Conservation, agreements and collaboration

A critical overview of heritage conservation strategies in XXth century Britain

OurSpace.CoOp Model

Initially investigating the representation of the user within the design process, OurSpace.CoOp was formulated as a community-based model that challenges the current structure of public space; specifically, the procurement and development sectors. Focusing on London and through an assessment of the Kings Cross developments, this was a new form of co-design which developed the decisions made by local groups. Aided by counsellors and other relevant parties, this input was incorporated into the public space design process in a more transparent and accessible way. The Stakeholders were re-defined as not only clients or funding bodies, but the actual day to day users of the space. Acknowledging that the usage and user would no doubt develop thereupon, a circular model was introduced. This provides a public space which is not permanent but flexible and adaptable on a small scale. A post completion maintenance and tracking model was designed and implemented, tackling the current rigid development models.

Intertwining social and environmental justice issues, this investigation was vital in gaining an awareness of the wider issues faced when designing public space, and the complex systems and politics surrounding it. We now recognise that it is paramount to think of public space more in terms of its relationship to other spaces rather than just for a set group of users. Moreover, whilst the space seems at the mercy of socio-economic systems, public space as a wider network has the opportunity of being a tool to address social, cultural and environmental justice issues. Furthermore, it is important to recognise how the spaces can provide long-term social and environmental value, not only from the point of post-supervision but also from the early stages in planning, policies and management agreements.

Moving forward, our aim is to build a more specific and comprehensive understanding of the different stages and elements within current development processes. This will be achieved through an in-depth exploration of the specific issues and queries which arose from our previous investigation, analysing the current climate in which the model sits.

Fig. 1: OurSpace.CoOp model (Darcy Arnold-Jones, Monica Patel, Zhuxuan Yang, Francesca Savanco, Francesca Benetti Genolini, and Reediima Uppal)

Abstract

`Heritage’ developed and was conceptualised thanks to a number of institutional, intellectual and popular contributions during the last two centuries and it has always been linked to the production of narratives. Yet, one might argue that with time, heritage conservation became increasingly linked to legal contracts and a series of other practices that led into it now being “distanced” from the social and collective dimension.

Globalization, development, demographic change, and economic pressures are the main factors that directly drive change in the urban environment and impact the preservation of historic urban environments. Increased urbanization due to immigration and population growth leads to rapid expansion of cities, uncontrolled development, and greater density within historic areas, while smaller rural centers in many parts of the world are suffering from emigration, which results in stagnation, obsolescence, and abandonment.

If nowadays the main factors that influence change in the urban landscape are globalization, demographic change and economic growth, then analysing how these impact the preservation of historic urban heritage will be fundamental in order to speculate on the wider scenario of a social and wellbeing benefit.

Departing from a series of case studies on conservation strategies the XIXth and XXth century — such as Hampstead Garden Suburbs, the regeneration of Covent Garden and the protectionist philosophies of William Morris and comparing them with contemporary strategies like a Heritage Partnership Agreement — the aim of the essay is to gain a deeper understanding of the role of heritage conservation and the corollary agreements for the involvement of local communities and communication of knowledge.

The essay departs from the group development of OurSpace.CoOp, a community-based model that challenges the current structure of public space in terms of its procurement and function, and investigates further the contractual aspects of the contemporary built environment, in particular those related to heritage and conservation.

Fig. 2: traditional business-oriented model to heritage conservation

By doing so, I want to question those who nowadays are the final beneficiaries of certain interpretations of ‘heritage conservation’ and possibly suggest reimagining these very interpretations in a more collaborative manner. Moreover, the background scope of this research is to challenge the current practice of professionals, who’s approach towards heritage conservation appears drastically technocratic; produced legally through international charters, codes of practice and protection frameworks under national and international law; technically through accredited training in material performance and technique; educationally via specialist programmes transferring knowledge from technical and legal agencies to interested parties — “an exclusive circle” (Alan Chandler, The Production of Heritage).

While traditional conservation theory understood government to be the primary guardian of a community’s heritage resources, because of pressure to fulfill other public demands, combined with global development trends, community commitment and private engagement are needed in order to help governments retain heritage assets for future generations. The private and third sectors are thus becoming more involved in delivering conservation outcomes that have traditionally been achieved by the government.

The key question of this research therefore becomes how can communities become more involved in issues of local heritage conservation and whether professionals can further inform this involvement.

Introduction

When addressing the environmental and conservation strategy of OurSpace.CoOp we suggested introducing the involvement of an appointed Environmental Advisor from the initial design stages through to completion, ensuring that any development is inherently environmentally conscious.

On the other hand we had the opportunity to examine specific the Heritage Partnership Agreement (HPA) adopted by King’s Cross Central and we supposed to identify Heritage Organisations related to potential developments as an effective mechanism to ensure any significant historic elements are preserved, whilst new elements are sensitively in-keeping, safeguarding important cultural identities.

Defining these specific aspects of OurSpace.CoOp model gave me the chance to further understand how nowadays the production and conservation of heritage is far from being a neutral process, with the professionalisation of heritage contributing to its distancing from users and local communities.

In this sense my aim is also to discuss the fundamental role of a third sector in Public-private partnerships (PPP), intended as nongovernment, social, and community-based institutions, which is becoming more and more involved in delivering conservation outcomes that have traditionally been achieved by the government.

Although PPPs are not necessarily the best means of achieving quality conservation outcomes, nor necessarily the most efficient way to fund a project, I believe that their application in regards to Heritage and Conservation agreements can be a useful starting point to speculate on the possibility for these to be understood on a more transparent, inclusive and community-led basis.

Figure 3: comparing Traditional Public Procurement with Private Public Partnership

Figure 4: Use of PPP in Heritage Conservation (Role Distribution in Public-Private Partnerships: The Case of Heritage Management in Italy)

What is an HPA and how could it be challenged?

A Heritage Partnership Agreement is defined as a non-statutory agreement between the owners of a listed building and their local authority that helps manage change efficiently, while maintaining the special qualities of a place. The legal agreement between the building’s owner and the local authority sets out routine works that can take place on a regular basis without the need to apply for listed building consent.

In the case of King’s Cross Central redevelopment, an HPA was stipulated between all parties (Historic England, Network Rail and Camden Council) to ensure that the historic past of the station would be safeguarded into the future.

Although simplifying the management process and protecting the history of a place, this agreement leaves room for questioning. How can the conservation of heritage involve not only the architectural value of the site but also the social and cultural one of a place?

In this sense, the following case studies helped me to understand how issues of heritage conservation have been approached in the past, and whether there are interesting features that could become interesting starting points for the future.

Fig. 5: Policy Proposal for the Implementation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention

Case study 1: Hampstead Garden Suburbs

An interesting example of a model community designed to ensure that people of all classes could live together and contribute to the maintenance of local heritage is the case of Hampstead Garden Suburbs.

The Suburb was founded by Henrietta Barnett and her husband Samuel who, in 1906, purchased 234 acres of land in the north area of London.

Among the aims of this visionary idea, the scheme was meant to cater for all classes of people and all income groups, include woods and public gardens free to all, and should be characterised by a low building density, where houses would be separated by hedges rather than walls.

Hampstead Garden Suburb was designated as a conservation area in 1967 and since then, it stands out from the Conservation Areas in Barnet as it is protected both by the statutory powers which the London Borough of Barnet has, and by Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust which has separate legal powers to maintain and preserve the present character and amenities of Hampstead Garden Suburb.

In 1968 Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust was set up as both a private company and a registered charity with the aim of maintaining the character and amenity of the Suburb and implementing the management scheme. Beside being the freeholder of the majority of the remaining leasehold properties and having legal powers to maintain and preserve the present character and amenities, HGST aims at ensuring the involvement of the local community throughout decision-making systems:

The Trust has no owners and no shareholders but any Suburb resident of three years’ standing can become a Member of the Trust. Newer residents can join as Associate Members. The governing Trust Council has eight (unpaid) Trustees. Of these, four are elected by those Suburb residents who choose to become members of the Trust and four are individually appointed by the Law Society, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Victorian Society. Thus, whilst the Trust is not a public, democratic body, it cannot reach decisions without the participation of residents. The responsibility of the Trustees is to see that the Trust and its assets are managed, as prescribed by its constitution, in the best interests of its beneficiaries, the residents of the Suburb, and in the wider public interest. The Trust has developed a system of committees that advise the Trust Council on all aspects of its business, from the regulation of development to the management of the Trust’s finances. This means that resident volunteers advise on the policies of the Trust and have a significant influence on its work, which is carried out by professional staff.

In 2010, a collaboration between the London Borough of Barnet, the Hampstead Garden Suburb Residents Association and the Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust gave life to a

Conservation Area Appraisal. The main scope of the statement is that of generating awareness of exactly what it is about Hampstead Garden Suburb Conservation Area that makes it of ‘special interest’ and uniquely distinctive as a ‘historic area’; on the other hand it creates the basis for cooperation between the Trust, Barnet Council, and the local citizens. The complete document consists of 22 character areas, each characterized by a specific appraisal map. What makes the CAA interesting, when compared to other agreements like an HPA, is the structured involvement of the community.

Throughout the XXth century, the Suburb has not grown up in a fragmentary manner, or through the work of speculative builders, but was specifically designed in terms of heritage, architecture and land management. On the other hand, it allowed for an exceptionally active community life.

In this sense, the conservation and production of heritage in Hampstead Garden Suburbs emerged out of the utopian impulse of envisioning how urban co-living could be, but also as a realistic reaction to the fast-paced, anonymous and profit driven urbanization of the time.

Case study 2: Society for protection of Ancient Buildings — William Morris

Another interesting strategy towards Heritage Conservation which took place between the XIXth and XXth century is what critics have defined as preservationism.

William Morris was one pivotal figure in shaping the public opinion in terms of aesthetics, often supporting important causes by forming advocacy groups.

Intrigued by architecture and reluctant towards the furious urbanization of the time, in 1887 Morris formed the Society for Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), whose characters had been strongly influenced by John Ruskin’s vision for preserving ancient buildings.

Moving beyond his philosophy of honoring the artisans who constructed old buildings by preserving their work without alteration, what I believe is worth highlighting is how this approach saw authentic architecture as a benefit to society. In Morris’ view individuals had a social responsibility to preserve the heritage without that “reckless stripping” resulting in deconstruction and annihilation of the cultural character.

In this sense, the society in first place must be aware and responsible for conserving an integrity which is not only related to architectural heritage but also involves that whole community of markers that characterise it as such.

Although this model would translate into historic buildings not being able to adapt to contemporary necessities, Morris’ approach suggests a decisive commitment on a social and political agenda, which saw architecture as a social testimony that lives through its inhabitants, the engagement of people and the possibility to resist capitalization by emphasizing the value of community use.

Case study 3: The Redevelopment of Covent Garden

In some cases, conservation strategies and heritage agreements were fundamental aspects of urban regeneration; where the historic value of an area was of great value, urban development would often try to capitalize on the features of those elements in order to benefit the greater vision of the project.

Yet, these optimistic visions in terms of redeveloping historic urban heritage didn’t always succeed in engaging with existing realities and cultural identities.

Profit driven strategies and poor community involvement have in fact been a typical scenario of many urban regenerations throughout the XXth century.

In this sense, the redevelopment of Covent Garden starting from the 1970’s can be taken as an efficient example of the controversial relationship between the ambitious visions of wealthy stakeholders and the needs of those who inhabit the heritage on a daily basis.

What had been for centuries been a vital part of Covent Garden’s culture — meaning not only the market and theatres but also the diverse and varied people associated with their running — was basically to be put on a side and replaced with a monolithic environment, unsympathetic to the nurturing of the rich complexity of life (according to the main objection to the plan submitted by the GLC).

Several issues immediately arose between the community and planning authorities, which represented a significant impetus for the resistance against the general development scheme.

According to testimonies of residents the most disturbing factor was the enormous gulf which existed between the GLC (as Landlords) and their tenants. People were sent letters addressed ‘Dear Tenant’, signed by a rubber stamp, and advised that it would be prudent for them to move as soon as possible from their homes.

As a consequence, the conservation strategy of GLC — which would address merely the physical heritage of the place without consultation nor involvement of community members — sparked criticism not only among local residents, but also professionals and local authorities.

In this sense, the case study of Covent Garden gave me the chance to reflect on the way nowadays we define heritage, what does it mean to preserve it, what is the purpose of such agreements between public and private entities? But mostly, are the social identity and cultural heritage taken into consideration beyond the conservation of the strictly architectural landscape of the specific place?

Conclusion

Nowadays, when conservation management is increasingly reliant on voluntary or local support like National Trust and charity initiatives, there still seems to be a lack in understanding how the responsibility towards historical heritage is defined, and moreover how these agreements could be actively informed by community engagement.

Although Public-Private agreements like HPA are efficient tools to define the heritage industry — identified by business models, economic benefits, shareholders and financial strategies — they appear to fail in communicating ideas which can empower not only preservation but also the production of heritage as a social benefit.

In conclusion, a third sector in addition to public and private entities should play a fundamental role in the conservation and maintenance of heritage; in fact, unlike the profit driven motivations of the first two, what drives local communities is to conserve the characters of the place. Public consultations between local organizations and stakeholders can in this sense facilitate the pre development phases, protecting neighbourhood identities, community needs and cultural awareness.

Bibliography & Sitography

• Alan Chandler, MichelaPace, The Production of Heritage: The Politicisation of Architectural Conservation, Routledge, 2019
• Claire Brady, A heritage partnership agreement for King’s Cross Station (https://www.mcaslan.co.uk/files/kings_cross_hpa_agreement_context_march_2020.pdf)
• Geoffrey K. Payne, Making Common Ground: Public-Private Partnerships in Land for Housing. London, Intermediate Technology Publications, 1999
• Guido Licciardi, Rana Amirtahmasebi, eds. The Economics of Uniqueness: Investing in Historic City Cores and Heritage Assets for Sustainable Development. Urban Development Series, Washington, DC, World Bank, 2012
• Jonathan S. Davies, Partnerships and Regimes: The Politics of Urban Regeneration in the UK, Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2001
• Otto Saumarez Smith; Boom Cities: Architect Planners and the Politics of Radical Urban Renewal in 1960s Britain, Oxford University Press, 2019
• Ronald McQuaid, “The Theory of Partnership: Why Have Partnerships?” In PublicPrivate Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective, edited by Stephen P. Osborne, 9–35: London: Routledge, 2000.
• Susan Macdonald, Caroline Cheong, The Role of Public-Private Partnerships and the Third Sector in Conserving Heritage Buildings, Sites, and Historic Urban Areas, The Getty Conservation Institute, 2014
• http://www.coventgardenmemories.org.uk/page_id__37.aspx
• https://www.hgstrust.org/the-suburb/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampstead_Garden_Suburb