In 2011, UNESCO adopted the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) recommendation and called for the application of a landscape approach to ensure the integration of cultural heritage policies and management concerns in the wider goals of sustainable urban development. This paper tracks the genesis of a landscape approach to heritage conservation, and then presents a systematic review of the literature on the HUL. More than 100 publications from 2010 to early 2018 were analysed. The applied methodology combined an inductive categorization method with a deductive data mining method. The objective is to determine whether the academic discussion is addressing the different dimensions of the HUL approach, including the holistic, integrated, and value-based dimensions, and whether it is progressing through time to move from a conceptual to an operational level. Results show that while the discussion is heavily focused on values, the operationalization of a valuebased approach is still lacking, as it is not fully contextualized in relation to local heritage discourses and the dynamics of heritage governance. Results also show that many case studies applications are in "non-Western" cities, thus opening the debate about the accountability of a value-based approach in contexts that tend to be dominated by groups with the most political power, and where conservation practices mainly focus on the mobilization of material heritage to foster its economic value. Nevertheless, the transition from international guidelines to contextualized local endeavours and policies remains a challenge to be solved.

Considering himself the ‘‘main author’’ of the Venice Charter, Raymond M. Lemaire was then one of the first (along with Piero Gazzola) to advocate for a revision of the document. As early as 1971, the two men—the first secretary general and president of ICOMOS, respectively—launched a debate, advocating for a better consideration of the social value of heritage. They also called for the development of specific principles for the preservation of historic cities, to be included in the Venice Charter. Lemaire’s experience in that field had convinced him that, contrary to the assertion of Article 14, ‘‘a literal application of principles valid for monuments, considered as such, is not always possible, nor desirable, for the ensembles.’’ The adoption of the Amsterdam Declaration did not put an end to his efforts. Despite his unsuccessful attempt to get a revised version approved by the ICOMOS General Assembly in Moscow in 1978, Lemaire always remained critical towards the charter and the application of its principles in the field. In the 1980s, he emphasized its shortcomings in terms of cultural diversity, and in 1996 one of his last texts articulated the negative effect of Article 9, leading to the idea that ‘‘the mere essence of a conservation operation is a modernist intervention on the edifice or neighborhood.’’ Beyond its interest for preservation history, an understanding of Lemaire’s early critical position toward the Venice Charter should inspire current debates and help us overcome our reluctance to challenge the sacred principles of what we consider a doctrinal monument.

The recognition of our built environment as a cultural asset worthy of protection has stimulated corresponding legislation. In the listing process, heritage value has evolved from being a tool to determine the significance of buildings to becoming a selection criterion in legislation. However, value is open to interpretation, which leads to challenges of transparency, effectiveness, and the practical implementation of the protection process. We aim to better understand the scope and use of heritage value, in the context of the international debate on the issue, by tracing the historical development of the heritage conservation laws in Flanders and in Wallonia. The databases of the two agencies for immovable cultural heritage offered information on and access to protection rulings that reflect the practical implementation of heritage value criteria. Interviews with representatives involved in the listing process provided insights into the role of value as a legal tool. We then assessed the challenges and opportunities arising from applying value criteria. The ambiguity of value offers the possibility of discussing the adaptive reuse strategy in light of the current legal situation. We conclude that legislation must reflect the adaptive reuse strategy applied in practice to remain relevant and reflect the needs and views of society.

Rédigée en 1964 et adoptée un an plus tard par le Conseil international des Monuments et des sites, qui en assu­rera la diffusion, la Charte de Venise reste aujourd’hui un document largement utilisé dans les milieux patrimoniaux. Cet article, qui se base principalement sur un dépouillement de la revue Les Monuments historiques de la France, complété de la consultation ponctuelle d’archives, s’attache à identifier la nature et la spécificité de l’apport français dans la rédaction et l’interprétation du document, durant la période allant du premier Congrès des architectes et te­chniciens des monuments historiques, à Paris, en 1957, au colloque organisé par ICOMOS France en 1976 pour faire le bilan de l’application de la charte dans les restaurations françaises. Après avoir identifié les principaux acteurs français impliquées dans les réflexions doctrinales internationales durant la période considérée, l’article examine, à travers une sélection de projets publiés dans la revue Les Monuments historiques de la France, deux des principes essentiels de la charte, en rupture avec l’héritage Viollet-le-Ducien : ce que Michel Parent appelle la « transparence des formes », et la lisibilité des interventions, la « marque de notre temps », prônée par la charte. Il conclut sur la contribution française à la révision du document, en 1977 : une entreprise qui échouera, mais aura à tout le moins suscité un bilan qui s’avère plutôt, pour la France, un nouveau point de départ pour les débats sur la restauration.

No abstract