Can architectural conservation be mainstream

Cristina Gonzalez-Longo

Can architectural conservation be mainstream

2014

Abstract

Heritage is recognised today as a sector of international strategic importance and the conservation of historic buildings becomes, internationally, an increasingly common and shared activity for architects and other professionals. There is however a lack of understanding between the general public of what conservation and restoration is, as well as a shortfall between theoretical and philosophical developments concerning the contemporary concept of built cultural heritage and the current professional practices, and even research methodologies. This paper reflects on this observation and proposes a model for the integration of traditional knowledge and contemporary technologies and for a more effective communication with the wider public.

The research set out to examine whether, among heritage practitioners, there is unanimity as well as notable discrepancies in what they perceive as the barriers and threats to the successful and sustainable restoration of heritage buildings. The study collected data from 87 practitioners. These included professional building surveyors, conservation officers, designers, main heritage as well as specialist heritage subcontractors. This heterogeneous sample was subject to the same research instrument. The data generated was chiefly non-parametric. Principally, the notable barriers explored are 'Prognosis-intervention barriers'. These are represented by a lack of knowledge about the principles of conservation and repair; followed by inconsistent repair standards. Even among the most dexterous heritage practitioners, the study noted a marked variation in the prognosis of structural failure as well as routine inconsistencies in the defects diagnosis methods. These challenges are contemporaneous within the sector as the likes of Historical England, (as custodians of Ancient Monuments) are continually seeking long term, and in some cases imminent interventional solutions. It is worrisome, however, to note that the custodians themselves are trapped in paralysis as the cycle between episodes of intervention become longer. The corollary is that, throughout the UK, most grade 1, grade II* and Ancient Monument structures are making the 'risk register': too many buildings, face the threat of being lost foreover. The study concludes that a wider UK sample will be needed. This is because some of the applied technologies, preferred by practictioners, are not widely practised, especially in a sector where planning consent and wholesome depature from established principles, the local siginifcance attached to buildings are not only inimitable but demand solutions which are intagible and incomparable. Within the heritage sector, the ongoing concerns about the slow rate of sustainable restoration merits considerable attention. Likewise, the challenges intrisic in the technical heritage doctrines such as 'reversibility' should in turn, be embraced as offering sustainable low carbon retrofit solutions. Indeed, by putting emphasis on the 'reversibility' ethos, a multi-perspective analysis unveils the fact that among practitioners, a sense of optimism is generally lacking. The study concludes that the sector lacks 'can-do' attitudes. As a result, it is diffuclt to innovate and to find solutions to the inexorable cycle of disrepair and the enormous restoration bill, currently estimated to run into several billions of Pound sterling. Sadly, locked-in with this, is the enormous high carbon foot print due to the ensuing restoration and repair activity.

The scope of heritage conservation, as well as the definition of cultural heritage, is inevitably broadening. Starting from 1960s, conservation experts conducted studies for early modernist buildings to be listed as heritage. Over time, similar studies were made for many Modern, Brutalist, even Postmodern buildings claiming that some of them are cultural heritage. Recently, buildings such as Heydar Aliyev Centre in Azerbaijan by Zaha Hadid (2012), Museum Liaunig in Austria by Querkraft (2008) and B2 House in Turkey by Han Tümertekin (2001) are listed as cultural heritage. In this regard, adoption of heritage status when a building is relatively young can mean that the original architect is still alive, and even continues professional life. From the perspective of conservation practice this can be a very favorable situation. Madrid – New Delhi Document (ICOMOS-ISC20C, 2017) suggests the importance of gathering information from primary sources in order to apply an appropriate conservation planning and management method. Undoubtedly, the original architect is the main resource to understand a design’s essence. In the late 1990’s, like most of the performance spaces, Sydney Opera House needed improvements. However, the Opera House being a national heritage in Australia, a Conservation Management Plan was to be made before any intervention. For this purpose, the experts first contacted the original architect, Jørn Utzon, and with an exemplary collaboration the Utzon Design Principles, which constitute a framework to the Conservation Management Plans, were created. However, as much as this single example seems ideal, the original architect’s involvement in the conservation processes has many paradoxical sides such as legal, theoretical, practical, and ethical. In some cases, conservation experts are obliged to obtain the consent of the original architect for any intervention according to the Intellectual Property Rights Act. On the other hand, sometimes this encourages the architect to make material, even design alterations that may damage the authenticity in the first place. In other cases, the original architects oppose the heritage status of their design. This paper aims to discuss these paradoxical issues from an architectural conservation perspective. Overall, as conservation of the architectural heritage of recent past is a dynamically evolving subject, it seems possible to state that, as conservation experts, we will be encountering many more similar cases.

Critical interpretations of heritage over recent decades have stimulated a focus on intangible heritage –the understanding of which remains inconclusive within a UK built heritage context. This is problematic when considering architectural conservationists and the broader built heritage profession are increasingly required to consider intangible heritage and understand how it correlates with alterations to built heritage assets. Situated within a postmodern conceptualisation of heritage as increasingly dynamic, social and intangible, this study confronts the paradox of safeguarding immaterial manifestations of culture within an interdisciplinary context that prioritises scientific materialism, material authenticity, and visual aesthetics. Underpinned by a Practice Theory ontology and driven by a multi-methodological qualitative design, sixteen built heritage professionals were firstly interviewed to understand how intangible heritage is conceptualised within built heritage practice and what barriers may restrict its integration within formalised procedures. Following this, a series of three pilot case studies (Long Street Methodist Churchand Sunday School;theHill Houseand Box; and the Coventry Cathedralsite) explored opportunities for accommodating intangible heritage within the built heritage paradigm. Lastly, a final case study (Bletchley Park) focusedspecifically on the dynamic between intangible heritage and physical alterations to built heritage assets. Findings suggest built heritage practice should be reconceptualised as a storytelling activity, which may encourage professionals to see themselves as narrators of intangible heritage, as well as custodians of physical heritage. Five supporting socio-material strategies (memorialisation; simulation; translation; innovation; and commemoration) are offered as alternative ways of framing standardised conservation methods, by prioritising the safeguarding of stories over the conservation of materials. The study suggests that the conservation of socio-material practices, rather than physical materials alone, can overcome traditional binary views of tangible/intangible,by encouraging cross-stakeholder participatory practices. The significance of this study is especially relevant to the development of built heritage practice, evolving as it must to both influence and accommodate ever-changing conceptions of what heritage is and how it is understood by relevant stakeholders.

The study proposed was inspired by my conviction that when we discuss architecture and restoration it’s important to reflect on a subject we cannot ignore: the protection and safeguard of so-called ‘endangered’ cultural and architectural heritage. Often we discover that some categories of mobile or immobile ‘riches’ are isolated, derelict or dilapidated due either to local indifference, the economic and social destitution of certain countries, or the powerlessness and possible complacency of international organizations to intervene in specific geographical and cultural areas. These territories are subject of crisis because of social, political and religious reasons, and the heritage is often point of assault and destruction. Communities should work jointly on common goal to support initiative to provide better protection of the cultural heritage. Therefore it is important to involve local authorities in trying to encourage ‘active protection’ and participation. Our objective is the implementation of international cooperation project to enhance the architectural heritage. Complicated situations that still direct the community into destructive scenarios where it is inevitable to think of the reconstruction in response to that need of ‘rimemorativa (remembrance)’, the “Istanza psicologica” theorized by Roberto Pane, which claims to ‘forget’ wounds inflicted in a manner so violent and unexpected. These areas have important conservation problems, all connected with the theme of the ruins; it is one of the conceptual issues of the restoration discipline. The ruin, can only be the subject of essential protection and preservation interventions, far from recoveries for that “unity” and “completeness” image no longer accessible and much less desirable. Any additions and partial additions must meet the criteria of tolerability and eligibility ‘formal’, as well as being limited only to products that need urgent conservation work and suitable protective methods. Finally, the paper concludes with different case studies in order to draw attention to these problems and encourage the drafting of protection and restoration proposals as part of a much desired ‘internationalization’ of the world’s cultural heritage. To sum up, the research aims to involve the international debate on cooperative behaviors in the management and enhancement of the architectural heritage, actions for the formation of a unique historical and cultural identity rather than a cause of conflict, hostility and destruction.

Internationally, debates surrounding the value of cultural heritage in an urban context have recently intensified making urban heritage conservation a crucial area to better understand. The concept of heritage has broadened into notions of local identity, belonging, nationalism, liveability of urban areas and social cohesion.12 The deliberate destruction of heritage has become a weapon of war, part of a broader strategy of cultural cleansing that includes murder and persecution of people in the short term, and the annihilation of identities and destruction of social fabric in the longer term. This is why the consideration of the protection of cultural heritage is far beyond a cultural issue and transformed into issues of humanity and security. A further emphasis on the broader role of cultural heritage in society is demonstrated through an explicit target for heritage, Target 11.4, in the Sustainable Development Goals which commits countries to make efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage. Beyond this explicit target, heritage is referred to throughout the SDGs3 as well as the UN New Urban Agenda 2030 in Point 124 and 125 which emphasises the safeguarding of a diverse range of tangible and intangible cultural heritage and landscapes, protecting them from potential disruptive impacts of urban development. 4 This UN 2030 Agenda further promotes technological innovation applied to infrastructures, encouraging the field of research into the interplay of heritage conservation and digital technologies. The protection of heritage is unique in that it presupposes maintenance and conservation interventions that involves multidisciplinary teams of experts such as architects, engineers, archaeologists and others, capable of producing parallel and heterogeneous data streams that often cannot be directly integrated with each other.5 In order to respond to the need to manage such diverse sources of information, research is moving towards the preparation of interdisciplinary databases that allow structuring the documentation generated throughout the useful life of the architectural artefact, so as to adequately prepare future interventions. Digital technologies play an increasingly pivotal role in acting as an instrument to achieve holistic documentation of heritage assets.

Log In

Can architectural conservation be mainstream

Sign up for access to the world's latest research

Abstract

Related papers

Related topics