WHS#25

Oh, Rio...

I don't really know what to make of this WHS. Now don't get me wrong, I love Rio de Janeiro as much as anyone else. Yes, my visit, like my entire visit to Brazil, was a bit too short to soak everything in, so the experience would've definitely benefited from a longer stay. But I really truly don't understand the OUV of a cultural site like this. Cultural landscapes are one thing; iconic landscapes are another. I feel like Rio's natural landmarks fall under the latter more than the former, and to me, that makes for a weak, if not nonexistent, OUV. Sure, every iconic place is iconic for a reason, but not all of these reasons may be a reason to become a WHS. Niagara is a pretty iconic waterfall, but it sure doesn't hold the natural values that Iguazu or Victoria Falls do. Hollywood is one of the most iconic urban areas thanks to modern performing arts, but we aren't gonna see it on this website anytime soon (except Frank Lloyd Wright's work there, of course, and for completely different reasons). While Rio is certainly one of the most scenic cities in the world, it's not the only one. Capetown, Hong Kong, and La Paz may come to mind, and each of them had to find a way to fully utilize their land as well. In Capetown's case, its iconic natural landmark, Table Mountain, is now WHS, on its own natural merit. The point I'm trying to make here is simply that iconic is not synonymous to culturally rich and valuable. Iconic has its own value to it, one independent of what the WHS List prioritizes. It's great to look at, it captivates tourists all around the world, and I think that's enough.

While in Rio in April 2016, I got to visit Corcovado, Copacabana, and Pao de Acucar, among some non-WHS locations. The views from Corcovado and the Sugarloaf are stunning, as you might expect. The city sprawls below you, while other mountains rise up behind them. I can see that these unique natural formations have shaped the city in one way or another. But I don't get what makes these areas cultural WHS and not that sprawling city around it. Yes, great works of landscaping have been done here too, in the Botanical Garden, Flamengo Park, and a few other places closer to the ground. But what separates them from gardens and parks in other parts of the world? As Michael Turtle says in his review, "it's never really clear when you're actually in a World Heritage area - the designated spots are not distinct enough from the rest of the city." That basically sums up how I feel about it as well. It's not even that the inscribed areas are mostly natural features, but that no clear line is drawn between what contains OUV and what doesn't in this WHS. What makes Copacabana any more valuable than Ipanema, whose name also appears in some famous lyrics? What makes this mountain a WHS but not that one? What makes the mountains more important than the city it shapes?

Basically, Rio de Janeiro: Carioca Landscapes between the Mountain and the Sea just leaves me with so many questions on the technicalities of what it means to be a World Heritage Site. But as a true traveller, I do have to not focus on the technicalities all the time. And in this case, I think I did. Rio was great for me; I had some of the best cheesy pastries and cashewfruit shakes ever in the city. It has so many non-WHS things to see as well, like the Selaron Staircase and the Lapa Aqueduct, among others. It's just a great city to be wandering around because it's so lively. It's clearly a living city that's also one of the great urban centers of the world. It's got great food, great people, great beaches, and great nature. And I personally think it is the most naturally scenic city in the world. I really did enjoy my time there, and happy memories of Rio will always come first before my confusions. But that doesn't mean I believe it's a great World Heritage Site.