of the multi-layered analyses:
•
Viewpoints and view corridors with increased cultural and art historical importance (e.g. significant
visual foci near the bank)
•
Viewpoints that open up relevant panorama views of the Rhine Valley (e.g. marked viewing points
and viewing turrets)
•
Viewpoints and view corridors that play an important role in “everyday visual relationships” (e.g.
driving on both riverside roads)
•
Viewpoints and view corridors that are of great importance for tourism (e.g. marked viewpoints at
elevated locations and view corridors of Rhine navigation)
The visualisations of the planned Rhine bridge show that, due to its location between Hirzenach/Kestert
and Fellen/Wellmich, it principally only minorly impairs the existing landscape qualities. The valley sec-
page 13
tion can also continue to be perceived as an integral area from elevated viewpoints. The mostly intact
slopes are not visually disrupted.
The “viewing triangle” between Rheinfels Castle (left bank of the Rhine) and the castles Katz or Maus
(right bank of the Rhine) is also not influenced by the planned bridge structure. The planned bridge can
also not be seen from historically important viewing points such as the Lorelei (right bank of the Rhine)
and the “Werlauer Pilz” (left bank of the Rhine).
“Classic” views from the banks, like from Fellen in the direction of Wellmich with the Maus Castle, today
have no prominent significance either as tourist attractions, but are also principally not impaired. When
one approaches the bridge upstream on a ship, the views of Rhine ships in the direction of Wellmich and
the Maus Castle are intermittently impaired. However, after passing beneath the bridge, there is still a
comparatively long view corridor toward Wellmich.
7. Conclusion
On the whole, the synopsis of the individual examination steps leads to the result that the authenticity, the visual integrity and the “Outstanding Universal Value” of the World Heritage property
is not negatively impacted by the planned bridge construction. In the view of the evaluators, the
visual impact of the planned bridge does not contradict the recognition criteria of the World Cultural Heritage property of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”.
The bridge must also be understood as a symbol and can contribute to a changed comprehension of self and space, which sees the securing and continued development of the World Cultural
Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” within a context of integrated and sustainable
development of the area, for which the avoidance of economic and social divergences on the
two sides of the Rhine is essential. However, to this purpose, the development of a locally and
regionally promoted “master plan” for the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
in the medium term is seen as absolutely essential, because the planned Rhine bridge represents
only one building block of many in this context of necessary measures.
Indispensible for the symbolic and functional effect of the bridge is that the high construction
qualities achieved in the competition are also maintained in the implementation, in terms of integration into the landscape, design, construction and material quality.
page 14
V
V II S
S “„ U
Up
pp
pe
e rr M
M ii d
dd
d ll e
e R
Rh
h ii n
ne
e V
Va
a ll ll e
e yy ”“
Draft
Statement
of “Outstanding
Universal Value”
Draft Statement
of Outstanding
Universal Value
Format
Upper Middle Rhine Valley (2002)
a) Brief synthesis
The 65km stretch of the Middle Rhine Valley between
i. Summary of factual information
Bingen, Rüdesheim und Koblenz is a cultural landscape
ii. Summary of qualities (values,
of great diversity and beauty that has evolved organical-
attributes)
ly and is still developing today. Its exceptional number
of castles, its small historic towns, its vineyards and its
transport infrastructure still clearly reflect the centurieslong process that turned a dramatic natural landscape
into the cultural landscape it constitutes today. The Upper
Middle Rhine Valley is a key European transport route
whose frequent historical features serve as constant
reminders of its significance in bygone eras. Moreover,
the area has exercised a powerful influence on writers,
artists, and composers for hundreds of years.
b) Criteria
Criterion (ii): As one of the most important transport
routes in Europe, the Middle Rhine Valley has for two
millennia facilitated the exchange of culture between the
Mediterranean region and the north.
Criterion (iv): The Middle Rhine Valley is an outstanding
organic cultural landscape, the present-day character of
which is determined both by its geomorphological and
geological setting and by the human interventions, such
as settlements, transport infrastructure, and land use,
that it has undergone over two thousand years.
Criterion (v): The Middle Rhine Valley is an outstanding
example of an evolving traditional way of life and means
of communication in a narrow river valley. The terracing
of its steep slopes in particular has shaped the landscape
in many ways for more than two millennia. However, this
form of land use is under threat from the socio-economic
pressures of the present day.
U rr bb aa nn D
D ee ss ii gg nn aa nn dd R
R ee gg ii oo nn aa ll P
P ll aa nn nn ii nn gg R
RW
WT
TH
H A
A aa cc hh ee nn U
U nn ii vv ee rr ss ii tt yy
II nn ss tt ii tt uu tt ee ff oo rr U
page 15
Standards
Impact of the planned Rhine bridge on the OUV
a) Brief description
The planned bridge between Wellmich and Fellen is located outside
areas particularly sensitive in terms of cultural history or cultural
landscape. In comparison with the other sections of the “Upper
Middle Rhine Valley” this area is of subordinate significance with
respect to the values and characteristics of the World Heritage
Property „Upper Middle Rhine Valley“. With a contemporary and
technically superior design, the curved shape of the bridge and
its low structure fits well into the cultural landscape. Distant visual
relationships between the castles Rheinfels, Katz and Maus are
not affected.
b) Criteria
Criterion C (ii): The planned bridge is a new element within the
transport corridor of the „Upper Middle Rhine Valley“, which considerably improves the local quality of the connections for private
transport, cyclists and pedestrians going from east to west in the
centre of the World Heritage property.
Criterion C (iv): The bridge is a convincing example for contemporary architecture and demonstrates how effectively modern transport
structures can be adapted to an evolving cultural landscape.
The bridge is a component for the improvement of the relationship
between the towns and the water that was lost or disturbed by the
transport infrastructures running from north to south.
Criterion C (v): The local population, represented by a special
local association (Zweckverband Mittelrhein), regards the construction of a bridge as an essential element for a sustainable
regional development that takes into consideration not only the
river as such but also its importance as a factor in preserving the
cultural landscape.
page 16
c) and d) Integrity and authenticity
V
V II S
S “„ U
U pp pp ee rr M
M ii dd dd ll ee R
R hh ii nn ee V
V aa ll ll ee yy ”“
Thanks to the relatively modest leeway given by the natural landscape of the Middle Rhine Valley to the people inhabiting it, this section of the river has undergone
fewer changes than others. As a result, but also thanks
to various early attempts to protect the landscape and
its historical monuments, the landscape has remained
largely untouched. As a result, many of the features and
elements that lend the area its authenticity have been
preserved.
e) Management and protection
Since 2005, the World Heritage property within the de-
requirements
signated area has been run by the Upper Middle Rhine
i. Overall framework
Valley World Heritage Association, which comprises re-
ii. Specific long-term expectations
presentatives from all the local and ‘county’ authorities
falling within the region, as well as including officials from
the federal states of Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate.
The association also provides the site’s World Heritage
manager. The responsibilities of the respective state
institutions as set out in the World Heritage application
are unaffected by this arrangement. In 2004, the job of
monitoring the implementation of the management plan
in Rhineland-Palatinate was transferred to the state’s
Structural and Approval Directorate in Koblenz. The
measures taken in the World Heritage Area serve primarily to preserve historical castles and towns, uphold
the tradition of winegrowing on the steep slopes of the
valley, secure habitats for rare animal and plant species,
and generally ensure that the state of the environment
remains unaltered. These measures are also designed
to underpin the region’s economic viability in a bid to dissuade people from moving away and prevent the average
age of the region’s inhabitants from rising.
II n
n ss tt ii tt u
u tt e
e ff o
o rr U
U rr b
ba
an
n D
De
e ss ii g
gn
n a
an
nd
d R
Re
eg
g ii o
on
na
a ll P
P ll a
an
nn
n ii n
ng
g R
RW
WT
TH
H A
Aa
a cc h
he
en
n U
Un
n ii vv e
e rr ss ii tt yy
c) and d) Integrity and
authenticity
page 17
The planned Rhine bridge is a contemporary form of crossing both
in terms of transport and design, so far only provided by ferries in
the World Heritage property.
The design of the planned crossing picks up the context of the
landscape in which it is being erected. Moreover, its “flat” design
generally represents a component of the Rhine banks, which have
been and still are characterised by perpetual change.
In general, the selected location and the low elevation of the
planned Rhine bridge do not disturb the historic visual relationships and the qualities of the landscape; the authenticity and integrity are preserved.
e) Plan for protection and
administration
The efforts for the preservation of the cultural landscape are paired
with the activities for a sustainable regional development, for which
the construction of the planned bridge is an important element.
With this in mind, the planned bridge across the Rhine can express
a changed self-conception and sense of space that will regard the
protection and further development of the World Heritage property
in an integrated as well as related and sustained spatial development, and which will be essential for the prevention of economic
and social divergences of both sides of the Rhine.
All measures are to be integrated into a Master plan “World Heritage Property Upper Middle Rhine Valley” to guarantee both the
preservation of the World Heritage and a systematic development
of the region in accordance with uniform qualitative standards.
page 19
PART I: BASIC INFORMATION
1 Overview
1.1 Goal and background of the study
The Institut für Städtebau und Landesplanung (Institute for Urban Design and Regional Planning), RWTH
Aachen University, was commissioned in October 2009 by the Rhineland-Palatinate Ministry of Economic
Affairs, Transport, Agriculture and Viticulture to carry out this “Visual Impact Study” (VIS). The goal of the
expertise is to evaluate independently the visual impact of the planned Rhine bridge between Wellmich
and Fellen with respect to “Outstanding Universal Value” (OUV) and the authenticity and visual integrity
of the UNESCO World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” from an independent position.
Through the visualisation of the planned Rhine bridge in its cultural landscape environment, information
should be gathered as to what visual impact can be anticipated by the planned Rhine crossing for the
World Heritage property.
1.2 The area of the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
The UNESCO World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” encompasses an approximately 620
square kilometre large and 65 kilometre long section of the Middle Rhine Valley and has been included
in the World Heritage List as the “most prominent section of the flow of the current”, representative of
the entire Rhine as “one of the major historical river landscapes in Europe”.
The following is noted as characteristic of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in the application for inclusion in
the World Heritage List: “The Middle Rhine Valley is one of Europe’s great river landscapes. When it broke
through the Slate Mountains, the Rhine created a series of natural areas where geological processes are
visible and which constitute breathtaking scenery. The deeply downcut valley, on the lee side of the Hunsruck hills, enjoys an unusually mild climate where fauna and flora usually found in the Mediterranean region
and in south-eastern Europe thrive [...]. The terracing of the steep valley sides, which began around 1,000
years ago, not only created a wine-growing region that is still world famous, but also made a decisive contribution towards improving the living conditions of species which thrive in warm conditions.” 2
The World Heritage property demonstrates both the natural and the cultural historical dimensions of the
“Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. For this reason, the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” was entered in the UNESCO
World Heritage List as a “cultural landscape”. Since 1992, “interaction between humankind and its natural
environment” can be included as cultural heritage within this category in the list of World Heritage.3
The following aspects are named in the application for inclusion in the World Heritage List as principles for
differentiating the area of the World Heritage property and to describe its central characteristics: “The area
2 Hofmann-Göttig, Joachim: Kulturlandschaft Mittelrheintal von Bingen/Rüdesheim bis Koblenz (Oberes Mittelrheintal).
Application for inclusion in the World Cultural Heritage Site list of UNESCO, Mainz 2000, p. 17
3 See: UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage List
(opguide08-en.pdf), Paris 2008, p. 86
page 20
Koblenz
Lahnstein
Lahn
Rhens
Braubach
Spay
Mosel
Kamp-Bornhofen
Boppard
Bad Salzig
Kestert
Ehrenthal
Hirzenach
Wellmich
St.Goarshausen
Fellen
St.Goar
Urbar
Oberwesel
Bacharach
buffer zone
Kaub
Lorch
Rhein
Trechtingshausen
Assmannshausen
Rüdesheim
world heritage property
high-order-centre
Bingen am Rhein
middle-order-centre
low-order-centre
Nahe
Fig. 1.2.1: World Heritage Property „Upper Middle Rhine Valley“, buffer zone
page 21
[...] coincides closely with the natural feature referred to as the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”, which extends
from the Bingen Gate (Binger Pforte), where the River Rhine flows into the deeply gorged, canyon section
of the Rhine Valley, up to the Lahnstein Gate (Lahnsteiner Pforte), where the river widens again into the
Neuwied Valley. The area in question also includes the adjoining middle and upper Rhine terraces (Upper
Valley) which bear witness to the course taken by the river in ancient times. In both structural and functional
terms, these areas are closely linked to the narrow section of the valley, as are the steep V-shaped valleys
of the streams flowing into the Rhine.”4
The selected course of the core and buffer zone of the World Heritage property is reasoned in the application for inclusion in the World Heritage List as follows: “Apart from geological and geomorphologic factors,
the delimitation of the nominated area takes account of other aspects of the region’s history and cultural
history (the coherence of settlements, landscapes characterized by numerous castles) as well as of its
typical cultural landscape (terraced vineyards), the flora and fauna (xerothermic eco-systems, stone-fruit
orchards, coppice forest; nature conservation areas and fauna/flora/habitat areas) and aesthetics of the
landscape (natural scenery, visual relations, characteristic rock formations).”5
On the left bank of the Rhine, the core zone and buffer zones6 of the World Heritage property largely coincide with the area of outstanding natural beauty comprising the section of the Rhine from Bingen to Koblenz coinciding with the delimitation laid down in the ordinance on the preservation of the landscape of the
Middle Rhine region dated 26 April, 1978, and on the right bank of the Rhine between the border between
the federal state of Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate and the Rhine uplands near Bornhofen.
The proportion of the World Heritage property (= inner delimitation) amounts to about 44 % of the entire
area (272.5 qkm) of the Property and encompasses a broad corridor on both sides of the Rhine.7 The buffer zone (= outer delimitation) does not run parallel to the core zone, but instead has its “outer boundary on
the catchment divide, as only beyond this line can an impairment of the natural scenery by large volume,
mostly visible structures be excluded.”8
A total of more than 60 cities and (associations of) municipalities belong to the World Heritage property.
Parts of the World Heritage area belong to the city of Koblenz (with county status) or to the counties of
Mainz-Bingen, Mayen-Koblenz, Rhine-Hunsrück and Rhine-Lahn in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate and
to the county of Rhinegau-Taunus in the state of Hesse.
Application for inclusion in the World Cultural Heritage Site list of UNESCO, Mainz 2000, p. 7.
5 ibid, p. 7-8 The delimitation of the natural area of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” resulting from the geography is
also cited as a foundation for the delimitation in the nomination documents. The following serves as a source: Institut
für Landeskunde (Ed.): Naturräumliche Gliederung Deutschlands: The natural units found on sheet 138 Koblenz (1971),
processed by H. Müller-Miny and M. Bürgener and the natural units on sheet 150 Mainz (1964), processed by H. Uhlig.
6 ibid: The buffer zone of the World Heritage property is designated as such in the nomination documents.
7 ibid, p. 7-8
8 ibid, p. 8
page 22
1.3 History of the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
Following the signing of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage by the Federal Republic of Germany, a suggestion was already made at the first session of the
newly founded “World Heritage Committee” held in Paris in 1977 to recognise the “Upper Middle Rhine
Valley” as a World Heritage property.
The Middle Rhine from Bingen/Rüdesheim to Koblenz therefore appeared in October 1984 in the “Tentative List” of the Federal Republic of Germany approved by the responsible state ministers of culture.
However, the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” was initially no longer included in the first German tentative list
following German reunification in 1992. Nonetheless, the idea of nominating the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as an exceptional cultural landscape for the World Heritage list was kept alive. In 1996, The Minister
President of the Rhineland-Palatinate, Kurt Beck, expressly named the effort to secure the recognition of
the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as a UNESCO World Heritage property as a cultural-political objective
of the state government of the Rhineland-Palatinate. In 1998, the “Standing Conference of the Ministers
of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder (federal states) of the Federal Republic of Germany” updated the tentative list and nominated the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as World Heritage property.
This was followed by preparations for the application by the two federal states of Rhineland-Palatinate
and Hesse. A broadly conceived process of information and participation of the people in the region and
the conscious integration of the municipal administrative units, such as those recognised associations
engaged in monument and nature preservation, preceded this. In 1997, the actors in the region joined
to form the “Forum Mittelrheintal e.V.”, in order to reinforce the regional, historical and cultural identity in
the valley of the Lorelei and to maintain and develop the cultural landscape characterising the area. On
the occasion of the Rhine Valley Conference of the “Rheinischer Verein für Denkmalpflege und Landschaftsschutz” (Rhine Association for Monument and Landscape Preservation) in 1997, a “Rhine Valley Charter” was approved for the maintenance, preservation and sustainable further development of
the cultural landscape. In the meantime nearly all cities and associations of municipalities in the Middle
Rhine Valley between Bingen/Rüdesheim and Koblenz are now signatories.
The application documents were submitted to the World Heritage Centre in Paris at the end of December 2000. Following this, ICOMOS International carried out an evaluation of the potential World Heritage
area in September 2001 and initially suggested deferring the application due to the absence of a central
coordinating office. However, the establishment of the Secretariat for World Heritage in the RhinelandPalatinate in April 2002 moved ICOMOS International to modify this evaluation. The nearly 25 year long
process of recognition was successfully concluded with the inclusion of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
in the World Heritage List on 27 June, 2002 in Budapest.9
9 The following source provides the basis for this summar y of the historical development of the application for the
inclusion of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in the World Heritage list: http://www.welterbe-mittelRhinetal.de/index.
php?id=210&L=0
page 23
1.4 Planning background of the Rhine bridge to be examined
Initial considerations of the idea of erecting an additional permanent crossing of the Rhine in the “Upper
Middle Rhine Valley” developed parallel with the more than 25 year long preparation process for the nomination of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as a UNESCO World Heritage property. They are principally
the result of the fact that, while various ferry connections exist in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” between
the cities of Mainz and Koblenz, there is to date still no permanent crossing of the Rhine. Because the
existing ferry services are not continuous, the crossing of the Rhine is especially not possible during the
night, so that in some cases significant detours are necessary. If the water level is too high or too low,
the ferry services cannot operate. This happens on average nine days a year.
Fig. 1.4.1: Location and view of the planned bridge in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” –
(Design: Heneghan Peng Architects in cooperation with Arup Consulting Engineers and Mitchell Associates; Data for environmental model: Landesdienst Mobilität Rhineland-Palatinate (State Agency for
Mobility); representation: v-cube/CAAD)
page 24
Koblenz
Limburg an der
Lahnstein
Lahn
Koblenz
Lahnstein
Rhens
Braubach
Lahn
Spay
Rhens
Mosel
Braubach
Kamp-Bornhofen
Boppard
Spay
Bad Salzig
Mosel
Kamp-Bornhofen
Boppard
Bad Salzig
Kestert
Ehrenthal
Wellmich
Hirzenach
Fellen
Kestert
Ehrenthal
Hirzenach
St.Goarshausen
Wellmich
St.Goar
St.Goarshausen
Fellen
St.Goar
A61
A61
Urbar
Urbar
Oberwesel
Kaub
Kaub
Oberwesel
BacharachLorch
Lorch
Bacharach
bufferzone
zone
buffer
world
heritage property
core zone
Rhein
Trechtingshausen
Trechtingshausen
AssmannshausenAssmannshausen
Rüdesheim
high-order-centre
high-order-centre
Rüdesheim
Bingen am Rhein
Bingen
am Rhein
middle-order-centre
middle-order-centre
Bingen am Rhein
Bingen am Rhein
low-order-centre
low-order-centre
planned rhine bridge
Nahe
Nahe
Fig. 1.4.2: Regional integration of the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle
Rhine Valley”, location of the planned Rhine bridge
Another aspect that played a decisive role in the
considerations involving the erection of an additional
permanent crossing of the Rhine on the part of the
state of Rhineland-Palatinate is the demographic
Limburg an der Lahn
and employment developments in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”, which are currently showing clear
signs of worsening. Particularly the right side of the
Rhine is an area with relative structural weaknesses,
imburg an der Lahn
Rhein
page 25
the development of which is also inhibited by the
fact that an efficient connection to the A3 motorway
on the right side of the Rhine is only accessible in
a limited fashion due to the relatively great distance
A3
(see figure 1.3.1). The responsible authorities in the
region hope not only for improved transportation conditions within the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” from
A3
the planned new linking of the sub-areas on the right
Idstein
and left sides of the Rhine in the form of an additional
Rhine bridge, but also impulses and symbolic effects
that could reduce the currently clearly recognisable
Idstein
negative economic and demographic developments
within the area of the World Heritage property.
Immediately prior to the nomination, the UNESCO
World Heritage Centre was informed by the involved
authorities in Rhineland-Palatinate that a new, permanent crossing of the Rhine within the future World
Heritage property was being considered. Appropriate supplementary information accompanied the
nomination documents.10 Since the inclusion of the
“Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in the World Heritage
list in 2002, the plans for erecting a new, permanent
Rhein
Mainz
Rhine crossing have become more concrete. The
Mainz
World Heritage Centre has been informed at regular intervals of this planning pursuant to §172 of the
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the
World Heritage Convention11.
10 See: Application of World Heritage Property „Upper Middle
Rhine“ – Additional information, Mainz 2001
11 S e e: U N ES C O Wo r l d H e r i t a g e C e nt r e: O p e r at i o n a l
Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage List
(opguide08-en.pdf), Paris 2008, p. 45
page 26
Koblenz
Lahnstein
Lahn
Rhens
Braubach
Spay
Mosel
Kamp-Bornhofen
Boppard
Bad Salzig
Kestert
Ehrenthal
Hirzenach
Wellmich
St.Goarshausen
Fellen
St.Goar
Urbar
Oberwesel
Bacharach
Kaub
Lorch
Rhein
Trechtingshausen
Assmannshausen
Rüdesheim
physical regions
high-order-centre
Bingen am Rhein
middle-order-centre
low-order-centre
Nahe
Fig. 1.5.1: Morphology of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” (Source: State Office for Monument Preservation, Rhineland-Palatinate (Ed.): Das Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft.. Vols. 1 and 2, Mainz 2002 /ISL)
page 27
In the context of the development process for a permanent Rhine crossing in the “Upper Middle Rhine
Valley”, various options and variants were first examined (see chapter 4). Ultimately, on the basis of
these preliminary considerations, the variant of a Rhine bridge between the two communities of Fellen
and Wellmich, north of the communities of St. Goar and St. Goarshausen, and thus located in the geographical centre of the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”, was formulated in more
detail. As an alternative to the bridge planning, a possible intensification of the existing ferry connection
between St. Goar and St. Goarshausen, as well as a tunnel solution, were more closely examined. This
crossing variant is situated directly north of St. Goar and St. Goarshausen, but is currently not favoured
due to the anticipated high costs, massive intervention in nature and landscape and its impracticability
for cyclists and pedestrians.
An international architectural competition for the erection of the planned Rhine bridge was advertised in
February 2009. This competition process saw the planning group composed of Heneghan Peng Architects together with Arup Consulting Engineers and Mitchell Associates emerge as the victor. This visualisation study is the basis for the design for a new Rhine bridge.
1.5 Wider region of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” and the more narrower examination area
In order to be able to examine the extent to which the planned Rhine bridge influences the authenticity
and the visual integrity of the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”, the focus of the examination is placed on the special, visual characteristics of the cultural landscape of the “Upper Middle
Rhine Valley”. The perception of the cultural landscape of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is decisively
characterised by the fact that the bends of the river form a series of different sub-areas that are considerably different in their spatial characteristics. In terms of natural spaces we can differentiate between
three valley sections:
•
The southern valley section with the “Binger Pforte” (Bingen Gate) and the “Bacharacher Tal” (Bacharach Valley) between Bingen and Oberwesel.
•
The middle valley section in which the river has deeply carved into the landscape in the “St. Goarer
Engtal” (narrow section at St. Goar) between Oberwesel and Bad Salzig. Here the Gründelbach,
the Hasenbach and the Forstbach (streams), which have in turn formed V-shaped valleys, flow into
the Rhine. The Rhine terraces are wider in this section.
•
The northern valley section, with the Bopparder Schlingen (Boppard loops) between Bad Salzig and
Rhens, and the “Lahnsteiner Pforte” (Lahnstein Gate), which flows into the so-called “Neuwieder
Talweitung” (Neuwied Valley).
The realisation of the planned Rhine bridge is planned for the middle valley section of the World Heritage property, the narrow section of the valley at St. Goar. Decisive for this section of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
is that the valley profile narrows significantly here, so that its morphology differs significantly from those of the
northern and southern sub-areas. Here the formation of the canyon is especially influenced by the Rhine.
page 28
St. Goar
St. Goarshausen
Fig. 1.5.2: Aerial photo of the “ Upper Middle Rhine Valley”: Foreground: the “ Bopparder Schlingen”
(Boppard loops), the narrow section of the valley at St. Goar is clearly recognisable in the background due
to the characteristic narrowing of the valley profile there (Source: State Office for Monument Preservation,
Rhineland-Palatinate (Ed.): Das Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft..
Vols. 1 and 2, Mainz 2002 /ISL)
page 29
While the Rhine valley itself represents a deep cut into the layers of rock (“canyon”), the neighbouring
Rhine terraces, which are generally characterised by agricultural structures, represent instead more of
an “open landscape”. These elevated plains in turn are functionally and spatially linked to one another
through the V-shaped valleys bordering on the Rhine Valley. This “storeyed structure” plays a decisive
role not only in the context of cultural-historical development, but rather also with reference to the perception of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. In the valley area itself, the Rhine and the riverbank, the flatter, mostly strongly urbanised and infrastructure-rich plateaus close to the riverbank and especially the
space-creating and often terraced slopes dominate the overall impression.
Fig. 1.5.3: Diagrammatic representation of the Rhine Valley (Source: State Office for Monument Preservation, Rhineland-Palatinate (Ed.): Das Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft.. Vols. 1 and 2, Mainz 2002 /ISL)
As opposed to this, the neighbouring elevated areas convey a completely different spatial impression.
Here views extending beyond the Rhine Valley are possible, meaning that the Rhine terraces opposite
often join to form a visual “complete area”. The elevated areas of the Rhine Valley also enable many
panorama and distance views into the Rhine Valley, which in some cases also allow various sections of
the Rhine Valley to connect with one another visually.
From the plateau above Wellmich on the right side of the Rhine there are visual relationships in a southern
direction extending beyond the “castle triangle of Maus, Katz and Rheinfels” to the Lorelei, while in a north-westerly direction, the two villages of Kestert and Hirzenach mark a clear spatial and visual boundary.
Based on these conditions, and with reference to the examination of the consequences of the Rhine
bridge, it is possible to define a relevant, “narrower examination area” stretching between the poles of
the Lorelei and Kestert/Hirzenach, which also integrates the neighbouring plateaus.
page 30
Figure 1.5.4a/b/c: Plateaus and “Four Lakes View” above the “Bopparder Schleife” (Boppard loops),
Lorelei and southern section of the more narrowly defined examination area (Source: State Office for Monument Preservation, Rhineland-Palatinate (Ed.): Das Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische
Kulturlandschaft. Vols. 1 and 2, Mainz 2002 /ISL)
page 31
page 32
Koblenz
Lahnstein
Lahn
Rhens
Braubach
Spay
Mosel
Kamp-Bornhofen
Boppard
Bad Salzig
Kestert
Ehrenthal
Hirzenach
Wellmich
St.Goarshausen
Fellen
St.Goar
Urbar
Oberwesel
Bacharach
Kaub
Lorch
buffer zone
Rhein
Trechtingshausen
inner investigation area
Assmannshausen
Rüdesheim
high-order-centre
middle-order-centre
Bingen am Rhein
low-order-centre
Nahe
Fig. 1.5.5: World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”, location of the Rhine bridge and the
narrower examination area
page 33
KESTERT
HIRZENACH
inner investigation
area part A
EHRENTHAL
WELLMICH
ZU FELLEN
ST. GOARSHAUSEN
ST. GOAR
inner investigation
area part B
morphology of rhine valley
(higher and lower areas)
subspaces
URBAR
Fig. 1.5.6: Location of the planned Rhine bridge, sections A and B of the narrower examination area
Characteristic of the narrower examination area is that it is principally divided into two sub-areas that differ
greatly from one another in their characteristics. In the northern sub-area A including the communities of
Hirzenach, Kestert, Fellen and Wellmich, in which the Rhine bridge is planned, the narrow section of the
Rhine Valley widens significantly and receives an additional spatial character due to the Rhine island of
Ehrenthaler Werth. As a result, its spatial characteristics differ quite considerably from those of the southern
sub-area B between Wellmich and the Lorelei, which is characterised spatially by the steep valley walls
closely facing one another, which are “typical” for the narrow section of the valley at St. Goar.
1.6 Remarks concerning the authenticity and visual integrity of the World Heritage Property
“Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
The cultural landscape or the modern natural scenery of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” arose over the
course of 2,000 years as the result of human intervention within a natural space with a favourable climate,
but which was difficult to urbanise or cultivate. There was never a design plan on the basis of which the
“composition” of nature, cultural landscape and settlements that is today viewed as harmonious was developed. The transformation of the landscape took place on the basis of economic and political interests
that primarily had their origins outside of the Middle Rhine Valley and that were and are closely connected
with the transport function of the Rhine and later with the railway lines parallel with the Rhine.
page 34
This development process of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is even today not “concluded”. It is instead the case that the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is also subject to diverse processes of change
even in the present day. Other significant features characterising the modern natural scenery of the
“Upper Middle Rhine Valley” developed in the Middle Ages. Both the still typical features of the area
and the various castles, which represent a characteristic element of the cultural landscape of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”, originate from this period. The latter were erected as competing symbols
of rule and to secure the customs locations primarily on the valley slopes above the already existing
settlements and are still important landmarks. In addition, many of the specific forms of land usage that
still characterise the cultural landscape of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in a special way originated
in this period. These include, for example, the terracing of the steep slopes with dry wall masonry for
viticulture and coppicing.
Fig. 1.6 .2: “ Upper M iddle Rhine Valley ”, M aus
Castle, terraced viticultural areas, topleft: coppicing
(Source: State Office for Monument Preservation,
Rhineland-Palatinate (Ed.): Das Rheintal von Bingen
bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft.
Vols. 1 and 2, Mainz 2002 /ISL)
After the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” was first
integrated into the French area of rule at the
beginning of the 19th century and then into the
Prussian, an impulse for modernisation developed
there, after a relatively long period of stagnation,
that resulted in the Rhine valley becoming a superregional transport corridor. The bottom of the Rhine was deepened in order to make it more easily
navigable, and additional stimulation of commerce and transport in the Rhine valley resulted from the
increase of the Rhine customs duties and the establishing of steamship navigation. The Roman road
was also restored in this period, thus making it useable for the first time since antiquity. In addition to
this, the two railway lines on both sides of the Rhine were built, and are still used intensively today.
page 35
This in some cases represented highly significant intervention in the historical building fabric of the
medieval cities.
Noteworthy in this connection, however, is that both the development and the perception of the “Upper
Middle Rhine Valley” were also influenced in this period by completely different factors. This is because,
parallel to the rapid modernisation of the Rhine valley, a kind of nostalgia for the Middle Ages developed
that was closely connected with the formation of the “German Empire” in the 19th century. This development was expressed in architectural terms by the reconstruction of the medieval fortresses, as well as in
the design of the facades of the new railway tunnel, which incorporated medieval elements in the form
of battlements and towers, but which were in no way authentic. The nostalgia for the Middle Ages also
initiated a substantial discussion about the historical building fabric in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”.
Fig. 1.6.3: “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”, Königsstuhl at Rhens and Wernerkapelle at Bacharach (Source:
(Source: State Office for Monument Preservation, Rhineland-Palatinate (Ed.): Das Rheintal von Bingen bis
Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft. Vols. 1 and 2, Mainz 2002 /ISL, wikipedia)
Initial attempts at monument preservation are made, with the aim of securing the historical building fabric. “Key projects” in the context of these measures include the reconstruction of the Königsstuhl (King’s
Seat) at Rhens, which was destroyed by the French in 1804/05, and the reinforcing of the Gothic Wernerkapelle (Werner Chapel) in Bacharach after 1843.
These activities flow into the systematic inventory of the art monuments of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” under the first provincial conservator of the Prussian Rhine province, Paul Clemen. Although these
activities were doubtlessly linked to ideological factors, this is where one finds the origins of the modern
monument preservation movement (in Germany).12
12 See: UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Advisory Body Evaluation, Rhine Valley (Germany) No. 1066 (1066.pdf/pdfObjekt), 2002, p.14 “In the early 19th century the Prussians initiated a programme of restoration and reconstruction,
principally for ideological reasons; nonetheless, it laid the foundations for the whole modern conservation movement.”
page 36
Even this brief overview of the historical development of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” makes clear
that the authenticity and visual integrity of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is influenced by very different, in some cases even contradictory factors and elements. An important role is played here by
the fact that the Rhine valley cannot be experienced as a homogeneous totality, but is instead a sequence of individual valley sections with very different characteristics. Even within a single valley section there are contrasting elements from different phases of development that create an anachronistic
or contradictory overall picture. Of special interest here are the various infrastructural elements, such
as the roads and railway lines on both sides of the Rhine, which especially contrast with the medieval
fortresses and city layouts.
With reference to this examination, three aspects can be mentioned that continue to decisively characterise the authenticity and the visual integrity of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” to the present day,
and are therefore also of great importance for the methodological and content-related orientation and
execution of this visualisation study:
a. Interactions between natural and cultural basic conditions
The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is even today subject to fewer major changes than other sections
of the Rhine. Due to the spatial limitations and the specific topography of the narrow valley section at
St. Goar, in which the “storeyed structure” of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is realised in a nearly
“model fashion”, there is very little room to manoeuvre for development here, which has long been
compensated for by special forms of land usage and a functional division of labour between the valley
and the terraces. However, due to the diminishing of the close relationship of the valley communities
with the water as the economic backbone and the decline of the forms of land usage that have characterised the cultural landscape, such as viticulture and coppicing, a clearly recognisable process of
structural change has been initiated.
Important features characterising the visual integrity and authenticity of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” have nonetheless been maintained, as they are situated in the slope area. The synopsis of various
historical maps from different historical periods makes clear that the cultural landscape of the “Upper
Middle Rhine Valley”, especially in the vicinity of settlements and transport systems or on the high plateaus, is subject to diverse modifications expressed in a high “speed of change”. The slope area and
the river itself change considerably more slowly.
Fig. 1.6.4: Historical maps and maps of change of the inner examination area (Source: State Office for
Surveying, Rhineland-Palatinate and: State Office for Monument Preservation, Rhineland-Palatinate (Ed.):
Das Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft.. Vols. 1 and 2, Mainz 2002
/ISL)
page 37
page 38
Abbildung 1.6.4f: Modifications in the more narrowly defined examination area (Source: State Office for Surveying, Rhineland-Palatinate and: State Office for Monument Preservation, Rhineland-Palatinate (Ed.): Das
Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft.. Vols. 1 and 2, Mainz 2002 /ISL)
page 39
b. The usage of the Rhine valley as a transport corridor
The Rhine has been one of the most important transport routes in Europe for more than 2,000 years. It
links the Mediterranean with the northern European cultural area and is repeatedly transformed even
today on the basis of functional and transport-related considerations. The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
is part of this transport corridor. This aspect was especially emphasised in the application for inclusion in
the UNESCO World Heritage List, where one can read: “Even today the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is
a main axis of European transport. It has remained a lively economic region.”13 The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is thus also in this respect subject to a continuous process of change. The regional economy
profits only marginally from transit traffic today, and the noise caused by this transporting of rail cargo
strongly affects the region.
c. Monument protection and the Romantic
A third component that even today influences the authenticity and visual integrity of the “Upper Middle
Rhine Valley” is the “romanticising view” of the Rhine valley, which originated in the late 18th century and
was decisively prominent in the 19th century. This is because in this period a great deal of appreciation
for the special natural conditions of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” and the historic, medieval building
fabric arises, especially for the fortresses und historic features of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. To
the present day, “Rhine Romanticism” represents a central element of tourism marketing for the “Upper
Middle Rhine Valley”. This can therefore be described as a cultural landscape that has been imprinted
in collective memory almost as the prototype of a “romantic river landscape”.
On the whole it becomes clear that the Rhine valley has represented a “functional transport corridor”
for approx. 2,000 years; one which even today is repeatedly optimised and adapted to current requirements on the basis of economic considerations in order to satisfy “transport needs”. In contrast to this,
the perception of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” has always been characterised by the fact that, since
the end of the 18th century, but especially since the 19th century, it has been viewed as a paradigm of a
“Romantic river landscape”, has been represented untold times in art and literature and is even today
primarily marketed for tourism purposes with an emphasis on this aspect.
The more narrowly defined examination area shares this “inconsistency”, because here too the contrasting elements of the cultural landscape of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” clash dramatically (see
chapter 8). This is also shown by a look at the inner examination area, which contains, on the one hand,
features of the “transport corridor” (e.g. the large scale railway crossing in the foreground), but also “typical Romantic” elements such as the Maus Castle.
Application for inclusion in the World Cultural Heritage list of UNESCO, Mainz 2000, p. 19-20
page 40
Fig. 1.6.3: Wellmich with Maus Castle and Fellen with crossing structure
1.7 Summary
On the whole, this overview already shows that the authenticity and visual integrity of the “Upper Middle
Rhine Valley” is principally characterised by very contrary elements. This generates varied “viewpoints”
from which the cultural landscape of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is seen and interpreted as a “functional transport corridor” or as a “Romantic model landscape”. Most sub-areas of the Rhine valley demonstrate facets of both aspects.
This special feature plays a central role for the evaluation of the consequences of the planned bridge
construction in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” and also dominates the discussion of this question (see
chapter 3). It is therefore a matter of special importance to this study to present the contradictions within
the physical and associative characteristics of the Rhine Valley as transparently as possible and to take
these into account in methodological terms. For this reason the examination takes place on the basis of
a specific methodology, which will be explained in more detail in the next chapter.
page 41
2 Methodology of the Independent Evaluation
As the introductory remarks have already shown, the “Outstanding Universal Value” of the cultural landscape of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is to a significant extent the result of the interaction between
man and nature, meaning the evolution of cultural activities within the existing special, natural, basic
conditions of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. From these interactions, leading also to the definition of
the “Outstanding Universal Value” (OUV), arose the specific, physical characteristics of the present day
natural scenery of the cultural landscape “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” and thus also those properties that
continue to influence the authenticity and visual integrity of the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle
Rhine Valley” to the present day.
2.1 Examination structure
The starting point of the examination is provided by the “formal criteria” of the “Outstanding Universal
Value” of the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” since a full Statement of “Outstanding
Universal Value” has yet to be agreed by the World Heritage Committee. The evaluation of the effects of
the planned Rhine bridge on the cultural landscape of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” takes place with
reference to these criteria and also to statements made by ICOMOS in the Advisory Body evaluation.
Therefore, the examination starts with a “formal analysis” with the aim of more precisely defining the
criteria of “Outstanding Universal Value” and of placing these in a relationship with the central characteristics of authenticity and visual integrity of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. The next goal is to present and explain the background of the current discussions surrounding the planned Rhine bridge. An
analysis of the planned Rhine bridge (concept, construction description, location, and design), together
with an overview of the facts and backgrounds, which precede the independent evaluation, rounds off
the basic information part.
The second content section of the examination is divided into two steps:
a. First an examination of the entire Rhine valley (natural scenery, cultural-historical development, art
historical and current visual representations).
b. This is followed by a more detailed consideration of the inner examination area (characteristics of natural spaces, cultural history characteristics, and specific patterns of perception).
On the basis of these individual examination steps, the visualisations of the planned Rhine bridge within
the scenic contexts are created in the third part of the examination on the basis of a 3D computer model
meant to provide a realistic picture. The evaluation of the planned Rhine bridge and a concluding recommendation takes place on the basis of these individual examination steps.
page 42
part 1
background + formal analysis
+
analysis of
symbolic values
(art history,
presence, everyday-views)
+
analysis of
landscape
scenery
part 2
analysis of
cultural history
criteria for evaluation of visual impact
part 3
field-of-vision-analyses
end result + recommondations
Fig. 2.1.1: Methodology of the independent evaluation
2.2 Comments on the study in terms of contents
Examination of the entire Rhine Valley
It is particularly on account of the contradictions within the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” mentioned earlier that the study does not only analyse the differing aspects of the narrower examination area, but also
the entire World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. An examination of the entire cultural
landscape serves to obtain information on how the two very different sections of the narrower examination area of examination are to be classified in terms of quality within the whole area of the “Upper
Middle Rhine Valley”. This will provide a substantiated and balanced assessment of the significance the
narrower examination area has within the further sections of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in terms of
authenticity and visual integrity of the entire World Heritage property. An examination of historic pictorial
representations of the entire “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” supplements the analysis of the landscape of
the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. It serves to classify and evaluate the specific (visual) characteristics of
the narrower examination area in these contexts.
page 43
Likewise, a compressed contemplation of the historic development of the whole “Upper Middle Rhine
Valley” in terms of art will be carried out. The objective is to evaluate whether the planned bridge structure will fit into the typology and development of the entire “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. This is because the planned Rhine bridge not only represents a new element of transport infrastructure in the Rhine
Valley but will also, and primarily, improve the connections of the left and right sides of the river in the
“Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. Another significant aspect of approaching the entire “Upper Middle Rhine
Valley” with respect to cultural history is to examine where crossings have emerged during the historic development of the area, which were the determining factors, and how the area in which the Rhine
bridge is now planned, can be integrated in this context. Also, an analysis of the cultural historic role of
the existing crossings within this transport corridor and the significance of the planned Rhine bridge will
be carried out.
Examination of physical characteristics, symbolic and associative values of the narrower examination area / Selection of visual points
In order to contemplate the narrower examination area more closely, an analysis of the specific natural
characteristics will be carried out first. This is followed by a definition of the emerging characteristics
dominating the landscape of the narrower examination area. This examination is supplemented by
an analysis of historic pictorial representations in the narrower examination area, so as to be able to
classify and evaluate the relevance of the different visual points and visual connections into different
categories. The basis for the evaluation of historic representations of towns and landscapes is, in particular, a summary of works of art of the 18th and 19th century provided by the State Library Centre of
Rhineland-Palatinate.14 The examination of present-day representations is also essentially supported
by marketing of souvenirs (e.g. “picture postcards”) as well as additional information such as up-todate internet presence.
These individual steps of the analysis lead to the definition of relevant visual points and sight corridors
within the narrower examination area which are taken into account in the visualisations. The visualisation studies also include such visual points, which had already been defined as relevant within the
scope of the information document for the World Heritage Centre and in the tender for the competition
“Rhine Valley Bridge”, to the extent that they are still significant for the Rhine bridge in question.15 As
well, an examination will be made of relevant “everyday views” that are generally dependent on the
means of transportation and the cruising speed.
The evaluation of these different (and further) sources will be supplemented by an on-site examination,
in order to compare the results of the examination with the “actual situation”. The combination of the
14 See: State Librar y Centre, Rhineland - Palatinate: Projek t Mit telr heinbr ücke – Vereinbar keit mit histor ischen
Ansichtenwerken über das Mittelrheintal (1780 – 1900), 2009
15 See: Cochet Consult, Landesbetrieb Mobilität Rhineland-Palatinate (State Agency for Mobility): Rheinquerungen am
Mittelrhein. Information document for the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, August 2007
page 44
results of these analytic steps does not only lead to a precise definition of the key positions determining
the perception of the respective section of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”, but also to a classification
of these standpoints in terms of quality into various “categories of perception”.
Overall, this step is to provide information on whether the bridge structure will lead to transformations
of essential “classic” representations of towns and landscapes which are culturally and historically significant , or which are “saved” in the collective memory of inhabitants and visitors of the Middle Rhine Valley. Furthermore, this step will also weigh the significance of the individual viewing points, by
creating a correlation to the historic value of the visual connection and the frequency of present-day
visual connections.
Creation of visualisations of the planned Rhine bridge
Following on from this, the field of vision analysis will be prepared. The visualisation of the planned
bridge is carried out with the highest possible technical precision. At first, a 3D computer model is prepared containing three-dimensional data of the existing topographic situation, three-dimensional data
of the examined object (the planned Rhine bridge and its access ramps) as well as the existing building
structures of the narrower examination area. Digital photos and video films are then generated under
suitable viewing conditions. These digital photos will be taken with a focal length of approx. 43-50mm
so as to simulate human perception as realistically as possible.16 Subsequently, the digital photos are
referenced to three-dimensional perspectives of the computer model, which are prepared with the same
focal length. Thus, the digital photos can be “superimposed” one hundred percent with the computer
model as exact and realistic visualisations of the planned Rhine bridge in its natural environment.
The connection of the digital photos with the 3D model generally offers the advantage that trees, bushes etc. that cannot be exposed in the digital terrain model for technical reasons, can be integrated in
the field of vision analyses. Therefore, any transformations within the landscape of the “Upper Middle
Rhine Valley” will be represented realistically, but nevertheless with the highest degree of precision.
When superimposing the digital model with the digital photos or video extracts extreme care will have
to applied. In referencing the photographing camera with the computer model the exact photo location, the viewing vectors (the photographed visual corridor) and the focal length of the photo are used.
An exact and technically perfect overlay of the photos with the 3D model is guaranteed because both
the photos and the 3D model are prepared using GPS.
Illustration 2.2.1: Technical Methodology of the Visualisation study (right side)
16 Source: jochen rütschlin’s exposé; http://www.jr-x.de/digitalfotografie/fototechnik.html.
page 45
page 46
The data of the „Landesbetrieb Mobilität Rhineland-Palatinate“ (State Agency for Mobility) serve as basis for preparing the digital model for extracts of the landscape. These data include a three-dimensional
„Mesh“ of the surroundings of the valley section to be examined, i.e. a digital, numeric storage of information regarding the elevation of the natural earth surface of the narrower examination area. This 3D
model will be combined with high-resolution aerial photos, which are also provided by the “Landesbetrieb
Mobilität Rhineland-Palatinate”. Three-dimensional vector data of the planned Rhine bridge are integrated
in this 3D overall model, provided by Heneghan Peng Architects, and partially supplemented within the
scope of the examination. Overall, the 3D model is also made up of three elements:
•
the digital terrain model,
•
high-resolution aerial photos of the inner examined area, and
•
the digital model of the bridge.
The accuracy of the digital overall model depends on the data supplied. However, it can be guaranteed
that the data on hand are created with a very high degree of precision. Owing to the extremely large volume of data, only those parts are reproduced that are relevant for the examination of the specific area
used for the expertise. These excerpts encompass the standpoints of the object regarding viewing and
location, as well as the reference objects dominating the environment and the urban and landscape of
the specific area of examination that are relevant within the scope of the examination.
The field of vision analyses show presentation methods based on varying perceptions:
•
Static analysis: In the case of “classical lookouts”, designed in such a way that a panorama is perceivable when standing still (e.g. lookouts or terraces on fortresses or hills) the field of vision analyses are carried out as still images (overlay of photo and computer model). In order to correspond
as closely as possible to human perception, the perspective of the still images are created, in part,
as kinematic 360o panoramic views.
•
Mobile analysis: For standpoints where the perception out of a motion plays an essential role, the
field of vision studies are prepared in form of film sequences including a fade-in of the projected
bridge (overlay of video film with 3D model).
This procedure within the scope of the visualisations does justice to the fact that the perceptions of landscapes in general arise from the motion.
page 47
2.3 Result
Overall, the present visualisation study is generally divided into the following three parts:
a. Formal Analysis / Basic evaluation:
•
Definition of the inner area of examination;
•
Evaluation of the criteria for the inclusion of the World Heritage property (OUV) and
also of other evidence of the World Heritage Committee´s determination of OUV/
Evaluation of further backgrounds for the discussion of the planned Rhine bridge;
•
Examination of the genesis, typology and design of the planned Rhine bridge
•
Result: exact definition of the initial situation and the tasks set
b. Analysis of content of the overall situation of the World Heritage property and the narrower
examination area:
•
Analysis of the physical characteristics with reference to the OUV;
•
Analysis of the development in terms of cultural history with reference to the OUV;
•
Analysis of the visual characters in art history and the presence with reference to the OUV;
•
Result: Definition of relevant viewpoints, visual corridors and visual connections with relevance to
the OUV
c. Field of vision analyses, documentation and evaluation:
•
Generation of 3D computer model, on-site examination;
•
Creation of field of vision analyses;
•
Documentation and evaluation of field of vision examinations;
•
Result: Final evaluation, recommendations for future procedures
The documented method for the preparation of the „Visual Impact Study“ was coordinated at a mutual
meeting with the Steering Committee on 13 November 2009 in St.Goar/Rheinfels Castle, in conjunction
with the experts Olivier Poisson (World Heritage Committee) and Dr. Christopher Young (English Heritage, Head of International Advice) as well as Dr. Ringbeck (Delegate of the Standing Conference of the
Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Lander). Comparable procedures have already proved
successful in earlier field of vision examinations by the author, in which similar facts were analysed.
page 48
3 Formal Analysis
The following chapter discusses in detail the formal criteria of the “Outstanding Universal Value” that are
the basis for the inclusion of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in the list of the World Heritage, and compares them with the defined essential characteristics of authenticity and visual integrity of the “Upper
Middle Rhine Valley”. Apart from this, another objective of the following chapter is the discussion of the
historic development to-date and the planned Rhine crossing.
It already becomes evident that differing interpretations and evaluations emerge, in particular, in respect
of the two aspects “Transport corridor Rhine Valley” and “Romantic Rhine Valley”. This also plays a central role with a view to the present discussion around the Rhine bridge. The “formal analysis” also serves to compare these two aspects with the earlier discussions concerning the erecting of an additional
bridge in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”, with the aim of creating the largest possible transparency of
the respective arguments.
3.1 Criteria for the inclusion of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in the World Heritage List
In 2002, the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” was acknowledged as Cultural Landscape of “Outstanding
Universal Value” (in short OUV) during the 26th meeting of the World Heritage Committee in Budapest
in the sense of Article 1 of the World Heritage Convention. Cultural landscapes within the World Heritage List represent “the combined works of nature and man”17 and are divided up into the following three
different categories:
•
Artistic landscapes designed by man, for instance, parks and gardens;
•
Landscapes that owe their unmistakable character to the interaction of man and nature (“organically
evolved landscape”). It is necessary to differentiate between living and fossil landscapes;
•
Associative landscapes whose value lies in religious, spiritual, artistic and historic associations,
which link up with their inhabitants (“associative cultural landscape”); 18
17 See: UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage List
(opguide08-en.pdf), Paris 2008, pg. 86: “Cultural landscapes are cultural properties and represent the ćombined works
of nature and man` designated in Article 1 of the Convention. They are illustrative of the evolution of human society and
settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and / or opportunities presented by their natural
environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal” as well as: German
Commission for UNESCO, Luxembourg Commission for UNESCO, Austrian Commission for UNESCO, Swiss Commission
for UNESCO (Editor): Welterbe-Manual. Handbuch zur Umsetzung der Welterbekonvention in Deutschland, Luxemburg,
Österreich und der Schweiz, Bonn 2009, p. 283 - 84: „Cultural landscapes are cultural proper ties and represent the
ćombined works of nature and man` designated in Article 1 of the Convention. They are illustrative of the evolution of
human society and settlement over time, under the influence of physical constraints and / or opportunities presented by
their natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal.“
18 See: Rössler, Mechtild : Neue Perspektiven für den Schutz von Kulturlandschaften, Geographische Rundschau, Year
47, Issue 6, 1995, pg. 344-345 / 2000, 1)
page 49
The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” has been included in the list of the World Heritage as a landscape
that has evolved organically19. Regarding the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” it can be assumed that the
sub-category of the “continuing cultural landscape” is correct. The World Heritage Manual characterises
this category of cultural landscapes as follows: [„- a continuing landscape is one which retains an active social role in contemporary society closely associated with the traditional way of life, and in which
the evolutionary process is still in progress. At the same time it exhibits significant material evidence of
its evolution over time.“] 20 The admission of “long, narrow passages that represent culturally significant
traffic and communication networks” – such as the Middle Rhine Valley – is explicitly mentioned under
No. 11 of Annex 3 of the Guidelines.21
This illustrates that the development of a continuing cultural landscape in the sense of the World Heritage
Convention is never completed. Likewise, the World Heritage Convention neither aims at reconstructing
nor “freezing“ historical or ideal conditions. It is rather aimed at retaining the “Outstanding Universal Values” defined in the World Heritage List by admission to the list, and to coordinate them with a sustainable
further development of the World Heritage property. In addition, the “active social role”, which the cultural landscape plays in cohabitation with the contemporary societies, is explicitly emphasized. Principally
and formally the erection of an additional permanent Rhine crossing in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley“
is thus compatible with the criteria of the World Heritage Convention.
3.2 The “Outstanding Universal Value” of the World Heritage Property
“Upper Middle Rhine Valley” and contradictions within the Advisory Body Evaluation
With reference to the list of criteria for cultural assets in Section 77 (i) to (vi) of the Operational Guidelines, the following three criteria were specified to define the “Outstanding Universal Value” of the “Upper
Middle Rhine Valley”:
•
Criterion ii: “As one of the most important transport routes in Europe, the Middle Rhine Valley has for
two millenia facilitated the exchange of culture between the Mediterranean region and the north.”
19 UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage List (opguide08-en.
pdf), Paris 2008, Annex 3, Nr. 10 ii); German Commission for UNESCO, Luxembourg Commission for UNESCO, Austrian
Commission for UNESCO, Swiss Commission for UNESCO (Editor): Welterbe-Manual. Handbuch zur Umsetzung der
Welterbekonvention in Deutschland, Luxemburg, Österreich und der Schweiz, Bonn 2009 Guidelines for the implementation
of the World Heritage Convention, Annex 3 No. 10 ii)
20 See: German Commission for UNESCO, Luxembourg Commission for UNESCO, Austrian Commission for UNESCO,
Swiss Commission for UNESCO (Editor): Welterbe - Manual. Handbuch zur Umset zung der Welterbekonvention in
Deutschland, Luxemburg, Österreich und der Schweiz, (Annex 3 No. 10 (ii) Definitions and categories, guidelines for the
implementation of the Convention for the protection of the cultural and natural heritage of the world), pg. 284-85, and:
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage List (opguide08-en.pdf), Paris 2008, pg. 86
21 ibid, pg. 285, or respectively pg. 86: “The possibility of designating long narrow passages areas which represent
culturally significant transport and communication networks should not be excluded.”
page 50
•
Criterion iv: “The Middle Rhine Valley is an outstanding organic cultural landscape, the presentday character of which is determined both by its geomorphological and geological setting and by
the human interventions, such as settlements, transport, infrastructure, and land-use, that it has
undergone over two thousand years.”
•
Criterion v: “The Middle Rhine Valley is an outstanding example of an evolving traditional way of life
and means of communication in a narrow river valley. The terracing of its steep slopes in particular
has shaped the landscape in many ways for more than two millennia. However, this form of landuse is under threat from the socio-economic pressures of the present day.” 22
With reference to these three criteria, the following significant elements of the Rhine valley can be named
which are defined as the “Outstanding Universal Value” of this cultural landscape in the criteria:
•
The function of the Rhine Valley as a transport corridor for the last two thousand years which provided
a link between Mediterranean and Northern countries for long periods, and still does so today;
•
The interactions (which still exist today) between the special geographical conditions and the cultivation of the Rhine Valley;
•
The life forms, land uses and communications resulting from these circumstances which have developed in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”;
In the 2002 Advisory Bodies Evaluation – the result of the evaluation of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
by ICOMOS / IUCN in the framework of the nomination of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as a World
Heritage property – in addition to these factors the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” was commended as a
cultural landscape of “great variety and beauty”. Similarly, the richness of the present landscape in cultural
associations of a historical and artistic nature was emphasised. The wording is: “The Middle Rhine Valley is a cultural landscape of great diversity and beauty which has shaped both by nature and by human
22 According to the Operational Guidelines the following criteria are currently defined for cultural properties which are
to be inscribed in the World Heritage List (the criteria applied in the Advisory Evaluation in relation to the Rhine valley
are printed in bold type):
Nominated properties shall ...
(i) represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;
(ii) exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world,
on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design;
(iii) bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has
disappeared;
(iv) be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which
illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;
(v) be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative
of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable
under the impact of irreversible change;
(vi) be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary
works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion can only justify inscription in
the list in exceptional circumstances or in conjunction with other criteria.)
page 51
intervention. It is rich in cultural associations, both historical and artistic, which are imprinted upon the
present-day landscape.” 23 In the brief description of the World Heritage property in the Advisory Bodies
Evaluation, the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is also described as follows: “The 65km-stretch of the Middle
Rhine Valley, with its castles, historic towns and vineyards, graphically illustrates the long history of human involvement with a dramatic and varied natural landscape. It is intimately associated with history and
legend and for centuries has exercised a powerful influence on writers, artists and composers.” 24 These
statements are also evidence of the OUV as considered by the World Heritage Committee in 2002.
In spite of the explicit mention of qualities which refer without any doubt to “Rhine Romanticism”, the
associative characteristics of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” are in the end not named as criteria for
the “Outstanding Universal Value” in the Advisory Bodies Evaluation. This is all the more surprising in
view of the fact that these factors are explicitly mentioned both in the brief description in the Evaluation
and in the “Statement of Significance”. In the nomination application formulated by the Federal Republic of Germany and the federal states of Rhineland-Palatinate and Hesse it is also suggested that the
associative aspects of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” should be taken into account under criterion (vi)
of the Operational Guidelines.25 Against this background, it must be stated that on the whole there is a
clear contradiction in the Advisory Bodies Evaluation. Although the associative characteristics of “Rhine Valley Romantic”, are mentioned several times, they are not mentioned as the basis for one of the
criteria citied as justification of “Outstanding Universal Value”. This is because the Advisory Bodies did
not recommend the use of criterion vi which was proposed by the German authorities. Nonetheless, the
references to artistic influence in the ICOMOS evaluation suggest that some part of the OUV lies in this
area, and this is recognised in the Draft Statement of “Outstanding Universal Value” prepared by the
German authorities at the request of the World Heritage Committee (see p. 14).
3.3 Joint World Heritage Centre - ICOMOS Advisory Mission 2008
This aspect plays an important role not only in the framework of the necessary evaluation of the planned
Rhine bridge itself, but also in relation to the evaluation of the existing plans to construct a permanent
Rhine crossing by an advisory mission in 2008. This joint World Heritage Centre – ICOMOS advisory
mission was established to evaluate the different options developed in a feasibility study on the possible
permanent Rhine crossings in relation to their anticipated consequences for the “Outstanding Universal
Value”, integrity and authenticity of the „Upper Middle Rhine Valley“ World Heritage Property and to develop a list of recommendations for the further procedure.26
23 See.: UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Advisory Board Evaluation, Rhine Valley (Germany) No 1066 (1066.pdf/pdf
object), 2002, p. 15 (The grammatically incorrect English wording has been quoted literally from the original text)
24 ibid
25 To this end the following passage was formulated: “The Middle Rhine Valley is closely linked with important historical
events, ideas, traditions, works of literature and the fine arts, especially from the Romantic period. These have helped
(and are continuing) to shape the image of the landscape and impact on notions of European history and culture.”
26 See.: UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Report of the Advisory Mission to the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” (Germany),
February 2008, p. 3
page 52
This advisory mission, which included representatives of ICOMOS International and the World Heritage
Centre, made special reference to a feasibility study of 2007 by the company Cochet Consult in which
four different options for possible permanent Rhine crossings and an improvement of the existing ferry
connection between St. Goar and St. Goarshausen were investigated in detail.27 On the basis of these
different options, the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate presented two possible Rhine crossings to
the advisory mission: a tunnel solution situated between St. Goar/St. Goarshausen and Fellen/Wellmich
(referred to as the “tunnel option” in the Mission Report) and a bridge solution between Fellen and Wellmich (referred to as the “low bridge option outside town” in the Mission Report). The two other bridge
solutions (referred to in the Mission Report as the “low bridge option” and the “high bridge option”) were
excluded from the outset by the representatives of the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate because,
among other things, they were considered incompatible with the “Outstanding Universal Value” of the
World Heritage property.
Fig. 3.3.1 the Rhine crossing options examined in the framework of the joint World Heritage Centre –
ICOMOS advisory mission (Source: Cochet Consult, Landesbetrieb Mobilität Rhineland-Palatinate:
Rheinquerungen am Mittelrhein. Information submission for the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris,
August 2007)
27 See.: Cochet Consult, Landesbetrieb Mobilität Rhineland-Palatinate: Rheinquerungen am Mittelrhein. Information
submission for the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, August 2007
page 53
The advisory mission therefore considered the bridge solution between Wellmich and Fellen, the tunnel
solution and a possible improvement of the ferry connections in greater detail.
Under certain conditions, the experts consensually see the tunnel solution and a possible intensification of
the existing ferry links as solutions compatible with the “Outstanding Universal Value” (OUV), the authenticity and the (visual) integrity of the World Heritage property. The suggested bridge solution did not produce
a consensus opinion from the Expert Consultation Group. In the view of the expert from the World Heritage
Centre, a possible Rhine bridge in the suggested position could, in principle, be conceivable under certain
conditions. She came to the conclusion that, against the backdrop of the acceptance of the “Upper Middle
Rhine Valley” as a continually developing (cultural) landscape in the World Heritage List, further human
intervention in the valley area cannot, in principle, be ruled out. This plan would, however, be subject to
a very careful investigation of the consequences which could be expected. To quote from the report: “As
the Rhine Valley is an evolving landscape, further interventions are to be considered, if they respect the
quality of the site.” […] The low bridge outside town option (Wellmich-Fellen), if decided by the State Party,
has to demonstrate that the crossing proposal will not affect the authenticity and visual integrity of this
very important part of the World Heritage property. Additionally, the difficult and unsolved transport links
and the increasing traffic volume and air pollution have to be addressed. In case such a bridge option
would be considered by the authorities […], this proposal should be prepared within a framework of an international design competition where the values of the World Heritage property are clearly identified and
the need to use adapted and integrated materials in relation with the existing elements of the site is clearly
integrated. This potential bridge proposal has to be supported by an in-depth environmental, cultural
and visual impact study, based on the proposed design. At this stage of the evaluation, the study made
by the German authorities cannot be considered as sufficient.” (Emphasis in original text)28
On the other hand, ICOMOS International’s assessment is that the suggested variety of bridge between
Wellmich and Fellen could, due to its proximity to Maus Castle and to the small-scale surrounding locations,
on principle not be compatible with the authenticity and visual integrity of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
World Heritage Property. Furthermore, deviations in the material quality and design of the bridge in relation
to the differentiated and small-scale surrounding castles and villages emerged. The bridge thus appears
as a “foreign element“. 29 To quote from the Mission Report: “The low bridge outside town option (Wellmich – Fellen) is contradictionary to the “spirit” of this area, which is an outstanding example of a
Romantic landscape. Thus the project would impact adversely on the justification of criteria iv `…patchwork of small natural places…´ and affect the authenticity and visual integrity of this very important part
of the World Heritage property.” The low bridge outside town option (Wellmich – Fellen) is not a question
February 2008, p. 8 (Emphasis in original text)
February 2008, p. 10: “The planned bridge is a technical infrastructure that complies with the regulations necessary
for waterways and transportation by ships. This inherently means a break in scale in comparison to the differentiated
structures of the historic castles and villages. But also of the small-sized cultural landscape. This also means a break in
material and form and the bridge would appear in the landscape as an àlien element´”. page 5 4
of design and material but a question of authenticity and visual integrity of the most important part of the
Rhine Valley World Heritage Property. This question can certainly not be solved by an international design
competition. Additionally, the difficult and unsolved transport links and the increasing traffic volume
and air pollution have to be addressed. (Emphasis in original text)30
Comparing these two statements emphasises the differences between the points of view of the two very
different experts. With regard to the statement from ICOMOS International, however, it can already be
seen at this point that, of the three criteria to define the “Outstanding Universal Value” of the “Upper Middle
Rhine Valley” World Heritage Property named in the Advisory Board Evaluation, the associative aspect
of the Rhine Valley as a “romantic landscape” mentioned by the experts from ICOMOS International is
not referred to. Likewise, the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is never described as a “patchwork of small
natural places” in the statement. Criteria vi was, rather, suggested in the nomination documents, but not
included later in the Advisory Bodies Evaluation. Seen on a strictly formal basis, the bridge was therefore
rejected by ICOMOS International on the basis of the “inappropriate“ criteria. With regard to the previous
chapter and the above comment, which presented the contradictory nature of the various views on the
Rhine Valley as well as the contradictions within the Advisory Bodies Evaluation, it should however, be
presumed that these misunderstandings are closely connected with these aspects. However, as noted
above, other statements suggest that the associative values are part of the “Outstanding Universal Value” even though the use of the associative criterion (vi) was not accepted by ICOMOS though proposed
in the nomination dossier. Presumably, at the time of inscription both ICOMOS and the World Heritage
Committee judged that the associative values were not as central to “Outstanding Universal Value” as
those qualities covered in criteria ii, iv and v.
To quote from the World Heritage Centre – ICOMOS advisory mission: “The Mission recommends that
the State Party further explores the option of constructing a tunnel, as this option is perceived as
most likely to respect the “Outstanding Universal Value” of the World Heritage property. This tunnel
option should be considered in the context of an appraisal of the long-term transportation capacity of the
valley, and its environmental impacts with a view to developing a long-term transportation policy which
respects the sensitivities of the cultural landscape. An environmental impact study and an overall traffic
and transport study for the World Heritage property should been carried out. It will be transmitted for review to the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies of the World Heritage Convention, ICOMOS
and IUCN. In case the impact studies have demonstrated that the tunnel is technically not feasible, the
authorities should explore other options that would respect the integrity and the “Outstanding Universal
Value” of the World Heritage property.” (Emphasis in original text)31
February 2008, p. 12 (Emphasis in original text)
February 2008, p. 12
page 55
3.4 Decisions of the World Heritage Committee in 2008 und 2009
At its 32nd session in July 2008 in Quebec, Canada, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee held
discussions on the basis of the report by the Joint World Heritage Centre – ICOMOS Advisory Mission
and a draft resolution developed by the World Heritage Centre (WHC08/32.COM/7B.Add). The following
decision was made regarding further action:
Decision: 32 COM 7B.93
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC08/32.COM/7B.Add,
2. Notes with satisfaction the State Party´s action in involving the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS in their reflection with regard to the Rhine crossing project and in the preservation of the “Outstanding Universal Value” of the property,
3. Requests the State Party to carry out an environmental impact study for Rhine crossing options,
as well as to prepare an additional transport plan to evaluate in a more detailed manner the feasibility of possible constructions and traffic management whilst respecting the “Outstanding Universal
Value” of the property;
4. Requests moreover the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2009,
an updated report on progress in its reflections concerning the Rhine crossing for examination by
the World Heritage Committee at its 33rd session in 2009
This decision – in contrast to the final recommendations by the Expert Consultation Group – does not
give preference to a tunnel solution over a bridge solution. Instead, the World Heritage Committee deemed that all possible solutions for an additional fixed crossing of the Rhine should be reviewed on an
equal basis by means of a supplementary traffic analysis and an environmental impact assessment in
relation to the conservation of the “Outstanding Universal Value” of the site.
At its 33rd session in Seville, Spain, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee was informed of the transmission of the documents requested at the 32nd session – an environmental impact study (summary
version) and a traffic analysis – and the holding of the international “Rhine Bridge“ competition which was
decided in April 2009 in favour of the project submitted by Heneghen Peng Architects.
The summary version of the environmental impact study was considered to be methodologically inadequate for an assessment of the effects of the planned bridge on the “Outstanding Universal Value” of the
page 56
site. As it was not requested, the full version of the study was not available in time. The expert report on
the traffic and transport assessment of the options of a high or low bridge between St. Goar and St. Goarshausen, a low bridge between Wellmich and Fellen and a tunnel near St. Goar and St. Goarshausen
was available for the preparation of a draft resolution (WHC-09/33.COM/7B.ADD). ICOMOS suggested
that, first of all, all of the proposed options should be evaluated on the basis of the environmental impact
study before any further steps are taken.
With regard to the methodology for the preparation of an environmental impact assessment to show
the possible effects of the proposed Rhine crossings on the “Outstanding Universal Value” of the World
Heritage property, the draft resolution provides very detailed remarks32. First of all, it stipulated that the
scope of the investigation must be defined in relation to the “Outstanding Universal Value” of the asset
and the way in which the impact on this asset should be assessed. Then it stated that criteria for the
selection of views should be justified. At the same time, it stated that perception is not static, but that it
changes as a result of movement in a sequence of constantly changing spatial impressions and view
axes. It also states that historical view axes must be considered in addition to the contemporary views in
order to evaluate the effects of a Rhine bridge on the associative dimensions of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” cultural landscape. In addition, it states that a description of the existing traffic infrastructure
in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” or its development over time is also necessary. These remarks were
taken into account in the preparation of this study (cf. chapter 2).
For the 34th session of the World Heritage Committee, the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate and the
Federal Republic of Germany are asked to submit a Draft Statement of “Outstanding Universal Value”
and a report on the decision-making process by 1 February 2010.
32 See: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, WHC-09/ 33. COM 7B.Add, p.121:
“...ICOMOS has considered the summary version of the environmental impact assessment. It considers that the environmental
impact assessment should assess the potential impact of the proposed river crossings on the “Outstanding Universal
Value” of the World Heritage property. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to define as a starting point the scope of
the investigation in terms of the ‘asset’ and the way impact on the asset will be evaluated. The asset should be a list of
the attributes that reflect “Outstanding Universal Value”. In the documents submitted, no inventory of cultural attributes
has been drawn up: all that are detailed are the criteria under which the property was inscribed and short descriptions of
the landscape in the area of the proposed crossings. The evaluation of the functional and sensory impact of the proposed
crossings on the property (such as increases in traffic on two centres and the impact of the bridges on the landscape) is
insufficient. The study shows the impact on the ‘natural’ landscape from individual viewpoints by using photo montages.
However, neither the criteria for the selection of views nor the number of viewpoints are methodologically justified. The
perception of the Middle Rhine landscape does not take place from a few fixed viewpoints; rather it is a sequence of
constantly changing spatial impressions and view axes, which differ considerably depending on the traffic route and
the means of locomotion (by boat, train, car, or as cyclist or pedestrian). ICOMOS also notes that a cultural landscape
is more than natural scenery and impact needs to consider the full range of attributes of the cultural landscape – not
just visual parameters. The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is of outstanding importance as a Romantic landscape, which
inspired writers, painters and musicians and particularly in the 19th century was visited by countless travellers from all
over Europe. Especially the central stretch of the transverse valley in the area of St Goar and St Goarshausen fulfils the
idea of the picturesque and romantic Rhine valley. The nearby Lorelei rock is the most important place of Rhine mythology.
No attempt has been made to compile an inventory of historic views relevant for an evaluation of the consequences of a
Rhine bridge for the associative dimension of the cultural landscape. The present study has little detailed assessment and
description of the existing traffic infrastructure in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” or of its development over time…”
page 57
Such a Statement should consist of:
a)
Brief synthesis
i.
summary of factual information
ii.
summary of qualities (values, attributes)
b)
Criteria
c)
Integrity
d)
Authenticity
e)
Protection and Management requirements
Once this draft is agreed by the World Heritage Committee, it will form the basis for the future management of the World Heritage property. The Draft Statement of “Outstanding Universal Value” is integrated
in this Study (see: p.14).
Decision: 33 COM 7B.104
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-09/33.COM/7B.Add,
2. Recalling Decision 32 COM 7B.93, adopted at its 32nd session (Quebec City, 2008),
3. Notes the summary version of the Environmental Impact Study of the Rhine crossing options and
the traffic analysis provided by the State Party and that an architectural competition has taken place
for the proposed bridge;
4. Regrets that the full version of the Environmental Impact Study was not submitted on time;
5. Considers that the summary version of the Environmental Impact Study fails to set out an adequate methodology to interrogate the impact of the proposed bridge on the “Outstanding Universal
Value” of the property;
6. Further requests the State Party in consultation with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory
Bodies to develop a draft Statement of “Outstanding Universal Value” for examination by the World
Heritage Committee at its 34th session in 2010;
7. In order that the recommendations of the 2008 World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS advisory mission
be fully considered in terms of the potential impacts of a proposed crossing on the “Outstanding
Universal Value” and integrity of the property, including on important views, requests ICOMOS to
consider the complete Environmental Impact Study to allow for a full assessment of the proposed
bridge, tunnel and other solutions on the “Outstanding Universal Value” of the property, and defer
any further action until these alternatives have been evaluated;
8. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2010 a
report on progress in the decision making on the Rhine crossing for review by the World Heritage
Centre and the Advisory Bodies, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 34th session in 2010.
page 58
3.5 Present state of affairs
Parallel to the development of specific proposals for the planned Rhine bridge – and as suggested by the
joint World Heritage Centre – ICOMOS advisory mission – the tunnel option is also being investigated
further. Other fundamental transport and traffic issues – such as longer operating times and extended
ferry facilities to improve the existing river crossings and the associated spatial and functional effects
– are currently being investigated separately in an expert report by the Institute of Urban Planning and
Transport at RWTH Aachen University under Prof. Dr. Dirk Valleé.
3.6 Conclusion
In summary, it can be stated that the Federal Republic of Germany and the federal state of RhinelandPalatinate have now carried out or submitted all investigations requested by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre. In accordance with the suggestion of the joint World Heritage Centre – ICOMOS advisory mission, which demands an additional in-depth environmental, cultural and visual impact study, a
supplementary assessment will now be provided to determine whether the planned bridge respects the
authenticity, visual integrity and “Outstanding Universal Value” of the World Heritage Property “Upper
Middle Rhine Valley”.
The visual impact study that is presented here is therefore the last element in the investigation of the
compatibility of the planned Rhine bridge with the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” World Heritage Property.
To satisfy the requirements defined by the joint World Heritage Centre – ICOMOS advisory mission –
as already outlined in chapter 2 – this study goes beyond the mere visualisation of the planned bridge
structure and integrates various levels of consideration in relation to the World Heritage property as a
whole and the inner area that is the subject of the investigation.
page 59
4 “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” Bridge Construction Project
This chapter will summarise the planning history and current status of the planning process for the bridge
project between Wellmich (St. Goarshausen) and Fellen (St. Goar), especially the results of the international “Rhine Valley Bridge” competition which took place in April 2009.
4.1 Reason for planning and project history
In the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” World Heritage Property there are five car ferries which allow drivers
to cross from one side of the river to the other: they operate between Boppard and Filsen, St. Goar and
St. Goarshausen, Kaub and Engelsburg, Lorch and Niederheimbach, and Bingen and Rüdesheim. They
do not operate around the clock, and if there are high volumes of traffic they cause long waiting times.
The only fixed Rhine crossings in the World Heritage Area are in Koblenz: Pfaffendorf Bridge, Horchheim
railway bridge and South Bridge. The only Rhine bridge that existed in this section of the Rhine valley
was the Hindenburg Bridge, which was constructed in 1915 between Bingen and Rüdesheim33, but it was
destroyed at the end of the Second World War and was not rebuilt. Recent plans to build a new bridge
in this location have now been called into question for environmental reasons.
Figure 4.1.1a/b: Hindenburg Bridge near Bingen, the left photograph was probably taken in the 1930s
(privately owned), right photograph:wikipedia
As early as 1982 – parallel to the first proposals to recognise the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as part
of UNESCO World Heritage property– the “Middle Rhine-Westerwald Planning Group” commissioned a
“Special Report on the Structural Development of the Hunsrück-Taunus Region”34. In addition to various
other structural improvement measures, this expert report also mentions a new Rhine bridge as the most
important step towards sustainable regional development. However, because of its unfavourable cost/
benefit ratio, the bridge project is not included in the Federal Traffic Infrastructure Plan.
33 The Hindenburg Bridge was built during the First World War as a railway bridge mainly for military reasons to create
a supply route for the German western front.
34 See chapter 1.2, Planungsgeschichte (Planning History) in the „Neubau einer festen Rheinquerung am Mittelrhein”
environmental impact study, Cochet Consult, May 2009
page 60
After the start of the new millennium, the two rural districts of Rhine-Lahn and Rhine-Hunsrück took up
the plans again in a joint “Decision in Favour of the Ùpper Middle Rhine Valley Bridge Project”35 due to
the structural weaknesses of the region having become even more extreme since the 1980s: the population development is declining dramatically as a result of negative population movement and a very low
birth rate. Job market trends in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” are similarly negative.
The “Middle Rhine-Westerwald Planning Group” commissioned a feasibility study in which the advantages and disadvantages of various alternatives for the Rhine crossing were to be listed, quantified and
qualitatively evaluated. In addition, the effects of these alternatives were to be investigated in relation to
the traffic situation, structural effects, the environmental situation and construction costs taking into account the application that had been made for recognition of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as a World
Heritage property.
In connection with the “Expert Mission” in September 2001 before the recognition of the “Upper Middle
Rhine Valley” as a World Heritage property, the federal states of Rhineland-Palatinate and Hesse informed the World Heritage Centre about the state of the plans for a Rhine bridge between St. Goar and
St. Goarshausen or between Bingen and Rüdesheim. The feasibility study commissioned by the “Middle Rhine-Westerwald Planning Group” had not yet been published at this time, but the World Heritage
Centre was nevertheless informed that the study had been commissioned. At the request of the “Expert
Mission” (Rob de Jong, ICOMOS International), detailed information was then sent to the World Heritage
Centre in December 2001 and attached to the application for recognition.36
At the time of the recognition, however, neither the regional body (Middle Rhine-Westerwald Planning
Group) nor the federal state governments (Rhineland-Palatinate and Hesse) had made any decision
about the location and type of fixed Rhine crossing. Instead, two options for an additional Rhine bridge
were listed. The first option was that of a bridge at the site of the former Hindenburg Bridge between
Bingen and Rüdesheim. The second option mentioned was an additional Rhine bridge between St. Goar
and St. Goarshausen. Against this background, the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” was recognised as a
World Heritage property in 2002.
In 2003 the “GVS/Cochet Consult” office submitted the feasibility study37. This study focused exclusively
on the area around St. Goar – St. Goarshausen because in the meantime the option between Bingen
and Bingerbrück had been abandoned. In general, the feasibility study concluded that a bridge would
35 See chapter 1.2, Planungsgeschichte (Planning History) in the „Neubau einer festen Rheinquerung am Mittelrhein”
environmental impact study, Cochet Consult, May 2009
36 See: additional information No. 7 „Detailed information about the debate on bridges across the Rhine, Nomination of
the Middle Rhine Valley, C 1066
37 See: GVS/Cochet Consult: Feasibility study for a permanent Rhine crossing commissioned by the Mittelrhein-Westerwald
Planning Group, Koblenz, 2003
page 61
have the desired positive structural effects. Three bridge locations and one tunnel solution in the area
around St. Goar/St. Goarshausen were proposed, with the bridge option in the valley near Wellmich and
Fellen being favoured, taking into account all factors studied (traffic and structural effects, environmental impact, costs).
On this basis an environmental impact assessment
38
was commissioned and compiled in the summer
of 2004. In accordance with the results of the feasibility study, the scope of the investigation as defined
in this study relates to the area which is likely to be affected by the alternatives that are considered to
be reasonable.
In advance of the joint World Heritage Centre - ICOMOS advisory mission which was carried out in February 2008 (and which has already been mentioned in detail in chapter 2), the information document
“Rhine Crossings in the Middle Rhine”39 was prepared for and submitted to the UNESCO World Heritage
Centre in Paris by Cochet Consult on behalf of the Landesbetrieb Mobilität Rhineland-Palatinate. The
accompanying letter points out that the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate is willing to provide financial support for the plans for a bridge between St. Goar and St. Goarshausen, and that a tunnel did not
seem to be the best solution, especially for reasons of cost.
In October 2008 the environmental impact assessment was revised again and at the start of 2009 – in
accordance with the decision of the UNESCO committee in July 2008 at its session in Quebec (cf. chapter 3) – it was submitted to the World Heritage Centre in Paris together with an extensive traffic analysis
that had also been requested40.
In summary, after a closer examination of the history of the development of the Rhine bridge it can be
stated that the initiative for the project largely came from local decision-makers. Then, as now, it was
the political consensus that a bridge in the Middle Rhine Valley would have a positive effect on the traffic
connections for the local population, enhance the attractiveness of the region for tourism and benefit the
regional economy, which is currently characterised by obvious structural problems. The connections to
the major long-distance transport routes of the A 3 and A 61 motorways played no role in the decision
to plan a new crossing. What was considered important was the goal of reducing the infrastructure disadvantages of the right bank of the Rhine by linking the B 9 and B 42 trunk roads, which also serve the
railway stations that form part of the public transport system.
It is also worth noting that from the outset, the plans for an additional Rhine bridge in the “Upper Midd-
38 See: GVS/Cochet Consult: Environmental Impact Study on behalf of the Landesbetrieb Strassen und Verkehr Diez
(now: Landesbetrieb Mobilität Diez). 2004
39 See: Cochet Consult, Landesbetrieb Mobilität Rheinland-Pfalz: Rheinquerungen am Mittelrhein. Information document
for the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, August 2007
40 See: Gesellschaft für Verkehrsberatung und Systemplanung mbH/Landesbetrieb Mobilität Rheinland-Pfalz: Rheinquerung
im Welterbe Mittelrheintal. Traffic study, 2009
page 62
le Rhine Valley” were closely linked with the nomination and application procedure for the recognition
of the area as a World Heritage property. The two processes developed more or less parallel to each
other. It is generally accepted that the construction of the bridge will only be carried out if it is considered to be compatible with the status of the „Upper Middle Rhine Valley“ as World Heritage property. For
this reason all planning and investigation steps are being carried out in close cooperation with the World
Heritage Centre.
4.2 Rhine Bridge Competition – April 2009
This approach is also reflected in the international “Rhine Valley Bridge” competition which was initiated
by the federal state government of Rhineland-Palatinate at the end of 2008 as a reaction to the results
of the joint World Heritage Centre – ICOMOS advisory mission (cf. chapter 2). The text of the tender states: “The goal of the competition is to design a bridge solution which is compatible with World Heritage
conservation aims and fits harmoniously into the Rhine valley without disturbing the appearance of the
landscape, so that both the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and the local population can accept
the solution.”41
Figure 4.2.1: Concept for the location of the planned Rhine bridge in the north-west part of the area investigated
in the valley section between Kestert, Hirzenach, Fellen and Wellmich (Source: Heneghan Peng Architects)
41 See: Landesbetrieb Mobilität Rheinland-Pfalz: Tender documents for Competition, Bridge crossing, “Upper Middle
Rhine Valley”, Kaiserslautern 2008, Page 5
page 63
The competition was won by the planning group of Heneghan Peng Architects together with Arup Consulting Engineers and Mitchell Associates. In contrast to the task set in the competition, which stipulated
that the bridge location should be combined with the existing bridge structure in Fellen, the winners of
the first prize suggested that the bridge location should be moved north-west, towards the island opposite Ehrental (Ehrentaler Werth), so that the river banks in Wellmich and Fellen are only partly affected.
According to the authors, this measure aims to leave the views from the ferry between St. Goar and St.
Goarshausen towards Maus Castle, the long-distance views between Rheinfels, Katz and Maus castles
and the historically relevant views between Fellen and Wellmich unspoilt as far as possible.
The light grey painted steel bridge is designed to be organically integrated into the landscape with a
slight S-shaped profile and a low span which fits in harmoniously with the lines of the surrounding hills
and the bends in the river. In addition, it is proposed that the pillars should be restricted in their width
and shaped in such a way that they do not hinder the flow of the river. The bridge abutments are to be
constructed of exposed concrete.
Fig. 4.2.2: Concept to integrate the planned Rhine bridge into the surrounding cultural landscape in the section of the valley between Kestert, Hirzenach, Fellen and Wellmich (Source: Heneghan Peng Architects)
page 64
The load-bearing structure is situated both above and below the road to minimise the necessary ramp
lengths and keep the bridge as low as possible:
The bridge design proposes a multiple-element S-shaped continuous beam (hollow steel box, 2000 mm)
at the lowest possible height above the highest navigable water level. A total of 4 pillars are planned,
with a 150 metre wide pillar-free shipping channel. On the inside of each curve there is a steel support
structure which is inclined outwards to follow the line of moment and reduce the tension in the deck and
the deflection of the structure. The steel beam is at its highest above the pillars, where it amounts to 4.5
m. In the middle of the bridge and above the outer pillars, the reinforcing beam becomes integrated into
the hollow box of the road surface.
The height difference between the middle of the bridge and the B 9 trunk road is overcome between
the pillar at the edge of the shipping lane and the bank on the south bank (at Fellen). On the north bank
(Wellmich) the ramp is arranged parallel to the B 42 trunk road because here the shipping lane is too
close to the bank for the height difference to be overcome without a ramp. The longitudinal gradient is a
maximum of 6%. The connections to the trunk roads are level.
The road is planned with two lanes of 3.5 metres in width on the bridge. A 3-metre wide pedestrian and
cycle path without any structural separation from the road (only the kerb) is on the south-east side of the
bridge facing Wellmich and Fellen. Railings (stainless steel mesh) are planned at the edge of the bridge
on both sides. The existing cycle and pedestrian paths parallel to the trunk roads will remain. In Wellmich, a new pedestrian and cycle path is currently being constructed directly adjacent to the river bank
as part of a path that extends the full length of the World Heritage property.
4.3 Conclusion
On the whole, it can be said that the design for the planned Rhine bridge – which is the result of a competition with international participants and a high-ranking jury – with its contours and its low form aims
to provide a contemporary structural form and an attractive spatial integration of the bridge into the cultural landscape of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”.
It can already be concluded that the location and the height of the planned Rhine bridge would fundamentally not detract from the views from St. Goar and St. Goarshausen towards Maus Castle or the
long distance views between Rheinfels, Katz and Maus castles and the Lorelei. In the visualisations,
the prime task is therefore to examine how the consequences of the planned Rhine bridge affect the authenticity and visual integrity of the section of the valley between Hirzenach and Kestert in the north-west
and Fellen and Wellmich in the south-east (inner area covered in the survey, section A). In addition, the
visualisations of the planned bridge must also determine whether the height development of the bridge
fits in with the dynamic character of the terraced zone in the lower valley, with its residential facilities and
transport infrastructure.
page 65
This factor is particularly important, especially because the existing qualities need to be preserved as
far as possible in section A of the inner area covered in the survey, where there has already been a significant deterioration in the design quality, especially on the left bank of the Rhine in and around Fellen.
This particularly applies to the intact hillside scenery and the visual attractiveness of Wellmich. As far as
possible, any necessary intervention in connection with the Rhine bridge should therefore be restricted
to this inner area covered in the survey. Ideally, the existing flaws in the appearance of the river bank
area in and around Fellen should even be improved by the construction of the bridge.
Table 4.3.1: World Heritage project chronology – fixed Rhine crossing
1982
Planning Group Middle Rhine-Westerwald: Investigation of the
structural development in the Hunsrück-Taunus area
Around 2000
Joint decision of the rural district councils of Rhine-Lahn and
Rhine-Hunsrück in favour of a fixed Rhine crossing
26th session of the World Heritage Committee in Budapest
27 June 2002
Registration of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in the UNESCO
World Heritage List
GVS/Cochet Consult: Feasibility study for a fixed Rhine cross-
2003
ing on behalf of the Planning Group Middle Rhine-Westerwald,
Koblenz
GVS/Cochet Consult: Environmental Impact Study on be-
August 2004
half of the “Landesbetrieb Strassen und Verkehr Diez” (State
Agency for Roads and Traffic Diez) (now: Landesbetrieb
Mobilität Diez)
An expertise was provided for revision of the plan for a Rhine
crossing regarding economy and transportation
August 2007
by the Environmental, Urban and Transport Planning Company
Cochet Consult, on behalf of the federal state of RhinelandPalatinate and forwarded to the UNESCO World Heritage
Centre for review.
11 February 2008
Report on the advisory mission to the “Upper Middle Rhine
Valley”
page 66
At its session in Quebec, Canada, the UNESCO World HeritJuly 2008
age Committee discusses the report of the international expert
committee and makes a decision on how to proceed.
GVS/Cochet Consult: Supplement and update to the Environ-
August 2008
mental Impact Study
the documents required in the Quebec decision, i.e. an envi-
Start of 2009
ronmental impact study and an updated traffic and transport
study, are presented to the World Heritage Centre in Paris.
Decision in the competition for a Rhine bridge between
St. Goar-Fellen and St. Goarshausen-Wellmich which was initiated
April 2009
by the federal state government of Rhineland-Palatinate
Prizewinner: the planning group of Heneghen Peng Architects
with Arup Consulting Engineers and Mitchell Associates
Cochet Consult Planungsgesellschaft Umwelt Stadt & Verkehr
(Planning Community Environment City & Traffic)/Landesbetrieb
Mobilität Diez: Construction of a Fixed Rhine Crossing in the
8 May 2009
Middle Rhine, environmental impact study – final version
Written offer from the federal state government to send the full
version of the Enviromental Impact Study
Gesellschaft für Verkehrsberatung und Systemplanung
(Society for Transportation Consulting and System Planning)
May 2009
mbH /Landesbetrieb Mobilität Rhineland-Palatinate: Rhine
crossing in the Middle Rhine Valley World Heritage Property
(Final Report)
June 2009
Session of the World Heritage Committee in Seville
Commission for an expert to assess the visual effects of the
October 2009
October 2009
planned Rhine bridge between Wellmich and Fellen
Commission for an expert to compare the economic efficiency
of a bridge and a ferry link
page 67
Part II: Analysis of Content of the Overall Situation of the
World Heritage Property and the Narrower Examination Area
5 Analysis of special cultural history factors and their evaluation
In this chapter, the main periods of the cultural history development of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
will be documented in overview and – in view of the fact that the planned Rhine bridge is a “new form” of
river crossing – the significance and location of Rhine crossings in particular will be explored.
5.1 Early history
Settlements can be shown to have existed on the terraces of the Middle Rhine Valley since the last Ice Age.
There are findings of early water craft: log boats, simple rafts, willow framework boats covered with animal
skins and flat-bottomed wooden
boats which were used to fish
and to hunt water fowl.
5.2 The “Upper Middle Rhine
Valley” as part of the Roman
Empire
(50 BC – 4th century AD.)
The Middle Rhine became significant in cultural history with the
expansion of the Roman Empire.
Since then, the Rhine has been
one of the large and important
natural navigable transport and
trade routes in Europe. For over
2000 years the Rhine has formed
part of a direct north-south connection from the North Sea to
the Mediterranean via the Belfort
Gap and the River Rhone.
Around 50 BC the Romans
reached the Rhine from the
Figure 5.2.1: Roman Territory (Source: Gormsen)
west. The Middle Rhine Valley
now formed part of Upper Germania (Germania Superior) with the walled city of Moguntiacum (Mainz) as
its main settlement, which was linked with the right bank of the Rhine by a wooden bridge around 10 BC.
To protect the eastern border of the newly conquered territories, the Romans built a continuous road linking
the fortresses and military camps on the left bank of the Rhine: Bingium (Bingen), Bodobriga (Boppard) and
Confluentes (Koblenz). It is thought that there was another fortress in Oberwesel. The Roman settlements
followed the typical grid pattern which was used for the construction of military camps and the development
of new towns all over the Roman Empire, irrespective of the local situation.
page 68
01
02
Koblenz
Confluentes
Lahnstein
Lahn
Rhens
Braubach
Spay
Bodobriga
Kamp-Bornhofen
Boppard
Mosel
Bad Salzig
Kestert
Ehrenthal
Hirzenach
Wellmich
St.Goarshausen
Fellen
St.Goar
Urbar
Oberwesel
Bacharach
castle or walled vicus
assured/assumed
Kaub
Lorch
Rhein
Trechtingshausen
Assmannshausen
Rüdesheim
01
Bridge (“östl. Balduinbrücke“)
02
Bridge (“Kapuzinergrund“)
03
Bridge (“Drususbrücke“)
03
Bingen am Rhein
Bingium
Nahe
Figure 5.2.2: Roads and bridges in the Roman age (Source: Gormsen / ISL)
page 69
In the course of the construction of the Roman road on the left bank of the Rhine, Drusus had a wooden
bridge built over the Nahe in Bingen in the decade before the birth of Christ, which was replaced by a
stone bridge in 70 AD (“Drusus bridge”). Similarly, it is assumed that there was a pile bridge over the
Mosel in Koblenz – 50 m downstream from the later Balduin bridge. This bridge is known to have existed
in the 3rd century, but it was probably already there in the 1st century BC. In spite of these measures,
the land route was still more difficult to negotiate than the river. On the Rhine the Romans transported
heavy loads and troops on flat-based fast sailing boats to protect and supply the camps occupied by
their legions.
To cross the Rhine, in the 1st century BC the Romans built a pile bridge in Koblenz (between Koblenz
and Ehrenbreitstein, Kapuzinergrund). In positions which were naturally suitable or strategically important, there must have been other crossings, at least temporary ones, to transport Roman troops to the
right bank of the Rhine. This factor plays an important role for the areas to the east of the Middle and
Upper Rhine and even as far as the Danube near Regensburg, which was conquered by the middle of
the 2nd century AD and protected by the Limes frontier system.
To the west, an important route led from Mainz to Bingen and then over the Hunsrück to Trier and then
to Saarbrücken and Metz, where it met up with the important north-south route towards Cologne. Large
stretches of this route correspond with today’s A61 motorway.
The Western Roman Empire collapsed in the 4th century AD as a result of migration, long-distance trade
on the Rhine declined.
Basically, the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” was an important transit area during the Roman period which
linked different parts of the Empire, mainly in a north-south direction. This was also expressed by the
construction of the Roman road. To the north and south of the present World Heritage property, the cities
of Koblenz and Mainz (or Bingen) provided two focal points at which important Rhine crossings were
built as part of the Roman infrastructure grid – partly because of the important transport functions of the
Mosel and Nahe valleys.
5.3 The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in the Middle Ages (5th – 15th century AD)
After the disintegration of the Western Roman Empire in the 4th century, the Rhine formed the boundary
of the territory of the Franks in the 5th century. The former Roman provincial capital cities of Trier, Cologne and Mainz became diocesan towns with large territorial property, including the Middle Rhine. With
the partitioning of the Charlemagne Empire (842), the left bank of the Rhine fell to the Middle Kingdom,
which remained independent of the Eastern Frankish Kingdom until the year 925.
The type of settlement that is still characteristic of the Middle Rhine Valley arose in the Middle Ages:
typical settlement patterns arose in structurally suitable locations in the valley as a result of the natural
page 70
contours of the land, mainly in the area around the alluvial fans of the streams that run down to the Rhine
from V-shaped valleys. Here, the banks of the Rhine are wider and transport to the higher terraces via
the valleys of the streams is easier to manage.
Mediaeval settlements arose along the transport routes in the V-shaped valleys reaching down to the
Rhine. Depending on the available land, the focal point of the settlements developed at the crossing point
of one or two roads running parallel to the river, so hooked or T-shaped settlement patterns arose.
The valleys of the streams could be used to create a transport link to the higher terraces and thus facilitate the necessary exchange between trade and viticulture in the valley and agricultural and forestry
products on the higher ground and the development of additional settlement land on the higher terraces.
The Roman road on the left bank of the Rhine was neglected in favour of towpaths directly on the river
bank. The territorial rulers earned money by providing towing horses. The local population in the villages
along the bank had to provide services,
and in return they were protected by the
castles and fortifications on the hills.
In the High Middle Ages the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” became the central
territory of the “Holy Roman Empire of
the German Nation” (Sacrum Imperium
Romanorum). Four of the seven electors, the highest decision-makers in
the Holy Roman Empire, were territorial rulers in the Middle Rhine Valley.
Along the Middle Rhine there were a
large number of small territories which
extended across the Rhine in which
the rulers of these territories imposed
customs duties for passing through
their territories. These charges were
made, for example, at Bacharach/Kaub
or at St. Goar/St. Goarshausen. Special trading rights (“ius emporii”) were
also exercised here. In the 12th century there were 25 customs points on
Figure 5.3.1: Mediaeval
territories in the area of the Upper
Middle Rhine World Heritage property
(Source: Das Rheintal von Koblenz bis
Bingen; own illustration)
the Rhine, and after the Thirty Years’
War there were 13 between Mainz and
Cologne alone.
page 71
Up to the 14th century large parts of the territory were given to the church and to monasteries. The area
around St. Goar and Rheinfels was controlled by the Counts of Katzenelnbogen in their capacity as the
administrators of Prüm Abbey, which had territories both east and west of the Rhine linked by a ferry between St. Goar and St. Goarshausen. Over 40 castles were built between Bingen and Koblenz, mainly
on prominent rock outcrops (hill fortresses) as symbols of power which were visible from afar and would
protect the customs points on the Rhine.
The cultivation of the Middle Rhine Valley began in the early Middle Ages with the clearance of the original
forests and the terracing of the steep hillsides by means of dry stone walls, which was largely completed
by the start of the 14th century. In addition to wine growing, fishing, river pilot services and mining also
developed as traditional economic activities. On the high terraces, agricultural land was used for arable
farming and pasture, and agricultural products were exchanged via the V-shaped valleys. Another characteristic form of agriculture was oak coppice management which was used to obtain poles to tie up the
vine plants, to produce charcoal and to extract tannic acid as a tanning agent for leather production.
Trading flourished in the High Middle Ages: dried fish, Dutch cheese, Flemish cloth and spices from abroad
were imported. The products sold included basalt millstones from the volcanic area in the Eifel, ceramics from Westerwald and especially wine. Bacharach was the trading centre for wine in the High Middle
Ages, the wine being supplied by many small vintners from the Middle Rhine Valley on small boats and
then transported downstream – in large casks – as “Bacharacher”. The monks of Eberbach, who had
great influence on wine cultivation in the Middle Rhine Valley, shipped their wine from Reinhartshausen
in Rheingau, customs-free and labelled as “Hochheimer”, on their own boats to Cologne where they possessed a trading post. Fish was the main food for the rapidly increasing population of the Middle Rhine
Valley, and salmon from the Rhine became a trading commodity.
On the whole it can be said that during the mediaeval period the Rhine was the main transport connection for the whole region of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. Because of the small structural units,
many connections arose across the river. Here, Otto Volk remarks: “A large number of messages and
documents show that in the Middle Ages the Rhine had a connecting function at the local and regional
level rather than acting as a separating barrier. Trips across the river, links to opposite settlements and
even cultivation of vineyards and other land on the other side of the river were evidently an everyday
occurrence.”42 This is not only reflected in the various territories spanning the river Rhine, it can also be
seen in the neglect of the former Roman road in favour of towpaths parallel to the river. In addition, there
were several ferries linking places and estates on both sides of the Rhine: between Lorch and Heimbach,
Bacharach, Kaub and Oberwesel and between the opposite towns of St. Goar and St. Goarshausen,
where the ferry connection took on major importance because of the dominant V-shaped valleys which
came together at this point.
42 See.: Volk, Otto: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft am Mittelrhein vom 12. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert, Wiesbaden 1998,
page 429
page 72
Balduinbrücke
Festung Ehrenbreitstein
~1000
Stadtburg
Stadtschloss
Koblenz
18 Jhd.
Lahnstein
Lahn
Lahneck
13 Jhd.
Stolzenfels
Martinsburg
13 Jhd.
01
Marksburg
Rhens
02
13 Jhd.
Braubach
Phillippsburg
Spay
Osterspai
Boppard 03
Kurfürstliche Burg
14 Jhd.
Mosel
Liebeneck
Ende 16 Jhd.
Kamp-Bornhofen
Sterrenberg
11 Jhd.
Liebenstein
Bad Salzig
1290
04
Kestert
Ehrenthal
Hirzenach
Maus
1388
Wellmich
St.Goarshausen
Fellen
Rheinfels
1245
St.Goar
05
Reichenberg
1319
Katz
1360
Urbar
06
Oberwesel
Schönburg
castle
Pfalzgrafenstein
14 Jhd.
Stahlberg
tower
residence
bridge
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Kaub Gutenfels
13 Jhd.
Sauerburg
Stahleck
Bacharach 07
Fürstenberg
Sareck
Nollig
~1300
Lorch
08
Heimburg
Sooneck
ferry
12 Jhd.
toll station
Reichenstein
Trechtingshausen
~1000
Rhens-Oberlahnstein
Braubach-Niederspay
Boppard
Kestert-Hirzenach
St.Goar-St.Goarshausen
Kaub-Oberwesel
Bacharach
Lorch-Heimbach
Rheinberg
Waldeck
Rhein
Assmannshausen
Oberburg Vorderburg
Rheinstein Ehrenfels
13 Jhd.
Rüdesheim
Brömserburg
Mäuseturm
10 Jhd.
Trutzbingen
Burg
Klopp am Rhein
Bingen
Nahe
Figure 5.3.2: Castles, customs points, bridges and ferry routes in the area of the World Heritage
Property ”Upper Middle Rhine”
page 73
5.4 The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” at the beginning of modern history and as part of the Départment of Rhine-et-Moselle (16th century – 1814)
In the 16th century the development of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” was initially characterised by
economic stagnation. The Netherlands blocked the Rhine so that the Middle Rhine Valley was excluded from international trading. And in the War of the Palatine Succession (1688/89) many castles were
destroyed. At the height of prosperity of the Netherlands in the 17th and 18th century there was an economic recovery. Rafting on the Rhine reached its climax because of the high demand for timber in the
Netherlands: tree trunks from the Black Forest were tied together into rafts that were 300 metres long
and 50 metres wide, and hundreds of rowing servants worked on them and lived in wooden huts. Rafting
was only completely discontinued at the start of the 1960s.
As a result of the wars that followed the French Revolution, the
left bank of the Rhine became
part of the French Republic and
then the French Empire. From
1797-1813 the left bank of the
Middle Rhine Valley belonged
to the French department of
Rhine-et-Moselle. During this
time, the Rhine was the border
between France and Germany. The “Principal Conclusion
of the Extraordinary Imperial
Delegation” (1803) confiscated
the property of the monasteries
and the church, including the
territories of the archbishops
and electoral princes of Mainz,
Cologne and Trier. The special
privileges of the nobility were
also abolished. At the beginning
of the 19th century work began
on restoring the former Roman
road as the “Route Napoléon”
along the left bank of the Rhine. But it was not until twenty
Figure 5.4.1: The territory of the World Heritage Property “Upper
Middle Rhine“ during the period of the départment Rhine-et-Moselle
years later that the full length
of the road was passable for
page 74
transport, and it did not play any major role in the transport of goods. Another modernisation measure in
the “French period” was the abolition of many customs points and the restructuring of the legal system.
Nevertheless, long-distance trade on the Rhine declined initially because trading almost completely came
to a standstill during the continental blockade (1806-1813).
The prefect residing in Koblenz encouraged fruit growing on the Middle Rhine (for example, cherry growing in Bad Salzig, on the Norman model), which compensated to some extent for the decline in viniculture at the end of the 18th century.
Fundamentally, during the period of the départment Rhine-et-Moselle the development of the “Upper
Middle Rhine Valley” was characterised by the fact that the Rhine was a border between French territories on the left bank and German territories on the right bank. As a result, the Rhine lost its connecting
function which it had exercised during the period of small territories which mainly spanned the river in
the Middle Ages. Instead, the transport function of the Rhine from north to south became more important
– similar to the period of the Roman Empire.
5.5 The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as part of Prussia and the German Empire (1815-1918)
On the evening of New Year’s Eve 1813/14 Blücher and his Prussian troops, in pursuit of Napoleonic
troops, successfully crossed the Rhine near Kaub, which became a symbol of the successful wars of liberation. After the Congress of Vienna, the Rhine valley became Prussian. But in the “Upper Middle Rhine
Valley” that initially only applied to the territories on the left bank of the Rhine for which an administrative
centre was established in Koblenz. The right bank of the Middle Rhine Valley belonged to the Duchy of
Nassau with its new capital of Wiesbaden.
From 1815, after the Lower Rhine Province (from 1822 the Rhine Province) had been awarded to the
Prussian territories, the Prussian state set up a major road construction programme to improve the infrastructure and the economy. This created a new continuous road along the left bank of the Rhine which is
largely identical with the line of the B9 trunk road today. Milestones were erected to introduce a measuring system which had been customary in the Rhineland since the 18th century.
In the middle of the 19th century the Rhine Railway Society built the first rail link between Cologne and
Bonn (1844). The line was extended to Rolandseck by 1855 and to Bingen by 1859. On the right bank
of the Rhine the Grand Duchy of Nassau Taunus Railway built a railway line between Rüdesheim and
Oberlahnstein (1862).
The Rhine was administered and developed as a single waterway by the creation of water construction
supervision districts. Under Prussian rule, extensive work was carried out along the river to protect its
banks and extend and improve the paved towpaths.
page 75
The new technology of steam
power also changed waterway
transport. Even into the 19th
century small ships sailed downstream and were then towed
upstream, but from the middle
of the 19th century the ships
used on the Rhine were mainly
driven by steam power.
The first steam ship on the Lower
Rhine sailed from Rotterdam
to Cologne in 1816. The first
steam ship reached Koblenz a
year later. In September 1825
the paddle steamer “De Rijn”
(75 metres long) first travelled
upstream through the “Bingen
Gap”. In 1827 the PrussianRhine Steamship Company was
founded, and in 1853 it merged
with the steamship company
Figure 5.5.1: The territory of the World Heritage Property “Upper
Middle Rhine“ during the Prussian period
founded in Düsseldorf in 1838 to form the Cologne-Düsseldorf Rhine Steamship Company (KD). From
1830, steam-powered tugs operated on the Rhine. There were several companies which served sections
of the Middle Rhine with passenger steamships bearing up to 200 passengers. Smaller boats were no
longer competitive, towing was discontinued and the towing operators, harnessers and towpath riders lost
their jobs. The increasing volume of river transport was administered by pilots: in 1967 there were still 107
pilots in Kaub and 40 each in Bingen and St. Goar.43 In the steeper parts of the river the strong current
of the Rhine was used to power mills which were mounted on barges on the river. At the end of the 19th
century these water mills disrupted the increasing shipping traffic so much that they were abandoned.
The Rhine Navigation Treaty (1831) abolished special trading rights (“ius emporii”). The Rhine was declared an international waterway by all territories adjoining the river. At the same time the Mainz Rhine
Navigation Treaty defined uniform transit customs duties for all states bordering on the Rhine. In the second half of the 19th century the Rhine was systematically developed to meet the new demands arising
from the use of steamships. The goal was to achieve a river width of 300 metres, with a 150 metre wide
navigable channel. The reduction of the width of the river, which was achieved by artificial landfill in front
43 See: Gormsen, p. 29
page 76
of the natural banks and by the construction of platforms, increased the flow rate and depth erosion of
the Rhine. This eliminated the need for constant dredging of the navigable channel.
01
Koblenz
02
Lahnstein
Lahn
Stolzenfels
Rhens
Braubach
Spay
Kamp-Bornhofen
Boppard
Mosel
Bad Salzig
Kestert
Ehrenthal
Hirzenach
Wellmich
St.Goarshausen
Fellen
St.Goar
Urbar
Oberwesel
Bacharach
Kaub
Lorch
castle
Sooneck
bridge
ferry
railway
Rhein
Trechtingshausen
Rheinstein
Assmannshausen
03
railway tunnel
01
02
03
04
Rüdesheim
04
Bingen am Rhein
Schiffsbrücke
Horchheimer Eisenbahnbrücke
Trajekt Bingen-Rüdesheim
Hindenburgbrücke
Nahe
Figure 5.5.2: Road and train connections during the “Rhine-Prussia” period
page 77
Around 1850 there were more than a million passengers on the steamships. After the Prussian-Austrian
war, the right bank of the Middle Rhine Valley fell to Prussia together with the electorate of Hesse-Kassel
and the free city of Frankfurt. The improvement of the towpath on the right bank of the Rhine to create
a solid road from Lorch via Assmannshausen to Rüdesheim, which was planned in 1866, was delayed
until 1924 and only reached the standard of an “imperial road” in 1934.
At the same time, the improvement of the shipping capacity gave rise to the first tourist activities in the
Rhine valley. English tourists, in particular, used the Rhine valley as a transport corridor to the Alps and
Southern Europe. In the course of these developments the whole of the Rhine valley, but especially the
“Upper Middle Rhine Valley”, was “discovered” as romantic scenery. The Rhine Romanticism of the 19th
century was especially based on the natural highlights of the landscape – the fast-flowing, wild river, the
dramatic cliffs and the forests and vineyards on the hillsides. Together with the castles on the hills and
the wine terraces created in the High Middle Ages, in literature, art and music the “Upper Middle Rhine
Valley” became an idealised symbol of a romantic European cultural landscape dating from the Middle
Ages. For the Prussian royal family, the acquisition and renovation of mediaeval castles on the Rhine
became a political symbol of their claim to power.
The Franco-German War (1870/71) between the French Empire and the German states under the leadership of Prussia led to the foundation of the German Empire and the end of the second empire of Napoléon
III. The Rhine province was the western border of the German Empire, but the Rhine was a significant
distance away from the actual frontier. The Niederwald Monument in Rüdesheim, the Kaiser Friedrich
Tower on the Rochusberg and the monument at the “German Corner” (Deutsches Eck) in Koblenz were
an expression of the revival of national pride.
In 1915 a railway bridge was built between Bingen and Rüdesheim (known as the Hindenburg Bridge
from 1918). Its predecessor was a railway ferry which operated between Bingen and Rüdesheim from
November 1861 and was the first link between the Nassau Rhine Railway and the Rhine-Nahe Railway
Company. This created a railway link between the Rhine-Main region and the Saar region which especially
created a new sales territory for coal from the Saar. From 1900 the railway ferry was then operated as
a passenger ferry by the Prussian State Railway and the German Imperial Railway until 1932.
On the whole it can be said that the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” saw a rapid process of modernisation
throughout the 19th century which brought radical socio-economic changes. Economic structures with a
strong regional character increasingly declined to make way for the development of the (upper middle)
Rhine valley as a transport corridor. At the same time, the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” became a central transit region in Europe. Whereas the area at the centre of today’s World Heritage property took on
a more and more peripheral role, the city of Koblenz and the Bingen-Mainz region gained in importance.
Similar to the period of the Roman Empire, the area of the World Heritage property was suspended between these two points at which permanent Rhine crossings had been built.
page 78
5.6 The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in the 20th century
After the First World War the territories on the left bank of the Middle Rhine Valley were occupied as
security for the reparation payments under the Treaty of Versailles. To ensure that they also had a military presence to the east of the Rhine, the victorious powers established semi-circular bridgeheads
with a radius of 30 kilometres near Cologne, Koblenz and Mainz. The bridgeheads of Mainz (French)
and Koblenz (American) touched at Laufenselden in the Taunus. The area between them remained
an unoccupied territory in the form of a bottleneck, the “Free State of Bottleneck” (Freistaat Flaschenhals).
The allied occupation of the Rhineland after the First World War led various French politicians and
military leaders to speak of “annexation”.
A delay in reparation payments led to the occupation of the Ruhr region in 1923, and in this connection separatist movements in Rhineland and the Palatinate reacted by the rapid founding of the Rhine
Republic.
During the 20th century, the development of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” was also characterised
by the great pressure of change which resulted from the use of the Rhine as a waterway and the development and improvement of the other transport infrastructure in the valley.
After the Second World War the steamships were replaced by diesel engines. Since the end of the
1950s, “Leichter” (tug pusher boats) have been used to propel large unpowered transport barges. In
2000 about 60 million tonnes of cargo were transported on the Middle Rhine between Koblenz and
Mainz. Up to 200 boats pass through the World Heritage property each day. Cargo transport by boat
is planned to increase even more in the future.
In the area of the rapids, the boats were dependent on the aid of pilots until 1977. In the steeper parts
of the river between Oberwesel and St. Goar the pilots were later replaced by a digital system which
monitors and controls the shipping.
The two railway lines on the left and right bank of the Rhine from Bonn to Mainz/Wiesbaden, the “Rhine railway”, are major elements in the Trans-European Network (TEN) for both goods and passenger
transport. About 460 trains travel daily between Bonn and Rüdesheim/Bingen, including about 230
goods trains, although these mainly travel at night. These goods trains are only of marginal importance
for the economy in the Middle Rhine Valley. In the framework of a pilot project, “quiet Rhine”, exemplary refitting of goods carriages will be carried out with the aim of achieving a significant reduction of
noise in the Middle Rhine Valley.
Most private transport in the valley is on the trunk roads B9 (on the left bank) and B42 (on the right
page 79
bank), although the left bank has better traffic connections because of its direct link to the A61 motorway, good accessibility by passenger rail transport and a continuous cycle path system.
The most important crossing points on the Rhine, apart from the bridges in Koblenz, are five car ferries
in the World Heritage Area which operate between Boppard and Filsen, St. Goar and St. Goarshausen,
Bacharach and Kaub, Niederheimbach and Lorch, Bingen and Rüdesheim. In addition, the landing
stages for passenger and leisure boats are important for tourism in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”.
The development of the population and the economy in the whole of the World Heritage property is in
decline and out of step with the general trends in the federal states of Rhineland-Palatinate and Hesse. Within the World Heritage property the left bank of the Rhine is less affected by vacant premises
and population drain because it is better connected to the long distance transport infrastructure. The
number of commuters who work on the opposite bank of the Rhine is about 2.5%44.
The direct commercial management of the Rhine increasingly declined in importance during the 20th
century. Whereas 220,000 salmon were caught in the Rhine each year at the end of the 19th century,
fishing in the Rhine was almost completely eliminated in the 20th century. This is a consequence of
the deteriorating water quality as a result of industrialisation which caused a dramatic fall in the number of species at the beginning of the 20th century.
The cultivation of the mediaeval vineyards is declining in many areas today, so the hillsides are becoming overgrown with bushes or combined into larger units. And the proportion of employees in traditional
careers associated with the river – boatmen, pilots, fishers – is insignificant. The most important sector
of the economy is tourism which, in comparison with other holidays regions in Rhineland-Palatinate or
Hesse, is less profitable. Investments by the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate to preserve the mediaeval castles, to develop a continuous cycle path network (complete on the left bank, planned on the
right bank) and concerted advertising campaigns for the Middle Rhine Valley aim to encourage private
investors, and especially the local population in the Middle Rhine Valley, to invest in the location.
On the whole it can be said that the development in the area of the World Heritage property in the 20th
century was increasingly dominated by national and international factors. The “Upper Middle Rhine
Valley” is a significant feature in the most important European economic corridor, the “Blue Banana”.
But with the exception of Koblenz and the Bingen-Mainz region, very few areas in the World Heritage property have really benefited from this position. Tourism – the only real commercial factor in the
region – stagnates at a low level. The population and the economic power are in significant decline.
Basically, the areas in the geographical centre of the World Heritage property are becoming a peripheral area which is subject to additional qualitative and spatial disadvantages because of the different
means of transport.
44 See.: Cochet Consult/GVS, 2003
page 80
01
09 10
14
Koblenz
02
08
03
04
07
Lahnstein
Lahn
12
11
15
Rhens
Braubach
Spay
16
Boppard
Mosel
Kamp-Bornhofen
Bad Salzig
bridge
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
Kestert
Ehrenthal
Hirzenach
Bendorfer Brücke
Pfaffendorfer Brücke
Horchheimer Eisenbahnbrücke
Südbrücke
Schiersteiner Brücke
Kaiserbrücke
Moseltalbrücke
Kurt-Schumacher Brücke
Europabrücke
Balduinbrücke
Rudi-Geil-Brücke
Talbrücke Lahnstein
Drususbrücke
Wellmich
St.Goarshausen
Fellen
St.Goar
17
Urbar
Kaub
Oberwesel
18
foot passenger ferry
car ferry
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Koblenz - Ehrenbreitstein
Stolzenfels - Lahnstein
Boppard - Kamp-Bornhofen/Filsen
St.Goar - St. Goarshausen
Kaub - Engelsburg
Lorch - Niederheimbach
Bingerbrück - Rüdesheim
(Stand Dezember 2009)
Lorch
Bacharach
19
05
Rhein
Trechtingshausen
Assmannshausen
20
high-order-centre
middle-order-centre
low-order-centre
municipalities
(“Verbundgemeindegrenzen“)
13
Rüdesheim
Bingen am Rhein
Nahe
Figure 5.6.1: The Area of the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine“ during the 20th century
06
page 81
5.7 The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as a World Heritage property (from 2002)
Against this background efforts were made as early as 1977 – i.e. the year that the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage came into force – to integrate the “Upper
Middle Rhine Valley” into the World Heritage List. A central idea during the nomination phase was the
strengthening of the regional and spatial links in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. It was hoped that this
would strengthen the regional economic structures and the external impact of the “Upper Middle Rhine
Valley”.
It is clear that recognition as a World Heritage property involves a large number of different initiatives
which aim to bring about a “reversal of the trend” in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. As early as 1978, a
Landscape Protection Ordinance was issued to protect the Middle Rhine Valley. In November 1997, as a
result of the Rhine Valley Conference in Mainz held by the Rhine Society for Monument and Landscape
Conservation, the “Rhine Valley Charter” was presented to the public “to promote a broader social awareness, to prevent further damage and to show the conditions for a harmonious development in keeping
with the specific landscape.”45
From 1998, the nomination process began for the application of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” for inclusion in the World Heritage List in 2002.
The work of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley World Heritage Property Special Purpose Association”,
which was founded after the inscription as a World Heritage property, was the result of an action concept
developed independently after the establishment of the association. A cultural landscape development
concept was created in 2008.
The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley World Heritage Property local working group”, which is subsidised by
the LEADER programme of the European Union, formulated action programmes under the heading “A
Region Remembers its Strengths” in areas such as “Strengthening regional identity and overcoming barriers to cooperation”, “Preservation and development of the characteristic cultural landscape”, “Ensuring
that the cultural landscape is a multifunctional living and recreational space”. At the local level there are
also many ideas about how to develop the spatial and functional aspects of the World Heritage property
in a careful manner.
The proposal for the construction of an additional Rhine crossing is also closely connected with these
efforts. The area was finally inscribed in the World Heritage List in 2002.
45 „Rhine Valley Charter“, 1997
page 82
Figure 5.7.1:
The territory of the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine“ and the existing local community
boundaries (Das Rheintal von Koblenz bis Bingen; own illustration)
page 83
5.8 Conclusion
The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” was inscribed as a World Heritage property as a prime example of the
historically and scenically significant course of the Rhine because the cultural landscape in this section of
the river has seen relatively few changes.
Throughout history the Rhine has exercised a variety of functions at different times – sometimes separating territories and sometimes uniting them, sometimes providing north-south connections and sometimes
offering connections across the river.
Especially since the start of the 19th century the spatial developments in the present World Heritage property have been largely determined by the fact that the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is part of a increasingly
more technical transport corridor linking the north and south of Europe. Initially, the river Rhine itself was of
central importance. From the mid 19th century it was supplemented by roads running parallel to the Rhine,
and especially by the railway. As a result of the growing importance of the transport infrastructure for northsouth transport, it increasingly acted as a spatial barrier for the exchange between east and west. Especially
the partial replacement of waterways by rail and road transport meant that local crossings between the two
sides of the Rhine increasingly declined in importance. The individual towns in the valley successively lost
their spatial and functional links with the water. This is also reflected by the fact that regional commercial
activities linked with the water have almost no importance today in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”.
In history, especially in the Middle Ages, different spatial development principles were dominant. The geographical situation in the Middle Rhine Valley requires a division of labour between the constricted valley
and the higher terraces, and the transport between these areas was mainly handled via the valleys of the
tributary streams. This is where settlements arose in the Middle Ages, and at the latest with the development
of these settlements there were ferries across the river which created links with the other side. Therefore,
in the Middle Ages the Rhine was a connecting factor rather than a barrier. This is particularly significant
for the neighbouring towns of St. Goar and St. Goarshausen, because this is the only place in the World
Heritage property where two V-shaped valleys are directly opposite each other.
The Rhine crossings were especially important in the Middle Ages because there were many functional links
with the higher terraces which border on the Rhine valley. The geographical situation has always required
a division of labour between the spatially constricted valley and the high plateaus. The specialisation in
wine growing in the valleys was only possible because other forms of agricultural production were almost
exclusively carried out on the high terraces. Wine cultivation also flourished in the Middle Ages. Although
wine cultivation has declined since the 19th century, it continued to play a very important role in the “Upper
Middle Rhine Valley” well into the 20th century.
At present it can be stated that the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” – with the exception of the north and south
“extremes” of Koblenz and Mainz which have Rhine crossings – has largely become a transport corridor
page 84
which is subject to great pressure of change, especially in its settlements and its transport infrastructure,
as a result of successive stages of modernisation and transformation. In spite of this, however, the local
communities in the valley draw hardly any benefit from the movement of goods in the Rhine valley.
Today, the Rhine is the most important European inland waterway, and it plays a major national and international role in the transport of goods. But it only plays a marginal role for transport and the economy in the
Middle Rhine Valley itself. The area has no cargo handling port worth mentioning, the only significant vessels
are the ferries across the river and the (tourist) passenger and leisure boats. Against this background and
in spite of its favourable transport connections, the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” has become a “peripheral
area” within one of the most active economic corridors in Europe, the “Blue Banana”.
However, within these development trends and parallel to the inscription of the area in the World Heritage List, there have also been efforts to strengthen both the spatial and the socio-economic regional links
within the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. Even before the inscription of the area in the World Heritage List
there were many initiatives with the aim of developing the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” consistently and
as a communal unit.
The efforts to have the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” inscribed in the World Heritage List also involved a
change in the self-image and the spatial understanding of people in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. Inscription as part of the UNESCO World Heritage was an important incentive to develop the “Upper Middle
Rhine Valley” coherently and as a single region.
Figure 5.8.1: Chronology
Middle Rhine Valley belongs to Upper Germania, with Mainz as its main set55 BC
tlement
First bridge over the Rhine between Weissenthurm and Neuwied
Construction of roads on the left bank of the Rhine between Bingen, Boppard
10 BC
and Koblenz with bridges over the Nahe and Mosel;
Roman bridge over the Rhine near Mainz
49 AD
Roman bridge over the Rhine between Koblenz and Ehrenbreitstein
4th century
Migration and fall of the Western Roman Empire
5th century
Franks occupy the territories on the left bank of the Rhine.
Rhine becomes the eastern border of the Frankish Empire.
Many small territorial rulers charge customs duty on the Rhine
10th century
Construction of towpaths
Terracing of the hillside for wine cultivation
page 85
Middle Rhine Valley becomes the heart of the Holy Roman Empire.
Königsstuhl in Rhens is built as the place of assembly of the electoral princ14th century
1376-98
es.
Many castles are built.
Bacharach becomes the trading centre for wine
Ferries between Lorch and Heimbach, near Bacharach, between Kaub and
Oberwesel and between St. Goar and St. Goarshausen
16th century
Netherlands block the Rhine and international trade
1688/89
Many castles are destroyed in the War of the Palatine Succession.
17th/18th century
High period of timber transport as rafts
The left bank of the Middle Rhine Valley belongs to the French départment of
1797-1813
Rhine-et-Moselle.
Route Napoléon on the left bank of the Rhine
1806-1813
Continental blockade: long distance trade declines, customs points are abolished
1813/14
Rhine crossing by Prussian troops near Kaub
Congress of Vienna: Rhineland becomes Prussian (Middle Rhine Valley only
1815
on the left bank)
Extensive road construction programme
1817
First steamship reaches Koblenz
The paddle steamer “De Rijn” travels upstream through the “Bingen Gap” for
1825
1827
the first time
Founding of the Prussian-Rhine Steamship Company
Steamship travel between Cologne and Mainz
1831
Rhine Navigation Treaty: abolition of special trading rights (Stapelrechte)
Rhine Railway Society builds a railway on the left bank of the Rhine to Bingen
Middle of the 19th
century.
Grand Duchy of Nassau Taunus Railway Company builds a railway line on the
right bank of the Rhine from Rüdesheim to Oberlahnstein
Development of the waterway for steamships
page 86
1853
Merger of the Prussian-Rhine Steamship Company with the Düsseldorf Steamship
Company to form the Cologne-Düsseldorf Rhine Steamship Company (KD)
1860
1866
Founding of the German Customs Union (Zollverein)
Territories on the right bank of the Rhine fall to Prussia
Towpath on the right bank of the Rhine is developed into a paved road
Franco-German War: German Empire
1870/71
Construction of the Niederwald Monument in Rüdesheim (1877-1883) and the
monument at the “German Corner” (Deutsches Eck) in Koblenz (1897)
As security for the reparation payments under the Treaty of Versailles, the
1918/19
territories on the left bank of the Rhine are occupied and a 50 kilometre wide
strip on the right bank of the Rhine is demilitarised
1919
Proclamation of a Rhine Republic
1919-1923
“Free State of Bottleneck” (Freistaat Flaschenhals)
1929/30
Withdrawal of the military occupation
1934-39
Construction of the „Thingstätte“ open air amphitheatre on the Lorelei
The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” became part of the French Zone of Occu-
1945
pation
19 September
1945
30 August 1946
Founding of today‘s federal state of Hesse under the name Great Hesse
Founding of the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate
Designation of the landscape protection zone “Rhine area from Bingen to
26 April 1978
1997
Koblenz” in the Landscape Protection Ordinance for the Middle Rhine
“Rhine Valley Charter”
Founding of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley World Heritage Property Special
2001
2002
Purpose Association”
Inscription of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as a World Cultural Heritage
Site
2008
Cultural landscape development concept (KLEK)
page 87
6 Symbolic Values and Visual Integrity of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
The “Outstanding Universal Value” of the cultural landscape of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” largely results from the interaction between people and nature, in other words the development of cultural activities
within the existing natural conditions of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. These interactions led to the creation of the specific physical characteristics of the present landscape and also the features which determine
the authenticity and visual integrity of the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” even today
and which are defined as its “Outstanding Universal Value”.
It has already been pointed out that associative factors also play a major role in the perception of the cultural landscape of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”, especially the association with “Rhine Romanticism”.
Cultural landscapes always “transport” certain symbolic and associative values. In addition to textual descriptions of the landscape, visual presentations are also important – for example on maps, in artistic impressions, photographs or modern image media. This is because such illustrations often generate specific
long-lasting “(landscape) images” which become a stable factor in the collective memory of inhabitants and
visitors. Images of landscapes are therefore one of the media that can be used to illustrate cultural values
and associations which are closely linked with the relevant (cultural) landscape. They are also one of the
important elements which enable cultural landscapes to become a point of reference with identification value for social communities, and which these communities then often link with emotional concepts. Against
this background, for example, cultural landscapes may be regarded as “home”.46 Landscape images thus
play a central role in the visual recognition of cultural landscapes and thus represent an important point of
reference for the everyday perception of these landscapes.
The visual integrity of the cultural landscape of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is therefore based on two
different levels. On the one hand it is determined by certain physical characteristics of the cultural landscape which result from a specific development and planning history (cf. Chapter 5). On the other hand
the various textual and especially graphical portrayals from different periods, including presentations in
modern image media such as television or the Internet, form a second important level of perception. This
is linked with many relevant value concepts which play a very important role in the “subjective” evaluation
of the qualities of the landscape.
This symbolic and associative perception level is especially prominent in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”.
“Rhine Romanticism” did more than just create special perception patterns, it also merged aesthetic concepts of the river landscape with religious and patriotic feelings. This interplay of different levels of meaning
had a lasting influence on the perception of the Rhine valley, and its effects can still be observed today.
“Rhine Romanticism” therefore plays an important role both in the perception, visual integrity and tourist
marketing of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” and in the current discussions about the planned bridge.
For this reason it is also considered here, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the criteria for the
46 See also: Añón Feliu, Carmen: Cultural Landscapes: Evaluating the Interaction Between People and Nature, in:
Unesco World Heritage Centre: World Heritage Papers 7, Cultural Landscapes: the Challenges of Conservation, Paris
2003, p. 37
page 88
“Outstanding Universal Value” of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” World Heritage Property (cf. also section
1.7 and Chapter 2). Romanticism is however included in the ICOMOS assessment of the property’s qualities and in their brief Statement of Significance in the Advisory Bodies evaluation, as well as in the draft
Statement of “Outstanding Universal Value” now prepared by the German authorities at the request of the
World Heritage Committee.
This chapter therefore aims first of all to give a brief overview of the visual representations of the whole of
the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in art history which are directly or indirectly linked with “Rhine Romanticism”.
On this basis it aims to draw conclusions about the role played by the two parts of the inner area covered
in the survey in relation to the reception of the World Heritage property in art history. Then, it will be examined in the narrower area covered in the survey what historical lines of sight have a special cultural and art
history importance, what visual connections play an important role here in respect to the authenticity and
visual integrity of the cultural landscape and are therefore sensitive to any interference. This can be used to
derive evaluation criteria for the question of whether the planned Rhine bridge involves any impairment.
6.1 Historical representations of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in European painting47
The descriptions and artistic treatments of the Rhine landscape did not initially come from local painters and authors, they mainly originate from visitors and travellers. Decisive early influences came
from Flanders and the Netherlands where there a growing interest in “descriptions of the world” (“cosmography”) and cartographic representations of the landscape especially arose in the trading city of
Antwerp, at the latest in the 16th century, in connection with the increase of foreign trade there. That
was also where landscape painting developed into an independent branch of the fine arts.
48
Flemish
painters such as Jan van Eyck (1390-1441), Joachim Patinier (or Patenier, 1475/80-1524) and Pieter
Brueghel the Elder (1525/30-1569) were early painters who used river landscapes – often surrounded
by hilltop castles – as a central theme in their landscape paintings. Such landscape paintings were
often linked with religious motifs. But in Northern Europe it marks the beginning of the aesthetic experience of river landscapes.49
The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in Dutch landscape painting
It was therefore no accident that Dutch artists in the 17th century were the first to “discover” the “romantic Rhine valley” as a subject for art. On the one hand, landscape painting in the Netherlands achieved
47 This summary has largely been compiled on the basis of the following source: Euskirchen, Claudia: Bildende Kunst,
in: Rhineland-Palatinate State Office for Monument Conservation (Editor): Das Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim.
Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft. Vol. 1, Mainz 2002, pp. 394- 419, and: Schmitt, Michael: Die illustrier ten RheinBeschreibungen , Cologne, Weimar, Vienna 1996. The dates, lists of works and content information given here are based
on these two sources.
48 See.: Büttner, Nils: Die Er f indung der Landschaf t. Landschaf tskunst und Kosmographie im Zeitalter Bruegels
(Rekonstruktion der Künste; Vol. 1), Göttingen 2000
49 Further important influences in relation to the aesthetic experience of river landscapes in north European landscape
painting came from south German painters, especially the “Danube school” with artists such as Albrecht Altdorfer (14801538), Wolf Huber (1485-1553) and Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528).
page 89
a significance which enabled an aesthetic perception of the environment to be established without
which the modern definition of “landscape” would
not have been possible. On the other hand, the
Rhine valley played an important role in the many
economic trading connections of the Netherlands
as a contemporary world power. One of the earliest works of art to show the Rhine valley was by
the Utrecht painter Rolaent Savery (1576–1639).
Savery combined fantasy elements in the portrayal
of wild nature with an interest in the topographically exact reproduction of a location. Wenzel Hollar
(1607-1677), a pupil of Matthäus Merian the Elder
(1593-1650), also portrayed Rhine valley motifs in
such a way in his vedutas that in addition to the topographically exact representation of specific places
they also conveyed a landscape “mood” which came
Figure 6.1.1: Jan van Eyck: The Madonna of Chancellor Rolin / detail (Musée National de Louvre, Paris)
relatively close to the connotation of the “romantic
Figure 6.1.2: Wenzel Hollar: Rheinstein Castle,
1636 (Source: Wikipedia)
as precursors of “Rhine Romanticism”.
Rhine valley”. Both artists are therefore regarded
From the start the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” attracted great interest from the representational arts,
and as early as the 17th century certain landscape
motifs and representation styles for this section of
the Rhine valley became firmly embedded in the
canon of landscape painting. From 1663 the Dutch
artist Lambert Doomer (1624-1700) painted representations of the Rhine valley on site in Koblenz,
Boppard, Oberwesel, Bacharach and Bingen. But
the most important pioneer of “Rhine Romanticism” was the Dutch landscape painter Herman
Saftleven (1609-1685) who also started by producing various topographical drawings of the Rhine
valley for an atlas of the Middle and Lower Rhine
in the 17th century. Saftleven later transformed
his drawings into imaginative Rhine landscapes
which portrayed the Rhine valley as an idealised
river landscape.
page 90
But the motifs selected in Saftleven’s paintings can not always be exactly localised. Instead, the Rhine
valley can be identified by the combination of certain elements such as the castles above a meandering
river and the surrounding hillsides (exaggerated as mountain scenery). These forms of representation
by Saftleven led to the development of a canon
of “typical” motifs of the Rhineland which appeared again and again in artistic treatments of
this landscape. “Saftleven defined the motif of the
`Rhine stream´ in an authoritative and typical ideal
form. This merged the concepts of river landscape and Rhine landscape, the Rhine became the
quintessential river, and every river at its best
became a Rhine […]. Saftleven called his representations `Rynstroom´ and pointed the way for
others, even into the 18th century.”50 Saftleven’s
representational style was especially followed in
England from the end of the 18th century. Here,
Saftleven’s Rhine representations were initially
copied and made known by artists such as Jan
Griffier the Elder (1652-1718).
Figure 6.1.3: Herman Saftleven: Catzellenboge op de
Ryn, 1668 (Source: Rhineland-Palatinate State Office
for Monument Conservation (Editor): Das Rheintal von
Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft. Vol. 1, Mainz 2002)
The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in English landscape painting
English people on the “Grand Tour” to Italy now also had access to illustrations of the fantastic Rhine
landscape. John Gardnor (1729-1808) travelled through the Rhine valley in 1787, and subsequently he
published 31 aquatint etchings in the illustrated travel manual Views taken in and near the Rhine which
was followed shortly afterwards by a less richly illustrated publication designed to appeal to a broader
book-buying public. Gardnor also did not aim for topographical accuracy, like Saftleven he wanted to convey a specific image of the landscape characterised by his personal impressions. The central focus was
on the Rhine, which was portrayed as a river of unbridled natural force in a rocky canyon lined by hillsides which are adorned by a large number of mediaeval castles and ruins. This explains why the “Upper
Middle Rhine Valley”, especially the section in the narrow valley near St. Goar which largely conformed
with the romantic landscape ideal because of its specific morphology, was already the main focus of the
contemporary “Rhine Romanticism”.
Gardnor’s book became an indispensable travel companion for the growing number of British Rhine
valley tourists. More than the half of the visitors to the Rhine valley were British tourists who wanted to
experience the Rhine valley as a “picturesque” and “sublime” landscape. This also reinforced the canon
50 Weschenfelder, 1992a, pp. 22-26, quoted from: Euskirchen, Claudia: Bildende Kunst, in: Rhineland-Palatinate State
Office for Monument Conservation (editor): Das Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft.
Vol. 1, Mainz 2002, p. 397
page 91
of the motifs that were shown as the sights of the Rhine valley. Generally, “[…] the settlements situated
on flat land on the banks were considered less attractive […]. Landscapes normally needed to have at
least a castle, a mediaeval building or dramatic cliffs to rouse the enthusiasm of the travellers.”51 Places
that meet these expectations in the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” include Bingen
Gap and the Mouse Tower, Pfalz Castle near Kaub, Bacharach, Oberwesel, the Lorelei, St. Goar and
St. Goarshausen with Maus, Rheinfels and Katz castles, Boppard, the area around Lahnstein, Koblenz
and Ehrenbreitstein.
Even later British artists such as J.M.W. Turner (1775-1851), who visited the Rhine valley between 1817
and 1844, basically retained the same selection of motifs. Turner “devoted himself with special intensity
to the narrow valley, and he even hiked through large parts of this valley on foot. His landscape views,
like the paintings of Gardnor, do not provide an exact topography, they convey his personal sensation
and experience. Turner reworked his travel sketches in colour in his studio […]. The artist used his
memory and his impulsive and subjective painting style to create shimmering visions of air, light and
colour. His particularly impressive pictures include the views of Kaub and Gutenfels around 1824, the
view of Katz Castle looking towards Rheinfels of 1817 and his picture of the Lorelei from the same year:
in Turner’s watercolour painting, this legendary cliff becomes a Via Mala, the gorge of the Lower Rhine
valley and several hundred metres in height. Other views were
dedicated to Koblenz, the mouth
of the Lahn, the Marksburg
above Braubach, the `Hostile
Brothers´ above Bornhofen, Boppard, Oberwesel and Bacharach,
Sooneck Castle and Bingen Gap.
The watercolour `The castellated
Rhine´ of 1831 appears strange
with its visionary mixture of castle landscapes which combines
motifs from Kaub, Oberwesel
and Bacharach.” 52
Figure 6.1.4: TJ. M. W. Turner: Ehrenbreitstein and Marceau’s grave, from Byron’s “Childe Harold”, 1835
(Source: Powell, Cecilia: Turner in Deutschland, Munich, New York, 1995)
51 See: Pfleger, 1992, p. 23, quoted from: Euskirchen, Claudia: Bildende Kunst, in: Rhineland-Palatinate State Office
for Monument Conservation (Editor): Das Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft. Vol.
1, Philipp van Zabern, Mainz 2002, p. 397
52 See. Euskirchen, Claudia: Bildende Kunst , in: Rhineland-Palatinate State Office for Monument Conservation (Editor): Das
Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft. Vol. 1, Philipp van Zabern, Mainz 2002, p. 399
page 92
In the course of the 19th century many other Rhine valley motifs were published in England which
were produced as steel engravings and could then be duplicated in large numbers because of this new
technology. They include the Views of the Rhine by William Tombleson (ca. 1795 - ca. 1860) which
were published from 1832 and which also portrayed the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as an overdrawn
“interplay of light and shade”53. But the “typical” motifs were also basically retained by Tombleson.
Figure 6.1.5: William Tombleson: Lorelei, steel engraving from “Views of the Rhine”, from 1832
Even English theatrical painters and stage-setters such as David Roberts (1796-1864), Richard Principal
Leitch (active 1844-1878) and Clarkson W. Stanfield (1793-1867) devoted themselves to portrayals of
the familiar motifs of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. In the second half of the 19th century, however,
there was a noticeable decline of “Rhine Romanticism” in England. Stanfield was already regarded as
a link between the “older, fantastic-looking landscape painting style and newer, more realistic portrayals of the Rhine landscape which characterise the generation of artists born after 1800.”54
53 Ibid, p. 397
54 Halberland 1992 – Krüger 1997, quoted from: Euskirchen, Claudia: Bildende Kunst, in: Rhineland-Palatinate State
Office for Monument Conservation (Editor): Das Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft.
Vol. 1, 2002, p. 400
page 93
The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” and the German “Rhine Romanticism”
Although there was a marked interest in the Rhine landscape among philosophers and poets in the German literature of the early romantic period, the Rhine only played a role as a picture motif for a small
number of significant German artists. One of the few exceptions, who deals with the Rhine Valley was
Christian Georg Schütz d. Ä. (1718-1791), who traveled and reproduced the Rhine following the example of Saftleven in the middle of the 18th century. With Schütz too the motif selection can only seldom be
determined topographically. Composition of “ideal river landscapes” occurs much more from the existing
castles and mountains with the river acting as a link, they “transport” into a specific prevailing mood and
only allow the Rhine landscape to be made recognisable by the overlay of the “typical” motifs.
Fig 6.1.6:
Christian Georg Schütz d.
Ä.: “Ideal River Landscape”,
painting from 1788, Landesmuseum Mainz
(Source: Rhineland- Palatinate State Office for Monument Conser vation(Editor):
Das Rheintal von Bingen bis
Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaf t. Vol
1, Mainz 2002)
Schütz´s representations of
Rhine landscapes were hardly followed up in the German
speaking world for many decades. From 1792 Laurenz
Janscha (1749-1812), a teacher at the Vienna Academy,
created a series of paintings
of the “Upper Middle Rhine
Valley” between Bingen and
Koblenz by order of a Vienna
publisher. These were then
- engraved and coloured by
Johann Ziegler (1750-1812)
– published in 1778.
Fig 6 .1.7: Johann Ziegler:
V i ew o f B o r nh o fen c as t l e
and Liebenstein and Sternefels castles, around 1788
(Source: wikipedia)
page 94
Rhineland artists’ interest in choosing to make the Rhine into an artistic object as “a home motif” was
noticeably low. An exception to this was artillery lieutenant Charles Dupuis (1752-1807) who served the
Cologne elector but concentrated on motifs in the Koblenz and Ehrenbreitstein area. Further exceptions
were the two brothers from Mainz, Caspar (1792-1839) and Georg (1759-1843) Schneider, who prefered to present Rhine motifs from Bingen to Kaub (including the view of the coppice, around the “Binger
Loch”, Rheinstein castle to Lorch, Bingen and Rheingau, castle ruins at Ehrensfels, the Palatinate at
Kaub). Their paintings cannot however be attributed to “Rhine Romanticism” due to the detailed and
largely realistic representation.
A renowned German artist of the Romantic Movement who dealt with the Rhine Valley between Bingen
and Koblenz is Carl Gustav Carus (1785-1869) who walked through the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
around 1835. The pointed frame of the painting “Bacharach am Rhein” does not only show an already
known motif of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” but all “known” elements of the romantic river landscape
such as “mountains, vine stocks, the architecture of ruins from the Middle Ages and the small town at
the bank of the river” as well. The pointed arch motif gives the painting an additional tension “between
nearness and distant landscape”.55
Fig 6.1.8: Carl Gustav Carus: Bacharach am Rhein, 1836
(Source: Rhineland-Palatinate State Office for Monument Conser vation(Editor): Das Rheintal von Bingen
bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaf t.
Vol 1, Mainz 2002)
A characteristic of the German “Rhine Romanticism” is
that it only emerged at a time when technical progress
had already removed the original romantic variety of
moods from many motifs of the “romantic Rhine valley”. Whereas the interest in Rhine Romanticism was
constantly declining in England for this reason, a countermovement can be perceived in Germany. Here, the
interest in “Rhine Romanticism” was steadily rising. The
explanation for this can be traced back to the overlay
of the aspects of “Rhine Romanticism” with the increasing sense of national awareness in Germany in the
19th century, which has an effect on German art. This
was already expressed by Carl Gustav Carus, who
noted down the following sentences in his travel diary
in 1835: “As I now stood up there, the curved high arches with the rich window decorations raised into the
55 See: Euskirchen, Claudia: Bildende Kunst, in: Rhineland-Palatinate State Office for Monument Conservation (Editor):
Das Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft. Vol 1, Mainz 2002, p4.405
page 95
evening sky in the purest proportion, the smooth buttresses and the delicate obelisks in the peculiar,
saturated brown shade of their rock […], the late daylight reflected, behind it the yellow masonry of the
town’s church tower rose […], when I looked further over the town far below with its old watchtowers
and saw the Rhine enclosed by high mountain sides through the window arches of the ruins, and when
now the sonorous vesper bells of the dawning Sunday rang near and far, I was gripped by a feeling of
deep sustainable emotion […] I confess I have never had such a strange feeling of home! It was as if I
had only now found a fatherland, my fatherland.”56
Successors of Carus, who dealt with “Rhine Romanticism” were artists like Wilhelm Schadow (17881862) who sets up a class for landscape painting at the Düsseldorfer Akademie. This “Düsseldorf
School” however turned to motifs in the more northern section of the Rhine Valley (Siebengebirge,
Drachenfels, Rolandsbogen, the convent Nonnenwerth and the Apollinariskirche at Remagen). University student Johann Adam Lasinsky (1808 – 1871) published the Rhein Album with views of the Rhine
valley between Bingen and Cologne in 1855. In 1865 another work of German “Rhine Romanticism”
was published by order of the Prussian royalty by the later head of the academy, Caspar Johann Nepomuk Scheuren, (1810-1887) under the title Landschaft, Sage, Geschichte und Monumentales aus der
Rheinprovinz (Landscape, Legend, History and Monuments from the Rhine Province). This monumental
work “with an impressive, but at the same time bulky format of three quarters of a metre in width and
height” 57shows the Rhine landscape in two sections. While the first part deals with the Rhine Valley
between Kleve and Koblenz, the second section presents the area of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
between Koblenz and Bingen. In the area of the current World Heritage property, Scheuren primarily
shows elements which gained special significance
during the Rhine-Prussia era, such as the reconstructed Stolzenfels Castle and the king’s throne in Rhens, which is illustrated with Germania
enthroned in front. Both motifs are presented as
before and after studies which is to emphasise
the “achievements” of Rhine-Prussia both for
the Rhine Valley itself and for the German nation becoming one.
Fig 6.1.9: Caspar Scheuren: Germania – Königsstuhl zu Rhense, 1865 (Source: www.dilibri.de / /
LBZ-catalogue, State Library Centre RhinelandPalatinate)
56 Quoted from Euskirchen, Claudia: Bildende Kunst, in: Rhineland-Palatinate State Office for Monument Conservation
(Editor): Das Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft. Vol 1, Mainz 2002, p.405, original
quotation from: Präger, 1968
57 Quoted from Euskirchen, Claudia: Fine art, in: Rhineland-Palatinate State Office for Monument Conservation (Editor):
Das Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft. Vol 1, Mainz 2002, p.406, original quotation
from: Schmitt, 1996, S. XLIV
page 96
Additional Rhine views known from “Rhine Romanticism” were also picked up by Scheuren. These
include, for example, the drawing “Lurleifelsen”,
representative of many other German artistic representations of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
in German Rhine Romanticism which focus on the
Lorelei rock or the Lorelei myth (see, for example, Carl Joseph Begas (1794-1854), Lureley, and
Eduard Ritter von Steinle (1810-1886).
Fig 6.1.10: Caspar Scheuren: Lurleifelsen, 1865 (Source: www.dilibri.de / / LBZ-catalogue, State Library
Centre Rhineland-Palatinate)
The “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in the age of tourism and today
Already Scheuren’s work showing the Rhine in a pictorial sequence upstream had undoubtedly been
developed when steam powered ships were in use. With this new technology – later on the railway became an important means of transport – the number of visitors that developed in the first part of this era
in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” can be described by the modern day slogan “mass tourism”. In 1829
there was already a regular passenger transport on steam ships in the Rhine Valley. 16,000 passengers58
were already being transported, with an increasing trend.
This development lead to an increasing demand for Rhine literature and illustrated Rhine, or respectively itineraries which fulfil the role of travel guides and souvenir volumes. The Koblenz publisher Friedrich Röhling, later acquired by Carl Baedeker, published “Rheinreise von Mainz bis Cöln, Handbuch für
Schnellreisende” (Rhine journey from Mainz to Cologne, A manual for fast travellers) in 1828. This is, at
the same time, the first Rhine travel guide in the modern sense, from which the well-known “Baedeker
Travel Guides” developed later on. Older illustrated Rhine Valley publications were still made as copper
engravings. In order to be able to attain higher volume print runs, this technology was superceded by
steel engravings in the first half of the 19th century. Apart from William Tombleson’s above mentioned
publication, Rober Batty’s publication Scenery of the Rhine, Belgium and Holland which first came onto
the market in the years 1824 to 1826 in London was an important pioneer of steel engraved publications
about the Rhine Valley.
Likewise, new forms of arrangement of Rhine Valley motifs developed as a result of the increased demand. A very unusual portrayal of the Rhine Valley emerged at the beginning of the thirties. The publication Vogel’s Panorama des Rheins shows both Rhine banks from Mainz to Cologne as an unbroken
developed view on folded pages. In this way a complete illustration emerges which is 21 metres wide but
58 See: Euskirchen, Claudia: Bildende Kunst, in: Rhineland-Palatinate State Office for Monument Conservation(Editor):
Das Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft. Volume 1, Mainz 2002, p. 397
page 97
just 9.5 centimetres high, and also contains captions as additional information. This publication was not
a great success, presumably because of this bulky, format, and it was only copied once. In this publication of 1845 in German and English, called Ufer des Rheins von Mainz bis Köln, or respectively Payne`s
Panorama of the Rhine the unbroken illustrations were joined together in a book with three views on each
page. While only one single view is dedicated to the banks of the Rhine between Koblenz and Cologne
in this work - which is explained by the poor painting qualities of this area of the Rhine Valley within the
publication - the remaining engravings show the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. This also refers to the great
significance of this valley portion regarding tourism at the Rhine.59 In spite of the tourist demand, Payne’s
Rhine representations were not a great success either. An important reason for this may - along with the
fundamentally bulky form - have been the comparably realistic representation of the Rhine Valley, which
can hardly create any “romantic highlights” within the Rhine journey.
Fig 6.1.11: Payne`s Panorama of the Rhine: Die Maus (Ruine Turmberg) – Welmich - Ehrental, 1850
(Source: State Library Centre Rhineland-Palatinate)
On the other hand, in 1822 Wilhelm Delkeskamp (1794-1872) presented a completely new type of map,
which shows a bird’s eye view of the river valley between Bingen and Koblenz and was reproduced several times right away. This work with the title Das Rheintal, von der Mündung der Nahe bis zur Mündung
der Mosel (The Rhine Valley from the mouth of the Nahe to the mouth of the Mosel) made it easy for
travellers to gain a compact overview of the Rhine Valley in a straightforward way. The bird’s eye view
representations according to Delkeskamp’s principle are very successful because, among other aspects,
they accentuate the “highlights” of the Rhine Valley experience by pictorial illustrations, and clearly refer
to “Rhine Romanticism”. Bird’s eye view maps of the Rhine are often published as fold-outs so that they
can be used on journeys. This way of representing the Rhine Valley is still used today. Rhine Valley foldouts - partially equipped with photos of the most important sights - are published in various designs.
59 For Vogel`s Panoramas see: Schmitt, Michael: Die illustrierten Rhein-Beschreibungen, Cologne, Weimar, Vienna
1996, p. XXVII
page 98
Fig 6.1.12 a/b: Friedrich Herchenhein: Rhein concer tina folder, steel engraving of 1848 (Source:
Rhineland- Palatinate State Office for Monument
Conservation(Editor): Das Rheintal von Bingen bis
Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft. Vol
1, Mainz 2002) and Rheinlauf. Mittelrhein von Mainz
bis Köln. Das romantische Stromtal entdecken!,
Rahmel Publishing house), 2010
From around 1860 it is clearly apparent that the former publications of the Rhine Valley are increasingly
replaced by other visual media, including photography and other media. Nevertheless, many picture motifs
created over centuries still exist today. This is not only proven by the current Rhine fold-out Rheinlauf,
but also by looking at current internet representations. Many motifs shaped by the reception of the Rhine Valley in art history and the subsequent mass tourism are present in current visual media. Extracts
from the current internet representation of the World Heritage property, which are representative of the
many references to “Rhine Romanticism” and from the internet presentation http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Rheinromantik are shown here.
page 99
Fig 6.1.13 a-e: Image material
from the internet presentation
“www.welterbe-mittelrheintal.
de“ http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Rheinromantik
Summarising consideration of the motifs of “Rhine Romanticism”
It is typical of Rhine Romanticism that it largely blanks out the real landscape of the Rhine Valley from
the start. This occurs particularly by the constant repetition of certain motifs, their non-proportional representation and a respective canon of “typical requisites” like mountains and castles linked with the
river motif. This aspect is in particular decisive for the German “Rhine Romanticism” which only comes
to its climax when the “romantic Rhine Valley” is questioned by increasing industrialisation, because
the repetition of the known motifs allows a reference to “Rhine Romanticism” despite this contradiction. On this basis the Rhine can finally - and with it also the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” - be used as
a central visual motif of the emerging German national feeling. If the transformations of the landscape can be seen on the selected motifs, they are thus presented as technical progress (e.g. smoking
page 100
steamers). At the same time, the emerging technical infrastructure, for example the tunnel portals, is
“concealed” by “romantic castle motifs”. The castle motif becomes a central stylistic element of Rhine-Prussia with which important landmarks like the Mouse Tower (Mäuseturm) or the reconstructed
castles are superimposed.
Fig 6.1.14a/b: Stolzenfels Castle, tunnel portals near St. Goar (Source: Rhineland-Palatinate State
Office for Monument Conservation(Editor): Das Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische
Kulturlandschaft. Vol 1, Mainz 2002)
These measures make it possible to create a fixed “image” of the (Upper Middle) Rhine Valley in connection with the “typical” motif selection of “Rhine Romanticism” - both in the “real landscape” and in the
collective memory of the German population - which largely blanks out the clear contradictions that emerge through the industrialisation of this landscape. This is also a decisive requirement for the exploitation
of the “Rhine Romanticism” (and the Rhine Valley) in the sense of the German nation “becoming one”.
At the same time these factors are also responsible for the fact that the “Rhine Romanticism” still exists
today and is being marketed in terms of tourism. In current travel literature, visual media and internet
representations the views of the 19th and 20th centuries are gladly and frequently referred to. This is
shown on the website of the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” for example. 60
Therefore, the most significant Rhine views with great cultural and historic significance for “Rhine Romanticism” as well as the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” itself, develop early and become stronger in the course of the centuries. In this context the following should be named in particular:
•
The valley area at the entrance to the Binger Pforte (Bingen Gate) with Bingen and Rüdesheim: View
relationships between Bingen and Rüdesheim and to the Maus Tower and Ehrenfels Castle.
•
The valley area between Trechtingshausen and Bacharach: View relationships between Niederheimbach, Lorch, Rheindiebach und Bacharach.
60For this see the images shown above and: http://www.welterbe-mittelrheintal.de/intro.html
•
page 101
The valley area between Kaub and Oberwesel: View relationships between Kaub and Oberwesel,
in particular Pfalzgrafenstein and Gutenfels Castle.
•
The valley area between St. Goar and St. Goarshausen to the Lorelei: View relationships between
the Katz, Rheinfels and Maus castles and also to and from the Lorelei.
•
The valley area between Boppard and Osterspay: View relationships on Bopparder Hamm and the
valley extension at the Boppard loop.
•
The valley area between Braubach and Oberlahnstein: View relationships between Braubach, Rhens,
Oberlahnstein and Stolzenfels.
•
The valley area at Koblenz: View relationships from Koblenz to Ehrenbreitstein and from there to
Stolzenfels.
The overview of important view relationships in the World Heritage property shows that both sections
of the inner area of examination play a very different role in artistic representations of the “Upper Rhine
Valley”. Section B between St. Goar, St. Goarshausen and the Lorelei is undoubtedly included in the
“highlights” of the romantic and touristic Rhine Valley experience even today. This finds its expression in
divers artistic representations of the area of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” (see section 8.2). In contrast, section A, between Hirzenach, Kestert, Fellen and Wellmich appears, at best, at the periphery of
artistic representations. In a clear analogy to the landscape evaluation carried out subsequently of the
whole “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in which the landscape qualities of this section were classified as
comparatively “low” (see chapter 7), the analysis of important image motifs also comes to the conclusion
that section A of the inner area of examination plays a very subordinate role only with respect to Rhine
Romanticism.
6.2 View relationships of cultural and historic significance in the narrower examination area61
After having classified the significance of the inner area of examination regarding “Rhine Romanticism”,
characteristic image motifs in both sections are to be worked out in both sections. This as well is a decisive basis for selecting locations for the visualisations of the planned Rhine crossing. This art historical
context plays an important role in the evaluation of the consequences regarding authenticity and visual
integrity.
Many of the works of art mentioned also grapple with the narrower examination area. Before the era of
“Rhine Romanticism” starts with the Dutch artist Saftleven, artists like Wenzel Hollar dealt with the “castle
theme”. These artists also include the copperplate engraver Gabriel Bodenehr d. Ä. (1673–1765), who
documents the interrelation between the “castle triangle” of Maus, Katz and Rheinfels. Bodenehr shows
the narrower examination area from the right side of the Rhine. In doing so, he represents all three castles
61 This overview of relevant art historical presentations in the inner examination area was presented on the basis of the
following source: Centre Rhineland-Palatinate: Projekt Mittelrheinbrücke – Vereinbarkeit mit historischen Ansichtenwerken
über das Mittelrheintal (1780 – 1900), 2009
page 102
Koblenz
Lahnsteiner Pforte
Lahnstein
Lahn
Rhens
Braubach
Spay
Mosel
Bopparder Schlinge
Kamp-Bornhofen
Boppard
Bad Salzig
Kestert
Ehrenthal
Hirzenach
Wellmich
St.Goarshausen
Fellen
St.Goar
St. Goarer Tal
Urbar
Oberwesel
Kaub
Bacharacher Tal
Bacharach
Lorch
Binger Pforte
Rhein
Trechtingshausen
Assmannshausen
Rüdesheim
visual relationships
high-order-centre
Bingen am Rhein
middle-order-centre
low-order-centre
Nahe
Fig 6.1.15: View relationships with important cultural historical significance in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” and
the narrower examination area (Source: Rhineland-Palatinate State Office for Monument Conservation(Editor):
Das Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft. Vol 1, Mainz 2002 / ISL)
page 103
together with the three towns of St. Goarshausen, St. Goar and Wellmich. The Rheinfels Castle above
St. Goar which played an important role in the defensive battle against the French during the 17th century
is clearly the central theme here. The caption also refers to the significance of this defence installation in
this context. However, a comparison with the real situation shows that the perspective of the three castles chosen by Bodenehr does not exist in reality. Because of the Rhine curve all three castles cannot be
seen at the same time from this standpoint. By representing all three castles, Bodenehr was obviously
not interested in reproducing the landscape as it was. On the contrary, he aimed at documenting both the
political constellation and the important role of the castles in this context.
Nevertheless, Bodenehr’s engraving does characterise the “image” of this valley section at a very early
stage, whose perception is characterised as the interrelations of the “castle triangle” up to the present.
This motif continues to be taken up and it also represents a central component of “Rhine Romanticism”.
This is shown in the painting by the Dutch artist Saftleven mentioned above who also devoted himself to
the castle constellation at St. Goar and St. Goarshausen, even if under completely different auspices. For
Saftleven’s painting “Catzelleboge op de Ryn” from 1668 shows Katz Castle in the foreground and St. Goar
in the background, however, the view is now directed upstream in the direction of the Lorelei (see 8.1).
Fig 6.2.1: Gabriel Bodenehr d. Ä.: Katz, Rheinfels and Maus castles / current situation (Source: RhinelandPalatinate State Office for Monument Conservation(Editor): Das Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine
Europäische Kulturlandschaft. Vol 1, Mainz 2002)
page 104
Almost all additional works of “Rhine Romanticism” touched upon show motifs from the inner area of examination, with the three castles playing a central role here as well. This already starts with John Gardnor
and his picture “The Mouse – Le Souris” shown in the illustrated travel guide Views taken in and near the
Rhine, on which Maus Castle is represented with the outlines of Wellmich and the church in the background below. Gardnor’s viewpoint is in the centre of the river approximately at the height of St. Goar
and St. Goarshausen with the viewing direction being down the river in the direction of Wellmich. The
surrounding slopes are represented excessively superelevated in “a typical way”. Johann Ziegler (17501812), who shows the same motif from the right side of the Rhine above St. Goar in 1778 and Adam
Lasinsky (1808 - 1871) in his Rhein Album published in 1855 selected a similar visual focus.
Fig 6.2.2a/b: John Gardnor: The Mouse – Le Souris, from: Views taken in and near the Rhine, 2. edition
1791, Jakob Ziegler: Ansicht des Schlosses Thurmberg und der Gegend von Welmenach, 1778 (Source:
State Library Centre Rhineland-Palatinate)
Maus Castle is also depicted in the novel The Pilgrims on the Rhine of the English writer Bulwer Lytton
(1803-1873) in the accompanying steel engravings. Wellmich and the castle are shown here from the
opposite bank at the height of Fellen. The same motif is copied by W. L. Leitch and W. H. Bartlett in the
publication Belgium, the Rhine, Italy, Greece… of 1851and by B. Foster (1825 - 1899) in his work The
Lower Rhine of 1856. Various other foreign and German artists also chose this detail. These include for
example the Swedish artist Carl Johan Billmark (1804-1870), and the German artists L. Lange (Der Rhein
und die Rheinlande, 1847) and J. F. Dielmann (Rheinisches Album, 1847), as well as the aforementioned
artist Conrad Scheuren (Vom Deutschen Rhein, 1876/1877)
A third though extremely seldom used motif within section A of the inner area of examination is the view
from the surroundings of Maus Castle towards the valley. One of the few examples for this motif selection is that by Karl Simrock within the work published in 1838 Das malerische und romantische Deutschland. This motif is again copied in 1842 by C. Frommel in the work Das malerische und romantische
Rheinland.
page 105
Fig 6.2.3 a/b: Bulwer Lytton: Thurmberg, published
1840 (first edition 1834), Carl Johan Billmark: Thurmberg, 1837 (Source: Centre Rhineland-Palatinate)
Three picture motifs with art historic significance
in section A of the inner area of examination can
be defined accordingly:
•
Fig 6.2.4 Karl Simrock: Die Maus, published 1838
(Source: State Library Centre Rhineland-Palatinate)
The view from the left Rhine river bank from Fellen across the Rhine in the direction of Wellmich
and Maus Castle.
•
The view from the ship in the valley area between St. Goar and St. Goarshausen downstream in the
direction of Wellmich and Maus Castle.
•
The view from Maus in the direction Wellmich and Ehrentaler Werth. (This view, however, can hardly be classified as a culturally and historically significant view point on the basis of its very limited
presence in the canon of the artistic representations of the Rhine Valley).
Motifs from section B of the narrower examination area between St. Goar, St. Goarshausen and the Lorelei
occur in almost every “common” graphic publication about the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. As a rule the
castles with St. Goar and St. Goarshausen below play a central role. Significant picture motifs include:
page 106
•
The view from St. Goarshausen towards St. Goar and Rheinfels Castle
•
The view from Katz Castle in the direction of the Lorelei
•
The view from the Lorelei towards St. Goar / St. Goarshausen with the Rheinfels and Katz castles
•
The view from the lookout point “Maria Ruh” on the left side of the Rhine towards the Lorelei
•
The view from St. Goar towards St. Goarshausen with Katz Castle above
•
The view from the lookout point “Werlauer Pilz” towards St. Goarshausen and Katz Castle
•
The view from the left side of the Rhine to the north of St.Goar in the direction of St. Goar with
Rheinfels Castle and Lorelei
The abundance of the illustrations that emerged in the various time periods on the basis of this motif
makes it impossible in this context to take a detailed look at individual artists and their works. In addition
to those representations of this valley area already mentioned in section 8.1, a few examples from these
different time periods are depicted in chronological order “as substitutes”.
6.3 Summary: Culturally and historically significant viewing points in the narrower examination area
The examination of picture motifs of the inner area of examination makes it clear that, principally the valley area between Hirzenach, Kestert, Fellen and Wellmich neither plays a significant role with respect to
“Rhine Romanticism” nor regarding other art historical picture motifs. Here the picture motifs which are
of (art) historical significance can be compressed into a maximum of three views, of which only one can
be described as really relevant with a view to “Rhine Romanticism”. This is the view from Fellen towards
Wellmich with Maus Castle situated above.
On the other hand, section B has an abundance of view relationships and picture motifs between Wellmich and the Lorelei with varying representations in practically all time periods and by different artists.
As well a closer examination of art historical references of this area of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
points out what highly associative and historical significance this area between Wellmich and the Lorelei
takes within the World Heritage property.
Even if the examination shows that section A of the narrower examination area only plays a very subordinate role both with respect to its art historical significance in general and regarding the picture motifs
Figs 6.2.5a-f:
Merian St Goar - Extract from the Topographia Hassiae, 1655 (Source: wikipedia)
Thomas Miles Richardson, Sr. (1784-1848): St. Goarshausen (Source: wikipedia)
William Tombleson: St. Goarshausen and Ruins of the Katze, around 1840 (Source: wikipedia)
Caspar Scheuren: St. Goar, from “Landschaft, Sage, Geschichte und Monumentales der Rhein-Provinz”
(Landscape, Myth, History and Monuments of the Rhine province), 1865 (Source: www.dilibri.de / / LBZ-catalogue, State Library Centre Rhineland-Palatinate)
Current view over Katz Castle in the direction of the Lorelei from Patersberg (Source: wikipedia)
Current view from the viewing point “ Werlauer Pilz” towards St. Goarshausen and Katz Castle
a
b
c
d
e
f
page 107
page 108
of the “Rhine Romanticism” the few viewing points of art historical relevance should, nevertheless be
taken into further consideration.
All other view points of art historical significance in the narrower examination area, especially the relations
between the three castles situated in this area do not however have a direct visual effect on section A of
the narrower examination area. Therefore, they are not relevant for the evaluation of the consequences
of the planned Rhine crossing on the authenticity and the visual integrity of the World Heritage Property
“Upper Middle Rhine Valley”, and are thus not taken into consideration in the visualisations.
6.4 Everyday Perception
The observation of the “Rhine Romanticism” shows that transport in the Rhine valley is closely linked to
artistic representations. The ship and later on the train are of decisive significance in making the Rhine
Valley experience accessible to a large number of visitors (see 7.1). Finally newer transportation routes
for tourists such as the Rheinsteig, the Rhine castles hiking trail, or the newly planned cycle path on the
right side of the Rhine, for example, are also the basis for the Rhine valley experience, and here too a
significant charm results from the fact that various picture motifs are “walked” or “experienced” time and
again. The attractiveness results from the many view relationships which are “fed” from the canon of
Rhine Romanticism (see 8.1, 7.1).
The various transport routes in the Rhine Valley also play a significant role for the perception of the cultural landscape in the inner area of examination on an everyday basis. This applies above all to travelling
by ship (including the ferry link between St. Goar and St. Goarshausen), to train travel and both roads
on the left side and on the right side of the Rhine, the B9, or respectively the B42. These transport routes permit visual corridors from which many residents and visitors daily experience the Rhine valley as
a “landscape”. Therefore, the visual corridors emerging from ships, trains and roads are of paramount
importance for the analysis of the consequences of the planned Rhine crossing regarding the “everyday
visual relationships” in the narrower examination area.
Since, in the narrow St. Goar valley the railway tracks run along the slopes and the roads alongside,
the motorist is „closer to the river“. Particularly on the B9 on the left bank the view onto the Rhine and
the opposite side of the Rhine is, however, hidden by vegetation at many points. The railway tracks are
somewhat higher than the road level so that the views of the rail passengers are less disturbed by the
vegetation. In principle, however, the same visual relationships exist as for motorists. The aforementioned hiking trails “Rheinsteig” (on the right side of the Rhine) and Rhine castles hiking trail (on the left
side of the Rhine) running along the high terraces permit many visual relationships in section A of the
examined area. From the lookout points and viewing platforms in this area some panoramic views onto
the Rhine valley almost up to the Lorelei are possible. These important visual relations should be taken
into account in the visualisations as well.
page 109
7 Analysis of theLandscape and the Visual Integrity of the UNESCO World
Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
An analysis of the landscape of the whole “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” World Heritage Property will now
show and assess the “actual existing” landscape qualities, following the cultural historical and art historical examination. In this way the quality of the landscape of the inner area of examination will be arranged
and assessed in the context of the whole World Heritage property.
As the previous chapter shows, the image of the Rhine Valley is strongly characterised by the Rhine
Romanticism of the 19th century and primarily features natural beauty - the fast running “wild” river, the
precipitous rocks and wooded slopes. Together with the high castles, the historic sites of the towns and
the wine terraces originating from the High Middle Ages, the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is stylised as
an ideal symbol of a European cultural landscape of the Middle Ages in literature, art and music (see
chapter 6). This idealised image is expected by visitors in reality. Where ideal and reality coincide the
landscape is felt to be “beautiful” and intact. There the visual integrity and authenticity appears to be
secure as well. The landscape analysis takes a snapshot of the current situation and assesses it with
reference to this idealised image.
7.1 Method of Analysis
The aim is to carry out a complete evaluation of the conformity with the ideal image which is easily understandable. The evaluation complies with a certain large scale which corresponds to the experience
of the visitors and residents, i.e. very small scale changes or negative effects are not taken into account.
After having viewed and assessed the existing surveys, literature and own photos, a division into visually
effective vertical layers of the area to be assessed was crystallised:
Three visually effective layers can be read:
•
the Rhine with its banks
•
the morphological unit road/railway/towns
•
the slopes
In addition the following selective particularities are to be determined.
For the evaluation of the landscape, the authenticity and visual integrity a matrix is prepared which underlies the three visual layers.
Visual criteria are assigned to the layers which provide a classification into three stages of conformity
with the ideal image of the World Heritage „Upper Middle Rhine Valley“. Both natural boundary conditions and cultural landscape features are taken into consideration as criteria.
For the evaluation of the layer towns/transport structures, the qualities of town and transport structures
are jointly used, because they are perceived as a unit by the observer.
page 110
Evaluation Matrix
River / Bank
Conformity with the ideal image
high
medium
low
Partially technically reinforced
technical bank reinforce-
banks not appropriate to land-
ment
scape
not adapted to landscape
Unsecured banks, close to nature
Rock reef, bank reinforcement appropriate for landscape
Bank coppice typical for location
Gapped bank coppice,
of bank, Werthe (=islands)
or not from the location
missing bank coppice
Convent
landscape adapted campsite
Campsite
Remnants of water meadows,
No herbaceous bank veg-
sedge, reeds
etation
Historical ensemble
Sedge, reeds
Meadows scattered with fruit trees,
structured gardens,
Garden fruit plantation
Intensive agricultural use,
farmland, intensive grass-
water meadows
land
Meadow
Towns/Transport Structures
high
medium
Historical townscape, compact
low
Townscape untypical for the
town
Neutral townscape
Successful modern
Campsite
landscape
Scattered settlement
townscape
Historical town wall
Neutral normal transport
Concrete wall
Natural stone wall
structures
Guard rails
page 111
Unsuccessful new
Prominent individual structures
buildings
Industrial monuments
Industrial buildings
Commercial buildings
Road embankment
Historical tunnel portals
elevated road, dividing railway embankment
Hillsides
high
medium
low
Rocks / Cliffs
Monotonous uniform relief
Strongly profiled prominent relief
Traditional detailed vineyard
Intensively exploited vineyard
Intensive agricultural use
Dry stone walls
unstructured deciduous
unstructured spruces coniferous forest
Coppice
forest
Coniferous forest-reforestpine wood
ations
arid grassland, semi dry grassland,
Heatherland
Mosaic of rocks, wine, arid grassland, woods and fruit
Old quarry,
Quarries in operation, if large
similar to mosaic
scale
Industrial plant
Prominent individual structures
Transmitting mast,
Industrial monuments
line route
page 112
Explanatory images:
Figure 7.1.1: Explanatory images (Source: G. Aufmkolk / C. Gräßle / M. Scheuerer)
Picture 1 bank
Hydraulic engineering standard embankment,
transport structure = little conformity
Picture 2 bank
Location typical wood seam = high conformity
Picture 3 town/road
poor townscape = low conformity
Picture 4 town/road
historical buildings, excellent individual structure
= high conformity
Picture 6 town/road
Guard rail = little conformity
Picture 5 town/road
Natural stone wall = high conformity
Picture 7 Hillsides
Large area vineyards = medium conformity
page 113
Picture 6 Hillsides
Small area vineyards, mosaic = high conformity
More apparent than in less prominent landscapes are images of completely different effects in the “Upper
Middle Rhine Valley” which present themselves to the viewer depending on their location. The river and
the slopes visually step into the foreground from the lookout points and the slopes. Towns, roads and
the railway are only perceived from a distance, on the other hand, merely a few outstanding features,
e.g. the castles, are visually effective.
It can, however, be assumed that about 90% of the viewing experience does not occur from above but
from the valley. A large proportion of the visitors, travellers and the inhabitants of the valley experience
the landscape from the river or from the valley. Therefore, this visual relationship is of central significance
for both the “daily” and the tourist experience. The observation from the bottom of the valley, i.e. from
the banks or the river, allows a much more differentiated view of the elements to be experienced than
from the elevated visual points. Positive and negative features impose themselves on the view, nothing
is concealed by the distance.
In addition, the greatest transformations naturally occur in the valley. Here there is the greatest pressure
for change through adaptation of transport routes and construction. The changes in the slope area occur less by activity than by neglected activity and therefore take a slower and less precise course (see
chapter 1).
From the previous analysis and the considerations described, the observation from a comparably close distance, namely from the valley, was selected as an individual way of evaluation. This perspective
is more intense and more critical than from high points from a relative distance. Problems in the landscape are observed earliest at valley level. If no adverse effect of the conformity with the ideal image is
page 114
determined by the observation at valley level, such an adverse effect can hardly be expected from the
perspective of the slopes or lookout points either.
For the analysis both banks between Bingen and Koblenz / Lahnstein were cycled along and mapped in
December 2009. For documentation the opposite banks were photographed62 at regular intervals and the
visually effective layers mapped separately in the topographical map on a scale of 1:25,000. Selective
particularities like castles are entered as single elements. Depending on the time of year the landscape
can present itself with great intensity. Owing to the missing foliage both positive and negative features
become particularly prominent.
After the cycling and mapping a complete documentation of the entire distance emerges. The technical
estimate regarding the conformity of the existing landscape with the ideal image is represented graphically on the basis of the topographical map on a scale of 1: 25,000.
The significant basic patterns of the landscape are shown on the map. Prominent viewing points are
named and located. The high, medium or low conformity of the existing landscape with the ideal can be
read via the coloured presentation.
Sections can be read and linked. Areas with cultural historic high density face areas in which only selective or no cultural historical testimonies become visually effective.
The strength of the coloured markings varies: the large-scale slopes dominate the area. The layers bank
and road/rail/towns have less weight. This is reflected to a certain extent in the long distance view from
the altitudes.
In a further working step the information is abstracted from the topographical map into a band structure
by a true to scale transfer. This allows the immediate identification of disturbed and undisturbed sections by means of a simple, striking overview of the evaluation. This corresponds to a Roman itinerary
to some extent.
62 This photographic material is located on the DVD supplied with the evaluation
page 115
Figure 7.1.2a/b: Evaluation, entered into the topographical map and evaluation in abstracted representation (Source: G. Aufmkolk / C. Gräßle / M. Scheuerer)
Example: evaluation, entered into the
topographical map
Evaluation in abstracted
representation
The conformity of the layers with the ideal image is presented with colours:
The evaluation in colours matches the evaluation on the topographical map.
Green means a high conformity
Yellow means a medium conformity
Red means a low conformity
The strength of the coloured marking of the
hill layer expresses the visual dominance of
the hillside slopes.
Prominent features in both a positive and a negative sense are marked as coloured points:
Blue means positive
Red means negative
The representation is abstracted as straight.
The river kilometre markings, important places
and individual structures are named.
For orientation the topographical map includes
the river kilometre marking, town names are
included. For clarification the descriptions of
important structural and natural features are also
entered, negative features were described.
The simplified representation enables the
immediate identification of relevant faults in
the landscape.
page 116
7.2 Arrangement and assessment of the narrower examination area within the total area of the
World Heritage Property
The survey shows that conformity with the ideal image of the landscape is indeed attained in many parts,
but that many smaller and larger faults have developed and persisted over the course of time, which
can be read from the map. Here structural changes are immediately apparent on the basis of their quick
realisation, while landscape changes develop slowly and less noticeably. This change in small steps
encourages a creeping habituation to a worsening situation with reference to conformity with the ideal
image along with the ability of people to adapt.
Reasons for the change include:
•
Faults are largely caused by transport structures in the rail and road area.
•
Measures against rock fall in the area of the train lines are manifested as far reaching steel net coverings in the rock. Rock fall protection structures are partially necessary because small area vineyard sites were given up and the dry stone walls are no longer maintained.
•
Cycle paths are currently being added at various points alongside the major roads in the course of
road building. Unfortunately, with this desirable extension, the replacement of the old natural stone
wall along the roads is often linked with a substantial guide rail through a concrete construction. This
guide rail has a negative effect in two directions: it has a detrimental effect on the field of view from
the travelling car and from the opposite bank it presses forward visually as a foreign body.
•
River construction measures result in unplanted standard embankments in sections with a uniform
45 degree slope. Rock reefs were removed for shipping a long time ago.
•
The transport development through parallel running traffic lines causes partially substantial and shapeless bridging structures e.g. of local roads over the rail route.
•
In the localities and also outside of them, there are structures that are not to scale or which are untypical for the landscape. The building shows tendencies to develop as a scattered settlement into
the hillside locations. The breaks between the localities become indistinct through the development
of building along the Rhine.
•
Several campsites are apparent right by the bank, which is unpleasant and they penetrate the field
of view without adequate greenery. This includes a permanent camping installation clearly lacking
in visual quality.
•
The small area mosaics on the slopes consisting of rock, traditional vineyard terraces, thermophilic
dry bushes, orchards and coppice are regarded as particularly positive. Although there are comprehensive measures taken in order to maintain the landscape, these mosaics are on the decline due
to discontinued use. On the one hand, traditional vineyards develop into woods through closure,
on the other hand to less divided large area vineyards through placing together in more economical
units. The increasing scrub encroachment means that the dramatic and typical rock and dry stone
walls disappear from the field of view.
•
The lighting along roads and banks is quite varied and lacks an overall design.
The result of the assessment is presented on the topographical map on the subsequent pages.
Figure 7.2.1: Observation area (Source: G. Aufmkolk /
C. Gräßle / M. Scheuerer)
page 117
page 118
Figure 7.2.2:
Observation area Koblenz/Lahnstein
to St.Goar/St.Goarshausen
(Source: G. Aufmkolk / C. Gräßle /
M. Scheuerer)
page 119
Figure 7.2.3:
Observation area St.Goar/St.Goarshausen
to Bingen
(Source: G. Aufmkolk / C. Gräßle /
M. Scheuerer)
page 120
The survey of the landscape occurs with reference to purely visual aspects, other criteria are not taken
into consideration.
The analysis of the entire area of the World Heritage property has provided six sections which correspond
less to the ideal image due to present faults and previous burdens. In these sections a bridge structure
would be conceivable with the prerequisite that it is able to satisfy the high demand of the landscape in
terms of design and choice of materials.
These include:
•
The municipal superimposed areas of Lahnstein
•
Oberspay / Niederspay area
•
Kamp-Bornhofen / Bad Salzig area
•
Wellmich / Fellen area
•
Trechtingshausen area
•
The municipal superimposed areas of Bingen
7.2.4a Lahnstein
On the right bank of the Rhine:
•
Here there are a large number of commercial
and industrial buildings.
•
Many buildings do not satisfy the ideal image.
•
Characteristic steep slopes are not present.
•
The building has expanded into the landscape.
On the left bank of the Rhine:
•
There are many commercial buildings here.
7.2.4b Oberspay / Niederspay
•
The road exhibits large scale guide rails above
the concrete wall.
•
The Schottel yard and other commercial buildings and recent residential buildings characterise the picture.
•
The buildings show little conformity with the
ideal image.
•
The hillside locations withdraw visually.
7.2.4c Kamp Bornhofen / Bad Salzig
•
The building here exhibits only little to medium
conformity with the ideal image.
•
The place is developing into the slope.
•
The bank here is a standard embankment
with little growth.
•
The road exhibits large scale guide rails.
•
The edge of Bad Salzig has a small to medium
7.2.4d Wellmich / Fellen
•
In the direction of Ehrental the bank shows a
control structure with concrete wall along the
stretch, greenery is missing.
•
The road in the direction of Ehrental shows clear
adverse effects on the ideal image caused by
the large sized guide rail and the railway.
•
In Wellmich the building only shows medium
•
The large sized guide rail along the road prevents a view into the river area, additionally the
large scale bridging of the local road over the
railway has an adverse effect on the image.
•
In Fellen the building only shows a very limited
•
There is a complete lack of buildings of
quality.
page 121
page 122
7.2.4e Trechtingshausen
•
The bank exhibits a standard embankment
without greenery.
•
The image of the road is characterised by the
large sized guide rail.
•
The relief of the slopes levels off.
•
The vineyard sites have a large scale image,
coniferous forest can be viewed on the horizon.
•
The road exhibits a large scale guide rail.
•
The buildings show only very limited conformity with the ideal image.
•
The residential building from the recent past
is developing into the slope.
•
The quarry, which is in operation, dominates
the image of the hillside locations.
7.2.4f Bingen
•
The bank exhibits a standard embankment
without greenery.
•
The reparcelled vineyard positions create a
large scale image.
•
Here there are a large number of commercial
and industrial buildings.
•
Many buildings do not satisfy the ideal
image.
•
The building has expanded into the landscape.
•
The characteristic steep slopes are not present.
7.3 Conclusion
The analysis of the landscape area, the authenticity and visual integrity of the whole
World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as a whole shows that section
A of the narrower examination area, the valley section between Hirzenach, Kestert,
Wellmich and Fellen belongs to those areas of the World Heritage Property “Upper
Middle Rhine Valley” that correspond less with the ideal image of “Rhine Romanticism”
on the basis of present faults and previous burdens. The planned Rhine crossing is
accordingly projected at one of those points of the World Heritage Property “Upper
Middle Rhine” which is most suited in principle.
In the analysis of the landscape, the complete area of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
is not only observed with an eye to the question of which sections are to be seen as
less sensitive to faults or interventions due to their deviations from the ideal image.
The elevation scheme, the characteristic trisection in the vertical of the landscape
is examined more closely. This shows that the decisive factor for the assessment of
the planned bridge is whether it can be assigned to the visually effective layers of
the traffic tracks and localities and thus leave the sensitive image and area defining
slopes free, with the castles as landmarks.
In general it is recorded that clear tendencies of the decline of the ideal typical landscape can be established. Although the previous activities of the federal state and
the municipalities are to be acknowledged, these tendencies must be counteracted
even more resolutely than before. With precise observation of the total area following
visual criteria, the possible adverse effect of a bridge appears less problematic, due
to its concentration on a minimal area of the cultural landscape, than the deterioration which is starting and has already started over the complete area of the World
Heritage property. Against this background the bridge could even be a component
of progressive development, which, in tandem with a series of further measures, is
suitable for checking the threatening stagnation and the decline of the Middle Rhine
region and turning it round.
Fig 7.3.1: Total examination area in distilled presentation
(Source: G. Aufmkolk / C. Gräßle / M. Scheuerer)
page 123
page 124
Figure 7.3.2a/b: Camping Lorelei, today
/ Lorelei in 1950 (Source: State Office
for Monument Preservation RhinelandPalatinate (Editor): Das Rheintal von
Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische
Kulturlandschaft. Volume 1, Mainz 2002;
Müller- Alfeld, Theodor and Dreesen,
Peter (Editor), B er lin and Dar mstadt
1951, „Das Bild der Heimat“)
page 125
8 Nature area, Cultural and Historical Development and View Relationships in the Narrower Examination Area
The aim of the next chapter is to work out the visual sensitivities and relevant viewing relations or view
points within the narrower examination area more precisely against the background of the cultural-historical, cultural landscape and perception-specific characteristics of the complete World Heritage property
presented in chapters 5 to 7. The basis for this is a more precise observation of the cultural-historical development and natural framework conditions of the narrower examination area.
8.1 Natural characteristics of the narrower examination area
The inner examination area between the Lorelei and Hirzenach/Kestert represents a part of the “St.
Goar narrow valley”. Müller-Miny/Bürgener note with regard to this Rhine section: “In this section of the
“Upper Middle Rhine Valley” the platform framing is realised in almost model like fashion. 130-250 m
above the base of the winding canyon (lower valley) a stepped terraced area (upper valley) up to 7 km
wide extends left and right above the river - deposited with a sharp bend against the valley walls- which
is dissolved into an eroded area (Riedelflur) through erosion of the mountain streams.” 63 The hillside
locations of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” go over a clear “demolition edge” into the adjoining high
terraces to the left and right of the Rhine.
KESTERT
HIRZENACH
EHRENTHAL
WELLMICH
ZU FELLEN
ST. GOARSHAUSEN
ST. GOAR
subspaces
URBAR
Fig 8.1.1: The nature area of the inner examination area, stream valleys, edge and high terraces
(Source: DTK 25/National Surveyors Office Rhineland-Palatinate / ISL))
63 See: Institute for Cultural Studies (Editor): Naturräumliche Gliederung Deutschlands: The natural units found on sheet
138 Koblenz (1971), processed by H. Müller-Miny and M. Bürgener and the natural units on sheet 150 Mainz (1964),
processed by H. Uhlig.
page 126
The valley area of the narrower examination area has a typical character due to the winding of the Rhine.
There is a significant narrowing of the Rhine Valley in the south of the inner examination area at the height
of the Lorelei where the river is just 130 m wide. From the Lorelei the Rhine flows in a northerly direction
downstream and extends step by step to a width of approx 250-300 m. Mostly it is lined by a relatively narrow pasture which is bordered by sharply rising and partially rock ridden, primarily wooded slopes. To the
north west of St. Goar and St. Goarshausen and the Gründel or the Hasenbach valley the river area widens
somewhat up to the mouth of the Wellmicher Bachtal and then flows in a westerly direction to Rheinaue
Ehrenthaler Werth, where the river area is extended somewhat more by the two way split of the water area.
The slope bank is particularly wide at Fellen height, the hillside is far back from the edge of the bank. Behind
the Ehrenthaler Werth the Rhine once again changes its direction of flow and turns back towards the north
at the height of the two communities Hirzenach and Kestert. Here there is a narrow place once again.
This natural situation means the narrower examination area is clearly divided into two sections that do not link
with one another visually. The Wellmich Bachtal and the community of Wellmich with the Maus Castle above
does however form a “hinge” that links both these sections of the narrower examination area. Further examples of communities or elements with a similar hinge function are Hirzenach and Kestert in the north west and
the Lorelei in the south, which forms an important “natural landmark” due to its significant appearance.
KESTERT
HIRZENACH
Inner Investigation
Area Part A
EHRENTHAL
WELLMICH
ZU FELLEN
Inner Investigation
Area Part B
ST. GOARSHAUSEN
ST. GOAR
subspaces
URBAR
Fig 8.1.2: Lining up sections through natural requirements /narrower examination area
(Source: DTK 25/National Surveyors Office Rhineland-Palatinate / ISL)
page 127
The V-shaped valleys, deep cut through the course of streams, again run transverse to the “Upper Middle
Rhine Valley” and connect the high terraces with the lower valley. These form another feature that characterises the area. Above all the Gründelbachtal and the Hasenbach valley which are situated directly
opposite one another to the left and right of the Rhine, represent a particular feature of the natural area
of the narrower examination area, which is unique in the whole area of the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”, and which had a decisive effect on the cultural historical development of this
Rhine section. For as a consequence of this special natural situation, the two “sister towns” of St. Goar
and St. Goarshausen developed in the mouth areas of both V-shaped valleys, St. Goar on the left bank
of the Rhine and St. Goarshausen to the right. In addition, important road links emerged at an early stage on the basis of the special topographical situation in Hasenbach and in Gründelbach valley, which
connect the Rhine Valley with the adjoining terraces and beyond. Due to the significant opposing character of both these connections into the “interior” and the face to face nature of the towns St. Goar and
St. Goarshausen, a ferry link was developed at an early stage at this point in the “geographical centre”
of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. This particular situation continues to this day and explains Rhine
crossings in this area in a particular way.
Abbildung 8.1.3a/b/c: View to St. Goarshausen, Katz
Castle, the high plateaus of the narrowler examination area and view to St. Goar (section A), view to
Fellen and Wellmich (section B)
8.2 Cultural-historical development of the narrower examination area
In the middle of the 6th century, an ordained monk from the Auvergne known as Goar settled as pastor of
a small community of pilots, fishermen and winegrowers at the exit to the mountain section downstream
of the Lorelei. A collegiate church developed from the holy chapel of St. Goar in the 8th century. In the
12th century, the counts of Katzenelnbogen acquired the administration rights for the settlement of St.
Goar. In order to secure their Rhine customs duty, they next had Rheinfels Castle built (1245). The NeuKatzenelnbogen (“Katz”) Castle emerged on the opposite side of the Rhine above St. Goarshausen. A
page 128
third Katzenelnbogen castle was erected a few kilometres to the east of St. Goarshausen. Reichenberg
Castle is one of the most significant defensive installations of its time. In this way the important strategic
requirements for allowing the territory of the Katzenelnbogen counts to develop transversely over the
Rhine are met.
In order to secure the possessions of the Electorate of Trier on the right bank of the Rhine against the
Katzenelnbogen counts, the Peterseck Castle was erected in the middle of the 14th century, later known
as Deuernburg, today “Maus”, one of the most advanced castle installations of its time. In this way the
still “legendary triangle relationship” of the Maus, Katz and Rheinfels castles is explained historically.
KESTERT
HIRZENACH
EHRENTHAL
WELLMICH
ZU FELLEN
ST. GOARSHAUSEN
ST. GOAR
planned rheine bridge
castles
natural monuments
URBAR
Fig 8.2.1: The Maus, Katz, Rheinfels castles, and the Reichenberg Castle to the east of the narrower examination area (Source: DTK 25/National Surveyors Office Rhineland-Palatinate / ISL)
In the 15th century St. Goar fell to the county of Hesse. Under attack by French revolutionary troops in
1794, Rheinfels Castle was handed over without a fight and St. Goar placed under French administration
until 1813. In 1815, the town fell to Prussia and once again received the status of an administrative centre, becoming a chief regional town. Following the dissolvement of the district of St. Goar in the course
of administrative reform in 1969, Simmern became the seat of administration of the Rhein-Hunsrück
district. In 1972, the town of St. Goar was incorporated into the association of communities of St. GoarOberwesel, with its seat in Oberwesel.
page 129
Opposite St. Goar is St. Goarshausen with the Neu-Katzenelnbogen (“Katz”) Castle. St. Goarshausen
is first mentioned in a document from 1222 and from the end of the 13th century it also belonged to
the county of Katzenelnbogen. In 1324 St. Goarshausen received a town charter. With the end of the
count dynasty, St. Goarshausen also fell to the Landgraviate of Hesse. Following divisions of estate
it became part of Hesse-Kassel from 1583 to 1806 and, along with St. Goar, secured the rewarding
Rhine duties for the landgrave there as the only Hessian territory on both sides of the Rhine. Temporarily occupied by French troops (“pays reserve”), the town became part of the Duchy of Nassau after the Congress of Vienna and on April 4, 1816 it became the seat of the Nassau duchy office of St.
Goarshausen. After the duchy of Nassau was annexed by Prussia in 1866, St. Goarshausen became a
chief town through the division of the Rhine area’s newly created regional district of St. Goarshausen.
After the First World War the town was at the southern edge of the Koblenz bridgehead and thus subject to the Allied Rhineland occupation in the 1920s. The town remained in the administrative area of
Wiesbaden in the Hesse-Nassau province until 1945. After the Second World War the town and all
the local district were included in the French zone of occupation and thus decoupled from the HesseNassau administrative structure.64
The regular exchanges and increase in relations
between St. Goar and St. Goarshausen lead to the
construction of a “flying bridge“ in 1622 between
the two towns, which during the 18th century was
rebuilt several times and even decorated, before
it was translocated by the French at the end of
the 18th century to Neuwied.
Figure 8.2.2a/b/c: “Flying bridge” between Koblenz and Ehrenbreitstein. The „Flying Bridge“ between St.
Goar and St. Goarshausen could have looked similar to this construction.
64 Source: Internet page of the town of St. Goarshausen: http://www.st-goarshausen.de/
page 130
Wellmich at the foot of the Maus Castle had a town charter granted in 1357 in order to reinforce the area
between St. Goar and St. Goarshausen. However, this measure hardly has any effect on the development
of Wellmich. In spite of the securing by means of a town wall, no decisive thrust for development starts.
The western tower of the St. Martin parish church forms a typical ensemble for the “Upper Middle Rhine
Valley” together with the Maus Castle, which is also recorded historically (see chapter 7). On June 7, 1969
the previously independent district of Wellmich was incorporated into the town of St. Goarshausen.
The origin of the settlement Fellen (“on the fields”) goes back to the existence of the lead and zinc mine
“Gute Hoffnung” in the Brandswald, which was already described as ancient in documents of the 16th
century. In the year 1753 a new permit was granted to operate “the ancient mine” in the Brandswald “Constantins Erzlust” after a new deposit was discovered in the Werlauer and Hungenrother district. A
melting bath and a stamping mill were erected in the Gründelbachtal.
In the year 1745, abundant veins of ore were discovered between Ehrental and Prath, which lead to the
formation of the Sachsenhäuser Hütte (foundry) in 1769. As a link to the preparation installations in the
Gründelbachtal, the two kilometre long Auguststollen (tunnel) was driven under the Rhine at a depth of
136 m. In 1850, the preparation installations at the main haulage adit at the Prinzenstein were laid, where
up to 350 miners were employed. In 1872, a casino was built for the mine officials in Fellen and in 1906
a residential building with a smithy.
After the First World War, the French occupying forces built a pontoon bridge between Wellmich and Fellen, almost exactly at the point where the Rhine crossing to be tested is being planned. Barracks were
built for the accommodation and care of French soldiers and teams for securing the train crossings. In
1928, the Brandswaldweg between Fellen and Werlau developed as an emergency measure. In 1936,
the Alte Heerstrasse in Fellen was moved onto the route of the current B9 to avoid train like crossings.
In the following year the Landgasthof Landsknecht, the first petrol station in the “Upper Middle Rhine
Valley” with a car workshop was built in Fellen. In 1938, 16 estate houses for workers and employees of
the “Gute Hoffnung” mine were built by the local chapter of the German Labour Front.
The mine was no longer used after 1945 and operation is finally stopped in 1962. The reinforced concrete works of Rheintalwerke Basten AG was situated in Fellen in the years 1951 to 1983, but has also
ceased production in the meantime.
The traffic infrastructure of the more narrowly defined examination area is to the present day characterised by the ferry link between St. Goar and St. Goarshausen, the main roads on both sides, the country
roads running through the V- shaped valley and the left and right Rhine train links.
The people and car ferry “Loreley V1” between St. Goar and St. Goarshausen is one of the most important Rhine crossings in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” due to the central location and the nationwide
page 131
connection in an east-west direction. The ferry records the highest volume of traffic (900 vehicles per
day, information submission for the UNESCO-World Heritage-Centre 2007, page 9) and it has the longest operating times (06:00-23:00).
There are three ports close together in the Rhine section between Lorelei and Ehrenthaler Werth. These
are the winter port to the north of the Lorelei (Rheinkm 555), which gave refuge to the river barge operators in the winter of 1963 when the Rhine last froze at this point, the town port “Rheinfelshafen” (Rheinkm
557) in St. Goar with the headquarters of the water protection police and a marina for leisure craft up to
15 m long and the yacht harbour “Hunt” (Rheinkm 559) in Fellen.
A port crane was in use in St. Goarshausen from 1917 to 1999 (Häusener crane), which was operated
on a 150 m long crane way parallel to the Rhine. With a 360 degree revolving, 25 metre long cantilever
arm, both general cargo and stones, sand, coke, grain and other goods from Rhine ships were reloaded
onto the Nassauische Kleinbahn (small railway), which started operating in 1903. Before the deepening
of the Rhine, river barges on the upward journey could also store cargo here temporarily and thus pass
the mountain stretch by the Lorelei with less draught. The Häusener crane stands in a historical development line of shipping and crane installations on the Rhine, and just like the older cranes in OestrichWinkel, Bingen or Andernach it documents earlier port activities in the Rhine Valley.
Along with the various ports and the ferry connection, there are several moorings of various Rhine shipping lines including Köln-Düsseldorfer-Rheinschifffahrt.
The rail routes built in the middle of the 19th century run on the mountain side on both sides of the Rhine:
on the right hand side of the Rhine the Lorelei and Roßstein are tunnelled under, on the left hand side
of the Rhine the Kammereck and Betttunnel (at Urbar) and the Banktunnel (south of St. Goar) are built.
Stopping points for local public transport are in St. Goarshausen and Kestert on the right side of the
Rhine and in Hirzenach and St. Goar on the left side of the Rhine.
The trunk road B9 is guided outside the communities on the left side of the Rhine. There is thus a great
barrier effect by rail and road on both sides of St. Goar, which makes access to water and also to the
rear hillside locations difficult. In Fellen too, several train tracks run directly south of the B9, so that the
locality is separated from the Rhine by a transport strip and can only be reached by a bridging structure,
which juts out a long way. The trunk road B42 on the right side of the Rhine runs through the middle of the
locality of St. Goarshausen, but after that on the right side of the Rhine, whereby the localities Wellmich
and Ehrental are restricted by road and rail on both sides. In principle, the spatial possibilities for development of the locations “in the valley” are largely exhausted due to the railways and main roads, which
run on both sides of the Rhine, and also due to the narrowness of the valley pasture.
page 132
8.3 Traditional life, land use forms and communication
The traditional way of life in the Middle Ages was closely linked with the Rhine in the narrower examination area, just as in the whole “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. The people worked as fishermen, river
pilots, and sailors, and lived from trade. This close relationship between population and river has largely
been lost today. The ferry link between St. Goar and St. Goarshausen represents an exception and is
operated privately to the present day.
The steeply terraced vineyards are traditionally cultivated by the high up and valley communities equally. Today wine growing in steep and steepest locations, as is the case everywhere in the Middle Rhine
Valley, is in decline. In the narrower examination area, the areas still managed are mainly those in which
the earlier small terraced structure has been combined into larger areas by means of reparcelling. This
is mainly the case on the right side of the Rhine (e.g. to the north of Wellmich and at St. Goarshausen),
on the slopes of the Wellmich Bachtal. On the left side of the Rhine too, wine growing areas find themselves in a position exposed to the sun. The vineyards still operating are planted with Riesling. There are
only approx. 2% of employees working in the primary economic sector of wine growing.
In the flatter areas of the Upper Valley, farming represents the dominant form of use. Agriculture is prevalent. On ground without sufficient Loess soil deposits, in a micro climatically unfavourable position or
as a subsequent use in viticulture areas, grassland or scattered fruit trees are also found in the Upper
Valley or in the area of the slopes. Larger agriculture areas are found in the more narrowly defined examination area mainly on the left bank of the Rhine to the east of Werlau and to the south east of Biebernheim, to the right bank of the Rhine at Nochern, Lierschied and Prath. The agricultural structures of
use make a division of labour between the management of the high terraces and the hillside locations
possible. At the same time, this is the pre-requisite for agricultural production being able to specialise in
wine growing in the valley areas.
A further economic factor is the extraction of ore-containing stone at a very early stage.65 At first this extraction took place above ground, but ore extraction since the 16th century has been characterised by
the operation of mines (see above, Sachsenhäuser Grube).
Tourism has been an important economic factor for St. Goar and St. Goarshausen since the end of the
18th century. Today this economic sector represents the most important economic factor, with regional
reference in the narrower examination area.
On the whole, it can be established that St. Goarshausen, and especially St. Goar, which already has a
high level of cultural-historical relevance on the basis of its early point of emergence, form a special feature in the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine” due to their characteristic opposite positions.
65 Alongside the ore extraction, slate extraction in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” plays an important role (mainly in
Kaub and Bacharach). Today quartz greywacke is still extracted in Trechtinghausen.
page 133
Together with both the V-shaped valleys that border the towns, they are the main reason why intensive
cross Rhine links can develop here.
The direct face to face situation of St. Goar and St. Goarshausen at the exit of the Gründel or Hasenbach
valley explains an important ferry connection since the Middle Ages at the latest, which is still in existence
today. The roads leading up to the high ground still have an important connecting function in east-west
direction today. The communication or functional division of labour between the valley and elevated areas
is thus relatively characteristically present in the inner examination area. Nevertheless, it can be established that the interrelation between St. Goar and St. Goarshausen has lost considerable significance.
A decisive reason for this is that the transport tracks limit the development of both places both in the direction of the river (road) and also to the high terraces (rail). Like almost everywhere in the “Upper Middle
Rhine Valley”, the immediate relationship of the places to the water is no longer present.
8.4 Relevant viewing relationships and viewing points in the narrower examination area
Principally due to the special natural framework conditions, different types of perception result from the different scopes of the more narrowly defined examination area - river, lower plateau and high terraces.
slopes
Landmarks
historical sight connections
winegrowing
castles
rocks
settlements
and traffic
every-day-views (car, train)
Rhine
riverbanks
Fig 8.4.1: Diagrammatic profile of the valley area - perception from the river (ISL)
Travelling on the Rhine, the mosaic landscape of the slopes characterises the area experience, the largely visible “landmarks” on the slopes (castles and rocks) and the places on the bank provide orientation.
The river itself is however in the foreground visually.
view points
slopes
landmarks
winegrowing
castles
rocks
settlements
and traffic
rhine nd Ufer
nd Ufer
riverbanks
Fig 8.4.2: Diagrammatic profile of the valley area - perception from the river (ISL)
page 134
From the lower plateau - from the perspective of a car driver - or train travellers - the “landmarks” on the
slopes, especially the castles, equally define the view. The views of places on the opposite side and the
Rhine itself are partially blocked by vegetation or high guide rails.
view points
slopes
landmarks
winegrowing
castles
rocks
settlements
and traffic
rhine nd Ufer
nd Ufer
riverbanks
Fig 8.4.3: Diagrammatic profile of the valley area - perception from the high terraces (ISL)
From the slope sides, which run 130-150m above the water level, the valley landscape can be seen as
a complete area. Locally - especially at the height of Maus Castle - the various valley sections of the
narrower examination area can be perceived. The view is determined through the macro elements of the
nature area, the “canyon” with the river.
In total, the closer observation of the narrower examination area shows that this can be divided into two
sections. This applies especially for the different profiles of the river area, for the visual relations as for
the density of landscape qualities and cultural historical features.
•
The northern section (A) from Wellmich / Fellen to Kestert / Hirzenach is an area without places of
cultural-historical significance and cultural assets due to mining, industrialisation and the transport
tracks of the 19th and 20th century on the left side of the Rhine in particular. The largely intact hillside locations are characteristic, although they develop a spatial characteristic entirely different to
that of the area between St. Goar / St. Goarshausen and the Lorelei due to the significant widening.
The viewing points on the high terraces make views over the area partially possible.
•
The southern section (B) stands out due to a high density of points of cultural-historical significance
(settlements, cultural monuments, castles), the typical narrowness for the St. Goar narrow valley
(Lorelei) and a varied cultural landscape. This variety is also reflected in the density of overlapping
viewing relationships. The viewing triangle between Rheinfels Castle (to the left of the Rhine) and
the Katz and Maus castles (to the right of the Rhine) is particularly striking. The castles named and
the Lorelei represent “landmarks” that are clearly visible from both the lower plateau and from the
high terraces and they generate viewing relationships that to a large extent correspond with the romantic image of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”.
page 135
Wellmich and the Maus Castle form a shear leg between the two sections. The locality of Wellmich with
the church and the castle above is visible from both sections and provides a comparatively authentic
appearance.
The Rhine bank sections visually affected by the bridge structure are to be limited on the basis of this
natural situation:
•
On the right side of the Rhine, in the section between Hasenbach valley (Rheinkm 557) and Ehrental (Rheinkm 560): travelling on the B42, the view of Maus Castle and Wellmich church dominate.
Wine terraces - to the north of the Hasenbach valley and to the west of the Wellmich Bachtal - alternate with scrubby or wooded areas on the slope sides. The Wellmich Bachtal forms a striking cut
in the hillside scenery.
•
On the left side of the Rhine, in the section between St. Goar port (Rheinkm 558) and the Ehrenthaler Werth: travelling on the B9, the view to the Rhine is blocked by buildings (Landgasthof Landsknecht and vacant car dealership) and vegetation. In addition, the view through the transport tracks
present “on the mountain side” (several train tracks, B9 with cycle paths and above all the bridging
structure to the locality of Fellen) is strongly diverted. Even the view from the higher bridging structure onto the Rhine is blocked. It is only from the lower tow path below the restaurant that there is
an undisturbed view to Wellmich with Maus Castle upstream and of the mouth of the port in Fellen
in the direction of Ehrental downstream.
The section on the hillside slopes visually affected by the bridge structure is even narrower than in
the valley:
•
On the right side of the Rhine: viewing points exist on the slope to the north of the Hasenbach valley, from which the Katz and Maus castles and Rheinfels Castle can be seen. However, the view
to Fellen and the Ehrenthaler Werth on the left side of the Rhine only opens up when very close to
Maus Castle.
•
On the left bank of the Rhine: the Barnswald above Fellen masks the view to the opposite side of
the Rhine. The clearing with the Brandswald forest warden’s lodge and two viewing points to the
west and east of the Heimbachtal from which Wellmich and Maus Castle and the Rhine can be seen
form exceptions.
page 136
7
KESTERT
HIRZENACH
inner investigation
area part A
EHRENTHAL
WELLMICH
ZU FELLEN
1
inner investigation
area part B
6
2
ST. GOARSHAUSEN
5
ST. GOAR
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Auf‘m Hartenberg
Werlauer Pilz
Spitzer Stein
Maria Ruh
Drei Burgen Blick
Nocherner Rheinsteighütte
Rheinburgenblick
4
URBAR
Fig 8.4.4: Demarcation of the narrower examination area, visual sections, viewing points and landmarks
(Source: DTK 25/National Surveyors Office Rhineland-Palatinate / ISL)
This survey result in terms of content is additionally checked and verified by means of the 3D computer
model. The so-called “shadow casting model” shows all areas of the narrower examination area that are
theoretically in visual contact with the planned Rhine crossing.
8.5 Conclusion
The planned Rhine crossing lies in the sub-section A of the narrower examination area between Hirzenach / Kestert / Fellen / Wellmich, which is less prominent from a cultural-historical and cultural landscape point of view. The computer model clearly shows that the planned Rhine crossing does not adversely
affect the significant viewing relationships between the localities with regard to places of cultural-historical
significance and natural landmarks (Lorelei) in sub-section B due to the selected position at the western
edge of the localities of Wellmich and Fellen.
Consequences for the authenticity and the visual integrity of the narrower examination area arise exclusively for the section between Hirzenach / Kestert and Fellen / Wellmich. Relevant viewing relationships
exist here, especially from the viewing points on the high terraces and the view points or visual corridors
of the riverside roads to the left and right of the Rhine, train tracks or from ships. These aspects should
be considered in the subsequent visualisations.
Figure 8.4.6: Shadow casting model (Source: v-cube)
page 137
page 138
Part III: Field of Vision Analyses, Documentation and Assessment
9 Visualisations and Evaluations
In the following section the different visualisations of the planned bridge across the Rhine are documented. However, the selection of the relevant standpoints and fields of vision will first be explained.
9.1 Categories of perception and selected visual points
Based on the previous chapters in which the setting was described in terms of art history, cultural landscape and cultural history, the following relevant “categories of visual points” can be defined with respect
to the planned bridge across the Rhine:
a
Visual points and visual corridors with increased cultural or historical significance
b
Visual points that reveal relevant panoramic views of the Rhine valley (sign-posted lookouts)
c
Visual points and visual corridors, which play an important role in “everyday visual relationships”
d
Visual points and visual corridors, which are of great significance for tourism
These categories of perception will be considered in the following visualisation studies, taking into account the following visual points:
a
Visual points and visual corridors with increased cultural or historic significance
•
The visual relationship from the left bank of the Rhine at Fellen looking across the Rhine towards
Wellmich and Maus Castle will be regarded with the following three visual points:
- Former towing path (V11)
- Fellen harbour jetty (V12)
- Fellen flyover (V13)
•
The view from the boat as seen from the valley area between St. Goar and St. Goarshausen looking
downstream towards Wellmich and Maus Castle will be taken into consideration with the following
visual corridors.
•
- Downstream boat ride (C05)
The view from Maus Castle over Wellmich towards the island opposite Ehrenthal will be taken into
consideration by means of the following visual points.
- Rheinsteig, Lookout point 2 (V04)
b
Visual points that reveal relevant panoramic views of the Rhine valley
•
Panoramic views from the right bank of the Rhine
- Visual points Rheinsteig, Lookout points 1 and 2 (V01, V02)
•
page 139
Panoramic views from the left bank of the Rhine
- Visual points: Rhine castles hiking trail, Lookout points 1-4 (V 03, V 04, V 05, V 06)
c
Visual points and visual corridors which play a role in “everyday visual relationships”
a
Moving camera on B9, up the valley (C01)
b
Moving camera on B 42, down and up the valley (C03, C02)
c
Visual points Wellmich, Ehrenthal, Fellen flyover (V08, V07, V13)
d
Visual points and visual corridors which are of great significance for tourism
a
Boat rides upstream and downstream (C04, C05)
b
All panoramic visual points located on the high terraces (V01-V06)
Figure 9.1.1: Overview of the visual points documented within the examination (Source: Landesbetrieb
Mobilität Rhineland-Palatinate/CAAD/ V-cube)
page 140
This selection also includes those visual points, which are classified as relevant in the Rhine Valley bridge
competition. Likewise, the visual relationships which have also been classified as significant in the Information presentation 2007 have been accounted for as well, to the extent that they are still relevant for
the selected Rhine bridge location. 66
9.2 Comments on the documentation of visualisations
Each of the visualisations will be as realistic as possible and correspond to human visual perception.
This implies that panorama views are principally visualized by means of cinematic surround perspectives whereas video recordings are used in visual corridors (also compare chapter 2). Most visualisations
are “moving” film or photo material, which cannot be fully reproduced within the printed version of the
expertise. In order to come as close as possible to human visual perception, the documentation of the
visualisations created as panoramic views are presented in a 16 to 9 ratio. This aspect ratio largely corresponds to human visual perception.
Within the printed version of the expertise the video recordings are shown as a sequence of images, i.e.
excerpts or “stills” of the video films. In all cases the situations before and after the construction of the
bridge are brought face to face on one page, so as to enable a comparative analysis.
This type of documentation is not aimed at influencing the impact of the planned Rhine bridge with respect to its natural environment in any way. Rather, the visualisation material, which cannot be printed
entirely in its original form at this point, will be documented as completely as possible. This study includes a DVD with moving film material for a complete insight into the visualisations.
9.3 Documentation of the visualisations of lookout points
The following chapter documents and evaluates the visualisations of the individual lookout points.
9.3.1 Panoramic views from the high terraces (V01-V06)
These different visual points are revealed exclusively from the two hiking trails “Rheinsteig” and “Rhine
castles”. All visual points provide the opportunity of perceiving section A of the inner area of examination
in its entirety. Also, large parts of section B can often be seen, partly even up to the Lorelei. Here, it has
to be examined in detail to what extent the planned Rhine crossing possibly interferes with the perception of the general view of the landscape. Existing qualities such as the largely intact slopes or the view
of Wellmich with Maus Castle located above should not be interfered with, if possible. Furthermore, it
has to be evaluated to what extent the planned bridge structure can be integrated into the banks of the
Rhine, which are already characterized by strong transformations.
66 See: Cochet Consult, Landesbetrieb Mobilität Rhineland-Palatinate: Rheinquerungen am Mittelrhein. Information
presentation for the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, August 2007, as well as: Landesbetrieb Mobilität RhinelandPalatinate: Tender documents for competition, Upper Middle Rhine Bridge, Kaiserslautern 2008
page 141
The lookout points located in section A are of particular importance for hiking tourists, they cannot be generally included in the “highlights” of the Rhine Valley experience, however. In comparison with “picture
postcards” such as the “Dreiburgenblick” (view of three castles) in Patersberg or the view from the “Werlauer Pilz” they are of subordinate importance only. Apart from the unspectacular condition of section A of
the inner area of examination, the unstructured townscape of Fellen and the very dominant appearance
of the railway flyover at Fellen already represent a diminished quality of life.
page 142
page 143
V01_Lookout point, Rhine castles hiking trail 1
Situation. The lookout point east of the Heimbach valley or Fellen opened up by the Rhine castles hiking
trail reveals a panoramic view from the edge of the slope into section A, and into parts of section B. The
view of Wellmich, Maus Castle and the Hasenbach valley is impressive.
Evaluation. The planned Rhine bridge is almost entirely visible. It takes its place on the banks of the
Rhine even though the view of the riverside woods between Ehrenthal and Wellmich is partially hidden
on the right bank of the Rhine due to the required access ramp. The quality of the slopes, the view of
Wellmich and the view of Maus Castle are not impaired. In general, the effects of the bridge can be classified as low.
page 144
page 145
V02_Lookout point Rhine castles hiking trail 2
Situation. This visual point is also located above Fellen, but on the west side of the Heimbach valley
and thus closer to the planned Rhine crossing. The field of vision to the west part of the area under investigation looking towards the island opposite Ehrental is partly interfered with by the existing vegetation.
Here as well, the view of Wellmich, Maus Castle and the Hasenbach valley is impressive.
Evaluation. Only part of the planned Rhine bridge is visible on account of the restricted field of vision.
The bridgehead on the left side of the Rhine is not visible. As in the case of lookout V01, the planned
bridge across the Rhine does not generally restrict the existing qualities and the possible perception of
section A of the more narrowly defined area of examination. Therefore, the restrictive character of the
planned bridge can also be classified as low in this case.
page 146
page 147
V03_Lookout point Rheinsteig 1
Situation. The lookout reveals a view towards Fellen up to the island opposite Ehrental, and to the high
terraces located on the opposite left bank of the Rhine. Section B of the more narrowly defined area of
examination can also be seen up to St. Goar. Maus Castle and Wellmich cannot be seen due to the topographic situation.
Evaluation. Owing to its low design, the planned Rhine bridge is clearly perceptible as part of the lower
plateau (central area). It does not restrict the existing qualities of the landscape of section A of the more
narrowly defined area of examination. Therefore, the impact of the planned Rhine crossing can also be
classified as low in this case.
page 148
page 149
Situation. Similar to item V03, the lookout reveals a view towards Fellen up to the island opposite Ehrental as well as to St. Goarshausen and St. Goar. Contrary to V03, Maus Castle and parts of the town
of Wellmich are visible in the foreground. In general, this standpoint has “an increased relevance relating
to the cultural history”, since a similar standpoint is presented on individual historical pictorial representations of section A of the more narrowly defined area of examination.
Evaluation. Here, too, the planned Rhine bridge is completely visible. Owing to its low design, however,
it is clearly perceptible as part of the lower plateau (central area). The planned bridge across the Rhine
limits neither the existing qualities of section A of the more narrowly defined area of examination, nor the
perception of the general context of the landscape. Therefore, the impact of the planned Rhine bridge
can also be classified as low in this case.
page 150
page 151
Situation. The lookout reveals a direct view of Fellen on the slopes located on the opposite left bank of
the Rhine, and to the high terraces above. Likewise, a panoramic view reaches from the island opposite
Ehrental up to St. Goar and St. Goarshausen.
Evaluation. From this viewpoint as well the planned Rhine crossing is fully visible. Since the visual point
is located directly above the planned bridge, it divides the field of vision. However, this generally does not
detract from either the perception of the general context of the landscape or the existing qualities of the
landscape in the more narrowly defined area of examination. Here as well, the impacts of the planned
Rhine bridge can be classified as being comparatively low.
page 152
page 153
Situation. The lookout allows a view into both sections of the narrower area under investigation. There
are visual relationships to the Lorelei and to the island opposite Ehrental. The extensive area of the high
terraces located opposite on the left bank of the Rhine is clearly visible beside this.
Evaluation. From this viewpoint as well the planned bridge across the Rhine is completely visible. However, it takes its place in the plateau (central area). For this reason the overall experience of the valley
and the existing qualities of the landscape will not be impaired. Therefore, the impacts of the planned
Rhine bridge can be classified as being comparatively low.
page 15 4
page 155
9.3.2 Visual points on the banks (V07-V13)
There are no visual points on the banks of section A of the more narrowly defined area of examination
having the same recreation quality as lookouts. These areas primarily allow “every-day views” when
passing by, e.g. by car or bicycle. In general, the existing visual relationships are covered by the following video simulations (cf. 9.2.3). However, the visual corridors from both roads along the banks are, in
parts, strongly restricted. Moreover, visual points of historic relevance relating to cultural history exist at
some places of the banks of the more narrowly defined area of examination (see chapter 6). Therefore,
six viewing points on the left and right embankments are selected in addition to the visualisations with
moving cameras, from which still visualisations are created.
V07_Ehrenthal
Situation. The standpoint is located on the side of the B 42 (federal road) facing the river and running
along the right bank of the river. This place presently has no particular recreation quality, since the form
of the banks does not allow a longer stay. Nevertheless, an ample view of section A exists, given a special character by Maus Castle.
Evaluation. The planned bridge across the Rhine is almost entirely visible and presents a “new element
of design” in the valley. Although this changes the present appearance, none of the qualities characterizing the landscape or historically relevant qualities is hereby affected. Thus, the consequences for the
existing qualities of the landscape are to be classified as comparably low.
page 156
page 157
V08_Wellmich
Situation. The standpoint is located directly at the exit of the Hasenbach valley at Wellmich. Here as
well, the recreation quality is low, nevertheless a view into both sections of the more narrowly defined
area of examination is possible.
Evaluation. From this standpoint the bridge is entirely visible. Owing to the low elevation of the slopes
they can nevertheless be recognized as an homogeneous area. Also, the valley can still be perceived
as a whole. Important landmarks such as the church steeple of Wellmich will not be affected. The consequences of the planned bridge structure regarding the visual relationships of the inner area of examination can therefore be classified as low with respect to this standpoint.
page 158
page 159
V09_ St. Goarshausen
Situation. The standpoint is located at the north end of St. Goarshausen. From here Wellmich is visible
on the right bank and Fellen on the left bank of the Rhine. The visual point is of minor recreation quality
only.
Evaluation. The planned Rhine bridge is almost entirely visible. Neither the townscape of Wellmich
nor other characteristic elements of appearance are affected by the construction. Therefore, the consequences of the planned bridge structure are low also from this standpoint.
page 160
page 161
V10_Ehrenthaler Werth (the island opposite Ehrenthal)
Situation. This standpoint on the left bank of the Rhine allows a visual relationship to the opposite side
of the river with the towns of Ehrenthal and Wellmich and with Maus Castle. At this point there is no recreation quality, because no means of recreation are provided at the embankment.
Evaluation. Although the planned bridge is fully visible it does not dominate the landscape because of
the comparably large distance of nearly one kilometre. Still, the bridge hides parts of the town of Wellmich. The relationship to Maus Castle located above can still be recognized, but the connection between
Wellmich and the castle will be changed considerably. On the whole, it will still be possible to experience
in full the quality of the overall area.
page 162
page 163
V11_Former towing path
Situation. The standpoint is located immediately west of the bridgehead on the left bank of the Rhine
and the planned bridge. It allows a view of Wellmich with Maus Castle located above. In general, this
standpoint has an increased relevance relating to cultural history, since individual historical pictorial representations of Wellmich and Maus Castle were created at this point. The towing path itself hardly has
any cultural-historic relevance, as only a very short part of it still exists, the accessibility of which is very
limited. The selected viewpoint is very seldom frequented.
Evaluation. The present situation will be strongly changed by the immediate vicinity to the bridgehead
on the left bank. The view of Wellmich will be almost entirely hidden by the planned bridge across the
Rhine. The interrelation between the town and Maus Castle above will nevertheless remain perceptible,
since the castle itself will remain fully visible and the prominent church steeple of Wellmich can still be
recognized. In general, the visual relationships will be strongly modified. However, the evaluation has to
take into account that views from only a very short part of the left bank will be affected by the planned
bridge. The view of Wellmich and Maus Castle is not interfered with anymore when regarded from a few
metres farther to the east of the selected standpoint.
page 164
page 165
V12_ Fellen harbour jetty
Situation. The standpoint is located immediately at the entrance of the Fellen jetty and allows far-reaching views into both parts of the more narrowly defined area of examination on account of its exposed
location. The visual point has an increased historic relevance relating to art due to the fact that different
historic pictoral views of Wellmich with Maus Castle were created approximately at this point. However,
since no relevant means of recreation was provided here, there is no recreation quality either.
Evaluation. The planned Rhine bridge is almost entirely visible. On the other hand, it does not hide any
relevant elements of the appearance of the more narrowly defined area of examination. The historically
significant view of Wellmich and Maus Castle relating to art will not be affected either. The planned Rhine
bridge will not affect the qualities of this standpoint. Apart from that, there will be no other detractions in
the landscape of the more narrowly defined area of examination when seen from this standpoint.
page 166
page 167
V13_ Fellen flyover
Situation. The standpoint is located on the railway flyover between the federal road B 9 and the town
centre of Fellen. There is no recreation quality. The standpoint is considered because this elevated location permits an overview of the more narrowly defined area of examination from a place near the bank.
Evaluation. The planned bridge is partially hidden by the existing vegetation, with about two thirds of
the planned bridge visible. The visual relationship to Wellmich and Maus Castle is not affected by the
planned Rhine crossing. Apart from that, no other relevant scenic elements are impaired. Therefore, the
consequences of the planned bridge structure are low regarding this standpoint.
page 168
distance = 1,580 m
distance = 1,290 m
distance = 480 m
page 169
9.3.3 Moving cameras (C01-C05)
A total of five relevant visual corridors are documented in the following, which have a high relevancy in
the more narrowly defined area of examination, particularly with respect to the everyday and touristic
perception of this section of the valley. Since the boat rides on the Rhine are “traditional” must-dos in the
Rhine valley, the planned bridge is simulated by means of visualisations both on the way up the river and
down the river. In addition, all relevant “everyday visual relationships” from the bank zone roads B9 and
B42 are considered during the visualisations, as they play an important role in experiencing the Rhine
valley for many motorists. The planned construction and the enhancement of the cycle paths alongside
the embankments will serve to further increase the relevance of these visual corridors.
C01_Drive on B9 coming from Koblenz to St. Goar
Situation. The visualisation simulates a car travelling from Koblenz towards St. Goar. In general, the
B9 coming from Koblenz has visual relationships to Wellmich and Maus Castle starting approximately
by the island opposite Ehrental. However, these are strongly restricted due to the comparatively high
and dense vegetation along most of the embankment. Other restrictions of the visual relationships are
caused by very solidly built guard-rails. Visualisations are created from the following distances: approx.
1,580 m, approx. 1,290 m and approx. 480 m.
Evaluation. The visualisations show that the dense vegetation hardly allows visual relationships on the
Rhine, Wellmich and Maus Castle. The planned Rhine bridge itself can only partly be seen and hardly
influences the existing situation. The general situation is changed considerably only at a distance of approx. 480 m. However, the connection between Wellmich and Maus Castle remains identifiable. On the
whole, the changes caused by the planned bridge can be classified as low.
page 170
distance = 1,200 m
distance = 765 m
distance = 376 m
page 171
C02_Drive on B42 coming from St. Goarshausen to Wellmich
Situation. The visualisation simulates a car trip from St. Goarshausen to Wellmich. This area allows
visual relationships up to the island opposite Ehrental. Different sight windows to the Rhine open up by
the comparably filigree construction of the railings, or respectively the comparably friable vegetation
along the embankment. Visualisations are created from the following distances: 1,200 m, approx. 765
m and 376 m.
Evaluation. At a distance of approx. 1,200 m from the planned bridge the prominent church steeple of
Wellmich comes into sight on the right bank of the Rhine. In the background one can recognise Ehrenthal. Nearly the entire bridge is visible, however it does not interfere with any relevant visual relationships.
The visualisation from a distance of approx. 765 m m shows the outskirts of the town of Wellmich in the
foreground, on the left side of the Rhine the Hotel Landsknecht becomes visible. The bridge is fully recognizable, however it does not interfere with any significant visual relationships at this point either. The
third visualisation shows the planned bridge directly at the foot of the access ramp. Wellmich has already
been passed, some houses of Fellen can be recognized on the left bank of the Rhine. The planned bridge
does not interfere with any central visual relationships from this viewpoint either. Even when regarded
in the absolute proximity of the bridge the entire cultural landscape of the valley is visible. On the whole,
the consequences of the planned Rhine bridge regarding this sight corridor can be classified as low.
page 172
distance = 510 m
distance =220 m
distance = 0 m
page 173
C03_Drive on B42 coming from Ehrenthal to Wellmich
Situation. The visualisation simulates a car trip on the B42 from Koblenz or Ehrenthal to Wellmich. Here,
the railings on the B42 are quite solidly built, the view is partly confined by the comparatively dense vegetation along the bank. Nevertheless, there are different sight windows towards St. Goarshausen. Visualisations were made from distances of approx. 510 m, approx. 220 m and 0 m.
Evaluation. At a distance of 510 m in front of the planned bridge, the Landsknecht Inn comes into sight
on the right bank of the Rhine as the only outstanding building. In the background the fringes of St.
Goarshausen become visible already. The planned bridge is visually hidden by Hotel Landsknecht, also
the view into the valley between St. Goarshausen and St. Goar is considerably modified. Nevertheless,
the main scenic connections are discernible. The second visualisation shows the planned Rhine bridge
in a small sight window immediately in front of the access ramp. When seen from close up the bridge
structure appears very massive despite its slender design. The view of the slopes above St. Goarshausen is considerably modified, however, the town itself is still visible. The third simulation shows the
planned bridge from directly alongside the access ramp. The visual relationship to St. Goarshausen is
strongly restricted. On the whole, this simulation shows comparatively strong modifications of existing
visual relationships in the inner area of examination. It must be taken into consideration, however, that
the displayed sight windows are only very small, so that the changes caused by the planned bridge are
fractional when seen from a moving car.
page 174
distance = 1,100 m
distance = 870 m
distance = 480 m
page 175
C04_Upstream boat ride
Situation. The visualisation simulates the consequences of the planned bridge structure for the upstream
boat ride on the Rhine. Visualisations are made during the trip at the following distances: approx. 1,100
m, approx. 870 m and approx. 480 m. The upstream boat ride does not have any particular artistic and
historic relevance. Nevertheless, it provides a view of Wellmich and Maus Castle, which are significant
landmarks for tourism in the Rhine valley.
Evaluation. At a distance of approx. 1,100 m, Maus Castle becomes visible for the first time, due to the
bend of the valley, however, Wellmich does not appear as yet. About two-thirds of the planned Rhine
bridge is visible. From this distance the bridge does not interfere with any relevant visual relationships,
as Maus Castle remains completely visible. From a distance of around 970m Ehrenthal is clearly visible
in the foreground, Wellmich and the castle in the background. The planned bridge is visible in full and
partly hides the townscape of Wellmich. The pictorial connection with the castle, however, remains fully
visible. From a distance of approx. 600 m the visualisation also shows the view of Ehrenthal and Maus
Castle. Also, the visualisation shows a visual superimposition with the planned bridge. Nevertheless,
the connection to Maus Castle remains discernible. Altogether, the planned bridge will bring create noticeable modifications within the visual relationships in the inner area of examination. The entire scenic
context, however, can still be experienced.
page 176
distance = 1,590 m
distance = 1,200 m
distance = 870 m
page 177
C05_Downstream boat ride
Situation. The visualisation simulates the consequences of the planned bridge structure for the downstream boat ride on the Rhine. Visualisations are made during the trip at the following distances: approx.
1,590 m, approx. 1,200 m and approx. 870 m. The downstream boat ride has an artistic and historic relevance. Within this simulated sight corridor, for instance, John Gardnor creates a pictorial representation
of Wellmich and Maus Castle.
Evaluation. Owing to the bend of the valley the planned Rhine bridge comes into sight – depending on
the exact position of the boat –at a distance of approx. 1,600 m. However, the visualisation shows that
the view of Wellmich and Maus Castle is not interfered with in any way. Merely the access ramp on the
right side of the Rhine becomes visible in the background of Wellmich. The second visualisation from a
distance of approx. 1,200 m already reveals about two-thirds of the planned bridge. It is true that the view
of Ehrenthal is somewhat limited, nevertheless there are no relevant visual relationships, and the scenic
context of the entire valley area can still be experienced. The third visualisation at a distance of approx.
870 m shows the planned bridge in full. This perspective as well does not create any disturbances, because no relevant scenic elements are hidden. On the whole, the consequences of the planned bridge
regarding this sight corridor can be classified as being low.
page 178
9.4 Summary of the visualisation results
To sum up, the visualisation results with respect to the previously drawn up “viewpoint categories” can be
evaluated as follows:
a. Viewing points and sight corridors with increased cultural, artistic and historic significance
Apart from the perception of Wellmich and Maus Castle seen from the west of the left bank of the Rhine
(V11, former towing path), no visual relationships of artistic and historical significance are touched by the
planned bridge. This visual relationship, however, only appears very seldom in “Rhine Romanticism”, and
otherwise does not have a particularly prominent artistic and historical significance. Anyhow, the recreation quality at this standpoint is already restricted since only a very short part of the former towing path still
exists and is very difficult to get at. Therefore, it is only very seldom frequented.
The more relevant artistic and historic view of Wellmich, with Maus Castle located above, seen from the
opposite left side of the Rhine in Fellen (V12, Fellen jetty) will not be interfered with by the planned Rhine
crossing. This also applies to the elevated standpoint above Maus Castle (V04, Rheinsteig 2), as well as
to the sight corridor from the boat going downstream (moving camera C05).
The “sight triangle” between Rheinfels Castle (left side of the Rhine) and Katz and Maus castles (right side
of the Rhine) will not be influenced by the planned bridge structure either. Nor is the planned bridge visible
from historically significant lookout points, such as the Lorelei (right side of the Rhine) and the “Werlauer
Pilz” (left side of the Rhine).Therefore, the restrictions of significant visual relationships in terms of art history
and cultural history caused by the planned Rhine bridge are fundamentally minor or non-existent.
b. Visual points that open up relevant panoramic views of the Rhine valley
All elevated visual points clearly reveal the planned bridge in the valley. Due to the “low“ design of the
planned bridge, however, it noticeably becomes part of the plateau of the lower valley accompanying the
embankment, which itself has already been shaped by diverse human interventions. This guarantees that
the entire Rhine valley as a unit remains visible from all elevated viewing points, that the experienced scenery will be changed, but that it will generally not be restricted. The change of the Rhine valley experience
by the planned bridge can thus also be classified as not serious.
However, it can be stated for the elevated viewing points in the more narrowly defined area of examination that the planned bridge will only be perceived in conjunction with the existing flyover in Fellen and the
B9. These two transportation structures together create an optical “overweight” in this section of the valley,
which is generally negative. Nevertheless, it should be explicitly noted that this negative impression is not
to be attributed to the planned Rhine bridge, which was designed in consideration of environmental impact,
but rather to the disproportionately prominent flyover in Fellen.
c. Viewing points and visual corridors playing a role in “everyday visual relationships”
The perception of the valley between Fellen, Wellmich and the island opposite Ehrental is already subject
to various disturbances on the left side of the Rhine. A view of the Rhine from the B9 is practically impos-
page 179
sible nowadays, owing to the very high and dominant guard-rails. At this point the railway has not been
elevated, so that the effect is the same in terms of the view. As it is, the view of the planned bridge on the
left side of the Rhine from a moving train or car is thus very restricted in any case.
Driving on the B42 on the right side of the Rhine a view of the river is above all revealed when coming from
St. Goarshausen, isolated views are also possible from the direction of Ehrenthal. The perception of the
valley underlies very strong transformations caused by the planned bridge when driving from Ehrenthal
to Wellmich. However, this only concerns very small sections of the relevant visual relationships through
gaps in the vegetation of the embankment in that area. In the opposite direction the planned bridge does
not create any disturbances within the cultural landscape. On the whole, the transformations in the “everyday visual relationships” can be regarded as comparatively minor. The stronger changes apply only to
very short moments when driving.
d. Visual points and visual corridors with a great significance for tourism
The sight corridor from the boat going upstream with a view of Wellmich and Maus Castle will be disturbed
by the planned Rhine bridge, particularly in the section between the island opposite Ehrental and the bridge
itself. By moving the location of the bridge towards the island opposite Ehrental these disturbances will be
reduced, in general the perception of the entire scenery will be guaranteed at every point of the boat ride.
As already mentioned, the disturbances of the elevated viewing points on the hiking routes are classified
as minor. On the whole, the visual disturbances created by the planned bridge are justifiable – particularly
in view of the subordinate role of this section of the Rhine for tourism in the Rhine valley.
9.5 Conclusion
The planned Rhine bridge touches relevant visual relationships to a minor degree only. Noticeable transformations emerge for the visual relationships from the boat towards Wellmich and Maus Castle. However,
due to the low construction height and the deliberate choice to erect the bridge outside the centre of Fellen
and Wellmich these effects are reduced noticeably.
In addition, the above analyses of the development of the entire “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in terms of
cultural and art history demonstrate that the affected section of the Rhine between Hirzenach, Kestert,
Wellmich and Fellen is one of the parts of the World Heritage area, which are not regarded as highlights
of the touristic “Rhine valley experience” or “Rhine Romanticism”, and are therefore generally insensitive
to interference.
On the whole, the visualisations and the synopsis of the above steps of examination lead to the
result that the authenticity, the visual integrity and the “Outstanding Universal Value” of the World
Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” will not be disturbed by the planned bridge. The
experts are of the opinion that the visual effects of the planned bridge do not contradict the criteria for recognition of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as a World Heritage property.
page 180
10 Recommendations
For the time being it can be stated that from the experts’ point of view the erection of the planned
bridge will not disturb the authenticity, the visual integrity and the „Outstanding Universal Value“ (OUV)
of the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. The bridge is planned at a location that
is comparatively insensitive to interferences with respect to historic and environmental factors according to complex analyses of the entire area of the World Heritage property. On this site the bridge has
no visual influence on sections of the Rhine valley that are of major significance with regard to scenery and culture. Moreover, the bridge adapts to the appearance and the morphology of the cultural
landscape in such a way that it becomes part of the different aspects of the valley, which have always
been in a constant process of change. As a new transport structure the bridge also displays a high
aesthetic and structural quality.
The objective of the following recommendations is to link the examination results of the visualisation
studies with the general development of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” – as a basis for proposals
regarding the further development of the World Heritage Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”.
10.1 Pressure for change due to the general trend of development at the World Heritage
Property “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
The development of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” to become a “cultural landscape of great diversity and beauty” 67 is a process that has lasted for centuries and was not only significantly assisted by
the existing specific natural situation, but also restricted by it. It is primarily attributable to the narrow
scope of development that the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” has preserved a high degree of authenticity up to the present.
Thus, the present-day “harmonious” combination of nature and culture has evolved in the “Upper Middle
Rhine Valley” without a paramount plan for its creation. Each era has a share in the present-day appearance. In this respect the development of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” is the result of a perpetual
process of transformation. Particularly the overlay of the influence of different periods of development
gives the cultural landscape its charm and its “Outstanding Universal Value” today.
The process of development of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” continues up to the present. The objective of the inclusion in the list of World Heritages is to preserve the “Outstanding Universal Value” of
the cultural landscape and to link this aspect with a lasting future development. The acknowledgement
of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as World Heritage cannot and should not exclude structural changes
in the region. However, new developments should not be so dominant that the “Outstanding Universal
Value”, the authenticity and the visual integrity of the World Heritage property will be interfered with.
67 Cf.: UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Advisory Board Evaluation, Rhine Valley (Germany) No 1066 (1066.pdf/pdf
object), 2002, p. 15
page 181
While developing the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” it is therefore necessary to find a balance between
conserving the typical elements that characterize the cultural landscape and the lasting further development of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” World Heritage Property.
It should however be noted that the entire cultural landscape of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley“ is
currently subject to a high pressure for change. The abandonment of vineyards on steep slopes, the
abandonment of undergrowth management and the direct management of the Rhine by rationing fish
stocks, by pilot services, harbour activities etc., the abandonment of mining on a large scale and other
local means of living are clear indications that a balanced development within the “Upper Middle Rhine
Valley” on the basis of regionally incorporated and traditional sources of income and means of living is
no longer given. The only local means of living – tourism – is stagnating on a comparably low level.
The emerging scenic transformation of the spatially and geographically dominant slopes of the Middle
Rhine Valley is imperceptibly and gradually leading to a dramatic loss of visual and ecologic variety.
As long as countermeasures continue to not be taken, it can be expected that in a few decades the
picture of a comparatively homogeneous valley will appear, with large forest areas interrupted only by
some isolated rock formations. This “forest valley” would not only have lost its visual quality for recreation, it would also involve a massive reduction of the diversity of plants and animals whose habitat is
currently still linked to the currently prevailing “mosaic landscape”.
Illustration 10.1.1 a-h: (Source: Rhineland-Palatinate State Office for Monument Conservation (Editor): Das Rheintal
von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft. Volume 1 and 2, Mainz 2002; Müller, Alfred,
Dressen, Peter (Editor): Das Bild der Heimat, Berlin, Darmstadt, 1951; G. Aufmkolk, C. Grässle, M. Scheuerer)
a/b Kamp Bornhofen monastery at the beginning of the 20 th century and today
page 182
c/d Pfalz near Kaub, around 1950 and today
e/f vineyards at Assmannshausen, today, scenario of the development of vineyards at Assmannshausen,
(today and around 2030)
g/h scenario of the development of the mosaic landscape of the small-scale vineyards (today and around
2020)
page 183
In addition, the increased transport of goods by rail generates considerable impairments. The noise pollution runs counter to the development of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as a prime residential location
with a high quality of life and a destination of “ecological tourism”. Many inhabitants of the valley are currently moving to the adjacent plateaus where living conditions are more quiet, with more space to settle
and improved light conditions. The consequence is an increase in the number of vacancies within the
(historic) buildings of the towns of the valley, and an increasing urban sprawl of the plateaus which had
been almost exclusively dominated by agriculture up to now.
On the whole, it is evident that the conflict between using the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” too much or
too little creates living conditions for the population which have to be described as extremely problematic.
The consequences of this development are outlined as follows in the Environmental Impact Assessment
2008: “For some time now the districts and communities between Boppard and Kaub have been observing
a migration of inhabitants from their communities along the Rhine, an increasing vacancy of dwellings,
a declining demand for real estate and a decrease of economic power, characterized by stagnating and
decreasing employment figures.” 68 These consequences are already clearly evident on the right side of
the Rhine, which is less well-linked to the surrounding transport infrastructure than the areas on the left
bank. Particularly these socio-economic development trends create a situation which currently raises
questions regarding a balanced and sustainable development of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”.
Illustration 10.1.2a/b/c: Vacancies in the inner area
of examination, traffic pollution by the railway, new
buildings on the high terraces (ISL, RhinelandPalatinate State Office for Monument Conservation
(Editor): Das Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim.
Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft. Volume 1 and
2, Mainz 2002)
68 See: Cochet Consult / Landesbetrieb Mobilität Diez:
Neubau einer festen Rheinquerung am Mittelrhein.
Environmental Impact Study, 2009
page 184
This view of the overall situation of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” demonstrates why the idea has come
up in the past two to three decades, to understand this region “as a whole” again. Efforts are being made
to create socio-economic conditions at a regional level which will allow a sustainable development of the
“Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. The successful inclusion in the World Heritage list represents a very significant and “historic” step within the scope of these efforts. The intended erection of a permanent Rhine
crossing is of high significance in this connection. In this respect it is an important aspect that the idea
of the erection of an additional permanent Rhine crossing is not introduced “from an outside source” to
the World Heritage property, but generated internally by the local population itself.
10.2 Master plan “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
Against the background of the general development trends outlined above, however, it also becomes
evident that the planned Rhine bridge alone will not produce a “turnaround” in the “Upper Middle Rhine
Valley”. Rather, it will be seen in the region and by politicians as “one of many components” which can
achieve an improvement of the quality of life in the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley“ in the medium and long
term. The experts emphatically recommend it is essential to include the planned bridge as well as other
measures and projects for the future development of the World Heritage in a “master plan”, which will
form the foundation for an integrated strategy for the stabilisation of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in
the medium to long term. This would also be a decisive key to safeguard the cultural heritage, the authenticity and the visual integrity of the World Heritage property.
For many years, the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate, the rural districts and the communities have
been making efforts to counteract the impending deterioration of the Middle Rhine region with suitable
strategies through a special purpose association. This is evident in measures like designing the banks
of the Rhine in individual cities and communities, in the activities of the state to reduce the noise level
produced by the railway, in general urban remedial measures and – by means of a dedicated cultural
landscape protection programme – in the efforts of counteracting the overgrowth of the slopes. All these
plans and concepts on different levels should be summarized in a “master plan” which the communities
and the districts in Rhineland-Palatinate and Hesse should accept as binding.
From previous experience, a master plan only has effect if it is the result of an extensive consultation process with the citizens and, above all, the key figures of the region. In establishing this process, the result
of the present visualisation study provides substantial assistance because the experts are of the opinion
that a final decision to construct the bridge will not negatively affect the maintenance of the World Heritage status. According to the experts, the resulting scope for decision-making should be used to conduct a
constructive and transparent dialogue regarding the required measures for the future development of the
“Upper Middle Rhine Valley” in keeping with the World Heritage Convention and the Global Strategy.
page 185
However, such a dialogue could not only benefit the local population, but also the protection of the cultural
and natural heritage of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley“ in multiple respects. First, following a phase of at
least two centuries during which the development of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” as a “north-south
transport corridor” was almost exclusively supported, thus forcing a separation between the left and the
right river banks, the present situation offers the “historic opportunity” of placing the entire area of the
“Upper Middle Rhine Valley” at the centre of our activities more intensively again. Second, the barrier effect of the railway and the roads could be overcome not only physically but also “mentally” in the medium
to long term, so that the Rhine could again play the linking role it had in the past. In addition, the former
multi-faceted connections with the high terraces could regain significance, which would also benefit the
protection of the visual integrity of the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”. Third, such a dialogue could be used
to revive the prospects for the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley“ – currently a peripheral economic area with
distinct demographic and economic structural shrinkage trends, which is additionally faced with a high
traffic load – based on the “development logic” of the Rhine Valley itself.
With this in mind, the planned Rhine bridge can express a new communal self-image and spatial
understanding that will regard the protection and further development of the World Heritage area
in an integrated, interconnected and sustained spatial development, and which will be essential
for the prevention of economic and social disparity on both sides of the Rhine. However, the development of a locally and regionally supported “master plan” for the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley” World Heritage area is considered mandatory for this in the medium term.
page 186
11 Attachment
11.1 Literature
Büro für Städtebau und Umweltplanung (Bureau of Urban and Environmental Planning) commissioned
by the Planungsgemeinschaft Mittelrhein-Westerwald and Rheinhessen-Hane (Planning Group Middle
Rhine-Westerwald and Rhenish Hesse-Hane), the Rheingau-Taunus district and the towns of Lorch and
Rüdesheim a. Rh.: Raumanalyse Mittelrheintal (Spatial analysis Middle Rhine Valley), March 2001
Cochet Consult, Landesbetrieb Mobilität Rheinland-Pfalz (Landesbetrieb Mobilität Rhineland-Palatinate):
Rheinquerungen am Mittelrhein. (Rhine crossings on the Middle Rhine.) Information presentation for the
UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, August 2007
Cochet Consult / Landesbetrieb Mobilität Diez (State Agency for Mobility Diez): Neubau einer festen
Rheinquerung am Mittelrhein. (New construction of a permanent Middle Rhine crossing.) Environmental
Impact Study, May 2009
German Commission for UNESCO, Luxembourg Commission for UNESCO, Austrian Commission for
UNESCO, Swiss Commission for UNESCO (Editor): Welterbe-Manual. Handbuch zur Umsetzung der
Welterbekonvention in Deutschland, Luxemburg, Österreich und der Schweiz (World Heritage Manual.
Manual for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention in Germany, Luxembourg, Austria and
Switzerland), Bonn 2009
Gesellschaft für Verkehrsberatung und Systemplanung mbH/Landesbetrieb Mobilität Rheinland-Pfalz
(Society for Transportation Consulting and System Planning/Landesbetrieb Mobilität Rhineland-Palatinate): Rheinquerung im Welterbe Mittelrheintal. (Rhine crossing in the Middle Rhine Valley World Heritage Property). Traffic study, 2009
Gormsen, Erdmann; Flettner, Stephan (Editor): Das Mittelrheintal – eine Kulturlandschaft im Wandel (The
Middle Rhine Valley – a changing cultural landscape), Leinpfad Publishing house Ingelheim, 2003
GVS/Cochet Consult: Feasibility study for a permanent Rhine crossing commissioned by the Planungsgemeinschaft Mittelrhein-Westerwald (Planning Group Middle Rhine-Westerwald), Koblenz 2003
GVS/Cochet Consult: Environmental Impact Study commissioned by the Landesbetrieb Straßen und
Verkehr Diez (State Agency for Roads and Traffic, Diez) (now: Landesbetrieb Mobilität Diez), 2004
GVS/ Landesbetrieb Mobilität Rhineland-Palatinate: Rheinqerung im Welterbe Mittelrheintal (Rhine crossing in the Middle Rhine Valley World Heritage Property), May 2009
Heneghan Peng Architects: Planning Competition, Middle Rhine Bridge, Attachment 1: Explanatory report
page 187
Heneghan Peng Architects: Planning Competition, Middle Rhine Bridge, Attachment 3: Preliminary structural analysis
Hofmann-Göttig, Joachim: Kulturlandschaft Mittelrheintal von Bingen/Rüdesheim bis Koblenz (Oberes
Mittelrheintal). (Cultural landscape Middle Rhine Valley from Bingen/Rüdesheim to Koblenz (“Upper Middle Rhine Valley”)) Application for inclusion in the UNESCO World Heritage list, Mainz 2000
Hofmann-Göttig, Joachim: World Heritage Application, Upper Middle Rhine – Additional information,
Mainz 2001 (additional information no. 7 “Detailed information about the debate on bridges across the
Rhine, Nomination of the Middle Rhine Valley, C 1066)
Institut für Landeskunde (Institute for Cultural Studies) (Editor): Naturräumliche Gliederung Deutschlands:
Die naturräumlichen Einheiten auf Blatt 138 (Geographical Division of Germany: The geographical units on
sheet 138) Koblenz (1971), processed by H. Müller-Miny and M. Bürgener as well as Die naturräumlichen
Einheiten auf Blatt 150 (The geographical units on sheet 150) Mainz (1964), processed by H. Uhlig.
Landesbibliothekszentrum Rheinland-Pfalz (State Library Centre Rhineland-Palatinate) Projekt Mittelrheinbrücke – Vereinbarkeit mit historischen Ansichtenwerken über das Mittelrheintal (Project Middle Rhine
crossing – Compatibility with the historic views of the Middle Rhine Valley) (1780 – 1900), 2009
Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland-Palatinate State Office for Monument Conservation) (Editor): Das Rheintal von Bingen bis Rüdesheim. Eine Europäische Kulturlandschaft. (The
Rhine Valley from Bingen to Rüdesheim. A European cultural landscape.) Volume 1 and volume 2, Mainz
2002)
Landesbetrieb Mobilität Rhineland-Palatinate: Tender documents for Competition, “Upper Middle Rhine
Valley” Bridge, Kaiserslautern 2008
Planungsgemeinschaft Mittelrhein-Westerwald (Planning Group Middle Rhine-Westerwald): Untersuchung zur strukturellen Entwicklung im Hunsrück-Taunus-Raum (Examination of the structural development in the Hunsrück-Taunus area), 1982
Planungsgesellschaft Umwelt Stadt & Verkehr (Planning Group Environment City & Traffic) /Landesbetrieb Mobilität Diez: Neubau einer festen Rheinquerung am Mittelrhein (New construction of a permanent
Rhine crossing at the Middle Rhine), UVP – final version, 8 May 2009
Schmitt, Michael: Die illustrierten Rhein-Beschreibungen (The illustrated Rhine descriptions), Cologne,
Weimar, Vienna 1996
page 188
Volk, Otto: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft am Mittelrhein vom 12. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert (Economy and
Society in the Middle Rhine from the 12th to the 16th Century), Wiesbaden 1998
UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
List (opguide08-en.pdf), Paris 2008
UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Advisory Board Evaluation, Rhine Valley (Germany) No 1066 (1066.
pdf/pdf object), 2002, pg. 15
UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Report of the Advisory Mission to the “Upper Middle Rhine Valley”
(Germany), Februar 2008
11.2 Links
http://www.welterbe-mittelrheintal.de/intro.html
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinromantik
http://www.st-goarshausen.de
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mittelrhein
http://www.tuppenhof.de/franzosen/franzosen.htm
http://www.regionalgeschichte.net/mittelrhein/region/orte/orte-w/wellmich.html
http://www.welterbe-mittelrheintal.de/intro.html
11.3 Figures
All illustrations: see sources mentioned in the captions
Visualisations: V-Cube/CAAD

Independent Evaluation of the Visual Impact of the planned Rhine

Transcrição

Documentos relacionados

(XI.D.6) Attention: Treaty Services of Ministries of Foreign

TACOMA - Fido`s Farm

Design Competition Brief

Ethan Frome

Virtual Heritage: Simulations and Visualization Tools

Beyond tradition (provisional title) Antonio A. Arantes The

Acts and resolves passed by the General Court

SICT 2011 - Relatório Científico PACT

Kidz Chronicle

Awards 2009 shortlist announced