Historic Urban Landscapes: A Review on Trends and Methodologies in the Urban Context of the 21st Century

Abstract

This article makes a critical reflection, questioning the notion of historical urban landscapes as a conceptual paradigm used for the basis of urban conservation in the twenty-first century. The study begins with a brief summary of the origins and subsequent evolution of this concept, highlighting the two key reference milestones: the Vienna Memorandum (UNESCO, 2005) and the Paris Recommendation (UNESCO, 2011). Subsequently, the focus of attention will be on highlighting the problems and difficulties posed by the management and protection of historic urban landscapes today. In this sense, the focus of attention will be placed on the assumption that change is an inherent part of the urban condition, since there is no consensus on what the limits of acceptable change in historic urban landscapes should be. It also emphasizes three factors that make this more difficult: (1) the reminiscences of the doctrines of the Weberian administration in the current models of government; (2) the subjective nature of the systems of indicators applied to the scope of historic cities; and (3) the opportunism of tactical urbanism, which, despite its shortcomings, is becoming an outstanding alternative for the methodological development of the historic urban landscapes.

Characterisation of the Historic Urban Landscape through the Aristotelian Four Causes: Towards Comprehensive GIS Databases

“…The singularities of the historic city make it challenging to propose universal and standardised approaches. Santander et al (2018) [11] explore how the development of indicators is still an open debate, referring to some valuable antecedents, such as the ones of the conventions of Vienna and St. Petersburg (Table 1). Even if there is a categorisation of the city agents, each agent would demand a proper approach for being described.…”

Strategic Planning and Management Model for the Regeneration of Historic Urban Landscapes: The Case of Historic Center of Novi Pazar in Serbia

“…However, the preservation and conservation of historic city centers could not occur merely at the public expense [18], thus opening opportunities for the involvement and participation of the private and civil sector. Furthermore, the participation of new social and economic actors is demanded in the governance and urban management of historic quarters, which requires the coordination of multiple actors guided primarily by public institutions and the private sector [20].…”

“…Nevertheless, citizen participation can be controversial, particularly when the cultural heritage protection agencies inadequately perform their functions, usually due to private sector economic pressure, which generally opposes the sustainability and conservation criteria. Azpeitia Santander, Azkarate Garai-Olaun and De la Fuente Arana [20] criticize the involvement of social participation processes in the field of cultural heritage, and thus underline two different types that can be observed:…”

“…The participation in central historic areas is influenced by contexts with various historic layers and often conflicting interests of different, mainly real-estate property market actors, local business and residents. Thus, participation has limited effectiveness regarding cultural assets in the case of the complex needs of the protection heritage values [20].…”

“…Regarding indicators, there are no standardized sustainability indicators for historic cities and heritage sites, since they have to be adapted to particular needs and specific contexts. Sustainability indicators constantly have to be modified and must be flexible and revisable to allow monitoring, control, and prediction [20].…”