THE CONCEPT OF MODERN HERITAGE VALUES–AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF URBAN HERITAGE MANAGEMENT (original) (raw)
Related papers
Changes of meaning and perspectives for the destinies of the built Heritage
2022
It is difficult to say what Restoration is today and what place it occupies among the disciplines of architecture, in the fields of education, research and profession. Equally complex is to delimit the concept of Cultural Heritage, which is increasingly extended and differentiated by scale, types of artefacts, age of formation, etc. Furthermore, it is increasingly subject to risks of various kinds that cast doubts on its survival and transmission to the future. On the other hand, we still live in a "liquid" and ever faster changing contemporaneity, according to Zygmunt Bauman, while for the philosopher Umberto Garimberti it would be almost "cemented" and blocked (Palese 2014). Our relationship with the traces of the many pasts that preceded us cannot ignore this fragile, uncertain, but also open nature of the time we live and those that await us. Marc Augè, in this regard, questioned about the two great ways of relating to the future in different human societies-one that makes the future a consequence of the past: the intrigue, the other that makes it a birth: the inauguration-which find their institutional and cultural expressions (Augé 2012, 14). Even the ways in which each era and each community have lived, recognized, interpreted, preserved, or innovated their own built heritage of cultural interest and value seem to be attributable to the metaphorical figures of "intrigue" and "inauguration". Many protagonists of the life of our cities, landscapes, and territories, on the other hand, now claim the right/duty to act on that heritage, often generating radical conflicts between different ideal and operational visions and perspectives and, at times, irreversible losses of its "relevant parts". The contribution therefore proposes an ideal reflection on these themes and similar perspectives, also with reference to current events and concrete and operational situations at the local scale but not only.
'The Geography of Urban Heritage', 2015 08 (text)
The heritage community has long faced difficulties with the theoretical as well as practical challenges of managing continuity on 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 Organization (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 paper 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 often-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.
socio.hu, 2018
One can hardly find two more broadly discussed -and somewhat related -expressions than heritage and the city, which also suggest numerous other major topics such as cultural value, sustainability, creative industry or social inclusion. Accordingly the book by its title assumes a very rich and multifarious reading that is also the expressed aim of the editors who writes in the introductory chapter "we hope that the volume will inspire further reflection and broaden the scope of the discussions dedicated to the city among heritage experts and professionals [S]imultaneously, in the case of the city-loving non-professional readership" (p. 11). This wish is truly fulfilled with the publication of this 2017 work, edited by Robert Kusek and Jacek Purchla. The book is the product of the International Cultural Centre in Krakow, Poland, one of the most prestigious research institutes of (among other disciplines heritage studies in Central Europe). It manages numerous innovative cultural projects, and supports specialists with its outstanding library, summer schools and conferences.
The dual logic of heritage in the field of architecture
2015
In the field of architecture, a patrimonial nomination marks an explicit context for urban intervention, from the conceptual level till the project. In spite of the fact that heritage plays an important role in some strategic fields of contemporary life, such as the economic and social fields, it is also still a controversial issue. The main dichotomist position was reached in the early 30’s of the 20th century, by the two Athens Charters, in which architects discuss the field of heritage and its importance for contemporary life, leading to conflicting views. On the one hand, we have a group that defends that the perspective of heritage is an ineffective way to confront urban growth, and, on the other hand, there are those who assume heritage as a strategic opportunity for sustainably maintaining urban development. However, even the former, mostly influenced by modern architecture and Le Corbusier’s rationale, embrace the new reality and react differently to heritage. After all, pro...
The making and unmaking of Heritage
2015
Heritage is defined by history which is by nature multi layered. The passage of time and the perspectives it affords, enables and even necessitates constant reexamination and reinterpretation of history. What effect do changes in historical perspective then have upon the definition of heritage which relies on an understanding of its history? The present paper attempts to engage with the notion of heritage, criteria of its definition, and the mutable nature of such designations with specific reference to architectural constructions and historical cities that enjoy or have enjoyed in the past the status of a ‘World Heritage Site’. Examples such as the Louvre museum in Paris or the King’s Cross station in London make an interesting study as they not only allow insight into the past but reflect the changes and adaptation over a period of time. Multiple alterations, some very recently, have modified them extensively since the time they were accorded the ‘World Heritage Site’ status. The ...
'The Values of Heritage A New Paradigm for the 21st Century', 2017 05 (pp. 99-105)
The traditional 20th century approach to architectural heritage focused on attributed cultural values. In the Postwar era, these were predicated on the hypothesis that only selected, designated examples of our built heritage would survive the drive to adapt and modernise our homes, towns and cities. This assumption conflicts with today’s agendas of sustainable development and climate change, which embrace wider societal, cultural and environmental issues and recognise additional, complementary values: including community, resource, and usefulness. Awareness raising is a critical challenge for the preservation and maintenance of Postwar to Postmodern built cultural heritage in the 21st century. This paper explores the importance of promoting a holistic understanding of the concept of heritage, the range of values which support the protection and conservation of our 20th century built heritage over and above a narrow focus on often non-consensual cultural ones, and the role of this heritage as a driver for sustainable urban development in the 21st century.
From the ‘monumental’ to the ‘living’ heritage: a shift in perspective
"After the adoption of the 1972 Convention the meaning and definition of Cultural Heritage went through adjustment and reconsideration which brought to a widening of the idea of cultural heritage. Cultural landscapes and industrial archaeology are just some examples. From the end of the nineties long-claimed requests for the recognition of the importance of ethnological heritage got stronger thanks to the increasing worries for cultural homogenisation as a consequence of the globalisation process. This process of renewal culminated in the adoption of the Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage in October 2003 and the proposal of a deep renewal in the understanding and approach to heritage as a whole. This new perspective conceives heritage as a wider cultural whole and not only extends the World Heritage ‘brand’ to intangible cultural expressions but widens and redefines the previous meaning and definition of Cultural Heritage. Intangible features are more and more underlined and considered as decisive in the evaluation process of World Heritage sites focusing now on processes (social, biological or cultural) embodied in the sites. The distinction between tangible and intangible, a reflection of an administrative category, demonstrates therefore its artificial nature. Heritage is thus conceived not only as a consecrated masterpiece of the past to be venerated and preserved but as a symbolic and living space to be appropriated by local communities, the mirror of a collective and active memory. The idea of turning living cultures into heritage is however not free from contradictions. The paper shows, in an analytical perspective, the influence of the notion of intangible heritage, its theoretical contradictions and the new challenge facing cultural policies makers."