THE RECONCILIATION OF HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT: The Success of Criteria in Guiding the Design and Assessment of Contemporary Interventions in Historic Places

Abstract

Since built heritage continues to teach contemporary societies valuable lessons about traditional building practices among other substantial matters, its protection from environmentally insensitive development is important. The reconciliation of heritage conservation and development, therefore, is an appropriate research topic. This article aims at contributing to the global discourse on that topic, which is primarily supported by UNESCO and ICOMOS. It does so by evaluating the success of criteria in guiding the design and assessment of contemporary interventions in historic places. The purpose is to determine whether criteria, which usually come in the form of standards and/or design guidelines, hold the key to thoughtful change in historic places. To achieve this purpose, the present author first gives an overview of the current state of knowledge on the topic, then analyzes major scholarly literature to identify the strengths and weaknesses of criteria and finally suggests other avenues worth exploring. As a result of this qualitative research, readers would gain a better understanding of the background, questioning and principles that should frame new architecture in existing urban fabric.

A Review of Assessment Policies in Sustaining Cultural Identity Into New Architecture

“…The establishment of these guidelines has introduced inconsistency due to minor alterations made to suit the local ideologies of outstanding universal value (OUV) and the requirements of building regulations. However, according to Khalaf (2015), these international charters and national guidelines share the same framework structures in that all lack an efficient parameter to guide the minimum acceptance of changes or to recommend a harmony interpretation in historic places. The guidelines particularly outline sole criterion and indicator which are inadequate to be called a measurement tool (Khalil, 2013;Nguyen, 2011;Nguyen & Altan, 2011) This shortcoming has unfavorable implications on the image of many new developments as they were found inharmonic and insensitive with heritage context (Sotoudeh & Abdullah, 2013;Tweed & Sutherland, 2007).…”

“…The perception of architecture value has also made the process of evaluating become tougher due to dissimilar interpretations, affected individual interest and need (Arheim, 1969;Do-kyoung Kim, 2006;Jencks, 1987;Stern, 1988;Winters, 1937). From the interpretation of several scholars (Chandler, 2007;Gunlu, Pırnar, & Yagcı, 2009;Khalaf, 2015;Pichedpan, 2011;Ryberg-Webster & Kinahan, 2013;Tomaselli, 2009), two studies are recommended to give positive impact on the efficiency issue in measuring new architecture value from cultural perspective. Further knowledge is required on (i) the effectiveness and deficiencies of the way cultural element been designed in new building and (ii) the boundary acceptance of missing cultural element in new building.…”

“…Further knowledge is required on (i) the effectiveness and deficiencies of the way cultural element been designed in new building and (ii) the boundary acceptance of missing cultural element in new building. Many of the existing studies in the field have focused on the interpretation of the cultural and identity, significance of cultural criteria, framework of conservation management, and heritage impact from new development (Agency, 2014;Khalaf, 2015;Nezhad, Eshrati, Eshrati, & Design, 2015;Silva;& Roders, 2011;(Ettehad, Azeri, & Kari, 2014). Although these studies give added values to the significance of sustaining cultural identity, they offer limited ideas to enhance the assessment methodology in improvising the efficiency issue accordingly.…”

“…Some of the new architecture movements are found disastrous as they introduce a barrier between old architecture approach and the modern world (Stern, 1988;Jencks, 1990). The discussion on architecture image and identity crisis has continued until today as few scholars have been supporting the fact that many inharmonic and insensitive developments are found in heritage context (Alderson, 2006;Delanty & Jones, 2002;Hosseini, Mursib, & Shahedi, 2011;Ibrahim, 2016;Khalaf, 2015;Mısırlısoy, 2017). Such progress has been thought to impose heritage risk when the current trend of architecture design leads to deficiencies in sustaining cultural image and identity.…”

Architectural and Urban Heritage in the Digital Age: Dilemmas of Authenticity, Originality and Reproduction

“…It builds on a previous Special Issue on architectural conservation (Archnet-IJAR, 2015, Vol. 9, No.2) that looked at strategies of conservation in the contemporary urban landscape (Khalaf, 2015;Roders and Grigolon, 2015 East's Cultural Heritage", that took place on 20-21 February at the National Museum of Egyptian Civilisation, Cairo, Egypt. Papers included in this issue have succeeded to advance our understanding of the changing landscape of architectural and urban preservation in recent decades.…”