The Building Conservation Directory 2021

PROFESS IONAL SERV I CES 1 13 C AT H E D R A L C O MM U N I C AT I O N S T H E B U I L D I N G C O N S E R VAT I O N D I R E C T O R Y 2 0 2 1 and politically undesirable, or otherwise just not of interest to the local administrations responsible for them. They were cheaper to ignore than to demolish. We found most had been abandoned to nature and were now colonised by trees and wildlife. Some of them, no doubt constructed quickly and in the absence of adequate design codes, were in very poor condition. Others were squatted by people on the edge of society or were attracting delinquent activity of one type or another. During the decade since our journey this situation has changed, as regional development has increased the value of the sites that the surviving buildings occupy. While some have been swept away, others have been repaired and converted to use as hotels and holiday apartments. This has been done generally with little if any acknowledgement of their original purpose, which would be an uncomfortable reminder of a history their residents and owners might not want wish to contemplate. Built heritage is commonly described in terms of its ‘significance’. The concept may be broken down into two components; the ‘signifier’, which exists in physical space, and the ‘signified’ which exists only in human thought. In the historic environment, a place, building or work of art considered as a heritage asset is a signifier of a value of which we have prior knowledge. UNESCO defines world heritage in terms of cultural and natural significance, which is described as ‘outstanding heritage value’. In the United Kingdom, legislation and policy for the conservation of heritage also refers to the special architectural or historic interest of a listed building and the national importance of a scheduled monument as the heritage asset’s significance. In identifying the role of the heritage asset as a system of signs, its value can be conveniently set out as a narrative. Public policy based on this model allows assets to be interrogated to establish what is significant, and perhaps more importantly what is not, as a basis for making decisions about proposals for alterations or development work. Change is necessary to sustain heritage within a functioning economy and society and significance is a powerful management tool. However, by conflating the intrinsic value of heritage with the mechanics of its communication presents a fundamental problem. Following this model, ‘heritage value’ is identified exclusively in the role that a place or building or work of art has in the present, as a product to be consumed. We cannot say what value heritage might signify to other people and at other times, and all these unidentified significances present and future are left in limbo. Significance is exclusive, the best we can hope for is consensus amongst the most vocal on what is signified. By definition even this is lacking where contested heritage is concerned. In Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945 , the Anglo-American historian Tony Judt drew a distinction between history and historical memory and identified the role of the former to challenge and question the latter. For things to be history requires that they can be understood objectively and unambiguously in context. In a situation where historical memory is still raw, and the value of a heritage asset is far from a matter of agreement, we cannot clearly establish significance. We must constantly ask ourselves what is significant and to whom? Without unambiguous answers to these questions, heritage value is at risk. Is it legitimate to prioritise some meanings by conserving their significance when the significance of others is not understood and consequently marginalised and excluded? Beyond the inevitable distortion, how can we prevent manipulation of heritage value to partisan ends? The fascists appropriated Roman, medieval and renaissance heritage for mass consumption via cinema and popular tourism. The famous horse race the Palio di Sienna is prominent among the civic spectacles they re-staged and which survive in the form prescribed by the regime to this day. The architectural programmes of the regime included extensive alteration of the Roman Forum and historic towns across Italy. Modern additions to buildings that did not suit the narrative were systematically removed and new elements were added in appropriate historical styles, intended to promote feelings of patriotic unity and pride. Today, guidebooks identify San Gimignano as a medieval town when large parts of what the visitor actually sees is fascist confection. Popular understanding of the pre-modern past is filtered by the legacy of the regime. To most of us this is normalised and we cannot even recognise that it has happened. What we recognise as conservation today has its origins in 18th century antiquarianism and 19th century romanticism. In the Seven Lamps of Architecture published in 1849 and more particularly in The Stones of Venice written in 1851–53, John Ruskin recognised historic buildings and works of art above all else for their associative value, whether emotional, moral or intellectual. William Morris, Philip Webb and others who took up Ruskin’s call for the preservation of historic buildings were disturbed by the destruction of the medieval fabric of English churches caused by contemporary architectural restoration. Instead, they advocated for the preservation of all existing fabric, regardless of status, quality or condition of repair. Unlike public planning policy, the Manifesto for the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings published in 1877 provides minimal guidance for how change might be managed. Beyond ‘daily care’ and repair ‘by such means as are obviously meant for support or covering’, it implores ‘otherwise to resist all tampering with either the fabric or ornament of the building as it stands; if it has become inconvenient for its present use, to raise another building rather than alter or enlarge the old one’. Morris reserved harsh criticism for the attempt by contemporary architects to restore a building to one historical style or period, which he described as ‘forgery’. In this, he was opposed to editing the past, which we would now recognise as the privileging of one set of significances over another. In the United States, the concept of preservation retains some currency in The Secretary of the Interior’s 2017 report Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties , but in the United Kingdom it has come to be seen Colonia Rosa Maltoni Mussolini, Tirenia (Pisa) (1926–31) a work by the chief architect of the Italian Ministry of Communications, Angiolo Mazzoni (1894–1979). Half of the complex has been converted to holiday apartments, the original orange decorative scheme restored. (Photo: Dan Dubowiz)