The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, vol. 9, no. 3-4, 2018

The juxtaposition of the new and the old on the cover symbolises complementary urban development, a central theme of the book.

Hist. Environ., 2013

Managing the processes of change in historic cities in order to safeguard their distinctive cultural identities has long proved an area of conflict between different interests – including those of heritage protection and economic development. Identifying individual components of the architectural heritage and selected historic districts for a variety of strengths of protection, from the benign to the interventionist, has generally proved to be the limit of ambition and achievement within the conservation community. It is rare to see the individual components related to each other at the urban scale, and not simply integrated but rendered as a determinant and driver of territorial planning policy. At the same time, in our increasingly globalised and competitive world, historic cities start with one overriding advantage: their unique inherited cultural identity, epitomised by their holistically understood historic urban landscape. It is this that allows them to stand out from their competitors. In marketing terms, whether to attract businesses, residents or visitors, it is their 'unique selling point': their key to long-term success. It is this common ground that offers opportunities for resolving perceived conflicts.

The Historic Environment: Policy and Practice, 2018

This article reflects on the extent to which the commitment set out under Article 5 of the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage ‘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’, is reflected in the ambition and interpretation of the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. It questions the degree to which that Recommendation’s evolution and formulation addresses the longstanding failure to interpret and position the broad spectrum of values of urban heritage within the mainstream of urban planning policy and practice. In the context of today’s over-arching global priorities, this article concludes by advocating greater engagement with United Nations agendas, including the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

LUGARIT, 2024

This article explores the evolving relationship between heritage preservation and modern urban development, challenging the traditional dichotomy between heritage and modernity. It argues that heritage, often viewed as a static relic of the past, should be integrated into the dynamic, everyday lives of communities to remain relevant and sustainable. The discourse around heritage preservation, currently dominated by elitist and populist perspectives, needs to shift towards a more inclusive and flexible approach that aligns with societal needs and economic realities. The article advocates for preservation strategies that stimulate the organic, ongoing interaction between communities and their heritage, ensuring that heritage sites are not just conserved but actively contribute to the vitality and sustainability of urban environments. This requires moving away from rigid legal frameworks and scientific formalities towards creating economic incentives and adaptive practices that allow heritage to thrive as a living process within the fabric of modern cities.

The term integrated conservation first entered the lexicon of urban heritage in the 1975 Council of Europe European Charter, recognising that the future of the architectural heritage depends on the weight attached to it within the framework of urban and regional planning. Since then, the agendas of sustainability, sustainable development and climate change have entered the debate, and various attempts have been made to re-position urban heritage from a specialist to a mainstream activity in the European context. In ‘The Geography of Urban Heritage’, we argued that the quantum of urban heritage recognised and appreciated today underscores a level of responsibility for the maintenance and processes of continuity whose realisation is beyond the scope and capacity of a specialist field. Additionally, that the complementary values of community, heritage, resource and usefulness, harnessed to common purpose, afford a potent combination for responding to the challenge. That article promoted the thesis that for urban conservation to become a mainstream activity, heritage professionals need to nurture relationships centrally within the broad discipline of geography – the core discipline of urban planning; and reciprocally, geographers need to recognise the vital role of urban heritage beyond a limited perception of its compass. The 2010 European Union Toledo Declaration acknowledged the importance of urban heritage, and defined the multiple dimensions of sustainability as economic, social, environmental, cultural and governance. Governance at the municipal level is the key to integrated urban planning policy and practice. This article explores current initiatives in the field and proposes directions for further research and implementation.

Conservation – Demolition, EAAE Transaction on Architectural Education no. 67, 2020

Although the importance of the built heritage is universally acknowledged due to its multiple benefits, in many European cities there seems to be an open conflict between the desire to preserve the historic architecture and the necessity to transform the urban fabric. Consequently, a large number of heritage buildings undergo irreversible transformations or are completely demolished in order to make place for new developments, without taking into consideration the irreplaceable losses resulting from these aggressive actions. Demolition is causing serious damage to historic cities, as the destruction of built heritage often leads to social disturbance, economic loss and cultural identity. Certainly, there are some exceptions, as a considerable number of European cities have used the built heritage as an asset in the process of urban regeneration, protecting and enhancing the architectural richness of the past. This paper tries to provide a series of answers regarding the two concepts that seem antagonistic: the preservation of built heritage and the urban development. The political factor is also questioned, as the relation of the authorities with the inheritance of the past has proved to be a defining element regarding the fate of the built heritage. The research is based on a comparative analysis of the built heritage situation in two European capital cities, Prague and Bucharest.

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.

European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeologies (PCA) 12, 2022

Urban heritage constitutes the major unresolved challenge facing conservation theorists and practitioners in this 21st century. Inhabited historic cities lie at the intersection of human geography, territorial and detailed urban planning, economic development, delimited heritage agendas, and global environmental and sustainability priorities. By the third quarter of the 20th century – from roots traced from the Italian Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment in Europe – cultural heritage orthodoxy became systematised and institutionalised with the aspiration to establish and promote universal principles for the protection and conservation of designated heritage assets. Notably in the context of the world’s diversity and wealth of inhabited historic cities, the core premise has been challenged from multiple directions, including contradictions at the heart of the World Heritage system. As we mark the 50th anniversary of the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, this paper interrogates this conundrum from first principles. Keywords: Dresden Elbe Valley, Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City, living heritage, UNESCO, urban landscape, Charte de Venise/Venice Charter.