Well, NO!

A "heritage" should actually mean a heritage. When we visit a city expecting to go to some historical place which is conserved as a heritage, we don't expect to see modern high rise buildings or technological marvels like a giant 4-lane metal structure in the heart of that city bisecting the valley into two. The city administration was aware that such construction would take away this title and yet they went ahead with it. The bridge was inaugurated four years after the de-listing by UNESCO. I agree that there must be some pressing requirement for it to ease the commutation or something. So the government there must have weighed the pros and cons of it and decided to go ahead with this project. So UNESCO did the right thing to de-list it, discouraging other heritage sites in the process to undertake similar heritage-destroying moves.

But I'd advocate listing of other monuments of the city if they are worthy as heritage monuments, if not the whole city.