After the Crash: the conservation-planning assemblage in an era of austerity

Planning for historic urban environments under austerity conditions: Insights from post-crash Ireland

“…Thus, in countries with mature regulatory systems governing conservation practice (e.g. the UK and the Netherlands), 'conservation as heritage' sits alongside (rather than displacing) more traditional curatorial approaches to practice (Pendlebury et al, 2020).…”

“…Rather than re-examining the causes of the financial crisis, in this paper we seek to focus on the responses to the crisis within planning and regeneration processes for historic city environments. As Tonkiss (2013) observes, given the downturn in speculative property investment and the 'turning screws of government austerity' (p. 312), many cities (including historic downtowns) are bearing the physical scars of disinvestment, disuse and decline, and in vacant and abandoned spaces of stalled urban development and public retreat (Pendlebury et al, 2020). Drawing on the conceptual development of austerity urbanism (Peck, 2012), we explore how austerity has reshaped spatial policy and planning practices examined through the lens of conservation-planning and regeneration initiatives in historic urban cores.…”

Introduction to A Research Agenda for Heritage Planning: the state of heritage planning in Europe

“…The economic value of heritage has been put on the agenda, considering and criticizing its role in fostering socio-economic development (Madgin 2020;Rypkema 2006;Veldpaus and Pendlebury 2019). The resulting conservation planning assemblage, with its many actors and agents and its approach to heritage as an economic asset in spatial dynamics, is now common in many planning situations across Europe and elsewhere (Pendlebury et al 2019).…”

Industrial heritage and conservation planning, changing governance practices, examples from Europe

“…In Italy, the Netherlands and England, the 2008 crisis brought austerity measures; in all four countries, so including Norway, it led to changing values and attitudes toward priorities for development (and a growth agenda) and to a much-reduced capacity for local governments to intervene directly in urban development and conservation. This reinforced and accelerated neoliberal thinking in urban governance, leading to more market-oriented mechanisms for delivering services and projects, and a loosening of public regulation (Pendlebury et al 2019). It also led to an increased emphasis upon the economic value of heritage assets and narratives, as heritage has become an even more explicit means to instrumentalize place (Wacogne 2018;Veldpaus and Pendlebury 2019).…”