I doubt you could fit two people under there - if it was larger and maybe had seats yes, but this is far from obviously a great place to socialize. It might have passed on the long gone object based criteria, but just arguably being a pergola doesn't make it eligible under the current criteria.
It is not a Pergola. That is the first issue. The use here is a gateway. And that is the most important thing. What is the structure designed/built for. In this case, unless proved otherwise, this structure is designed as a gateway.
Then the second issue is that reviewers will look on how it meets the key criteria of a great place to socialise, exercise or explore. It is not clear there is enough information for this to meet one of those.
As a nominator our job is convince the reviewer how our nomination meets one of those. And even if eligible it may not be accepted due to other considerations.
But yeah. IMHO I don't see this passing as it is not a Pergola.
Comments
The same way other "pergola/entrances" are used to gather riund to socialize.
I doubt you could fit two people under there - if it was larger and maybe had seats yes, but this is far from obviously a great place to socialize. It might have passed on the long gone object based criteria, but just arguably being a pergola doesn't make it eligible under the current criteria.
It is not a Pergola. That is the first issue. The use here is a gateway. And that is the most important thing. What is the structure designed/built for. In this case, unless proved otherwise, this structure is designed as a gateway.
Then the second issue is that reviewers will look on how it meets the key criteria of a great place to socialise, exercise or explore. It is not clear there is enough information for this to meet one of those.
As a nominator our job is convince the reviewer how our nomination meets one of those. And even if eligible it may not be accepted due to other considerations.
But yeah. IMHO I don't see this passing as it is not a Pergola.