Report on the 15th US/ICOMOS International Symposium

7/31/2019 Report on the 15th US/ICOMOS International Symposium

1/14

COMMENTARY, REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE

15TH US/ICOMOSINTERNATIONALSYMPOSIUM

CONFLUENCE OF CULTURESWORLD HERITAGE IN THE AMERICAS

SAN ANTONIO,TEXAS31MAY2JUNE 2012

UNITED STATES NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES

COMIT NATIONAL DES ETATS UNIS DU CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES

CONTENTS

Opening Plenary: Confluence of Cultures, World Heritage in the AmericasModerator Comments by Frederick R. Steiner

Session Assistant: Sara Ludea.

Invited Speaker: Felipe Hernndez

Session One: Authenticity and Identity in the 21st centuryModerator Comments by Elizabeth Chu Richter

Session Assistant: Sarah Simister

Invited Speakers/ Presenters: Olga Orive, Ayman G. Abdel Tawab, Eve Errickson, Catherine Barrier

Session Two: Cultural Sustainability

Moderator Comments by Stephen KelleySession Assistant: Rosanna Villareal

Invited Speakers/ Presenters: Eusebio Leal, Olga Pizano, Angela Rojas, Lisa Prosper

Session Three: Continuity and Urban Growth in Cultural HeritageModerator Comments by David G. Woodcock

Session Assistant: Nancy Bryant

Invited Speakers/ Presenters: Edward Soja, Susan Lampard, Patricia ODonnell, Marcela Hurtado

Closing Plenary: Confluence of Cultures, World Heritage in the AmericasModerator Comments by William A. Dupont

Session Assistant: Angela LombardiParticipants: Susanne Deal Booth, Frederick R. Steiner, Elizabeth Chu Richter, Stephen Kelley, David G.

Woodcock


2/14





CONFLUENCE OF CULTURES,WORLD HERITAGE IN THE AMERICASModerator Comments by Frederick R. Steiner

The overarching theme of this symposium was the confluence of cultures. As a result, we should begin

by exploring what we mean by culture and confluence. Cultures evolve in part from how people interact

with each other and with the natural environment. An important lesson from ecology is that the richest

and most productive habitats are where ecosystems overlap, that is, at their confluence. We call such

places ecotones. San Antonio is an ecotone both naturally and culturally.

Naturally, the city sits between the Edwards Plateau and the Hill Country to the west, and the Blackland

Prairie, East Central Texas Plains, and the Gulf Coastal Plain to the east. The Edwards Aquifer is one of

the most productive groundwater resources in the world and the sole source of drinking water for the

City of San Antonio.

Many springs are located at this intersection between plateau and prairie. These springs feed the

regions rich system of rivers and streams. Native Americans recognized the great value of this

confluence of springs, rivers, and rich habitats. They established many settlements along what is now

the I-35 corridor. The springs provided water and the diverse habitats presented many opportunities for

hunting. The Spanish followed suit and established their missions along the same corridor. Around the

mission, the Mexican Tejas culture emerged. The Spanish were succeeded by Americans (mostly from

the southern states), Germans, Poles, and Czechs. A rich and productive culture has, indeed, resulted at

this ecotone here in San Antonio.

Stepping back and looking more broadly, we also sit on a much larger ecotonethe one between the

United States and Mexico, a place where Latin America overlaps with cultures originating in Northern

Europe. Were clearly at a confluence of cultures.

San Antonio forms the base of the Texas Triangle Megaregion with Houston; Dallas-Ft. Worth is at the

apex. This is one of the fastest growing megaregions in the United States, which poses significant

challenges and opportunities for preservation, design, and planning.

Through preservation we should, as Lisa Prosper notes, renew cultures in place by way of practices of

inhabitation. Through design and planning, we envision preferred futures. As a result, preservation,

design, and planning are valuable tools for human adaptation. Of our design and planning disciplines,

architecture is our oldest and most well-established profession.

We were privileged to have a significant architectural scholar as our kick-off keynote speaker. Dr. FelipeHernndez joined us from the University of Cambridge. He is a productive author and editor of works on

Latin American architecture and urbanism. The topic of his talk was the architecture heritage and

contested landscapes of the 20th century city. These are certainly important topics in Texas.

Felipe Hernndez presented a number of questions about architectural history and architectural

heritage, with a focus on Latin America. He noted the traditional divide between what is regarded as

historical in the Western classical sense and nonhistorical, which is essentially everything else. I would

add a second shortcoming of traditional architectural history; that is, its close affiliation with art history.

Art historians focus on big names and objects (and they emphasize whats new and different). This view


3/14





of architectural history is not necessarily compatible with how Dr. Hernndez defined heritagethe

connection of things with people.

In order to more adequately connect things and people, architectural history needs to move beyond itsWestern classical, heroic figure, and object-based orientation. It needs to move beyond the cult of the

new and different. To more fully account for the ordinary, the field can learn much from cultural

geography, ethnography, and landscape and urban studies. Dr. Hernndez suggested, for example, the

need for architectural historians to more fully understand the suburbia from the second half of the 20th

century and the informal settlements that dominate much of the Latin American urban landscape.

Dr. Hernndez noted that we should think about history and heritage in broader, more creative ways.

He advocated a new architectural language to better describe and interpret ordinary landscapes. I

believe such a language should incorporate an understanding of ecology and regional cultural history. In

this regard, I suggest Anne Spirns wonderful book, The Landscape of Landscape, as an appropriate

starting point. She illustrates how landscapes are a confluence of nature and culture with vocabularieswe can read for preservation, design, and planning.

Frederick R. Steiner is the dean of the School of Architecture, University of Texas at Austin. Previously, he

was director of the School of Planning and Landscape Architecture and Environmental Design, Arizona

State University and taught planning, landscape architecture, and environmental science at Washington

State University, the University of Colorado-Denver, and the University of Pennsylvania. As a Fulbright-

Hays Scholar in 1980, he conducted research and ecological planning at the Wageningen Agricultural

and Environmental Science University, The Netherlands. In 1998, he was the National Endowment for the

Arts Rome Prize Fellow in Historic Preservation and Conservation at the American Academy in Rome.


4/14





AUTHENTICITY AND IDENTITYModerator Comments by Elizabeth Chu Richter; co-authored by Sarah Simister

Authenticity continues to resonate differently for different groups and places since the topic was

discussed in the 1996 US/ICOMOS conference held in San Antonio. In the ensuing four decades,

unprecedented mobility and internet connectivity has closed the gap between cultures and people,

mixing identity and traditions. In todays rapidly changing environment, how can we best identify,

record, and manage assets that give identity to places and cultures in the 21st century? The 2012

US/ICOMOS Symposium revisited this topic with a session on Authenticity and Identity.

The session opened with a keynote, followed by a panel of three presenters, and closed with a

discussion among the panelists and the audience. The distinguished presenters touched upon issues of

values - economic values, community values, and intangible values that deserve to be passed on from

one generation to the next.

Ms. Olga Orive Bellenger, President of ICOMOS Mexico presented the opening keynote titled

Authenticity and Identity in the 21st

Century Mexico. Ms. Orive provided a chronological snapshot of the

ongoing discussions on authenticity beginning with the Athens Charter in 1931 where the idea was first

introduced. A series of examples were presented to illustrate the responsibilities of preservationists

past, present, and future. She noted that preservation should include a reflection of the true value of

the site or place, the integrity of the culture, and a concern for existing historic contexts, identity, use

and function. We were reminded that when evaluating the growth of a country, we should consider the

importance of the qualitative dimensions expressed as the spiritual and cultural aspiration of

humankind.

Mr. Ayman Abdel Tawab, a university lecturer and Fullbright scholar, followed with a paper titled

Unrecognized Earthen Heritage of Exceptional Value: The Contribution of the Properties Designed by

Hassan Fathytowards the Significance, Authenticity and Integrity of the Ancient Thebes with its

Necropolis World Heritage Site. The presentation raised the awareness of the significance of the works

of Hassan Fathy and the urgent need to preserve such a heritage. The presentation discussed the

methodology to evaluate authenticity and identity. Two questions come to mind: Can a place fall

from authenticity if or when the social values that deemed it authentic change? Conversely, can a place

first considered as a fake be re-deemed later as authentic? Such was contemplated by Architect

Robert Venturis Learning from Las Vegas.

Ms. Eve Erickson, JD, MA, presented a paper titled Apparent Impermanence: A History of Vulnerable

Cultures. Ms. Erickson stated that in legal terms, movable structures are not architecture, and

therefore, not considered culturally valuable, as a result of being legally defined as personal property, orchattel in most American jurisdictions. The paper examined the effect of such legal anachronism. The

audience was stimulated to think about how important is durability (permanence) to cultural relevance?

Structures not intended to last very long can endure given proper care, and eventually, even very robust

structures will succumb.

Panelist Ms. Catherine Barrier, a preservation professional, and a current PhD candidate at Tulane

University, presented a paper titled Issues of Translation: Immigrant Homeowners and Historic

Architecture in Los Angeles. The paper examined the challenges faced by historic urban neighborhoods


5/14





as demographics change and as foreign-born homeowners who are unfamiliar with traditional American

architectural idioms become a dominant neighborhood culture. Cultural assumptions about home and

home life are often at odds between the new neighbors and native-born neighbors. As a moderator,

might I ask when does the preservation of authentic examples of a particular historical period becomejustification to restrict change in neighborhoods and urban districts that will inevitably evolve and

change over time?

GENERAL COMMENTS

This has been a stimulating symposium. Many thought-provoking questions were posed, challenging

established authority and limitations. Concerns were expressed regarding accurate documentation and

appropriate interpretation criteria for cultural identity and sustainability.

Todays advanced technology provides us with a broad range of communication platforms.

Globalization is having a homogenizing effect - blending cultures, blurring distinctions, and removing

physical and geographic barriers. However, if cultural heritage is about distinction and unique qualitiesand that a divider is indeed necessary, then it is even more important to connect to our own place and

time to establish authenticity and identity.

Every family has a storyteller. Individuals now have a plethora of technology to help record and produce

independent documentaries. Might there be an outreach opportunity for organizations such as

ICOMOS to provide the know-how and resources to train everyday citizens to curate their own stories

and self documentations? In their own voices, more people will be enabled to speak and share traces of

their time and place, of their aspirations, and of their authentic way of life.

Elizabeth Chu Richter, FAIA, is CEO of Richter Architects in Corpus Christi, Texas. She was born in Nanjing,

China, and attended grade and preparatory schools in Hong Kong and Dallas, Texas. She received her

Bachelors of Architecture from the University of Texas at Austin in 1974. In 1989, she joined Richter

Associates. In 2001, the American Institute of Architects conferred Ms. Richter with a national Young

Architects Award, and in 2005, she was elevated to the College of Fellows in recognition of her

contributions of national significance in making the profession of ever increasing service to the society.


6/14





CULTURAL SUSTAINABILITYModerator Comments by Stephen Kelley; co-authored by Rosanna Villareal

Cultural Sustainability has been discussed as envisioning a future that includes the heritage of humanity,

maintaining both the natural and cultural systems that support our existence, considering people and

their relationship to places in truly sustainable design. The following four speakers have done just that

in their presentations that encompass heritage, landscape, community and environment.

Eusebio Leal, the City Historian of Havana, tells us that we cannot go into the future without looking at

the past. Leal endeavors to make the past relevant while restoring Havanas past, street by street. He

argues that there needs to be a return of lost or forgotten culture to places using the tools of

restoration, and sometimes reconstruction, on historic structures, plazas and the urbanscapes. He

presents a model of sustainability that is unique to the Cuban political landscape of addressing critical

social as well as heritage conservation needs. Leal also stresses the importance of the young beingexposed to the heritage conservation, so that this desire to protect ones cultural heritage takes root in

the next generation.

Olga Pizano of Pontificia Universidad Javeriana presented Mompox Cultural Ecosystem on Colombia.

The city of Santa Cruz de Mompox is recognized as a heritage resource and became a World Heritage

Site in 1995. However, the cultural identity of the people in the Mompox Depression and their

relationship with the environment has been little understood. Pizano has developed a research project

that will combine heritage and environmental studies that will allow for the cultural significance of the

area to be understood in a larger context. The project will also aid in the development of purpose

planning processes that will be able to help the areas sustainability.

Angela Rojas of ICOMOS Cuba discussed the Cuban Camino Realwhich was once part of the

Intercontinental Royal Road. The Camino Real stretches from Havana to Santiago de Cuba, the second

most known city in Cuba. Though previous indigenous settlements served to create the Spanish

settlements in Cuba, economic and territorial development was influenced by the Camino Real. This city

has a rich history and reflects cultural influences from the United States of America as well as Spain.

Rojas looks to understand the connections between heritage and how cultural manifestations can be

linked to cultural routes worldwide.

Lisa Prosper of the Willowbank Center for Cultural Landscape, argues for a focus on aboriginal cultural

landscape and how that can inform ideas of heritage values in relation to heritage of cultural

landscapes. By focusing on the sustainability of Canadian Aboriginals, Prosper is able to discuss how

culture of place can be linked to practices and processes. She argues that it is important to view thelandscape as a set of practices or a process of being in the world. There should be greater emphasis on

the ways we place value and meaning on the landscape.

What is sustainability and how does sustainability relate to heritage conservation? Heritage

conservation is the real sustainable development. However, we are called upon to challenge popular

thinking on this issue, and to broaden our previous understandings about what constitutes our cultural

heritage beyond the built environment to include a larger world.


7/14





As Prosper has suggested, we must interpret the cultural landscape though it does not bear a mark left

by the hand of man. In this way we can also maintain the spirit of the place. Landscapes, however, are

dynamic and cannot be frozen so the management of change also becomes an important consideration.

We must re-evaluate our relationships with our own physical and cultural environments and find ways

to be a part of the environment rather than ways to isolate ourselves from it. We must be willing to

adapt our interpretation of cultural heritage as part of and interdependent with our communities and

environment.

Stephen J. Kelley is an architect and structural engineer in private practice in Chicago, USA. He

specializes in the investigation and restoration of historic building and monuments. He has extensive

experience in the area of skyscrapers; churches; faade restoration and cleaning; stone, brick, and terra

cotta masonry; and curtain walls and windows. He has expertise in the analysis and conservation of

historic building materials and systems including log buildings, plasters, and stained glass. Mr. Kelley isan internationally recognized preservation consultant and has consulted on projects in the former Soviet

Union, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East.

Mr. Kelley has served on the Board of Directors of both the US Committee of the International Council on

Monuments and Sites (US/ICOMOS) and the Association for Preservation Technology (APT) and was elected

to Fellowship in both organizations. He has lectured extensively on aspects of technical preservation and

has written numerous articles in journals and edited books on the topic. He is President of the International

Scientific Committee on the Analysis and Restoration of Structures of Architectural Heritage (ISCARSAH)

and is an officer on the ICOMOS Scientific Council.


8/14





CONTINUITY AND URBAN GROWTH IN CULTURAL HERITAGEModerator Comments by David G. Woodcock; co-authored by Nancy Bryant

My first visit to San Antonio in 1965 introduced me to an intensely active River Walk focused on the

downtown loop, and an extraordinarily gifted group of architects, landscape architects and urban

designers preparing for the 1968 HemisFair, an early celebration of this citys unique role as a

Confluence of Cultures. That this US ICOMOS Symposium addresses the same theme demonstrates the

ongoing concerns with issues I first encountered in the 1950s and 60s: urban sprawl, displacement of

indigenous peoples in rural areas, gentrification in cities, and a dramatic loss of agricultural land and

areas of natural beauty and historic resources. In the United States we also face increasing pressure to

uphold the rights of individual property owners over any concern for long term environmental or social

impacts. Nevertheless, just as the River Walk has blossomed into a world class environmental and civic

triumph, ICOMOS has established itself as a leader in the protection and interpretation of our natural

and cultural heritage.

Edward Sojas keynote for the third session was entitledA New Urban Age, and suggested that there has

in fact been a DIS-continuity in urban growth for several decades. Unlike the earlier metro-centric

models, this new kind of urban form is nucleated, and multi-centered. He noted the impact of city

branding, the creation of image elements, as in Bilbao, Spain, to establish uniqueness in a world that is

increasingly homogenized. This trend has helped to establish some starchitect designers, like Gehry,

Calatrava and Foster. I would suggest image creationmay simply have different clients. While we all

appreciate the brilliant clarity of Canelletos views of London, the horizon is split by the profiles of Saint

Pauls, dozens of other churches, the Tower of London and a few royal palaces. Certainly the Gherkin,

and now the Shard, have breached the horizon with more drama, but the creation of image and power

structures, like the towers of San Giminiagno, is not new.

In Susan Lampards paper, Houses on the Hills, she described her work for the NSW State Government to

manage the scale and form of development in the Cumberland Hills for anticipated massive housing

development. The process may seem over-intrusive from the increasingly laissez-fair United States view

of government. However, height limits, view corridors, and even design control, are used in Historic

Districts and National Parks. They are certainly common in gated communities and in New Urbanist

philosophy. From an international perspective this is a proper use of government authority. At Box Hill

Inn and the Hunting Lodge the concept of economic viability driving design limitation recommendations

follows the Venice Charters call for active use as a means to preserve the past. Even if the context has

changed, something of the past is retained and can be interpreted.

Patricia ODonnell from Vermont and Michael Turner from Israel have worked together for some ten

years on the Historic Urban Landscapes Recommendation passed by UNESCO in 2011. Their joint paper

was presented by Ms. ODonnell who described the recommendations as an integrated approach to


9/14





manage change within our shared urban heritage. While there are clearly components of our built and

natural heritage that should be managed to maintain the status quo, these recommendations are

helpful in establishing a process that identifies and preserves important urban forms. Notable

resistance to intrusive and inappropriate change can found in the RMJM skyscraper proposed for St

Petersburg, Russia, and the positive guidance on controlling change in the Defining the Sky study for

Edinburgh, Scotland. This is a good approach, using height limits and view corridors to control the

impact of growth on the heritage resources. While the UNESCO process-driven approach aims for active

engagement with a full range of stakeholders, there are inevitable tensions between current residents

who prefer the status quo and the pressures of tourist development seeking to maximize the

experience economy. Is this in conflict? Can we compromise? Should we co-exist? These are questions

to answer for people, place and time. This thoughtful series of recommendations warrant much wider

dissemination and adoption.

Marcela Hurtados well-crafted paper, Religiosity in the Chilean Andes: the challenge of preserving

authenticity and cultural identity in a context of change, served as a summary of the sessions concerns.

She showed a series of extraordinarily beautiful, but unoccupied, urban centers mixing indigenous

culture going back 5,000 years with colonial religious buildings in communities that no longer are

occupied. However, these towns are not abandoned, they are the centers for religious observances that

are regularly recreated by people from the region and even from neighboring Bolivia. The challenge is to

understand the value of place. These communities are not abandoned by the Aimara people, any more

than Chaco Canyon, the Falcon Reservoir communities in Texas, or Fajada Butte in New Mexico or Uluru

(Ayers Rock) in Australia. Significance without an apparent use is perhaps the hardest kind of heritage

to protect, simply because we may fail to understand its cultural performance nature, by focusing on themore observable, material content.

CONCLUSIONS

The session demonstrated the need to understand cultural and as well as material significance, as well

as the need to decide the objective for managing change: is it to anticipate real alteration in the

environment or to retain the status quo?

Overall, the symposium seemed to identify four big ideas that are reflected in the City of San Antonio,

and in the five Franciscan missions that formed such a fascinating backdrop for our discussions.

ONE: RECOGNIZE THE DYNAMIC (CHANGING) NATURE OF HERITAGE

Should informal settlements be recognized as slums and favelas, or as new form of heritage?

If we list these as cultural significant are we romanticizing or celebrating poverty?

Would the recognition of the spirit and feeling of Hassan Fathy s work separate heritage from economic

and cultural viability?

Is reaching over the fences that alter the appearance of older neighborhoods a denial of the value of

past, or simply acknowledging the new culture?


10/14





We must recognize that historically material culture has changed with style and fashion, resulting in

buildings as layers of history. The palimpsest is actually the norm. What is authentic and who decides?

Refer to the ICOMOS San Antonio Charter from 1996!

TWO: TELL THE STORY OF HERITAGE

We must disseminate the nature of our heritage broadly, and to audiences who can make a difference.

The childrens drawings in Old Havana demonstrate the effectiveness of learning and understanding by

seeing and doing, the well-tried pedagogy of Piaget.

We must interpret heritage to engage people in language they can understand.

Corn to live and flowers to live for: people do value quality.

We must recognize broad values of heritage: real, tangible, material PLUS imagined, intangible, cultural.

THREE: DEVELOP A VISION

During the closing session it was suggested that there was a need to re-invent the preservation expert to

be the follower of the community. While many presentations called for a need to be more attentive to

the community definition of heritage, to follow suggests that the community, however that is

identified, has both the will and the understanding to make coherent decisions on heritage policy and

practice. Certainly conservation professionals have a responsibility to listen. However, they also have

the training to imagine a future state that preserves the past to serve and inform the future. Heritage

must be active and not passive. Whether it is the imagination of individuals like Eusebio Leal in Old

Habana and Robert H. H. Hugman on the River Walk, or the vision of a team like the one that developed

the San Antonio Missions nomination to the World Heritage List, there is a need for professional

leadership and the development of an informed and participatory citizenry. The cultures mustconverge.

David G. Woodcock, FAIA, FSA, FAPT, is Professor Emeritus of Architecture and Director Emeritus, Center

for Heritage Conservation at Texas A&M University. After graduating from the University of Manchester

with a professional degree in Architecture and certificate in Town and Country Planning in 1960 he

became licensed to practice architecture. In 1962 Woodcock received a Fulbright Award to teach at

Texas A&M. He returned to England in 1964 where he taught at Canterbury College of Art and opened a

preservation practice. He was invited to return to Texas A&M University in 1970, serving eleven years as

Head of Architecture, and founding the program in preservation education and research. He retired fromteaching in 2011 and continues to consult.


11/14





CLOSING PLENARY AND PANEL DISCUSSIONModerator Comments by William A. Dupont; co-authored by Angela Lombardi

The title of this Symposium harkens back to the 1968 Worlds Fair hosted in San Antonio, also named

Confluence of Cultures. This was purposeful. When the US/ICOMOS Board determined that Susanne

Deal Booth and I would host the 2012 Symposium in Texas, the exact venue was not decided. We

selected San Antonio in conjunction with the theme of the Symposium because the City represents the

multi-cultural heritage of the Americas. Our goal was to showcase the heritage of San Antonio and allow

it to be a springboard for discussion. Appropriating a title from a 1968 event, one which was a

watershed moment in the development of modern San Antonio, was done to connect with the strong

theme of continuity that is in the DNA of the local culture. There is an authentic continuity of past to

present to future here that gives the region its strength and charm. Then, as now, San Antonio is a

gracious place to convene and celebrate the Heritage of the Americas.

San Antonio has been in the forefront of historic preservation throughout the 20th

century. The intact

cultural landscape of the five Franciscan Missions, as well as the beauty of the famous Riverwalk, the

numerous historic districts, plus the cultural traditions and events, all survive for us to appreciate and

enjoy because people made choices to save these elements. San Antonio is a terrific place to understand

the definition of historic preservation a process of design for the management of change with respect

for the historic context. The process is one of continuity and it produces layers of history. San Antonio

embodies the concept of heritage places whose values are not an immutable constant, but rather

evolving in respect to time and space.

Understanding the historic context is critical to management of change. All the Symposiums presenters

spoke about context of place. Each, too, expressed the need to find new ways to attain good

conservation of heritage. In my observation, this means a conservation approach that sustains cultural

heritage. Thus, the heritage remains available to reinforce the cultural identity that a place such as San

Antonio must have in order to define itself. Sustaining refers to the capacity of a community to maintain

continuity of both tangible and intangible culture, not dogged pursuit of resistance to change through

rigorous restoration of everything. Eusebio Leals efforts in Havana, for example, are about perpetuation

of cultural systems. The actual restoration work of his office follows this, because the buildings and

urban fabric are a tangible manifestation of the cultural systems. The economic value Havana derives

from the heritage tourism is merely a welcome byproduct; the primary focus is on managing change to

the cultural systems of human existence, and this starts with deep understanding of the historic context.

Another element of the methodology of good design concerns the perception of time. Achievement of

continuity requires a big view of the present to help us make good design choices. The professionalsattending this Symposium are practitioners of a design discipline. Like a doctor caring for the future life

of a patient, one must understand the big picture of the patients whole life. The relevant, cultural life of

a city or region can extend back over multiple centuries, and the choices we make today can effect

centuries to come. When we view the present as a window of time inclusive of a big past and future,

bigger then the current political news, longer than a quarterly earnings statement, we make better

choices about conservation. Always, though, the modern-day patient remains in charge while the

professional informs, designs and makes best recommendations for the long-term future of cultural

heritage.


12/14





The human life span is relatively short in comparison to the durability of the messages that we send to

the future by the conservation choices we make today. Good design decisions require knowledge of the

place understanding how it came to be the way it is and the ability to use this knowledge as astarting point for managing the growth and change that inevitably occurs. History shows us that we

dont retain everything, nor do we want to, but we do serve ourselves best when we temper the pace

and magnitude of change with healthy doses of the tangible past included. The intangible past tends to

need less protection from heritage conservation professionals. People naturally preserve their own

family traditions, practices and beliefs. Yet, intangible cultural heritage has tangible places where it

exists, and this is where the professionals have a huge role to play.

Closing Plenary remarks by Gustavo Araoz, President of ICOMOS, addressed the role of the professional

in heritage conservation practice. He said that the 2012 Symposium provides a snapshot of where we

are now in the field of heritage conservation. Referencing the opening plenary remarks delivered by

Felipe Hernandez, Gustavo observed that the profession underwent a profound transition whenauthority to make decisions transferred from being the sole domain of the experts to one that is shared

with the people. The era when outside experts passed judgment without consulting the indigenous

community, the elitist approach to conservation, in which only the material vessels that carry the values

was protected, is gone. We are now under a new heritage paradigm; the range of values attributed to

heritage has expanded to reflect its new social role also for previously unrecognized stakeholding

communities.

Without denying the aesthetic and historic values traditionally attributed to heritage, the concept of

heritage places must be considered as a major pivot for cultural identity and as an important element at

the heart of community development. Gustavo explained that this tectonic shift in the profession has

made us aware that values no longer reside exclusively in the tangible fabric of history, but in intangible

concepts, in constant flux. The professionals must consider the local communities and allow people to

define their own cultural heritage. Gustavo believes that the practitioners, the members of ICOMOS, are

now ahead intellectually of the philosophy embodied in the World Heritage Convention. Operational

Guidelines of the World Heritage Convention have been and can continue to be modified and updated,

but how far can they be stretched? Echoing a refrain expressed by many speakers, Gustavo mused that

we need better tools for protecting heritage in the 21st century.

Tangible places, including landscapes and buildings, are essential for the cultural systems of human

existence. Sometimes the tangible remains survive after the culture has died, still retaining educational,

commemorative and aesthetic values. San Antonios Missions have this and more, because here the

cultural heritage is living, and the design choices made by previous generations are layers in a continual

process of stewardship. San Antonio is a place where the conservation ethic for cultural heritage hasbeen strong for many generations. As a result, the historic sites of San Antonio are more dynamic than

static. The Franciscan Missions have changed over the years, retained old values, acquired new ones,

and have meaning that is significant to the present day. The Outstanding Universal Value of the

Missions, the value that makes them worthy of designation as a World Heritage Site, is tied in to the

living heritage continuity of San Antonio. The San Antonio Missions (consider here the entire endeavor,

not just the religious sanctuaries) are the finest extant, living cultural landscape representing the history

and continuity of the multi-cultural exploits of Spanish Missionary activity in the Americas. The greatest

value and integrity is found in the intact cultural landscape which includes the full array of elements that


13/14





constituted a Mission. The value is even greater because it displays continuity and change over time by a

living culture still in residence.

I posed a series of questions during the Closing Plenary about San Antonio heritage in order to stimulatediscussion on the issues raised in the 2012 Symposium. Guided by five moderators Susanne Deal

Booth, Frederick R Steiner, David G. Woodcock, Stephen Kelley, and Elizabeth Chu Richter the

questions were discussed in breakout groups. Each question looked to San Antonio as a case study for a

relevant issue of the Symposium, and called upon Symposium participants, to distill three days of

activity into thoughtful responses.

BREAKOUT QUESTION ONE: CONFLUENCE

What is the difference between crosscurrents and confluence of cultures? Which better describes San

Antonio?

SA absorbs transitions there have been many.

SA is example of global trends. SA remains open to change.

BREAKOUT QUESTION TWO: CONTINUITY

What is the value of continuity and how do the San Antonio Missions exemplify continuity in San

Antonio?

Physical and geographical continuity: connection of Missions along river and acequias; 2300 acresof conserved open space.

A continuity of relevance in San Antonio. People have long understood there is a value to theMissions and Riverwalk and have maintained this for the future.

Functional use continuity spiritual/ religious. Continuity of Validation sites have been important for generations so they are part of communal

identity.

Continuity of Form issues of authenticity require further thought.BREAKOUT QUESTION THREE: CULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

Is cultural heritage (and thus cultural identity) essential, or can we live without it?

Heritage and identity are different things. Cultural heritage has durable momentum. Culturalidentity is constructed by a smaller, more personal we. What do we want to be as a next step from

what we started out being.

Breakout group did not discuss tangible heritage. Durable heritage gives momentum to cultureand then is a starting place for identity.

World Heritage Convention all that is on the list is universal and belongs to all of us, it is theheritage of mankind; but not all the sites provide us with personal identity.

BREAKOUT QUESTION FOUR: URBAN GROWTH AND CULTURAL HERITAGE:

Does The Alamo Plaza represent a natural progression of history that has acquired historical significance

in its own right?

Do we have to redefine ourselves because we are a democracy, the community rules, and realexperts must step aside? No. Actually, democracy depends on an informed community good

information is critical.


14/14




The Alamo is a highpoint of Texas Nationalism? If Texans claim to be different, are they claiminga right to manipulate history to say that The Alamo is a wonderful explanation of what it stands

for? [Breakout group transitioned to discussion of the shrine rather than the plaza.]

Yet, there are layers of history. Is The Alamo a sublime example of Franciscan Missionary will tobring good news to the Americas? Or, is it a sublime example of the ultimate sacrifice?

BREAKOUT QUESTION FIVE: AUTHENTICITY AND IDENTITY

What are the heritage values of San Antonio and why are they important to retain?

Living community. Deep strong heritage with family values. Resources water, acequias and river. There is pride in growing the heritage. Cultural blend is valued. Historic sites are open and intellectually accessible.

Missions are not just architecture but living elements of the community. Economic value heritage is a draw for visitors. Missions have a narrative. Motivation, place, and now contemporary use. Concept of place is

allied to the complex narrative. A physical description of the place does not convey its full value

and meaning.

The responses indicate the role San Antonio plays in world heritage conservation a long history of solid

performance with a bright future.

William A. Dupont, AIA, NCARB, is the Director of the Center for Cultural Sustainability (CCS) at the

University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). The CCS explores the continuity of the cultural systems of

human existence, with respect for heritage identities and values that bind people to places. The CCS

provides research and services to benefit communities; convenes leaders in the field for dialogue

concerning sustainable development and construction; and provides research opportunities for faculty

and graduate students. Also, Dupont is the San Antonio Conservation Society Endowed Professor at

UTSA, teaches graduate seminars in historic preservation and architectural design studios, and oversees

the Graduate Program in Historic Preservation. Previously, Dupont served 11 years as the architect for

the National Trust engaged in master planning and preservation of historic sites across the nation. He

assists the National Trust and the Finca Viga Foundation in leadership of a U.S. technical team

supporting Cuban preservation efforts at Museo Hemingway, Ernest Hemingways home.

Documents

Report on the 15th US/ICOMOS International Symposium