Conference report Conflict and congruence

The Third International Congress on Architectural Conservation and Town

Planning, London, 13-16 April 1987

Organized by the Heritage Trust.

London, in cooperation with the in-

ternational Union of Local Author-

ities (IULA). the Hague, the Interna-

tional Union of Architects (UIA),

Paris arid the Commonwealth Asso-

ciation of Architects (CAA) and Plan-

ners (CAP), London, this year’s Con-

gress had as its subject ‘Planning and

Conservation’.

Representatives of over 30 coun-

tries gathered in London at the head-

quarters of the International Maritime

Organization overlooking the Thames

from 13-16 April 1987. to hear pre-

sentations on work occurring in an

extraordinarily diverse array of set-

tings around the ‘globe, focusing on

the complex relationships between

planning and heritage conservation in

both the built and natural environ-

ments.

The points of view put forward. and

the case studies presented. covered

the full range of contexts for human

settlement from ancient to very re-

cent. first world to third world, highly

urban to rural. capitalist to commun-

ist, depopulating to rapidly expand-

ing. And yet with all the inevitable

variations in the meaning which must

be ascribed to the terms ‘planning‘ and

‘conservation’ across thib spectrum. it

was possible to distinguish some com-

mon threads. The most general of

these related to the positions taken on

the possibility of a happy marriage of

the two constituent elements of the

theme itself - planning and conserva-

tion.

As Professor John de Monchaux.

Dean of the School of Architecture

and Planning at MIT. and Chairman

of Congress pointed out in his intro-

duction 1 ‘There will always. and

perhaps always should be. a tension

between the force\ of change and the

forces of preservation’: 50 it was not

CITIES August 1987

surprising that the issues of perceived

compatibility and/or conflict between

the goals and methods of town plan-

ning and architecture and those of

heritage conservation were a recurrent

theme.

As the case studies multiplied, two

broad streams of thought seemed to

emerge. One could be characterized

as the ‘buyer beware’ approach insofar

as heritage preservation is concerned.

In numerous ways the exponents of

this view warned against a catalogue

of potential evils which could result

from the unbridled excesses of pre-

servation.

Such hazards included the failure to

plan properly from a functional stand-

point, the unwillingness to embrace

the best of what the twentieth century

has to offer, and the tendency to stifle

new and relevant architectural ex-

pression in favour of formalistic

‘facadism’. A related view was that an

overemphasis on preservation reprc-

sents a failure of nerve with respect to

the new economic agendas of cities.

that the preservation of too many

marginally useful historic buildings is

an unaffordable luxury, expensive in

the first instance, and a future drain

on scarce maintenance resources.

On the subject of open spaces. it

was suggested that extensive land con-

suming traditional parks were also an

extravagance that could no longer be

afforded. Finally, even when econo-

mically successful, another worry cx-

pressed was that heritage preservation

could be socially damaging to com-

munities, leading inevitably to gentri-

fication and displacement of the dis-

advantaged.

Those who expressed some or all of

these concerns seemed to suggest that

heritage preservation should be

undertaken with extreme caution and

in a highly selective way so as not to

interfere too much with other social.

economic or planning objecti\ c\ \\ ith

which it conflicted. In the extreme this

took the form of an advocacy b! some

of a new sort of ‘triage’ with respect to

historic building> and tit!, fabric. It

was proposed. for example. that the

city of Bradford in the UK could

benefit from extensive demolition in

its historic core to create ;I ‘green

centre‘ as a revival stratq!.

This school of thought. which

emphasized conflicts between plan-

ning and conservation. seemed to

come most often but not exclusivei)

from UK delegates. One can onl!

speculate that such views may be the

reflection of a highly polarized politic-

al situation in which heritage prescrva-

tion is isolated as an activity. leaving

little room for the negotiation of

workable compromises between its

ends and other objectives emanating

from involving architects, developers,

planning authorities and communit>

groups on the specifics of proposals at

the local level. or between the Con-

servative national government and the

often Labour-domin~itcrl local author-

ities. on broad social and economic

objectives for heritage conservation at

the national level.

As if to illustrate this kind of con-

frontation. the London Docklands

project. the scope of which greatly

impressed the delegates. and which

may be. a5 is claimed. ‘one of

Europe‘s major con\crvation efforts’.

seems to be proceeding at a rapid pace

without any attempt at ;I comprehcn-

sivc plan at the municipal level. raising

serious concerns in many quarters

about its physical and social rcla-

tionships to surrounding areas. and its

lack of commitment to provide a

coherent pattern of public spaces.

In sharp contrast to the ‘buyer

beware‘ syndrome. ;I second stream of

thought at the Congress tended to

emphasize the potential for a much

greater congruency between the goals

of heritage conservation and those of

planning. From such diverse locations

as Munster in the FR Germany. Alep-

po in Syria and ~lavnna in Cuba.

emerged a view of heritage preserva-

tion not as an end in itself. but ils part

of a broader strategy to revalidate a

traditional urban fabric which is s.ccn

263

2s being capable of efficient adapta-

tion to new and inten5ificcl use. In

each of that cast‘~. and in ;I number

of others presented. there \v;I\ ;I wnw

that ;I close and s!,mp;lthetic obrerva-

tion and analysis of the traditional

forms and physical organization of

each city led to a new appreciation of

its role as ii living repository of urban

culture ivhich could be built upon md

extended.

The specific historic districts of

Aleppo and lHavam1 which were de-

scribed had each been at one time the

subject of an urban renew1 stud!

proposing demolition and rebuilding

according to the conventional interna-

tional recipe of high rise towers in

superbloclts. Both cities had managed.

by ;I combination of dedication and

fortuitous circumstances. to elude this

fate. The current proposals for each

are now based on serious attempts to

blend the old and the new by shaping

the larger urban infrastructure of thor-

oughfrms and services as well as b!

making sensitive new inxrtions and

restorations within the fabric itself.

In the c&text of these examples of

adaptins not only nrtefacts but the

essential form-generating ideas that

produced them, the development of ;I

conservation strategy is not carried

out in isol~ition from municipal plan-

ning. but reflects ;I synthesis of objec-

tives. The retention of historic area i\

not done primarily to create a veneer

of antiquity as :I marketing tool.

though as ;I byproduct it may he of

interest to visitors. Nor is it thc.rigid

and expensive freezing of an imagin-

ary past. though certain sacred otjccts

may merit special care in rcztoration.

In this second stream heritage con-

servation cexses to be a self-contained

specialist cndcavour and becomrs ;I

normal part of city building in tandc’m

lvith other disciplines. In this

approach. the respect for the past and

the ~c/I~K\ loci. both in terms of built

artrfacts :incl living traditions. leads to

the rencwrd possibility of ;i true di-

ver>ity of urban places in the world,

the antidote to the ubiquitous

everyplace-no place caricatured 40

effectively by Jqucs Tati in his

masterful satire Plrrvri~w.

The possibility of.authentic diversit>

in turn raises an interesting iwit’

264

about the nature of intern;1tional con-

sulting practice. To \vor!i intcnsi\cl!

with historic contexts a’r described

abo\ r oh\ ioiizly rtxltiire\ that the 1~x1

role b\ pla)ed b! people with an

intimate linw’ledgc of tocal particti-

larities. while htill allowing for ;I full

a\varenesh of the best of international

practice.

It also suggests that in the rework-

ing of historic places ma) he found the

paradigms for new forms of urbaniza-

tion. not by literal copying of historic

structures, but through ;I reinterpret;i-

tion of form-generating ideas which

have z certain resonance in the cul-

ture.

In advocating such an ambitious

approach to the integration of con-

servation and planning. ;I number of

speakers 1nade the point that while it

requires sustained effort. ingenuit!

and patience. it is worth doing. The

Hon. David Crombie. Secretary of

State for Canada. pointed out that in ;i

vast new bilinpual amd multiculttirnl

country like Canada. the preserwtion

of roots is of crucial importance in the

long-term formation of viable com-

munities. Professor Wu Liang-yang.

Deput! Chairm;ln of the (‘ongrcss.

and Director of the Institute of

Architccturc and L!rb;tn Deign at the

l_lni\er\it! of Tsin$ua. Beijing. re-

minded the delesatcs that when

Frederick La\\ Olmctcad ‘prcscr\cd‘

the opcii space of Central Park it\ 4ize

could not bc justified b! the poptila-

tion zurrc~tmding it: it is onl!, no\\ that

itz true \altic can be seen. Ch;iirm;in

John de hlonchaux rmphaGzcJ again

in summing up, the \altic of ntx ideas

and rnthusiasm - inspiration. instinct.

‘polemic- in the form of pood books.

and ;I conviction that ‘it is nc\c’r too

iate to do what needs to be done next’.

Along Gth the Congrczs. an inter-

national exhibition has been motmtcd

which illustrates a number of the caw

studies. This exhibition ha been dis-

played at the Doclil;~nds in London. in

Hamburp. and \vill travel on to Toron-

to for September and October.

Ken Greenberg Director, Architecture and

Urban Design Division Department of Planning and

Development City of Toronto

Organizations The International City Management Association Founded in 14 I-1. the International

Cit\ Management Awxiation is the

prc;fessional and educiitioniil orpaniza-

tion for more than 7300 Iocal govcrn-

mcnt managemrnt professionals. Its

membership i’r primarily 2ppointcd

chief management cxecutiw\. but also

includes other local government em-

ployees. academics. and ‘interested

citizens’. Though intcrnatiom1l in

scope. the greater m:rioritV of mem-

bers arc in North America:

While most ICMA members work

in Iocal governments which operate

under the counciLmanager system.

some work in governments operating

under the mayor-council system - or

the ‘strong-mayor’ system. as it is

sometimes called. A brief expl;mation

may bc useful for non-lJS readers. In

formal terms (tahing 2 quotation from

an ICMA brochure) .thc council-

manager plan is the syxtem of local

government which combines the

strong politiurl kwlcrslrif~ of electctl

officials in the form of the council.

with the strong r~~rrrgrkrl c~.r~x~ric~~c~

of the local government manager’. In

such local governments. the mayor

may be elected directly or selected

from among the members of the coun-

cil. Such a mayor wields little or no

personal power by virtue of office.

About half of the population of the

USA live in ;uxxls governed by the

council-manager system. Of the 170

CITIES August 1987