The Geography of Urban Heritage by Matthias Ripp & Dennis Rodwell
The following is the pre-publication text of:
Authors
Matthias Ripp & Dennis Rodwell
Title
The Geography of Urban Heritage
Submitted
14 August 2015
Publication
The Historic Environment: Policy and Practice
Publisher
Taylor and Francis
Language
English
Published
December 2015
Bibliographical details The final published version of this text may be found as follows: Link to the published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2015.1100362 To cite the published article: Matthias Ripp & Dennis Rodwell (2015) The Geography of Urban Heritage, The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 6:3, 240-276 Published online: 18 Dec 2015
The Geography of Urban Heritage Matthias Ripp and Dennis Rodwell
Abstract The heritage community has long faced difficulties with the theoretical as well as practical challenges of managing continuity at the scale of historic cities. Identifying individual components of the architectural heritage and selected areas for a variety of levels of conservation, from the benign to the interventionist, has largely proved to be the limit of attainment. In the generality of situations, where the survival of the components depends on their place within the whole, urban heritage is consequently at risk of suffering unnecessary losses. This is especially the case where the culturally sensitive historic cores of towns and cities are the primary focus of pressures for major change or redevelopment, and counterbalancing policies are not in place to address those pressures proactively. Recent years have seen a number of reflections on urban heritage: notably, at the international level, by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage Centre, and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). Deriving as they do from a vital but largely self-contained set of cultural heritage parameters and interests, their impact on positioning heritage at the core of urban planning and development processes has been limited. The essential human factor has not really been taken into account. With a focus on Europe, this article looks beyond a paradigm founded on a limited perception of values to the objective of positioning the spectrum of urban heritage within the mainstream of urban planning policy and practice. This is a province dominated on a professional level by the broad discipline of geography, in which the urban geographer is the oft-overlooked but essential ally for a constructive partnership. A second paper, in the following issue of this journal, takes the debate forward and addresses the governance of urban heritage.
Key words geography, urban heritage, community, resource, usefulness, integrated conservation, landscape approach, urban morphology, resilience, adaptability.
Introduction Urban heritage, with its roots in architectural history and urban conservation, is not typically associated with geography, whose origins pertain to cartography. Just, however, as urban heritage has expanded from a focus on major individual monuments and ensembles to the historic areas of cities including their industrial and vernacular quarters, so the discipline of geography has developed in two principal fields, physical and human. While physical geography embraces the earth sciences, human geography encompasses the patterns and processes that shape human society. This article aims to demonstrate the convergence of urban heritage with the discipline of geography, and position the two in a mutually beneficial and constructive partnership as inherent allies. The geography of cities Urban geography is a branch of human geography. It is concerned with the growth and development of cities over time, their spatial distribution and configurations, patterns of connectivity both between and within cities, processes and cycles of change, and the morphological, functional, socio-economic and geo-cultural characteristics that distinguish one city from another.1 Human geography relates directly to urban planning and the built environment, overlaps with anthropology and urban sociology, and is conditioned by human interactions and behavioural patterns.2 It is concerned with populations and demographics, determined by political and economic forces and investment strategies, and dependent upon sound governance. The eclectic coverage and synthesising capacity of the geographer’s perspective offer the understanding to explain the complexity of contemporary urban environments and the essential theoretical and empirical basis for influencing them. Given the dependence on spatial planning for the survival and beneficial contemporary use of urban heritage, and the dominant position that geographers hold across the broad domain of urban and regional planning, mutual cognisance and avowal must be considered overdue. As urban heritage is created and used by people,3 social geography that describes societal factors and studies human interactions with their manmade and associated natural environments is fundamentally relevant.4 Historical geography can also contribute significantly to the analysis and management of urban heritage through the incorporation of integrated methodologies such as urban morphology and the inventorisation of cultural landscapes. Applied geography that addresses the planning of towns and cities is a fundamental component of the discipline; and remote sensing (satellite and other aerial 1
Pacione, M. 2009 (third edition). Urban Geography: A Global Perspective (Abingdon: Routledge); Hall, T. & Barrett, H. 2012 (fourth edition). Urban Geography (Abingdon: Routledge). 2 Daniels P., Sidaway, J., Bradshaw, M. & Shaw, D. (eds). 2012 (fourth edition). An Introduction to Human Geography (Harlow: Pearson); Hubbard, P. 2006. City (Abingdon: Routledge). 3 Council of Europe. 2005. Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro Convention). Available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/CulturalConvention/Source/FARO_DECLARATION_Definitive_Version_EN.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 4 Knox, P. & Pinch, S. 2010 (sixth edition). Urban Social Geography: An Introduction (Harlow: Prentice Hall).
technologies), geo-informatics (geographical information systems: GIS) and cartography are important tools. In addition to their dominance in national through to municipal planning offices, geographers from diverse strands of the discipline are playing progressively important roles in local and regional conservation offices,5 and feature increasingly among heritage experts in international organisations. Urban Heritage Urban heritage, previously regarded as concerned only with safeguarding selected physical components of the built environment for attributed cultural values – essentially artistic, architectural and historical – today aspires to address cities more holistically as inhabited and used places, but in the absence of essential collaborative working relationships with complementary disciplines. Whereas heritage is articulated as both tangible and intangible, and the communities that inhabit historic cities are increasingly acknowledged as its primary stakeholders and custodians, they are neither engaged nor empowered as such. Indeed, much that resonates most strongly with citizens as heritage is not embraced by the academic communities and regulatory frameworks that define and vaunt it officially. Each and every historic city starts from a spectrum of distinctive characteristics. Of these, the built heritage is typically manifested to the architectural historian in terms of periods and styles. At the same time, it is pre-conditioned by its physical and human geography: ‘The history of the city is always inseparable from its geography; without both we cannot understand the architecture that is the physical sign of this “human thing”.’6 Geology, soil structure, arboriculture and agriculture determine the availability of traditional building materials such as stone, brick, wood and other fibres. Topography, regional and micro-climatic conditions determine the orientation, design and layout of buildings and urban settlements. Together, they furnish essential local knowledge for conservation interventions (Figures 1 and 2).
5
In conservation practice in Germany, for example, geographers in many of the state preservation offices are actively engaged in the inventorisation of heritage assets and remote sensing issues; also in heritage analysis and interpretation. 6 Rossi, A. 1984. The Architecture of the City (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press), 97.
Dubrovnik, Croatia: contrasting windows in the historic core. Figure 1 Historic window and shutter ensemble adapted to the local climatic conditions for daylight, shade and natural ventilation. (© Dennis Rodwell) Figure 2 Inappropriate modern double glazed window, installed by an incoming owner from Northern Europe, which fails to protect the glazing from solar glare or to provide passive ventilation for the comfort of occupants. (© Dennis Rodwell) Geography also informs understanding of the resilience and adaptability of structures and urban forms as well as human behavioural patterns in responding to varying climatic conditions, whether seasonal or cyclical over time. Climate change is one of numerous areas of current global concern in which physical and human geography overlap directly with urban heritage and can contribute to formulating appropriate responses. The distinctive characteristics of each and every historic city are manifested in the evolving and transforming human traditions of its communities. The quintessential relationship between the tangible and intangible heritage of cities is, however, frequently ignored or overlooked by urban heritage professionals. ‘A historic city is at one and the same time a physical place and a human space; its authenticity is a compound of manmade and associated natural elements coupled with a complex mix of human activities’,7 which together comprise the richness of its ‘urban tapestry’. These physical-human relationships constitute a central area in which mutual understanding and cooperation with the discipline of geography can substantially strengthen outcomes in the urban heritage interest.
7 Rodwell, D. 2012. 'The Social Aspect of Urban Revitalisation’, in Biuletyn Informacyjny 19(4): 27. Available at: http://www.icomos-poland.org/images/Biuletyn%20PKN%20ICOMOS/biuletyn%204_2012_druk.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015].
Inter-disciplinarity Inter-disciplinarity is an established and vital characteristic of the theory and practice of geography in its various fields, but while there is increasing acknowledgement in heritage studies and management that inter-disciplinarity should be fostered,8 this remains an aspiration rather than a reality. The perception remains, in various combinations both within the conservation community and viewed from the outside, that heritage is a specialist sphere, peripheral to the mainstream of urban planning policy, and one whose limited focus on the material and aesthetic aspects of heritage constitutes a resistance and impediment to change. The articulation and commodification of selected manifestations of intangible heritage is too recent a phenomenon to have discernable impact in the context of urban heritage. Indeed, its selective focus may prove to be a distraction from the core issues that inform the integrated management of historic cities. Capturing the common ground The discipline of geography and the management of urban heritage have increasing potential to be inter-connected. Techniques of mapping are shared,9 and both implicate the environment, economy, society and culture. Moreover, following staunch resistance by the preservationist lobby,10 there is increasing recognition within the conservation community that towns and cities are characterised by continuous processes of change, and need to be managed as such to safeguard and enhance their individual identities and competitiveness in today’s global market place. This advanced comprehension of urban heritage incorporates the users of heritage and functional inter-dependencies, and the role of heritage in supporting essential systems such as housing policy and needs. A holistic view, encapsulating a sound understanding of the spectrum of inter-connected disciplines and professions, is essential to capture the multiple aspects and socio-economic relationships of urban heritage. The spatial approaches employed by geographers are indispensable for the comprehension of the systems within which urban heritage is anchored, and to facilitate a broader understanding of the context within which global agendas can be addressed and local situations can be resolved to collective advantage. Thesis: a collaborative imperative This article champions the thesis that urban heritage – in its manifold material and human complexity – cannot be understood and managed successfully as an isolated subject, distinct from other scientific and societal disciplines. Further, that it needs to be more open to the context in which it operates, including its potential for fostering significantly increased social and political engagement with citizens. Geography offers vital collaborative opportunities.
8
Feilden, B. & Jokilehto, J. 1998 (second edition). Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites (Rome: ICCROM); Bandarin, F. & van Oers, R. 2012. The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing Heritage in an Urban Century (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell); Bandarin, F. & van Oers, R. 2015. Reconnecting the City: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell). 9 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are used by both. The UNESCO World Heritage Centre (for example) uses satellite images provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the monitoring of World Heritage Sites. 10 Rodwell, D. 2010. ‘Comparative approaches to urban conservation in Central and Eastern Europe: Zamość, Poland, and Sibiu, Romania’, in The Historic Environment: Policy and Practice 1(2): 116–142; see p 124.
Reciprocally, human geography – for all its established scope and tools – has yet to fully comprehend cultural geography and to embrace heritage as a significant component of the urban environment and condition.
Evolution of the Status and Context of Urban Heritage The Appendix to this paper encapsulates distinctive features of international charters, conventions and cognate documents that disclose the progression in the conceptual framework of architectural and urban heritage from the first half of the twentieth century onwards, in parallel with evolving global agendas.11 Several of these are referred to below. Noticeable has been the disparity between aspirations and achievements in urban heritage, especially where wider societal objectives have been articulated. Twentieth century conservation doctrine, aspirations and practice From the 1931 Athens Charter to the 1964 Venice Charter, the focus was on the curatorial protection of monuments based on historical authenticity and an aesthetic and historicist approach to their settings and to urban landscapes. Functionality was afforded mention but not subsumed. Fifty years on, the Venice Charter retains a strong following in the Eurocentric sector of the heritage community. From the 1972 World Heritage Convention through to the 1987 Washington Charter, the role of architectural heritage (and cultural generally) within society featured as a significant new consideration, including the aspiration that it would be positioned centrally as a factor in urban planning. In 1975, the Resolutions of Bruges attached priority to the social function of historic towns, the European Charter promoted the concept of integrated conservation, and adaptation to contemporary life together with social continuity and active participation by residents provided a continuous thread. Throughout these documents it is implicit that the heritage to be protected is highly selected, with the processes of conservation unquestioningly expensive and entrusted only to specialists. Additionally, as a self-evident starting point, the selection by historians and their homologues of monuments and urban areas for protection presupposes that those buildings and quarters which are not selected may be disposed of and lost. As such, the field was limited, and the potential for urban heritage to become a mainstream activity within urban planning – and to acquire a supply and demand equilibrium of conservation skills, materials and techniques that would normalise both availability and costs – was not attainable. The interpretations of urban heritage during this period varied considerably. Whereas urban conservation in Bologna was championed in the cause of improving the housing conditions of the historic city’s residents (Figure 3);12 in Bath, the neo-classical architecture was lauded primarily as an urban stage set, in which the aesthetics of townscape took precedence over the functions attributed to buildings and community interests (Figure 4).13 Meanwhile, across the 11
The bibliographical references for the documents cited in this section of the article are given in the Appendix. Bravo, L. 2009. ‘Area conservation as socialist standard‐bearer: a plan for the historical centre of Bologna in 1969’, in Glendinning, M. (ed). Mirror of Modernity: The Post-war Revolution in Urban Conservation (DoCoMoMo E-Proceedings), 44–53. Available at: http://www.docomomo.com/com/eproceedings2_dec09/Docomomo%20E-proceedings2.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 13 Buchanan, C. & Partners. 1968. Bath: A Study in Conservation (London: HMSO). 12
East European Bloc until the fall of the Iron Curtain and the onset of the market economy, criteria of material resource value and usefulness provided the most substantive rationale for the survival and continued functionality of urban heritage, criteria that do not form an elemental motivation for the conventional ethos of cultural heritage protection (Figure 5).14
Figure 3 Bologna, Italy, famous for the year-round conviviality stimulated by its portici (arcades). Community values dominated the pioneering programmes of urban conservation from the 1960s onwards. (© Dennis Rodwell)
Figure 4 Bath, England; Royal Circus. The urban conservation ethos that evolved through the 1970s prioritised the aesthetics of townscape over community interests. (© Dennis Rodwell) 14 Rodwell, D. 2007. ‘Approaches to Urban Conservation in Central and Eastern Europe’, in Journal of Architectural Conservation 9(2): 22–40.
Figure 5 Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation. Material resource value and usefulness largely guaranteed the survival of urban heritage in the pre-1990 Eastern bloc. (© Dennis Rodwell) The four values of community, heritage, resource and usefulness, harnessed to common purpose, provide indicators for a potent combination in the wider urban heritage interest. Twenty-first century conservation doctrine and new global agendas The 1987 Brundtland Report coupled with two documents from 1994 anticipated global agendas that have come to the fore this century. Of the latter: first, the Nara Document with its challenge to conventional definitions of authenticity, reinforced by the 2005 UNESCO Convention affirming cultural diversity; and second, the Aalborg Charter addressed issues under the broad headings of urban sustainability and climate change, which were taken forward in the European Union’s 2007 Leipzig Charter and 2010 Toledo Declaration, and the 2012 Memorandum ‘Urban Energies – Urban Challenges’. The 2000 Charter of Krakow was significant for adopting the phrase management of change; the 2004 INTACH Charter for recognising traditional, community-based knowledge systems appropriate to the spectrum of conservation challenges beyond those officially designated as heritage; the 2005 Faro Convention for its focus on human values and perception of the need for ‘an enlarged and cross-disciplinary concept of cultural heritage’; and the 2013 revision to the Burra Charter for its reiteration – contrary to much received thinking – that ‘the best conservation often involves the least work and can be inexpensive’. The 2014 UNESCO and ICOMOS Florence Declarations suggest a widening of thought processes into more inclusive societal agendas, albeit constrained by traditional definitions of culture as well as heritage.
The ‘landscape approach’: a new paradigm for urban heritage? The 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape presented a paradigm shift in thinking towards a landscape approach to urban heritage. Whereas it is too early to assess the approach in practice, certain issues are clear. First, it is predicated upon a number of assumptions that are open to challenge, especially in the European context. These include: o Rapid urbanisation: Europe has already urbanised relative to other world regions – such as parts of Africa and Asia; the challenge is more one of adapting economic development models to urban stabilisation and contraction. o A traditional selective approach to the safeguarding of designated heritage that is too closely associated with the elite World Heritage brand. o The assumption that conservation activities are abnormal, not part of the mainstream of development activities, and necessarily costly. Second, interpretation of the word landscape is ambiguous. Is it, especially with the qualifier historic, something to be viewed, related to aesthetics and beauty, and preserved – as in the 1962 UNESCO Recommendation? Or is it, as was envisaged in the formulation of the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation, something to be experienced and dynamic over time – hence, far more challenging to synthesise and communicate under the abstruse label of landscape?15 Third, the Recommendation defines the broader urban context to include ‘the site’s topography, geomorphology, hydrology and natural features, its built environment, both historic and contemporary, its infrastructures above and below ground, its open spaces and gardens, its land use patterns and spatial organization, perceptions and visual relationships, as well as all other elements of the urban structure. It also includes social and cultural practices and values, economic processes and the intangible dimensions of heritage as related to diversity and identity’.16 Clearly the multiple layers of the historic urban landscape concept are beyond the scope of a heritage community traditionally focused on simple ethical and technical cause and effect models of physical interventions, primarily to individual historic buildings.17 The introduction of these manifold new factors requires descriptive and adaptive analytical methodologies that comprehend the constantly changing systems within which urban heritage is situated and functions. This suggests that, for the landscape approach to have practical meaning, nurtured as it has been from the cultural-historical roots of architectural conservation, it requires to be placed centrally within the broad discipline of geography and assume a common scientific language. ‘The litmus test will be the capacity to adapt and apply the recommendations. Whether we can manage change effectively, and eliminate heritage versus development conflicts, depends on the capabilities to direct development with full
15
Rodwell, D. 2010. ‘Historic Urban Landscapes: Concept and Management’, in van Oers, R. & Haraguchi, S. (eds). Managing Historic Cities (World Heritage Papers 27) (Paris: UNESCO), 99–104. 16 UNESCO. 2011. Available at: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=48857&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 17 Rodwell, D. 2015. ‘Reconnecting the city: the historic landscape approach and the future of urban heritage’ (book review), in Journal of Architectural Conservation 21(2).
recognition of urban heritage and its import for the future. Fostering quality of urban life requires this integration.’18 The implications of the global agendas of sustainability and climate change are also significant. First, recognition of the need to conserve the planet’s natural resources, including those invested in existing urban fabric generally, challenges the heritage community’s presumption of selective survival – which is maintained in the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation. This opens up a far broader canvas for conservation interventions and skills, both for the protected and unprotected urban heritage (broadly defined), which only the 2004 INTACH Charter recognises. Second, the prioritisation of energy efficiency retro-fit measures and renewable energy infrastructure poses a whole set of new challenges to the definition and safeguarding of authenticity – the cardinal term in the conservation lexicon.19 Community values in urban heritage It is a core principle of the heritage community that the cultural values attributed to urban heritage are acquired and evaluated with the passage of time. Cut-off dates vary for listing: for individual buildings, upwards of thirty years; for historic areas, generally longer. Inherent also is the reality that the tangible heritage listed for official protection, following the considered advice of specialists, may well not be the same as those components of the built environment that have intrinsic and associative meaning within the present-day urban communities which host them. The non-coincidence is clear: ‘The unlisted buildings enshrine the human stories, the memories of the community. They are the real heritage. It is they that determine the sense of identity, of place, and of belonging. These are the places where the historic environment is at the heart of sustainable communities.’20 The intellectual rationale for listing, based as it is on reductionist definitions (or constructs) of both heritage and culture, creates biases in favour of those buildings and areas that are afforded official protection, thereby devaluing those urban landscapes that are most valued by local populations and minority groups.21 Given the corollary of heritage designation, that those buildings and quarters which are not listed are expendable, the socio-economic as well as cultural impacts on urban communities can be devastating. ‘When you demolish familiar places, or obliterate old pathways, you deracinate people, cutting them off from the psychic roots that nourish our sense of belonging’.22 Deracination can also occur in preserved historic quarters. As the 1975 European Charter postulated, changes in social composition should not be regarded as a pre-condition. The effects, however, are especially severe where socio-
18
O’Donnell, P.M. & Turner, M. 2012. ‘The Historic Urban Landscape Recommendation: A New UNESCO Tool for a Sustainable Future’, (Cape Town: IFLA). Available at: http://www.heritagelandscapes.com/SiteImages/IFLA-Cape%20Town-HUL%20ODonnellTurner%2028July2012(1).pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. To ‘moderate’ or ‘mediate’ conflicts would be a more meaningful ambition than to ‘eliminate’ them. 19 The European Union research project EFFESUS is addressing this challenge: http://www.effesus.eu. Eriksson, P., Hermann, C., Hrabovszky-Horváth, S. & Rodwell, D. 2014. ‘EFFESUS methodology for assessing the impacts of energy-related retrofit measures on heritage significance’, in The Historic Environment: Policy and Practice 5(2): 132–149. 20 Felicity Goodey CBE, Chair, Central Salford URC, speaking of the regeneration of Salford at the IHBC Annual Summer School, Liverpool, June 2007. 21 Hall T. & Barrett H. 2012 (fourth edition). Urban Geography (Abingdon: Routledge), 144. 22 Du Noyer, P. 2007. Liverpool - Wondrous Place: From the Cavern to the Capital of Culture (London: Virgin Books), 11.
economic gentrification is forced – as has been the policy in certain historic cities.23 The heritage community needs to broaden its constituency to avoid adverse situations and negative profiling. An essential challenge facing urban heritage is that the core doctrine of the conservation community, founded as it is on the concept of protecting and safeguarding monuments as documents of history, has not, concurrently with the exponential increase in the spectrum of what is recognised as heritage, developed methodologies that are integrated with human geography and the multiple factors that determine how urban societies function and interact with their built environments. Urban heritage, to be placed mainstream within today’s global debates, must coincide with and enhance the expectations and needs of citizens. The 2005 Faro Convention provides an important point of reference for the comprehension of the essential human values that are currently missing. In this, the geographer’s tool of cognitive mapping, which analyses and represents how a city functions and is perceived by the different actors and audiences who identify with it – be they residents and traders from within or tourists from outside – is an indispensible complement to the mapping of physical objects.24 ‘Contemporary’ as the determiner of architectural style: unresolved tensions Underlying much of the doctrine and practice of architectural and urban conservation in Europe throughout the twentieth century were successive attempts at accommodation with the modernist movement in architecture and urban planning.25 Nowhere is this more apparent than with the singular definition that has been attributed to the word contemporary: namely, conforming to modern ideas in style and fashion. The insistence in the 1964 Venice Charter that old and new fabric must be clearly distinguished and ‘bear a contemporary stamp’, and in the 2005 UNESCO Vienna Memorandum that all interventions in the historic urban landscape should be ‘contemporary’ and ‘avoid all forms of pseudohistorical design’, both reflect the continuing debate and unresolved tensions between conservation and modernism.26 Protagonists are more concerned to stake positions, intellectually and practically, than seek harmonious coexistence. Gordon Cullen’s prescription that the essence of good urban design is ‘the agreement to differ within a recognised tolerance of behaviour’ has not taken root.27 The challenge of accommodation is manifest. Whereas Francesco Bandarin, speaking in 2006 as director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, derided the notion that architecture can exist in isolation from its context,28
23
Rodwell, D. 2010. ‘Comparative approaches to urban conservation in Central and Eastern Europe: Zamość, Poland, and Sibiu, Romania’, in The Historic Environment: Policy and Practice 1(2): 116–142; Feighery W. 2001. ‘Contested Heritage in the Ancient City of Peace’, in Historic Environment 23(1): 38–47. 24 Smith, J. 2010. ‘Marrying the Old with the New in Historic Urban Landscapes’, in van Oers, R. & Haraguchi, S. (eds). Managing Historic Cities (World Heritage Papers 27) (Paris: UNESCO), 45–52. 25 Urban conservation as the ‘Mirror of Modernity’ featured as the theme of a conference held in Edinburgh in 2009: see Glendinning, M. 2009; Rodwell, D. 2009. ‘The heroic age of urban conservation’, in Context (111): 50. 26 Hardy, M. (ed). 2009. The Venice Charter Revisited: Modernism, conservation and tradition in the 21st century. (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing); Adam, R. 2010. ‘Lessons from history in the conservation of historic urban landscapes’, in van Oers, R. & Haraguchi, S. (eds). Managing Historic Cities (World Heritage Papers 27) (Paris: UNESCO), 81-88. 27 Cullen, G. 1961. Townscape (London: Architectural Press). 28 Cited in Rodwell, D. 2006. ‘Urban conservation in an age of globalisation’, in Context (97): 18–19.
Mies van der Rohe, one of the modern movement’s most influential figures, conceived each building as an individual object, never as part of the urban fabric.29 The truce which had, more or less, arisen in Western Europe by the 1980s,30 has since been threatened by the New Global Era and the rise of a new kind of aggressive modernism:31 iconic and signature architecture that begs to be considered as the heritage of the future even before it is built. In this, the practice of contemporary architecture has, in effect, taken an assertive interest in the heritage movement’s chronological expansion of selective protection, and exploited the latter’s non-negotiable commitment to authenticity in space and time. Counter-productively, the insistence by the conservation community upon contemporary as the determiner for design interventions in the historic environment has encouraged developments that are essentially inharmonious and conflictual to that environment. In this discourse, the broad discipline of geography has major potential to advance a common understanding of the evolution and development of cities beyond preoccupations with the dating and description of individual features of the built environment according to distinctive historic periods and architectural styles. Debate within the heritage community The need to revisit traditional approaches is being increasingly voiced within today’s heritage community. Jukka Jokilehto, writing in 1999, was one of the first to question ‘whether modern conservation should not be redefined in reference to the environmental sustainability of social and economic development within the overall cultural and ecological situation on earth’.32 This theme was central to Conservation and Sustainability in Historic Cities, published in 2007.33 Anne Parmly Toxey, writing in 2011, concluded that preservation needs a fundamental rethink, extracting it from a fetish with what she described as the ‘artistic straightjacket’ of abstracting and preserving selected monuments, allying it with broader agendas of environmentalism, sustainability and creative continuity, and revaluing the landscape at large for its intrinsic worth and usefulness as well as its cultural meaning.34 Writing in 2013, Miles Glendinning concluded that conservation had, in the previous two decades, displayed signs of a movement in a state of disorientation, and that it may only be able to advance if it surrenders its core identity as a specific and unique phenomenon
29 Cited in Rykwert, J. 2000. The Seduction of Place: The History and Future of the City (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 128. 30 Rodwell, D. 2011. ‘Urban Conservation in the 1960s and 1970s: A European Overview’, in Architectural Heritage XXI, 1–18. 31 Jencks, C. 2005. Iconic Building: The Power of Enigma (London: Frances Lincoln); Glendinning, M. 2010. Architecture's Evil Empire? The Triumph and Tragedy of Global Modernism (London: Reaktion Books); Adam, R. 2012. The Globalisation of Modern Architecture: The impact of Politics, Economics and Social Change on Architecture and Urban Design since 1900 (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing). 32 Jokilehto, J. 2004. A History of Architectural Conservation (Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann), 19. 33 Rodwell, D. 2007. Conservation and Sustainability in Historic Cities (Oxford: Blackwell). 34 Toxey, A.P. 2011. Materan Contradictions: Architecture, Preservation and Politics (Farnham: Ashgate).
concerned primarily with the historic built environment, and synthesises with wider, overarching agendas.35 Sharon McDonald, also in 2013, emphasized that there is a growing tendency to define more and more objects, traditions, cultural practices, etc, as ‘heritage’. Adopting the compelling term Memorylands, she connects this development with the change in identities of European citizens.36 Taken together, these echo the reference above to the values of material resource and usefulness in the former Eastern Bloc, additional to those of community and heritage in different cities in Western Europe, and encourage the view that integrated approaches derivative from the discipline of geography have much to offer. Urban morphology: an essential inter-disciplinary tool Arising out of earlier studies of cities based primarily on physical characteristics, notably the Austrian architect Camillo Sitte in the 1880s,37 the study of urban form is an important root of present-day urban geography. The discipline of urban morphology was developed in German universities in the early twentieth century, drawing on the work of geographers, historians and architects. It has a key role to play in supporting an understanding of the city in historico-geographical terms both as human habitat and a dynamic process: how and why a city looks and functions the way it does beyond a narrow focus on its architectural fabric and appearance.38 Urban morphologists examine a city’s evolution from its formative years through its subsequent transformations. By identifying and analysing its individual components they comprehend the cumulative tangible results of cultural traditions, ideas and intentions coupled with the social and economic forces that shape our cities: the urban plan – the most persistent legacy; the evolving urban grain, built form, land uses and building functions; the streets, parks, monuments and gardens continuously used and transformed through time; and the multiple layering that characterises and accentuates each and every city’s unique socioeconomic and cultural identity and spirit of place.39 The discipline is an important tool for understanding the broad heritage system and for the management of historic cities, including the constraints placed by previous phases of development on new proposals that are formulated to respect the distinctive characteristics of 35
Glendinning, M. 2013. The Conservation Movement: A History of Architectural Preservation: Antiquity to Modernity (London: Routledge). 36 McDonald, S. 2013. Memorylands: Heritage and Identity in Europe today (Abingdon: Routledge). 37 Sitte, C. 1965. City Building According To Artistic Principles (London: Phaidon). First published, 1889, as Der Städtebau nach seinen künstlerischen Grundsätzen (Vienna: Carl Graeser). 38 Whitehand, J.W.R. 1993. The Making of the Urban Landscape (Oxford: Blackwell); Allain, R. 2005. Morphologie Urbaine: Géographie, Aménagement et Architecture de la Ville (Paris: Armand Colin); Moudon, A.V. 1997. ‘Urban Morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field’, in Urban Morphology (1): 3–10. Available at: http://urbanmorphology.org/pdf/moudon1997.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]; Rodwell, D. 2009. ‘Urban morphology, historic urban landscapes and the management of historic cities’, in Urban Morphology 13(1): 78–79; Whitehand, J.W.R. 2010. ‘Urban Morphology and Historic Urban Landscapes’, in van Oers, R. & Haraguchi, S. (eds). Managing Historic Cities (World Heritage Papers 27) (Paris: UNESCO), pp. 35–44. Also: The International Seminar on Urban Form. Available at: http://www.urbanform.org/ [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 39 ICOMOS. 2008. ‘Québec Declaration on the Spirit of Place.’ Available at: whc.unesco.org/document/116778 [Accessed 10 August 2015].
any given city. Urban morphology plays an important part in urban planning policy and practice in Germany but is largely unrecognised as an encompassing discipline in the United Kingdom (Figures 6 and 7).40
Liverpool, England: view across Canning Dock to the Pier Head group, the symbol of the city’s pre-eminence as a maritime mercantile city. Figure 6 The historical view. Photographed 2007. (© Dennis Rodwell) Figure 7 The present-day view, eclipsed by developments that conflict with a morphological comprehension of city’s defining identity and spirit of place. Photographed 2011. (© Dennis Rodwell) Urban morphology is an interdisciplinary approach that positions urban heritage centrally within the functional evolution of the city. It defines and champions urban heritage’s past, present and future roles within a dynamic system; rather than as static objects of primary, if not sole, interest to architectural historians and their peers. Views methodologies: limitations and opportunities The evolution of the UNESCO historic urban landscape approach, referred to above, has been paralleled – and understandably confused – with the development of methodologies for identifying and seeking to protect representative views that are assessed to be important. Simplistically, these are popular, picture-postcard-type views of individual heritage sites from set viewpoints that serve as branding for tourist and other marketing purposes, and whose disfigurement would prejudice certain commercial interests together with visual heritage values. 40 Obscure intellectual justification for the design of the three new black structures shown in Figure 7 is given in: de Figueiredo, P. (ed). 2014. Liverpool: World Heritage City (Liverpool: Bluecoat), 48 & 104–106.
Today, a main tool for the safeguarding of UNESCO World Heritage Sites is a twodimensional buffer zone around the core zone, delineated in concert with the nomination of a World Heritage property. A major weakness of this classic instrument, developed according to traditional planning and zoning approaches, is the lack of integration with the wider urban context. High-rise buildings – accounting for a large percentage of the problems associated with urban World Heritage sites today – can be harmful to the visual integrity of a site even if they are built only 10 metres outside the buffer zone. For a better understanding of the complexity of visual impacts and connections, we need the development of better views methodologies. English Heritage has been at the forefront of developing an expanded version of the views methodology41 – whose intrinsic flaws are underlined by the failure to protect historic riverside and intra-urban views affecting World Heritage Sites in London and Liverpool, have fuelled successive UNESCO reactive monitoring missions, and led to the placing of the Liverpool site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.42 More developed methodologies, for potential application in cities that do not maintain strict controls on urban building heights – the simplest and most effective instrument – have sought to address the skylines of historic cities from a complex web of vantage points and ‘cones of views’.43 There is, however, as yet no coherent scientific system to establish inventories of threedimensional views.44 A thorough methodology would include: the analysis of urban morphology taking into account views that have been purposely designed; those that have developed and acquired recognition accidently (for example, as the result of wartime destruction); views outwards from a city to its surrounding countryside as well as inwards; views of entire prospects together with those of individual buildings or objects; seasonal views and day-night variations; and aerial views. For this, historic maps and other archival resources must complement analysis of the current situation. Through this, the basis for evaluation would be broadened to take into account the quintessentially dynamic nature of cities as places to be experienced as well as viewed, thereby anticipating a bridge between the interests of preservation and development. A comparison of two cities: Liverpool and Regensburg In contrast to Le Corbusier’s tabula rasa approach to modernity and the city of the twentieth century, Gustavo Giovannoni adopted what in effect was a geographer’s approach to urban heritage based on holistic understanding, and the principle of mutually supportive and harmonious coexistence between the historic and modern parts of cities.45 Largely unheralded in the English-speaking world, he had a profound influence across his native Italy and indirectly across much of continental Europe. 41
English Heritage. 2011. Seeing the History in the View (London: English Heritage). Rodwell, D. 2015. ‘Liverpool: Heritage and Development—Bridging the Gap?’, in Oevermann, H. & Mieg, H.A. (eds). Industrial Heritage Sites in Transformation: Clash of Discourses (New York: Routledge), 29–46; Gaillard, B. & Rodwell, D. 2015. ‘A Failure of Process? Comprehending the Issues Fostering Heritage Conflict in Dresden Elbe Valley and Liverpool — Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Sites’, in The Historic Environment: Policy and Practice 6(1): 16–40. 43 Moggridge, H. 2010. ‘Visual analysis: tools for consideration of urban views during development’, in van Oers, R. & Haraguchi, S. (eds). Managing Historic Cities (World Heritage Papers 27) (Paris: UNESCO), 65–71. 44 A comprehensive skyline study has been undertaken for the city of Edinburgh. It is not clear that its complexity provides a basis for general replication. Available at: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20065/conservation/249/the_skyline_study [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 45 Cited in Rodwell, D. 2007. Conservation and Sustainability in Historic Cities (Oxford: Blackwell), 33–36. 42
Thus, whereas the 1965 Liverpool City Plan stated that ‘The essence of Liverpool’s problems today stem from the fact that the essential fabric of the City dates from a hundred years ago’,46 thus perceiving the historic environment as a quintessential liability not an asset, the balanced post-war development plan that was formulated for the city of Regensburg facilitated the integrated conservation and regeneration of the city’s historic centre at the same time as it promoted the establishment of new industries and supporting infrastructure in the wider city.
Figure 8 Liverpool, England: the waterfront along the river Mersey from the seaward northwest, showing the impact of recent developments on the historic urban morphology. (© Dennis Rodwell)
Figure 9 Regensburg, Germany: view along the river Danube that epitomises the polycentric development of the modern city in which the protected historic core has been protected for its composite values of community, heritage, resource and usefulness. The former Salt Barn, the large white building at the river edge immediately to the left of the bridge, houses the World Heritage Visitor Centre. (© Dennis Rodwell) 46 City Centre Planning Group. 1965. Liverpool City Centre Plan (Liverpool: City and County Borough of Liverpool), 55.
The contrasting approaches adopted by Liverpool and Regensburg are clearly illustrated by comparing riverside views of the two cities today (Figures 8 and 9). In the case of Liverpool, which has developed mono-centrically and hosts serious problems of socio-economic deprivation in its established inner and outer city communities, the modern city has been concentrated and superimposed on the historic city and waterfront, and neither the urban morphology nor the urban heritage has been respected. In the case of Regensburg, which has expanded and developed poly-centrically only since the 1970s, the historic centre together with its modern counterparts in the wider city flourish as a mutually supportive whole, and the historic urban landscape – in the holistic sense that is understood in the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation – has been protected without becoming in any sense fossilised. Early interventions and rigorous spatial planning and zoning have resulted in an extraordinary well kept dense core zone of the World Heritage Site, while new dispersed and traffic-attracting functions have been situated in peripheral parts of the city. The nearby Bavarian city of Bamberg pioneered a coordinated approach to the conservation of the city’s historic core and new development and expansion on the periphery in the early 1970s (Figure 10).47 In this, the mantra of management of change, articulated in the 2000 Charter of Krakow and favoured by English Heritage and certain others, has since been replaced by management of continuity, the term now acknowledged in the international heritage community.48
Figure 10 Bamberg, Germany: the thriving historic city centre complements the expanding modern city on the urban periphery. (© Dennis Rodwell) 47
Dengler-Schreiber, K. & Hans-Schuller, C. 2010. Vom Aschenputtel zum Welterbe: Das Bamberger Modell (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet). 48 The term management of continuity featured, for example, in Jukka Jokilehto’s keynote presentation at 2014 IHBC Annual School: cited in Rodwell, D. 2014. ‘Celebrating continuity’, in Context (136): 54.
Understanding Continuity in Urban Heritage: a systems approach to connecting the parameters Context and scale of the challenge: a paradigm shift Distinct from developing regions of the world, the overall population of Europe is predicted to stabilise at its present level in the coming decades; also, the urban proportion has effectively reached its optimum plateau. Additionally, it is estimated that 80 per cent of the buildings that will exist in 2050 have already been built. Whereas the extent of the building stock that is currently subject to some form of heritage protection is low, at between two and four per cent of the total varying by country, a mean across the continent of 23 per cent was constructed before 1945.49 The challenges facing urban heritage, given the ongoing expansion in its officially recognised extent augmented by avowal of the community, resource and usefulness values referred to earlier, reinforce the view that it should be positioned as a mainstream activity within the context of urban planning rather than the specialised and peripheral field that it has hitherto held. For Europe – unlike parts of Africa and Asia – the issue is not rapid urbanisation; rather, overall stabilisation in which those cities that expand will be counter-balanced by others that contract; and where the contribution of urban heritage to wider societal agendas is increasingly acknowledged. This underscores a level of responsibility for the maintenance, and continuous processes of adaptation of existing urban environments whose realisation is beyond the capacity of a specialist field. Managing urban heritage successfully is about durability in rhythm with adaptability to change. Whereas change is often cited as the one constant in cities, those historic cities that have retained their multiple inherited attributes, qualities and sense of place have demonstrated remarkable resilience to often fundamental political as well as socio-economic changes. This suggests a level of adaptability at the urban scale that is far greater than advocates of the modernist paradigm for cities admitted. Comprehending the constraints and opportunities Resilience and adaptability require a clear understanding of the evolution of any given historic city and how best to manage its ongoing human functionality to match the opportunities presented by its physical environment: prioritising processes that contribute to durability and reorienting pressures that are, or have the potential to be, destructive. What follows is an outline of some of the issues that impact on urban heritage – certain of which counter received perceptions – and which have the potential to be informed and supported by the broad discipline of geography and its understanding of inter-linked systems. The issues cited here are indicative rather than comprehensive.
49
Dol, K. & Haffner, M. (eds). 2010. Housing statistics in the European Union 2010 (The Hague: Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations), extrapolated from the chart at p. 54. Available at; https://www.bmwfw.gv.at/Wirtschaftspolitik/Wohnungspolitik/Documents/housing_statistics_in_the_european_ union_2010.pdf [Accessed at 10 August 2015].
Migration and the inherent adaptability of urban heritage It is customary to think of today’s cities as being more ethnically mixed than in former times which, conspicuously in the context of Central and Eastern Europe, is a misconception. Inward and outward migration has been a continuous factor in older cities since their foundation, characterised by the transition from dispersed agrarian to concentrated industrial and urban settlements, and with significant periodic migrations of their diverse constituent communities, especially at times of political and religious turmoil.50 Patterns of migration are also an important factor across today’s European Union, and a city’s capacity for accommodating these changes without the need for major physical transformation is in substantive measure a question of comprehending the common factors of societal organisation between communities that are ostensibly dissimilar. There are inherent consistencies, for example, in the way that households in any given society are structured over time, from extended to unitary families to single person households, as a result of multiple evolving socio-economic and cultural reasons irrespective of ethnicity, country or place of origin. These consistencies can sustain the functionality of typologies of older housing stock beyond those for whom it was originally constructed. In the interests of urban heritage, this is a process that can minimise the need for aggressive transformations. In the Midlands and North of England, for example, nineteenth century terraced housing constructed for indigenous industrial workers who have since relocated, has proved welladapted to the extended family lifestyle of post-1945 immigrant communities from the Indian sub-continent. In the case of Nelson, Lancashire, it is they – supported amongst others by SAVE Britain’s Heritage51 – who successfully opposed plans to demolish historic neighbourhoods and pioneered their regeneration.52 The same process of integration has occurred more recently with incomers from the expanding European Union. Proprietorial as well as intellectual ownership of urban heritage is eminently transferable. Whereas overarching patterns of migration, whether across or within nations, cannot be directly influenced by any one city, the implications can be anticipated at the local level and opportunities solicited. Inward migration may well require the integration of unfamiliar languages, religious practices, specialist shops and other traditions. At the same time, it introduces new and re-introduces lost intellectual and craft skills together with employment opportunities and services into the urban community, all of which a municipality may well wish to encourage and promote.53 Perceived positively and harnessed creatively, inward migration can greatly support the core notion of sustainability which, derived from ecology, signifies the capacity of any given system – in this case urban heritage – to endure and remain diverse and productive over time.
50
Hohenberg, P.H. & Lees, L.H. 1985. The Making of Urban Europe 1000–1950 (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press). 51 SAVE Britain’s Heritage website. Available at: http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/ [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 52 Wilkinson, A. 2006. Pathfinder (London: SAVE Britain’s Heritage); Robinson, E. (ed). 2006. ‘The Victorian Terrace: An endangered species again?’, special issue of The Victorian; Hines, M. 2010. Reviving Britain’s Terraces: Life after Pathfinder (London: SAVE Britain’s Heritage). 53 Saunders, D. 2011. Arrival City: How the Largest Migration in History is Reshaping Our World (London: Windmill Books).
Demographics, and the recovery of community multi-functionality Demographic changes within established communities also impact on urban heritage in multiple ways.54 The raw statistics of population are not, of themselves, a clear indicator of demand for housing stock. The number of independent households relative to the overall population is increasing, as are residential space standards. Whereas this may be absorbed within the physical environment of cities whose populations are contracting, it can lead to problems in the provision of public services including maintenance of the public realm. Conversely, it can aid social cohesion when calls for increased levels of direct action in the community achieve a positive response. Expansion poses another series of challenges to the carrying capacity of historic cities, including where inflated property values exert pressure to develop backlands that are used for domestic cultivation, and public spaces devoted to recreation; also, it can lead to demands for increased urban transportation networks and increased provisions for health care and education. The management of continuity in historic cities requires integrated approaches that are essentially the province of the human geographer, whether a city’s population is contracting, expanding, or numerically static. Cities traditionally housed inhabitants of all age groups. Conflicts, not least competing demands in the public spaces between buildings, historically dominated by human activity rather than traffic, have rendered them less desirable and safe for young children as well as older adults. Furthermore, in Europe we live in an epoch of aging populations: typically, adults are living ten or more years longer than they are driving. The demands for accessible and safe barrier-free environments and infrastructure, including play areas and parks, are increasing across all age groups. A holistic approach to the physical as well as human components of urban heritage offers the potential for the recovery of shared spaces and community functionality across all aspects of the historic environment, especially in the public realm. Again, the geographer’s understanding of demographics reinforces the interests of urban heritage. Gentrification: an inevitable process? Another assumption is that gentrification is inevitable in historic city centres; indeed, it is sometimes viewed as beneficial.55 The phenomenon has been described extensively.56 A typical process begins with a historic quarter in poor condition but with an established population, to which students and young intellectuals are attracted followed by new types of shops as well as cultural institutions and narrowly defined ‘creative industries’.57 The quarter becomes more interesting to outsiders and gains in reputation (Figure 11). Housing begins to be renovated, encouraging better-off people to purchase and rent. The original population can no longer afford to live in the quarter and is effectively forced to move. This has knock-on effects in terms of social polarisation and loss of economic diversity, including shops supplying food staples for the local community. Small-scale artisan 54
Montgomery, M.R., Stren, R., Cohen, B. & Reed, H.E. 2003. Cities Transformed. Demographic Change and its Implications in the Developing World (Washington D.C.: National Academy Press). 55 Lees, L. 2008. ‘Gentrification and Social Mixing: Towards an Inclusive Urban Renaissance?’, in Urban Studies 45(12): 2463. 56 Lees, L., Slater, T. & Wyly, E. 2008. Gentrification (New York: Routledge). 57 Rodwell, D. 2014. ‘Heritage as a Driver for Creative Cities’, in Wiktor-Mach, D. & Radwański, P. (eds), Тhe Idea of Creative City: The urban policy debate (Skopje: European Scientific Institute). Available at: http://eujournal.org/files/journals/1/books/Cracow2013.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015].
industries and workshops which are considered incompatible with the new social profile are ‘sanitised’ out.58 This then prejudices the day-to-day functionality of the district as a residential quarter, risking either the onset of a new cycle of decline or dominance by nonresidential functions that are incompatible with the urban grain and fabric.
Figure 11 Dresden Neustadt, Germany: a transformed rear courtyard in a historic quarter at a median stage in the typical gentrification cycle. (© Dennis Rodwell) The inevitability of this process is however open to question. First and foremost, gentrification requires gentry – namely, a sufficient number of persons of means who wish to live in a given historic centre rather than in houses with gardens and private parking on the urban periphery. Experience in post-1990 Central and Eastern Europe suggests that expectations are not uniform; especially in regional cities such as Zamość in south east Poland, where the typically confined historic centre is not viewed as a prestige residential location.59 Dependence on gentrification for the revitalisation of historic cities should not therefore be assumed. Alternative models that prioritise continuity in established communities need to be identified and promoted, combining the inter-disciplinary skills of the geographer with those of the urban heritage professional. Authenticity, conservation and restoration When it does occur, gentrification not only undermines the authenticity of the human space, it can also have a fundamental impact on the authenticity of the physical place. Again, there is a common assumption that architectural conservation is expensive and requires incoming persons of means for it to be realised. This assumption, which has many adherents within the 58
Sacco, P. & Blessi, G.T. 2009. ‘The Social Viability of Culture-led Urban Transformation Processes: Evidence from the Bicocca District, Milan’, in Urban Studies (46): 1115–35. 59 Rodwell, D. 2010. ‘Comparative approaches to urban conservation in Central and Eastern Europe: Zamość, Poland, and Sibiu, Romania’, in The Historic Environment: Policy and Practice 1(2): 116–142.
heritage community itself, does not accord either with the ethos of the Burra Charter or with successful low cost housing renovation programmes in historic quarters across Europe. The 1990s example of ‘minimalist interventions’ in Lisbon may be cited, successful in securing the continuity of the built heritage in harmony with the vibrant socio-economic and cultural life of established communities;60 also, Sibiu, Romania, in the 2000s.61 Whereas existing residents in such quarters prioritise wind and water-tightness and basic improvements in their housing conditions, incoming gentry expect transformatory renovations, both externally and internally. Much work that is currently undertaken to urban heritage in the name of conservation constitutes major reconstruction and restoration: not as an essential condition of its survival; more to satisfy expectations of appearance and layout that are hostile to the authenticity of fabric and the patina of time. Restoration that makes an old building feel and look new is not conservation; it represents forced change, not continuity. Urban heritage as a focus for tourism and financial investment In a strong sense, both gentrification and transformatory restoration are products of the success of urban heritage; or rather, of the selective approach that, at a time of volatility in the world’s financial markets and international political uncertainty, places a premium on objects and places that are predestined to be safeguarded inter-generationally – be they works of art or buildings in historic cities. Urban heritage that features on the UNESCO World Heritage List is foremost at risk in this regard: from the commodification and human pressures of mass tourism; and from individuals and institutions in search of vehicles for secure long-term investment.62 This intensive dual focus on a heritage that is supremely sensitive and vulnerable to over-use and aggressive interventions is self-evidently counterproductive to its authenticity and integrity as a cultural resource – the raison d’être for its UNESCO listing. If the basic resource of cultural heritage is destroyed, then all other activities in the field become obsolete. On the positive side, tourism is not simply a strategy for urban development: it has important connotations for cultural interchange, fostering peace, extending horizons, personal development and social integration. On the negative side, dominance of a historic area by tourists, whether by all-pervasive souvenir shops or to satisfy expectations of night-time entertainment, can cause terminal conflicts with local communities.63 The Czech writer Václav Jamek, for example, has dreamt of the ‘re-conquest’ of the centre of Prague as a place where people live.64 Urban heritage as a wider community resource Achieving equilibrium for a finite reserve in the face of a global heritage marketing brand is one of the major challenges facing World Heritage cities such as Bruges, Prague and Venice. 60
Lopes, F. 2001. ‘Gestion et Politiques Urbaines à Lisbonne’, in Loyer, F. & Schmuckle-Mollard, C. (eds). Façadisme et Identité Urbaine (Paris: Editions du Patrimoine), 72–75. 61 Rodwell, D. 2010 (as note 59). 62 Labadi, S. & Long, C. (eds). 2010. Heritage and Globalisation (Abingdon: Routledge). 63 Russo, A.P. 2002. ‘The “vicious circle” of tourism development in heritage cities’, in Annals of Tourism Research 29(1): 165–182. 64 Jamek, V. 2001. ‘Conclusion’, in Loyer, F. (ed), Ville d’hier, Ville d’aujourd’hui en Europe (Paris: Fayard), 483–488.
The antithesis, achieving the care and maintenance of the broader unprotected mass of the European urban heritage, which lacks an equivalent stamp of durability and is consequently less attractive to investors, calls for a balanced approach to a quantum of building stock which far surpasses the minuscule proportion that is currently subject to heritage protection. A broader acceptance of what constitutes urban heritage is therefore of primary self-interest both to today’s focused heritage community as well as to the communities that inhabit its multi-faceted and broader spectrum. In this, the four values of community, heritage, resource and usefulness subsume complementary values including identity, sense of belonging, wellbeing, diversity and integration, and are essentially antipathetic to gentrification and other forms of commercial exploitation. Climate change The climate change agenda poses a whole new set of challenges to urban heritage.65 These include stricter laws for the improved energy performance of buildings, which can be particularly difficult to impose on listed buildings and districts whose historic significance is recognised; the incorporation of building-specific and district renewable energy installations and systems; and precautionary measures to protect against more frequent weather events such as prolonged and severe rainfall, flooding and thunderstorms. In this, connections with the earth sciences – physical geography – also need to be strengthened (Figure 12).
Figure 12 Regensburg, Germany: flooding of the river Danube in June 2013 threatening the UNESCO World Heritage site Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof. (© Susanne Hauer) Economic development Given the projected longevity of the European building stock, the major opportunity for the construction industry in the decades ahead rests with the maintenance and adaptive reuse of the existing buildings rather than new-build. The United Kingdom is especially weak in this regard, with a fiscal regime that favours new construction over any interventions, including repairs, to existing buildings – even those that are listed for protection.66 Attendant, is the 65
BMVBS. 2012. Hitze in der Stadt - Strategien für eine klimaangepasste Stadtentwicklung. Dokumentation der StadtKlimaExWoSt-Zwischenkonferenz vom 15.09.2011 (Berlin: BMVBS). 66 This refers to Value Added Tax. In the UK, new construction is zero rated for VAT, and all works to existing buildings are currently subject to 20 per cent VAT; in other EU countries, the fiscal bias favours urban heritage.
attitude that only new construction is development and contributes to economic development and growth. Statistically, in a nation – and continent – where the annual rate of new construction adds less one per cent to the existing stock, the engine for sustainable economic growth resides firmly with urban heritage, not with new construction. Anticipating this, a key passage in the 1987 Brundtland Report reads: ‘We see … the possibility for a new era of economic growth, one that must be based on policies that sustain and expand the environmental resource base’.67 The environmental capital invested in urban heritage constitutes a major part of this resource base. Community engagement Formalised systems of consultation with local communities over matters of urban planning exist across much of Europe, largely seeking responses and conclusions to concepts and projects which have already been conceived and drafted. Such signifies the early use of charrette (anglicised as charette), a term now applied extensively to betoken community participation. It is a term that is not without its critics: ‘The aim of a charette is politely forced consensus’.68 Further, the limited focus of the heritage construct has divorced the concept of the care, maintenance, protection and survival of the ‘non-heritage’ from the everyday consciousness of citizens: ‘heritage’ is perceived to be limited to designated historic sites; stewardship is not seen to be shared across a broader canvas. In this, awareness-raising and communication are largely perceived as a one-way, top-down educative process. The essential missing ingredient in the context of urban heritage is two-way comprehension of its multiple values: those that are constructed and prescribed by specialists, and those that are subsumed and greatly expanded upon by the communities that inhabit and engage with it on a daily basis. Telling a community what their ‘heritage’ is can be meaningless. Instead, establishing from citizens the multiple meanings and associative human patterns that their place has for them should be the foundation for the sense of ownership that underscores shared responsibility and custodianship. This includes: inviting children to represent, pictorially, in writing, in play and dance, what their place means to them, not reciting what it means to you and expecting them to agree; and entrusting students as ambassadors of their place and its people, both historic and present-day, not simply asking them to repeat what they have been told is its heritage.69 This extends to: inspiring children to take a lead in campaigns directed at the use of traditional materials and craft skills in historic areas; supporting young people to undertake and assume ownership of landscaping projects in their community, which they will then maintain and protect against the risks of vandalism; and stimulating ideas for the use of empty buildings and land and the design of buildings for gap sites, rather than simply asking citizens to choose between a predetermined set of options. Such exchanges are traditionally viewed by specialists as a threat to their status. Although they are being explored in some places, they have the potential to be regarded more widely as Experian, 2014. An estimate of the effects of a reduction in the rate of VAT on housing renovation and repair work: 2015 to 2020 (London: Federation of Master Builders). Available at: http://resources.fmb.org.uk/docs/VATResearchFinal.pdf (Accessed 10 August 2015). 67 World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future (known as the Brundtland Report) (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 1. 68 John H. Stubbs, author of Time Honored: A Global view of Architectural Conservation (Wiley, 2009), speaking at ICCROM in Rome, 4 December 2009. 69 Examples of engagement with children and young people are summarised in: Rodwell, D. 2007. Conservation and Sustainability in Historic Cities (Oxford: Blackwell), 168–170.
the means for the achievement of underlying objectives, to an extent that is not otherwise possible – administratively, professionally or financially.70 Community engagement is the key to stewardship and avoiding negative impacts. Indeed, in place of management, with its connotations of top-down direction, it would be preferable to adopt the language of coordination and facilitation. The digital age: a further paradigm shift? The revolution in communications from analog to digital technologies, in combination with rapidly and near ubiquitously available fast internet, is already impacting on numerous of citizens’ daily exchanges and has the potential to significantly affect the way and intensity with which we use historic cities; fixed locations and physical proximity are becoming less critical for retail shopping, financial services, employment, administration and education. As the Belgian urban planner Pierre Laconte has stated: ‘The city is no longer a functional necessity’.71 The digital age may well counter the hypothesis that the future of cities is as dense and compact concentrations of populations which, in turn, may relieve the pressure on space and property values in historic city centres. This suggests a conservation as well as an investment imperative to take a broader view of what constitutes urban heritage.
Conclusion The objective of this article has been to advance the debate on urban heritage beyond the confines of a discussion that is focused on limited specialist definitions of ‘heritage values’. In this twenty-first century, the underlying scenario has shifted from selective retention in the face of the seemingly unstoppable forces of modernism, to a recognition of the limits to our planet’s natural resources and the agendas of sustainable development and climate change. At the same time, the quantum of recognised heritage, especially urban, has experienced an exponential increase that is beyond the capacity of a specialised sector to safeguard and maintain it. The complementary values of community, heritage (in the broad sense), resource and usefulness, harnessed to common purpose, afford a potent combination for the advancement of the challenge of managing continuity at the scale of historic cities. As Miles Glendinning has anticipated, the conservation movement may only be able to advance if it surrenders its core identity as a specific and unique phenomenon concerned primarily with the historic built environment and synthesises with wider, overarching agendas. For urban heritage, a substantive starting point is presented in the core discipline that is central to urban planning, namely geography. The second paper relates current initiatives in the field and anticipates future directions.
70
Perhaps the most widely read exposé for this is: Carnegie, D. 1981. How to Win Friends and Influence People (London: Vermilion). First published, 1936 (New York: Simon and Schuster). 71 Speaking to the Glasgow City Heritage Trust, 16 July 2014.
___________________________________________________________________________
Appendix ___________________________________________________________________________
Urban Heritage and its Context: Key International Texts72 1931
First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments: The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments (1931 Athens Charter).73 The first international document to codify conservation philosophy and scientific principles. Focused on the curatorial protection of highly selected monuments and groupings coupled with the aesthetic enhancement of their surroundings.
1933
Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM): Charte d'Athènes (1933 Athens Charter).74 With contributions from Le Corbusier, CIAM set out the rules of modern urban planning according to the separation of four functions: dwelling, recreation, work and transportation. The Charter recommended the protection of monumental heritage and the demolition of surrounding ‘slums’, and condemned the re-use of past styles for new construction in historic areas. This Charter became the guiding document for urban development in Europe in the post-Second World War period, from the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s.
1954
UNESCO: Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (Hague Convention).75 In the aftermath of the Second World War, expressed the concept of ‘the cultural heritage of all mankind’; required contracting parties to protect movable and immovable cultural property at times of armed conflict, including monuments of architecture, art, archaeological sites, manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or scientific interest; and established a protocol. A second protocol came into effect in 1999. As of February 2014, the Convention had been ratified by 126 state parties.
1962
UNESCO: Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites.76 Highlighted the aesthetic and cultural value of landscapes and sites, notably urban landscapes and the surroundings to monuments, and urged a static and historicist approach to their preservation and restoration.
72
A fuller version of parts of this Appendix appear at ‘Annex A: Selection of Key International Instruments’ (drafted in collaboration with Dennis Rodwell), in van Oers, R. & Haraguchi, S. (eds). 2010. Managing Historic Cities (World Heritage Papers 27) (Paris: UNESCO), 106–109. 73 Athens Charter 1931. In: Petzet, M. and Ziesemer, J. (eds). 2004. International Charters for Conservation and Restoration. ICOMOS, Paris, pp 31–36. Available at http://openarchive.icomos.org/431/1/Monuments_and_Sites_1_Charters.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. Gustavo Giovannoni, who participated in the Congress, sought unsuccessfully to broaden the scope of this Charter to include historic urban quarters: see Iamandi, C. 1997. ‘The Charters of Athens of 1931 and 1933: Coincidence, controversy and convergence’, in Williams, T. (ed.), Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 2(1), 17–28. 74 CIAM. 1933. Available at: http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/research_resources/charters/charter04.html [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 75 UNESCO. 1954. Available at: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=13637&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 76 UNESCO. 1962. Available at: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=13067&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [Accessed 10 August 2015].
1964
Second International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments: International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter).77 Revision and extension of the 1931 Athens Charter to embrace the urban and rural settings of monuments, but not historic areas as such. Focused on safeguarding monuments as works of art as well as historical evidence; emphasised the importance of authenticity based on original material and documents; and insisted that all interventions should ‘be distinct from the architectural composition and must bear a contemporary stamp’. Adopted by ICOMOS as the principal doctrinal text upon its foundation in 1965, it remains the baseline document for international conservation philosophy and practice today.78
1972
UNESCO: Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention).79 Established the World Heritage List. Committed state parties, throughout their territories, ‘to adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes’.
1972
UNESCO: Recommendation Concerning the Protection, at National Level, of the Cultural and Natural Heritage.80 Expanded upon the World Heritage Convention. Envisioned that the protection and conservation of cultural and natural heritage should ‘no longer be regarded as a check on national development but as a determining factor in [it]’.
1975
ICOMOS: The Resolutions of Bruges: Principles Governing the Rehabilitation of Historic Towns.81 Expressed that historic towns ‘hold the living roots of local communities, express their identity and give man his bearings in time and space.’ Extoling the need to conserve them, including for their human scale, beauty, and the ‘the enormous capital of buildings they represent’, the document also stated that whereas ‘The preservation of historic towns is certainly justified by their cultural and aesthetic value, a stronger justification still is to be found in their social function, as the natural meeting place of the urban community and as a diversified habitat’. The Resolutions of Bruges additionally emphasised the importance of respecting the rights of the inhabitants of historic towns, and that ‘Historic towns can only be preserved within the framework of city and regional planning programmes’. Guidelines for implementation were set out at the 1975 ICOMOS General Assembly in the Resolutions of the International Symposium on the Conservation of Smaller Historic Towns.82
1975
Council of Europe: European Charter of the Architectural Heritage (European Charter).83 Defined the architectural heritage as ‘a capital of irreplaceable spiritual, cultural, social and
77
Venice Charter. 1964. In: Petzet and Ziesemer. 2004, pp. 37–42. The Venice Charter was re-affirmed in the 2004 ICOMOS Pécs Declaration. Available at: http://www.icomos.org/venicecharter2004/pecsdeclaration.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. Also, at the 2014 ICOMOS General Assembly held in Florence. As noted by Jukka Jokilehto, the Venice Charter was written in French and only translated into English later, resulting in some misinterpretations that remain unresolved: reported in Context (136): 19. 79 UNESCO. 1972. In: Petzet and Ziesemer. 2004, pp. 43–61. 80 UNESCO. 1972. Available at: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=13087&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [Accessed 10 August 2015]. See also: Rodwell, D. 2012. ‘The UNESCO World Heritage Convention, 1972–2012: Reflections and Directions’, in The Historic Environment: Policy and Practice 3(1): 64–85. 81 ICOMOS. 1975. Available at: http://www.international.icomos.org/publications/93towns7k.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 82 ICOMOS. 1975. Available at: http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts/180-articles-en-francais/charteset-normes/384-resolutions-of-the-international-symposium-on-the-conservation-of-smaller-historic-towns-atthe-4th-icomos-general-assembly [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 83 Council of Europe. 1975. Available at: http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts/179-articles-enfrancais/ressources/charters-and-standards/170-european-charter-of-the-architectural-heritage [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 78
economic value’, and broadened historic monuments to include ‘groups of lesser buildings in our old towns’. Introduced the concept of integrated conservation, recognising that the future of the architectural heritage depended on its appreciation by citizens and the weight attached to it within the framework of urban and regional planning. The contemporaneous 1975 Declaration of Amsterdam outlined policy objectives for implementation,84 extended the remit to include ‘all areas of towns or villages of historic or cultural interest’, and included the expectation that ‘the rehabilitation of old areas [should not] necessitate a major change in the social composition of the residents’. 1976
UNESCO: Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas (Nairobi Recommendation).85 Asserted the role of historic areas (including vernacular) in defining cultural diversity and community identity, the need to integrate them harmoniously into ‘the life of contemporary society [as] a basic factor in town-planning and land development’, and urged ‘comprehensive and energetic policies for [their] protection and revitalisation’ integral with their surroundings. Importance was attached to continuity of human activities in historic areas, including traditional living patterns and crafts, on an equal footing with protection of the buildings, established plot sizes, and overall spatial organisation; further, ‘it is most important that safeguarding measures should not lead to a break in the social fabric’.
1981
ICOMOS: Historic Gardens (Florence Charter);86 registered in 1982 as an addendum to the Venice Charter. The Florence Charter emphasised the specific singularities of the historic garden in its setting, ‘Whether or not it is associated with a building in which case it is an inseparable complement, the historic garden cannot be isolated from its own particular environment, whether urban or rural, artificial or natural’.
1985
Council of Europe: Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe (Granada Convention).87 Re-affirmed the 1975 European Charter’s commitment to integrated conservation, and referred to ‘conserving the architectural heritage, both as an element of cultural identity and as a source of inspiration and creativity for present and future generations’.
1987
United Nations: Our Common Future (Brundtland Report).88 Highlighted the conclusion that current patterns of resource consumption and environmental degradation cannot continue, and that economic development must adapt to the planet’s ecological limits. Popularised the term sustainable development, encapsulated by the three components of environment, economy and society (see 2010 Toledo Declaration below).
1987
ICOMOS: Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas (Washington Charter).89 Paraphrased the conservation of historic cities and areas as ‘those steps necessary for [their] protection, conservation and restoration … as well as their development and harmonious adaptation to contemporary life’. Stated that urban conservation should be integral with coherent policies for socio-economic development and urban and regional planning policies at all levels; described the improvement of housing as a basic objective; and
84 Council of Europe. 1975. Available at: http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts/179-articles-enfrancais/ressources/charters-and-standards/169-the-declaration-of-amsterdam [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 85 UNESCO. 1976. Available at: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=13133&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 86 ICOMOS-IFLA. 1981. In: Petzet and Ziesemer. 2004, pp. 89–97. 87 Council of Europe. 1985. Available at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/121.htm [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 88 World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Available at: http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 89 ICOMOS. 1987. In: Petzet and Ziesemer. 2004, pp. 98–103.
emphasised the importance of active participation by residents whom it saw as the primary stakeholders. 1991
The First International Symposium of World Heritage Cities: The Quebec City Declaration.90 Recognising the major challenges faced by World Heritage Cities, the Declaration identified that the underlying problems ‘are not limited to issues of physical conservation. That is why responsibility for urban heritage management cannot remain in the hands of conservation experts alone, but must be shared by elected officials, practitioners, and citizens alike.’ The Declaration included a resolution for the establishment of a network, which led in 1993 to the founding of the Organisation of World Heritage Cities (OWHC).91 The main aims of the network are gathering and disseminating information on management to develop a management guide for World Heritage Cities; promoting research; and providing support for organising symposia for historic cities.
1994
European Conference on Sustainable Cities and Towns: Charter of European Cities and Towns Towards Sustainability (Aalborg Charter).92 Recognised the need to conserve and invest in the world’s natural capital and the vital role that cities – as the focus of resource consumption – have to play in adapting lifestyles and spatial patterns to achieve environmental and economic sustainability and social justice; further, in addressing global warming. Urged an ecosystem approach to urban management, and envisioned a greatly increased role for citizens in establishing and implementing action plans for sustainable local communities (Local Agenda 21).
1994
Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention: Nara Document on Authenticity (Nara Document).93 Challenged conventional, essentially Westernbased definitions of authenticity to manifest greater respect for cultural and heritage diversity, and to broaden the parameters for the assessment of the cultural values of properties proposed for the World Heritage List and other inventories. It is of particular relevance in the context of this article in questioning the conservation movement’s preoccupation, in interpretations of documents such as the 1964 Venice Charter and the 2005 Vienna Memorandum, with distinguishing contemporary interventions from original fabric or historical styles. The Nara Document was re-affirmed as Nara + 20: On heritage practices, cultural values and the concept of authenticity in 2014,94 in which authenticity was interpreted as ‘A culturally contingent quality associated with a heritage place, practice, or object that conveys cultural value; is recognized as a meaningful expression of an evolving cultural tradition; and/or evokes among individuals the social and emotional resonance of group identity’. In 2012, preparatory to Nara + 20, The Himeji Recommendations affirmed that ‘The attribution of values to heritage is a social rather than a scientific or technical process involving multiple individuals and groups’, and ‘Values attributed to heritage are dynamic and may change over time …. Certain categories of heritage are particularly dynamic, meeting evolving social needs. There needs to be further discussion on the way in which varying perspectives on change and continuity affect the prioritization of values. More discussion is needed on the extent to which the assessment of authenticity can accommodate the evolution of heritage values over time.’95
90
Available at: http://www.international.icomos.org/publications/93towns7v.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. Organisation of World Heritage Cities: http://www.ovpm.org/en [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 92 European Conference on Sustainable Cities and Towns. 1984. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/pdf/aalborg_charter.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 93 Nara Conference on Authenticity. 1994. In: Petzet and Ziesemer. 2004, pp. 118–121. 94 Nara + 20. 2014. Available at: http://www.japan-icomos.org/pdf/nara20_en.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 95 The Himeji Recommendations. 2012. https://nara2014.wordpress.com/himeji-recommendation/ [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 91
1994
ICCROM: Integrated Territorial and Urban Conservation (ITUC).96 A training programme that developed concepts related to integrated urban conservation and anticipated the UNESCO historic urban landscape approach.
1995
OWHC: Bergen Protocol on Communications and Relations among Cities of the Organization of World Heritage Cities (Bergen Protocol).97 Underlined the importance of identifying tools for a responsible management of historic urban areas, and invited other organisations concerned with the care of cultural heritage to participate in OWHC projects.
1996
ICOMOS: Principles for the Recording of Monuments, Groups of Buildings and Sites (Sofia).98 Set out the main reasons, responsibilities, planning measures, contents and management requirements for recording the cultural heritage, including in an urban context.
2000
Council of Europe: European Landscape Convention (Florence Convention).99 Described landscape as a ‘basic component of the European natural and cultural heritage, … in urban areas and in the countryside, … in areas recognised as being of outstanding beauty as well as everyday areas’, and promoted the protection, management and planning of the landscape ‘as an essential component of peoples’ surroundings, an expression of the diversity of their … heritage, and a foundation of their identity’.
2000
International Conference on Conservation: Principles for the Conservation and Restoration of Built Heritage (Krakow Charter 2000).100 Stressed that ‘historic towns and villages … should be seen as a whole with the structures, spaces and human factors, normally in the process of continuous evolution and change’. Recognised the need for urban conservation to refer ‘to the city in its morphological, functional and structural whole, as part of its territory, its environment and surrounding landscape’, and to plan for the management of change.
2003
UNESCO: Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.101 Affirmed ‘the importance of the intangible cultural heritage as a mainspring of cultural diversity and a guarantee of sustainable development … [and] the deep-seated interdependence between the intangible cultural heritage and the tangible cultural and natural heritage’. Established the ‘Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity’. (The United Kingdom has yet to ratify this Convention.)
2004
India National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH): Charter for the Conservation of Unprotected Architectural Heritage Sites in India (INTACH Charter).102 Recognised that established international norms are not necessarily best suited to the traditional knowledge systems and skills appropriate to the unprotected architectural heritage – which it characterised as the ‘living heritage’. Echoing the 1994 Nara Document, this Charter urged that parallel, community-specific systems of conservation ethics are needed in order to sustain local conservation practices and definitions of authenticity.
96
Jokilehto, J. 1999. ‘ITUC, Programme: Phase I (1994– 1998) – Summary Report’ (Rome: ICCROM). Available at: http://cif.icomos.org/pdf_docs/Documents%20on%20line/ITUC_report_2-99.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 97 OWHC. 1995. Available at: http://icomosubih.ba/pdf/suradnja/Bergen_Protocol.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 98 ICOMOS. 1996. In: Petzet and Ziesemer. 2004, pp. 131–138. 99 Council of Europe. 2000. Available at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 100 The International Conference on Conservation. 2000. Available at: http://www.triestecontemporanea.it/pag5-e.htm [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 101 UNESCO. 2003. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=EN&pg=00022 [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 102 INTACH. 2004. Available at: http://architexturez.net/doc/az-cf-21208 [Accessed 10 August 2015].
2005
UNESCO: Vienna Memorandum on World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture – Managing the Historic Urban Landscape (Vienna Memorandum).103 Recognised that the ‘central challenge of contemporary architecture in the historic urban landscape is to respond to development dynamics in order to facilitate socio-economic changes and growth on the one hand, while simultaneously respecting the inherited townscape and its landscape setting on the other’. The Memorandum’s insistence that all interventions in the historic environment should be ‘contemporary’ has attracted controversy, encouraged inharmonious developments, and lacked coincidence with the 2005 UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity.
2005
UNESCO: Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.104 Affirmed cultural diversity as a defining characteristic and common heritage of humanity, a mainspring for sustainable development for communities, peoples and nations, and emphasised the need for it to flourish ‘within a framework of democracy, tolerance, social justice and mutual respect between peoples and cultures’.
2005
ICOMOS: Xi’an Declaration on the Conservation of the Settings of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas (Xi’an Declaration).105 Addressed the need to protect and sustain the settings of heritage areas from threats posed by the rapid or incremental transformation of cities and landscapes resulting from changes in lifestyles and development. Defined setting in terms of the immediate and extended environment, to embrace the physical and visual aspects including interaction with the natural environment as well as the current and dynamic cultural, social and economic context.
2005
Council of Europe: Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro Convention).106 Recognised ‘the need to put people and human values at the centre of an enlarged and cross-disciplinary concept of cultural heritage’; ‘the value and potential of cultural heritage wisely used as a resource for sustainable development and quality of life in a constantly evolving society’; and ‘the need to involve everyone in society in the ongoing process of defining and managing cultural heritage’.
2007
European Union: Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities (Leipzig Charter).107 Advanced the debate on integrated urban development as a prerequisite for sustainable urban development. Recognised the unique cultural and architectural qualities of European cities, their contribution to territorial cohesion, and the need for enhanced networking and exchange of experiences. The Leipzig Charter was revisited in 2012.108 The results disclose a general trend: strategies for Sustainable European Cites have been adopted in national agendas and/or community programmes while either referring directly to the Leipzig Charter or respecting its elements. Furthermore, it documented that in spite of the economic crisis, programmes on integrated urban development have risen in their reputation.
103
UNESCO. 2005. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-47-2.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 104 UNESCO, 2005: Available at: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=31038&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 105 ICOMOS. 2005. Available at: http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/xian-declaration.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 106 Council of Europe. 2005. Available at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/199.htm [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 107 Council of Europe. 2007. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/themes/urban/leipzig_charter.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. Background study: Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs. 2007. Integrated Urban Development – a Prerequisite for Urban Sustainability in Europe. Available at: http://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/EN/Publications/OnlinePublications/2007/DL_EU_09_07.pdf?__blob=publicat ionFile&v=2 [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 108 Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development. 2012. 5 Years after the LEIPZIG CHARTER – Integrated Urban Development as a Prerequisite for a Sustainable City (Berlin: BMBVS).
2010
European Union: Toledo Declaration on Urban Development.109 Represented the long-term challenges of globalisation, climate change, pressure on resources, migrations, ageing and demographic change as ‘a wake-up call’ to chart a firm course based on improving the economic performance, eco-efficiency and social cohesion of existing cities, including a ‘more sustainable and socially inclusive model in the whole built environment and in all the social fabrics of the existing city’. Acknowledged the important role of ‘existing urban fabrics and built environment’, of ‘urban recycling’, ‘genuine “green, ecological or environmental” regeneration’, and the renovation and upgrading of the existing housing stock ‘by improving their functionality, promoting diversity and adapting residential typologies to new family and demographic patterns’. Referred to the multiple dimensions of sustainability as ‘economic, social, environmental, cultural and governance’ (see 1987 Brundtland Report above).
2011
UNESCO: Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape.110 Defined ‘the historic urban landscape [as] the urban area understood as the result of a historic layering of cultural and natural values and attributes, extending beyond the notion of “historic centre” or “ensemble” to include the broader urban context and its geographical setting’. Addressed ‘the need to better integrate and frame urban heritage conservation strategies within the larger goals of overall sustainable development’, including to the objective of maintaining urban identity, and suggested ‘a landscape approach for identifying, conserving and managing historic areas within their broader urban contexts, by considering the interrelationships of their physical forms, their spatial organization and connection, their natural features and settings, and their social, cultural and economic values’. As a critical first step, proposed that member states should ‘undertake comprehensive surveys and mapping of historic cities’ natural, cultural and human resources’.111
2011
ICOMOS: Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of Historic Cities, Towns and Urban Areas.112 Updated the 1987 ICOMOS Washington Charter coincidentally with the UNESCO historic urban landscape initiative. Stated: ‘It is fundamental to consider heritage as an essential resource, as part of the urban ecosystem. This concept must be strictly respected in order to ensure harmonious development of historic towns and their settings’. These principles set out a much fuller agenda for the protection of urban heritage viewed from the perspective of the advisory body with primary responsibility for the evaluation of cultural heritage World Heritage nominations.
2012
Urban Energies: Memorandum ‘Urban Energies - Urban Challenges’.113 With reference to the 2007 Leipzig Charter, this memorandum stressed the cautious ecological transformation of cities and the role of the architectural heritage in the achievement of sustainable urban development.
109
European Union. 2010. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/newsroom/pdf/201006_toledo_declaration_en.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015] 110 UNESCO. 2011. Available at: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=48857&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 111 UNESCO. 2011. ‘Action Plan to Accompany the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape.’ Available at: http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/culture/Mayor_Forum/Action_Plan_HUL.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 112 ICOMOS. 2011. Available at: http://www.international.icomos.org/Paris2011/GA2011_CIVVIH_text_EN_FR_final_20120110.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 113 BMUB. 2012. Available at: http://www.bmub.bund.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Nationale_Stadtentwicklung/staedtische_ene rgien_memorandum_en.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015].
2013
ICOMOS-Australia: Charter for Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter; first adopted in 1979).114 Stressed the importance of understanding and safeguarding significance, including through the informed unravelling of historic layers, in ways that encapsulate a place’s aesthetic, historic, scientific and spiritual values: from the past, in the present, and for the future. Concerning resources for conservation, explained that ‘the best conservation often involves the least work and can be inexpensive’.
2014
Third UNESCO World Forum on Culture and Cultural Industries: Florence Declaration – Culture, Creativity and Sustainable Development. Research, Innovation, Opportunities (UNESCO Florence Declaration).115 Articulated the connections that should be made between heritage protection and the creative industries, and advanced the value that culture and innovation can bring to inclusive social and economic development and environmental sustainability, including as a preamble to the United Nations post-2015 development agenda. This Declaration included reference to the 2013 Hangzhou Declaration: Placing Culture at the Heart of Sustainable Development Policies.116
2014
ICOMOS: Florence Declaration on Heritage and Landscape as Human Values (ICOMOS Florence Declaration).117 Celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Venice Charter and the 20th anniversary of the Nara Document. Aimed at defining principles, strategies, standards and practices that can contribute both to the recognition of the human values of cultural heritage and at safeguarding and encouraging cultural diversity. The Declaration addressed empowering communities and tourists, fostering cultural interactions and communications, and recognising the value of traditional knowledge systems and practices. Favouring community-based bottom-up approaches for the effective conservation and management of heritage, it expressed that ‘The role of heritage professionals should be recognized as being that of providing technical advice in community-led conservation initiatives and that of a facilitator when a community’s engagement with its heritage is fragmented.’ The implications of this Declaration have yet to filter though the international heritage community.
___________________________________________________________________________
114 ICOMOS-Australia. 2013. Available at: http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Burra-Charter2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 115 UNESCO. 2014. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/system/files/Florence%20Declaration_4%20October%202014_EN_3.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 116 Hangzhou International Congress. 2013. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/images/FinalHangzhouDeclaration20130517.p df [Accessed 10 August 2015]. 117 ICOMOS. 2014. Available at: http://florence2014.icomos.org/documents/Florence-Declaration_revSCJTrevML_sc.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015].
Biographies Matthias Ripp, a senior heritage manager with a background of historical geography, is coordinating the Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof World Heritage Site. Among his main interests are integrated heritage management, heritage communication, and the resilience of urban heritage. He is active in numerous networks such as Heritage Europe, ICOMOS and the German Association of Cities, and is also a member of the European Heritage Panel and Regional Coordinator for the Organisation of World Heritage Cities (OWHC). He writes and publishes on integrated heritage management, heritage communication and related topics. Further information including a bibliography of publications may be found on: www.xing.com/profile/Matthias_Ripp Correspondence to: Matthias Ripp, Drackenstein 10, 93128 Regenstauf, Germany. Email:
[email protected] Dennis Rodwell is a consultant architect-planner. He works internationally in the field of cultural heritage, focused on the promotion and achievement of best practice in the management of the broadly defined historic environment. He has been rapporteur and author to UNESCO and ICOMOS events and publications focused on the Historic Urban Landscape initiative. He writes and publishes widely on the theme of conservation and sustainability in historic cities. Further information including a bibliography of publications may be found on: www.dennisrodwell.co.uk/ Correspondence to: Dennis Rodwell, Greenside Park, St Boswells, Melrose, Roxburghshire TD6 0AH, Scotland. Email:
[email protected]
