Architectural conservation


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business

Architectural conservation

  1. 1. 4-COLOR GLOSSYArchitecturalConservationArchitecturalConservationJohn H. Stubbs • Emily G. MakašStubbsMakašForeword by Mounir Bouchenakiin Europe and the AmericasinEuropeandtheAmericasArchitecture/Historic Preservation/GeneralCover Photographs (from top to bottom): St. Mark’s Basilica, Venice © Michael A. Bryan;Mesa Verde National Park © Jim Johnson; National Congress of Brazil, © M. Cavalcanti“Time Honored is the sort of book that a student reads first out of necessity, and thenreturns to many times in the course of professional practice for an infusionof thevaluableperspective this book thoughtfully offers.” —Choice magazineA comprehensive survey of architectural heritage protectioncovering the practices and traditions of countries from threecontinents—from Russia to Canada to ChileFollowing the acclaimed Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation, this book explores thericharchitecturallegaciesof EuropeandNorthandSouthAmericatodescribe“bestpractices”inarchitecturalconservation, focusing on the histories, structure, key participants, special challenges, solutions, and specificcontributions made by some sixty-seven countries. Written to stand alone from the predecessor volume,Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas is:• Approached in a style that eschews technical terms, jargon, and arcane facts and instead featuresengaging discoveries, developments, and solutions of interest to professionals, students, and laypeople• Co-written by the author of the acclaimed Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation• Illustrated throughout with over 600 photographs and maps• Filled throughout with sidebar specialty essays highlighting topics of cross-regional interest forimproved readability, often contributed by recognized experts in the field• Complete with abundant references to sources, related ideas and trends, pointers for furtherinformation, and appendices of related bibliographic sourcesThe first comprehensive survey that examines in detail architectural conservation practice on a widecomparative basis, Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas serves as a convenient resource forprofessionals, students, and anyone interested in the field.JOHN H. STUBBS has served as Vice President for Field Projects for the New York–based World MonumentsFund since 1990 and taught for over two decades as an Adjunct Associate Professor of Historic Preservation in theSchool of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation at Columbia University. His prior experience includes ten yearsas an associate at Beyer Blinder Belle, Architects & Planners LLP, in New York City, and two years service at theTechnical Preservation Services division of the U.S. National Park Service in Washington, D.C.EMILY G. MAKAŠ is an Assistant Professor of Architectural History at the University of North Carolina atCharlotte. She has a PhD in the history of architecture and urbanism from Cornell University, a master’s in historicpreservation from Columbia University, and a bachelor’s in history from the University of Tennessee. Her researchfocuses on the history of modern European cities, emphasizing the relationships between architecture, cities, heritage,memory, identity, and politics.978-0-470-60385-7Praise for Time Honored: A Global View of ArchitecturalConservation, a Choice Outstanding Academic Book
  2. 2. in Europe and the AmericasArchitecturalConservation01_9780470603857-ffirs.indd i01_9780470603857-ffirs.indd i 2/4/11 2:43 PM2/4/11 2:43 PM
  3. 3. 01_9780470603857-ffirs.indd ii01_9780470603857-ffirs.indd ii 2/4/11 2:43 PM2/4/11 2:43 PM
  4. 4. John H. Stubbs and Emily G. MakasˇForeword by Mounir BouchenakiWith a contribution of images from the photo archiveof the World Monuments FundNATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND PRACTICEin Europe and the AmericasArchitecturalConservationJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.01_9780470603857-ffirs.indd iii01_9780470603857-ffirs.indd iii 2/4/11 2:43 PM2/4/11 2:43 PM
  5. 5. This book is printed on acid-free paper.Copyright © 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.Published simultaneously in Canada.No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or byany means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permittedunder Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permissionof the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright ClearanceCenter, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, fax 978-646-8600, or on the webat Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the PermissionsDepartment, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, 201-748-6011, fax 201-748-6008,or online at of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts inpreparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completenessof the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for aparticular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials.The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult witha professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or anyother commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.For general information on our other products and services, or technical support, please contact our CustomerCare Department within the United States at 800-762-2974, outside the United States at 317-572-3993 or fax317-572-4002.Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not beavailable in electronic books.For more information about Wiley products, visit our Web site at of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:Stubbs, John H.Architectural conservation in Europe and the Americas : national experiencesand practice / John H. Stubbs, Emily G. Makaš.p. cm.Includes index.ISBN 978-0-470-60385-7 (hardback); 978-0-470-90099-4 (ebk.); 978-0-470-90100-7 (ebk.); 978-0-470-90111-3(ebk.); 978-0-470-95107-1 (ebk.); 978-0-470-95124-8 (ebk.)1. Architecture--Conservation and restoration--Europe. 2. Architecture--Conservation and restoration—America. I. Makaš, Emily Gunzburger. II. Title.NA105.S793 2011363.6’909—dc222010045252Printed in the United States of America10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 101_9780470603857-ffirs.indd iv01_9780470603857-ffirs.indd iv 2/4/11 2:43 PM2/4/11 2:43 PM
  6. 6. ContentsForeword xiiiPreface xvBeing Modern: The Currency of ConservationFrank MateroAcknowledgments xxiPART I: Europe 1IntroductionSECTION 1. WESTERN EUROPE 9Chapter 1: Italy 13Early Organized Conservation Efforts 13Key Twentieth-Century Theorists and Methods 16Museums and Architectural Conservation 19Sheltering Ruins on Sicily and Beyond 24Conservation Legislation and Education 25Saving Venice 28Recent Accomplishments and Challenges 30Conserving Italy’s Historic Rural Towns 34Italian Conservation Abroad 36Chapter 2: France 41Centralized Legislation and Incentives 41An Influential Concept: Les Secteurs Sauvegardés 43Urban Conservation and SustainabilityDennis Rodwell 45Recent Conservation Successes 47Chapter 3: United Kingdom 59Legislation and Listing 59Garden and Landscape Conservation in the United Kingdom 62Private, Not-for-Profit Advocacy Groups 65Contemporary Foci 68Conserving Britain’s Industrial HeritageDennis Rodwell 72Conserving Fine Architectural InteriorsLisa Ackerman 74British Conservation Leadership 76v02_9780470603857-ftoc.indd v02_9780470603857-ftoc.indd v 2/4/11 2:44 PM2/4/11 2:44 PM
  7. 7. Chapter 4: Ireland 85Conservation Legislation and Institutions 85Active Non-governmental Heritage Organizations 87Chapter 5: Spain and Portugal 93Spanish Conservation Policies and Decentralized Structure 94Paradores and Pousadas 95Portuguese Conservation Policies 96International and Private Participation and Recent RepresentativeProjects 98Architectural Conservation Education at European Universities 101Spanish and Portuguese Conservation Assistance to FormerColonies 106Current Issues and Challenges 108Chapter 6: Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands 113Early Conservation Debates in Belgium and the Netherlands 113Legislation and Administration in Belgium 120Legislation and Administration in the Netherlands 122Architectural Conservation in Luxembourg 124Contemporary Conservation and the Role of NongovernmentalOrganizations 125Architectural and Social Preservation in Amsterdam 127Chapter 7: Switzerland and Liechtenstein 137Switzerland 137Liechtenstein 140SECTION 2. NORTHERN EUROPE 143Chapter 8: Sweden 147Legislation and State-Organization of Heritage Protection 147Skansen and the Open-Air Museum Tradition 149NGOs, International Involvement, and Current Challenges 152Chapter 9: Finland 159Early Legislation and Conservation Efforts 159Contemporary Heritage Framework and State Activities 160Conserving Modern Heritage in Finland 162Chapter 10: Norway 167Legislation and State Conservation Institutions 167Current Challenges and Successes 168Conserving Wooden Structures in the Nordic Countries 172vi Contents02_9780470603857-ftoc.indd vi02_9780470603857-ftoc.indd vi 2/4/11 2:44 PM2/4/11 2:44 PM
  8. 8. Chapter 11: Denmark, Iceland, and Greenland 177Early Danish Conservation Efforts 177Heritage Legislation and Administration in the Twentieth Century 178Contemporary Conservation Participants and Successes inDenmark 181Iceland and Greenland 183Chapter 12: The Baltic States 189Shared Contemporary Challenges 189Lithuania 191Latvia 194Estonia 198SECTION 3. CENTRAL EUROPE 205Chapter 13: Germany 209Post-World War II Debates 209The East German Conservation Approach 210The West German Conservation Approach 212Unified Conservation Efforts and Current Challenges 214Applied Conservation Science and Technology in Europe 218Symbolic Heritage in a New Germany 220The Berlin Stadtschloss: Emblem of Germany’s Reconstruction Debates 222Chapter 14: Austria 229Long-standing Legal and Administrative Structures 229Urban Conservation in Austria 231Other Recent Challenges and Developments 233Chapter 15: Hungary 237Legislation and Government Framework 237Sensitive Conservation Approaches 239Additional Key Projects and Successes 241Chapter 16: Czech Republic and Slovakia 245Architectural Conservation in Czechoslovakia 245Czech Republic 246Slovakia 251Conserving Jewish Heritage in Central Europe 255Chapter 17: Poland 259Heritage Protection in Partitioned and Second Republic Poland 259Comprehensive Communist-era Conservation Activities 260The Rebuilding of Warsaw 262Contemporary Issues and Challenges 266Contents vii02_9780470603857-ftoc.indd vii02_9780470603857-ftoc.indd vii 2/4/11 2:44 PM2/4/11 2:44 PM
  9. 9. SECTION 4. EASTERN EUROPE AND THE CAUCASUS 269Chapter 18: Russia 271Imperial and Revolutionary Conservation Efforts 271The Fate of Heritage under Stalin and during World War II 273Late-Soviet Policies and Institutions 275Current Conservation Challenges in the Russian Federation 277The Battle to Preserve Russia’s Avant-Garde Architecture 280The Stabilization of the Church of the Transfiguration at Kizhi Pogost 285Recent Russian Conservation Successes 285Architectural Conservation in Siberia 289Chapter 19: Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus 297Ukraine 297Moldova 300Belarus 302Chapter 20: The Caucasus 307Armenia 308Architectural Reconstruction in the Caucasus and Beyond 311Azerbaijan 312Georgia 313SECTION 5. SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE 319Chapter 21: Greece 323The Athenian Acropolis 323The Parthenon/Elgin Marbles Debate 326Expanding Conservation Priorities 328Current Conservation Framework and Challenges 331Chapter 22: Turkey 335Hagia Sophia 335Conservation Frameworks and Projects in Modern Turkey 338Turkey and Conservation of Ottoman Heritage in SoutheasternEurope 341Archaeological Site Conservation and Museums in Turkey 342Challenges Ahead 345Chapter 23: Cyprus and Malta 349Architectural Conservation in a Divided Cyprus 349Cooperative Cypriot Conservation Projects 353Malta 355Chapter 24: The Former Yugoslavia 361Conservation Policies in the Former Yugoslavia 361viii Contents02_9780470603857-ftoc.indd viii02_9780470603857-ftoc.indd viii 2/4/11 2:44 PM2/4/11 2:44 PM
  10. 10. Slovenia 362Croatia 365Bosnia and Hercegovina 369Macedonia 372Serbia 376Montenegro 379Kosovo 381Chapter 25: Albania 389Early Efforts and Communist-Era Accomplishments andSetbacks 389Architectural Conservation in Albania Today 390Chapter 26: Bulgaria 395Late Twentieth-Century Frameworks and Challenges 395Recent Successes and Trends 397Chapter 27: Romania 403Communist-Era Institutions, Key Projects, and Challenges 403The Contemporary Conservation Scene 404Protecting Transylvania’s Saxon Heritage 406Conclusion to Part I 413PART II: The Americas 415IntroductionSECTION 6. NORTH AMERICA 423Chapter 28: The United States 429Private Initiatives, Organizations, and Philanthropists 430Early Federal and Municipal Government Efforts 435Conserving Historic Engineering Structures: BridgesEric DeLony 438Emergence of an Historic Preservation System in the 1960s 442The National Register of Historic Places of the United States 449Carol D. ShullThe Economics and Standards of Historic Preservation 451Improving and Enhancing the System 454The Defining Role of U.S. Conservation Science and Technology 456Preserving a Mosaic of Heritages in the United States and ItsTerritories 462New Concerns in the Twenty-First Century 468Historic Preservation and Sustainable DevelopmentDonovan Rypkema 473Contents ix02_9780470603857-ftoc.indd ix02_9780470603857-ftoc.indd ix 2/9/11 2:44 PM2/9/11 2:44 PM
  11. 11. Chapter 29: Canada 485Early Conservation Efforts 485The Massey Commission and the Historic Sites and MonumentsAct 488Institution Building in the Second Half of the 20thCentury 490The Spirit of Place as Conceived by the First NationsBarbara Ross 496Looking Forward in Canadian Heritage Conservation 498SECTION 7. MEXICO, THE CARIBBEAN, AND CENTRAL AMERICA 505Chapter 30: Mexico 509A Legacy of Government Legislation and Protection 509Twentieth-Century Institutions and Policies 512Collaborative Projects 516Conserving Mexico’s ChurchesJohn Stubbs 519Contemporary Conservation Issues in Mexico 522Chapter 31: The Caribbean 529Government Conservation Efforts and National Trusts 530The City Historian’s Office and the Conservation of Old Havana 531Non-governmental Organizations 536Conserving Colonial Cities, Plantations, and Fortresses 539Conserving other Caribbean Heritage 542Current Challenges and Prospects 545Chapter 32: Central America 551Belize 552Guatemala 556El Salvador 560Honduras 563Costa Rica 567Nicaragua 569Panama 572Contemporary Challenges and Opportunities in CentralAmerica 576SECTION 8. SOUTH AMERICA 581Chapter 33: The Non-Iberian Coast 585Guyana 586Suriname 589French Guiana 593x Contents02_9780470603857-ftoc.indd x02_9780470603857-ftoc.indd x 2/4/11 2:44 PM2/4/11 2:44 PM
  12. 12. Chapter 34: Brazil 597Federal Efforts and Architectural Conservation Partners 598Urban Conservation and Revitalization in Brazil 600New Directions in Architectural Conservation 602Conserving Modern Architecture in Latin AmericaTheodore H. M. Prudon 604Chapter 35: The Andean Countries 611Venezuela 612Colombia 615Ecuador 620Public–Private Partnerships and Urban Rehabilitation in Latin AmericaEduardo Rojas 626Peru 627Conserving Ancient Earthen Architecture: The Chan Chan Example 632Bolivia 638Chapter 36: The Southern Cone 647Uruguay 647Paraguay 650Conserving South America’s Guaraní MissionsNorma Barbacci 655Argentina 658Chile 663Conclusion to Part II 671Looking Ahead 673Further Reading on Architectural Conservation by Region 675Photo Credits 699Index 707Contents xi02_9780470603857-ftoc.indd xi02_9780470603857-ftoc.indd xi 2/4/11 2:44 PM2/4/11 2:44 PM
  13. 13. 02_9780470603857-ftoc.indd xii02_9780470603857-ftoc.indd xii 2/4/11 2:44 PM2/4/11 2:44 PM
  14. 14. ForewordIn every discipline, someone must step forward to document what has been accom-plished thus far and take stock of contemporary practice. While architectural con-servation is neither a particularly new discipline nor is this book the first attempt atsuch a survey, Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas is by far the mostcomprehensive and noteworthy effort to date. Its authors, John H. Stubbs and EmilyG. Makaš have done an extraordinary job of assembling the stories of experiences inarchitectural conservation in the nearly ninety countries that comprise Europe and theAmericas, presenting each in a remarkably clear, balanced, and intelligible manner.Though much has been assembled here in an unprecedented manner, the authorsare the first to admit that the scope and complexity of the topic in some places did notpermit their describing every single relevant development. This would be impossibleas in most countries of Western Europe alone there have been thousands of successfularchitectural conservation projects with scores that could be pointed out as exemplary.In an answer to this, the book’s extensive endnotes and Further Reading Lists are pres-ent to support one of its main aims, which as John has described to me, is to be a con-venient ‘gateway’ to more on most of the topics, examples and allied subjects addressedin this book.So choices were made, and I think made wisely, in favor of a whole that providesa unique and evenly weighted overarching view while avoiding duplication and stress-ing the more influential accomplishments and solutions in architectural conservationpractice in our time. As such, the book holds together as a remarkably readable andfascinating portrayal of the field at this juncture. It is sensibly organized, abundantly il-lustrated, and well-indexed. It should prove of interest to a wide audience, ranging fromthe curious lay person to the student, the professional, and the librarian.I understand that the present book is the second in a series of probably three titlesthat will portray architectural conservation in all parts of the world. Along with its relat-ed predecessor volume, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation—Parameters, Theory and Evolution of an Ethos, and an eventual additional title thatdocuments the other parts of the world, the series holds great promise as a resource andreference for both teaching and reference.The perspective of Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas is wellsuited for its task because its principal author John H. Stubbs is an active and accom-plished practitioner in the field, trained with institutional perspectives of ICCROM’sarchitectural conservation course and Columbia University’s prestigious graduate pro-gram in historic prservation that he attended and where he has taught for many years.Dr. Emily G. Makaš, professor of architectural and urban history at University of NorthCarolina at Charlotte and an expert on cultural heritage conservation in southeasternEurope, serves as an excellent complement to Stubbs here as his coauthor. Adding totheir erudition are the voices of several collaborators who have contributed signed spe-cialty essays throughout the book. Many of these participants are distinguished figuresin the field today.As one who has mainly served the field in administrative capacities in several rolesat UNESCO, including as Director of the World Heritage Center, and currently asDirector General of ICCROM, I am particularly pleased to see that the authors havefairly represented the crucial roles of these institutions and others, such as ICOMOS,xiii03_9780470603857-fbetw.indd xiii03_9780470603857-fbetw.indd xiii 2/4/11 2:45 PM2/4/11 2:45 PM
  15. 15. as among the key influences in architectural heritage conservation over the past halfcentury. Indeed the educational aims of these institutions are well reflected in the pres-ent book. In their broad view of the subject where the authors discuss not just what hashappened but also why Stubbs and Makaš have gone beyond describing what any ofthe above-mentioned institutions, and even his own—the World Monuments Fund—could, due to the limitations of their purviews.I first met John Stubbs in relation to his extensive work at Angkor in Cambodia onbehalf of the World Monuments Fund. His being at the center of most of WMF’s manyimpressive initiatives for over two decades has given him a rare, if not unique, expe-rience. WMF’s leadership among international private not-for-profit organizations inadvocating for architectural conservation and engaging the private sector in supportingarchitectural conservation is unparalleled. Bringing a production-oriented approach toWMF from work in the corporate world of architectural practice in New York City, it ishis practical field experience that makes the observations of this book so special. Indeed,it is satisfying to see here how the system of the public and private, and the for-profitand not for profit sectors, have all found niches in architectural conservation practicethat add to it being the robust and truly global concern that it is today. The solutions toconservation problems today that are cited in this book are both sensible and useful, andthe prognosis for the future it suggests are particularly strong.From reading this book I find it both amazing and reassuring to see how far the fieldhas progressed, especially in the past few decades. As a result, it is a pleasure to intro-duce this new volume that I feel confident will be an especially useful new contributionto the field of cultural heritage management both now and for years to come.Mounir BouchenakiDirector General, International Centre for the Study of thePreservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM)xiv Foreword03_9780470603857-fbetw.indd xiv03_9780470603857-fbetw.indd xiv 2/4/11 2:45 PM2/4/11 2:45 PM
  16. 16. Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas; National Experiences andPractice explores the background and current status of the widespread efforts un-dertaken to ensure the survival of the rich architectural legacy of Europe, Northand South America. This book addresses the sizable challenge of documenting these expe-riences by charting the history of the profession and its allied activities in these three con-tinents from the early twentieth-century forward, with a special emphasis on key projects,participants, successes, and challenges of the past two decades. Architectural Conservationin Europe and the Americas offers a balanced view of architectural heritage conservationin the light of relevant cultural contexts and approaches to heritage protection involvingall cultures on these three vast continents.Organized architectural conservation—namely rationalized documentation, resto-ration, and preservation of historic architecture—has its origins in the Italian Renais-sance, which by the mid-eighteenth century had radiated outward to France, England,Germany and Scandinavia and resonated elsewhere soon afterwards.1From the earlynineteenth century, this thread of progressive extension gave way to an increasing num-ber of simultaneous realizations and adoptions of cultural heritage conservation prac-tice elsewhere in Europe, the Americas, and around the world. Since the last decadesof the twentieth-century architectural conservation has been so pervasive that it is onthe civic agenda of practically all countries of the world and global experiences have forseveral years now fed back and informed the Western European and American coun-tries that so established the discipline. Today, the cross-fertilization of ideas in culturalresources management on a world-wide basis is commonplace.Discussing developments in both Europe and the Americas together in this book is part-ly a practical matter: the authors and publisher want to produce this global series in as fewvolumes as possible, assuming that an additional book addressing Asia, Africa, Oceania, andthe Polar Regions will follow. More importantly, the discussion of Europe and the Americastogether respects certain historical and geopolitical realities. Of the various continents ofthe world, the histories and cultures of Europe and the Americas have been linked sincethe Age of Exploration in the early sixteenth century. With the spread of culture, includinglanguages and religion, from one continent to the others, came the transmission of art, ar-chitectural and urban traditions between the Old and New Worlds. Heritage conservationpractice has been a part of this intercontinental transfer and transmutation.Today, professionals in both Europe and the Americas are faced by many of the samechallenges and use many of the same tools and techniques on behalf of architecturalheritage. On both sides of the Atlantic, the scope of cultural heritage protection hasexpanded to include intangible heritage as well as surviving artifacts, access to sites hasbeen radically improved, developments in instant global communications have facilitat-ed information sharing, including Web-based electronic aids to site interpretation, anddocumentation strategies and storage systems have improved tremendously. As a result,architectural conservation protection today in Europe and the Americas relies heavilyon an electronic and institutional network and there has been significant movementtowards institutionalized pan-European, and to a lesser extent, pan-American heritageprotection programs and forums. The principal interests of the field in both Europe andthe Americas have also evolved in recent years to noticeably include concerns for energyconservation—both in building anew and rehabilitating “green,” as well as on sustain-able heritage conservation in general. British architect and planner Dennis Rodwell hasrightly called these two themes “the defining issues of our time.”Prefacexv04_9780470603857-fpref.indd xv04_9780470603857-fpref.indd xv 2/4/11 2:45 PM2/4/11 2:45 PM
  17. 17. If there ever was a moment when heritage conservationhad something to contribute to the current malaise ofsocial and political strife, economic recession, and environ-mental destruction, it is now. On the surface conservationis concerned with the protection of historic and artisticworks from loss and damage so they can continue to in-spire, to admonish (from the Latin, monere, the root formonument) or simply to provide the same or differentuses in the present. We advocate for conservation becauseobjects and places hold important information, associa-tions, and meaning; because they embody social andcultural memory which, if lost, would make the world lessunderstandable.Consider recent world events: the destruction of theBamayan buddhas, the Mostar bridge, even the WorldTrade Towers-all potent cultural symbols whose targetedloss says more about the power and significance of theseplaces than their existence ever did. Consider the currentdilemma of if and how to rebuild the vernacular neighbor-hoods of New Orleans or the Haitian capital of Port auPrince in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake, or thehuge debate over the destruction of 2 Columbus Circle forthe Museum of Design in New York City; a debate whichhas caused a serious reconsideration of how we view anddefine post war modernism and how we will pass on thatlegacy. All these examples engage in the phenomenon ofloss or retention of cultural heritage and its implications.For the general public, heritage conservation is funda-mentally about the past. Long standing attitudes hold thattrue progress is about the new and the only real creativityis that which produces something novel. That which isexisting or old is far from the new and therefore not partof real progress or progressive solutions. Of course this isuntrue. Conservation is both creative and modern. In to-day’s climate it is in fact subversive in its interest in mend-ing the flawed rather than in discarding and starting anew.As Elizabeth Spelman has aptly observed, the capacity ofprofessionals to repair things can scarcely be valued in anysociety whose economy is based on the production of andthe desire for the new. Repair is at odds with the impera-tive of a capitalist society.2To bring together the past and present by thinking andacting in ways different from the original processes thatcreate new works, and to forge a new approach that issensitive to all contexts are the very goals of conservation.As an act of intervention conservation seeks to mediateand in that mediation it is creative. Conservation pos-sesses a uniquely integrated set of knowledge and skillsdrawn from the sciences and the humanities and basedon a values driven model.3Its concerns and methods ofanalysis, intervention, and especially prevention are partof the definition of sustainability and it has much to offerall professionals and the public in the ascendancy of thatconcept. While conservation has matured in response tolarger social and environmental concerns, it has far to goin most countries to deeply influence local and global de-velopment.Since the 1970s sustainability has evolved as a significantmode of thought in nearly every field of human intel-lectual activity. With its origins in the nature conservationmovement in the early twentieth century, sustainabilityand sustainable development are about finding ways todesign, plan, and manage that allow essential or desirableresources to be renewed faster than they are destroyed. Indesign and the building industry, sustainability has becomesynonymous with “green architecture” or new buildingsdesigned with healthy work environments, energy con-serving systems, and environmentally sensitive materials.Only recently, heritage conservation has been recognizedas a concept compatible with the objectives of sustain-ability, emerging as a critical component of internationaldevelopment strategies now being advocated by somelocal and international government and non-governmentagencies.Unlike the case for natural resources, sustainability forthe built environment differs in that historic resourcescannot be physically regenerated, only retained, modi-fied, or lost.4Instead sustainability in this context meansensuring the continuing contribution heritage can maketo the present through the thoughtful management ofchange responsive to the historic environment. Sustain-ability emphasizes the need for a long-term view. Ifconservation is to develop as a viable strategy for rede-velopment, the larger economic and social dimensionsneed to be addressed, while at the local level, communityinvolvement is central to sustaining conservation initia-tives. In this case, sustainability means an investment inconserving human knowledge as much as historic build-ings. Reconciling conservation and development is aprerequisite for achieving improvements in the quality ofBeing Modern: The Currency of ConservationFrank Materoxvi Preface04_9780470603857-fpref.indd xvi04_9780470603857-fpref.indd xvi 2/4/11 2:45 PM2/4/11 2:45 PM
  18. 18. While Europe and the Americas share affluence, beliefs and social ambitions as wellas legal bases for commonalities of approaches toward heritage protection, there arecertainly significant differences in the histories, developments and current issues amongthe countries of these continents. Many of the developing countries of Eastern Europe,South America and the Caribbean have not had the same access to financial resources,training and information about conservation as those of North America and Westernand Northern Europe. In some cases the varying foci of conservation practices amongthe Old and New World have also been theoretical. These differences stem back to themaking of the Venice Charter of 1964, approved only tacitly by delegates from the Unit-ed States and the United Kingdom because of a perceived continental European biastowards monuments that did not take fully into account some of the less monumentalheritage found in all countries, or the vernacular and most indigenous heritage of theNew World.1Since that time, the heritage protection efforts of the younger countries ofthe United States and Canada (and Australia) have led the quest for more representa-tive strategies for their countries. The result is that the heritage protection managementsystems of North America and Europe, when viewed as a combined experience andcapacity, cover most all the issues and are by any measure impressive in their robustnessand influence.Many European and American countries have shared ideas about architectural con-servation through frequent assistance to the rest of the world. From exemplary projectsat Abu Simbel and Nubia, Egypt in the 1960s to Borobudur, Indonesia in the 1970sto Angkor Wat in Cambodia since the 1990s—major sites of world architectural sig-nificance have been preserved with the assistance of European and American-basedinstitutions. Through these projects training opportunities and information about bestcontemporary conservation practices have been disseminated globally. As such, theleading architectural conservation organizations, training institutions, several govern-ments, and various practitioners in Europe and the Americas have played a central rolein the internationalization of heritage conservation practice so successfully in the pasthalf century that today the whole world is engaged in the activity. Though some imbal-ances in organized heritage protection exist between Europe and the Americas and therest of the world—and some imbalances exist within the continents of Europe and theAmericas themselves—these gaps have been closing with each passing year. Certaineconomic and technical advantages in some developing countries have even distin-guished conservation efforts in those places. Especially in recent decades, Australia,New Zealand, India and Japan have emerged as leaders in Asia and the Pacific whilelife in environmentally and culturally sensitive places. Byshifting the focus on perception and valuation, conserva-tion becomes a dynamic process involving public partici-pation, dialogue, and consensus, and ultimately betterstewardship. It calls for the retention and reinforcement(if necessary) of healthy existing social, cultural, andeconomic functions and the introduction of new usesas necessary in order to generate income for the localcommunity. It requires the improvement of services andpublic open spaces, community–supported rehabilitationof historic housing and open spaces, employment oppor-tunities, and promotion of local knowledge and craft.If sustainability ultimately means learning to think andact in terms of interrelated systems, then heritage withits unique values and experiences must be contextual-ized and integrated with the new. In the transformationof our physical environment, what relationships shouldexist between change and continuity, between the oldand the new? Are modernity and tradition truly opposi-tional? Only when history is rightly viewed as a partof that continuous change, can we speak of an inte-grated and sustainable built environment and conserva-tion as an appropriate modern response to this currentdilemma.Preface xvii04_9780470603857-fpref.indd xvii04_9780470603857-fpref.indd xvii 2/4/11 2:45 PM2/4/11 2:45 PM
  19. 19. impressive progress has also been witnessed in China, South Africa, Jordan and othercountries in Western Asia.There are certainly challenges to presenting Europe and the Americas together andseparated from the rest of the world as is done here. This organization makes cross ref-erencing more difficult, especially regarding the activities of European and Americangovernmental and non-governmental organizations abroad as well as of those chartersand ideas generated in the rest of the world that have since had an impact on Europeanand American conservation practice and vice versa.Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas is organized as a series ofcountry profiles examining key issues, participants, sites and developments in the archi-tectural conservation practices in the subject countries. The books two parts focus firston Europe and then on the Americas, and within these parts the discussion is dividedinto sections that group countries together by region based on geographical, historical,cultural, and linguistic ties. Part I includes five sections: Western Europe, NorthernEurope, Central Europe, Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, and Southeastern Europe.Part II includes three sections that focus on North America, then on Mexico, the Carib-bean and Central America, and finally on South America.This current book is preceded by, but is not necessarily dependent on, a forerunnervolume by John H. Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation(Wiley, 2009). That earlier book endeavored to more generally portray contemporarypractice in architectural conservation, including its rationale, structure, early history,principles and practices, and likely future directions. Time Honored introduced manyof the themes, terms, legal instruments, and the whats, whys, whos, and hows of archi-tectural conservation that are explored in focused country-specific and specialty essaysin Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas. Though both books are de-signed to be read independently of one another, readers seeking the broader picture andcontextual framework for the portrayals of contemporary practice discussed herein willfind Time Honored a useful companion. Two of four Appendices within Time Honored,a glossary of the field’s nomenclature and lists of international resources, should proveespecially helpful in relation to this book. The larger research initiative encompassingthis book, its predecessor, and its probable successor is described on a companion web-site found at Conservation in Europe and the Americas provides the detailed coun-try by country examination of the movement necessary to speak globally and generallyabout the field. It can be read in its entirety, offering a comprehensive scope to thoseseeking a comparative understanding of architectural conservation or a broad overviewof global practices rich with specific examples. It can also be used as a reference, sothat those seeking information about developments in a certain country or region mayquickly access a thorough overview of that information with directions for further read-ing and online resources for additional research. Importantly, this book can also bestudied as a source of solutions for effective architectural heritage management.This book’s content represents the views of its authors as researchers and practitio-ners in the field of heritage conservation, and does not necessarily reflect the positionsand opinions of the organizations with which they are affiliated. As such the authors areresponsible for its content.This book is not the only recent publication to take an international view of archi-tectural conservation, but the emphasis, scope, and contemporary nature of Architec-tural Conservation in Europe and the Americas varies from the other most significantof these studies and compendia. For example, in the 1980s James Marston Fitch’sHistoric Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World took a thematicallybroad and global view of the field’s key facets, and under the auspices of US ICO-MOS, Robert Stipe edited a series of bound reports on Historic Preservation in ForeignCountries that offered detailed profiles of developments in several European countriesxviii Preface04_9780470603857-fpref.indd xviii04_9780470603857-fpref.indd xviii 2/4/11 2:45 PM2/4/11 2:45 PM
  20. 20. during the period before 1990.6Much has happened since these seminal studies wereundertaken, however. More recently Giorgio Croci’s The Conservation and StructuralRestoration of Architectural Heritage and Bernard Feilden’s Conservation of HistoricBuildings primarily address technique and materials science. Jukka Jokilehto’s Historyof Architectural Conservation provides a foundational portrayal of the history of thefield and the contributions of key individuals primarily in Europe up until World WarII.7Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas addresses these topics andothers often in less detail, but contextualizes them within contemporary practice aswell as broadens the geographic scope to include developments in every country inthese three continents.The impressive 11-volume thematically-organized compendium Trattato di RestauroArchitettonico (Treatise on Architectural Restoration), coordinated and directed by Gio-vanni Carbonara over the course of the past decade and a half, is comprehensive in itsscope and includes writings by different experts.8Particularly in volume nine, which dis-cusses international practice in various countries and regions, its approach seems similarto Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas, though its compendium-likestructure, its overall length and publication in Italian make it less accessible to manypractitioners and students in the field today.Country profiles focused on legislative and administrative frameworks, a componentof Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas, have also previously beenpublished by others as well as made available online. For the Council of Europe, RobertPickard has brought together national experts to contribute to a number of edited booksdedicated to this theme, beginning with Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation andthe two-volume European Cultural Heritage, which examine representative countriesfrom throughout Europe; these were followed in 2008 by three additional books focusedspecifically on Southeastern Europe.9The Council of Europe is also the sponsor oftwo online efforts to compile similar country profiles, including the European HeritageNetwork website, which focuses specifically on heritage management policies, and theCompendium of Cultural Policies in Europe, which discusses heritage protection inlight of pan-European ambitions and broader cultural policies.10Both of these sites aimto comprehensively cover all of Europe (the former includes thirty country profiles andthe latter forty-one to date) and are periodically updated.Most of these publications and websites are focused on Europe, while similar com-prehensive studies for the rest of the world, including the Americas are rare. UNESCO’sWorld Heritage Center website compiles information about World Heritage Sites glob-ally, and ICOMOS’ series of Heritage at Risk publications highlights key threats incountries throughout the world on the basis of voluntary submissions.11Similarly, thewebsite of the World Monuments Fund, particularly its component which profiles sitesplaced on its Watch®list of endangered sites since 1995, yields a wealth of informationon threats to architectural heritage sites worldwide and solutions applied. However,none of these globally oriented sources managed by international organizations claimsto be comprehensive in their presentation of the countries in which their projects arelocated.Each of the aforementioned publications and institutional efforts has served as avaluable resource during the preparation of Architectural Conservation in Europe andthe Americas. If the present book places these and other efforts to in a clearer context, itwill have served its purpose.ENDNOTES1. For the history of architectural conservation in general and the origins of national practices inItaly, France, England and the German States through the early twentiety century, see: John H.Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation (Wiley & Sons: Hoboken,2009), 183–226.Preface xix04_9780470603857-fpref.indd xix04_9780470603857-fpref.indd xix 2/4/11 2:45 PM2/4/11 2:45 PM
  21. 21. 2. Spelman, Elizabeth V. Repair: The Impulse to Restore in a Fragile World. Boston, MA: BeaconPress, 2002.3. Avrami, Erica, Randall Mason, and Marta de la Torre. Values and Heritage Conservation. LosAngeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2000.4. Fairclough, Graham. Cultural Landscape, Sustainability, and Living with Change? ManagingChange: Sustainable Approaches to the Conservation of the Built Environment. J. M. Teutonicoand F. Matero, eds. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2003, pp. 23–46.5. According to the late British conservation architect Bernard M, Feilden, the delegates fromGreat Britain and the United States at the IInd International Congress of Architects and Tech-nicians of Historic Monuments which met in Venice from May 25 to 31, 1964, dissented in theirstrong support for the Venice Charter on the basis of the limited types of architectural heritagethat it addressed. Source: In review of the manuscript of the present book with Bernard Feildenat the Old Barn, Norwich, England, November 3, 2006.6. James Marston Fitch, Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World (NewYork: McGraw Hill, 1982); and Robert Stipe, Historic Preservation in Other Countries, vol. 1-5(Washington, DC: US/ICOMOS, 1982-1990).7. Giorgio Croci, The Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage, (South-ampton: Computational Mechanics Publications, 1998); Bernard M. Feilden, Conservation ofHistoric Buildings (Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 2003); and Jukka Jokilehto, A History ofArchitectural Conservation (Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 1999).8. Giovanni Carbonara (compiler), Trattato di Restauro Architettonico, vols. 1-11 (Torino: UTET,1996-2008).9. Robert Pickard, ed. Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation (London: Spon Press, 2000), Euro-pean Cultural Heritage Volume 1: Intergovernmental Cooperation: Collected Texts (Strasbourg:Council of Europe Publishing, 2002), European Cultural Heritage Volume 2: A Review of Poli-cies and Practices (Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2002), Analysis and Reform ofCultural Heritage Policies in Southeast Europe (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2008), Inte-grated Management Tools in the Heritage of South-East Europe (Strasburg: Council of Europe,2008), Sustainable Development Strategies in South-East Europe (Strasburg: Council of Eu-rope, 2008).10. “Home,” The European Heritage Network,[accessed December 30 2009]; and “Compendium Country Directory,” Compendium Cul-tural Polices and Trends in Europe, [accessed De-cember 20 2009].11. “World Heritage List,” UNESCO World Heritage Center, [ac-cessed December 30 2009]; and “Heritage at Risk,” ICOMOS, [accessed December 30 2009].xx Preface04_9780470603857-fpref.indd xx04_9780470603857-fpref.indd xx 2/4/11 2:45 PM2/4/11 2:45 PM
  22. 22. AcknowledgmentsTHE ORIGINAL IDEA of a series that would document world efforts in global archi-tectural conservation was conceived by John H. Stubbs in 1999: and, it has also princi-pally been his efforts that have produced this book. Crucial among Stubbs’ collaboratorssince 2006 has been architectural historian Emily G. Makaš, PhD. Makaš contributedso broadly toward research and writing during the book’s early phases that she eventuallywas invited to join Stubbs as its co-author.Much information was gained by John Stubbs via teaching courses in historic pres-ervation within the Graduate School of Architecture Planning and Preservation at Co-lumbia University in New York since 1984, a program he graduated from ten yearsearlier. Among other things, at Columbia Stubbs has researched the history of the fieldand “best practices” in foreign places. Also a graduate of Columbia’s historic preserva-tion program and later Cornell University’s Ph.D. program in architectural and urbanhistory, Makaš currently teaches in the School of Architecture at the University of NorthCarolina in Charlotte. She has also found that teaching, researching, and writing onarchitectural conservation is a matter of necessity, because in recent years the practiceof physically conserving the built environment has far exceeded any efforts to actuallydocument these activities. The authors are not alone in concluding that architecturalheritage conservation practice is passing through a period of self-reflection, and sensedthat they were in a good position to participate in assessing and documenting the fieldtoday.The idea for this project was also inspired and informed by John Stubbs’s work as VicePresident for Field Projects at World Monuments Fund. From around 1990 Stubbs andhis colleagues found themselves working in international architectural conservation prac-tice at a time when the field rapidly expanded in major new ways.So an important thanks for critical institutional support is extended to the World Mon-uments Fund, especially its president Bonnie Burnham and the organization’s trustees,who supported John Stubbs’s various levels of participation in scores of architectural con-servation projects in dozens of countries throughout the world for a period of over twodecades. In this connection it must be stated that this book was privately produced and thecontents and opinions expressed herein are those of its authors.In addition, World Monuments Fund colleagues Bonnie Burnham, Lisa Ackerman,Norma Barbacci, Jonathan Foyle, and Mark Weber helped more directly by reading andcommenting on drafts, or parts thereof, of this book. The authors are especially gratefulfor the use of some 32 percent of the book’s images that were sourced through the WMFImage Archives.Another institution to which special gratitude is owed is the International Centerfor the Study of the Conservation of Cultural Property (ICCROM) especially DirectorGeneral Mounir Bouchenaki for writing the Foreword for this book, and Paul Arensonand María Mata Caravaca who, respectively, direct ICCROM’s Library and Image Ar-chives and assisted the authors in their research.In addition, special thanks are expressed to the contributors of specialty essays: LisaAckerman, Norma Barbacci, Eric Delony, Frank Matero, Theodore H.M. Prudon,Diana Ramiro, Dennis Rodwell, Carol D. Shull, Eduardo Rojas, Barbara Ross, andDonovan Rypkema. The additional voices and expertise provided by these colleaguesxxi05_9780470603857-flast.indd xxi05_9780470603857-flast.indd xxi 2/4/11 2:45 PM2/4/11 2:45 PM
  23. 23. has enriched the depth and detail of this book and the authors are grateful for their as-sistance.Colleagues who assisted as readers, advisors, and providers of information in rela-tion to Part I: Europe include Zeynep Ahunbay, Marek Baranski, Bonnie Burnham,Donough Cahill, Clementine Cecil, Cevat Erder, Tanja Damljanovic Conley, LucyDer-Manuelian, Franca Di Valerio, Natalia Dushkina, Martin Dvorák, Tamás Fejerdy,Jacques Feiner, Donald Insall, Pamela Jerome, Maija Kairamo, Roman Koslowski, Pab-lo Longoria, Léon Lock, Bruno Maldoner, Arcady Nebolsine, Theodore H.M. Prudon,Didier Repellin, Gionata Rizzi, Dennis Rodwell, Werner Schmid, Chiara Siravo, Chris-topher Young, and Michael J. Walsh.Colleagues who assisted as readers, advisors, and providers of information for Part II:The Americas include Bonnie Burnham, Anthony Butler, Elena Charola, Eric Delony,Frank Matero, Elias Mujica, Theodore H.M. Prudon, Diana Ramiro, Eduardo Rojas,Barbara Ross, Donovan Rypkema, Carol D. Shull, and Herb Stovel.Various members of the production team served authors Stubbs and Makaš through-out the duration of this publishing project and provided invaluable help. Special thanksare expressed to patient and dedicated Sharon Delezenski Genin, general assistant tothe project practically from the start, who served various roles ranging from maintainerand keeper of the manuscript to fact checker to indexer to organizer of the book’s imagesand procurer of image use permissions.Gratitude is also extended to Martha Wilkie for her help in procuring images forthe book and consulting on matters related to a companion website, and to Guy Geninfor his kind help in preparing a number of images for this publication. Elizabeth Puhl,cartographer, prepared the book’s various maps, and graphic designer Ken Feisel pro-cured two aerial images and is responsible for the cover design of the predecessorvolume that this book emulates. The large number of colleagues, photographers, andothers who helped by providing illustrations are gratefully acknowledged in the photocredits section of this book.At different stages of the project writer-editors Ann ffolliott and Franca Di Valerioprovided valuable help in improving the book’s several drafts. Earlier researcher-writerswho provided invaluable assistance included Brian Curran, Dorothy Dinsmoor, Cath-erine Gavin, Sharon Delezenski Genin, and Ian Morello.The team at John Wiley & Sons, publishers including Amanda L. Miller, PaulDrougas, Sadie Abuhoff, Christine Gilmore, Amy Odum, Emily Cullings, and WalterSchwarz (book designer) are thanked for their expert oversight and support of—as wellas their belief in—this multi-part publishing enterprise.And finally, special thanks are extended to Linda K. Stubbs and Miran Makaš fortheir patience and countless other forms of support.The accomplishment of this book was carried through by an extraordinary level ofcollegiality and cooperation among the above named colleagues and others too numer-ous to mention. Such generous collaboration may say the most about the enterpriseof cultural heritage protection in our time: the field predominately consists of open,forward-looking, well-meaning, talented people who are eager to help.John H. StubbsEmily G. Makašxxii Acknowledgments05_9780470603857-flast.indd xxii05_9780470603857-flast.indd xxii 2/4/11 2:45 PM2/4/11 2:45 PM
  24. 24. P A R T IEurope06_9780470603857-ch01.indd 106_9780470603857-ch01.indd 1 2/8/11 2:16 PM2/8/11 2:16 PM
  25. 25. To mark the fiftieth anniversary of the formation of the Council of Europe as wellas the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Council of Europe’s European Year for Cul-tural Heritage, a campaign to promote the natural and cultural heritage of Eu-rope took place from late 1999 through the year 2000. The “Europe, A Common Heri-tage” campaign brought the twentieth century to a close: a century that is rememberedin Europe for the destruction of the two world wars as well as for the historic buildingsand environments preserved thanks to the maturation of the architectural conservationmovement. The new millennium dawned in Europe with the recognition of escalatingconservation challenges—such as pressures from economic development, tourism, andglobal warming—but also with unprecedented cooperation and coordination on behalfof cultural heritage across Europe.Europe is a vast continent, a cultural sphere, and a political and economic unioneach with boundaries that differ and have shifted over time. In spite of diverse geogra-phies, histories, cultures, and scales, today there is an ever-increasing unity of purposeand ideals within Europe and a shared concern for its architectural heritage. Europestretches from the rolling Ural Mountains to the tip of Gibraltar on the MediterraneanSea and from the expansive Caspian Sea to the fjords of Iceland. It includes countriesthat vary in area, population, climate, history, and culture ranging from the expansiveRussian Federation to small Malta and Liechtenstein. Over the course of Europe’s his-tory, the ties and relationships among its disparate parts have evolved, and peripheralcountries have participated to varying degrees. Countries or regions with geographicalor cultural affinities toward Europe that might not always be considered part of theregion proper, such as Caucasia, Greenland, Siberia, and Anatolia, will be consideredalong with Europe for the purposes of this book.Europe’s long and well-documented history led to an early appreciation of its cultur-al heritage, and as such, from a global perspective, it had an advanced start in architec-tural conservation practice. From the Renaissance’s critical approach to the past and thebirth of antiquarianism, to the eighteenth century’s culture of rationalism, enlighten-ment, and international exploration, to the nineteenth century’s interest in heritage val-ues and protection for the social good, Europe has been the place where the ideas thatunderlie contemporary cultural heritage conservation practice emerged. In Europe, thedevelopment of administrative mechanisms and legal structures for the identification,protection, and preservation of cultural heritage has a unique and long history, clearlydiscernable patterns, and, as elsewhere, a constantly expanding scope.Many of the global architectural conservation movement’s principles and chartersoriginated in Europe and it has always been a global leader in the field. Europe playedan instrumental role in the establishment of two global cultural heritage protectioninstitutions: the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).UNESCO was established in the wake of World War II as an intergovernmental organi-zation aimed toward promotion of international dialogue, shared values, and respect forcultural diversity. In 1964 in Venice, at the Second Congress of Architects and Special-ists of Historic Buildings, the International Restoration Charter, known as the VeniceCharter, was signed, and ICOMOS was created as an international nongovernmentalorganization (NGO).1Half of the countries represented (and 90 percent of the del-egates) at that foundational meeting were European.Today forty-seven European countries are member states of UNESCO, and thereare ICOMOS national chapters in almost all of them. Europe is still disproportionatelyrepresented on UNESCO’s World Heritage List, with over half the inscribed culturaland mixed heritage sites found within its countries. Both UNESCO and ICOMOS areglobal in their scope, but the protective mechanisms and best practices they have de-veloped—and the architectural conservation projects they have supported—have had adirect impact mainly on Europe.2 Europe06_9780470603857-ch01.indd 206_9780470603857-ch01.indd 2 2/8/11 2:16 PM2/8/11 2:16 PM
  26. 26. Europe 3Regional intergovernmental institutions such as the Council of Europe and the Eu-ropean Union (EU) have also played important roles in encouraging the sharing ofexperiences and expertise within Europe as well as the standardizing of policies andpractices throughout the continent. The Council of Europe, founded in 1949 by tencountries, but today comprising forty-seven member states, has retained its original fo-cus on promoting democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and European integration.The Council of Europe’s active interest in heritage protection began with the EuropeanCultural Convention, signed in Paris in 1954 by fourteen countries to promote mutualunderstanding and reciprocal appreciation for each other’s cultures, as well as to protecttheir common heritage.2To promote intergovernmental collaboration at the highest level, the Council ofEurope has organized numerous Conferences of Ministers Responsible for the CulturalHeritage. At the first such conference, held in Brussels in 1969, discussions were initi-ated that eventually led to the European Charter of the Architectural Heritage that wassigned as part of the activities of the Council of Europe’s European Year for CulturalHeritage in 1975.3This charter’s goal was “to make the public more aware of the ir-replaceable cultural, social and economic values” embodied in the diversity of its builtheritage.4The European Heritage Year program also encouraged local and nationalgovernments to actively inventory, protect, and rehabilitate their historic sites and to payspecial attention to preventing insensitive changes to them.5The 1975 charter led to the adoption in 1985 in Granada of the Convention forthe Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe; however, this was not the firstlegally binding convention developed through the initiative of the Council of Europe.Indeed, a supplement to the 1954 European Cultural Convention had previously beenenhanced with a specific convention to protect European archaeological heritage: itwas signed in 1969 in London, and was revised in 1992 in Valletta, Malta.6In 2005another convention (the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage forSociety) was drafted by the Council of Europe in Faro, Portugal, and it will soon havebeen ratified by enough countries to enter into force.7The various heritage chartersand conventions and the European Year for Cultural Heritager laid the groundwork forcoordinating conservation policies and fostering practical cooperation between govern-ment institutions and conservation professionals in Europe.The European Union was formed in 1993; however, its executive body and prede-cessor, the European Commission, has been involved in cultural heritage programsalmost since its inception in the 1950s. Today the EU includes twenty-seven memberstates, comprising most of Europe except for Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Turkey, theWestern Balkans, and some former states of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Incombination with other factors, the draw of membership to the EU has done much forthe updating of heritage protection laws and the strengthening of relevant institutionsthroughout Central and Eastern Europe in the past decade. The EU’s member statesare less numerous and geographical extent is much smaller than that of the Councilof Europe, but because its members have surrendered some sovereignty to this supra-national body, it has greater authority to enforce regulations and coordinate activities.Viewing heritage “as a vehicle for cultural identity” and “as a factor in economic de-velopment,” the EU has acted to promote awareness and access, the training of profes-sionals, and the use of new technologies as well as to reduce the illicit trafficking incultural objects.8Through a collection of innovative interrelated programs the Council of Europeand the European Union have worked separately and collaboratively to promote cul-tural heritage concerns and a shared European identity. In 1985 the EU initiated itsEuropean Capital of Culture program, an idea that originated with the Greek Minis-ter of Culture, Melina Mercouri, and led to the selection of Athens as the inauguralcity for such international attention. Each year, one European city is honored and06_9780470603857-ch01.indd 306_9780470603857-ch01.indd 3 2/8/11 2:16 PM2/8/11 2:16 PM
  27. 27. provided financial assistance to organize cultural heritage–related activities; however,in 2000, nine cites were designated in special recognition of the millennium, andsince then pairs of cities have often shared the honor. Meant to highlight the diversitywithin Europe, promote tourism, and stimulate cultural initiatives in general, theprogram has encouraged the construction of elaborate new cultural facilities and sig-nificantly aided architectural and urban conservation efforts in many of the selectedcities. According to the Palmer Report, issued by the European Commission in 2004after a lengthy survey and evaluation of the program’s first two decades by an indepen-dent consultant, the European Capital of Culture program proved “a powerful toolfor cultural development that operates on a scale that offers unprecedented oppor-tunities for acting as a catalyst for city change.”9However, the report also noted thatthough good for individual cities and local political agendas, the program could bemore coordinated and more focused on the “European dimension” of that heritage.Nevertheless, the program’s success at spurring and popularizing conservation effortsin specific cities has led to its imitation beyond Europe: for example, since 1996,the Arab League has sponsored an Arab Capital of Culture program, and since 1997the Organization of American States has designated an American Capital of Cultureeach year.In 1991 the Council of Europe initiated its European Heritage Days program, whichhas been a joint venture with the EU’s European Commission since 1999. Through thisprogram, each September, important but usually inaccessible historic sites are openedto the public, and other museums and historic sites offer special activities in a pan-European celebration of heritage. Most countries develop specific themes to link thesites included in a given year, and preparations have prompted the completion of count-less restoration and conservation projects throughout Europe. Various local and interna-tional NGOs have also coordinated activities to participate in this month highlightingheritage throughout Europe.In the past twenty-five years, the European Heritage Days program’s efforts havesignificantly raised public awareness for heritage and encouraged governments to pri-oritize this issue. In recent years, the focus of the European Heritage Days has shiftedmore and more to emphasize Europe’s shared heritage and identity to further promoteEuropean integration. According to the 2009 Handbook on European Heritage Days(published by the EU and the Council of Europe), today’s challenge is “to developawareness of a common heritage, from Yerevan to Dublin and from Palermo to Hel-sinki, without negating the feeling of belonging to a specific region or country. In short,we must ensure that, in the words of Jean-Michel Leniaud, the European heritage is thecombined expression of a search for diversity and a quest for unity.”10Launched in 1999, the Council of Europe’s European Heritage Network (known asHEREIN) has served as a central reference point and resource for professionals, admin-istrators, and researchers.11Designed to create a forum for the coordination of activitiesof government departments responsible for heritage in various European countries, ithas mostly focused on maintaining a database on the cultural policies of those countriesand promoting the digitization of cultural and natural heritage information and materi-als and the standardization of heritage language. Since 2001 it has focused on eastwardexpansion and integration of Europe as well as on expanding its thesaurus of heritageterms to include as many European languages as possible.Informal intergovernmental cooperation has also been organized in recent yearsthrough the European Heritage Heads Forum (EHHF), which brings the leaders ofstate heritage protection agencies together to share ideas and strategies.12The first meet-ing was held in London in 2006 and proved so successful that it has been repeatedannually. In 2007 a parallel European Heritage Legal Forum (EHLF) was formed bynineteen countries to research and monitor European Union legislation and its poten-tial impact on cultural heritage.134 Europe06_9780470603857-ch01.indd 406_9780470603857-ch01.indd 4 2/8/11 2:16 PM2/8/11 2:16 PM
  28. 28. Under the auspices of the Council of Europe in 1963, various NGOs established Eu-ropa Nostra, the Pan-European Federation for Cultural Heritage.14Its prestigious awardswere developed in the late 1970s; it undertook significant public surveying efforts inthe 1980s, and it has since been recognized by the EU’s European Commission as thepremier cultural heritage protection umbrella organization in Europe. In 2002 EuropaNostra’s European Heritage Awards for excellence in conservation, research, service,and education were combined with the EU Prize for Cultural Heritage. Recent laure-ates that reflect the range of honored projects and people have included the restorationof the Mátra Museum in Gyögyös, Hungary; a study on the effect of climate change onEurope’s heritage; Glenn Murray, who has worked tirelessly for decades on behalf ofSpain’s Segovia Mint; and a Greek training program that involves the local populationin sustainable urban conservation for economic development.Europa Nostra’s International Secretariat is based in The Hague, The Netherlands,and its efforts are financed by both the Council of Europe and the EU as well as bynumerous corporate sponsors. Since 2010 Europa Nostra has been led by presidentPlácido Domingo, the renowned Spanish tenor and conductor, who has a deep interestand involvement in European culture. Today, Europa Nostra can proudly boast that it“represents some 250 non-governmental organizations, 150 associate organizations and1500 individual members from more than fifty countries.”15Europa Nostra campaignsvigorously on behalf of threatened structures, and both its reputation and the media at-tention it gathers have done much to save individual buildings and sites and to changelocal policies throughout Europe.Other NGOs and networks of similar organizations have played a crucial role inpromoting and protecting the architectural heritage of Europe. For example, an initia-tive that began in Flanders, Belgium, has sought to develop an inventory of key culturalheritage organizations throughout Europe to encourage collaboration and partnershipsas well as to broaden the understanding of heritage. It has begun organizing meetingsof heritage experts, and its bottom-up Inventory of Heritage Organizations of Europehas collected and categorized information about hundreds of NGOs concerned withheritage ranging from industrial to agricultural, from folk art to museology, and fromthe intangible to architectural.16A similar collection of information about Europeanarts-and-heritage NGOs is housed by Culture Action Europe, another Belgium-basedorganization that was formerly known as the European Forum for the Arts and Heri-tage. Culture Action Europe is an advocacy group concerned more broadly with artisticproduction as well as conservation. It was founded in 1994 to provide networking op-portunities for NGOs as well as a shared voice and resources when lobbying Europeanpolicymakers on culture-related issues.17This framework of international conventions, intergovernmental institutions, andNGOs has resulted in a great deal of coordination and shared resources among conserva-tion professionals throughout Europe. In addition, every country in Europe today haslong recognized the importance of architectural conservation and established state institu-tions to restore and oversee its historic sites. Across Europe, heritage legislation protectsinventories of designated national monuments, though the terminology and definitionsvary from country to country. In some countries, those laws are comprehensive; in othersarchitectural, archaeological, and other components of heritage are protected separately.18While some countries have only one category of monument, others have multiple cat-egories with varying levels of restrictions and available support; some also have protec-tive buffer zones around these monuments; and many also have designated conservationareas, such as historic districts, city cores, building complexes, and archaeological sites.19In addition, most European countries support architectural conservation through directgrants, tax incentives, or a combination of these mechanisms; however, the particulars ofhow these funds are managed and distributed, as well as the amounts involved, varies fromcountry to country.20Europe 506_9780470603857-ch01.indd 506_9780470603857-ch01.indd 5 2/8/11 2:16 PM2/8/11 2:16 PM
  29. 29. In addition, professionals in the field across Europe today face many of the samechallenges. The current global economic crisis has reduced available funding for con-servation projects from state and local budgets as well as tourism and the support itprovides many sites. Tourism itself remains a double-edged sword, threatening manyhistoric sites with overuse while providing much-needed revenue for research and con-servation. The threat of global terrorism has created new security pressures on certainhistoric centers and sites and their visitors.Though originally an “exclusivist, arrogant, and dominating” practice, as Costa Car-ras, vice president of Europa Nostra, characterized its origins, in recent years Europeanconceptions of heritage have become increasingly accommodating of cultural diver-sity.21The early heritage conservationists perhaps never imagined all of the reasons forwhich historic sites are valued today, particularly how restoration of historic city centersand residential enclaves has contributed to urban regeneration, economic recovery, andthe ever-growing cultural tourism industry. In addition, Europe’s secularism, democrat-ic traditions, and civil society have contributed to the formation of grassroots interestand involvement in heritage concerns from Great Britain to Greece—a phenomenonthat has not always developed as fully elsewhere in the world.22Despite these parallels, the coordination and collaboration facilitated by pan-Eu-ropean charters and institutions, and the globalization of heritage and the internation-alization of debates on its issues, remarkably different emphases and characteristics ofcontemporary conservation practice are found in different countries, even within Eu-rope. These variations are based on the particularities of national histories as well as theunique combinations of heritage found within them. For example, though culturallylinked with Western and Northern Europe, the countries of central, eastern, and south-eastern Europe have had very different histories, and thus have had differing conserva-tion experiences. In these regions, the large, autocratic Habsburg, Russian, and Otto-man empires lingered into the early twentieth century, precluding the maturation ofmany of the populist forces that shaped the development of architectural conservationelsewhere in Europe, including aspects of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment insome areas. Yet the end of the Cold War in 1989 signaled a new era in European history,and ever since, similar patterns of interest have spread throughout eastern and southeast-ern Europe and the post-Soviet states, with the cultural reintegration of Europe as mucha priority as its political reunion.Indeed, Europe’s greatest heritage challenge today is to strengthen national and cul-tural diversities within the framework of a reunited continent. Though initially seenas peripheral to the processes of integrating Europe, culture is playing an increasinglycentral and fundamental role in creating a true union by promoting European identity;because, to be sure, “Europe” is much more of a cultural entity than a political one.23Appreciating the protection of cultural heritage has gained a wider political audienceas its benefits have become more and more obvious to European institutions and theinternational community at large. Today Europe shares and promotes cultural heritageconservation for the benefit of individual local cultures as well as for humanity in gen-eral, and European practice and principles have been imitated and adapted worldwide.ENDNOTES1. A nongovernmental organization (NGO), ICOMOS is not restricted by the official positions ofits member states, and it has proven freer to campaign for broader heritage issues and developdoctrines. For fuller summaries of ICOMOS, UNESCO, and other NGOs and intergovern-mental organizations (IGOs), see also John H. Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Archi-tectural Conservation: Parameters, Theory, and Evolution of an Ethos (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley& Sons, 2009), 252–259.2. Council of Europe, “European Cultural Convention” (Paris: Council of Europe, 1954), (accessed June 28 2010).6 Europe06_9780470603857-ch01.indd 606_9780470603857-ch01.indd 6 2/8/11 2:16 PM2/8/11 2:16 PM
  30. 30. 3. Drafted occasionally by IGOs but more frequently by NGOs, the European Charter of theArchitectural Heritage and other charters are recommendations of best practices that rely onthe good will and cooperative spirit of participants to comply. Conventions, on the other hand,are drafted and ratified by the delegates of states’ parties to IGOs—they are international agree-ments legally binding on the governments that sign them.4. Council of Europe, “European Charter of the Architectural Heritage” (Amsterdam: Councilof Europe, 1975), (accessed May 8, 2010). This in turnled to the “Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe” (Granada,Spain: Council of Europe, 1985), December 7, 2009).5. Derek Linstrum, “The Conservation of Historic Towns and Buildings as a National Heritage,”Commonwealth Foundation Occasional Papers 38 (1976): 15.6. Council of Europe, “European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heri-tage” (Valetta, Malta: Council of Europe, 1992), (accessed December 9, 2009).7. The Council of Europe also signed a “Convention on Offences Relating to Cultural Property”in Delphi in 1985, but it has not been ratified because it duplicates a similar 1972 UNESCOConvention.8. Through its Culture 2000 program, the European Union has supported specific restorationprojects, such as post-earthquake conservation of frescoes at the St. Francis Basilica in Assisi,Italy. In addition, EU taxation, agricultural, and building construction laws also impact howheritage is protected in Europe.9. Palmer/RAE Associates, European Cities and Capitals of Culture: A Study Prepared for theEuropean Commission, part I (Brussels: Palmer/RAE: 2004), 23.10. Michel Kneubühler, Handbook on the European Heritage Days: A Practical Guide (Strasburgand Brussels: Council of Europe and European Commission, 2009), 8.11. “Home,” European Heritage Network, (accessed De-cember 9, 2009).12. “European Heritage Heads Forum,” English Heritage, (ac-cessed December 8, 2009).13. European Heritage Legal Forum, “The EHLF,” Riksantikvaren (Norwegian Directorate forCultural Heritage), (accessed December 8, 2009).14. “About Europa Nostra, ” Europa Nostra, (accessedDecember 8, 2009).15. “Mission,” Europa Nostra, (accessed December 8, 2009).Sneška Quaedvlieg-Mihailovi´c and Rupert Graf Strachwitz, eds., “Editors’ Foreword,” Heritageand the Building of Europe (Berlin: Maecenata Verlag, 2004), 7.16. “Heritage Organizations in Europe,” Inventory of Heritage Organizations in Europe, (accessed December 10, 2009).17. “About Us,” Culture Action Europe, (accessedDecember 10, 2009).18. Robert Pickard, “Review,” in Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation, ed. Robert Pickard (Lon-don and New York: Spon Press, 2001), 318.19. Ibid., 315–317.20. Ibid., 333–334.21. Costa Carras, “The Significance of the Cultural Heritage for Europe Today,” in Quaedvlieg-Mihailovi´c and Strachwitz, Heritage and the Building of Europe, 31.22. Ibid., 54.23. Ibid., 30.Europe 706_9780470603857-ch01.indd 706_9780470603857-ch01.indd 7 2/8/11 2:16 PM2/8/11 2:16 PM
  31. 31. 06_9780470603857-ch01.indd 806_9780470603857-ch01.indd 8 2/8/11 2:16 PM2/8/11 2:16 PM
  32. 32. 99WESTERN EUROPES E C T I O N 106_9780470603857-ch01.indd 906_9780470603857-ch01.indd 9 2/8/11 2:16 PM2/8/11 2:16 PM
  33. 33. 10 Western EuropeBeginning in Italy with the Renaissance interest in the ruins of antiquity, the the-ory and practice of organized architectural conservation originated in WesternEurope. These ideas spread outward during the eighteenth century as interest indeliberate architectural conservation was witnessed in France and England. Soon all ofWestern Europe was engaged in some variety of conservation activities, which began tomature in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.The separate but overlapping experiences of Italy, France, and Great Britain all pro-vide substantial evidence that restoration practice in the nineteenth century was heavilyimbued with scientific and nationalist implications, the hallmarks of the early indus-trial age. In Italy, as well as in Germany in central Europe, the restoration of key his-toric buildings instilled the populations with a collective cultural pride and reinforcedenthusiasm for political unification, while French and British restoration practice wasmore reflective of a growing reaction against the societal changes wrought by the In-dustrial Revolution. In both France and Great Britain, this reaction was manifested ina glorification of everything medieval, because for many disturbed by the rising tideof unbridled capitalism and secular modernism the Middle Ages represented the corevalues of the state and church. In France and Great Britain medieval heritage was alsolooked to as a source in the search for national origins, while in Italy the great legaciesof the Roman era and the Renaissance served a similar purpose in the late nineteenthand early twentieth century.During this transition period for Western Europe, the “unity of style” movement wasthe paramount school of thought for architectural restoration. Through the efforts of itsmost fervent adherent, Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, this approach elevated “resto-ration” from merely merging artistic additions with historic structures to a scientific andmethodological practice. Viollet-le-Duc’s prolific restoration work in France and volu-minous scholarly endeavors quickly spread abroad, where architects, ecclesiastical societ-ies, and government agencies adopted his ideas for restoring, correcting, and improvingupon their historic monuments. His approach combined rationalism and creative licenseand was widely seen as the ideal solution for the treatment of damaged or unfinishedhistoric structures in Western Europe, particularly in Belgium and Netherlands.The contemporaneous Italian and British schools of conservation theory and prac-tice, which advocated more conservative approaches to restoration, served as importantcounterpoints to “unity of style” ideas. This dialectic did much to define the philosophi-cal parameters of the field in Europe and beyond.The first half of the twentieth century introduced new challenges for Western Euro-pean heritage, beginning with the destruction of sites during wartime on a scale unseenin modern history. The damage was compounded by subsequent post-war rebuildingprojects, many of which seriously altered historic built environments by wholesale de-molition and modernization. With the benefit of hindsight, we realize today that muchof that new construction was inferior in workmanship, inadequate in function, andlacking in aesthetic quality.1By the mid-1960s there were increasing reactions acrossWestern Europe to modern architecture’s failure to provide compatibly designed newbuildings in historic contexts.2Local activists organized societies to save old buildings and prevent their replace-ment by mediocre modern architecture. Often, such activities engaged them in battleswith a variety of interested parties, including planners, developers, architects, propertyowners, and the general public. Every country has had its struggles in this area, with thenegotiated results—some more successful than others—constituting the architecturalface of Europe that we see today.As interest in conservation expanded, new conservation technologies, methodolo-gies, and creative programs for action were developed. For example, many countries,such as Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal, which had been dependent on governmentfunding for architectural conservation, eventually began to embrace schemes involving06_9780470603857-ch01.indd 1006_9780470603857-ch01.indd 10 2/8/11 2:16 PM2/8/11 2:16 PM
  34. 34. Western Europe 11the private sector more significantly in the protection of architectural heritage. In fact,fund-raising for architectural conservation has become an increasing concern of indi-viduals, historic sites, and NGOs in recent years.Today, all Western European countries have well-developed legislation and listingprocedures and a host of innovative heritage awareness and action schemes. Most alsohave well-established government offices to oversee, coordinate, and advise conserva-tion efforts. Over the course of the twentieth century, they have amended and adaptedtheir practices and laws to reflect broadening concepts of what is valuable and whatdeserves protection. In addition, most of these countries have also witnessed the emer-gence of networks of nonprofit and public advocacy groups that complement and act asmonitors of government activities in the field of architectural conservation.Despite these extensive parallels, each Western European country’s particular con-servation efforts developed from different combinations of factors in recent centuriesand thus the contemporary practice of each has a slightly distinct character, with specificstrengths and weaknesses. At the same time, in the second half of the twentieth century,increasing awareness of developments in neighboring countries as well as increasingcollaboration both informally and through pan-European institutions has led to simi-larities in the architectural conservation experiences of Western European countries.ENDNOTES1. Certainly some post–World War II construction supplied urgently needed provisional architec-ture in circumstances where speed of erection and cost efficiency mattered more than aesthet-ics and longevity.2. Probably the most thorough portrayal of reactions of heritage conservationists to new trends intwentieth century architecture is found in architectural historian Wim Denslagen’s RomanticModernism; Nostalgia in the World of Conservation (Amsterdam University Press, 2009)..06_9780470603857-ch01.indd 1106_9780470603857-ch01.indd 11 2/8/11 2:16 PM2/8/11 2:16 PM
  35. 35. Figure 1.1 View of the Forum and Palatine from the Capitoline Hill, Rome, Italy,where 2,700 years of Roman architectural history are on view.06_9780470603857-ch01.indd 1206_9780470603857-ch01.indd 12 2/8/11 2:16 PM2/8/11 2:16 PM
  36. 36. 13Italy’s extensive and significant surviving ancient and medieval-renaissance heritage,as well as its importance for Italian identity in the nineteenth and twentieth centu-ries, has meant that architectural conservation has been prevalent and a priority inthis country for two hundred years. During this period, Italy has emerged as a leader inthe global field, particularly in the specializations of conservation education and theory.Architectural conservation practitioners and theoreticians, from Camillo Boito in thenineteenth century to Cesare Brandi in the mid-twentieth century to Paolo Marconi inrecent decades, have shaped the way contemporary architectural heritage protection isapproached and understood in Italy today. The research institutes and graduate studyprograms with which they have been affiliated, including the Istituto Superiore per laConservazione ed il Restauro (Higher Institute for Preservation and Restoration) and theUniversità degli Studi Roma Tre (University of Rome III)—and indeed many more couldbe named here—have trained specialists and advanced conservation theory and practice.Italian conservators have also actively shared their experiences and expertise throughwork in projects around the world. Though caring for the extensive number of signifi-cant historic sites in Italy presents a challenge even for these global leaders and institu-tions, the importance of cultural heritage and the degree to which it is protected ensuresthat most of Italy’s architectural patrimony should be secure in the years ahead.EARLY ORGANIZED CONSERVATION EFFORTSFollowing the social upheavals of the Napoleonic Wars at the beginning of the nine-teenth century, especially after unification and industrialization at the end of that samecentury, Italian architectural conservationists joined their French and English coun-terparts in contributing to a growing body of theory and special methodologies. Amongtheir principal concerns was the treatment of the vast number of ancient urban build-ings, whose fabric was being negatively affected by various modernization schemes. Theexperience of adapting and restoring historic Roman buildings often served as the basisfor developing this increasingly distinct aspect of the larger field of architecture.Due to the widespread appeal of Rome’s rich cultural patrimony, it is in the EternalCity where the most noticeable examples of a nascent professional architectural conser-vation specialization can be readily seen. Systematic restoration and heritage protectionefforts in Rome began during the French occupation in 1798, and shortly thereafterexcavation work at the Roman Forum initiated the close traditional linkage betweenItalian architectural conservation and the field of classical archaeology.1ItalyC H A P T E R 106_9780470603857-ch01.indd 1306_9780470603857-ch01.indd 13 2/8/11 2:16 PM2/8/11 2:16 PM
  37. 37. As the nineteenth-century popes and the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy influ-enced both Rome’s urban refurbishment and provided a legal framework for restoringand protecting key historic buildings, the treatment of individual buildings improved.The sensitive buttressing of the Colosseum by Raffaele Stern and Giuseppe Camporesiwas the first great architectural conservation project of the nineteenth century in Italy.2Giuseppe Valadier’s work at the Arch of Titus in 1821 skillfully blended old and newbuilding fabric and successfully juxtaposed, where necessary, surviving original materialwith new marble elements that restored the structural and visual integrity of the dam-aged building. Valadier’s sophisticated and carefully documented interventions focusedon retaining as much original architectural fabric as possible. His work received muchattention and set standards for the formalization of architectural restoration theory inItaly later in the nineteenth century.By midcentury, the Italian architectural conservation movement had found itselfin the center of the European philosophical debate on conservation approaches whenCarlo Cattaneo’s written opposition to the construction of Milan’s cathedral square(Piazza del Duomo) imported John Ruskin’s “less intervention is more” ideas intoa locale that subscribed to Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc’s approach of radicalperiod restoration.3Energized by the enthusiasm of opposing positions, the Italianarchitectural conservation movement gained momentum. Conservation theories andmethodologies were constantly publicly debated as legislation and architectural pro-tection advocates created a vast body of literature, laws, and regulations for each smallstate and duchy.The modernization of cities in the late nineteenth century, throughout Europe butespecially in cherished historic centers such as Florence, helped give birth to today’spublic interest in architectural conservation. Proposals for street widening and cutting,as well as the insertion of modern infrastructure into near-perfectly preserved medievaland renaissance cities, inspired active campaigns to save these places. For example, inFlorence, between 1885 and 1895, twenty-six streets, twenty squares, and twenty-oneparks were destroyed, along with 341 dwellings, 451 shops, and 173 storehouses—in ad-dition, 5,822 people were obliged to move elsewhere in order to open up broad avenueswith calculated vistas.4When the threat of destruction turned to the Ponte Vecchio andother key sites within the city, concern was raised among city councillors, concernedFlorentines, and others from throughout Europe (especially the United Kingdom) whohad fallen in love with the city’s charms. In 1898 the Society for the Defense of Old Flor-ence was founded, and letter-writing campaigns and newspaper editorials questioneddevelopments in both London and Florence. Finally, a petition was prepared with morethan ten thousand signatures, including those of an astounding number of leading writ-ers, artists, and governmental figures from across Europe and North America. Thus,one of the earliest international architectural conservation battles was witnessed in thecampaign to prevent the modernization of Florence.When the Kingdom of Italy was proclaimed in 1861, the groundwork for the or-ganized protection of architectural heritage had already been laid. However, it tookover forty years before the passage of Italy’s first comprehensive law on architecturalconservation: the Monument Act of 1902. Political unification both positively and nega-tively influenced Italian heritage conservation. It created the impetus for reorganizingthe country’s cultural property management system (which by definition included his-torically and artistically significant buildings, sites, and practically all surviving ancientmonuments). At the same time, the new capital, Rome, once again saw its infrastructureand built heritage suffer. The Forum lost its romantic and picturesque mantle of earthand vegetation as archaeological excavations recommenced, and a controversial assaultwas launched on the Colosseum. Infrastructure demands seriously threatened the nu-merous historic buildings and districts that impeded modernization schemes such as thewidening of boulevards, treatment of city walls, new embankments for the Tiber River,14 Western Europe06_9780470603857-ch01.indd 1406_9780470603857-ch01.indd 14 2/8/11 2:16 PM2/8/11 2:16 PM
  38. 38. Figure 1-2 The enclosure builtfor the Ara Pacis (Altar of Peace)in Rome in 1938 (a) was replacedin 2005 (b). The vastly larger newstructure, with the altar centeredbelow a new high enclosure, isalso meant to accommodate publicexhibitions and cultural events: forexample, a retrospective of couturierValentino Garavani (c). This twenty-first century enclosure, designed byAmerican architect Richard Meier, isone of the very few contemporaryarchitectural interventions in theheart of Rome, and, as such, ithas been the subject of a debateabout whether conspicuous newconstruction is antithetical topreservation of the historic city.Italy 15abc06_9780470603857-ch01.indd 1506_9780470603857-ch01.indd 15 2/8/11 2:16 PM2/8/11 2:16 PM