Conservation Policies For 20th Century Architectural Heritage

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 05:59 09 May 2017
Time Frames
“Time Frames offers an authoritative reference on the state of the art, giving the first
comprehensive overview on the conservation rules and current protection policies of mod-
ern heritage in over 100 countries. While the Modern Movement in Architecture and
Urban Planning had its origins in the Western World, it soon spread to other regions. Fur-
ther to the country profiles, the publication also includes general articles by conservation
professionals on issues dealing with the identity and recognition of modern architecture.”
Jukka Jokilehto, Honorary Visiting Professor, University of York, UK
“This extensive work is a critical examination and comparison of heritage protec-

tion laws and policies from all continents and many different countries, with special
reference to the architecture of the 20th century. The framework within which this
investigation and reflection upon Time and History takes place is that period of time
which is laid down by many legislations for the proper recognition and consequent
protection of heritage. The pattern that emerges reveals a wide variety of different
models and sensibilities, enabling us to fully comprehend the motivation behind heri-
tage protection and the tangible and intangible values targeted by said protection.”
Giovanni Carbonara, Emeritus Professor, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Time Frames provides a reconnaissance on the conservation rules and current protec-
tion policies of more than 100 countries, with particular attention to the emerging
nations and twentieth-century architecture. The contributions illustrate the critical
issues related to architectural listings, with a brief history of national approaches, a
linkography and a short bibliography. The book also provides a short critical lexicog-
raphy, with 12 papers written by scholars and experts including topics on identities,
heritages, conservation, memories and the economy. By examining the methods used
to designate building as heritage sites across the continents, this book provides a com-
prehensive overview of current protection policies of twentieth-century architecture
as well as the role of architectural history.
Ugo Carughi is an architect, Chair of Docomomo Italia Onlus and former Direc-
tor at the Superintendence of Naples. He has conducted numerous restorations of
monumental buildings and won the prize in the competition for pilot projects for the
conservation of monuments organized by the EEC (1988). Amongst his main books is
Maledetti Vincoli. La tutela dell’architettura contemporanea (2012).
Massimo Visone is Adjunct Professor in History of Architecture at the University of

Naples Federico II. Amongst his main publications are many studies on the history
of architecture and the city of Naples and its surroundings, the history of art and
a significant edited volume on protection policies for twentieth-century architecture
worldwide (Maledetti vincoli: Part II 2012).
http://taylorandfrancis.com
Taylor & Francis Group
Taylor &Francis
Time Frames
Conservation Policies for
Twentieth-Century Architectural Heritage
Edited by
Ugo Carughi and Massimo Visone
ROUTLEDGE
Routledge
LONDON AND NEW YORK
ROUTLEDGE
Routledge
LONDON AND NEW YORK
First published 2017
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2017 selection and editorial matter, Massimo Visone and Ugo Carughi;
individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Massimo Visone and Ugo Carughi to be identified as the authors
of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters,
has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,

Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Visone, Massimo, editor. | Carughi, Ugo, editor.
Title: Time frames : conservation policies for twentieth-century architectural
heritage / edited by Massimo Visone and Ugo Carughi.
Other titles: Time frames (Routledge (Firm))
Description: New York : Routledge, 2017. | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016046373| ISBN 9781472489296 (hardback : alk.
paper) | ISBN 9781315269863 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Architecture—Conservation and restoration. | Architecture,
Modern—20th century—Conservation and restoration. | Cultural
property—Protection.
Classification: LCC NA105 .T56 2017 | DDC 724/.6—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016046373
ISBN: 978-1-47-248929-6 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-31-526986-3 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Cultural Patronages
Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation;
International Committee for documentation and conservation of
buildings, sites and neighbourhoods of the modern movement
(Docomomo International); International Centre for the Study of the
Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM);
Union Internationale des Architectes (UIA); Italian National
Commission for UNESCO; University of Naples Federico II
Translations
Hungary
Argentina, France, Hungary, Uruguay
Valeria Andreola
Argentina, France, Uruguay
Claudia Bistoletti
Vatican City State
Anita Carughi
Italy
Sara Forcellini
Republic of San Marino
David Mason
Switzerland
Simon Pocock
Essays by Ugo Carughi, Michael Jakob, Franco Purini, Massimo Visone
Morgan Powell
Germany
Miroslav Velkov
Bulgaria
Contents
List of figures x
List of contributors xviii
Preface xxiv
Acknowledgements xxvii
Introduction 1
PART I
Conservation policies for twentieth-century architectural heritage 7
1 The shadow line: architecture between time and history 9

Massimo Visone
2 Contemporary architecture and the idea of protection 23
Ugo Carughi
Synoptic table 34
3 Africa 35
Algeria – Angola – Democratic Republic of the Congo – Egypt –
Eritrea – Ethiopia – Ghana – Kenya – Morocco – Mozambique –
Nigeria – Senegal – South Africa – Tanzania – Tunisia
4 Americas 79
Argentina – Brazil – Canada – Chile – Colombia – Costa Rica –
Cuba – Ecuador – Mexico – Peru – United States of America –
Uruguay – Venezuela
5 Asia 119
Bahrain – Bangladesh – China – Hong Kong – India – Indonesia –
Iran – Israel – Japan – Jordan – Kazakhstan – Lebanon – Macau –
Malaysia – Oman – Pakistan – Philippines – Qatar – Singapore –
South Korea – Thailand – United Arab Emirates – Vietnam
viii Contents
6 Australasia 189
Australia – New Zealand
7 Europe 197
Albania – Andorra – Armenia – Austria – Azerbaijan – Belarus –
Belgium – Bosnia and Herzegovina – Bulgaria – Croatia – Cyprus –
Czech Republic – Denmark – Estonia – Finland – France – Georgia –
Germany – Greece – Hungary – Iceland – Ireland – Italy – Kosovo –
Latvia – Liechtenstein – Lithuania – Luxembourg – Macedonia –
Malta – Moldova – Montenegro – Netherlands – Norway – Poland –

Portugal – Romania – Russia – San Marino – Serbia – Slovakia –
Slovenia – Spain – Sweden – Switzerland – Turkey – Ukraine –
United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales) –
Vatican City State
PART II
Short critical lexicography 351
Identity 353
8 West African modernism and change 355
Ola Uduku
9 Evolution in the Arab region 365
Ashraf M. Salama
10 Humanism: an Italian tale 372
Franco Purini
11 Post-tradition in Japanese culture 383
Mizuko Ugo
Heritage 393
12 Industrial architecture 395
Roberto Parisi
13 Landscape architecture 405
Michael Jakob
14 Middle-class housing 411
Filippo De Pieri
Memory 419
15 Cultural institutions 421
Teresita Scalco
Contents ix
16 Architectural photography 432
Valeria Carullo
Conservation 441
17 Laws and regulations 443
Valeria Carullo
18 Technology 453
Rosalia Vittorini
Economy 467
19 Economic analysis 469
Amedeo Di Maio
Index of places 474

Index of names 485
Figures
1.1 Gabriele Basilico, Monte-Carlo 05-A12-137, 2005. (Collection 10

Nouveau Musée National de Monaco, No. 2005.20.1. Gift
of the Association des Amis du NMNM © Gabriele Basilico/
NMNM /ADAGP, Paris 2016)
1.2 Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew, University of Ibadan, 1949–1960. 13
(Gillian Hopwood, 1954)
1.3 Louis Hellman, Architect’s Journal, 20.11.15. 14
1.4 Greater London Council. Department of Architecture & Civic 16
Design, Hayward Gallery, London, 1968. (Daniel Hewitt,
2009 / RIBA Collections)
1.5 Jo Hendrik van den Broek and Jacob Berend Bakema, City Hall, 17
Marl, 1960–1966. (Gerardus – Wikipedia Commons, 2008)
2.1 Oscar Niemeyer, Supreme Federal Court, Brasília, 1958. 25
(Salvino Campos, 2007)
2.2 Oscar Niemeyer, Tancredo Neves Pantheon of the Fatherland 26
and Freedom, Brasilia, 1986. (Salvino Campos, 2007)
2.3 Marcel Breuer, Becton Engineering and Applied Science Center, 27
New Haven, 1970. (Salvino Campos, 2002)
2.4 Giò Ponti, Pirelli Tower, Milan, 1956–1960. (Studio F 64 – 29
Paolo Cappelli & Maurizio Criscuolo, 2005)
2.5 Alvaro Siza, Boa Nova Tea House, Matosinhos (Porto), 1958– 31
1963. (Giacomo Visconti, 2005)
3.1 Jules Voinot and Marius Toudoire, Great post office, Algiers, 36
1910. (coeval postal card, private collection)
3.2 Vasco Regaleira, National Bank of Angola, Luanda, 1956. 38
(Roberto Goycoolea, 2013)
3.3 René Schoentjes and Albert Van Grunderbeek, Lycée Kiwele, ex 41
Athénée royal, Lubumbashi, 1948–1949. (Johan Lagae, 2013)
3.4 Antoine Selim Nahas, Taleb Building, Cairo, 1947. (Docomomo 44
Photo Archive, 2012)
3.5 Calisto Varnero, Nyala Hotel, Asmara, 1965–1971. 47
(Edward Denison, 2003)
3.6 Arturo Mezzedimi, City Hall, Addis Ababa, 1961–1964. 50
(Postcard, 1965)
3.7 Cathedral of Our Lady of Seven Sorrows, Navrongo, 1906– 53
1920. (Monica Maria Tetzlaff, 2014)
Figures xi
3.8 Karl Henrik Nøstvik, Kenyatta International Conference Centre, 56
Nairobi, 1967–1973. (Jacob Barua, 2012)
3.9 Marius Boyer, Assayag Building, Casablanca, 1930. 59
(Abderrahim Kassou, 2016)
3.10 Paolo Gadini (ascr.), RádioMoçambique, former Rádio Clube de 62
Moçambique, Maputo, 1948–1951. (José Manuel Fernandes, 1996)
3.11 National Arts Theatre, Iganmu, 1976. (Gillian Hopwood, 2011) 65
3.12 Souleymane Reda, Musée Boribana, Dakar, 1995. 68
(Joseph L. Underwood, 2014)
3.13 Wilhelm Bernhard Pabst, Chinese United Club Mansions, 71
Johannesburg, 1948. (Brendan Hart, 2016)

3.14 Norman & Dawbarn Architects, Kwame Nkrumah hall, Dar es 74
Salaam, 1970s. (AAMatters, 2005)
3.15 Olivier-Clément Cacoub, Museum Habib Bourguiba, Skanès 77
Palace, Monastir, 1963. (Mohamed Bergaoui, 2015)
4.1 Clorindo Testa and Estudio SEPRA, Bank of London and South 80
America, Buenos Aires, 1960–1966. (César Loustau/Cedodal,
1970)
4.2 Oscar Niemeyer, Church of St. Francis of Assisi, Pampulha, 83
1942. (Rodrigo Espinha Baeta, 2012)
4.3 Viljo Revell, New City Hall, Toronto, 1961–1965. (Hugh 86
Robertson, Panda Associates, courtesy NORR Limited –
formerly John B. Parkin Associates, 1966)
4.4 Juan Martínez, Benedictine Monastery and the Santísima 89
Trinidad Chapel in Las Condes, Andes Mountains, 1962–1964.
(Pedro Bannen, 2013)
4.5 Rogelio Salmona, Quimbaya Museum, Armenia, 1987. 92
(Olimpia Niglio, 2013)
4.6 Alberto Linner Díaz, Church of Nuestra Señora de Fátima, San 95
José, 1969. (Alberto Linner Diaz, 1969, A. Fernandez archive)
4.7 Ricardo Porro, School of Plastic Arts, Havana, 1961–1965. 98
(Maria Victoria Zardoya Loureda, 2013)
4.8 Luis Felipe Donoso Barba, Superior Court of Justice Building of 101
Azuay, Cuenca, 1920. (Kléver José Campos Paredes, 2016)
4.9 Juan O’Gorman, Central Library of National Autonomous 104
University of Mexico, Mexico City, 1953. (Maria Margarita
Segarra Lagunes, 2010)
4.10 Luis Miro Quesada, Miro Quesada House, Lima, 1947. 107
(Rodrigo Córdova, 2016)
4.11 Michael Graves, Portland Public Service Building, Oregon, 110
1982. (City of Portland Archives, Oregon, 1986)
4.12 Nelson Bayardo, Ossuary in the North Cemetery, Montevideo, 113
1960–1962 (Luis E Carranza, 2012)
4.13 Francisco Sesto, Mausoleo del Libertador, Caracas, 2010–2013. 116
(Ana Milenka, 2013)
5.1a Charles Dalrymple Belgrave, Bab al-Bahrain, Manama, 1945– 120
1949. (Bahrain Authority for Culture and Antiquities)
5.1b Bab al-Bahrain remodeled by PAD – Plan Architecture and 120
Design. (Think Heritage!, 2014)
xii Figures
5.2 Abu Hyder Imamuddin and Lailun Nahar Ekram, Nagar 123
Bhaban, Dhaka, 1995. (Qazi Azizul Mowla, 2013)
5.3 Yinpei Xu, Yuan Jingshen, Shen Bo, Ma Guoxiang, Geng 126
Changfu, Fang Boyi, Wu Guanzhang and Zhao Pengfei,
Chairman Mao Memorial Hall, Beijing, 1977. (Shizhao, 2006)
5.4 Ron Phillips and Alan Fitch, Hong Kong City Hall, Hong Kong, 129
1956–1969. (Ho Yin Lee, 2008)
5.5 Walter Sykes George, Tuberculosis Association Building, New 132
Delhi, 1950–1952. (Saptarshi Sanyal, 2015)
5.6 Soejoedi Wirjoatmodjo, Parliament complex, Jakarta, 1958– 135
1962. (Gregorius Antar Awal, 2005)

5.7 Hossein Amanat, Azadi Tower, Tehran, 1970. (Wayran, 2009) 138
5.8 Dov Karmi, Zeev Rechter and Jacob Rechter, Mann Auditorium, 141
Tel Aviv, 1957. (Nir Mualam, 2013)
5.9 Nikken Sekkei Ltd., Kobe Port Tower, Kobe, 1963. 144
(Ewa Kawamura, 2013)
5.10 Al Jaghbeer residence, Salt, late 19th and early 20th century 147
façade. (Cultech for Heritage and Conservation, 2014)
5.11 Boris Rafailovich Rubanenko, Government Building, Almaty, 150
1951–1957. (Yulii Aibassov, 2005)
5.12 Idriss Building, Yammout Street, Ras-Beirut, Lot 270, 1932. 153
(Oussama Kallab, 2011)
5.13 António Lei, former Court Building, Macau, 1949–1951. 156
(Gabinete de Comunicação, Arquivo Histórico de Macau,
1983–1985)
5.14 Dato’ Kington Loo, Dewan Tunku Canselor of the University 159
Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 1966. (Yahaya Ahmad, 2015)
5.15 Bait Al Baranda, Muscat, ended in 1931. (Naima Benkari, 162
2015)
5.16 Arif Masoud, Pakistan Monument, Islamabad, 2004–2007. 165
(Sarmad Sohaib, 2009)
5.17 Leandro Locsin, Church of the Holy Sacrifice in the University 168
of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, 1955. (Richard Joseph
Lasam, 2014)
5.18 121 Ibn Al Zubair, Doha, 1970s-1980s. (Timothy Makower, 171
2015)
5.19 Kumpulan Akitek, State Courts, Singapore, 1973–1975. (Urban 174
Redevelopment Authority, Singapore, 2013)
5.20 Swoo Geun Kim, former Space Building, Arario Museum, Seul, 177
1971–1977. (Fabio Dacarro, 2016)
5.21 Former Administration Office, Uthenthawai School of 180
Construction, now Building No.1, Rajamangala University of
Technology Tawan-ok, Uthenthawai Campus, Bangkok, 1941.
(Koompong Noobanjong, 2016)
5.22 Georgi Kolarov, Abu Dhabi Main Bus Terminal, Abu Dhabi, 183
1983–1988. (Maria Alessandra Misuri, 2016)
5.23 Ngo Viet Thu, The Independence place, Ho Chi Minh City, 186
1962–1966. (Nguyen Minh Hoa, 2016)
Figures xiii
6.1 Jørn Utzon, Sydney Opera House, Sydney, 1959–1973. (AIA 190
NSW Chapter Max Dupain Collection, 1960s)
6.2 Price Adams & Dodd, West Plaza Building, Auckland, 1970– 193
1974. (Rees Osborne, 1974)
7.1 Giancarlo Rigamonti, Catholic Cathedral of St. Paul, Tirana, 198
2002. (Vilma Picari, 2016)
7.2 Ricardo Bofill, New Sanctuary of Meritxell, Meritxell, 1976 201
(Miquel Merce, 2016)
7.3 Jim Torosyan, Aslan Mkhitaryan and Sargis Gurzadyan, Yerevan 204
Cascade, Yerevan, 1971–1980. (Maurizio Boriani, 2007)
7.4 Querkraft (Jakob Dunkl, Gerd Erhartt, Peter Sapp), Museum 207
Liaunig, Neuhaus, 2008. (Museum Liauning, 2011)
7.5 Zaha Hadid Architects, Heydar Aliyev Center, Baku, 2007– 210
2012. (Mustafa Shabanov, 2016)
7.6 Yuri Gradov, Valentin Zankovich, Leonid Levin, and 213
S. Selyhanov, Khatyn Memorial Complexes, Lahoysk Raion,
1969. (Armen S. Sardarov, 2010)
7.7 Renaat Braem, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Ixelles, 1971–1978. 216
(Thomas Coomans, 2010)
7.8 Bogdan Bogdanović, Partisan memorial, Mostar, 1965. (CPNM 219
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, 2005)
7.9 Dimitrovgrad, 1952–1956. (History Museum-Dimitrovgrad, 222
1970s)
7.10 Drago Galić, Unité, and Kazimir Ostrogović, City Hall, Zagreb, 225
1955–1959. (Croatian National Archives, Zagreb; Photo
collection Milan Pavić, 1959–1960)
7.11 Neoptolemos Michaelides, Alexandros Demetriou Block of 228
Flats, Nicosia, 1957–1959. (Aimilios Michael, 2012)
7.12 Karel Hubáček, TV Tower and Hotel Ještěd, Liberec, 1965– 231
1973. (Gabriel Čapková, National Heritage Institute, 2014)
7.13 Jørn Utzon, Paustian House, Copenhagen, 1985–1987. 234
(Seier+Seier, 2007)
7.14 Henno Sepmann, Peep Jänes, Ants Raid and Avo-Himm 237
Looveer, Olympic Sailing Sports Center, Tallin, 1976–1980.
(Estonian Architecture Museum, early 1980s)
7.15 Yrjö Lindegren and Toivo Jäntti, Olympic Stadium, Helsinki, 240
1934–1938. (Compic/MarkkuOjala, 2012)
7.16 Charles-Edouard Jeanneret and José Oubrerie, Church of Saint- 243
Pierre, Firminy, 1971. (Gilles Ragot, 2008)
7.17 George Chakhava and Zurab Jalaghania, Ministry 246
of Motorways, Tbilisi, 1974–1975. (Vladimer ‘Lado’
Vardosanidze, 2015)
7.18 Peter-Klaus Kiefer and others, Canteen of the Bauhaus- 249
Universität, Weimar, 1983. (Hans-Rudolf Meier, 2016)
7.19 Kyriakos Krokos, Museum of Byzantine Culture, Thessaloniki, 252
1977–1993. (Andreas Giacumacatos, 1995)
7.20 Imre Makovecz, Catholic Church Holy Spirit of Paks, 1988– 255
1990. (Krisztina Nagy/Forster Centre, 2013)
xiv Figures
7.21 Manfred Vilhjalmsson and Thorvaldur S. Thorvaldsson, Folk 258
High School, Skalholt, 1969–1971. (Unknown photographer.
Manfred Vilhjalmsson’s archive)
7.22 Scott Tallon Walker Architects, Carroll’s Factory, Dundalk, 261
1967–1970. (National Inventory of Architectural Heritage,
2005)
7.23 Sergio Musmeci, Bridge on the river Basento, Potenza, 1976. 264
(MAXXI, National Museum of XXI Century Arts, Rome.
MAXXI Architectural Collection. Sergio Musmeci Archive, late
1970s)
7.24 Andrija Mutnjaković, National and University Library, Pristina, 267

1974–1982. (Igor Rašić, 2014)
7.25 Jānis Kārkliņš, Modris Ģelzis and Viktors Valgums, District 270
Administration Building, Riga, 1976. (Archive of Latvia
Museum of Architecture, State Inspection for Heritage
Protection, early 1980s)
7.26 Hansjörg Göritz, Parliament Building, Vaduz, 2001–2008. 273
(Böhringer Friedrich, 2009)
7.27 Algimantas Nasvytis, Vytautas Nasvytis, Andrius Gudaitis, 276
Ceslovas Mazuras, Lithuanian Parliament, Vilnius, 1976–1991.
(Jurate Jureviciene, 2015)
7.28 Norbert Mangen, Chapel Saint Eloi, Dudelange, 1963–1964. 279
(Alex Langini, 2016)
7.29 Edo Mihevc, Hotel Palace, Ohrid, 1952–1957. (Institute for 282
Protection of the Cultural Monuments – Ohrid, 1960s)
7.30 Richard England, St Joseph Parish Church, Manikata, 285
1962–1974. (Joseph Magro Conti, Malta Environment and
Planning Authority, 2016)
7.31 Sofya H. Galadjeva, National Theatre ‘Mihai Eminescu’, 288
Chisinau, 1930–1954. (Sili Anatolie, 2013)
7.32 Paul Guadet and Perret Freres, French Embassy, Cetinje, 1910. 291
(Slavica Stamatovic Vučković, 2016)
7.33 Piet de Vries, J.L. Hooglandgemaal, Stavoren, 1958–1966. 294
(A.J. van der Wal – Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, 2001)
7.34 Snøhetta, Norwegian National Opera and Ballet, Oslo, 297
2000–2008. (Arve Kjersheim/Riksantikvaren, 2012)
7.35 Ewa and Marek Dziekońscy, Panorama Racławicka Building, 299
Wroclaw, 1970–1985. (Stanislaw Klimek, 2010)
7.36 Vittorio Gregotti and Manuel Salgado, Cultural Centre of 302
Belém, Lisbon, 1992. (ATL. Turismo de Lisboa, 2013)
7.37 Duiliu Marcu, Victoria Palace, Bucharest, 1937–1944, 1952. 305
(Anda-Lucia Spânu, 2016)
7.38 Boris Barkhin, Tsiolkovsky Museum of Space Exploration, 308
Kaluga, 1961–1967. (Errabee, 2002)
7.39 Giovanni Michelucci, Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary Our 311
Lady of Consolation, Borgo Maggiore, 1962–1967.
(Leo Marino Morganti, 1995)
7.40 Ivanka Raspopović and Ivan Antić, Museum of Contemporary 314
Art, Belgrade, 1962–1965. (Museum of Contemporary Art in
Belgrade, 2013)
Figures xv
7.41 Ferdinand Milučký, Bratislava Crematorium, Bratislava, 317
1967–1968. (Fratrič, Archive of The Monuments Board of
Slovak Republic, 2003)
7.42 Edvard Ravnikar, Cankar Hall, Ljubljana, 1977–1984. (Institute 320
for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia - ZVKDS,
2007)
7.43 Ildefonso Sánchez del Río Pisón, and the collaborators 323
F. Cavanilles, J. Suárez and F. Muñoz, Sports Palace, Oviedo
(Asturias), 1962–1975. (Pablo Herrero Lombardia, 2016)
7.44 Arne Nygård, Skolspåret, Hjällbo, 1968. (Krister Engström, 326
2006)
7.45 Georges Addor, Jacques Bolliger, Dominique Julliard and Louis 329
Payot, Cité du Lignon, Geneva, 1963–1971. (Claudio Merlini,
2011)
7.46 Sevinç and Şandor Hadi, National Reassurance Company 332
Building, Istanbul, 1985–1987. (Ebru Omay Polat, 2016)
7.47 Heinrich Volodymyrovich Topuz, A. Lyubowski and 335
V. Krasenko, Odessa Academic Theatre of Musical Comedy,
named after Mikhail Vodianoy, Odessa, 1981. (Alex Kubov,
2016)
7.48 James Stirling, Michael Wilford and Associates, No.1 Poultry, 338
London, 1994–1998. (Elain Harwood, 2016)
7.49 P.&B. Gregory Architects, St Bernadette’s Roman Catholic 341
Church, Belfast, 1966. (DOE: Historic Environment Division,
2011)
7.50 Sir Barry Gasson with Brit Andresen, The Burrell Collection, 344
Glasgow, 1971–1983. (Historic Environment Scotland, 2014)
7.51 Kenneth M. Raw and N. Squire Johnson, Ysgol Syr Thomas 346
Jones, Amlwch, 1948–1953. (Royal Commission on the Ancient
and Historical Monuments of Wales, 2007)
7.52 Pierluigi Nervi, Paul VI Audience Hall, Vatican City, 349
1966–1971. (Mario Carrieri, Pier Luigi Nervi Project, 2010)
8.1 Max Lock, Kaduna Masterplan, 1965. (Lock, 1966) 358
8.2 Edwin Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew, Osae Assembly Hall 359
Prempeh College, Kumasi, c.1956. (Ola Uduku, 2015)
8.3 Olumide Olumuyiwa, YMCA Building, Lagos, c.1966. 360
(Ola Uduku, 2014)
8.4 John Owuso Addo and Miro Marasović, KNUST Unity Hall, 361
Kumasi, c.1960. (Ola Uduku, 2015)
10.1 Antonio Sant’Elia, Manifesto of Futurist Architecture. 373
(11 July 1914)
10.2 Studio BBPR (Lodovico Barbiano di Belgiojoso, Enrico 375
Peressutti and Ernesto Nathan Rogers), Velasca Tower, Milan,
1956–1958. (Purini Thermes archive)
10.3 Giuseppe Terragni, Casa del Fascio – House of Fascism, Como, 377
1932–1936. (Pinotto992, 2014 – Creative Commons)
10.4 Adalberto Libera, Palace of Congress, Rome, 1938–1954. 377
(Purini Thermes archive)
10.5 Mario Fiorentino, Corviale, Rome, 1972. (Purini Thermes 378
archive)
xvi Figures
10.6 Renzo Piano & Richard Rogers, Centre Georges Pompidou, 380
Paris, 1971–1977. (9attaraf, 2013 – Creative Commons)
11.1 Urabe Shizutarō, Kurashiki Ivy Square, Kurashiki City, 384
1889/1974. (Mizuko Ugo, 2008)
11.2 YoshidaTetsurō, Tokyo Central Post Office, Chiyoda Ward, 385
Tokyo, 1931 (Mizuko Ugo, 2015)
11.3 Tatsuno-Kasai Architectural Firm, Tokyo Railway Station, 386
Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo, 1914. (Mizuko Ugo, 2015)
11.4 Sakakura Junzō, The Museum of Modern Art, Kamakura City, 387
1951. (Mizuko Ugo, 2015)
11.5 Mayekawa Kunio, Kanagawa Prefectural Library and Music 388

Hall, Yokoama City, Kanagawa Prefecture, 1954. (Mizuko Ugo,
2015)
11.6 Mayekawa Kunio, Sakakura Junzō, Yoshimura Junzō, 389
International House of Japan, Minato Ward, Tokyo, 1955.
(Mizuko Ugo, 2014)
11.7 Okada Shin’ichirō, Meiji Mutual Life Insurance Company 390
Building, Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo, 1934. (Mizuko Ugo, 2015)
12.1 Volkswagen Factory, Puebla, 1960s. (Volkswagen from Mexico, 396
1960s)
12.2 Studio Corsini Wiskemann, FTM-Factory, Dalmine, 1976–1978. 397
(Dalmine Foundation, 1980s)
12.3 Robert Matza, with Caruso-Torricella Architects, logo Tenaris, 397
Dalmine, 2002. (U.V. Studio Dalmine Foundation, 2005)
12.4 Gunter Henn, Gläserne Manufaktur, Dresden, 1999–2001. 398
(X-Weinzar, 2007)
13.1 Luigi Manini, Quinta de Regaleira, Sintra, 1904–1910. (Michael 407
Jakob, 2011)
13.2 Herrenhausen gardens, Herrenhausen, destroyed in 1943, 408
reconstructed in 2013. (Michael Jakob, 2013)
13.3 Asp Landschaftsarchitekten and Eduard Neuenschwander, 409
Irchelpark, Zürich, 1986. (Michael Jakob, 2015)
14.1 Oscar Niemeyer, Copan building, Sāo Paulo, 1957–1966. 412
(Silvio Tanaka, 2009)
14.2 Cooperative of Reggio Emilia architects, residential complex 413
“Nebbiara”, Reggio Emilia, 1960. (Archivio Osvaldo Piacentini,
Reggio Emilia)
14.3 Sergio Hutter, A newly built apartment complex, Turin, 1956. 414
(Fiat Historical Center)
15.1 Citè d’Architecture et du patrimoine, Study Center, Paris. 424
(Capa/Nicolas Bore, 2007)
15.2 SALT Researchat SALT Galata. (Iwan Baan, 2012) 426
15.3 Screenshot of Archileb 427
15.4a Archivio Progetti, Università IUAV di Venezia, esterior view. 428
(Umberto Ferro, 2013)
15.4b Design Archive, Venice IUAV University, interior view. (Umberto 429
Ferro, 2013)
Figures xvii
15.5 De Wonderjaren in maquettes. 30 jaar architectuur in 430
Vlaanderen. Vlaamse Centrum Archirtectuur Archieven (VAi)/
Flanders Architectural Institute, Antwerpen. (Stijn Bollart, 2016)
16.1 Hector-Martin Lefuel and Louis Visconti, Pavillon Turgot, 433
New Louvre, Paris, 1857. (Édouard-Denis Baldus/RIBA Library
Photographs Collection)
16.2 Ernö Goldfinger, Trellick Tower, Cheltenham Estate, London, 434
1972. (Sam Lambert./RIBA Library Photographs Collection)
16.3 GLC Shopping centre, Pepys Estate, London, 1970. 435
(Tony Ray-Jones/RIBA Library Photographs Collection)
16.4 Ludovico Quaroni, Church of Santa Maria Maggiore, 437

Francavilla al Mare, 1959. (Architectural Press Archive/RIBA
Library Photographs Collection)
16.5 Richard Meier, Museum für Angewandte Kunst, Frankfurt, 439
1984. (Alastair Hunter/RIBA Library Photographs Collection)
17.1 Willem Marinus Dudok, Collège Neerlandais, Cité Universitaire, 446
Paris, 1938. (Architect Bernard Bauchet, 2008)
17.2 Piero Portaluppi, Villa Necchi Campiglio, Milano, 1932–1935. 448
(left: Fondazione Piero Portaluppi, 1935; right: Alessandra
Castelbarco Albani, 2010)
17.3 left: Roland Korn and Hans Erich Bogatzky, Staatsratsgebäude, 448
Berlin, 1962–1964 (Roberta Grignolo, 2011).
middle: Otto Salvisberg, Institut für Geologie, Bern 1929–1931
(Roberta Grignolo, 2012).
right: Alfred Oeschger, Emil Hostettler, Josef Kaufmann, Swiss
National Library, Bern 1929–1931. (Roberta Grignolo, 2013)
17.4 Armin Meili, Brown, Boveri & Cie (BBC), Employees’ 449
Recreational Facility, Baden, 1951–1954. (Roberta Grignolo,
2012)
18.1 Auguste Perret, Notre Dame de la Consolation, Le Raincy, 456
1922–1923. (Rosalia Vittorini, 2014)
18.2 Carlo Scarpa, Tomb Brion, San Vito di Altivole, 1969–1978. 457
(Rosalia Vittorini, 2004)
18.3 Le Corbusier, Unité d’habitation, Marseille, 1947–1951. 458
18.4 Johannes Brinkman and Leendert Cornelis van der Vlugt, Van 460
Nelle Factory, Rotterdam, 1925–1931. (Rosalia Vittorini, 2008)
18.5 Georges Addor et al., Residential complex, Lignon, 1963–1971. 461
18.6 Luigi Figini and Gino Pollini, New ICO Olivetti, Ivrea, 1956– 462
1957. (Rosalia Vittorini, 2005)
18.7 Gio Ponti et al., Pirelli tower, Milan, 1950–1956. (Rosalia 462
Vittorini, 2005)
18.8 Jan Duiker and Bernard Bijvoet, Sanatorium Zonnestraal, 463
Hilversum, 1925–1928. (Rosalia Vittorini, 2008)
Contributors
Editors
Ugo Carughi, architect, is Chair of Docomomo Italy Onlus.
Massimo Visone, architect, is Adjunct Professor of History of Architecture and mem-
ber of the Research Centre on the Iconography of the European City at the Univer-
sity of Naples Federico II.
Part I
Africa
Algeria, Samira Debache Benzagouta, Université Constantine 3, and Yasser Nassim
Benzagouta, Université libre de Bruxelles
Angola, Roberto Goycoolea and Paz Núñez, University of Alcalá
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Johan Lagae, Ghent University
Egypt, Ola Seif, The American University in Cairo
Eritrea, Medhanie Teklemariam, Asmara Heritage Project Office – Department of
Public Works Development
Ethiopia, Fasil Giorghis, Addis Ababa University
Ghana, Elisa Dainese, Dalhousie University
Kenya, Jacob Barua, Salesian Theological College of Nairobi
Morocco, Abderrahim Kassou, architect
Mozambique, José Manuel Fernandes, University of Lisbon
Nigeria, Lanre Shasore and John Godwin, Legacy 1995. The Historical and Environ-
mental Interest Group of Nigeria
Senegal, Joseph L. Underwood, Stony Brook University
South Africa, Brendan Hart and Yasmin Mayat, University of the Witwatersrand
Tanzania, Antoni S. Folkers and Berend van der Lans, African Architecture Matters,
Amsterdam
Contributors xix
Tunisia, Faten Rouissi, National School of Architecture and Urban planning- ENAU-
Tunis, and Insaf K. Zaghouani, architect
Americas
Argentina, Graciela María Viñuales, Centro de Documentación de Arquitectura
Latinoamericana
Brazil, Paulo Ormindo David de Azevedo, Federal University of Bahia
Canada, Michael McClelland, Era Architects Inc.

Chile, Pedro Bannen and Macarena Ibarra, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile
Colombia, Olimpia Niglio, Kyoto University
Costa Rica, Andrés Fernández, Universidad Véritas
Cuba, María Victoria Zardoya Loureda, José Antonio Echeverría Higher Polytechnic
Institute, Cujae
Ecuador, Fernando Carrión Mena, Latin American Social Sciences Institute, and
Isabel Rohn, Ministry of Culture and Heritage
Mexico, Margarita Segarra Lagunes, University of Rome Tre
Peru, Judith Soria, National University of Engineering, and Rodrigo Córdova, Peru-
vian University of Applied Sciences (UPC)
United States of America, Carol D. Shull, National Park Service
Uruguay, Alejandro Veneziano, National Commission for Cultural Heritage
Venezuela, Giuseppe Rago, University of Naples Federico II
Asia
Bahrain, Britta Rudolff and Eva Battis, Brandenburg University of Technology
Cottbus-Senftenberg
Bangladesh, Qazi Azizul Mowla, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
China, Lorenzo Miccoli, Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und-prüfung (BAM)
Hong Kong, Lynne DiStefano and Ho Yin Lee, The University of Hong Kong
India, Nalini Thakur, School of Planning and Architecture
Indonesia, Gunawan Tjahjono, University of Indonesia
Iran, Hassan Osanloo, Alaodoleh Semnani Institute of Higher Education of Garmsar
Israel, Nir Mualam and Rachelle Alterman, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology
Japan, Ewa Kawamura, University of Tokyo
Jordan, Leen A. Fakhoury, SABE/German Jordanian University
xx Contributors
Kazakhstan, Gulnara Abdrassilova, Kazakh Leading Academy of Architecture and
Civil Engineering, and Yerkebulat Tokmagambetov, Republican State Enterprise
‘Kazrestavratsiya’
Lebanon, Jean-Pierre El Asmar, Notre Dame University – Louaize
Macau, Manfredo Manfredini, The University of Auckland
Malaysia, Yahaya Ahmad and Hasniyati Hamzah, University of Malaya
Oman, Naima Benkari, Sultan Qaboos University
Pakistan, Zainul Abedin and Mariam Sher Mohammed, Comsats Institute of Infor-
mation Technology (CIIT) Islamabad
Philippines, Romolo Valentino Nati and Naidyl Isis Bautista, IDC Italpinas Develop-
ment Corporation
Qatar, Timothy Makower, Makower Architects
Singapore, Kelvin Ang, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore
South Korea, Fabio Dacarro, Korea University, Seoul – Department of Architecture
Thailand, Koompong Noobanjong, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology
Ladkrabang
United Arab Emirates, Paolo Caratelli, Abu Dhabi University
Vietnam, Nguyen Minh Hoa, Ho Chi Minh City University of Social Sciences and
Humanities
Australasia
Australia, Noni Boyd, Australian Institute of Architects
New Zealand, Julia Gatley, The University of Auckland
Europe
Albania, Frida Pashako, Epoka University
Andorra, Angelina Paulicelli, University of Naples Federico II
Armenia, Maurizio Boriani, Politecnico of Milano
Austria, Francesca Capano, University of Naples Federico II
Azerbaijian, Rufat Nuriyev, Cultural Heritage Department
Belarus, Armen S. Sardarov, Belarusian National Technical University
Belgium, Thomas Coomans, KU Leuven, Raymond Lemaire International Centre for
Conservation
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Amra Hadžimuhamedović and Adi Ćorović, Commission to
Preserve National Monuments
Contributors xxi
Bulgaria, Emilia Kaleva, University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy – Sofia
Croatia, Vedran Ivanković, University of Zagreb
Cyprus, Maria Philokyprou, University of Cyprus
Czech Republic, Josef Štulc, National Heritage Institute
Denmark, Claudia Aveta, University of Naples Federico II
Estonia, Oliver Orro, Estonian Academy of Arts
Finland, Anna-Maija Ylimaula, University of Oulu

France, Emilie d’Orgeix, University Bordeaux-Montaigne
Georgia, Vladimer (Lado) Vardosanidze, Georgian Technical University
Germany, Hans-Rudolf Meier, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar
Greece, Andreas Giacumacatos, Athens School of Fine Arts
Hungary, Péter Klaniczay, Pest County Government Office, Department of Cultural
Heritage
Iceland, Pétur H. Ármannsson, Cultural Heritage Agency of Iceland, and Nikulás
Úlfar Másson, Reykjavik City Hall
Ireland, William Cumming, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht
Italy, Ugo Carughi, Docomomo Italia Onlus
Kosovo, Ljubiša Folić, University of Pristina
Latvia, Uģis Bratuškins, Riga Technical University
Liechtenstein, Riccardo de Martino, University of Basilicata
Lithuania, Jurate Jureviciene, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
Luxemburg, Alex Langini, National Commission for Cooperation with UNESCO
Macedonia, Valentino Dimitrovki, Cultural Heritage Protection Office
Malta, Joseph Magro Conti, Malta Environment and Planning Authority
Moldova, Sili Anatolie, Technical State University of the Republic of Moldova
Montenegro, Slavica Stamatović Vučković and Rifat Alihodzic, University of Montenegro
Netherlands, Ciro Birra, University of Naples Federico II
Norway, Nils Marstein, Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage Management
Poland, Grzegorz Grajewski, National Heritage Board, and Jadwiga Urbanik, Wro-
claw University of Technology
Portugal, Inês Meira Araújo, University of Lisbon
Romania, Anda-Lucia Spânu, Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities Sibiu
Russia, Anna Bronovitskaya, Moscow Architectural Institute (MArchI)
xxii Contributors
San Marino, Leo Marino Morganti, National Committee for The Venice Biennale
Serbia, Mirjana Roter-Blagojević and Marko Nikolić, University of Belgrade
Slovakia, Viera Dvořáková, The Monuments Board of the Slovak Republic
Slovenia, Jelka Pirkovič, University of Ljubljana
Spain, María Pilar García Cuetos, University of Oviedo
Sweden, Claes Caldenby, Chalmers University of Technology
Switzerland, Giulia Marino, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (Tsam)

Turkey, Nilüfer Baturayoğlu Yöney, Abdullah Gül University, Yıldız Salman, Istanbul
Technical University, and Ebru Omay Polat, Yıldız Technical University
Ukraine, Fedir Gontsa, Cherkassy National University
UK England, Elain Harwood, Historic England
UK Northern Ireland, Méabh Morgan, DfC, Historic Environment Division
UK Scotland, Dawn McDowell, Historic Environment Scotland
UK Wales, Judith Alfrey, CADW: Welsh Government Historic Environment Service
Vatican City State, Anna Maria Voltan, Vatican Library
Part II
Valeria Carullo, architect, is co-curator of the Robert Elwall Photographs Collec-
tion at the RIBA British Architectural Library, which is one of ICAM’s founding
members.
Filippo De Pieri is Associate Professor of Architectural and Urban History at the Politec-
nico di Torino, Department of Architecture and Design. He is currently leader of the
joint Politecnico di Torino and EPFL research project Memory and the City.
Amedeo Di Maio is Full Professor of Public Economics at the University of Naples
L’Orientale, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences.
Roberta Grignolo is Assistant Professor of restoration and reuse of twentieth-century
heritage at the Mendrisio Academy of Architecture. She was co-leader of the CUS
research project Critical Encyclopaedia of Restoration and Reuse of Twentieth-
Century Architecture. She is member of Docomomo CH and of ICOMOS
Switzerland.
Michael Jakob is Professor of theory and history of the landscape at the Haute École
du Paysage, d’Ingénierie et d’Architecture of Geneva, Professor of Comparative
Literature at the University of Grenoble, and Lecturer of Architecture at the École
Fédérale Polytechnique of Lausanne.
Roberto Parisi is PhD in History and Criticism of Architecture, Associate Professor of
History of Architecture at the University of Molise, Vice-President of AIPAI (Asso-
ciazione Italiana per il Patrimonio Archeologico Industriale) and co-editor in chief
of Patrimonio Industriale magazine.
Contributors xxiii
Franco Purini is Emeritus Professor of Architectural Design at the University of Rome
“La Sapienza”, member of the Academia di San Luca, Academic Correspondent of
the Accademia delle Arti del Disegno in Florence and one of the leading exponents
of Neo-Rationalism.
Ashraf M. Salama is Full Professor and Head of School of Architecture at the Univer-
sity of Strathclyde, Glasgow and the Chief Editor of Archnet-IJAR: International
Journal of Architectural Research.
Teresita Scalco is PhD in Museology of Design at the University Iuav of Venice, where
she acts as conservator, curator and independent researcher.

Ola Uduku is Dean International for Africa and Reader in Architecture at the Univer-
sity of Edinburgh. She is a member of Docomomo International, and chair of the
Africa Group, within the Docomomo ISC- Urbanism and Landscapes Committee.
She is also a member of ArchiAfrika.
Mizuko Ugo is PhD in Engineering, Associate Professor of Cultural Heritage Conser-
vation at the Faculty of Intercultural Studies, Gakushuin Women’s College, mem-
ber of ICOMOS and of the Architectural Institute of Japan.
Rosalia Vittorini, architect, is associate professor of Technical Architecture at Rome
“Tor Vergata” University, Department of Civil Engineering and Computer Science.
Preface
I wish to address the importance of Time Frames: Conservation Policies for Twentieth-
Century Architectural Heritage, and I am honoured to be able to praise the editors,
Ugo Carughi and Massimo Visone, for this huge, necessary and tireless work.
If the so-called “historic” heritage is subject to laws and regulations that take into
account its features, then twentieth-century heritage – and especially those buildings
that have not (yet) found a place in the history of architecture – is considered, with
respect to regulation compliancy, to be on the same level as new constructions.
First of all, modern heritage represents a huge built volume. The preservation of
buildings and significant sites of the Modern Movement poses an important physical
and economic problem. One of the main tasks of architects today is the reuse of exist-
ing buildings, most of which are of recent construction, making the phrase “building
in the existing” commonplace from now on.
Second, the massive built volume from the twentieth century confronts us with
objects that are still largely suspended in the limbo of history and architecture criti-
cism. On the one hand, architectural historians dealing with the past century are still
developing critical tools to understand the place some of these recent works occupy
in the history of architecture. On the other, it is difficult to defend some examples of
twentieth-century architecture with respect to the public at large. The enhancement of
this heritage is still in progress: it is a complex task, and today we are living in a very
delicate phase inasmuch as we risk losing valuable examples of recent architecture if
recognition is not given in time. Hence the need to be very careful.
Third, the Modern Movement is often incorrectly – and superficially – considered
a style, a simple formalism, whereas many modern architects fought against this idea.
Walter Gropius, in The Scope of Total Architecture, defined modern architecture as
a method: “My intention is not to introduce a Modern Style [. . .] but to introduce a
method or approach that helps address a problem in terms of its particular conditions”.
The Modern Movement architecture is envisaged as a process rather than a style.
Finally, as we all know, the twentieth-century heritage is technically fragile because
innovative technologies were not based on a long-standing constructive tradition.
Faced with the challenge of building homes, work spaces and facilities for a large
number of people with a limited budget, the architects of the Modern Movement
developed several experimental and cheap construction technologies. Their willing-
ness to experiment, combined with a certain degree of professional naivety and a
desire to achieve a minimalist aesthetic by using new technologies, is also the source of
technical imperfections of most of the early experiments. However, modern architects
also showed great interest in issues relating to the pursuit of efficiency and economy,
Preface xxv
including the efficient use of materials and a conceptual approach to resource econ-
omy. Some of them tried to solve technical problems of building performance, which
are very close to the themes of today’s literature on “sustainable development”.
The buildings of the Modern Movement often have a rapid functional obsolescence
because they were designed to perform very specific functions. It is sometimes difficult
to find a new practical use for these constructions. The idea that the buildings have a
functional life of limited duration is not new, and it is something that appears early in
the literature related to the preservation of modern heritage.
This perceived obsolescence stimulates ex novo construction. The focus is increas-
ingly on efficiency and performance, so the intrinsic value of the original building,
both on the inside and the outside, is often excluded. This approach, however, is in
clear contradiction with the concept of “sustainable development”.
The combination of rights and protection involves reflection on the standards that
are to be applied to the practice of re-use and recovery. The different cases analysed
make it possible to posit two kinds of situations: when a building is formally classi-
fied, it is possible to work with exceptionality and adapt legislation; if, on the other
hand, the building is simply listed, all the standards apply in most cases as if it were a
new construction threatening the on-going work and the quality of the re-use design.
Nowadays, beyond the specific case of modern buildings recognized as monuments
(listed or classified) with commitment to a carefully weighted restoration, capable of
ensuring the original value and character, it is possible to argue that the experience of
an exclusive and unique restoration could be expanded to a wider practice.
This leads me to face adaptive re-use as a regular architectural practice and to
consider the question of sustainability as a particular challenge for modern heritage.
Interestingly, due to the economic crisis that has hit the real estate market and created
a very high availability of buildings, new opportunities may emerge in order to sup-
port the recovery and re-use of modern heritage.
The Modern Movement has demonstrated its long term legitimacy, as a concept
endowed with an extraordinary longevity. Relating technology, form and social com-
mitment to one another, through an optimistic faith in progress, modern architects
sought to attain new heights of functionality and flexibility in use. The challenge for
today is how to deal with this modern legacy in relation to the continuously changing
context of the current times, including physical, economic and functional changes, as
well as the fast-moving socio-cultural, political and scientific contextual values.
Preserving the architectural heritage of the 20th century requires us to take account
both of the opportunity and the duty to reuse buildings which have lost their original
function, which are physically and/or technically obsolete, and which no longer meet
today’s ever-more demanding standards. Such matters as the demand for material and
technology reuse and for spatial and functional transformations, and the updating of
regulations concerning fire, seismic stability, user safety, energy efficiency and environ-
mental comfort legislation, are all part of the contemporary agenda. This inevitably
highlights the question of the value of the existing built fabric, which can be a strong
resource that calls for our attention in terms of social, economic and environmental
sustainability.
However, in many cases, new buildings are no longer economically viable. Besides,
institutions and companies are often criticised when the decision to build new build-
ings involves the abandonment of old ones and is beginning to be seen as socially
unacceptable. The adaptive re-use of Modern Movement buildings is now starting
xxvi Ana Tostões
to be recognised as a benefit to the identity of the sites and the sustainability of the
life cycle, beyond the pure economics. Local governments and national policies are
waking up and beginning to develop measures, lifting the regulations that limit the
alternative use of abandoned buildings and providing legislation for temporary use,
such as urgently essential affordable housing for young people.
As can be expected, buildings recognised as heritage sites by Docomomo – the
international committee for documentation and conservation of buildings, sites and
neighbourhoods of the Modern Movement – begin to appear as investments, which
may provide new opportunities for the architectural profession. The importance of
Docomomo as an organization recognised worldwide it’s its capacity to develop ini-

tiatives related to the exchange of ideas and experience and to draw public attention.
It grows with the institutional ability to arouse interest by the individuals involved
in processes of heritage conservation, which still today tends to regard the twentieth-
century architectural heritage with a certain degree of indifference. In this sense, this
heritage needs to be understood as a model or even a manifesto or symbol for sustain-
able architectural development redefining the legacy of modernity in globalized soci-
eties. The time has come to approach the teaching of architecture, modify the study
curriculum and start involving students on the development of knowledge and experi-
ence directed towards adaptive re-use. The history of building has a growing need to
integrate programs whilst bringing together academics who can conduct research on
documents and interpret the facts, together with professionals on construction sites,
examining the effective responses, budgets and deadlines of everyday construction.
For all those who work with existing buildings, the connection is simple, because
the built stock is a question of values that implies a degree of knowledge and culture
where buildings play a key role with regard to quality, durability and economy. That
is why this book, entitled Time Frames. Conservation Policies for Twentieth-Century
Architectural Heritage, is an important and necessary review on the theoretical and
technological development of modern heritage envisioning a global perspective of
local policies and heritage institutions.
Ana Tostões,
Architectural historian and
Chair of Docomomo International
Acknowledgements
All contributions in Part I are based on replies received from the various organisa-
tions and universities interested in the study or conservation of architectural heritage,
with assistance from the network of Italian cultural institutes and cultural offices at
various Italian embassies who put us in contact with relevant experts, scholars and
technicians. The work has been complemented by contributions from PhDs from the
Department of Architecture at the Federico II University of Naples. Thanks to their
specialist knowledge, we have been able to put together a more complete picture,
especially relating to Europe and in particular to the European Union.
Special thanks are due to all authors, and the institutes with which they are
affiliated, and above all, to the foreign authors, without whose keen sense of coop-
eration it would not have been possible to put together so many contributions at
such short notice.
We would also like to thank all those who contributed to the revision and/or
review of texts relating to Andorra, Miquel Merce; Austria, Bernd Euler-Rolle and
Paul Mahringer (Bundesdenkmalamt); Bulgaria, Yordanka Kandulkova (University of
Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy of Sofia); Denmark, Mogens A. Morgen
and Simon Ostenfeld Pedersen (Kulturstyrelsen); Liechtenstein, Patrick Birrer (Denk-
malpflege); Netherlands, Erik Kleijn (Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands);
Portugal, Maria João Baptista Neto (Universidade de Lisboa); and Venezuela, Hannia
Gomez and Iris Rangel (Docomomo Venezuela).
Our thanks must also extend to the Consulate of Moldova in Milan and to the Nor-
wegian Institute of Rome, to Italian embassies and their cultural affairs offices and the
directors and the cultural attachés of the network of Italian cultural institutes. They
have all given us, at different times and in various ways, their whole-hearted attention
and co-operation, providing contacts that were necessary to increase the international
result, in particular, S.H. Ambassadors Federico Failla, Giorgio Marini and Stefano
Ravagnan, the Secretary of the Embassy in Astana, Emanuela Adesini, Giuseppe
Annucci, Andrea Baldi, Raffaello Barbieri, Clara Bencivenga Trillmich, Alessandra
Bertini Malgarini, Federico Bianchi, Giuseppe Bosco, Carlo G. Cereti, Nicoletta
Daga, Giovanni Fasanella, Paolo Fazzino, Claudia Fratini, Adriana Frisenna, Michele
Gialdroni, Silvia Giampaola, Paolo Grossi, Maurizio Guerra, Lucio Izzo, Alessan-
dra Ksenija Jelen, Teresa Lorenzi, Uberto Malizia, Veronica Manson, Laura Pacenti,
Anna Pastore, Luigina Peddi, Vincenza Pedrini Anyumba, Maddalena Pessina, Vir-
ginia Piombo, Rubens Piovano, Alessandra Priante, Alessandro Ruggera, Maria Luisa
Scolari, Elia Skazlić, Giovanna Stivala and Angela Trezza.
xxviii Acknowledgements
Furthermore, we should like to thank all those who have personally helped in pur-
suing the common aim of research: Siobhan Abdurahman, Mohammad Shakil Akther,
Bang Anh Tuan, Shaimaa Ashour, Javier Atoche Intili, Luis Diego Barahona, Bernard
Baeyens, Azedine Beschaouch, Carla Biancotti and the Vukmir Law Firm and Asso-
ciates in Zagreb, Sigrún Birgisdóttir, Ljiljana Blagojevic, Ralph Bodenstein, Mounir
Bouchenaki and Arab Regional Centre for World Heritage staff, Marco Bruno, Gisela
Bungarten, Simona Cadal, Ben Calis, Vittoria Capresi, Astrid Caro Greiffenstein,
Gaianè Casnati, Karen Fernández Castro, Gabriella Caterina, Somi Chatterjee, Yunn
Chii Wong, Jose Antonio Choy, Cecilia Chu, Nicolae Ciobanu, Andrea Costa, Manus
Deery, Mirjana Devetakovic, Orestis Doumanis, Sergio Ekerman, Nnmadi Elleh, Enis
Erikok, Gianluigi Freda, Graziano Gasparini, Norbert Gatt, Raisa Ghilan, Stefano
Gizzi, Fernando Gonzalez, Vasile Grama, Ramón Gutiérrez, Errol Haarhoff, Ibrahim
Haruna, Kelly Hutzell, Maria Teresa Jaquinta and Iccrom in Rome, Martin Jones,
Maria Vittoria Jonutas Puscasiu and the staff of Moldovan Consulate in Milan, Ora
Joubert, Maria Jürisson, Donatius Kamamba, Purity Kiura, Jacob Sabakinu Kivilu,
Paul Kotze, Abidin Kusno, Luís Lage, Susana Landrove Bossut, Juanjo Larraz, Andrea
Lehne, Erich Leitner, Hannah le Roux, Eva Lukášová, Desmond Majekodunmi,
Burim Maraj, Johan Mårtelius, Montserrat Martell Domingo, Pieter Martens, Gocha
Mikiashvili, Claudien Milumilwa, Rúben Hernández Molina, José Ramón Fernández
Molina, Fernando Espinosa de los Monteros, Juan Manuel Monterroso Montero,
Hellen K. Njagi, Pyla Panayiota, Maurizio Pece, Jana Poláková, Massimo Preite,
Roberto Pulitani, Eduardo Luis Rodríguez, Rami el Samahy, Lev Maciel Sanchez,
Isabelle Schmid Bourquin, Mladen Obad Šćitaroci, Mustafa Shabanov, Dmitry Shvid-
kovsky, May el-Tabbakh, Daniela Tomšič, Anna Tonicello, Bernard Toulier, Manfred
Vilhjalmsson, Ileana Vives, Junzhe Wan, Johannes Widodo, Alberto Escovar Wilson-
White, Luca Zevi, the affiliated institutes, and, last but not least, the translators, in
particular, Simon Pocock and Alessandra Veropalumbo who helped us for book’s
indexes. We are indebted to Kerry Boettcher, project manager of Apex CoVantage, for
incisive editorial oversight and thanks to all Routledge staff for their kind availability.
Moreover, we and the authors would like to thank Badan Warisan Malaysia, the staff
of the Department of Architecture of Korea University, Institut Fondamental d’Afrique
Noire, Israel Science Foundation, Public Interest Legal Support and Research Centre
in New Delhi, and the chapters worldwide of Docomomo International and Unesco.
In particular, we thank Ghana for the research for an essay that evolved from a recent
postdoctoral fellowship under the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the
European Union’s 7FP (FP/2007–2013, REA grant agreement n. 327261), which we
gratefully acknowledge.
Special thanks are due to those who have expressed their cultural commitment to
this project through sponsorship: the Directorate General for Cultural and Economic
Promotion and Innovation of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International
Cooperation, Ana Cristina dos Santos Tostȍs (Docomomo International), Stefano
De Caro (Iccrom), Antonio Riverso (Uia) and the Chancellors of the University of
Naples Federico II, Massimo Marrelli and Gaetano Manfredi.
We should also like to thank all those who have lent us their great expertise and
care, despite not appearing in this review, malgré eux: Naseer Arafat, Mustapha Ben-
Hamouche, Rami F. Daher, Ghaleb I. Gheblawi, Vitalie Neculseanu, Giles Omezi,
Abdou Sylla, and the Direction des Affaires Culturelles of Monaco.
Acknowledgements xxix
A special thanks to the sponsors that helped us for a good work, in particular, the
Neapolitan Board of Accountancy and the Foundation San Giuseppe dei Nudi. Last,
we are most grateful to Maria Grazia Bellisario from the Italian Ministry of Cul-
tural Heritage and Activities, to Giovanni Carbonara from La Sapienza University of
Rome, to Attilio Petruccioli from Qatar University, to Leonardo Di Mauro and Dona-
tella Mazzoleni from University of Naples Federico II and to Pasquale Belfiore from
the Second University of Naples for their courteous and helpful advice. Many thanks
to Cesare de Seta, who provided his library to Massimo Visone.
Taylor &Francis
Introduction
Ugo Carughi and Massimo Visone
At a time when land and real estate are being seen more and more in terms of their
market value, the underlying weaknesses of protection legislation have been high-
lighted by unbridled redevelopment, by the mañana culture of public administrations
and by the high media profile currently enjoyed by contemporary architecture. The
history and conservation of modern architecture, therefore, are increasingly associ-
ated with sustainability. Today, the recycling and reuse of twentieth-century buildings
are an integral part of multiple strategies for the development of urban landscapes.
The protection of twentieth-century architecture has now earned the right of entry
into specialist studies and is gradually building up a rich historiography, replete with
projects relating to cataloguing, conservation and promotion at various levels. The
contrast between the ‘iconolatry’, or adoration of many iconic architectures from the
last century, on the one hand, and their vulnerability, on the other, has contributed to
define a limit of the Modern.
The idea of a review of contemporary architecture protection policies was born in
2012, as the second part of our publication, Maledetti vincoli. Its critical success and
subsequent requests from many quarters for a version in English led us to broaden the
international scope of the study and produce Time Frames: Conservation Policies for
Twentieth-Century Architectural Heritage. Globalisation, as a process, started in the
1970s, and its repercussions have also been felt in spectacular fashion in the field of
architecture, leading to the opening up of new critical perspectives.
This book is divided into two parts. The first consists of brief essays on the current
laws and protection policies regarding twentieth-century architecture. The second
part is a collection of critical essays on some related issues.
In the first part Time Frames analyzes the background and status of existing pro-
tection policies in architectural heritage worldwide, focusing on production from the
twentieth century. The essays provide an overall view of Europe as a whole, much
of America and a large part of Asia, with a focus on developing countries. Rather
than being seen as prejudice, any apparent imbalance depends on the simple fact
that America and Europe have much more protectable modern architecture than else-
where. They also rely heavily on a better-established legislative and historiographical
tradition that is more sensitive to contemporary architecture. We are grateful to the
authors for their valuable contributions: these specialists deal with the everyday chal-
lenges of protecting this kind of heritage. This review aims for a better understanding
of the various national issues involved in the recognition of works of historical and
architectural interest, whilst simultaneously highlighting the vices and virtues of cur-
rent legislative systems relating to their protection.
2 Ugo Carughi and Massimo Visone
Time Frames moves along the narrow boundary between the critical recognition of
a building’s historical and artistic value, on the one hand, and its institutional protec-
tion, on the other, without going into the merits of the many restoration issues. The
book focusses on the so-called ‘time rule’ that elapses between a building’s construc-
tion and its protection.
We have summarized the different cultural approaches to protection in various
countries by analyzing a single piece of data, to wit, the time between creation and
possible protection of a work, and we put the same questions to all authors: Is there
a chronological limit for the inclusion of architecture in the national heritage? Is there
twentieth-century architecture in the national heritage list? Is this issue the subject of
cultural interest or debate in your country? Which is the most recent work that has
been subjected to legal protection? There emerged from this survey a very variable
concept of what is “Contemporary”, i.e., architecture which has not yet become his-
torical. The concept related to the time limits for protection as established by law for
the registration of works as cultural heritage.
These questions refer to one single factor, time, which has so far been examined
only indirectly in the growing literature on architectural heritage. It serves as a kind
of master key that unlocks complex problems related to the history, cultures and
traditions of each country, to current rules – both written and unwritten – and rela-
tionships between historiography and planning, to identity and the notion of Con-
temporary. The survey aims to stimulate cultural and institutional awareness of more
recent architecture. It reveals that this issue at the forefront in many countries, both
from a purely theoretical point of view and from one of application, such as through
postgraduate specialization programs, national research projects, international part-
nerships and government initiatives for the drafting of catalogues, records and inven-
tories of twentieth-century architectural heritage and for the selection of sites and
buildings of special significance.
Compared to most studies on this subject, based on research methods for past heri-
tage, Time Frames aims to bring together existing strands of the debate on twentieth-
century architecture where there is already an established critical tradition and
stimulate and increase it where it has still to emerge. Several networks have already
initiated exchange and consultancy activities relating to the principal legal systems
in the field of heritage conservation, the most important of which is the UNESCO
Database of National Cultural Heritage Laws, an international instrument devised
in 2003 to combat the illicit traffic of cultural property. Others are Compendium.
Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, a transnational project initiated in 1998 by
the current Steering Committee for Culture, Heritage and Landscape of the Council
of Europe (CDCPP) and has been running as a joint venture with the European Insti-
tute for Comparative Cultural Research (ERICarts). It has a web-based and perma-
nently updated information and monitoring system of 42 national cultural policies
in Europe. There is also HEREIN, which brings together European public adminis-
trations in charge of national cultural heritage policies, with 42 Council of Europe
member states contributing to the dynamic of this project. Similar initiatives also
exist outside Europe, albeit in a more piecemeal fashion. They are, however, linked to
international cultural heritage institutions, such as UNESCO, ICOMOS, Docomomo
International, the World Monument Found and others, all of which provide opportu-
nity to reflect on shared criteria for the protection of twentieth-century architectural
heritage at risk.
Introduction 3
Awareness and sharing of standards and procedures have also been facilitated by
the IT revolution that enhances communication, direct consultation of documentary
sources, bibliography, historiography and of the same laws. Therefore, the reader is
invited to refer to the current online search engines to examine regulatory investiga-
tions, to consult official websites of major institutions, national heritage lists, blogs
and research projects on twentieth-century architecture, all of which are easily acces-
sible in the single contributions and links therein.
International literature in this field has consisted of in-depth examination of the
protection laws in many countries, including comparative scoreboards, particularly
within the Council of Europe. Additional work has been done on outlining the cul-
tural features of entire continental sectors, also indicating trends identifiable via more
recent international charters and documents.
Contributions in the present volume, however, generally refer to the ensemble
of rules in various countries, also via association with economic and social devel-
opment, as well as with the development of a conservation culture. A smaller, but
ever-increasing, number of works deals more specifically with twentieth-century
architecture.
This broad survey contains, on a country-by-country basis, the image of one of the
most recently listed buildings, in most cases the more recent one. These icons, together
with the synoptic table, give an immediate idea of the legislative, and sometimes cul-
tural, limits, which act as marker posts for the notion of Contemporary, in the context
of the relationship between historiography and recognition of cultural interest.
Establishing a mandatory time limit based on the construction date of quality archi-
tecture in order to protect it may compromise its effective conservation. This time
rule is dictated, of course, by the need to provide an official critical distance for the
sake of protection. A more reliable historical assessment may, however, be provided
from within the discipline of historiography. We might even strengthen this approach
so as to say that historical and critical judgement might become a sine qua non for
protection. In this way, protection based on an adequate historiographical framework
would play an active role in land development.
Starting with the historical perspective as an inescapable premise, Massimo Visone
then deals with the relationship between history and protection, and especially with
regard to monumentalization of contemporary architecture, rather more difficult to
explain and understand compared to architecture from a more distant past. Accord-
ingly, much reference is made to more recent critical studies.
In his prioritization of time, Ugo Carughi refers protective strategies to five param-
eters, derived from the cultures of countries with longer critical traditions, and whose
lexicography is provided in the second part of the book: the time factor, the growing
importance of relational value, the relationship between monument and context and
between protection and town planning and, finally, planning for protection and pro-
tection as a process. The guidelines resulting from these parameters open up avenues
into the ever-shifting scenario of land management.
The contributions in the second part are organized into five conceptual parts: Iden-
tity, Heritage, Memory, Conservation and Economy. They provide non-exhaustive
insights into the role and impact of the values of the Contemporary in culturally strat-
ified realities, randomly chosen from within their respective continental areas. They
also provide a range of information on the documentation, knowledge, protection
and promotion of the architectural values from the last century to the present day.
4 Ugo Carughi and Massimo Visone
Contributions on Identities relate to the introduction and formation of a language
for modern architecture in a well-defined cultural reality. In West Africa, for exam-
ple, the so-called “Wind of Change” was a period which gave a significant boost to
modernisation and when colonies changed from being European government territo-
ries to being self-governing sovereign states. Ola Uduku gives us a critical historical
framework on background, lives and architecture of West African architects and other
indigenous actors. These architects, who were rarely studied, have played a significant
role in the evolution and spread of post-war architecture and related modernist proj-
ects in the region. Ashraf M. Salama examines the particular cultural and geo-political
position of the Arab region. Through its links with the global contemporary condition
and the creation of rich soil for architectural and urban experiments, we have seen
the emergence of several works which have contributed to our understanding of that
region’s identity and meaning. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the author has not
missed the chance to highlight false cultural reductionism which has standardised the
rich linguistic complexity and understanding of architectural evolution into a deep-
rooted reality. Franco Purini provides us with a brief but well-rounded overview of
the formation of a new Humanism from the twentieth century up to the present day,
featuring the ideals of freedom and the pedagogical and educational energy of culture
and architectural criticism. The author discusses, among other things, the complex-
ity of the relationship between planning and historiography with respect to the main
identifying features in Italy and relations with the international production, a con-
tribution that aims to place the coordinates of the concept of Modern within history
rather than against it. Mizuko Ugo outlines the history of modern architecture in
Japan from the 1950s to the 1990s, which saw the start of the first studies, a series
of investigations into modern built heritage. At that time, attention was being paid
to the coming one hundredth anniversary of the Meiji Restoration, which promoted
the Westernisation of the country. In this chapter, we can see, above all, the close link
between re-use of modern architecture and urban development, on the one hand, and
the needs of conservation and urban planning on the other. We should remember that
after World War II, the main Japanese architectural heritage features a high degree of
modernity.
Heritage has three contributions which outline some areas of contemporary archi-
tecture, considered ‘children of a lesser god’, both because of its specific connota-
tion, and because of the relatively recent attention that has been paid to it, not so
much by historians, who have long been interested in it, but by those involved in the
whole culture of protection. It is significant that in the three writings there emerge
the impossibility of being able to preserve these works as original and that it is nec-
essary to consider them from within the multiplicity of transformation dynamics.
Thus, Roberto Parisi shows how the cross-thematic and multi-disciplinary field of
industrial archaeology has projected the theme of utility architecture beyond its typo-
logical and technological connotations, in that it is associated with territorial trans-
formation and changes in production methods and the social organisation of labour.
Protection, which is carried out scientifically using archaeological methods, and the
recovery of industrial creations emerge as basic premises in our understanding and
critical appreciation of environmental processes tout court. Michael Jakob examines
the landscape, the garden and landscape architecture in relation to their steady evolu-
tion which excludes any notion of ‘original’. In the case of the landscape, the many
different viewpoints increase the effects of transformation. As for the garden, the
Introduction 5
artificial conservation of original features would make it an anachronistic artefact
and would deprive it of its most natural identifying feature, that of its evolution.
Finally, Filippo De Pieri examines three different meanings that the term heritage can
have with regard to the housing architecture: first, items that are handed down from
one generation to another by right of birth, which has social implications; second,
buildings that are kept as collective heritage which are either one-offs, expressions of
historically acquired collective values or anonymous residential complexes which bear
witness to social and business patterns; and, finally whole areas of built landscape.
The reuse of such large numbers of various types of diverse heritage, not only mon-
uments, but, above all, buildings, infrastructure and entire company towns still in use,
poses a question for Conservation: Should we preserve their tangible or intangible val-
ues? Roberta Grignolo analyses issues relating to technological features of twentieth-
century architecture, taking a fresh look at current legislative perspective: What
‘rights’ for twentieth-century architectural heritage? Newly found cultural awareness
of Modernism still clashes with the difficulties attached to adapting recent building to
present-day regulations. This approach has led to the supra-national comparison of
current best practices in dealing with the ‘rights of the monuments’. Rosalia Vittorini
carries out a brief review of the technological evolution of architecture from the sec-
ond half of the twentieth century, with special reference to the aesthetic importance of
new materials and the role that these technologies are playing in restoration.
Over the last decades, architecture has become a matter of great public interest,
and not only in Western countries. Memory focuses on issues relating to documenta-
tion, awareness and appreciation. Teresita Scalco provides the historical context of
the establishment of a number of institutions, libraries, archives, museums, cultural
associations, international organisations and foundations interested in promoting a
better understanding of modern culture and architectural language. These cultural
bodies are essential to preserve the architectural record, foster the study of architec-
tural history in the interest of future practice and stimulate the public appreciation of
architecture. For much of the nineteenth century, the photography of new buildings
was disdainfully regarded as an arcane, merely technical process that the photog-
rapher with artistic aspirations should eschew. During the 1930s, architecture and
photography found themselves in closer alliance than ever before, largely due to the
advent of Modernism, which, with its reverence for machine artefacts, revolutionized
both genres. Then, as now, architectural photography is the most available tool for
the divulgation of architecture. Valeria Carullo highlights the importance of docu-
mentation and the preservation of photographic material, useful sources for the his-
tory and critical analysis of transformation, as well as being items of aesthetic value
in their own right.
Economy sees the emergence of supranational economic values arising from the
globalisation of the so-called market as ‘communicating vessels’, which determines
interdependence among different countries and geographical areas. Amedeo Di Maio
deals with the relationship between economics and contemporary architecture with
reference, in particular, to privately owned buildings, given the greater risk compared
to the protection of public architecture. The economic aspect is analysed in the light
of the relationship between the statutory time spans and the need to protect the Con-
temporary, highlighting a number of factors dependent both on market factors and
political will, which are essential conditions for effective protection.
Taylor &Francis
Part I
heritage
Conservation policies for
twentieth-century architectural
Taylor &Francis
1 The shadow line
Architecture between time and history
Massimo Visone
Every generation revolts against its fathers and makes friends with its grandfathers.1
Lewis Mumford
History and preservation

In 1980, when David Watkin observed that it was becoming “increasingly clear that
two of the most important and persistent motives which lie behind the production of
architectural history are the practice and the preservation of architecture”,2 he was
identifying – not without some criticism – the contemporary role of architectural
historians in the education and preservation of memory. We can use his comment
as a starting point when examining controversial issues regarding the relationship
between history and preservation, focusing on protection and its role as interface
between academia and those bodies charged with the protection of architectural heri-
tage. Although this position crosses into the field of instrumentalized architectural
historiography, it remains closely linked to the relationship between journalism and
history, as was first suggested by Bruno Zevi in his renowned journal L’Architettura.
Cronache e storia, first published in 1955.3
This essay aims to put the previously mentioned relationship to the test in the place
where there may be greatest tension: when history converges with the present. In
other words, we intend to examine reciprocal cultural and legislative approaches with
regard to architectural production from just before the Conradian “shadow line”.
This will bring us to define as “contemporary” that which is not “historic”, in accor-
dance with commonly used guidelines.
Great awareness of the processes of globalization that affect architecture has been
shown in the analysis of the criteria and of the role of protection. These processes
have generated a dialogue, between very differing realities, on an increasingly com-
mon theme, as we shall see later. This dialogue has become more and more vibrant,
thanks to the potential of networking, which has also brought about a series of useful
and well-known advantages for scientific research: speed in communication; easier
access to institutional platforms; easy consultation of a growing number of regula-
tions, both past and present; opportunity – unthinkable ten years ago – to navigate far
afield with the aid of ever-more advanced and constantly updated web applications;
the diversification and continuous increase of online documentary and bibliographical
sources; the exponential multiplication of historical and contemporary iconographic
sources, previously only available via a small number of standard publications, which
Figure 1.1 Gabriele Basilico, Monte-Carlo 05-A12-137, 2005. Collection Nouveau Musée
National de Monaco, No. 2005.20.1. Gift of the Association des Amis du NMNM
© Gabriele Basilico/NMNM /ADAGP, Paris 2016
Source: Studio Gabriele Basilico/NMNM. Courtesy of NMNM.
The shadow line 11
have become art photography favourites; and the numerous databases that are freely
available and easy to share.4 Rather, architectural photography is currently one of
the main urban iconographical instruments to observe the transformation of the
contemporary landscape, new urban forms and identities of cities and metropoles.
Meanwhile, paintings with the same subject are less frequent, but we can find many
interesting artists devoted to the urban representation from the second half of the
twentieth century until today.
These research tools, along with architectural historians’ traditional working
methods, have obviously opened up new critical perspectives. It is bringing new
dimensions to the ambivalent geographies of architecture that offer fresh opportuni-

ties for re-thinking the borders of architectural history in a globalized, transcultural
context.5
Heritage and globalization

We used one of the questions that were put to authors in the first part of the book – is
there a time limit for the inclusion of architecture in your national cultural heritage? –
in order to identify the rules, mandatory limits and thresholds beyond which institu-
tions may not ordinarily recognize the value of a building and ensure the preservation
of its authenticity. In other words, the study was aimed at whatever method lies at the
heart of the process of monumentalization, not only of the Modern, but above all, of
the Contemporary. The inclusion of the most recent works in the national invento-
ries, lists or records ensures the ongoing update of that country’s cultural identities.
Thus, there is the implicit proof of the existence of a deliberate commemorative value,
Alois Riegl’s third category, forming the obvious transition to present-day values: an
eternally present theme which requires that architecture be protected from human
destruction.6
The history of international architectural heritage preservation has been the subject
of numerous studies, with detailed examples covering the most recent experiences of
restoration and comparative studies of administrative policies,7 but without going
into greater detail of twentieth-century architectural issues. Only recently several
scholars have raised the need to review the parameters of intervention on modern
architecture in relation to natural instances of growth, innovation and development.8
Reassessment of the Modern Movement and Modernism is evident in renewed enthu-
siasm for the protection of this heritage, as shown by the phenomenal growth of
Docomomo International, a non-profit organization founded in 1988, which now
has 69 chapters worldwide; the recent inclusion of modern complexes in UNESCO’s
World Heritage List; the special initiative Modernism at Risk, by the World Monu-
ments Fund, a private non-profit organization founded in 1965 and today one of the
largest in the world, not to mention numerous other active institutions and cultural
realities the world over.
This phenomenon can only be contextualized in the extraordinary acceleration
that the internationalization and globalization of world-built heritage has undergone,
rooted, amongst others, in the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World’s
Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), which was followed by the European Charter
of the Architectural Heritage (1975).9 At the same time, the dissenting culture of those
years looked favourably on the concept of nomadism as a future existential condition,
12 Massimo Visone
free from time and space, and encouraged the early development of this globalization
of architecture,10 which is reflected in Radical Architecture, and also in contemporary
historiographical contributions.11 This opened a new critical trend, which over time
has been purified of its most ideological positions.12
In recent years, the cultural heritage of twentieth-century architecture, which
had tended towards an anti-historical and self-referencing interpretation of mod-
ern architecture and a paradigmatic position within the Western architectural
tradition,13 has in fact been challenged by a series of new critical contributions,
coming from outside the usual geographical boundaries of historiography. This
breach was opened by the birth of the category of “Critical Regionalism”14 that
allowed the emergence from the shadow of a number of architects, both emigrés
abroad and at home, in countries that had not enjoyed significant historiogra-
phy for a long time. Given the impossibility of summarizing here recent histori-
ographies from the critical debate on contemporary architecture,15 the reader is
referred to recent books which explore the complex relationship between modern-
ism, modernity and modernization and their entanglements with colonialism and
post-colonialism, and nationalism development, globalization and regionalism,
drawing from interdisciplinary theories. They start from the generally accepted
consideration that the canonical history of modern architecture is primarily a
narrative based on certain master architects, major movements and exemplary
buildings in Europe and North America. Sibel Bozdogan even goes so far as to say
that the study of non-Western modern architecture was, until about 20 years ago,
“doubly marginalized”,16 both by historians of modern architecture and by local
specialists and scholars. With the previously mentioned temporal expansion there
came also the geographical enlargement of the scope of the history of modern
architecture, which moved from its traditional centres to include parts of Asia,
Africa, the Middle East and Latin America as sites of proliferation of modern
architecture in the mid-twentieth century.17
The topicality of the current debate tends to revalue a past which in some respects
is still too recent, particularly in the Western world, where historiographies have for
some time reached greater scientific maturity.18 Indeed, especially in the non-Western
world, the Modern Movement has prevailed to such a large extent over post–World
War II works that it has itself become fully synonymous with twentieth-century archi-
tecture. The great authorities of modern architecture have overshadowed later works,
and the latter have been generally unable to establish themselves in the public eye,
despite achieving clear recognition among specialists. This condition is mirrored by
some woefully inadequate cultural and regulatory limits when compared to architec-
ture’s new geography and even history.
The numerous cataloguing and research programs in progress bear out the need
to re-examine time limits from within the new cultural-historical context.19 This has
been theorized in different times and ways by art historians or, as often happens,
within different specialist fields, such as analytic aesthetics, or post-criticalism, or
by architectural practitioners themselves, pre-empting and directing attention onto
issues and subjects ignored by historians of the time.20 This constitutes a legacy of
the most recent past which, in accordance with artistic and intellectual tradition, was
developed at its very inception and which has continued without interruption. It con-
tinues to yield a veritable wealth of significant and historically interesting literary and
iconographic material, thereby increasing collective cultural values.
The shadow line 13
Figure 1.2 Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew, University of Ibadan, 1949–1960
Source: Courtesy of Gillian Hopwood, 1954.
Time rules
In case we feel tempted to take for granted the current boundaries of contemporary
architecture, they do, however, appear quite discretionary when measured against the
various criteria established by law for the designation of a work as a heritage. This
tendency is even stronger when it comes to dealing with the notion of time and, more
specifically, of contemporaneity. It is easy to understand how the apparently transpar-
ent term “Contemporary” is actually far from being passive. The picture that emerges
reveals a number of differences, as shown in the attached synoptic table. The way it
has been drafted queries the recognition of the primacy of historiography over regula-
tions, of time over history, of the work over its function and of public ownership over
private property. This multitudinous variety of current time rules for architectural
14 Massimo Visone
Figure 1.3 Louis Hellman, Architect’s Journal, 20.11.15

Source: Courtesy of Louis Hellman.
protection reveals, to all intents and purposes, how precarious they are and how dif-
ficult a unified reading might be.
The first dichotomy is between historiographies and the law, that is, the extent
to which historiographical criteria are binding upon the action of protection, on
the eventual critical success of a piece of work, on the eventual completion of the life
cycle of an architectural movement and sometimes on the authors themselves. Time
limits are either associated with a time indicated in an absolute quantitative value
in relation to the well-known definition of a “generation” (25 years) and commonly
expressed as the “Fifty Years Rule”,21 or they may be associated with the history
or the date of an event that has made a significant contribution to the community,
province or nation. It is also possible to distinguish another cultural dichotomy:
on the one hand the protection of heritage as an asset, so what is safeguarded is its
physicality, and on the other hand a protection that respects the identity of the asset
and the continuity of its function. Finally, we have two other opposing approaches:
the analytical type, in which protection is bound exclusively to the work or even
The shadow line 15
to just a part of it, and the other, holistic, type, in which the conservation of the
architecture is related to recognition of its historical context so that the authentic-
ity of the object is constantly maintained within its own historical environment or
within a more complex system.22 Time limits may, however, be indefinite, unoffi-
cially established by an unwritten law, ranked in a more or less articulated fashion
or measurable on the basis of a system of criteria of variable complexity. It must be
said, however, that the blind spots and loopholes of these limits are exploited and
contradicted on a daily basis, in accordance with principles that sometimes reflect
the precariousness of local situations, subjective talents and personal culture. The
issue of historical and architectural value all too often collides with the reality of
economic interests, with development and urban planning, and with market forces.
We can observe distinct classifications and competences and graded levels of protec-
tion, both at territorial and architectural level, which often interact with more spe-
cialized disciplines and specific protection programs for factories, urban planning,
landscape, housing, engineering, gardens, etc.
The overall impression is of an architectural and theoretical phenomenon of great
richness and variety in which the contemporary seems to be characterized by a series
of cultural fractures and historical events which have yielded bursts of temporal
diversity, frequently in conflict with each other. The twentieth century seems to really
emerge, therefore, as the era in which time explodes in all directions, with no com-
parison with what happened in the past. It would be sufficient, therefore, to expand
the unit of time, say, from years to centuries, for us to see that we are witnessing an
unprecedented acceleration.
Historiography
After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Eric Hobsbawm
proposed new historiographical considerations, thereby making critical re-readings of
the numerous historiographies inevitable. In the case of architecture, historians have
focused on the origins of the radical transformation of the language of the contempo-
rary period, following a critical path that has seen a significant break after the end of the
so-called “Short Twentieth Century”. Within the confrontation that characterized this
period of time, the English historian notes that “how effective, or even how consciously
held, the rival strategies for burying the world of our forefathers were, need not be con-
sidered here”.23 The progressive loss of historical memory and the revolutionary muta-
tion of collective identities created conditions for a significant cultural change, so that
the world today is not the same as before. With the end of a monolithic duopoly and
the cessation of the very tense confrontation between two opposing political, economic
and cultural systems, the architecture of the Golden Age and of the consumer society
should today look as historically remote as socialist architecture, albeit in a more subtle
and less immediate way, and not without “a mood of uneasiness.”24 In all its undeniable
complexity, therefore, most recent building production in the Western world should
be re-contextualized as a function of correct institutional conservation, within this
new historiographical perspective. This crisis has also affected aesthetic judgment,
bearing in mind that, alongside those who think in terms of the importance of the
judgement process and richness of its potential consequences, there are also those like
Gilles Deleuze who, in 1993, picks up a thread from the 1970s and declares that it is
necessary to “pour en finir avec le jugement”.25
16 Massimo Visone
Figure 1.4 Greater London Council. Department of Architecture & Civic Design, Hayward
Gallery, London, 1968
Source: Daniel Hewitt, 2009 / RIBA Collections.
In the world of the former Soviet Union, for example, the debates that stimulated
criticism in the late 1970s are still reverberating among the general public as a reac-
tion to totalitarian architecture. Several ongoing initiatives are seeking to re-evaluate
in detail the production of Socialist Realism and challenge the more established val-
ues of the architectural heritage in the context of social growth. Among the most
recent examples, in the early summer of 2007 the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation
The shadow line 17
addressed a request to formulate and develop a project to gather information on Por-
tuguese Heritage around the World: architecture and urbanism and make it available
to the public. This was accomplished with the publication of three volumes in 2010–
2011. The Heritage of Portuguese Influence portal was launched in 2012.26 In 2009,
the Swiss University Conference promoted a three-year research project on the Critical
Encyclopaedia of Restoration and Reuse of Twentieth-Century Architecture. Towards
2012, the Atrium project got under way, an ambitious programme which consists of
18 partners from South East Europe on the architecture of twentieth-century totalitar-
ian regimes.27 February 2014 saw the launch of another three-year research project
in cooperation between the Weimar Bauhaus University and Dortmund Technische
Figure 1.5 Jo Hendrik van den Broek and Jacob Berend Bakema, City Hall, Marl, 1960–1966
Source: Gerardus (Wikipedia Commons), 2008.
18 Massimo Visone
Universität called Which monuments, which modernity? Understanding, evaluating
and communicating the architectural heritage of the second half of the 20th century.28
Less has been done with regard to re-examining architecture from those countries which
came out as “victors” from this clash of the century.
On the horizon, therefore, there seems to be looming a new approach to the critical
reinterpretation of this language revolution. It should be emphasized that a historio-
graphical snapshot of contemporary architecture is a blend of cultural baggage, a
range of events and, above all, of contributions that are almost entirely from the short
century, and it is to this period that they relate.
In this respect, Carlo Olmo posits new questions for a new historical and critical
periodization and proposes the “Thematisation of the Break”, in order to understand
the complex architectural history of the twentieth century, constructed in time even
before in its space. The last century was culturally reinforced by the celebration of
the memory of recent events but, from now on, historiographical approaches to these
architectural memories will be more complex and contradictory precisely for the cen-
tury that invented this celebration.
Preserving buildings that were designed for a limited duration in order to fulfil the
immediate demands of a population that wished to elevate its culture and income,
or factories and gasometers that are no longer functionally relevant, appears to be
a really complex task,29
an assumption that had already been partly envisaged by art historians. Mario De
Micheli, at the beginning of his book on twentieth-century avant-gardes art, had rec-
ognized that modern art had not been born as of an evolutionary process from the
nineteenth century but rather by a break with academic values.30
On this basis, the most recent “histories” of contemporary architecture refer-
ence new historical patterns and experimental “pigeon-holes”. The basic criteria
are becoming less selective, lacking the ideological motivation from the past, albeit
with increasingly inclusive and encyclopaedic aims, as if forced into historiographical
reductionism. Collective biographies, on the one hand, constitute a prerequisite for
the re-writing of the history of modern and contemporary architecture, by unwit-
tingly offering themselves to their readers’ own exponentially personal interpretations
when putting together pieces of a variable puzzle.31 The phenomenon of biographical
monographs, on the other hand, offers complete catalogues that immortalize worldly
production, celebrate an architecture such as a landmark, are somewhat antithetical
to the contextualization of the work and, finally, celebrate the internationalization of
the architect in question.
Over the past 20 years, several scholars have personally measured themselves against
the concept of historiographical synthesis. In 1998, Giovanni Fanelli and Roberto
Gargiani wrote an experimental history that went to the heart of architecture, namely
the relationship between space, structure and ornament, regarding the end of tradi-
tional masonry techniques and the introduction of new building systems. The authors
claimed that their history was not merely notional, neither was it a list of events, nor
a summary of all the main important architects who had worked in the time span
in question, nor a history of the ideologies of architects and their respective clients.
Neither was it a history whose aim was to trace the reasons that lay behind various
differing points of view in the world of architecture.32 In the same year, globalization
The shadow line 19
took control over architectural criticism. In Supermodernism, Hans Ibelings sees con-
temporary architecture as being indifferent and uprooted from its context.33 Critical
Regionalism gives way to the process of universalization of the professional market.
Again in 1998, albeit in a history written on a national scale, Leonardo Benevolo
comes to similar conclusions. He outlines the formation of a new identity based on a
historic event – the unification of the country – which sees as one of its main outcomes
the degradation of the landscape, the result of the collective loss of confidence in the
habitat and its physical surroundings.34 More recently, Marco Biraghi has followed
the criterion of a history that adopts different “lenses”, depending on the subject mat-
ter and its distance from the present. In his analysis of the new myths and rites into
which the Contemporary has fragmented, the author emphasizes the recent progres-
sive planetary mobility of large architectural firms, their moving towards the Near
East, the phenomenon of “signature buildings” and the highly temporary nature of
some high media impact projects, to the detriment of the permanence of collective
values.35 Finally, Jean-Louis Cohen, in the introduction to his architectural history,
states that
the importance of the ‘masters’ of modern architecture needs to be assessed as

much through a careful reconsideration of their ascendancy and period of nomi-
nation as through a celebration of their work. From this point of view [. . .] this
book attempts to be as inclusive as possible, within the limits of its format and at
the risk of oversimplifying complex trajectories occasionally.36
Good intentions
Within a historically recognized fracture, it is easy to witness the conflict between
a rich and fertile historical debate, which has expanded beyond its traditional geo-
graphical areas, and the preservation of an architectural heritage that is awaiting
cultural development without, however, being easily recognized by the general pub-
lic. An exception to this are works by so-called starchitects, of much easier media
impact. Memory is effectively weakened by a condition of the eternal present, which
is offered as the only collective dimension of everyday life and which undermines the
key concept that has emerged from culture conservation: cultural heritage. Its variable
interpretation is in conflict with its universalization.
Time rules should take into account the progressive acceleration that is a feature of
the contemporary world and act as a go-between with the ongoing process of cultural
transformation. It would be appropriate if there were also some temporal distance
at which protection might communicate critically with history, so as to prevent con-
temporary architecture from having to surrender to the oblivion of memory and the
search of lost time. On the other hand, the absence of a time limit supports Riegl’s
theory and leaves the doors of preservation wide open. In other words, a discrepancy
that requires the future to converge towards shared policies, against the backdrop of
a century imbued by internationalization. But reality is not like this.
Coming back down to earth: paraphrasing the principles of gravitational time dila-
tion, time runs at different speeds in geographical regions according to their potential,
and the work of the architects themselves will be carried out simultaneously with
different conservation policies worldwide. The decision of whether or not a work is
of historical and architectural value is implicitly comparative, not merely taxonomic,
20 Massimo Visone
and current terms for the comparison of twentieth-century architecture should histo-
riographically and geographically be much broader.
Notes
1 Lewis Mumford, The Brown Decades: A Study of the Arts in America, 1865–1895 (New
York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1931), p. 3.
2 David Watkin, The Rise of Architectural History (London: The Architectural Press, 1980),
p. IX.
3 On usefulness of architectural historians, see Andrew Leach, What Is Architectural His-
tory? For a brief overview (Cambridge: Polity, 2010), pp. 97–114. See also Roberto Dulio,
Introduzione a Bruno Zevi (Rome-Bari: Laterza, 2008).
4 Suffice it to mention Russian avant-garde architecture, whose photographical reproduction
was very limited, at least until 1991, as noted by Jean-Louis Cohen, in The Lost Vanguard:
Russian Modernist Architecture 1922–1932 (New York: The Monacelli Press, 2007).
5 Ignasi de Solà-Morales, Diferencias: Topografía de la arquitectura contemporánea (Barce-
lona: Gustavo Gili, 1995); Rethinking Architectural Historiography, edited by Dana Arnold,
Elvan Altan Ergut and Belgin Turan Ozkaya (London-New York: Routledge, 2006); Global
Perspectives on Critical Architectur: Praxis Reloaded, edited by Gevork Hartoonian (Farn-
ham: Ashgate, 2015).
6 Alois Riegl, Der moderne Denkmalkultus: Sein Wesen und seine Entstehung (Wien-Leipzig:
W. Braumüller, 1903), English translation in Historical and Philosophical Issue in the
Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by Nicholas Stanley Price, M. Kirby Talley Jr.
and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996),
pp. 69–83.
7 Given the subject’s extensive bibliography, we will mention the main scientific contributions:
Historic Preservation in Foreign Countries, 5 vol. (Washington: 1982–1990); Jukka Jokilehto,
A History of Architectural Conservation (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999); Policy
and Law in Heritage Conservation, edited by Robert Pickard (London: Spon Press, 2001);
Robert Pickard, “A Comparative Review of Policy for the Protection of the Architectural Her-
itage of Europe”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, vol. 8, no. 4 (2002), pp. 349–363;
Consuelo Olimpia Sanz Salla, The Protection of Historic Properties: A Comparative Study
of Administrative Policies (Southampton, Boston: WIT press, 2009); John H. Stubbs, Time
Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation. Parameters, Theory and Evolution
of an Ethos (New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2009); John H. Stubbs and Emily G. Makaš,
Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas: National Experiences and Practice
(New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2011); Preservation Education: Sharing Best Practices and
Finding Common Ground, edited by Barry L. Stiefel and Jeremy C. Wells (Lebanon, NH:
University Press of New England, 2014); John H. Stubbs and Robert G. Thomson, Archi-
tectural Conservation in Asia: National Experiences and Practice (London-New York: Rout-
ledge, 2017). One exception is Miles Glendinning, The Conservation Movement: A History
of Architectural Preservation. Antiquity to Modernity (London-New York: Routledge, 2013),
an up-t-date work which gathers together the main challenges of the 20th century.
8 The Reception of Architecture of the Modern Movement: Image, Usage, Heritage. Proceed-
ings of the 8th International Docomomo Conference, edited by Jean-Yves Andrieux and
Fabrienne Chevallier (Saint-Étienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Étienne, 2005);
Theodore H.M. Prudon, Preservation of Modern Architecture (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 2008); Riuso del patrimonio architettonico, edited by Bruno Reichlin and
Bruno Pedretti (Cinisello Balsamo-Mendrisio: Silvana Editoriale-Mendrisio University
Press, 2011); Architectures modernes. L’émergence d’un patrimoine, edited by Maristella
Casciato and Émilie d’Orgeix (Wavre: Mardaga, 2012); Ugo Carughi, Maledetti vincoli:
La tutela dell’architettura contemporanea. Parte seconda a cura di Id. and Massimo Visone
(Turin: Allemandi, 2012); Law and the Conservation of 20th Century Architecture, edited
by Roberta Grignolo (Cinisello Balsamo-Mendrisio: Silvana Editoriale-Mendrisio Univer-
sity Press, 2014). A bibliography on Conserving Twentieth-Century Built Heritageis pro-
duced by Getty Conservation Institute (GCI)’s Conserving Modern Architecture Initiative
The shadow line 21
(CMAI) is searchable on the GCI’s Abstracts of International Conservation Literature
(AATA) Online, see http://aata.getty.edu/Record (accessed on July 18, 2016).
9 Glendinning 2013, pp. 390–448. For a critical analysis of the globalising approach, see
Françoise Choay, Le patrimoine en questions: Anthologie pour un combat (Paris: Seuil,
2009, 20122).
10 Manfredo Tafuri, Architettura e utopia: Architettura e sviluppo capitalistico (Rome-Bari:
Laterza, 1973), English translation, Architecture and Utopia: Design and Capitalist Devel-
opment (Cambridge, MA-London: The MIT Press, 1976).
11 Among the earliest see Michel Ragon, Histoire mondiale de l’architecture et de l’urbanisme
modernes, 3 vol. (Paris: Casterman, 1971–1978).
12 Robert Adam, The Globalisation of Modern Architecture: The Impact of Politics, Econom-
ics and Social Change on Architecture and Urban Design since 1990 (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge Scholars Publishing, 2012).
13 See, from a crowded field, Kenneth Frampton, Modern Architecture: A Critical History,
revised and enlarged edition (London: Thames and Hudson, 1985); William J.R. Curtis,
Modern Architecture since 1900, 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996);
Alan Colquhoun, Modern Architecture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
14 Alex Tzonis and Liliane Lefaivre, “The Grid and the Pathway: An Introduction to the Work
of Dimitris and Suzana Antonakakis”, Architecture in Greece, vol. 15 (1981), pp. 164–178;
Kenneth Frampton, “Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of
Resistence”, in The Anti-Aesthetic: Essay on Post-Modern Culture, edited by Hal Foster
(Port Townsend, WA: Bay Press, 1983), pp. 16–30.
15 Maria Luisa Scalvini and Maria Grazia Sandri, L’immagine storiografica dell’architettura
contemporanea da Platz a Giedion (Rome: Officina Edizioni, 1984); Fulvio Irace, “Storie
e storiografia dell’architettura contemporanea”, in Architettura del XX secolo, edited by
Maria Antonietta Crippa (Milan: Jaca Book, 1993), pp. 37–52; Panayotis Tournikiotis, The
Historiography of Modern Architecture (Cambridge, MA: The Mit Press, 1999); A Critical
History of Contemporary Architecture (1960–2010), edited by Elie G. Haddad and David
Rifkind (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014); Renato De Fusco and Cettina Lenza, Le nuove idee di
architettura: Storia della critica del secondo Novecento (Bari: Progedit, 2015).
16 Sibel Bozdogan, Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early
Republic (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001), p. 8. See also Ead., “Architectural
History in Professional Education: Reflections on Postcolonial Challenges to the Modern
Survey”, Journal of Architectural Education, vol. 52, no. 4 (May, 1999), pp. 207–215.
17 Today, there is a vast bibliography on Non-Western architecture which cannot easily be
reduced. An essential resource for understanding architectural modernism outside its “west-
ern” regions and mindsets is Non West Modernist Past: On Architecture and Modernities,
edited by Jiat-Hwee Chang and William S.W. Lim (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing,
2011). In addition to the publications quoted in the contributions to the first part of this
book, see, among others, Nnmadi Elleh, African Architecture: Evolution and Transforma-
tion (New York: McGraw Hill, 1996); The Evolving Arab City: Tradition, Modernity and
Urban Development, edited by Yasser Elsheshtawy (London-New York: Routledge, 2008);
Third World Modernism: Architecture, Development and Identity, edited by Duanfang Lu
(London-New York: Routledge, 2011); Mohammad Al-Asad, Contemporary Architecture
and Urbanism in the Middle East (Grainesville: University Press of Florida, 2012); Colonial
Architecture and Urbanism in Africa: Intertwined and Contested Histories, edited by Fassil
Demissie (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012); Thorsten Botz-Bornstein, Transcultural Architecture:
The Limits and Opportunities of Critical Regionalism (Farnham: Ashgate, 2015).
18 William J.R. Curtis, “Modern Architecture: Monumentality and the Meaning of Institu-
tions. Reflections on Authenticity”, Harvard Architecture Review, vol. 4 (Spring, 1984),
pp. 64–85; The Challenge of Change: Dealing with the Legacy of the Modern Movement.
Proceedings of the 10th International Docomomo Conference, edited by Dirk van den Heuvel,
Maarten Mesman, Wido Quist and Bert Lemmans (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2008).
19 Among most recent works, see Colonial Modern: Aesthetics of the Past – Rebellions for the
Future, edited by Tom Avermaete, Serhat Karakayali and Marion von Osten (London: Black
Dog Publishing, 2010); Denkmal Ost-Moderne. Aneignung und Erhaltung des baulichen
Erbes der Nachkriegsmoderne, edited by Mark Escherich (Berlin: Jovis, 2012).
22 Massimo Visone
20 Daniel Barber, “Militant Architecture: Destabilizing Architecture’s Disciplinarity”, The
Journal of Architecture, vol. 10, no. 3 (2005), pp. 245–253.
21 John H. Sprinkle Jr., “‘Of Exceptional Importance’: The Origins of the ‘Fifty-Year Rule’”,
Historic Preservation: The Public Historian, vol. 29, no. 2 (2007), pp. 81–103.
22 Sustainability & Historic Preservation: Toward a Holistic View, edited by Richard Long-
streth (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2011).
23 Eric Hobsbawm, Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century 1914–1991 (London:
Michael Joseph, 1994), p. 9.
24 Idem, p. 13.
25 Gilles Deleuze, Critique et Clinique (Paris: Minuit, 1993).
26 http://www.hpip.org/Default/pt/Homepage (accessed on July 15, 2016).
27 http://www.atrium-see.eu/ (accessed on July 15, 2016).

28 Hans-Rudolf Meier, “‘Welche Denkmale welcher Moderne?’ Ein Forschungsprojekt zum
baulichen Erbe der zweiten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts”, in Denkmal Ost-Moderne II.
Denkmalpflegerische Praxis der Nachkriegsmoderne, edited by Mark Escherich (Berlin:
Jovis, 2016), pp. 66–72.
29 Carlo Olmo, Architettura e Novecento: Diritti, conflitti, valori (Rome: Donzelli, 2010),
p. 14. Translation by Simon Pocock.
30 Mario De Micheli, Le avanguardie artistiche del Novecento (Milan: Schwarz, 1959).
31 Dizionario dell’architettura del XX secolo, edited by Carlo Olmo, 6 voll. (Turin: Allemandi,
2000); Encyclopedia of 20th-Century Architecture, edited by R. Stephen Sennott (New
York-London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2004).
32 Giovanni Fanelli and Roberto Gargiani, Storia dell’architettura contemporanea (Rome-
Bari: Laterza, 1998), p. IX.
33 Hans Ibelings, Supermodernism: Architecture in the Age of Globalization (Rotterdam: NAi,
1998).
34 Leonardo Benevolo, L’architettura nell’Italia contemporanea (Rome-Bari: Laterza, 1998).
35 Marco Biraghi, Storia dell’architettura contemporanea II: 1945–2008 (Turin: Giulio Ein-
audi editore, 2008), pp. 509–533.
36 Jean-Louis Cohen, The Future of Architecture: Since 1889 (London-New York: Phaidon,
2012), p. 16.
2 Contemporary architecture and
the idea of protection
Ugo Carughi
This chapter contains some brief reflections on the protection of late twentieth-century
architecture in an extremely complex global landscape. These reflections refer to his-
torical contemporaneity rather than to a mere time category.
Although by no means settled at a historical and critical level, the debate sur-
rounding recent architecture has often been linked to architectures from all historical
phases, although new questions are nearly always raised.1 Consequently, historiog-
raphy has become an inevitable prerequisite for protection when the latter is treated
as a planning tool.2 Rather than being determined by the hands of the clock, then, a
work’s cultural identity and destiny depends more on the ever-changing spirit, taste
and culture via which is it considered over time. Herein lies the chameleon-like nature
of its contemporaneity, which also pervades the complex issue of the conservation of
its features and its relationship with the place for which it was designed. This in turn
reminds us of the diversity, also in economic terms, of its cultural value compared to
those of other products which may be subject to the constant revision of their aesthet-
ics, performance, mechanics and production sites.
Starting from the issues relating to time (such as the time threshold – often non-
existent outside Europe – affecting the protection of most recent architectures), here we
will briefly deal with four other more general issues relating to protection tout court.
Among these is the so-called ‘relational’ value which, together with the time factor, is
mainly critical-theoretical. On the other hand, the three remaining issues – the relation-
ship between the monument and context, the design aspects of the means of protection
(planning for protection) and the gradual nature of protective measures (protection as
a process) – are closely related and are more practical. These principles are most often
found in European countries with longer-standing traditions3 and can, furthermore, be
traced to a number of concepts which head the sections in the second part of the book.
Time factor (memory)

The time threshold should ensure an adequate historical perspective on which to base
reliable judgment. Even when such legislation exists, however, it varies from country
to country and, moreover, in most countries where it has been applied, there usu-
ally exist loopholes for its circumvention. We might explain this in the words of Jan
Mukařovský, according to which
[a]lthough the norm strives to attain universal validity, it can never achieve the
force of a natural law – otherwise become one itself, and cease to be a norm [. . .]
The norm [. . .] implies the conceivability of its violation.4
24 Ugo Carughi
This infringement, from a legal perspective, manifests itself as the previously men-
tioned loophole.
So as for Europe, we can speak of extreme relativism, both as far as the definition
of the time limit is concerned, and also for the associated loopholes. Of the over
50 nations at stake, only in 20 has the concept of time limit been written into the
statute books and, of these, more than 10 expressly provide for exemptions. These
varying attitudes highlight conditioning by respective historical events.5 Among the
republics of the former Soviet Union, for example, the damnatio memoriae to which
certain periods have been subjected has conditioned judgment on whole categories of
works.6 In Georgia, where the Constitution of 1995 includes a decree for the protec-
tion of cultural heritage, the period of 100 years which has been interposed for pro-
tection7 affects most of the production from the Soviet period (1921–1991). Latvia
has applied a limit of 50 years from the date of the building’s construction,8 although
for the old centre of Riga there is a threshold of only 25 years for the protection of
buildings with regard to its historical context.9 In Lithuania, newer architectures may
be protected via exceptional measures in the case of special events such as the libera-
tion from the Soviet regime. In Romania, failure to take post-1960 production into
account10 was probably only brought about by the confusion which followed on the
abolition in 1990 of the law regarding protection. In Germany, where there is no
formal time limit in any of the sixteen states of the Federal Republic, since the fall of
the Berlin Wall it has been more difficult to protect buildings from the communist era.
One could go on.11
Regarding exemption from the time threshold, we find it, albeit sometimes implic-
itly, in countries that gravitated in the former Soviet Union sphere of influence from
the end of World War II to the early 1990s. Along with the aforementioned Lithuania,
we have Bosnia-Herzegovina, where the limit of 1960 may be exempted12; Hungary,
where the tacit term of 50 years from construction is for guidance only; Ukraine,
where there is unofficial tacit application of a threshold of 40 years; and finally, Russia
itself, where the time span of 40 may be waived in order to protect particular works,
even shortly after their creation.13 We also come across this mechanism in other cul-
tural areas, such as the Netherlands, where specific cases can disregard the cut-off
date (1965).14 Similarly, in Scotland it is possible to protect endangered works from
demolition or alteration, even if less than 30 years of age, which is the current thresh-
old across the UK. Finally, in Italy the threshold of 50 years for private properties and
70 years for those in public ownership15 cannot prevent even the most recent building
from being protected because of its links with aspects of history or national culture.16
Compared to the diversity that affects the laws in many other countries, the Euro-
pean Community action tends to build a consistent approach through the creation
of heritage charters and conventions.17 The recommendations and guidelines therein
expressed, however, are not usually converted into binding legislation, which is a mat-
ter of national sovereignty.
Outside Europe, the landscape is more varied. In contrast to many Central and
South American countries,18 the United States and Canada both allow for partial
restrictions. In the former area, however, the 50-year threshold, set up by the National
Park Service in 1948, allows exemptions in exceptional cases.19 In Canada, however,
where protection policies are closely linked to those in France and England,20 the
40-year limit is applied by the Federal Heritage Building Review Office on federal
properties,21 which are the most threatened; remaining cases fall under the jurisdiction
Modern architecture and the idea of protection 25
Figure 2.1 Oscar Niemeyer, Supreme Federal Court, Brasília, 1958. Listed in 2007
Source: Salvino Campos, 2007.
of the local authorities, who can apply a range of different regulations, albeit with no
time restrictions.
In Africa, the question of a coherent time threshold seems generally alien to the
protection of built heritage. Among the countries surveyed there are exceptions such
as Ghana, where the effective threshold, albeit not standardized, is 1900. The real
influencing factors, however, can be traced back to periods of colonial domination.
The latter, by introducing rules and procedural mechanisms unrelated to rituals and
religious traditions, have led to a break with local cultures, where the population pre-
viously displayed natural affinity with local values. Attention is currently being paid
to these values, especially in the wake of international pressure and funding bodies
such as ICCROM or UNESCO.22
26 Ugo Carughi
Figure 2.2 Oscar Niemeyer, Tancredo Neves Pantheon of the Fatherland and Freedom, Brasilia
1986
The situation in Asia is more complicated: of the 24 nations surveyed, about half
have in place temporal parameters of one type of another. In South Asia, for example,
India and Bangladesh both have a 100-year old threshold; in India it is unwritten,
whereas in the latter country the limit is not definitive.23 In Pakistan, the Act of 1968,
as amended in 1992, set the time limit at 75 years,24 whereas in Kazakhstan there is
no limit. Modern architecture is not well protected in this part of the continent, and
heritage conservation is conditioned by economic interests and political instability. In
East Asia, temporal boundaries in China and Hong Kong are based on best practice
or rule of thumb, whereas in South Korea ‘Modern’, starting from the end of the
nineteenth century, means fewer restrictions on interventions on real estate, for the
most part privately owned, and may also include recent buildings if deemed to be of
Figure 2.3 Marcel Breuer, Becton Engineering and Applied Science Center, New Haven, 1970
great interest or in danger of deterioration or destruction.25 Similarly, in Western Asia,

in Bahrain, the law allows for the protection of recently built sites and buildings, up
to twentieth-century post-modern of the 1970s and 1980s. In other countries such
as Oman, Qatar or the United Arab Emirates, the establishment of time thresholds
appears, once again, to be linked to on-going internal issues rather than to any stable
cultural maturity. Of these issues, the most prominent was the discovery of oil in the
first half of the twentieth century and the resulting building boom that swept away
entire townships. Other local issues include the need to maintain an identity, albeit in
ways often alien to Western culture, and a tendency to favor symbolic values and sys-
tems rather than the work itself, and a reference to previous regulations, which may
be reviewed even after a few decades. Finally, as far as Australia and New Zealand are
concerned, no time limit has been contemplated.
28 Ugo Carughi
Therefore, beyond the borders of a single nation or continent, a given legislation
will reveal all its relativism. This condition, which in principle is not compatible with
the fundamentally universal nature of cultural interest, is more evident wherever there
is no binding time difference between the construction of a building and the imple-
mentation of a conservation order.26 When we judge contemporary architecture, there
can be no doubt we are obliged to refer certain expressive or technical aspects back
to previous works, without ruling out the possibility that a new building might set a
new trend. As most people will appreciate, however, this does not mean we cannot
make any judgment,27 nor that gradual measures of preventive protection may not be
implemented, to be monitored over time.

Some European countries, such as Italy,28 the Republic of San Marino,29 Spain30
or Hungary,31 also link the recognition of cultural significance to the author’s death,
so as to protect their rights.32 This results in a further barrier to the action of protec-
tion or even to the possibility that the author himself or herself may tamper with or
destroy what he or she had created.33 Conversely, the author’s contribution may be
valuable for the preservation of the work irrespective of his/her rights. When, for
example, it became clear that the restoration program of the Sydney Opera House
(1956), commissioned in 1993 to the Australian architect James Semple Kerr, was
incompatible with the character of the complex, the task was handed over to archi-
tect Richard Johnson who, in 1999, was able to involve the ageing John Utzon.
Documents drawn up in 2002 show that the author’s contribution was essential for
the full respect of the work.34 Similar conclusions may be drawn from the transfor-
mation into a museum of the Walter Gropius house, built in 1938 in Massachusetts.
In 1974, after the architect’s death (1969), his wife Ise transferred ownership to
the Preservation of New England Antiquities, whilst continuing to live there. Her
testimony and suggestions were very useful for design and restoration.35 Moreover,
in the restoration of the Pirelli Tower in Milan (1956–1961), carried out by Giò
Ponti between 2002 and 2005, architects Giovanni Multari and Vincenzo Corvino
profited much from the recovery of the original graphics and the explanations given
by engineer Egidio dell’Orto, the only surviving designer
We need to bear in mind that architects are not usually the owners of the buildings
that they have designed or whose work they have directed; they earn their living from
their professional activities. It makes no sense, therefore, to grant them other forms of
commercial activity by awaiting the end of their time on this Earth in order to be able
to declare an interest in the work in question. Unlike with the movable arts, architec-
ture is subject to alterations resulting from functional changes, and public attention
does not last long after its creation. When the spotlights are turned off, therefore, it
remains alone in its surroundings, while the author has long since passed on.36 What
is required, therefore, is timely and adequate protection.
Relational value (identities)

By ‘relational value’ we mean the value that can be attributed to something indepen-
dently of its materiality. Ever since the Charter of Athens (1931, section VII), histori-
cal and artistic protection have gradually expanded their relevant horizons from the
intrinsic value of the ‘monument’ into the broader perspective of the ‘site’, including
all possible aesthetic, historical, scientific and social implications. The term ‘site’
made its first appearance in the second article of the World Convention of Paris
Figure 2.4 Giò Ponti, Pirelli Tower, Milan, 1956–1960. Listed by appealing to “author’s rights”
Source: Studio F 64 – Paolo Cappelli & Maurizio Criscuolo, 2005.
of 1972, the first two articles of which formalize the concept of heritage. After the
Amsterdam European Charter of 1975 and the 1976 UNESCO Recommendations,
it was with the Burra Charter (Australia, 1982), the Charter of Aotearoa (New Zea-
land, 1992) and the Declaration of Oaxaca (Mexico, 1993) that cultural values also
began to explicitly refer to intangible heritage. These guidelines triggered a cultural
democratization process in contrast to the elitist attitudes of West European matrix.
Differences between cultures and traditions, as recognized by the Charter of Cra-
cow (2000), have multiplied the significance of historical evidence and authenticity
30 Ugo Carughi
which, even in the cases of natural sites, can be expressed as a relational value. This
broadening of conceptual and geographical horizons has legitimized the protec-
tion of cultures far removed from European ones; suffice it to mention those from
the East or from the Australian continent, amongst whose nomadic and aboriginal
peoples intangible values still prevail,37 and also in the countries of Latin America
and the Caribbean.38 Also Europe has been affected with regard to how to consider
encoded tangible values. Unlike the situation in other continents, several European
countries have explicitly linked heritage assets to their constitutions, thereby estab-
lishing and elevating the importance of the relational value. Many of these countries
have recently emerged from the shadow of the former Soviet Union, such as Arme-
nia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Georgia, Lithuania and Ukraine, plus countries
such as Germany, Slovakia, Slovenia, Greece, Italy, Malta and Turkey. Apart from
any possible constitutional relevance, however, nearly all European countries are
aware of the importance of protecting the historical, political, social, traditional
and vernacular values and features of their architectures as inseparable parts of their
national identity.
Monument and context (heritages) – planning for protection

(economy) – protection as a process (conservation)
By context, we not only mean the physical environment of a work, but the ensemble
of elements of any type that can be associated to it. Thus, the resulting relationships
can in no way be excluded from any integrated territorial planning in an economic
decision-making process that includes twentieth-century architecture. It follows that
no protection should be granted without planning, and vice versa. However, in order
to bring the protection measures under the remit of an integrated program, it would
be better if they were of an orientative and supportive nature rather than being exclu-
sively coercive, with a focus on flexibility that we might also call ‘gradual’. The latter
can be seen in well over half the European countries, and it is not uncommon in other
continents, with reference to the definition of temporal or spatial entities. The terms
‘protection’ and ‘planning’, which in absolute terms can be seen as being antithetical,
may also be brought together into a single harmonious process, not only legal and
juridical but also aesthetical and critical.
In many European countries where ‘monuments’ and their surroundings are cov-
ered by a single measure, heritage protection is exercised by means of planning
tools and, mainly, by local authorities: in Portugal, for example, where the relevant
protection zone is 50 metres, and in France, where the perimeter might extend as
far as 500 metres. Similarly, in Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Bulgaria and
Hungary, buildings are protected, together with their adjacent areas, as in several
former Soviet republics such as Belarus, Latvia, Moldova; in Scandinavia, Ireland
and the United Kingdom; and in Kosovo, Greece, Cyprus and Malta. It is unusual
for the monument and its surroundings to be subject to different procedures, as in
Italy where local authorities are generally excluded from the protection of cultural
heritage. Forms of protection and planning can also be found in other continents,
such as in the United States.39 As for Asia, suffice it to mention Israel where, in Tel
Aviv-Jaffa, the plan has placed many modern buildings in the heart of the White
City under protection, while, further afield, we find Sydney’s Conservation Plan. In
Africa, there are the pilot projects of the National Organization for Urban Harmony
Figure 2.5 Alvaro Siza, Boa Nova Tea House, Matosinhos (Porto), 1958–1963. Listed in 2011
Source: Giacomo Visconti, 2005.
(NOUH) in the center of Cairo and Heliopolis, Egypt. Protection is also encouraged
within the broader processes of economic development, as well as with types of
tax breaks. In non-European countries, international bodies such as UNESCO and
ICCROM play an important role in raising awareness, whereas countries such as
Egypt, in North Africa, South Africa in sub-Saharan Africa, India in Central and
Southern Asia, and Japan and China in East Asia exert a driving force for their
neighbouring countries. Such circumstances confirm the idea that a given territory’s
protection measures and its economy should be treated as being two sides of the
same coin; inasmuch as they contribute to market stability, the former represent are
a preliminary condition for attracting investments to that area.
It seems, therefore, that contributions in this book confirm the need to facilitate
changes by steering relevant protection criteria toward common goals and in accor-
dance with shared procedures for implementation which are, as far as possible, com-
patible with their respective national legislations. Cultural awareness is sensitive to
new territories and comprehends original works and their authors, in addition to
being focused on documentary aspects of twentieth-century architectural heritage
whose scope and size it has enhanced. We expect, therefore, the emergence of more
dynamic and proactive protection, a basic mechanism for planning and design.
Notes
1 “Conservation of 20th century buildings encounters the same legal challenges as those of
older buildings, but late 20th century architecture faces some additional challenges [. . .]
The first challenge concerns the general disapprobation and dislike for much of 20th century
32 Ugo Carughi
architecture by the population at large [. . .] the second challenge relates to the architecture
itself [. . .] the use of new unproven materials and the limited life [. . .] The third challenge
concerns the industrialisation of building methods and the increasing pace of change in the
construction materials industry”. Terje Nypan, “The Challenges Posed by the Eu Legisla-
tion for the Conservation of 20th Century Architecture”, in Law and the Conservation
of 20th Century Architecture, edited by Roberta Grignolo (Cinisello Balsamo: Mendrisio
Academy Press/Silvana Editoriale, 2014), p. 77.
2 “la question posée est la suivante: comment l’histoire vatelle influencer l’architecture et la
conservation? Et, en corollaire,que veut dire sauver notre patrimoine moderne?”. Maristella
Casciato and Èmilie d’Orgeix, “Introduction”, in Architectures Modernes: L’Emergence
d’un Patrimoine, edited by Maristella Casciato and Èmilie d’Orgeix (Wavre: Mardaga
Pierre, 2012), p. 10.

3 “Though one of the smallest continents, Europe has proven to be the most influential world in
history, both during antiquity and expecially in the past five centuries. This global hegemony has
included the professional field of architectural conservation”. John Stubbs, Time Honored: A
Global View of Architectural Conservation (Hoboken: Wiley, 2009), p. 286. See above: Robert
Pickard, Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation (Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, 2001).
4 Jan Mukařovský, Aesthetic Function, Norm and Value as Social Facts (Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan, 1970), p. 26.
5 “the resurgence of nationalism in Eastern and Southeastern Europe has made heritage an
issue of importance to more of the peoples in these regions, and it has allowed a renewed
focus on building types and periods neglected by the former regimes – especially those of
religious heritage”. Stubbs 2009, p. 286.
6 Massimo Visone, “Time limit. Il contemporaneo tra rottura e continuità”, in Maledetti vin-
coli. La tutela dell’architettura contemporanea, edited by Ugo Carughi (Turin: Allemandi,
2012), pp. 233–238; see also M. Visone, the contribution by the same author in this book.
7 Law of Georgia on Cultural Heritage Protection, edited by Dimitri Tumanishvili (Tblisi:
Ministry of Culture, Monument Protection and Sport of Georgia, 2008; George Chubinash-
vili National Research Centre of Georgian Art History and Heritage Preservation, 2008),
p. 8, in particular Article 3. Terms used in the Law, h).
8 Regulations No. 474: Regulations of Heritage Inventory, Protection, Use, Restoration,
Public Pre-Emptive Rights and the Assignment of Status of Degrading object, issued by the
Council of Ministers of Republic of Latvia, 2003, artt. 7, 9.
9 Law On Preservation and Protection of the Historic Centre of Riga. “Section 1. 1) cultural
and historic value”.
10 Order of the Minister of Culture and Cults no 2260 / 18th of April 2008.
11 “In Europe today it is the strengthening of cultural diversities while simultaneously integrat-
ing and standardizing policies and procedures in a newly united continent”. Stubbs, 2009.
12 Decision on amendments to the Criteria for designating properties as National Monuments.
Elucidation, 6 may 2003: “In cases where the building in question is an outstandingly valu-
able work of contemporary art or architecture of a date later than 1960, the Commission
will consider these cases and issue a raccomendation to the heritage protection authorities
at the Entity, regional or local level that the monument be protected pursuant to the relevant
laws”.
13 Federal Law of the Russian Federation, About objects of the cultural heritage (monuments
of historyand culture) people of the Russian Federation. From June 25, 2002 of No. 73 FZ.
14 Netherlands. Cultural Heritage Conservation Act (1984/2002/2009) – Aanwijzingspro-
gramma.
15 Italy, Legislative Decree no. 42 / 22 January 2004, art. 10, cl.5.
16 Therein, art. 10, cl.3 d.
17 Pickard, 2001, p. 1: “The 1975 campaign marked the start of the Council of Europe’s activi-
ties that gave rise to the European Charter of the Architectural Heritage and subsequently
the Amsterdam Declaration of the Congress on the European Architectural Heritage which
introduced the concept of ‘integrated heritage conservation’. This concept is now enshrined
in the founding texts, the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of
Europe (1985) (the Granada Convention) and the European Convention on the Protection
of the Archaeological Heritage (revised) (1992) (the Malta Convention)”.
18 Stubbs, 2009, pp. 349–362.
19 National Register of Historic Places, autorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966.
20 Stubbs, 2009, pp. 341–342.
21 The Federal Heritage Building Review Office, 2009, p. 5.
22 “Traditional cultural heritage management systems existed in sub-Saharan Africa even
before the establishment of European- modelled structures and polices by colonial powers
ritual use, taboos and religious restrictions ensured the survival of sacred sites and com-
plexes for centuries through-out the African continent. The most important aspect of these
traditional systems was their involvement of the entire community in heritage protection,
an aspect lost over the course of the past century when Western-style legislation and agen-
cies and Western-trained conservation specialists took over the care of their historic sites”.
Stubbs, 2009, p. 309.
23 The Antiquities Act, 12th December, 1968, Definitions. 2. b.
24 Antiquities Act 1975 (As ammended in 1992) – ACT NO. VII of 1976. 2. Definitions, b.
25 Cultural Heritage Administration, Heritage Classification, 3. Cultural Heritage Material.
Cultural Heritage of early modern Times.
26 “les trajectoires unissant sens et valeurs de l’architecture moderne sont jalonnées par deux
problématiques lourdes de conséquences dans le processus de fabrication du patrimoine :
le temps et la conscience historique. La portée du temps pour la discipline de l’histoire de
l’architecture est ambiguë. Le temps possède une profondeur qui peut entrer en conflit avec
les questions de conservation de l’architecture moderne.” Casciato and d’Orgeix, 2012,
p. 10.
27 William J.R. Curtis, L’architettura moderna dal 1900 (Milan: Phaidon, 2005), p. 617: “è
un luogo comune nella storia dell’arte il fatto che non si dovrebbe mai cercare di scrivere la
storia del passato recente. La ragione fornita è la possibilità di essere parziale. Non è spie-
gato perché questo non potrebbe essere vero anche per il passato più lontano”.
28 Italy, Legislative Decree no. 42 / 22 January 2004, art. 10, cl.5.
29 Republic of San Marino., Law 28 October 2005 No. 147 – List of Artifacts or Buildings
with Monument Valure referred to in chapter VII, Section I of the Law 87 of July 19, 1995
(Consolidated Laws Planning and Building), Article 1 (Monument Value).
30 Spain, Law of the Spanish Historic Heritage, No. 16/1985, art. 9, cl.4.
31 Hungary. Act LXIV of 2001 on the Protection of Cultural Heritage. Effective as from
01.01.2016. Chapter 3. Provisions on the protection of cultural goods, art. 47, cl.2 a (estab-
lished by Article 11 of Act CCXVII of 2013).
32 See: Nypan, 2014, p. 77.
33 See: Carughi, 2012, p. 199
34 Theodore H.M. Prudon, Preservation of Moderne Architecture: Sydney Opera House. Syd-
ney, Australia (Hoboken: Wiley, 2008), pp. 382–392.
35 “It was also a resource unavailable in the preservation of buildings of an earlier period, and
one that introduces questions – probably to be resolved by later generations – about the
role and accuracy of personal intention, memory, and physical and historical accuracy, as
well as the significance of that inputas part of the overall interpretation”. Prudon, 2008,
pp. 221–230.
36 Raphael Moneo, La solitudine degli edifici e altri scritti (Turin: Allemandi, 2004),
pp. 159–160.
37 Stubbs, 2009, pp. 135, 334–335.
38 Stubbs, 2009, pp. 342–362.
39 Stubbs, 2009, p. 342.
Synoptic table
100 years 75 years 70 years 50 years 40 years 30 years 25 years Date No limit
AFRICA Ghana Algeria, Angola, Democratic

(1900) Republic of the Congo, Egypt,
Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Morocco,
Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal,
South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia
AMERICAS United Ecuador Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile,
States of (1940) Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba,
America Ecuador (1940) in Americas/Date,
Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela
ASIA Bangladesh Pakistan Bahrain, United Singapore Macau Oman China, India, Indonesia, Iran,
Philippines, Arab (1920) Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan,
South Emirates Qatar Lebanon, Malaysia, Thailand,
Korea (1940) Vietnam
Hong Kong
(1960s)
AUSTRALASIA Australia, New Zealand
EUROPE Iceland Italy Italy, Belarus, United Turkey Albania, Andorra, Armenia,
Latvia, Russia Kingdom (1899) Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium,
Lithuania, (England, Romania Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
Moldova, Northern (1960) Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
San Marino Ireland, Bosnia and Finland, France, Georgia, Germany,
Scotland, Herzegovina Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Kosovo,
Wales) (1990) Liechtenstein, Luxembourg,
Macedonia, Malta, Montenegro,
Netherlands, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Ukraine, Vatican City State
This synoptic table shows the legal time limits for each country that appears in this review of international contributions. Readers are advised to consult the relevant
chapters for further information regarding dispensations, flexibility and critical and exceptional issues in spheres ranging from administration, protection, evaluation
and implementation. Used together with the synoptic table, readers will be able to understand the sometimes murky boundary between the norm and the exception,
and between theory and practice. These criteria are used on a case-by-case basis to define legal limits – and sometimes cultural ones – or worldwide variations of the
term “Contemporary”, in the context of architectural historiography and the institutional recognition of twentieth-century architecture as cultural heritage.
3 Africa
Algeria – Angola – Democratic Republic of the Congo – Egypt – Eritrea – Ethiopia – Ghana –
Kenya – Morocco – Mozambique – Nigeria – Senegal – South Africa – Tanzania – Tunisia
36 Africa
ALGERIA
Figure 3.1 Jules Voinot and Marius Toudoire, Great post office, Algiers, 1910. Listed in 2000
Source: coeval postal card, private collection.
Since its independence (1962), Algeria has been equipped with a legal mechanism to
protect its heritage. The country possesses a huge historic inheritance of exceptional
value and has seven World Heritage Sites, listed between 1980 and 1982.
The origins of the national heritage policy date back to 1967, when the government
started applying a number of legislative and regulative measures to replace the French
laws. As a result, in 1973 Act No. 73-29 cancelled No. 62-157, issued by the first national
Constituent Assembly in 31 December 1962. New texts were introduced in heritage and
performance techniques, since previous models no longer suited modern developments in
Algerian society. The most important acts concerned Model Primary Law for National
Museums (No. 85-277/1985), Practice of Technical Works Concerning Protected Real
Estate Cultural Properties (No. 03-322/2003), Plans to Protect Archeological Sites and
Related Protected Areas and Restoration (No. 03-323/2003), Development of Permanent
Plan to maintain and Restore Preserved sectors (No. 03-324/2003), Preservation of non-
material Cultural Properties in the National Databank (No. 03-325/2003) and finally
Conditions of Establishing National Museums (No. 186-2007/2007).
Political effort to preserve tangible heritage was represented by order No. 67-281/1967,
concerning the protection of archaeological and natural sites. The general contents of
this decision were based on French texts. It is worth mentioning that the decision was
unable to create a realistic political basis for heritage. A political revelation regard-
ing Algerian heritage was the approval of the Law on Protection of Cultural Heritage
(No. 98-04/1998). It represented a cultural revolution and brought many changes which
helped increase the value of national heritage. Article 2 states that cultural properties
are all historical monuments and archaeological sites on Algerian land since prehistory.
Algeria 37
They concern a wide range of buildings (religious, military, civil, agricultural or indus-
trial). Their protection depends on the nature and category of cultural property.
The Ministry of Culture is the only structure which has complete control of heri-
tage. Since 2003, the ministry has increased the number of sites classified as national
heritage, and today there are more than 400. This classification protects sites from
any urban violation and damage and gives them preservation and maintenance prior-
ity. In fact, classification extends the protection zone; this consists of a relationship
between visibility of the historical monument and its surrounding up to a minimum
of 200 meters. Each year many sites and monuments are classified as national heri-
tage sites, and the government celebrates each year (16 April to 16 May) the heritage
month (Mois du Patrimoine). However, a lot remains to be done regarding heritage
conservation. Until now and despite what has been stated in the general disposi-
tions for heritage, twentieth-century architecture is still out of protection policies,
and modern colonial architecture is still not considered national heritage, along with
post-colonial buildings and modern Algerian architecture. In fact, heritage, including
buildings and monuments, is at risk, such as those in Constantine. And so are build-
ings constructed by well-known international architects, such as the University of
Constantine (1969–1974) by Oscar Niemeyer. This category of architecture is still not
yet considered a historical monument, like the old mausoleum of Imadghassen near
Batna city and Massinissa tomb near Constantine and its Medina.
This aspect has been ignored for so long, and it is desirable that the regulation on
heritage should be improved and much better reflected because the country has been
colonized by so many civilizations and there is a significant identity and authenticity
problem of its heritage to upgrade. There are so many directions in which it could oper-
ate, each of which needs to receive tangible consideration before any heritage action
is taken. Much interest has been given to this issue among university researchers and
local associations, such as Les proprietaries de la vieille ville, Les amis du rocher and
La maison constantinoise, in order to raise awareness about heritage among young
people. It has produced a positive effect, since several actions have taken place and
many more NGOs (Les amis de Constantine, Les amis d’Imadghassen) are involved in
awareness-raising campaigns about the many risks faced by our heritage.
Samira Debache Benzagouta and
Yasser Nassim Benzagouta
Link
Ministry of Culture list of monuments and sites:
http://www.m-culture.gov.dz/mc2/fr/sitesetetmonuments.php (in Arabic and French)
Bibliography
Alger: Paysage urbain et architecture, 1800–2000, eds. J.-L. Cohen, N. Oulebsir & Y. Kanoun
(Paris, 2003).
R. Aribi, La Législation du Patrimoine Culturel en Algérie. Assessment Report of the African Peer
Review Mechanism, affiliated to the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, n. 4 (2007).
A. Kessab, “La politique culturelle dans la ville d’Alger”. Etude pour l’Observatoire des Poli-
tiques Culturelles en Afrique (Maputo, 2009 ; unpublished, http://s3.archive-host.com/mem-
bres/up/1890583760/LA_POLITIQUE_CULTURELLE_A_ALGER.pdf).
N. Oulebsir, Les Usages du patrimoine. Monuments, musées et politique coloniale en Algérie,
1830–1930 (Paris, 2004).
38 Africa
ANGOLA
Figure 3.2 Vasco Regaleira, National Bank of Angola, Luanda, 1956. Listed in 1995
Source: Roberto Goycoolea, 2013.
The protection of heritage in countries with long colonial periods and turbulent pro-
cesses of independence is generally not a priority. In Angola, only today is it possible
to speak about an Angolan heritage policy after the consolidation of peace and its
institutions.
Although Portugal reached Angolan territory in 1482, the settlement process started
the century after. Up to the end of the nineteenth century, urban development was
scarce and mainly focused on ports destined for the slave trade. The first legislative
Angola 39
initiative for heritage protection was made in 1922, when the First Portuguese Repub-
lic (1910–1926) prepared the first monument classification based on colonial and
nineteenth-century vision, highlighting only churches, fortresses and palaces.
With the establishment of the Estado Novo (1933–1974), the expansion of the
existing cities began, as well as new settlements to exploit the hinterland. In this
period, we find two opposite architectures. The first corresponded to an institu-
tional one, imbued with classic and vernacular reminiscences principally planned
by the Colonial Urbanization Office (1944–1975). The second was made by the
‘African generation’ of young architects who, based on the principles of the Modern
Movement, considered the geographical and socio-economic reality of the country.

At this time of expansion, the government created its own Patrimony Commission
in Angola (1950), but it continued with the same vision and colonial legislation.
The independence war (1961–1975) and the later civil war (1975–2002) brought a
general degradation, if not destruction, of infrastructures and buildings. Despite the
conflict, the new Ministry of Culture created the National Institute for Cultural Heri-
tage (INPC, 1976), whose aim was that of developing the policy of preservation and
enhancement of the Angolan People’s Historical and Cultural Heritage, as the Law
No. 80/1976 said. In 1977, the INPC promoted the first legally Angolan classifica-
tion. The political change was clear: the first inventoried heritage was an eighteenth-
century building used for the “House of the Movement for the liberation of Angola”.
In 1980, the INPC recognizes, for the first time, the African cultural heritage and
records buildings from the first decades of the twentieth century, that is, edifices of nine-
teenth-century eclecticism. At an international level, Angola ratified (1991) the Conven-
tion concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), and
in 1996 registered 11 properties on the UNESCO Tentative List. Except for the ruins of
M’banza-Kongo, all the properties were churches and colonial fortresses.
By adopting the Law on Cultural Heritage (No. 14/2005), the new constitution
(2010, art. 21.m) and the Regulation of the Immovable Cultural Heritage (Decree
No. 53/2013), Angola establishes a state frame for protecting of its national, histori-
cal, cultural and artistic patrimony. Using this legal support, and in collaboration with
the provincial governments, the INPC begins a more systematic inventory, expand-
ing it significantly (160 records in 2014). Despite this, twentieth-century architecture
is only represented by historicist buildings or for political reasons, such as the last
national monument recognized (2016): Agostinho Neto Square of Huambo.
Today, none of the emblematic buildings from the interesting Angolan Modern
Movement is considered national heritage. The current heritage laws do not estab-
lish conditions or chronological limits for architecture protection (Decree 80/1976
first and now Law 14/2005). Therefore, this exclusion can be due to institutional
aesthetic considerations (INPC’s traditional vision on art and heritage) or politi-
cal resentments (related to the recent Portuguese domination). A restricted form of
understanding heritage and historical memory contrasts with the growing number of
investigations into the urbanism, architecture and architects of the Angolan moder-
nity. Civil society has also taken part in its defense, as was shown by the angry criti-
cism against the demolition of several of the most representative modern buildings
of Luanda, such as the Kinaxixi market (1950–1958, designed by Vasco Vieira da
Costa, destroyed in 2008), the Cuca building (early 1950s, by Luis Taquelim da
Silva, demolished in 2011) or the Miramar Cinema (1964, by João and Luís Garcia
de Castilho, demolished in 2015).
40 Africa
The Constitution of Docomomo Angola (2014) has brought a more institutional
and international stance on the social recognition of modern architecture. Its members
are supported by diverse academics, not only Angolan, and criticize the absence of a
state policy on modern heritage and the uncontrolled real estate boom that is leaving
Angolan cities with no character. They hold that institutional initiatives to safeguard
modern architecture are isolated and lacking in appropriate criteria and therefore
demand effective actions to maintain the historical memory associated with this heri-
tage. However, there are some signs of change in the official look on modern assets,
such as the “Reflection Seminary on the Architecture of the Modern Movement”
promoted by the Institute of Planning and Urban Management of Luanda (2015). It is

hoped that these actions will be reflected in effective legislation and financing for the
protection of Angolan twentieth-century architecture.
Roberto Goycoolea and Paz Núñez
Link
http://www.mincultura.gv.ao/monumentos_reg_angola.htm (in Portuguese)
Bibliography
A. Correia, “Historical Heritage of Luanda”, IPGUL, 5 (2012): 29–41. La modernidad igno-
rada: Arquitectura moderna de Luanda, eds. R. Goycoolea & P. Núñez (Madrid, 2011); J.M.
Fernandes, Geração Africana: Arquitetura e Cidades em Angola e.
J.M. Fernandes, Geração Africana: Arquitectura e Cidades em Angola e Moçambique, 1925–
1975 (Lisbon, 2009).
A. Magalhães, Moderno Tropical: Arquitectura em Angola e Moçambique, 1948–1975 (Lisbon,
2009).
La modernidad ignorada: Arquitectura moderna de Luanda, eds. R. Goycoolea & P. Núñez
(Alcalá, 2011).
Democratic Republic of the Congo 41
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
Figure 3.3 René Schoentjes and Albert Van Grunderbeek, Lycée Kiwele, ex Athénée royal,
Lubumbashi, 1948–1949
Source: Author, 2013.
The Belgian colonization produced an immense infrastructure, the large part of which
facilitated the economic exploitation of the territory’s natural resources, including build-
ings such as the Matadi Railway Station, the Gare Fluviale in Kinshasa or the worker’s
camps in cities like Lubumbashi and Likasi. Although colonization had a profound
42 Africa
impact on the re-shaping of rural areas, its architectural legacy remains most palpable
in the cities. Urbanization occurred at a different pace throughout the territory. The
urban landscape of Lubumbashi, for instance, took shape already in the mid-1920s and
early 1930s, with public buildings illustrating the introduction of metropolitan styles, in
particular Art Deco. Kinshasa witnessed its first major building boom in the 1950s, its
skyline being defined by buildings designed in a tropical modernist style, such as Claude
Laurens’ Sabena high-rise residential towers (1952–1954). Kinshasa also formed the
seat of the main administrative services, most often housed in large-scale edifices in a
classicizing modernist style. Under Mobutu’s reign, foreign architects such as Eugène
Palumbo, Auguste Arsac or Olivier-Clément Cacoub and, at a later stage, Congolese

designers such as Fernand Tala N’gai or Magema, conceived public buildings like the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1968–1974), the Monument des héros nationaux (1970–
1974) and the extension of the National Bank (1978–1981), all testifying of Mobutu’s
ambitions. Via development aid programs financed by foreign powers an impetus was
given to the construction of housing, as well as of educational and health care facilities,
echoing building policies of the late colonial era introduced by the Ten Year Plan for the
Social and Economic Development of the Belgian Congo (1949).
Notwithstanding the increasing interest in colonial history over the last decades,
research on the built and planned environment remains limited. Scholarly research
started in the mid-1980s, focusing on late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century
metal prefabricated constructions produced by Belgian firms. Preliminary work on
missionary architecture has been conducted since, and recently the architecture and
urbanism of the postcolonial era became a topic of inquiry, whereas the urban land-
scapes of cities like Kinshasa, Lubumbashi and Matadi have been studied from an
urban history perspective.
In the context of the recent building booms in Kinshasa and Lubumbashi, sev-
eral examples of colonial architecture have been demolished or transformed without
any restriction. On rare occasions a building has been saved from destruction. The
Lycée Kiwele in Lubumbashi (1948–1949) is a case in point. After having been in an
advanced state of degradation for several decades, it was renovated in 2012 in the
context of a national program of school infrastructure rehabilitation.
A heritage policy on colonial and postcolonial architecture has yet to be developed.
In 1971, a legislation was issued providing a specific framework for heritage protec-
tion, including buildings (ordonnance-loi No. 71-016), quite different from the decree
on the protection of sites, monuments and productions of native art (1939). Since the
1990s, Congolese historians have drawn attention to the value of the colonial-built
legacy. In 2013, a Commission de classement des biens culturels was founded, and in
2015, three buildings in Kinshasa have officially been listed by the Ministry of Cul-
ture as sites of “historical” (rather than of architectural) interest: a chapel built by the
American Baptist Foreign Mission Society in 1891; the house in which lived the first
president of Congo, Joseph Kasa-Vubu, and the Monument des héros nationaux, an
impressive, 210-meter-high tower structure in concrete, erected in the early 1970s.
In the last decade, some initiatives to document and create awareness for the (post)
colonial architectural heritage have been launched by Belgian and French partners.
The French Ministry of Culture and Communication organized several Journées du
patrimoine in Lubumbashi and facilitated two publications, one on Lubumbashi
(2008) and the other on Kinshasa (2010). The Université Libre de Bruxelles is currently
working together with the Institut des Musées Nationaux, the Société des Architectes
Democratic Republic of the Congo 43
du Congo and Congo’s UNESCO branch, among others, to mount a master course on
architectural heritage in DRC. In 2014, the Ministry of Housing and Planning, with
funding of the World Bank, commissioned a project to elaborate a methodology to
inventorize the architectural and urban heritage in six Congolese cities as a first step
toward defining future urban development plans.
In Lubumbashi, some interesting alternative approaches to heritage have emerged.
Scholars from the university studied the urban memory of the citizens, paying attention
to the city’s lieux de mémoire, while the local cultural association (Picha) has organized
since 2008 four editions of an art biennale, during which the city’s urban space and
architecture were re-appropriated through artistic interventions. Such exploratory work

presents new challenging ways to re-assess the future of Congo’s architectural legacy.
Johan Lagae
Links
Atlas of architecture and urban landscape:
http://www.wikinshasa.org/index.php/Accueil (in French)
Inventory of the heritage in the Democratic Republic of the Congo:
http://www.urbacongo.info/index.php/INVENTAIRE_DU_PATRIMOINE_DE_RD_CONGO
(in French)
Bibliography
B. De Meulder, Kuvuanda Mbote. Een eeuw koloniale architectuur en stedenbouw in Kongo
(Antwerpen, 2000).
Kinshasa, eds. J. Lagae & B. Toulier (Brussels, 2013).
J. Lagae, “Momo in the ‘Heart of Darkness’. Challenges to the Documentation and Conserva-
tion of Modern Heritage in Central Africa”, in Modern Architectures: The Rise of a Heritage,
eds. M. Casciato & E. d’Orgeix (Liège, 2012): 109–118.
République Démocratique du Congo. Lubumbashi. Capitale minière du Katanga 1910–2010.
L’Architecture, ed. H. Maheux (Lubumbashi, 2008).
Y. Robert, “Réflexions autour des interactions entre patrimoine et développement. A partir de
l’exemple de la patrimonialisation de l’architecture coloniale en République Démocratique
du Congo”, in Icomos 17th General Assembly (Paris, 2011).
B. Toulier, J. Lagae & M. Gemoets, Kinshasa. Architecture et paysage urbains (Paris, 2010).
44 Africa
EGYPT
Figure 3.4 Antoine Selim Nahas, Taleb Building, Cairo, 1947. Listed in circa 2010
Source: Docomomo Photo Archive, 2012.
The prime institution in charge of Egypt’s heritage is the Ministry of Culture. In the
mid-1990s the Center for Documentation of Egyptian Antiquities (1955, derived from
the Supreme Council of Antiquities of 1859, then Egyptian Antiquities Organization
since 1971), listed early twentieth-century buildings, based on somewhat random
recommendations rather than on field surveys and scientific classification criteria.
Independently from the ministry, several pilot initiatives were focused on downtown
Cairo, and a new project in progress aims to document the architectural heritage of
Zamalek District and Mansoura up until 1940.
In 2001, the ministry founded the National Organization for Urban Harmony
(NOUH) in order to focus on the aesthetic values of significant and historical heritage
spaces. Among NOUH’s activities are the implementation of pilot projects aimed at
demonstrating and applying the principles and standards of urban harmony, and the
documentation of modern buildings in endangered districts starting from downtown
Cairo and Heliopolis. In the absence of a dedicated cultural heritage act or a heritage
Egypt 45
planning unit, NOUH plays an instrumental intermediate role between activists and
executives and the legislative authorities. Such debates crystallized particularly around
the controversial current law regulating the demolition of non-dilapidated buildings and
establishments and preservation of heritage (No. 144/2006). It is of inefficient applica-
tion due to various flaws: the ban on the demolition of valuable architectures is loosely
phrased, thus allowing for explicit violations; although the law advocates the restora-
tion of modern heritage, it fails to commit any institution to specific guidelines, and such
ambiguity is a source of confusion about whether the restoration is to be executed by
the owner himself or another stakeholder; finally, the law does not clarify precisely any
governmental financial obligations. The need to revise this law has recently become an
urgent and recurring call in the media, and in architectural, political and urban work-
shops and conferences, in order to rescue Egypt’s modern architecture. In 2012–2013,
this was very apparent in Port Said which has recently suffered the destruction of a vast
number of buildings. This is also true for historic and greater Cairo, Alexandria and
many provincial cities where many nineteenth-century villas and houses are being torn
down every day as a result of the absence of effective and realistic protection laws.
The dawn of the twenty-first century witnessed several efforts to document modern
architecture. While the situation in certain districts of Cairo was tracked by scholars col-
laborating with semi-governmental institutions, such as the Center for Documentation
of Cultural and Natural Heritage (2000), the Bibliotheca Alexandrina has attempted
to document the modern heritage of Alexandria, although it lacks the methodological
approach applied in the capital. Beyond these cases, modern architecture remains under-
documented and in its embryonic stage, except for the efforts of NOUH which coor-
dinates with municipal committees in 27 governorates to survey and inspect reported
valuable architectures with respect to Building Law (No. 119/2008), which prevents
demolition without prior municipal authorization, and which regulates architectural
and urban codes of modern architecture in historic cities.
At the time of writing, just as Egypt is undergoing its most critical changes, so is its
constitution that shapes laws and executive actions related to architectural protection.
The inefficient and poorly conceived constitution of 2012 has served in a positive way
the purpose of triggering the debate between activists, professionals and policy mak-
ers about heritage protection in the newer constitution.
Article 213 of the suspended constitution assigns the task of heritage protection
and the supervision of its collection and documentation, safeguarding its assets and
reviving the awareness to a not-yet-established institution, the Supreme Authority
for Heritage Conservation (SAHC). This met with a disappointed reception due to
the uncertain time frame required for its creation, its bureaucratic mechanism and
accountability, the background of its founding members and expert advisors. Of
major concern also is whether the SAHC would place modern architecture on its
agenda or not and, if so, it is questionable that it could appeal and amend the 2006
law and be vested with legislative power to implement the new amended law as is
deemed necessary to best protect the architectural heritage. This suggests that in order
to avoid further confusion, misinterpretations and misapplications, it will be neces-
sary to consecrate a clause exclusively dedicated to architectural protection in the
future constitution. That clause would precisely define the parameters between mod-
ern architectural heritage and monuments and would involve citizens in their own
heritage under the umbrella of a fully empowered governmental institution. Another
suggested amendment is the inclusion of a sentence to the effect that the state is
46 Africa
committed to all heritage and architecturally related international conventions and
charters previously signed.
Ola Seif
Links
National Organization for Urban Harmony:
http://www.urbanharmony.org/ (in Arabic, English and French)
Center for Documentation of Cultural and Natural Heritage (Cultnat):
http://www.cultnat.org (in English)
Bibliography
R. Bodenstein, “Industrial Architecture in Egypt from Muhammad ‘Ali to Sadat: A Field Sur-
vey’”, in Workplaces: The Transformation of Places of Production: Industrialization and the
Built Environment in the Islamic World, ed. M. al-Asad (Istanbul, 2010): 41–80.
A. Shaimaa, The Pioneer Egyptian Architects during the Liberal Era (1919–1952) (Cairo, 2011,
in Arabic).
M. Volait, Architectes et architectures de l’Egypte moderne (1830–1950): Genèse et essor d’une
expertise locale (Paris, 2005).
M. Volait, L’architecture moderne en Egypte et la revue al-‘Imara (1939–1959) (Cairo, 1988).
Eritrea 47
ERITREA
Figure 3.5 Calisto Varnero, Nyala Hotel, Asmara, 1965–1971. Listed in 2003
Source: Edward Denison, 2003.
The richness of Asmara’s built heritage is striking evidence of a colony that was a
proving ground for modern architecture and urban planning in a uniquely African
context. Eritrea is a former Italian colony (1890–1941) and the British administration
(1941–1951) that was annexed by Ethiopia (1961) and later gained its independence
48 Africa
(1991). The country is endowed with an abundant and diverse cultural heritage, with
exceptional examples of early twentieth-century urban and architectural heritage assets.
During the colonial era, thousands of buildings designed in modern styles, includ-
ing Futurism, Novecento and Rationalism, were built in Eritrea. Asmara has an
exceptionally complete and significant collection of modern architecture, such as the
aircraft-inspired Fiat Tagliero petrol station (1938), with a freestanding concrete can-
tilever roof, and the Cinema Impero (1937) dominated by white vertical panels with
columns of strip windows and porthole lights.
Throughout Eritrea’s 30-year armed struggle for independence, few buildings were
constructed, and the once state-of-the-art infrastructure deteriorated to the point of

ruin. Following the international trend in the early 1970s, numerous tall buildings
were proposed for Asmara, but few buildings were realized due to political insta-
bility. After 1991, investment was encouraged and new buildings were constructed
throughout the country. The Technical Department of the Municipality of Asmara
granted permits for the construction of high-rise buildings in the city centre. The
most important buildings which were constructed during the 1990s include the Nakfa
House (1995), the Red Sea Trading Building (1995), designed by the Michael Tedros
architectural consulting firm, and the Blue Building (1996), by the EKIP consulting
firm. These buildings were incompatible with the city’s physical character and scale
and threatened its urban fabric, its historic setting and its visual integrity. In the mid-
1990s, a heated debate occurred around the logic behind the development of high-rise
building in the historic centre and on how to protect its modern architectural heritage.
The debate gave rise to a new awareness among professionals, decision makers and the
general public that the historic buildings and the urban environment were under threat
and in need of protection. The government took the initiative to establish a heritage pro-
gramme: the Cultural Assets Rehabilitation Project (1999–2007, CARP). The aim of the
project was to identify and preserve the nation’s cultural heritage assets, which resulted in
various studies and guidelines directed at Asmara-built heritage. This included the delin-
eation of a Historic Perimeter (HP), the inventory of significant buildings, the designation
of a list of over 400 protected buildings, the development of planning guidelines for the
HP and the publication of books. In 2009, a National Heritage Programme was launched
aiming to safeguard heritage by rehabilitating selected buildings and public spaces and
by enhancing heritage conservation practices at a municipal level. The CARP and the
National Heritage Programme laid the foundation for improving understanding of mod-
ernist architecture as an important component of cultural heritage.
Using the CARP’s methodology, protected building designation was arranged in
three preservation categories: complete, partial and selected. Criteria for classification
included age, architectural merit and historical significance. Approximately 800 his-
torical buildings have been identified, of which 420 were designated on the protected
building list. The list includes predominantly modernist architecture, but also includes
buildings constructed before 1982. The most recent listed buildings are the Nyala
Hotel (1965–1971) by Calisto Vamero, the Ambassador Hotel (1972) by Alfredo
Derde and the Bahti Meskerem Square (1982). The classification appears complex
as well as having shortcomings as a means of achieving good conservation practice.
Therefore, there is an ongoing effort by the Department of Public Works Development
to review and undertake a comprehensive study on classification and categorization of
contemporary architectures.
Eritrea 49
The need to safeguard twentieth-century architectural heritage is not confined to
Asmara but also applies to other cities, such as Massawa, Keren, Dekemhare, Agordat
and Assab, all of which have their own distinct architectural and urban characteris-
tics. Although the sheer quantity and concentration of modernist buildings in Asmara
is unparalleled, these other sites also have significant modern buildings which need to
be protected as national heritage.
The Italian building regulations (Regolamento edilizio, 1938) have remained in place
until recently. Even though these regulations are old, the content remains valid and
applicable for conservation purposes in the city centre. These rules have been incorpo-
rated into the present planning and management instruments, including the Planning
Initiative for the HP of Asmara (2003) and Outline Urban Planning Regulation (2005).
Eritrea has recently adopted its first national heritage legislation for the protection
and management of cultural and natural heritage: The Cultural and Natural Heri-
tage Proclamation (No. 177/2015). The proclamation gives the power to the Ministry
of Education to exercise, on behalf of the state, all rights pertaining to the manage-
ment, preservation, conservation, safeguarding, restoration, protection, promotion and
development of cultural and natural heritage. In addition, the Ministry is responsible for
the development of heritage-related regulations, policy instruments and the registration
of heritage resources with the relevant stakeholders including communities, groups and
individual practitioners. Eritrea has demonstrated a strong desire for heritage protec-
tion and has developed a strong public and professional awareness in the conservation
of its modern patrimony. With regard to Asmara, a conservation master plan, planning
norms and technical regulation are being studied in order to preserve and valorize its
modern architectural heritage. The production of these conservation policy documents
will serve as a basis for the protection and conservation of modernist architecture.
Medhanie Teklemariam
Link
Asmara Architecture. Asmara, Africa’s Secret Modernist City:
http://www.asmara-architecture.com/ (in English and German)
Bibliography
N. Gebremedhin, E. Denison & G. Ren, Asmara: Africa’s Secret Modernist City (London, New
York, 2003).
A. Godio, Italian Architecture in Eritrea (Turin, 2008).
50 Africa
ETHIOPIA
Figure 3.6 Arturo Mezzedimi, City Hall, Addis Ababa, 1961–1964

Source: Postcard, 1965.
Ethiopia’s long history has been marked by the rise and fall of cities due to wars and
environmental degradation.
The current capital is an indigenously grown city which developed spontaneously
after its foundation (1886). The structure of Addis Ababa at the beginning of the
twentieth century was that of a multi-centered settlement with the imperial palace
compound, the main market place and the church compounds as the main nodes.
These villages, locally known as “Sefers” were similar to military settlements or
camps, which were allocated to regional rulers or state dignitaries. It brought people
of different classes and ethnic origins into closer proximity and created new ways of
living. The arrival and introduction of modern materials influenced the change in the
external appearance, finishing and durability of buildings. With the influx of foreign-
ers such as Indians, Greeks and Armenians to the capital, the nobility started using the
skills that were made available.
From its foundation up to the 1960s, Addis Ababa witnessed three distinct types of
urban and architectural development, namely the Meneliek-Zewditu period, the Ital-
ian occupation period and the post-occupation or modern period. The earlier devel-
opment, which continued up to the mid-1930s, was mainly indigenous with some
foreign influences. The occupation of 1936 to 1941 introduced early modernist archi-
tecture and colonial planning to the capital. Right after the occupation, a master plan
Ethiopia 51
based on the fascist leadership ideals was prepared, trying to use urbanity as a means
of showing Italian presence and domination. Segregation between Italian and indig-
enous quarters was one of its main features.
Following the establishment of the Institute of Archeology (1952), in collaboration
with the French archaeological mission, the government set up the proclamation to
provide for the protection and preservation of antiquities (No. 229/1966), considering
“antiquity” any construction having its origin prior to 1850. The Antiquities Admin-
istration was assigned to handle various activities such as archaeological research,
preservation and restoration of monuments and antiquities as well as museum man-
agement. After the 1974 revolution, the administration became a department of the
Ministry of Culture and Sports Affairs. In 1976 another reorganization took place
with the creation of the Center for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage
under the same ministry. Finally, following the formation of the Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia (1991), the center was upgraded to the Authority for Research
and Conservation of Cultural Heritage under the restructured Ministry of Youth,
Sport and Culture. This was due to the proclamation which provided for research and
conservation of cultural heritage (No. 209/200), which defines as cultural heritage the
products of any period of history.
During the 1960s, Emperor Haile Selassie’s government started a modernization
period which resulted in the design and construction of public buildings, changing
gradually the face of Addis Ababa. These modernist buildings were mainly designed
by European architects who set up their offices in the capital. With the founding of the
Organization of African Unity (OAU, today the African Union) in 1963 and the coup
attempt on Haile Sellassie a large number of multi-storey public and private build-
ings were erected. This construction boom continued until the overthrow of Selassie’s
government by the military council known as the Derg (1974–1987). Many of the
projects are located in the city center and along the major street axes.
The Addis Ababa City Hall (1961–1964), designed by the Italian Arturo Mezzedimi,
is a very prominent building in the old city center. There are several less known mod-
ernist public and residential buildings spread all over city. The apartment and office
buildings in Arat Kilo by the Swiss-French Henri Chomette are excellent examples of
the 1960s aesthetics of an articulated rough concrete facades with an arcaded ground
floor. Some modern buildings are the head office of the Commercial Bank of Ethiopia
(1965–1968, by Mezzedimi); the Africa Hall, headquarters of the United Nations
Economic Commission for Africa (1959–1961, and 1972–1975, by Mezzedimi); and
the Hilton hotel (1969), which displays some local features by borrowing elements
from historic Ethiopian architecture.
The quality of the 1960s buildings is proved by their continuous use over the last
60 years, mostly without any major renovation. As the focus of preservation by cul-
tural heritage authorities was mainly directed towards the protection of ancient and
medieval monuments, the early and mid-twentieth-century architecture was not seri-
ously considered until the last two to three decades. In the meantime, many of the
historic houses of Addis Ababa built during the beginning of the last century were
lost. The 1986 master plan delineated some of the buildings of the early century in the
city center as cultural heritage sites. In the revised master plan of 2004, the historic
city center and the intermediate zones were to be transformed through renewal and
respective upgrades, and a number of the Italian occupation period and the 1960s’
buildings were selected as cultural heritage sites and added to the previous list.
52 Africa
Today, the protection of twentieth-century heritage is becoming a hot issue, local
NGOs, such as The Ethiopian Heritage Trust (1993) and Addis Wubet (2005), are
trying hard to create public awareness. New training programs in conservation and
heritage management are established in the main universities, but with a country under-
going massive urban transformation, there is still more to be done in saving its modern
architecture.
Fasil Giorghis
Link
Ministry of Youth, Sports & Culture, Authority for Research and Conservation of Cultural
Heritage:
http://www.mysc.gov.et/ARCCH.html (in English)
Bibliography
F. Giorghis & D. Gerard, Addis Ababa 1886–1941: The City and Its Architectural Heritage
(Addis Ababa, 2007).
Ghana 53
GHANA
Figure 3.7 Navrongo Cathedral of Our Lady of Seven Sorrows, Navrongo, 1906–1920. Listed
in 2000
Source: Monica Maria Tetzlaff, 2014.
The end of the 1950s marked a time of great expectation in Africa, as a large num-
ber of the former colonies achieved their independence. In 1957, Ghana, known as
the Gold Coast under British colonial rule, became the first African state to declare
independence. One year later, the country joined UNESCO and some Ghanaian sites
became part of the World Heritage List. Nowadays, the immovable cultural heritage
includes forts, castles, merchant houses, mosques and other historical buildings. The
list incorporates Asante traditional sites, cemeteries, historic town walls located in the
north of the country and the fortified trading posts along the coast. Founded between
1482 and 1786, they were occupied at different times by traders from Portugal, Spain,
Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Germany and Britain, and they served the gold trade of
European-chartered companies.
The Ghana Museums and Monuments Board (GMMB, 1957) is the organization
responsible for the protection, conservation and management of Ghanaian heritage. It
identifies, recommends and declares national monuments and cultural objects, such as
buildings and sites of historical and cultural significance, and it defines the policy and
resources for the immovable cultural heritage. The board is governed by the National
Museum Decree (NLCD 387, 1969), which was further strengthened by the executive
instrument (E.I. 29, 1973) and by the World Heritage Convention, ratified by Ghana
54 Africa
in 1975. Heritage sites are also ruled by the National Commission on Culture (PNDC
Law 238, 1990), which supervises the implementation of programs for the preserva-
tion, promotion and representation of Ghanaian traditions and values.
In addition to the national monuments protected by the GMMB, Ghana has a
considerable legacy regarding its twentieth-century architecture. Post–World War II
buildings are important iconic site, and powerful symbols of national modernist tra-
dition. These more recent works are mostly located in the Accra and Kumasi areas,
where, since the 1950s, architects such as Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew, James Cubitt,
John Godwin and Gillian Hopwood have designed the Ghanaian infrastructure.
Among the Accra buildings are the Central Library (1956), the National Museum
(1956–1957) and the Junior Staff Housing (1962); while the stadium (1958) and the
engineering laboratories at the University of Science and Technology (1965) are in
Kumasi. The Social Center and Student Hall (1964–1967) are located at the Univer-
sity of Cape Coast.
The existing legislative framework has been guided by 1960s laws, only partially
amended in the 1990s. As a result, most of the rules for immovable cultural heritage
protection have not seen any major review over the last 50 years, and twentieth-
century buildings are still not inserted in the list of protected Ghanaian sites. The
law preserves several castles and forts linked to the Atlantic slave trade, such as Cape
Coast, St. George’s d’Elmina and Christiansborg. The National Commission on Cul-
ture suggested preserving as monuments also contemporary public and private build-
ings of historical significance and of exceptional design and excellence; however, local
authorities have not always adopted this practice. One of the reasons for twentieth-
century buildings’ state of abandon is that late colonial and post-colonial buildings
were built after the year 1900, one of the GMMB’s defining principles that determines
the historical significance of buildings. The most recent built architecture is the Old
Navrongo Catholic Cathedral (1920), built by French missionaries in 1906 and part
of the UNESCO’s Tentative List since 2000. The building is a mixture of local con-
struction techniques and European design, the last of its kind in Ghana. The roof is
made of pitched corrugated iron sheets, and on the walls is an interesting combina-
tion of Nankani-Kassena imagery and Catholic symbolism created by women of the
Navrongo community, beginning in 1973.
Although the government provides funding for conservation and routine main-
tenance activities of the buildings inscribed in the Heritage and Tentative Lists,
there are no sufficient resources to adequately protect buildings designed after
1900. Gradually disappearing, twentieth- and twenty-first-century sites are some-
times irreparably damaged and in desperate need of restoration. The Ghana Insti-
tute of Architects (1964, founded in 1954 as Gold Coast Society of Architects)
and other associations, such as ArchiAfrika, based in Accra, have called for the
effective implementation of policies in order to protect twentieth-century archi-
tecture in Ghana and to encourage identifying it as heritage buildings. These orga-
nizations are successfully leading the restoration of some modern buildings in
the country while they are also promoting a discussion focused on the need of a
Ghanaian management plan for heritage policies. The immediate challenge of this
plan will ensure regular maintenance of buildings in order to mitigate the impacts
of climate and the increasing urban pressure in Ghana, but it will also put in place
a long-term strategy for the development of national and regional regulations to
Ghana 55
guarantee the preservation and restoration of all buildings of historical and cul-
tural significance built before and after 1900.
Elisa Dainese
Links
Ghana Museums & Monuments Board, Monuments Division
http://www.ghanamuseums.org/monuments.php (in English)
ArchiAfrika:
http://archiafrika.org (in English)
Bibliography
D. Aradeon, N. Elleh & R. Hughes, Central and Southern Africa World Architecture, 1900–
2000: A Critical Mosaic, Vol. 6, ed. U. Kultermann (Wien, 2000): 54–55, 66–67, 88–89,
104–105, 108–109, 180–181.
A. Folkers, Modern Architecture in Africa (Amsterdam, 2010), 292–352.
E.K. Fosu, National Building Regulations, 1996, L.I. 1630 (Accra, The Government Printer,
Assembly Press, 1996).
M. Herz, H. Focketyn, I. Schröder, J. Jamrozik, I. Baan & A. Webster, African Modernism: The
Architecture of Independence: Ghana, Senegal, Côte D’Ivoire, Kenya, Zambia (Zurich,
2015): 18–140.
H. Le Roux, “Modern Architecture in Post-Colonial Ghana and Nigeria”, Architectural His-
tory, 47 (2004): 361–392.
56 Africa
KENYA
Figure 3.8 Karl Henrik Nøstvik, Kenyatta International Conference Centre, Nairobi, 1967–
1973. Listed in 2013
Many Kenyan towns are the offspring of the Lunatic Railway (1896–1901), built by
the British Empire, that traversed the country from the Indian Ocean to Lake Victoria.
What were at first mere railway depots quickly morphed into urban centres.
The smaller Swahili towns have a distinct origin, with their presence along the coast
already documented in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. This region was later con-
quered by the Portuguese, Turks and Omanis, while the British turned it into their
protectorate. All infused their architectural influences into ports like Mombasa. On the
Kenya 57
other hand the new inland cities offered an architectural tabula rasa for the influx of
inhabitants from Europe, the Indian subcontinent and finally by Africans. The first stud-
ied attempt to turn Nairobi into a garden city was a master plan commissioned in 1948.
Nairobi (1899) was always an ephemeral city – none of its inhabitants considered
it their ‘real’ home. For the British, home was still the United Kingdom, for Asians the
Indian subcontinent and for Africans always the rural areas; thus Nairobi, Naivasha
or Nakuru did not ‘belong’ to anyone as such. Like passengers of a train stranded
at a station, all were expecting to move on. Consequently there is little affiliation
with the urban heritage of the hinterland. The result is a laissez-faire relationship to
the maintenance of buildings. Independence (1963) created an additional ambiguity

toward preservation of colonial works, such as the neoclassical buildings by Sir Her-
bert Baker of the 1920s and 1930s, which at the same time are a source of continued
national pride.
Today, in a society of pronounced economic divisions, with vast areas of urban pov-
erty, it is not reasonable to expect concern with the protection of modern architecture.
This is virtually the domain of a small middle class. In 2013, during the exhibition
on Conservation & Restoration of Historical and Cultural Assets, it emerged that the
Kenyatta International Conference Centre by Karl Henrik Nøstvik had been defaced,
when its bare concrete surface was painted a purplish hue and, now a billboard sur-
rounds the inward collar on the top, its most nevralgic centre. It is considered one of the
best modern buildings in Africa, and one of the few contemporary buildings in Nairobi
that draws inspiration from vernacular works. The brutalist Holy Family Basilica (1963)
by Dorothy Hughes, the only woman to have won such a prestigious commission in this
region of Africa, has just had the entirety of its exposed concrete painted. Of particular
note is the demolition in 2000 of the imposing modernist Oceanic Hotel (1950–1951)
by Ernst May in Mombasa. Outstanding architectures have largely survived, such as the
Parliament Buildings (1952) by Amyas Connell. Among the reasons for the excellent
quality of post-1945 workmanship was the expertise of Kenyan-Italian contractors and
architects, such as Rinaldo Petrozzi, followed later by Israeli ones. In the 1940s to 1960s
Kenya went through a remarkable late embracing of Art Deco by Kenyan-Indian archi-
tects and contractors, but most of the buildings are now being taken down. Surprisingly,
some minimalist villas by Singh Bharbra survive. In Prince Aga Khan, the country found
its Maecenas, as he supported the creation of some ambitious contemporary buildings,
for example, the Girls High School (1949–1951) in Kisumu by May. Now Kenyan-
Africans are transforming towns, with such fine works as the NSSF Building (1973) by
Joel Nyaseme. David Mutiso, a founding member of the Architectural Association of
Kenya, was involved in setting within its charter the architectural protection as one of
its objectives. Among his own projects is the UN Habitat Headquarters (1975), which
is mandated to provide global urban solutions. In Nairobi, David Bristow introduced
modular building, becoming a major designer of skyscrapers, of which Times Tower
(1997) was for a long period the tallest in East and Central Africa, while James Archer
has similarly reshaped the skyline. Currently Chinese builders are making inroads by
introducing their own materials and construction methods.
The Ministry of National Heritage and Culture is obliged by the constitution
(1969, replaced in 2010) and the National Museums and Heritage Act (No. 6/2006)
to preserve cultural heritage, while its recent incongruous redefinition as the Ministry
of Sports, Culture and Arts has relegated even further any concern for contempo-
rary architecture. Overt references in legislation on this issue were to be found in the
58 Africa
National Policy on Culture and Heritage (2009), which stated that tangible culture
“includes archaeological findings, which testify to the high degree of our past civilisa-
tion, as well as contemporary architecture, which is a visible sign of Kenyan creativ-
ity”. In practice, all protection is left to the discretion of any building management.
An authoritative proposal of modern architectural protection was prepared by Vetle
Jorgensen in 2002, though unimplemented.
The National Museum of Kenya (1930) is devoted to the collection, preservation
and presentation of cultural and natural heritage. In 2015, for instance, it gazetted the
African Heritage House (1980) as a listed building.
A low-key public poll is under way by the Architectural Heritage Advisory Com-
mittee to select notable sites, albeit with no clear criteria.
Jacob Barua
Link
National Museums of Kenya:
http://www.museums.or.ke/ (in English)
Bibliography
J. Barua, Nairobi: A Utopia in the Eye of a Beholder (Bregenz, 2012).
U. Ghaidan, Lamu: A Study of the Swahili Town (Nairobi, 1992).
A. Hake, African Metropolis: Nairobi’s Self-Help City (London, 1977).
E. Herrel, Ernst May: Architekt und Stadtplaner in Afrika 1934–1953 (Frankfurt, 2001).
Morocco 59
MOROCCO
Figure 3.9 Marius Boyer, Assayag Building, Casablanca, 1930. Listed in 2003
For the last few decades, increasing importance has been devoted to modern archi-
tecture, in particular for the so-called Art Deco heritage. The press, politicians and
academicians are more and more interested in this issue.
The legal system for cultural heritage protection is the result of nearly 70 years
of reflection on approaches to conservation of such a rich and varied heritage. A
more complete cultural vision has progressively replaced the restrictive concept of
ancient heritage conservation. Today, legislation on the cultural and natural heri-
tage is based on the dahir 1-80-341 of the Safar 1401 (No. 22/1980), related to
the conservation of the monuments and historical sites, and the registration of art
objects and antiquities. This decree not only deals with isolated elements and their
context, but also affects the relevant sites. It was followed by a decree of applica-
tion No. 2-81-25 of Hijja 23rd 1401 (1981), where two measures of protection are
foreseen: classification and the registration. It takes into consideration all historical
ages in the national territory.
In Morocco, contrary to what might happen in other neighboring countries, the law
relating to the national heritage regards historical monuments from the very origins
of colonial presence. The first law is the dahir of 26 November 1912, in which it is
affirmed that
60 Africa
les ruines des constructions antiques antérieures à l’Islam, celles des Palais de
Nos Prédécesseurs, leurs enceintes et leurs dépendances, les monuments religieux
ou profanes ayant un caractère historique ou artistique, etc., sont placés sous la
surveillance spéciale du Maghzen qui en assurera la conservation
and that they “pourront faire l’objet de décrets de classement”. The importance of
protection and conservation was evident ever since the first months of the French Pro-
tectorate. The 1912 dahir was integrated by another in 13 February 1914. This decree
regards the preservation, through the registration of art and antiquities of particular
interest, of the context in which the monuments, the sites and their natural properties
are located. Registration prohibits the demolition of the listed works. This dahir does
not mention the preservation of the medinas, but includes the protection of sites as
urban sites. During the first years of the protectorate, therefore, Morocco experienced
intense activity relating to the protection of walls, doors, Kasbahs, madrase, etc. From
the 1920s, this protection was even extended to the areas around the monuments and
some urban development, while from the 1940s heritage protection included some
rural sites, falls, lakes, valleys, etc.
The dahir of 21 July 1945 is the second important action for the history of heri-
tage protection. It replaces the 1914 dahir with regard to all protections previously
established and including “villes anciennes et architectures régionales”. It is the first
law to describe the protection of buildings and allows the use of rules “destinés
à préserver le caractère des villes anciennes” and “les zones rurales qui possèdent
des architectures particulières.” Therefore, authorization to build in the protected
areas cannot be given without the approval of the historical monuments inspector.
Protection includes whole medinas; therefore, as in the case of Fez, Marrakech and
Meknes, whereas rules for artistic protection had previously only been enacted for
the same towns, imposing the enforcement of bonds for the appearance of the build-
ing facades in the medinas.
There were about another 40 laws and dahir between 1912 and 1956, which regu-
lated preservation under the French Protectorate. On the other hand, the only dahir
that affected the area of Tangiers is dated 1925; the northern area of Morocco, under
Spanish rule, had not been given any particular legal attention and, furthermore,
another ten years after independence (1956) would be needed before the laws in force
were extended to the whole country.
In conclusion, law No. 22/1980 started the registration of monuments, via a simpli-
fied procedure and a quick practice of heritaging, since previous texts only included
the registration procedure. This law, contrary to the 1945 dahir, no longer dealt with
protection of historical towns and regional architectures exactly as they are. If we
compare this law with the World Heritage Convention (1972), confirmed by Morocco
(1975), the absence of the notion of “patrimoine culturel” in the law is surprising and
clashes with its importance in the text of the convention. Nevertheless, the 1980 act
allowed the registration of more than 100 buildings from the first half of the twenti-
eth century onto the national heritage list, such as the Benarrosh Building (1928) by
Aldo Manassi in Casablanca or the Assayag Building (1930) by Marius Boyer and
other works in Tangier and Kenitra. Nine sites are on the World Heritage List, includ-
ing a twentieth-century area in Rabat, while Casablanca has been on the Tentative
List since 2013. In 2015, the Casablanca authorities set up a new body in charge of
heritage: Casablanca Patrimoine. A modification of the 1980 act was submitted to
Morocco 61
parliament by the Ministry of Culture two years ago, and this proposal focuses even
more clearly on the twentieth-century areas and the urban-scale approach. The legis-
lative process is still ongoing.
Abderrahim Kassou
Links
http://www.minculture.gov.ma/fr/index.php/patrimoine2/sites-et-monuments-classes (in Arabic
and French)
Casamemoire, Association for the Preservation of the Twentieth-Century Architectural Heritage

in Morocco:
www.casamemoire.org (in French)
Bibliography
J.-L. Cohen & M. Eleb, Casablanca: Mythes et figures d’une aventure urbaine (Paris, 1998).
“Contemporary Moroccan Architecture”, Mimar: Architecture in Development, ed. H.-U.
Khan, 22 (October–December 1986), 13–47.
U. Kultermann, “The Architects of Morocco”, Mimar: Architecture in Development, ed. H.-U.
Khan, 7 (1983): 60–66.
Patrimoine et patrimonialisation au Maroc. Hesperis Tamuda, XLV, special issue ed. M. Berri-
ane (2010).
Reconnaitre et protéger l’architecture récente en méditerranée, eds. R. Carabelli & A. Abry
(Paris, 2005).
62 Africa
MOZAMBIQUE
Figure 3.10 Paolo Gadini (ascr.), Rádio Moçambique, former Rádio Clube de Moçambique,
Maputo, 1948–1951. Listed in Plano da Baixa do Maputo, 2015
Mozambique has a considerable legacy regarding its twentieth-century architecture,

that is to say historical buildings belonging to the late colonial phase, in which Portu-
guese political power was centralized in an authoritarian way in Lisbon, Portugal, in
Europe. An historical phase ended in 1975 when the country achieved independence.
These recent works are mostly located in Maputo (formerly Lourenço Marques) and
Beira, but also in southern medium-size cities (Quelimane, Inhambane, Chimoio) and
secondary cities in central and northern areas (Nampula, Tete, Lichinga, Pemba).
Mozambique 63
Today we can visit eclectic/iron constructions, mainly from the 1900 to 1920s mod-
ernist and neo-traditional/nationalistic buildings from the 1930s to 1950s and finally
the rich and qualified modern legacy belonging to the 1950s to 1970s period. These
historical periods and their characteristics follow the evolution of Portuguese-Euro-
pean architecture. Important and qualified architects worked and built in this period,
such as Pancho Miranda Guedes and João José Tinoco, leaving an extensive amount
of quite elegant, original and significant projects.
The departure point for legislation regarding protection of twentieth-century build-
ings was the Lei de Protecção do Património Cultural (Cultural Heritage Protection
Law, No. 10/88, from 22 December 1988). The act states the classification of all items
before 1920 and designates as national or local monuments those historical build-
ings which significantly express existing interaction in Mozambique between differ-
ent cultures and civilizations (Art. 3.4a), including recent ones. This law is presently
regulated and moderated by the Ministry of Culture, while classification or its cancel-
lation lies with the Council of Ministers. These principles are followed by the Monu-
ments, Ensemble and Sites Conservation Criteria and Conservation Rules (Normas
para a Conservação e Critérios de Classificação de Monumentos, Conjuntos ou Sítios,
2003), still under completion.
In 2010, the Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning of Universidade Eduardo
Mondlane in Maputo prepared a document to be approved as the systematic regula-
tion of building protection, and in April 2010 the government approved the Politics
for Museums and Monuments, a document establishing the main guidelines and rules
for these heritage areas. Mozambique public politics and resources are very limited,
however, and real architectural protection and conservation depend on international
actions and financing.
Buildings in other cities might be proposed for official classification and protec-
tion, as in Inhambane, but the main information and public action relate to the capi-
tal city. In 2010, Maputo counted a certain number of protected buildings. Some of
them belong to the 1900 to 1920s, others to modernist and neo-traditional phases
and only a few can really be considered modern buildings: for instance, the apart-
ment building Leão Que Ri (Laughing Lion, 1956–1958) by Guedes, is classified as
a local monument, as is the Polana Church (Local Monument, 1962) by Craveiro
Lopes. Both are very qualified and original and could deserve national protection
classification.
The most significant group of protected constructions is integrated in the Baixa
de Maputo (downtown) central area, regarded as an urban ensemble since the 1984
official study for cultural heritage, and including about 16 classified architectures.
As for national monuments, it is possible to refer to some post-1918 buildings: the
Municipal Council building (1937–1947), by Carlos César dos Santos; the Catholic
Cathedral (1936–1944), by Marcial Simões de Freitas e Costa, included in class A of
the Plano da Baixa de Maputo, which was approved by the Maputo Municipal Coun-
cil in 2015), Radio Mozambique (1948–1951) by Paolo Gadini, Telecomunicações
de Moçambique (1946–1948), both included in class B of the same plan. There are
also isolated buildings spread all over the city, such as the Municipal Council Cultural
Center (1939) in Chamanculo’s popular quarter.
There is still a vast amount of work to be done regarding real protection of
these buildings and the inclusion of a number of constructions not considered in
the national lists. For instance, the buildings by Guedes, as a whole, represent a
64 Africa
high-level series of extraordinary projects, if you compare them to other modern
features in Africa or elsewhere. But because they are mainly private colonial and
eccentric design works, it is difficult to consider them. There are studies and com-
plete lists of Guedes buildings available, produced by Portuguese and Mozambican
architects, that could easily be a basis for such organized protection, if political
power and will would permit it.
Other cities, such as Beira city, have remarkable modern buildings that are protect-
able, such as the Grand Hotel (1950, now exhibited as an exquisite ruin), the São
Jorge Cinema (1954, recently renewed) and possibly the most remarkable building
ever built in Portuguese colonial dominions, the Central Railway Station (1966). Also
of note, in secondary provincial cities is the Niassa Government Head offices (1962)
at Lichinga, a imaginative Brazilian influenced work by Tinoco, and many others. The
field remains open for protecting, renewing and saving an enormous number of mod-
ern and almost completely unknown buildings. It must be stated that – unlike what is
presently happening in Luanda – local authorities and cultural agents are reasonably
aware of the importance of such legacy, its significance for local urban communities
and its potential uses in present-day contexts.
José Manuel Fernandes
Links
Ministry of Culture and Tourism:
http://www.micultur.gov.mz/ (in Portuguese)
Heritage of Portuguese Influence Portal:
http://www.hpip.org/ (in English and Portuguese)
Bibliography
J.M. Fernandes, “Sub-Saharian Africa: Architecture and Urbanism. An Interpretation”, and
“Mozambique”, in Portuguese Heritage around the World: Architecture and Urbanism –
Africa, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, ed. J. Mattoso (Lisbon, 2012, vol. 3): 181–275, 495–591.
J.M. Fernandes, M.d.L. Janeiro & O. Iglésias, Moçambique 1875–1975: Cidades, Território e
Arquitectura (Lisbon, 2008).
J.M. Fernandes, Geração Africana. Arquitectura e Cidades em Angola e Moçambique 1925-
1975 (Lisbon, 2002).
Inventário do Património Edificado da Cidade de Maputo. Catálogo de Edifícios e Conjuntos
Urbanos Propostos para Classificação, eds. L. Lage & J. Carrilho (Maputo, 2010).
A. Magalhães & I. Gonçalves, Moderno Tropical: Arquitectura em Angola e Moçambique
1948–1975 (Lisbon, 2009).
Manual de Conservação do Património Cultural Imóvel em Moçambique, ed. A. Jopela
(Maputo, 2012).
Nigeria 65
NIGERIA
Figure 3.11 National Arts Theatre, Iganmu, 1976. Listed in 2009

Source: Gillian Hopwood, 2011.
Nigeria has a comprehensive record of traditional buildings written by Zbigniew

Dmochowski, who undertook this task between 1958 and 1965 while employed by
the body responsible for listing historic sites (Federal Antiquities Department; since
1979 the National Commission for Museums and Monuments). This study makes
only a passing reference to the imported styles of construction in colonial times and
a little earlier, when Africans started returning from Brazil and Cuba, bringing with
them the construction skills and Portuguese style of Mediterranean architecture.
It is possible to identify three historical periods of building construction: pre-1861,
before the British colony was created at Lagos; the period which might be termed
the “colonial interlude”, lasting for about 100 years; and the period of the so-called
“Wind of Change” (1950–1980s) when British colonies moved from being a group of
European-dominated dependencies to self-governing sovereign states. Much more has
been built, particularly in Abuja.
In West Africa, special funds were needed to fast-track the preparation of territories
for self-government, together with expansion of their infrastructures. This was largely
provided by Commonwealth Development and Welfare Funds, but the shortage of
building professionals and construction expertise locally led to commissioning private
consultants and contractors from overseas. An influential source of tropical research
was the British Building Research Station (1921, Building Research Establishment
66 Africa
since 1972), which published Colonial Building Notes. It helped practitioners ben-
efit from construction experience elsewhere in the tropics and to ensure local input,
which supported new initiatives in tropical design and construction; by 1956 there
was established a West African Building Research Institute located in Ghana.
In 1955 John Godwin and Gillian Hopwood were commissioned by the then
Antiquities Department to identify buildings and sites on Lagos Island which should
be “protected”, despite a lack of local enthusiasm in heritage listing. The Godwins
themselves had reservations about a policy that would conflict with developments on
Lagos Island, inevitably restricting its future development as a capital city. Further-
more, modern constructions were limited by antiquated by-laws which fortunately

under the leadership of Tim Aluko, a forward-looking town engineer, in 1959 under-
went a major updating to match the ambitions of developers, opening the flood gates
to ambitious multi-storey structures.
After independence (1960), the Federal Republic of Nigeria plunged into a civil
war (1967–1970). The preservation and conservation of antiquities and monuments
are now addressed by the National Commission for Museums and Monuments Act
(Decree No 77/1979, amended as Chapter 242/1990) established by a military govern-
ment started during the oil boom of the 1970s. The Monuments Act provides for the
preservation of antiquities as well as twentieth-century architectural heritage through
subsidiary legislation. For example the Old Secretariat building (1905) designed by
the colonial Public Works division, was designated a national monument in 1982. The
majority of the buildings listed under the federal legislation were registered between
1956 and 1982. It does not appear that anything constructed after 1965 has been
listed for protection in the Federal Monuments Act.
After a long period of military juntas interspersed with failed attempts at civilian
rule, a stable democracy was achieved in 1999, and sub-national governments have
taken steps to address the issue of heritage conservation. In 2009, the Lagos state gov-
ernment enacted a law to provide for the preservation, protection and restoration of
historical properties and cultural heritage sites (Listed Sites Preservation Law, 2009).
It prohibits the alienation of listed property without the consent of the governor. It
also provides for reasons why a site may be listed as being of architectural or historic
interest, while these sections allow for the inclusion of the modern and contemporary
architecture. In fact, section 9 indicates that there is no time limit for designation.
However, it is interesting to note that more recent buildings constructed in the mid-
twentieth century have not been listed in the federal law, the most recent of sites
being registered in 1956. The focus of listed sites annexed to the Monuments Act has
traditionally been of older colonial-era and antiquated sites. By contrast, the Lagos
State Law has gone on to list buildings constructed later, such as the National Theatre
building (1976) by the Bulgarian construction company ‘Techno exportstroy’, mod-
elled on the Palace of Culture and Sports at Varna, Bulgaria.
There is a need for a new assessment of the stock of sites throughout the country that
could qualify for protection and conservation. Public interest from within the country
as well as from abroad is also growing, thanks to cultural institutes and NGOs, while
the tourism potential has yet to be tapped. A registered charity, LEGACY 1995, has
been set up by Godwin and others since 1995 to preserve national built heritage.
This aim has spread over three basic functions: education, culture and preservation.
Many proposals for restoration have been turned down by the owners, and where
buildings have been listed by government, generally there is no budget to carry out
Nigeria 67
restoration or maintenance work, and in some cases where it has been done, it has
been insensitive.
Lanre Shasore and John Godwin
Link
Alan Vaughan-Richards African Modernism Archive:
https://sites.eca.ed.ac.uk/avrarchive/ (in English)
Bibliography
K. Akinseymoyin & A. Vaughan Richards, Building Lagos (Jersey, 1977).
Z. Dmochowski, An Introduction to Nigerian Traditional Architecture (London, 1999).
G. Hopwood & J. Godwin, The Architecture of Demas Nwoko (Lagos, 2007).
G. Hopwood & J. Godwin, A Photographer’s Odyssey: Lagos 1954–2014 (Lagos, 2015).
S.N. Zubairu, M.E. Abdulrahman, P. Ayuba & O.F. Adedayo, “A Study of Listing of Buildings
and Monuments in Nigeria (1956–2009)”, Journal of Economics and Sustainable Develop-
ment, 7 (2012): 89–99.
68 Africa
SENEGAL
Figure 3.12 Souleymane Reda, Musée Boribana, Dakar, 1995. Listed in 2015
Senegal is the westernmost country on the African continent and features a complex
history of local and foreign influences on its architecture. Dakar was settled by indige-
nous groups before the arrival of the Portuguese in the fifteenth century. Later fall-
ing into the hands of the French colonizers, Dakar was named a commune in 1887.
Ever since being named the capital of French West Africa (AOF) in 1902, the region
of Dakar has seen a large European expatriate population that has helped shape the
architectural legacy of the nation.
The first national laws pertaining to national heritage and preservation were passed
in 1971 (loi 71-12), only a few years after the nation won its independence (1960).
In addition to setting regulations for archaeological sites, the decree established the
process for naming natural, historic, artistic and picturesque landmarks which were
worthy of preservation for their contribution to national history. With this special des-
ignation, any such site, private or public, required government authorization prior to
modification; the officials even retained the right to occupy and restore national heri-
tage sites as their budget allowed. The first list of historical sites and monuments was
published in 1973 and later expanded by several decrees (décret No. 77-900/1977;
arrêté No. 001941/2003; arrêté ministériel No. 23.269/2015). A continental leader in
the realm of arts and culture, Senegal passed laws pertaining to national heritage even
Senegal 69
before UNESCO began recognizing its historical landmarks in 1978, and is one of 16
African nations with members in the Organization of World Heritage Cities. Many of
Senegal’s oldest landmarks are geological sites of interest, but its most famous might
be Gorée Island, as renowned for its charming eighteenth- and nineteenth-century
French colonial architecture as it is infamous for its role in the Atlantic slave trade.
In 2001, the Commission du Bilan du Patrimoine, reporting to the Ministry of
Culture, called for a new inventory of sites and monuments along with a scientific
report on each item’s condition (décret No. 2001/1065). Currently, there are 142 sites
conglomerated in the region of Dakar and an additional 262 individually named sites
across the nation’s other départements. Not bound by specific date limits, Senegal’s
heritage list includes sites ranging from prehistoric geology to very recent works. The
highest concentration of historic architecture can be found in the Dakar plateau; this
area around the Place Soweto features dozens of historic villas, colonial buildings and
modern sites of government, including the former Institut Fondamental d’Afrique
Noire (1931, remodeled 1934 by Ernest Brun; today the Théodore Monod Museum
for African Art) and the Palais de l’Assemblée Nationale (1956). In addition to these
constructions, the list features a selection of school and university buildings, museums
of history, cemeteries, mosques and a cathedral. Particularly notable sites include the
Presidential Palace (1907) by Henri Deglane, Cathédral du Souvenir Africain (1936)
by Charles-Albert Wülffleff, Grand Mosque (1964) by French and Moroccan archi-
tects and Daniel Sorano National Theater (1965). The latest additions to the heritage
list from the 2015 decree were the African Renaissance Monument (2010), Musée
Leopold Senghor (1978) by Fernand Bonamy and the Musée Boribana (1995). The
first, a massive sculpture, was constructed by the Mansudae Art Studio of North Korea
in partnership with former Senegalese president Abdoulaye Wade and houses interior
gallery spaces and several administrative offices. Proposed in 1990 with construction
finishing in 1995, the Musée Boribana was designed by Souleymane Reda and began
as a private institution dedicated to the contemporary artistic production of artists
from Africa and its Diaspora. Loosely based on the forms of a piano, this well-kept
concrete and glass structure is an architectural gem in Dakar’s Ngor neighborhood.
The organization and enforcement of this lengthy, inclusive national heritage decree
fall to the Minstry of Culture and Communication, whose office includes a division
for the Direction du Patrimoine Culturel. Given the restrictions of the national bud-
get, there are not sufficient funds to adequately address the restoration of older sites
and maintenance of all others. The Minister, accordingly, prioritizes projects on an
annual basis and has begun to consult with patrimoine experts from other African
countries. Among the projects on slate for 2016, the ministry aims to address the
erosion of Gorée Island, rehabilitate the sacred sites of Halwar, convert Khalifa
Ababacar Sy’s residence into the Museum of Tidjania (or Tijaniyya) and renovate sev-
eral mosques. Even though a few examples of traditional architecture are addressed
annually, many of these sites designated as historically or culturally significant have
fallen into disrepair – including some architectural icons from the twentieth century.
For example, the Palais de Justice in Cap Manuel (1906) once housed the nation’s first
court of law but has devolved into an archive of court records in extreme disrepair.
Local architectural historians have lamented the lack of funds to address the visible
erosion of twentieth-century architecture, both those listed as national historic sites
and others from the Dakarois cityscape.
Joseph L. Underwood
70 Africa
Link
Ministry of Culture and Communication, Directorate of Cultural Heritage:
http://www.culture.gouv.sn/?q=direction-du-patrimoine-culturel (in French)
Bibliography
R. Filippetti, Modernità ibride: Esperienze d’architettura in Senegal (Milan, 2014).
M. Hinchman, Portrait of an Island: The Architecture and Material Culture of Gorée, Sénégal,
1758–1837 (Lincoln-Nebraska, 2015).
T. Shaw, Irony and Illusion in the Architecture of Imperial Dakar (Lewiston, NY, 2006).
A. Sylla, L’architecture sénégalaise contemporaine (Paris, 2000).
South Africa 71
SOUTH AFRICA
Figure 3.13 Wilhelm Bernhard Pabst, Chinese United Club Mansions, Johannesburg, 1948.
Listed in 1993
Source: Brendan Hart, 2016.
The first legislation in the then Union of South Africa (established in1910) to pro-
tect cultural heritage was the Bushman-Relics Protection Act of 1911. This piece of
legislation was introduced to protect the historical and cultural artefacts found in
the newly united former colonies preventing their destruction and exportation. As a
former British colony, later legislation designed to protect built environment heritage,
such as the Natural and Historical Monuments, Relics and Antiques Act (1934) and,
after the Republic in 1961, the National Monuments Act (NMA, No. 28/1969), drew
on the established heritage traditions and legislation. As can be expected, under the
apartheid government, the NMA was used to bolster and highlight the heritage of the
ruling minority, reinforcing colonial and Afrikaner nationalist identity through the
declaration, protection and restoration of their heritage sites.
After the country’s first inclusive democratic elections (1994), new heritage leg-
islation was enacted. The National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA, No. 25/1999)
builds on the legacy of the NMA, but it is very much in the optimistic post-1994 spirit
of inclusivity, idealism and reconciliation. The NHRA recognizes both physical and
intangible heritage. It is driven by public interest and input, a “bottom up” system,
72 Africa
as a means of determining cultural significance. In addition, the NHRA allows for
the devolution of power from a centralized national authority to provincial and local
authorities. This is in stark contrast to the rigid and authoritative approach previously
taken by the NMA. The South African Heritage Resources Agency is the national
administrative body responsible for the protection of cultural heritage and together
with provincial heritage resources authorities is one of the bodies that replaced the
National Monuments Council (1969–2000, established in 1923 as Historical Monu-
ments Commission).
The approach to conservation has similarly evolved. Under the NMA and the
apartheid government a restoration approach was generally favoured with many early
colonial sites being restored back to a perceived state of “perfection”. Conservation
practice has evolved with the change in legislation. Many prominent conservation
projects, such as the new Constitutional Court precinct in the former Johannesburg’s
Old Fort Prison Complex (1892, a declared National Monument in 1964 although
it continued as a functioning prison until 1987), use what can best be described as a
critical approach to conservation. It was developed and restored by various architects,
including the insertion of the new Constitutional Court building (2004) by OMM
Design Workshop and Urban Solutions, the adaptation and restoration of the old
Women’s Jail (2005) and the repair and restoration of the Old Fort (2008) by Kate
Otten Architects. Inventive new insertions are placed on a site where varying con-
servation approaches, from restoration to the “building as document” are instead
applied to reveal and expose cultural significance. This follows the trend of major
new conservation projects that tend to focus on heritage related to the anti-apartheid
struggle, which had been neglected.
Under current legislation there is no minimum age limit for the declaration of a
building as a heritage resource. Significant architecture of any age could be declared
and protected in one of three grades: 1 for National Heritage status; 2 for Provincial
Heritage status; 3 for Local Heritage status or as part of a heritage area. Declarations
tend to be driven by public interest and conservation bodies who invest their time in
pushing the process forward.
While there is no limit on the declaration of twentieth-century architecture as
heritage sites, apart from a limited number of seminal modernist buildings and
new heritage sites relating to the anti-apartheid struggle, few have been declared.
Among the youngest examples of architecture declared is the Mandela House
located at the former Victor Verster Prison (1960s), which was the last place the
former president was held in prison prior to his release in 1990, as well as many
Johannesburg examples of the work of the expressive modernist architect Wilhelm
Bernhard Pabst, including Patidar Mansions (1947–1950) and the Chinese United
Club Mansions (1948). It could be argued that this is due to the limited resources
of the heritage authorities. The structure of heritage legislation in South Africa,
however, places the responsibility on groups interested in contemporary archi-
tecture, the architectural community and the public at large. Recent campaigns,
such as the on-going protest that has halted the destruction and led to the decla-
ration of the Werdmuller Centre (1969–1976) in Cape Town, an expressive but
now defunct shopping centre constructed out of reinforced off–shutter concrete
and glass designed by Roelof S. Uytenbogaardt, the quality of which is rarely
found in South Africa; the establishment in 2010 of a Docomomo branch in the
country; an increasing number of younger professionals becoming involved in the
South Africa 73
field of conservation; and growing interest in contemporary architecture by more
traditional conservation bodies, suggests that this process is underway. With time
this will hopefully result in a flourishing contemporary architectural conservation
practice within the country.
Yasmin Mayat and Brendan Hart
Links
Artefacts, Southern African Built Environment:
www.artefacts.co.za (in English)
The Heritage Portal:

www.heritageportal.co.za/ (in English)
South African Heritage Resources Agency, declared sites:
www.sahra.org.za/declaredsites (in English)
Bibliography
C.M. Chipkin, Johannesburg Transitions: Architecture & Society from 1950 (Johannesburg,
2009).
H. Le Roux, B.R. Hart & Y. Mayat, “Aiton Court: Relocating Conservation between Poverty
and Modern Idealism”, Docomomo Journal, 48 (1/2013): 56–61.
S. Marschall, Landscape of Memory: Commemorative Monuments, Memorials and Public
Statuary in Post-apartheid South-Africa (Leiden, 2010).
J.A. Noble, African Identity in Post-apartheid Public Architecture: White Skin, Black Masks
(Farnham, 2011).
J.J. Oberholster, The Historical Monuments of South Africa (Cape Town, 1972).
74 Africa
TANZANIA
Figure 3.14 Norman & Dawbarn Architects, Kwame Nkrumah hall at the University of Dar es
Salaam, 1970s. Listed in 2015
Source: AAMatters, 2005.
The United Republic of Tanzania is a union between Tanganyika and Zanzibar (1964).
During the past two millennia, islands and coast have been the place of mercantile
exchange, mixing African, Arab, Persian, Indian, Chinese and, more recently, European
cultures. This has led to a fusion into the Swahili culture, with its own language, art and
architecture. Little remains from inner mainland historical architecture. What remains
today is a contemporary version of the traditional, or vernacular, architecture, which is
disappearing fast due to the transition to buildings erected in modern materials.
With the advent of the European powers (1885–1890), Dar es Salaam developed
into a German garden city, and Zanzibar was taken over by British administration
and turned into a typical, segregated colonial city, with the foreigners living in Stone
Town and the natives on ‘The Other Side’, the English translation of Ng’ambo. Under
the colonial administrations, investments were made in urban development, which
have left us with many examples of tropical Art Deco and modernist buildings, such
as the architectures designed by Anthony B. Almeida. After the German capitulation
(1918), Tanganyika was placed under the mandate of the British until independence
in 1961, whereas Zanzibar gained its independence in 1963. Although the union is
placed under a central government, culture, education and tourism remained the inde-
pendent responsibility of the respective governments. Both capital cities took over
British protection regulations, and those monuments that were listed under the colo-
nial administration were absorbed by the new laws.
Tanzania 75
On the mainland, protection was regulated under the Preservation Act (No.
10/1964, amendment No. 22/1979). This act provided for the conservation of sites
and objects of national, archaeological, historical and cultural interest. On Zanzibar,
protection of cultural property is covered by the Ancient Monuments Preservation
Act (1948), and all gazetted monuments are regulated by the Department of Archives,
Monuments and Museums. The Stone Town Conservation and Development Author-
ity Act (1994) provided for the protection of cultural property as historic areas, and
the Authority (STCDA, 1984) has the responsibility of conserving Stone Town and
the legal provision of declaring any area or town as a conservation area. Tanganyika’s
heritage made before 1863 is automatically classified as monument, while the listing
of later structures is under the declaration order of the minister responsible for antiq-
uities. Historical buildings and urban historic quarters start from German buildings
to those of the 1960s and others, which due to their outstanding values, have been
declared historical monuments.
Awareness of the cultural value was not a priority under the young independent
and socialist regimes, and there were few threats to the built heritage during the first
decades after 1964. The only exception was the demolition of the Kaiserhof (1906) in
Dar es Salaam. It is possible that aversion against racism was remembered and played
a role in the decision to demolish this fine hotel.
From the 1980s, out of Tanzania, there was an increase in interest for heritage. The
Germans took the initiative to restore two monuments of the colonial era: the Ocean
Road Hospital and St Joseph’s Cathedral in Dar es Salaam. Since 1989, Aga Khan
Trust for Culture restored the old dispensary, Kelele Square and Forodhani Water-
front in Stone Town Zanzibar. In 1983, UNCHS published extensive research on
Stone Town, which led to the establishment of the STCDA, thanks to the support of
Western organizations. Among other significant initiatives, in 1980 the Conservation
Training Centre was established in Bagamoyo, and in 2000 Zanzibar Stone Town was
inscribed on the World Heritage List.
In the 1990s, the political and economic situation had made a 180-degree turn:
from a closed socialist system, Tanzania became a liberal capitalist country. Free rein
was given to economic growth, and subsequent pressure on the cities to transform
into modern trading towns has taken its toll on its built heritage. In 2007, the increas-
ing economic pressure on heritage by developers and politicians alike has led to the
rejection of the proposed extension of Mainland’s Preservation Act proposing over
100 monuments added to the original 26 listed in Dar es Salaam, which was mysteri-
ously reduced to 25. This decision was taken in order “to pave the way for the con-
struction of high-rise structures that would help the economic growth”, as the then
minister stated. The situation in late 2013 is that entire blocks of the city centre of
Dar es Salaam, containing multiple worthy buildings of the early twentieth century,
are being demolished to make room for the high-rise developments. At the same time,
protests are heard, and they are not only coming from well-meaning foreigners, but
also from Tanzanian citizens. Publications are seeing the light, and public debate is
heating up. The ArchiAfrika Conference in 2005 can be seen as a starting point in
the reappraisal of built heritage. Ensuing cooperation between the Architects Associa-
tion of Tanzania, Ardhi University and the Technical University of Berlin has led to
the establishment of the Dar Centre for Architecture Heritage (2013). Today, private
entrepreneurs and government representatives, together with Stadsherstel Amsterdam
76 Africa
and AAMatters, are leading to the establishment of Hifadhi Zanzibar, a commercial
private–public city restoration company in 2015.
Antoni S. Folkers and Berend van der Lans
Link
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. Antiquities Division:
http://www.mnrt.go.tz/sectors/category/antiquities (in English)
Bibliography
ArchiAfrika, Conference Proceedings: Modern Architecture in East Africa around Indepen-
dence, Dar es Salaam, July 27–29, 2005 (Utrecht, 2005).
A. Folkers, Modern Architecture in Africa (Amsterdam, 2010).
J. Jokilehto, Assignment Report on Training on the Architectural Conservation in the United
Republic of Tanzania (Paris, 1987).
Tunisia 77
TUNISIA
Figure 3.15 Olivier-Clément Cacoub, Museum Habib Bourguiba, Skanès Palace, Monastir,
Source: Mohamed Bergaoui, 2015.
A country of Arab-Muslim tradition, Tunisia is resolutely committed to the contem-

porary movement.
During the French protectorate, two architectural styles were adopted: colonial, fol-
lowing the European trend, and neo-Moorish, a hybrid style born from the meeting
of tradition and modernity and from the effort to unite them. Thus, respectively, there
are the French Embassy and the Cathedral of St. Vincent de Paul in the European dis-
trict of the capital on the one hand and the Ministry of Finance in the Medina on the
other, whose revitalization of recent heritage by the Association de Sauvegarde de la
Médina de Tunis was rewarded by the Aga Khan Award for Architecture in 2010. Heri-
tage protection in Tunisia started before independence (1956), when the Department of
Antiquities and Arts (1886, National Institute of Archaeology and Art since 1957, and
National Heritage Institute since 1993) permitted the classification of historic monu-
ments and works of art. Between 1913 and 1927, a dozen decrees concerning architec-
ture and urban complexes of Arab-Muslim tradition – such as medinas and traditional
villages, palaces, mansions and mosques or monumental mausoleums – were ratified.
Since 1953 (Decree of September 17) measures of protection have also included sites.
With independence, Tunisia opted for modernity, in particular social and cultural,
experiencing great changes, whilst not giving up some aspects of its own tradition.
The industrial development was accompanied by rapid urban expansion, while
regional decentralization accelerated the movement and the modern spirit prevailed
over everything. Architects adopted a modern style for public buildings and infra-
structures, but also housing units and estates, based on the Le Corbusier’s works, such
as the district of El Menzah.
Modernity also meant legislation. The law of 15 August 1979 (completed by the
decree of 8 May 1980) stated that urban development plans are subject to the rules of
78 Africa
the town planning code. In the 1980s, heritage protection was extended to traditional
urban complexes and assets of artistic interest, besides archaeological remains and
monuments (laws No. 86-35 of May 9th, 1986, and No. 88-44 of 19 May 1988,
completed by the Archaeological, Historical and Traditional Arts Heritage Code,
No. 94-35 24 February 1994). The current act states that a National Heritage Com-
mission grants its opinion and submits proposals to the Ministry of Culture and
Heritage Preservation regarding the protection and listing of historic monuments,
protection of archaeological goods, creation of conservation areas and protection
of cultural sites. In particular, the code considers urban complexes as historic and
traditional (art. 3), whereas historic monuments (art. 4) are those cities, towns and
neighborhoods and immovable properties which, thanks to their architectural quality,
uniqueness, harmony or integration into their environment, are of national or univer-
sal value in terms of their historical, aesthetic, artistic or traditional aspect, without
time limit. Moreover, buildings within 200 meters from the edge of a monument are
subject to special provisions. Today, Tunisia counts 937 national monuments, and the
most recent built architecture is the so-called Ksar Bourguiba Skanès (1963, listed in
2002) by Olivier-Clément Cacoub, subject to a museographical project.
Economic development and social progress both facilitate cultural opening. While
keeping its Arabic ties, the country gets closer to Europe, as can be seen in the rapid
spread of the international architectural language in the capital and in big cities, such
as Sfax and Sousse. It also happens that contemporary architecture adapts the tra-
ditional one by adding new structures or renovating and restoring with current ele-
ments. Three examples illustrate this trend. The renovated National Bardo Museum (a
seventheenth-century former royal palace) is characterized by the fluidity of its spaces,
through the interpenetration between tradition and the contemporary. The Tunis City
Hall (1997–2000) by W. Ben Mahmoud can be considered the current treatment of
traditional forms and decorations (grand façade, symmetrical composition, carved
plaster ceilings, roofs painted with floral motif), with contemporary rhythm (large
areas, opening to light, glass arcs) in an established connection with Spanish-Moorish
art. Hotel Dar Kenza (2007–2010) in Chénini at Tataouine, on the edge of the desert,
is the fruit of an audacious architectural gesture and a welcome tourist area on the
side of a rock peak well-linked into the landscape. It establishes a kind of sculpture
emanating from the rock: its materials harmonize with the soul of its environment.
This heterogeneity of architectural forms may appear disparate and rather soulless.
Furthermore, there is a gap between the codes, laws, decrees and orders of imple-
mentation, and the difficulties that their applications encounter, due to the absence
of a real culture of respect for the law. Currently, there is an effort by the state to
ensure adequate education, as the quality of architecture is a mirror of civilization and
should be a civic duty for citizens and a categorical imperative for architects.
Faten Rouissi and Insaf K. Zaghouani
Link
Docartis, Catalogue of Protected Heritage:
http://www.docartis.com/pagina2/catalogo_tunisia.htm (in Italian)
Bibliography
L. Ammar, Histoire de l’architecture en Tunisie: de l’antiquité a nos jours (Tunis, 2005).
F. Matri, Tunis sous le protectorat: Histoire de la conservation du patrimoine architectural et
urbain de la Médina (Tunis, 2008).
4 Americas
Argentina – Brazil – Canada – Chile – Colombia – Costa Rica – Cuba – Ecuador – Mexico –
Peru – United States of America – Uruguay – Venezuela
80 Americas
ARGENTINA
Figure 4.1 Clorindo Testa and Estudio SEPRA, Bank of London and South America, Buenos
Aires, 1960–1966. Listed in 1999
Source: César Loustau/Cedodal, 1970.
Even if the first decades of the twentieth century saw some emblematic buildings
being declared National Historic Monuments, it was only in 1940 that the law for
their protection was passed (Ley No. 12/665). During the following years, several
buildings from almost all provinces were classified, but more importance was always
given to historical and symbolic issues than to architectural qualities. In 1984, politi-
cal change saw the renewal of the National Commission of Museums, Monuments
and Historic Places (Comisión Nacional de Museos, Monumentos y Lugares Históri-
cos) and new concepts were promoted. This technically improved the declarations
procedure and opened up a new approach, which also took previously ignored less
ancient works and utilities into consideration, such as railway stations, bridges and
private houses, among others. Today, there are around 400 buildings or sites on the
national list.
At the end of 1987, Casa Curuchet (1948–1953), located in La Plata and designed
by Le Corbusier, was declared a National Historic Monument. After that, other dec-
larations followed, such as the Casa del Puente (1943–1946, listed in 1997) in Mar de
Plata by Amancio Williams and the Ciudad Evita (1947, listed in 1997) within Greater
Buenos Aires, and in the city of Buenos Aires the Banco de Londres y América del Sur
(1960–1966, listed in 1999) by Clorindo Testa and Estudio SEPRA, and the Auditorio
Argentina 81
Juan Victoria (1960–1970) in San Juan by Carmen Renard, Mario Pra Baldi and
Eduardo Mario Caputo Videla.
On a national level this was to protect several buildings dating from the modern
movement by taking into consideration their architectural features, their creators,
the impact that such constructions had generated at their time and the symbolism
they represented. By now, classifications were based on a list of technical, historical
and legal data that allowed a more complete vision of their status and the risks they
could possibly suffer. Under similar consideration were ensembles of buildings, their
environment and their relationship with the landscape, so that today we are in the
position that also intangible values are treated.

Meanwhile, in provinces and municipalities legal protection was progressing,
although in very different ways. In some cases, it was only a list of buildings “of
interest” (de interés), whereas in others both architecture and town planning were
considered, and in others again it was possible to proceed with protection and tax
incentives for those who properly maintained the inventoried buildings, such as in the
city of Bahia Blanca.
In Buenos Aires municipal prizes were given between 1902 and 1972, although
such awards take into account mainly the preservation of the façade. As this hap-
pened at the same time as the construction itself, there was an immediate assessment
of several buildings of the Modern Movement, although it carried no legal protection,
just public distinction. Some other cities carried out similar initiatives over time.
The new constitution (1994) included articles referring to cultural and environmen-
tal heritage that in some ways have contributed to the conservation of architectural
heritage. The same happened with some provincial constitutions and with that of the
city of Buenos Aires, which thereafter has acquired its own autonomy. Being consti-
tuted as a federal republic since 1853 has led to differences between provinces and
municipal governments, and consequently there is much variety in all these areas.
However, in many of these sites there is a tendency to maintain the “old way” which
prioritizes age at the expense of other qualities. Also, in many sites there are declara-
tions, but no regulations or effective tools for their protection. Therefore, it is possible
to see a wide range of differences within the country, where protection is excellent in
big cities and in other isolated spots where they seem mostly related to local policies
and to the movements of researchers or NGOs who care about the issue.
Among the latest success stories, we should highlight what the city of Santa Fe is
doing with its railway heritage, especially with regard to its industrial context. In the
light of the Modern Movement, the conversion of the port silos into an up-market
hotel is significant.
The Grupo de Arquitectura Moderna Argentina (2012) has undertaken some
research on the architecture of the Modern Movement, first of all on movie halls and
then on other areas such as housing projects, hospitals and other public buildings.
Some of these investigations have been successful and after publication have encour-
aged legal protection. Some years ago, a group working on the Correo Argentino
buildings was formed because this state-owned company had undertaken massive
redevelopment of its headquarters and built many offices and warehouses all over the
country from the late 1940s onwards. In 2013, a book was published with the results
of this research. Some of these buildings have received municipal and provincial pro-
tection, but one of the aims of this work was to give special value to other buildings
82 Americas
that had almost been forgotten by the heritage authorities and to raise public aware-
ness of their historical and architectural significance.
Graciela María Viñuales
Link
National Commission of Monuments, sites and historical heritage, heritage list:
http://cnmmlh.gob.ar/bienes-protegidos/descarga-listado/ (in Spanish)
Bibliography
Arquitectura moderna y Estado en la Argentina. Edificios para Correos y Telecomunicaciones.

1947–1955 ed. A. Collado (Buenos Aires, 2013).
R. Gutiérrez, “La Arquitectura en la Argentina. 1965–2000”, Historia del Arte en la Argentina,
11 (Buenos Aires, 2013): 17–87.
Monumentos Históricos Nacionales y otros bienes declarados de la República Argentina, ed.
O. Andrés de Masi (Buenos Aires, 2008).
Brazil 83
BRAZIL
Figure 4.2 Oscar Niemeyer, church of St. Francis of Assisi, Pampulha, 1942. Listed in 1947
Source: Rodrigo Espinha Baeta, 2012.
The law that defined the protection of historical and artistic heritage in Brazil was
the brainchild of the same group of intellectuals and architects who organized the
Modern Art Week (1922) in São Paulo. Besides the law on the Protection of Cultural
Heritage, the Office of National Historical and Artistic Heritage was also created,
being given the responsibility for the care of monuments and important sites. The
main character of this office was Lúcio Costa, author of the Pilot Plan of Brasília.
The office was later transformed into an Institute (Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico
e Artístico Nacional, IPHAN).
The basic law regarding the conservation theme in the country was inspired by the
French law of 1913 with some improvements, and it is still in force. Bill No. 25/1937
was quite advanced for its time: it dealt with the preservation of cultural landscapes
and natural sites, as well as movable and immovable assets, urban complexes and
cities, without any minimum limitation of age. Although there is no specific legisla-
tion regarding contemporary architecture, many modernist buildings and gardens are
listed by IPHAN.
The current law defines national heritage as being “constituted by the group of
movable and immovable goods within the Country, whose conservation is of public
interest, regarding their connection to important facts of Brazilian history or their
exceptional artistic or bibliographic, ethnographic or archeological value” (art. 1).
Then it adds “natural monuments are as important as the goods previously referred
to and also subject to classification, in addition to sites and landscapes which may
be preserved due to their notable appearance, either natural or transformed by the
human action” (art. 2).
84 Americas
The basic text was complemented by specific legislation on archaeological sites
(Law No. 3,924/1961) and intangible heritage (Decree No. 3,551/2000). However,
there is a lack of specific legislation on city centres and historic cities, which brings
socio-economic problems and fails to avoid the systematic distortion of the monu-
ments’ surroundings or the destruction of many buildings of contemporary value by
real estate speculation, especially homes in rich inner-city zones.
One of the first contemporary buildings listed as a monument by IPHAN was the
Ministry of Education and Health (Edifício Gustavo Capanema, 1939–1943) in Rio
de Janeiro. This building is a national and international landmark of Brazilian Mod-
ernist Architecture because it was originally designed by Le Corbusier for another

location in 1936, but redesigned within the same principles by a team of Brazilian
architects led by Lúcio Costa, with the collaboration of Oscar Niemeyer, Carlos Leão,
Affonso Eduardo Reidy, Ernani Vasconcellos and Jorge Machado Moreira. It is the
first building in the world to adopt a curtain wall and a whole facade of brise soleil.
This monument was included in the list of IPHAN in 1948.
The church of Saint Francis of Assisi (1942), in the neighborhood of Pampulha
in Belo Horizonte, was listed in 1947. The church was designed by Niemeyer
and has tile panels by Cândido Portinar, who painted the mural War and Peace
in the United Nations Headquarters in New York. The Pampulha Complex, built
around an artificial lake, comprises the church, the Cassino (1942, today Museu
de Arte da Pampulha), the Iate Tênis Club (1942) and the Casa do Baile (1943,
today Centro de Referência de Urbanismo, Arquitetura e do Design), and were all
designed by Niemeyer with landscaping by Roberto Burle Marx, listed in 1997.
Other icons of the early Brazilian modernist architecture in Rio de Janeiro, such
as the Estação de Passageiros de Hidroaviões of Santos-Dumont Airport (1937,
today Instituto Histórico-Cultural da Aeronáutica), by Attilio Corrêa Lima, and
the headquarters of the Associação Brasileira de Imprensa (1938), by Marcelo
and Mílton Roberto, were declared monuments by IPHAN, respectively, in 1957
and 1984. Still in Rio de Janeiro, the Parque do Brigadeiro (1965), designed by
Affonso Eduardo Reidy with landscape by Roberto Burle Marx, and the Parque
Eduardo Guinle (1948–1954), by Lúcio Costa, were to be classified as landscape
sites in 1965 and 1986, respectively. Many other contemporary buildings were
included in the IPHAN list.
In Brasilia, the new capital of the country, the Catedral Metropolitana Nossa Sen-
hora Aparecida (1958–1970) designed by Niemeyer, was declared a monument in
1967. The whole city, designed by Costa and with many palaces and public buildings
designed by Niemeyer, was to be listed by IPHAN as a monument shortly afterwards.
Brasilia is considered the most important new city of the twentieth century, conceived
within the principles of the Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne. At the
request of the Brazilian government, with a dossier prepared by IPHAN, the city was
included in the World Heritage List in 1987.
Paulo Ormindo David de Azevedo
Link
Institute of National Historical and Artistic Heritage, heritage list:
http://portal.iphan.gov.br/pagina/detalhes/126 (in Portuguese)
Brazil 85
Bibliography
P.O. Azevedo, “Renato Soeiro e a institucionalização do setor cultural no Brasil”, in Estado e
Sociedade na Preservação do Patrimônio, ed. P.O. Azevedo & E. Lins (Salvador, 2013):
19–53.
Y. Bruan, Arquitetura Contemporânea no Brasil (São Paulo, 1981).
H.E. Mindlin, Modern Architecture in Brazil (São Paulo, 1956).
Proteção e revitalização do patrimônio cultural no Brasil: uma trajetória (Brasília, 1981).
86 Americas
CANADA
Figure 4.3 Viljo Revell, New City Hall, Toronto, 1961–1965. Listed in 1976
Source: Hugh Robertson, Panda Associates, courtesy NORR Limited (formerly John B. Parkin Associates),
1966.
Heritage conservation has developed in Canada much as it had developed in other

British Commonwealth countries and in the United States. Initial conservation efforts
that occurred during the nineteenth century were connected to the establishment of
formative national identity, the commemoration of military events and the founding
of towns and cities. In 1878 the oldest house in Toronto, a log cabin, was moved from
its original site to an exhibition grounds to be displayed and celebrated as an early
relic, yet in fact it was probably only about 70 years old at the time. These efforts were
increased during and after World War I when the recognition of Canadian pioneers
and patriots became prominent. At that time groups like the York Pioneers (founded
in 1869) started to purchase and restore historic sites as museum attractions that
would tell the history of early Canada. These spurts of activity around heritage con-
servation occurred again after 1945 and during the celebration of Canada’s centennial
year (1967). By this time, heritage conservation was seen not only as playing a role in
commemoration, but also as a potential tourism draw. Sites like Black Creek Pioneer
Village in Toronto were founded during the 1960s to promote education, tourism and
cultural heritage resource management.
Canada 87
Federal jurisdiction over heritage has been very limited in Canada, as the country is
founded on the basis of it being a confederation of self-regulating provinces. So while
the federal government nominates and recognizes national historic sites through the
National Historic Sites and Monuments Board (established in 1919 as the Advisory
Board for Historic Site Preservation), its only legal authority is over federally owned
or regulated properties. For those properties the federal government has a review pro-
cess for heritage conservation operated by the Federal Heritage Building Review Office
(established in 1982). This office advises on changes to these properties, and it works
with a 40-year rule: any property over 40 years of age is subject to a heritage evaluation.
Each province has developed its own heritage legislation, much of it initially enacted
during the 1960s and 1970s. Each province’s legislation is fairly distinct based on its
own cultural attitudes and approaches. In New Brunswick, for example, most of the
legislative power regarding heritage remains with the provincial minister in charge of
culture and heritage. In Ontario, much of that power is delegated to the individual
municipalities.
Because much of the built resources of Canada are fairly recent, there is a strong
interest in the conservation of significant modern structures. Unlike most countries
where there is one Docomomo working group, there are four working groups in
Canada, reflecting the diversity of approaches evident between the provinces. There
are active working groups in British Columbia, Ontario, Atlantic Canada and in Qué-
bec, and there have been conferences in Montréal and at Trent University that have
brought all of the working groups together.
At a municipal level it is the responsibility of the municipal council to determine the
criteria for heritage designation, and many municipalities do not put a date limit on
how old a building might be before it can be designated. In the early 1970s the city
of Vancouver considered the designation of the Marwell Building (1952) by Harold
Semmens and Douglas Simpson. This building was considered by many to be the fin-
est example of the International Style in the city, but unfortunately the designation
process could not deter its eventual demolition in 1976. Similarily the city of Toronto
recognized its New City Hall (1961–1965) by Viljo Revell as a heritage structure in
1976. The city of Toronto’s Inventory of Heritage Properties includes a large number
of buildings of the recent past, including recent public buildings, residential structures
and even components of the city’s subway system.
With the consideration of modern heritage there has also been an evolving re-exami-
nation of heritage values and what they contribute to a larger community. So, although
earlier conservation efforts were often biased towards specific communities which might
be considered elite, current work is often addressed at understanding values within larger
frameworks, such as cultural landscapes, urban environments and ecologies which con-
sider sustainability and the interconnectedness between different social groups and their
constructed environment. Examples of this type of analysis could be the Tower Renewal
work occurring in Toronto, that looks at the history of the high-rise suburban communi-
ties created in the 1960s and 1970s and proposes adaptive re-use strategies.
As recently as 2005 the province of Ontario released a regulation under the Ontario
Heritage Act that provided criteria for the designation of properties. These criteria
consider historical, physical and associative values. The criteria do not include any age
barrier, so theoretically a municipality could consider the designation of a newly com-
pleted building if it so wished. This flexibility, which is fairly consistent throughout
88 Americas
the provinces, has allowed heritage conservation to be explored fully and for Canadi-
ans to develop a rich mosaic for the patrimony of their country.
Michael McClelland
Link
City of Toronto, Heritage Preservation Services, database of listed and designated heritage:
http://www.toronto.ca/heritage-preservation/heritage_properties_inventory.htm (in English)
Bibliography
Atlantic Modern: The Architecture of the Atlantic Provinces, 1950–2000, ed. S. Mannell (Hali-
fax, 2004).
Concrete Toronto – A Guidebook to Concrete Architecture from the Fifties to the Seventies, eds.
M. McClelland & G. Stewart (Toronto, 2007).
Conserving the Modern in Canada: Buildings, Ensembles, and Sites, 1945–2005. Conference
Proceedings, eds. S. Algie & J. Ashby (Peterborough, 2005).
F. Vanlaethem, Patrimoine en devenir: l’architecture moderne du Québec (Québec, 2012).
Winnipeg Modern, Architecture 1945–1975, ed. S. Keshavjee (Manitoba, 2006).
Chile 89
CHILE
Figure 4.4 Juan Martínez, Benedictine Monastery and the Santísima Trinidad Chapel in Las
Condes, Andes Mountains, 1962–1964. Listed in 1981
Source: Pedro Bannen, 2013.
The development of heritage conservation in Chile should be seen in the light of its
colonial condition as part of the Spanish empire. Unlike Mexico and Peru, Chile was
home to simple, widely interspersed human settlements. It was not well known for
any easily obtainable and bountiful riches, and was war prone as well as resistant to
conquest. This implied a slow rate of development with modest constructions, most of
which were destroyed. In addition, national geography has always featured recurring
earthquakes, floods and tsunamis, all of which have put its heritage at risk over time.
After independence (1818), Chile addressed issues of identity and heritage during
its transition from a colony to a republic, characterized by a tendency towards mass
modernity as a general protective context. This defined how intellectual, professional
and political discourses established an institutional and regulatory framework for pro-
tecting heritage. By the early twentieth century an inclination towards conservation had
emerged across the region, lasting throughout the ensuing century. Although legislation
for protecting monuments was among the earliest in the region, the safeguarding of
contemporary architecture did not take place until the late twentieth century. 1925 saw
the definition of which buildings, monuments or places were worth protecting, without
focusing on groups of buildings, and saw the creation of the Consejo de Monumen-
tos Nacionales (CMN), which established the records and selection criteria for this
list (Decree No. 651). The current law on National Monuments (No. 17,288/1970) is
based on this initial legislation, adding the protection of ‘conservation areas’.
90 Americas
The regulations from 1925 dominated the conservation process for the next
45 years. Spanish forts and a few colonial mansions, followed by religious build-
ings, were some of the first buildings listed. Until then, the period of time that passed
between construction and the declared protection of monuments was rather lengthy.
By mid-century, republican architecture erected or refurbished between the nineteenth
century and the period of the centennial independence celebrations were given prior-
ity for protection. Such was the case of the former National Congress, the Municipal
Theatre, the Central Post Office and the National Library. Apart from La Moneda
(listed in 1951), other nineteenth-century palaces such as Alhambra, Cousiño and
Bellas Artes were only listed in the 1970s.

In addition to colonial and republican buildings, modern architecture began to be
considered worthy of protection in the early 1980s. The first Monumento Histórico to
be recognized were two religious buildings: the Templo Votivo de Maipú (1944–1971,
listed in 1984) by Juan Martínez and the Monasterio Benedictino de la Santísima Trini-
dad de las Condes (1962–1964, listed in 1981) in the seat of the Andes Mountains, in
the eastern sector of Santiago. This latter figures among the most notable works of mod-
ern architecture on the continent, compared to the finest examples of coeval architec-
ture in Brazil or Argentina. The various programmed components of the complex were
constructed progressively over time, from the gridded building by Jaime Bellalta, to the
guest quarters, the cemetery and the church by Martin Correa and Gabriel Guarda,
both recently graduated architects at that time who were members of the Benedictine
order. The building, approximately 500 square meters, is geometrically based on the
connection between two large concrete cubes, configured by sloped ground work that
brings together the various acts for each ritual performed at the site. The organization
of the liturgical components has also been recognized as a paradigm of post-conciliar
architecture. Warmth, seclusion and spirituality are expressed through the simplicity of
Corbusian architecture, which is fresh and free of any decor.
These two works are the only two pieces of modern architecture identified for pro-
tection in the twentieth century. There was no focus on this type of architecture during
the ensuing decades until the early twenty-first century. In 2003, the Estadio Nacional
de Chile (1937–1938) by Aníbal Fuentealba, Alberto Cormatches and Ricardo Muller
was listed as a building representative of modern architecture and an image of collec-
tive identity, in that its size dominated part of Santiago’s urban fabric. A year later, the
Escuela Pablo Neruda (1945) and the Escuela Arturo Prat Chacón in Tocopilla (1943)
become the first listed pieces outside the capital city. Today, these buildings, together
with those of the Caja del Seguro Obrero Obligatorio de Tocopilla (1939–1941) by
Luciano Kulczewski, are being promoted as conservation areas, which would make
this the first modern neighborhood in the country. A miners’ theater in Lota (1944)
and the building of the Cooperativa Eléctrica de Chillán (1962–1965) by Juan Borch-
ers, Isidro Suárez and Jesús Bermejo were listed between 2008 and 2009 as significant
pieces of the Modern Movement.
A turning point for the protection of modern architecture occurred during the first
Docomomo working group seminar, held in the Architecture School of the Pontifi-
cia Universidad Católica in 2005. Following this event, professionals became more
actively engaged in the protection of modern architecture. Still, such architecture
remains under-represented on the list of protected sites of the CMN, which has drawn
up a plan for the listing of modern architecture, working closely with the Pontifi-
cia Universidad Católica in a project focused on identifying the main components
Chile 91
of modern architectural heritage in order to propose adequate public preservation
policies.
Pedro Bannen and Macarena Ibarra
Link
National Monuments Council (CMN), database of listed heritage
http://www.monumentos.cl/catalogo/625/w3-channel.html (in Spanish)
Bibliography
“Manejo y normativa de monumentos nacionales”, Cuadernos del Consejo de Monumentos
Nacionales, segunda serie, 107 (2006).
F. Pérez, P. Bannen, H. Riesco & P. Urrejola, Iglesias de la Modernidad en Chile: precedentes
europeos y americanos (Santiago de Chile, 1997).
92 Americas
COLOMBIA
Figure 4.5 Rogelio Salmona, Quimbaya Museum, Armenia, 1987. Listed in 2008
From the end of the nineteenth century and during the first 30 years of the twentieth
century, a group of intellectuals began to work on the history of Colombian cities and
architecture, referring to four main historical periods: pre-Hispanic, Colonial, Repub-
lican (the first part of the twentieth century) and Modern (the mid-twentieth century).
The earliest studies of architectural protection were undertaken during the early
twentieth century, a very eclectic period when culture in Colombia was strongly influ-
enced by Europe and North America. In 1918 the Dirección Nacional de Bellas Artes
Colombia 93
was established as an annex of the Ministerio de Instrucción Pública, introducing
the concept of Patrimonio Histórico Nacional in relation to pre-colonial and colo-
nial public buildings, and monuments of recognized historic and artistic value (Law
No. 48). This was followed by Law No. 47 (1920), which added the concept of bien
cultural de interés público and started conservation studies aimed mainly at protect-
ing ancient cities from careless policies based on modernization via the demolition of
older buildings.
This approach to modernization adversely affected many cities after the 1930s,
and the destruction of much historic architecture prompted new thinking about heri-
tage protection. Decree No. 3,641 (1954) introduced the designation of monumento
nacional, including historic urban centres, and thanks to this the historic city of Villa
de Leyva in Boyaca was given national monument status. Decree No. 1,782 (1954)
instituted the Sociedad Colombiana Arquitectos as part of the Cuerpo Consultivo
del Gobierno Nacional, playing a key role in the policy of protecting architectural
heritage.
Law No. 163 (1959) introduced the concept of defensa y conservación del patrimo-
nio histórico, artístico y monumentos de la nación with the intention of also safeguard-
ing architecture from the Republican period, seen as an expression of independence.
The focus was now not only on individual buildings but also on their context and the
wider city; Law No. 163 led to the creation of the Consejo de Monumentos Naciona-
les as a department of the Ministerio de Educación Nacional.
The 1960s marked a major turning point in the politics of protecting cultural heri-
tage. In 1963, Carlos Arbeláez Camacho founded the first Institutos de Investiga-
ciones Estéticas in the most important universities: the Pontificia Javeriana, the Los
Andes and the Universidad Nacional, and under his guidance important studies were
begun into the history of art and architecture of Colombia.
Decree No. 3,154 (1968) led to the founding of the Instituto Colombiano de Cul-
tura, along with the Subdirección de Patrimonio and the División de Inventario del
Patrimonio Cultural. In the same year the Ministerio de Obras Públicas promoted the
creation of a Sección de Monumentos (Fondo de Inmuebles Nacionales since 1971).
1976 saw the birth of the Fundación para la Conservación y Restauración del Patri-
monio Cultural Colombiano del Banco de La República, which participated in sig-
nificant architectural and artistic restoration projects from the 1980s onwards. In fact
today the magazine PROA (1946) still continues to provide important historic testi-
mony of this intense activity, which in June 1990 led to the international symposium
on La ciudad como bien cultural.
By 1997 all the necessary political and cultural pre-conditions existed for the cre-
ation of the Ministerio de Cultura (Law No. 397). Today the ministry continues to
address many of the aims and objectives set out in UNESCO documents, in particular
by emphasizing the concept of bien cultural de interés público and introducing the
definition of valor simbólico for heritage, associating it with the ideals and desires of
collectivity, in recognition of the historical aspects of cultural heritage as a resource
and the importance of protecting it for the future. Article 4 underlines the impor-
tance of the concept of heritage of the nation and associates it with the concept of
intangibility.
The legislation was again brought up to date with a law on the Patrimonio Cultural
(No. 1,185/2008), followed by various regulations that were written into the Plan
Nacional de Recuperación and the Planes Especiales de Manejo y Protección (2010).
94 Americas
In recent years researchers have paid attention to the conservation of contemporary
architecture and, in the wake of Le Corbusier’s Plan for Bogotá (1947–1951), there
were numerous studies in the 1950s to 1970s, when many new buildings were con-
structed, that enabled important architectural practices to emerge. We are reminded
of the Centro Internacional Tequendama (1950s-1982), designed by Cuéllar Serrano
Gómez and listed in 2002, for “la estética de la modernidad propia de las décadas de
los 50 y 60,” and the last designation, on 26 July 2013, of the Campus Universitario
de la Universidad de Antioquia (1961–1968) by César Valencia Duque, Raúl Fajardo
Moreno, Juan José Posada, Augusto González, Edgar Jaime Isaza and Ariel Escobar
Llano. The work of Rogelio Salmona merits particular attention and has been the
object of major conservation projects, with the designation of his opera as Bien de
Interés Cultural de Carácter Nacional (Law No. 268/2008).
Olimpia Niglio
Link
Ministry of Culture, list of national heritage:
http://www.mincultura.gov.co/areas/patrimonio/patrimonio-cultural-en-Colombia/bienes-de-
interes-cultural-BICNAL/Paginas/default.aspx (in Spanish)
Bibliography
Ciudad y arquitectura moderna en Colombia, 1950–1970: Presencia y vigencia del patrimonio
moderno, ed. P.E. Montes (Bogotá, 2008).
A. Corradine, Historia de la Arquitectura Colombiana (Bogotá, 1989).
O. Niglio, “Arquitectura Moderna en Colombia. Nuevos paradigmas de proyecto y reflexio-
nes sobre la restauración”, in Experiencias y métodos de restauración en Colombia, eds.
R. Hernandez Molina & O. Niglio, II (Rome, 2012): 113–132.
C. Niño Murcia, Arquitectura y Estado: Contexto y Significado de Las Construcciones Del
Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Colombia, 1905–1960 (Bogotá, 1991).
M. Patiño, “La protección del patrimonio urbano y arquitectónico en Colombia”, in Experien-
cias y métodos de restauración en Colombia, eds. R. Hernandez Molina & O. Niglio, I
(Rome, 2011): 59–84.
Costa Rica 95
COSTA RICA
Figure 4.6 Alberto Linner Díaz, Church of Nuestra Señora de Fátima, San José, 1969. Listed
in 2014
Source: Alberto Linner Diaz, 1969, A. Fernandez archive.
Modern architecture appeared in the republic of Costa Rica in 1930 and had an effect
on its skyline for more than 60 years. Such a long period can be divided into two
phases: from 1930 to 1950 and from 1950 to 1990. The first, regarding the reformist
architecture of the late period of the Liberal Republic, was expressed by Rational-
Functionalism and Art-Deco, cultivated by the last engineers and architects from the
beginning of the twentieth century to be educated in academic eclecticism. The second
phase, featuring modern architecture, saw the appearance of the movements of the
International Style and of late-modern. These were cultivated by the Costa Rican
architects educated under the principles of the Modern Movement, especially in Mex-
ican and American universities. The arrival of these professionals corresponded to the
beginning of the Welfare State (1948–1949), and the realization of such architecture
occurred during the Second Republic.
The protection of architectural heritage was born late. The Ministry of Culture
was only established in 1971, and Teodorico Quirós Alvarado was charged with
responsibility for the Heritage Department. At that time, only three ancient cultural
assets were protected by specific laws and decrees. Public perception only recog-
nized as valuable architecture from the colonial tradition, vernacular houses which
had been appreciated by nationalist paintings from the 1930s. The historiography
of twentieth-century architecture took place at the beginning of the 1970s and was
dedicated to buildings of colonial tradition; other styles would have to wait more
than a decade to be studied and evaluated from a historical and cultural point of
96 Americas
view – such as for modern architecture, with no historiographical studies until the
end of the 1990s.
In 1995 the Architectural Historical Heritage Law (n.7555) was established, and
it created the Comisión Nacional de Patrimonio Histórico-Arquitectónico. The
act does not set any time limit to protect cultural heritage, but the practice never
declared as national monuments any architecture built after 1950 until the change
of recent listings. The already limited focus and legal effect of this act was altered in
2001, when Chapter III (Incentivos) was partially suppressed, while other incentives
for heritage protection never came into force due to the lack of political and admin-
istrative will. In this scenario, even if a heritage site suffered from a lack of legal
protection starting from the twenty-first century, such a lack has been even more
acutely felt for modern heritage, as has been demonstrated by the few buildings
that managed to be catalogued as protectable reformist architecture via declarations
before or after 1995.
According to the Centro de Investigación y Conservación del Patrimonio Cultural
(1995, Departamento de Patrimonio since 1971) among the over 370 national heri-
tage sites, 28 are modern architectures: 21 can be classified as Art Deco, 5 as ratio-
nal-functionalist, one International Style work and one late-modern building. It is
clear that appreciation of architecture is a function of its ‘antiquity’ or origins in
the liberal-republican period. Moreover, among these declarations, 2 are listed from
before 1990, 13 belong to the following decade and another 13 are dated from 2000
onwards. This underlines recent appreciation for modernism. For instance, the most
recently built architecture designated as a national monument is the Nuestra Señora
de Fátima (1969, listed in 2014), a church in Los Yoses, San José, designed in Brutalist
style by Alberto Linner Díaz.
Today, the majority of modern buildings have not yet been recognized as heritage,
especially two twentieth-century architectures that have considerable urban impact in
San José and whose value is internationally recognized: the Jenaro Valverde building
(Caja Costarricense de Seguro, 1980) by Linner Día, and the Plaza de la Cultura-
Museos (Banco Central de Costa Rica, 1982) by Jorge Borbón Zeller, Edgar Vargas
Vargas and Jorge Bertheau Odio. Of late-modern esthetics and Costa Rican design,
both works are clear evidence of the maturity reached by national architecture, given
that, when the crisis of the Modern Movement seemed evident in all the world, we
were able to take the next step organically. The lack of declaration is usually as a
result of opposition from the owners, as well as the perception that the law provides
for little flexibility and the fact that the declaration does not guarantee any type of
incentive for architectural conservation.
We should add that modern architecture still enjoys little public interest. Today, the
lack of protection that is suffered by the most representative twentieth-century archi-
tecture has already allowed them to become objects of decay. The challenge for those
who are interested in modern heritage consists in the intensification of its study and
divulgation in order to raise public and administrative awareness of the historical and
cultural importance of increased protection for the most recent part of Costa Rican
architectural inheritance.
Andrés Fernández
Costa Rica 97
Link
Center for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage, database of listed heritage:
http://www.patrimonio.go.cr/patrimonio/declaratorias.aspx (in Spanish)
Bibliography
C. Altezor, Arquitectura urbana en Costa Rica. Exploración histórica 1900–1950 (Cartago,
1986).
A. Fernández, “San José, Costa Rica: arquitectura(s) moderna(s)”, Habitar, revista de arquitec-
tura y diseño, 79 (2012): 24–30.

A. Fernández, Un país, tres arquitecturas. Art nouveau, Neocolonial. Hispanoamericano y Art-
Decó en Costa Rica 1900–1950 (Cartago, 2003).
O. Sanou, “La arquitectura”, in Costa Rica en el siglo XX, ed. E. Rodriguez Vega (San José,
2004): II, 259–317.
98 Americas
CUBA
Figure 4.7 Ricardo Porro, School of Plastic Arts, Havana, 1961–1965. Listed in 2010
Awareness of architectural protection has been a slow and a gradual process, starting
in the 1920s in the wake of a fierce debate. Before that time, there was little aware-
ness of the value of the Spanish colonial architectural heritage. This led to the regret-
table demolition of the first initiatives for the rehabilitation of some of the capital’s
most emblematic public buildings, and sites were launched at the same time. In 1935,
Emilio Roig de Leuchsenring was designated as the Historian of Havana City, and
three years later the Oficina del Historiador de la Ciudad de la Habana was estab-
lished. In 1940, the Monuments, Buildings and Sites Commission (Comisión de Mon-
umentos, Edificios y Lugares) and the National Board of Archaeology and Ethnology
(Junta Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología) were created, and a presidential decree
defined the responsibilities of these entities in 1942.
Although these early institutions, which aimed to preserve Havana’s historical leg-
acy, focused on the principal and most ancient city landmarks, they were quite signifi-
cant as a starting point. Yet, the ideas of the Modern Movement and their well-known
disrespectful attitudes toward the traditional city were already spreading; their adher-
ents promoted projects which entailed the destruction of the old town – considered a
decadent area – imposing a new distribution of lots and a radical transformation of
its urban fabric and street layout. Even though these large projects were not imple-
mented, they conceptually justified specific interventions to eliminate constructions
and small urban fragments from various periods. After the triumph of the Revolution
(1959), the National Monuments’ Commission (Comisión Nacional de Monumentos,
Cuba 99
1963) began operating in collaboration with cultural institutions and experts in the
field, and restoration projects were carried out in Havana’s historic centre. In 1977,
two significant laws were passed: the Protection of Cultural Heritage Law (Ley de
protección al patrimonio cultural), and the National and Local Monuments Law (Ley
de los Monumentos Nacionales y Locales).
Today there is a double level of listing: National Monuments and Local Monu-
ments. In the case of Havana, for example, the University of Havana (1901–1940, by
Francisco Ramirez Ovando, Enrique Martínez, Pedro Martínez Inclan, Joaquín Weiss,
and others) and the Plaza Mella (1975–1976) by Antonio Quintana, Fernando López,
Telma Ascanio and Joaquín Galván, were the first twentieth-century works to receive
the classification of National Monuments in 1978. They were followed by others,
mainly selected on the basis of historical events, rather than on their urban and archi-
tectural value. The listing in 1996 of the neighborhood unit Unidad No. 1 at Habana
del Este (1959–1961, by Mario González, Enrique Enríquez, Reynaldo Estévez, Hugo
D’Acosta-Calheiros, and others under the direction of Roberto Carrazana, renamed
Ciudad Camilo Cienfuegos), an excellent example of the assimilation of the principles
of modern architecture, demonstrated an assimilation of the concept of monument,
not only from a thematic point of view but also from a temporal one. It was the first
work of the Modern Movement to receive this distinction and, among the reasons
expressed, it was highlighted that it was the most distinguished representative of the
best construction knowledge at the time it was built as being the first and highest-
quality residential unit built in Cuba.
From then on, the listing of twentieth-century works has increased. Among them
stand out Havana’s Central Railroad Station (1912) by Kenneth MacKenzie Murchi-
son, and the Hotel Nacional de Cuba (1930) by McKim, Mead and White, both listed
in 1998; in 2010, the Presidential Palace (1920, today Museo de la Revolución) by
Carlos Maruri and Belgian Paul Belau and the National Capitol building (1926–1929)
by Raoul Otero and Eugenio Rayneri Piedra and others. Following the recognition
of public buildings built in academic styles, the designation was widened to include
works representative of the Modern Movement. The status of a National Monument
was conceded to the Cabaret Tropicana (1951, by Max Borges Recio) in 2002, to the
Escuela Nacional de Arte (1961–1965) and to the Plaza de la Revolución José Martí
(1953–1960) in 2010, and to Hotel Havana Riviera (1957, by Igor B. Polevitzky) both
listed in 2012. In September 2014, La Rampa and its surroundings were classified as
National Landmark. La Rampa is at the end of 23rd Street in the El Vedado neigh-
bourhood of Havana, where stands a group of buildings representative of the best
achievements of the Modern Movement; some of these structures have been turned
into contemporary symbols of the capital city. Thanks to their outstanding universal
value, the five buildings of the National Arts Schools, designed by Ricardo Porro,
Roberto Gottardi, and Vittorio Garatti, were also included in the Tentative List pro-
posed for UNESCO.
The establishment of the Docomomo Cuban Chapter (2002) has contributed to the
dissemination of the values of this recent architectural heritage through seminars, bul-
letins and the publication of a book in 2011. This group has also collaborated with
the National Council of Cultural Heritage (Consejo Nacional de Patrimonio) in the
preparation of records and inventories for the protection of outstanding modernbuild-
ings and sites. In universities, academics have been working intensively for almost
three decades to increase awareness of the values of this architecture and promote
100 Americas
its conservation. A lot still remains to be done. The 1977 National and Local Monu-
ment Law is being updated in accordance with international practice and taking into
account the experience of almost 40 years.
María Victoria Zardoya Loureda
Link
National Council of Cultural Heritage, database of listed heritage:
http://www.cnpc.cult.cu/ (in Spanish)
Bibliography
La Arquitectura del Movimiento Moderno. Selección de Obras del Registro Nacional, ed. E.L.
Rodríguez (La Habana, 2011).
Relación de Monumentos Nacionales (2016, unpublished, http://www.cnpc.cult.cu/monumen-
tos-nacionales); I. Rigol & Á. Rojas, Apuntes de Teoría de la Conservación (La Habana,
2012).
Ecuador 101
ECUADOR
Figure 4.8 Luis Felipe Donoso Barba, Superior Court of Justice Building of Azuay, Cuenca,
Source: Kléver José Campos Paredes, 2016.
Modern architecture arrived in Latin America, blending with local traits so as to cre-
ate organic regional shapes tinged with global features: “modernidad se naturalizó en
América Latina”, as Ana María Durán said. From then on, two main ideologies were
evident for twentieth-century architecture: on the one hand extreme simplicity and
the presence of regional materials, which are typical of environmental conditions and
economic crisis, and on the other extreme complexity. Modern architecture in Ecua-
dor marks an historic milestone that denotes new complexities and defines guidelines
in the design of new shapes, materials and innovative building systems that reflect
themselves in all styles and trends from the 1950s onwards.
The first traits of contemporary architecture emerge in Guayaquil, later in Quito,
and subsequently some modern styles were also adopted in Santa Ana de los Ríos de
Cuenca. This architecture reflects the changes which emerged from the social, eco-
nomical and cultural dichotomies of the nation and that have evolved quite appre-
ciably in the new urban-architectural languages of the streets, vehicles and isolated
buildings.
The inclusion of Quito (1978) and Cuenca (1999) in the World Heritage List gen-
erated national debates. These debates stressed the critical relationship between con-
temporary architecture and cultural heritage, and between the value of history and
the attributes and relationships that define the conditions under which a building is
102 Americas
designated as a heritage. The criteria for establishing the contemporary as part of the
Cultural Heritage Inventory are part of the Cultural Heritage Act (1978). Art. 7 states
that regarding
all objects or productions that do not appear in the previous paragraphs and that
are products of the State Cultural Heritage both of the past and the present and
that thanks to their artistic, scientific or historical value have been declared by the
Institute to be properties belonging to the Cultural Heritage in cases they are held
by the state, religious institutions or belonging to private companies or individu-
als . . . in the case of real property, the property itself will be considered belonging
to the State Cultural Heritage, together with its environment and landscape con-
text necessary to provide adequate visibility; as it must keep the same conditions
of atmosphere and integrity it was built in.
In legislative terms, the recent Organic Law on Culture (2016, article 54) recog-
nizes as assets of the national cultural heritage, among them,
the architectural constructions such as temples, convents, chapels, houses, groups

of urban and rural constructions such as historical centers, obrajes, factories,
houses Haciendas, mills, gardens, roads, parks, bridges, railroads of the colonial
and republican epochs built up to 1940 that contain a cultural and historical
value that must be protected.
On the other hand, the National Institute of Cultural Heritage (Instituto Nacional
de Patrimonio Cultural, 1978, INPC) administers the Information Ecuadorian Cul-
tural Heritage System (SIPCE) which claims to be the only tool at the national level
to inventory assets and manifestations of cultural heritage. In this respect, there are
11,568 registered properties from the twentieth century, of which 583 are state prop-
erties, 10,560 private and 391 religious. Forty-four properties from the twenty-first
century have also been recorded in the inventory, 11 of which belong to the state, 32
are privately owned and 2 are religious.
The selection and evaluation criteria for the inventory of the built heritage by INPC
concern architectural aesthetics, historical and testimonial antiquity, cultural authen-
ticity, technology and construction, the environmental urban ensemble and the trans-
mission of the knowledge. While INPC works for an instructive inventory of “modern
architecture”, criteria of selection and assessment for the register of contemporary
properties do not exist. As a result, there are no particular evaluation parameters that
establish proper guidelines for the selection of contemporary heritage.
Accordingly, implementation of contemporary architectural conservation has gen-
erated both general classification criteria, the characterization and analysis of the
intrinsic values of the work involved and a diversity of views and positions. Given the
complexity in the composition of the materials, however, a problem relates to the tim-
ing of the intervention for conservation or restoration, to which we can add a lack of
research on the treatment of this architecture. Faced with this dilemma international
guides usually refer to decontextualized principles that do not establish appropriate
criteria for contemporary architecture.
Contemporary architecture has received little attention and this has generated dif-
ficulties when it comes to invention on works by the Modern Movement. Only in
Ecuador 103
recent times has it been deemed necessary to refer to legal standards, normative, rules
of intervention, assessment and utility parameter, as a result of widespread inaccurate
institutional management. There has been a recent growth of interest in the issue at
national level, leading to a definition of its significance, the promotion of the devel-
opment of guidelines for the validation of the contemporary architectural inventory
and proposals for intervention on those works starting with technical innovation and
the social and aesthetic context. This can lead to granting an autonomy criterion to
contemporary architecture from a particular historical moment.
It is clear that contemporary architecture has made great strides in Ecuador and
that it is increasingly attracting more interest from academic groups, professionals,

youth and communities who are committed to contemporary architecture as a form
of resource optimization, social equity and sustainable social development.
Fernando Carrión Mena and Isabel Rohn
Link
National Institute of Cultural Heritage:
http://inpc.gob.ec/ (in Spanish)
Bibliography
M.J. Delgado, La arquitectura moderna en Loja: patrimonio y conservación, Tesis Previa a la
Obtención del título de Arquitecto (Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, 2009).
A.M. Durán, “Sus-tratos de las arquitecturas contemporáneas en Iberoamérica”, in Post Post
Post: Nueva Arquitectura Iberoamericana, eds. F. Rodríguez & M. Mesa (Buenos Aires,
2010): 78–105.
Instructivo para fichas de registro e inventario, ed. National Institute of Cultural Heritage
(Quito, 2011).
104 Americas
MEXICO
Figure 4.9 Juan O’Gorman, Central Library of National Autonomous University of Mexico,
Mexico City, 1953. Listed in year 2005
Current Mexican legislation in heritage conservation has its origins in early laws
issued under Spanish rule, together with those drawn up during the nineteenth cen-
tury, as New Spain obtained its independence in 1821. One of the first actions of the
nascent republic was the institution of the Museo Nacional (1825), declared by the
then secretary of state, as entrusted with the role of gathering together and conserving
for public use, all that may offer the most exact understanding of the nation, its
primitive peoples, the origin and progress of the sciences and the arts, the religion
and customs of its inhabitants, its natural products and the properties of its soil
and climate.
Regarding the property of the church, instead, a rather negative influence was pro-
duced by the Ley de Nacionalización de los Bienes Eclesiásticos (1859), which imple-
mented the expropriation of all assets held and administered by the clergy for centuries.
This led to the dismembering and sale to private purchasers of numerous monastic
complexes, as well as the transformation of churches and chapels for civil uses.
The Mexican Revolution, commenced in 1910, brought about a reorganization of
the country and its relative bureaucratic apparatus. The Ley de Victoriano Huerta
(1914) was the first text to deal with artistic monuments and architectural heritage.
Mexico 105
It recognized their universal cultural value and suggested they be cared for and con-
served, insisting upon the importance of their protection against destruction and
warning against restorations that may compromise their originality. Their conserva-
tion became a public responsibility, and the Ministry of Public Education and Arts
was entrusted with their safeguarding. The ministry, through the Inspección Nacional
de Monumentos Artísticos e Históricos, was to draw up an inventory of listed heri-
tage that could not be modified unless approved.
The Ley sobre Protección y Conservación de Monumentos Arqueológicos e
Históricos, Poblaciones Típicas y Lugares de Belleza Natural (1934), was followed
by the Ley Federal del Patrimonio Cultural de la Nación (1968) and, finally, by the
current Ley Federal de Monumentos y Zonas, Arqueológicos, Artísticos e Históricos
(1972). This latter represents the act that most likely has had the greatest impact
on conservation, establishing the lines of a clear demarcation in the definition of
diverse types of monuments. The law emphasizes the public utility of research and
the protection, conservation, restoration and recovery of different kinds of monu-
ments, together with monumental spaces. The first group includes assets that predate
the Spanish conquest (1521); the second includes those constructed after the con-
quest and prior to the end of the nineteenth century, while artistic monuments are
considered those “with a relevant aesthetic value”. It is important to examine the
mechanisms governing the conservation of artistic monuments, as they represent the
sole normative instrument that can currently be used to protect twentieth-century
assets, including architecture.
The determination of aesthetic value is based on an analysis of the following char-
acteristics: representativeness, affiliation to a determined style, level of innovation,
materials and techniques employed. In the case of real estate assets, they are consid-
ered in their urban context. The listing may include the entire oeuvre of an artist, or
only a part thereof, and the same holds for unknown authors.
The law establishes the creation of a Comisión Nacional de Zonas y Monumentos
Artísticos, a consultative organism on declaration of artistic monuments and areas of
pertinence. The commission is presided over by the general director of the Instituto
Nacional de Bellas Artes (INBA). In the event of threatened works, the ministry, via
INBA and without a ruling from the commission, may issue a temporary decree for
an artistic monument or artistic-monumental zone. Furthermore, the temporal sepa-
ration of archaeological and historic heritage from the artistic one is sanctioned by
their assignment to two distinct institutions, with the first prevailing over the second.
This subdivision and disparity, based on dating as a parameter of judgement, has
led to no shortage of contradictions in the conservation of twentieth-century heritage:
while archaeological and historical heritage is protected ope legis, those from a later
period must be the object of ad hoc decrees. This has resulted in the disappearance of
numerous significant buildings from the early twentieth century and the conservation
of a minimum selection of isolated architectural elements.
Within this framework it is possible to mention some of the most significant monu-
ments, protected by special decree, such as the works completed under the govern-
ment of General Porfirio Díaz during the early decades of the 1900s. This includes
the Palacio de Bellas Artes and the Palacio Postal by Adamo Boari and the Museo
Nacional de Arte designed by Silvio Contri. More recently, attention towards large
urban and architectural complexes, conceived in the wake of the Modern Move-
ment, has gradually matured. The list of protected complexes, later registered in the
106 Americas
World Heritage List, includes the University City in Mexico City (1953), which brings
together a group of buildings by the most important architects at the time, coordi-
nated by Enrique del Moral and Mario Pani. There is also the house of Diego Rivera
and Frida Kahlo (1929–1931) by Juan O’Gorman, the Torres de Satélite (1957) by
Luis Barragán and Mathias Goeritz, the Barragán’s Home and Office (1947) and the
Museo de la Anahuacalli in Coyoacán by Diego Rivera.
María Margarita Segarra Lagunes
Links
National Organization of Historical Monuments:

http://www.monumentoshistoricos.inah.gob.mx/ (in Spanish)
National Institute of Fine Arts (INBA), list of heritage property:
http://www.inba.gob.mx/transparencia/Inmuebles (in Spanish)
Bibliography
A. Gertz Manero, La defensa jurídica y social del patrimonio cultural (México, 1976).
INAH. Una historia, I-III, eds. J.C. Olivé Negrete & B. Cottom (México, 2003).
Peru 107
PERU
Figure 4.10 Luis Miro Quesada, Miro Quesada House, Lima, 1947. Listed in 1996
Source: Rodrigo Córdova, 2016.
Modern architecture came to Peru late in the 1940s, due to the strong hold of the
historicist tendency that had developed between 1920 and the mid-1940s. Neverthe-
less, some isolated buildings manifest a pre-modern gestation dating from the late
1920s. The divulgation of the principles of modern architecture was conducted by
Agrupación Espacio, led by Luis Miró Quesada Garland, which brought together
representatives of various areas of culture, especially architects and architecture stu-
dents. Its manifesto, Expresión de principios de la Agrupación Espacio, was presented
on 15 May 1947, being documented in the June edition of El Arquitecto Peruano,
the magazine recording the most important architectural activity. Agrupación Espa-
cio opened the doors to modernity, which spread throughout the country by means
of weekly articles in the El Comercio newspaper and the Espacio magazine. In the
1950s, both trends found that architects managed to establish a harmonious dialogue
between modernity and tradition, highlighting the works of Enrique Seoane.
Heritage protection can be documented from 1541, through the rules of Charles V,
and in 1573 with the Ordinances of Viceroy Toledo, both of whom had the vision
to safeguard the property of the huacas (archaeological sites). The Republican
period began with the Decreto Supremo No. 89 of 2 April 1822, whose aim was
also pre-Hispanic heritage protection. Gradually, concern for pre-Hispanic expres-
sion was extended to colonial and republican production. 1929 saw the creation
of the National Council for Preservation and Restoration of Historic and Artistic
108 Americas
Monuments (Consejo Nacional de Conservación y Restauración de Monumentos
Históricos y Artísticos), which later issued a regulation for building works. Due to
the earthquakes in Lima (1940) and Cusco (1950), standards were issued and plans
executed to recover these cities.
The 1960s produced major changes to the heritage. In the Faculty of Architecture,
Urbanism and Arts of the National University of Engineering (FAUA-UNI), Victor
Pimentel created a course in monument restoration, and between 1962 and 1963 the
municipality of Lima produced the first systematic inventory of the monuments of the
capital, excluding modern buildings. Pimentel actively participated in the drafting of
the Charter of Venice and, then, in the development of regulations and plans to retain
several cities and territories of Peru and Chapter IV of the National Building Regula-
tions dedicated to the Architectural Heritage (DS 039-70-VI, 1970).
As far as academic research was concerned, between 1986 and 1989, the FAUA-
UNI developed the Inventories of the Monumental Heritage of Lima and Cusco in
partnership with the Ford Foundation. The FAUA-UNI team, led by Pimentel, regis-
tered 1,061 buildings in Lima and 300 in Cusco, classified by periods: pre-Hispanic,
colonial (1532–1821), Republican (1821–1921) and contemporary. These invento-
ries were given to official institutions and were of great significance because several
registered buildings, which at that time were not considered monuments, were later
declared National Heritage sites and also because it was the first time that contempo-
rary architecture had been considered part of our heritage (for Lima, 148 buildings).
The current General Law of Cultural Heritage of the Nation (No. 28,296,
21-07-2004) and subsequent regulation (DS No. 011-2006-ED 01-06-2006) do not
establish a time limit for declaring the cultural patrimony of the nation; neither do
they make any distinction among the monuments of the Modern Movement and con-
temporary architecture, both of which are involved in the Republican period.
In the register of the Dirección de Patrimonio Histórico Inmueble of the Minis-
try of Culture (updated to January 2017), which was dedicated to the colonial and
Republican periods, 4,306 buildings have been declared monuments. The earliest des-
ignations were made in 1940 and correspond to religious buildings in the Peruvian
Highlands. Only one representative of modern architecture has been declared monu-
ment: the house of architect Luis Miró Quesada (1947, listed in 1996) in Jesus Maria.
In 2010 the Docomomo chapter was established. In 2009, within the National
Defense Commission of Architectural, Urban, Historic and Natural Heritage of the
Colegio de Arquitectos del Perú, the development of a list of twentieth-century heri-
tage began with the aim of spreading and ensuring the protection of such property
from the guild of architects. This list, which contains 800 properties, includes histori-
cist estates (79 declared national monuments) as well as modern and contemporary
buildings from the later mid-twentieth century and the twenty-first century. Some of
the modern buildings undeclared but winner of prizes like Premio Nacional Chavín
are: La Fenix Peruana building (Seoane, 1945–1948), Ostolaza building (Seoane,
1951), Guzmán Blanco building (Villarán, 1952), Radio El Sol building (Miró
Quesada, 1953–1954), Chávez house (Mazuré, 1956), Neptuno building (Menacho,
1958) and Residencial Peruvian Air Force of Chiclayo (Córdova & Williams, 1958).
This list was given to the ministry in October 2013, hoping to have the impact that the
FAUA-UNI/Ford inventory had as a means to prevent the alteration or disappearance,
as is already happening with some properties on that list. Today, it is possible to apply
Peru 109
Article III of the current law (which establishes the presumption of the property to be
part of national cultural heritage), which so far has not been used as a protection tool.
Judith Soria and Rodrigo Córdova
Links
The Peruvian Portal of Architecture:
http://www.arqandina.com/ (in Spanish)
Ministry of Culture, database of heritage property:
http://www.cultura.gob.pe/es/serviciosenlinea/patrimoniohistoricoinmueble (in Spanish)
Blog, The modern form in Latin America:

http://laformamodernaenlatinoamerica.blogspot.it/ (in Spanish)
Bibliography
Faua-Uni/Ford Foundation, Inventario del Patrimonio Monumental Inmueble de Lima (Lima,
1990).
Lima y el Callao: Guía de arquitectura y paisaje: An Architecture and Landscape Guide (Sevilla,
2009).
110 Americas
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Figure 4.11 Michael Graves, Portland Public Service Building, Oregon, 1982. Listed in 2011
Source: City of Portland (OR) Archives, Portland building from the Pac West building. A2012-005, 1986.
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is continually extending its reach as
a centerpiece of the nation’s historic preservation program. By the end of 2016, the
NRHP included about 92,500 listings with well over 1.8 million historic resources
within their boundaries. Over 60 percent of these listings are reflections of twentieth-
century heritage.
United States of America 111
The federal government first recognized only nationally significant historic places.
The negative impact of development on heritage resources in communities across the
country prompted the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966) to
broaden the register. This law gave the secretary of the interior authority to expand
and maintain an NRHP that recognizes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering and cul-
ture of national, state and local significance.
The National Park Service (NPS) administers the NRHP program. Nationally sig-
nificant historic units of the National Park System declared national monuments by the
president under the Antiquities Act (1906) and national parks authorized by Congress
are included in the NRHP, as are National Historic Landmarks (NHL) designated by
the secretary of the interior under the Historic Sites Act (1935). Under the 1966 act,
states, federal agencies and American Indian tribes nominate sites for inclusion within
their jurisdictions. These nominations are evaluated and listed by the NPS’s National
Register staff and account for most listings. Federal historic preservation grants provide
modest financial support to states, local governments and tribes to identify and nomi-
nate historic properties. A majority of these listings are of local significance.
National Register Bulletins provide guidance on evaluating and nominating a vari-
ety of significant property types. Anyone can prepare an NRHP nomination, comment
on one under consideration or appeal the refusal of a nominating authority to submit
a nomination for listing. Private properties cannot be listed legally if a majority of
the private owners object, but can be determined eligible. This creates a remarkably
egalitarian and participatory register.
Americans have a growing appreciation of modern heritage, as demonstrated by list-
ings illustrating many twentieth-century themes. For example, a query of the National
Register database identified nearly 1,200 listings recognized for architectural signifi-
cance under the Modern Movement classification by 2016. The NPS has co-sponsored
conferences on evaluating and preserving twentieth-century properties, sparking inter-
est nationwide. The NHL program has conducted a number of theme studies that
address twentieth-century topics to assist in evaluating and registering historic proper-
ties under those themes. The NPS urges its partners to nominate more properties asso-
ciated with underrepresented cultural and ethnic groups and sponsors related theme
studies. Recognizing properties of more recent significance is one of the goals.
NRHP criteria for evaluation are broad enough to accommodate the country’s rich
history. Places must possess integrity of historic location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling and association, and meet one or more of the following cri-
teria: (a) be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
patterns of American history; or (b) be associated with the lives of significant persons;
or (c) embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction;
represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values; or represent a signifi-
cant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
(d) have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or his-
tory. Generally, a property must have achieved significance more than 50 years ago,
but exceptionally important properties that have achieved significance within the last
50 years qualify for listing. The Portland Public Service Building (Portland building),
Oregon (1982, listed 2011) by Michael Graves and Thorncrown Chapel, Arkansas
(1980, listed 2000) by E. Fay Jones and Associates are examples.
112 Americas
The NRHP brings attention to the values of historic places and assists in their
preservation.
Most registered properties are privately owned. Federal tax benefits are the motiva-
tion for many nominations, especially a 20 percent investment tax credit for rehabili-
tating income-producing historic commercial, industrial or rental residential buildings.
Listed properties may qualify for federal grants for historic preservation when funds
are available. A number of states and communities offer tax benefits and grants.
Section 106 of the 1966 act requires that federal agencies allow an Advisory Coun-
cil on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on all federal and federally
assisted projects affecting properties listed or determined eligible. Owners of listed

private properties are free to maintain, manage or dispose of their properties as they
choose under federal law, but many states and communities have stronger laws to
protect historic properties.
The NPS provides far-reaching online educational initiatives to promote National
Register properties such as its Teaching with Historic Places program and the Discover
Our Shared Heritage Travel Itinerary Series. The goal of the NRHP is to identify,
recognize, promote and encourage preservation of the nation’s irreplaceable historic
properties as an integral part of community life and development, so the United States
can enjoy the many benefits of conserving its heritage.
Carol D. Shull
Links
National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places, National Register Database:
http://www.nps.gov/nr/ (in English)
Advisory Council on Historic Preservaton:
http://www.achp.gov/ (in English)
Historic Preservation Education Foundation:
http://hpef.us/ (in English)
Bibliography
Conserving Twentieth-Century Built Heritage: A Bibliography, eds. S. Macdonald & G. Oster-
gren (Los Angeles, 2011).
Preserving the Recent Past, eds. D. Slaton & R.A. Shiffer (Washington, DC, 1995).
Preserving the Recent Past 2, eds. D. Slaton & W.G. Foulks (Washington, DC, 2000).
J.H. Sprinkle Jr., “Of Exceptional Significance: The Origins of the Fifty-Year Rule”, Historic
Preservation: The Public Historian, 29, no. 2 (Spring 2007): 81–103
Uruguay 113
URUGUAY
Figure 4.12 Nelson Bayardo, Ossuary in the North Cemetery, Montevideo, 1960–1962. Listed
in 2014
Source: Luis E Carranza (Flickr), 2012.
Since its formation as a nation, Uruguay received the contribution of immigratory

flows coming mainly from the old continent, which lasted throughout the ninetenth
and part of the twentieth century. Spanish and Italian, but also French and Central
European people became part of the country bringing their customs, thinking and
work. This alluvial feature determined until today a cultural attitude which was open
and permeable to new ideas. The national architecture has not been immune to this
cultural process, receiving influences that were mediated by limited resources, result-
ing in an architecture characterized by a certain austerity, while it contributed towards
the forging of a reluctant sensitivity to formal excesses.
1915 saw the first influences of European and American renovating architec-
tures, which left their mark on several works. Their value and significance also
lie in the intelligent adaptation to environmental conditions, all of which result
in ideas and forms of a national architecture that, even with limited financial
resources, was able to face the needs and social requirements and the cultural
demands of the moment.
The first law on cultural heritage was approved in 1971 (No. 14,040). This law
established the National Cultural Heritage Commission (Comisión de Patrimonio
Cultural de la Nación), which has among its tasks “asesorar al Poder Ejecutivo en el
114 Americas
señalamiento de los bienes a declararse monumentos históricos.” A limitation of this
law is that it establishes a single figure of protection, that of national historic monu-
ment. The assets included in the list of the national monuments will be
afectados por las servidumbres que en cada caso resulten impuestas por la calidad,
características y finalidades del bien. Estas servidumbres serán: la prohibición de
realizar cualquier modificación arquitectónica que altere las líneas, el carácter o
la finalidad del edificio; la prohibición de destinar el monumento histórico a usos
incompatibles con las finalidades de la presente ley y la obligación de proveer a
la conservación del inmueble y efectuar las reparaciones necesarias para ese fin.
Still in force is the legal framework that enables the preservation and protection of our
historical and cultural heritage with no chronological order limitations. Its wide and
comprehensive meaning allowed the protection of a vast universe of cultural assets
that includes “bienes muebles o inmuebles vinculados a acontecimientos relevantes, a
la evolución histórica nacional, a personajes notables de la vida del país o a lo que sea
representativo de la cultura de una época nacional” (art. 5).
Taking the example of the situation in Montevideo, until 1975 no modern architec-
tural work was protected. In 2012 two relevant works were included: the Faculty of
Engineering (1936) by Julio Vilamajó and the building of Customs and General Cap-
taincy of Ports (1923) by Jorge Herrán; the youngest one is the Ossuary in the North
Cemetery of Montevideo (1960–1962) by Nelson Bayardo. The concrete screens
work as a rustic shell that protects the cloister, open to the sky and carefully protected
from the outside. Today, of the approximately 600 buildings protected in the depart-
ment, fewer than 20 belong to representative works of modern architecture, almost all
built between 1925 and 1948, such as the Faculty of Architecture (1948) by Román
Fresnedo Siri, listed as a national monument in 2000.
We must assume, unfortunately, that the architectures of the second half of the
twentieth- century are unknown or ignored by society, which refuses in many cases
to consider them cultural heritage. To protect cultural property you have to value it,
and to appreciate it you have to know it. Consequently it is important for the general
public to have a new way to look at the representative works of modern architecture.
Our culture is characterized by an almost exclusive valuation of the object itself or of
works belonging to a particular author, ignoring or leaving out many other works –
less spectacular, but equally representative and valuable.
Moreover, it is accepted that the passing of time bestows on some buildings the mark
of antigüedad, making it override other parameters. There has also taken root in some
areas and professional sectors the criticism that from its own modernity the conservation
and protection of the architectural heritage has been turned into a thing of the past. The
Modern Movement, in its ideological conception, remained alien to heritage awareness,
putting the value of “what is new” as a symbol of progress and development of society.
Recent episodes recorded in the country, such as the demolition in 2011 of some
houses designed by Siri in 1946, highlighted the real situation of vulnerability of
modern architecture in Uruguay regarding protection. The reaction from various
fields such as the School of Architecture and the Sociedad de Arquitectos del Uru-
guay opened opportunities for reflection and debate. Hence there has been progress
in raising awareness on the issue. In this sense, it is possible to note the positive fact
that also at the municipal level, from the Unidad de Patrimonio de la Intendencia of
Uruguay 115
Montevideo, the status of protected property has been accorded to a set of works of
modern architecture, naming them as Bienes de Interés Municipal. Slowly, and not
without difficulties, modern architecture in Uruguay is gaining its rightful place as a
cultural heritage to be protected.
Alejandro Veneziano
Link
National Cultural Heritage Commission, list of national heritage property:
http://www.patrimoniouruguay.gub.uy/innovaportal/v/33442/68/mecweb/monumentos-historicos-
nacionales (in Spanish)
Bibliography
M. Arana Sánchez & L. Gabarelli, Arquitectura renovadora en Montevideo, 1915–1940:
Reflexiones sobre un período fecundo de la arquitectura en el Uruguay (Montevideo, 1995).
C.J. Loustau, La arquitectura del siglo xx en el Uruguay (Montevideo, 2010).
116 Americas
VENEZUELA
Figure 4.13 Francisco Sesto, Mausoleo del Libertador, Caracas, 2010–2013. Listed in 2013
Source: Ana Milenka/Flickr, 2013.
Modernist architecture constitutes part of a distinctive feature of Venezuela’s identity,

together with its indigenous and colonial legacy. Between 1952 and 1958, Marcos
Pérez Jiménez actively encouraged the construction of numerous public buildings,
including the University City of Caracas (1940–1960) by Carlos Raùl Villanueva,
classified as a national monument since 1994, and added to the World Heritage List in
2000. In that period traditional architecture was often sacrificed in order to make way
for new constructions. Nonetheless, it was in those years that the Ley de Protección
y Conservación de Antigüedades y Obras Artísticas de la Nación (1945) was passed,
the first law whose aim was to protect “the historical and artistic heritage and matters
relating to the History of the Nation”.
In 1993, the new Ley de Protección y Defensa del Patrimonio Cultural created
the Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural (IPC), an institution ascribed to the Ministerio
de la Secretaría de la Presidencia de la República, stating that this ministry should
exercise the tutelage of the IPC by board of the Consejo Nacional de la Cultura
(CONAC), nowadays the Ministerio del Poder Popular para la Cultura. The IPC’s
aim is to support local authorities in the evaluation of cultural heritage through pilot
projects. According to Article 2, all man-made or natural works which contribute to
Venezuela 117
the national identity are to be considered part of the national heritage; also the IPC,
through the CONAC, was granted with consultative and dispositive powers in regard
to urban planning, and power of “binding consultation” in cases in which the presi-
dent of the republic decides to declare a building as part of the national heritage. The
law also envisages a regularly updated heritage inventory.
The law has been seen as less efficient than the law of 1945; in particular, the
ICOMOS has criticized the loss of the local government councils of protection. Article
8 states, however, that the IPC should liaise with state and municipal institutions.
These institutions can adopt protective and safeguarding measures, as long as they
abide by clear guidelines: in this regard, the regulations assign the task of inspection
and vigilance to the IPC. Generally speaking, the criticism focuses on the fact that
with the new law there is less clarity regarding jurisdictional rights of the various lev-
els of responsibility, which often overlap each other, leaving a lack of a clear mandate.
In any case, as in the 1945 act, there are no explicitly stated chronological limits for
protection, and the new one makes clear reference, in Articles 6 and 24, to assets and
buildings “of any period”, not only in terms of cultural interest, of historical or social
value, but also of artistic value, identifying from time to time contemporary architec-
ture with the national identity. It is also interesting to note that the new constitution
(1999) indicates in Article 99 the distinction between tangible and intangible cultural
heritage.
The Providencia Administrativa (No. 012/2005) of the IPC finally determined the
modalities for the drawing up of the National Heritage General Registry which sub-
stitutes and integrates the previous census (2003–2005). In relation to the criticism
outlined earlier, local authorities have the task of proposing to the IPC the inclusion
in the registry of a particular asset and are responsible for general upkeep of the
protected asset. Article 25 requires the online publication of the registry, with a clas-
sification updated every six months and divided according to the different municipali-
ties (or districts). This publication was still not online as of 2013. Finally, the Ley de
Patrimonio Cultural de los Pueblos y Comunidades Indigenas dates from 2009.
It was in 2013 that newly elected president Nicolás Maduro declared that the
national heritage should include a contemporary Venezuelan exhibition pavilion
known as “Flor de Venezuela”. This was built by Fruto Vivas for the Universal Exhi-
bition in Hannover (2000), entitled as Una flor para el mundo. The pavilion was
dismantled and transported to Venezuela after the exhibition ended, where it was re-
assembled in Barquisimento. Maduro’s declaration followed an intense debate involv-
ing the architect himself, who denounced the building’s dreadful state of conservation.
He also accused the governor of the state of Lara of having modified the intended use
of the building from the original plan as the Venezuelan Ecological University to a
centre for political propaganda. Given the specific political situation, it is evident that
the controversy surrounding the project, the opinions of the architect and the build-
ing’s protection and intended use are also influenced by political factors.
Bearing this in mind, it is not surprising that the most recent addition to the Heri-
tage Registry is the new and highly controversial Mausoleo del Libertador (2010–
2013) in Caracas designed by Francisco Sesto, an architect who was also minister of
culture during the government of late president Chavez.
Giuseppe Rago
118 Americas
Link
National Heritage Board (IPC):
http://www.ipc.gob.ve/ (in Spanish)
Bibliography
G. Gasparini, “Conservación y Restauración de Monumentos en Venezuela”, Boletín del Cen-
tro de Investigaciones Históricas y Estéticas, 2 (1965): 57–84.
D. Lozano, “La Ley de Protección y Defensa del Patrimonio Cultural dentro del Contexto Legal
Venezolano”, Memoriales: Revista del Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural, 1 (1998): 70–73.
J.M. Montaner, Arquitectura y crítica en Latinoamérica (Buenos Aires, 2011).
5 Asia
Bahrain – Bangladesh – China – Hong Kong – India – Indonesia – Iran – Israel – Japan –
Jordan – Kazakhstan – Lebanon – Macau – Malaysia – Oman – Pakistan – Philippines –
Qatar – Singapore – South Korea – Thailand – United Arab Emirates – Vietnam
120 Asia
BAHRAIN
Figure 5.1a Charles Dalrymple Belgrave, Bab al-Bahrain, Manama, 1945–1949. Listed in 2009
Source: Bahrain Authority for Culture and Antiquities.
Figure 5.1b Bab al-Bahrain remodeled by PAD – Plan Architecture and Design
Source: Think Heritage!, 2014.
Bahrain 121
Institutionalized heritage protection commenced in the 1950s when the country’s rich
archaeological heritage started to be investigated by teams of international archaeolo-
gists in cooperation with local partners. As early as 1953, a local NGO, the Bahrain
History & Archaeology Society, was established and took on a wide range of heritage
protection activities on a voluntary basis. The first governmental heritage authority
was established in 1968 with the Directorate of Archaeology of the Ministry of Edu-
cation. The authority shifted to the Ministry of Information with the establishment of
a Directorate of Heritage (1981). From 2010 onwards, the former Ministry of Culture
(Bahrain Authority for Culture and Antiquities, 2014) has been fulfilling the function
of assigning and administering national monuments.

Close to independence (1971), the Bahrain Antiquities Ordinance (1970) stated
that antiquity meant any object produced or modified by human agency earlier than
1780 AD. Today, the decree law regarding the protection of antiquities (n.11/1995)
regulates heritage protection procedures and defines structures of more than 50 years
of age as eligible for registration as national heritage. However, the law also provides
for exceptions in order to legally protect younger sites by prime ministerial decree.
Although the local heritage legislation allows for the registration of monuments in
private ownership, the institutional heritage protection was, until recently, based on
the appropriation of properties by the governmental authorities, who subsequently
became the custodians. The option of maintaining private ownership when registering
buildings as national monuments was for the first time taken up in 2009, when 143
sites were officially listed, including approximately 100 historic buildings.
Although Bahrain was the first Persian Gulf country where oil was discovered
(1931), a particularly diverse built heritage has survived here. Physical evidence of the
island’s five millennia of construction history has been preserved despite rapid urban
expansion in the past decades. Hybrid structures from the mid-twentieth century
that combine modern and local vernacular influences illustrate Bahrain’s early mod-
ernization phase. Urbanization and population growth, as well as new lifestyles and
tastes, keep revolutionizing the construction sector and have over the past decades
profoundly been changing the built environment. Since the 1970s, when development
rocketed based on increased revenue from the petrol industry, the remaining historic
buildings have been increasingly valued by society as a finite resource of shared cul-
tural identity.
The majority of historic buildings are vernacular, constructed between the late
nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries. Residential, commercial, palatial and public
buildings, including religious structures, share a set of construction techniques com-
mon to the region. They are built predominantly of local materials that were available
from the natural marine and terrestrial resources. Hybrid buildings constructed dur-
ing the late British protectorate (1919–1971) represent the so-called colonial-style,
which combines vernacular building traditions with newly available construction
techniques. The youngest architectural structures currently enlisted on the National
Heritage Register are hybrid buildings of this kind in Manama. Among these is the
Bab al-Bahrain (1945–1949) designed by Sir Charles Dalrymple Belgrave: the first
colonial building that was subjected to governmental restoration works in the 1980s.
These, however, obstructed the building’s original modernist stylistic features, which
have been somewhat recuperated during restoration measures in 2012.
Since the late 1990s, an increasing number of private restoration initiatives were
initiated by individuals, institutions, local firms and particularly by an NGO, the
122 Asia
Shaykh Ebrahim Center for Culture and Research. These range from the rehabilitation
of places associated with culturally important people or practices to new historizicing
constructions involving traditional designs and contemporary building materials. The
ratification of the World Heritage Convention (1991) and first inscription of Bahraini
sites on the World Heritage List (2005 and 2012) have led to increased exposure to
international heritage protection standards and growing consideration of ethics for
heritage conservation, as well as greater participation by heritage experts mostly from
Arab and European countries. In recent years, the heritage authority has been expand-
ing its scope of work in the realm of heritage protection. The number of institution-
ally protected historic buildings subjected to preservation measures is continuously

increasing. Much attention is now being given to the urban realm and includes the
involvement of internationally renowned architects for the construction of contempo-
rary structures for public use within historic contexts.
In 2013, the heritage authority launched an initiative to expand the heritage register
to embrace a greater number of historic buildings, as well as urban areas and cultural
landscapes, including marine and agricultural sites of cultural significance. This initia-
tive also foresees the registration of more recent architectural heritage such as post-
modern buildings of the 1970s to 1980s. As a matter of fact, the planned protection
area would encompass public buildings such as the National Museum (1988) by KHR
Arkitekter AS and more recent constructions such as the National Theater (2012) by
Architecture-Studio.
Britta Rudolff and Eva Battis
Link
Bahrain Authority for Culture & Antiquities:
http://culture.gov.bh/ (in Arabic and English)
Bibliography
A. Bucheery, “Contemporary Architecture of Bahrain”, in Architecture Re-Introduced: New
Projects in Societies in Change, ed. J. Abed (Geneva, 2004): 62–69.
Mustapha Ben Hamouche, “Manama: The Metamorphosis of a Gulf City”, in The Evolving
Arab City: Tradition, Modernity and Urban Development, ed. Y. Elsheshtawy (London-New
York, 2008): 184–217.
D. Pini, “Conservation Zones”, in Capacity Building for Enhancement of Urban Governance:
Urban Design Projects for Traditional Areas in Bahrain, edited by F. Al-Kubaisy (Manama,
2006): 48–63.
Think Heritage!, Historic Urban Districts and Cultural Landscapes, Proposals for the National
Heritage Register Kingdom of Bahrain (Manama, Ministry of Culture, 2013).
J. Yarwood & S. El-Masri, Al-Muharraq: Architectural Heritage of a Bahraini City (Manama,
2005).
Bangladesh 123
BANGLADESH
Figure 5.2 Abu Hyder Imamuddin and Lailun Nahar Ekram, Nagar Bhaban, Dhaka, 1995.
Listed in 2008
The idea of the protection of contemporary architecture evolved very recently, per-
haps in the 1980s. It started with the protection of Kendrio Shaheed Minar (Central
Martyrs Memorial, 1952) and today the National Assembly Building (1961–1984) by
Louis I. Kahn tops the list.
The constitution of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh (1972) already specifies
that the state shall adopt measures for the protection against disfigurement, damage
or removal of all monuments, objects or places of special artistic or historic impor-
tance or interest. It also provides that the state will adopt measures to conserve the
cultural traditions and heritage of the people in the enrichment of the national cul-
ture (art. 23, 24). These two articles provide the bases of architectural conservation.
But no specific law has yet been framed under this article for heritage conservation.
At present the two major legislative enactments – the Building Construction Act
(1952, BCA) and the Town Improvement Act (1953, TIA) – contain necessary provi-
sions for controlling development of the city focusing on heritage buildings. The TIA
controls the use of land and buildings, while the BCA regulates the construction of
buildings. These are not explicit architecture and urban conservation laws, but can
be used for this purpose. The Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC, 1993,
but enacted in 2006) provides guidelines to designate a building by official action
as having special historical or archaeological interest. A building or structure identi-
fied by legally constituted authority as being architecturally valuable may be under-
taken for its protection, preservation, restoration, rehabilitation under professional
and expert guidance (Part 1, Sec. 1.5; Part 2, Sec. 3.8; Part 3, Sec. 1.6). Under the
124 Asia
provision of TIA, the capital development authority (Rajdhani Unnayan Kartipak-
khya), Chittagong Development Authority, Rajshahi Town Development Authority
and Khulna Development Authority ordinances were promulgated forbidding use of
any land contrary to the use prescribed in the Functional Master Plan, without the
prior approval of the authority. This provision of the ordinance can be utilized for
preservation of heritage artefacts of architectural and historical value by not allow-
ing undue change of their use.
The nearest approximation to the developmental control is found in the Dhaka
Metropolitan Building Construction Rule (Dhaka Mahanogor Emarot Nirman Bidhi-
mala, 2006 amended in 2007 and 2008, clause 61), which provides some clear provi-
sions towards heritage conservation, including contemporary architecture. Under this
policy appropriate authority is empowered to make a list of structures, buildings or
areas of special aesthetic, historical, scientific, social and spiritual or of other value for
its protection. The list can be expanded from time to time, and new architecture may
be brought under protection and conservation. The Pourashava Ordinance (XXVI,
1977) for the local government institutions in urban areas, though silent specifically
about any type of architectural conservation, deals with some aspects of physical
development and conservation. The Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Prop-
erty Ordinance (1982) may also be used under certain circumstances for the protec-
tion of contemporary architecture of value.
The Antiquities Act (XIV, 1968, amended as Ordinance 939 in 1976) is perhaps
the only act which has some direct reference to the protection of monuments and
antiquities. The building of importance or value and more than 100 years of age
may be listed for protection by the Department of Archaeology, but it does not
limit protection of contemporary architecture of importance by the Department of
Architecture.
Among all the heritage acts within Bangladesh, the BNBC has popularized the idea
to conserve and protect contemporary architectural heritage. A committee under the
Ministry of Housing and Public Works was formed to list heritage buildings and areas
for protection and conservation; accordingly about 92 buildings and 12 areas were
identified for protection. For instance, in Dhaka it recognizes the architectural quality
of the Dhaka University Central Library (1954) by Mazharul Islam, National Acad-
emy for Educational Management Centre (1962) by Constantinos Apostolou Doxi-
adis and National Assembly Building by Louis Kahn, Nagar Bhaban (1995) by Abu
Hyder Imamuddin and Lailun Nahar Ekram; for emotional and/or event value, few
memorials related to the recent national history are listed. However, contemporary
buildings still remain underrepresented on the heritage list, as the general mind-set is
in favour of historic heritage.
There is a need to establish clear policy and a regulatory mechanism to accom-
modate the heritage artefacts within the planning framework for their protection.
The tools that are available should be enough for the protection of contemporary
architecture and settlements of value. There is a need to unite the owners, users and
actors on a common platform to generate collective action to protect heritage proper-
ties, including contemporary architecture. Active participation of the community and
different actors may be ensured through designing a community-based programme.
Qazi Azizul Mowla
Bangladesh 125
Links
Bangladesh National Portal, Department of Architecture:
www.architecture.gov.bd/ (mainly in Bengali, also in English)
Capital Development Authority of Bangladesh:
www.rajukdhaka.gov.bd/rajuk/ (mainly in Bengali, also in English)
Bibliography
Architectural Conservation in Bangladesh, ed. A.H. Imamuddin (Dhaka, 1993).
Q.A. Mowla, “Integrating Heritage Artefacts into the Urban Fabric of Dhaka”, in Special
Conference on Urbanization, Traffic Jam and Environment, January 8, 2011 (Dhaka, 2011):
84–93.
Q.A. Mowla & Q.A. Zahra, “Historic Settlement of Panamnagar: A Case for Conservation”,
in Contemporary Architecture beyond Corbusierism, eds. S. Bahga, S. Bahga & A. Chaud-
hary (New Delhi, 2011): 236–246.
Old but New: New but Old – Architectural Heritage Conservation, ed. M. Rahman (Dhaka,
2009).
126 Asia
CHINA
Figure 5.3 Yinpei Xu, Yuan Jingshen, Shen Bo, Ma Guoxiang, Geng Changfu, Fang Boyi, Wu
Guanzhang and Zhao Pengfei, Chairman Mao Memorial Hall, Beijing, 1977. Listed
in 1979
Source: Shizhao/Wikipedia Commons, 2006.
In China, the idea of conservation and authenticity is different from the current Western
point of view. This generally is a key point in understanding how to approach architec-
ture protection in the Far East. The modern approach to conservation was introduced
recently in the 1980s and today is considered an object of a broad debate in the scientific
community. One of the main factors influencing conservation is related to the use of
different building materials in the development of building architecture: the widespread
use of timber in this case. Another important factor is related to the meaning which
historical buildings are perceived to have within the urban and social structure.
These aspects often have resulted in drastic intervention measures on decayed struc-
tural parts, which have had to be completely rebuilt, even with modern building mate-
rials where the prevailing idea is to preserve the buildings’ functions. The concept of
authenticity is strongly related to the social and historic value of the building, and
to the detriment of the materials. This helps in the understanding the substitution of
building elements based on different concepts of authenticity and on different ideas of
protection of cultural heritage.
In recent years, the protection of cultural heritage has become a key point in
urban development, facing the growing trend of urbanization and big challenges and
China 127
pressures related to the construction of large-scale infrastructure projects. Since the
founding of the People’s Republic of China (1949), and especially since the policy of
reform and transparency was launched, a legal system for the protection of histori-
cal buildings has been improved constantly and a system of laws and regulations on
heritage protection has been developed. In 1982, China issued the Law of the People’s
Republic of China on the Protection of Cultural Relics, the country’s first law in the
field of cultural relics. The law was revised in 2002 and in 2005, when the State Coun-
cil issued the Circular on Strengthening the Protection of Cultural Heritage.
The system of protection of cultural heritage is divided into three levels (local, pro-
vincial and national) and depends on two separate bodies: the Ministry of Housing
and Urban-Rural Development, in charge of archaeological sites, villages and urban
areas, and the State Administration of Cultural Heritage (Guójiā wénwù jú, SACH,
2003), an administrative agency subordinate to the Ministry of Culture and respon-
sible for the development and management of museums, as well as the protection of
cultural relics of national importance and management of its inventory. In this con-
text, the Ministry of Culture and the SACH have drawn up a body of approximately
30 regulatory documents and administrative regulations, and a number of local regu-
lations have been released.
Modern architectural heritage is a rather neglected corner in China. Only in recent
years was a discussion opened to include it as a part of national heritage. In the period
2002–2012, the SACH carried out a first inventory of twentieth-century architectural
heritage. Some important architecture has been accepted as national heritage, such as
the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall in Beijing (Máo Zhǔxí Jìniàntáng, 1977), a satel-
lite launch site in the Sichuan province and other famous emblematic architecture
of the People’s Republic built between the 1950s and 1970s. Generally, a building
with a history of over 50 years may be included in the list of cultural relics to be
protected at a national or local level. In most parts of China, modern heritage can be
under protection by law as national heritage, historical building (since 2008, when
the People’s Representative Assembly stated that the term ‘historical building’ had a
legal meaning in term of protection) and listed heritage. In Shanghai and some other
cities, local government classifies a building or an area as ‘excellent modern architec-
ture’ or ‘modern architecture’ to protect them by law. The building-existence time of
50 years is a standard, is not mandatory and is not related to any law. We should bear
in mind that most buildings that might be considered part of modern heritage have
been demolished.
The approach in this field seems to be rather flexible and pragmatic. The impor-
tance of modern heritage is considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account
not only its age, but also its social and historic community value. In recent years, some
important twentieth-century buildings of local history significance were considered
under protection, as in the case of some collective buildings of the People’s Commune
(1958–1966) or some residences which hosted, or in which resided, some historical
leaders of the People’s Republic. The Chunlei shipyard of Wuxi (1956) was put under
protection by the municipality and now hosts the China township enterprise museum,
as well as some important industrial heritage compounds that are meaningful for the
area and that to this day are able to host functions.
Lorenzo Miccoli
128 Asia
Link
State Administration of Cultural Heritage:
http://www.sach.gov.cn/ (in Chinese))
Bibliography
Chinese Architecture in the 20th Century, eds. Y. Yang & M. Gu (Tianjin, 1999, in Chinese).
J. Shan, “On Protection of Industrial Heritage, a New Form of Cultural Heritage”, China Cul-
tural Heritage, 4 (2006): 10–45.
X. Wen & W. Lu, “Conception of Protection and Recycle for Modern Architecture Heritage”,
Journal of Dalian University of Technology, 2 (2002): 68–72.
L. Yang & X. Yu, “A Summary of China’s Researches on the Protection and Utilization of
Cultural Heritage”, Tourism Tribune, 4 (2004): 85–91.
Hong Kong 129
HONG KONG
Figure 5.4 Ron Phillips and Alan Fitch, Hong Kong City Hall, Hong Kong, 1956–1969. Listed
as a Grade 1 Historic Building in 2009
Source: Ho Yin Lee, 2008.
130 Asia
Wah Nan Chung observes in his publication: “Not only did we have no Modern
Movement, we had no movement of any kind before or after the Second World War!”
With this statement, the Hong Kong architect implies that there was no ideological
development of modern architecture in Hong Kong. Whether one agrees with this
or not, modern architecture has indeed developed in parallel with the city’s post-war
socio-economic development.
In fact, the development came in three waves. The first one is seen in municipal
buildings, which were designed primarily by British architects in the colony’s civil ser-
vice, such as the Streamline Moderne Wan Chai Market (1937), or the Central Market
(1939). Others that express the Bauhaus tradition are the Bridges Street Market (1953)
and the Central Government Offices (1957–1959), by architects of the Public Works
Department, while the most iconic one is the City Hall (1962). The second wave is
seen in the public housing programme, launched in 1953 to resettle the thousands of
people left homeless by a fire that destroyed a squatter settlement. The programme was
expanded through the 1960s to cope with the influx of tens of thousands of refugees
from China. In 1972, housing was transformed into a long-term social policy, and large
housing estates adopted the ideas embedded in Plan Voisin. At its peak, the programme
housed about 50 percent of the population. Le Corbusier left his mark on early private
housing as well, for instance, the Mei Foo Sun Chuen Estate (1965–1978).
The third wave is the development of high-rise commercial buildings between the
1970s and 1980s, when the service industry completely replaced manufacturing as a
result of Mainland China opening up its cheap labour force for Hong Kong’s manu-
facturers. Curtain-walled ‘glass-box’ commercial buildings became a common sight in
the CBD. Early examples are the St. George’s Building (1969) and the Jardine House
(1972, former Connaught Centre), while later examples are the World Wide House
(1980) and the Sunning Plaza (1982).
Modern heritage is an oxymoron in Hong Kong, as the public mind-set does not
equate Modernism with architectural heritage. The public’s perception of heritage has
been shaped by the first and only conservation legislation to date: the Antiquities and
Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) in Hong Kong Law (1976). This legislation was
enacted “to provide for the preservation of objects of historical, archaeological and
paleontological interest”, and its restrictive nature is explicit in the terms of “antiqui-
ties” and “monuments”.
The legislation has remained unchanged since its enactment in 1976. A low-level
government agency was established in the same year for the execution of works under
the ordinance: the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO). Until 2007, the AMO
operated under the framework of museology and archaeology, with architectural heri-
tage confined to monuments, as defined in the ordinance as “a place, building, site or
structure which is declared to be a monument, historical building or archaeological
or palaeontological site or structure”. Until the end of the colonial period (1997), the
cut-off year for buildings that could be considered as heritage, internally adopted by
AMO, was 1950.
In the early post-colonial years, young Hongkongers became more vocal about
the conservation of the territory’s architectural heritage, as demonstrated by pro-
tests against the demolition of two 1950s ferry piers: the Star Ferry Pier and the
Queen’s Pier. The intensity of the protests led to the announcement of Hong Kong’s
first-ever holistic built-heritage conservation policy in October 2007 by the chief
executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in his policy address.
Hong Kong 131
The policy led to the establishment of a high-level government agency equivalent
to a ministry (development bureau), which was tasked to conserve built heritage
through adaptive reuse under a Revitalising Historic Buildings through Partnership
Scheme (2008). With this change, architectural conservation clearly broke away
from previous restrictions.
More significantly, the Antiquities Advisory Board (2009), the highest advisory
body to the government in built-heritage conservation, came under a new chairman
and many new board members, including the current Head of the Division of Archi-
tectural Conservation Programmes at The University of Hong Kong. The main task
for this new board was to review and confirm the grading of 1,444 historic buildings
using three levels of grading: outstanding, special and some merit. Thus, the board re-
examined the internal cut-off date for recognizing built heritage and decided to extend
it to the 1960s. One of the most recently built examples of a graded historic building
is St. Anthony’s House (1966). Despite its designation, the under-appreciation of this
building can be seen in the official appraisal: “a plain geometric block with regularly
spaced windows somewhat lacking in architectural merit”. The establishment of The
Hong Kong Institute of Architectural Conservationists (2010) and Docomomo Hong
Kong (2012) has helped push the general understanding of modern architecture as an
important component of heritage. Such post-colonial developments are paving the
way for more recognition in the future.
Lynne D. DiStefano and Ho Yin Lee
Link
Antiquities and Monuments Office, Leisure and Cultural Services Department, catalogue of
declared monuments:
http://www.amo.gov.hk/en/monuments.php (in Cantonese, Chinese and English)
Conserve and Revitalise Hong Kong Heritage, lists of declared monuments, proposed monu-
ments, graded historic building and geographical information system on heritage:
http://www.heritage.gov.hk/en/buildings/monuments.htm (in Cantonese, Chinese and English)
Bibliography
W.N. Chung, Contemporary Architecture in Hong Kong (Hong Kong, 1989).
L.D. DiStefano, H.Y. Lee & K. Cummer, “Heritage: A Driver of Development – Hong Kong
Style Conservation”, in Proceedings of the 17th ICOMOS General Assembly and Scientific
Symposium (Paris, 2011): 1–13.
H.Y. Lee & L.D. DiStefano, “Urbanism and Conservation on the Victoria Harbour-Front,”
Space, no. 447 (August 2007): 75–77.
H.Y. Lee & L.D. DiStefano, “Wan Chai Market: Rediscovering Streamline Moderne Architec-
ture.” A paper for the Antiquities and Monuments Office and the Commissioner for Heri-
tage’s Office (Hong Kong, June 2010).
132 Asia
INDIA
Figure 5.5 Walter Sykes George, Tuberculosis Association Building, New Delhi, 1950–1952
Source: Saptarshi Sanyal, 2015.
“Modernization” was a major thrust of the British Empire, introducing the tangible
outcomes of the social, industrial and technological revolutions. New planning, mate-
rials and communications catalyzed major reorganization and urban improvement
activities, resulting in the building of new capital cities both in the British territory
and in the princely states. The international architectural vocabulary emerged after
independence (1947) and Le Corbusier’s work.
Lang’s classification observed a broad definition comprising Early Modern (1920–
1950), First Generation of Modernist (1945–1970), Second Generation (1950–1980),
Post-Nehru Modernist (1965–1990) and Post-Modernist (1975–1995). A large part of
this modern architecture still has to be placed under protection, but there is a new aware-
ness of the past with interest in the form of historical architecture and its studies and pub-
lic interest. This has been evident by the public campaigns for the Hall of Nations (1972),
by Raj Rewal, and mention must be made of the unsuccessful World Heritage Nomina-
tions in which New Delhi and Chandigarh figure. Chandigarh as part of a transnational
nomination was inscribed last October at the Istanbul World Heritage Commitee meeting.
Heritage laws are part of the colonial legacy and are rooted in the European par-
adigm of the nineteenth century. The Ancient Monuments, Sites and Remains Act
(1904) recognized a select list of sites, considered far-reaching for its time, and was
monument-centric following the colonial perception of India. In 1958, although
restrictive for a complex multicultural democratic republic, this law was modified as
the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958. In 1992,
India 133
its amendment addressed the areas around the monument, with 100 meters prohibi-
tory and another 200 meters regulatory. This has been problematic, and in 2010, the
Validation Act was enacted in order to protect, manage and conserve over 3,650 listed
properties. The 2010 Validation Act set up the National Monuments Authority to
bring about a procedure to regulate development up to 300 meters.
In addition to the national law, each state has its own Monuments Act. In theory,
any building over 100 years could be totally protected, though it has never been
applied. The legal framework does not cover the “living” dimension of historic build-
ings and cities and cultural regions. This means modern architecture is neither pro-
tected by law, nor is it able to address change and transformation or integrate with
governance requirements. Inadequate protection with rapid development puts pres-
sure on historic layers, including that from the twentieth century, and leaves modern
architecture at risk.
There is a larger cultural foundation at the bottom-most layer of the nation, referred
to as the “Indian Cultural Landscape”, which embodies a combination of values
and meanings, from sacred and the metaphysical to the mundane and the physical,
inscribed on real ground or geography – the cultural geographical identity of India
since time immemorial. Cultural Landscapes presents a characteristic spatial, mor-
phological and typological vocabulary, borne through unique historical, geographical
and anthropological dimensions. One can discern surviving elements of this underly-
ing layer, which connects the contemporary nation to its deep past, basis for its beliefs
and traditional knowledge systems.
Land is a state subject in the Indian Constitution (1950). The State Planning Acts
provide a “special areas” designation in master plans. Special areas, including histori-
cal centres, are viewed from a development and planner perspective and not from a
cultural one. The two main instruments are development control and regulatory by-
laws, including modern cultural resources. There are more players in the urban sectors.
Many NGOs, such as the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage, and
municipalities have been “listing” buildings and “precincts” in their cities with the hope
that with “guidelines” they will be conserved. Numerous missions have been set up for
more than a decade; for example, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mis-
sion (2005) was established to improve the infrastructure even within historic cities,
remain insular and not interfaced within the broader definition of living heritage and
its cultural values. Innovative and inclusive protection is desirable through cultural
laws that are supported by the planning and environmental sectors. Also required is a
high degree of coordination to ensure effective protection and management of urban
heritage of cities. All this means a paradigmatic shift from the colonial systems.
Ensuring co-existence from the time of mythology through to the modern and con-
temporary defines the continuity that makes India unique. The acute vulnerability
from threat of uncontrolled growth is eroding this cultural foundation. The challenges
and opportunities of interdisciplinary research and documentation will compensate
for the lacuna in information. These have seldom translated into effective protec-
tion mechanism on the ground in the absence of a legal mandate. Internationally the
scope has broadened for heritage since independence, and modern architecture is one
beneficiary. With the acceptance of living heritage categories and traditional/histori-
cal urban entities and systems, mere extensions of colonial laws or isolated projects
will not help. The protection of the cultural resource system will be effective only
when developed within the broader picture with respect to existing jurisdictions and
134 Asia
democratic rights of people. The new paradigm is still under development in order to
balance cultural heritages and diversities.
Nalini Thakur
Links
Archaeological Survey of India, list of state protected monuments:
http://asi.nic.in/asi_protected_monu_list.asp (in English and Hindi)
Delhi Development Authority:
http://www.dda.org.in (in English)

Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (Intach), architectural heritage:
http://architecturalheritage.intach.org/ (in English)
Bibliography
N. Evenson, The Indian Metropolis: A View Toward the West (New Haven, 1989).
J. Lang, A Concise History of Modern Architecture in India (New Delhi, 2002).
N. Thakur, “The Indian Cultural Landscape: Protecting and Managing the Physical and Meta-
physical Values”, in Managing Cultural Landscapes, eds. K. Taylor & J.L. Lennon (London,
2012): 154–172.
N. Thakur, “The Conceptual Model for Indian Heritage Site Protection and Management”, in
Training Strategies for World Heritage Management (Cottbus, 2007): 136–143.
N. Thakur, Potential World Heritage: 19th and 20th Century of South Asia, Report for Unesco
(New Delhi, 2004): 1–47.
Indonesia 135
INDONESIA
Figure 5.6 Soejoedi Wirjoatmodjo, Parliament complex, Jakarta, 1958–1962. Listed in 1993
Source: Gregorius Antar Awal, 2005.
Although concern in the Dutch colony for heritage conservation started in the nine-
teenth century, it was not until the 1970s that such interest became popular. In 1931,
the governor general issued the Monumenten Ordonnantie (Stadtblad No. 238, Decree
No. 19) to take measures for the protection of goods that “are older than 50 years or
belong to an at least 50 year old style” (art. 1). After independence (1945), the task
for cultural heritage documentation was under the Ministry of Culture, which later
merged with Ministry of Education and became the Ministry of Education and Cul-
ture, whose action was based on the Ordonnantie. The Office of Archaeology (Dinas
Poerbakala, 1953) had the responsibility to continue the task for heritage documenta-
tion and conservation. Between 1966 and 1977, the visionary governor of Jakarta, Ali
Sadikin, expanded the legacy of the colonial policy, which had started documenting
valuable cultural objects of both the Dutch and the locals.
Jakarta became the showcase of cultural representation of the country, and archi-
tectural heritage protection expressed the nation’s civilization. In 1974, Sadikin had
designated five conservation zones and enlisted numbers of historical buildings for
protection, while buildings in the conservation zones were rated into three classes.
Buildings in class A are fully protected as heritage and their owners cannot alter any-
thing during maintenance or repair. The front facades of B class buildings need to be
fully retained, although the new construction can be different from the original, right
behind the protected frontage. Buildings in class C can be demolished for new con-
structions, and they include several works of modern architecture. Two of them were
within two complexes of historical events: the Asian Games and the Parliament of
the Republic of Indonesia. Another one is Hotel Indonesia. Other A-listed individual
buildings spread beyond the conservation complexes.
Conservation activity spread to many other cities, with similar categories. The Gel-
ora Bung Karno Sports Complex (1958–1962) was financed by a loan from Soviet
Union, and it consisted of the Main Stadium, the Istora Senayan, the Swimming
Stadium and other supporting structures. The Parliament complex was originally
designed by Soejoedi Wirjoatmodjo for the Conference of New Emerging Forces initi-
ated by Sukarno. The New Order government which replaced the Sukarno complex
136 Asia
was assigned as the DPR/MPR Building. It consists of the main conference build-
ing (Nusantara, 1965–1968), with a roof design in a shape of the flapping wings of
Garuda; the secretariat building (1978); the wing-shaped auditorium building (1982);
and a banquette building (1983). This modern architectural set has become the young-
est buildings ever listed as heritage up to today.
In 1992, the state issued Law No. 5 concerning Cultural Conservation Objects. It
was followed by the law for its implementation. Under the umbrella of these laws,
the government issued the Governor Decree No. 475/1993 to protect the buildings
enlisted in 1974 with some new buildings. Yet not all listed heritage can also be listed
as national heritage. In the 1992 law, in order to be considered heritage, an object

should either reach at least 50 years of age or be noted as having historical or archi-
tectural significance. This law was replaced by Law No. 11/2010 on Cultural Heritage
(Cagar Budaya). It covers cultural landscape as heritage, and according to its rules
traditional architectural works belong to tangible cultural heritage, while the architec-
tural traditions of local communities are considered intangible cultural heritage. Here
objects or built works can be enlisted in a similar way as other grade A works. The
architectural tradition which produces architectural works of a community is consid-
ered to be the domain of local knowledge, which needs to be protected. The 2010 act
also encourages individuals, communities, and institutions to actively observe, pro-
mote and propose cultural heritage to be verified and designated as national heritage
by the Directorate General of Culture (Direktorat Jenderal Kebudayaan, DJK) of the
Ministry of Education and Culture.
Heritage conservation has become a subject in many schools of architecture in
Indonesia. Activists in heritage conservation have expanded lately, with almost each
city with colonial buildings having heritage organization. The Indonesian Heritage
Trust is actively promoting cultural heritage conservation. The Center for Architec-
tural Documentation has continued documenting old buildings. The DKJ has formed
an expert committee to evaluate the annual submission of cultural objects to be listed
as national heritage.
The law refers to heritage and buildings partially mentioned in separate divisions.
For instance, there was Law No. 28/2002 regarding buildings whose implementation
is under the authority of the Ministry of Public Works. Here heritage buildings were
mentioned with criteria according to ICOMOS. By law, the task of listing and safe-
guarding should be under the responsibility of Ministry of Education and Culture. As
far as culture is concerned, this area is the most unstable zone as it was once within
education, but sometimes merges with tourism. Because several ministries are actively
documenting cultural heritage, who should be responsible for taking care of this may
become unclear, as the laws often overlap. The clarity of law remains unsolved and, in
this regard, coordination is needed so that buildings under protection can be allocated
their proper place.
Gunawan Tjahjono
Indonesia 137
Link
Cultural Heritage, National Registration System:
http://cagarbudaya.kemdikbud.go.id/siteregnas/ (in Indonesian)
Bibliography
I. Fitri, Y. Ahmad & F. Ahmad, “Conservation of Tangible Heritage in Indonesia: A Review
Current National Criteria for Assessing Heritage Value”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 184 (2015): 71–78.
A. Kusno, The Appearances of Memory: Mnemonic Practices of Architecture and Urban Form
in Indonesia (Durham and London, 2010).

138 Asia
IRAN
Figure 5.7 Hossein Amanat, Azadi Tower, Tehran, 1970. Listed in 1973
Source: Wayran (Creative Commons), 2009.
The development of modern architecture in Iran emerged during the Qajar period
(1800–1925), when the increase of communications enabled a more in-depth knowl-
edge of European architecture, and whose matrix appears to be more evident in gov-
ernment monuments from the late nineteenth century.
With the rule of the Pahlavi dynasty (1925–1979), architecture gained a new push
towards modernization. Under the authoritarian rule of the government and with
help from the West, the dominant architectural style of the period spread across the
nation. During the reign of Reza Shah, the education, economy and culture were
inspired by Europe, and for the first time Western architects were invited to design
new buildings. As a result, the traditional urban design of many cities was changed
significantly, and new construction techniques brought about a variety of styles and
modes of European and Iranian origin. This trend embodied both nationalistic goals
and progressive mentality, using as a model the inheritance from pre-Islamic Iran. The
combination of these two approaches was such that the Eclecticism found expression
and development, in particular, in Maidan Mashgh (1931) and Hassan Abad Square
(1935). Under the pressure of the objectives of certain progressive intellectuals, a
more rationalistic architecture was developed, without a trace or influence of Persian
Iran 139
forms, such as the Campus of the University of Tehran (1934), the Central Station of
Tehran (1937) and the Ministry of Justice (1938), and with architects like Mohsen
Foroughi, Vartan Hovanesian, Ali Sadegh, Kayghobad Zafar Bakhtiari, Paul Akbar,
Gabriel Gevorkian and Iraj Moshiri.
During the 1970s, with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the substantial revenue gener-
ated by the oil trade paved the way for important steps in the economy, education
and health. In this context, development was designed only as an investment race,
neglecting cultural and social dimensions, and this discrepancy created imbalances
that led to the Islamic revolution. In those years, the establishment of modern edu-
cational institutions, such as the School of Fine Arts, encouraged the emergence of a
new generation characterized by its love of Western architecture, while at the same
time we witnessed the rapid growth of urban areas. This period is characterized by
Modernism and International Style, whose influence can be seen in buildings such
as the Takhti (1966), the Municipal Theatre (1971), Azadi Stadium (1974) and the
Ministry of Agriculture (1975), designed by the renowned Jahangir Darvish, Sardar
Ali Afkhami and Abdolaziz Farmanfarmaian.
The political and social events of 1979 created a rift between architecture before
and after the revolution, and from that time onwards new points of view related to the
ideals of cultural, national or religious aspects have emerged. The long Iran-Iraq War
(1980–1988) resulted in social and economic unrest and had an influence on architec-
ture and urbanism with new organizational models and training. For the government,
the effort to create a new Islamic identity had become a major concern.
During the 1980s to 1990s there was a strong impetus to modernize traditional Islamic
culture and its architectural forms, perceived as a priority by the authorities, such as the
building for the Hajj (1988), the shrine of Imam Khomeini (1991) and the University
Sharif mosque (2000) in Tehran. These experiences, however, have turned out to be an
imitation of the patterns from the past, and their forms are out of time and place.
Within a rich history of significant twentieth-century architecture, there still does
not exist a charter for national conservation, so for architectural heritage Iran has
been proceeding with ministerial memoranda. The Iran Cultural Heritage (1907) gen-
erally deals with real estate or movable property. For architectural heritage, landscape,
archaeological and ancient art there is a National Heritage Protection Act dating back
to 1930. This establishes that
all existing industrial or architectural works in the country and whose date of
foundation dates back to the Zandiye dynasty (1750–1796) [. . .] are subject to
the law on antiquities and therefore are protected and preserved by the Iranian
Government (art. 1).
It is therefore the government’s duty to create an archive for a complete list and clas-
sify all public and cultural heritages, with the authorization of the Ministry of Culture
and Art. There shall be no operation in the vicinity of the protected heritage that may
cause the weakening and the transformation of such work, while, for private property,
the conservation and protection of the asset are governmental responsibilities.
In 1973 the National Heritage Registration Act was approved, including as national
heritage all assets that have been discovered and registered up to the Iranian Consti-
tution (1906). The ministry also included the requirements that all real properties in
140 Asia
relation to a historical event or national level, regardless of the date on which they
were discovered, are subject to the law of 1930, such as the Azadi Tower (1970) by
Hossein Amanat.
Hassan Osanloo
Links
Iran Cultural Heritage, Handcrafts and Tourism Organization:
http://www.ichto.ir (in Persian)
Ministry of Roads & Urban Development, Islamic Republic of Iran:

http://www.mrud.ir (in English and Persian)
Bibliography
N. Ardalan & L. Bakhtiar, The Sense of Unity: The Sufi Tradition in Persian Architecture (Chi-
cago, 1973).
Q. Bayzidi, I. Etesam, F. Habib & S.M. Mokhtabad Amrei, “An Investigation of Global-
Regional Interactional Approach at the Prominent Works of Contemporary Iranian Archi-
tects”, International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 2 (2013): 13–20.
R. FarmahiniFarahani, I. Etesam & S. Rahman Eghbali, “The Impact of Architectural Competi-
tions on the Improvement of the Post-Revolution Architecture in Iran”, International Journal
of Architecture and Urban Development, 2 (2012): 35–44.
M. Hattstein & P. Delius, Islam: Art and Architecture (Cologne, 2000).
Israel 141
ISRAEL
Figure 5.8 Dov Karmi, Zeev Rechter and Jacob Rechter, Mann Auditorium, Tel Aviv, 1957.
Listed in 2008
Source: Nir Mualam, 2013.
Learning from experience and knowledge accumulated in Western Europe and the
United States, Israel devised its own instruments that remained on a ‘low burner’ until
1991. Since then, architectural preservation has been accelerated.
With the birth of Israel (1948), a legislative platform from the British Mandate over
Anglo-Palestine was inherited. The legislation enabled planning authorities to prepare
local plans, including preservation plans, but did not create specialized mechanisms
for historic preservation such as heritage registries. In 1965 the parliament passed the
Planning and Building Act, but it did not provide distinct incentives or prescriptions
for preservation – whether by local planning commissions or by the two higher levels
(district and national). This is generally due to its orientation in favor of development
rather than development control. In 1991 the parliament amended the law by adding
provisions related to built-heritage protection.
Current provisions allow protection of buildings and entire areas by means of two
mechanisms: listing of historic edifices and preparation of statutory plans with preser-
vation objectives. To date, there is no national list, and the localities compile their own
local lists. Overall, any type of heritage is eligible for inclusion and protection in heri-
tage lists. Historic properties built before 1700 have ‘automatic’ and strict protection
under the Law of Antiquities (1978, amended in 1984). For more recent structures,
142 Asia
there is no pre-set dateline defining what is old enough to merit preservation. The
planning law simply defines a historic site as a building or a group of buildings or
part thereof, including their near surrounding, that are of historical, national, archi-
tectural or archaeological significance. Besides local lists, local statutory plans are the
central instrument for ensuring the integrity of historic buildings. Once included in a
local plan, a planning authority can incorporate within the plan’s regulations various
instructions, conditions or prohibitions pertaining to architectural preservation.
Whereas inclusion in a heritage list does not provide formal protection, rules
embedded within a statutory plan can provide mandatory prescriptions for preserva-
tion. These plans may be prepared by local planning commissions, district commis-
sions or the National Planning and Building Board, in a top-down planning control
system. In 1999, the Ministry of the Interior, responsible for land-use planning, urged
local planning commissions to implement the legal requirement to establish Preserva-
tion Commissions with advisory powers. This ministerial circular came after years of
idleness, but it did not seem to change the local preservation efforts. However, local
governments made few efforts to secure the built heritage. Their reluctance may be
explained, in part, by the fact that the planning law provides compensation rights
when approval of any statutory plan reduces a property’s market value. On the face
of it, designation of a building as historic can reduce its market value, and therefore
local authorities shy away from earmarking heritage for protection, due to expensive
compensation lawsuits.
Despite these hurdles, since the early 2000s one can notice growing awareness by
local governments and NGOs of the importance of historic preservation, followed
by a consistent rise in the number and extent of statutory plans inclusive of heritage
protection measures. In 2008 the government issued additional guidelines for docu-
mentation of historic and modern structures.
The most prominent example for contemporary heritage protection is the com-
prehensive preservation plan approved for Tel Aviv-Jaffa. This innovative and pace-
setting plan designates hundreds of buildings in a single stroke. Most of these historic
structures are privately owned and located at the heart of the White City, declared
as a World Heritage Site in 2003. The Tel Aviv Preservation Plan identifies the major
historic buildings and creates two preservation categories: Grade 2 allows alterations
to certain modern buildings, and Grade 1 strictly limits the possibility of undertak-
ing any alterations or additions to ultra-important historic structures. Buildings were
cherry-picked by the planning authorities after a thorough examination of the stock
of properties and according to pre-defined criteria that accorded points to certain
attributes of each building.
Tel Aviv’s plan has been revolutionary because of its geographic scope and the num-
ber of buildings designated by it. It paved the road for other townships (Jerusalem,
Be’er-Sheba, and Ramat-Gan just to name a few) to consider inclusion of twentieth-
century architecture in their strategic plans, and it legitimized the preservation of ‘not-
so-beautiful’ styles including Brutalism. Time has been moving forward, and today
there is a growing discussion on extending protection to twentieth-century buildings.
In Tel Aviv, for instance, the Mann Auditorium (1957) by Dov Karmi, Zeev Rechter
and Jacob Rechter is protected under local regulation; the former El-Al Offices (1963)
by Ram Karmi was listed in 2005; and the Asia House (1979) by Mordechai Ben Horin
has been on the wish list of local preservationists, therefore sparking much controversy.
Israel 143
Overall, heritage protection presents quandaries: What should be preserved and
why? Whose heritage is it? These debates are especially potent in Israel due to its tiny
land size and exceedingly high population density. The conflict is recurring because of
heritage protection measures and the need to redevelop more intensively.
Nir Mualam and Rachelle Alterman
Links
Israel Antiquities Authority:
http://www.antiquities.org.il/default_en.aspx (in Arabic, English and Hebrew)
The Council for Conservation of Heritage Sites in Israel:

http://eng.shimur.org/Default.aspx (in English, Hebrew and Russian)
Bibliography
R. Alterman, Takings International: A Comparative Perspective on Land Use Regulations and
Compensation Rights (Chicago, 2010): 313–342.
M. Azaryahu, Tel Aviv: Mythography of a City (Syracuse, 2007).
K. Metrany & I. Amit-Cohen, “The Heritage of the Modern Movement in Tel Aviv: Spatial
Distribution versus Public Consciousness”, Docomomo Journal, 40 (2009): 83–88.
N. Mualam, “New Trajectories in Historic Preservation: The Rise of Built Heritage Protection
in Israel”, Journal of Urban Affairs 37, no. 5 (2014, DOI:10.1111/juaf.12168): 620–642.
144 Asia
JAPAN
Figure 5.9 Nikken Sekkei Ltd., Kobe Port Tower, Kobe, 1963. Listed in 2014
Source: 2013, Author.
In 1884, the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (1871) ordered research into
the temples and shrines by American scholar Ernest Fenollosa and Okakura Kakuzō.
In 1897, the first Law on the Preservation of Cultural Heritage was issued on the
initiative of the latter, based on the model of the preservation system in France and
England. With regard to architecture, the law was limited to religious buildings.
The Great Depression, which also struck Japan, induced the problem of the disper-
sion of cultural heritage into private ownership. Therefore, the Law on the Protec-
tion of National Treasures for private and religious cultural heritages (1929) was
Japan 145
issued, which identified 845 architectural complexes (1,081 buildings). After World
War II, the Act on the Protection of Cultural Properties (bunka-zai hogohō, 1950,
amended in 1954 and 2004) was issued and is still in force today, also for the pro-
tection of modern and contemporary buildings. With this law was born the system
of preservation organized from 2001 by the current Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology and from 1968 by the Agency for Cultural Affairs
(bunka-chō). Noteworthy with the amendment in 1975 was the addition of the new
object of protection: the Groups of Important Traditional Buildings (dentōteki jyuyō
kenzōbutsu-gun), which in July 2015 listed 110 groups according to the official site
of the latest bunka-chō.

There are different levels of heritage protection: the general definition term is that
of bunka-zai (Cultural Properties); the most important ones are named jūyō bunka-zai
(Important Cultural Properties) or more briefly jūbun; historically the most significant
ones are called kokuhō (National Treasures). The owners of kokuhō or jūbun receive
subsidies for renovations, maintenance and disaster prevention equipment. Today, the
category of architecture of jūbun amounts to 4,825, including 282 kokuhō buildings,
but very few modern and contemporary architectures are ranked as jūbun and noth-
ing as kokuhō.
In 1974, for the first time a reinforced concrete building was classified as jūbun.
That was the Yodokō Guest House in Ashiya, formerly Yamamura (1923–1924), by
Frank Lloyd Wright. In 2005 the Watanabe Memorial Auditorium in Ube (1937), one
of the masterpieces of Tōgo Murano, was classified as jūbun. In 2006, the first jūbun
classification for post-war architectures was selected in the shape of the Hiroshima
Peace Memorial Museum (1955) by Kenzo Tange and the Memorial Cathedral for
World Peace (1950–1954) by Murano, both in Hiroshima. 2007 saw the addition of
the National Museum of Western Art (Tokyo, 1959) designed by Le Corbusier and
his three Japanese assistants.
In 1996 the Registered Tangible Cultural Property was introduced (tōroku yūkei
bunka-zai, TYB), at first reserved exclusively for buildings (a total of 10,677 in
November 2016): it was a large step forward, especially for the conservation of mod-
ern and contemporary architecture, including industrial heritage and urban infra-
structure. Most of these buildings are made of wood and built in traditional structure
in the modern and contemporary periods; wooden buildings are considered to have
greater value suitable for TYB.
In Iuyama, 1965 saw the inauguration of the Open Air Architectural Museum Meiji-
mura, which preserves traditional and modern buildings, particularly those built dur-
ing the Meiji period (1868–1912), including the entrance part of the Imperial Hotel
(Tokyo, 1923) by F.L. Wright. In 1993, another Open Air Architectural Museum,
Edo-Tokyo Tatemono-en, was opened, housing, among other things, the residence
house of Kunio Maekawa (1942), one of the leading figures of Japanese modernism.
Currently in TYB there are no buildings constructed after 1961 and only a few
pieces of architecture from the 1950s that have recently been recorded: in 2005 the
Japan Pearl Center in Kobe (1952) by Yoshimitsu Mitsuyasu and the Nagoya TV
Tower (1954) by Tachū Naitō; in 2006 the International House of Japan in Tokyo
(1955) by Kunio Maekawa, Junzō Yoshimura and Junzō Sakakura; in 2007 two look-
out towers in Osaka, Tsutenkaku (1956) and Beppu Tower (1957) by Naitō, the Town
Hall of Kurayoshi (1956) by Tange, the Ura House in Nishinomiya (1956) by Taka-
masa Yoshizaka; in 2008 the Sumi Memorial Hall in Ichinomiya (1957) by Tange; in
146 Asia
2010 the municipal Planetarium of Akashi (1960); in 2011 the Toyota Auditorium of
the Nagoya University (1960) by Fumihiko Maki; in 2013 the famous Tokyo Tower
(1958) by Naitō; in 2014 the Kobe Port Tower (1963) by Nikken Sekkei Ltd. and
other several buildings of 1950s; in 2015 the Hirosaki City Hall (1958) by Kunio
Maekawa and the Ootaki Towon Hall (1959) by Kenji Imai.
Although the list of the most important twentieth-century buildings of Docomomo
Japan (1998) had classified four of them as jūbun and other five as TYB, many archi-
tectural pieces from the 1950s to 1970s had already been demolished. For years there
has been a debate over the demolition of Nakagin Capsule Tower in Tokyo (1972) by
Kisho Kurokawa, the masterpiece of the Metabolism movement, which was also one
of Docomomo Japan’s 125 (selected in 2006) most important buildings, and the con-
servation of which is also required by several institutions interested in preservation
of architecture: Architectural Institute of Japan (1886), Japan Institute of Architects
(1947), Japan Federation of Architects Associations (1952) and New Union of Archi-
tects and Engineers (1970).
Ewa Kawamura
Links
Cultural Heritage Online:
http://bunka.nii.ac.jp/index.php (in Japanese)
The Agency for Cultural Affairs:
http://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/bunkazai/shokai/hozonchiku/judenken_ichiran.html (in Eng-
lish and Japanese)
Database of Cultural Properties of Japan:
http://kunishitei.bunka.go.jp/bsys/index_pc.asp (in Japanese)
Bibliography
Gekkan Bunka-zai, 411. Special issue for 100 years anniversary of Act on Protection of Cultural
Properties (1997, in Japanese).
S. Hiroyuki, Theory on the Conservation of Contemporary Architecture (Tokyo, 2001, in
Japanese).
W. Howard Coaldrake, Architecture and Authority in Japan (London, 1996).
Hozon: Architectural and Urban Conservation in Japan, eds. S. Rct E. & N. Gutschow (Stutt-
gart-Fellbach, 1994).
The Japan Architect, 57. Special issue titled “Docomomo_japan: The 100 Selections” (2005).
Jordan 147
JORDAN
Figure 5.10 Al Jaghbeer residence, Salt, late 19th and early 20th century façade
Source: Cultech for Heritage and Conservation, 2014.
The first act concerning antiquities was enacted in 1934 (Law No. 24). Today, archaeo-
logical heritage is ruled by the Antiquities Law (No. 21/1988, amendment No. 23/2004),
which considers pre-1750 cultural items as ‘antiquities’. It also defines as antiquity “any
building or construction of a date later than the year 1750 AD, which the minister
may by order declare to be an antiquity” (art. 2). It also establishes that the Depart-
ment of Antiquities (1923, DOA) is the board responsible for excavation, conservation,
presentation and protection of antiquities. DOA is one of the earliest directorates to
be developed under the British mandate (1919–1946), and it continued to work even
after independence. On the other hand, the Law on the Protection of Architectural and
Urban Heritage (No. 5/2005) considers post-1750 buildings as architectural heritage.
This law was enacted by the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities (MOTA) and it pro-
posed a technical committee to develop and activate this mandate.
Several studies have marked initiatives for the protection of the architectural heri-
tage. Among them, the compiling of a register and new regulations for As-Salt city by
the Royal Scientific Society in the late 1980s – which has not been declared, the 2005
act – which is also not being implemented, and the declaration and delineation of his-
toric centres – which are not usually adopted by the local institutions. Subsequently
another register was proposed for the capital city of Amman by the Turath engineer-
ing office and this was also not published and legally activated. One recent exception
is the establishment of an “Area with Special Regulations” for the historic centre of
Salt, parallel with the attempt to register this city on the World Heritage List.
148 Asia
In the early 1990s, new private partnerships worked to develop new tourist products
for nearly abandoned rural villages, such as in Kan Zaman, Taibet Zamman or Dana
village. This investment in the early twentieth-century architectural heritage led the way
to directing further international funds, in addition to other grants, towards investing
in the living architectural heritage of towns and villages to provide new tourist products
and consolidate the national project of tourism. The cosmetic treatment projects were
mainly to be adopted and developed by the local engineering offices or joint ventures
with international engineering offices. These were merely tackling the facade facelift
of urban spaces and streets in major historic centres. This has been the main product
that the governmental agencies as in the Ministry of Tourism, and to a great extent the
Municipality of Amman, have so far implemented. With the influx of Gulf investment
and private funds (2005–2010), the main investments became more focused on turn-
ing areas in Amman into what could be a more neo-liberated economy base where the
assets of several governmental institutions were jointly developed with other private or
foreign investors, such as in the new downtown initiative of Al-Abdali area. Thus the
heritage project in Amman was delayed. The heritage project still is an elitist project in
many cities, wooing the economic potential of streetscape and urban space. This has led
to the rejuvenation of specific areas, but without a holistic approach.
No awareness campaigns or plans have been pursued, and no legal or technical
frameworks can be clearly effective. In addition, for many people, the proposed dec-
laration of a register in the official gazette implies an appropriation, when it should
mean practicing restrictions. This is still a main issue and the legal standpoint is not
clear with regard to such practice. The register of Amman has remained as a theoreti-
cal study, also because building the capacity of the Amman municipality for the pro-
tection of the architectural and urban heritage was not a top priority. In sum, the rules
for architectural protection are still dormant. No integrated strategy for the develop-
ment of effective laws and applicable regulations has accompanied this investment in
architectural heritage aside from some modest initiatives from MOTA.
The only effective legal tools that can currently be considered are the regional plans.
These latter are prepared by the Planning Department of the Ministry of Rural Affairs
or by the Greater Amman Municipality. The necessary report includes the “protec-
tion of areas, caves, buildings and constructions, antiquities and master pieces which
have an archaeological or/and historical or/and architectural values”. The declaration
of areas with special planning and building regulations, under the Towns Villages
and Buildings Law (No. 79/1966, and its amendments), is also valuable, where an
administrative and supervising role is assigned to the municipal council. In addition,
the law makes reference to building licenses “to control constructions and destruction
and changing their forms”. There is a real gap between codes, laws, decrees and the
difficulties that meet their applications, due to a missing national umbrella/board for
post-1750 architectural protection. Moreover, there is no effort to ensure an adequate
civic education regarding the protection of the cultural heritage. It is necessary to
create a suitable education for architects and contractors if this project is to proceed.
Leen A. Fakhoury
Links
Ministry of Tourism & Antiquities, Department of Antiquities:
http://www.doa.gov.jo (in Arabic and English)
Jordan 149
MegaJordan, The National Heritage Documentation and Management System, GIS inventory
of archaeological sites and historic buildings:
http://www.megajordan.org/ (in English)
Bibliography
S. Al-kheder, N. Haddad, L. Fakhoury & S. Baqaen, “A GIS Analysis of the Impact of Modern
Practices and Polices on the Urban Heritage of Irbid”, Cities, 26:2 (2009): 81–92.
R.F. Daher, “Gentrification and the Politics of Power, Capital and Culture in an Emerging Jorda-
nian Heritage Industry”, Traditional Dwellings & Settlement Review, X:II (1999): 33–45.
L. Fakhoury & N. Haddad, Manual for the Conservation of the Historic Centre of Salt (Amman,
2014, in Arabic).
150 Asia
KAZAKHSTAN
Figure 5.11 Boris Rafailovich Rubanenko, Government Building, Almaty, 1951–1957. Listed
in 1982
Source: Yulii Aibassov, 2005.
The Law on the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Heritage (No. 1,488-
XII, 1992) noted that heritage, as the most important evidence of the historical destiny
of the people, as a part of human civilization, requires constant protection. Unfortu-
nately, after independence (1991), conservation and protection of monuments were
overshadowed by the economic situation, as noted in the decision of Supreme Council
on the Preservation of Historical and Cultural Monuments (No. 1,366-XII, 1992).
The 1970 to 1980s saw the establishing of a unified system of registration, protec-
tion and use of heritage. The Research and Design Institute (since 1993 Kazprojec-
trestoration) and the association Kazrestoration (1972) have successfully coordinated
and implemented heritage activities and surveyed and registered 18,500 monuments.
Also developed were supporting historical, architectural and urban plans of 18 his-
torical cities, with training and preparation for specialized personnel. The presence
of several historical and national objects necessitated the creation of historical and
cultural reserve museums and Almaty State Historical, Architectural and Memorial
Reserve. In the 1990s, during a period of loan financing, these companies were closed
and debugged protection and restoration infrastructure was destroyed.
The 1992 law was not regularly agreed upon and, with regard to urban planning
and economic activity, solutions were adopted that led to irreparable loss of archi-
tectural heritage. For instance, the historically developed planning structure of the
ancient towns of Taraz, Shymkent and Turkistan are highly modified. In particular,
architectural monuments from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have been
Kazakhstan 151
affected by underestimation of their importance. Demolition of iconic buildings in
favour of new development has often become the topic of discussion in Almaty, Semey
and other cities.
In 1998, a presidential decree approved the National Programme Revival of his-
torical centres of the Silk Road, the preservation and successive development of the
culural heritage of Turkic states, the creation of tourism infrastructure. In 2001, the
state commission on monuments being built in Kazakhstan was established, which
consisted of prominent politicians and academics. In 2003, the decree from Presi-
dent Nursultan Nazarbayev approved a state programme Cultural Heritage, which
included a set of urgent measures to normalize the situation in the sphere of protec-
tion, restoration and use of monuments. These measures include tasks such as the
development and improvement of the structure and form of protection of monu-
ments, reinforcing their legal authority and the development of legal documents in
this field.
The implementation of the Cultural Heritage saw the restoration of over 100
architectural monuments and the publication of codes of historical and cultural
monuments in Akmola, Pavlodar, Zhambyl, Kyzylorda, North Kazakhstan, Almaty
regions and Almaty city. A full inventory of heritage was completed, including 218
objects of Republican significance and 11,277 of local significance. The heritage list
of Republican value includes various buildings from the Soviet period. In Almaty,
there are Constructivist architectures from the 1920 and 1930s and Classicistic or
Regionalist ones from the 1940s and 1950s. After 1945, there are architectures from
the 1960s and 1970s, such as the Republic Palace (1970, reconstructed in 2011) by
Nikolai Ripinsky, Lev Ukhobotov, Vladimir Kim, Vladimir Alle and Yuri Ratushny;
the National Library (1970) by Vladimir Izchenko, Konstantin Kalnoy, V. Kim and
Yevgeny Kuznezov; and the Medeu Sport Complex (1972, reconstructed in 2011) by
Vladimir Kazev, Arystan Kainarbaev and Irina Kosogova.
In 2007, government decrees approved various rules relating to identification,
accounting, the conferral and deprivation of the historical and cultural status of mon-
uments (No. 1032); a provision relating to the use of monuments of international and
republican value (No. 1033); protection and content of monuments (No. 1044); and
the issue of security obligations on monuments (No. 1045).
In today’s economy, a measure for the protection and preservation of monuments
might be the creation of historical and cultural reserve museums as support centres
for protection, study and conservation of heritage. The most effective and optimal
method of preservation of architectural monuments is its active integration into soci-
ety through their inclusion in the socio-economic plans for regional and national
development. Consequently a general policy is needed that aims to give historical and
architectural heritage a function in social life and to integrate its protection into com-
prehensive planning programmes. Public authorities in the field of protection should
be removed from under the control of local authorities and transferred to the new
entity. Only in this way will they be able to independently carry out the control and
monitoring functions for the registration, protection and use of cultural heritage and
to demand compliance with the law.
We hope that the measures currently adopted by the state and the professional bod-
ies will contribute to a new approach in the management of conservation of Kazakh-
stan’s architectural heritage.
Gulnar Abdrassilova and Yerkebulat Y. Tokmagambetov
152 Asia
Link
Cultural Heritage, The National Project, Cultural Legacy:
http://www.madenimura.kz/en/culture-legacy/ (in English and Kazakh)
Bibliography
G. Abdrassilova, “Regional Architecture of Kazakhstan: Traditions in the Context of Moder-
nity”, in 10th International Conference New Building Technologies and Architectural Design
NBTAD 2013 (Krakow, 2013).
G. Abdrassilova, Trends in the Development of Regional Architecture and Urban Planning of

Kazakhstan (Almaty, 2010, in Russian).
A. Galimzhanova & M. Glaudinova, History of Art in Kazakhstan: Architecture, 2 (Almaty,
2011, in Kazakh).
B. Glaudinov, Architecture of the Soviet Kazakhstan (Almaty, 2012).
Y.Y. Tokmagambetov, “The Issues of State Registration, Protection and Use of Historical and
Cultural Heritage of the Republic of Kazakhstan”, in Architecture and Construction (Bish-
kek, 2003): 111–125.
Lebanon 153
LEBANON
Figure 5.12 Idriss Building, Yammout Street, Ras-Beirut, Lot# 270, 1932. Listed in 1996
Source: Oussama Kallab, 2011.
Following the 15 years of civil war (1975–1990) and continuous regional tension,
the physical, economic and social features of Lebanon have been drastically altered.
The relatively significant number of displaced people has also had a serious impact
on the natural and built environment, especially in the rural areas of the coastal zone.
The Israeli invasion and occupation of the south of Lebanon has also worsened the
situation, although the end of the civil war and the decreasing tension have gradually
reinstated relative normality. This normalization was manifest in the reconstruction
process, especially in the historic center of Beirut. The reconstruction in the coun-
try was chaotic, as testified by the present built environment. Various and numer-
ous structures, with little or no planned infrastructure, are now the norm, and this
undermines the health and general well-being of many inhabitants. Beirut Central
District (BCD) is the only area that underwent serious reconstruction, thanks to law
No. 117/1991 that gave the municipal administration the power to create the Société
Libanaise pour le Développement et la Reconstruction (SOLIDERE).
Law No. 166 L.R. (1933), issued during the French mandate, is the only regulation
for the preservation and conservation of historic buildings. This law protects only
those buildings that were constructed before 1700, constraining only archeological
monuments, traditional buildings and religious complexes.
In 1995, the Association pour la Protection des Sites et Anciennes Demeures au
Liban (APSAD, 1960) applied serious pressure on the Ministry of Culture to address
the uncontrolled demolition of traditional buildings in Beirut. This situation led the
154 Asia
ministry to commission the APSAD in order to undertake an in-depth study of Beirut’s
heritage, which resulted in a list including 1,051 traditional buildings to be preserved.
However, the list excluded the BCD that was under the authority of SOLIDERE. In
response, and in order to protect and preserve the buildings classified by APSAD, the
ministry required the municipal authorities to gain approval from the Directorate
General of Antiquities before granting a demolition permit. This decision dissatisfied
many owners of listed buildings, who put pressure on the government either to waive
the prohibition decision or to pay compensation for their expropriation. Pressure
from both owners and from political spheres led the government to issue the decree
No. 12/1997, assigning a committee of experts to develop an accurate analysis of the

buildings and the classification criteria of the latter. The committee found that 592 of
the 1,051 buildings did not satisfy the stated criteria.
The owners resisted and continued to apply pressure on the government, effectively
forcing it to reconsider once more the decrees No. 33/1998 and 7/1998. A new com-
mittee of experts was established, including a very important consultancy firm in Leba-
non Khatib & Alamy, that developed a list categorizing old buildings into four groups:
a) Historic buildings, linked to historical personalities, featuring particular archi-

tectural and artistic qualities, generally in good shape and needing minimal
works of restoration (34 items);
b) Buildings with no specific historical significance, albeit with high architectural
standards or particularly distinguished buildings (127 items);
c) Buildings of cat. B, excluding those buildings that were severely damaged due
to the war period (48 items);
d) Buildings with no specific historical significance or linked to particular personali-
ties or events, but containing distinguished architectural features (161 items);
e) Buildings with no specific historical significance for specific reasons (older than
50 to 60 years; not following traditional architecture criteria; the original char-
acter has been essentially modified; new materials introduced significantly chang-
ing the building’s character; structural failures potentially resulting in collapse;
unsustainable preservation costs.)
The government decided to delete categories D and E, demolish related buildings

and keep a list of 200 classified buildings considered of historical and/or cultural
importance. In 1999, a new committee was formed in vain to propose appropriate
solutions for the restoration and preservation of the other classified buildings in the
BCD. The owners of these classified buildings are still exerting pressure to have the
classification of the latter categories reconsidered. It is also important to notice that
classification included only the buildings, without any consideration of the urban
contexts. The government failed to develop any regulation of preservation and pro-
tection for traditional buildings, yielding to pressure from individuals supported by
their political affiliations. However, it is important to note that in 2007 the ministry
proposed a law which aimed to raise public awareness of the danger of rapid building
development on traditional and historic contexts and roads.
The government and the ministry are weak on issues relating to heritage preser-
vation, and legislation is limited to the law of 1933. The only bodies fighting the
cause of architectural heritage in Lebanon are individuals, architects, activists and
Lebanon 155
non-governmental organizations, such as the APSAD, Save Beirut’s Heritage and
Association for the Protection of the Lebanese Heritage or Modern Heritage Obser-
vatory project. The Lebanese University, through its professional master’s degree in
restoration, seeks to change the mentality of the younger generations, and the German
Oriental Institute of Beirut has weekly activities dealing with Lebanese heritage.
Jean-Pierre El Asmar
Link
Archileb, The Lebanese Architecture Portal:
http://www.archileb.com/ (in English)
Bibliography
P. Rowe & H. Sarkis, Projecting Beirut: Episodes in the Construction and Reconstruction of a
Modern City (London, 1998).
A. Salam, “Town Planning Problems in Beirut and Its Outskirts”, in Planning for Urban
Growth: British Perspectives on the Planning Process, ed. J. Taylor (New York, 1972):
109–120.
R. Saliba, Beirut 1920–1940: Domestic Architecture between Tradition and Modernity (Beirut,
1998).
156 Asia
MACAU
Figure 5.13 António Lei, former Court Building, Macau, 1949–1951. Listed in 1992
Source: Gabinete de Comunicação Social Collection, Arquivo Histórico de Macau, 1983–1985.
The architecture of the historic centre of Macau is a unique expression of the Luso-
Chinese cultural mix. Its international heritage is celebrated as being the first and
longest-lasting receptacle of the encounter between the West and China. In recent
decades, awareness of the cultural significance of complex Macanese architecture has
progressively increased within its society. That trend has supported a steady and incre-
mental development of heritage conservation policies, starting in the 1950s and evolv-
ing from its initial intent of protecting individual monuments. The current approach
has been inspired by the concept of critical, holistic and participatory conservation,
despite the growing tension reflecting the city’s diverse economic and developmental
goals, since Macau is now the world’s leading gambling industry centre.
The first law dates back to 1953, when the Portuguese Salazarist government, con-
sistent with the nationalistic historic narrative, initiated an object-oriented preserva-
tion campaign with the identification and registration of the major historic buildings.
Yet it was only in the 1970s, after a lengthy political and economic crisis, that vigor-
ous urban expansion and redevelopment, sustained by export-oriented industries and
gambling-led tourism, foregrounded the multiple dimensions of the problem facing
heritage preservation. Six years after the appointment of a task force to lay down
protection measures, the first comprehensive rule (Decree Law No. 34/1976/M) con-
cerning the preservation of heritage prescribed the public interest of sites, buildings
and objects of significant historical, anthropological and landscape value. The act
included a list of protected heritage sites consisting of a group of classified buildings
Macau 157
(20 items of historical interest and 38 of documentary relevance), 14 urban precincts,
a multifarious set of 33 landscape sites of interest and 1 archaeological site. It also
imposed respective regulatory controls concerning demolition, alienability, alteration
and development. Moreover, the act appointed a Heritage Committee with the task of
identifying, categorizing and documenting the heritage and providing a legislative and
development advisory for heritage-related matters.
The Cultural Institute of Macao (1982) was set up to coordinate cultural activities,
including the current institution responsible for conservation policy, the Cultural Her-
itage Department (CHD). With the aim of establishing a regulatory framework for
the preservation and revitalization of historic, cultural and architectural heritage, the
government passed Decree Law No. 56/1984/M. The act refined the definitions and
categorizations of heritage, modified the organization and operation of the respon-
sible bodies and introduced financial incentives for restoration. The new classification
included the identification of specific protected areas pertaining to listed items, which
were reduced and grouped into three large heritage classes: Monuments (52 listed
items), Ensembles (11) and Sites (21). The act also ratified the key role of the Institute
and restricted the Heritage Committee to technical-consultative functions, then extin-
guished in 1989 and transferred to the CHD. The most relevant recent revision of the
regulations to date is the Decree Law n. 83/1992, which strengthened the principles
and measures of the 1984 act and restructured the categories. With the introduction
of the new group of Buildings of architectonic interest (branched from the former
Monuments) the new list has been expanded to 128 sites, identified with inclusive
maps of the entire territory.
The government’s heritage conservation effort is also reflected in its allocation of
resources, which has enabled it to protect and restore 330 properties since the estab-
lishment of the CHD. This effort has also seen, albeit with difficulty, the extension
of protection regulations to include modern architecture, such as the listed Pedro
Nolasco da Silva Government Primary School (1940s). Architectural protection is
solely granted by intellectual property rights law (Law No. 5/2012) 25 years after its
completion. Even with the active engagement of organizations such as the Heritage
of Portuguese Influence and the Modern Asian Architecture Network, current listed
heritage only includes two complexes built after 1950: the former Court Building
(1951, becoming the future Macau Central Library), and the Sun Yat Sen Park (1987).
When the historic centre entered the World Heritage List (2005), outstanding
universal value was awarded to the core urban area, a cultural heritage corridor of
approximately 16 hectares linking the ancient Chinese port with the Portuguese city,
ratified with the Directive No. 202/2006 which integrates and extends the protection
areas. Severe threats to heritage integrity, however, arose from pressure by the private
organizations leading the imposing urban development. Some inadequate answers by
the governance system resulted in policies which were not aligned with the adopted
heritage protection goals and strategies. Important corrective measures and admin-
istrative procedures were implemented and publication of a new Heritage Law, for-
mulated with an extensive research and consultations process, was expected in late
2013 with the aim of introducing, among others, multi-disciplinary coordination and
legally binding technical appraisals, to enhance incentives and penalties and eventu-
ally combine the protection of tangible and intangible heritage.
Manfredo Manfredini
158 Asia
Links
Macau Heritage Net, Macao Heritage:
http://www.macauheritage.net/pt/default.aspx (in Cantonese, Chinese, English and Portuguese)
Macau Cultural Heritage, Classified Immovable Properties:
http://www.culturalheritage.mo/en/ (in Cantonese, Chinese, English and Portuguese)
Bibliography
T. Chung, “Valuing Heritage in Macau: On Contexts and Processes of Urban Conservation”,
Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 1 (2009): 129–160.

F. Lee & H. du Cros, “A Comparative Analysis of Three Heritage Management Approaches in
Southern China: Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Macau”, in Asian Heritage Management:
Contexts, Concerns, and Prospects, eds. K.D. Silva & N.K. Chapagain (New York, 2013):
105–121.
Malaysia 159
MALAYSIA
Figure 5.14 Dato’ Kington Loo, Dewan Tunku Canselor of the University Malaya, Kuala
Lumpur, 1966. Listed in 2008
Source: Yahaya Ahmad, 2015.
Malaysia is a relatively young country, culturally diverse and economically ambitious,

as reflected in its modern architecture, mostly built after independence (1957). The
history of the Malay Sultanate and of colonization by the Portuguese (1511–1641),
the Dutch (1641–1786) and the British (1786–1957) has resulted in an array of archi-
tecturally significant buildings, both historical and modern.
Architectural protection has been afforded under the Antiquities Act (No. 168/1976).
It was drawn up to provide for the control and preservation of ancient and historical
monuments of more than about 100 years of age. Since 2005, a more comprehensive
heritage protection has been provided under the National Heritage Act (No. 645).
It provides protection for natural and cultural heritage, tangible and intangible heri-
tage, underwater cultural heritage and treasure trove. In the context of Malaysian
heritage conservation, treasure troves are ownerless objects or articles of value other
than tangible cultural heritage that are found hidden in land, riverbeds, lakebeds or
seabeds. The act also provides for the appointment of a Commissioner of Heritage,
establishes the National Heritage Council, the Heritage Fund, the National Heritage
Register and a review of offences and penalties. Unlike the repealed 1976 act, the
current act gives powers to the minister to declare as heritage any building, object or
site if it fulfil at least one of the nine criteria (section 67, point 2), in particular regard-
ing the evaluation of architectural significance: historical importance, good design,
technical innovation and social and cultural associations. Today, 50 buildings have
been gazetted as National Heritage including four modernist buildings built after
1957, all in Kuala Lumpur: Merdeka Stadium (1956–1957) designed by architects
of the Malaysian Public Works Department, the Parliament Building (1959–1963) by
Ivor Shipley, the National Mosque (1965) by Howard Ashley, Hisham Albakri and
160 Asia
Baharuddin Kassim; and Dewan Tunku Canselor of the University Malaya (1966) by
Dato’ Kington Loo. Another 196 heritage buildings or monuments are recognized as
Heritage Sites including the National Museum (1963) by Ho Kok Hoe, the Gelora
Bung Karno Main Stadium (1960–1962) by Friedrich Silaban, and the Federal House
(1954). The protection and conservation of these buildings has been placed under the
duty of Commissioner of Heritage.
At the local level, action is indirectly implied by two legal provisions, the Local Gov-
ernment Act (No. 171/1976) and the Town and Country Planning Act (No. 172/1976).
The latter empowers the local planning authority to safeguard heritage buildings via
the local plan and development control mechanisms. Section 58(2) states that the local
authority may institute means and by-laws in order to protect old monuments, sites
and buildings that are of historical or architectural interest. It emphasizes the impor-
tance of conservation and preservation and makes it compulsory to indicate conserva-
tion areas in the Local plan. Under this act, none of the country’s heritage buildings
are recognized individually, but as series of buildings, they are grouped under heritage
zones or areas. The local government act empowers local authorities to contribute to
the maintenance of historic buildings and sites, to acquire land in order to protect the
significance of the sites and to raise or receive grants towards the establishment and
maintenance of public monuments and memorials and museum. Modern and contem-
porary buildings are not included in either act.
Melaka and Johor are the two states which have enacted their own heritage pro-
tection instruments. The Enactment on Conservation and Restoration of Cultural
Heritage in Melaka (1988), recognizes the city as a ‘heritage town’ and provides a
comprehensive document that covers many aspects of conservation and gives addi-
tional coverage for the protective designation of the heritage property. It also provides
provision for the setting up of an advisory body known as the Committee on Conser-
vation and Restoration, to advise the Melaka State Authority on matters pertaining
to the conservation and restoration of heritage.
The current total listing of all 223 buildings and sites at national level is a clear
sign of government commitment to ensuring the protection of heritage for present
and future generations. These listings only provide relief mainly for public buildings
and monuments. The gazetting exercise did not raise any issues as it was ‘expected’
that the government would take care of its buildings. Considerable numbers of sig-
nificant buildings deemed worthy of protection, either historic or modern, belong
to private owners. The restrictions on dealings and development on listed buildings
entail death duties on future rents and profits for the owners of these buildings. Own-
ers must not only endure the lengthy procedure of gazetting, which includes designa-
tion, gazette notification and filing at the local land office, but often with no, or very
few, financial incentives in terms of grants from the authorities; they also suffer from
lack of rent and profit growth prospects. Today, NGOs concerned with conservation
and preservation of built heritage are Badan Warisan Malaysia (1983) and Penang
Heritage Trust (1986). The 2005 act does provide a degree of protection to modern
architecture as reflected in the number of modern buildings included in the Heritage
Register. At least a number of public buildings of architectural value will be preserved
and protected as intended by the legislation. Nonetheless, the full potential of this act
will not be realized due to opposition from the private owners of some outstanding
architectural pieces. Long-term solutions would be to employ the Heritage Fund to
Malaysia 161
provide attractive incentive schemes for reluctant owners, but its usage has not yet
been directed towards this end.
Yahaya Ahmad and Hasniyati Hamzah
Link
National Heritage Department, Register of Architectural Heritage:
www.heritage.gov.my (in Bahasa and English)
Bibliography
Y. Ahmad, H. Hamzah & L.M. Ming, “Scope and Implementation of Heritage Law in Malay-
sia”, in Asian Approaches to Conservation, ed. Unesco-Iccrom Asian Academy for Heritage
Management, 3–5 October 2006 (Bangkok, 2006), pp. 61–77.
C.K. Lai, Building Merdeka: Independence Architecture in Kuala Lumpur, 1957–1966 (Kuala
Lumpur, 2007).
162 Asia
OMAN
Figure 5.15 Bait Al Baranda, Muscat, ended in 1931

Oman contains a rich and varied built heritage. It is also outstanding in terms of its
built environment production since the 1970s. Great care has been given to heritage
preservation and the development of an Omani identity in what has been built since
the country’s renaissance and the opening up of its modernity in 1970. This was pos-
sible thanks to the stable political regime and the direct involvement of the highest
authorities of the country in the major decisions regarding the construction sector.
Oman comprises examples of regional architecture emerging as genuine continuity
of its local and historic style. Numerous buildings reflect this successful regionalism,
such as Sultan Qaboos University (1981–1986) by YRM International architects &
planners, the Ministry of Social Affairs building (1988) by John Harris, the Sultan
Qaboos Great Mosque (1995–2002) by Mohamed Makiya, Chedi Hotel (1998–2002)
by Denniston Intl. Architects & Planners, Sultan Qaboos palace in Salalah (1999)
and Muscat Opera House (2007–2010) by Carillion Alawi, as well as some private
houses. The only concern is that this care of developing an authentic built environ-
ment is concentrated in the capital city and its surrounding area. It does not extend to
the other important regions of the country and it almost ignores the deep and farther
parts of the sultanate’s territory.
Thanks to keen attention given to the built environment and to the pride for the
national heritage, the construction sector has evolved under very strict regulations for-
mulated by Muscat municipality and other higher authorities, including the sultan’s
office. This peculiar situation is largely responsible for the limited influence of the
modern movement on the architecture of Oman. Modernity has been given a regional
flavor, such as the French Embassy (1988) by Rodo Tisnado and Architecture-Studio,
Oman 163
one of the rare buildings that present a contemporary language adapted to the regional
character. As for the late nineteenth-century Omani architecture, it has reflected the
situation during that time: a British-dominated country, with ‘official’ architecture
that has many aspects of a dominant Western style, with pronounced local, east Afri-
can and sometimes Indian characteristics. Some interesting examples of this archi-
tecture are protected in the Royal Decree No. 6/1980 promulgating the National
Heritage Protection Act (NHPA).
NHPA is the first law regulating the protection and management of national heri-
tage. It was amended by Sultan Qaboos who has ruled Oman since 1970. The Min-
istry of Heritage and Culture (1976) is in charge of the implementation of this act.
NHPA refers to 60 years prior to its amendment as being the cutoff date for the eli-
gibility of significant buildings to be listed. This means that any building constructed
after 1920 cannot be considered for classification as cultural heritage unless the min-
ister himself decides otherwise. The classification is extremely centralized. Half of
the listed monuments are located in Muscat and the Ad-Dakhiliya region, which was
once separated from Oman with its own capital and rulers. Nearly 80 percent of the
classified structures are defensive; the remaining 20 percent are either religious or
residential buildings. If the act does not define a clear protection perimeter around the
classified building, it indicates that the visibility of the monument from the main roads
and paths leading to it should be secured.
NHPA does not enclose any indication or regulation specific to the built heritage
of the modern era or style. A few buildings representing the early twentieth-century
architecture have been classified through this act. Bait Al Baranda, which once hosted
the British Council, is among the most interesting of those buildings. Its name derives
from the local pronunciation of the word ‘Veranda’. The house owes its name to the
distinctive wooden veranda extending across its first floor and dominating the upper
level of its main façade. The house seems to have been built in two or three phases,
from the late nineteenth century with its first owner (Mohamed Nasib) to 1931. In
spite of the transformations that occurred, the overall architecture of this mansion has
kept its original identity.
Other similar buildings also figure on the list of classified buildings. It is interesting
to note that all of them were the houses of royal family members or rich merchants and
philanthropists and are located in the region of Muscat (Mutrah and what is known
as the old Muscat). These private mansions were converted into embassies, museums
or, more recently, art galleries. Bait Fransa (actually the Franco Omani Museum built
around 1896), Bait Muzna and Bait A-Zubair are the most significant among all.
But there are many other buildings from the same period or later that deserve to be
protected, such as Grindlays Bank (1977) by John Harris, and Bait Greiza (nineteenth
century, restored in 1974 by Mohamed Makiya).
There is a lot to be done for the protection of modern architecture in Oman. The
operations of classification must cover the whole territory of the sultanate, and all types
of buildings should be considered for classification if they present artistic, symbolic or
cultural significance in their architecture. A protection act is needed for this endeavor
and most importantly, the concerned authorities and the population alike have to be
aware of the importance of the modern and contemporary heritage and the significance
of its protection for the best development of architecture and culture in the country.
Naima Benkari
164 Asia
Link
Ministry of Heritage and Culture:
www.mhc.gov.om (in Arabic)
Bibliography
M. Al-Zubair, Oman’s Architectural Journey (Oakland Park, 2013).
S.S. Damluji, The Architecture of Oman (Reading, 1998).
Pakistan 165
PAKISTAN
Figure 5.16 Arif Masoud, Pakistan Monument, Islamabad, 2004–2007. Listed in 2009
Source: Sarmad Sohaib/Flickr, 2009.
Pakistan is made up of a geographic area which has been home of many civilizations.
Thus, architecture in present-day Pakistan is a fusion reflecting a struggle of cultures,
traditions and global interactions. This was brought on by years of travel, education,
wars, trade and migration.
The architecture of the last 100 years can be seen in two distinct layers: architec-
ture of British colonial era and architecture built after independence (1947). Colonial
architecture is composed mainly of institutional buildings, churches and cantonments
designed by official architects and engineers expressing the power and dominance of
the rulers. The post-independence period has been dominated by ‘Westernized’ think-
ing and by default there is a trace of British education and systems. Due to a high
demand for new buildings in a new country and a shortage of professionals, the design
commissions for major works were undertaken by architects who were educated in
Europe or North America, which may have caused the neglect of the ‘indigenous’
architecture. Influences from the ongoing modern movement in the world became
a symbol of development and modernity for the new nation. Renowned architects
from different parts of the world such as F.L. Wright, Gerard Brigden, Derek Lovejoy,
Edward Durell Stone, Kenzo Tange, Constantinos Apostolou Doxiadis, Gio Ponti and
Leo Daly were invited to create iconic architecture in Karachi and later in Islamabad.
The practice continues and many other architects have contributed to the built envi-
ronment in Pakistan. The first generation of modernists amongst Pakistani architects
included Minoo P. Mistri, Murat Khan, Mehdi Ali Mirza, Yahya Merchant, Naqvi &
166 Asia
Siddique Associates and today there are many notable contemporary leaders some of
whom won or were nominated for the Aga Khan Award.
In 1968, Act No. XIV to consolidate and amend the law relating to the preserva-
tion and protection of antiquities stated that ‘ancient’ meant any product of human
activity, movable or immovable, belonging or relating to any period prior to May,
1857, referring to the first war of independence. The 1968 act was repealed in 1975
after separation (1971) and later amended in 1992. This act gives protection to
buildings older than 75 years, which after devolution in 2012 is being adopted by
each province under provincial Departments of Archaelogy and Museums. These
departments are the custodian of the cultural heritage and in this capacity are
almost the sole protecting agency. They preserve its masterpieces, such as immov-
able sites and monuments and the movable antiquities and works of art. Pakistan is
a signatory and member of most international conventions and similar documents,
but there is a gap in implementation and follow up of the same due to ever-changing
geo-political scenarios. Global interest in ancient heritage, such as the Indus Valley
and the Gandharan Civilizations, overshadows the need to care for colonial and
post-colonial built heritage. On the academic side there is a division amongst schol-
ars on the need to accept or reject the imported thinking. Unfortunately the existing
built environment is being consumed and destroyed in the name of urban develop-
ment. For instance the Siraj Covered Market (1960s) in Islamabad was demolished
in 2008 despite protests by Pakistani architects. Despite the paradoxes there is prog-
ress, and significant small steps have been taken towards conservation of the built
heritage. For example, adoption of the Pakistan National Conservation Strategy
(1992), along with efforts by the International Union for Conservation of Nature
and the subsequent Sector Paper on Built Heritage have been written in which whole
processes have been outlined giving protection mainly to older buildings. A draft
charter for conservation was also produced in 1989 but never adopted. A report by
an Urban Task Force of the Planning Commission (2011) recognizes integration of
conservation and development. There is an increased effort by organizations such
as UNESCO for cultural mapping and conservation. Even so, contemporary archi-
tecture is not the primary focus of conservationists. No twentieth-century building
is included in the protected lists. Most buildings of the colonial era are in Karachi,
as this area was been centre of activities since the World War I. Most of these are
institutional buildings and have been notified as listed by the Sindh government.
Few recent national landmarks are quoted, such as in Islamabad the Faisal Mosque
(1986) by Vedat Dalokay, and the Centaurus Towers (2003–2005) by Atkins, or the
Karakoram Highway (1966–1979) as significant engineering opera. There exists
lack of awareness both at the government policy level and at the public level, which
is one of the significant constraints in recognizing contemporary architecture as part
of the built heritage and devising means to conserve it.
Institutions offering architectural education have increased threefold in the past ten
years. Thus in a country where the general masses have yet to understand the broader
vista of heritage conservation, the education system since the last decade is playing a
significant part by training young architects and professionals to a higher degree of
sensibility towards the built heritage, including buildings of the recent past. There are
efforts towards creating awareness through research, documentation, lectures and
workshops by the academia, individual scholars, Pakistan Council of Architects and
Town Planners. The Institute of Architects Pakista, and many NGOs, such as the
Pakistan 167
Heritage Foundation Pakistan, are also participating. Pilot projects and discussions
on legislation regarding conservation for effective application are again being raised
via books and publications, particularly by Archi Times magazine.
Zainul Abedin and Mariam Sher Mohammed
Link
National Fund for Cultural Heritage:
http://heritage.gov.pk/index.html (in English)
Bibliography
K.K. Mumtaz, Architecture in Pakistan (Singapore, 1985).
168 Asia
PHILIPPINES
Figure 5.17 Leandro Locsin, Church of the Holy Sacrifice in the University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City, 1955. Listed in 2005
Source: Richard Joseph Lasam, 2014.
A product of diverse, and even strange, influences, the evolution of Philippine archi-
tecture began with the stilted nipa huts (bahay kubo) made from native materials
during the pre-colonial era, changing its style to stone houses (bahay na bato) and
massive Antillian architecture during the Spanish colonial era, to constructing neo-
classical and Art Deco buildings during the American colonial period. Modernism,
with its simple straight lines, came along after World War II. The traditional styles
re-emerged and were modernized in the 1970s, while during the 1980s Postmodern-
ism was in vogue. Today, because of rapid climate change, sustainable and disaster-
resistant buildings are starting to be given more and more importance on the local
architectural scene.
Despite a rich and variegated architectural history, the bill protecting architectural
heritage was not signed into law before 2010, after almost eight working versions.
The turning point was in 2000, when the Manila Jai Alai building (1939–1940)
was demolished upon the orders of the mayor as it was deemed to be ‘unsafe’. This
work, designed by Welton Becket, was considered to be among the finest Art Deco-
Streamline Modern style buildings in Asia and the optimistic symbol of the Philippine
Philippines 169
Commonwealth (1935–1946). Despite major protests from the public and heritage
conservation groups, and even attention from international media, the building was
torn down to pave the way for the Manila Hall of Justice, which remains to this day
unbuilt.
The shocking ease with which heritage sites in Manila may be demolished prompted
the passing of the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009 (Republic Act No. 10066).
This is not to say that the Philippine heritage bill was only drafted in the last decade.
In fact, as far back as 1966, there was the Cultural Property Preservation and Protec-
tion Act (RA No. 4846). In 1994, a new approach began as an interface program
initiated by the then Commissioner for Sub-commission for Cultural Heritage as an

advocacy mandate of the National Commission for Cultural and the Arts (NCCA,
1987). The bill was further deliberated on by the NCCA members of the 22 national
committees and the affiliate government agencies. The law intends to provide protec-
tion and conservation of national cultural property against exportation, modification
or demolition and creates the Philippine Registry of Cultural Property. The National
Historical Commission of the Philippines (2010, tracing back to 1933) promotes Phil-
ippine history and cultural heritage through research, dissemination, conservation,
site management and heraldry works.
Property to be protected includes national cultural treasures, important cultural
property, world heritage sites, shrines, monuments and landmarks that consist of a
national living treasure, a national artist and national heroes. The act introduced the
protection time limit of 50 years for structures and archival material/documents (art.
3, sec. 5). An exception is the Church of the Holy Sacrifice (December 1955, national
historical landmark and cultural treasure since January 2005), in the University of the
Philippines, Diliman. The church by Leandro Locsin, in collaboration with four other
national artists, is one of the first prime examples of space age Philippine architecture.
It features an open-air dome supported by pillars located on the church’s sides, allow-
ing natural lighting and ventilation.
Some heritage sites are not so lucky and continue to be at risk. For instance, in 2013
the Manila Electric Rail and Light Company Head Office (Meralco, 1936) in Ermita
was lost. The building was designed by Juan Arellano, one of the most important
architects behind Manila structures built during the American colonial and Com-
monwealth periods. A company purchased it and planned to put up a fast-food chain
outlet in its place. The buyer had no idea about the value of his property until the
protests came. Demolition was briefly suspended when the Italian embassy intervened
through the Heritage Conservation Society (HCS). Despite efforts, the building was
demolished as it was privately owned and had not been declared a national heritage.
It, too, had already been condemned by the city building official.
The situation of the national heritage is frustrating. It looks as though history just
repeats itself. Is the problem a misconception that heritage sites and historical struc-
tures are not profitable? Or that the law lacks economic incentives for the private
sector to conserve these sites? Or maybe the law is not respected because it is more
convenient for everyone that way?
The private sector, through NGOs like the HCS and the ICOMOS, takes charge of
divulging information on the significance of heritage, advocating the adaptive reuse
method as an alternative to demolition and involving younger generations in their
efforts. HCS is very active to the group’s causes, taking it upon themselves to do
the research needed to declare such sites as heritage sites. Conscious efforts in the
170 Asia
preservation and protection of built heritage for the national identity are in their early
days, but, although it may not be perfect yet, its heart is in the right place and can
be found in the private sector and in youth. It is only a matter of time before things
change for the better.
Romolo Valentino Nati and Naidyl Isis Bautista
Links
National Registry of National Historical Commission of the Philippines Markers:
http://philhistomarkers.nhcp.gov.ph/ (in English)
Heritage Conservation Society:

http://www.heritage.org.ph/ (in English)
Blog. Arkitekturang Filipino
http://www.arkitektura.ph/ (in English)
Bibliography
P.G. Alcazaren, “Benchmarking Philippine Architecture”, in Sanghaya: Philippine Arts and Cul-
ture Yearbook, ed B.L. Lumbera (Manila, 2001): 22–29.
P.G. Alcazaren, Parks for a Nation: The Rizal Park and 50 Years of the National Parks Develop-
ment Committee (Quezon City, 2013).
G. Lico, Arkitekturang Filipino: A History of Architecture and Urbanism in the Philippines
(Manila, 2008).
M.C. Valera-Turalba, Philippine Heritage Architecture before 1521 to the 1970s (Pasig City,
2005).
Qatar 171
QATAR
Figure 5.18 121 Ibn Al Zubair, Doha, 1970s–1980s. Listed in 2016

172 Asia
Unlike most of the emirates, Qatar gained its independence from the United Kingdom
in 1971. Old Doha comprises an area of 350 hectares, and it is changing fast, driven
by the dynamism of the national economy. In particular, urban development took off
seriously after Sheikh Khalifa bin Hamad al-Thani (1972–1995). Qatar is undergoing
transformation under the National Vision 2030 (commenced in 2003), the statement
of long-term strategy for modernization and economic growth in which there are
significant catalysts in the old city centre, including the Msheireb Properties’ flagship
project (2008–2016), the new Metro (2009–2016) and the World Cup 2022.
This very economic success puts architectural heritage at risk. Rapid but insensitive
development could sweep away the inherent character of Old Doha and replace it
with the same ubiquitous urban forms which dominate so many cities of the devel-
oping world. Along Bier al Hussain in Al Asmakh, there is a traditional house built
of rocks and render on one side, and an early modern house built of concrete on the
other one. They tell of how the capital grew into a city after the mid-1950s, once the
money from oil began to flow in, with new houses being built at an accelerating pace,
such as Rumailah Hospital (1957) by John Harris. The early boom time began not
only with the arrival of oil revenues, motorcars and electricity, but also with the first
bags of cement and shipments of steel reinforcement. This opened up a new branch
in architecture which has been nicknamed Doha Deco that is strongly verticalized.
The combination of pre- and post-cement architecture explored modernity in fresh
new ways while being rooted in traditional archetypes, forms and values. The Early
Modern period (1950–1965) was consistent with the timeless pre-cement days in this
respect.
Just as an international network of trade was part of Doha’s early life, with pearls,
building materials and other merchandise being bought and sold via the maritime
trading routes, so, too, does its architecture display an international influence which
increased in the early days of modernization. Up to the 1960–1970s, although Doha
became international, it had not lost its link to local roots. Meanwhile oil revenues
began to fund the expansion and modernization of infrastructure, for instance, the
former Qatar Monetary Agency (1973–1975) by CEG International, Doha Shera-
ton Hotel (1979–1982) by William L. Pereira and Qatar University (1973–1985) by
Kamal el Kafrawi and Ove Arup Partners.
The laws on Antiquities (No. 2/1980) and on the Protection of Copyrights (No.
7/2002) state that buildings older than 40 years from 1980 are protected and that
any proposed alterations or demolitions require consent from the Qatar Museums
Authority (2005, QMA), which aims to combine the resources of all museums, pro-
viding a comprehensive organization for museum development and establishing an
effective system for collecting, protecting, preserving and interpreting historic sites,
monuments, and artefacts. The most significant standards for national restoration are
historical value, architectural value, considerable value, forming an architectural unit,
general state and building materials.
A preliminary estimate suggests that there might be between 3,000 and 7,000 build-
ings in Doha dating back to 1963 or earlier where it is necessary to prevent demoli-
tion without knowledge and without a managed process of decision-making. On one
hand this is such a large number that it could transform the identity or ‘brand’ of
the whole city. It would be for the better if these buildings were embedded within a
contemporary and contextual architecture, and greatly for the worse if they were lost.
Doha could be known world-ide not only as the city of heritage trails and journeys of
Qatar 173
discovery, but also as the city of ‘cutting-edge fusion’, radical interventions of strong
new architecture, positioning the city firmly in the twenty-first century, but with deep,
living roots in the past. On the other hand, the estimated number of heritage build-
ings is sufficiently small that it should not hinder economic development and, even if
redevelopment costs were several times higher than normal for the renewal of heri-
tage, it would make a negligible difference economically if viewed as a investment in
a long-term legacy.
Old Doha Mapping Living Heritage (2012) with University of London Qatar, Min-
istry of Municipality and Urban Planning and Msheireb Properties involved a group
of volunteers recording urban blocks as ‘jigsaw pieces’, which came together to make
a complete record of an area of the old city. This comprehensive mapping of the
city’s historic fabric is now entering its second stage under the leadership of QMA’s
Conservation Department. There is significant existing fabric, both of traditional and
early modern construction, in the neighborhoods of Asmakh and Najada, Msheireb
West, Abdul Azeez, Doha al Jadeeda, Al Ghanem, Al Ghanem South, Al Hitmi, Umm
Ghuwailina and Najma. Even though the built heritage in these areas is in varying
degrees of decay and is fragmentary, its extent gives it potential to create a profound
and wide-spreading ‘identity network’, weaving its way around the modern city like
gold thread in a cotton fabric.
Timothy Makower
Links
Qatar Museums:
http://www.qm.org.qa/en (in Arabic and English)
The Qatar National Historic Environment Record Project (QNHER):
http://www.mospa.org/qnher.html (in English)
Bibliography
K. Adlham, “Rediscovering the Island: Doha’s Urbanity from Pearls to Spectable”, in The
Evolving Arab City: Tradition, Modernity and Urban Development, ed. Y. Elsheshtawy
(London-New York, 2008): 218–257.
I. Jaidah & M. Bourennane, The History of Qatari Architecture 1800–1950 (Milan, 2009).
T. Makower, Touching the City: Thoughts on Urban Scale (Chichester, 2014).
A.M. Salama & F. Wiedmann, Demystifying Doha: On Architecture and Urbanism in an
Emerging City (Farnham, 2013): 146–159.
174 Asia
SINGAPORE
Figure 5.19 Kumpulan Akitek, State Courts, Singapore, 1973–1975. Listed in 2013
Source: Urban Redevelopment Authority, Singapore, 2013.
Modern Singapore can be traced to the founding of the settlement in 1819 as a trading
port during the period of trade expansion and colonization of Asia by the European
powers. Although the settlement of the island dates back to the fourteenth century,
there are no known extent early built remains. Over 7,000 buildings that have been
protected by legal instruments in the past 40 years are creations of the nineteenth
century onwards and are deemed as part of contemporary architectural environment.
Similar to other multi-ethnic cities under the colonial rule of a small European elite,
the resulting architecture had a range of building types. The return of an educated
elite, the professionalization of architecture and of town planning after World War II
introduced ideas of how the city should be shaped and presented to meet the require-
ments of modernity. A landmark photographic book by Doggett also seeded the idea
of protecting our ‘old buildings’. The first official document relating to heritage was
the Master Plan Written Statement (1958). It had a list of 32 “Ancient Monuments
and Land and Buildings of Architectural and/or Historic Interest” (Table XX), with
an age/value threshold of about 60 years. However, the Master Plan did not create
explicit provisions for their protection, and thus some were lost to development.
With the attainment of internal self-government (1959) and subsequently full inde-
pendence (1965), economic and political concerns relating to providing a better stan-
dard of living took precedence. As such, planning and economic policies were drafted,
with expertise from the UN Housing mission to facilitate urban renewal, economic
growth and social transformation. Such plans of the 1960s were also products of their
Singapore 175
time, where urban renewal, through demolition and rebuilding, was more often seen
as good and necessary. What was unusual in the plan by Charles Abrams, Kobe and
Koenigsberger was the inclusion and placing of these two objectives: “an identifica-
tion of the areas worth preserving” and “a programme to improve such areas and
make them more habitable” before that of “an identification of the areas that must be
demolished and rebuilt”. This approach was far-sighted in that the team was propos-
ing the preservation of urban areas of vernacular street architecture and not just indi-
vidual ‘monumental’ sites and buildings as in 1958. As a result of prevailing priorities,
these recommendations were not taken up. The Preservation of Monuments Act (1971)
and the Preservation of Monuments Board (now Preservation of Sites and Monuments,
merged with the National Heritage Board since 2009) were later created to identify and
recommend for preservation buildings of “historical, traditional, archaeological, archi-
tectural or artistic interest”. It resulted in the first lot of eight monuments being gazetted
in 1973. By 2015, the number of monuments stands at 71, and the youngest one is the
Former Jurong Town Hall (1971–1974). Concurrently, the Urban Renewal Authority
(today’s Urban Redevelopment Authority, URA, the agency for building conservation,
land use and strategic planning under the Ministry of National Development) carried
out the rehabilitation of several state-owned pre–World War II buildings. This demon-
strates how old buildings of potential heritage value could be put to economic use.
It was in 1986 that the first Master Plan for Conservation was unveiled, propos-
ing the conservation of the remaining historic urban core, amounting to over 3,200
shophouses (urban terraced houses) and occupying a gross land area of 55 hectares.
The key selection criteria were ‘architectural value’; they had to be at least 30 years
old and not be in the way of critical national infrastructure. This plan was devel-
oped in conjunction with the Structure Plan for the Central Area of Singapore so
that there would be a unified approach to guiding further growth, transport and
green infrastructure into the twenty-first century. To obtain support from the public
and the professional world, 1987 saw the opening of a demonstration restoration
project at 9 Neil Road. Following this was the first seminar on Conserving our
Remarkable Past on restoration principles and techniques. Over 5,000 buildings
dating from before 1940 were finally placed under protection in 1989. Measures to
encourage best practices were also put into place, such as the introduction of the
Architectural Heritage Awards in 1995.
By 2000, the focus on conservation evolved beyond that of architectural value being
the primary consideration. Focus groups were formed to identify where conservation
could be improved. Key findings included the desire of the public for more post-
1945 buildings to be kept and for greater public involvement in decision-making. The
Conservation Advisory Panel, made up of representatives from the private, civic and
educational sectors, was formed to give feedback on conservation proposals. On this
basis, an additional 2,000-plus buildings have been placed under protection in order
to retain the identity of suburban settlements, as well as to protect good examples
of different building typologies. Examples of key civic landmarks created during the
period of independence and experiments with modern tropical architecture of the
1950s to 1970s have also been protected, such as the State Courts (1973–1975) by
Kumpulan Akitek. The journey will continue with the highly selective conservation
of buildings and areas as part of sustainable development to meet physical, economic
and social needs as a city and a nation.
Kelvin Ang
176 Asia
Links
Urban Redevelopment Authority, Database of Conservation Areas and Building:
http://www.ura.gov.sg/conservationportal/consmap.html (in English)
National Heritage Board:
http://www.nhb.gov.sg (in English)
Bibliography
C. Abrams, S. Kobe & O. Koenigsberger, Growth and Urban Renewal in Singapore (New York,
1963).
M. Doggett, Characters of Light (Singapore, 1957).
L. Kong, Conserving the Past, Creating the Future: Urban Heritage in Singapore (Singapore,
2011).
South Korea 177
SOUTH KOREA
Figure 5.20 Swoo Geun Kim, former Space Building, Arario Museum, Seoul, 1971–1977.
Listed in 2014
In the Republic of Korea the preservation of cultural heritage is entrusted to the Act
No. 961 for Cultural Property Preservation (1962), which lays down the procedures, roles
and duties for the safeguarding of material and immaterial heritage. The law acknowl-
edges and extends its scope to four categories: Material Property (physical cultural heri-
tage of historical and artistic value); Immaterial Property (immaterial cultural heritage
of historical and artistic value); Monuments (sites of historical, archaeological or scenic
value); and Folklore Materials (material and immaterial products of popular culture).
Application of the law is entrusted to the Cultural Heritage Administration (CHA),
an independent sub-ministerial agency formerly under the aegis of the Ministry of
Culture and Tourism. The CHA passes specific laws and regulations, controls local
administrations and coordinates the work of authorities responsible for the study and
enhancement of the protected heritage categories.
The designation of heritage to be safeguarded can take place at a national level by
the Cha or by local provincial or municipal administrations. Other procedures allow
owners themselves to nominate a heritage. Listing a heritage at a national, provincial
or municipal level involves different grades of protection and quality: heritages with
maximum protection are called national treasures.
The prescribed procedures basically only apply to ancient heritage. Instead, a
special regime governs modern or contemporary heritage which in Korean culture
are works built from the end of the nineteenth century onwards. Censoring of these
178 Asia
works began in 2001: they include buildings, sites and other artefacts of particu-
lar cultural importance, selected by the CHA and inserted in the Registered Cul-
tural Heritage category. This heritage, which must be at least 50 years old (with
some exceptions for particularly important buildings), is subject to fewer restrictive
norms because most of them belong to private individuals. In fact, while Korean
culture recognizes the need to preserve historical heritage, the safeguarding of mod-
ern heritage is a more delicate issue. In fact it comes up against the demands of
one of the most capitalist and liberal societies in the world. Regulations governing
modern heritage focus primarily on ensuring that property rights are not violated.
Therefore they contain important compromises for the owners to “encourage them
to spontaneously collaborate in the safeguard of heritage”, as written in the mission
and guidelines of CHA. The compromises regarding buildings actually give owners
a free hand with regard to changes to the interior and parts of the façade (but only
work which has more than a 4 percent impact requires authorization). Other com-
promises include substantial increases in building indexes and, obviously, incentives
and subsidies.
Nevertheless, the regulatory system should not make one think that South Korea
uses similar regulations to the West. Korean legislation leaves ample room for inter-
pretation, exemptions and exceptions. In fact, although legislation establishes the ulti-
mate objective, it also allows for multiple alternative means of compliance and leaves
the final decision to the competent authorities. This shows how different the cultural
approach to preservation and conservation is between the East and West. Eastern cul-
ture does not acknowledge, or acknowledges only in part, the importance of a building
as a material document of the past. Instead it focuses on its social role and function, on
any religious implications and its importance as a place rather than an object.
The material and formal authenticity of the artefact, whether it be ancient or –
all the more so – modern, is not considered of prime importance. Examples of this
approach are several public intervention projects such as the integral reconstruction
(2006–2010) of the fourteenth-century Royal Palace of Gyeongbokgung in Seoul,
destroyed during the Japanese colonial era, or the ‘restoration’ (2007–2011) of the
Old Seoul Station (1925), where many of the original materials were replaced with
fibreglass replicas.
A timid debate in favour of respect for the material and historical authenticity of build-
ings does seem to have made headway in the last few years, thanks to exponents from
universities or young institutions or associations, among them Docomomo Korea. One
positive victory in this battle is the recent recovery of the Kkummaru (1970) in Childrens’
Grand Park of Seoul, a brutalist-style former golf clubhouse by Sang-Jin Na, converted
to park facilities in 2009–2011 by Sung-Yong Joh and Choon Choi. We cannot strictly
call this an intervention of ‘preservation’: the building was freed from its modern addi-
tions and turned into a romantic ruin in the middle of the park (an “interpretive resto-
ration”, according to the words of the designers). Despite this, attention to its material
consistency is much greater here than elsewhere and paves the way for possible unex-
pected developments in the conservation and preservation culture of South Korea.
Fabio Dacarro
South Korea 179
Link
Cultural Heritage Administration, database of classified heritage:
http://jikimi.cha.go.kr/english/search_plaza_new/state.jsp?mc=EN_03_01 (in English and
Korean)
Bibliography
Choon Choi, “Show off Your Age: Interpretive Restoration of the Cultural Hall at the Chil-
dren’s Grand Park”, Space, 526 (September 2011): 82.
Seung-Jin Chung & Chang-Sung Kim, “The Development of Attitudes to Historic Conservation:
From Eurocentrism to Cultural Diversity”, Architectural Research, 12:1 (June 2010): 25–32.
180 Asia
THAILAND
Figure 5.21 Former Administration Office, Uthenthawai School of Construction, now Build-
ing No.1, Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok, Uthenthawai Cam-
pus, Bangkok, 1941. Listed in 2001
The conservation movement arguably began with the establishment of the Archaeo-
logical Club in 1906. It was later merged with other state organizations to work on
cultural heritage and renamed the Fine Arts Department (FAD) in 1911. The agency
has been the sole authority in cultural heritage conservation ever since. As the task of
preservation became prevalent, the Protection of Ancient and Artistic Objects Act was
passed in 1926. Following the 1932 revolution, the regime enacted the first Ancient
Sites and Objects, Artistic Objects and National Museum Act in 1934. This legislation
set the restoration work of the FAD in motion.
From 1935 to 1962, most restoration efforts centered on ancient ruins and monu-
ments. In 1961, the defining moment occurred with the Act on Ancient Monuments,
Antiques, Objects of Art and National Museums (amendment 1992), empowering the
FAD to register nationally significant structures. Nonetheless, there is no clear man-
date on the chronological limit to designate buildings as heritage.
In 1992, a couple of legislations were introduced: the City’s Cleanliness and Order-
liness Act, intending to empower the local government to control the physical change
in conservation area, and the Enhancement & Conservation of National Environment
Quality Act, enabling the newly founded Office of Natural and Environmental Policy
and Planning (ONEP) to declare a cultural environment zone. ONEP collaborated
with both the local administration and FAD to formulate local regulations and to
limit the development in the designated area. Due to the responsibility entrusted to
Thailand 181
the FAD, the Decentralization Act was passed in 1999 to delegate authority to local
administrations, resulting in four classifications of building preservations: national
treasure, important cultural heritage, cultural heritage and preserved building. Struc-
tures in the first three categories were registered and protected by the FAD, whereas
those in the last one were placed under the safeguard of local governing bodies, such
as the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration.
Because the FAD, DTCP, and ONEP operated under the jurisdictions of different
ministries, the overall task of heritage management became incoherent. In addition,
as evident from the majority of structures listed in all categories, the FAD was primar-
ily concerned with preserving sites like seventeenth-century temples and nineteenth-
century palaces. The near lack of protection for modern architecture indicated a wider
problem in that its conservation is a delicate issue because the FAD did not always
consider Modernism part of the cultural heritage. Among few recently registered struc-
tures in Bangkok, Wat Sangwet Printing School (1932) and Administration Office at
Uthenthawai School of Construction (1941) were declared national treasures in 2001.
A turning point came after the Rattanakosin Conservation and Development
Plan was implemented in 1978 by the Rattanakosin Island Advisory Board. This
top-down proposition brought a threat to the local communities as much as to
Modern-style structures in the historic area of Bangkok. Since the 1980s, the plan
has met with criticism and opposition from those in the architectural profession and
academics alike, as demonstrated by their protests against the demolitions of the
Chalermthai Theater (1933) in 1989 and the Supreme Court Complex (1939–1942)
in 2013.
Vital to the attempts to safeguard twentieth-century architecture is the Association
of Siamese Architects (ASA) that granted the first Architectural Conservation Award
in 1982. Many modern-style buildings have won this recognition, including the
Supreme Court Complex in 2001, Dome Building at Thammasat University (1936)
in 2005, Administration Building of Ananda Mahidol Hospital (1938) in 2008 and
Scala Theater (1967) in 2012, designed by Jira Silapakanok. The surviving structures
are in a process of registering with the FAD as a national treasure and/or important
cultural heritage.
These endeavors have been reinforced by publications on architecture com-
missioned from 1933 to 1947 by the People’s Party who staged the revolution.
They are accompanied by growing interest in preserving buildings constructed
during the later mid-twentieth century, as shown by several researches, confer-
ences, workshops and exhibitions since 2000. Not only did these structures, such
as the National Assembly Building (1971–1973) by Pol Chulasawake, once act as
the media par excellence for the state to mediate power, but also symbolize the
new and civilized identity for post-absolutist Thailand. Historiography portrays
national Modern architecture as deviations of the original style with some adjust-
ments to suit the local contexts. Yet, some recent studies argue that the Modernist
buildings signified an active role of the Thais in negotiating Western material cul-
ture and modernity, while asserting a new self-identity in the inter-connected world
of the twentieth century.
Today, increasing collaboration among advocacy organizations, such as the Society
for the Conservation of National Treasure and Siamese Heritage Trust, have helped
promote the public understanding and appreciation of Modernism. ASA founded the
Thai Docomomo Chapter and listed a group of 24 buildings constructed between
182 Asia
1935 and 1975. These ongoing developments are paving the way for more recogni-
tion, researches and discussions in the future.
Koompong Noobanjong
Links
Fine Arts Department, list of historical heritage:
http://www.finearts.go.th (in Thai)
Siamese Heritage Trust:
http://www.siamese-heritage.org/index.html (in English)
Bibliography
N. Akagawa & T. Sirisrisak, “The Current Issues on Urban Conservation in Bangkok”, in The
2005 World Sustainable Building Conference (27–29 September 2005): 3684–3691.
S. Jumsai, “A Record of Historical Conservation, 1964–2012”, Journal of the Siam Society, vol.
100 (2012): 41–54.
Protecting Siam’s Heritage, ed. C. Baker (Chiang Mai, 2013).
R. Sakulpanich, “The Development of Law on Tangible Cultural Heritage: Case of the Law on
Ancient Monuments, Antiques, Objects of Art and National Museums”, Journal of the Siam
Society, vol. 100 (2012): 83–92.
United Arab Emirates 183
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Figure 5.22 Georgi Kolarov, Abu Dhabi Main Bus Terminal, Abu Dhabi, 1983–1988. Listed
in 2012
Source: Maria Alessandra Misuri, 2016.
The establishment of the UAE (1971) gathered under a federal system the independent
Emirates of Abu Dhabi – with an area of 86.7 percent of the country – Dubai, Shar-
jah, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Umm al-Quwain and Ajman. Before this date each
single emirate acted with its own legislation, following individually different paths of
modernization after the discovery of oil between the 1950s and 1960s.
The eagerness of modernization following the oil era entailed a massive urban devel-
opment with almost a complete substitution of the old city, made of ephemeral materi-
als, with a modern one. While some major historical buildings survived, later they were
restored, mainly for cultural or traditional reasons more than their historical value,
and a huge patrimony of local architecture was completely wiped out. Remarkably,
Dubai, the main trading center of the Arabian Gulf since the nineteenth century, started
a radical infrastructural development during the ruling of Sheikh Rashid Bin Saeed Al-
Maktoum (1958–1990). Concrete was imported for the first time in 1955. The follow-
ing year the first reinforced concrete building was built, in 1958 the Creek Dubai was
dredged, and then the first renovation masterplan and the Dubai International Airport
(1959) – the first one in UAE – were completed. Asphalt roads started to be laid in 1960
and the first bridge connecting the two sides of the Creek was built in 1963. Then Abu
184 Asia
Dhabi followed with a similar massive infrastructural construction program during the
ruling of Shaikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nayan (1966–2004), first president of the UAE.
After 1971, a massive urban program boosted the development process, reaching
an extraordinary level of growth of population and infrastructure. The legislative
power was centralized in the hands of the Federal National Council, while other juris-
dictions were left to the single emirates to preserve the identity of each community,
leaving them a wide discretional margin concerning heritage conservation.
Today only Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Sharjah can count on their own regulations for
architectural protection. The Architectural Heritage Department of Dubai Munici-
pality (1991) put this emirate at the forefront of preserving its heritage, followed by
the Sharjah Directorate of Heritage (1993). Until today, this department managed
185 historical buildings, 46 heritage elevations of modern buildings and 69 projects
of heritage backgrounds. The Abu Dhabi Authority for Culture and Heritage (2005,
Abu Dhabi Tourism and Culture Authority since 2012) manages and protects its own
cultural heritage. It launched the Modern Heritage Preservation Initiative (2011) with
the aim of listing the remaining modern heritage and establishing criteria for signifi-
cance and protection. In 2012, the Abu Dhabi Main Bus Terminal was at risk due to a
new project. This most iconic building has been protected by the Tourism and Culture
Authority, thanks to a spontaneous public movement. The current law establishes that
any building older than 40 years is susceptible to preliminary review carried out by the
local Heritage Department before any renovation, transformation or reconstruction.
In 1985, the Dubai Municipality promoted a long-term historical building restora-
tion and conservation plan, coordinated by the Archaeological Buildings Restoration
Unit. It includes five sites in Dubai and one in Hatta countryside for a total of 253.53
hectares and 570 buildings, with related strategies varying from reconstruction, resto-
ration, rehabilitation and conservation. The aim is to secure those buildings deserving
to be protected as architectural heritage starting major restorations, to be finished by
2018, and promote an ongoing research on traditional and historical architecture. The
construction boom between twentieth and twenty-first centuries also contributed to
the aggression of heritage. Urban development reached levels probably never reached
before and a lack of unified rules sometimes has damaged historical heritage, including
artifacts and documents. The ephemeral nature of building materials in ancient build-
ings, along with harsh weather conditions, represents a real challenge in the conser-
vation of buildings older than 50 years. Early experiences in restoration have shown
radical approaches like demolition and reconstruction “as it was, where it was” using
modern and long-lasting materials, but distorting the intrinsic historical value of the
building itself. However, the current situation is close to a turning point: a new federal
law oriented to unify the criteria about the heritage conservation was approved in Sep-
tember 2014. Awareness of conservation as a cultural and scientific approach is reached
today. Hopefully a new awareness towards contemporary architecture as future heri-
tage will have progressively more space within academic and institutional discussions.
The exceptional development of Dubai and Abu Dhabi during the last few decades
represents such a unique characteristic that deserves to be remembered, not only
famous landmarks such as Burj al-Arab (1994–1999) by Tom Wright, Emirates Tow-
ers (1996–2000) or Burj Khalifa (2004–2010) by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP,
but also contemporary urban settlements with particular characteristics that deserve
to be transmitted to future generations.
Paolo Caratelli
United Arab Emirates 185
Links
Abu Dhabi Tourism & Culture Authority:
http://www.tcaabudhabi.ae (in English)
Government of Sharjah, Department of Culture and Information:
http://www.sdci.gov.ae/en/home (in Arabic and English)
Bibliography
A. Chabbi, B. Marcus, E., Yildirim, H. Mahdy, A. Aqeel, S. Auhammad & A. Malekabbasi,
“Values-Based Conservation for the Built Heritage of Abu Dhabi Emirate”, in Presented at the
3rd International Architectural Conservation, December 17–19, 2012 (Dubai, unpublished,
https://www.academia.edu/5144428/Values-based_conservation_for_the_built_heritage_
of_Abu_Dhabi_Emirate).
Elements of Traditional Architecture in Dubai: Reference Book, ed. Dubai Municipality –
Architectural Heritage Department (Dubai, 1996, reprint 2010).
Y. Elsheshtawy, “Cities of Sand and Fog: Abu Dhabi’s Arrival on the Global Scene”, in The
Evolving Arab City: Tradition, Modernity and Urban Development, ed. Y. Elsheshtawy
(London-New York, 2008): 258–304.
A. Karmakar, “Conservation of Contemporary Buildings and Sites. Case Study – Dubai”, in
Proceedings of the 3rd International Architectural Conservation, Conference & Exhibition
(Dubai, 2012).
186 Asia
VIETNAM
Figure 5.23 Ngo Viet Thu, The Independence Palace, Ho Chi Minh City, 1962–1966. Listed
in 1976
Cultural heritage protection has been in place since the Democratic Republic State of
Vietnam was established in 1945. At that time, preservation laws were only action
rules for state agencies without being valid for society as a whole. Only the Constitu-
tion of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (1992, art. 34) stated that state and society
were to preserve the national heritage, while all acts that cause damage to, or are
prejudicial to, historical or revolutionary monuments were strictly prohibited. Only in
2001 was the Law on Cultural Heritage established (art. 28). Earlier, there also were
laws protecting heritage which were promulgated by the Republic of Vietnam regime
and came into effect in 1978, but the regime, together with its laws, was terminated
after the reunification of Vietnam (1975).
Compared to other Asiatic countries, the introduction of a law on heritage had
fallen way behind. The reason is that after 1975 Vietnam began to re-build all of its
basic law, and heritage protection was not a priority. The main institution responsible
for cultural heritage is the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, with the academic
assistance of the National Council on Cultural Heritage (DSVHQG), the National
Association of History and the Association of Architects (1948). Some special cases
of cultural heritage undergo direct management by the prime minister.
Vietnam 187
According to 2001 act, there are three heritage types: built environment (buildings,
townscapes, archaeological remains), natural environment (rural landscapes, coasts
and shorelines, agricultural heritage) and artifacts. There are an equal number of
heritage levels: national, provincial and local (rural district, commune), and each level
is to be under its respective management. This decentralized administration is related
to the decision of recognition for ranking and finance. Thus, the recognition of a
national heritage will be designated by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism.
In cases of special values, the decision will be signed by the prime minister, and it will
enjoy 100 percent of a governmental budget for annual maintenance, renovation and
restoration, and so on for the other levels. Today, there are 169 heritage items on
national level of which 25 are special cultural heritages. The majority of these belong
to three groups: 70 percent to religious heritage; 20 percent heritage items of modern-
contemporary revolution history (1930 up to today), such as vestiges of resistance
bases of the forces against foreign invasion and relics related to the revolutionary
leaders; 10 percent are natural heritages.
Vietnam does not have a large-scale traditional architectural heritage by the Viet-
namese people for two reasons: the long periods of war entailed widespread destruc-
tion of architectural works; and the economic and technical works are mainly made
of earth, wood, bamboo and leaves, resulting in quick disintegration in the face of the
destruction by the harsh forces of nature. Architectural heritage in the list of national
cultural heritages is “heritage space”. It is a complex comprising landscapes, environ-
ments, houses and ancillary works with surrounding myths.
Concrete structures came into existence with the arrival of the French, and some
kind of modern architectures appeared as early as the late nineteenth century. In addi-
tion, due to a nationalistic perception of heritage, the French, and later American,
architecture are only ranked as local in the list. For example, in Ho Chi Minh City
there currently stand many well-preserved works from the French period (1858–
1945), although they are not considered national heritage items: Notre Dame Cathe-
dral, Hotel Continental, Central Post Office, Opera House, Governor’s Palace.
Since 1975, the entire economic potential has been focused on strategies for over-
coming the consequences of wars and dealing with economic crises. Contemporary
structures, using high technology and new materials, have only been seen since 1990,
when Vietnam proceeded with economic reform and an open-door policy to the out-
side world. The architecture of this period has nothing special in terms of design,
but tends rather towards simulation of French classical styles or imitation of inter-
national-style glass boxes. Some works are impressive, such as My Dinh National
Convention Centre (2006) in Hanoi by Meinhard von Gerkar and Nikolaus Goetze.
In Ho Chi Minh City, Bitexco Financial Tower (2010), which is 262 meters high,
was designed in a lotus image by Carlos Zapata; Keangnam Hanoi Landmark Tower
(2011), 336 meters high, also by Zapata, is Vietnam’s highest construction so far.
The act does not take into account modern Western-style architecture, generally from
North America and Europe, but favours works of traditional and indigenous style.
Thus, among the most recent buildings, only one was designated as national heritage:
the Bai Dinh Pagoda (2003–2010) in Ninh Binh Province. In an area of 540 hectares,
it is considered the largest complex of Buddhist temples in Vietnam.
Heritage conservation policy is still being perfected in terms of legislation and
human resources. In fact, expert teams majoring in conservation are inexperienced
and in short supply, and conservation funding is very low. Discussions on this issue
188 Asia
are random and lacking in scientific methods. Today, the government, on the one
hand, is mobilizing domestic resources drawn from the local population, while on the
other hand it is tightening relationships and enhancing international assistance with
experts from Japan, South Korea, Italy, Poland and UNESCO.
Nguyen Minh Hoa
Link
Culture Information Network:
http://cinet.gov.vn/ (in English and Vietnamese)
Bibliography
A. Le Brusq & L. de Selva, Vietnam à travers l’architecture coloniale (Prahecq, 1999).
Nguyen Minh Hoa, Urban Studies: Theoretical and Practical Issues (Ho Chi Minh City, 2012,
in Vietnamese).
Dang Thai Hoang, Architectural Heritage Preservation in Hanoi (Hanoi, 1997, in
Vietnamese).
Dang Thai Hoang, Hanoi Architecture: 19th-20th Century (Hanoi, 1999, in Vietnamese).
Australia – New Zealand

Australasia
190 Australasia
AUSTRALIA
Figure 6.1 Jørn Utzon, Sydney Opera House, Sydney, 1959–1973. Listed in 2005
Source: AIA NSW Chapter Max Dupain Collection, 1960s.
Although the concept of historic preservation had long been understood in Australia,
with moves to preserve English monuments being reported locally, it was not until
after World War II that the listing of potential preservation sites in Australia began.
In New South Wales (NSW), the Cumberland County Council, the newly created
planning authority for Greater Sydney, invited local councils to identify their historic
buildings, and in 1948 40 places were selected for preservation. Around the same
time, the newly formed National Trust (NSW chapter) compiled its own register of
historic buildings, as did the Historic Buildings Committee of NSW Chapter of the
Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA, now AIA). Both of these lists con-
sisted entirely of Colonial Georgian buildings and it was not until the 1960s that
buildings beyond 1850 began to be considered.
By 1970, the National Trust and the RAIA NSW chapter had come to an agree-
ment that identification of twentieth-century architecture would be undertaken by the
RAIA, leaving the National Trust to concentrate on buildings from 1788–1900. In
1973, the NSW chapter published its preliminary Register of Significant Architecture
erected between 1900 and 1950, including award-winning architecture up to 1948,
now extended up to 2003. In 1983, the NSW Government Architect’s Branch com-
piled a register of the state’s historic public buildings. Inclusion on these registers does
Australia 191
not provide any statutory protection, and a number of significant twentieth-century
buildings have already been demolished or altered beyond recognition. Not all of the
states maintain formal registers of twentieth-century buildings, as this would simply
duplicate the existing National Trust listings or statutory heritage listings included in
planning instruments.
Following an enquiry into Australia’s heritage in 1974, the Australian Heritage
Act came into being, including the Register of the National Estate, which com-
menced in 1978 but was frozen in 2007. The register is still available for consulta-
tion as an archive. The Council of Australian Governments subsequently determined
that heritage protection should be the responsibility of one tier of government only.
Places on the World Heritage, the National Heritage and the Commonwealth Heri-
tage lists are now dealt with under the Federal Environmental Protection and Bio-
diversity Act (1999).
For each tier of listing, criteria have been developed which have not been stan-
dardized across the country. Each state government maintains its own state heritage
register, and schedules of items of environmental heritage are contained in planning
schemes such as local environmental plans prepared by individual city and regional
councils.
The first council to identify buildings to be preserved was the Sydney City Coun-
cil which prepared its Preservation Plan in 1971–1972. Their initial list has been
expanded and now includes many modern buildings and streetscapes. The Preserva-
tion Plan predated the series of state heritage acts, the first of which was the NSW
Heritage Act (1977) which provided for Permanent Conservation Orders (PCOs) to
be placed on buildings or sites to ensure their retention. Items with PCOs were trans-
ferred onto the newly created State Heritage Register (SHR) in 1999 and since then
new heritage items have been progressively added, including modern buildings. Mod-
ern architecture is one of the identified gaps in the SHR and a series of nominations
are currently being processed.
The situation varies in the other states and territories. Heritage acts have been
introduced in the Northern Territory (1991), Queensland (1992), South Australia
(1993), Western Australia (1990) and Tasmania (1995) and finally the Australian
Capital Territory (ACT, 2004). These various state and territory heritage registers are
available online.
Most local councils maintain their own heritage registers which are contained in
their planning controls. It is mandatory in NSW to include heritage requirements in
a local environmental plan, but not in Queensland or Tasmania. Less than half of the
councils in Queensland have heritage schedules; in Tasmania the figure is higher – over
80 percent. When heritage studies to identify potential items were first undertaken in
the 1980s, few modern buildings were identified. Modern works are often still not
considered for local listing, as communities find it more difficult to understand these
items’ significance.
Urban conservation areas were first introduced in the 1970s, based on English prec-
edents. Initially listed by the National Trust, conservation areas are now included in
planning schemes, and detailed controls have been prepared. To date, few examples
of modern planned housing groups or suburbs have been identified as conservation
areas. The exception is Canberra. Heritage guidelines have recently been prepared
by the ACT Heritage Council for two significant areas of 1970s housing in Canberra
erected by the National Capital Development Corporation.
192 Australasia
Modern architectural heritage is currently not well protected by Australian statu-
tory planning controls, with the exception of the Sydney Opera House, listed on the
NSW State Heritage Register in 2003, on the Australian National Heritage List in
2005 and now on the World Heritage List. The heritage schedules of the more pro-
gressive metropolitan city councils include post-war architecture. Outside of these
urban areas, there is considerable work still to be done to incorporate modern archi-
tectural heritage, and twentieth-century buildings generally, into the three tiers of
Australian planning controls.
Noni Boyd
Links
Australian Government, Department of the Environment and Energy, National Heritage List:
http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/ (in English)
Australian Heritage Places Inventory:
http://www.environment.gov.au/apps/ahpi/about.html (in English)
Australian Institute of Architects:
http://www.architecture.com.au/
Bibliography
Community, Building Modern Australia, eds. H. Lewi & D. Nichols (Sydney, 2010).
Fibro House, Opera House: Conserving Mid-Twentieth Century Heritage, ed. S. Burke (Sydney,
2000).
S. Marsden & F. Stropin, Twentieth Century Heritage, Marking the Recent Past (Adelaide,
2001).
New Uses for Heritage Places: Guidelines for the Adaptation of Historic Buildings and Sites,
eds. Nsw Heritage Office & Raia Nsw Chapter (Parramatta, 2008).
New Zealand 193
NEW ZEALAND
Figure 6.2 Price Adams & Dodd, West Plaza Building, Auckland, 1970–1974. Scheduled in
1997
Source: Rees Osborne, 1974.
194 Australasia
The best known New Zealand initiative to list a contemporary building as heritage
occurred in the mid-1980s. The building was the Wellington Club (1969–1972),
a gentlemen’s club in the capital city by Roger Walker of Calder Fowler & Styles.
With an oversized concrete structure and cylindrical stairwells, it demonstrated
Walker’s interest in Japanese Metabolism. But it was low-rise and 12 years after
completion, the club proposed to make better economic use of its valuable site in
the central business district by demolishing and replacing the building. Victoria
University’s Russell Walden led a campaign to try and convince the New Zealand
Historic Places Trust (Pouhere Taonga, Nzhpt, 1954) to classify it as an historic
place, but under the Historic Places Act 1980, the trust was only classifying build-
ings built before 1940. Walden lost his campaign and the building was indeed
demolished in 1985.
In 1987, the NZHPT replaced the 1940 cut-off date with a 30-year rolling date.
This remained in place until 2004, when it was rescinded and since then there has
been no cut-off date for registrations.
Meanwhile, however, new legislation in the early 1990s shifted primary respon-
sibility for heritage identification and protection from the NZHPT to the country’s
local authorities. The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) required each local
authority to prepare a new district plan for its geographic area, including a schedule
of heritage items. The RMA entails some protection for scheduled heritage buildings
in stipulating that a resource consent is required for additions, alterations or demoli-
tion. Following the RMA, the updated Historic Places Act 1993 required the NZHPT
to maintain its register of historic places, but with no protection for registered items.
This continues today, under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014,
with which the NZHPT was renamed Heritage New Zealand (HNZ) and its register
became a list. Thus, since the early 1990s, New Zealand’s initiatives in heritage iden-
tification have predominantly occurred at the local level.
The local scheduling system capitalizes on local knowledge, but in other ways is
limiting. For example, heritage recognition is being pursued to varying degrees around
the country, rather than consistently, systematically and rigorously throughout. The
wealthier urban councils, notably Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, have on-
staff expertise to assess heritage values and are leading the way in expanding their
heritage schedules. Some mid-sized councils, such as Hutt City and Rotorua District,
have the budgets to employ heritage consultants. But this is not necessarily possible
for the country’s less populated local authorities. These tend to have adopted the
relevant parts of the HNZ list as their district plan schedule, without any additional
research or expansion. The old 1940 cut-off date lingers in some of these. The most
recent buildings on local authority schedules include the Sir Basil Spence–designed
Beehive (1964–1982) in Wellington’s parliamentary precinct; Warren & Mahoney’s
celebrated Christchurch Town Hall (1966–1972), which is under repair following
major earthquakes in the city in 2010 and 2011; and the West Plaza Building (1970–
1974) by Price Adams & Dodd, a commercial high-rise in central Auckland.
The Wellington City Council conducted the country’s most radical experiment in
heritage, scheduling a recent/current building: architect Ian Athfield’s own house and
office in the suburb of Khandallah, designed and built from 1965 and still under
construction today. The council tried to schedule it in 1995, calling it ‘postmodern
organic heritage’. Athfield objected, convinced heritage staff to drop the word ‘post-
modern’ from the description and negotiated a new category of ‘organic heritage’,
New Zealand 195
which allowed him to keep building without having to go through the resource con-
sent process for every addition.
Concurrently, HNZ has also been listing modern buildings. Since the early 2000s,
it has been targeting, one by one, the Docomomo New Zealand ‘Top 20’, published
in The Modern Movement in Architecture: Selections from the Docomomo Regis-
ters (Rotterdam, 2000). Listings include the most recent of this Top 20, the Athfield
Architects–designed Buck House (1980–1981) in Hawke’s Bay, listed in 2005 (but not
yet scheduled by the Hastings District Council).
While the previous information might suggest otherwise, modern buildings remain
under-represented on both the HNZ list and most local authority schedules. The dis-
parity motivated the publication of Long Live the Modern, a book conceptualized
to promote and encourage increased listing of the country’s modern heritage. It pre-
sented 180 extant modern buildings as points of comparison for those faced with
making the listing decisions. The focus was on modern heritage rather than contem-
porary architecture, and the cut-off date of 1984 was imposed for several reasons,
first and foremost to make the project manageable. The most recent building in the
book is Stephenson & Turner’s Bank of New Zealand (now the State Insurance Build-
ing, 1973–1984) in Wellington. The steel frame of this building hovered over the
capital for much of the 1970s and early 1980s, when steel workers were on strike,
and thus it represents something of New Zealand’s own crisis of modern architecture.
At the present time, this building is neither HNZ listed nor local authority scheduled.
New Zealand’s modern buildings remain under-represented on heritage lists. It
seems likely that these will remain the listing priority for the foreseeable future, ahead
of the country’s contemporary architecture.
Julia Gatley
Links
Heritage New Zealand, Register of Historic Places:
http://www.heritage.org.nz/the-list (in English and Maori)
Auckland Council, Cultural Heritage Inventory:
https://chi.net.nz/ (in English)
Wellington City Heritage:
http://www.wellingtoncityheritage.org.nz/(in English)
Bibliography
Long Live the Modern: New Zealand’s New Architecture, 1904–1984, ed. J. Gatley (Auckland,
2008).
Taylor &Francis
7 Europe
Albania – Andorra – Armenia – Austria – Azerbaijan – Belarus – Belgium – Bosnia and Herzegovina –
Bulgaria – Croatia – Cyprus – Czech Republic – Denmark – Estonia – Finland – France – Georgia –
Germany – Greece – Hungary – Iceland – Ireland – Italy – Kosovo – Latvia – Liechtenstein – Lithuania –
Luxembourg – Macedonia – Malta – Moldova – Montenegro – Netherlands – Norway – Poland – Portugal –
Romania – Russia – San Marino – Serbia – Slovakia – Slovenia – Spain – Sweden – Switzerland – Turkey –
Ukraine – United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales) – Vatican City State
198 Europe
ALBANIA
Figure 7.1 Giancarlo Rigamonti, Catholic Cathedral of St. Paul, Tirana, 2002. Listed in 2007
Source: Vilma Picari, 2016.
The history of Albania is marked by two phases which have affected its culture and
popular consciousness, influencing the activity of heritage protection: the trans-
formation from a distant Ottoman province to an independent European nation
(1915–1925) and the end of the communist regime and the beginning of democ-
racy (1991). After independence, under the Italian Protectorate (1921–1939),
there was considerable progress in the awareness of protection. Italian architects
and engineers made a first important contribution in the field of infrastructure,
and then architecture and planning, through the creation of the Central Office for
Building and Urban Affairs (1939). This institution was dedicated to planning,
through the study and development of territorial vocation, and to the search for a
modern architecture based on traditional grammar. After 1945, the Italian experi-
ence, the awareness of the artistic value of city centers and the progress of their
degradation were the basis for protection.
In 1948, Albania proclaimed the first List of Cultural Monuments (Decree on Pro-
tection of Cultural Monuments and Rare Items, No. 568), consisting of 107 different
assets: dwellings, fortifications, religious buildings and archaeological sites. The first
step towards the overall management of heritage took place in 1961 with the protec-
tion of Berat and Gjirokastra, the Durres underground and the bazaar of Kruja. The
historical centers were zoned into three large areas: the museum area, fully protected
and with the prohibition of new buildings; the protected area, complementary to the
first one but with expansion and new building permits in relation to the context; and
Albania 199
the unrestricted free area or urban expansion. The most important buildings were
designated as monuments and divided into two categories: those of particular historic
and artistic value, which are fully preserved, allowing small adaptations to the most
modern needs, and those marked by environmental value and internal transforma-
tions without changing the external aspect.
These subdivisions and categories were considered well enough advanced as to be
still valid and reflected in the National Law on Cultural Heritage (No. 9,048/2003,
last amendment No. 77/2013). The process of protection was also marked by entry
into ICCROM (1962), the institution of many restoration workshops and the national
participation at the Second International Congress of Architects and Specialists of

Historic Buildings (Venice, 1964). Based on these experiences, the Institute of Cultural
Monuments (Instituti i Monumenteve të Kulturës, 1965) was founded as reference
point for research and restoration with regional offices.
In 1967, the dictatorship eliminated from the heritage list approximately 40 percent
of religious buildings, reserving for them a sad fate in order to consolidate the athe-
ist ideology. Only those buildings which had been stripped of all religious symbols
escaped destruction and were adapted to warehouses, gymnasiums, etc. During the
dictatorship period, the process of heritage preservation was scrupulous following all
the steps recommended by the international charters; studies and surveys elaborated
in those years are still valid for current restorations. 1991 saw the start of a long
transition that represented a crisis period for heritage too, with considerable damage
to monuments that had ended up in private hands due to social disturbance and lack
of public order.
Since 2000 there have been fruitful years with the establishment of the National
Commission for UNESCO. In addition, the law on cultural heritage has been enacted
in 2003 (last amendment in 2008) which allowed the strengthening of the Regional
Directorates of Cultural Monuments and the creation of the Archaeological Ser-
vice Agency (Agjencia e Shërbimit Arkeologjik, ASHA). The ASHA is a decisional
board within the Ministry of Culture as the National Council for Restoration and the
National Council of Archaeological Parks. Scientific research and maintenance, pres-
ervation and restoration projects take place in the Center for Albanological Studies
and in the Institute of Monuments of Culture and in all subsections.
In 2007, through decisions of the National Council for Restoration and then minis-
terial decrees, several modern architectures were declared monuments of Category II,
such as the buildings of the monumental axis of Tirana (1925–1939), with works
by Armando Brasini, Florestano Di Fausto and Gherardo Bosio, and the Palace of
Brigade (1937–1939) by Giuliano Berte, Di Fausto and Bosio. Also a few Socialist
Classical architectures were put under protection, such as the Shallvare block along
the Tirana River (1950–1960s), by Russian architects.
In 2015 there was a very extensive protection campaign that has expanded pro-
tected areas around significant ancient monuments and has also doubled the number
of listed buildings. All communist-era buildings with evident value have taken on the
status of monuments of Category II. These include the so-called Pyramid (1988), Enver
Hoxha’s mausoleum designed by Pirro Vaso, Klement Kolaneci, Pranvera Hoxha and
Vladimir Bregu. In addition, the former industrial areas built under Russian influence
(1960) or Chinese (1970), currently in a state of abandonment, have been subject to
protection to preserve them from building speculation.
Frida Pashako
200 Europe
Link
Institute of Cultural Monuments of Albania, “Gani Strazimiri”, list of sites and list of protected
areas:
http://imk.gov.al/site/ (in Albanian)
Bibliography
P. Kolevica, Arkitektura dhe diktatura (Logoreci, 2004).
A.B. Menghini, F. Pashako & M. Stigliano, Architettura moderna italiana per le città d’Albania.
Modelli e Interpretazioni (Tirana, 2012).

K. Myhrberg, Heritage from the Communist Period in Albania: An Unwanted Heritage Today?,
Master thesis of Science in Conservation, University of Gothenburg (Gothenburg, 2011,
unpublished: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/29221.
A. Raça, “Të Restaurosh Modernen!”, Forum A+P: Periodike Shkencore për Arkitekturën dhe
Planifikimin Urban, 1 (2009): 38–45.
E. Riza, Teoria dhe praktika e restaurimit të monumenteve të arkitekturës (Tirana, 2002).
Andorra 201
ANDORRA
Figure 7.2 Ricardo Bofill, New Sanctuary of Meritxell, Meritxell 1976. Listed in 2003
Source: Miquel Merce, 2016.
The history of the principality of Andorra is tied to that of its two neighboring coun-
tries: in 1278, the Diocese of La Seu d’Urgell, Spain and France arrived at an agreement
whose charter has remained essentially the same until today. The current constitution
(1993), therefore, still recognizes these two historical regents: the head of the French
state and the Bishop of the Diocese of Catalonia, according to the agreement of 1278.
The 1950s saw the first studies relating to the awareness and preservation of national
culture and the establishment of the Comissió de Cultura. In the years of the Franco
dictatorship, Andorra was a bastion of the Catalan language and culture, which was
spread via a number of associations. The Department of Cultural Heritage was estab-
lished in 1960 (Junta de Cultura) as the first institution in charge of the management
of national heritage. In 1964, the Consell General proposed the first inventory of
cultural heritage: a list of assets to be protected by special regulations, such as the ban
on building in the neighborhood of Romanesque chapels and religious monuments
declared to be of national interest, in order to preserve maximum visibility.
The historical and traditional presence of the Catholic Church as part of the coun-
try’s regents influences the culture and the legislation of the principality, which is cur-
rently divided administratively into seven districts (parròquies).
In the 1960s several archaeological excavations were carried out by the universi-
ties, but it was not until 4 June 1970 when these policies and standards included the
safeguarding of assets prohibiting the unauthorized works around chapels and artistic
monuments. The Arxiu Nacional (1975) started work on a law for the cultural and
202 Europe
natural heritage, a univocal definition of cultural landscape. In fact, in 1983, the Llei
de protecció of cultural-natural heritage was approved. It founded departments such
as the Library, the Arxiu Nacional, the Patrimoni Artístic and the Institut d’Estudis
Andorrans, along with the organization and creation of the Registre General dels Bens
Mobles, the Inventari del patrimoni arquitectònic and the Inventari del patrimoni
arqueològic.
The Constitution (art. 35) declares that the state is responsible for the preservation,
promotion and divulgation of historical, cultural and artistic heritage. Moreover, it pro-
vides for the establishment of new specialized services such as Recerca Historica, Inven-
tari i Conservació and Museus i Monuments which oversee numerous duties: the study
and interpretation of the country’s history and culture; the support, inventory, protec-
tion and preservation of the tangible and intangible cultural heritage; the creation and
management of new cultural infrastructure; and promotion of the knowledge of history
and cultural heritage. The current Llei del patrimoni cultural (No. 9/2003) promotes
the relationship between local governments, municipal and private entities, representing
a legal framework which requires the preservation of cultural heritage. This act defines
heritage as “one of the most important reminders of the history, identity and creativity
of the country”. Cultural heritage is formed by those assets relating to the history or the
national culture that for historical, artistic, aesthetic, archaeological, paleontological,
ethnographic, urban planning, architectural, scientific or technical values are deemed
to be of cultural interest. The criteria are those that can be found in a paleontologi-
cal field such as in a contemporary building, in the mountain culture, in the Catalan
language, in Romanesque, in Christianity or in local materials. The Inventari General
del Patrimoni Cultural is developed by the Ministry of Culture and includes all those
movable, immovable and intangible assets, public or privately owned, and is fully avail-
able on the Internet. It consists of four sections: goods of cultural interest and real estate
(BIC), real estate inventory, movable property inventory (BI) and intangible assets. In
turn, the property of cultural interest is classified as follows: monument (57), architec-
tural complex (1), cultural landscape (1), archeological area (13) and paleontological
area (0). Inventoried movable property are those assets not declared to be of cultural
interest, assets which on account of their historical, artistic or cultural value are part of
the general inventory of heritage by decision of the Minister of Culture. The inclusion
criteria are not chronological but cultural, historical and stylistic, such as modernist
architecture of the Modern Movement, either contemporary or granite. Among the
BIC, mostly Romanic churches from the twelfth to the eighteenth centuries, we can also
find classified as a monument the new Sanctuary of Santa Maria of Meritxell (1976,
listed in 2003) by Ricardo Bofill. These BIC are protected by a Entorn de protecció that
defines a protection area in the near surroundings of the monument for its preservation
and appropriate appreciation from the correct perspective. Among the BI we can report
Farràs House (1952–1956, protected in 2004), work from the Modern Movement by
Josep Maria Sostres the Maluquer; the contemporary building of Emissora de Sud-
Radio (1964, protected in 2008) in Encamp; and a series of 46 modern and contempo-
rary buildings of different types, made especially in the 1930–1940s using local stone
and inventoried as granite architecture.
Angelina Paulicelli
Andorra 203
Link
Andorra Government, Cultural Heritage Inventory:
http://www.cultura.ad/cercador-d-inventari (in Catalan)
Bibliography
“El Patrimoni en perill”, Publicacions Tècniques COAA, 52 (2002).
E. Dilmé & X. Orteu, Arquitetura de la secona meitat del s.XX a Andorra (unpublished, 2016,
https://enricdilmearquitecte.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/arquitectura-mig-segle-andorra.
pdf).
R. Lacuesta i Contreras, “Arquitectura d’autor a Andorra: 1860–1960 “, in ed. S. Vela, Història
d’Andorra. De la Prehistòria a l’Edat Contemporània (Barcelona, 2005): 397–416.
L’Arquitectura contemporānia als Pirineus (1996).
204 Europe
ARMENIA
Figure 7.3 Jim Torosyan, Aslan Mkhitaryan and Sargis Gurzadyan, Yerevan Cascade, Yerevan,
1971–1980. Listed in 2000s
The current Law on the Protection and Use of Immovable Monuments of History
and Culture and Historical Surrounding (1998, amended in 2003) does not indicate
a specific year of construction as a time limit for its status as safeguarded monument.
At the moment, then, this should allow the exercise of protection even for fairly recent
works, regardless of their date of construction. The Historical and Cultural Monu-
ments Conservation Agency, the institution responsible for architectural conservation
and implementing heritage conservation under the purview of the Ministry of Culture,
has therefore designated as a national monument the Yerevan Cascade (1971–1980,
inaugurated in 2009) designed on an idea by Alexander Tamanian.
With regard to categories worthy of protection, the law does not specifically men-
tion twentieth-century architecture. The law defines as monuments “buildings, struc-
tures, groups of buildings with historical, scientific, artistic, cultural values and so on.
[. . .] the fragments of archaeological, artistic lithographic ethnographic related to the
monuments, memorable sites.” Monuments are also classified according to the fol-
lowing categories: archaeological heritage (Paleolithic shelters, cave-shelters, ancient
and medieval houses, fortresses, tombs, necropoles, megalithic monuments, stone
carvings, petroglyphs, archaeological/cultural depots); historical heritage (buildings,
Armenia 205
memorials, memorable complexes, tombs associated with important personalities and
famous to the vicissitudes of history); urban archaeological heritage (historic homes,
neighborhoods, streets and gardens, habitable buildings, religious, public, vernacular
houses, architectural monuments); monumental art (examples of sculpture, painting
and decorative monumental art). It is true, especially regarding works dating from
the 1920s and 1930s, that there is some awareness of their importance as elements of
national identity. It should be observed that in 1918 the country acquired ephemeral
independence after many centuries, later lost with the annexation of Eastern Armenia
by the Soviet Union.
With the founding of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Armenia (1920), the first
administrative and political institutions were able to arise and consolidate, albeit
under strict Russian rule. A process of modernization started, both in the country as
a whole and in the new capital Yerevan. Up to then, Yerevan, despite a substantial
Armenian presence, resembled a small Oriental town, strongly influenced by the his-
torically dominant Ottoman and Persian cultures. The process of modernization was
entrusted by the Soviets to Alexandre Tamanian, an Armenian born in Krasnodar
(Russian Federation) and educated at the St. Petersburg Academy of Fine Arts. Tama-
nian moved to Yerevan at the time of the first independent republic, and after a brief
period of self-imposed exile in Iran, he was appointed head of the new planning and
design of many public buildings in the city.
As a scholar of ancient Armenian architecture (particularly of Ani, the old medieval
capital), Tamanian proposed a neo-Armenian language in the vein of European Eclec-
ticism but absolutely original in its form and quotations from ancient ornamental
apparatus of religious architecture. Works by Tamanian and his disciples still feature
heavily in the capital and other cities and represent, even in the view of non-specialists,
the very idea of independence gained briefly and then pursued under the eyes of the
Soviet administration that, in the first decades of the regime, was aiming at consent
from the various nationalities which make up this immense country. Tamanian style
was to characterize Armenian architecture at least until the 1960s. This means that
the buildings of that time are still popular and recognized as “monuments” by the
people (the 500-dram note has on its main side a portrait of Tamanian).
There was also the presence, albeit transitory, of a small but fierce array of design-
ers inspired by Russian Constructivism, authors of a number of interesting works (in
particular, collective housing and public services) that fell out of favor in the Stalinist
years. These works were largely transformed in the 1950s with interventions inspired
by socialist realism. The value of those few buildings that survived these alterations
is currently not recognized, and they are in a state of serious disrepair, often compro-
mised by untimely interventions. In the last years of the Soviet regime, a number of
publications bore witness to the rise in interest in architecture from the first half of
the twentieth century: a mark of renewed interest, at least on the part of experts. This
new interest has now been documented by some of the exhibitions at the National
Museum of Architecture and the studies of young researchers abroad.
In 1990, just one year before the end of the USSR, a document called Protection of
historical and cultural heritage of the city of Yerevan was approved by the authorities.
The authors (Artion Grigoryan, O. Sanamyan, A. Gjulnazaryan and K. Grigoryan) pro-
posed to put under protection a list of 871 monuments, among which 457 belonged to
the Soviet period. After independence, the list was annulled and a new list was approved
in 2004; only 370 out of 457 Soviet period landmarks remained. Unfortunately we have
206 Europe
to note that any owner can today apply for the exclusion of a building from the list, and
this has happened in no few cases.
Maurizio Boriani
Link
Andorra Government, Cultural Heritage Inventory:
http://www.cultura.ad/cercador-d-inventari (in Catalan)
Bibliography
V.M. Arutiunian & K.L. Oganesian, Architecture of the Soviet Armenia: A Brief Sketch (Yere-
van, 1955, in Russian).
N. Chilingaryan, “Post-Socialist Architecture of Armenia: The Free Language of Independence
or Authenticity Destruction?”, Heritage Conservation Regional Network Journal, no. 2
(2013. Available online http://rcchd.icomos.org.ge/?l=E&m=4-4&JID=2&AID=16, accessed
12 December 2016).
L.K. Dolukhanyan, Architecture of the Soviet Armenia: The 20ies (Yerevan, 1980, in
Russian).
A.G. Grigoryan & M.Z. Tovmasyan, Architecture of the Soviet Armenia (Moscow, 1986, in
Russian).
T. Ter Minassian, Erevan: La construction d’une capitale à l’époque soviétique (Rennes, 2007).
Austria 207
AUSTRIA
Figure 7.4 Querkraft (Jakob Dunkl, Gerd Erhartt, Peter Sapp), Museum Liaunig, Neuhaus,
Source: Museum Liaunig, 2011.
Among the countries pertaining to the House of Habsburg, Austria took on a leading
role in heritage preservation during the 1950s.
The current legislation in force regarding heritage and documentary research
dates from the end of World War I. The Bundesdenkmalamt (Federal Office for the
Protection of Monuments) is part of the Federal Ministry for Education, Arts, and
Culture: it is composed of the main office in Vienna with nine offices known as the
Landeskonservatoren.
In 1938 the Restoration Workshops (Restaurierwerkstätten) were established with
specific responsibilities and tasks. The Architectural Conservation Workshop (Restau-
rierwerkstätten Baudenkmalpflege) was founded in 1984. The idea of ‘monument’
was the basis on which the Austrian preservation law was written: this has allowed,
since the late 1960s, the control of new development areas. The Dehio Handbook for
Historical Monuments of Austria includes the inventory of its historic sites and was
published in two volumes (1933 and 1935); the catalogued sites are divided among
public property, church property and private property in equal shares.
Many rules regarding the regulation of the urban environment have been introduced
during the years: the Vienna Building Code (1930) determines that owners of historical
monuments must get special permission to modify their properties. Similarly, the Old
Town Conservation Act (1972) forbids any alteration on buildings in the city without
prior consent from a regulatory office. Moreover, a fund for the city maintenance has
been collected through the revenues from television and radio licensing.
208 Europe
The ICOMOS has closely monitored change in historical buildings and today
focuses on the control of environment modification. After 2004 it was noted that the
city skyline had changed due to a deficiency in the current law that allowed modifying
the roofs of buildings, thereby affecting the skyline. New rules were then introduced
to address this issue.
In 1998 Vienna was included in World Heritage List, while Graz had been included
in 1996. Both cities are a fusion of ancient and modern, with contemporary archi-
tecture mixed with the old buildings of the historical centres. The New Haas House
(1980–1987) by Hans Hollein was built in front of the St. Stephan’s cathedral of
Vienna. In Graz, when the city was nominated Europe’s cultural capital (2003), Colin
Fournier and Peter Cook designed the Kunsthaus. Criticisms were drawn soon after,
and Graz was nearly cancelled from World Heritage List. However, the insertion of
two contemporary architectures in the ancient body of the two cities shows how
a new concept of preservation far from the ‘mummification’ approach is possible.
In Salzburg (included in World Heritage List since 1999) the project to expand the
Wals-Siezenheim stadium was changed, reduced and revised to protect and respect
the historical context of the building as the eighteenth-century Schloss Klessheim by
Fischer von Erlach. The restoration of building to be used for ‘modern’ uses was a
success. The medieval Gozzoburg Castle in Krems was restored and transformed into
a museum. The castle is renowned as a testimony of several ancient styles and for the
oldest laic frescos of central Europe. The restoration plan was brought to completion
through the common efforts of Lower Austria Province and Bundesdenkmalamt and
was awarded a prize by Europa Nostra in 2009.
The current legislation (Denkmalschutzgesetz, 1999) does not include a temporary
restriction to recognize listed buildings as an historical monument. Among the 37,000
listed buildings, about 100 have been built after the 1950s: some designed by Hollein
or Rob Krier. The Christus Hoffnung der Welt church (1999–2000) by Heinz Tesar in
Donaucity is a significant example: the church was recognized as a monument because
it represents an example of new architecture in a suburban area. But the youngest
monument is the Museum Liaunig in Neuhaus (Carinthia), built in 2008 by the archi-
tecture group Querkraft (Jakob Dunkl, Gerd Erhartt and Peter Sap). It is insert into
the hill and marks a cut in the landscape. It is considered a work of ‘landart’ and only
its small part is visible.
Even the private sector is interested in preservation: the Baukulturstiftung Öster-
reichische (Austrian Building Trust, 2002) is an NGO that focuses on the purchase and
restoration of old ruined buildings. At this moment the organization has purchased five
sites: one of them is Gustav Klimt Atelier in Wien. Other organizations are interested
in various aspects of modern preservation: Österreichische Geselleschaft fϋr Denkmal-
und Ortsbildpflege, Initiative Denkmalschutz, Gemeinnϋtzige Österreichische Gesell-
schaft fϋr Privatstiftung and Österreichische Gesellschaft fϋr Historische Gärten.
Francesca Capano
Link
Federal Office for the Protection of Monuments:
http://www.bda.at/ (in Austrian German)
Austria 209
Bibliography
Dehio Wien, I. Bezirk, Innere Stadt (Vienna, 2003).
P. Engel, Globe Conservation Studies (Vienna, 2013).
A. Lehne, Das Ensemble und der staatliche Denkmalschutz in Österreich. Entwicklung, in
Fokus Denkmal. Erfahrungen und Definitionen (Vienna, 2014).
Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst- und Denkmalpflege 2015: 50 Jahre Charta von Venedig,
1/2 (2015).
M. Pollak, Vom Erinnerungsort zur Denkmalpflege: Kulturgüter als Medien des kulturellen
Gedächtnisses (Vienna, 2009).
W. Zschokke, Wien-Donaucity Katholische Kirche: Christus, Hoffnung der Welt (Regensburg,
2003).
210 Europe
AZERBAIJAN
Figure 7.5 Zaha Hadid Architects, Heydar Aliyev Center, Baku, 2007–2012. Scheduled in
2014
Source: Mustafa Shabanov, 2016.
Although Azerbaijan’s history has much in common with its neighbors in the Cauca-
sus, its Islamic heritage makes Azeri culture and architecture distinctive in the region.
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, but also during the Soviet period,
unique monuments were created and the new modern face of Baku was formed by
the joint work of national architects, together with famous international ones, such
as the Mukhtarov Palace (1911–1912) by the Pole Józef Plośko, the Nizami Museum
of Azerbaijani Literature (1939) by Mikayil Huseynov and the Government House
(1940–1952) by Lev Rudnev and Vladimir Munts, all listed properties of national
significance since 1968.
The protection of cultural heritage is a relatively new endeavor. During the Soviet
period (1920–1991), the Azeri Ministry of Culture’s Department for Protection of
Monuments oversaw architectural conservation. In 1992, it was replaced with the
State Commission for Protection, Restoration and Utilization of Historical and Cul-
tural Monuments; in 2000 another government reorganization followed, and the
Cultural Heritage Department (Mədəni irs şöbəsi) was established within the new
Ministry of Culture and Tourism. This institution is directly responsible for protec-
tion, utilization, conservation and other activities regarding immovable heritage,
Azerbaijan 211
subdivided internally by the Preservation of Immovable Heritage Division, Cultural
Preserves Division, Restoration Projects and Expertise Division.
Current legislation regulates all issues relating to cultural heritage and includes
specific laws and decrees as well as ratified international conventions. Law No. 275
concerning the Conservation of Historical and Cultural Monuments was adopted in
1998 (amended in 2010). Its articles deal with aspects of the protection, study and
utilization of historical and cultural monuments, including among other architectural,
engineering, parks, gardens and urban types. It defines the inviolability, classification,
levels of protection, registration and ownership of monuments and regulates archaeo-
logical research and research into architectural and other monuments. The law also
governs the role of the Azerbaijani National Academy of Sciences (ANAS, 1945) in
the study, preservation and definition of levels of importance of monuments. Accord-
ing to this law, all restoration activities must be agreed to by the ministry and carried
out under its supervision.
Architecture and urban planning in Azerbaijan, especially in Baku, followed a
specific path in its development: in the Soviet period the panorama of capital city
was completed with the construction of different types of administrative buildings,
theaters and museums, libraries and concert halls, sport complexes and residential
places, parks and gardens. After the restoration of independence, there was a con-
struction boom: several new, modern buildings, architectural monuments and cultural
centers were constructed in Baku, especially after 2000.
Legislation defines two mechanisms for protection: initial and permanent protec-
tion through the granting of the status of Cultural Heritage Property or Listed Prop-
erty. The initial one is a temporary protection applied when the object is revealed. The
object is included into the Initial List (as newly discovered) and then transmitted to the
Cabinet of Ministers, who applies to the ANAS for an assessment of all objects and
a determination of their value. Only objects approved by ANAS are included in the
final list. The first list of permanent protection, on the other hand, was established in
1968, the second one in 1981, the third one in 1988 and the last in 2001, with 6,308
cultural architectural historical monuments. The ministry is permanently listing newly
discovered monuments, preparing their necessary documentation and passing it to the
Cabinet of Ministers for addition onto the register. Permanent protection guarantees
the highest level of state protection for the monuments listed in the National Regis-
ter and approved by the Cabinet of Ministers. All monuments listed in the National
Register are separated according to their local, national and world significance. All
of them are protected at the same level (Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan,
1995), regardless of their level of significance. Only one difference can be mentioned
in this respect: monuments of world and national significance cannot be privatized.
The national list is currently being updated, including monuments from the Soviet
and independence periods. About 100 newly discovered monuments in Baku have
been considered and added to the list. Among them are the National Flag Square
(2010) by David Chambers, Heydar Aliyev Center (2007–2012) by Zaha Hadid
Architects, Flame Towers (2007–2012) by HOK International and the contemporary
Baku Crystal Hall (2011–2012) by GMP International GmbH, built to host the Euro-
vision Song Contest 2012.
Rufat Nuriyev
212 Europe
Link
Ministry of Justice, database of national laws:
www.e-qanun.az (in Azerbaijani)
Bibliography
R. Afandizadeh, Azerbaijan Architecture: The Beginning of the 19th – End of the 21th Century
(Baku, 2011, in Azeri).
S. Fatullayev, Urban Planning in Baku in the End of 19th and in the End of 20th Century (Len-
ingrad, 1978, in Russian).
Belarus 213
BELARUS
Figure 7.6 Yuri Gradov, Valentin Zankovich, Leonid Levin, and Sergey Selyhanov, Khatyn
Memorial Complexes, Lahoysk Raion, 1969. Listed in 2007
© Author, 2010.
214 Europe
The gradual process of structuring architectural protection began during the Soviet
regime. In 1928, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic government adopted the res-
olution concerning Registration, Consideration and Protection of Monuments of Art,
Old Times, Ways of Life and Nature which are owned by organizations, societies and
private owners. In 1945, the government adopted the resolution regarding the Protec-
tion and Renovation of Historical and Architectural Monuments and Commemoration
of Celebrated Places and Events which are connected with Liberation of Belarus from
German-Fascist invaders. 1966 saw the establishment of the Byelorussian Voluntary
Society for the Protection of Monuments of History and Culture, and finally, in 1969,
there came the national law concerning the Protection of Monuments of Culture.
The problems of the destruction of so many monuments, however, including Ortho-
dox, Catholic, Greek-Catholic churches, mosques and synagogues and houses of the
nobility, were very acutely felt in Soviet times. At the 2nd Congress of the Voluntary
Society for the Protection of Monuments of History and Culture (1971), Ivan F. Klimov
underlined that “there are only 78 architectural monuments under state protection”.
Very important events for heritage protection took place in 1984–1988, when eight
volumes on Collection of historical and cultural monuments of Belarus were pub-
lished by the Academy of Sciences in Minsk. They included 14,322 items, which were
“taken into protection or must be taken.” These books are still used as currency for
sources of information.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and acquisition of independence (1990),
Belarus adopted a law on the Protection of Historical and Cultural Heritage (Act
1,940-XII/1992, amended and re-adopted n.98-III/2006). The law charges the State
Scientific and Methodological Council of the Ministry of Culture with the definition
and classification of historical and cultural heritage, as well as stating the responsi-
bilities for the protection of its objects. The most important part of the law is the
State Register of Historical and Cultural Values (adopted in 2007), which includes
5,379 items on different themes: architecture, town-planning, history, art, reserved
territories and archaeology. The register includes 1,763 architectural monuments and
buildings, and 11 town-planning districts. All of them are under state protection,
through the preservation of the sites and their surroundings, the monitoring of any
changes made to them and control of their use. Two protected architectural objects
are on the World Heritage List – the old castles and the palaces of Mir and Nes-
vizh – while the number of modern architectural monuments on the State Register is
very limited. They are a few neo-classical buildings from the Stalinist era or World
War II monuments from 1960s and 1970s, such as the Khatyn Memorial Complexes
(1969), by Yuri Gradov, Valentin Zankovich, Leonid Levin and Sergey Selyhanov; the
Polish-Soviet Brotherhood Memorial Museum in Lenino (1967), by Yakov Belapol-
sky, V. Tzigal and V. Havin; the Hero-Fortress in Brest (1969–1971), by Aleksandr
Pavlovich Kibalnikov, Vladimir Korol, Victor Volcheck, Zankovich, Yury Kazakov,
Oleg Stakhovich, György Sysoev and Vladimir Bobyl; the Kurgan Slavy (1967–1969,
Hill of Honour) near Minsk, by Andrey Bembel, Stakhovich, Anatoly Artimovich,
L. Mickievich and B. Laptsevich.
The time limit for the insertion of architectural items onto the State Register is
40 years since completion of construction (art. 20.2). Selectiveness and limitation
time for the State Register are very important issues in Belarus and are strictly con-
nected with our attitude towards our own history. This attitude could be selective
or tendentious or it could depend on a certain political situation. Sometimes, it has
Belarus 215
a negative influence because architectural objects are visual symbols of the time,
in that they might be ruined, rebuilt or with their functions or symbolic meanings
changed. A dangerous tendency was – and still is today – social denial of the past,
which may cause a destructive reaction in relation to its monuments. It has recently
happened to Soviet monuments and, earlier in the communist period, it happened
to ‘bourgeois’ ones.
A not-too-high level of contemporary architecture also belongs to recent issues, and
it is characterized by chaotic development, disregard for the idea of ensemble and aes-
thetic shortcomings. These matters have been caused by the initial period of market-
related development with all its associated priorities, mainly economic.

Nowadays, within the independent Belarusian state, it is necessary to find a concept
of national architectural protection that takes into account international experience
and which is also bound to the peculiarities of the nation’s own development and
mentality. It must be basically non-political, but built on the identities and historical
criteria of the architecture in question.
Armen S. Sardarov
Links
Ministry of Culture:
http://kultura.gov.by (in Belarusian, English and Russian)
Belarusian Voluntary Society for Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments:
http://pomniki.budzma.org/ (in Belarusian)
Bibliography
A.I. Lakotko, National Features of the Belarusian Architecture (Minsk, 1999, in Belarusian).
A.S. Sardarov, “The Architecture in the Context of the National Culture: Some Aspects of the
Development of the Heritage of Belarusian Architecture”, Construction and Architecture of
Belarus, 1 (January 1990, in Belarusian): 6–10.
A.S. Sardarov, “The Image of the City: Tradition and Modernity”, Architecture and Building,
4 (April 2012, in Belarusian): 24–27.
A.S. Shamruk, Architecture of Belarus 20th – Early 21st Century: Evolution of the Styles and
Artistic Concept (Minsk, 2007, in Belarusian).
I.F. Klimov, Report of the “2nd Congress of Byelorussian Voluntary Society for the Protection of
Monuments of History and Culture”, Pomniki gistoryi i cultury Belarusi, 4 (1971, in Belaru-
sian): 10–37.
216 Europe
BELGIUM
Figure 7.7 Renaat Braem, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Ixelles, 1971–1978. Listed in 2007
Belgian society consists of various cultural, linguistic, social, economic and religious
identities that have profoundly marked the country’s history. This complexity also
affects heritage, defined not only as an expression of identities, but also as their maker.
In Belgium, the links between heritage and national (Belgian), cultural (French, Dutch,
Belgium 217
German) and regional (Flanders, Brussels, Wallonia) identities are a political and ideo-
logical issue, whose consequences are more than cultural and economic.
The origin of the heritage policy dates back to the birth of Belgium in 1830 and
the use of historic buildings for the construction of a national identity. As early as
1835, King Leopold I founded the Royal Commission of Monuments. The historicist
romantic view of Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque heritage, mainly in urban areas,
evolved from the 1860s into a rationalist and archaeological approach. From the
1890s, along with the emergence of Art Nouveau and new forms of tourism, there
developed an interest in regional and vernacular architecture, as well as natural sites
and landscapes (Royal Commission of Monuments and Sites, 1912). World War I
caused considerable damage to heritage and gave rise, after 1918, to wide-ranging
debates on the reconstruction of historical centres and devastated areas, in the per-
spective of emerging regional identities and styles.
The law on the conservation of monuments and sites (7 August 1931) allowed
legal protection and subsidies for restoration. In 1940, about 66 percent of the 717
protected monuments were churches. World War II again caused serious damage to
heritage, and in 1948 the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage was created in Brus-
sels. The economic boom of the 1950s often considered heritage as an obstacle to
progress. The 1960s, with their large-scale heritage paradoxes and identity evolution,
were a decisive moment. On the one hand, speculative real estate developments gener-
ated brutal urban transformations such as ‘Bruxellisation’, ‘façadism’ and destruction
of remarkable monuments, such as Victor Horta’s People’s House in Brussels in 1965.
On the other hand, there appeared to be a growing awareness of heritage, both at an
international level with the Venice Charter (to the redaction of which the Belgians
Raymond Lemaire and Paul Philippot actively contributed), and at national level,
with the first bottom-up citizen movements in 1968 and the first inventory of the
architectural heritage in 1971, just before the European Architectural Heritage Year.
Since the 1960s, successive state reforms have gradually transformed the central-
ized nation-state into a decentralized federal state composed of regions and cultural
communities. The immovable heritage (monuments, sites and archaeological sites)
depends on the administration of planning at the regional level, while both the
movable heritage (museums, objects) and the intangible one are the responsibility
of the cultural communities. Since 1989, the Brussels-Capital, Flemish and Walloon
regions have each had total autonomy: different ministers, administrations, and
Royal Commissions of Monuments and Sites; distinct legislations; separate budgets
and subsidies; protection policies; inventories; budgets for restorations; etc. Since
1995, the German-speaking Community of Belgium (Deutschsprachige Gemein-
schaft Belgiens) has also managed its own heritage. However, it is not possible
within the scope of this article to detail further the characteristics of each region.
Since the mid-1970s, the concept of heritage has expanded considerably beyond the
major national and mediaeval monuments. Presently, all styles, all eras and all build-
ing types, as well as interiors, gardens, etc., are considered, inventoried, protected
and restored with public subsidies. In this respect, the online inventory of the Flem-
ish Region is a remarkable tool for heritage management. The legislation allows the
protection of monuments and sites, as well as urban and rural areas, archaeological
sites and buffer zones. Only Wallonia has two levels of protections. In 1996, Belgium
ratified UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention. Since 2008, the economic crisis has
affected heritage policies in the three regions.
218 Europe
Specific institutions collect the archives of modern architects (Archives d’Architecture
Moderne, 1969) or coordinate architectural archives (Centrum Vlaamse Architectu-
urarchieven, 2003). Since 1988, modern heritage has benefited from the action of
Docomomo Belgium. The modernist heritage of the inter-war period is generally well
protected in the three regions, but the situation is different for post-1945 heritage.
Flanders has the most systematic policy and has conducted reasoned protections
based on thematic inventories of social housing, churches of the 1950s and 1960s,
architects’ houses, the work of some modern architects, etc. In the Brussels-Capital
Region and in Wallonia, few post-1945 buildings are protected, but both regions
have organized heritage days on Expo ’58: avant-après (Brussels, 2008) and Patri-
moine et Modernité (Wallonia, 2009). The youngest protected monuments for each
region are the administrative building of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (1971–1978)
by Renaat Braem, the Pont de Wandre (1989) by the Bureau Greisch (Wallonia, 1993)
and the Pavilion de Bruges (2002) by Toyo Ito (Flanders, 2008, but demolished in
2013). Churches built after 1945 are probably the most threatened modern heritage
in Belgium.
Thomas Coomans
Links
Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage:
http://www.kikirpa.be/ (in Dutch, English and French)
Register of Protected Heritage in Brussels:
http://www.monument.irisnet.be/ (in Dutch and French)
Inventory of Immovable Heritage in Flanders:
https://inventaris.onroerenderfgoed.be/ (in Dutch)
Inventory of Immovable Cultural Heritage in Wallonia:
http://spw.wallonie.be/dgo4/site_ipic/index.php/search/index (in French)
Bibliography
L’architecture depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale, ed. P. Dumont (Brussels, 2008).
C. Berckmans & P. Bernard, Bruxelles ’50 ’60: Architecture moderne au temps de l’Expo 58
(Brussels, 2007).
Bruxelles patrimoines/Erfgoed Brussel, trimestral heritage journal of the Brussels-Capital
Region (ongoing since 2011).
Dictionnaire de l’architecture en Belgique de 1830 à nos jours, ed. A. Van Loo (Antwerp, 2003).
M&L. Monumenten, landschappen en archeologie, bimestrial heritage journal of the Flemish
Region (ongoing since 1981).
Le patrimoine moderne et contemporain de Wallonie: de 1792 à 1958, ed. G. Warzée (Namur,
1999).
Bosnia and Herzegovina 219
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Figure 7.8 Bogdan Bogdanovi, Partisan memorial, Mostar, 1965. Listed in 2006
Source: CPNM of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, 2005.
Statutory cultural heritage protection was preceded by an appeal by Bosnian intel-

lectuals to prevent foreigners from removing national archaeological finds and other
valuables. In 1850, Ivan Franjo Jukić published on the “Bosanski prijatelj” a call for
Bosnia’s treasures to be kept in Bosnia. The despoiling of old forts was another factor
that prompted the introduction of systematic measures, leading to the enactment of a
law on the protection of antiquities in the Bosnia Vilayet, published on the “Bosna”
in 1870.
After the Congress of Berlin (1878), when authority over Bosnia was transferred
from the Ottoman Empire to the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, protection of heritage
was entirely based on the theoretical principles of Alois Riegl and his contemporaries.
The Provincial Museum was founded in Sarajevo in 1888, the first state institution
responsible for heritage protection. The greatest contribution to the institutional-
ization of protection at that time was made by the prolific Croatian architect Josip
Vancaš in Sarajevo. In 1911, as a Member of Parliament, he proposed a resolution on
the protection of cultural monuments and the promotion of a national style, which
he called the Bosnian style, the precursor of national modernism. This resolution pro-
vided the guidelines for drafting a cultural heritage protection bill (1914), the enact-
ment into law of which was interrupted by the outbreak of World War I.
As part of the federal state of Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina enjoyed the auton-
omy to resolve issues relating to heritage protection, above and beyond the application
of international conventions and co-operation. The law, enacted in 1985, remained
220 Europe
in force until the outbreak of war in 1992 and was a continuation of the approach
to statutory heritage protection that had been in force since 1947. This was based on
the principle that a monument is a public asset, and a uniform system of protection
institutions was established with professional, administrative and various coordinating
powers. The question of ownership of such properties was clearly defined (federal and
provincial authorities, private and juristic persons). The law required both the definition
of the boundaries of each property and the boundaries within which certain restrictive
measures relating to its protection were applicable, and the obligation to provide the
owners with state funding. The law governed both natural and cultural heritage and
embraced the principles set out in the Convention of Granada.

During the war (1992–1996), the country was the victim of efforts to dismantle
every aspect of its polity. The cultural heritage was exposed to physical destruction,
and the institutions were undermined or dissolved. The Commission to Preserve
National Monuments (CPNM) was established pursuant to Annex 8 of the General
Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dayton, 21 Novem-
ber 1995). This annex is not a substitute for a heritage protection law, but was the
first instrument setting forth the duty to integrate heritage into the country’s post-
war reconstruction. There are currently 20 laws in force governing heritage issues, of
which Annex 8 is the only one that applies to the entire country.
CPNM is responsible for rendering decisions designating properties as national
monuments and prescribing the measures and the bodies responsible for their protec-
tion. CPNM bases its decisions on the Criteria for the Designation of Properties as
National Monuments (2002). One of these criteria is the time frame – a property built
since 1960 may be subject to statutory protection only by way of exception, and on
condition that there can be no doubt, under the other criteria, that it is of outstand-
ing or universal value, and at high risk, such as the Mostar Partisan Memorial (1965)
by Bogdan Bogdanović. No property later than 1990 may be the subject of statutory
protection as a national monument.
The Register of Protected Monuments is updated by the addition of new properties
designated as national monuments at the CPNM’s sessions, held every two months. As
of January 2016, the CPNM has protected 810 properties, of which 88 are from the
twentieth century – including 36 works in modern or contemporary style, and 17 of
these are in Sarajevo and the others are in 11 different towns. Listed modern architec-
tures include 12 memorial sites relating to World War II, 3 of which are by Bogdanović.
Also protected are St. Joseph Church (1935) in Sarajevo by Karl Parzik, two industrial
complex and three housing developments – Majdan workers’ housing estate (1939–
1947) in Vareš; Džidžikovac (1947) by Muhamed and Reuf Kadić and Crni Vrh (1933),
with buildings designed by Mate Bajlon, Dušan Smiljanić and Lavrenčić.
The Zagreb Hotel, an historicist building whose façade has been redesigned by
Isidor Rais, is protected as an expression of the modernist tendency to de-historicize
existing architecture. The most significant modernist buildings for protection are
those by the Kadić brothers, who studied in Prague and worked mainly in Sarajevo
(1936–1947). The architectural scene in the 1930s was characterized by a dialectic of
conflicting ideas – those of the radical proponents of modernism, such as the theoreti-
cian Karel Teige, and those of the advocates of cubist architecture, who formed the
Old Prague Club. This architecture has been the subject of research and valorization
since 2002 as part of the work of the CPNM.
Amra Hadžimuhamedović and Adi Ćorović
Bosnia and Herzegovina 221
Link
Commission to Preserve National Monuments:
http://www.kons.gov.ba (in Bosnian, Croatian, English and Serbian)
Bibliography
D. Grabrijan & J. Neidhardt, Arhitektura Bosne i put u savremeno (Ljubljana, 1957).
F. Hadžimuhamedović, Metafizika kuće: elementi zemlje, vazduha i neba kao percepcijsko
naslijeđe vizuelnih formi (Sarajevo/Zagreb, 2008).
F. Hadžimuhamedović, Tekst o arhitekturi (Sarajevo, 2001).

P.V. Miloševic, Arhitektura u Kraljevini Jugoslaviji: Sarajevo 1918–1941 (Foča, 1997).
I. Štraus, Arhitektura Bosne i Hercegovine 1945–1995 (Sarajevo, 2007).
222 Europe
BULGARIA
Figure 7.9 Dimitrovgrad, 1952–1956. Listed in 2010

Source: History Museum-Dimitrovgrad, 1970s.
The interest in the past grew gradually both with the Bulgarian National Revival,
which shrugged off Ottoman rule (1396–1878), and with the establishment of the
Third Bulgarian State. Successful political independence required cultural and histori-
cal affirmation of the new state and its history. Following intervention by the state, а
legislative system was first developed, following the example of European countries,
and subsequently proceeded towards physical conservation and restoration.
Legislative activities on conservation began with the Temporary Regulations for
Scientific and Literary Enterprises (1888), which gave priority protection to ancient
sites. Architectural heritage, which was “alive” and in contemporary contexts, was
still not considered valuable.
The law concerning the Investigation of Historical Monuments and the Assistance
of Scientific and Literary Enterprises (1890) placed the country among the Еuropean
doyens in conservation legislation at the time. The Law on Historical Monuments
(1911) acknowledged conservation as an activity of public importance, and admin-
istrative structures were set up to implement it. Some of the most important sub-
sequent contributions were the increase of the time span and typological diversity
and the establishment of the first registers of protected sites. With the first lists of
national historical monuments (1927), more than 300 sites were put under legislative
Bulgaria 223
protection. Then the Ordinance-Law on the Preservation of Ancient Buildings in the
Settlements (1936) defined the legislative protection of architectural heritage in its
urbanistic context.
From 1945 to 1989, Bulgaria was under centralist Communist rule. In its struggle
with the West, the government leaned on cultural identity and intentionally supported
heritage conservation. A national system for heritage conservation was developed with
the key actor being the National Institute for Monuments of Culture (NIMC, 1957;
National Institute of Immovable Cultural Heritage since 2009), responsible for the iden-
tification and research of monuments and often for their conservation and restoration.
The Monuments of Culture and Museums Act (1969) defined monuments of culture
as “works of human activity, which document material and spiritual culture, and are
of scientific, artistic and historical importance” and introduced several categories of
relevance: world, national, local, ensemble and for information. The law does not deter-
mine the time span of the sites subject to preservation, but emphasizes their relation
to the “revolutionary struggles” of Bulgarians at the end of the nineteenth century.
Although a product of a totalitarian political system, the act was an avant-garde law for
its time, in line with European conservation tendencies. With its help and with the active
role of NIMC, for a period of 20 years more than 40,000 monuments were identified.
The Ordinance for the Registration of Immovable Monuments of Culture (1998)
regulated the procedure of registration as a “monument of culture” and introduced
the “types of immovable heritage according to their belonging to a certain historical
period”: prehistory, antiquity, middle ages, national revival and modern times (until
1945). The ordinance also determines monument types according to spatial structure
and territorial scope (individual and group); scientific and cultural sphere (archaeo-
logical, historical, architectural, artistic, urban, park and garden art, industrial, eth-
nographic); and location with respect to settlements.
In the twenty-first century, professional and public concern was drawn towards par-
ticular architectural examples of Bulgarian Modernism from the 1950s, for instance,
the Iavorov residential complex, former Lenin, with its ‘Ropotamo’ restaurant, and
‘The Fairy’ confectionery. A study was initiated, but the site was never legally pro-
tected because it was beyond the time limits of the current ordinance. As a result, a
work group was formed with the task of modernizing the evaluation criteria so that
they would also encompass newer sites. The Cultural Heritage Act (2009) broadened
the temporal scope of protected sites, adding the most recent period: “newest times”.
Two more important changes were made in 2009 and 2011: the addition of the cat-
egories “cultural landscape” and “cultural route” as heritage types, in harmony with
current conservation theories.
One result of the extended time spans of legislative protection was the listing of two
urban ensembles (1952–1956) in Dimitrovgrad, a purpose-planned town built with vol-
unteer brigade labour. It is a symbolic work for state planning in the period of totalitari-
anism, and for its coeval avant-garde trends in urban planning. The implemented plan,
which merged three existing villages into a town with heavy industry, large residential
and recreational zones, is a unique phenomenon in national planning practice that has
already been estimated and protected as an important cultural and historical vestige.
For the preservation of traces from “newest times”, not only is there need for a
legislative basis but also for public awareness of their value. An indicative exam-
ple is the blown-up Mausoleum of Georgi Dimitrov in Sofia. Today the country is
a partner in an international project for a cultural experience focusing mainly on
224 Europe
twentieth-century architecture. Public awareness of the value of architecture from the
recent past is gradually changing.
Emilia Kaleva
Links
Atrium project, Architecture of Totalitarian Regime:
http://www.atrium-see.eu/ (in Albanian, Bulgarian, Croatian, English, Greek, Italian, Serbian,
content in Bosnian, Hungarian, Slovakian are under development)
Atrium, Architecture of Totalitarian Regimes of the 20th Century in Europe’s Urban Memory:
http://www.atriumroute.eu/ (in English)
Bibliography
“Before the Criteria”, Culture, 27 (July 13, 2007, in Bulgarian).
S. Georgiev, Legal System of Cultural Heritage in the Republic of Bulgaria (Sofia, 2008, in
Bulgarian).
Y. Kandulkova, History of Conservation of Architectural Heritage in Bulgaria until the Second
World War, PhD thesis in University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy (Sofia,
2007, in Bulgarian).
P. Popov, “Most Living Monument of Architecture: Dimitrovgrad”, Culture, 27 (July 13, 2007,
in Bulgarian).
“Talk about the Monuments of the Socialist Era”, Culture, 27 (July 13, 2007, in Bulgarian).
Croatia 225
CROATIA
Figure 7.10 Drago Galić, Unité, and Kazimir Ostrogović, City Hall, Zagreb, 1955–1959.
Listed in year 2003 and 2005
Source: Croatian National Archives in Zagreb, Opatička 29; Photo collection Milan Pavić, 1959–1960.
In the Republic of Croatia, the history of heritage protection goes back to the
times of the Republic of Dubrovnik. In 1667, Dubrovnik was hit by a major earth-
quake and almost the entire city was destroyed, with the exception of the Medieval
and Renaissance walls and the fortresses. The palaces were immediately recon-
structed in the styles in which they had been built in the previous centuries, although
Baroque became the official style of the small former state whose 1,000-year-old
tradition and continuity of political sovereignty and independence still play a part
in Croatian cultural heritage.
Professional services and organizations are nowadays responsible for the promo-
tion of cultural heritage sites, for the procedures of listing and registering and for
the drawing up of development plans and assessments. These national services and
organizations carry out the protection works and all the procedures for the conser-
vation of historical buildings and units, and twentieth-century architecture plays an
important role as well. Heritage protection is coordinated by the Ministry of Culture
and its Directorate for the Protection of Cultural Heritage (Uprava za zaštitu kulturne
baštine, 1999), the Croatian Council for Cultural Objects (Hrvatsko vijeće za kul-
turna dobra, 1999) and 21 departments of conservation. The country’s rich histori-
cal heritage has been documented in The Strategy for Conservation, Protection and
226 Europe
Sustainable Economic Development of Cultural Heritage of the Republic of Croatia
for the Period 2011–2015, although modern architecture has not yet been entirely
selected for protection. The departments have the freedom of so-called ‘professional
judgment’, and today their sub-departments are in charge of modern architecture
independently of the provisions of the law. They are allowed to be stricter in their
judgment regarding protection of modern architecture by applying all the interna-
tional conventions that have been adopted in the meantime. Thus protected modern
architecture, from the legislative point of view, is in the same position as other cultural
heritages. Every town has a Department for Protection of Monuments and Nature
(Zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture i prirode), and protected buildings or sites of

the modern period are listed in their archives, together with other protected monu-
ments and natural sites. It is common knowledge that the conservation of modern
architecture gives rise to certain problems which belong to the field of conservation
theory. This is primarily related to the problem of renovating modern constructions
and materials, as well as the problem of renovating industrial heritage threatened by
the influx of the objectives of tourist development.
Of unfinished vision, the partly built administrative centre of Zagreb from the mid-
twentieth century was created during the Socialist era in the West European late mod-
ern style, inspired primarily by Le Corbusier’s avant-garde visions of new cities. It
has been protected as cultural heritage by the City Institute for the Conservation of
Cultural and Natural Heritage in Zagreb and has been listed in the Registry of the
Ministry of Culture.
Modern architecture in Croatia has been developing since the 1920s in the work of
Viktor Kovačić, Rudolf Lubinski and Edo Schön. Their works also reflect an approach
that protects historical heritage as well as the existing context of the city. Also belong-
ing to architecture from between the wars are foreign architects who were active in
the roaring ’20s, such as Peter Behrens and Marcello Piacentini on the Ban Jelačić
Square in Zagreb. The most important modernist urban and architectural complex
of the 1930s is Novakova Street in Zagreb, with an exemplary modernist house built
by Mladen Kauzalarić and Stjepan Gomboš – an architectural duo also known for
their reconstruction of the sixteenth-century Great Arsenal in Dubrovnik’s City Café.
The youngest building in Zagreb listed by the Department for Protection of Monu-
ments and Nature is a business tower called Zagrepčanka (1976), at Savska cesta 41,
designed by Slavko Jelinek and protected in 2006.
In the example of Dubrovnik from 1933, when Europe was overwhelmed by visions
of a ‘new architecture’, Croatian architects show how subtly modern architecture can
be incorporated into the historic core of the city and how such a modern intervention
can itself protect the architectural heritage. It was another lesson from Dubrovnik,
which entirely mirrors the achievements and the character of Croatian modernism,
whose unwritten motto was said to be ‘the greatness of architecture is not measured
by physical greatness and its dimensions but the greatness of its style and the skill
with which the architect-builder fits the urban fabric’. Nenad Fabijanić’s contempo-
rary construction of the public lavatory in 2002 next to the Walls of Dubrovnik lends
support to this historical national motto. Even though it is a small country, it bears
witness to the power of its culture and to its role in Europe’s past and present, and
also to the responsibility of its architects. Thanks to them, along with all the conven-
tions adopted, the continuity of numerous centuries of building has been preserved.
Croatia 227
Today, Heritage Urbanism – the scientific research project (HERU 2032, 2014–
2018) led by Mladen Obad Šćitaroci at the Faculty of Architecture – University of
Zagreb, is investigating the criteria and models for the revitalization and improve-
ment of modern heritage in Croatia. The contribution of Korana Sutlić, a cultural
journalist specialising in modern and contemporary architecture, was essential to the
social dialogue and a starting point for many protection procedures in last decade.
Vedran Ivanković
Links
Ministry of Culture, Inventory of Immovable Cultural Heritage:

http://www.min-kulture.hr/default.aspx?id=31 (mainly in Croatian, also in English)
Croatian Conservation Institute. Architectural Heritage:
http://www.h-r-z.hr/en/index.php/djelatnosti/konzerviranje-restauriranje/graditeljsko-naslijee
(in Croatian and English)
Bibliography
V. Ivanković, “Le Corbusier and Drago Galić: Critical Experiments”, Prostor, 17, no. 1/37
(2009): 3–30.
V. Ivanković, La rue des Brigades prolétaires à Zagreb de 1945 à 1971 et les visions modernes
de la ville au 20ème siècle - Reflets de l’influence du Style international sur l’architecture et
l’urbanisme croates après la Seconde guerre mondiale, PhD Thesis, University of Zagreb
(Zagreb, 2008).
S. Uskoković, Moderna arhitektura kao kulturna baština Dubrovnika (Zagreb, 2009).
228 Europe
CYPRUS
Figure 7.11 Neoptolemos Michaelides, Alexandros Demetriou Block of Flats, Nicosia, 1957–
Source: Aimilios Michael, 2012.
Heritage preservation and documentation form a major component of town and

country planning policies in Cyprus. Despite the need for further improvement, a lot
has been achieved, especially in the last 40 years, in the field of architectural heritage
Cyprus 229
preservation due to the Antiquities Law (1905) as well as the Town and Country Plan-
ning Law (1972).
Until 1972 the Antiquities Law constituted the first and only legal protection of
heritage buildings and objects. According to this law, any object, building or site
which is considered to be of public interest by reason of its historic, architectural, tra-
ditional, artistic or archaeological value can be declared an ‘ancient monument’ by the
government following the recommendation by the Director of Antiquities. Accord-
ingly, almost all archaeological sites, many historic buildings and a small number of
traditional buildings were characterized as ancient monuments and were protected
from demolition or alteration of their authentic character.

Since 1978, as a result of the Town and Country Law which aims mainly to protect
vernacular architecture, many vernacular buildings and a small number of modern
structures in all areas have been declared as “Listed” and have thus been protected
from any demolition or alteration that would change their original character. Accord-
ing to this law, preservation orders are issued by the Minister of Interior, on the rec-
ommendation of the Department of Town Planning and Housing (TPH), where he
or she deems appropriate to guarantee the preservation of an individual building or
structure, group of buildings or sites of special social, architectural and other values.
Currently, there is no age constraint for structures that are to be included in a con-
servation order. Thus, buildings from many different periods and even modern and
contemporary structures can be declared as listed. Up until now, over 100 preserva-
tion orders have been issued, covering more than 5,000 buildings all over the island.
At the same time, a small number of representative examples of buildings of the
Modern Movement (1935–1975) have been included in conservation orders, that is,
the buildings designed by Neoptolemos Michaelides: Theodotos Kanthos Residence
(1949–1952), Alexandros Demetriou Block of Flats (1957–1959) in Nicosia, Pavlides
Block of Flats in Limassol and Neoptolemos Michaelides Residence (1964–1966) in
Nicosia. There is a need to broaden this policy and to create a systematic inventory of
examples of this period. The TPH is now moving towards this direction, and a cata-
logue of the most representative examples of modern structures is being prepared in
order to be included in a conservation order.
The Conservation Section of the TPH controls the work of preservation of all listed
buildings, enforces all the internationally accepted principles and charters for con-
servation and plays a very important role in the protection and enhancement of all
physical and built manifestations of the heritage of the island, as stipulated in the law
of 1972. Before the commencement of any conservation work, ministerial consent is
required.
There are two main inventories of the island’s built heritage. The first is managed
by the Department of Antiquities and includes over 1,200 ancient monuments (state
owned, ecclesiastical and private property). The other main inventory derives from
the Granada Convention and is managed by the TPH as the Architectural Heritage
Inventory of Cyprus. There are additional minor inventories, such as the Traditional
Watermills Inventory of the Archaeological Research Unit of the University of Cyprus
and an inventory of architectural documentation drawings of several historically sig-
nificant governmental buildings, mostly colonial structures. The TPH inventory cur-
rently consists of more than 10,000 index cards corresponding to an equal number
of buildings (mainly traditional) accompanied by more than 80 reference maps. The
230 Europe
inventory’s index cards register information on individual buildings: location, type,
use, legal status and a brief description of architectural form (typology, construction
principles and materials). The inventory is upgraded through an on-going process
with the aim of covering all areas of the island. The aim of this inventory is to aid
planning authorities in their efforts to ensure the preservation and restoration of non-
monumental heritage. Its guiding principle is that non-monumental heritage preser-
vation can only be addressed through a holistic approach, where the architectural
ensemble is seen as one entity during planning and development. A digital inventory,
in which all data related to the vernacular architecture will be introduced, was created
in 2013 by the Department of Architecture of the University of Cyprus (Vernarch).

At the same time, a research laboratory focusing on the history and theory of modern
architecture in the Eastern Mediterranean has been created by the same department
(Mesearch) for the documentation and digitization of archival material.
Maria Philokyprou
Links
Department of Town Planning and Housing:
http://www.moi.gov.cy/tph (in Greek)
Vernacular Architecture Cyprus, digital archive:
http://www.vernarch.ac.cy/easyconsole.cfm/id/116 (in English and Greek)
Bibliography
A. Michael, S. Christofilopoulou & V. Ierides, “Conservation of Modern – Movement Archi-
tecture: The Case of Alexandros Demetriou Building”, Archive. Architectural Journal, 6
(April 2009, in Greek): 78–84.
P. Phokaides & P. Pyla, “Peripheral Hubs and Alternative Modernisations: Designing for Peace
and Tourism in Postcolonial Cyprus”, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of
the European Architectural History Network, eds. H. Heynen & J. Gosseye (Wetteren, 2012):
442–445.
P. Phokaides & P. Pyla, “Postcolonial Utopias in the Context of Cyprus”, Traditional Dwellings
and Settlements, 231 (2011): 17–39.
P. Pyla, “Modernism, Modernization, and the Middle East in Mid-20th Century”, Τhe Legacy
of the Modern (Nicosia, 2009, in Greek): 32–39.
P. Pyla & P. Phokaides, “Ambivalent Politics and Modernist Debates in Postcolonial Cyprus”,
The Journal of Architecture, 6 (2011): 885–913.
Czech Republic 231
CZECH REPUBLIC
Figure 7.12 Karel Hubáček, TV Tower and Hotel Ještěd, Liberec, 1965–1973. Listed in 1998
Source: Gabriel Čapková, National Heritage Institute, 2014.
232 Europe
The heritage preservation movement has a long tradition in the Czech lands. At its
beginnings, when the country was part of the Austrian Empire, there existed patriotic
feelings and the devoted activities of non-governmental bodies such as The Society
of Patriotic Friends of Arts (1794) or The Museum of Kingdom of Bohemia (1818),
whose Archaeological Department had been publishing the first central European spe-
cialist conservation journal “Památky archeologické” since 1850. In the same year,
the Imperial and Royal Central Commission for Investigation and Preservation of
Historic Buildings was founded in Vienna. It created in the Czech lands a network of
correspondents and regional conservators. 1912 saw the establishment of the Conser-
vation Office for the Kingdom of Bohemia, subsequently taken over and in its purpose
and functions confirmed by the new Czechoslovak Republic (1918); a similar office
for Moravia and Silesia was then established in Brno in 1920.
Shortly after 1900, the Czech conservation tradition adopted the modern conserva-
tion philosophy of Alois Riegl and Max Dvořák, typical of the stress put on ensemble
and urban conservation. This trend started relatively early with the foundation of
The Society for Old Prague (1900). The society developed the theory of ensemble
conservation; these were the first proposals to protect historical urban complexes via
building laws and later also considered the best way for the functional reanimation
of historical urban tissue. In opposition to early Czech modernistic architects like Jan
Kotěra, Jože Plečnik, Pavel Janák and others who actively participated in heritage
preservation movement, the functionalist modernists of the late 1920s and 1930s,
such as Karel Teige, Josef Havlíček and Jaromír Krejcar, strongly rejected any form
of architectural or urban conservation as a brake on creativity and an obstacle in
meeting modern social demands. That position turned out to be unsuccessful for both
modern architecture and historic preservation.
In 1950, the Czechoslovak government declared 30 historic cities conservation
areas (reservations) and released means for their saving and restoration, but only part
of this ambitious project was carried out throughout the 1950s and early 1960s. In
1958, relatively late, the first Czech – and in parallel also Slovak – Law on Cultural
Monuments was issued. It confirmed the already existing basic role and responsibili-
ties of the Ministry of Culture in the field of heritage identification, protection and
conservation. Subsequently, the ministry started the process of listing (up to the pres-
ent about 40,000 individual buildings have been registered on the Central Register
of Cultural Monuments) and declaring the selected best-preserved town, village and
industrial ensemble conservation areas (up to now 40 towns and 81 villages have been
declared conservation areas, with a further 209 towns and 164 villages being declared
so-called conservation zones – the less strict form of town – planning protection).
New regional, as well as central, Institutes for Heritage Preservation as specialist bod-
ies were established after 1958. They merged in 2002 into the united National Heri-
tage Institute (Národní památkový ústav, NPÚ) responsible for scientific research,
listing, education and qualified advice-giving in the conservation field on the whole
territory of the state (the institute also runs the most valuable 103 state-owned castles,
country houses and other architectural monuments open to the public).
The 1958 law, as well the second law that followed – still in force (No. 20/1987 coll.) –
set no time distance for an architectural object to be declared as a cultural monument
and listed in the Central Register. The only criterion is its cultural value stated in the
technical opinion of NPÚ and confirmed by a special commission of experts established
by the Ministry of Culture. Since the 1960s nearly all works of important architects of
Czech Republic 233
early modernism and functionalism up to World War II have been listed, including of the
works of all internationally renowned personalities like Josef Hoffmann, Adolf Loos,
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and others built on the territory of the Czech Republic.
Much worse is the situation with architecture from the communist era (1948–1989)
and only a handful of the best-known examples are under protection and kept with
proper care; for instance, the Ještěd TV Tower and Hotel (1965–1973) in Liberec by
Karel Hubáček, listed since 1998; the House of Federal Assembly (1968–1972) in
Prague by Karel Prager since 2000; the Máj Department Store (1972–1975) in Prague
by Karel Hubáček and Miroslav Masák, since 2007. Others are exposed to free capi-
talist exploitation and redevelopment. A very sad case is the original building of the
Brussels Expo ’58 Czechoslovak pavillion restaurant by František Cubr, Josef Hrubý
and Zdeněk Pokorný, which was transferred to Prague in 1959 and recently rede-
veloped into a mediocre office building. The cultural losses caused by uncontrolled
remodelling of works of contemporary architecture forced the NPÚ to take initiative
and – via research projects, scientific conferences and the proposal of the most impor-
tant buildings for enlistment – gradually improve this intolerable situation.
Josef Štulc
Link
National Heritage Institute, Inventory of Immovable Heritage:
http://monumnet.npu.cz/pamfond/hledani.php (in Czech)
Bibliography
Z. Lukeš, Ten Centuries of Architecture: Architecture of the 20th Century, vol. 6 (Prague,
2001).
Prague: 20th Century Architecture, eds. V. Šlapeta, S. Templ & M. Kohout (Wien/New York,
1999).
J. Štulc, “Czech Heritag Preservation Movement and Urban Conservation”, Centropa, 7 (Janu-
ary 2007): 44–53.
R. Švácha, Czech Architecture and Its Austerity: Fifty Buildings 1989–2004 (Prague, 2004).
L. Zeman, Architektura socialistického realismu v severozápadních Čechách (Ostrava, 2008).
234 Europe
DENMARK
Figure 7.13 Jørn Utzon, Paustian House, Copenhagen, 1985–1987. Listed in 2012
Source: Seier+Seier (Flickr), 2007.
Denmark 235
The first protective measure was the Preservation of Buildings Act (1918). It recognized
historic sites as significant national resources worthy of government attention and
established an advisory body, the Historic Buildings Council. The council was to advise
the Ministry of Education in compiling a list of buildings more than 100 years old that
were of outstanding artistic and historic quality. The act organized listed buildings into
a two-tiered system: Grade A buildings were considered to have the highest artistic and
historic significance; Grade B buildings were considered slightly less valuable.
The statute encouraged historic churches to be restored so as to retain their ‘origi-
nal’ condition, but Danish architectural conservationists, led by Mogens Clemmensen,
argued that architectural restoration and preservation should be based on detailed

‘building-archaeology’ studies rather than on speculative concepts of ‘period restora-
tion.’ The Protection of Churches Act (1922) adopted Clemmensen’s opinion, repre-
senting the continuation of Ruskin’s and Morris’s influence, and it also required the
advice of the National Museum on all proposed demolitions, alterations or improve-
ments of selected churches. The Danish Agency for Culture does not have government
authority over the approximately 2,000 churches of the Danish National Evangelical
Lutheran Church.
In 1966, an amendment was required to stem the loss of the country’s historic
architecture as a result of urban renewal and regeneration. The Municipal Planning
Act (1977) authorized localities to inventory buildings they wished to protect. The
Preservation of Buildings Act was amended in 1980 to expand governmental powers,
and it combined the two former grade ranks, which extended the protection formerly
afforded only to Grade A sites, to all listed buildings. In the 1980s, cultural activities
were often considered tools to serve social purposes in line with the growing economic
crises, and all medieval buildings (built before the Reformation in 1536) automati-
cally became listed, with the exception of churches. By another amendment in 1997,
the age limit for the listing of buildings was reduced from 100 years to 50 years. The
overall aim was still to support the creative arts, cultural education and research, cul-
tural heritage, media, etc., with the mission to promote general education and cultural
development of citizens.
After 2000, administration for cultural policy has been reorganized several times,
‘de-concentration’ has been strengthened in recent years and the rules concerning
buildings worthy of preservation has been increasingly administered by the munici-
palities. Finally, cultural policies have been re-thought in the light of globalization,
migration and digitalization. The cultural discussion is to a great extent focusing on
what constitutes “danishness”: Danish cultural heritage as a coherent narrative in a
multicultural world. In 2005, the former Minister for Culture compiled a compre-
hensive Danish Cultural Canon (Kulturkanonen) consisting of 108 works of cultural
excellence in the eight main art forms. The overall aim was to stimulate and consoli-
date national identity as a force of social cohesion and cultural assimilation of public
dialogue, discussions and activities on identity and nationality. The committee for
architecture was asked to choose 12 works covering both buildings and landscaping.
It was decided that works could either be in Denmark designed by one or more Danes
or abroad designed by Danish architects. Among them there are six twentieth-century
works, and the most recent ones are the Sydney Opera House (1959–1973) designed
by Jørn Utzon, and the Great Belt East Bridge (1991–1998) that runs between Zea-
land and Funen by Dissing+Weitling.
236 Europe
In 2016, the Agency for Culture and Palaces (Slots- og Kulturstyrelsen) was formed
in a merger of the Danish Agency for Culture and the Agency for Palaces and Cultural
Properties. It works under the Ministry for Culture. The agency also has the regula-
tory responsibility for sites and monuments and for listed buildings. It helps to secure
important evidence from all ages and make it relevant to the citizens. As of 2010,
the total amount of listed buildings was approximately 9,000, and approximately
300,000 buildings have been considered worthy of preservation in connection with
local planning. The rules concerning buildings worthy of preservation are adminis-
tered by the municipalities.
Among the youngest listed buildings for their architectural and cultural values are
the Danmarks Nationalbank (1965–1978, listed grade I in 2009) by Arne Jacobsen,
the House of Knud Holscher (1972, listed in 2012) in Rudersdal, the Pressens Hus
listed in 1992, which consists of a former commerce house (1903) and a Modernist
infill extension (1976) by Erik Korshagen and the Paustian House (1985–1987, listed
in 2012) by Utzon. Designation usually recognizes plan arrangement and materials,
attention to detail and the architectural presence in the city, also taking into account
significant historical location and critical historiography.
Claudia Aveta
Link
Ministry of Culture, Agency for Culture and Palaces, National Register Of Cultural Heritage:
http://slks.dk/om-slots-og-kulturstyrelsen/kulturarvsdatabaserne/ (in Danish and English)
Bibliography
Living and Dying in the Urban Modernity: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithu-
ania, Norway, eds. C. Caldenby & O. Wedebrunn (Copenhagen, 2010).
U. Lunn & C. Lund, “Denmark”, in Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation, ed. R. Pickard
(London, 2001): 73–91.
Ministry for the Environment and Energy, The National Forest and Nature Agency, Listed
Buildings in Denmark (Copenhagen, 1999).
A. Tønnesen, InterSAVE, International Survey of Architectural Values in the Environment
(Copenhagen, 2000).
Estonia 237
ESTONIA
Figure 7.14 Henno Sepmann, Peep Jänes, Ants Raid and Avo-Himm Looveer, Olympic Sailing
Sports Center, Tallin, 1976–1980. Listed in 1997
Source: Estonian Architecture Museum, early 1980s.
The heritage protection and conservation system in Estonia started to develop in the
1920s. Due to several political and social changes, including almost 50 years of Soviet
occupation, the whole administrative network, as well as the legal system, has changed
several times. Today, the National Heritage Board (Muinsuskaitseamet, Nhb, 1994),
under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Culture and in accordance with the Heritage
Conservation Act (2002, amended in 2011), work to protect and investigate cultural
heritage. Issues regarding archaeological, artistic, technological and historical monu-
ments, including the safeguarding of parks and cemeteries, are part of the domain of
the NHB and all are entered in the National Registry of Cultural Monuments.
Several historical city centres have been designated as conservation areas, where
each building is valued, as is the structure of its urban construction as a whole. On
the lists of monuments, one can find different buildings, and there is no temporal limit
for how old a building must be in order to be designated as a monument. Obviously,
structures at different levels of value and complexity are treated differently, based on
the distinct character, condition and specific structure.
Buildings from the late nineteenth and the early twentieth century form an essential
part of protected heritage and their value is appreciated by the general public. The
Functionalism of the 1920s and 1930s has also been widely interpreted at the public
level because these buildings were created during the first period of independence
238 Europe
(1918), symbolizing the process of the rapid modernization of society. The Soviet
era heritage (1944–1991) is more complicated because architects and architectural
historians have attributed to it great value, whereas many ordinary people hate it for
being a symbol of the occupation. Even the fact that many structures dating from
this period have lost their original function complicates the situation. The attitude
towards the architecture of the Soviet regime is nevertheless becoming more positive.
Between 1997 and 1998, during a process of reorganizing the protection system and
revising the list of protected monuments, a dozen buildings from the Soviet era were
listed and some 30 additional assets added in 1999–2012. The youngest protected
buildings are the Olympic Sailing Sports Center (1976–1980); the so-called City Hall
(Linnahall, 1980–1981) by Riina Altmäe and Raine Karp, both in Tallin and listed in
1997; and the Ugala Theater (1976–1981, listed in 2015) in Viljandi by Irina Raud,
Inga Orav and Kalju Luts.
Protected buildings from the Soviet period are unevenly distributed across Estonia:
most of them are in Tallin; others are on the island of Saaremaa. On the other hand,
not a single building built after 1945 is under protection in Tartu and none in south-
eastern Estonia; moreover, in those districts, there are also no structures completed in
the 1920s to 1940s in the lists of protected structures. This is to a great extent condi-
tioned by the fact that the institutions and experts that deal with modern architecture
are concentrated primarily in the capital. This is why the ministry and the NHB initi-
ated a programme to protect and create a register of architecture built until 1991. All
these buildings, mostly from the 1970s, were succesfully listed before 2015.
Specific methods for conserving modern architecture have not been worked out
in heritage conservation practice in Estonia. Practical experience has demonstrated
that the traditional approach to conservation often cannot be applied in protecting
twentieth-century structures or it is not practical. Preserving original materials and
final layers is often problematic. Buildings that are designated or planned to be monu-
ments are generally not allowed to be insulated in a way that would significantly alter
their appearance. At the same time, excessive heating bills can in the future lead to the
discontinuation of the use of these types of buildings.
It should be noted that the local government can also attribute value to some
districts or sets of buildings by designating a built-up area to be of cultural and
environmental value in the general plan or the detailed master plan for the area.
Although the built-up areas that have thus far been formed consist mostly of archi-
tecture from the first mid-twentieth century, Stalinist city centres from the 1940s
to 1950s in the industrial regions of Eastern Estonia, such as Sillamäe, Ahtme and
Kohtla-Järve, have also been placed under protection as areas of cultural and envi-
ronmental value.
In conclusion, it can be said that the protection of modern architecture is some-
thing that has already been dealt with in Estonia for years and that it continues to be
dealt with. Ideological problems and conflicts deriving from recent history also play a
role in this, since they have prevented the unequivocal definition of the aims of those
objects that are to be considered as valuable heritage.
Oliver Orro
Estonia 239
Link
National Register of Cultural Monuments:
http://register.muinas.ee/ (in English and Estonian)
Bibliography
R. Alatalu, Muinsuskaitse siirdeühiskonnas 1986–2002: Rahvuslikust südametunnistusest Eesti
NSV-s omaniku ahistajaks Eesti Vabariigis (Tallinn, 2012, with English summary Heritage
Protection in Transitional Society 1986–2002: From Nations’s Conscience in the Estonian
SSR into the Harasser of Private Owner in the Republic of Estonia).

M. Kalm, Estonian xx Century Architecture (Tallinn, 2002).
M. Kalm, “How Bad Was Capitalist Estonian Architecture? Reception of the Pre-World War II
Architecture in Post-War Soviet Estonia”, in Quo vadis Architectura? Nils Erik Wickberg
Lectures 2009/2010, ed. T. Simons (Helsinki, 2012): 231–249.
M. Kalm, “La tardive floraison des campagnes: L’architecture moderniste des kolkhozes dans
l’Estonie soviétique”, In Situ, 21 (2013): 1–14.
M. Mändel & O. Orro, “The Marvelous Reinforced Concrete Shells of Tallinn Seaplane Han-
gars in the Context of Early Concrete Architecture in Estonia”, Construction History, 27
(2012): 65–85.
240 Europe
FINLAND
Figure 7.15 Yrjö Lindegren and Toivo Jäntti, Olympic Stadium, Helsinki, 1934–1938. Listed
in 2006
Source: Compic/Markku Ojala, 2012.
Even if Finland is widely known for its modern architectural heritage, it is not a
forerunner in the protection of contemporary architecture since less than 3 percent is
currently protected. For Finland, Modernism was more an ideology than a style. This
ideology was known on a wide scale, from urban planning to design and construction
technology, from interior design to the details of everyday objects.
Compared to other European countries, the majority of the Finnish building stock
is rather young – only about 5 percent was built before World War I, and over 80 per-
cent was built after World War II. Wooden material has often been subject to fire,
and during the post-war period most functionalistic buildings were made of brick or
concrete. The Finnish Modern Heritage represents the eager spirit of constructing the
post-war welfare state.
There are two ways to protect the building: either by means of an urban plan or
by a special law. In modern heritage there are sites with different functions related to
everyday life, residential areas and individual buildings, schools, commercial build-
ings and hospitals. There are also cultural buildings, sports venues and transport-
related buildings. Even if the sites are all listed as Finnish modern architectural key
sites in the approved register of Docomomo International, it still does not guaran-
tee that they will be protected or restored, even if all of them are sites of national
significance.
In Helsinki the construction of the listed sites took place in the period from the
1910s to the 1930s, when there were large developments in both Finnish society and
Finland 241
architecture. Alvar Aalto, Aarne Ervi, Hilding Ekelund, Erik Bryggman, Elsi Borg,
Toivo Jäntti Yrjö Lindegren and many others contributed to the fame of Finnish Mod-
ernism. The ‘New Town’ of Tapiola, the famous garden city in the metropolitan area,
served as a model for many other urban areas in Finland. Expectation of the Olympic
Games, first in 1940 and then in 1952, was the reason for constructing a number of
buildings and areas in Helsinki. After the war, functionalist purism gave way first to
Romanticism, followed by the golden age of Finnish architecture in the 1950s.
Today, the National Board of Antiquities (Museovirasto, 1972, NBA), operating
under the Ministry of Education and Culture, is responsible, together with other
authorities and the museum field, for protecting architectural heritage. It also collects
and presents a historical and national cultural collection, studies the material cultural
heritage and both supports and develops the museum field nationally.
The constitution (2000) gives a strong legal background for the protection of the
built heritage, since it states that the responsibility of nature, its diversity, environ-
ment and the cultural heritage belongs to all citizens. So it is not only the adminis-
tration, the urban planners and the official institutions, but also all Finnish people
who are responsible. The church buildings are protected by the Church Act (Kirkko-
laki, No. 1,954/1993). Other decisions relating to protection are based on laws like
the Land Use and Building Act (Rakennus- ja maankäyttölaki, No. 132/1999) and
the rather recent act on the protection of the built heritage (Laki rakennusperinnön
suojelemisesta, No. 498/2010). Of great importance are the nationwide inventories
and the listing of the Built Cultural Heritage, the last of which was made by NBA
in 2009 and which already contains some of the most important buildings of the
modern Finnish architecture. The Olympic Stadium (1934–1938 and 1948–1952)
in Helsinki by Jäntti and Lindegren has been protected since 2006. The Olympic
Village is an early example of Functionalistic buildings, and it will be reopened after
restoration in 2019. The same objective was set for the construction of the so-called
Serpentine House (Käärmetalo, 1949–1951), an innovative apartment building next
to the Olympic Village by Lindegren, when the city of Helsinki set about design-
ing a program to deal with the post-wartime shortage of housing. Or, finally, the
Finlandia Hall (Finlandia-talo, 1967–1975) by Aalto, built in the capital and listed
in 2003.
Most of the protection decisions are made by the urban planner. The urban plan is
based on the guidelines defined by Land Use and Building Act, which sets the require-
ments for the ecology, economy and health of the environment; the protection of the
urban image and cityscape; and those for their maintenance and restoration. A much
smaller amount gets protected by the law for the protection of the built heritage,
which puts more emphasis on the cultural-historical values and is thus applied in
slightly different cases. In order to belong to this latter law, the building, the group
of buildings or a built area should be meaningful and important, whether nationally,
regionally or locally.
The new guidelines defined in the Madrid Document (2011) are reducing the dif-
ferences between the practice of protection in various countries. Identification and
assessment of the cultural significance of the object has above all become more con-
sistent. In Finland the values upon which the assessment is carried out are normally
architectural, historical and environmental. There are no absolute definitions in build-
ing protection, and the values may change. The main thing is that the protection
of the modern heritage and contemporary architecture will be carried out after due
242 Europe
deliberation. It should be planned and rational – even if we are dealing with recent
history and thus also with emotions and values.
Anna-Maija Ylimaula
Links
National Board of Antiquities, The Built Cultural Environment of National Importance:
http://www.rky.fi (in Finnish and Swedish)
National Board of Antiquities:
http://www.nba.fi (in English, Finnish and Swedish)

Finlex Data Bank:
http://www.finlex.fi/en/ (in English, Finnish and Swedish)
Bibliography
L. Makkonen, Modernismia Helsingissä (Helsinki, 2012).
France 243
FRANCE
Figure 7.16 Charles-Edouard Jeanneret and José Oubrerie, Church of Saint-Pierre, Firminy,
Source: Gilles Ragot, 2008.
National policies of architectural protection are closely related to the operation of

a centralized state progressively established after the French Revolution. It was the
ambition of Alexandre Lenoir, self-appointed conservateur of Musée des Monu-
ments Français (1795), to create the first national museum with the artefacts com-
ing from revolutionary seizures. His work was continued in the nineteenth century
with many initiatives that led to the strengthening of the definition of heritage, and
to the establishment of a vocational training for architect-curators responsible for
the management and the inventory of works. The creation of the école de Chaillot
(Centre d’études supérieures d’histoire et de conservation des monuments anciens,
1887) was followed by the establishment of a national competition that appointed
the architectes en chef des monuments historiques in 1893, an institution that, dur-
ing the July Revolution, culminated with the creation of the body of Inspecteurs
généraux des monuments historiques de la France in October of 1830 by François
Guizot, Minister of Interior. This movement to raise awareness of heritage was
largely promoted by participation of cultural associations over the whole territory
(from 300 in 1848 to 700 in 1900). Since 1840, cultural associations replaced the
work of the Commission historique, whose office was directed by Prosper Méri-
mée, gradually establishing the inventories of the buildings to be protected. This
244 Europe
combination of public and private sector has been a feature of national heritage ever
since the mid-nineteenth century.
The first half of the twentieth century, which saw heritage heavily hit by the two
world wars, generated several acts: the 1913 law on historical monuments standard-
ized the procedures for inventory and classification, and that of 1943 provided a first
demarcation perimeter around the protected buildings. The second half of the cen-
tury was marked by the intervention of the Ministry of Culture (1959), with André
Malraux its minister until 1969. In 1962 he introduced the first secteurs sauvegardés
of ancient cities with a “caractère historique, esthétique ou de nature à justifier la con-
servation, la restauration et la mise en valeur”. The protected sectors are the ances-
tors of the Aire de mise en valeur de l’architecture et du patrimoine (2010), which
replaced the Areas of Protection of Architectural Landscape and Urban Heritage.
Malraux also oversaw the creation of the Inventaire général des richesses artistiques
de la France (1964) that lists and protects the totality of architectural properties.
This period, which saw the emergence of a national centralizing heritage policy at a
time when the country was strongly marked by a Parisian policy of voluntarism, was
influenced from the 1980s onwards by a reverse movement of decentralization and
deconcentration. The law on decentralization (No. 213/1982) opened the way for
profound changes in the distribution of power in favor of local bodies. The decrees
of 15 November 1984 de-localized the registration procedure on the Inventaire sup-
plémentaire des monuments historiques and instituted regional commissions of the
historical, archaeological and ethnological heritage. From then on, regions acquired
an important decision-making power in terms of heritage conservation and protec-
tion. The Direction des Affaires Culturelles (DRAC, 1977), present in all regions, has
been one of the decentralized services of the ministry since 1992, exerting an advisory
role and expertise, especially in all matters relating to built heritage. Even the Services
Départementaux de l’Architecture et du Patrimoine (1979, Services Territoriaux de
l’Architecture et du Patrimoine since 2010) is under the authority of DRAC. These
services provide, together with the Architectes des Bâtiments de France, all the mis-
sions of protection and conservation of inventoried stock. These institutions today
work under the supervision of the Direction Générale des Patrimoines (2010). In
parallel fashion, private associations, the Conseil d’Architecture, d’Urbanisme et de
l’Environnement (1977), ensure at a departmental level the availability of consulting
assignments for the quality of architecture and heritage, in particular for private own-
ers whose buildings are not listed as national assets.
In spite of the existence of a strict administrative framework, twentieth-century
heritage is still fragile. Contemporary buildings are only 3 percent of all monuments
and protected sites, such as the Unité d’habitation (1953–1966, listed in 1979) in
Firminy by Le Corbusier, the Maison Kerautem (1965–1966, in 1995) in Locquénolé
by Roger Le Flanchec, the church of Saint-Joseph Travailleur (1967–1969, in 1993)
in Avignon by Guillaume Gillet and the Maison Sayer (1973–1975, in 1992) in Glan-
ville, and Ecumenical chapel (1972–1973, in 2014) in Flaine, both by Marcel Breuer.
A chronological breakdown of the century shows that monuments and sites from
after the 1950s are out of favour, and most protected buildings are from the first half
of the century. Even if some icons of the Modern Movement have been inventoried
and classified, most of the campaigns led by Docomomo International have failed, in
particular in the protection of newer and lesser-known works, for example, the Cité
des Poètes (1973–1994, destroyed in 2010) in Pierrefitte-sur-Seine by Yves and Luc
France 245
Euvremer, and Mila and Geronimo Padron-Lopez. The demolition of the Fontaineb-
leau Halle (1941) by Nicolas Esquillan, which took place in September 2013, shows
the complex process of protection that goes beyond the criteria of age and whose
qualitative evaluation is still lacking.
Emilie d’Orgeix
Links
Atlas of Heritage:
http://atlas.patrimoines.culture.fr (in French)
Thousand monuments of the twentieth century in France, heritage protected as historic monu-
ments, virtual exhibition:
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/inventai/itiinv/archixx/ (in French)
Bibliography
F. Bercé, Des monuments historiques au patrimoine, du XVIIIe siècle à nos jours (Paris, 2000).
R. May, “La politique de conservation-restauration du patrimoine en France”, CeROArt, 8
(2012, https://ceroart.revues.org/2818, accessed 13 December 2016).
B. Toulier Les Mille Monuments du xxe siècle en France (Paris, 1998).
B. Toulier, Architecture et patrimoine du xxe siècle en France (Paris, 2000).
246 Europe
GEORGIA
Figure 7.17 George Chakhava and Zurab Jalaghania, Ministry of Motorways, Tbilisi, 1974–
1975. Listed in 1998, relisted in 2007
Georgia is a sovereign state of the South Caucasus, with independence from the
Soviet Union gained in 1991. At present, 20 percent of the territory is controlled by
self-declared separatist formations with the military and political support of Russia.
Today Georgia consists of two autonomous republics and 10 regions, including the
capital city of Tbilisi.
Protection of cultural heritage began in the second half of the 1970s, following
the political ‘thaw’ which started in the mid-1950s. The Law of the Georgian Soviet
Socialist Republic on Protection and Use of Historic and Cultural Monuments (1977)
paid attention to such previously discriminated categories of cultural heritage as land-
scape architecture, urban development and the emancipation of certain architectural
styles like ‘Modern’ (Art Nouveau). Rehabilitation works of hundreds of monuments
were commenced. The institutional system was set up throughout the country, and
monuments were classified into three categories: local, republic and all-union. Among
these were famous modern architectural masterpieces, including in Tbilisi the most
significant former Ministry of Motorways building (1974–1975, the Bank of Geor-
gia headquarters since 2007), designed by George Chakhava and Zurab Jalaghania,
and the engineer Teimuraz Tkhilava, which has now been submitted for the status of
national monument.
Georgia 247
After declaring independence (1991), preservation of cultural heritage has been reg-
ulated by the renewed Legislative Base. The Georgian Constitution (1995) declares:
“Every citizen of Georgia shall be obliged to safeguard the protection of the cultural
heritage. The state shall protect the cultural heritage by law” (art. 34). Constitutional
agreement between the state of Georgia and the Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous
Orthodox Church (Concordat of 2002) expects that the state, together with the
church, shall adopt additional rules for “Restoration-Conservation or Wall-Painting
Projects of cultural-historic value churches”. Despite expanded religious construc-
tions (among them Holy Tbilisi Trinity Cathedral, 1995–2004, by Archil Mindiash-
vili) the concordat bypasses issues of new religious objects or the granting of the status
of monument.
Georgia adheres to a number of international conventions, among which is the
Convention for the Protection of the Word Cultural and Natural Heritage (Paris,
1972); the Granada Convention (1985) and the Valletta Convention (1992). 1999
saw the adoption of the Georgian Law on Cultural Heritage Protection, which essen-
tially prohibits the privatization of state-owned immovable monuments. The law did
not draw up the time frames for the recognition of archaeological or architectural
objects as monuments.
After the Rose Revolution (2003), the legislative base in the field of monument
protection was considerably modified. The new Law on Cultural Heritage (2007)
stipulated the particular age of 100 or more years only for “archaeological monu-
ments”, “historic development” and “historically developed environment”. A special
chapter of the law is devoted to the protection of the urban cultural heritage of Tbilisi,
whereby monument protection procedures differ from the standard ones. Georgian
Law on Bases of Spatial Arrangement and Urban Development (2005) makes one of
its aims the protection and development of cultural heritage. Legal regulations related
to the Cultural Heritage Protection are also provided in other legislative acts such as
the Law on Environmental Impact Permission which determines the need for environ-
mental impact assessment caused by different types of activities; among environmen-
tal components the law specifies “cultural values”.
One of the ideological aims in the cultural sphere of state policy has been the
removal from the urban environment of architecture, monumental plastic and applied
art from the Soviet period (1921–1991). The Charter of Liberty (2011) is a good
illustration of this policy; it considers as one of its goals the elimination of “Soviet
and Nazi symbols, personality cult objects, monuments, bas-reliefs, inscriptions”. The
buildings and constructions bearing such stylistic features coincided with the Soviet
period and so-called Stalinist Architecture is among the victims.
Particularly controversial and resonant is the dramatic history of the former
Marxism-Leninism Institute (1938) by Aleksei Shchusev, with bas-reliefs and reliefs
by Iakob Nikoladze (“Georgian Rodin”) and Tamar Abakelia, located in the central
avenue of the capital. At first this building was deprived of its status of monument by
the decree of Minister of Culture, Monuments Protection and Sports in 2007. It was
subsequently sold and plundered of its interior’s artistically valuable elements, furniture
and accessories. Symbols and five-pointed stars from other Soviet-era public buildings
were also removed. These actions caused sharp protest from Georgian society.
At present, due to radical political changes after the parliamentary elections of 2012,
the attitude to the Soviet architecture has consolidated. In 2015, the re-inventory of
architectural heritage in Tbilisi was carried out: out of more than 1,700 listed units,
248 Europe
several date to the twentieth or beginning of the twenty-first centuries. The latest one
is the Clock Tower (2010) next to Revaz Gabriadze’s Puppet Theatre, designed by the
same. Today, the protection of cultural heritage in the country is carried out by National
Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Georgia (2004) under the aegis of the
Ministry of Culture and Monument Protection.
Vladimer (Lado) Vardosanidze
Links
Ministry of Culture and Monument Protection of Georgia:
http://www.mcs.gov.ge (in English and Georgian)

National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Georgia:
http://www.heritagesites.ge (in English and Georgian)
Bibliography
T. Amashukeli & T. Elisashvili, “Legislative Problems of Urban Heritage Protection and
Infringements” (Tbilisi, 2013, in Georgian).
R. Lordkipanidze, “L’architettura di Tbilisi dell’ultimo ventennio”, Spazio e Società, 72 (1995):
106–112.
V. Vardosanidze, “Interview: ‘City Is the Unity of People’”, Liberali 127 (May 12, 2013, in
Georgian): 8–12.
V. Vardosanidze, “What Are We Not Protecting in Old Tbilisi and Why?”, in Urban Heritage
Preservation: Identity and Spirit of Old Tbilisi: Conference Materials (Tbilisi, 2010): 40–43.
Germany 249
GERMANY
Figure 7.18 Peter-Klaus Kiefer and others, Canteen of the Bauhaus-Universität, Weimar, 1983.
Listed in 2011
The crucial years for the conceptual development of modern German heritage con-
servation go back to the beginning of the last century: the year 1897 had seen the
foundation of the journal Die Denkmalpflege, still a leading influence today; the first
Tag für Denkmalpflege was held in 1900 and the Heritage Conservation Day estab-
lished itself thereafter as an annual forum for the discussion of theory and methods.
This was the site for decisive discussions held in the first decade of the century, which
saw the emergence of the principle “not restoration but preservation”. It was the Tag
für Denkmalpflege which led Georg Dehio to publish the Handbuch der Deutschen
Kunstdenkmäler (1905), which continues to this day and is well known as Dehio. At
the time, Conservation and modern architecture were natural allies with a common
enemy: historicism. The alliance collapsed during World War I, when conservation
placed itself in the service of national ideology and was seen as reactionary and con-
servative, up until the early 1970s.
The first heritage conservation law came into being in 1902 in Hessen-Darmstadt,
and some other lesser German principalities had followed suit by 1914. Although
the Weimar Constitution (1919) stated that protection of heritage was a national
objective, it was not, however, the object of a law, unlike natural heritage sites. In the
age of the Federal Republic, heritage conservation is still today the cultural respon-
sibility of individual states. Consequently, there is no nationwide law but rather 16
different heritage conservation laws, albeit with very few differences between them.
In the states of West Germany, the heritage laws generally date from the 1970s, the
so-called Dekade der Denkmalpflege, while in the communist German Democratic
Republic (GDR) the first law for heritage protection was approved in 1975. At the
250 Europe
beginning of the 1990s, new federal rules based on those of the former West Germany
were issued. None of these laws defines a time frame for heritage protection. Most
of them stipulate the requirement for heritage designation that the architecture to be
listed originate from a period now ended.
The popularization of heritage protection in the 1970s was boosted significantly by
its increasing relevance to urban issues and consequent opposition to land speculation
via land reclamation schemes and large commercial projects. But this popularization
of heritage protection was mainly achieved via the reductive juxtaposition of “the
good old days” as an idyll compared to “the evils of modernity”, which soon nega-
tively affected attempts to raise support for the protection of contemporary heritage.
From 1987 onwards, the Deutsches Nationalkommitee für Denkmalschutz (DNK)
began to deal with buildings and urban planning from the 1950s, followed soon after
by sites from the 1960s. With the beginning of the new millennium, the architecture of
the 1970s and, more recently, occasional buildings from the 1980s, have also entered
the debate on heritage conservation and have become objects of conservation atten-
tion. Here the question of public support for culture has been central: thus the Zürich-
Hochhaus (1962) in Frankfurt am Main was placed under protection in 1989, but
had to be removed from the list and consigned to demolition only seven years later.
More success was had with early heritage protection for an ensemble of buildings
from the 1970s: the Olympiapark (1972), together with its grounds and buildings,
was placed on the Bavarian heritage list no later than 1997, and this contributed to
the successful defence of Günther Behnisch and Frei Otto’s stadium from attempts to
replace it with a new one. As for work from the 1980s, the canteen of the Bauhaus-
Universität in Weimar was placed under protection in 2011. As a late product of the
GDR, it presents a case in which compliance with the requirement of a ‘period now
concluded’ was particularly easy.
Conservation of the so-called Ostmoderne (Eastern Modernity) has suffered from
problems related not only to inferior construction quality but also, for some time at
least, to ideological barriers. This was evident in the case of the Palace of the Republic
in Berlin, which was undoubtedly a worthy monument, but for political reasons could
not be placed under protection by the Heritage Conservation Office. Similarly, the so-
called Maple Leaf (Ahorn-Blatt, 1970–1973), a spectacular concrete shell construc-
tion by Ulrich Müther, became a victim of post-unification planning ideology. The
massive protest against its demolition had, nonetheless, the effect that other buildings
by Müther dating from the 1960s to the 1980s have received heritage protection. It
has now become a fairly regular occurrence for preservation of buildings from the
Late Modern period to be the result of public activism. This is equally true of the
Beethovenhalle (1959) in Bonn, Schauspielhaus (1962) in Cologne and the Rundkino
(1972) in Dresden. Heritage protection for socialist-inspired architecture has been
more difficult to establish, especially once the increasingly urgent need for drastic
redevelopment has been factored in. As a result, the handling of buildings from the
Late Modern period is currently the most intensely debated conservation topic today.
Hans-Rudolf Meier
Germany 251
Links
German National Committee for the Protection of Monuments:
www.dnk.de (in German)
Research Group WDWM. Which monuments, which modernity?:
www.wdwm.info (in English and German)
Bibliography
Denkmal!moderne: Architektur der 60er Jahre: Wiederentdeckung einer Epoche, eds. A. von
Buttlar & C. Heuter (Berlin, 2007).

Denkmal Ost-Moderne: Aneignung und Erhaltung des baulichen Erbes der Nachkriegsmod-
erne, ed. M. Escherich (Berlin, 2012).
Nachkriegsmoderne in Deutschland: Eine Epoche weiterdenken, eds. M. Braum & C. Welz-
bacher (Basel/Boston/Berlin, 2009).
Stadtplanung nach 1945: Zerstörung und Wiederaufbau: Denkmalpflegerische Probleme aus
heutiger Sicht, eds. B. Franz & H.-R. Meier (Holzminden, 2011).
Welche Denkmale welcher Moderne? Zum Umgang mit Bauten der 1960er und 70er Jahre, eds.
F. Eckardt, H.-R. Meier, I. Scheurmann & W. Sonne (Berlin, 2017)
252 Europe
GREECE
Figure 7.19 Kyriakos Krokos, Museum of Byzantine Culture, Thessaloniki, 1977–1993. Listed
in 2001
Interest in the protection of cultural heritage started from the period of the conquest
of independence, with the decree from 1833 by Otto of Bavaria and the law of the
following year, which formed the basis for the rules of archaeological heritage pro-
tection. With the so-called Code on Antiquities (1932), the concept of protection of
individual antiquities was strengthened, which meant historical and artistic monu-
ments from before 1453 and buildings from before 1830. The time gap was filled
with the law on the protection of specific categories of buildings and works after
1830 (No. 1,469/1950), which aimed to protect architectures, works of art and crafts,
as well as places of particular historic or environmental value. The extent and the
importance of Greek heritage has obviously seen years of commitment to conserva-
tion efforts which, after the Ottoman occupation, also included the protection of a
prevailing idea of collective identity.
The legislative framework was completed with the constitution (1975), which
included references to the protection of the natural environment, with the Building
Law (No. 1,337/1983) and Law No. 2,557/1997, which provided financial incentives
for restoration and conservation of nineteenth- and twentieth-century heritage. Also
the General Building Regulations (1973 and 1985) play a very important role with
regard to the criteria and procedures for protection.
Initiatives for architectural protection are owned by the Ministry of Culture and
the Ministry of Planning and the Environment; generally the tasks of the two minis-
tries complement each other, and in case of conflict the option of the former prevails.
Greece 253
National registers of listed monuments exist in both ministries, continuously updated
online, which also include several representative works of architecture from between
the two wars, but far fewer buildings from the post-World War II era.
The Law on the Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage in General
(No. 3,028/2002) is the current rule in force, which also responds to the require-
ments of the constitution and international conventions. The law provides, among
other things, for “the equivalence of value of monuments which belong to different
periods,” also welcoming twentieth-century architectural heritage, the protection of
which remains, however, inadequate and imperfect.
Art. 6 of the law states that ‘monuments’ means “cultural goods belonging to the
period before the last one hundred years, because of their architectural, urban, social,
ethnological, ethnographic, technical, industrial and generally historical, artistic or
scientific value,” while for the last 100 year, these monuments must be equipped
with a “special architectural or urban value.” These references are the only ones on
modern and contemporary architecture in the context of a law consisting of over 75
articles, valid as exclusive tools of protection. So, the law still facilitates protection
of nineteenth-century buildings of minor importance, generally called Neoclassical,
compared with works of the twentieth century such as a modern movement house
from the 1930s or a hotel from the 1950s, which must demonstrate high architectural
value. In this way, any interpretation of the rules and all decisions regarding protec-
tion become more and more discretionary and are based on the sensibility of the com-
mittees responsible.
However, this legislative flexibility also has positive implications, since it has not
introduced any time limit for the preservation, not even with regard to the death of
the architect, with the result that some very important contemporary works have been
listed, albeit with divergent results. For example, the Museum of Byzantine Culture
in Thessaloniki (1977–1993), by Kyriakos Krokos, was protected just eight years
after its completion. On the other hand, the Archaeological Museum in the same city
(1962), by Patroklos Karantinos, listed in 2001, immediately underwent moderniza-
tion that has permanently altered its original character.
Another controversial issue of this law relates to the definition of the purpose of
conservation work, which according to the law should indiscriminately aim, even in
the case of modern and contemporary architecture, at the “preservation of material
substance and authenticity of the artefact”. This contrasts dramatically with the most
authoritative theoretical approaches on the conservation of modern architecture,
which have as their purpose the recovery of the originality of the artefact, namely the
preservation of its first and only image and the exclusive protection of the same.
The cultural debate over the last two decades on the protection of modern and
contemporary architecture has been very lively, but there have certainly been more
defeats than victories. These have been due to the economic interests and the pressures
of building development, but in some cases also to opinions and decisions in circles
such as archaeological ones which in Greece are very powerful. Not even associations
such as the Greek Docomomo chapter or other NGOs, which care about issues of
protection, have been able to do more.
Andreas Giacumacatos
254 Europe
Link
Listed monuments in Greece:
http://listedmonuments.culture.gr (in Greek)
Bibliography
Athenian Houses of the Modern Movement. Exhibition Catalogue, ed. Elliniki Etairia, Society
for the Environment and Cultural Heritage (Athens, 2013).
P. Exarchopoulos et. al, “Greece,” in The Modern Movement in Architecture: Selections from
the Docomomo Registers, eds. D. Sharp & C. Cooke (Rotterdam, 2000): 113–120.
A. Giacumacatos, “Restoration of Architecture of the Twentieth Century: A Distinct Scientific
Field,” in Architecture and Critics (Athens, 20092, in Greek): 318–334.
Hungary 255
HUNGARY
Figure 7.20 Imre Makovecz, Catholic Church Holy Spirit of Paks, 1988–1990. Listed in 2013
Source: Krisztina Nagy (Forster Centre), 2013.
The first heritage law of 1881 included in the term monument all constructions and
works that could have historical-artistic value. It was to assign to the minister of
the Religion and Education, with a National Committee for Historic Monuments
(Műemlékek Országos Bizottsága), the responsibility of deciding which buildings had
256 Europe
to be saved, such as monuments, and which artefacts were to be the object of archaeo-
logical excavation.
In 1949, during the Soviet period, a decree was declared that the memories and the
testimonies of national history, science and art were to be protected as eternal values
of the culture and to be enjoyed by all citizens; the minister would declare the restric-
tion following a proposal by the National Centre for Museums and Monuments.
The central organization underwent a significant reform in 1957, when the National
Inspectorate of Monuments (National Office of Cultural Heritage, Kulturális Örök-
ségvédelmi Hivatal, since 2001) was established. It worked not only with regard to
various management functions, but also to scientific research and the control of spe-
cialized restoration sites.
With transition to a parliamentary republic, 1997 saw the launch of Law No. LIV,
whose preface declared as irreplaceable heritage of national history, culture and art
those works considered as relevant testimonies of the environment, expression of the
cultural traditions and of the historical conscience of the nation. To their architectural
protection was dedicated the first chapter, which assigned the basic rules of conserva-
tion, maintenance, valorisation and scientific research. In the definition of monument
there were immovable assets and all the bodies or connected systems.
Today, the Law on the Protection of Cultural Heritage (LXIV/2001, amended in
2012 and in 2014) is in force. It lays down that the cultural heritage “is an irreplace-
able, unique and non-renewable source of the past and present of our country and an
integrated component of national and universal culture”. Provisions explain that cul-
tural heritage is also “archaeological heritage, things of monument value and cultural
assets” (art. 7, paragraph 11). They stress also that things of monument value are
built elements of the heritage, and their associated integrated area, group or sys-
tem which represent an outstanding historic, artistic, scientific or technical asset
from the point of view of the history of our country and social identity; including
all their parts, accessories and equipment.
(paragraph 17)
Definition of the registered monument value is the same monument value protected by
law through its listing (paragraph 22). It was confirmed that artistic protection auto-
matically invests the buildings contiguous to the monument and, in special cases, other
areas expressly indicated in the restriction. The protection consists in discovering, ana-
lyzing, evaluating, listing and defining the values and the monumental areas, as man-
aged by various institutions. The Gyula Forster National Centre for Cultural Heritage
Management (Forster Központ, 2012, former National Office for Cultural Heritage)
has prime responsibility to register, curate, monitor and develop cultural heritage. It
has operated under the president of the Council of Ministers since 2014. Only a work
listed for artistic and monumental value can be recognized as monument by a ministe-
rial decree. After listing, the monuments are classified into two different categories: I
and II. Everything relating to the operating field, such as inspections, controls, permits,
etc., originally under the inspectorate, has been passed to the offices of construction and
cultural heritage of the provincial governmental, except Budapest, which is divided in
two departments.
The legislation never declared time rules for restriction, but it was not used to
protect a building with fewer than 50 years of age from its construction, or where
the author was still alive. But, considering the perishability of modern buildings,
Hungary 257
since 2001 some architectures from 1960–1970s have been already listed for their
historical-architectural or technological values or because they were in danger of
demolition or alteration. Relevantly, the law foresees that, in case of danger, the
administration may decide to temporarily protect with immediate effect an area
where there are important architectures, thus ensuring restriction for one year
(art. 31). There are already about 20 listed buildings that have recently been covered
in such a way, among which the most significant are the Dózsa Cinema (Dunaújváros,
1951), work of socialist realism by György Szrogh; the tank (Víztorony, 1955) by
István Czebe and György Jánossy, which is part of the unique Campus of Gödöllő
together with the Agriculture and Environmental Science University (1966–1970)

by Emil Zöldy; the Water Company in Budapest (1958–1962), testimony of indus-
trial archaeology; the modern Catholic church of Cserépváralja (1961) by László
Csaba; the Tennis Gymnasium in Budapest (1962) by István Menyhárd, thin con-
struction of reinforced concrete with an ingenious covering of reduced sail; the Hos-
pital Library of Győr (1963–1969) by András Ivánka; the refuge of Orfű (Forrásház,
1971), organic work by György Csete; the underground military Base of Zsàmbék
(1977–1982). More recent listed buildings include works by Imre Makovecz, for
instance the cultural center and library of Sárospatak (1977–1983), the evangelical
church of Siófok (1987–1990).
Péter Klaniczay
Links
Lechner Knowledge Center:
http://www.lechnerkozpont.hu/ (in Hungarian)
National Committee for Historic Monuments:
http://www.muemlekem.hu (in Hungarian)
Gyula Forster National Centre for Cultural Heritage Management:
http://www.forsterkozpont.hu/ (in English and Hungarian)
Bibliography
Hungary: Provincial Architectural Guide: 20th Century, ed. Zs. Lőrinczi (Budapest, 2002).
E. Lamers, Contemporary Architecture in Hungary (Budapest, 2015).
A műemlékvédelem táguló körei, ed. P. Lővei (Budapest, 2000).
M.L. Neri & Zs. Ordasi, “Città nuove e architettura ‘szocreál’ nell’Ungheria dei primi anni
cinquanta”, Palladio, 43 (January–June 2009): 47–75.
S. Somorjay, “Tendencies in Historic Building Preservation in Hungary Today: Preservation,
Consequences, Responsibility”, Acta Historiae Artium, 49 (December 2008): 255–264.
258 Europe
ICELAND
Figure 7.21 Manfred Vilhjalmsson and Thorvaldur S. Thorvaldsson, Folk High School, Skalholt,
1969–1971. Listed in 2012
Source: Unknown photographer. Manfred Vilhjalmsson’s archive.
The first legislation on heritage conservation was the Law on the Protection of Antiq-
uities (1907), which listed what was considered to be archeological remains: old
churches, farms and other buildings that were no longer used for their original pur-
pose, as well as other buildings that were considered to be ancient. Some amendments
to this law were made in 1947, for example, that the state antiquarian, with permis-
sion from the minister of culture, could put buildings on the list of archeological
remains if they were of particular value, even if not so old as to be considered ancient.
In 1969, the Law on National Heritage included for the first time special para-
graphs referring to built heritage. Consequently the Architectural Heritage Board
(Húsafriðunarnefnd, AHB) was formed, whose purpose was to inform the minister
on the value and listing of heritage. Local municipalities could also list buildings or
their parts with high heritage and/or artistic value. On these grounds it was mainly
eighteenth-century stone buildings and the biggest and finest turf farms that were
listed. At that time the protection of twentieth-century architecture had not yet come
into consideration.
A large step towards protection of built heritage was taken in 1989 when a new
law on national heritage was passed. It stated that all buildings built before 1850 are
automatically listed, as are all churches built before 1918. It also states that owners
of all buildings built before 1918 must obtain a permit from the AHB if they want to
change, move or demolish their building. This meant that the AHB had to take into
Iceland 259
consideration many more recent buildings than before, and twentieth-century archi-
tecture, albeit mainly timber buildings from the beginning of the twentieth century,
became ever-increasingly central topics at meetings. According to this law, municipali-
ties could no longer list buildings, and it was solely in the hands of the minister to
decide which buildings should be listed upon the AHB’s proposals. In the Planning
Law (1997) it was made obligatory to carry out a building research before a local
plan was passed. From 2000 to 2005 a local plan was made for Reykjavik, and in its
Building Protection List many twentieth-century architectural items were protected.
Few municipalities had done similar building research and valued their built heritage,
but most of the larger ones have now started this work after incentives from the AHB,
which gives out grants to effect building research.
In 2001, the new Law on the Listing of Buildings was passed, and for the first
time a special law on national heritage was approved. A new institution was formed,
whose role was to do research into built heritage and, in collaboration with the AHB,
to inform the minister on the listing of monuments. The age limits for automatic list-
ing was the same, but now the discussion on the protection of the built environment,
whether its value was cultural, historical, social, technological, architectonic or artis-
tic, became more open. Before 2003 there were only seven listed buildings in Iceland
which were built after 1930.
In 2006, AHB published a list of twenty-first- and twentieth-century buildings that
were of high architectural and artistic value and which were therefore worthy of list-
ing. This was the first time that such a list of modern architecture had been published.
Since then the minister for Education and Culture has listed around 50 twentieth-
century modern buildings, after AHB’s proposals and many more await the minister’s
decision. The newest building to be listed is the Folk High School (1970–1974) in
Skalholt by Manfred Vilhjalmsson and Thorvaldur S. Thorvaldsson.
In 2011, the Minister of Culture introduced a new bill for the heritage sector which
was approved as the new Heritage Act for Iceland (No. 80/2012) and it came into
force on 1 January 2013; its main aim is to simplify the national administration of
architectural heritage. Thus the Archaeological Heritage Agency and AHB were
merged into the Cultural Heritage Agency of Iceland (Minjastofnun Íslands). The
agency administers, amongst other things, the architectural heritage fund and the
archaeological heritage fund. According to the current act, all buildings and other
man-made constructions over 100 years old are protected. Owners of buildings built
before 1925 are obliged to get a permit from the agency if they want to change, move
or demolish their building. This is mainly thought of as a security measure giving
authorities the possibility to decide which buildings and sites should be protected for
the benefit of future generations.
In general, architectural protection is currently well covered. Selected examples
of modern architecture of high value have been listed or are protected with plan-
ning guidelines. However, much remains to be done to ensure recognition of Modern
Movement architecture as an important part of national cultural heritage. The sub-
ject is of critical importance, since most buildings in Iceland date from the twentieth
century.
Pétur H. Ármannsson and Nikulás Úlfar Másson
260 Europe
Link
The Cultural Heritage Agency of Iceland, inventory of built heritage:
http://www.minjastofnun.is (manly in Icelandic, also in English)
Bibliography
H. Ágústsson, Islensk byggingararfleifd II : Vardveisluannall 1863–1990 (Reykjavik, 2000).
P.H. Ármannsson, “The Development of Reykjavik in the 1920’s and 1930’s and the Impact of
Functionalism”, in Nordisk Funksjonalisme, ed. W. Findal (Oslo, 1995): 45–62.
P.H. Ármannsson, “Social Aspects and Modern Architecture in Iceland”, in Modern Movement
Scandinavia: Vision and Reality, ed. O. Wedebrunn (Aarhus, 1998): 97–131.
Iceland and Architecture, ed. O.C. Schmal (Frankfurt, 2011).
A.M. Seelow, Die Moderne Architektur in Island in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts
(Nuremberg, 2011).
Ireland 261
IRELAND
Figure 7.22 Scott Tallon Walker Architects, Carroll’s Factory, Dundalk, 1967–1970. Listed in
2009
Source: National Inventory of Architectural Heritage, 2005.
It comes as a surprise to visitors that despite Ireland’s antiquity most of its stand-
ing buildings date from the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries – a direct
reflection of the major destruction during wars in the seventeenth century and the
subsequent land redistribution and settlement. Until recent legislative provisions, very
little of it was protected, with most of the attention being on prehistoric sites and
medieval ruins, perhaps looking back to a mythical golden era prior to colonization.
The first legislation for the protection of the built heritage dates to 1869 when the
Anglican Church of Ireland was disestablished as the state church. The legislation
enabled properties in their ownership, ruins from the Early Christian and Medieval
period, to be taken into state care. In 1882 further legislation was enacted to include
pre-Christian archaeological sites. After independence (1922), a new National Monu-
ments Bill was enacted in 1930. Although it allowed for a site or structure of national
importance to be taken into state care, in its operation it effectively continued the
approach of the pre-independence legislation, restricting state protection to pre-1700
sites with the major exception of William Chamber’s neoclassical Casino at Marino.
The Granada Convention (1985) was an important moment and step forward
in formalizing the necessary requirements for the protection of Ireland’s built heri-
tage. The specifically European nature of the convention allowed the debate on
262 Europe
architectural conservation to move beyond the post-colonial discourse straitjacket
that had restricted it since independence.
In 1995, the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, with the Minister for
the Environment, established an inter-departmental working group to report and
make recommendations on the establishment of a statutory system for the listing
of buildings, introducing incentives for their proper upkeep and maintenance and
the undertaking of, what was described as, a full national architectural audit. Their
report ‘Strengthening the Protection of the Architectural Heritage’ (1996) changed
the whole dynamic for the protection of the built heritage. Within a year Ireland rati-
fied the Granada Convention, and the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage
(NIAH, 1999) was established. But the most significant outcome was the enactment
of the Planning & Development Act 2000. The clauses in Part IV of the Act, referring
to architectural heritage, reflect directly the recommendations of the report including
the requirement for every planning authority to maintain a Record of Protected Struc-
tures (RPS) and the procedures necessary to protect such structures. The document
‘Architectural Heritage Protection. Guidelines for Planning Authorities’, published by
the Department under Section 52 of the act, sets out those procedures. It has become
a vital working document for owners and professional practitioners, as well as those
in the planning authorities.
Arising from NIAH surveys, the minister responsible recommends to the relevant
planning authority that structures rated of regional or above significance be included
on their RPS. Structures recently recommended have included the former Ford Factory
(c.1920) and Christ the King Church (1927) in Cork, both by American architects.
As the final decision on whether or not a structure in included is a reserved function
of the local elected councillors, the encouragement of public awareness and local
pride in the built heritage is an important role of the NIAH. It was this disconnection
between inventory and protection that informed the NIAH publication strategy that
their surveys should be as widely and readily available as possible, with all of them
being published on a free-to-access website.
Although there is a notional start date of 1700 for inclusion in NIAH surveys there
is no end date. This has allowed for the inclusion of the alcohol factory (1935) in
Cooley by the Dutch Jan Diederik Postma, the Scott Tallon Walker tobacco factory
(1967–1970) in Dundalk and more recently some of Liam McCormick’s churches
(1955–1974) in Donegal – although it should be emphasized that not all structures
recorded have been added to the RPS. But the compilation of the RPS is not solely the
result of the work of the NIAH. Michael Scott’s Dublin bus station, one of the first
major building projects after World War II, has long been a protected structure. More
recently Dublin City Council has highlighted the Amsterdam School–inspired inner
city social housing schemes designed by the City Housing Architect Herbert George
Simms in the 1930 to 1940s.
For modern buildings the issue has often not been an unwillingness to protect,
but technical questions relating to quality of the structure and ongoing suitable
uses. Key to the protection of the tobacco factory is its new use as a third-level
educational institution. By contrast, because of deteriorating concrete and loss of
function, and although the management company was willing to examine all possi-
bilities, no option but demolition was found for the iconic cooling towers at several
peat-fired electrical power stations built in the 1940s and 1950s. It was recognition
Ireland 263
of the need for buildings to have a function for their survival that the department
recently published a book on good practice in the adaptation and reuse of buildings,
irrespective of their age.
William Cumming
Link
National Inventory of Architectural Heritage:
www.buildingsofireland.ie (in English)
Bibliography
Department of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht, Architectural Heritage Protection: Guidelines
for Planning Authorities (Dublin, 2004/2011).
Department of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht, Shaping the Future: Case Studies in Adaptation
and Reuse in Historic Urban Environments (Dublin, 2012).
Ireland: 20th Century Architecture, eds. A. Becker, J. Olley & W. Wang (Munich/New York,
1997).
Strengthening the Protection of the Architectural Heritage, Report Submitted to the Minister
for Arts, Culture & the Gaeltacht and the Minister for the Environment (Dublin, 1996).
264 Europe
ITALY
Figure 7.23 Sergio Musmeci, Bridge on the river Basento, Potenza, 1976. Listed in 2003
Source: MAXXI, National Museum of XXI Century Arts, Rome. MAXXI Architectural Collection. Sergio
Musmeci Archive, late 1970s.
Prior to Italian unification in 1861, heritage protection in the Italian peninsula dated
back to the seventeenth century, with edicts regarding excavations, listing of finds and
control on exportations being mainly issued by the Papal State. During the nineteenth
century – after the chirographum of Pius VII (1802) – the edict of Cardinal Bartolo-
meo Pacca (1820) and the Regulation for the Fine Arts Boards (1821) introduced new
subjects, taken from other states, such as the Kingdom of Sardinia, the Kingdom of
Lombardy-Venetia, the Grand Duchy of Tuscany and the Kingdom of Naples. These
laws were in contrast with the culture of free trade and private property protection as
determined by the Albertine Statute (1848). After unification (1861), a specific regula-
tion was put into force throughout the whole nation.
Law No. 185/1902 set out that protection should start a minimum of 50 years
from the work and the death of its author. Law No. 364/1909 abolished the condition
that only the insertion of the asset in a specific list might enable its protection. It also
excluded the transfer of goods belonging to public authorities and made it compul-
sory to report the transfer of private goods subject to protection, with the recognition
of a right of preemption by the state. Meanwhile, the General Direction of Excava-
tions and Monuments of the Public Instruction Department (1875) was replaced by
the General Direction of Antiquities and Fine Arts assisted by the local prefects; 1904
sow the creation of superintendences as administrations peripheral to the ministry.
Italy 265
Giuseppe Bottai was responsible for a turning-point with the laws of 1939 which
recognized the “goods and real assets that are of artistic, historical, archeological
ethnographic interest” and “the villas, parks and gardens of historical and artistic
interest” (No. 1,089). The law related to four classes of “natural beauty”: “real
assets that have remarkable natural interest or geological singularity”, “villas, parks
and gardens”, “the ensembles of real assets which are of characteristic appearance”
and “panoramic beauty which could be treated like a natural painting” (No. 1,497).
Planning Law (No. 1,150/1942) excluded protection from its range of application,
as enshrined in the 1939 acts, thus entailing its final separation from city planning.
Finally, the constitution (1948) stated that the republic “protects the landscape and
the historical and artistic heritage of the nation” (art. 9), thereby conferring more
importance than usual to previous laws.
In 1975 the Ministry for Cultural and Enviromental Heritage was established (since
1998 for Heritage and Cultural Activities, and since 2013 with the addition of “and
of Tourism”). The organization has been gradually constructed, at central level, on
the general secretary – with coordinating role, on the Superior Council for Cultural
and Landscape Heritage, on technical-scientific committees and consultancy bodies
and on General Management. At a local level, it is based on regional management
which coordinates all the local superintendences. On 28 February 2014, the prime
ministerial decree replaced regional management with regional secretariats and estab-
lished regional museum networks and autonomous museums.
Following delegation of landscape protection by the state to the regions (D.P.R.
No. 616/1977), the lack of control over the territory led to the formulation of law
No. 431/1985 (known as Galasso’s Law), that added 11 territorial typologies to
the categories of law No. 1,497/1939 and obliged regions to produce compulsory
landscape plans. Such regulations were included, with few changes, in the Unified
Text (Decree No. 490/1999). The modification of Title V of the constitution (Law
No. 3/2001), assigned the state the responsibility for the protection of heritage and
the regions with its development, thus leading to the Code of Cultural and Landscape
Heritage (Decree No. 42/2004). Innovations included the regulation of the transfer
of public goods, entailing prior declaration of interest, and preventing any change
of property status that might lead to the loss of any restrictions. There remaines the
procedural difference between direct (re: the monument) and indirect (re: its environ-
ment) restrictions, as well as the de facto impossibility of protecting architectural
works of less than 50 years of age whose author is still alive. This has prohibited
the opportune protection of many important buildings: in Milan the Casa al Parco
(1948–1954), by Ignazio Gardella, in Naples the Villa Oro (1934–1937), and Villa
Savarese (1936–1942), by Luigi Cosenza. For public properties, such limit has
recently been extended to 70 years (Law No. 106/2011). Designation of historical
value, on the other hand, enables more recent architectural pieces to be protected (art.
10, cl. 3d, Decree No. 42/2004), which has therefore happened for the bridge over
the Basento (1971–1976), in Potenza, by Sergio Musmeci, or in Venice for the Casa
alle Zattere (1953–1958) by Ignazio Gardella. Finally, we should also remember Law
No. 633/1941 on copyright, enforceable on request by the author whose rights are
protected: plans relating to the piece need not be submitted to the superintendence,
but to its author, who also retains the right to demolition, as in the case of Giulio De
Luca, who rebuilt the Arena Flegrea (1940) in Naples, for economical reasons.
Ugo Carughi
266 Europe
Links
Central Institute for Cataloguing and Documentation, Catalogue of Cultural Heritage:
http://www.iccd.beniculturali.it/index.php?it/518/un-catalogo-di-beni-un-patrimonio-di-dati
(in Italian)
Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities and Tourism, National Census of Twentieth-Cen-
tury Italian Architecture:
http://www.sitap.beniculturali.it/architetture/ (in Italian)
Bibliography
L. Benevolo, L’architettura nell’Italia contemporanea (Rome/Bari, 1998).
M. Biraghi & S. Micheli, Storia dell’architettura italiana 1985–2015 (Turin, 2013).
U. Carughi, Maledetti vincoli. La tutela dell’architettura contemporanea Parte seconda eds. U.
Carughi & M. Visone (Turin, 2012): 21–215.
F. Dal Co, Storia dell’architettura italiana. Il secondo Novecento (Milan, 1997).
G. Famiglietti & N. Pignatelli, Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio (Rome, 2015).
Kosovo 267
KOSOVO
Figure 7.24 Andrija Mutnjaković, National and University Library, Pristina, 1974–1982.
Listed in 2015
Source: Igor Rašić, 2014.
Kosovo represents a true reserve of cultural monuments from all eras, nature’s rarities,
original folklore and beauty spots, and counts three national monuments registered
on the World Heritage List.
The Provincial Institute for the Protection and Scientific Research on Cultural
Monuments of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija was founded in
1954, with its headquarters in Priština; then other institutes were established in Priz-
ren (1967) and Pristina (1973). The protection of cultural monuments had been pre-
scribed by the federal (Yugoslavia at the time) and republican (Serbian) regulations
until 1977. In particular, 240 cultural monuments are protected by law, and today
architectural heritage dates from prehistory to buildings of the most recent history.
The current Cultural Property Law (1994) was annulled by the United Nations
Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (1999), but it passed in 2006 (No. 02/L-
88), after thorough vetting and a public hearing, and established the Kosovo Council
for Cultural Heritage. Article 2 divides cultural heritage into architectural, archaeo-
logical, movable and spiritual categories. Architectural heritage is distinguished by
values of historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific, social and technical interest
and it is composed of monuments (constructions and structures, including movable
elements as their parts); ensembles of buildings (groups of urban or rural buildings,
268 Europe
interrelated with certain topographic units); and architectural conservation areas
(areas comprising combined works of human hand and nature). It defines spatial, cul-
tural and historical units as an urban or rural estate or their parts. Attention is given
to establishing and then categorizing these units so that architectural heritage will last
longer, while the stratification and the traces of past and present times are respected.
For instance, the memorial of Gazimestan (1953) by Aleksandar Deroko; the türbe
of Murat and the Gazimestan türbe, as well as the imperial city of Prizren, are living
organisms in the present time and heritage, in symbiosis, where the old melts the cold-
ness of the new, yielding common values.
Modern principles of protection and revitalization should be applied through respect

for principles governing the preservation of authenticity of space and its values, unity
in style, documentary qualities and work continuity, as well as through respect for
principles of cooperation with other professions, and through genuine testimony to
culture and tradition. Authenticity should be expressed through material and imma-
terial aspect and through the preservation of the place’s integrity to the present day.
Urban regeneration means the implementation of new laws (the attempt by archi-
tect Rexhep Luci failed) favoring urban redevelopment, denationalization, settling of
ownership, land re-apportionment as well as marketing through town-branding.
The redevelopment and protection of twentieth-century architecture should be
developed and recycled, reconstructed and upgraded. In Prizren, this includes the
Hotel Theranda, the Arasta Housing tower (1963) and the Shadrvan Shoping Centre
(1970) by Stanko Mandić. In Pristina, it includes the National Theatre (1946–1950),
the Kosovski Božur Hotel (1959), the Parliament building (1960) by Juraj Neidhard,
the National Bank (1972) by Milan Tomić, the Institute of Albanology (1974) by
Miodrag Pecić; the Grand Hotel (1974–1978) by Dragan Kovačević and Bashkim
Fehmiu, the National and University Library (1974–1982) by Andrija Mutnjaković;
Boro i Ramiz Sports Centre (1978–1981) by Živorad Janković; Beograd Department
Store, EPS building, the printing house (1974–1978) by Georgi Konstantinovski;
Ljubljanska Bank (1984) by Zoran Zakić, a Dragodan detailed town-planning Scheme
dating from 1990; and the main residential and business street promenade or housing
estates.
The general criteria are the suitable and fine relation to an urban area in the sphere
of the aesthetics, form, function and construction of a building. A specific contribu-
tion is the regime of complete protection (internal changes are possible) or partial
protection (restyling). The final important problem of protection is the problem of
funding. The special criteria are the stylistic form of representation, environmental
value and the uniqueness of a work, for example, the cathedrals of Christ the Sav-
iour (1996–1999) in Pristina, by Spasoje Krunić; the Holy Virgin (1990–1999) in
Obilić; Saint Prince Lazarus (1991–1994) in Piskote; the Holy Trinity in Ðakovica
(1993–1999); and Saint John in Pećka Banja (1995–1997) by Ljubiša Folić. Accord-
ing to the Cultural Property Law, a place of interest is the space for the preservation
of the collective memory of past events, such as the Kosovska Mitrovica Monument
(1960–1973), the sanctuary dedicated to Serbian and Albanian partisans in World
War II by Bogdan Bogdanović and Dimitrije Mladenović.
The selection of a contemporary architecture may be made through exceptional
form-relevant, artistic and other specific values; a typical representative that reflects
the values of a large number of such buildings in the best way may also be sought.
In doing so, its technical condition, its potential future purpose and its position with
Kosovo 269
regard to town planning, are all taken into consideration. Despite all the destruc-
tion (over 1,000 ancient monuments have been destroyed), a considerable number of
monuments from all times can still be found on this never-ending scene of so many
recent battles and misfortunes.
Ljubiša Folić
Links
Kosovo Council for Cultural Heritage:
http://mem.rks-gov.net/?cid=2,1 (in Albanian, Bosnian and English)
Venice Biennale 2014. Kosovo Pavillion:

http://www.kosovoarchitecture.org (in English)
Bibliography
F. Achleitner, A Flower for the Dead: The Memorials of Bogdan Bogdanović (Zürich, 2014).
The Antiquities of Kosovo, 1–7 (Pristina, 1954–1973), 68–79.
Crucified Kosovo, ed. Lj. Folic (Gracanica-Prizren, 1999): 8–12, 29–31, 38, 48–49 .
The Imperial City of Prizren (chrestomathy), eds. R. Markovic, J. Ristic & A. Bačkalov (Pris-
tina, 2005, in Serbian) 218–245, 272–299.
The Problems of Protection and Existence of Cultural Monuments and Natural Structures and
Nature Reserves in Kosovo and Metohija (Peć/Prizren/Pristina/Beograd, 1968, in Serbian).
A. Urošević, Kosovo (Belgrade, 1965).
270 Europe
LATVIA
Figure 7.25 Jānis Kārkliņš, Modris Ģelzis and Viktors Valgums, District Administration Building,
Riga, 1976. Listed in 2015
Source: Archive of Latvia Museum of Architecture, State Inspection for Heritage Protection, early 1980s.
First organized interest in cultural heritage may be observed in the early nineteenth
century, when several societies related to historical monuments and pieces of art were
formed. Organized oversight of historic sites was introduced in 1923, when the Board
of Monuments was established after independence (1918). During the period of the
Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (1940–1991), the preservation of heritage was heav-
ily prone to ideology, and several areas were severely censored. Many works, espe-
cially those where life in pre-Soviet Latvia had been depicted positively, were excluded
from active public access. In the field of architectural safeguarding, the official atti-
tude was straightforwardly unambiguous, albeit changing with time. From being very
destructive – the demolition of previous evidence as non-corresponding to the bright
future of communism – in the early years, it then became more tolerant when out-
standing pieces of architecture were protected. Overall, after 1945, various institu-
tions were responsible for heritage protection, mainly supervised by the Council of
Ministers and Ministry of Culture.
The current cultural policy is organized and coordinated by the Ministry of Cul-
ture. The legislative framework consists of international, national and local acts such
as the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heri-
tage, the Cultural Monuments Protection Law of the Republic of Latvia and 37 other
laws, regulations and by-laws. The protection is a system of measures to ensure the
Latvia 271
preservation of cultural monuments, and it includes the inventory, the research and
the conservation process, as well as their promotion and development. Cultural mon-
uments are divided into five groups: archaeological monuments, monuments of urban
development, architectural monuments, monuments of art, and historic monuments.
Their conservation and preservation is a multi-level responsibility, regulated both at
state and local government levels by general and special laws and terms. The Law on
Cultural Monuments Protection (1992, amended in 1993–1995), the first of its kind
in any former Soviet republic, defines overall regulations and responsibilities. One of
the basic clauses says that the status of a monument is not linked with ownership.
The impact areas where restrictions around monuments are stated – up to 100 meters
in urban contexts and up to 500 meters in the rural ones – are defined in the State
Law on Protection Zone Law (1977). The dtate regulations refer to all monuments,
whereas there are several special laws that refer to definite outstanding monuments.
The maintenance and development of the Riga historic centre – on the World Heritage
List since 1997 – are regulated by the special Law on Preservation and Safeguard Law
of the Historic Centre of Riga (2003). At the same time, the outstanding complexes of
Riga Dome cathedral is protected by the special Law on Dome Cathedral and Mon-
astery Ensemble Law (2005), etc.
All protected objects are on the list of state-protected cultural heritage monuments.
The entries in this register are made by ministerial order, based on recommenda-
tion from the experts’ council of the State Inspection for Heritage Protection (Valsts
kultūras pieminekļu aizsardzĭbas inspekcija, 1989, VKPAI), the authority responsible
for the implementation of government policy and control of heritage protection, and
the exploration, listing, maintenance and operation of cultural monuments. The mis-
sion of the VKPAI is to provide the quality of life and preserve heritage – identifying,
protecting and promoting the values of properties. Depending on the significance of
the historical, scientific, artistic, architectural, archaeological, ethnographic, etc., val-
ues of the monument in question, it may be defined as monument of UNESCO, state
or local significance. The usual condition of inclusion of the monument in the register
is 50 years’ time limit, although there do exist specific groups (pieces of national pro-
fessional art, etc.) where such limit is reduced to 25 years.
Currently, there are 8,848 cultural monuments listed in the register, with 5,310
of them valued as having state significance; 3,449 as architectural monuments, with
1,297 of them as having state significance; and 46 as monuments of urban develop-
ment, with 40 of them as having state significance; most of them refer to the period
up to World War II. The register is publicly available on the website of the VKPAI.
Since the post-war period, political dominance of Latvia by the USSR meant that
culture was carefully supervised by the official ideology, and treatment of heritage
from this period is an ambiguous legacy. Centralized control of the construction pro-
cess and the basic tenet that most of what was inspired by the West had to be eradi-
cated from Soviet practice led to very restricted creative expression. Although several
stylistic trends may be distinguished, such as Neo-Eclecticism – especially during the
Stalinist period – Late and Post Modernism, Minimalism or the New Simplicity, etc.,
both ideological templates and the temporal limit are the usual barriers for the confer-
ral upon such buildings the status of monument. Nevertheless, the process has started,
and there are several distinct buildings recently protected, such as the Art Theatre
house (1959–1976) by Marta Staņa, Imants Jākobsons and others, listed in 1998;
architect’s Summer House (1959) by Modris Ģelzis, listed in 2011; the former airport
272 Europe
Spilve Terminal (1954) in Riga by Sergej Vorobjov, listed in 2012; and the District
Administration Building (1976) in Riga by Jānis Kārkliņš, Modris Ģelzis and Viktors
Valgums, listed in 2015.
Uģis Bratuškins
Link
State Inspection for Heritage Protection, list of Heritage:
http://mantojums.lv/lv/piemineklu-saraksts/ (in Latvian)
Bibliography
J. Dripe, Latvijas arhitektūra 1991–2011 (Riga, 2012).
J. Krastiņš & O. Spārītis, Architecture of Riga in the Mirror of the Centuries (Riga, 2005).
J. Krastiņš & I. Strautmanis, Riga: The Complete Guide to Architecture (Riga, 2004).
Liechtenstein 273
LIECHTENSTEIN
Figure 7.26 Hansjörg Göritz, Parliament Building, Vaduz, 2001–2008

Source: Böhringer Friedrich (CC), 2009.
The main objective of architectural conservation in the Principality of Liechtenstein

is to keep heritage intact for future generations. The terms of historic, scientific and
technical preservation identify themselves in executing reasonable acts to promote the
protection and maintenance of the heritage of ancient and contemporary architecture,
without compromising the necessary and indispensable historical investigations useful
to emphasize their cultural value.
The protection of monuments is supervised by the Conservation of Historic Monu-
ments (Denkmalpflege) of the Office of Cultural Affairs (Abteilung des Amtes für
Kultur) based in Vaduz. The department is responsible for the protection and preser-
vation of historical artifacts, buildings and groups of buildings, as well as archaeol-
ogy. It is preserved in the inventory of the most important cultural heritage of the
principality, which consists of about 200 items, including cultural heritage sites and
archaeological objects.
274 Europe
The Denkmalpflege carries out an assiduous and constant research activity
intended as a fundamental resource for gathering information on the history of the
buildings and in the event that it might be necessary to carry out the maintenance
and repair of historic buildings. The Denkmalpflege has also been particularly active
in promoting the economic benefits achieved by the proper conservation of cultural
heritage and works in cooperation with other cultural institutions in the principal-
ity. The Heritage Protection Commission (Denkmalschutz-Kommission) assists the
Denkmalpflege with the allocation of state funds for the benefit of conservation
projects.
The Denkmalpflege and the scope of heritage conservation were established by Law
for the Protection of Monuments (Denkmalschutzgesetz, 1977), drawn up in the year
of European Architectural Heritage. Yet the protection of its assets was born in the
early twentieth century, with the founding of the Historical Society of the Principality
(1901), which was assigned the specific task of documenting the history of Liechten-
stein as well as cataloging and preserving its heritage. This society has proved crucial
in persuading the citizens of the need to make efforts for the preservation of heritage
in the common interest of citizenship and posterity, and to initiate archaeological
research, as well as in the creation of a national museum.
The society had also ensured the achievement of the first legislation on the Protection
of National Heritage (1944) and in 1960 had urged the government to play a more
active role in the conservation and protection of the architectural heritage in general.
The Cultural Council (Kulturbeirat, 1964), a government commission with the task of
promoting, coordinating and documenting cultural activities, administers the grants
for cultural projects. From 1979 to 2007, the Cultural Council advised the government
in matters of cultural promotion. Kulturstiftung Liechtenstein (2008) is responsible for
promoting cultural activities and, as an independent public foundation, it fulfills its
statutory responsibilities in the promotion of culture, projects and events.
The past in agriculture has produced a wealth of farmhouses dating back to the six-
teenth century, and the parish churches and town halls spread over all its 11 munici-
palities. To this we must add a substantial number of mediaeval fortresses, which can
be found mainly in mountain resorts, such as the Castle of Vaduz, since 1938 the
castle has been the residence of the princes of Liechtenstein. Another key national
heritage site is the ruins of the Schellenberg fortress, restored in 1950 by the Historical
Society. The most recent and significant conservation projects include the mediaeval
castle of Gutenberg in Balzers, purchased by the state in 1990 and now home to
cultural events, and the Romanesque Marienkapelle in Triesen, which was restored
as it was considered essential component of the European Architectural Days held in
Liechtenstein in 2003.
Thanks to the cultural relations with its neighbours and its small size, Liechtenstein
has been active in conservation organizations, both regional and European. It is also
very aware that it does not hold many exceptional sites, but rather an architectural
heritage that reflects the development of farming communities in Europe over several
centuries. The country recognizes that value of its economic, technological and his-
torical heritage is of such importance that it must be preserved beyond its intrinsic
artistic and architectural value.
With regard to architectural protection and conservation, there is not yet any leg-
islation in force with specific rules that identify characteristics and limitations; we
Liechtenstein 275
should remember, however, that the national architectural heritage is characterized
by a limited modern production, especially when compared to that of other histori-
cal periods and therefore treated and considered on a case-by-case basis. A new law
on the care, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage (Cultural Property
Act), which includes the areas of historic preservation, archeology and protection of
cultural property, is under construction and has yet to be introduced.
The Heritage Protection Commission and the Urban Development Office and, at
the local authority level, the municipal development departments and site protec-
tion commissions, all genuinely endeavour to integrate good-quality contemporary
architecture into urban and rural settings. The goal, which is being achieved through
architectural competitions and specialized consultations, is architecture that is truly
contemporary and not simply ‘adapted’.
Riccardo de Martino
Links
State administration of the Principality of Liechtenstein, Cultural Office:
http://www.llv.li/#/11383/denkmalpflege (in German)
List of protected cultural monuments:
http://geodaten.llv.li/geoshop/public.html (in German)
Bibliography
Bauen für Liechtenstein: Ausgewählte Beiträge zur Gestaltung einer Kulturlandschaft, ed.
P. Birrer (Vaduz, 2000).
Liechtenstein: Country Study Guide: Strategic Information and Developments (Washington,
DC, 2013): 59–68.
276 Europe
LITHUANIA
Figure 7.27 Algimantas Nasvytis, Vytautas Nasvytis, Andrius Gudaitis, Ceslovas Mazuras,
Lithuanian Parliament, Vilnius, 1976–1991. Listed in year 1993, amended in
2009, 2011
The cultural heritage of Lithuania is protected by the constitution (1992), the Law on
Basics of National Security (1996) and other national legal acts. The basic require-
ments are determined by the Law on the Protection of Immovable Cultural Heritage
(I-733/1994). It aims to regulate state administration of cultural heritage by organiz-
ing preservation and passing it onto future generations through the Department for
the Protection of Cultural Properties (Department of Cultural Heritage since 2005,
Kultūros Paveldo Departamentas) under the Ministry of Culture. This law deter-
mines the principles and the means of the state’s obligations and defines protection
as the system that consists of lists and declarations of protection and preservation:
implementation of conservation, regulations on use, and learning, the spread of
information, collaboration with municipalities and other institutions in the field of
heritage revival.
Protection initiatives have a much longer history than national laws. They are
rooted in the nineteenth century and reflect interest shown by Romantic society in
pre-Christian archaeological heritage, medieval castles and other structures which
represent the grandeur of the Great Duchy of Lithuania. The Law on the Protection
of Cultural Heritage was prepared by the Lithuanian republic as long ago as 1939,
but it was only sanctioned in 1940 after Soviet occupation. In 1967, Lithuania inde-
pendently accepted the Law on the Protection of Cultural Monuments, which had
been created earlier by the central government of the Soviet Union. This law was
modified in 1977 and remained in force until 1995, when the new protection law was
declared after independence (1990). Restoration of private property on land, new
Lithuania 277
economic terms and other social changes were affected by the Law on the Protection
of Immovable Cultural Heritage (I-733/1994, amended in 2008 and 2013), which has
been amended several times until now, with more protection offered to municipalities.
Different buildings and sites of architectural heritage are included in the numerous
national List of the Cultural Properties and are under state protection. Distinguished
objects of contemporary architecture are also on the list. They reflect various trends
of contemporary movements, for instance, the Brutalist Vilnius Palace of Concerts
and Sports (1971) by Eduardas Chlomauskas, Jonas Kriukelis and Zigmantas Lian-
dzbergis; and the Lithuanian Parliament complex with Independence Square. The
complex (1976–1982) was designed by Algimantas Nasvytis, Vytautas Nasvytis,

Andrius Gudaitis, Česlovas Mazuras and others, and it also comprises the remains
of the barricade built by the defenders of independence against Soviet aggression on
13 January 1991.
In accordance with the Criteria for Evaluation and Record, the age limit for listed
building is 50 years from construction. More recent architectural objects may also be
provided with the status of the national cultural property under protection if they fit
the requirements of exceptional value. In this case the properties should be associated
with liberation from the Soviet regime or related to events of extraordinary impor-
tance. To reflect continuation of traditions of historic structures, development or their
aesthetics, the buildings should be more than 25 years old and awarded with impor-
tant international or national prizes, etc.
Listed twentieth-century architecture is represented by two main groups of build-
ings, their complexes and sites. The first one covers the heritage of the Republic of
Lithuania (1918–1940) and the second group is from the Soviet period. This heri-
tage reflects different architectural styles: Modernism from the early 1930s and the
parallel trend of Neo-traditionalism. Heritage from the Soviet period splits into two
architecturally different types: Neo-classical architecture from the Stalinist period
(1945–1956) and Soviet modernism (1956–1990). The first of these types fits the
requirements of the time limit, and there quite a number of objects from the Stalinist
time under primary protection. More methodological problems rise with listing of the
second type: only the early phase of this period corresponds with the time require-
ments for listing, and the short time span reduces the chance of their being assessed in
a more complete historical and cultural context.
The list of representatives of contemporary architecture from the first Lithuanian
republic is still being drawn up, and valuable features of many of these structures are
being revised. More contradictory is the protection of Soviet-period structures. In
recent years, interest in Soviet architectural heritage has clearly increased, particularly
among the architects of the new generation. Many of these objects, however, were
included in the list at the end of the Soviet period, and their value is unquestionable.
There is no agreement regarding the protection of many of these listed buildings,
among which we can find distinguished items, widely considered to be worthy of pro-
tection. An impartial assessment of their value in what is a complicated historical con-
text, and bearing in mind the national collective memory, has still not been approved.
In 2008, the Association of Lithuanian Architects (Lietuvos architektų sąjunga, 1925)
prepared a list of 173 buildings from 1945–1990, which may be of value to the his-
tory of Lithuanian architecture. New revised proposals have been completed in recent
years, although these proposals have still not been officially accepted. However the
278 Europe
listing of objects of contemporary architectural heritage does not always guarantee
the safeguarding of their authenticity and original features of value.
Jurate Jureviciene
Link
Registry of Cultural Property:
http://kvr.kpd.lt/#/ (in Lithuanian and in English)
Bibliography
M. Drėmaitė, V. Petrulis & J. Tutlytė, Architektūra sovietinėje Lietuvoje (Vilnius, 2012).
Lietuvos architektai, ed. A. Mačiulis (Vilnius, 2002).
I. Ruseckaitė, Vilnius City Planning: Aspect of Contextuality PhD thesis in Vilnius Gediminas
Technical University (Vilnius, 2012, in Lithuanian).
Vilnius 1900–2013: A Guide to the City’s Architecture, eds. J. Reklaitė & R. Leitanaitė (Vilnius,
2013).
Luxembourg 279
LUXEMBOURG
Figure 7.28 Norbert Mangen, Chapel Saint Eloi, Dudelange, 1963–1964. Listed in 2004
The Congress of Vienna raised the ancient Luxembourg Dukedom to the rank of
Grand Duchy. Although it was an independent nation, William I of the Netherlands
wanted to manage the Grand Duchy as a province of his own kingdom, including
also what is now Belgium. Since people did not take kindly to this régime, in 1830
280 Europe
they joined in great numbers with the rebellion of the Belgians against the power of
the Hague. The Treaty of London (1839) deprived the Grand Duchy of a part of its
territory in favor of the new kingdom of Belgium and maintained it under the author-
ity of the king of Netherlands, confirming the political autonomy of the country.
William II respected the treaty and provided Luxembourg with national institutions
which would grant it the independence. In this context, various people began to be
interested in the history of the Grand Duchy and its heritage.
On 2 September 1845, a royal decree created the Société [Company] pour la
Recherche et la Conservation des Monuments Historiques dans le Grand-Duché de
Luxembourg, whose purpose was “la recherche et la conservation des monuments

et des documents historiques concernant le Grand-Duché et le territoire de l’ancien
Duché de Luxembourg” (art. 3). The company’s regulations stipulated that “elle
recueillera les débris épars des monuments ruinés et veillera à la conservation de
ceux encore debout” (art. 18); while the next article stated that upon request of
the Council of State, the company was to provide its opinion on the demolition
of monuments and on the restorations to be accomplished. These texts mark the
definitive beginning of the policy of national conservation. The reports, published
in Publications de la Section Historique, enabled people to follow very closely the
works of the company, which was to become the Section Historique de l’Institut
Grand-Ducal (1868).
As far as heritage is concerned, members first of all took an interest in Roman antiq-
uities and in monuments of the Middle Ages. In 1847, they campaigned regularly for
the restoration of the ancient Echternach Abbey, that was carried out about 20 years
later. Besides the churches, castles also attracted much attention, while Renaissance
and Baroque monuments less so. The company drew up a list of remarkable monu-
ments deemed worthy of protection. Despite the fact that many members of the com-
pany were religious, the church founded its own group for art and heritage, which
nevertheless dissolved after a few decades.
The first law on the conservation and the preservation of monuments was voted by
Parliament in 1927, with the consequent institution of the Commission des sites et
monuments nationaux (CSMN, 1930). World War II led to the destruction of many
monuments, above all in northern Luxembourg. For reconstruction, the government
created the Commission de surveillance pour la restauration des édifices religieux
(1945), still acting today with similar responsibilities. Among the historical monu-
ments that had been damaged, the most important ones were rebuilt or restored,
while other buildings were replaced by modern pieces. Nevertheless, it is surprising
to notice that the works respected the traditional character of the towns and villages.
In 1971, the Musée de l’Etat saw the creation of the Service des Monuments His-
toriques, in charge of maintaining all mediaeval castles, followed by an independent
group named Service des Sites et Monuments Nationaux (1977). The European Char-
ter for Architectural Heritage (1975) tends to look towards traditional rural houses
and other typical elements of rural heritage, considered an important manifestation of
the expression of national identity.
On 18 July 1983, a new law was passed “concernant la conservation et la protec-
tion des sites et monuments nationaux”, which still in force, even if obsolete. Like
the 1927 act, this law allows for the protection of an object, classifying it as national
monument or registering it on an additional inventory. These measures are taken by
the Ministry of the Culture upon direction of CSMN and there is no time limit for
Luxembourg 281
their application. About 380 objects are currently classified as cultural heritage, while
another 620 are included in the additional inventory.
The most ancient preservation procedures go back to the 1930s and above all
regard castles, some churches, cemeteries and private villas. The first listing and
inventory of twentieth-century buildings was made in the 1980s. The Fondation
de l’Architecture et de l’Ingénierie (1992) is heavily committed to the safeguard-
ing of modern and contemporary heritage. However it has to be noted that few
recent immovables have been listed. In the capital, 2012 saw the listing of the Hertz-
Grünstein shop (1932) by Fritz Nathan and A la Bourse (1934) by Léon Leclerc,
which reflects the Bauhaus aesthetic, while the St. Eloi Chapel (1963–1964) in
Dudelange by Norbert Mangen was listed earlier. Some buildings from the 1950s
and 1960s have been deliberately restored, respecting their primary aspect and
avoiding demolition, as happened with the building of the Société Nationale des
Chemins de Fer Luxembourgeois (1958) by Gerhard Dietrich, Camille Frieden and
Constant Gillardin.
Alex Langini
Link
National Sites and Monuments Service:
http://www.ssmn.public.lu/ (in French)
Bibliography
Architectour.lu: Guide d’architecture contemporaine du Luxembourg (Luxembourg, 2011).
A. Linster, 10 ans Fondation de l’Architecture et de l’Ingénierie (Luxembourg, 2003).
A. Linster, P.P. Schmit & G. Thewes, L’architecture moderniste à Luxembourg: Les années 30
(Luxembourg, 1997).
U. Meyer & A. Linster, LX Architecture – in the Heart of Europe: Contemporary Architecture
in Luxembourg (Luxembourg, 2008).
A. Stiller, Architektur in Luxemburg = Architecture au Luxembourg (Salzburg-München,
2001).
282 Europe
MACEDONIA
Figure 7.29 Edo Mihevc, Hotel Palace, Ohrid, 1952–1957. Listed in 2009
Source: Institute for Protection of the Cultural Monuments – Ohrid, 1960s.
The beginning of organized protection of cultural heritage in the Republic of Mace-

donia dates back to immediately after World War II with the Law on the Protection
of Cultural Monuments and Natural Rarities of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia
(No. 54/1945). In the same year, a general law on the protection of cultural monu-
ments and natural rarities was also adopted. This topic received two more legislative
Macedonia 283
treatments: the general Law on the Protection of the Cultural Monuments (1959) and
the basic one with the same name (1965). In the meantime, in 1948, 1960 and 1965,
the protection of cultural heritage was regulated at constituent republic level with an
appropriate law. With the constitutional changes of the former Yugoslavia (1965), the
regulation of this matter was transferred to the jurisdiction of the federal constituent
republics. In 1973 there were the last amendments to the Law on the Protection of
Cultural Monuments and 2004 saw the final legal act and the systemic Law on the
Protection of Cultural Heritage (No. 20/2004), establishing the Cultural Heritage
Protection Office – an independent governmental administrative body and a constitu-
ent part of the Ministry of Culture operating as a legal entity.

In 1949, the first specialist institution for the protection of cultural heritage had
been founded in Skopje, later redefined as the main player in the protection of cultural
monuments and renamed the State Agency for the Protection of Cultural Monuments.
During the 1970s, many regional institutions for the cultural monument protection
were established as municipal organizations with jurisdiction over certain regions
such as Ohrid, Bitola, Prilep, Strumica, Štip, the capital Skopje and, more recently, in
Gostivar.
The Macedonian approach in the setting up of the protection of cultural monu-
ments, in legal and practical terms, does not differentiate in terms of the type and
category of the cultural properties, nor does it have a time frame that is a differential
in the treatment of the heritage, especially in the case of immovable ones. In that
sense, there is no limit for protective treatment of objects that belong to modern and
contemporary architecture, that were built between the two world wars and after
1945. One might say that the policy for the protection of architectural heritage has as
its priority ancient and mediaeval heritage, as well as the traditional old-towns and
rural architecture, and very little modern and contemporary architecture. However, a
number of objects from the modern and contemporary periods have been protected
and declared cultural heritage as important architectural works that are part of urban
ensembles, as well as individual monuments proclaimed as cultural heritage. In both
cases, we have objects that are filed in the National Register of Immovable Cultural
Heritage. Important objects of modern and contemporary architecture are found in
the urban environment of protected monumental ensembles in the old city centers of
Bitola, Ohrid and in one area of Skopje.
In particular, the following are the individual monuments protected as cultural heri-
tage from the period of modern and contemporary architecture. First, the Palace of
the Ministry of Defence (1934) in Struga, an administrative building in the manner
of early modern Yugoslavian architecture popular during the 1930s. Second, the City
Hospital (1931–1935) in Skopje, which was conceived as a local authority for work-
ers’ social security and was later transformed into a hospital. It is by the Croatian
architect Drago Ibler, one of the most important representatives of the early mod-
ern architecture in former Yugoslavia who started to apply the principles of mod-
ern functionalism in contemporary architecture. Finally, the Hotel Palace in Ohrid
(1952–1957), by Edo Mihevc, one of the most important pioneers of early modern
architecture in Slovenia that peaked during the 1950s and the 1960s. The building is
the first public recreational object conceived in the spirit of moderate classical modern
style. It is also a good example of a monumental object being functionally and dimen-
sionally incorporated into the space of the Ohrid lake pedestrian area.
284 Europe
We should point out that recently there have been problems regarding the protec-
tion and conservation of the authenticity of contemporary architecture monuments,
bearing in mind that they are decades old and not adequately maintained.
Valentino Dimitrovski
Links
Cultural Heritage Protection Office:
http://www.uzkn.gov.mk (in English and Macedonian)
http://kultura.gov.mk (in Macedonian)
Bibliography
V. Dimitrovski, Provinciality and Degradation of Public Space (Novi Sad, 2007–2008, in
Macedonian).
K. Grcev, Aspects of the Cultural Traditions: The Architecture between Traditions and Moder-
nity (Skopje, 2005, in Macedonian).
G. Konstantinovski, Builders in Macedonia 18th-20th Century, 3 vols. (Skopje, 2001–2006, in
Macedonian).
M. Tokarev, 100 Years of the Modern Architecture: Macedonian Achievemenet and Yugoslavia
(1918–1990), 3 (Skopje, 2006, in Macedonian).
Malta 285
MALTA
Figure 7.30 Richard England, St Joseph Parish Church, Manikata, 1962–1974. Scheduled
Grade 1 in 2011
Source: Author, Malta Environment and Planning Authority, 2016.
The first legislation in Malta aimed for heritage protection was the Antiquities Protec-
tion Ordinance (1910), at a time when Malta was a colony of the British Empire. In
1925 this ordinance became the Antiquities Protection Act, which defined the roles
of the Museums Department and the Antiquities Committee. The act stated that any
object having over 50 years within the Maltese territory, including its sea, could be
considered an antiquity (art. 3). It also required that a List of Antiquities be compiled
within six months of the publication of the act (art. 6). The first publication (1932)
included almost 200 individual items consisting of some archaeological sites, a few
medieval buildings and several stately Renaissance and Baroque buildings as well as
nine groups of historic buildings, such as the knights’ fortifications. This list was last
updated in 1939; unfortunately, the process was discontinued for over 50 years with-
out adding buildings. After the independence from Britain, the heritage protection
was included in the constitution (1964, art. 9).
In the meantime, amongst those Maltese who had interest in heritage developed a
predisposition in favour of Baroque buildings and deprecated anything that was not
so. Consequently many colonial buildings constructed in the nineteenth and early
twentieth century were not considered heritage, and hence they were often demolished
286 Europe
for redevelopment or misused, severely altered or damaged. In the 1980s a conscious-
ness started to emerge amongst the younger generation with an appreciation of works
of the more recent epochs, at a time when heritage was not being given its due impor-
tance due to more crucial socio-economic and political aspects. This new trend often
brought the scorn of the old guard empiricists who shunned anything that was not
flowing with decorative motifs and was not chivalrous.
By 1990 Malta already had 21.5 percent of its land developed (today 27.7 percent),
which was and is still the highest in Europe. Therefore, the Development Planning Act
(1992, amended in 2010 as the Environment and Development Planning Act, EDPA)
was introduced with the aim of more closely controlling built development and land
use due to the island’s small size and its overpopulation and overdevelopment. The
responsibility of protecting immovable heritage from impacts arising from develop-
ment was transferred to the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA).
In 2002 the Antiquities Act was repealed by the Cultural Heritage Act giving pow-
ers to the newly established Superintendence of Cultural Heritage (SCH) to oversee
all matters related to heritage and to ensure that an inventory is compiled. By 2009
the items mentioned in the Antiquities List were all scheduled by MEPA. The Heritage
Planning Unit within MEPA carries out the identification, research and surveys for
the scheduling of the best examples of immovable heritage. The scheduling is carried
out according to priority of significance, depth of historic relevance, representation
of architecture quality or typology, context and socio-economic values, with a special
consideration to the heritage at risk.
Consultations are held with the Cultural Heritage Advisory Committee (CHAC)
and the SCH. The recommendations are presented to the MEPA Board for a final
decision and published in the Government Gazette, and any of the known owners are
notified and given right for a request for reconsideration. The law obliges that any
de-scheduling should be endorsed by the minister responsible for planning as an extra
precaution. Buildings are mostly scheduled as Grade 1 (national importance), where
restoration is a priority and alterations are strictly controlled and only allowed to keep
the building in active use through minor adaptation to modern needs. Most buildings
are scheduled as Grade 2, encouraging re-adaptive reuse and allow some modifications
as long as the external and internal homogeneity of the building is retained.
MEPA scheduled over 2,000 cultural assets, as well as 61 Urban Conservation Areas
(UCAs). The EDPA does not impose a chronological limit on the age of buildings that
may be scheduled. Amongst the items that were protected through scheduling are a
number of twentieth-century buildings, these include World War II concrete defences,
Cold War military installations and a range of architecture of the Modernist Move-
ment. The latter includes the Lodge (1961–1962) in Ta’ Xbiex by Joseph Spiteri; the
University Campus (1963–1970) in Tal-Qroqq by Norman and Dawbarn; the church
of St. Joseph (1962–1974) in Manikata by Richard England.
The EDPA dictates that any interventions on scheduled buildings require a planning
permit from MEPA, and include consultations with the CHAC and the SCH, and the
permit includes also a bank guarantee to ensure compliance with the approved plans
and method statement and monitoring of the works by professional conservation
officers. There is still lack of appreciation amongst many Maltese towards concrete
buildings, irrespective of whether they are historic fortifications or unique and pio-
neering modernist buildings. The two leading heritage NGOs have for years militated
Malta 287
in favour of raising awareness to safeguard twentieth-century architecture by restor-
ing examples, holding exhibitions and campaigning in the media.
Joseph Magro Conti
Links
Malta Planning Authority, Scheduled Property:
http://www.pa.org.mt/malta-scheduled-property (in English)
Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, National Inventory of Cultural Property:
http://www.culturalheritage.gov.mt/page.asp?p=21406&l=1 (in English)

Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, Cultural Heritage Inventory Management System:
http://chims.datatrak.ws/gengisnet/login.aspx (in English)
Bibliography
Q. Hughes, Fortress: Architecture and Military History in Malta (London, 1969).
Modernist Malta: The Architectural Legacy, eds. P. Bianchi & A. Miceli Farrugia (Malta, 2009).
C. Thake & Q. Hughes, Malta: War and Peace: An Architectural Chronicle 1800–2000 (Malta,
2005).
J. Tonna, L-Arkitettura f’Malta (Malta, 2004).
288 Europe
MOLDOVA
Figure 7.31 Sofya H. Galadjeva, National Theatre ‘Mihai Eminescu’, Chisinau, 1930–1954.
Listed in 1995
Evolution of the protection of cultural and historical heritage in the Republic of

Moldova is stipulated in the Law on Monument Protection (No. 1530-XII/1993),
which indicates the importance of both movable and immovable heritage to the
national identity and the setting up of a register of state-protected sites and objects.
Thus, the protection and development of cultural and natural heritage represents
competences which are the responsibility of parliament, government and local
administrations.
State policy relating to the evidence, consideration, protection, conservation and
restoration of national heritage is drawn up by Parliament, while the government
carries out the state programme concerning protection, conservation and restoration.
The local public administration is responsible for a series of issues, such as the creation
of the register that includes the monuments of local importance, the implementation
of programmes for protection, conservation and restoration. There are other struc-
tures that are active in the domain of cultural and natural heritage protection. Among
these we should mention the National Council of Historical Monuments (Consiliul
Naţional al Monumentelor Istorice, 1993) and the Agency for the Inspection and
Restoration of Monuments (Agenţia de Inspectare şi Restaurare a Monumentelor,
2006) subordinated to the Ministry of Culture. In 2004, a commission specializing on
issues relating to the protection of historical and cultural monuments was established
Moldova 289
(Direcţia Patrimoniu Cultural şi Arte Vizuale). This commission was created by presi-
dential decree, and is responsible for analyzing the evolution of cultural heritage.
The 1993 act is the basic one within the legislative framework that refers to the pro-
tection of heritage. There are also a series of relevant laws such as the Law on Archi-
tectural Activity (No. 1350-XIV/2000), the Law on Museums (No. 1596-XV/2002)
and the Law on the Protection of the Archeological Heritage (No. 218/2010), all of
which deal with issues relating to cultural and natural heritage.
In full awareness of the importance of cultural historic heritage evolution, all acts
and data concerning research on historical and cultural monuments of Moldovan
Soviet Socialist Republic (MSSR) were organized in 1976. Research into the heritage
of buildings was compatible with the division of the country into geographical areas:
North, Centre, South and Chisinau. As result of this research and study, the first vol-
ume of the Code of Historical and Cultural Monument of Mssr (Codul de monumente
istorie şi cultura din RSSM) appeared in 1988. After the 1993 act, in a very short time,
the register of state-protected monuments of the Republic of Moldova was also drawn
up, the last one being confirmed and published as recently as 2010. During this period
of time, unfortunately, many monuments listed in the register had been destroyed.
Listed monuments were differentiated according to the value principle: national
and local, together with conferral of corresponding criteria of monument statute, as
per the following values: artistic, historical, architectural and archeological. Further-
more, architectural heritage was subject to the classification of monuments according
to their importance and value. In this context we can find historical monuments, art
monuments, architectural monuments and religious architectural ones. The architec-
tural elements are the most representative components of the historic towns and vil-
lages. Chisinau, therefore, is a very representative example in this sense, and here we
can see the harmonious combination of past and present times. Chisinau was awarded
the title of historic town in 1986, after the beginning of cultural and historical heritage
awareness. The Register of Monuments of National and Town Importance (1995)
contains nearly 977 monuments, all situated in Chisinau. Antiquity was an important
criterion in assigning the title of monument, such as the National Theatre ‘Mihai
Eminescu’ (1930–1954), designed by Sofya H. Galadjeva. Thus, buildings were to be
50 years old or more. In recent years, a series of studies of these lists of monuments
have been carried out, with necessary adjustments being made.
Today, architectural elements are not always harmonious with existing architectural
styles in the historic inner-city areas, thus leading directly to the loss of architectural
value as a whole. In addition, architectural heritage includes buildings dating back to
the end of the nineteenth century.
Thus, the value of the monuments can be kept intact by keeping accurate data and
permanent monitoring of the zones where they are situated. In this sense, the notion
of “site” is used ever more frequently. Hence, a very important factor in the protection
of monuments is not only the conservation of the building itself, but also that of the
adjacent territory. In this context, the legislative frame has a direct impact. A series of
normative acts regarding the protection of the cultural and natural domain has been
implemented in the legislation, thus completing each other. There remains only that
the interaction among them be so efficient that Moldova may have authentic histori-
cal and cultural monuments.
Sili Anatolie
290 Europe
Link
Architectural monuments in the historical center of Chisinau:
http://www.monument.sit.md (in Romanian)
Bibliography
M. Karetki, T. Nesterov, M. Ilieva & E. Vitiu, Registrul Monumentelor Imobile de Importanta
Locala din Municipiul Chisinau, IMP Chisinauproiect (Chisinau, 2011).
Y. Ohana, Culture and Change in Moldova, report to the German Marshall Fund of United States
& European Cultural Fundation (2008, unpublished, https://static1.squarespace.com/

static/526e5978e4b0b83086a1fede/t/531dba0fe4b00720a4785e65/1394457103229/
culture_and_change_moldova.pdf): 8–14
I. Povar, A. Dogotaru, L. Sainciuc, L. Galer, V. Sava, C. Candeba & V. Bulat, Patrimoniul Cul-
tural al Municipiului Chisinau, Starea Actuala si Directii de Dezvotare (Chisinau, 2011).
I. Stefanita, T. Nesterov & S. Musteata, Patrimoniul cultural al Republicii Moldova (Chisinau,
2011)
Montenegro 291
MONTENEGRO
Figure 7.32 Paul Guadet and Perret Freres, French Embassy, Cetinje, 1910. Listed in 1960
Source: Slavica Stamatovic Vučković, 2016.
The practice of care and conservation of cultural heritage has its roots in the nine-
teenth century: in 1868, the National Assembly of the Principality of Montenegro
promulgated the Financial Reform, which is considered to be the first act that refers to
heritage protection; in 1896, after international recognition of independence (1878),
the Law on the Library and Museum came into force. Between 1910 and 1918, Mon-
tenegro was a kingdom, later a constituent part of the kingdom of Serbs, Croats and
Slovenians, and then the kingdom of Yugoslavia. From 1945, Montenegro became
one of the six egalitarian members of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia
(SFRY); until its establishment as republic within the state federation with Serbia –
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1992). Its new independence was gained following
the referendum in 2006.
The modern service of cultural heritage conservation was only set up after World
War II. The first law on the protection of cultural monuments was adopted in 1949,
and the first institution that dealt with this kind of protection in a broader sense was
the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments and Natural Rarities (1948).
In 1960, this institution started focusing its work on the protection of cultural monu-
ments only. In the same year the Central Inventory of the Protected Cultural Monu-
ments was introduced, starting to record basic data regarding protected monuments.
292 Europe
The 1960s represented the most intense building period, when some of the most
demanding infrastructural projects were realized, such as the erection of Mratinje Dam
(1971–1976) and the Piva hydroelectric power station. This entailed the relocation of
an old settlement and building of the new one (Plužine), as well as a remarkable ven-
ture in the field of building heritage conservation, the relocation of the Piva Monastery.
A significant episode for the built heritage was the disastrous earthquake in 1979,
which tore down or damaged a huge number of artefacts and old towns. Conse-
quently, the area of Kotor was registered on the World Heritage List and, soon after,
the Municipal Institute for the Conservation of Cultural Monuments (MICCM, 1980)
was established. Due to the high concentration and importance of cultural monu-
ments in the area of Boka Kotorska, the MICCM grew into the Regional Institute for
the Conservation of Cultural Monuments for the municipalities of Kotor, Tivat and
Herceg-Novi.
The new Law on the Conservation of Cultural Monuments (1991) established the
institutes in Kotor and Cetinje as public institutions and obliged municipalities to
conserve and take care of their monuments. On the basis of this law, in 1992 the
Regulation on the Content and Keeping of the Central Inventory of Cultural Monu-
ments was adopted. In 1993, the Ministry of Culture was founded, which proceeded
more devotedly to guide, manage and coordinate the functioning of the whole system
of cultural and natural heritage conservation.
According to the degree of valorization, cultural monuments were grouped, in
line with the 1991 law, into the three categories: cultural monuments of extraordi-
nary value (35), cultural monuments of great value (135) and cultural monuments
of local value (187). This law put under protection built heritage from the early
mid-twentieth century, mainly at Cetinje, then royal capital, including the secession-
style building of the French Embassy (1910) by Paul Gaudet in cooperation with the
company Perret Freres, renowned for the first application of reinforced concrete in
the Balkans.
Due to the identified shortcomings of this law, the new law on the conservation of
cultural assets was adopted in 2010, being elaborated in accordance with the Euro-
pean regulatory framework and standards. This Protection of Cultural Property Act
from 2011 further prescribed the reorganization of the institutions, abolishing the old
ones and setting up the Authority for the Conservation of Cultural Assets (ACCA).
The new law has no chronological limit for the protection of architecture. Between
2013 and 2015, the Ministry of Culture, in collaboration with the ACCA, completed
the voluminous Project of Revalorizing Cultural Assets, bringing together more than
250 experts and scholars.
The question of the conservation of contemporary architecture was only raised
by the enforcement of the 2010 act, but some specific results have still not yet been
achieved. In 2012, a roundtable session was organized on The 20th Century Archi-
tecture in Montenegro, attracting many participants, whereby a preliminary basis was
drawn up, consisting of 48 contemporary architectures built after World War II, that
were proposed as objects in need of protection and conservation. Among the pro-
posed buildings are Crna Gora Hotel (1953) by Vujadin Popović; works by Nikola
Dobrovic in Herceg-Novi (1959–1965), Podgorica Hotel by Svetlana Kana Radević in
Podgorica (1967, awarded The Federal Award “Borba” in former SFRY), Memorial
Hall in Kolašin by Marko Mušič (1975, The 4th of July Award). As of today, all of the
proposed buildings have been declared cultural heritage and placed under protection.
Montenegro 293
At the Venice Biennale 2014, the Montenegro Pavilion presented Treasures in Dis-
guise with four neglected, late-modernist buildings that were constructed as a testa-
ment to a radiant new society.
Slavica Stamatović Vučković and Rifat Alihodžić
Links
www.ministarstvokulture.gov.me (in Bosnian, English and Montenegrin)
Expeditio, non-governmental organization:

www.expeditio.org (in Bosnian and English)
Bibliography
R. Alihodzic, Architecture in Montenegro 1965–1990 Through the Prism of “Borba” Award.
(Podgorica, 2015).
V.N. Belousov, Poetika crnogorske arhitekture (Podgorica, 2009).
A. Markuš, 50 neimara Crne Gorе (Podgorica, 2008).
V. Radulović, Interpretacije regionalnog konteksta – na primjeru arhitekture Herceg Novog u
dvadesetom vijeku/Interpretation of the Regional Context - Architecture of Herceg Novi in
the XX century, University of Belgrade, PhD Thesis in Architecture (2011).
S. Stamatović Vučković, Arhitektonska komunikacija na objektima kulture u Crnoj Gori u
drugoj polovini XX vijeka /Architectural Communication Forms of Cultural Centers in Mon-
tenegro in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century, University of Belgrade, PhD Thesis in
Architecture (2013).
294 Europe
THE NETHERLANDS
Figure 7.33 Piet de Vries, J.L. Hooglandgemaal, Stavoren, 1958–1966. Listed in 2014
Source: A.J. van der Wal (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed), 2001.
The highly-dense population, the age-old battle against water and the traditional
cosmopolitan character of the Netherlands have always promoted considerable
development in contemporary architecture and an ever-increasing interest in it. The
Amsterdam School, De Stjil and the Neue Sachlichkeit characterized Dutch archi-
tecture all through the first half of the twentieth century, but after World War II the
country had to renew its challenge to modernity because of reconstruction and the urgent
need of housing. The Netherlands has always been a suitable place for the develop-
ment of contemporary architecture whilst, at the same time, maintaining a continuous
interest in traditional Dutch architecture forms: today a new generation of architects
such as Rem Koolhaas is creating a new relationship between architecture, city and
landscape.
The first efforts to protect the national built heritage arose from Royal Academy of
Sciences that in 1860 created a commission to document historic buildings; in 1903, a
more rigorous attempt to edit an index started with the State Commission for Monu-
ment Conservation, a committee founded to draw up an inventory of architectures of
interest built before 1850. Consideration for built heritage grew thanks to Victor de
The Netherlands 295
Stuers and Pierre Cuypers, whose work was updated and published in the 1920s as
the first national inventory of historic buildings. In 1918, the government formed the
Department for Monument Conservation and imposed a ban on destroying or modify-
ing historical buildings. After World War II, the army took care of protection until 1947,
a task that was subsequently undertaken by the Ministry of Arts and Sciences through
the State Service for Monument Conservation, born to replace the old department.
In 1961, the first comprehensive Historic Buildings and Monuments Act (Monu-
mentenwet) was passed, imposing on all municipalities the task of compiling a com-
plete list of architectures built before 1850. After 1985, the inventory was expanded
to include buildings erected between 1850 and 1940 and also by extending protec-
tion to historic town centers and townscapes. In the same year, the National Resto-
ration Fund was established in order to encourage owners of historic buildings to
invest in restoration. Over the years, the role of non-governmental organizations has
grown more and more; they operate by acquiring historical buildings and participate
directly in their restoration. Monumentenwacht (1973) chose the path of preventative
maintenance, influencing government policies on restoration: destructive and invasive
actions have been gradually set aside in favor of continuous care for built heritage.
Some of these organizations also operate in the old Dutch colonies.
In 1988, a new law on the protection of buildings was passed; it transferred many
of the ministerial tasks in the field directly to municipalities. This law also defined
the procedure for the designation of protected buildings which was assigned to the
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, that was required to seek the opinion
of the Mayor and the Aldermen of the municipality where the building is located.
Municipalities and provinces can also designate provincial and municipal monu-
ments. Moreover the law established a 50-year minimum age for the monuments
to be protected. In the same year, keen Dutch sensitivity towards twentieth-century
architecture brought about the birth of Docomomo at the School of Architecture of
the Technical University in Eindhoven.
In 2005, the State Service for Monument Conservation was included within the
Cultural Heritage Inspectorate (Erfgoedinspectie) that in 2009 was supported with
the creation of the Cultural Heritage Agency (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erf-
goed). In 2006 the Netherlands adopted transitional rules to integrate the 1988 law
regarding selection criteria for protected buildings. These rules enabled the desig-
nation of architectures built only after 1940, but at least 50 years old, chosen by
criteria of aesthetic and historical interest, and by considering particular functions
within the urban space and landscape. In 2007, a new update of the selection criteria
created a closed list of the 100 most important buildings erected between 1940 and
1958 and put under protection; among these are the Municipal Theatre (1941) in
Utrecht by Willem Marinus Dudok, the Groothandelsgebouw (1953) in Rotterdam
by Hugh Maaskant, and the Visser House (1956) in Bergeijk by Gerrit Rietveld. In
2009, the possibility of including architectures built before 1940 was restored and,
moreover, the Designation Program (Aanwijzingsprogramma) was created. This is
a planning tool that allows the ministry to include a building in the register of pro-
tected monuments, even choosing from those built between 1959 and 1965, in order
to integrate the 2007 list. Some exceptions can be found in this new list, as the J.L.
Hooglandgemaal in Stavoren, a pumping station designed by Piet de Vries as far back
as 1958, but completed in 1966. In 2012 the possibility of requesting the inclusion of
a building among the protected ones was abolished. However, it is possible to send
296 Europe
suggestions to the ministry regarding new monuments to be protected with no time
limit for the age of the building.
Ciro Birra
Links
Cultural Heritage Agency:
https://cultureelerfgoed.nl/erfgoed/monumenten/monumenten (in Dutch and English)
Cultural Heritage Agency, The Heritage Monitor:
http://erfgoedmonitor.nl/ (in Dutch and English)

Cultural Heritage Agency, Reconstruction Database:
http://www.wederopbouwdatabank.nl/ (in Dutch)
Bibliography
P. Groenendijk & P. Vollaard, Guide to Contemporary Architecture in the Netherlands (Rot-
terdam, 2004).
H. Ibelings, Nederlandse stedenbouw van de 20ste eeuw (Rotterdam, 1995).
M.C. Kuipers, “Cultural Foundations of the Monuments”, Bulletin Knob, 1 (2012): 10–25.
S. Richel-Bottinga, “The Netherlands”, in Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation, ed.
R. Pickard (London, 2001): 251–264.
V. van Rossem, “A Half Century Monuments: 1961–2011”, Bulletin Knob, 1 (2012): 54–60.
Norway 297
NORWAY
Figure 7.34 Snøhetta, Norwegian National Opera and Ballet, Oslo, 2000–2008. Listed in 2012
Source: Arve Kjersheim/Riksantikvaren, 2012.
Norway is a unitary state where political power is delegated from the state to the 19
counties and 429 municipalities. The work with cultural heritage started in the early
1900s, and the first laws governing cultural heritage came in 1905, with the first law
protecting heritage buildings appearing in 1920. Today, there are two different acts
that concern the protection of contemporary architecture: the Cultural Heritage Act
(Kulturminneloven, No. 50/1978) and the Planning and Building Act (Lov om plan-
legging og byggesaksbehandling, No. 71/2008).
Contemporary architecture may be protected at the national level through the
Cultural Heritage Act (CHA). The CHA has no chronological limits to the recog-
nition of monuments of cultural interest, and the youngest building was only two
years old when listed as national cultural heritage. Moreover, the protection can be
extended also to the context of the listed architecture (chapter V, paragraph 19–20).
For instance, the private Villa Busk (1989) in Bamble, Telemark county, designed
by Sverre Fehn, and even more the new built Norwegian National Opera and Ballet
(2000–2008) designed by the architect firm Snøhetta, where the exterior and some of
the interior were protected by the CHA in 2012.
Through the Planning and Building Act the municipalities are responsible for the
local physical planning, and contemporary architecture may be protected at the local
level through this law. The act has regulations which empower the municipalities to
make Conservation Area Plans with the necessary provisions to ensure the conservation
of buildings, other cultural heritage objects and environments, including the protection
of façade materials and interiors, without time limit (chapter XV, paragraph 92).
298 Europe
The Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage Management (Riksantikvaren,
1912, NDCH) is a government agency responsible for the CHA on behalf of the Min-
istry of Climate and Environment and decides which properties that should be included
in the national cultural heritage list. The 19 counties are empowered to propose listing
of cultural properties. The purpose of the CHA is to protect archeological and architec-
tural monuments and sites and cultural environments, both as part of cultural heritage
and identity and as an element in the overall environment and resource management.
Monuments and sites and cultural environments which are valuable architecturally or
from the point of view of cultural history may be protected under the CHA.
The CHA may protect structures and sites or parts of these which are valuable
architecturally or from the point of view of cultural history. The protection order
includes fixed inventory (cupboards, stoves, etc.). Larger pieces of moveable furniture
may also be included if there are special reasons, in which case the details of each
individual item must be specified separately.
Structures and sites that may be protected in accordance with the first paragraph include
monuments and sites regardless of their age, special sites such as parks, gardens, avenues,
etc., and public memorials and other places with important historical associations.
In the protection order NDCH may prohibit or otherwise regulate all kinds of
measures that may run counter to the purpose of the protection. If the protection
order does not include further provisions on the contents of the order, no one may dis-
mantle, move, extend, alter, change materials or colours or undertake other changes
over and above ordinary maintenance. Measures beyond this require the permission
from cultural heritage authorities.
The authorities may, in special cases, grant exemption from a protection order or its
provisions in respect of measures which will not have any significant impact on the pro-
tected monument or site. The NDCH may protect an area around a protected monument
or site insofar as this is necessary to preserve the effect of the monument in the environ-
ment or to safeguard scientific interests associated with it. Moreover, in a protection order
the NDCH may prohibit or otherwise regulate any activity or traffic within the protected
area which may run counter to the purpose of the protection. A cultural environment may
be protected by the government in order to preserve its value to cultural history.
Nils Marstein
Links
Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage Management, database of cultural environments:
http://nb.ra.no/nb/index.jsf (in Norwegian)
Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage Management, Kulturminnesøk:
http://www.kulturminnesok.no/ (in Norwegian)
Bibliography
K. Arnesen, Modernism Materials (Oslo, 2011, in Norwegian).
T. Dahl & O. Wedebrunn, Modernism Buildings: Applied Technology (Copenhagen, 2000, in
Danish).
Functionalism – Worth Preserving!, ed. E. Rudberg (Stockholm, 1992, in Swedish).
T. Tägil, T. Gustavsson & K. Bergkvist, Modernism Brick Facades: A History of Twentieth-
Century Brick Architecture (Stockholm, 2011, in Swedish).
H.G. Welling, Modernism Buildings: Mission and Conservation Views (Copenhagen, 1999, in
Danish).
Poland 299
POLAND
Figure 7.35 Ewa and Marek Dziekońscy, Panorama Racławicka Building, Wroclaw, 1970–1985.
Registered in 1991
Source: Stanislaw Klimek, 2010.
Heritage protection is covered by the law on the protection and conservation of monu-
ments (No. 3.162/2003); the National Heritage Board (Narodowy Instytut Dziedzic-
twa, 2007) is the state agency of the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, which
prepares opinions for the minister and for provincial conservators. This is the basis
upon which all monuments are protected, regardless of the nationality of the creator
or the community for which they were created, because of a change of Polish borders
after World War II. Within the national territory there are areas previously owned by
Germany, while the eastern part – which became part of Poland after 1945 – entered
into the territories of Russia, Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine.
The task of the conservator is to make decisions regarding the entry of a building
onto the register of monuments. A certain time limitation has been adopted for archi-
tectural registering: it must be a testimony of a bygone era or event, although time
limit is not specified. The concept of “bygone era” is permanently changing, moving
towards the end of the twentieth century. Today, the year 1989 is generally an undis-
puted turning point, when Poland regained full independence.
There are four forms of protection: entry in the register of monuments, recognition
as a historical monument, creation of a cultural park and determination of protection
requirements in the local master plan. Examples of twentieth-century buildings, sites
and neighborhoods are in the register, and their number is growing. According to the
act, heritage protection in big cities is a main task of municipal conservation, as a
consequence of the decentralization which has occurred in recent decades.
300 Europe
Modernism has been a popular research topic for art and architecture historians
since the 1960s. In addition to academic centers, both university and polytechnic,
the Wroclaw Museum of Architecture deserves special attention as far as the research
conducted there is concerned. The result is a large number of registered Modern
Movement buildings in Wroclaw.
Entry onto the register of monuments potentially allows the owner to obtain public
funds for repair and restoration. In Gdynia and Wroclaw special programs have been
created to finance renovation works carried out in the modernist buildings. There is
a clear trend of increasing expenditure on twentieth-century architecture, but only in
the case of public buildings. Professional standards for restoration modernist build-
ings can be combined with the establishing of national chapter of Docomomo (1990).
The center of modernist architecture was Warsaw because all Polish members of
CIAM were mainly associated with this city. A unique example of a whole modernist
city is Gdynia, a port city built from scratch in the interwar period. Under the munici-
pal conservator, protection is for urban layout and selected examples of modernist
architecture, mainly public buildings and those associated with the harbor, which has
been entered onto the heritage register. The second place where many valuable mod-
ernist buildings were founded in the interwar period was Upper Silesia and its capital
city, Katowice. In 2010, the regional board decided to finance the project entitled The
Creation and Marking of the Route of Modernism, consisting of 16 protected build-
ings built between 1920s and 1930s.
Wrocław saw work by architects of the class of Max Berg, Erich Mendelsohn,
Hans Poelzig, Heinrich Lauterbach, Adolf Rading, Otto Rudolf Salvisberg and oth-
ers. It is here that the Centennial Hall (Jahrhunderthalle, 1911–1913) and the Werk-
bund Exhibition Dwelling and Workplace and experimental dwelling estate (WuWA,
1929) were organized. Already in the 1970s many modernist buildings were declared
monuments. For the experimental WuWA estate, two programs of revaluation were
launched. One concerns the public space of the estate (realized in 2016); the second
was launched to allow financial support for conservation of private houses. The Cen-
tennial Hall and the accompanying historical buildings and exhibition grounds were
under legal protection resulting from the entry onto the register of monuments (1962)
and recognition as a historical monument (2005). Finally, in 2006, Berg’s work was
registered on the World Heritage List.
New standards for the protection of modernist monuments are determined by Con-
servation Management Plan (2015), developed under a grant funded by The Getty
Foundation in the framework of the program Keeping It Modern (2014). This plan
should serve as the main source of information when making decisions about any
changes planned in the building and in the areas adjacent to it. The document describes
the history of the Centennial Hall and provides detailed conservation guidelines.
The historical and political turning point was the period of World War II. Socialist
realism, imposed in 1949, demanded that the buildings were created “socialist in con-
tent and national in form”. Socialist realism style lasted very briefly, and ended soon
after 1956, which was the end of the Stalinist era. Not long afterwards, architects
turned back to modernism. A few buildings constructed in the last decades are under
conservation protection. One of the youngest is the building in Wroclaw designed by
Ewa and Marek Dziekońscy, featuring the famous painting entitled The Racławice
Panorama (1893–1894).
Grzegorz Grajewski and Jadwiga Urbanik
Poland 301
Links
National Heritage Board, Register of Heritage:
http://www.nid.pl/pl/ (mainly in Polish, also in English)
Modernism in Katowice:
http://moderna.katowice.eu/en/content/modernizm (in Czech, English, French, German, Polish
and Russian)
Bibliography
Architektura XX wieku do lat sześćdziesiątych i jej ochrona w Gdyni i Europie, eds. R. Hirsch
& M.J. Sołtysik (Gdynia, 2007–2014).
Construttivismo in Polonia, ed. S. Parlagreco (Turin, 2005).
Modernizmy, architektura nowoczesności w II Rzeczypospolitej. T.1: Kraków i województwo
krakowskie. T.2: Katowice i województwo śląskie, ed. A. Szczerski (Kraków-Katowice,
2013–2014).
A.K. Olszewski, Nowa forma w architekturze polskiej 1900–1925: Teoria i praktyka (Wrocław/
Warszawa/Kraków, 1967).
M. Pszczółkowski, Architektura użyteczności publicznej II Rzeczypospolitej 1918–1939: Forma
i styl. Funkcja, 2 vols. (Łódź, 2014–2015).
302 Europe
PORTUGAL
Figure 7.36 Vittorio Gregotti and Manuel Salgado, Cultural Centre of Belém, Lisbon, 1992.
Listed in 2002
Source: ATL. Turismo de Lisboa, 2013.
The first legislative action for the conservation of monuments in Portugal was the
foundation of the Royal Academy of History by order of King D. João V. The decree
(14 August 1721) handed over to this academy the duty for the conservation of archi-
tectural monuments with historical relevance. Nevertheless, it was the dissolution
of religious orders (1834) that dictated the introduction of protection measures for
buildings managed by the government. Movable and immovable heritage property of
the dissolute orders was nationalized, and a substantial part of it was sold by pub-
lic auction, ending up in the hands of individual buyers. These procedures resulted
both in the utilization of buildings for different functions and in their degradation or
destruction. In 1836, the minister Luís da Silva Mousinho de Albuquerque requested
from the Royal Academy of Sciences an inventory of buildings previously belonging
to extinct orders, in order to classify them as national monuments or immovable
properties with national interest. In the late nineteenth century, the Royal Associa-
tion of the Portuguese Civil Architects and Archeologists was responsible for a report
on building systems and conservation conditions of buildings as well as a record of
the National Monuments. Later, a Commission for National Monuments was estab-
lished, whose main purpose was the protection and preservation of those monuments.
In 1901, the classification of monuments was handed over to the Directorate General
for Public Works and Mines.
Portugal 303
Subsequent to the establishment of the First Portuguese Republic (1910), the first
list of classified buildings as national monuments was approved, and a law prohibit-
ing the destruction of monuments was published. At the same time, the government
formed the Council of National Art and Councils of Art and Archeology, whose major
assignments were the classification, conservation and surveillance of monuments, and
also a special list of buildings with historical and artistic relevance, excluding any
of the National Monuments. From 1926, the Directorate General for Fine Arts was
responsible for the general inventory of monuments classified as “national monu-
ments” or “public interest monuments” and for a database and iconographic archive
of these buildings. Moreover, the government had the right to expropriate those build-
ings or lands, preference on buying them, and recognized a 50-meter protection zone
for these monuments.
The Estado Novo (since 1933) provided the renewal and consolidation of the
government’s position concerning heritage protection. The monuments were used to
favor political and ideological propaganda, and the restoration works were seen as
a patriotic mission to preserve Portuguese identity for future generations. The Direc-
torate General of Buildings and National Monuments (DGEMN) became the sole
complex organism responsible for safeguarding, enhancement and preservation. His-
torical monuments were displayed in expositions, in celebrations of events and of per-
sonages of Portuguese history, which were determinant to the selection of buildings to
be restored. The restoration process generally followed the methodology of unité de
style by Viollet-le-Duc, an approach that was only to change in the 1950s.
The Law for the Portuguese Cultural Heritage (No. 13/1985) recognized the direc-
tives for the inventory, registration and classification of monuments, as well as the
terminology already internationally accepted for immovable heritage: monuments,
groups of buildings and sites. These criteria were acknowledged by the Portuguese
Institute for the Cultural Heritage. In 1992, issues referring to archeological and
architectural heritage were the responsibilities of Portuguese Institute for Architec-
tural Heritage (IPPAR).
Considering that the jurisdiction of DGEMN was limited to the classified heritage,
issues relating to intervention in housing patrimony and unclassified buildings were
handled by the Institute for Housing and Urban Rehabilitation (Instituto da Habita-
ção e Reabilitação Urbana, IHRU). Thus was founded the Institute for Managing
the Architectural and Archaeological Heritage (Instituto de Gestão do Património
Arquitectónico e Arqueológico, IGESPAR, 2007) which resulted from a fusion of
IPPAR and Portuguese Institute for Archeology, adding also those responsibilities of
DGEMN which concerned classified heritage. IGESPAR is in charge of immovable
properties listed as being of national, public or municipal interest, based on historic,
cultural, aesthetic, technical and scientific criteria, and also integrity, authenticity and
exemplarity. The list is continuously growing and encompasses diverse building typol-
ogies, from monastic walls to industrial architecture. Even though the law does not
specify a time limit for the architectural register, on the IGESPAR’s inventory there are
only a few records dated after 1965, including the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation
building (1969) by Ruy Athouguia, Pedro Cid and Alberto Pessoa, and the Cultural
Centre of Belém (1992), the two major cultural spaces in Portugal.
In 2012, decree-laws No. 114-115 recognized the Directorate General for the Cul-
tural Heritage (Direcção Geral do Património Cultural, DGPC) as the unification of
304 Europe
IGESPAR, the Institute of Museums and Conservation and the Regional Directorate
for Culture of Lisbon and Tagus Valley. The DGPC is essentially responsible for guar-
anteeing the management, safeguarding, valorization, conservation and restoration of
the cultural heritage.
Inês Meira Araújo
Links
Directorate General for the Cultural Heritage, Architectural Heritage:
http://www.patrimoniocultural.pt/en/patrimonio/patrimonio-imovel/patrimonio-arquitetonico/
(in English and Portuguese)

Information System for Architectural Heritage:
http://www.monumentos.pt (in Portuguese)
Bibliography
100 anos de património: memoria e identidade. Portugal 1910–2010, ed. J. Custódio (Lisbon,
2010): 19–31, 57–70.
Arquitectura moderna portuguesa, 1920–1970, eds. M. Lacerda, M. Soromenho & A. Tostões
(Lisbon, 2003).
Intervenções no património 1995–2000: nova política, ed. P. Pereira (Lisbon, 1997).
Património arquitectónico e arqueológico classificado: inventário, ed. F. Lopes (Lisbon, 1993).
M. Tomé, Património e restauro em Portugal, 1920–1995 (Porto, 2002).
Romania 305
ROMANIA
Figure 7.37 Duiliu Marcu, Victoria Palace, Bucharest, 1937–1944, 1952. Listed in 2004
Heritage protection has undergone different development in each of the Romanian

principalities: Wallachia and Moldavia, united under the same ruler in 1859, acquired
their independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1877 and became the Kingdom of
Romania in 1881; Transylvania was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire until 1918,
when they merged together to form Romania. Thus, Transylvania followed Vienna
rules and started to inventory its monuments from 1850 onwards, while the King-
dom of Romania had its first architectural protection law in 1892, although a Public
Monuments Commission had already been established in 1874. After World War I,
a modern common law was adopted, with French influences, but in World War II a
lot of national cultural heritage was lost. The post-war government tried to preserve
architectural heritage and historic sites, but during the communist regime the interest
in laws ensuring conservation and restoration under special conditions was severely
marked by ideological issues and the institution responsible for heritage conserva-
tion, the Directorate of Historic Monuments (Direcţia Monumentelor istorice, DMI),
was repeatedly reorganized. In 1969 Romania joined ICCROM, in 1971 formed an
ICOMOS national committee and in 1974 adopted the Law on the Protection of
the National Cultural Heritage, then abolished in 1990. But the earthquake of 1977
rendered the law non-functional and gave the opportunity to Nicolae Ceauşescu to
intervene freely in Bucharest, whilst terminating any dialogue with protection and
completely dissolving the DMI.
Thus, it was no surprise when Ceauşescu decided to build the Casa Poporului
(1983–1990, the actual Republic House, built by 700 architects coordinated by
Anca Petrescu) on Spirea Hill, where King Carol II (1930–1940) had concentrated
monumental works for the Romanian capital. This implied a massive demolition of
306 Europe
historical architectures stretching over 450 hectares (12 churches, two synagogues,
two monasteries and thousands of houses were demolished), to be replaced by one of
the largest, most expensive and heaviest civilian administrative buildings in the world,
in front of the Bulevardul Victoriei Socialiste.
After the change of the political regime in December 1989 and a decade of con-
fusion and unclear liability which in fact legally left most historical heritage unat-
tended, a new set of laws on the protection and development of national cultural
heritage was issued, converging in the Law on the Protection of Historic Monuments
(No. 422/2001).
One of the main problems that slowed its approval for 11 years was the decision
that the new law and the new list of protected sites should be started at the same
time. The most important historical works managed to survive thanks to government
control, but several others were privatized. The law divides cultural property into
two classes, with most of the sites of “national” or “universal” value in the state’s
ownership, while others of “local” or “regional” value have been sold, along with
their maintenance. Protected property has also been divided into three types: con-
structions or their parts, groups and sites. The criteria for heritage protection refers
to architectural, artistic or urban quality, rarity or uniqueness and symbolic memory,
but, above all, there is an historical periodization that distinguishes the property and
which is practically a time limit that restricts intervention on contemporary items.
In fact, architectural protection is “exceptional” if built before 1775; “very high”
between 1775 and 1830; “broad” between 1830 and 1870; “average” between 1870
and 1920; “weak” between 1920 and 1960, and finally “none” after 1960.
A few other regulations were adopted for completing the provisions on heritage
protection, such as the Order of the Minister of Culture and Cults No. 2,260/2008
regarding the classification and inventory norms of historical monuments. Today, the
legislation conforms to international standards of the Venice Charter and the institu-
tions of the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage are responsible for cultural
heritage. The DMI oversees the sites, issues mandates for restoration and autho-
rizes funding. The National Heritage Institute (Institutul Naţional al Patrimoniului,
2009) – established by merging the National Institute of Historical Monuments with
the National Bureau of Historical Monuments – conducts research, offers strategies,
is responsible for the List of Historical Monuments, authorizes funding and mandates
repairs and carries out restoration and conservation procedures. The Institute for
Cultural Memory (Institutul de Memorie Culturală, 1978) manages data on historical
monuments and the online databases. Among the most significant pieces of modern
architecture protected are the Halele Centrale (1930–1935) in Ploieşti by Toma Soco-
lescu, Government Monopolies Palace (1934–1941) and Victoria Palace (1937–1944)
in Bucharest by Duiliu Marcu, or the Halele Centrale Obor (1937–1950) by Horia
Creangă and Haralamb Georgescu and the National Bank Building (1938–1950) in
Bucharest by Radu Dudescu and others.
Local committees have been established for heritage protection, and municipalities
and county councils are collaborating with institutions, associations, foundations and
museums in a complex work of preservation. In fact, there is post-1960 architecture
of value not yet listed, and much twentieth-century architecture is at risk, for instance,
the most significant works by Nicolae Porumbescu.
Anda-Lucia Spânu
Romania 307
Links
Ministry of Culture and National Heritage:
http://www.cultura.ro (in Romanian)
National Heritage Institute, list of historical heritage:
http://patrimoniu.gov.ro/ro/monumente-istorice/lista-monumentelor-istorice (in Romanian)
Bibliography
D. Bell, “Post-Ceauşescu Conservation in Romania”, Journal of Architectural Conservation, 3
(November 2001): 46–66.

S. Nistor, Protecţia patrimoniului cultural în România. Culegere de acte normative (Bucharest,
2002).
S. Nistor, Romania’s Urban Architectural Heritage: Between Neglect and Revitalisation paper,
3rd Ariadne Workshop – Cultural Heritage in Urban Areas, Prague, June 11–17, 2001,
unpublished, http://www.arcchip.cz/w03/w03_nistor.pdf (accessed June 2013).
308 Europe
RUSSIA
Figure 7.38 Boris Barkhin, Tsiolkovsky Museum of Space Exploration, Kaluga, 1961–1967.
Listed in 1995
Source: Errabee (Creative Commons), 2002.
The constitution (1993) states that citizens are entitled to cultural heritage and have
the duty to protect it. Although the first conservation law was only adopted in 1976,
the conservation system dates back to 1918, when the Commission for Protection of
Cultural Monuments was formed to protect nationalized palaces and country estates,
together with their collections, from vandalism. The law stated that in order to be
listed as a protected monument a building should be at least 40 years old. This time
limit has passed into the current Law on Objects of Cultural Heritage of the Russian
People (1993, amended in 2002), which designated the Federal Service for Monitor-
ing Compliance with Cultural Heritage Protection Law (Rosokhrankultura) as the
primary instrument for Russian heritage. There are three levels of protection that
reflect a monument’s importance and determine which authorities are responsible for
its preservation: local, regional, and federal.
The focus of protection was initially on ancient monuments; buildings completed
after the 1830s could only be listed if they were connected to the history of the social-
ist revolution or were homes of some outstanding cultural heroes. For propaganda
reasons, however, it was important to have some Soviet-era buildings designated as
historical monuments. That was the context for the first discussions on the protection
of modern heritage which started in the late 1960s. The problem was that the buildings
to be listed as candidates by architectural historians were creations of Russian Avant-
Gardists, whose architecture still carried some of the stigma of its condemnation by
Russia 309
Stalin’s ideologists in the mid-1930s (even now the general public sees constructivist
works as ‘ugly boxes’). Officials who had to confirm the status were torn between
their desire to promote the achievements of Soviet culture and their genuine dislike
of this kind of architecture. The complicated process came to a head in 1987, when
48 Soviet-era buildings in Moscow were listed as protected monuments (before that,
only Lenin’s mausoleum and two other twentieth-century buildings had been listed):
41 of them were examples of the avant-garde architecture, and the so-called Seven
Sisters (1947–1953), the first post-war structures awarded in contradiction to the
40-year rule. This addition was forced by the city’s architectural authorities onto the
experts, who generally considered these buildings as in poor taste. Today everyone is
happy that they are at least partly protected from new owners and various commer-
cial organizations that want to ‘improve’ them. In other cities, the local authorities
sometimes side-stepped the rule far more dramatically. For instance, the Kazan State
Circus, an astonishing Modernist structure in the shape of a flying saucer, designed
by G. Pichuev, O. Berim and V. Rudny, was made a locally protected monument
in 1973 by the Council of Ministers of the Tatarstan Autonomous Soviet Socialist
Republic, promoting the capital as a modern city. It happened only six years after its
building, and even before the national law was adopted. In Vladivostok, the passen-
ger building of the sea port (1965) by Petr Bronnikov was listed by local authorities
in 1987; in Kaluga, the Tsiolkovsky Museum of Space Exploration (1961–1967) by
Boris Barkhin and others was protected by a decree of President Boris Yeltsin in 1995.
The number of listed post-war architectures, built after Khrushchev’s reforms in the
mid-1950s, prohibiting the use of excessive historicist decoration, is very low. In Mos-
cow, even the most outstanding buildings, like the Palace of Pioneers (1959–1962),
by Igor Pokrovsky, Feliks Novikov and Vladimir Kubasov, or the Soviet Pavilion for
the Expo 67 in Montreal, by M. Posokhin, A. Mndoyants and B. Thor, have gained
the intermediate status of ‘revealed’ cultural heritage items, which means that Roso-
khrankultura accepted nominations to have them listed, but has still to make its deci-
sion; in the meantime, the buildings can not be demolished. St. Petersburg has no
officially protected recent heritage because it has a lot of older ones to maintain and
simply can not support any new burdens.
Because budgets for heritage preservation are always insufficient, the responsible
organizations have to prioritize; recent architecture seldom becomes a priority, except
places with few landmarks. One of the reasons is that Modernism is deeply unpopular,
as people are unwilling to make a distinction between prefabricated mass housing and
individually designed buildings. At the same time, architects tend to hold buildings
from the 1960s and 1970s in high regard, and there have been recent public initiatives
to promote awareness with regard to late-Soviet architecture. Moscow Heritage at Cri-
sis Point, the joint report of Save Europe’s Heritage and MAPS, identified architecture
of “the second wave of modernism” as the most vulnerable part of heritage. Doco-
momo Russia has undertaken to campaign for the protection of the threatened build-
ings from the 1960s and 1970s that could be just as valuable as buildings from earlier
periods. There is talk of developing a mechanism to earmark potential monuments
among the newly constructed buildings. The Union of Russian Architects is pressing
for a change in the legislation that would automatically list any awarded building. So
far, however, most significant buildings from the last 50 years are only protected by
their use and by their architects, or by the architects’ children and students.
Anna Bronovitskaya
310 Europe
Links
Ministry of Culture, Unified State Register of Cultural Heritage:
http://kulturnoe-nasledie.ru (in Russian)
Moscow Architecture Preservation Society:
http://www.maps-moscow.com (in English and Russian)
Blog, In Russia:
http://inrussia.com/soviet-modernisms-totalitarian-beauty (in English)
Bibliography
20th Century: Preservation of Cultural Heritage, ed. N. Dushkina (Moscow, 2006).
A. Bronovitskaya, “Heritage Preservation and Authorities: Dynamics of a Relationship”, Proj-
ect Russia, 65 (2012): 84–87.
Moscow Heritage at Crisis Point: Updated, expanded edition, eds. A. Bronovitskaya, E. Harris
& C. Secil (Moscow, 2009).
Republic of San Marino 311
REPUBLIC OF SAN MARINO
Figure 7.39 Giovanni Michelucci, Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary Our Lady of Consola-
tion, Borgo Maggiore, 1962–1967. Listed in 2005
Specific regulations for the protection of public buildings (palaces, walls, strongholds
or castles) were present in the laws of the Republic of San Marino contained in the
medieval statutes rearranged, amended, extended and rewritten in the seventeenth
century (Chapter LII, De Conservatoribus aedificorum publicorum, Book I, Leges
Statutae Reipublicae Sancti Marini).
In modern times, protection has been guaranteed by art. 10 of the Declaration
of Rights of Citizens and Fundamental Principles of the San Marino Order (Law
No. 59 of 8 July 1974): “the Republic safeguards artistic and historical heritage”.
However, San Marino has not yet adopted a specific law that promotes architecture
as a discipline of high cultural and social value. On state land there are valuable
buildings, designed by famous or common architects, and special committees which
protect their integrity. Yet this does not mean that the right to maintain and enhance
property is absolutely certain. Moreover, design is strongly conditioned by a market
which supports the realization of an over-abundance of buildings, in most cases of
poor quality.
Nevertheless, the San Marino Order has several laws that protect real estate of his-
torical and artistic value, monuments and public heritage. In addition, the republic,
as a consequence of accession to international treaties and conventions, has adopted
policies aiming to preserve the environment and landscape, which includes man-made
works of great importance, such as old rural houses, mills, archaeological finds, etc.
312 Europe
The first law, which also aimed at the protection of historical architecture, dates
back to 1919: the Law on the Protection and Conservation of Monuments, Museums,
Excavations, Antiques and Artistic Objects. By way of a Commission for the Con-
servation of Monuments, this law regulates areas and archeological and prehistoric
findings, and it supervises real estate and movable property of historical and artistic
interest, made at least 50 years earlier or by non-living authors, such as the church of
the Blessed Virgin Mary Our Lady of Consolation (1962–1967) in Borgo Maggiore
by Giovanni Michelucci.
The List of Artifacts or Real Estate Recognized as Monument (Law No. 147/2005),
under chapter VII, sect. I of Law No. 87 of 19 July 1995, adopts, improves and inte-
grates the provisions in the field of real estate set in the 1919 law. Moreover, this law
indicates restoration procedures and methods for the preparation of projects.
Provisions relating only to property belonging to the state are contained in the
Law on Accounting (No. 30/1998). This law prescribes the inalienability of property
which, however, cannot be used for different purposes if not by decree of the captains
regent (heads of state). The buildings recognized as of historical, archaeological and
artistic value, including those of recent construction, are part of unavailable state heri-
tage. Of such buildings the Public Administration has to draw up lists that are filed
with appropriate institutions; the first survey dates back to 1999.
The San Marino Order recognizes copyright. Law No. 8 of 25 January 1991 as pro-
tecting literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, including works of architecture
(art. 5 and 9). Copyright regulations cover work quality and integrity. Authors can
claim authorship, act against all encroachments on works and oppose all changes not
authorized by them (art. 27 and 28).
As for the architecture of the Old Town of San Marino, which was registered on the
World Heritage List (2008), application is contemplated of provisions contained in the
Law for the Protection, Management, Enhancement and Promotion of the Site “Old
Town of San Marino and Mount Titano” (No. 133 of 22 September 2009). An excerpt
from the motivation given along with the UNESCO resolution includes the following:
San Marino and Mount Titano are an exceptional testimony of the establishment
of a representative democracy [. . .] The tangible expressions of [. . .] juridical and
institutional functions, are found in the strategic position at the top of Mount
Titano, the historic urban layout, urban spaces and many public monuments.
Currently, the Republic of San Marino protects its historical architectural heritage
by way of specific laws, but it still does not have suitable regulations to safeguard and
promote contemporary architecture of recognized value. Despite its dimension and
after 22 years of absence, San Marino returned to the Venice Biennale (2008) with an
exhibition designed by the Design School of the University of San Marino titled South
Out There. Projects for the South of the World: Water, Sanitation and Health. Two
years later, in its Venice Biennale Pavilion, the republic presented the exhibition Archi-
tecture in the Small State. Selection of contemporary Works carried out in the terri-
tory of San Marino by Gae Aulenti, Giancarlo De Carlo, Norman Foster, Giovanni
Michelucci, Gilberto Rossini, Giuseppe Vaccaro and Gino Zani.
Leo Marino Morganti
Republic of San Marino 313
Link
Grand and General Council:
http://www.consigliograndeegenerale.sm/on-line/home.html (in Italian)
Bibliography
Architettura a San Marino, eds. L.M. Morganti, C. Morganti & S. Rossini (San Marino, 1998).
Architettura nel Piccolo Stato, eds. A. Bassi & F. Bulegato (San Marino, 2010).
Arc. sm, 1–7 (2008–2010).
L.M. Morganti, Il patrimonio dello stato: L’architettura storica della Repubblica di San Marino
(San Marino, 2001).
314 Europe
SERBIA
Figure 7.40 Ivanka Raspopović and Ivan Antić, Museum of Contemporary Art, Belgrade,
1962–1965. Listed in 1987
Source: Museum of Contemporary Art in Belgrade, 2013.
Interest in Serbian heritage in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was a result of
an awakening of national conscience and a desire to protect cultural sense of commu-
nity during the Austrian and Turkish empires. The first heritage inventorying began
after the restoration of the principality of Serbia (1836), when 293 churches and
50 monasteries were described. In 1844 a Regulation on Antiquities Monuments Pro-
tection was adopted and the Serbian Museum was founded.
In 1841, the founding of the Society of Serbian Letters (Serbian Academy of Sci-
ence and Arts since 1864) was an important event for cultural heritage. From 1871
to 1884, during scientific research by its members, Mihailo Valtrović and Dragu-
tin Milutinović visited and conducted technical surveys of 150 sites, and the same
Valtrović proposed a Monuments Protection Act (1889). In 1908, the new act defined
as antiquities “artefacts possessing cultural, scientific, historic and artistic values of
the period and the place they originated from”.
After World War I, at the first conference of experts in the field of museology and
conservation (1922), a proposal for a new Law on Museums and Monuments Pro-
tection was adopted for the merged kingdoms of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Primary
consideration was given to the protection of mediaeval religious buildings and a
Committee for Church and Monastery Maintenance and Restoration was formed in
1923, while other organizations dealing with protection were also founded (Serbian
Serbia 315
Archaeological Society, Zograf Society, Heritage Enthusiasts’ Society). This resulted
in the adoption of an Order for Protection and Maintenance of the Artefacts of
Historical, Scientific, Artistic, Natural Values and Rare Beauty (1930), and a new
Heritage Protection Act (1934) was prepared, with the idea of forming a Conserva-
tion Bureau.
It was important that, even during and soon after World War II, some regulations
on protection were adopted, upon which the Central Institution for Heritage Pro-
tection was established, the very first national institution in the field. In fact, the
Yugoslav National Liberation Committee adopted the Decision on the Protection
and Safeguard of Cultural Monuments and Antiquities (1945), the first protection
document in the New Yugoslavia. In 1947, a new Act on the Protection of Cultural
Monuments and Natural Rarities was adopted, and the Institution for the Protec-
tion and Investigation of Cultural Monuments of Serbia was also established. Later
on, the Federal Institution for the Protection of Cultural Heritage was founded (in
1950, since 1963 renamed the Yugoslav Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heri-
tage). According to a new reform of the protection service, under the authority of the
Ministry of Culture, the Republican Institute for Protection of Cultural Monuments
(Republički zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture) was established and is still in force
today. The 1950–1970s were highly fruitful: a Planned Heritage Protection System
was made, similar to the French legislation, with a network of provincial and regional
institutions, employing various experts needed for the quality protection of heritage.
In 1977 the Act on Cultural Property Protection was adopted, following the World
Heritage Convention. However, in the early 1980s, a process of disintegration of the
national and local institutions started, along with a poor economic situation, which
had negatively affected protection.
In 2009, in cooperation with the Italian government, a Central Institute for Conser-
vation (Centralni institut za konzervaciju) was founded. It opened up new perspectives
to international cooperation on integrative protection, based on the contemporary
theory and practice.
The current Law on Cultural Properties (1994) uses the general term ‘cultural prop-
erty’, classified for movable and immovable items. There are about 2,500 objects listed
in the Central Register, including 200 of great value and nearly 600 of outstanding
value. Since the focus is on the mediaeval architecture, and in recent years on ancient
Roman sites, heritage from other historic periods is not sufficiently covered in con-
temporary investigations and protection activities. The early mid-twentieth century
saw the listing of some buildings in Belgrade, erected in secession style, and a number
of Modern Movement works built between the two wars. There very few listed archi-
tectures built after 1945: the Trade Union Hall (1947–1954) by Branko Petričić, the
Metropol Hotel (1954–1958) by Dragiša Brašovan, the Hall 1 of the Belgrade Fair
(1954–1957) by Milorad Pantović, Branko Žeželj and Milan Krstić and the National
Library of Serbia (1966–1972) by Ivo Kurtović.
Today a number of listed building and complexes of contemporary architecture are
in very poor condition. There are two remarkable examples: the Ministry of Defence
and the Military Headquarters complex (1956–1963), by Nikola Dobrović, bombed
in 1999; and the Museum of Contemporary Arts (1962–1965), by Ivanka Raspopović
and Ivan Antić, closed and long neglected.
Мirјаnа Rоtеr-Blаgојеvić and Маrkо Nikоlić
316 Europe
Links
Republican Institute for Protection of Cultural Monuments:
www.heritage.gov.rs (in Serbian)
Institute for Protection of Cultural Monuments of the City of Belgrade, list of cultural
monuments:
http://beogradskonasledje.rs/arhiva-2 (in Serbian)
Bibliography
Lj. Blagojević, “Problemi i pitanja zaštite arhitekture modernog pokreta u Beogradu: prilog
novoj politici zaštite”, Glasnik DKS, 27 (2003): 35–41.
V. Brguljan, Izvori spomeničkog prava u Jugoslaviji (Beograd, 2000).
Čuvari baštine: 50 godina rada Republičkog zavoda za zaštitu spomenika kulture, ed. M. Milić
(Beograd, 1998).
B. Krstić, Zakonodavstvo arhitektonske baštine (Beograd, 2006).
Spomeničko nasledje Srbije: Nepokretna kulturna dobra od izuzetnog i velikog značaja, ed.
M. Milić (Beograd, 1998).
Slovakia 317
SLOVAKIA
Figure 7.41 Ferdinand Milučký, Bratislava Crematorium, Bratislava, 1967–1968. Listed in

2003
Source: Fratrič, Archive of The Monuments Board of Slovak Republic, 2003.
Twentieth-century architecture is generally part of national cultural heritage. Accord-

ing to the constitution (1992), everyone must protect listed monuments, which are
selected from the large group of national heritage. Only those selected assets which
have been officially proclaimed and listed on the Central Register of Monuments and
Sites (Ústredný zoznam pamiatkového fondu, UZPF) from the entire immovable heri-
tage and which have defined its monumental values, are protected by the law.
The national history of preservation of monuments goes back to the first half of
nineteenth century, but the real structure of preservation was only erected after World
War I. The period of 1919–1945 became the new independent chapter of the history
on heritage protection, when the government established the Commissariat for Pro-
tection of Monuments. After 1945, the role of the specialized body responsible for
protection overtook the Committee for Education and National Culture. The profes-
sional organization, which prepares the list of monuments, co-operates in the regula-
tion of building activities and helps both the committee and the regional offices, was
established in 1951 with title Institute for Monuments, while the protection law was
defined in 1958. The former act was replaced by new one, with narrower scope on
cultural heritage, from which the listed properties were highlighted in 1988.
The current act is the Law on the Protection of Monuments and Historic Sites
(No. 49/2002), where the most important change was the establishing of The Monu-
ments Board of the Slovak Republic (Pamiatkový úrad SR, PUSR), created as an
executive body with major responsibility. The listing proposal, without distinguishing
318 Europe
between various kinds of properties, must be officially declared by decision of the
PUSR. In practise, not every act is successfully completed by a valid decision, although
it may be reviewed in court. It is also necessary to stress that there are no special rules
for the evaluation of different kinds of monuments.
Valuable settlements and areas are protected as monument reserves (28 impor-
tant sites were proclaimed by the government) or monument zones (83 areas were
proclaimed by the Ministry of the Culture). Within protected areas, it is also often
possible to find modern architecture, the exterior of which is under the supervision
of PUSR. Since the 1990s there has been an effort to proclaim protective zones in
two important modern settlements, Partizanske and Svit, built during the 1930s and
1940s by the Bata Shoe company in Functionalist style. Standing objections from the
local authorities did not allow successful completion of the process of preservation.
There are about 700 architectonical monuments which belong to twentieth-cen-
tury architecture, from about 14,000 listed immovable objects on the UZPF. The old-
est non-systematic registrations of modern architecture are from 1963, and among
them we can mostly find churches from the first half of the twentieth century. During
the 1990s, PUSR, with the Slovak Academy of Sciences, made a general inventory
of Modern Movement architecture (built before 1945), which led to further regis-
trations on the UZPF. Priority was given to the more traditional works of Dušan
Jurkovič and Michal Milan Harminc, and also to works of progressive architects
such as Vladimír Karfík, Juraj Tvarožek, Alois Balán, Fridrich Weinwurm, Ignác
Vécsei, Artúr Szalatnai-Slatinsky, Bohuslav Fuchs, Klement Šillinger, Jiří Grossman
and Emil Belluš. The most important architectures of the so-called first Czechoslo-
vak Republic era (1918–1939) are protected and listed. These objects are recognized
by experts and concerned society, though when they become part of development
projects, their value might come under the pressure of owners and their architects.
PUSR and its regional offices are in charge of the preservation of values, though in
some particular cases the search for appropriate solutions might endanger the future
existence of an empty building.
As for post-1945 architecture, there is an observant statement from the PUSR. Still
missing are unbiased general inventories of relevant properties, which are the best
basis for the proper selection of objectively valuable architecture; most of these are
concentrated near Bratislava. The value of the architecture built in the Stalin era is
still under discussion. Late architectures, above all, and especially ensembles built
after the 1970s without regard for the environment, are often connected with the
previous mass destruction of historic structures, now sometimes partially protected.
Their construction opened the issue of their real urban value (architectural and urban
value are both required as the basis for evaluation of each item to be registered on the
UZPF), since they had not been previously incorporated in the structure. Their for-
mer use has mostly disappeared, and plans for the future raise the need for possible
structural changes. Their technical or technological qualities are in some cases doubt-
ful and the question of their value as historic monuments is not clear and settled.
Though registration of particular monuments from the last quarter of the twentieth
century onto the UZPF has come under pressure from Docomomo Slovakia and
some local activists, the listing of these buildings is still rare and more time is needed.
Nevertheless, 2003 saw the registration on the List of the Crematorium (1967–1968)
in Bratislava. This modern architecture, designed by Ferdinand Milučký, represents
Slovakia 319
the ideal connection to the natural environment with its simple and clear architec-
tural form.
Viera Dvořáková
Links
Monuments Board of the Slovak Republic, Register of National Cultural Monuments:
http://www.pamiatky.sk/sk/page/evidencia-narodnych-kulturnych-pamiatok-na-slovensku
(mainly in Slovak, also in English)
Register of Modern Architecture in Slovakia:

http://www.register.ustarch.sav.sk/ (in English and Slovak)
Bibliography
M. Dulla & H. Moravčíková, 20th Century Architecture in Slovakia (Bratislava, 2002; in
Slovak).
Monumentorum Tutela: Ochrana pamiatok, 20 (2009, in Slovak).
320 Europe
SLOVENIA
Figure 7.42 Edvard Ravnikar, Cankar Hall, Ljubljana, 1977–1984. Listed in 2014
Source: Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia (ZVKDS), 2007.
In the 100 years since the establishment of the first public protection authority in
Ljubljana, the Provincial Office for Monuments (1913) of the Zentral Kommission
by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Slovenian safeguarding of monuments and cul-
tural heritage has been steadily on the increase. Today, a well-established network of
public services operates inside the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage
of Slovenia (Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, ZVKDS, 1999). It takes
care of the conservation of immovable cultural heritage, as well as associated mov-
able and intangible heritage and works, by means of two main bodies: the Cultural
Heritage Service (Služba za kulturno dediščino), subdivided into seven territorial
units, and the Conservation Center (Center za konservatorstvo), where the Center
for Preventive Archaeology (Center za preventivno arheologijo), the Restoration
Center (Restavratorski center) and the Research Institute (Raziskovalni inštitut)
operate.
Despite the tradition of institutional protection, the first protection law was only
issued in 1945, first at the level of federal Yugoslavia and then at the level of the
socialist republic of Slovenia. After these early measures, a series of laws followed
which, on the one hand, reflected socialist ideas and the related political system and,
on the other hand, tried to conform to international protection standards. The most
significant example was the Natural and Cultural Heritage Act (1981, partially in
Slovenia 321
force up to 1999), that enabled the protection of all heritage categories and defined
the functions of organizations responsible.
The main feature of the current law (ZVKDS-1, OGRS No. 16/2008) is that it
determines: public interest in heritage protection, as foreseen by the constitution
(1991, art. 5 and 73), which even obliges local communities to safeguard heritage and
each citizen to protect cultural monuments; the rights and duties of owners towards
heritage; the framework for public participation in protection matters; provisions for
access to heritage through new media and information technologies. According to this
law, the definition of heritage covers all categories and typologies.
Cultural heritage can be protected, through specific measures, according to three

different levels of protection: “cultural monument of national importance”, by means
of a designation decree issued by the government; “cultural monument of local impor-
tance”, with designation decree issued by the representative body of the local com-
munity; and “heritage” that is protected on the basis of spatial plans approved by
the local community, after its identification by the public service in charge and after
registration on the Immovable Cultural Heritage Register (Register nepremične kul-
turne dediščine, RNKD).
In addition to activities aimed at the identification, registration and designation of
heritage as a cultural monument, the law determines the procedures for interventions
on heritage and for the permits for archaeological research and the removal of heri-
tage property. The first two permits are issued by ZVKDS, the latter two by the Min-
istry of Culture. In addition, the law stipulates that any chance archaeological finds
be reported to the competent authorities; the mechanisms for the management of the
RNKD, available online, and those for the protection of heritage properties and sites
in spatial planning, including heritage impact assessment. In this context, preliminary
archaeological research is carried out in order to evaluate the archaeological potential
of a territory, if the registration hadn’t been done previously. A special section of the
law determines competences and functions of ZVKDS. In the state administration
acts, an inspection service is also determined to be responsible for controlling the
implementation of legal provisions.
As for modern and contemporary architecture, there are no time limits for the pro-
tection of built heritage in Slovenia. More attention was paid to this sphere of cultural
properties in 2001, when European Heritage Days were dedicated to the architecture
and town planning of the twentieth century. It is interesting to make a comparison
between the data in the period 2001–2015. At the beginning, there were 134 properties
entered on the RNKD which were buildings and other structures from the twentieth
century (they constituted 0.9 percent of all listed heritage), out of which 75 were desig-
nated as “cultural monuments of local importance”. Today, 982 architectural proper-
ties (buildings, memorials, urban ensembles, parks and gardens, industrial sites) dating
from after 1918 are listed (3.26 percent of the total). The most recent architecture listed
is Sreberniče Cemetery (1998–2000), designed by Aleš Vodopivec, with Dušan Ogrin
and Davorin Gazvoda, for landscape architecture. Out of 982 listed properties, 181 are
designated “cultural monuments of local importance” and 80 “cultural monuments of
national importance”. A part of the latter covers the work of Jože Plečnik (Plečnikova
zapuščina), while the most recent architecture achieving the status of a monument of
national importance is the Cultural Centre Cankar Hall (1977–1984) in Ljubljana by
Edvard Ravnikar and designated as national monument in 2014.
Jelka Pirkovič
322 Europe
Links
Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia:
http://www.zvkds.si/en (in English)
Register of Immovable Cultural Heritage:
http://giskds.situla.org/giskd/ (in Slovene)
Bibliography
S. Bernik, G. Zupan, J. Pirkovič, M. Dešman & B. Mihelič, 20th Century Architecture: From
Modernist to Contemporary: Guide to Architecture (Ljubljana, 2003).

A. Hrausky, M. Ivanič, Contemporary Architecture in Slovenia: 1999–2010 (Ljubljana, 2010).
N. Koselj, D. Prelovšek, et al., “Docomomo Slovenija_100”, AB: Architect’s Bulletin, ed.
N. Koselj, special edition (2010): 185–187.
N. Koselj, “Architecture of the ’60s in Slovenia”, AB: Architect’s Bulletin, special edition
(1995): 128–130.
V. Ravnikar, N. Koselj & M. Zorec, Records and Valorization of Slovenian Buildings: Modern
Architecture between the Years 1945–70: Applied Research (Ljubljana, 2000, in Slovenian).
Spain 323
SPAIN
Figure 7.43 Ildefonso Sánchez del Río Pisón, and the collaborators F. Cavanilles, J. Suárez and
F. Muñoz, Sports Palace, Oviedo (Asturias), 1962–1975. Listed in 2013
Source: Pablo Herrero Lombardia, 2016.
From 1900, a Royal Decree required the cataloguing of “the historic riches of the
Nation” by means of the Monumental Catalogue, which was never finished and which
followed historicist criteria. In 1915, the law defined a monument according to its his-
toric or artistic worth. The decree-law on the Defence of the Artistic and Monumental
Wealth of Spain (1926) set the concept of National Artistic-Archaeological Treasure
as “the collection of movable and immovable assets worthy of being preserved for the
Nation for reasons of Art and Culture”. In 1933, the Law on Defence, Preservation
and Increase of the Historic Heritage replaced the term Cultural Treasure with that of
National Historic-Artistic Heritage, reintroducing its chronological value as criterion
and ruling out the protection of contemporary works.
The arrival of democracy, the establishment of the state of autonomies and the
transfer of responsibility to the latter made it necessary for a new legal framework to
be created. The constitution (1978) states that the state must guarantee the preserva-
tion, promotion and enrichment of “the historic, cultural and artistic patrimony of
the Spanish villages and the goods that make up this patrimony, irrespective of its
legal regime or ownership”.
324 Europe
The current Law of the Spanish Historic Heritage (No. 16/1985) states:
The Spanish Historic Patrimony is made up of the buildings and movables of

artistic, historic, paleontological, archaeological, ethnographic, scientific or tech-
nical interest. The documentary and bibliographical heritage, and archaeological
sites or areas, also belong to it, as well as natural sites, gardens and parks that
have artistic, historic or anthropological value.
The law states that the work of a living author cannot be declared Bien de Interés
Cultural (BIC) “unless there is express authorization on the part of its owner or there
exists acquisition by the Administration”, but it does not invalidate the declaration of
works whose authors have died.
There are other conservation figures, with different degrees of protection. More-
over, heritage legislation is based on a decentralized model and autonomy laws that
allow the updating of the protection system. Regional acts have responded differ-
ently to the limitation imposed, which is held in Navarra (No. 14/2005), but which
is not included in Basque Country (No. 7/1990), Catalonia (No. 9/1993), Cantabria
(No. 11/1998), Balearic Islands (No. 12/1998), Aragon (No. 3/1999) and Canary
Islands (No. 4/1999).
In other cases, there are similar restrictions, although that of the declaration as BIC by
a living author is permitted under special conditions. In Galicia (No. 4/1995), Valencia
(No. 4/1998), Extremadura (No. 2/1999) Castile and León (No. 12/2002) and Murcia
(No. 4/2007) they are mainly concerned with the authorization by the owner, while
in Madrid (No. 10/1998) the declaration requires the favorable report by the Consejo
Regional de Patrimonio Histórico. La Rioja has the most restrictive law (No. 7/2004),
requiring authorization from the owner or acquisition by the administration and
demands the author’s permission, a favorable report by the High Council of the Cul-
tural, Historic and Artistic Patrimony and by two of the consultative institutions; in
contrast with the least restrictive law, in Castille-La Mancha (No. 4/1990). In Astur-
ias (No. 1/2001) protection can take place 30 years after construction. In Cantabria
(No. 11/1998) the law does not provide limitation in the BIC category, but in the case
of cataloged items it requires the favorable report of three consultative institutions, an
age of over 50 years and authorization from the owner. In Andalusia (No. 14/2007) the
Catálogo General del Patrimonio Histórico has been established, and the Registro de
Arquitectura Contemporánea (2005–2008) has been drawn up.
Despite controversial demolitions, such as that of Laboratorios Jorba (1999) in
Madrid by Miguel Fisac, and the debate about the demolition of the Hotel Oasis of
Maspalomas (1965–1971) in Gran Canaria by José A. Corrales, Ramón Vázquez
Molezún and Manuel de la Peña Suárez, much twentieth-century architecture was
declared BIC in 2007: 1,237 in Madrid, 1,063 in Andalusia, 1,005 in Catalonia and
works by Josep L. Sert in Ibiza were all declared. Today, proceedings have been initi-
ated to declare the village of Villalba de Calatrava (1955) in Ciudad Real by José Luis
Fernández del Amo.
A revision of the law has been promoted since 2000. In 2014 the Spanish Cultural
Heritage Institute started out the Plan Nacional de Patrimonio del Siglo XX, whose
aims were to alleviate the effects of the lack of awareness of the twentieth-century
cultural heritage; to implement a coordinated plan for the research, knowledge, pro-
tection and diffusion of the twentieth-century assets; and to define methodology for
Spain 325
the study of its main features. The plan’s initial catalogue, elaborated by Docomomo
Ibérico, includes 256 buildings, and the study of the inventories has already been
carried out, including buildings listed as BIC. AEPPAS20 (2011) is another signifi-
cant organization working for recognition of twentieth-century architectural heritage.
There are also projects by the National Plan of I+D+I which are working towards
acknowledgement and awareness.
María Pilar García Cuetos
Links
Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport, Cultural Heritage, database of assets of cultural
interests:
http://www.mecd.gob.es/cultura-mecd/areas-cultura/patrimonio.html (in Spanish)
Spanish Cultural Heritage Institute. National Plan for the Twentieth-Century Heritage:
http://ipce.mcu.es/conservacion/planesnacionales/sxx.html (in Spanish)
Restauración y Reconstrucción Monumental en España (1938-1975) project:
https://restauracionyreconstruccion.wordpress.com/ (in Spanish)
Spanish Association for the Protection of the 20th Century Architecture Heritage:
http://www.aeppas20.org/ (in English and Spanish)
Bibliography
J. Castillo Ruiz, “Caracterización del Patrimonio Histórico en la etapa democrática”, in La
protección del patrimonio histórico en la España democrática, ed. I. Henáres Cuéllar
(Granada, 2010): 55–90.
A. Hernández Martinez, “A cuarenta años de las Normas de Quito: reflexiones desde la per-
spectiva española”, Studi Latinoamericani/Estudios Latinoamericanos, 5 (2009): 159–184.
I. Sánchez del Río Pisón, “El Palacio de los Deportes de Oviedo, España”, Informes de la Con-
strucción, 287 (1977): 73–85.
326 Europe
SWEDEN
Figure 7.44 Arne Nygård, Skolspåret, Hjällbo, 1968. Listed in 2001

Source: Krister Engström, 2006.
Sweden has a centuries-old tradition of cultural heritage protection. In 1630 King

Gustav II Adolf appointed the first Director General of Antiquities in order to record
runic inscriptions and prehistoric remains. In 1786 the protection of cultural heritage
was transferred to the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities,
and in 1828 the position of a National Antiquary was established.
During the twentieth century, cultural heritage protection and conservation have
developed clearly as a counter force to change and destruction of urban as well as
rural environments. Two periods of change can be highlighted: the early twentieth
century as a reaction to nineteenth-century industrialization, and the period 1960–
1980 as a reaction to the post-war economic boom. The overall tendency has been a
shift of interest from a few monuments towards a much wider context, or from single
buildings to whole settlements. Already Skansen in Stockholm, the archetypal out-
door museum opened in 1891, shows wooden farmhouses in their contexts as well as
whole blocks of ordinary urban houses from preindustrial times.
This wide context is obvious in recent official formulations. Contemporary cultural
heritage protection in Sweden aims to “preserve and manage sites of historical, archi-
tectural or archaeological significance and to empower cultural heritage as a force
in the evolution of a democratic, sustainable society”. It is intended to promote: a
Sweden 327
sustainable society with a great diversity of cultural heritage sites which are to be pre-
served, used and developed; people’s participation in cultural heritage management
and their potential to understand and take responsibility for the cultural heritage; an
inclusive society with the cultural heritage as a shared source of knowledge, education
and experiences; and a landscape management perspective in which cultural heritage
is utilized in the development of society.
Public cultural heritage management is regulated mainly by the Historic Environ-
ment Act (SFS 1988:950). Regulations concerning cultural heritage can also be found
in several other laws, including the Planning and Building Act (1987), the Forestry Act
(1993), and the Environmental Code (1998).

The Swedish National Heritage Board (NHB), under the auspices of the Ministry
of Culture, serves as Sweden’s central administrative agency in the area of cultural
heritage and the historic environment. The majority of decisions concerning the local
and regional level are made by the County Administrative Boards (CABs), which are
state authorities with regional responsibility for matters including cultural heritage
management. These 21 boards are answerable to the Ministry of Finance and receive
their assignments from the government.
Through the government allocation for cultural heritage management, the NHB
distributes about 26 million euros annually, chiefly to Sweden’s CAB, to cover the cost
of measures connected with cultural heritage. The government allocation for cultural
heritage management is mainly used for information and for the maintenance of valu-
able historic buildings, landscapes and antiquities.
The boards also have to be consulted regarding aspects of the municipalities’
planning and building. In each county there is at least one regional museum, which
receives public grants from the region and the state to pursue work with cultural
heritage. Since 2000 the Church of Sweden is no longer a state church, but receives
46 million euros in state grants each year to cover costs for preservation of the 3,700
or so listed churches.
At the local level, Sweden has 290 autonomous municipalities. The municipalities
are legally responsible for planning and building matters. Consideration for cultural
heritage is one aspect of the municipal planning process, in accordance with the Plan-
ning and Building Act, whereas notably areas of national interest for cultural heritage
should be protected.
The principles stated earlier make it clear that the cultural heritage is part of mod-
ern society and that it should be preserved and used as well as developed. One exam-
ple of a protected modern building is the Gothenburg courthouse (1936) by Gunnar
Asplund. It has been recently restored to its original glory while at the same time its
function has changed from law court to town hall. It was important that the new
function was of a similar dignity and had the same share of larger meeting spaces
and smaller offices, making structural changes unnecessary. The public spaces were
protected, not the office parts and, as a deficiency in the system, neither can the fur-
niture be protected; in a total design like Asplund’s, furniture is, of course, of utmost
importance. By sheer luck it was relatively well preserved.
There is no formal age limit to what can be preserved. In 1999–2001 the NHB ran
a project called Architecture and cultural heritage of large cities (meaning Stockholm,
Gothenburg and Malmö). Focus was on housing areas of the post-war period, includ-
ing the so-called million programme from around 1970. Inclusion of local inhabit-
ants was part of this project. A housing project like Skolspåret in Hjällbo (1968),
328 Europe
Gothenburg, designed by Arne Nygård, was given grants for restoration from the
CAB, thereby also giving it a certain heritage status in 2001.
Claes Caldenby
Links
Swedish National Heritage Board, Cultural Heritage:
http://www.raa.se/kulturarvet/ (mainly in Swedish, also in English)
County administrative boards:
http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/vastragotaland/SiteCollectionDocuments/sv/publikationer/2002/
rapport200235.pdf
Bibliography
C. Caldenby, Göteborgsrådhus/Gothenburg Courthouse (Stockholm, 2015).
Swedish Modernism: Architecture, Consumption and the Welfare State, eds. H. Mattsson &
S.-O. Wallenstein (London, 2010).
U. von Schultz, The Cultural Heritage in Sweden: Preserving the Past for Posterity (Stockholm,
1998).
O. Wetterberg, Monument &miljö: Perspektiv på det tidiga 1900-talets byggnadsvård i Sverige
(Gothenburg, 1992).
Switzerland 329
SWITZERLAND
Figure 7.45 Georges Addor, Jacques Bolliger, Dominique Julliard, and Louis Payot, Cité du
Lignon, Geneva, 1963–1971. Listed in 2009
Source: Claudio Merlini, 2011.
Article 78 of the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation (1999) states that
the protection of nature and landscape is the responsibility of the cantons, each of
which has its own specific legislation. The confederation, through the Federal Com-
mission for Historic Monuments (1915), only provides the “general recommenda-
tions” and retains protective authority over a small number of objects of special value,
for which it works as a consulting agency with the cantonal authorities responsible for
cultural heritage. While there are no legal limitations on age and chronology, there are
very few twentieth-century buildings subject to conservation controls at the federal
level. Among them is the emblematic Immeuble Clarté (1931–1932), in Geneva, by
Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret, the historic and architectural values of which are
well established.
Cantonal regulations relate to the country’s various linguistic subdivisions, nota-
bly the French- and German-speaking districts, and these serve as the country’s legal
references on conservation as well as providing the necessary guidance on interven-
tions of preservation and restoration. This outline focuses the system of protection for
monuments in the canton of Geneva, which is especially significant with regard to the
protective measures it affords to modern and contemporary architecture.
330 Europe
The Loi sur la Protection de Monuments, de la Nature et des Sites (No. 405/1976),
a much expanded version of the laws introduced in the 1920s, is the legal measure
in force the Geneva canton. Its dual system of restrictions is based on classement (or
classification) as monument historique (the more restrictive measure, Ch. II, s. 3),
and inscription à l’inventaire (or listing, a measure often confined to given elements,
Ch. II, s. 2). It is fairly faithful to the French model. Classement is confined to a hand-
ful of examples of outstanding artistic and historic value, such as the Maison Ronde
(1929–1930), the semi-circular residential building by Maurice Braillard. Inscription,
however, is the more widely used measure for the conservation of twentieth-century
architecture. The fact that protection can be limited to certain parts of a building
means that there is more elasticity in the application.
The Geneva situation is particularly interesting on an European level due to the
attention given, in law as well as in practice, to residential complexes of the latter
half of the century, an area of contemporary architecture very well represented in the
canton although not yet universally accepted. The Plan de site is a measure officially
introduced into cantonal law in the 1970s for the conservation of rural complexes
(v. 2, art. 35–36). It is the first properly integrated protective tool capable of safe-
guarding not just a given perimeter such as a “local area” or “historic centre” (with
all the ambiguity these terms imply), but also the built fabric appertaining to it. It
extends to exterior parts such as envelopes and communal spaces at ground level. Its
protective measures also cover the design of outdoor space and designed landscapes
inseparable from the original architectural and town planning concept, but often wil-
fully ignored by conservation statutes. Examples include Le Lignon (1963–1971), an
homogenous urban locality designed by Georges Addor, Jacques Bolliger, Dominique
Julliard and Louis Payot, and Meyrin, a municipality that grew up around the CERN
nuclear research facility in the second half of the twentieth century.
The Plan de site is more prescriptive than either federal measures or the can-
tonal controls for zones protegées (under the Loi d’application de la loi fédérale sur
l’aménagement du territoire, No. 130/1987, III, ch. 1, art. 12), but less rigid than
an Inscription à l’inventaire or Classement. A Plan de site enables the objectives of
conservation of large residential complexes – known as grands ensembles – to be
addressed by preserving the notion of group value and emphasizing the unitary char-
acter of the ensemble, which was often part of the designer’s stated intention. The
special merit of the Plan de site lies in the notion of “active and assertive protection”
that has been linked to it in recent years. Indeed, this type of control, somewhat prag-
matically, can be adopted at the same time as other applicable regulatory controls. To
the general principles applying to protection of the complex are added, in some of the
most striking cases, specific ad operandum measures devised on the basis of the archi-
tectural and material characteristics of the object with connotations more obviously
focused on design practice. These additional measures are comparable in form and in
substance (though for all intents and purposes part of a statutory framework) with
codes of practice drawn up for specific threats to historic places.
Giulia Marino
Switzerland 331
Link
Federal Office of Culture, Isos – Federal Inventory of Swiss Heritage Sites:
http://www.bak.admin.ch/isos/index.html?lang=f
http://www.bak.admin.ch/isos/index.html?lang=en (in English, French, German and Italian)
Bibliography
F. Graf & G. Marino, “Mirabilia ou ressource durable? Le patrimoine récent à l’épreuve des
enjeux énergétiques”, Kunst+Architektur in der Schweiz, 2 (June 2015): 58–65.
F. Graf & G. Marino, “Strategien zum Erhalt moderner Architektur”, Werk, Bauen+Wohnen,
10 (October 2013): 20–25.
“La cité du Lignon 1963–1971: Étude architecturale et stratégies d’intervention”, in Patrimoine
et Architecture, hors série, eds. F. Graf & G. Marino (January 2012).
G. Marino, “Il plan de site come strumento di tutela dei quartieri residenziali del secondo
Novecento. Il caso ginevrino”, in Architettura minore del XX secolo. Strategie di tutela e
intervento, eds. F. Albani & C. Di Biase (Santarcangelo di Romagna, 2013): 212–227.
Swiss Federal Commission for Monument Preservation, Guidelines for the Preservation of Built
Heritage in Sweitzerland (Zürich, 2007).
332 Europe
TURKEY
Figure 7.46 Sevinç and Şandor Hadi, National Reassurance Company Building, Istanbul,
1985–1987. Listed in 2011
Source: Ebru Omay Polat, 2016.
Heritage protection is regulated with the Law on the Conservation of Cultural and
Natural Property (No. 2,863/1983, amended several times) that defines cultural prop-
erty as “those immovable properties that have been subject to social life in a historic
period and has scientific and cultural authentic value”, and historic sites as
towns, remnants of towns and those places where cultural properties are con-
centrated and have been the scene for any kind of social life and/or important
historic events, that are the products of various civilizations from the prehistoric
period to our day which reflect the social, economic, architectural characteristics
of their period.
(art. 3, amended with Act No. 5,226/2004)
Hence, there is nothing against the designation of the twentieth-century architecture.

A cultural property designation may be made publicly by the Ministry of Culture and
Turkey 333
Tourism and its directorates, the institution or municipality who owns or is responsi-
ble for the maintenance of the property, related professional chambers, expert NGOs
or the owners. The Regional Councils on Conservation may work on the inventory-
ing and listing of the cultural property or designate buildings based on research con-
ducted in their area.
Article 7 states that “an adequate number of architectural works that are exem-
plary and reflect the characteristics of their period are only to be designated, consid-
ering the available resources of the central government”. Without a grading system,
objective comparison cannot be made between buildings reviewed and evaluated by
different reporters and councils, and it is not clear how the “designation value” is to
be determined. It is only possible to ask for the “opinions of those institutions which
are concerned and/or would be affected” under the coordination of the ministry.
A more problematic clause adds that “those immovable properties which are not
deemed necessary to be preserved by the Regional Councils based on their archi-
tectural, historic, aesthetical, archaeological and other characteristics and/or impor-
tance are designated as immovable property not to be conserved”. This ‘negative
designation’ erases the concerned buildings or complexes not only from the national
inventories but also gives their owners the right to do whatever they like. This clause
does not include adequate information as to the nature of the criteria for negative
designation. Regional councils may not have architectural conservator members, and
because the decision is left to the initiative of the specific council, decisions concerning
similar buildings may prove to be contradictory. In addition to listing in the inven-
tory, designation brings about some degree of safeguarding, requiring the permission
from the related council before any physical intervention or functional change. Simple
maintenance and repair may be carried out with the permission of Conservation,
Intervention and Supervision Offices, which are municipal institutions. Although it is
a legal offence to demolish and destroy a designated building, unauthorized building
is a daily activity in Turkey.
Group I is the highest degree of designation for cultural property and includes
“those buildings that must be protected due to their historic, symbolic, memorial and/
or aesthetic characteristics within the cultural data that forms the social material his-
tory”. Group II includes “those buildings which reflect the regional life-style and are
a part of the urbanscape and/or environmental landscape and bear the characteristics
of cultural property” (Principle Decision of the High Council No. 660/1999).
The main obstacle against the listing and conservation of twentieth-century architec-
ture concerns the criteria of designation. The law includes those buildings constructed
“until the end of the nineteenth century” or “after this date but to be conserved due
to their importance and characteristics”, according to the ministry, “located within a
designated site” and “those buildings and sites which have been the locality of impor-
tant historic events during the War of Independence and the foundation of the Turkish
Republic, and are hence to be documented and registered for their importance in our
national history” (art. 6). High Council (Principle Decision No. 662/1999) incor-
porated works built after 1923, clarifying such indecisive and problematic articles,
including “those public buildings used by public institutions and that reflect the archi-
tectural characteristics of their period of construction, and those constructed during
the first decades of the Republic of Turkey”.
Designated twentieth-century buildings are few, and those classified as Group I
are even fewer. The National Reassurance Company Building (Milli Reasürans Kom-
pleksi, 1985–1987) in Istanbul by Sevinç and Şandor Hadi is the most recent building
334 Europe
designated. Meanwhile, designation itself is not a sufficient measure for ensuring con-
servation. Most undesignated buildings are being transformed or destroyed, with only
a handful of designated ones being restored. The so-called Urban Transformation Act
(No. 5,366/2005) and Disaster Acts (No. 7,269/1959; 6,306/2012) led to inappropri-
ate structural reinforcement interventions and reconstructions, while users and own-
ers, unaware of the value of their buildings, carry out renovations, most of which can
hardly be considered conservation.
Nilüfer Baturayoğlu Yöney, Yıldız Salman and Ebru Omay Polat
Link
Ministry of Culture and Tourism, General Directorate Of Cultural Heritage And Museums:
http://www.kulturvarliklari.gov.tr/ (in Turkish)
Bibliography
E. Madran & N. Özgönül, Kültürel ve Doğal Değerlerin Korunması (Ankara: 2005).
“Modern’i Konuşmak”, TOL Mimarlık Kültürü Dergisi, 9–10 (2010–2011): 90–155.
E. Omay Polat, “Modern Mimarlık Mirasını Onaylamak: Yasal Süreç ve Tescil Kararlarına
Bakış”, Mimarlık, 340 (2008): 49–53.
E. Omay Polat, Türkiye’nin Modern Mimarlık Mirasının Korunması: Kuram ve Yöntem
Bağlamında Bir Değerlendirme, PhD thesis in Yildiz Technical University (YTU), doctoral
dissertation (Istanbul, 2008).
Y. Salman, Z. Önsel Atala & N. Baturayoğlu Yöney, “A Model for an Integrated Multi-
Disciplinary Approach for the Preservation of 20th Century and Modernist Architectural
Heritage”, in Built Heritage 2013: Monitoring Conservation Management: Online Proceed-
ings of the Conference, eds. M. Boriani, R. Gabaglio & D. Gulotta (Milan, 2013):
297–306.
Ukraine 335
UKRAINE
Figure 7.47 Heinrich Volodymyrovich Topuz, A. Lyubovsky and V. Krasenko, Odessa Academic
Theatre of Musical Comedy, named after Mikhail Vodianoy, Odessa, 1981. Listed
in 2007
Source: Alex Kubov, 2016.
Ukraine gained its independence after the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991) and
the state currently consists of 24 regions, the capital city Kiev with special status and
the Crimean Peninsula, which was annexed to Russia in 2014. It is the largest country
in Europe, the territory of which is situated entirely in that continent, and the basic
principles of heritage preservation are reflected in its constitution (1996).
Heritage protection started in the 1950s. In 1966 the research institution of Ukrai-
nian Society for Preservation of Historical and Cultural Monuments (UTOPIK) was
established. Even today, its task is to get access new knowledge in monument studies
and protection of cultural heritage, to prepare draft normative documents and meth-
odological recommendations for the protection and use of cultural legacy. In 1988,
the USSR became a state member of UNESCO, and some institutions and the registers
of monuments were formed.
In 2000, the Law regarding the Protection of Cultural Heritage was enacted. Two
protective categories were introduced for the State Register of Immovable Monu-
ments of Ukraine: national and local. The objects are divided into archaeological, his-
torical, monumental arts, objects of architecture and city planning, objects of garden
park arts, landscapes and objects of science and technology. Modern replicas of exist-
ing buildings, which are built according to ancient designs or scientific reconstruc-
tions, including massive replicated copies, are not eligible for registration. The law
does not establish any time limit, but until today the protection policies considered
that object cannot be designated a monument earlier than 40 years from its con-
struction. Furthermore, monuments are divided into those that cannot be privatized,
such as the National Palace Ukraina (1965–1970) in Kiev, by Yevhenia Marychenko,
P. Zhylytskyi and I. Vayner, or the local landmark of the Hotel Tarasova Gora (1961)
in Kaniv by Natalia Borisivna Chmutina, Valentin Grigorovich Shtolko and Mykhailo
336 Europe
Gnatovych Grechina, and others for which privatization is possible, but under certain
conditions of conservation.
In 2012, Parliament approved the Law of Ukraine on Landscapes, which regu-
lates the planning of landscapes to preserve and use them for satisfying ecological,
cultural, health-improving, economic and other social needs. The law envisages that
citizens and their associations have a right to monitor the use of landscapes, initiate
public expertise and submit results to respective bodies. Ukraine, as a member of the
Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
(1972), is obliged to ensure the protection and preservation of cultural heritage. There
are governmental programs for the reconstruction of cultural and historical monu-
ments. For instance, in the Sumy region, during 1991–1997, the project of forming
modern architectural environment in the historic town of Hlukhiv was based on the
rehabilitation, development and implementation of historical heritage, such as for
Kamyanets-Podilsky.
Ukraine is getting rid of Soviet symbols on the elevations of buildings and monu-
ments with an ideological basis, which are being dismantled. The public adminis-
tration of cultural heritage takes care of monuments at the state level, but various
institutions of regional and local administration are responsible for it at the local
level, complicating the process of conserving monuments.
There are many legislative initiatives, rules and relevant decisions, but not enough
because Ukraine is continuing to lose its monuments. There are some instances of
destruction of monuments or their absolute ruin due to so-called ‘reconstructions’.
The condition of monuments with no conservation status or those which have lost
it due to a number of reasons is much worse. Their existence and preservation are
impossible, and they represent a significant part of the cultural heritage. According
to the Accounting Chamber of Ukraine, insufficient resources cause serious problems
in the sphere of cultural heritage. In recent years, 50 art memorials have disappeared
off the map in Kiev, and there was no budget for heritage protection in 2012. Several
communist monuments were damaged during Euromaidan (2013–2014), while heri-
tage in eastern Ukraine has been at risk during the war in Donbass and the occupation
of Crimea (2014–2016); the current protection policy is progressively moving toward
forms of decentralization.
Today there are very few non-public organizations devoted to the study of cultural
heritage. State institutions, however, often have neither the financial nor the human
resources for any significant action conservation of monuments. Therefore, research
and conservation of monuments is the business of individual Maecenas. But there are
signs of the first steps towards the emergence of initiative groups or commercial orga-
nizations that will take care of conservation of monuments: ad hoc groups and public
initiatives have appeared, aiming to preserve cultural heritage, and social movements
and actions moved to defend the historic building Hostynny Dvir in Kiev reconsti-
tuted in the 1980s. In the last decade, the first strides were taken in the hope of future
systematic action. Since 2008, the Visual Culture Research Center in Kyiv-Mohyla
Academy has organized debates, conferences and research seminars; Docomomo
Ukraine and Kharkov National University of Civil Engineering and Architecture have
promoted an international conference on studies and protection of Ukrainian Archi-
tectural Avant-Garde (Kharkov, 2012); not all of them have been discovered and even
fewer are properly studied and documented.
Fedir Gontsa
Ukraine 337
Links
http://mincult.kmu.gov.ua/ (in English and Ukrainian)
Blog:
http://pamjatky.org.ua/ (in Ukrainian)
Blog:
http://spadshina.org.ua/ (in Ukrainian)
Bibliography
V.I. Akulenko, Protection of Cultural Monuments of Ukraine 1917–1990 (Kiev, 1991, in
Ukrainian).
Y. Aseyev, V. Vecherskyy, A. Godovanyuk et al., The History of Ukrainian Architecture (Kiev,
2003, in Ukrainian).
Monuments of Ukraine: Problems of Preservation and Research, eds. V.O. Gorbik, G.G. Deny-
senko & P.I. Skrypnyk (Kiev, 1994, in Ukrainian).
V. Vecherskyy, Heritage urban divide in Ukraine (Kiev, 2003, in Ukrainian).
338 Europe
ENGLAND
Figure 7.48 James Stirling, Michael Wilford and Associates, No.1 Poultry, London, 1994–
1998. Listed grade II*, 2016
Legislation for the protection of the built heritage goes back to the Ancient Monu-
ments Act of 1882. This covered mainly archaeological remains and such standing
structures as Stonehenge and ruined abbeys. Habitable buildings and churches were
first protected by the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944 (updated in 1947),
when the government was empowered to draw up a list of buildings of special archi-
tectural and historic interest.
Protection has been controlled by a series of government departments, with ancient
monuments in the hands of the Ministry of Works and listed buildings in that of
the Ministry of Housing and Local Government until these were merged in 1970 as
the Department of the Environment (DOE), from which the Department of National
Heritage was formed in 1992 with responsibility for sport and culture (since 1997 the
Department of Culture, Media and Sport, DCMS). English Heritage was itself split
from the DOE in 1984 so that it could better promote the property it opens to the
public and its broader educational role. In 2015 this organization itself split in two,
with designation work passing to Historic England. The actual day-to-day manage-
ment of listed buildings is in the hands of local planning authorities.
Attempts to unite the legislation covering ancient monuments and historic build-
ings have been debated, but no outcome has yet been realized. However, since 2005
English Heritage, now Historic England, has assumed much of the management of
the statutory list from the DCMS, though the latter still performs the legal function
United Kingdom 339
of listing and makes all sensitive decisions. The department published its Principles
of Selection for Listing Buildings in 2010. The listing of a building is based on its age
and rarity, its aesthetic architectural value, historical interest in its association with
the development of a building type or a form of construction or in its connection with
a famous person or event. An example is a major programme of listing war memori-
als to commemorate the centenary of the World War I. A building’s relationship with
a group of listed buildings or a historic landscape is an important factor in a decision
to list (known as ‘group value’). Historic England has published on its website more
general guidelines for listing (updated in 2011), which give more information on the
development of major building types such as houses, churches, healthcare, education

buildings, public houses and industrial structures.
World Heritage Lists are the work of ICOMOS, not of national legislation. There
are four forms of heritage protection: listing, scheduling (including off-shore wrecks),
parks and gardens and battlefields. In addition, owners can apply for a certificate of
immunity against listing, while local authorities can issue a temporary building pres-
ervation notice which must be confirmed by listing from English Heritage. There are
three grades of listing: grade I for those of ‘exceptional interest’, grade II* for those
considered ‘particularly important buildings of more than special interest’, and grade
II, including over 90 percent of all listed buildings, for any ‘building of special interest,
warranting every effort to preserve them’.
As specified in article 12 of the principles of listing, buildings erected before 1700
are generally all listed, as are most of those from 1700–1840 that survive in rec-
ognizable condition, but increasing selection is required for those built after 1840
and particularly those after 1914. Extremely careful section is required for buildings
constructed since 1945. A good example of a post-war listed building is the Radar
Training Station (1961–1962, listed in 2003, grade II) in Fleetwood, by Roger Booth,
Eric Morris Hart and Tom Dennis. This is a simple single-storey, oval building in
reinforced concrete set on pilotis above high tide level. Sir Nikolaus Pevsner called it
“a cute little piece”, and the building is a rare example of architecture and technol-
ogy combining together to form a pleasurable as well as useful structure. Buildings
less than 30 years old are normally listed only if they are of outstanding quality and
threatened by demolition or major alterations.
Post-war listing remains extremely controversial, particularly in the area of Brutal-
ist buildings, which are more appreciated abroad than in England; for buildings after
1945 the government minister takes a personal involvement in decision making. A
result is that the South Bank Centre (1963–1968) in London, Europe’s largest centre
for the arts by Hubert Bennett, Jack Whittle, F.G. West, Geoffrey Horsfall, Norman
Engleback, Ron Herron and Warren Chalk, has been rejected for listing several times
since 1999. However, there has been widespread delight that the Preston Bus Station
(1968–1969) by Keith Ingham and Charles Wilson of the Building Design Partnership
was finally listed in 2013. A start has been made on listing high-tech buildings, with
examples by Richard Rogers, Norman Foster, Nicholas Grimshaw and Richard Hor-
den so far listed; these also include also the Lloyd’s Building (1981–1986), listed grade
I in 2011. A recent survey of post-war libraries led to the listing of the British Library
by Colin St John Wilson and M.J. Long. Historic England is now beginning to look at
post-modern buildings of the 1980s, and recently listed as Grade II* the No.1 Poultry
by Stirling and Wilford, completed in 1997.
Elain Harwood
340 Europe
Link
Historic England, National Heritage Listed Buildings:
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/ (in English)
Bibliography
English Heritage: Practical Building Conservation: Concrete, ed. D. Odgers (London, 2012).
E. Harwood, Space, Hope and Brutalism, English Architecture 1945–1975 (New Haven, 2015).
E. Harwood & James O. Davies, England’s Post-War Listed Buildings (Farnham, 2015).
Modern Matters: Principles and Practice in Conserving Recent Architecture, ed. S. Macdonald
(Shaftesbury, 1996).
Preserving Post-War Heritage: The Care and Conservation of Mid-Twentieth Century Architec-
ture, ed. S. Macdonald (Shaftesbury, 2001).
United Kingdom 341
NORTHERN IRELAND
Figure 7.49 P.&B. Gregory Architects, St Bernadette’s Roman Catholic Church, Belfast, 1966.
Listed in 2012
Source: DOE: Historic Environment Division, 2011.
The protection of architecture in Northern Ireland is derived from planning legisla-

tion. Legislation on the development of land was first introduced in the early 1930s,
and local government authorities administered the planning system until 1973. It was
then re-organized under the control of central government and eventually the Depart-
ment for Communities (DfC) with the provisions of the Planning (NI) Orders, Plan-
ning (NI) Order 1972 and Planning (NI) Order 1991. The new Planning Act (NI)
2011 provided for the transfer of the majority of planning functions from the central
government back to the district councils. This took place in April 2015. A number of
planning functions relating to the protection of architecture are still provided by the
central government. In 2016 these powers of protection were conferred on the DfC.
The Planning Act (NI) 2011 places a duty on the DfC to compile lists of buildings
of “special architectural or historic interest” (art. 80). The district councils have pow-
ers to control any change to these listed structures which would affect their character
(art. 85). This is referred to as “listed building consent” and it is a criminal offence to
carry out such works without consent. The district councils process planning applica-
tions relating to listed buildings and development, in liaison with the Historic Envi-
ronment Division (HED), the division responsible for implementing most of the DfC
342 Europe
policies for heritage protection. Planning Policy Statement 6 “Planning, Archaeology
and the Built Heritage” (1999, PPS6) sets out the DfC’s planning policies for the pro-
tection and conservation of archaeological remains and features of the built heritage.
The protection of listed buildings is one part of a suite of controls that helps the
DfC influence and manage the Historic Environment. Important historic structures
may be protected as monuments in state care or scheduled historic monuments –
the latter are generally structures constructed before 1700. Many listed buildings are
located in areas designated within the central government’s development plans such
as conservation areas, areas of townscape character, areas of village character, and
local landscape policy areas. These designations are identified through location or
area-based development plans. The HED also operates a Historic Building Grant Aid
Scheme to assist listed building owners in their maintenance.
The DfC normally compiles and updates the list of buildings of special architectural
or historic interest as a result of systematic re-survey or review of particular areas
or building types. The DfC may also consider suggestions made by members of the
public and is required to consult with the Historic Buildings Council (1973) and the
appropriate district council on proposed changes to the list. The role of the council
is to advise the DfC on matters relating to the preservation of buildings and areas
of special architectural or historic interest. The DfC uses statutory criteria to assess
buildings for listing, similar to those used in the rest of the UK, including architectural
criteria (style, proportion, planform, interior and setting) and historic criteria (age,
authorship and historic associations). The overall test is that this interest must be
considered special.
The listing of twentieth-century buildings is carried out by the DfC, as long as the
building is not younger than 30 years and is of definite quality. In Revised Annex C:
Criteria for Listing, under age criterion, the guidance reads as follows:
Buildings constructed between 1830–1935 should be of definite quality and char-

acter, and will often be the work of important architects. Buildings constructed
after 1935, but not normally younger than 30 years, will generally be outstanding
buildings including the best works of important architects.
The HED commissioned a thematic survey of twentieth-century architecture on

‘Post-1914 buildings’ in the 1990s. A number of Modern Movement buildings were
listed as a result, for instance, in Belfast, The King’s Hall, Exhibition Hall (1933–
1934) designed by Archibald Leitch and Partners, and the Floral Hall (1935–1936)
by David W. Boyd. There are many listed schools designed by the prominent school’s
architect Reginald Wilshere, works influenced by Willem Dudok. The Modernist vil-
las of Philip Bell are also significant, such as the houses at Whiterock Bay Killinchy
(1935) and at Lisburn Road, Glenavy (1945). Many modernist cinemas were designed
by John McBride Neill but have unfortunately not survived to the twenty-first century,
while the Vogue Cinema (1938–1940) in Kilkeel, by Ben Cowser is one of Northern
Ireland’s only surviving International-style listed ones.
In relation to later twentieth-century listed buildings, three are among the most
notable. The Belfast and Transport House, Trade Union Offices (1959) by J.J. Bren-
nan, comprising two co-joined blocks of multi-storey offices, supported on pilotis
and dominated by a full-height tiled mural in Russian Constructivist style. The Ulster
Museum extension (1963–1971) by Francis Pym is constructed in in situ reinforced
United Kingdom 343
concrete and features interlocking and cantilevered cubic projections with Béton brut
raw concrete finish. The St Bernadette’s Roman Catholic Church (1966, listed in
2012) in Belfast, by P.&B. Gregory Architects, an imposing structure with a curved
façade and fan-shaped planform, it is constructed in reinforced concrete and brick-
work. Liam McCormick’s work is also represented thanks to the Our Lady of Lourdes
Roman Catholic Church (1979) in Londonderry, a dramatic angular structure with a
steeply pitched elongated roof extending almost to ground level.
Méabh Morgan
Links
Department for Communities, historic environment:
https://www.communities-ni.gov.uk/topics/historic-environment
Buildings Database:
http://appsc.doeni.gov.uk/buildings/ (in English)
Bibliography
H. Dixon, An Introduction to Ulster Architecture (Belfast, 1975).
D. Evans, M. Hackett, A. Hall, P. Larmour & C. Rattray, Modern Ulster Architecture (Belfast,
2006).
P. Larmour, Belfast: An Illustrated Architectural Guide (Belfast, 1987).
344 Europe
SCOTLAND
Figure 7.50 Sir Barry Gasson with Brit Andresen, The Burrell Collection, Glasgow, 1971–
Source: Historic Environment Scotland, 2014.
Historic Environment Scotland (HES) is a non-departmental public body which is

charged with compiling statutory lists of buildings of special architectural or historic
interest. If found to meet national criteria, buildings are then assigned one of three
categories, that broadly fall into national (A), regional (B) or local (C) significance.
HES also advises local authorities on listed building consent proposals affecting all
category A-listed buildings as well as B-listed buildings for certain types of applica-
tions where significant change is proposed.
The protection of historic buildings in Scotland can be traced back to the early
1930s when planning legislation introduced preservation orders for historic build-
ings. In order to determine which buildings were deemed worthy of preservation,
lists of buildings were compiled but, initially, a cut-off date of 1750 was deemed
appropriate. An official statutory system was devised from 1948 following the intro-
duction of the Town and Country Planning Act (1947) which applied to all of the
United Kingdom.
The first survey of Scotland began in 1948, and these lists of buildings were gradu-
ally made statutory from 1966 onwards. The later cut-off date for the selection of
buildings was moved forward to 1840 to recognize buildings erected prior to mass
industrialization. Further legislation refined the process of listing and by 1972, with
the Town & Country Planning Act of that year, all of Scotland’s area lists were made
United Kingdom 345
statutory. Again, the cut-off date for including buildings on these lists was revised to
allow buildings erected up to 1945 to be eligible for inclusion.
Criteria for listing during this period recognized that greater selectivity was required
for buildings which were of a younger age, and it was generally accepted that build-
ings under 30 years old could not be considered for listing unless they were under
threat of demolition. The first chief buildings investigator, Ian Lindsay, noted as early
as 1948, that buildings need ‘not be old nor beautiful’ to merit listing.
In 1997 the previous legislation was consolidated under the Planning (Listed Build-
ings and Conservation Areas) Act (Scotland) 1997, and this is still the primary leg-
islation which governs policies and procedures on listing and listed building consent
in Scotland; however further amendments to this act have been made through the
Historic Environment Amendment (Scotland) Act 2011.
Of Scotland’s circa 47,000 listed buildings, roughly 8 percent are deemed to be of
national importance (category A), 50 percent are of regional importance (category B)
and the rest are considered of local importance (category C). There are approximately
260 buildings on the list which date post-1945. Although this is a small percent-
age of the total, a significant proportion of these listed buildings fall in the higher
categories of A and B as the process of selection for buildings of this date is more
rigorous. The ’30-year understanding’ which has remained a guiding policy for the
listing of post-1945 buildings in Scotland, accordingly moves forward and we are
currently able to consider buildings dating to the 1980s. Some significant post-war
buildings include the Forth Road Bridge (1964) in Edinburgh, designed by Mott, Hay
and Anderson and Freeman, Fox & Partners and constructed by Sir William Arrol &
Co., Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Company and Dorman Long; Lanark County
Buildings (1964) in Hamilton by Lanark council architect David Gordon Bannerman;
St Peter’s Seminary Cardross (1961–1967) by Gillespie, Kidd & Coia; and, the young-
est building on the list, the Burrell Collection museum (1971–1983) in Glasgow, listed
at category A. HES has also recognized the work of significant architectural practices
through listing and has undertaken biographical surveys on the work of Gillespie
Kidd & Coia, Morris & Steedman, Peter Womersley and Basil Spence.
The general public opinion of buildings from these decades has gradually moved
forward. To help stimulate the discourse about the significance of our modern heri-
tage, HES promotes the understanding and value of the architecture of this period.
In recent years we have published a monograph on post-war architecture, as well as
smaller publications celebrating Edinburgh and Glasgow’s post-war built heritage as
well as biographical notes on architectural practices.
Dawn McDowell
Link
Historic Environment Scotland, heritage portal:
http://portal.historicenvironment.scot/ (in English)
Bibliography
Historic Scotland, Scotland: Building for the Future: Essays on the Architecture of the Post-War
Era (Edinburgh, 2009).
346 Europe
WALES
Figure 7.51 Kenneth M. Raw and N. Squire Johnson, Ysgol Syr Thomas Jones, Amlwch,
1948–1953. Listed in 2009
Source: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, 2007.
In Wales, responsibility for implementing heritage protection legislation is vested in

the Welsh government. The historic environment service is called Cadw, which works
for a well-protected and accessible historic environment. Cadw’s aims are to conserve
Wales’s heritage to the highest standard, to sustain the distinctive character of land-
scapes and towns, to help people understand and care about their place and history
and to make a real difference to people’s wellbeing.
Since March 2011, the law-making powers of the Welsh government have included
culture and the historic environment. Recognizing the capacity of heritage to enrich
the lives of individuals and communities and contribute to quality of life and quality
of place, the Historic Environment (Wales) Act was passed in 2016. This act intro-
duces measures for the better protection and sustainable management of the historic
environment, which will enhance the part that heritage can play in improving the lives
of the people of Wales and the places where they live and work.
The first legislation to protect heritage in the United Kingdom was the Ancient
Monuments Act (1882) which enabled the state to take over the management of
some of the most important archaeological sites. Further legislation in 1913 extended
protection to a wider range of ancient monuments, including sites that remained in
private ownership. The first United Kingdom legislation extending to habitable build-
ings was the Town and Country Planning Act (1947); under the terms of succeeding
enactments, the Welsh ministers are required to draw up a list of buildings of special
United Kingdom 347
architectural or historic interest. In practice, this function is performed by Cadw.
Inclusion of a building on the list confers a level of statutory protection through
the requirement for listed building consent for any works which would affect the
building’s character as one of special architectural or historic interest. Such consent
is obtained from the local planning authority. Cadw completed a resurvey of historic
buildings in 2005, and some 30,000 buildings were included on the list.
There are currently four main criteria for selection: architectural interest, including
buildings which are of importance to the nation for the interest of their architectural
design, decoration and craftsmanship, as well as important examples of particular
building types and techniques; historic interest, including buildings which illustrate
important aspects of the nation’s social, economic, cultural or military history; histori-
cal associations with people or events of importance to Wales; and group value, where
buildings contribute an important architectural or historic unity or are fine examples
of planning.
Any building, whatever its age, is eligible for protection by listing, but in practice,
the older a building is, the more likely it is to be listed. In accordance with guidance
and practice, buildings which are less than 30 years old are normally listed only
if they are of exceptional quality and under threat. The approach for twentieth-
century buildings is to identify key examples for each of a range of building types
and to use them to define standards against which to judge other proposals for addi-
tions to the list.
The process of identifying buildings of special interest erected since 1945 is
on-going: some buildings from this period were identified in the course of the sys-
tematic geographical resurvey which was completed in 2005, but others have been
protected through ‘spot-listing’ in response to the threat of development. The num-
ber of post-war buildings which have been listed is relatively low (under 0.5 per-
cent of the total number of listed buildings), but does include significant examples
from a range of building types, including religious, industrial, engineering, domes-
tic and educational. For example, Ysgol Syr Thomas Jones (1948–1953), Amlwch,
Isle of Anglesey, designed by Kenneth M. Raw and N. Squire Johnson, is listed
as the first purpose-built comprehensive school in Wales, and one of the earliest
(perhaps even the first) in Britain: it gives architectural expression to progressive
educational ideas in a pioneering local authority. In Snowdonia, the Roman Cath-
olic Church in Dolgellau (1963–1970) by Maurice Pritchard provides remarkable
expression of the revival of Catholicism in north Wales in the post-war period;
intended to harmonize with the rugged character of the town and its mountainous
setting, the building combines elements of modernism and tradition. The main
building at Saint Fagans National History Museum (1965–1976) in Cardiff by
Percy Thomas Partnership is listed for its special architectural and historic interest
as a major national commission reflecting the importance accorded to traditional
culture in the modern Welsh nation. The former Pontypool Nylon Spinners Fac-
tory (1945–1948) illustrates with exceptional clarity key elements of early post-
war industrial design, and is a pioneering building for a pioneering industry. It is
listed at a high grade.
Although there is more work to be done on the selection of modern buildings for
listing, the examples which have already been identified begin to map out some of the
distinctive features of the modern architectural heritage of Wales.
Judith Alfrey
348 Europe
Links
CADW: Welsh Government Historic Environment Service:
http://cadw.gov.wales/historicenvironment/?lang=en (in English and Welsh)
Historic Wales, Atlas of Listed Building and Scheduled Ancient Monument Databases:
http://jura.rcahms.gov.uk/NMW/Map (in English and Welsh)
Bibliography
T. Evans, A Guide to the Industrial Archaeology of South-East Wales: A Powerhouse of Indus-
try (Cardiff, 2003).

Pevsner Architectural Guides: The Buildings of Wales, 7 vols. (New Haven, 1979–2009).
The Vatican City State 349
THE VATICAN CITY STATE
Figure 7.52 Pierluigi Nervi, Paul VI Audience Hall, Vatican City, 1966–1971. Listed in 2001
Source: Mario Carrieri, Pier Luigi Nervi Project, 2010.
With the signing of the Lateran Treaty (11 February 1929), the sovereignty and the
independence of the Holy See were recognized and the Vatican City State was estab-
lished. A few days later Pius XI formed the Commission for Public Works, which was
assigned the task of defining the urban, architectural and functional structure of the
papal city. The newly established state, a territory of roughly 108 acres, required all
necessary buildings and services. One of the main figures of this process was Giuseppe
Momo, who planned a series of transformations, demolitions and reconstructions
that were aimed at the functional aspect of the city itself. Some of the buildings pres-
ent at the time were not consistent with the new design of the locations and were
therefore demolished to make room for new buildings. An example is the church of
Santa Marta and the medieval tower, which were demolished to accommodate a new
piazza. The difficult task of integrating new buildings often lead to the demolition of
older ones, and even in recent times the Museo Petriano (1917) by Giovanni Battista
Giovenale was destroyed, during 1966, in order to build the new Paul VI Audience
Hall, designed by Pier Luigi Nervi. In 1995, the building of the old School of mosaic
was demolished to build an underground parking lot.
Effectively, with the Lateran Treaty, the Italian state recognized that the Holy See had
“the full property and the exclusive and absolute authority and jurisdiction” (art. 3)
over monuments and buildings of the Vatican City and over the extra-territorial build-
ings belonging to the Holy See, which are exempt from taxes and cannot be expropri-
ated (art. 13–15). The Vatican may therefore dispose of these latter for modifications
and transformations “without the need for authorizations or approval by the Italian
governing authorities, whether county or council” (art. 16).
In the first few years of the state, the Department of Technical Services of the Gover-
norate referred to the Foriere Maggiore, responsible for the department of the grounds
and buildings. In December 1932 a law was passed on the organization of the gover-
norate, which, with few modifications in 1934 and 1939, appointed the maintenance
of the buildings and the gardens and the activity of environmental conservation to the
350 Europe
Technical Services. The Direction of Technical Services operates to this day under the
governorate and is responsible for technical opinions and the issuance of authoriza-
tions regarding the implementation of works for the various departments.
With the Hague Convention (1954), the entire territory of the state was placed
under protection. In the same way, all of the extraterritorial assets of the Holy See
(with the exception of the Seminario Romano Minore) were placed in the World
Heritage List, both for their individual cultural value and als because they are part of
the Historic Centre of Rome, since the Holy See joined (1982) the Convention Con-
cerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972). With this
agreement, the Vatican City was also acknowledged by international legislation as

being a moral, artistic and cultural heritage, worthy of being respected and protected
as a treasure of mankind. The preservation of the cultural heritage thus also became a
responsibility of all the members of the international community.
The permanent Commission for the Protection of Historical and Artistic Monu-
ments of the Holy See (1963) was assigned the task of approving the restoration,
construction and maintenance works for the buildings situated inside the state or
extraterritorially and belonging to the Holy See.
In recent years, the continuing concern for the preservation of the cultural heritage
and the problems brought on by their maintenance, even with regard to the modern
buildings, highlighted the need for an efficient judicial protection in order to guar-
antee adequate preservation and development of the works that architects such as
Bramante, Borromini and Bernini, but also Momo and Nervi, have left us.
The first real law concerning the preservation of the cultural heritage of the Vatican
City State was passed on 25 July 2001 (No. 355). This law establishes that the General
Directorate for Pontifical Monuments, Museums and Galleries (Direzione generale dei
monumenti, musei e gallerie pontificie) has the duty to inventory and authorize all the
interventions (prior to the opinion of the Commission for the Protection of Historical
and Artistic Monuments of the Holy See and the authorization of the president of the
governorate). This law also outlines the regulations for its implementation and delegates
the control and inspection, for all real estate, to the general directorate.
The need to adapt the legislation to the current situation has in recent years brought
about a number of different researches and projects for the renovation of the organi-
zational structure of the governorate. In October 2008, the department of Superin-
tendence of Architectural Heritage was established on the back of the Italian model.
This office works towards the protection, preservation and regard of the architectural
heritage found inside the Vatican City, the extraterritorial estates, the Pontifical Villas
of Castel Gandolfo and the Papal Basilicas. This department has been continuing to
catalogue the complete architectural heritage of the state, operating on a scientific and
preservative level, without any chronological limits, on the condition that the build-
ings have a particular artistic value.
Anna Maria Voltan
Link
Vatican City State, monuments:
http://www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/it/monumenti.html (in English, France, Ger-
man, Italian and Spanish)
Bibliography
1929–2009. Ottanta anni dello Stato della Città del Vaticano, ed. B. Jatta (Vatican City, 2009).
Part II
Short critical lexicography

Taylor &Francis
Identity
Taylor &Francis
8 West African modernism and change
Ola Uduku
For more than a decade, the history of the Modern Movement’s encounter with
West Africa has been documented and told to audiences inside and outside Africa.
The role of key characters and schools who had the most influence and investment
in the evolution and spread of post–World War II, modernist projects in the region
have also been recorded by many scholars.1 The lives and architecture of West Afri-
can architects and other indigenous actors who played a part in this history are
rarely examined. For this piece the focus shifts to these actors, and also to speculate
on the views and engagement of local West Africans who encountered and used the
new West Africa modernist architectural infrastructure and landscape of the 1950s
and 1960s.
The context
Anglophone West Africa’s socio-economic development ran in parallel to its indepen-
dence efforts. The British colonial government invested considerably its dependencies
at the end of World War II, as Ian Jackson and Jessica Holland point out2; although
this might have not been altogether altruistic, it certainly helped establish a distinc-
tively different style of institutional architecture, which provided a new modernity to
West Africa’s colonial landscape. Along with the activities of architects commissioned
to design private projects, a significant part of urban West Africa in particular was
transformed into the backdrop for a legacy of modernist infrastructure.
Alongside this history of successfully imported modernist design and its key expa-
triate agents was an equally if not more relevant history of local architectural devel-
opment and engagement with West African Modernism. Equally important to the
narrative was the public accommodation and reaction to the architectural style. As
new records and narratives come to light, these as yet only partially histories are an
important contribution to our understanding of this period.
West Africa’s local modernists

With the arrival of the expatriate architectural contingent most associated with Mod-
ern movement in West Africa – Maxwell Fry, Jane Drew, James Cubitt, Leo De Syl-
las and others – the chronology and development of West African modernism might
seem to be complete. It was, however, a much more complex affair. The Anglophone
West African dependencies – Sierra Leone, the Gold Coast and Nigeria specifically –
already had a nascent group of architectural draughtsmen and licensee architects who
356 Ola Uduku
were already part of each colony’s Public Works Department,3 and who were encour-
aged to develop further, often with colonial government funding. Thus at the same
time the new expatriate group of Western-trained architects became part of the new
modernist landscape in West Africa, new local architects were emerging and being
trained in the same schools, used by the expatriates as the first crop of local African
architects on the continent.4
Added to this African team of formally trained architects were the local craftwork-
ers, including builders, who had historically been involved in architectural construc-
tion in West Africa. In northern Nigeria, specifically in the historic Hausa city states,
such as Kano, Zaria and Sokoto, traditional architectural buildings have long been
documented. Similarly in eastern and western Nigeria, those involved in constructing
sacred shrines such as the Mbari houses in eastern Nigeria took on the modernist
influences in their work.5
African artists also often worked directly with commissioning architects such as Fry,
Drew, de Syllas and Cubitt in providing friezes and art for public buildings such as
banks, schools and private houses. Added to this mix were a small number of archi-
tects who chose to become part of the West African middle class; this was either by
marriage or by choice, as this group committed to being in full-time residence in West
Africa. This was in direct contrast to the majority of architectural firms working in
West Africa that comprised of expatriate architects who had ‘site’ or ‘field’ offices in
cities such as Lagos, Freetown and Accra, but remained based in the United Kingdom
or countries elsewhere in Europe or the United States.
What was this local group’s contribution to the West African Modernism narrative?
As with other histories, does this group get the attention or acknowledgement deserved
for their participation in the canon, and how – if at all – did their contribution dif-
fer from the familiar known ‘heros’ of the piece? Importantly, this group also often
found itself being in the position of being subaltern middle men, or ‘in-betweeners’
in the piece, who by education and expertise were central to the development of the
modernist canon, but as real residents and citizens of these newly modernising, mid
century West African cities, despite being best positioned to take a more critical view
of the effects and uses of the new architecture within contemporary African cities, did
not always often have their voices acknowledged in the historical narratives of the
era. Also, equally importantly, how did this group engage with other constituencies
such as expatriate and the various indigenous city dwellers in their experience of new
modernist infrastructure provision to the West African city?
Modernism in the city

Finally, for the indigenous African city dweller, what did the new architecture sig-
nify? For this we have very little direct record. What we do know is that home town
unions engaged architects throughout southwestern and southeastern Nigeria to help
with the construction of schools to educate their children, a sure sign of progress in
southern Nigeria.6
By contrast, northern Nigeria’s strong cultural association with Hausa-Islamic
architecture meant that the building craft found in cities such as Kano, Zaria and
Sokoto would outlast the new architectural modernism, which for many of the locals
would only be a passing ‘fad’, for non-domestic buildings which had less effect on
traditional lifestyles.
West African modernism and change 357
This could be viewed as being similar to the region’s cultural engagement to
‘Western-style’ politics of the era. Northern Nigeria had been the original case study
location for Lord Lugard’s 1914 dual mandate and amalgamation of the various
regions of Nigeria.7 His and other colonial officials’ view of northern Nigeria was that
it had a strong Islamic cultural heritage that could exist with little need for transforma-
tion to the modern culture, incorporating wider access to education and the political
democracy being clamoured for in the southern parts of Nigeria.
This laissez faire attitude to new cultures in northern cities in West Africa resulted in
the construction of the ‘Sabon Garis’ neighborhoods for foreigners, where non-Muslim
groups could build ‘Western’ style buildings, whilst the Hausa-Islamic architecture
found within the walled parts of the traditional ‘old’ city remained intact. This in Zaria,
the Ahmadu Bello University campus (1962) existed well away from the traditional
Zaria town. Also the Katsina College, in the historic Hausa city, was modeled to look
more like a traditional Hausa building than the equivalent colleges built in western
and eastern Nigeria. Arguably only in Kaduna, the British-created Northern Nigerian
administrative capital, is there a preponderance of new ‘modern’ architecture, exem-
plified by John Godwin and Gillian Hopwood’s Police College (1961–1963), and the
Design Group’s Hamdala Hotel (1958).8 Similarly Max Lock’s innovative Kaduna
Masterplan (1966)9 contrasts directly with the more conservation oriented Gerlach and
Gillies Reyburn Kano Pilot Plan (1961), or indeed Trevallion’s 1966, 20-year Kano
redevelopment plan.10
African urban modernism – local African views

From what can be deduced, the African city dweller has been, and remains, a pragma-
tist in attitudes to the new. Whilst in rural life, there were often tensions between the
coming of new cultural practices, and forms of modernity, such as religion, schools,
hospitals and other Western cultural infrastructure as described by authors and
anthropologists alike could be disastrous, the city had little locally-invested tradition.
It was the new landscape one travelled or ran away to – exactly for the reasons related
to leaving tradition behind and becoming a modern city dweller. The architectural
backdrop of the modern and new, thus being entirely appropriate for this remaking
of self.
West African politicians also were able to play up to this image as the majority of
the modernist infrastructure in the 1950s and 1960s was constructed in the cities.
Entirely new urban layouts were often built to showcase the new architecture, aside
from the documented Tema New Town in Ghana,11 neighborhoods such as Canton-
ments in Accra, and Surulere in Lagos, were new modern places to live in.12 Also, as
in the west, families felt privileged to be moved or invited to purchase housing in these
new estates.
Education, culture and social infrastructure

Children and communities, however, could and did engage with the new architecture
which was the backdrop to the new educational landscape of the region; even mis-
sionary colleges had their school infrastructure upgraded through the school build-
ing programmes undertaken in Ghana,13 and in southern Nigeria,14 and featuring the
works of architects including such as Fry and Drew and Godwin and Hopwood.
Figure 8.1 Max Lock, Kaduna Masterplan, 1965

Source: Lock (London, 1966).
Figure 8.2 Edwin Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew, Osae Assembly Hall Prempeh College, Kumasi,
c.1956
In the same light the UNESCO-funded public library projects provided an equally
significant set of modernist infrastructure in Nigeria, including the regional libraries
built by Cubitt architects, and the documented Bolgatanga Library (late 1960s) by the
American architect Max Bond.15
Although there has been considerable recognition and recording of the design and
planning of West Africa’s university campuses, including Fry and Drew’s Ibadan (1955–
1959) and Cubittt and Scott’s Kumasi (1952–1954), other social infrastructure has had
less coverage. Nigeria’s archive and museum network in Nigeria, by Design Group,16
and West Africa’s original teaching hospital infrastructure network, in Ghana and Nige-
ria, despite being both architecturally and technologically modern at their construc-
tion, with the possible exception of University College Ibadan, have not had the same
recognition. This is despite the arguably more significant contribution of particularly
museums and hospitals to urban West African society, than the select group of élite
West Africans who were the only ones to initially benefit from the universities, schools,
banks, and other signature modernist buildings of the period. Could it have been that
the profile of these school and university projects, and their association with an expatri-
ate architectural set made them more attractive to a largely foreign and international
architectural audience?
The new West African architects

Added to this outpouring of expatriate talent was the first crop of indigenous and
African-based architects, which included the Nigerians Adedokun Adeyemi and Olumide
Olumuyiwa, both active as architects from the mid-1950s, and involved in the design of
Figure 8.3 Olumide Olumuyiwa, YMCA Building, Lagos, c.1966

a number of buildings in Nigeria. Both being UK educated, they brought this education
to bear on their design and interpretation of tropical modernist buildings in Lagos. The
YMCA Onikan (c.1950s) and Crusader Insurance Building (c.1960s), Lagos Island, are
two such projects. Olumuyiwa was also involved in working on a model design project
that remained unbuilt. He was also credited with being the first to speak about the need
for a Tropical School for Architecture, covering a more appropriate syllabus for architec-
tural students training for practice in the tropics, at the seminal conference on Tropical
Architecture held in London in 1953.
The two eastern Nigerian architects Alex Ekwueme and Frank Mbanefo were also
part of this team. Ekwueme was American trained, and Mbanefo trained in the UK.
Both architects practiced in Nigeria from the 1960s onwards in Nigeria.17 Ekwueme
designed some of the first Nigerian airports and was also the architect for the initial
post-independence Unity schools project in Nigeria. Mbanefo had a more commer-
cial output, being involved in the design of a number of buildings in the then eastern
region, particularly in Enugu; he also designed the war-time bunker for Odumegwu
Ojukwu, the secessionist leader of the Biafran army in 1966.18
At the same time the Ghanaians, John Owuso-Addo, Arc. Samuel O. Larbi, both
associated with Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST).
Owuso-Addo worked both with the Estates Department at KNUST and with the East-
ern European architect, Miro Marasović on the KNUST Unity Hall (c.1960), a stu-
dent residence project. He also taught with Max Bond on the AA-supported KNUST
architecture course in the 1960s. Larbi both taught on the KNUST course and also
assisted Owuso-Addo on the Cedi House project in Accra; he was also involved in the
design of the Kumasi College of Technology and other Kumasi buildings.19
The architects Alan Vaughan-Richards and Kenneth Scott were, respectively, Brit-
ish and Australian nationals who married West African nationals and spent their
Figure 8.4 John Owuso Addo and Miro Marasović, KNUST Unity Hall, Kumasi, c.1960
362 Ola Uduku
lives working and practicing in Nigeria and Ghana, respectively. Vaughan Richards in
particular left a body of work, which developed from being a straight interpretation
of the ‘textbook’ international tropical modern style to a more regional West Afri-
can interpretation of tropical architecture, as exemplified by Ola Oluwakitan House
design (1965).20 Scott remained more of purist, and his residence Scott House (c.1966)
in Accra stands as a testament to this style. The firm Godwin and Hopwood also
became exclusively Nigeria-based in the early 1970s, although their contribution to
West African architecture had commenced in the 1950s and included significant build-
ings, including the already-mentioned Police College, Kaduna, and also the WAEC
building (c.1973) in Lagos.

Although not discussed here in depth, the Francophone architectural tradition
had fewer indigenous or locally based architects in practice, from the 1950s to the
1960s. Hertz et al’s recent exhibition, African Modernism, seeks to redress this, and
the work of the Senegalese architects Cheik N’gomb and Pierre Goudiaby Atepa in
particular are highlighted prominently in the work displayed at the exhibition and
in its proceeding book of the same title. Their significant body of work, although
identifiable by its originality of style, fits well into the body of Francophone archi-
tecture produced by a number of expatriate national architects from the 1960s to
the late 1970s.21
And their associates

The artist and craftsman, Demas Nkwocha, although not trained as an architect, also
left an indelible mark on Nigerian liturgical architecture with his design and construc-
tion of places of worship for the Catholic Church from the late 1960s through to the
1980s in the mid-western region of Nigeria.22
Nigeria’s premier artist Ben Enwonwu also worked alongside many of the main
expatriate architecture practices in the 1960s and 1970s to provide an artistic state-
ment and response to a number of modernist landmark buildings, including the Nitel
Tower (1979) by Nickson and Borys, University of Ibadan Chapel by George G. Pace
(1954),23 and the Nigerian Electric Power Authority (PwD, Nigeria). In many ways
this was the closest we had from the expatriate group working with African forms.
Unlike Vaughan-Richards, whose architecture transformed over time, Enwononwu
provided the modernist African foreground to the expatriate mediated tropical archi-
tectural style.24
Similarly Suzanne Wenger, the Austrian-born artist who transformed her life as an
artist-cum-anthropologist to become a western Nigerian–based Ifa priest, worked in
collaboration with the architectural firm Architects Co-Partnership (ACP) to produce
the external murals for the Bristol Hotel (1961) in Lagos.25 Here we have the reverse,
an European artist who totally assimilated the Ifa culture and became an artist in her
own right, who re-collaborated with the ACP expatriate practice to produce murals
for a modernist Lagos hotel in the 1960s.26
This therefore provides a very brief record of a few of the other actors who helped
create West Africa’s modernist architecture canon and whose names have often been
unrecorded in its current telling and re-discovery. This, however, only gives part of
the story. The stories and views of the residents and occupiers of the modernist spaces
in this new urban condition would require another longer discussion for a future
publication.
Conclusions
What this piece has attempted is to provide a synoptic background to West African’s
modernism canon, giving brief histories, and building biographies of the other mem-
bers of West Africa’s modernist cast. They have for too long not been included in the
stories of West African’s magnificent modernist era. Also their stories begin to give
a more stereographic vision of West Africa at the time, it was never a binary city,
and always had a vocal, literate and engaged middle class involved in endeavours of
education, health and architecture, the latter which has long been forgotten or only
discussed in passing as part of West Africa’s urban history. Although a short chapter
cannot redress the balance, it can at least cast light on this aspect of West African
modernism.
What this article has not done is to engage with the public ‘resident on the street’ or
the local occupier’s view, partly because there is little documentary research about this
area and in a piece so short, again, identifying this group brings the need to research
this further to the fore. However its discussion of the lives and situations of early
West African architects does begin to give a better idea and raise questions as to their
involvement at both ends of the spectrum, both as architects and consumers of these
modernist projects.
Modernism was a product of an admittedly short but clearly transformational
period in West Africa’s architectural history. The region’s national engagement with
Modernism could at one level be seen as problematic from a Western viewpoint. These
modernist buildings, however, were never built to be precious – most were utilitarian
in nature and remain so today. They did, however, play a key role in the chronological
backdrop to much of West African’s history of independence and subsequent self-rule,
from Ghana’s Victory Arch, to the University of Ibadan, as a triumphant citadel of
African learning.
What we cannot, however, afford to forget is the indigenous architectural involve-
ment with this history; Owuso and John Owuso Addo’s Unity Hall and Adedokun
Adeyemi’s Crusader House are both testimonies to this, as are Demas Nwoko’s
Catholic College (1977) and Ben Enwonwu’s brilliant collaborations, with expatriate
architectural firms such as Nickson and Borys and others, on significant modernist
buildings in Lagos and elsewhere. African personalities were therefore just as engaged
in the new modernity that encapsulated mid-twentieth-century West Africa, as Afri-
cans involved in the other artistic and cultural movements of the time had been.
Notes
1 See Ian Jackson and Jessica Holland, The Architecture of Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew (Lon-
don: Ashgate, 2014). See also J. Cliff Moughtin, “The Traditional Settlements of the Hausa
People”, The Town Planning Review, vol. 35, no. 1 (1964), pp. 21–34; Mark Crinson,
Modern Architecture and the End of Empire (London: Ashgate, 2003); Hannah Le Roux,
“The Networks of Tropical Architecture”, Journal of Architecture (Sept. 2003), pp. 337–
354; Hannah Le Roux, “Modern Architecture in Post-Colonial Ghana and Nigeria”, Archi-
tectural History, vol. 47 (2004), pp. 361–392; Ola Uduku, “Modernist Architecture and
the ‘Tropical’ in West Africa, the Tropical Architecture Movement in West Africa”, Habitat
International, vol. 30, no. 3 (2006), pp. 396–411.
2 Jackson and Holland, 2014.
3 Ibiyemi Omotayo Salami, Public Works Departmentin Nigeria (1900–1960), PhD Thesis in
University of Liverpool, School of Architecture (Liverpool, 2016).
364 Ola Uduku
4 For example, both Samuel Opare Larbi and John Owuso-Addo had training at the AA
School on London (personal communication with both Architects, 2015, Kumasi).
5 For a longer discussion of this change over time see Moughtin, 1964.
6 Ola Uduku, “The Socio-Economic Basis of a Diaspora Community: Igbo bu ike”, Review
of African Political Economy, vol. 29, no. 92 (2002), pp. 301–311; Uduku, 2006.
7 Frederick Lugard, The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa, with a new introduction by
Margery Perham (London: Frank Cass & Co., 19655).
8 “Hamdala Hotel, Design Group”, West African Architect and Builder, vol. 5, no. 5 (Sept./
Oct. 1965), pp. 86–90.
9 Max Lock & Partners, Kaduna 1917, 1967, 2017: A Survey and Plan of the Capital Terri-
tory for the Government of Northern Nigeria (London: Faber, 1967).
10 Max Gerlach and David Hugh Gillies-Reyburn, “Kano Pilot Plan”, West African Architect
and Builder, vol 6, no. 5 (Sept./Oct. 1966), pp. 86–91; B.A.W. Trevallion, Metropolitan
Kano: Report on the Twenty-Year Development Plan 1963–1983 (Glasgow: Greater Kano
Planning Authority, 1966).
11 Viviana d’Auria, “From Tropical Transitions to Ekistic Experimentation: Doxiadis Associ-
ates in Tema, Ghana”, Positions: On Modern Architecture and Urbanism/Histories and
Theories, vol. 1 (2010), pp. 40–63.
12 Margaret Peil, Lagos: The City Is the People (London: Belhaven Press, 1991).
13 The First and Second National School Building Programmes (195X – 195x, and 195x –
195x). See le Roux, 2004.
14 Western and Eastern Nigeria Primary Education programmes.
15 Ola Uduku, “Bolgatanga Library, Adaptive Modernism in Ghana 40 Years on”, in The
Challenge of Change: Dealing with the Legacy of the Modern Movement: Proceedings of the
10th International DOCOMOMO Conference, edited by Dirk van den Heuvel, Maarten
Mesman, Wido Quist and Bert Lemmens (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2008), pp. 265–272.
16 Nigerian Archives, Design Group, West African Architect and Builder, vol. 3, no 5 (Sept./
Oct. 1963), pp. 82–89.
17 It is of note however that Nigeria’s first architects were qualified a generation earlier, most
having worked with the colonial Public Works Department and therefore have themselves
and their work less known about.
18 Guardian Nigeria, 6th June 2015 Exit of Nigeria’s Pioneer Visionary Architect.
19 J. Owuso Addo and S. Larbi, Conserving West African Modernism (Workshop and Confer-
ence Report – KNUST, Kumasi, 15th July 2015).
20 Ola Oluwakitan House, Alan Vaughan Richards, West Africa Builder and Architect, vol. 4,
no. 6 (1964), pp. 110–113 and vol. 7, no. 2.
21 African Modernism: The Architecture of Independence. Ghana, Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire,
Kenya, Zambia, edited by Manuel Herz with Ingrid Schroeder, Hans Focketyn and Julia
Jamrozik (Zurich: Park Books, 2015).
22 John Godwin and Gillian Hopwood, The Architecture of Demas Nwoko (Lagos: Farafina,
2007).
23 Peter Hammond, Liturgy and Architecture (London: Barrie and Rockliffe, 1961), p. 122.
24 Sylvester Okwunodu Ogbechie, Ben Enwonwu: The Making of an African Modernist
(Rochester, NY: University Rochester Press, 2008).
25 “Bristol Hotel, Architects Co. Partnership (ACP)”, West African Architect and Builder,
vol 3, no. 4 (1963), pp. 62–65.
26 Max Lock & Partners, Kaduna 1917, 1967, 2017: A Survey and Plan of the Capital Terri-
tory for the Government of Northern Nigeria (London: Faber, 1967).
9 Evolution in the Arab region
Ashraf M. Salama
The Arab region has witnessed intensive dramatic transformations both at the politi-
cal and urban levels. Cultural politics in recent years have had significant impact
on development, architecture, and urbanism. Although ‘Mediterraneanism,’ ‘Middle
Easternism,’ ‘Pan-Arabism’, and ‘Islamism’ are typically used as constructs that serve
political ends, they bring into focus questions about collective identity and the shar-
ing of deeper meanings at the cultural and existential levels. The unique cultural and
geo-political position of the Arab region, coupled with the contemporary global con-
dition, created a rich soil for architectural and urban experimentation where a num-
ber of voices have emerged toward constructing identity and hopefully in search of
meaning. While establishing correlations between cultural politics and architectural
identity is a stimulating quest, the result of cultural political discourse is that architec-
ture and cities continue to be labeled, debated, and referred to as ‘Arabic,’ ‘Islamic,’
‘Mediterranean,’ ‘Gulf,’ ‘Egyptian,’ ‘Kuwaiti,’ ‘Qatari,’ ‘Saudi,’ etc.
Fundamental identity positions

In the Arab region, issues that pertain to identity and character have been debated
for over 30 years, more so because of this region’s cultural exclusivity and plurality.
However, it is this cultural uniqueness that has made it a tough pursuit and has – in
many cases – culminated in a type of symbolism that is painful to comprehend.1 Some
voices posit the question of the necessity to refer to cultural or religious symbolism
in architecture to reflect a specific identity. Others argue for the fact that Arab archi-
tecture should embody the collective aspirations of societies in this region. Still, many
other voices keep questioning the need to debate architectural identity at all, claiming
that it merely displays a lack of ‘self-confidence’ as a region or as a group of nations.
The contemporary architectural scene conveys that we still seem to be at odds with
the issue of identity.
Interrogating the notion of identity in contemporary literature reveals several posi-
tions. Charles Correa defines identity as a process, not as a found object, and not
as a self-conscious process.2 He avows that our search for identity could give us a
much greater sensitivity not only to our environment, but also to ourselves and to the
society in which we live. On the other hand, Manuel Castells argues that identity is a
process of construction of meaning on the basis of giving priority to a set of cultural
attributes over other sources of meaning3; it is fundamental to the dynamic of societ-
ies. In essence, the position of Castells is that identity is constructed and is a process of
choice, whereas for Correa it is natural – a spontaneous process that reflects the spirit
366 Ashraf M. Salama
of the time and of place. Yuswadi Saliya states that identity is a human need that has
transformed itself throughout the history into a necessity, and that it is true that being
recognized for having an identity is most rewarding.4 Along the same line of thinking,
Hall argues, “cultural identity is a matter of ‘becoming’ as well as of ‘being’ and it
belongs to the future as much as to the past”.5 Two polar qualities appear in Hall’s
position reflecting a more in-depth understanding of identity. One relates to similarity
and continuity, while the other recounts difference and rupture. In essence, identity
can be understood as the collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which an
object or a portion of the built environment is definitively recognizable.
Evolving voices of constructed identities

Different cities within the Arab region have witnessed continuous voices to construct
architectural identity. During the late 1950s, a city like Cairo was already an amalgam
of architectural influences derived from its rich mix of three main cultures: the Phara-
onic, the Christian-Coptic, and the Islamic, in addition to some colonial influences.
On the Arabian Peninsula during the mid-1960s, cities like Kuwait and Riyadh were
transforming from vernacular settlements into modern planned cities. In both cases,
this period has witnessed no voices on constructing identity on the basis of establish-
ing links with the past. The aspiration was to join the contemporary world and to
break all ties with tradition that was typically associated with poor and primitive
living conditions. It appears that the cases of Kuwait and Riyadh are being repeated
in Doha and Dubai.6
Expressing cultural identity through architecture and urban form seems to have
emerged in the Arab region two decades later after the rise of international post mod-
ernism. Following the international scene, it was a direct challenge to many of the
premises upon which modern architecture was predicated. It re-acknowledged the
role of symbolism in architecture and regarded modernism as lacking the premises to
properly respond to the emotional and cultural needs of people while simultaneously
expressing the economic, scientific, and technological givens of the time. In the Arab
region, starting from the mid-1980s and continuing to the late 1990s, many voices
attempted to acknowledge public tastes as a source of design in the belief that such
a practice would help their work communicate with the public. However, it appears
that it was a simple transposition from following international modernism to follow-
ing international post-modernism.7 The major flaw lies in the fact that its disposition
does not allow it to go far enough in its understanding of its context. It does not
address the shortcomings implicit in modernist architectural practices, but rather, it
tacitly accepts them.
From the 1990s onward, in attempting to construct architectural identity, one may
observe that identities are constructed in some cases by various cultural, social, and
political institutions where decision makers are inflicting key preferences. In other
cases, developers create them whose interest is derived from pure economic concerns
and market logic. Within this context, some architects are in a continuous process of
criticizing their own versions of modern and post-modern architecture and the prevail-
ing contemporary practices. Discourses and practices always suggest the recycling of
traditional architecture and its elements as a way of establishing and imposing a more
meaningful character in the contemporary city.8 In this respect, different voices are
envisioned, one of which is refurbishing old palaces, public buildings, and traditional
Evolution in the Arab region 367
settlements, or intervention conservation and reconstruction projects which were car-
ried out in Al Darb Al Hamar of Old Cairo, Solidere in Beirut, Old Sana’a in Yemen,
Souq Waqif in Doha, and Bastakia Quarter in Dubai.
Another voice is establishing visual references – borrowed from the past – and
utilized in contemporary buildings. Historical revivalism is one of the paradigms that
characterize this voice to construct architectural identity. Here, architects envisage the
selection of historic features plowing from the Arab heritage.9 They believe that simu-
lating the history in contemporary buildings would help establish a sense of belonging
and a strong emotional tie between society, place memory and contemporary inter-
ventions. Mina Al Salam at Jumeirah Beach in Dubai, Fanar Islamic Cultural Center
in Doha, and Souq Sharq in Kuwait, are just a few examples that manifest this voice.
The two voices represent what Castells called ‘identities of legitimization,’ where
projects are typically adopted by state institutions or government-owned real estate
ventures. In essence, they advocate traditional imaging to impress the local society by
their origin while boasting the profile of capital cities.
Within the preceding scene, scholars argue that as many nations are resorting to
heritage preservation, the re-invention of tradition, and the rewriting of history as
forms of self-definition,10 the questioning of the role of tradition and heritage in the
shaping of architectural identity has become a necessity. This is due to the fact that
the notion of revivalism is manifested in either a scholarly copying from the past that
can be labelled as ‘cloning’ or ‘copying-pasting’ or in attempts at re-interpretation.
However, in the process of re-interpretation, grotesque images are produced. Notably,
the license to select, borrow, and copy from the past became integral component of
architectural practices and logically acceptable.
Striking a balance between tradition and modernity is another paradigm that mani-
fests several voices by both Arab and international architects in order to construct
architectural identity as they conceive it. In this respect, tradition can be seen as an
internal action or as a reaction to external forces. Concomitantly, the result of the
interaction between internal influences and external forces creates an identity. As the
discourse continues on the dialectic relationships between tradition and modernity, the
contemporary and the historic, and the global and the local, a number of important
projects exemplify the presence of multiple resistant identities. Pioneering this voice,
Arab architects, such as Abdel-Halim Ibrahim of Egypt and Rasem Badran in Jordan,
have continuously addressed such a balance in their work by developing syntheses
of contemporary images based on revived traditions and by simulating traditional
environments while using modern technologies. In essence, their work endeavors to
return architecture to its former position of being an expression of society and arising
from within it.
Some international architects are adopting the ‘tradition-modernity’ voice in their
current work. Ricardo Legoretta continues, in his design of the Engineering College
of Texas A&M University at the Education City in Doha, to root his work in the
application of regional Mexican architecture to a wider global context. Utilizing
elements of Mexican regional architecture including earth colors, plays of light and
shadow, central patios, courtyards, and porticos as well as solid volumes, he finds
these elements amenable to the local context. The overall expression of the building
demonstrates masterful integration of solid geometry and a skillful use of color and
tone values,11 while proposing a dialogue between tradition and modernity. On the
same site, Arata Isozaki designed the Liberal Arts and Sciences building (LAS) which
is a focal point for all students in the Education City campus. As an architecturally
stunning intervention, the building is designed around a theme developed from tradi-
tional Arab mosaics that are evocative of the crystalline structure of sand. This was
based on intensive studies to abstract the essential characteristics of the context while
introducing new interpretations of geometric patterns derived from widely applied
traditional motives.
The Central Market in Abu-Dhabi by Norman Foster proposes another dialogue
between tradition and modernity, yet in a different expression and for a different
purpose. The project replaces the traditional market and its site, one of the oldest in
the city. It is composed of low-rise retail centers with roof gardens that form a new
public park and three towers for offices and residences. In avoiding the generic feel
of a universal shopping experience, the design blends local vernacular with global
aspirations. On the whole, the project raises questions of how a re-interpretation of
the local vernacular that replaces a traditional market place would target the elite and
the affluent while leaving out a major segment of Abu-Dhabi’s populace that used to
portray the original site.
Voices of the global condition

The concept of the “spatiality of flow” was introduced by Manuel Castells12 and
Arjun Appadurai.13 They argue that contemporary societies are structured around the
“flows of capital, information, technology, images, sounds and symbols. The rise of
global cities such as Abu-Dhabi, Doha, Dubai and Manama that are witnessing con-
tinuous urban growth processes, has led to the emergence of global identity, reflect-
ing a common culture of information, globalizing cultural values and resulting in
‘neo-formalism;’ uniform architectural styles, and stereotypical patterns of spaces and
forms. By and large, these ‘flows’ are important players in the shaping of professional
practices and the resulting spatial environments that accommodate them, and in turn,
in shaping identity. Cities like Abu Dhabi, Doha, Dubai and Manama are referred to
as cities that have ‘global’ identity since they are exposed to more flows than cities like
Jeddah, Kuwait, Muscat, and Riyadh.
Within the ‘global’ identity narrative, the tradition-modernity voice seems to have
drifted into two different voices. One that relates to the ‘receptacle-spectacle’ relation-
ship and the other narrates ‘multiple modernities.’ Evidently, governments and rulers
of countries seem to be continuously encouraging ‘cultural flow’ where cultural traffic
between east and west is exchanged after it kept moving one way for decades. Key
building types such as museums and cultural facilities have gained immense attention
from both officials and the public. In such, the relationship between the building from
inside – the elegant receptacle, and its outside – the spectacle, appears to be paradoxi-
cal. Such a relationship seems to be addressed in harmony in the I.M. Pei’s Museum
of Islamic Art in Doha; a conscious attempt at translating the cultural aspirations of
a country into a manifestation that speaks to world architecture while addressing
contextual particularities exemplified by regional culture and local environment. On
the contrary, museum buildings in Abu-Dhabi are going beyond being an ‘elegant
receptacle’ for other people’s art, to a ‘spectacle’ in and of itself. Despite the concep-
tual design drivers of Ando’s Maritime Museum, Gehry’s Guggenheim, Foster’s Zayed
National Museum, Nouvel’s Louvre, or Zaha’s Performing Arts Centre, they are yield-
ing to a preference for developing spectacles over elegant receptacles. In essence, this
instigates a competitive interface between the public presence of museum architecture
and its primary implicate order.
The globalized city condition is being invigorated, and the resulting architecture and
urbanism keep materializing via such a stipulation. Rulers and governments are also
supporting innovation, in a few cases by fostering the blend of advanced technology
in construction systems with local expressions, and in many cases by speaking solely
to the global community. A considerable number of undertakings protest the global
city condition. From the novelty of the levels of conceptual and structural innovation
to the use of high-tech material technologies, to the attempts to stamp strong impres-
sions in the minds of local residents and international visitors, they all exhibit global
competition between cities on the Arabian peninsula, whilst representing strong evi-
dence of persistent aspirations that have culminated into what can be called ‘multiple
modernities.’ This signifies that there are forces of modernity that can be envisaged,
received, reacted to, and developed in different ways and in different contexts. In turn,
it generates architectural heterogeneity, which goes beyond the dualisms of East-West,
tradition-contemporaneity, and local-global, representing the voice of genericness or
universalism in architecture that is in attendance on a universal client, a universal user,
within a universal value system.
Conclusion: a voice for co-existence of multiple identities

Traditionally, architecture has been the primary means of expression and commu-
nication of the ideas, values, beliefs, and value systems of a culture.14 Voices of
constructed identities and those reacting to global flows are some of these means.
The critical question that can be raised in this context is: Have these attempts to
establish architectural identity in the Arab world represented the collective mind of
the culture in which they exist? I argue that within the geo-cultural politics of this
region and with these endeavors there is no one collective mind that can be concep-
tually utilized to generalize or to build upon; there is in fact plurality and multiplic-
ity. In understanding identity representation in architecture as a form of cultural
expression, a theoretical approach is proposed towards a deeper understanding of
meaning in architecture, which concerns itself with the two philosophical perspec-
tives: positivism and anti-positivism. Derived from these perspectives there are two
positions: ontology and epistemology. On the one hand, ontology is concerned with
the nature of being; the nature of the reality of a phenomenon. It examines the
relationship between the mind and matter. Epistemology, on the other hand, is con-
cerned with the nature of knowledge about a phenomenon, its foundation, extent,
and validity. It examines the way in which knowledge about a phenomenon can be
acquired and conveyed.15
Relating to ontology, positivism adopts the position of realism involving the con-
ception that objects of sense perception exist independent of the observer’s mind
and this means that reality is believed to be objective, can be rationalized, and is
available for observation by everyone. Relating to epistemology, positivism considers
knowledge as independent of the observer and objectively verifiable. Alternatively,
anti-positivism involves the conception that universal laws do not exist independent
of the human mind, and this means that reality is perceived by people as individuals
and in groups. It adopts the view that individuals acquire different types of knowledge.
In this respect, one can assert that individuals and group differences are regarded as
valid and important mechanisms and thus socio-cultural contexts are envisioned as
critical and unavoidable.
In positivism, a work of architecture is seen as an objective realty with components
and parts that everyone can observe, perceive, and agree upon. In turn, emphasis is
placed on the common properties of architecture and its universal principles leading
to the suppression of multiple viewpoints, thoughts, and voices. In anti-positivism,
the same work of architecture is seen as having multiple realties. In turn, emphasis is
placed upon values, preferences, and cultural aspirations of people as individuals and
in groups leading to the production of culturally and socially responsive visual voices.
Perceiving and interpreting architectural identity and the resulting visual voices within
these philosophical perspectives would lead to a deeper insight into the understanding
of contemporary Arab architecture within which inevitable trends co-exist.
Notes
1 Ashraf M. Salama, ‘Architectural Identity in the Middle East: Hidden Assumptions and
Philosophical Perspectives’, in Shores of the Mediterranean: Architecture as Language of
Peace, edited by Donatella Mazzoleni Giuseppe Anzani, Ashraf Salama, Marichela Sepe and
Maria Maddalena Simeone (Naples: Intra Moenia, 2005), pp. 77–85; Ashraf M. Salama,
‘Architectural Identity Demystified: Visual Voices from the Arab World’, in The Cultural
Role of Architecture: Contemporary and Historical Perspectives, edited by Paul Emmons,
Jane Lomholt, and John S. Hendrix (London: Routledge, 2012), pp. 175–184.
2 Charles Correa, ‘Quest for Identity’, in Architecture and Identity, edited by Robert Powell
(Singapore: Concept Media/The Aga Khan Award for Architecture, 1983), pp. 10–13.
3 Manuel Castells, The Relationship between Globalization and Cultural Identity in the
Early 21st Century (Barcelona: Forum, 2004. Available online http://www.barcelona2004.
org/eng/banco_del_conocimiento/documentos/ficha.cfm?IdDoc=1628, accessed 12 March
2007).
4 Yuswadi Saliya, ‘Notes on the Architectural Identity in the Cultural Context’, in MIMAR
19: Architecture in Development, edited by Hasan-Uddin Khan (Singapore: Concept Media
Ltd., 1986), pp. 32–33.
5 Stuart Hall, ‘Cultural Identity and Diaspora’, in Identity: Community, Culture, Difference,
edited by Jonathan Rutherford (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1990), p. 225; Samuel Hun-
tington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1998).
6 Youssef M. Choueiri, Arab Nationalism: A History. Nation and State in the Arab World
(Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2000); Ashraf M. Salama, ‘Urban Traditions in the Contempo-
rary Lived Space of Cities on the Arabian Peninsula’, Traditional Dwellings and Settlements
Review, 27 (1/2015), pp. 21–39.
7 Ashraf M. Salama, ‘Mediterranean Visual Messages: The Conundrum of Identity, ISMS,
and Meaning in Contemporary Egyptian Architecture’, Archnet-IJAR- International Jour-
nal of Architectural Research, 1 (1/2007), pp. 86–104.
8 Ashraf M. Salama and Florian Wiedmann, Demystifying Doha: On Architecture and
Urbanism in an Emerging City (London: Routledge, 2013. New edition).
9 Salama 2007.
10 Consuming Tradition, Manufacturing Heritage: Global Norms and Urban Forms in the
Age of Tourism, edited by Nezar Al Sayyad (London: Routledge, 2001); Traditions: The
“Real”, the Hyper, and the Virtual in the Built Environment, edited by Nezar Al Sayyad
(London: Routledge, 2014).
11 Salama 2012.
12 Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, the Information Age: Economy, Society
and Culture (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996).
13 Arjun Appadurai, Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization (Minneapo-
lis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1996).
14 John Shannon Hendrix, Architecture as the Psyche of a Culture: The Cultural Role of
Architecture, School of Architecture, Art, and Historic Preservation, Faculty Papers # 8
(Bristol, RI: Roger Williams University, 2010. Available online http://docs.rwu.edu/saahp_
fp/8, accessed 2 May 2010).
15 Salama 2007; Ashraf M. Salama, “Urban Traditions in the Contemporary Lived Space
of Cities on the Arabian Peninsula”, Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review, 27
(1/2015), pp. 21–39.
10 Humanism
An Italian tale
Franco Purini
In the global age, two of the most important issues regarding the identity of contem-
porary architecture are the quest for a national direction and the relationship with
the past. Modern Italian architecture is an example of how the relationship between
history and design can influence the development of national identity.
Using a basic timeline, we might say that modern Italian architecture is one century
old. Antonio Sant’Elia’s manifesto Futurist Architecture (1914) prophesied the birth
of a new world where function and form would be based on machines, speed and the
simultaneity of phenomena. This work, which received mixed reviews, was born of
an interesting contradiction: it contains some undoubtedly original features but at
the same time also harks back to North American and Viennese nineteenth-century
architectures. It reveals two central features of Italian architecture. The first is that
architecture was not itself responsible for Modernism which, we might say, was
imported. The second is the ability of Italian architects to extract raw material from
other contexts in order to carry out a process of real reinvention, in which reference
is not made to what “went before”, but rather to what “will come after”. From 1944
onwards, we notice two different behavioural patterns: the first is a sort of complex,
if not of inferiority then certainly of subordination, with respect to the international
scene. The second is that of a constant tendency to re-negotiate, on a piecemeal basis,
the sense of belonging to Modernity, as if it were something that had to be regu-
larly re-defined. From this there emerged both a totally unjustifiable refusal to accept
that Italian architecture might have any recognizable roots, in addition to a tendency
towards self-criticism leading to serious under-estimation of what Italy has been able
to plan and create.
Issues and problems

The history of twentieth-century Italy has been built upon some troublesome moments
which have become narrative spaces, thereby creating a de facto mythology which has
since been almost totally adopted by the architectural community: distancing itself
from the excesses of the avant-garde, which had picked up on those ideas which
were easier to digest; the difficult mediation carried out between various fields of
research; contemporary criticism of the gap between the city and architecture. And
we could add others, equally important, such as the relationship between innovation
and tradition, where we are see the vital dialectic between futurism and metaphysics;
the iterative stages between the whole and the fragment – as symbolic representation
of that which is ancient – which permeate the work of someone like Carlo Scarpa;
Humanism: an Italian tale 373
Figure 10.1 Antonio Sant’Elia, Manifesto of Futurist Architecture, 11 July 1914.
the alternation between the general and the specific; the union or division of archi-
tecture and politics; the choice between autonomy and heteronomy; the relationships
between the architect and the world of production; the continuity, or lack of it, with
respect to the past; uncertainty with regard to resources and the limits of a ratio-
nal lasting architecture as opposed to a fluid and metamorphic vision of reality; the
374 Franco Purini
relationship with art, seen both as the integration of various artistic languages and as
differential confrontation; the question of sustainability not only in a technical sense
but also given new concepts of habitat.
These issues have subsequently given rise to a number of recurring figures, among
which we find the dichotomy of the Manichaean struggle between progressives and
reactionaries, which does not tolerate distinction and specification; the idea of conflict
as an essential architectural category; the corresponding adoption of the crisis model
as an outcome of the clash between opposing forces: an aesthetic hypothesis which
treats this failure both as an heroic decline and as the premise for rebirth that has
been postponed until an unknown future time and place; the association of the value
of an architectural work with that of the ideological criteria employed in its concep-
tion and creation. This has therefore led to a permanent conflict between opposing
factions; architecture as expression of an unrestricted abstract liberty; innovation seen
as the fruit of a constant dialectic between, on the one hand, local and representative
needs born out of the Industrial Revolution, to which architecture can provide a solu-
tion and, on the other, environmental pre-existence, with all the derived problematic
compromises. Edoardo Persico’s disconsolate yet cautionary vision; the political dif-
ficulty introduced by Giulia Veronesi;1 the dramatization of the state of Italian archi-
tecture by Giuseppe Pagano;2 the exasperation of Bruno Zevi’s redemptive post-war
organicist perspective;3 the urgency of Ernesto Nathan Rogers’ continuous calls for
architects to exercise a greater sense of responsibility;4 the permanent worried lack
of satisfaction exuded by Ludovico Quaroni; Manfredo Tafuri’s repeated critical and
historical inclination towards apocalyptic interpretations which draw an inherently
pessimistic picture, with architecture seen mainly as “sostanza di cose spate”5 and
therefore a promise which cannot be kept. Close to Saverio Muratori’s theories we
find that even the idea of environmental pre-existence and the consequent drawing
of an intermediate line between conservation and renovation – take, for example,
BBPR’s Velasca Tower in Milan or Muratori’s Palazzo Sturzo in Rome. These have
generated an endless series of planning compromises which have subtracted energy
from what was new, reducing the mysterious and prophetic meaning of traces from
the past, from Alberto Savinio to Massimo Bontempelli. Only Vittorio Gregotti, from
Rogers’ original pupils – Aldo Rossi, Guido Canella, Gae Aulenti – seems to have
completely freed himself from imitative historicism or from the rhetoric of urban
environmentalism.
The problem of the basic relationship with innovation had already been identified
and settled in the 1920s and 1930s by Gustavo Giovannoni and Marcello Piacentini;
the latter’s urban projects, above all, were only ever created after careful and thorough
evaluation. The same qualities appear in many rationalist theoretical projects, among
which we find Milano Verde from 1938, which caught the eye of the young Giulio
Carlo Argan, and the plan for a whole new district in Ivrea, from 1940. Piacentini him-
self had already clarified his cultural policy – orientated around a central line between
innovative acceleration and an emphatic traditionalism.6 In the samples which he
proposed, we can see more openness onto the international scene than onto local Ital-
ian production. Piacentini, like his friend and antagonist Giovannoni, was responsible
for some ideas regarding the city, such as that of the value of pre-existences, which
in the 1950s and 1960s were to be at the heart of the most advanced of architectural
debates. And it is not by chance that the most important twentieth-century Italian city
planner, Luigi Piccinato, was a pupil of his.
Figure 10.2 Studio BBPR (Lodovico Barbiano di Belgiojoso, Enrico Peressutti and Ernesto
Nathan Rogers), Velasca Tower, Milan, 1956–1958
Source: Purini Thermes archive.
376 Franco Purini
Historical studies based on ideology and politics could not fail to produce misunder-
standings and mistakes, underestimating schools, works and, simultaneously, events and
personalities. So during the Fascist period, Pietro Maria Bardi’s theory of architecture
as state art attempted to bend architecture to fit the regime’s propaganda aims. In the
post-war period, this experience prevented – especially among left-wingers – the devel-
opment of an approach based on architecture as the expression of society as a whole.
What remained was short-lived populist interest in housing for the under-privileged
classes. Compared to the celebratory intentions of Fascist architecture, Neorealism was
seen as a victory for the popular building tradition, an antidote to modern abstraction.
In effect, in Rome and in other cities, Neorealism inherited experiences from the 1920s
and 1930s, as we can see from impartial comparison between works such as the Gar-
batella and Montesacro districts and Mario Ridolfi and Quaroni’s Tiburtino. Here we
witness the invention of an architectural language based on a rural atmosphere which
evokes a profoundly anti-urban community spirit.
Among the narrative spaces which were to undergo revision, the return to order –
Jean Costeau’s slogan which attracted a number of Italian artists previously dedi-
cated to the avant-garde – should not be seen a mere hankering for the past, but as a
re-alignment or search for a broader and more widely accepted horizon. Avant-garde
had brought about a dramatic split between the language of architecture and its con-
tents, leading artistic and architectural aspirations into a phase of radical hermeti-
cism, which prevented most people from being able to understand the works. This
meant that it became necessary to repair the damage, bringing the language and its
contents back into the same fold, a phenomenon which also applied to architecture.
To judge this realignment as moral betrayal would, however, be unfair. It would be
much better to refer to an erroneous and unproductive choice, but not certainly not
one that should attract any blame.
There are other narrative spaces which need to be completely re-thought. Recog-
nition of exemplary pieces of Fascist architecture has only been given as a function
of their designers’ silent opposition to the regime, something which did not usually
correspond to the truth; suffice it to consider Giuseppe Terragni’s Casa del Fascio
in Como and Adalberto Libera’s Palazzo dei Congressi in the Eur district in Rome
Another partly demolished myth relates to the isolation into which Fascism is pre-
sumed to have condemned Italian culture, including architecture. In reality, informa-
tion about what was happening in the outside world and reflection on international
trends was never in short supply, as can be seen from contemporary periodicals such
as Casabella and Domus.
By the time we get to the 1970s and the question of housing for the masses, prob-
lems relating to large residential projects inspired and funded by left-wing admin-
istrations, such as Mario Fiorentino’s Corviale in Rome, have been given blatantly
favourable treatment with respect to the real functional and technical shortcomings
of these districts.
For many years, artistic issues such as those involving Ridolfi, together with theo-
ries which were put forward by Rogers in the pages of Casabella or developed by
Quaroni, were manipulated, albeit unconsciously, with the aim of concealing other
quality approaches to architecture which had been developed by personalities who
were either unorthodox or who in any case did not fall conveniently into any ideologi-
cal pigeon holes: Giò Ponti, Luciano Baldessari, Luigi Moretti, Marcello D’Olivo and
Maurizio Sacripanti.
Figure 10.3 Giuseppe Terragni, Casa del Fascio – House of Fascism, Como, 1932–1936
Source: Wikipedia (Creative Commons, 2014).
Figure 10.4 Adalberto Libera, Palace of Congress, Rome, 1938–1954

378 Franco Purini
Figure 10.5 Mario Fiorentino, Corviale, Rome, 1972

At the heart of this cultural battle was Zevi’s total extremism; an aggressive, albeit
transient, desire to vanquish all opposition jeopardised the chance to hold what were
often very necessary debates. Opposition to post-modernism, epitomized by the Zevi’s
unceasing hostility towards Paolo Portoghesi, cannot be completely justified. Similarly,
his predilection for operative criticism was also opposed in a similarly rigid and defini-
tive manner by Tafuri. Putting to one side the various damnatio memoriae – suffice
it remember Zevi’s almost total elimination of Muratori’s work – we could draw up
a list of episodes which have been removed, of fine pieces of architecture which have
been condemned to oblivion, of unimportant moments which have been crowned
as epoch making, of somewhat modest events which have been accorded interna-
tional acclamation. The real meaning of works by central figure such as Giuseppe
Samonà, Giancarlo De Carlo, and Rogers and Quaroni themselves, does not seem
to be a reason for such interest, since they were considered important more for their
intellectual roles than for their planning research, which actually had been going on
steadily and effectively for many years. In a sense, the only solid and long-lasting
point of reference was academic culture, whose architectural output, however, has not
been deemed worthy of serious critical attention. A similar fate befell anti-academic
architectural works, which in turn were more appreciated for their experimental and
anti-conventional character than for any intrinsic architectural content.
There still remain some historical and critical puzzles to solve. One of these is the
role played by Adriano Olivetti’s Community Movement, which was responsible for
the promotion of some very important works such as La Martella district in Matera.
Olivetti’s vision, which was simultaneously both democratic and elitist, was inspired
by a type of critical enlightenment which took upon its shoulders the entire weight
of those problems which it sought to resolve. In this way, it ended up by placing the
solutions above and beyond the urban and social contexts in which it was interven-
ing. These solutions were lowered down from above, as if the people involved in these
experiments were not individuals engaged in dialogue but rather specimens who were
lucky to take part in an advanced project of reformist engineering.7 Another problem

consists in understanding the reasons in the early 1960s for the left wing’s lack of
interest for service centres, or directional centers, spaces for urban social relations
which are still today trapped in no-man’s land between openness onto their territory
on the one hand and isolation in districts which are cut off from the outside world,
on the other.
Another theoretical problem, which has only been tackled by Italian architecture
in a sideways fashion, is technical know-how. Possibly on account of the influence
of Croce’s idealism in the twentieth century, the role to be played by technology
in modern society – unlike in Germany where it was central, as in the works of
Romano Guardini and Martin Heidegger – was occasional and marginal. Consider
works by Renzo Piano, inspired by an original humanistic approach to the techni-
cal dimension, light years from the punctilious over-exposure of high-tech. We have
had to wait at least 20 years for this work to be recognized by Italian critics as an
outstanding contribution to one of the most complex problems of the twentieth
century.
Up until the present, there has been no investigation as to why Italy should find
it necessary to produce so many architects – more than 150,000 – as to completely
devalue their professional status. The latest generations of designers have been the
hardest hit by the effects of decisions for which the definition “self-harming” would
be putting it mildly.
In order understand better the relationship between issues currently besetting Ital-
ian architecture on the one hand and the international scene on the other, we first
of all need to look back at some deep-lying and irreversible changes that have taken
place over the last 20 years. They were brought on by the convergence of three phe-
nomena, whose importance is still difficult to gauge.
The first is the advent of globalization, which has completely re-drawn the pattern
of world politics, economies and cultures, triggering frantic competition, not only
among states but also among metropoles, each of which, like Shanghai, is aiming to
achieve international renown.
The second is the information technology revolution, which has brought about
the passage from the Vitruvian tectonic paradigm, as written by Kurt W. Forster, to a
type of construction based on the continuity of surfaces which are both load-bearing
and contoured. Above all, however, it has brought about a new way of communicat-
ing via social networks. The Internet, moreover, has seen the birth of a new type of
architectural criticism, expressed through blogs and press letters. Many architects can
now find new critical readings online of what is happening in their respective fields. It
is still too early to assess the role of online criticism, which remains, however, a field
worthy of attention.
380 Franco Purini
Figure 10.6 Renzo Piano & Richard Rogers, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris, 1971–1977
Source: Wikipedia (Creative Commons).
The third phenomenon is the passage from the production of material to immaterial
goods, that is to say the claim of culture and art to be the main places for the realiza-
tion of collective expectations.
These three changes have all taken place against a backdrop of the increasingly
rapid flow of information which adds to the ever-increasing concentration on the
here-and-now. This compression into the immediate present brings about an extreme
generalization which is a hallmark of globalization. The tendency to ensure the con-
formity of nearly each and every instance of communication reduces the complexity of
communication itself and renders it repetitive and stereotyped. The accelerated flow
of information, the concentration of time into the present and the abstract reduction-
ism displayed by the media all help prevent the creation of that critical distance which
Gregotti has referred to for many years.8 There is no longer enough time available to
see things in such a way as to be able to analyze them and to assess their significance.
Accordingly, it has become necessary to find a position that corresponds to where one
would like to be found, by using a sort of sixth sense in order make instantaneous
re-alignments of various different phenomena and elements.
Given all this, we can only hope that in the near future three associated operations
will be carried out. The first is that of promoting a historiography of twentieth-century
Italian architecture outside the confines of a binary system inspired by an ideological
view of everything that has taken place in the second half of the last century. Historical
studies should finally abandon the idea that architecture is simply the outcome of a
sort of endless civil war, a rebellion not only against what is new but also against the
country’s new democratic growth. The modern age was not a technical or operational
entity of monolithic stature, and neither did it have as antagonist an alternative Mod-
ern Age. It can be seen as the repetition of a number of different points of view, each
of which has its own intrinsic legitimacy, and all of which can certainly cohabit. The
simplistic notion that there is only one direction in which research should proceed
in order to express noble ideas and state-of-the-art programmes can no longer be
supported. What is required is a pluralist vision in which conflicting interpretations
may co-exist. Obviously this does not exclude that a given point of view may have its
own orientation, but the nature of criticism, which Charles Baudelaire says should be
“partiale, passionnée, politique”,9 should not lead to the negation of evidence, to the
eternal damnation of those who hold different views, or to the deliberate neglect of
events, people and works for the sake of convenience.
The second operation deals with the problem of the thematic simplification result-
ing from the globalization of cultural and information processes. For instance, the
organization of Italian architecture along the lines of both national and regional iden-
tities is too complicated to be an issue of concern to the planet as a whole, which is
nowadays more interested in sustainability and technology. In the historical study of
Italian architecture, memory prevails over the search for new ideas, leading to the
inoculation of our culture with the toxins of nostalgia, self-satisfaction and post-dated
alibis. This prevents a partially marginal architecture, such as the Italian one, from
being able to compete on an equal footing in exchanges and projects at global level.
Memory should not only be treated as a place in the mind which endows those who
possess it with a status of superior responsibility and sensitivity with respect to the
real world. Memory should not even appear as a cult of the past, with sentimental or
evocative overtones, but rather should aim towards the re-creation of the actual pro-
cesses through which architecture and its places have achieved their identity.
The need to embark on a process of thematic simplification is the ante-chamber
of the third operation, the most difficult. In fact Italian architecture urgently needs
to come up with a programme consisting of no more than four priorities: the recon-
struction of our peninsula’s landscape territory – starting from its geology – with
the aim of removing all the damage done by building speculation and by bad gover-
nance; translate our historical heritage into a contemporary architectural language,
removing it from the cosy conventional notion of the past; stimulate a programme
of innovative urban architectural interventions, abandoning theories of environmen-
tal pre-existence; encourage the co-habitation of a diversity of conflicting tenden-
cies, without necessarily according any one of them a dominant role. These priorities
should equally be supported by a plurality of different ideologies. While we wait for
this new historical period, no longer contained within a binary paradigm, but via
conflicting and fully functioning cohabitation strategies, we wish upon ourselves the
happiness of being able to work at as great a distance as possible from the anxious
isolation that imbued narrative spaces in twentieth-century Italy.
Notes
1 Giulia Veronesi, Difficoltà politiche dell’architettura in Italia: 1920–1940 (Milan: Politecnica
Tamburini, 1953).
382 Franco Purini
2 Giuseppe Pagano, Architettura e città durante il fascismo, edited by C. de Seta (Roma-Bari:
Laterza 1976; new edition Milan: Jaca book, 2008).
3 Bruno Zevi, Saper vedere l’architettura (Turin: Einaudi, 1948).
4 Ernesto Nathan Rogers, Esperienze dell’architettura (Turin: Einaudi, 1959). See also Conti-
nuità e crisi: Ernesto Nathan Rogers e la cultura architettonica italiana del secondo dopogu-
erra, edited by Anna Giannetti and Luca Molinari (Florence: Alinea, 2010).
5 Edoardo Persico, “Punto e da capo per l’architettura”, Domus (November 1934), pp. 1–9.
See also Ezio Bonfanti, Nuovo e moderno in architettura, edited by Marco Biraghi and
Michelangelo Sabatino (Milan: Bruno Mondadori, 2001), pp. 213–249.
6 Marcello Piacentini, Architettura d’oggi (Rome: Cremonese, 1930). See also Marcello Pia-
centini architetto: 1881–1960, edited by Giorgio Ciucci, Simonetta Lux and Franco Purini
(Rome: Gangemi, 1912).

7 For the role played by Adriano Olivetti, together with that of Zevi and of Rogers, see Miriam
Panzeri, Architettura moderna e progetto umanistico: Storia, formazione, comunità 1945–
1965 (Milan: Jaka Book, 2013).
8 Vittorio Gregotti, Architettura e postmetropoli (Turin: Einaudi, 2011).
9 Charles Baudelaire, À quoi bon la critique?, Salon de 1846, in Oeuvres Complètes, edited by
C. Pichois (Paris: Gallimard, 1976), II, p. 418.
11 Post-tradition in Japanese culture
Mizuko Ugo
In Japan, the study and survey of modern built heritage (built starting from the Meiji
period, 1868–1912, onward) began around the second half of the 1950s. At this
time, a large number of modern architectures were demolished in the rush of high
economic growth and, at the same time, attention was directed towards that period of
Japan’s history due to the approaching of the 100-year commemoration of the Meiji
Restoration. These studies and surveys led to the designation of modern architectures
as (Important Cultural Properties) beginning at the end of the 1950s and continuing
particularly in the 1960s. In fact, the designation of the most representative modern
architectures was the solution adopted with great urgency to save them from being
dismantled.1
However, this urgent solution was not immediately followed by more carefully con-
sidered measures. It was only when broader urban issues came to light, particularly
in the 1990s when full-scale conservation in urban contexts began, that substantial
protection and re-use of modern built heritage commenced.
The first wave: rehabilitation projects and the shift

towards area conservation
Although effective preservation actions were not undertaken quickly by the admin-
istrators of cultural properties, efforts made in the 1960s gave rise in the 1970s to a
slow but clear movement towards the conservation of modern architectures as evi-
denced both in the renovation projects undertaken and in the revision of the Law for
the Protection of Cultural Properties (1950).
In the mid-1970s, several pioneer rehabilitation projects of historic buildings were
carried out. These interventions introduced new ways of engaging with the historic
environment, drawing attention to the reuse of historic assets as a part of broader
urban planning. The first of these was in 1974, when Urabe Shizutarō undertook
the renovation of an 1889 (Meiji 22) brick spinning mill to transform it into a
multi-functional cultural facility (consisting of a square, hotel, exhibition space and
laboratories) called Kurashiki Ivy Square (Kurashiki City, Okayama Prefecture), fol-
lowed in 1976, by the renovation undertaken by Yamazaki Yasutaka of the Zenkōji
Betsuin Gannō-ji temple (Nagoya City, Aichi Prefecture).2 Both renovation projects
attracted considerable attention and were awarded the Architectural Institute of
Japan Prize. Another noteworthy project was the 1978 renovation of the Nakakyō
Post Office (1902, Kyoto City, Kyoto Prefecture), which preserved only the skin of
384 Mizuko Ugo
Figure 11.1 Urabe Shizutarō, Kurashiki Ivy Square (Kurashiki City, Okayama Prefecture, 1889/
1974). The history of Kurashiki and its spinning industry is shown in the museums
inside the complex
the building. However, the preservation of the historical external walls underlined
the continuity with its environment, contributing to the preservation of the historical
townscape.3
The realization that most modern and contemporary architectures are built in an
urban context led in 1975 to the revision of the Law for the Protection of Cultural
Properties, introducing a new class of designation called “Preservation Districts for
Groups of Historic Buildings”. This newly-adopted designation marked an important
shift from the punctual designation of single buildings to the designation of an area to
include more than one building and their neighboring areas altogether. However, the
designation was mainly applied to small settlements in the countryside, and it was not
until the end of the 1980s that positive results were seen in modern and contemporary
heritage conservation within densely populated cities (Yokohama in 1988, Kawasaki
in 1990, Tokyo in 1999).4
The second wave: finding more effective urban conservation

approaches
It was in the second half of the 1980s that the conservation of modern heritage really
began to obtain desired results, mainly at the end of the 1990s and into the 2000s.
The targets of architectural and urban surveys gradually shifted to producing
complete lists of modern and contemporary architectures.5 However, the Agency for
Post-tradition in Japanese culture 385
Figure 11.2 Yoshida Tetsurō, Tokyo Central Post Office, Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo, 1931. Listed
in the Docomomo20, its structure and bended façade without classical orders were
immediately acclaimed as a faithful expression of Modern Architecture
Cultural Affairs did not prioritize highly urbanized areas, mainly because the type
of buildings to be preserved would become larger in scale and very much diversified.
This would in turn require more complex conservation measures, and because these
architectures were mostly built in the city centers, they would need more funds for
their preservation, colliding with the general urban development policy which was
to carry out the most cost-effective use of land. This is in fact the main reason that
the preservation of modern heritage in Japan was slowed down for so many years.
As a result, in the 1980s, many of the buildings already surveyed and listed again
faced the risk of being torn down because of urban development.6
Nevertheless, it is also in this period that earnest and animated discussions over the
conservation of modern heritage (e.g., the 1914 Tokyo Railway Station by Tatsuno
Kingo) took place to determine ways of ensuring the effective protection of modern
built heritage through both expert meetings and administrative work.
On the one hand, experts emphasized the necessity of raising awareness of the mod-
ern heritage and its environments and of including them in a constructive way into
the contemporary growing city, both as historic areas and sites of economic activity.7
On the other hand, the Agency for Cultural Affairs launched two survey projects
that led to the re-starting of modern architectural designations and even to the revi-
sion of the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties. After the amendment of
the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties in 1996 (Heisei 8), historic build-
ings could be registered in the Cultural Property Original Register. This new system
386 Mizuko Ugo
Figure 11.3 Tatsuno-Kasai Architectural Firm, Tokyo Railway Station, Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo,
1914, underwent a large-scale restoration and preservation from 2007 to 2012
was designed to be complementary with the previous one, which designated only the
most representative buildings of one category. Although the system did not facilitate
the conservation of historic buildings and areas within highly urban, developed city
cores, it determined the registration of a much larger number of historic buildings
and modern architectures, helping them to become important local cultural assets in
smaller cities (the former Ōshō village office, 1937, Amagasaki City, Hyōgo Prefec-
ture, by Murano Tōgo, in 2003).8
Finally, in 1999 Docomomo Japan published its first list of 20 selected Japanese
Modern Movement architectures, which was an important opportunity to re-verify
the characteristics proper to the Japanese Modern Movement.9
Continuity or change? Diversification of approaches and interventions

The 1990s seem to be a key period during which efforts that had been started in the
1960s enabled the enhanced preservation and adaptive reuse of modern and even
post-modern architectures.
Although valuable works of Japanese modern architecture were again torn down
because of urban planning and renovation projects (the 1957 Tokyo Prefectural Office
by Tange Kenzō in 1991 and the 1958 Harumi Kōsō Apartments by Mayekawa Kunio,
Tokyo, in 1997), the time was ripe for rethinking the Japanese Modern Movement
and putting more effective urban conservation into practice.
One example is the Kanagawa Prefectural Library and Music Hall built by
Mayekawa Kunio in 1954 (listed in the Docomomo20).
Figure 11.4 Sakakura Junzō, The Museum of Modern Art, Kamakura City, Kanagawa
Prefecture, 1951. Located within the precincts of the Hachimangū Shrine, this
small museum has played an important role in rebuilding cultural activities in
post-war Japan, but will close at the end of January 2016
388 Mizuko Ugo
Figure 11.5 Mayekawa Kunio, Kanagawa Prefectural Library and Music Hall, Yokoama City,
Kanagawa Prefecture, 1954. The exposed slabs of the hall are here used as the
ceiling of the foyer
In 1993, due to financial difficulties, Kanagawa Prefecture withdrew a broad urban

development project that would have involved the construction of a new concert hall
instead. However, it is worth noting that not only architects, but also the general public,
played an essential part in the movement against the demolition of the building. It was
also the first time that the Architectural Institute of Japan submitted an official demand
(1994) for the preservation of an architecture built after the Second World War.
This was the first of many campaigns against the demolition of modern architec-
tures that actively involved local residents and the general public interested in archi-
tecture. Combining these preservation campaigns with practical preservation and
reuse projects has proved to be a winning strategy, as seen in the 2004 preserva-
tion project of the International House of Japan (1955, Mayekawa Kunio, Sakakura
Junzō, Yoshimura Junzō, Minato Ward, Tokyo) completed in 2006.
This intervention also created the opportunity to draw up specific guidelines for the
evaluation, conservation and reuse of architecture.10
It was also around this period that issues surrounding the conservation of modern
architectures in highly urbanized areas began to be addressed, thanks to the revision
of the Architectural Standards and the Urban Planning Laws in 1998 and 2000. The
“Transferable Development Right” was introduced to compensate owners for not
being able to make maximum use of their land in order to preserve the historic build-
ing built on it. This allowed owners to build higher constructions in areas adjacent to
the preserved historic buildings.11
Figure 11.6 Mayekawa Kunio, Sakakura Junzō, Yoshimura Junzō, International House of
Japan, Minato Ward, Tokyo, 1955. The building, surrounded by a garden by
landscape architect Ogawa Jihei (1860–1933), has a 1976 addition by Mayekawa
Kunio and was renovated in 2005
Conclusion
As mentioned earlier, the conservation and reuse of modern architecture now attracts
not only architecture-related professionals, but also the general public. This attention
towards modern architecture has been held up as the expression of a broader move-
ment, such as the trend towards the reuse and recycling of the existing.12
Although high land value within urban settlements still represents a major obstacle
to modern heritage preservation,13 this practice is currently carried out for landmark
architectures as well as for non-officially recognized architectures that are an essential
part of the local urban setting and cultural life. Therefore, the interventions are now
quite diversified, embracing a wide range of reuse possibilities, from the incorporation
of a former bank office into a renovated marketplace, transforming it into a café and
a lounge space, to the transformation of former telegraph and telephone offices into
ceremony halls,14 to the reuse of smaller dwellings as concert halls.15
A prominent part in the conservation practice is now not only played by conserva-
tion architects, but also by private owners, the general public and sometimes by the
architects who originally designed the buildings themselves (the 1966 Ōita Prefectural
390 Mizuko Ugo
Figure 11.7 Okada Shin’ichirō (1883–1932), Meiji Mutual Life Insurance Company Build-
ing, Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo, 1934. It is the first building of the Shōwa period
(1925–1989) to be designated as an Important Cultural Property (1997) and also
an example of modern architecture preserved through the “Transferable Develop-
ment Right”
Library by Isozaki Arata was renovated as Art Plaza in 1998). Kurokawa Kishō par-
ticipated in the conservation initiative of his Nakagin Capsule Tower (1972, Chūō
Ward, Tokyo), some of the capsules of which have been renovated by private owners
who rent them as hotel rooms.16
The conservation of modern and contemporary heritage must find its own solutions
for conservation and reuse, which should differ from those of traditional architecture.
It must introduce new technologies and methods of intervention compatible with its
innovative character, while assuring functional answers to the contemporary needs of
society.17
Notes
1 Gotō Osamu and Office Sōken, Toshi no kiokuo ushinau maeni [Before Our Cities’ Memo-
ries Fade Away] (Tokyo: Hakuyōsha, 2008), p. 126.
2 Yamazaki Yasutaka, “Zenkōji Betsuin Gannō-ji”, Shinkenchiku, 51 (1/January 1976),
pp. 231–241.
3 Azuma Takamitsu, “Kenchiku hozon to rihabiritēshon” [Architectural Conservation and Reha-
bilitation], Shinkenchiku, special issue: Contemporary architecture in Japan, 53 (13/Novem-
ber 1978), p. 249; Nakakyō Yūbinkyoku Chōsha Shinchiku Kōji [Renovation Project of the
Nakakyō Post Office], edited by Yūseishō (Architectural Division, Office of the Minister of
Posts and Telecommunications), Tokyo 1978.
4 Gotō Osamu, “Hozon to toshisaisei” [Conservation and Urban Regeneration], Shinken-
chiku, 79 (10/September 2004), pp. 57–61.
5 The main study is the one edited by the Architectural Institute of Japan, Nihon Kindaiken-
chiku sōran. Kakuchi ni nokoru meiji taishō shōwa no tatemono [Comprehensive List of
Japanese Modern Architectures: Buildings Remaining Throughout Japan from the Meiji,
Taishō and Shōwa Periods] (Tokyo: Gihōdō, 1980. Revised edition, 1983), and many other
studies.
6 Gotō and Office 2008, p. 128 et passim.
7 Meeting of the Architectural History and Design Section on the conservation and re-use of
modern and contemporary architecture, October 11th, 1987. Summary reported by Ada-
chi Yūji, “Kenchikushi / Ishō bumon kenkyū kyōgikai (2): Kin-gendai kenchiku no hozon
to katsuyō”, Kenchikuzasshi [Journal of Architecture and Building Science], 102 (1262/

August 1987), pp. 95–97, and 103 (1269/February 1988), pp. 58–59.
8 Kurakata Shunsuke, “Modanizumu kenchiku no hozon ga motarasumono” [What the
Conservation of Modern Architecture Brings about], Journal of Architecture and Building
Science, 123 (1571/February 2008), pp. 4–7.
9 Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighborhoods of the Mod-
ern Movement, DoCoMoMo20Japan, exhibition catalogue, the Museum of Modern Art,
Kamakura, Jan.-Mar. 2000, in particular cf. Fujioka Hiroyasu, “Selection of the DoCo-
MoMo20”, pp. 11–13.
10 Kanematsu Kōichirō, “Kokusai Bunka Kaikan Hozonsaisei no seika to kadai” [Results and
Issues of the International House of Japan’s Rehabilitation Project], Journal of Architecture
and Building Science, 123 (1571/February 2008), pp. 16–17.
11 The conservation efforts were also joined by the opening in 2013 of the National Archives
of Modern Architecture (Bunkyō Ward, Tokyo). Nomura Masaharu, “The Current State
of Preservation of Historical Materials of Modern Architecture in Japan”, Kansai Daigaku
Rikōgakkaishi, 21 (2014), pp. 17–20.
12 Kurakata 2008, p. 5.
13 A recent example is the Hotel Okura main wing in Tokyo, designed by Taniguchi Yoshirō
and Kosaka Hideo in 1962. Demolition began on September 1st, 2015. Docomomo, “Peti-
tion for the preservation of the main structure of the Hotel Okura Tokyo”, Jul. 2015,
<http://www.docomomojapan.com/petition-for-the-preservation-of-the-main-structure-of-
the-hotel-okura-tokyo/> (accessed on September 19th, 2015).
14 Miyazawa Hiroshi, Higuchi Tomoyuki and Matsuura Takayuki, “Hozonsaisei no
keizaigaku. Tsukau kaishū de kindai kenchiku no kachio takameru” [Special Issue. The
Economy of Conservation and Regeneration: Adding Value to Modern Architecture through
Its Reuse], Nikkei Architecture, 907 (August 24th, 2009), pp. 44–75.
15 House of the pianist Sonoda Takahiro designed by Yoshimura Junzō in 1955 (Meguro
Ward, Tokyo), by the Heritage Houses Trust, <http://hhtrust.jp/hh/itoh.html> (accessed
September 19th, 2015).
16 Shinkenchiku (ed.), “Āto puraza isozaki arata kinenkan” [Art Plaza and Isozaki Arata Exhi-
bition Hall], Shinkenchiku, 73 (7/July 1998), pp. 158–165. “Historical Nakagin Capsule
Tower”, “Capsule Tower heart of Tokyo”, “Ginza no reshiki aru chasitsu capuseru” [His-
torical Tea Room Capsule in Ginza] https://www.airbnb.jp/rooms/1305889?s=d8zA https://
www.airbnb.jp/rooms/4041371?s=d8zA https://www.airbnb.jp/rooms/4731145?s=d8zA
(accessed September 19th, 2015).
17 DoCoMoMo Japan, with the Japan Foundation, Japan ICOMOS, ICOMOS ISC20c and
experts from the ASEAN countries gathered together in Tokyo (October 31–November 2,
2015) for an International Conference for the 20th Century Heritage, with the aim of shar-
ing the experience and identifying common priorities for the conservation of the 20th cen-
tury architecture. Yamana Yoshiyuki, “20seiki isan ni kansuru asean kaigi hōkoku” [Report
of the ASEAN Conference for the 20th Century Heritage], Japan ICOMOS Information,
9–12 (December 2015), pp. 19–20.
Taylor &Francis
Heritage
Taylor &Francis
12 Industrial architecture
Roberto Parisi
Twentieth century industrial architecture: a “glocal” perspective

With regard to the processes and practices of the legitimation and protection of con-
temporary architectural heritage, twentieth-century industrial architecture is, above
all, a topic that poses etymological and epistemological questions.
Being a specialised sector of technical-scientific and technological skills, industrial
building only started playing a more conspicuous role on the architectural stage at the
beginning of the twentieth century. This development took place almost simultane-
ously in Europe and in the United States when, to the long-standing and dominating
traditions and roles of millwrights and building engineers was added the responsibil-
ity of the factory designers. Architecture was no longer a marginal ‘term’ in a busi-
ness budget,1 and the word ‘factory’2 became “the universal twentieth-century term
for all industrial buildings”3 for businessmen like Henry Ford, Carl Benscheidt or
Tomás Bat’a.
Designing the physical and symbolic space for the scientific organisation of work,
the Taylor-Ford model of the daylight factory represented an icon of modernity4 for
both architects and historians. The new methods of capitalistic production had a
profound effect on the intellectual work of the architect and of the engineer. The
twentieth-century factory became the privileged construction site of large professional
firms specialising in the architecture and engineering which serviced the industry, that
is, Albert Kahn, Inc.,5 Nervi & Bartoli,6 the Bep Architects7 and the Arup Group Ltd.8
As an ideal prototype, the rational factory9 fuelled the spread of the Modern Move-
ment and of the International Style. It intercepted the economic policies of totalitarian
regimes10 and, after World War II, it promoted the image of the American way of life
around the world.11
Through the architecture of the assembly line, architects, engineers and industry
chiefs were able to carry out innovations in mechanised production processes, in tech-
nology relating to building materials and factory automation, in prefabrication and
in the strategies of visual communication.12 The workplace became a product of mass
production and, from the large anonymous factory sheds to the stack-up factories of
Singapore,13 it provided businessmen and designers with the challenge of quantity.
In the second half of the twentieth century, the relationship between the factory
and the city changed. Factories found more suitable territories both outside the
inner city and inside well-equipped industrial areas: the Cartiera Burgo designed by
Pierluigi Nervi (Mantua, Italy, 1961–1964), the Planta de Ensamblaje Volkswagen
by Dirk Bornhorst and Pedro Neuberger (Palma Sola, Morón, Venezuela, 1963),14
396 Roberto Parisi
Figure 12.1 Volkswagen Factory, Puebla, Scenic view from the 1960s
Source: Volkswagen de México, 1960s.
the Ípek Kağıt Fabrikasi by Aydin Boysan (Karamürsel, Turkey, 1970),15 the Usine
de Fleetguard by Richard Rogers (Quimper, Bretagne, France 1979–1981) and the
Cummings Engine Factory by ABK Architects with Ove Arup & Partners (Shotts,
Great Britain, 1975–1983). They became high-profile technological landmarks,
encouraging the geographical dispersion of traditional urban functions and promot-
ing the growth of a formal language which was de-linked from the context of the
historical city.16
From company towns to village industries, the architects of industry followed the
myth of the usine verte (green factory), in opposition to the image of classical Coke-
town; an idea of renewed environmental balance between man and machine, and
between urban and rural space. Thus, the factory became the ‘temple’ of ‘safe’ and
‘guaranteed’ work, the symbol of mass production, the engine of large-scale econo-
mies and the tool for world market domination.
Even when the assembly-line model faced times of economic crisis, the post-Ford
factory adopted the new Toyota culture of slimmed-down production based on the
concept of just-in-time. It absorbed the high level of standardisation from the logis-
tics of transportation (Container Iso)17 and eliminated stockpiles of goods from the
subsidiaries.
Figure 12.2 Scenic view of the electric steel plant and the rolling mill FTM-Factory medium
pipes, designed by Studio Corsini Wiskemann, Dalmine, 1976–1978
Source: Fondazione Dalmine, 1980s.
Figure 12.3 New graphic design with multicolor logo Tenaris by Robert Matza, with
Caruso-Torricella Architects, Dalmine, 2002
Source: Studio U.V., Fondazione Dalmine, 2005.
398 Roberto Parisi
Figure 12.4 Gunter Henn, Gläserne Manufaktur, Dresden, 1999–2001

Source: X-Weinzar (CC), 2007.
The twenty-first century, on the other hand, has seen profound changes in the con-
cept of the factory. Nevertheless, in order to get a better historical perspective, it is not
sufficient to refer to a ‘new world order’, thereby reducing modern globalisation of
industrial production systems, consumption and the job market to the chronological
and geographical movement of industry from the West towards Asia and other Brazil,
Russia, India and China (BRIC) countries.18
Placement of a historical brand such as Volkswagen among the Top Ten of the
“2013 Fortune Global 500 list” calls for a less Western-centred reading of an envi-
ronmentally friendly forefront factory model such as the Gläserne Manufaktur
(1999–2001)19 in Dresden. It is not enough to exalt the eventual historicity of its
transparency feature, associating its glass exterior shell (Gläserne) to the technical
and formal innovations of the Fagus-Werk, today a humankind heritage,20 or to the
experiments in plexi-glass undertaken in the 1930s in the German Hygiene Museum
(from Gläserner Mensch to Gläserner Motor, up to Gläserne Fabrik).21
The Skyscraper Museum in Manhattan22 and the Toronto Design Museum have
recently promoted a return to the Vertical Urban Factory theme type, as well as genea-
logical comparison with multi-storied industrial buildings from the first half of the
twentieth century: “Albert Kahn’s Highland Park (1913), Matté-Trucco’s Fiat Fac-
tory at Lingotto (1926), Owen William’s Boots (1932), and Brinkman and Van der
Industrial architecture 399
23
Vlugt’s Van Nelle Factory (1925–31)”. However, there do not appear to be grounds
for including the innovative artisan character (Manufaktur), imprinted on the “VW”
automobile factory in Dresden and its strategic position in a corner of the GroBer
Garten, in the historical centre of the city.
Today, the Gläserne Manufaktur is considered, above all, ‘architecture of knowl-
edge’24 and, together with works such as the Guggenheim in Bilbao and the Tate
Modern in London, it is often associated with the category of media-buildings.25
Volkswagen’s brand management strategies26 and business experience27 have left their
mark on its structural and typological features; its morphological design, influenced
by the organisation of the productive process, now answers to a new project para-
digm: the “form follows [the] flow”.28
Together with the plants in Mosel-Zwickau and the general deposit in Dresden-
Friedrichstadt, Gläserne Manufaktur is an integral part of a territorial system based on
the new logic of ‘modular production’, which calls for geographic proximity between
the suppliers’ and the assembly plant. ‘Modular production’ has renewed the presence
of industry in local economic development strategies,29 ensuring a connection to the
global network, between the different regional and national clusters:30 from Volkswa-
gen in Puebla, Mexico to the Skoda Factory in Mladá Boleslav, Czechoslovakia, to the
VW car plant in Beijing, China.
This new transnational dimension of the modular (or fractal)31 factory enables the
individualisation, in a glocal perspective, of the spatial-temporal coordinates neces-
sary for the study of twentieth-century industrial architecture. From a typological
point of view, in fact, the ‘dream factory’ in Resende (Brazil, 1996),32 created by
Volkswagen on the basis of a model (Plant X) refined by General Motors,33 marks the
end ad quem of a possible divisional period. It conceivably determines the end of the
industrial era34 and sees the definitive entry into post-modernity.35
Between world history and contemporary archaeology

Industrial architecture can be the key to the history of the twentieth century, but
the search for its testimonial value ought neither be limited to the identification of a
referential technological model (daylight factory or lean factory) or a typological one
(vertical or ground floor factory), nor to the critical selection based purely on aesthetic
parameters.
The twentieth-century factory does not only belong to the industrialised West, but
can also be an expression of diverse forms of cultural contamination and of manifold
modernities36 even in other parts of the world as, for example, in the countries of
Islamic faith,37 in Africa38 or in Latin America.39
Even in a post-colonial dimension, in order to legitimize the testimonial value
(historical, social, aesthetic and technological) of an industrial architecture and to
promote conservation and adaptive re-use, it is necessary to adopt a different method-
ological approach, moving onto on the multi-thematic and interdisciplinary territory
of industrial archaeology.
Even if the origin of the term dates back to the end of the nineteenth century, Indus-
trial Archaeology is a cultural product of the twentieth century. Arising in the 1950s
in Great Britain as a field of study for the knowledge, safeguarding and development
of the physical remains of the Industrial Revolution, Industrial Archaeology is now
practised in almost every country in the world. Since the early 1970s, it has been
400 Roberto Parisi
represented at international level by the The International Committee for the Conser-
vation of the Industrial Heritage (TICCIH).40
The archaeological approach to the study and restoration of a factory is based on
the centrality of the material source,41 but it does not put the physical finding in oppo-
sition to the traditional historical sources.42 It rather proposes the total understanding
of the diverse forms in which industrial culture was developed and settled, encom-
passing architecture as an integral part of a larger whole of material and immaterial
testimonies of the history of industrial society.43
Industrial archaeology has contributed to the expansion of the study of industrial archi-
tecture from single architectural artefacts, often reduced to stylistic classification “that
is devoid of content”,44 to types of more widespread constructions which are therefore
more significant for understanding the relationship with the natural and anthropic envi-
ronment. In this sense, industrial archaeology is also the archaeology of architecture.45
The archaeological approach to the study of the history of technology has helped
to understand the role that machines and the production processes have played in the
design and the creation of a factory.46 It has also enabled the overcoming of a concept
based on the progressive character of technological development.
Studies and research on industrial heritage have, at last, orientated economic history
towards new epistemological prospects, with the emergence of a “three-dimensional
working and business point of view with human colours”, where architecture is, above
all, interpreted as a building product, and industrial history as “the history of the archi-
tectural, technical and cultural patrimony of industry”.47
TICCIH has played a fundamental role for over 40 years in the correct practice of
conservation and of re-use of the industrial patrimony. Important studies were con-
ducted in the 1980s within the Council of Europe,48 the Expert Meeting organised
by UNESCO and Docomomo in 2001,49 the approval of the first charter for the pro-
tection of the industrial patrimony (Nizhny Tagil Charter, XII TICCIH Congress in
Moscow, 2003) and the ratification of a document in Dublin in 2011, through which
ICOMOS and TICCIH signed an agreement on the definition of the principles for the
conservation and adaptive re-use of the Industrial Heritage.
The twentieth-century factory as the historical patrimony

of the industrial society
The Nizhny Tagil Charter for Industrial Heritage does not discuss in detail the prob-
lem of twentieth-century industrial architecture. It does, however, set some useful
parameters and defines the chronological time frame of referral, providing orientation
towards the methodological intervention for restoration; by implying as sole param-
eter “the onset of technical obsolescence”,50 it extends the historical period of interest
to the present without fixing an end ad quem.
Even de-industrialisation is an integral part of the history of the industrial era. The
phenomenon of abandoned industrial areas does not only belong to the West,51 but
also to cities and landscapes of many other countries in the course of the twentieth
century, from Manguinhos (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) to Mogwase (South Africa),52 from
Hashima Island (Japan) to Batangar (India).53 The size of such a phenomenon requires
critical selection of the most important sites, orientating various types of intervention
on the basis of their testimonial value. The Nizhny Tagil Charter selects concepts of
rarity, authenticity and integrity (historical or functional) as fundamental parameters
for the conservation of a factory, taking into consideration the importance of “early
or pioneering examples” (the Nizhny Tagil Charter, 4.III and 5.1).
However, protection of Industrial Architecture should also be able to base itself on
other interpretive categories, such as re-use and the environment, particularly in the
twentieth century. From the first experiences in the industrial district of SoHo,54 to the
recovery of “798 factory” in Beijing,55 the re-use of twentieth-century factories has
often led to a lack of sensitivity towards the testimonial value of architecture.
The theme of environmental contamination, such as the disaster provoked by Union
Carbide, Inc., in Bhopal,56 can also find in industrial architecture a testimonial value
for safeguarding. Consequently, the environmental regeneration of abandoned indus-

trial areas is a practice not only for the legitimation of their environmental value, but
also of their archaeological one (The Nizhny Tagil Charter, 4.I).
A correct programme for the protection and conservation of twentieth-century
industrial architecture must above all respond to a principle of cultural sustainability.
Safeguard and protection, in this case, respond to a historiographical project that
cannot be limited to the transmission to future generations of the history of human
creativity, of technological innovations, of entrepreneurial firsts, of territorial and
social conquests or of artistic currents and of cultural movements. The recovery of the
industrial past cannot translate into a project of global mystification57 or standardiza-
tion of memory. The re-use project of a factory must also restore the history of social
conflicts, technical and planning errors, environmental dramas, economic crises and
political and cultural failures.
Notes
1 Matthew Jeffries, Politics and Culture in Wilhelmine Germany: The Case of Industrial
Architecture (Oxford and Providence, RI: Berg Publishers, 1995); Mauro F. Guillén, The
Taylorized Beauty of the Mechanical: Scientific Management and the Rise of Modernist
Architecture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006).
2 On the origin of the term in the Anglo-Saxon area see George Moses Price, The Modern
Factory: Safety, Sanitation and Welfare (New York: J. Wiley & Sons, 1914), pp. 33–35.
3 Betsy Hunter Bradley, The Works: The Industrial Architecture of the United States (New
York-Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 7.
4 Gillian Darley, Factory (London: Reaktion Books Ltd., 2003).
5 Gordon V.R. Holness, Grant Hildebrand, Albert Kahn Associates: Continuing the Legacy
(Milan: l’Arca Edizioni, 2000).
6 Pier Luigi Nervi: Architecture as Challenge, edited by Carlo Olmo and Cristiana Chiorino
(Cinisello Balsamo: Silvana Editoriale, 2010).
7 Casey Tan Kok Chaon, “An overview of the development of industrial architecture in
Malaysia”, in Workplaces: The Transformation of Places of Production: Industrialization
and the Built Environment in the Islamic World, edited by Mohammad Al-Asad (Istanbul:
Bilgi University Press, 2010), pp. 99–108.
8 Peter Jones, Ove Arup: Masterbuilder of the Twentieth Century (New Haven-London: Yale
University Press, 2006).
9 Lindy Biggs, The Rational Factory: Architecture, Technology, and Work in America’s Age
of Mass Production (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996).
10 Anson G. Rabinbach, “The aesthetics of production in the third reich”, Journal of Contem-
porary History, 11 (1976), pp. 43–74.
11 Terry Smith, Making the Modern: Industry, Art, and Design in America (Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1993).
12 Inmaculada Aguilar Civera, Arquitectura industrial: Concepto, método y fuentes (Valen-
cia: Diputación de Valencia, 1998); R. Parisi, Fabbriche d’Italia: L’architettura industriale
dall’Unità alla fine del Secolo breve (Milan: Franco Angeli, 2011).
402 Roberto Parisi
13 Ting-Ting Zhang, William Tan, “The good, the bad, and the utilitarian: Singapore’s schizo-
phrenic urbanism”, in Urban transformation, edited by Ilka Ruby and Andreas Ruby
(Zürich: Holcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction, 2008), pp. 56–60.
14 Mónica E. Silva Contreras, “Modern architecture’s technologies in Venezuela: Industrial
heritage in crisis”, in Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Construction
History, edited by K.-E. Kurrer, W. Lorenz, V. Wetzk (Berlin: Neunplus1, 2009), vol. II,
pp. 1331–1338.
15 Renata Holod, Ahmet Evin, Süha Özkan, Modern Turkish Architecture (Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press, 1984; reprint Istanbul: Chamber of Architects of Turkey,
2005), p. 153.
16 Greg Hise, “‘Nature’s workshop’ industry and urban expansion in Southern California
1900–1950”, Journal of Historical Geography, 1 (2001), pp. 74–92.

17 Han Slawik, Julia Bergmann, Matthias Buchmeier, Sonja Tinney, Container Atlas: A Practi-
cal Guide to Container Architecture (Berlin: Gestalten, 2010).
18 Neil Cossons, “The Age of Industry”, Conservation Bulletin, 67 (2011), pp. 3–8.
19 Transparent Factory Dresden: The Event of Assembling a Car, edited by Gunter Henn
(Munich-London: Prestel, 2002); Lars Klaaßen, Die Gläserne Manufaktur von Volkswagen
in Dresden (Berlin: Stadtwandel-Verlag, 2008).
20 Wolfgang Kimpflinger, Wolfgang Ness, Reiner Zittlau, Das Fagus-Werk in Alfeld als Welt-
kulturerbe der Unesco: Dokumentation des Antragsverfahrens (Hameln: CW Niemeyer
Buchverlag, 2011).
21 Stefan Sperling, Reasons of Conscience: The Bioethics Debate in Germany (Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 2013), p. 124.
22 “IA News” (editorial note), Society for Industrial Archaeology Newsletter, 1 (2011), p. 16.
23 Nina Rappaport, “The vertical urban factory”, Scapes: Parsons School of Design Journal,
vol. 7 (2009), pp. 16–22.
24 Henn Architekten: Architektur des Wissens. Architecture of Knowledge, edited by Gunter
Henn, Dirk Meyhöfer (Hamburg: Junius, 2003).
25 Media Houses: Architecture, Media and the Production of Centrality, edited by Staffan
Ericson, Kristina Riegert (New York: Peter Lang, 2010), p. 197.
26 Otto Riewoldt, Brandscaping: Worlds of Experience in Retail Design (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2002).
27 Albert Boswijk, Thomas Thijssen, Ed Peelen, The Experience Economy: A New Perspective
(Amsterdam: Pearson Education, 2007).
28 Gunter Henn, “Form Follows Flow”, in Universal Design Theory: Proceedings of the Work-
shop Design Theory, edited by Hans Grabowski (Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 1998), pp. 275–
290. See also Thomas J. Allen, Gunter W. Henn, The Organization and Architecture of
Innovation: Managing the Flow of Technology (Elsevier: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007).
29 Joel de Rosnay, The Symbiotic Man: A New Understanding of the Organization of Life and
a Vision of the Future (New York-London: McGraw-Hill, 2000), pp. 192–193.
30 El Auto global. Desarrollo, competencia y cooperación en la industria del automóvil, edited
by Huberto Juárez Núñez, Arturo Lara Rivero, Carmen Bueno Castellanos (Mexico City:
Universidad Iberoamericana, 2005), pp. 433–435.
31 John A. Mathews, “Design of industrial and supra-firm architectures: Growth and sustain-
ability”, Journal of Organization Design, 2 (2012), pp. 42–63.
32 Alice R. de P. Abreu, Huw Beynon, José Ricardo Ramalho, “‘The dream factory’: VW’s
modular production system in Resende, Brazil”, Work, Employment & Society, 14 (2/2000),
pp. 265–282.
33 Laurie Goering, “Revolution at Plant X”, Chicago Tribune (13 April 1997) http://articles.
chicagotribune.com/1997-04-13/business/9704130107_1.
34 Charles S. Maier, “Consigning the twentieth century to history: Alternative narratives for
the modern era”, American Historical Review, 105 (3/2000), pp. 807–831; Charles S.
Maier, “Secolo corto o epoca lunga? L’unità storica dell’età industriale e le trasformazioni
della territorialità”, in Novecento: I tempi della Storia, edited by Claudio Pavone (Rome:
Donzelli, 1997), pp. 29–56.
35 David Harvey, “Capitalism: The factory of fragmentation”, in Spaces of Capital: Towards
a Critical Geography, edited by David Harvey (London-New York: Routledge, 2001),
pp. 121–127.
36 Jorge Ludeña Zerda, “Modernidad periférica en Latinoamérica/ Peripheral Modernity”,
AUC. Revista de arquitectura, 28 (2010), pp. 8–11.
37 Mohammad Al-Asad, “Introduction: Exploring industrial architecture in the Islamic
world”, in Workplaces: The Transformation of Places of Production. Industrialization and
the Built Environment in the Islamic World, edited by Mohammad Al-Asad (Istanbul: Bilgi
University Press, 2010), pp. 7–13.
38 Sue Krige, “‘The power of power’: Power stations as industrial heritage and their place
in history and heritage education”, Yesterday&Today (South African Society for History
Teaching – SASHT), 5 (2010), pp. 107–126.
39 Wiley Ludeña-Urquizo, “Patrimonio industrial en el Perú del siglo XX: ¿exotismo cultural
o memoria sin memoria?”, Apuntes, 1 (2008), pp. 92–113.
40 Industrial Heritage Re-Tooled: The Ticcih Guide to Industrial Heritage Conservation,

edited by James Douet (Lancaster: Carnegie, 2012).
41 Patrick Martin, “Industrial Archaeology”, in Industrial Heritage Re-Tooled . . . cit.,
pp. 40–47.
42 Sophia Labadi, “Industrial archaeology as historical archaeology and cultural anthropol-
ogy”, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 12 (2001), pp. 77–85. For a general picture
see also Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past, edited by Victor Buchli, Gavin Lucas
(London-New York: Routledge, 2001); After Modernity: Archaeological Approaches to the
Contemporary Past, edited by Rodney Harrison, John Schofield (Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 2010).
43 Kenneth Hudson, World Industrial Archaeology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1979); Louis Bergeron, Gracia Dorel-Ferré, Le patrimoine industriel, un nouveau territoire
(Paris: Liris, 1996); Marilyn Palmer, Peter Neaverson, Industrial Archaeology: Principles
and Practice (London-New York: Routledge, 1998); Judith Alfrey, Tim Putnam, The Indus-
trial Heritage: Managing Resources and Uses (London-New York: Routledge,1992).
44 Klaus-Dieter Weiß, “Industrial Building”, in Architectural Detail 2003: Annual Selected
Edition from Detail Review of Architecture, edited by Christian Schittich (Munich: Institut
Internationale fur Architektur – Documentation, 2004), p. 26.
45 Peter Fowler, “Architectural history and archaeology: An understanding relationship?”, in
Companion to Contemporary Architectural Thought, edited by Ben Farmer, Hentie J. Louw
(London-New York: Routledge, 1993), pp. 231–236.
46 Michel Cotte, “World heritage, concepts and criteria”, in Industrial Heritage Re-Tooled . . .
cit., pp. 167–173.
47 Louis Bergeron, “Vent’anni d’esperienza nel ruolo di direttore di ricerca all’École des hautes
etudes en sciences sociales”, in Ambienti e tipologie dell’industrializzazione: Francia e Italia
durante Otto e Novecento, edited by Maria Teresa Maiullari (Torino: Fondazione Luigi Ein-
audi, Regione Piemonte, c1994), p. 8. See also Paul A. Shackel, “Labor’s heritage: Remem-
bering the American industrial Landscape”, Historical Archaeology, 4 (2004), pp. 44–58.
48 Council of Europe, “Situation of the technical and industrial built heritage in Europe”,
Architectural Heritage. Reports and Studies, no. 3, Strasbourg 1985; Council of Europe,
“The industrial heritage: what policies?”, Architectural Heritage. Reports and Studies,
no. 6, Strasbourg 1987.
49 L. Bergeron, “L’impact de la modernisation économique et le patrimoine industriel”, in
Identification and Documentation of Modern Heritage, edited by R. van Oers, S. Haraguchi
(Paris: Unesco World Heritage Centre, 2003), pp. 18–22; Developing an Historic Thematic
Framework to Assess the Significance of Twentieth-Century Cultural Heritage: An Initiative
of the Icomos International Scientific Committee on Twentieth-Century Heritage, edited by
Susan Macdonald, Gail Ostergren (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust, 2011).
50 Eusebi Casanelles, “Ticcih’s charter for industrial heritage”, in Industrial Heritage Re-Tooled . . .
cit., pp. 231–232.
51 Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Heritage: Opportunities & Challenges, edited by Justine Clark
(Melbourne: Heritage Council of Victoria, 2013).
52 Moserwa Rosina Phalatse, “From industrialisation to de-industrialisation in the former
South African homelands”, Urban Forum, 1 (2000), pp. 149–161.
53 Victor Muñoz Sanz, “Unfolding a modern palimpsest. Batanagar, 1934–2013”, Domus, 17
(2013), pp. 100–105.
404 Roberto Parisi
54 Sandy Hornick, Suzanne O’Keefe, “Reusing industrial loft buildings for housing: Experi-
ences of New York City in revitalization and misuse”, Journal of Urban and Contemporary
Law, 157 (1984), pp. 157–212.
55 Beijing 798: Reflections on Art, Architecture and Society in China, edited by Huang Rui
(Hong Kong: Timezone 8, 2004).
56 Amritha Ballal, Bhopal2011: Landscapes of Memory edited by Jan af Geijerstam (New
Delhi: VAP Enterprises, 2011).
57 Robert Hewison, The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline (London: Methuen,
1987).
13 Landscape architecture
Michael Jakob
Introduction
As Western societies gradually continue to age, whilst literally sitting astride moun-
tains of monuments, the issue of heritage appears as one of primary importance. A
definition of heritage, however, raises several questions, starting from that of biologi-
cal parenthood and causality intrinsically associated with the word “heritage” itself.
Instead of the Latin word monumentum, a better and more promising starting
point might be the German Denkmal, that is a “think sign” (denken – Mal) which
makes us reflect. Heritage is made up of all those objects, worthy of conservation
and protection, which arouse in us a sense of awareness and an intense intellectual
reaction, in the Kantian sense of the Critique of Judgment, thereby triggering the
processes of reasoning and imagination. The identity of the objects to be conserved
is difficult to define since we are dealing with objects which are both emotionally
important for us and conceptually difficult to pin down, such as landscapes, gardens
or works of landscape architecture. Can we consider a real landscape as heritage?
Can we furthermore apply this concept to a garden, that is, to a reality which is
vulnerable to the inexorable passage of time? And, lastly, does a work of landscape
architecture, inextricably linked to its site, even deserve to be protected and regis-
tered as a monument?
Criticism of our current obsession with heritage is certainly not a recent phenom-
enon. Debates over the “civilization of monuments” have been raging since Horace’s
Exegi monumentum. Recently we have witnessed the impact of a publication like Les
lieux de mémoire, the monumental study edited by Pierre Nora, which underlines the
irony of contemporary society excessively preoccupied with heritage. But what do we
mean when we say that we pay too much attention to historical monuments?
Let’s first of all try to apply some critical analysis to the three phenomena already
mentioned: landscape, garden and landscape architecture.
Landscape
Can landscapes be protected? And which landscapes? Moreover, who will carry out
the protection and for what reason?
The real problem begins when you take into account the essential temporal dimen-
sion of the landscape. Although a landscape is indeed a perceived piece of nature, the
act of perception itself, the glance, is always intrinsically related to the momentary
temporality of the landscape. In other words, treating a landscape as something fixed
406 Michael Jakob
and immutable contradicts the basic principles of landscape experience, its transient
and liminal instantaneity.
From the nineteenth century onwards, this problematic identification of landscape as
a perennially fixed image has had serious consequences. In the name of the “eternity”
of the “good” landscape, of the “beautiful piece of land”, considered as a precious
postcard, we have indeed called for the protection of certain landscapes as if they were
the materialisation of perennial objects, fixed forever in one place. Thus the perspective
of one landscape to be protected (one among others) implies the sacrifice of a plurality
of other landscapes. A single vista point is registered as being territorially dominant or
‘superior’ and to be safeguarded at all costs. Such an approach may subsequently be

developed into a network or system, asking for the consequent preservation of a specific
set of such viewpoints. The practice of asking for the protection of something (falsely)
eternal can be expanded to the regional scale: an entire “beautiful” region has never to
change again, being identified as the symbol of supreme scenic value and quality.
The main problem with such an approach consists in the simple fact that a land-
scape is never fixed or petrified in time. On the contrary, the intensity of a landscape
is the result of its momentary character; landscapes passing before the viewer’s eyes,
only to disappear in the next moment, leaving room for other landscapes. Both the
basis of landscape – the objective or measurable land or territory which the subjective
viewer frames, thus creating what we call landscape – and its transcendental source,
that is, the ego, are in fact subject to permanent mutability. Attempting to freeze the
landscape according to one single eternally valid viewpoint merely reduces the rich-
ness and complexity of the phenomenon. Such an essentialist approach – see Mytholo-
gies by Roland Barthes – sacrifices the life of the territory and its ability to host an
infinite number of landscapes.
The aesthetic quality of landscape, the fact that its existence is only momentary, does
not imply we should give up preservation altogether. The preservation of landscape,
however, must take into account two factors: first and foremost, in spatial terms, we
have to start always from the entire territory. We should never isolate one single ele-
ment and privilege it because we consider it as being ‘good’, ‘beautiful’, ‘sacred’ etc.,
per se. A selective approach, one in which the spotlight shines on one point at the
expense of all the others, will lead to a museum mentality, to the transformation of
a living reality into an object to be displayed. Second, in temporal terms, we need to
analyse landscape in all its legible and identifiable layers in order to imagine the shape
of its future development in the light of the past.
Directories and catalogues containing sites to be selected for protection should have
an evolutionary character, given the multi-facetted identity of landscape. Unfortu-
nately, such an approach appears to be in stark contrast with the current lack of land-
scape awareness. We talk (a lot) about the landscape around us, but real landscape
education is conspicuous by its absence. Little attention is paid to the world that
surrounds us, and only a true Schillerian “aesthetic education” in schools, universities
and other institutions would change things. We have to understand that territories are
always on the move, that they are often dramatically transformed and that aesthetic
judgement is therefore never final. The essentialist approach hides the complexity of
the situation, presenting us landscapes taken from a petrified collection like gilded
birds in a cage. The most sublime sites on our planet therefore risk becoming lifeless
places, to the extent that even the mere presence of human beings may disturb their
‘splendid isolation’ in such a universal album.
Landscape architecture 407
Garden
As far as the garden is concerned the situation seems a priori to be more positive. The
garden has been the object of care and heritage concern for at least two centuries, with
interest ranging from the study of sources and the archaeology of gardens to mass
garden tourism.
However the complex reality of the garden also raises several problems of temporal-
ity. Even the most mineral of gardens is vulnerable to weather. Over the years a garden
may change so much as to raise important questions about its identity: For how long
can we say that we are talking about the same garden? And although you can never
bathe twice in the same river, could it also be true that you can never find yourself in
the same garden twice? Just as in the case of the river bed, which stays more or less
in the same place, the garden also leaves something behind, although in the course of
time that “something” ends up by being purely and simply identical to its site.
These remarks are not intended as mere philosophical observations; they are simply
a reminder of the fact that nearly all gardens of importance, gardens that have been
inventoried, registered, photographed, protected, etc., are increasingly distant from
their original models. It is the case with gardens in general, just as with that of the
Garden of Eden, that the original is forever lost, and this is particularly true for those
gardens that are still alive, and so therefore still in constant mutation.
There are numerous methodological implications to be drawn from the basic muta-
bility of gardens. You can never return to an initial-state degré zéro, to the lost origins.
The desire to revive the original, come what may, means reinventing it and therefore
Figure 13.1 Luigi Manini, Quinta de Regaleira, Sintra, 1904–1910

408 Michael Jakob
Figure 13.2 Herrenhausen, the gardens were completely destroyed in 1943. The decision to
rebuild the palace was not made until 2007, and reconstruction was completed
in 2013
betraying it. The logic of an approach based on fixity and immovability, on the eternal
form, is so common that naïve priority is given to the ‘single model’, and it is in its
name that the pseudo-original garden is rebuilt and protected. The only drawback is
that, in nearly all cases, the sources are missing and, especially in the case of complex
gardens, the problem of identifying the author of original design is always difficult
to resolve: Who is the creator of Bomarzo? Vicino Orsini? Orsini and Pirro Ligorio?
With what other artists, intellectuals and artisans? And then, even if a programme has
once really existed, from the time it was created the garden began to interact with the
rhythm of nature and enter the realm of time.
The logic of identity must therefore give way to a different approach. Not that of
following a single construction plan (because a garden is indeed a construction), but
rather an open horizon taking into account both the past and the possible projection
into the future. Or rather, the garden as such must be understood as a design process.
We must learn to prevent the garden from becoming a clone of itself, that is to say an
immobile museum artefact, self-indexing. Protection of ‘historical gardens’ therefore
requires some really solid hermeneutics, a cognitive process that will safeguard the
evolution of the garden.
The frequent refrain from such an approach, in the name of the essentialist model,
has led to results that are self-evident: over time even the most significant gardens have
become more and more alike. Consequently the all-conquering self-sameness turns
the individual garden into an ever more perfect copy of itself, which then becomes a
Landscape architecture 409
rigid and binding blueprint, as has happened with most of our Baroque gardens that
have begun to fade into one type or pattern.
Landscape architecture
It is in the context of landscape architecture that heritage problems become more
serious and more acute. The discipline is, as we know, of very recent foundation.
The first landscape architects were the Englishman Humphry Repton, who in 1789
presented himself as a ‘landscape gardener’, and the Frenchman Jean-Marie Morel,
who in 1804 was identified as an ‘architecte paysagiste’. It is surprising, therefore,

that after nearly two centuries of landscape architecture on an international scale,
there is an almost total lack of sense of history in the discipline. We have no histori-
cal record of the achievements of landscape architecture, and the self-awareness on
the part of its protagonists is also quite poor. Landscape architecture continues to
produce works and to change the external appearance of the world, but it does so in
a disjointed and often naïve fashion. As always, when reflection is lacking, not only
is a historical perspective in jeopardy but also the theoretical framework. In effect,
it is not easy to define a work of landscape architecture from a theoretical point of
view. What have landscape architects actually created? A landscape, or landscapes?
But you can not create a landscape, or landscapes. You can carry out interventions
Figure 13.3 Asp Landschaftsarchitekten and Eduard Neuenschwander, Irchelpark, Zürich,

1986
410 Michael Jakob
on an area, on a site. So do landscapers create structures, objects or devices that in
turn make up the landscape? And what about the relationship between landscape
and garden? At what point is a garden no longer a simple garden, but a piece of
landscape architecture?
The relationship between urban planning, architecture and landscape architec-
ture also poses a number of problems. How can we holistically define the project of
Brasilia: Urban planning? Landscaping? Architecture?
The identity of a single work of landscape architecture is always hybrid: it is about
space, but it is also about the objects which occupy that space. Use is made of com-
mon building materials, but also of vegetation. Landscape architecture can be defined
as the one element ‘in between’, the interval between structures present and future,
but also as the sum of all its parts. Its hybrid nature makes a theoretical approach dif-
ficult but certainly not impossible. Work needs to be done on the history and theory of
landscape architecture, bearing in mind the state of ‘permanent crisis’ of the discipline
and the opportunities that such a situation could generate: more freedom and open-
ness to other disciplines for instance.
This publication can help publicise recent works and encourage us to think, rather
than serve as a mere marketing tool for the happy few, as so many recent books on
architecture or landscape architecture do.
The price to pay for the relative lack of interest in the theory and history of land-
scape architecture is quite high: unlike the other two cases previously examined – the
landscape and the garden – there is no real protection of landscape architecture arte-
facts, at least not universally recognized in the same way as in mainstream architec-
ture. Some masterpieces by Dan Kiley, the great landscape architect from Vermont,
were unflinchingly destroyed. Of Morel’s more than 40 projects, only one survives,
and in a completely altered state, to boot.
Parallel to the historical and theoretical work, urgent attention should be paid to supply-
ing the catalogue raisonné of significant works of landscape architecture. Such a selection
would necessarily be experimental, given the oscillating status of landscape architecture
projects, but none the less essential for that. Only if existing landscape architecture can
succeed in gaining a foothold in the awareness of the specialists will the breeding ground
for the future of landscape architecture become fertile.
Conclusion
The work presented in this volume should be interpreted as a pedagogical Bildung, a
work of genuine education. It is not a documentary work, an end in itself; neither is it
intended to be descriptive merely for the sake of it. It aims to make available to a wider
public the interpretative and cognitive horizons of the fields in question.
It might seem paradoxical that in order to really see a concrete phenomenon such
as a landscape, a garden or a work of landscape architecture, you must first build up
an appreciable awareness of landscape, that is to say knowledge of how to grasp the
intellectual complexity of the world via all the means of representation available to us.
14 Middle-class housing
Filippo De Pieri
Can housing built for the middle classes during the twentieth century be considered
architectural heritage? This certainly is the case if we take the word “heritage” in its
literal sense: “that which comes or belongs to one by reason of birth”,1 as dictionar-
ies soundly state. During most of the twentieth century, in many European countries,
middle-class housing contributed to the accumulation of family wealth and social
status and their transmission from one generation to the following one. Admittedly,
such an assumption cannot be generalized: interpretations of the social role of hous-
ing may vary according to a plurality of historical and cultural factors, as the plurality
of words and expressions used to designate dwellings clearly show.2 Nations of ten-
ants like Switzerland or Germany, whose rates of ownership fall today under or close
to the 50 percent mark, certainly differ from nations of owners such as Spain or Italy,
not to mention former socialist countries such as Bulgaria or Romania (97 percent).3
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that in large parts of Europe, over the course
of the last century, buildings played an important role in the consumption strategies
of middle-class households.
If we take the expression “architectural heritage” in a sense closer to the French
expression patrimoine bâti 4 – that is, a group of historic buildings worth being stud-
ied and preserved – things appear under a different light. Histories of modern archi-
tecture have traditionally included several iconic examples of middle-class privately
built housing, from Le Corbusier’s Parisian villas from the 1920s to Ludwig Mies van
der Rohe’s Chicago and residential towers from the 1950s, from Oscar Niemeyer’s
Copan building in Sāo Paulo (1957–1966) to Francisco Javier Saenz de Oíza’s Torres
Blancas in Madrid (1964–1969). In recent years, scholars have increasingly focused
their attention on a broader catalogue of built objects and typologies; ideas and prac-
tices concerning dwelling have come to be considered as relevant forces behind the
production of modern space.5 Moreover, an increasing number of studies has been
dedicated to the anonymous residential production of specific urban or geographical
areas, outlining the general trends that have prevailed in a given professional, entre-
preneurial and social milieu.6
This brings us closer to a third meaning of the word “heritage”, as designating
not just a given selection of historically relevant buildings but a built landscape in
its entirety: a portion of the built environment that can be seen as the outcome
of specific historical conditions. The production of mass housing for the middle
classes – be it privately or publicly built, cooperative or subsidized – was a priority
for many twentieth-century governments7 and was part of wider political strategies
that aimed at expanding and consolidating the intermediate strata of society. Many
412 Filippo De Pieri
Figure 14.1 Oscar Niemeyer, Copan building, Sāo Paulo, 1957–1966

Source: Silvio Tanaka (Flickr/CC), 2009.
countries – and especially those that made the stronger attempts to build a welfare
state system extended to all aspects of urban life – cultivated the dream of an increas-
ingly homogeneous urban society, where middle classes were expected to become
pervasive, conflict was to become virtually non-existent and social asymmetries were
Middle-class housing 413
8
to become increasingly less pronounced. Taken as a whole, the housing stock that
resulted from these efforts represents today the concrete testimony of such an ideol-
ogy of social happiness. In “middling” post-war urban societies,9 housing choices
could contribute to define the social status of individual and groups, with reference
to the symbolic aspects of social stratification. The neighborhood or a house where
one lived were indicators of one’s lifestyle and consumption habits and were part
of daily practices of “distinction” based upon an infinity of details and nuances.10
These buildings embodied notions of citizenship, family and urban life that were
transmitted to their inhabitants in many ways, not the last of which being the senso-
rial experience of daily life.

Why should we care about the protection of twentieth-century middle-class hous-
ing? It might be difficult to argue that it risks disappearing from modern cities alto-
gether: well on the contrary, several factors have contributed to preserve large parts
of it until now. In the less economically dynamic areas of Europe, the pressure for the
replacement of existing residential buildings has not been high in recent years, espe-
cially in comparison with the accelerated processes of urban change that contributed
to their construction in the first place. For example, the building boom that affected
Italy’s major cities from the 1950s to the 1970s is largely unmatched by the slower
pace of their current change.
Figure 14.2 Children in the residential complex “Nebbiara”, Reggio Emilia, designed by the
Cooperativa Architetti di Reggio Emilia, 1960
Source: Archivio Osvaldo Piacentini, Reggio Emilia.
Figure 14.3 A Fiat 600 in front of a newly built apartment complex designed by architect
Sergio Hutter in Turin, 1956
Source: Fiat Historical Center, Turin.
The crisis affecting middle classes in several European regions makes resources for a
renovation of housing conditions less easily available: families may choose to stick
with their homes and make the best out of the existing housing conditions. In countries
where multi-family dwellings and the ownership of apartments were the privileged
model for middle-class modern housing, multi-ownership may result in an increas-
ing difficulty in making shared decisions about renovation choices.11 Such a housing
conservatism can turn against the very occupants of the buildings: less wealthy than
they used to be, European families struggle to sustain the expenses requested by their
homes. Houses, which once represented a step in the achievement of a path of upper
social mobility, have under some circumstances become a factor that contributes to
accelerate a descent down the social ladder. No surprise that the problem of deterio-
rated private and co-owned housing is becoming a central issue for urban policies in
some European countries.12
One might conclude that the main concerns regarding middle-class housing have to
do with how to facilitate its transformation if not its replacement. Notable exceptions
aside, twentieth-century mass housing for the middle classes can be poor in its design,
outdated in its technology, scarcely flexible in its spatial organization, not particularly
noteworthy for its contribution to the construction of a vibrant urban setting. Why
would one want use the word “heritage” for such an embarrassing burden? On the
other hand, it is important to observe that this stock also presents a remarkable poten-
tial for reuse and transformation. Twentieth-century residential spaces for the middle
classes were often created in a relatively short span of time and tend to present similar
problems and issues: any micro-action disseminated in a sufficient number of these
buildings can result in cumulative and enduring urban change.
The pervasive penetration of middle-class ideals in European and non-European
cities can now be seen, retrospectively, as a specific phase of their urban history that
was the outcome of a given set of social, political and economic factors. Although
the resilience of the built landscape may give the impression that this phase of our
urban past is still close and very much at hand, the opposite is also true: the behav-
iors, the representations and the patterns of urban organization that were related
to the diffusion of middle-class ideals are becoming increasingly remote. The story
of many cities during the twentieth century was characterized by sudden and dra-
matic changes, the memory of which may be very much alive or sometimes, inversely,
completely lost.13 Neo-liberal ideologies have progressively swept away the mild
egalitarian urban ideals that could have appeared hegemonic just a few decades ear-
lier: social differences are dramatically widening and the social geography of urban
spaces is characterized by growing patterns of segregation and stronger inequality in
the access to urban resources.14 The memory of the twentieth-century middle-class
city is quickly disappearing from view and its spaces, even when they are preserved,
are losing significance.
If we assume that buildings – and especially residential buildings – played a relevant
part in shaping twentieth-century urban cultures, then a full historical understand-
ing of some of the essential traits of modern and contemporary middle-class cultures
could imply both the conservation of intangible materials such as oral testimonies
and domestic rituals and the conservation of physical materials such as the buildings
themselves and the objects that were accumulated in their interiors.15 An increas-
ing number of studies has recently tried to observe the built residential landscape of
twentieth-century middle classes as not just a nearly anonymous mass of architectural
objects but rather the center of individual and collective memories. Could past urban
settings related to the presence of the urban middle classes be investigated in the same
ways that have already been experimented for the working classes, for example by
means of oral archives16 or through the conservation of significant housing exam-
ples?17 Is there room for further experiments?
As debatable as the notion of middle-class housing may be considered and as ques-
tionable as its conservation may appear, any discussion about its future has at least
the merit to posit in clear terms a general methodological question that concerns the
protection of contemporary architecture: which aspects of a building – or of an urban
built landscape – can be worth preserving, behind its physical evidence? Ways to
answer this question provide a clue as to how a given society may be able to come to
terms with its own change over time and to build a shared and/or contested narrative
about its urban past.
Notes
1 Jess Stein, The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (New York: Random
House, 1966; 19732).

2 See L’aventure des mots de la ville, edited by Christian Topalov, Laurent Coudroy de Lille,
Jean-Charles Depaule and Brigitte Marin (Paris: Robert Laffont, 2010).
3 Europe in Figures: Eurostat Yearbook, Luxembourg <http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/sta-
tistics_explained/index.php/Europe_in_figures_-_Eurostat_yearbook> (last retrieved Febru-
ary 2, 2015). See also Peter Clark, European Cities and Towns 400–2000 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2009).
4 Françoise Choay, L’allégorie du patrimoine (Paris: Seuil, 1992).
5 See Iñaki Ábalos, The Good Life: A Guided Visit to the Houses of Modernity (Barcelona:
Editorial Gustavo Gili, 2001); Dolores Hayden, Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban
Growth, 1820–2000 (New York: Pantheon, 2003); Sandy Isenstadt, The Modern American
House: Spaciousness and Middle-Class Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2006); Penny Sparke, The Modern Interior (London: Reaktion, 2008); Matthew Gordon
Lasner, High Life: Condo Living in the Suburban Century (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 2012).
6 See La arquitectura de la vivienda para la clase media, edited by Jorge Sarquis (Buenos
Aires: Nobuko, 2010); Vu de l’intérieur: habiter un immeuble en Île-de-France, 1945–
2010, edited by Monique Eleb and Sabri Bendimérad (Paris: Ordre d’architectes d’Île-de-
France, 2011); Els de Vos, Hoe zouden we graag wonen? Woonvertogen in Vlaanderen
tijdens de jaren zestig en zeventig (Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2012); Ioanna Theo-
charopoulou, “Improvising Urbanism in Postwar Athens (1952–1974)”, in Landscapes of
Development: The Impact of Modernization Discourses on the Physical Environment of
the Eastern Mediterranean, edited by Panayiota Pyla (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Gradu-
ate School of Design, 2013), pp. 190–211; Storie di case: Abitare l’Italia del boom, edited
by Filippo De Pieri, Bruno Bonomo, Gaia Caramellino and Federico Zanfi (Rome: Don-
zelli, 2013).
7 See Florian Urban, Tower and Slab: Histories of Global Mass Housing (London: Routledge,
2012).
8 See Happy: Cities and Public Happiness in Post-War Europe, edited by Cor Wagenaar (Rot-
terdam: NAi Publishers, 2004); Swedish Modernism: Architecture, Consumption and the
Welfare State, edited by Helena Mattsson and Sven-Olof Wallenstein (London: Black Dog,
2010).
9 See Jordan Sand, “Chūryū / Middling”, in Working Words: New Approaches to Japanese
Studies (Berkeley, CA: Center for Japanese Studies, University of California <http://www.
escholarship.org/uc/item/3rw380hc> (last retrieved July 6, 2015).
10 See Pierre Bourdieu, La distinction: critique sociale du jugement (Paris: Minuit, 1979; Eng-
lish translation: Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1984).
11 See La copropriété en Europe (2007), actes du colloque du 21 septembre 2007 (Paris: Asso-
ciation des responsables de copropriétés, 2007).
12 See Dominique Braye, Prévénir et guérir les difficultés des copropriétés: une priorité des
politiques de l’habitat (Paris: Agence nationale de l’habitat, 2012); Sylvaine Le Garrec,
“Quand la rénovation urbaine s’applique à une copropriété: le cas de Clichy-Montfermeil
(93)”, in Être logé, se loger, habiter: regards de jeunes chercheurs, edited by Martine Berger
and Lionel Rougé (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2012), pp. 57–70.
13 See John Foot, “Micro-History of a House. Memory and Place in a Milanese Neighbor-
hood, 1890–2000”, Urban History, 34 (2007) 3, pp. 431–453.
14 See Loretta Lees, Tom Slater and Elvin K. Wyly, Gentification (London: Routledge, 2008).
15 See Daniel Miller, Stuff (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010).
16 See Jerry White, Rotschild Buildings: Life in an East End Tenement Block (London: Rout-
ledge, 1980).
17 See Andrew S. Dolkart, Biography of a Tenement House in New York City: An Architec-
tural History of 97 Orchard Street (Santa Fe, NM: Center for American Places, 2006).
Taylor &Francis
Memory
Taylor &Francis
15 Cultural institutions
Teresita Scalco
Over the last decades, architecture has became an issue of wide public interest both
in Western countries and beyond, displayed and discussed in countless initiatives pro-
moted by specialised institutions, with the aim of bringing this discipline to a gen-
eral audience. It is widely known that museums are places of cultural representation,
since “in museums, things are more than just things and museum narratives construct
national identity,”1 as Janet Marstine points out.
At the same time, I would add that, in our culturally globalised era, talking about
re-shaping museums’ contents also stresses the friction and increasing need for trans-
national comparison and research projects. We should also point out that political
climate, legislation and economic background all contribute to the evolution of archi-
tectural awareness in different countries.
Before narrowing my focus to the realm of museums and institutions, I will begin
with a brief overview of the actions and awards that spread knowledge of architec-
tural culture and heritage.
Before the flooding of Venice, 1963 saw the founding by Italia Nostra of Europa
Nostra, a non-profit organization whose motto is The Voice of Cultural Heritage in
Europe. Since then, its main aim has been to promote high standards of quality in the
fields of conservation, architecture, urban planning and a strengthening of the sense
of European citizenship through awards.
Moving toward the East, the Aga Khan Trust for Culture established the Aga Khan
Award for Architecture in 1977, awarded every three years, with the aim of fostering
contemporary architecture and environment debates in Islamic societies.
Across the world, in the United States, Jay and Cindy Pritzker founded the Prirz-
ker Archicture Prize in 1978, which is considered the Nobel Prize for Architec-
ture with the aim of encouraging and inspiring creativity within the profession and
engaging public awareness of contemporary buildings. In 2006, the World Monu-
ment Fund established the Modernism at Risk Initiative, taking a more active role in
addressing the distinct threats that face great works of modern architecture around
the world. This program focuses on advocacy, conservation and public education.
The prize has been awarded biennially to a design professional or firm in recogni-
tion of an innovative architectural or design solution that preserves or enhances a
modern landmark.
More recently, in 2001, the European Union Prize has been established for contem-
porary architecture award, in the frame of the European Heritage Day, dedicated to
twentieth-century architecture and town planning, a joint action by the Council of
Europe and the European Commission, with the goal of stimulating both national,
422 Teresita Scalco
regional and local authorities, and the private sector, in the cultural relevance of con-
temporary architecture and planning and its social impact.
Furthermore, in 2011, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, the International Coun-
cil on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the Working Party for the Documentation
and Conservation of buildings, sites and neighbourhood of the Modern Movement
(Docomomo, 1988) launched the programme on Modern Heritage, with financial sup-
port from the government of the Netherlands. This initiative focuses on contemporary
heritage, which is considered more fragile due to the lack of legal protection and low
awareness of the culture of contemporary architecture. 2013 saw the signing of a coop-
eration protocol between Union International des Architectes (UIA, 1948) and Doco-
momo International consolidating their support for twentieth-century heritage at risk.
These initiatives all portray the cultural landscape, including museums.
Atlas of museums, institutions and associations

of, and for, architecture2
Within this scenario the number of cultural institutions created to foster the under-
standing of architectural languages of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is quite
large. Therefore we have to bear in mind that I will illustrate only a few main muse-
ums, institutions and associations, both public and private, devoted to the divulgation
of contemporary architectural culture.
In chronological order of their founding, I will try to focus on their institutional
histories and how their missions are embodied in their actions. In order to frame this
rather broad and fast-growing subject, the title of this part is inspired by the exhibi-
tion Atlas: How to Carry the World on One’s Back?3 by Georges Didi-Huberman in
2010–2011. There is the belief, therefore, that futher insight into these institutions
would enable the researcher, scholar, curator and archivist to dig into “knowledge
through images”, by “reconfiguring the order of Things, Places and Times,” meta-
phorically, as the French art-historian structured his exhibition, in order to communi-
cate a better understanding of architecture worldwide.
Atlas, as a tentative map, aims to recognise the complexity of the relationship
between these institutions which have been established in the last decades, and to
highlight the proliferation of informal bottom-up initiatives.
It is possible to identity threee generations of architectural museums.4 The first ranges
from the 1930s to the first half of the 1970s and features the inclusion of these institu-
tions into the museum context, starting in 1932 with the international exhibition on
modern architecture, by Philip Jonson at MoMa in New York, where drawings from
modern architecture collections were presented both as mediation of architectural lan-
guage and for their aesthetical value. Then, in 1934, the Shchusev State Museum of
Architecture (MUAR) was opened in Moscow on the initiative of the Soviet Architects’
Union, which includes two museums: the Museum of Architecture of the Academy of
Construction and Architecture and the Museum of Russian Architecture.
After the Second World War, the Finnish Association of Architects promoted the
establishment of the Museum of Finnish Architecture, which opened in in Helsinki in
1956, housing the archive and library, as a resource for research programmes, and for
temporary and permanent contemporary exhibitions.
As we can see, the role of the archives is at the institutional heart of the first muse-
ums of architecture. From this beginning, Hans Maria Winler and Walter Gropious
Cultural institutions 423
founded the Bauhaus Archive-Museum in Darmstadt in 1960; it moved to Berlin
in 1979. It is the largest collection of drawings, paintings, sculptures and models
which illustrate the spectrum of Bauhaus’s activities and its influences in the history
of twentieth-century architecture, design, art and photography, and which encourages
research activities ranging from workshops, conferences, and study exhibitions.
The late 1970s and early 1980s saw the raising of new architectural awareness,
thanks to several initiatives and international exhibitions: in 1976, the Venice Bien-
nale of Architecture, directed by Vittorio Gregotti (which in 1980 became indepen-
dent from the Arts sector, thanks to Paolo Portoghesi) and the foundation of the
International Confederation of Architectural Museums (ICAM) in 1979 in Helsinki.

The conferences and publications of this confederation and organisation of architec-
tural museums, centres and collections take place every two years and aim to be a
lively forum for professionals in order to exchange expertise, ideas and guidelines on
the understanding of architecture and the built environment.
In this milieu, we can identify the second phase, from the 1970s until the 1990s,
when museums and architectural centers assumed a more active role on the cultural
arena. And so, as Michael Snodin, former president of ICAM, states, they “should
also be setting out to explain architecture to non-specialists and general public”5
and more and more in dialogue with other disciplines. In Central and East Europe
we have witnessed a prolific boom in new institutions: the establishment in 1965
of the Muzeum Architectury in Warsaw; since 1972, the Museum of Architecture
and Design in Ljubljana (MAO), has been assembling materials from the field of
architecture, town planning, industrial and comminication design and photography;
in 1979, the Deutche Architekturmuseum (DAM), a legacy of Heinrich Klotz, art
historian, whose aim was to create a museum of German architecture. Then, in the
1990s several others were established, such as the Museum of Estonian Architec-
ture in Tallin (1991), Architekturzentrum Wien (AzW, 1993), in 1995 the Latvian
Museum of Architecturture in Riga and the Croatian Museum of Architecture in
Zagreb. Starting from the 1980s, architecture and heritage has become a central issue
on the European cultural policies agenda. The Schweizerisches Architekturmuseum
(SAM) opened in 1984 in Basel, with a mission of integrating the debate on the urban
transformations, landscape urbanisation and planning together with cinema, graph-
ics and arts.
Recently, various research projects on colonial and post-colonial era have been
developed in Europe, such as the Heritage of Portuguese Influence Portal (HPIP),
formulated in 2007 by the Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian (1956) in Lisbon, whose
work is on Portuguese Heritage around the World: architecture and urbanism of nine-
teenth and twentieth centuries.
Outside the Western world, in the Far East, we should note the Edo-Tokyo
Tatemono-en (1993), an open air architectural museum of historic Japanese build-
ings, with some modern works too. Today, Africa is quickly becoming an outstanding
area of architectural studies, as we can see by the number of native scholars studying
and teaching in particular in North European and North American universities. Since
2011, the independent scientific institute of African Studies Centre in Leiden has been
aiming to promote a better understanding and insight into historical, current and
future social developments in sub-Saharan Africa, including architectural research.
Many other associations work on this continent, such as ArchiAfrika, founded in
2001 by a group of Dutch architects and now based in Accra.
424 Teresita Scalco
The constitution of the Netherland Architecture Institute (NAI) in Rotterdam had
a long journey, from 1988 and 1993, but soon became a key institution for Dutch
contemporary architecture, where the goals of collecting, exhibiting, interpreting and
research have always been intertwined. Basic restructuring took place in 2012, when
the directors of NAI, Netherlands Institute for Design and Fashion (Premsela) and the
Virtueel Platform merged into the New Institute, with the aim of “studying the social
significance of architecture, design and e-culture and facilitate dialogue between the
design disciplines and the larger society [. . .] through research, promotion and a pub-
lic events programme” which “will help to strengthen the position of the creative dis-
ciplines”. Finally, the private Vitra Design Museum (1989) in Weil am Rhein, focuses
primarily on furniture and interior design, but is also renowned for its buildings.
By reaching the third generation, that of the 2000s, we see that the institutions tend
to shift their impact and actions beyond architectural boundaries. In the first decade
of the century, the Parisian Citè de l’architecture et du patrimoine brought together
Figure 15.1 Citè d’Architecture et du patrimoine, Study Center, Paris

Source: Capa/Nicolas Bore, 2007.
the collection from the Musée des Monuments Français and the archival funds of the
Institut français d’architecture (IFA) and restructured them into in three departments:
architecture, heritage and training. As a place where scientific research, informal edu-
cation and citizens meet, the Citè runs a programme of temporary exhibitions and
offers a more focused look at history: the challenges that the practice of architecture
and its innovations have to face today.
In 2004, the partnership between the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA),
architectural library drawings and archives collections merged and moved to the
architectural drawings, photographs and artefacts collection in the Victoria & Albert
Museum in London (V&A+Riba), creating the Architecture Gallery. Leaving aside

the chronological approach of the display, the gallery has been organized according
to various themes, such as the function of buildings and their response to climate,
the art of architecture and changing architectural styles, materials and structures and
how buildings are made and what happens when buildings come together in towns
and cities.
One of the few bright newly built architecture museums is the National Museum
of 21st Century Arts (MAXXI) in Rome, by Zaha Hadid. A much-needed institution
on the Italian cultural landscape, as soon as it was established in 2010, it had to face
a change in status from a national public museum to that of a foundation (albeit
still supported by public fundings). Initiated by the Ministry for Cultural Heritage
in 1998, the museum was founded with the aim of promoting contemporary Italian
culture. From here to the development of its cultural mission, based on innovation,
multiculturalism and interdisciplinary activity, MAXXI has aimed to intersect arts
and architecture programs, as well as being a place to exhibit art and architecture,
along with research, educational workshops on photography, design, fashion and
film. International and shared research projects are the core activities for mutual col-
laboration among institutions, such as the Pier Luigi Nervi Research and Knowledge
Management Project, which has involved several universities scholars and research-
ers. Its exhibition has been co-produced by MAXXI Architettura (Centro Archivi)
and the Centre International pour la Ville, l’Architecture et le Paysage (CIVA, 1999)
in Bruxelles.
Studying the life of architects, their innovative language and works means writing a
piece of national and transnational history, and at the same time raising civic aware-
ness of our contemporary society.
Along with the museums’ contribution, the role of research centers, private initia-
tives and university archives has also been crucial. Founded in 1979, the collections
of the Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA) aimed to promote scientific research
and to attract public attention by stimulating new understanding of architecture by
means of publications and exhibitions. Recently, current transformations at all lev-
els of the cultural, economic and technological landscape require new institutional
policies, new curatorial practices and new eyes: “in order to address contemporary
problems and themes, it is necessary to adopt a multi or trans-disciplinary approach,
and to simultaneously combine different cultures, practices, and points of view
which emerge from architectural practice, curatorial practice and traditional aca-
demic investigation,” as the CCA director argued.6 On the subject of South America,
the Centro de Documentación de Arquitectura Latinoamericana (2008) in Buenos
Aires is very interesting, thanks to many public initiatives on modern architecture in
Argentina.
426 Teresita Scalco
Figure 15.2 SALT Research at SALT Galata

Source: Iwan Baan, 2012.
On the edge of Western and Eastern cultures, I would like to mention a private cul-
tural and research institution in Istanbul, SALT (with its two venues, founded in 2010
in Beyoglu, and in 2011 in Galata) and SALT Ulus in Ankara in 2013. Its is assembling
archives of recent art, architecture (more precisely archives of twentieth-century Turk-
ish architetects) design, urbanism and social and economic histories and cultivates
innovative research programmes.
As for Middle East countries, we can quote the experience of the Lebanese por-
tal Archileb.com which also servers as an online open platform for fostering critical
debate on contemporary architecture, where there is a lack of discussion on the public
and mainstream agenda.
In the case of Israel, 2012 saw the opening of the first museum devoted to archi-
tecture, the Munio Gitai Weinraub Architecture Museum in Haifa, whose aim is to
raise awareness of both Israeli and international architecture. The museum houses the
Weinraub archive – established by his son, director Amos Gitai – who is represented
as the leading architect for Modernism in Israel, since he studied at the Bauhaus.
From the 1980s, universities have played a very keen role in the preservation of
primary architectural research sources, such as architects’ archives and collections. At
a worldwide level, university archives promote campaigns on the collecting and cata-
loguing of research projects, publications and educational exhibitions. In the United
States, we should mention – on the West Coast – the Architectural & Design Collec-
tion (ADC) within the Art, Design & Architecture Museum (1963) at the UC Santa
Figure 15.3 Screenshot of Archileb
Barbara, and on the East Coast there are the Architecture Archives (1984) at the
Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburg and the historic Avery Architectural & Fine
Arts Library at the Columbia University in New York: all these collections focus on
the design and architecture of western and southern California from the nineteenth
through the twenty-first century.
In Italy we can find several centers in the universities. The first to be established
were the Centro Studi e Archivio della Comunicazione (CSAC, 1987) at the Uni-
versità degli Studi di Parma and the Archivio Progetti within the Università IUAV di
Venezia, which quickly became an international referential institution for establishing
new criteria for the cataloguing and management of architectural archives, aiming
to support teaching and research activities through curatorial and editorial projects.
While the Archivio Progetti started by focusing on the contributions by architects
from the Scuola di Venezia, the Politecnico di Milano also collects – shared in several
428 Teresita Scalco
Figure 15.4a Archivio Progetti, Università IUAV di Venezia, exterior view

Source: Umberto Ferro, 2013.
departments – the archives of architects, engineers and designers, mainly from the
northen region.
When it was founded in 1996, the Accademia di Architettura in Mendrisio (Uni-
versità della Svizzera Italiana) opened its Archivio del Moderno as a research center
aiming at strengthening the dissemination of architectural culture from the eighteenth
until the twenty-first centuries. Other notable European archives to be included in
this brief list are the Benaki Museum’s Neohellenic Architecture Archives (1995) in
Athens, devoted to modern Greek architecture; the Vlaamse Centrum Archirtectuur
Archieven (CVAa, 2003) in Antwerp, which coordinates to a wide range of historical
collections and archives relating to architects and designers in Flanders; the Architec-
tural and Design Department of the Centre Pompidou in Paris.
There are also some monographic private archives of architects, explicity estab-
lished upon the architect’s will, of which the most notable are the Alvar Aalto Fonda-
tion (1967) in the museum of the same name in Helsinki, the Fondation Le Corbusier
(1968) in Paris, the Fondazione Giovanni Michelucci (1982) in Florence, and the
Fundació Mies van der Rohe (1983) in Barcelona. In this scenario, which is obviously
not exhaustive, we may find that these institutions, even though closely linked to their
territories, are often functionally intertwined.
In order to facilitate these dynamics, some associations have been established with
the aim of networking and exchanging knowledge, expertise, guidelines, issues on the
management and valorisation of contemporary culture and histories of architecture:
the Italian Association of contemporary Architectural Archives (AAA-Italia, 1999)
and more recently the European Architectural History Network (EAHN, 2009), also
affiliated to the College Art Association (CAA, 1911) and the Society of Architectural
Figure 15.4b Archivio Progetti, Università IUAV di Venezia, interior view

Source: Umberto Ferro, 2013.
Historians (SAH, 1940) in United States. While, on the other side of the world, a net-
work of architectural researchers and specialists committed to the study, preservation
and rehabilitation of modern architecture, townscape, and civil-engineering heritages
is the Modern Asian Architecture Network (mAAN, 2001).
The constellation of institutions portrayed so far is only a tentative reflection on
the polyhedral system developed from the second half of the nineteenth century and
very much alive today. Shifting from its main conservative mission, it is clear that
the new way to determine how best to historicise, understand, disseminate, know,
430 Teresita Scalco
Figure 15.5 De Wonderjaren in maquettes. 30 jaar architectuur in Vlaanderen. Vlaamse Cen-

trum Archirtectuur Archieven (VAi)/Flanders Architectural Institute, Antwerpen
Source: Stijn Bollart, 2016.
communicate and curate contemporary discourse on architecture is by making an

extra effort and commitment to cross-disciplinary boundaries. In accordance with
the Faro Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society,7 architecture
can be explored not only as an (built) object or an (digital) image, but rather as a
‘medium of life’,8 the result and the activator of social, political, economical and
cultural processes.
Notes
1 Janet Marstine, New Museum Theory and Practice (Malden, MA: Balckwell Publishing,
2006), p. 34.
2 Readers are invited to refer to the official websites of the individual institutions cited in this
paper for further information relating to their cultural activities, publications and historical
and organizational information.
3 See Georges Didi-Huberman, Atlas: How to Carry the World on One’s Back? ZKM, Museum
Für Neue Kunst, Karlsruhe, May 7–August 28, 2010; Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina
Sofia, Madrid, November 26, 2010–March 28, 2011; Sammlung Falckenberg, Hamburg,
September 24–November 27, 2011 (Madrid: Mncars Publications Department, 2010).
4 See Maria Elena Motisi, Il Museo di Architettura: Indagine sull’evoluzione di un’istituzione
attraverso tre fasi della sua storia / The Museum of Architecture: An investigation on the
evolution of the institution along three major phases of its history, Villard d’Honnecourt PhD
thesis unpublished (Università Iuav di Venezia, 2012), pp. 10–11. For an history, see also
Jean-Louis Cohen, “Il museo di architettura: sfide e promesse”, in Musei d’arte e di architet-
tura, edited by Federica Varosio (Milan: Bruno Mondadori, 2004), pp. 43–61.
5 Mariet Willing, “Interview with Michael Snodin”, Icamprint, 2 (2008), p. 5.
6 Mirko Zardini, “A project for two buildings”, Icamprint, 4 (2012), p. 34.
7 Convention was agreed by the Council of Europe in 2005 (reviewed in 2011) with the aim
of shifting focus from objects and monuments to people and their rights to participate in
cultural life.
8 See Ole Bouman, “Why the new nai?”, Icamprint, 4 (2012), pp. 20–29. On the subject of
Nai’s evolution, the former director says how architecture should be a tool of dialogue,
with other disciplines, in the cultural arena, a mirror which reflects current social and urban
dynamics.
16 Architectural photography
Valeria Carullo
Buildings and the built environment were among the first subjects the camera lens
focused on after the invention of photography in 1839. Bulky equipment and very
long exposure times required still subjects; moreover, photography offered an unpar-
alleled means of documentation to a variety of professionals: architects could have
their new buildings recorded or could acquire detailed information on old buildings
being restored; historians could study and compare buildings that they could not visit
or access; civic planners could have entire neighbourhoods recorded before they were
swept away by urban renovations. One interesting example is the Pavillon Turgot
photographed by Édouard Baldus, in figure 16.1, one of the thousands of images offi-
cially commissioned from the photographer in the 1850s to document the building of
the New Louvre in Paris. There was another important reason for the proliferation
of images of architecture in the second half of the nineteenth century: photographers
realised the enormous potential of the tourist market, and some of them travelled to
faraway lands and brought back a visual documentation of the places they visited and
explored, of a type that had never been possible to achieve before.
With advancements in camera technology and processes, photography had passed
from the hands of a few amateurs to those of a vast number of professionals. In the
first decades of the twentieth century, after the invention of the half-tone process
which allowed the printing of image and text on the same sheet, the diffusion of
images of architecture increased exponentially thanks to journals and other publi-
cations. Architects started to fully recognise the power of the photographic image,
which could not only illustrate and advertise their work to prospective clients, but
also (and something equally important to magazine editors) influence taste.1 Clearly
aware of this power was émigré architect Ernö Goldfinger, seen in figure 16.2 stand-
ing proudly in front of his newly built Trellick Tower, which has in time become one
of the most iconic high-rises in London. Long-lasting partnerships between architects
and photographers started to develop in this period and continue to this day – notable
examples are those between Le Corbusier and Lucien Hervé, Richard Neutra and
Julius Shulman, Luis Barragán and René Burri, Peter Zumthor and Hélène Binet.
Photography has since become the principal means of communicating architecture:
easier to read and more impactful than drawing, it also gives the impression of being
more ‘objective’ and more ‘faithful’ to its subject. We should, of course be aware that
every photographic image is a personal interpretation of this subject, but the ‘illusion’
is still there, since no other type of visual representation (apart from film) seems to
replicate so closely what we see with our own eyes. Will film replace photography as
the most effective way to communicate architecture? In spite of the obvious advantage
Architectural photography 433
Figure 16.1 Pavillon Turgot, New Louvre, Paris, by Hector-Martin Lefuel and Louis Visconti
(1857). Photo Édouard-Denis Baldus
Source: RIBA Library Photographs Collection.
of conveying an individual’s movement through space, film has not so far had a major
role because of the unquestionable dominance of the printed image. However this
might change in the near future, as in the age of the Internet more and more videos
are viewed online by an increasing number of people worldwide.
Architectural photography has gone through many phases throughout its history,
influenced by cultural changes and different and often contrasting approaches in
434 Valeria Carullo
Figure 16.2 Trellick Tower, Cheltenham Estate, London, and its designer Ernö Goldfinger
(1972). Photo Sam Lambert
Source: RIBA Library Photographs Collection.
photography per se. All these phases provide us with an invaluable contribution to
our understanding of architecture, of photography, of social history. Like architec-
ture itself, architectural photography has a dual nature: it both serves a function and
is a means of artistic expression. This duality makes the interpretation and evalu-
ation of an image more difficult, because the terms upon which this assessment is
based are not always clear. As Robert Elwall (late senior curator of the RIBA Library
Photographs Collection at the Royal Institute of British Architects) remarked, the
study of architectural photography is still in its infancy and offers therefore enormous
potential.
The first step towards enabling further study is clearly to guarantee the continu-
ous existence of photographic archives and their preservation for future generations.
Combined with other means of visual representation and with archival documents,
Figure 16.3 Shopping centre, Pepys Estate, London, by GLC (c. 1970). Photo Tony Ray-Jones
Source: Tony Ray-Jones/RIBA Library Photographs Collection.
436 Valeria Carullo
photographs supply researchers with an essential source of information on architec-
ture and urbanism; they also allow a lay audience to discover and explore the history
of their home, their neighbourhood, their village, their city, or simply to find out more
about unfamiliar buildings and locations. They can be a major source of inspiration to
architects, photographers, artists, designers – and, of course, they can be artworks in
their own right. Most importantly, perhaps, they form part of our collective memory.
They remind us of where and how we choose to live, work and spend our free time;
of the way we relate to the land and to other human beings. These elements come to
the fore, especially in the work of those photographers influenced by photojournalism
and social documentary, such as Tony Ray-Jones, who captured here in figure 16.3 a
moment in the everyday life of a London housing estate of the 1960s.
Safeguarding photographic collections relating to architecture and the built envi-
ronment is therefore a priority, but who is or should be responsible? The responsibil-
ity tends to fall on individual institutions, even if a case could be argued for additional
support from relevant governmental departments. The preservation of photographs
requires very specific environmental conditions, different from those used for other
paper-based media, because of the chemical element present in their structure. Not
many institutions, let alone private collectors, have the resources to create a dedicated
store for photographic collections, and space is always going to be an issue for those
that follow a policy of acquisitions. However, an investment in climate-controlled
storage space gives long-term rewards and to this purpose it is certainly worth trying
to apply for grants from charitable foundations and trusts.
Acquiring archives from architectural practices or photographers and keeping them
intact, rather than focussing on the acquisition of individual images, should be one of
the guiding principles for any institution that intends to build a significant collection
of architectural photography. The study of a single archive can reveal a number of
fascinating research themes and looking at an image within the wider context of other
images contributes to the understanding of both the subject and/or the photographer.
This approach does not have to exclude the occasional acquisition of important indi-
vidual items – economic resources will obviously have a bearing on the scope for such
acquisitions.
For larger acquisitions, an interesting model to follow could be the one put in place
by the RIBA Library Photographs Collection when it acquired the archive of the Archi-
tectural Press, publishers of two major British architectural magazines, the Architec-
tural Review and the Architects’ Journal. The publisher EMAP, who owned the archive,
did not have the space or the resources to look after this very extensive archive – made
up of an estimated 500,000 images – and decided to donate it to the Photographs Col-
lection in exchange for a shared credit line and free access to the digital version of the
images. One example among the thousands made available online is an almost abstract
view of the vault of Santa Maria Maggiore in Francavilla al Mare in figure 16.4, which
was sent to the Architectural Press in 1959 as part of a set documenting the church
designed by Ludovico Quaroni. The type of agreement exemplified by the EMAP–
RIBA collaboration provides obvious benefits not only to the two parties involved, but
also to any potential audience, as the original photographs are made available to all in
the RIBA Library and their digital equivalents are constantly being added to the online
database and can be viewed by anyone with access to the Web.
Allowing and facilitating access to photographic collections is indeed of paramount
importance, both for researchers and the general public. This can be done not only
Figure 16.4 Church of Santa Maria Maggiore, Francavilla al Mare, by Ludovico Quaroni (1959)
Source: Architectural Press Archive/RIBA Library Photographs Collection.
allowing physical access through the creation of study rooms, but also organising
displays and exhibitions and undertaking a digitisation programme. The display
of photographic material always needs to be based on careful consideration of the
safety of the items on display: original photographs require low light levels and a
climate-controlled environment that guarantees humidity and temperature within a
specified range, which is generally a compromise between the ideal values required
for conservation and those that allow comfort for visitors. If the safety of the original
items is in question, these can be replaced by digital copies; even if the experience of
viewing a vintage print cannot be replicated, it is now possible to produce high-quality
digital prints on a variety of archival papers at a relatively low cost. This option high-
lights one of the many outputs of an on-going digitisation programme. The rationale
438 Valeria Carullo
behind such a programme is now clear to many institutions: the digital capture of
photographic material and its inclusion in online image databases allows unprece-
dented access to collections and archives and it is particularly effective if accompanied
by accurate metadata. Digitisation also reduces the need for viewing the original item,
which is of obvious benefit to its preservation. Care must be taken in verifying the
copyright ownership of images published on the Web, as institutions should not post
on their online databases any item for which copyright is held elsewhere.
A major challenge for the future will be the preservation of these digital files, espe-
cially considering that the visual representation of contemporary architecture is now
done mostly through digital photography. While space is a relatively minor issue com-
pared to the one faced for the preservation of prints, negatives and transparencies, it
is the speed at which technology evolves in the field of digital technology that makes it
very difficult to predict when the current formats will become obsolete and what they
will be replaced by. Small collections can consider producing prints from these files
as an additional backup but this option is clearly not feasible for major collections.
Education also plays an important role in the preservation of architectural photog-
raphy. The more people become aware of the importance of this medium the more
they will be willing to see it safeguarded for the future. We therefore need to bring this
subject into schools and universities and encourage talks, workshops, seminars and
events for both adults and schoolchildren.
In the last decade architectural photography and its history have undoubtedly been
explored to a greater extent than before: although a text on the history of international
architectural photography had already appeared in 1987,2 two important books on
this subject were published in the last 10 years, Building with Light by Robert Elwall
and Storia della fotografia di architettura by Giovanni Fanelli.3
In Great Britain events and study days on the subject are not uncommon, and in
the last few years three conferences created a much-needed forum for information
sharing and debate. The first, Camera Constructs, took place at the University of East
London in 2006;4 the second, Still Architecture: Photography, Vision and Cultural
Transmission at the University of Cambridge in 20125; and the third, Building with
Light (inspired by and dedicated to the work of Robert Elwall), at the RIBA in Lon-
don in 2014.6 The publication of the conference papers has also contributed to the
dissemination of ideas and opinions discussed during these events.
However, exhibitions are probably the most effective means both of encouraging
interest in and debate on the subject, and of involving a wider audience. Photogra-
phy has become almost indispensable to exhibitions devoted to architecture; however,
there are still very few exhibitions specifically devoted to the subject of architectural
photography, with the exception of shows on photographers more commonly associ-
ated with art practices – for example, Bernd and Hilla Becher, Candida Höfer and
Hélène Binet. The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) in London and the Cen-
tre Canadien d’Architecture (CCA) in Montreal have hosted a number of exhibitions
on architectural photography and more opportunities could be offered by other insti-
tutions and museums such as the Museo Nazionale delle Arti del xxi secolo (MAXXI)
in Rome, the Het Nieuwe Instituut (former Nederlands Architectuurinstituut or Nai)
in Rotterdam, the Deutsche Architektur Museum (Dam) in Frankfurt, as well as
schools of architecture worldwide. Collaborations between institutions also seems to
be an effective way forward, one that helps bring material from photographic archives
and collections to a wider and sometimes different audience. One such collaboration
Figure 16.5 Museum für Angewandte Kunst, Frankfurt, by Richard Meier (1984). Photo
Alastair Hunter
Source: Alastair Hunter/ RIBA Library Photographs Collection.
between the RIBA Library Photographs Collection and the Estorick Collection of
Modern Italian Art in 2009 produced the exhibition Framing Modernism: Architec-
ture and Photography in Italy 1928–1965,7 which was also hosted two years later at
MAXXI. A parallel theme was the focus of the exhibition Fotografía y Arquitectura
Moderna en España: 1925–1965, held in Madrid in 2014.8
440 Valeria Carullo
In conclusion, preservation, digitisation and access are the three areas that any col-
lection of architectural photography should ideally prioritise – each one of them, as it
has been argued in this chapter, contributes to making the others possible.
Notes
1 See Tom Picton, “The Craven Image, or the apotheosis of the architectural photograph”,
Architects’ Journal (25 July 1979: 175–190, and 1 August 1979: 225–242). See also the
following Architectural Photography Bibliography, http://caa.ucalgary.ca/bibliography
(accessed November 2013).
2 Cervin Robinson and Joel Herschman, Architecture Transformed: A History of the Pho-
tography of Buildings from 1839 to the Present (Cambridge, Ma: Mit Press, 1987, reprint
1990).
3 Robert Elwall, Building with Light: The International History of Architectural Photography
(London: Merrel, 2004); Giovanni Fanelli, Storia della fotografia di architettura (Rome-Bari:
Editori Laterza, 2009).
4 Andrew Higgott and Timothy Wray (eds.), Camera Constructs: Photography, Architecture
and the Modern City (Farnham: Ashgate, 2006).
5 On the international conference at the Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and
Humanities (Crassh) in Cambridge, http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/events/1707/ (accessed
November 2013).
6 Building with Light: The Legacy of Robert Elwall, https://www.architecture.com/WhatsOn/
November2014/BuildingWithLightTheLegacyOfRobertElwall.aspx (accessed November 2015).
The papers from the symposium were published by the Journal of Architecture in 2016.
7 Robert Elwall and Valeria Carullo, Framing Modernism: Architecture and Photography in
Italy 1926–1965 (London: Estorick Foundation, 2009).
8 Iñaki BERGERA (ed.), Fotografia y arquitectura moderna en Espana / Photography & Mod-
ern Architecture in Spain: 1925–1965 (Madrid: Museo ICO, 2014).
Conservation
Taylor &Francis
17 Laws and regulations
Roberta Grignolo
Does twentieth-century heritage call for a customized approach?

The focus of this chapter is the relationship between the conservation of
twentieth-century architecture and regulatory issues. Reading the title, one might
rightly question as to whether it is appropriate to limit the scope of the issue to
twentieth-century monuments alone.
In discussing regulations, there actually is no substantial difference in how they
are applied to twentieth-century architectural heritage as opposed to the heritage
of previous centuries. But this is possibly one of the most sensitive issues, since
twentieth-century heritage exhibits specific features that cannot be disregarded when
compliance measures are required.
The first point that should be noted is that, compared to architecture from previ-
ous centuries, twentieth-century buildings present greater complexity in many areas.
Suffice it to think of high-rise buildings, of large residential complexes, of the variety
of building types that modern civilisation has developed to accommodate the flow of
large numbers of people (such as theatres or airports).
In addition, some of the intrinsic features of recent architecture also require consid-
eration: the spatial complexity, one of the drivers in twentieth-century architectural
research (think of the spatial continuity which marks many masterpieces from the
1930s and 1950s), and the poor thermal inertia of twentieth-century envelopes, which
is an issue in improving energy efficiency.
A second good reason for focusing on the last century when debating the issue of
how law and heritage are related is the fact that, compared to the revered architec-
ture of previous centuries, it is far more difficult to defend recent architectural works
against the demands of compliance authorities. Everyone accepts that the parapet of
the double-helix staircase in the sixteenth-century Chateau of Chambord should not
be raised, despite it being lower than regulatory requirements, yet it is difficult to get
people to understand that by modifying a parapet in a 1950s’ building for safety com-
pliance purposes, the proportions of its interior space may be distorted.
Lastly, the temporal, formal and technical proximity of the last century’s heritage
to contemporary architecture frequently induces compliance authorities to expect that
twentieth-century buildings be brought up to the standards applied to new buildings.
For all these reasons it seems appropriate to limit consideration to twentieth-century
buildings alone.
444 Roberta Grignolo
Compliance measures, dispensation and “equivalent solutions”
We all have in mind several cases where slavish enforcement of regulations and the
use of conventional compliance measures – in the fields of fire safety, public safety,
accessibility, seismic safety and energy efficiency – has led to distorting modern build-
ings. This explains our concern for the issue of compliance, hence the focus of this
contribution.1
In cases of legally recognised “monuments”, applications can be presented to obtain
dispensations. These are “equivalent solutions”, which ensure the same level of safety
(or performance) as the current standards, while having a lower impact on the specific
features of the listed building. It is evident though that obtaining dispensations varies
greatly from one country to another and even within the same country.
In Switzerland, for instance, the conservation department in Bern worked with
local safety authorities to define alternatives for achieving fire compliance in protected
buildings. The result, a document titled “Fire protection in historic buildings”,2 con-
tains general information, guidelines and examples of fire compliance interventions in
historic buildings. It has now become a benchmark for work on protected buildings
and has saved many Bernese monuments, some of them modern, from disfigurement.
Ex post though, one of the working group specialists humorously remarked that “Fire
isn’t as hot in Bern as it is in Zurich!” Hence in some cases a dialogue-negotiation
process between the architects and the relevant authorities is possible, whereas in oth-
ers it is practically non-existent.
For such reasons it seems crucial to fully understand the principles underlying the
dispensation process and the “equivalent solution” approach.
Complementarity of protective and preventive measures

In searching for “equivalent solutions” it may be useful to integrate protective inter-
ventions, which endow the building with better risk-avoidance features (e.g., fire
doors, fire compartments, etc.), and preventive measures, which reduce the probabil-
ity of accidents without physical modifications, but just by, for instance, providing
instructions on how the building is to be used and managed.
An example of protective action can be seen in the fire safety measures recently
adopted for the restoration of the Couvent de La Tourette in Eveux (1953–1960). In
this case, a highly sensitive fire detection system avoided the disrupting effect that the
fitting of fire doors along the corridors would have had on Le Corbusier’s original
spatial design. The fire detection system, in this case, is an alternative measure provid-
ing a safety solution which is considered equivalent to the measures required by fire
safety standards in new buildings, such as the length of evacuation routes, the surfaces
of fire resistant compartments, etc.3
Conversely, an example of preventive action can be seen in the strategy which was
followed in order to open Le Corbusier’s Maison La Roche in Paris (1923–1925) to
the public. Following the advice of a ministerial expert on monument fire safety, it was
decided to set the maximum number of visitors admitted to the building to 20 so as
to fall under the building classification criteria requiring the lowest level of regulatory
compliance, thus limiting invasive measures as much as possible.4
Such cases exemplify how switching from a prescriptive approach, in which the solu-
tions to be implemented are imposed, to a performance-based approach, in which only
Laws and regulations 445
the desired outcome is given – that is, ensuring user safety – without prescribing how this
is to be achieved, provides conservation architects with a greater freedom in responding
to regulations, thus allowing them to design monument-compatible solutions.
The issue of liability

Another fundamental matter is related to liability. In most legal systems, in the event
of an accident, the property owner is ultimately responsible for injuries, even though
he may subsequently have the right of recourse against third parties (architect, engi-
neer, contractor, relevant authority, etc.).

Under such conditions, it will clearly not be in the heritage owner’s best interest
to seek equivalent solutions that do not comply with technical standards, which are
the primary yardstick for courts in cases of legal proceedings. One consequently may
witness paradoxical situations in which the property owner is less willing to accept
derogations and alternatives than the safety authorities themselves.
Early integration of regulatory requirements in the design process

These and other key issues require radical rethinking of the strategies governing
twentieth-century heritage compliance requirements. Our belief is that most issues
stem from the design approach.
The notion of architectural design which underlies the project of new buildings
implies a sense of artistic creation which must be free of all constraints if it is to express
itself fully; hence regulatory requirements are considered separate from the actual archi-
tectural design work, or, even worse, they are only taken into consideration ex post.
Consequently, ad hoc, isolated compliance measures are developed with the purpose of
finding solutions for individual problems but without adopting an overall intervention
strategy. The integration of regulatory requirements into reuse and restoration projects
should instead be implemented from the onset of any project. Such an approach will
mean that regulatory requirements will be considered one of the many elements of the
design programme, on a par with functional, performance, technical and other require-
ments, all to be incorporated within an overall restoration and reuse strategic approach.
Towards a supranational comparison of customs and practices

Given this state of things, we believe that the greater the number of regulatory com-
pliance cases an architect can refer to, the more easily he will find alternatives for
prescribed solutions by assuring “equivalent” levels. Furthermore, a supranational
comparison of customs and practices associated with the “rights of monuments” can
help reduce heterogeneity in the application of national regulations.
In order to give a sample of the usefulness of such cumulative knowledge in archi-
tectural and conservation practice, the rest of the chapter will present several examples
for the main areas of provisions, highlighting the underlying principles for each case.
Fire safety
Let us now consider fire safety provisions. All buildings open to the public have to
guarantee a safe evacuation of their users.
Figure 17.1 Restoration of Willem Marinus Dudok’s Collège Néerlandais at the Cité Univer-
sitaire, Paris 1938. Ground floor plan of the first compartmentalisation proposal
on the left and of the monument-friendly solution on the right. It expanded the
compartmentalisation area to a point in which the fire doors did not disrupt spatial
perception and allowed the conservation of the original doors
Sources: Drawings by Architect Bernard Bauchet, Paris.
Willem Marinus Dudok’s Collège Néerlandais at the Cité Universitaire in Paris (1938)
is one of the most interesting examples of the De Stijl movement in France. Listed in
2005, the building is seven floors high and is entirely used as students’ residence, except
for the ground floor, where the great hall is accessible to the public for evening events.
According to the French regulation for buildings open to the public, the hall should have
been separated from the entrance to the students’ home with fire doors, but the original
glazed – and non-compliant – hall doors designed by Dudok were still in place. Consid-
ering the building plan, with four staircases connecting the ground floor with the upper
levels (only two would have been necessary for current fire safety standards), the archi-
tects in charge of the restoration managed to convince the fire authorities to push back
the hall compartmentalisation to the partitions which could easily be made fire resistant,
thus including one staircase in the fire compartment.5 The original glazed Dudok doors
were therefore saved and fire insulation achieved in a monument-compatible way.
Also at risk of disfigurement are main exterior doors: according to current fire pro-
visions doors must open outwardly. In Villa Necchi Campiglio in Milan, designed by
architect Piero Portaluppi (1932–1935) and now a museum-house, the splendid glass
entrance door with its curved and brass-surrounded panes used to open inwardly. The
authorities had asked to have it either open outwardly or to replace it completely with
a new fire door. Discussions between the conservation architects, the property’s man-
agement and the fire safety authorities led to an equivalent safety solution – that the
door be permanently manned when visitors were present in the house – and allowed
this “show-case” entrance to be preserved in all its details.
Such cases show that a thorough understanding of the existing standards and an open
dialogue with the relevant authorities are key features to achieve a monument-friendly
integration of standards.
Lastly, in the case of buildings recognised as having special architectural merit,
buildings which would be disfigured by the implementation of current fire safety mea-
sures, FDS (fire dynamics simulation) is a possible option. This consists of detailed,
three-dimensional analyses performed by expert engineers, allowing fire behaviour
to be simulated in a building using a variety of scenarios, following which “custom-
ised” safety measures can be designed as alternatives to those prescribed by regulatory
authorities. Such procedures are still very costly, but in cases of spatially complex,
modern icons, what is at stake is well worth the expense.6
Personal safety
Another issue is that of the personal safety of people in buildings. Parapets are one
of the authorities’ main concerns in this respect. Negotiations between architects and
relevant authorities are heavily conditioned by the intention to eliminate all possi-
ble risks. Consequently designers and/or property owners seek to ensure excessively
ample protective conditions even when they are not strictly necessary.
Nevertheless, there are numerous examples of monument-compatible adaptations
of existing parapets: metal profiles added to the inner side of the existing parapets,
tubes added above the existing parapets, etc.
Furthermore in some cases, by finding clever arguments, architects have even suc-
ceeded in avoiding any intervention at all. In the Swiss National Library in Bern, by
Oeschger, Kaufmann and Hostettler (1931), the parapets were kept in their original
non-compliant state by arguing that the staircases are only used by employees – not
by the general public – and never by children.
Figure 17.2 Piero Portaluppi, Villa Necchi Campiglio, Milan 1932–1935. General view of the
villa on the left. On the right, the splendid glass entrance door, which was pre-
served thanks to the constructive dialogue between conservation architects, prop-
erty management and fire authorities
Source: left, Fondazione Piero Portaluppi; right, Alessandra Castelbarco Albani.
Figure 17.3 Compliant parapets. Left: Roland Korn and Hans Erich Bogatzky, Staatsratsge-
bäude, Berlin 1962–1964; new interior parapet added during the rehabilitation by
HG Merz (2006). Middle: Otto Salvisberg, Institut für Geologie, Bern 1929–1931;
new tubular profile added above the original parapet for regulatory compliance,
during the intervention of albarchitekturgemeinschaft AG (2003–2006). Right:
Alfred Oeschger, Emil Hostettler, Josef Kaufmann, Swiss National Library, Bern
1929–1931; during the recent restoration (1991–2009) the parapets were kept in
their original non-compliant state by arguing that the staircases are only used by
employees and never by children
Source: Photograph by the author.
Accessibility
As for accessibility, over the last decades demands have increased significantly, and
nowadays heritage buildings should be accessible to all, on condition that “economi-
cally reasonable” compliance measures can be implemented. Multi-storey buildings
and the fluid spatial design of twentieth-century architecture are consequently a real
challenge for conservation architects. Compliance interventions may range from the
installation of lifts, ramps or elevator platforms to the design of alternative ways to
visit the monument. An example of this is architect Erno Goldfinger’s residence in
London (1939), a museum-house managed by the National Trust. Here the only verti-
cal connection available in the building is a metal spiral staircase. Universal accessibil-
ity would have required a complete distortion of the building; hence it was decided
to find an alternative way to visit the house. A small, ten-person cinema hall has been
created in what used to be the garage.7 This is where all visitors start the tour, viewing
a video about the historic setting against which the residence was built; for visitors
interested in further information, the video continues with a “virtual” guided tour
of the residence’s rooms, so that all have the opportunity, even if only indirectly, to
experience these unusual, modern interiors.
Seismic safety
A further issue that has recently been included in the conservation-architect’s agenda
is seismic safety. Until the 1970s construction standards did not consider seismic risk,
but the appearance of more advanced calculation methods has brought increasingly
Figure 17.4 Armin Meili, Brown, Boveri & Cie (BBC) Employees’ Recreational Facility, Baden
(1951–1954)
Source: Photograph by the author.
stringent seismic safety regulations. Even though protected buildings are usually
exempted from seismic compliance requirements – at least in countries in which seis-
mic risk is not a critical feature – granting access to the general public in public heri-
tage buildings remains nonetheless an issue.
The Brown, Boveri & Cie (BBC) employees’ recreational facility in Baden (1951–
1954) is acclaimed by critics as one of the masterpieces of the Swiss architect Armin
Meili. The building is partly raised on slim, three-storey-high pilotis, and amounted
to a formidable seismic compliance challenge. However, incorporating the compliance
issue into the reuse project (2002–2006) at an early stage made it possible to minimise
the impact on the building.8 The position of the three seamless ground-to-roof walls,
required for seismic compliance, was ingeniously integrated into the existing walls.
Energy efficiency
Lastly, an even more recent and topical issue: energy efficiency regulations. It is here,
perhaps more that in any other field, that it seems essential to make the transition from
a prescriptive to a performance-based approach. Whenever this is not achieved, it is
difficult to find alternatives to the replacement of energy-dissipating building elements.
This is what occurred in the case of Max Schlup’s Gymnasium Strandboden in
Biel (1975–1981), despite the appeals of several conservation associations. In this
instance, the conditions of tender for the energy retrofitting of the complex (2005)
only allowed modifications to the envelope, an elaborate system of folded steel sheet
sections designed by Schlup. Following the tender requirements, the winning project
consisted in the total replacement of this valuable testimony with a new envelope of
thermal break profiles. In 2011, the committee that was established to save the com-
plex9 developed a counter-project, which demonstrated that by insulating the roofs
and first-floor slabs it would have been possible to implement an energy retrofit of the
building, preserving the envelope’s original profiles and merely replacing the existing
glazing with new glass panes with a higher energy efficiency. But nothing came of it,
and the original envelope is to be demolished and completely replaced.
A totally opposite strategy was chosen in the case of Albert Zeyer’s Dula School
Complex in Lucerne (1930–1933). When, in the early 2000s, it was decided to trans-
form the building in order to house a music school and a school for children with
disabilities, the architects realised the importance of preserving the original, slender,
metal window frames that contributed to the elegant proportions of the building and
that were still in good condition.10 By insulating the flooring at ground level and the
roof, that in any event would have required modifications for the new functions of the
building, it was possible to preserve the existing opening mechanisms and the double
fixtures, changing only the inner glazing with new insulated glass.
Such cases show how effective comprehensive energy retrofitting strategies can be,
balancing the losses from one part of a building with other parts or with a combina-
tion of other systems.
A collection of cases to enforce the “rights of

twentieth-century monuments”
Such examples show that the underlying principles for each case can easily be trans-
ferred and applied to other projects with similar compliance issues.
We believe a collection of recent heritage restoration and reuse cases, where issues
related to compliance requirements have been addressed and solved in ingenious
ways, can become a useful instrument for architects involved in this field. By suggest-
ing arguments and solutions that local authorities can approve, such examples can
become useful precedents. It is therefore crucial to develop such experience and to
allow for a greater circulation of information and knowledge among relevant actors:
architects, security experts, authorities and insurers.
Furthermore some countries have officialised interesting professional roles. For
example, the French Ministry for Culture and Communication comprises the “consul-
tant for the fire safety and prevention in monuments”, a role held today by a former
fire department chief. Extensive experience in the field as firefighter enables this expert
to become a key contributor to listed buildings compliance projects: he can suggest
alternative and monument-compatible compliance measures when designers are deal-
ing with technical requirements.
Diverse forward-looking intervention strategies, tried and tested models for man-
aging compliance projects, successful arguments and ingenious practical solutions to
achieve compliance in twentieth-century buildings make up a corpus of expertise that
has yet to be fully discovered and used.
It would be invaluable to have all this expertise collected and organised as a “cat-
alogue”: even if it cannot be directly implemented in other countries’ regulations,
thanks to its status of applicable legislation in another country, it could at least become
a starting point for negotiations with relevant authorities elsewhere.
Such a task should ideally be undertaken by international organisations, such as
ICOMOS or Docomomo International. Were such suggestions to be conveyed to the
relevant policy makers – for example, in Europe to the European Union bureaucracy
in Brussels – they could become valuable material to support the development of more
consistent national and international strategies, which, at long last, would assure fit-
ting consideration for the “rights of twentieth-century architectural heritage”.
Notes
1 This paper is an outcome of the International Conference “Law and the Preservation of
20th Century Architecture”, Accademia di architettura, Mendrisio, 18–19 June 2012,
organised by Roberta Grignolo and Bruno Reichlin within the framework of the Critical
Encyclopaedia for reuse and restoration of 20th Century Architecture project (Historic and
critical Tools for Conservation Section), funded by the Swiss University Conference (SUC).
The conference proceedings are published in the volume: Roberta Grignolo, ed. Diritto e
salvaguardia dell’architettura del XX secolo / Law and the Conservation of 20th Century
Architecture (Mendrisio-Cinisello Balsamo: Mendrisio Academy Press-Silvana Editoriale,
2014).
2 Protection contre les incendies dans les constructions à caractère historique. Documenta-
tion relative à la notice explicative concernant la protection contre les incendies NPI 5
(Ittingen: Assurance immobiliaire Berne, 2005).
3 The restoration was carried out by the Architecte en Chef des Monuments Historiques
Didier Repellin, Lyon (2006–2013).
Pierre-Antoine Gatier, Paris (2008–2009).
Hervé Baptiste, Paris, with the consultancy of Bernard Bauchet as Architecte de Sécurité.
6 The recent use of FD simulations in the restoration of Le Corbusier’s Armée du Salut build-
ing in Paris (1929–1933) made it possible to dispense with the complex fire compliance
measures that had been required by safety authorities. The restoration is being carried out
by the Architecte en Chef des Monuments Historiques François Chatillon, Paris.
7 The restoration was carried out by Avanti Architects, London (1994–1996).
8 The restoration and reuse project was carried out by Burkard Meyer Architekten, Baden
(2002–2006), whereas the engineering analysis for the design of the seismic compliance
interventions was developed by Bänziger Partner AG, Baden.
9 The committee in question is the “Rettet den Gymer Strandboden!”. See Jürg Graser and
Patrick Thurston, ‘Kontroverse um die erneuerung des Gymnasiums Strandboden in Biel’,
TEC 21, 42–43 (2011), pp. 2–3.
10 The restoration intervention was carried out by the practice of Lengacher Emmenegger,
Luzern (2004–2008).
18 Technology
Rosalia Vittorini
Forzoso es reconocer que las estructuras reticulares, tanto metálicas como de hormigón,
han predominado en la construcción edilicia en lo que va de siglo, pasando a ser la
estructura por antonomasia, sin que apenas quepa alternativa. Por eso, cuando pasados
los años se examine la construcción de mediados del siglo XX, este absoluto dominio
de las estructuras reticulares en la construcción de la ciudad deberá traer consigo tanto
el reconocimiento del papel de la técnica que las permitió como el del esfuerzo de la
arquitectura por resolver con ella, o disolver en ella, las transformaciones tipológicas y
formales que traía consigo.1
Rafael Moneo
The issue of policies and procedures regarding the preservation of twentieth-century

architecture – including works that range from iconic to “minor” and encompassing
all nuances of rehabilitation, restoration, replacement, etc. – arose in the 1960s fol-
lowing a number of controversial demolitions.2 From the beginning, it became neces-
sary to expand the idea of heritage to include the architecture from our recent past
which, in general, struggles to be recognised as “deserving” of conservation because
it seems too ordinary and mundane. A heritage which is heterogeneous, multifaceted,
problematic and quantitatively very relevant is composed not only of monuments but,
above all, of buildings in use or subject to reuse, infrastructures and entire company
towns. Furthermore, there clearly arose an urgent need to consider architectural works
as a complex product involving historical, artistic and cultural values, going beyond
the theoretical debate about the authenticity of works which are often intended to last
only a short time and which belong to the age of technical reproducibility. Shall one
conserve their material or, instead, their intangible values?3
Modern construction methods

During the 1900s, the gradual fragmentation of the building organism, generated by
new construction models, gave a central role to the relationship between architecture
and technology. Throughout the century – through the arc encompassing modern-
ism, proto-rationalism, international style, post-modern hi-tech, and, more recently,
low-tech – techniques and materials have given shape to languages and trends in
architecture. Concrete, steel, glass, brick, ceramic and plastic materials have all cre-
ated, thanks to the intuition and experimentation of designers and manufacturers,
technical innovations such as skeleton framing, exposed concrete, façade cladding,
454 Rosalia Vittorini
lightweight enclosures, curtain walls, etc. It is precisely these new materials that have
been endowed with the task of conveying the idea of modernity and progress. It is
not enough for modern architects to say that the “material” represents the necessary
and sufficient medium for the architectural achievement, it is something more: it is the
material used by the architect’s imagination to think architecturally and, as a result,
has obvious influence on the formal consequences. There is something in the mate-
rial that is not only its external appearance but also its tendency towards a particular
form, inherent in the material itself.4
Concrete has become, in a relatively short time, both the most widely used build-
ing material and construction technique. Its use literally exploded after World War II
thanks to the possibilities provided by standardisation and prefabrication. It soon
freed itself from its structural role and gained both formal and aesthetic qualifica-
tions, manifesting throughout the century in the intertwining of various research and
application methods. These revealed concrete’s unparalleled ability to combine form
and function, to adapt to complex geometries and unique forms which are not repro-
ducible in a series, to become purely ornamental in its exposure. Unlike concrete,
steel is less versatile and adaptable because it is an industrial product. However, steel
also evolves quickly and gains new life when the work of the statics are shown and
emphasised in the design of sections and joints, which have become increasingly more
sophisticated. But “what would concrete be, what would steel be, without glass?
The power of both to revolutionise space would be undermined, indeed, even lost; it
would remain a mere promise. Only glass cladding, only glass walls, allow the skeletal
structure to assume a clear form and ensure its architectural potential.”5 The words
of Mies van der Rohe consecrate another symbol of modernity: glass. Produced in a
myriad of types and forms, it is the protagonist of exceptional experimental solutions
and international phenomena such as the curtain wall.
In a relationship at times contradictory and ambiguous (i.e., technique as a
means, an end or, more recently, an instrument of reconversion), the evolution of
building techniques and materials has followed many non-linear, varied and often
tortuous routes – varying, of course, according to geographical, cultural and eco-
nomic conditions. The evolutionary routes have undergone phases of acceleration
and deceleration, developing through stages of breakthrough, permanence and con-
tinuity, as well as through realism, pragmatism and dramatisation of the technique.
Throughout some crucial periods, such as the 1950s and 1960s, during which the
modern movement was being re-assessed, technical development has been inter-
preted as a catalyst for architectural form. During these times, architecture has been
thought of as finding its foundations in the application of new technologies, the lat-
ter being not only a means of construction but also an innovative means of expres-
sion. In some cases technology prevails, the structure becoming an instrument of
propaganda rather than being architectural, technical or functional. For example,
high-tech – identified by its lightness, transparency, dry assembly, exposure of inter-
nal systems and large lights – is often regarded as a celebration of industry’s role in
the construction world.
Re-designing identity
Aside from iconic structures that have been restored for the sake of being turned into
museums (e.g., the Schröder House [G. Rietveld, 1924], Fallingwater [F. L. Wright,
Technology 455
1936–39], VillaTughendath [L. Mies van der Rohe, 1928–30], etc.), and the lucky
cases where a new project is endorsed by the author himself (as is the case with
the Centre Pompidou [Piano & Rogers, 1971–77]), it is the unique aspects of the
building which, at the time of the conservation or restoration project, pose new
challenges. Some issues are theoretical in nature, such as how does one evaluate “à
l’identique” reconstructions or “postponed” construction sites, like the Eglise Saint
Pierre in Firminy, completed 40 years after it was designed?6 Other issues are more
specific, for example, how to adapt the continuous glass-work and flimsy walls of a
building from the 1960s to the current standards of insulation and energy saving?
How to replace or install a building’s various systems? How to intervene in the dete-
rioration of exposed concrete? How to reinforce thin stone cladding from the 1930s?
Is it permitted to correct defects in design or execution? How can one recover ele-
ments which have been lost? How to deal with materials which, for aesthetic reasons,
were purposefully made to appear old?
The projects carried out so far have provided different, sometimes opposite, answers.
However, they have all confirmed the central role played by the direct handling of
technical aspects, which is all the more important for buildings (such as modern ones)
that have implemented often inadequate technical solutions, being experimental and
untested.
Reconstructing the life of the building was necessary in order to re-design the clad-
ding of the portico of the Palazzo Postale in Rome, by Adalberto Libera and Mario
De Renzi (1933–35). The project returned to one of the three original ideas put for-
ward by Libera himself, that is, reducing the size of the slabs in order to solve the
problem of the detachments that had occurred just two years after the inauguration of
the building.7 The problem was due to the use of non-tested integral thin slab-coating,
similar to modern plaster. From a technical point of view, this coating was subject to
very hasty experimentation, based on the idea of a wall system combining concrete,
masonry and cladding. This consideration is necessary in order to avoid the most
common and widespread (but totally inappropriate) remedy during reinforcement
interventions, namely the insertion of bolt anchors. This system contradicts all the
efforts of the designers who have considered the coating as a plaster, keeping the fas-
tening system strictly invisible.
As for exposed concrete, intervention strategies are determined by the analysis of
basic data such as the type of mixture used, the conditions of the pour, etc. In the con-
servation efforts of the “most revolutionary building constructed in the first quarter of
the 20th century”,8 the Church of Notre Dame de la Consolation (A. Perret, 1922–23)
defects in workmanship and low-quality materials were diagnosed. These are charac-
teristics that are directly connected with a construction site affected by speed of execu-
tion and economy of expenditure. Accordingly, the choice fell on a pilot site in order to
sample the type of degradation and develop specific techniques, such as repairs, resto-
rations and replacements, both on structural parts and on the prefabricated claustra.
In contrast, when exposed concrete is chosen for the characteristics of materials and
colours that the surfaces have acquired with the passage of time, as in the Brion Tomb
(C. Scarpa, 1969–78) the conservation project is characterised by a careful plan of
“controlled ageing”.
The recurring defects of béton brut cement, but also some errors in its implemen-
tation, have been overcome in the interventions of some of Le Corbusier’s Unités
d’habitation with different approaches and outcomes. In Marseille (1947–51), a
Figure 18.1 Auguste Perret, Notre Dame de la Consolation, Le Raincy, 1922–1923

Figure 18.2 Carlo Scarpa, Tomb Brion, San Vito di Altivole, 1969–1978
Figure 18.3 Le Corbusier, Unité d’habitation, Marseille, 1947–1951

Technology 459
complex intervention repaired some defects of the lateral façades in prefabricated
panels and required the cleaning via washing of the pilotis, the “sol artificiel”, and
the parapets, a procedure that often damaged the surface causing the loss of the
smallest concrete aggregate. In Rezé (1949–55), upon the request of the client, the
prefabricated elements of the façade were removed and replaced with new identi-
cal elements rebuilt on the same model as the original. In Firminy (1963–67),9
on the other hand, a process has been started involving the constant monitoring
and exploration of performance-enhancing systems which l’Unité shares with four
other sites in the region of Lyon, based on an exemplary initiative known as “Pat-
rimoine 21”.10
Conserving and restoring continuous glass façades – while respecting geometric and
dimensional relationships and, simultaneously, improving their performance – means
confronting the issue of obsolete frames and mechanisms as well as the inability to
use glass which is identical to the original.11 The continuous glass of the Bauhaus in
Dessau (W. Gropius, 1925–26), suspended and placed in front of the structure, was
rebuilt on the basis of “in situ” traces – considering the loss of the original drawings
and all the documents relating to the construction site. As a model for the size and
subdivisions of the edging, a piece of the original glass was used. However, the origi-
nal heavy iron edging was replaced using a lightweight charcoal-coloured alloy (fab-
ricated ad hoc) and supplemented with mechanisms for handling that are identical
to the originals.12 In the Van Nelle Factory in Rotterdam (J. Brinkman and L.C. van
der Vlugt, 1925–31) the aim was to preserve the original glass façades – hallmarks
of the industrial complex – while simultaneously meeting the needs of climate con-
trol required by its new destination. The aim was reached by inserting a new glass
wall inside, according to the “box-in-a-box” theory.13 At New Ico Olivetti in Ivrea
(L. Figini and G. Pollini, 1956–57), where the wall consisted of two windows sepa-
rated by a gap, the choice was to diversify the intervention. In the case of the outer
glass, the edging was restored and the glass, not original, was replaced with lami-
nated glass. The inner glass was replaced with new glass suitable for the level of
insulation needed.14
Intervening on curtain-wall façades in order to adapt their insulation capacity has
been particularly complex. An excellent example of this was the research project con-
nected with the restoration and regulatory compliance of the façades of the Unités
d’habitation and two towers comprising the residential complex of Lignon (G. Addor
et al., 1963–71). The project proposed three solutions for the building envelope,
made of wood panels and aluminium, which were tested through the construction of
prototypes.15 In the case of the approximately 20,000 square meters of curtain wall
of the Pirelli Tower (G. Ponti et al., 1950–56), the choice was to restore the fram-
ing grid, which had to be disassembled, marked piece by piece, overhauled in the
workshop and finally reassembled. However, the Thermopan panels of Saint Gobain,
which were not reusable, were replaced with double-paned units manufactured by
the same company.16
The problem of obsolete materials in some cases has led to ad hoc fabrication,
such as the bricks of the famous and recently renovated Maison de Verre (P. Cha-
reau and B. Bijvoet, 1928–32);17 or the new handcrafted panels (which were, ironi-
cally, at the time of the construction a symbol of industrialisation) for the Maison du
Peuple in Clichy (J. Prouvé, 1935–39).18 In other cases it has led to complex market
enquiries. For example, for the ceramic tiles of the Pirelli Tower they resorted to the
Figure 18.4 Johannes Brinkman and Leendert Cornelis van der Vlugt, Van Nelle Factory, Rot-
terdam, 1925–1931
Figure 18.5 Georges Addor et al., Residential complex, Lignon, 1963–1971

Figure 18.6 Luigi Figini and Gino Pollini, New ICO Olivetti, Ivrea, 1956–1957
Figure 18.7 Gio Ponti et al., Pirelli tower, Milan, 1950–1956

Technology 463
Figure 18.8 Jan Duiker and Bernard Bijvoet, Sanatorium Zonnestraal, Hilversum, 1925–1928
South Korean market; the new glass of the Van Nelle and the Zonnestraal sanatorium
(B. J. Duiker and Bijvoet, 1925–28) were imported from the Czech Republic and Lith-
uania, respectively.19
The now numerous case studies testify to the complexity of intervention programs,
which necessarily will include a number of issues.20 However, they have confirmed
the central role of an architectural project entrusted to specialists and based on the
464 Rosalia Vittorini
technical interpretation of the task in question. It is, in fact, only through the metic-
ulous exploration of a building’s unique characteristics that one may measure the
ever-present gap between design and implementation, between the blueprint and the
finished work. Moreover, starting from the idea that a building is never finished but
rather is constantly being formed, deformed and transformed through use, the survey
must be conducted over the entire course of its life. Each conservation and restora-
tion project takes shape as an experiment and generates a construction site that is
set up as a laboratory of knowledge in which to test techniques and materials. Every
project opens new horizons in the field of research because, whatever the technologi-
cal “intensity” of the building is, each individual case extends the boundary lines of
technical history further and further.
Notes
1 Rafael Moneo, La llegada de una nueva técnica a la arquitectura: las estructuras reticulares
de hormigón, printed text of a lesson (Editiones de la EscuelaTécnica Superior de Arquitec-
tura de Barcelona, 1976), 3–4.
2 In the preceding years, the Columbushaus (E. Mendelsohn, 1931) in Berlin, the Larkin
Building (F.L. Wright, 1904) in Buffalo, the Imperial Hotel (F.L. Wright, 1922) in Tokyo
and the Maison du Peuple (V. Horta, 1896–1899) in Brussels had all been demolished.
3 In this regard, DOCOMOMO International has contributed significantly with conferences,
DOCOMOMO Journal and numerous studies and research projects. The association has
also acted as advisor for UNESCO, favouring the inclusion of several works from the 20th
century in the World Heritage List. Specifically, the subject of technology has been entrusted
to one of the International Specialist Committees. www.docomomo.com.
4 Giuseppe Pagano, “I Materiali nella nuova architettura”, La Casa Bella, 4 (May 1931),
pp. 10–14.
5 Handwritten text found in Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Gliscritti e le parole, edited by Vit-
torio Pizzigoni (Turin: Einaudi, 2010), p. 79.
6 Designed by Le Corbusier 1960–65; realized 1973–2006. Classified partially in 1996 and
completely in 2012.
7 Cf. Sergio Poretti, Il restauro delle Poste di Libera (Rome: Gangemi, 2005).
8 Peter Collins, Concrete: The Vision of a New Architecture: A Study of Auguste Perret and
His Precursors (London: Faber and Faber, 1959).
9 The three unités were classified as historical monuments in 1964, 1965 and 1993 respectively.
10 Following the initiatives by the Ville de Firminy, Région Urbain de Lyon and Pôle Innova-
tion Constructives, was established with the aim of knowing and assessing 20th century
heritage in the 21st century through appropriate interventions.
11 Glass has undergone significant transformations due to improvements in raw materials as
well as in manufacturing and production techniques. Cf. Il vetro nell’architettura del XX
secolo: conservazione e restauro / Glass in the 20th Century Architecture: Preservation and
Restoration, edited by Franz Graf and Francesca Albani (Mendrisio: Academy Press, 2011).
12 The first restoration began in 1974 and continued until 1990 when the complex, accord-
ing to its original purpose, was destined to become a centre for research and education for
architecture and industrial design. Since then, a strict plan of maintenance has been initi-
ated; it has been on the UNESCO World Heritage List since 1996.
13 The project was entrusted to Wessel de Jong, one of the founders of DOCOMOMO. The
Van Nelle was included in the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2014. Cf. Wessel de Jonge,
Continuity and Change in the Architecture of Van Nelle, in Van Nelle, Monument in Prog-
ress (Rotterdam: Uitgeverij De Hrf, 2005).
14 The renovation project was entrusted to G- Studio. Cf. Enrico Giacopelli, La Olivetti e
il mito della trasparenza. Riflessioni attorno al restauro della ICO Centrale, in Graf and
Albani 2011.
Technology 465
15 The project (2008–2011), coordinated by Franz Graf, was designed by the Laboratory of
Techniques for the Safeguarding of Modern Architecture at Polytechnique Fédérale de Lau-
sanne upon the request of the Office du patrimoine et des sites de Genève and cofinanced
by the Office cantonal de l’énergie and the Comité central du Lignon. It was given the
Europa Nostra Award (2013) and the reward of the review Umsicht – Regards – Sguardi
of the Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects. Cf. La cité du Lignon, 1963–1971. Etude
architecturale et strategies d’intervention, edited by Franz Graf (Gollion: Infolio, 2012).
16 The conservative restoration (Renato Sarno Group and Corvino Multari Architetti Asso-
ciati, with a team of experts, 2003–05) was carried out following the damage caused by the
impact of a tourist plane on the facade in 2002. Cf. Paola Ascione, The ‘Pirelli’ Skyscraper
in Milan: Modern and Contemporary Technologies, in The Challenge of Change: Dealing
with Legacy of the Modern Movement: Proceedings of the 10th International Docomomo
Conference (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2008).
17 It consisted of a “restoration of the restoration” – the Nevada glass bricks, which had been
substituted in the ’50s to solve problems of water penetration were removed and substituted
with newly produced bricks which are identical to those from the 1930s. The house, which
had been classified in 1965, was included in the list of historical monuments in 1982. Cf.
La maison de verre: une maison-meuble. Une restitution archéologique, in Bernard Toulier,
Architecture et patrimoine du XXe siècle en France (Paris: Editions du Patrimoine, 1999).
18 La maison du Peuple a Clichy: premier exemple de murrideau en panneaux préfabriqués, in
Toulier 1999.
19 The reconversion project of the sanatorium in Hilversum was entrusted to Wessel de Jonge
Architects e Hubert-Jan Henket. Cf. Wessel de Jonge, Comparing the Preservation of the
1920s Metal and Glass Curtain Walls of the Sanatorium ‘Zonnestraal’ (1928–31) and the
Van Nelle Factories (1928–31), in Restoring Postwar Heritage, edited by Theodore Prudon
and Kyle Normandin, DOCOMOMO preservation technology dossier 8 (Docomomo US,
2008), pp. 27–36.
20 Cf. Diritto e salvaguardia dell’architettura del XX secolo / Law and the Conservation of
20th Century Architecture, edited by Roberta Grignolo (Mendrisio-Cinisello Balsamo:
Academy Press-Silvana Editoriale, 2014).
Taylor &Francis
Economy
Taylor &Francis
19 Economic analysis
Amedeo Di Maio
Introduction
In this chapter, my treatment of contemporary architecture concerns only privately
owned purpose-built housing, with artistic and/or stylistic features, which contains
a loud clear statement for future generations. Therefore, I am not including in this
analysis contemporary public architecture as a whole. By way of example, I would
include “The house over the waterfall” by Wright, but I would not include Beau-
bourgh by Renzo Piano. This is because prestigious public architecture is already
usually recognized as being a candidate for protection, whether it is a museum, a
theater, an arena, or a public service building, such as a railway station or post
office. It may be that a building excessively symbolizes a political regime – usually an
authoritarian one – and with the collapse of the regime, the population also wants
to be rid of its symbolic architecture. If this does not happen, it is usually because
the perceived value of the building’s historical testimony is greater than its political
significance. The type of architecture envisioned in this chapter, therefore, should
be of particular interest to economists, because in most countries conservation laws
require a particular time lapse before the object may be considered worthy of pro-
tection, enshrined in law. To the best of my knowledge, however, there has been no
economic research into this subject.
More generally, there are several kinds of relationships between economics and
contemporary architecture. We may think of a general relationship where the domi-
nant economic structure affects the works of art and, therefore, the forms and the
dimensions of architecture. It is usually accepted, for example, that buildings erected
by limited companies are heavily influenced by economic and legal changes in their
businesses, especially with regard to the distinction occurring between ownership and
control, as opposed to family businesses, where this type of dichotomy will be absent.
The famous theories by Marris and by Williamson1 concerning big business explain
the reasons for the changes in the architecture of buildings used for offices or facto-
ries, which are just as affected by architectural accuracy and luxury as the residence
of the “boss”, in that they symbolize the prestige of management. In Italy the branch
of the publishing company Mondadori in Segrate by Niemeyer comes to mind. In the
United States a well-known example is the Seagram Building, designed by Ludwig
Mies van der Rohe in 1958 in New York. The emergence of multi-national compa-
nies also influences contemporary architecture through sponsorship, a modern form
of ancient patronage. Suffice it to consider the Sony Center in Berlin – designed by
Helmat Jahn – whose seven buildings make up the urban structure of Potsdamer
Platz, just like the churches and municipals did in the squares of the Renaissance.
470 Amedeo Di Maio
I will not examine these topics here and will concentrate on an analysis of more spe-
cific topic, that is, the relationship between the need to protect contemporary architec-
ture and the period of time required by law to allow that protection to begin.
However, assuming that there will be “lay people” among the readers, I will also
briefly describe the general nature of the underlying theoretical approach, called cul-
tural economics. The next section will look at issue, while the last section concerns the
relationship between legal protection and time.
The economics of culture

The term “cultural economics” may sound quite ambiguous. In fact, if we define the
word “culture” as fundamental experience and knowledge acquired in a specific time,
then – paradoxically – the term “cultural economics” is rather meaningless. Actually,
this branch of economics deals with works of art and activities relating to art and
cultural heritage,2 and so therefore it is limited to the arts and to objects of historical
importance.
The main issue for this branch of economics basically relates to market mecha-
nisms, their effectiveness and the desirability of opportune public funding. It should
be noted that these questions are not those usually asked of economists by business
operators and policy makers, that is, what are the best forms of finance and the best
business criteria to generate profits?
Yet even the first pioneering studies showed that the management of the per-
forming arts and the protection and preservation of cultural heritage is invariably
unsuccessful when public support is lacking. In the 1970s, while studying theaters
in Broadway, two well-known American economists developed a thesis later to
be named after the surname of one of them: Baumol’s disease.3 In brief, this the-
sis supports the inevitability of budget deficit in the performing arts, due to the
intrinsically constant nature of production output factors. The labour factor is
exemplified in the famous work by Nobel Prize winner Pirandello, Six Characters
in Search of an Author, where the number of characters can neither become seven
nor five, and the stage time for each actor remains invariable, as do the number of
acts and their duration.
Thus, when the salary of the actor is derived from his/her productivity, then it
is bound to remain constant; the factors which determine an actor’s wage in 2013
cannot be different from those from 1930. So, when a Pirandello play is performed
in 2013, then actors’ salaries will be increased with respect to productivity, which
remains constant. In other words, salaries adapt themselves to the productivity of
other fields, which are usually not constant. If we imagine the demand to be constant,
then we will find an everlasting gap between cost and revenue trends, a gap that cre-
ates ever-growing operating deficits. One consequence is that the field of performing
arts cannot exist in an isolated market and so its survival becomes a choice for cul-
tural politics: the community’s willingness to subsidize the sector.
As for cultural heritage – and apart from management issues – economic literature
has focused above all on the determination of its value and its effects on the economy
of the territory, especially in the tourism sector. As for economic policy, the impos-
sibility of transferring it entirely to private bodies is due to so-called market failures.
In fact, museums and archeological sites are often in a situation of natural monopoly,
whereas squares and monuments are a clear case of public good. The congestion that
Economic analysis 471
we see in famous “cities of art” (e.g., Venice) is a case of negative externality, while
the income brought by tourism is a positive externality.
Moreover, the art world is full of fakes, with several examples of their acquisition
by famous museums. In this case, too, we can witness a type of market failure called
asymmetric information.
The main problem concerning the value of cultural heritage is that it is not necessar-
ily dependent on value of use or value of option, but rather upon a value of existence.
Value of existence means value of non-use, that is to say completely separate from
its fruition (consumption). This issue is of no little importance, since the dominant
approach in economic theory is that the value of a product depends mainly on the
utility with which it is productively associated. This utility is realized at the moment
of consumption. But to consume – consummare in Latin – means “to bring to an
end”, that is to slowly finish something by using it, to erode, to use up. How, then,
can we contemplate using up a product that we want to protect? Economic literature
seek several explanations, some of which are not at all convincing, such as the idea
of “mediated consumption”,4 that is, the enjoyment of a product by reading texts,
watching videos, and so on, while the product itself cannot be directly enjoyed, either
because it is impossible or undesirable. The archeological site of Pompeii or the Sistine
Chapel are not visited by all those who are interested in their conservation or protec-
tion, although they are “consumed” exclusively by the reading of books or watching
of documentaries, the price of which represents the consumers’ “willingness to pay”.
There are also people who will neither visit the product nor have a “mediated con-
sumption”, but who are nonetheless willing to pay for its conservation (contingent
valuation). Economic literature has studied these approaches at length and tried to
justify them; many scholars, however, still have doubts,5 since what is not exchanged
can be hardly be said to belong to the market.
Mediated consumption means “to consume another product”. For example, it is
not the consumption (viewing) of a film that is a beginning and an end in itself; at
most it is the topic of the film, not the film itself! Not even the value of existence can
ne associated to market values. No one would recognize the moon as a market prod-
uct, not even potentially speaking. The moon exists and the poet wonders why it is up
in the sky. It exists and can neither be consumed nor demolished and replaced with
another satellite.
Heritage goods, on the other hand, do have these options. For some economists, if
we do not demolish the Cologne Cathedral, we are relinquishing the chance of having
a large central hotel. Can the value of the “lost” hotel be related to the value of the
cathedral? It may be, if and when the cathedral or the hotel are considered private
goods; private goods are for an individual and for exclusive consumption. Such con-
sumption is regarded as individual because the rooms of the hotel can be only used
by customers who booked them for that day and that time. It is exclusive because the
room can be booked only by the ones who can afford its price. Is it the same for the
cathedral? Again, neither believers nor visitors need actually step into the cathedral.
Moreover the entrance is not reserved only to those who pay. Some of them enter en
masse, creating a community of believers, while other people enter individually so as
to enjoy the statues and frescos, without disturbing the believers. Thus that cathedral
(and there could be several other examples) is a sort of common good,6 as defined by
the Nobel prize winner Ostrom, that is, a product that is naturally and spontaneously
managed by the community.
472 Amedeo Di Maio
Very rarely, a product may no longer be considered as common. It may happen that
the cathedral in question is no longer visited, to the benefit of an enormous new shop-
ping centre, that is, a non-place as defined by Marc Augé.7 It means that the shop-
ping centre (like the Sony Center in Berlin) should also be treated as a new common
good but, at the same time, it does not mean that the cathedral becomes – or even
that it should become – a private product. Why not? Because the cathedral was built
as a common good and – although nothing ensures that in the future it will not be
reconsidered by its community – it should become a product that bears witness to the
history of a common architecturally expressed sentiment, as sometimes happens with
a picture or an incunabulum. In other words, it is possible to discern between goods

born as common and others that may become common over time. Both goods are the
result of the values of the community,8 but while the former was designed so, the latter
gains this value as a consequence of social and cultural dynamics. It is then clear that
ex ante we can only recognize the former as a common good, while the latter becomes
a common good ex-post.
The main issue we have examined in this chapter concerns the understanding of
the conditions which govern private architecture’s ex ante community value, and the
reason why is should not be transferred to an ex post option.
Protection and time

When we look at the many protection laws in the various judicial systems – above
all European – we notice an apparent analogy between architecture and wine. As we
all know, there are wines which become better as they get older. Drinking them when
they are still young would be a pity both for the consumer – who misses out on a more
sophisticated taste, and for the producer – who suffers from loss of (deferred) income,
as well as a higher market reputation.
Nevertheless it is only appearance. When we speak about wine, time is a production
factor, because it lets the wine ripen in order to meet the best organoleptic conditions.
The final and higher price does not depend on deferring the imbibing of the product,
but rather on the higher quality of the product itself.
Wine, therefore, does not accumulate interest, while as it matures its quantity
even decreases. Moreover, there is no risk that the wine might perish. The oenologist
works in order to guarantee the desired future result. Let us focus on this relationship
between the present self and the future self.
According to Elster9 there is a sort of exchange between the present self and the
future self. The nature of this exchange can only be established by the present self.
Elster writes that the present Ulysses saved the future Ulysses when he asked to be
chained to the ship’s mast in order to listen to the song of the Sirens without being
captured. Chains are nothing but the judicial regulations that bind our present so as
to preserve our future. Such is the meaning of laws regarding social security, which
are not far removed from the theory of justice as formulated by John Rawls.10 The
literature of environmental economics also tries to safeguard future generations by
regulating the present one, also because choices taken by the present generation might
end up being tragic for the next one, for these decisions are irreversible.11 There are
so many examples of the constraints that the present self assumes in order to protect
the future self that they would become a general rule, if it were not for the exception
presented by contemporary architecture and its protection. This constraint actually
Economic analysis 473
works backwards: only when the wine is old, can we say that it is good. By and large,
in Europe it takes 50 years on average for a piece of architecture to be protected. We
leave the decision to the future self, obviously with respect to what the past “selves”
have left.
What could be the economic reason for this exception? Our answer is that the
policy- maker wants to be sure that the private good – the piece of architecture – turns
into a public good. This transformation is uncertain and takes time. Given this uncer-
tainty, it would be unfair to limit the use of a private property, for example, by not
allowing changes which may become available through technological evolution. We
understand that by process of logic the possible protection of the product will be eval-
uated by market forces. Estate agents are able to understand consumer preferences;
if, therefore, the market is steady, then the product may become naturally protected,
meaning that is not worthy of legal protection. This does not consider the eventual
existence of the aforementioned market failures and, in particular, it does not consider
externalities, i.e. the role played by the product in the urban context. The presence of
externalities should be pinpointed and corrected by the state, that is by recognizing
the benefits of such product on the community, for example through tax relief.
The main problem is short-sightedness. For the policy maker, a product is only a
community value when it is clearly perceived as such. The policy maker will tend to
avoid any risk and, above all, is more likely, in his or her short-sightedness, to over-
rate the costs of the present self (= present voter) and to underrate – or even to not
care about – the benefits for the future self, who will never be one of his or her voters.
Notes
1 I refer to two well-known classic and pioneering works: one by Robin Marris, The Theory
of Managerial Capitalism (New York: Macmillan, 1964), and one by Nobel Prize awarded
Oliver E. Williamson, The Economics of Discretionary Behavior: Managerial Objectives in
a Theory of the Firm (Prentice-Hall, NJ: Englewood Cliffs, 1964).
2 For better understanding of the subject, refer to the well-known international textbook:
David Throsby, Economics and Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
3 William J. Baumol and William G. Bowen W., Performing Arts: The Economic Dilemma: A
Study of Problem Common to Theater (New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1966).
4 John V. Krutilla, “Conservation Reconsidered”, American Economic Review, vol. 57 (Sep-
tember 1967), pp. 777–786.
5 For a review, please consult Richard C. Bishop, Patricia A. Champ and Daniel J. Mullar-
key, “Contingent Valuation”, in The Handbook of Environmental Economics, edited by
Daniel B. Bromley (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995), pp. 629–654. For a critique, Nobel
prize-winner Amartya Sen, “Environmental Evaluation and Social Choice: Contingent Val-
uation and Market Analogy”, The Japanese Economic Review, vol. 46, 1 (March 1995),
pp. 23–37.
6 Elilnor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective
Action (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
7 Marc Augé, Non-lieux: introduction à une anthropologie de la surmodernité (Paris: Éd. du
Seuil, 1992).
8 Richard A. Musgrave, “Merit Goods”, in The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics,
edited by John Eatwell, Murray Milgate and Peter Newmen (London: Macmillan, 1987),
pp. 452–453.
9 Jon Elster, Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1979).
10 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971).
11 Guido Calabresi and Philip Bobbitt, Tragic Choices (New York: W.W. Norton, 1978).
Index of places
Abu Dhabi 183–4, 368; Abu Dhabi Main Andorra 34, 201; Farràs House 202
Bus Terminal 183–4; Central Market 368; Anglesey, Isle of 347
Guggenheim Abu Dhabi 368; Louvre Ankara 426; SALT Ulus 426
Abu Dhabi 368; Maritime Museum Antioquia 94; Campus Universitario de la
368; Performing Arts Centre 368; Zayed Universidad de Antioquia 94
National Museum 368 Antwerp 428, 430; Vlaamse Centrum
Accra 54, 356–7, 361–2, 423; ArchiAfrika Archirtectuur Archieven 428, 430
54, 423; Cantonments 357; Central Arabian Gulf 183
Library 54; Christiansborg 54; Ghana’s Aragon 324
Victory Arch 363; Junior Staff Housing Argentina 34, 80, 90, 425
54; National Museum 54; Arkansas 111; Thorncrown Chapel 111
Scott House 362 Armenia 30, 34, 204–5
Ad-Dakhiliya region 163 Armenia (Colombia) 92; Quimbaya Museum
Addis Ababa 50–1; Africa Hall 51; 92
Apartment and office buildings 51; Arat Ashiya 145; Yodokō Guest House 145
Kilo 51; City Hall 50–1; Commercial Bank Asia 1, 12, 26, 30, 34, 119, 168, 174, 398
of Ethiopia 51; Hilton hotel 51 Asmara 47–9; Ambassador Hotel 48; Bahti
Africa 4, 12, 25, 30, 34, 53, 57, 64–5, 68–9, Meskerem Square 48; Blue building 48;
355–7, 359, 361–3, 399, 423 Cinema Impero 48; Fiat Tagliero petrol
Agordat 49 station 48; Nacfa House 48; Nyala Hotel
Ahtme 238 47–8; Red Sea Trading building 48
Aichi Prefecture 383 Assab 49
Ajman 183 As-Salt 147; Al Jaghbeer residence 147
Akashi 146; Municipal Planetarium 146 Asturias 323–4
Akmola 151 Athens 428; Benaki Museum’s Neohellenic
Albania 34, 198 Architecture Archives 428
Alexandria 45 Auckland 193–4; West Plaza building 193
Alfeld; Fagus-Werk 398 Australia 27, 34, 190–1
Algeria 34, 36 Australian Capital Territory 191
Algiers 36; great post office 36 Austria 30, 34, 207–8
Almaty 150–1; government building 150; Austro-Hungarian Empire 232, 305, 320
Medeu Sport Complex 151; National Austrian Empire see Austro-Hungarian
Library 151; Republic Palace 151 Empire
Amagasaki 386 Avignon 244; Church of Saint-Joseph
Americas 1, 12, 30, 34, 101, 165, 399, 423, Travailleur 244
425 Azerbaijan 30, 34, 210–11
Amlwch 346–7; Ysgol Syr Thomas Jones
346–7 Baden 449–50, 452n; Brown, Boveri & Cie
Amman 147–8 (BBC) Employees’ Recreational Facility
Amsterdam 262, 294; African Architecture 449–50
Matters 76; Staadsherstel Amsterdam 75 Bagamoyo 75
Andalusia 324 Bahrain 27, 34, 120–1
Andes Mountains 89–90, 93 Bahia Blanca 81
Index of places 475
Baku 210–11; Baku Crystal Hall 211; Flame Bhopal 401; Union Carbide Inc. 401
Towers 211; Government House 210; Biel 450; Gymnasium Strandboden 450
Heydar Aliyev Center 210; Mukhtarov Bilbao 399; Guggenheim 399
Palace 210; National Flag Square 211; Bitola 283
Nizami Museum of Azerbaijani Literature Bogotá 94; Centro Internacional
210 Tequendama 94; Plan of Bogotá 94
Balearic Islands 324 Bolgatanga 359; Bolgatanga Library 359
Balzers 274; Castle of Gutenberg 274 Bomarzo 408
Bamble 297; Villa Busk 297 Bonn 250; Beethovenhalle 250
Bangkok 180–1; Chalermthai Theater 181; Bosnia and Herzegovina 24, 34, 219–20
Dome building 181; National Assembly Boyaca 93
building 181; Scala Theater 181; Supreme Brasilia 25–6, 83–4; Catedral Metropolitana
Court Complex 181; Thammasat Nossa Senhora Aparecida 84; Pilot Plan
University 181; Uthenthawai School of 83; Supreme Federal Court 25
Construction 180; Wat Sangwet Printing Bratislava 317–18; Crematorium 317
School 181 Brazil 34, 65, 83, 90, 398–400
Bangladesh 26, 34, 123–4 Brest 214; Hero-Fortress 214
Barcelona 428; Fundació Mies van der Rohe Bretagne 396
428 Britain see United Kingdom
Barquisimento 117; Flor de Venezuela 117 British Columbia 87
Basel 423; Schweizerisches Brno 232; VillaTughendath 455
Architekturmuseum 423 Brussels 217–18, 451, 464n; Brussels Expo
Basque Country 324 ’58 Czechoslovak pavilion restaurant
Batangar 400 233; Centre International pour la Ville,
Batna 37; Mausoleum of Imadghassen 37 l’Architecture et le Paysage 425; Maison
Be’er-Sheba 142 du Peuple 459, 464n; Vrije Universiteit
Beijing 126–7, 399, 401; Chairman Mao Brussel 216, 218
Memorial Hall 126; VW car plant 399 Bucharest 305–6; Bulevardul Victoriei
Beira 62, 64; Central Railway Station 64; Socialiste 306; Casa Poporului 305;
Grand Hotel 64; São Jorge Cinema 64 Government Monopolies Palace 306;
Beirut 153–5; Solidere 367 Halele Centrale Obor 306; National
Belarus 30, 34, 213–15, 299 Bank building 306; Republic House 305;
Belfast 341–3; Belfast and Transport House, Victoria Palace 305–6
Trade Union Offices 342; Exhibition Hall Budapest 256–7; Tennis Gymnasium 257;
342; Floral Hall 342; King’s Hall 342; Water Company building 257
Roman Catholic Church of St. Bernadette Buenos Aires 80–1, 425; Banco de
343; Ulster Museum extension 342 Londres y América del Sur 80; Centro
Belgium 30, 34, 216–18, 283 de Documentación de Arquitectura
Belgrade 314–15; Hall 1 of the Belgrade Latinoamericana 425; Ciudad Evita 80
Fair 315; Metropol Hotel 315; Military Buffalo 464n; Larkin building 464n
Headquarters complex 315; Ministry Bulgaria 30, 34, 66, 222–3, 412
of Defence building 315; Museum of
Contemporary Art 314–15; National Cairo 31, 44–5, 366–7; Al Darb Al Hamar
Library of Serbia 315; Trade Union Hall 367; Taleb building 44
315 Canada 24, 34, 86–7
Belo Horizonte 84 Canary Islands 324
Berat 198 Canberra 191
Bergeijk 295; Visser House 295 Cantabria 324
Berlin 250, 423, 448, 464n, 469, 472; Cape Coast 54; Social Center and Student
Ahorn-Blatt 250; Bauhaus Archive- Hall 54
Museum 423; Berlin Wall 15, 24; Cape Town 72; Werdmuller Centre 72
Columbushaus 464n; Maple Leaf 250; Cap Manuel 69; Palais de Justice 69
Palace of the Republic 250; Potsdamer Caracas 116–17; Mausoleo del Libertador
Platz 469; Sony Center 469, 472; 116–17; University City of Caracas 116
Staatsratsgebäude 448 Cardiff 347; Saint Fagans National History
Bern 444, 447–8; Insistut fur Geologie 448; Museum 347
Swiss National Library 448 Cardross 345; St. Peter’s Seminary 345
476 Index of places
Carinthia 208 d’Afrique Noire 69; Khalifa Ababacar
Casablanca 59–60; Assayag building 59; Sy’s residence 69; Musée Boribana 68–9;
Benarrosh building 60 Musée Leopold Senghor 69; Museum
Castile and León 324 of Tijaniyya 69; Palais de l’Assemblée
Castille-La Mancha 324 Nationale 69; Place Soweto 69;
Catalonia 201, 324 Presidential Palace 69; Théodore Monod
Caucasus 210, 246 Museum for African Art 69
Cetinje 294–5; French Embassy 294–5 Dalmine 397; FTM-Factory medium pipes
Chambord 443; Chateau of Chambord 443 397
Chandigarh 132 Dana 148
Chiclayo 108; Residencial Peruvian Air Force Darmstadt 249, 423; Bauhaus Archive-
108 Museum 423

Chile 34, 89 Ðakovica 268; Church of Holy Trinity 268
Chillán 90; Cooperativa Eléctrica de Chillán Dar es Salaam 74–5; Cathedral of Saint
building 90 Joseph 75; Kaiserhof 75; Kwame
Chimoio 62 Nkrumah hall 74; Ocean Road Hospital
China 26, 31, 34, 126–7, 130, 156, 398–9 75; University of Dar es Salaam 74
Chisinau 288–9; National Theatre ‘Mihai Dayton 220
Eminescu’ 289 Democratic Republic of the Congo 34, 41–3
Christchurch 194; Town Hall 194 Denmark 34, 53, 234–5
Ciclayo 108; Residencial Peruvian Air Force Dessau 459; Bauhaus 459
108 Dhaka 123–4; Central Martyrs Memorial
Ciudad Real 324; Villalba de Calatrava 324 123; Dhaka University Central Library
Clichy 459; Maison du Peuple 459 124; Kendrio Shaheed Minar 123; Nagar
Cologne 250, 471; Cologne Cathedral 471; Bhaban 123–4; National Academy for
Schauspielhaus 250 Educational Management Centre 124;
Colombia 34, 92–3 National Assembly building 124
Como 376; Casa del Fascio 376–7 Dimitrovgrad 222–3
Congo see Democratic Republic of the Doha 171–3, 366–8; Abdul Azeez 173; Al
Congo Asmakh 172–3; Al Ghanem 173; Al Hitmi
Constantine 37; Mausoleum of Massinissa 173; Bier al Hussain 172; Ceg Internation
37; University of Constantine 37 172; Doha al Jadeeda 173; Doha Sheraton
Cooley 262; alcohol factory 262 Hotel 172; Education City 367–8;
Copenhagen 234; Danmarks Nationalbank Engineering College of Texas A&M
236; Paustian House 234, 236; Pressens University 367; Fanar Islamic Cultural
Hus 236 Center 367; Ibn Al Zubair 171; Liberal
Cork 262; Christ the King Church 262; Ford Arts and Sciences building 367; Msheireb
Factory 262 Properties’ flagship project 172–3;
Costa Rica 34, 95 Msheireb West 173; Museum of Islamic
Coyoacán 106; Museo de la Anahuacalli 106 Art 368; Najada 173; Najma 173; New
Crni Vrh 220 Metro 172; Qatar Monetary Agency 172;
Crimea 335–6 Qatar University 172; Rumailah Hospital;
Croatia 34, 225–7 Souq Waqif 367; Umm Ghuwailina 173
Cserépváralja 257; Roman Catholic Church Dolgellau 347; Roman Catholic Church 347
of Cserépváralja 257 Donbass 336
Cuba 34, 65, 98–9 Donegal 262
Cuenca 101; Superior Court of Justice Dresden 250, 398–9; Friedrichstadt 399;
Building of Azuay 101 Gläserne Manufaktur 398–9; Rundkino
Cumberland (Australia) 190 250
Cusco 108 Dubai 183–4, 366–8; Bastakia Quarter 367;
Cyprus 30, 34, 228–9 Burj al-Arab 184; Burj Khalifa 184; Creek
Czech Republic 34, 231, 233, 463 Dubai 183; Dubai International Airport
183; Jumeirah Beach 367; Mina Al Salam
Dakar 68–9; African Renaissance Monument 367
69; Cathédral du Souvenir Africain 69; Dublin 262; Central Bus Station 367, 400
Daniel Sorano National Theater 69; Dubrovnik 225–6; City Café 226; Great
Grand Mosque 69; Institut Fondamental Arsenal 226; Walls 226
Index of places 477
Dudelange 279, 281; Saint Eloi Chapel 279, Germany 24, 30, 34, 53, 249–50, 299, 379,
281 411
Dunaújváros 257; Dózsa Cinema 257 Ghana 25, 34, 53–4, 66, 357, 359, 362–3
Dundalk 261–2; Carroll’s tobacco factory Gjirokastra 198
261–2 Glanville 244; Maison Sayer 244
Durres 198; Underground 198 Glasgow 344–5; Burrell Collection museum
344–5
Ecuador 34, 101, 103 Glenavy 342; Lisburn Road 342
Edinburgh 345; Forth Road Bridge 345 Gödöllő 257; Agriculture and Environmental
Egypt 31, 34, 44–5, 367 Science University 257; Víztorony 257
Eindhoven 295 Gold Coast 53, 355
Eire see Ireland Gorée Island 69

Elmina 54; Castle of St. George 54 Gostivar 283
Encamp 202; Emissora de Sud-Radio Gothenburg 327–8; Gothenburg courthouse
building 202 327
England 24, 34, 144, 338–9 Gran Canaria 324; Hotel Oasis of
Eritrea 34, 47–9 Maspalomas 324
Ermita 169; Manila Electric Rail and Light Graz 208; Kunsthaus 208
Company Head Office 169 Great Belt 235; Great Belt East Bridge 235
Estonia 34, 237–8 Great Britain see United Kingdom
Ethiopia 34, 47, 50–2 Greece 30, 34, 252–4
Europe 1–3, 12, 17, 23–4, 28, 30, 32n, 34, Guayaquil 101
57, 62, 78, 138, 141, 165, 167, 208, 226, Győr 257; Hospital Library 257
274, 286, 335, 339, 356, 395, 400, 411,
413, 422–3, 451, 473 Hague 283
Eveux 444; Couvent de La Tourette 444 Haifa 426; Munio Gitai Weinraub
Extremadura 324 Architecture Museum 426
Halwar 69
Fez 60 Hamilton 345; Lanark County buildings 345
Finland 34, 240–1 Hannover 117; Flor de Venezuela 117;
Firminy 243–4, 455, 459; Church of Saint- Herrenhausen 408; Universal Exhibition
Pierre 243, 455; Unité d’habitation 244, 117
459 Hanoi 187; My Dinh National Convention
Flaine 244; Ecumenical chapel 244 Centre 187
Flanders 217–18, 428, 430; Pavilion de Hashima Island 400
Bruges 218 Hatta 184
Fleetwood 339; Radar Training Station 339 Hausa 356–7; Katsina College 357
Florence 428; Fondazione Giovanni Havana City 98–9; CabaretTropicana 99;
Michelucci 428 Central Railroad Station 99; El Vedado
France 24, 30, 34, 144, 201, 243, 396, 447 99; Escuela Nacional de Arte 98–9; Hotel
Francavilla al Mare 436–7; Church of Santa Havana Riviera 99; Hotel Nacional de
Maria Maggiore 436–7 Cuba 99; La Rampa 99; Museo de la
Frankfurt am Main 250, 438–9; Deutsche Revolución 99; National Capitol building
Architektur Museum 439; Museum für 99; Plaza Mella 99; Plaza de la Revolución
Angewandte Kunst 439; Zürich-Hochhaus José Martí 99; Presidential Palace 99;
250 Unidad No. 1 “Camilo Cienfuegos” 99;
Freetown 356 University of Havana 99
Fujairah 183 Hawke’s Bay 195
Funen 235 Heliopolis 31, 44
Helsinki 240–1, 422–3, 428; Alvar Aalto
Galicia 324 Fondation 428; Museum of Finnish
Gdynia 300 Architecture 422; Olympic Stadium 240–1;
Geneva 329–30; Immeuble Clarté 329; Le Olympic Village 241; Serpentine House
Lignon 329–30, 459, 461; Maison Ronde 241
330; Meyrin 330 Herceg-Novi 292
Georgia 24, 30, 34, 246–7 Hessen 249
German Democratic Republic see Germany Highland Park 398
478 Index of places
Hilversum 463, 465n; Zonnestraal Karno Sports Complex 135; Hotel
sanatorium 463 Indonesia 135; Istora Senayan 135; Main
Hiroshima 145; Peace Memorial Museum Conference building 136; Main Stadium
145; Memorial Cathedral for World Peace 135, 160; Secretariat building 136;
145 Swimming Stadium 135
Hjällbo 326–7; Skolspåret 326–7 Japan 4, 31, 34, 144, 188, 383, 385, 387,
Hlukhiv 336; Kamyanets-Podilsky 336 400
Ho Chi Minh City 186–7; Bitexco Financial Jeddah 368
Tower 187; Central Post Office 187; Jerusalem 142
Governor’s Palace 187; Independence Johannesburg 71–2; Chinese United Club
Palace 186; Keangnam Hanoi Landmark Mansions 71–2; Constitutional Court
Tower 187; Opera House 187 building 72; Mandela House 72; Patidar
Holy See see Vatican City State Mansions 72; Old Fort Prison Complex
Hong Kong 26, 34, 129–31; Bridges Street 72; Victor Verster Prison 72; Women’s Jail
Market 130; Central Government Offices 72
130; Central Market 130; Connaught Jordan 34, 147, 367
Centre see Jardine House; Hong Kong City
Hall 129–30; Jardine House 130; Mei Foo Kaduna 357–8, 362; Hamdala Hotel 357;
Sun Chuen Estate 130; Queen’s Pier 130; Police College 357
Saint Anthony’s House 131; Saint George’s Kaluga 308–9; Tsiolkovsky Museum of
building 130; Star Ferry Pier 130; Sunning Space Exploration 308–9
Plaza 130; Wan Chai Market 130; World Kamakura 387; Hachimangū Shrine 387;
Wide House 130 Museum of Modern Art 387
Huambo 39; Agostinho Neto Square 39 Kanagawa 387–8
Hungary 24, 28, 30, 34, 255 Kaniv 335; Hotel Tarasova Gora 335
Hutt City 194; Buck House 195 Kano 356–7
Hyōgo Prefecture 386 Kan Zaman 148
Karachi 165–6
Ibadan 13, 359; University of Ibadan 13, Karamürsel 396; Ípek Kağıt Fabrikasi 396
359, 363; University of Ibadan Chapel 362 Katowice 300
Iceland 34, 258–60 Kawasaki 384
Ichinomiya 145; Sumi Memorial Hall 145 Kazakhstan 26, 34, 150–1
Iganmu 65; National Arts Theatre 65 Kazan 309; Kazan State Circus 309
India 26, 31, 34, 132–3, 398 Kenitra 60
Indian Ocean 56 Kenya 34, 56–7
Indonesia 34, 135–6 Keren 49
Indus Valley 166 Khatyn 213; Memorial Complexes 213–14
Inhambane 62–3 Khandallah 194; Ian Athfield’s house 194
Inuyama Museum Meiji-mura 145 Kiev 335–6; Hostynny Dvir 336; National
Iran 34, 138–9, 205 Palace Ukraina 335
Iraq 139 Kilkeel 342; Vogue Cinema 342
Ireland, Republic of 30, 34, 261–2 Killinchy 342; Whiterock Bay 342
Islamabad 165–6; Centaurus Towers 166; Kinshasa 41–2; Gare Fluviale 41; Matadi
Faisal Mosque 166; Karakoram Highway Railway Station 41; Ministry of Foreign
166; Pakistan Monument 165; Siraj Affairs building 42; Monument des héros
Covered Market 166 nationaux 42; National Bank extension
Israel 30, 34, 141, 143, 426 42; Sabena towers 42
Istanbul 132, 332, 333, 426; National Kisumu 57; Girls High School 57
Reassurance Company building 332; SALT Kyoto Prefecture 383
426 Kyoto City 383; Nakakyō Post Office 383
Italy 4, 24, 28, 30, 34, 188, 264, 372, 379, Kobe 144–5; Japan Pearl Center 145; Kobe
381, 396, 411, 413, 427, 469 Port Tower 144, 146
Ivrea 374, 459, 462; New Ico Olivetti Kohtla-Järve 238
Factory 459, 462 Kolašin 292; Memorial Hall 292
Korea, Republic of see South Korea
Jakarta 135; Auditorium building 136; Kosovo 30, 34, 267; Memorial of
Banquette building 136; Gelora Bung Gazimestan 268; Türbe of Murat 268
Index of places 479
Kotor 292 Locquénolé 244; Maison Kerautem 244
Krasnodar 205 London 16, 338–9, 361, 364n, 399, 425,
Krems 208; Gozzoburg Castle 208 432, 434–6, 438, 449, 452n; British
Kruja 198 Library 339; Cheltenham Estate 434;
Kuala Lumpur 159; Dewan Tunku Canselor Erno Goldfinger’s residence 449; Hayward
of the University Malaya 159–60; Federal Gallery 16; Lloyd’s building 339; Pepys
House 160; Gelora Bung Karno Main Estate 435; No.1 Poultry 339; Royal
Stadium 160; Merdeka Stadium 159; Institute of British Architects 425, 434,
National Mosque 159; National Museum 438; South Bank Centre 339; Tate Modern
160; Parliament building 159 399; Trellick Tower 432; Victoria & Albert
Kumasi 54, 359–61; Kwame Nkrumah Museum 425
University of Science and Technology 53, Londonderry 343; Roman Catholic Church
361; Osae Assembly Hall Prempeh College of Our Lady of Lourdes 343
359; Stadium 54 Los Yoses 96; Church of Nuestra Señora de
Kurashiki 383–4; Ivy Square 383–4 Fátima 95–6
Kurayoshi 145; Town Hall 145 Lota 90; Miners’ Theater 90
Kuwait 366–7; Souq Sharq 368 Lower Austria Province 208
Kyzylorda 151 Luanda 39–40, 64; Cuca building 39;
Kinaxixi market 39; National Bank of
Lagos 65–6, 356–7, 360–3; Bristol Hotel Angola 38; Miramar Cinema 39
362; Crusader Insurance building 361; Lubumbashi 41–3; Lycée Kiwele 41
National Theatre building 66; Nigerian Lucerne 450; Dula School Complex 450
Electric Power Authority building 362; Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of 34, 279–80
Nitel Tower 362; Ola Oluwakitan House Luxembourg: A la Bourse 281; Hertz-
362; Surulere 357; WAEC building 362; Grünstein shop 281; Société Nationale des
YMCA Onikan building 360–1 Chemins de Fer
La Plata 80; Casa Curuchet 80 Luxembourgeois 281
La Rioja 324
Las Condes 89–90; Monasterio Benedictino Macau 34, 156–7; Court building 156–7;
de la Santísima Trinidad 89–90 Macau Central Library 157; Pedro
La Seu d’Urgell 201 Nolasco da Silva Government Primary
Latvia 24, 30, 34, 270–1 School 157; Sun Yat Sen Park 157
Lebanon 34, 153–4 Macedonia 34, 282–4
Leiden 423; African Studies Centre 423 Madrid 324, 411, 439; Laboratorios Jorba
Lenino 214; Polish-Soviet Brotherhood 324; Torres Blancas 411
Memorial Museum 214 Malaysia 34, 159
Le Raincy 456; Church of Notre Dame de la Malta 30, 34, 285–7
Consolation du Raincy 456 Manama 120–1, 368; Bab al-Bahrain 120–1;
Liberec 231, 233; Ještěd TV Tower 231, 233; National Museum 122; National Theater
Hotel Ještěd 231, 233 122
Lichinga 62, 64; Niassa Government Head Manikata 285–6; Saint Joseph Parish Church
offices 64 285–6
Liechtenstein 34, 273–4 Manila 169; Manila Electric Rail 169;
Likasi 41 Manila Hall of Justice 169; Manila Jai Alai
Lima 107–8; Chávez house 108; La Fenix building 168; Meralco 169
Peruana building 108; Guzmán Blanco Mansoura 44
building 108; Miró Quesada’s House Mantua 395; Cartiera Burgo 395
107–8; Neptuno building 108; Ostolaza Maputo 62–3; Apartment building Leão
building 108; Radio El Sol building 108 Que Ri 63; Baixa 63; Catholic Cathedral
Limassol 229; Pavlides Block of Flats 229 63; Chamanculo 63; Municipal Council
Lisbon 62, 302, 423; Calouste Gulbenkian building 63; Municipal Council Cultural
Foundation building 423; Cultural Centre Center 63; Polana Church 63; Radio
of Belém 302 Mozambique 62–3; Telecomunicações de
Lithuania 24, 30, 34, 276–7, 299, 463 Moçambique 63
Ljubljana 320–1, 423; Cultural Centre Mar de Plata 80; Casa del Puente 80
Cankar Hall 320–1; Museum of Marino 261; Casino 261
Architecture and Design 423 Marl 17; City Hall 17
480 Index of places
Marrakech 60 Mostar 219–20; Partisan Memorial 219–20
Marseille 455, 458; Unité d’habitation 455, Mozambique 34, 62–3
458 Mratinje: Mratinje Dam 292; Piva
Massachusetts 28; Walter Gropius house 28 hydroelectric power station 292
Massawa 49 Munich: Olympiapark 250
Matadi 42; railway station 41 Murcia 324
Matera 379; La Martella 379 Muscat 162–3, 368; Bait Al Baranda 162–3;
M’banza-Kongo 39 Bait A-Zubair 163; Bait Fransa 163;
Meknes 60 Bait Greiza 163; Bait Muzna 163; Chedi
Mendrisio 428; Accademia di Architettura Hotel 162; Franco Omani Museum 163;
428; Archivio del Moderno 428 French Embassy 162; Grindlays Bank 163;
Meritxell 201–2; New Sanctuary of Santa Ministry of Social Affairs building 162;
Maria of Meritxell 201–2 Muscat Opera House 162; Sultan Qaboos
Metohija 267 Great Mosque 162; Sultan Qaboos
Mexico 34, 89, 104 University 162
Mexico City 104, 106, 399; Barragán’s
Home and Office 106; Central Library Nagoya 383; Nagoya TV Tower 145;
of National Autonomous University of Nagoya University 146; Toyota
Mexico 104, 106; House of Diego Rivera Auditorium 146; Zenkōji Betsuin Gannō-ji
and Frida Kahlo 106; Museo Nacional temple 383
de Arte 105; Palacio de Bellas Artes 105; Nairobi 56–7; Holy Family Basilica 57;
Palacio Postal 105; Torres de Satélite 106 Kenyatta International Conference Centre
Milan 28–9, 265, 374–5, 447–8, 462; Casa 56; National Social Security Fund building
del Parco 265; Pirelli Tower 28–9, 462; 57; Parliament buildings 57; Times Tower
Politecnico di Milano 427; Velasca Tower 57; Un-Habitat Headquarters 57
374–5; Villa Necchi Campiglio 447–8 Naivasha 57
Minsk 214; Kurgan Slavy 214 Nakuru 57
Mir 214 Nampula 62
Mitrovica 268; Kosovska Mitrovica Naples 265; Arena Flegrea 265; Villa Oro
Monument 268 265; Villa Savarese 265
Mladá Boleslav 399; Skoda Factory 399 Navarra 324
Mogwase 400 Navrongo 53–4; Old Navrongo Catholic
Moldova 30, 34, 288–90 Cathedral 53–4
Mombasa 56–7; Oceanic Hotel 57 Nesvizh 214
Monastir 77; Museum Habib Bourguiba Netherlands, the 24, 30, 34, 283,
77–8; Skanès Palace 77–8 294–6, 422
Monte Carlo 10 Neuhaus 207–8; Museum Liaunig 207–8
Montenegro 34, 294; Boka Kotorska 292; New Brunswick 87
Piva River 292 New Delhi 132; Hall of Nations 132;
Montevideo 113–14; Customs and General Tuberculosis Association building 132
Captaincy of Ports building 114; Faculty New Haven 27; Becton Engineering and
of Architecture building 114; Faculty of Applied Science Center 27
Engineering building 114; Ossuary in the New South Wales 190
North Cemetery 113–14 New York 84, 422, 427, 470; Avery
Montréal 87, 309, 438; Canadian Centre for Architectural & Fine Arts Library 427;
Architecture 438; Expo 67; Soviet Pavilion Broadway 470; Columbia University 427;
309 Manhattan 398; Museo of Modern Art
Moravia 232 (MoMA) 422; Seagram building 469;
Morocco 34, 59–60 Skyscraper Museum 398; SoHo 401;
Morón 395 United Nations Headquarters 84
Moscow 309, 400, 422; Lenin’s mausoleum New Zealand 27, 29, 34, 193–5
309; Museum of Architecture of the Nicosia 228–9; Alexandros Demetriou Block
Academy of Construction and Architecture of Flats 228–9; Neoptolemos Michaelides
422; Museum of Russian Architecture 422; Residence 229; Theodotos Kanthos
Palace of Pioneers 309; Seven Sisters 309; Residence 229
Shchusev State Museum of Architecture 422 Nigeria 34, 65–6, 355–7, 359, 361–2, 64n
Mosel 399; Volkswagenwerk Zwickau 399 Ninh Binh Province 187; Bai Dinh Pagoda 187
Index of places 481
Nishinomiya 145; Ura House 145 Piskote 268; Cathedral of Saint Prince
Northern Ireland 34, 341–3 Lazarus 268
Northern Territory 191 Pittsburgh 427; Architecture Archives 427;
Norway 34, 297 Carnegie Mellon University 427
Ploieşti 306; Halele Centrale 306
Obilić 268; Cahedral of Holy Virgin 268 Plužine 292; Piva Monastery 292
Odessa 335; Odessa Academic Theatre of Podgorica 292; Crna Gora Hotel 292;
Musical Comedy 335 Podgorica Hote 292
Ohrid 282–3; Hotel Palace 282–3; Ohrid Poland 34, 188, 299
Lake 283 Pompeii 471
Ōita 389; Art Plaza 390; Ōita Prefectural Pontypool 347; Nylon Spinners Factory 347
Library 389–90 Portland 110–11; Portland Public Service

Oman 27, 34, 162–3 building 110–11
Ontario 87 Porto 31; Boa Nova Tea House 31;
Oregon 110–11 Matosinhos 31
Orfű 257; Forrásház 257 Port Said 45
Osaka 145; Beppu Tower 145; Tsutenkaku Portugal 30, 34, 38, 53, 62, 302–3
145 Potenza 264, 266; Basento Bridge 264, 266
Ōshō 386 Prague 220, 233; Brussels Expo ’58
Oslo 297; Norwegian National Opera and Czechoslovak pavilion restaurant 233;
Ballet 297 House of Federal Assembly 233; Máj
Ottoman Empire 198, 205, 219, 222, 255, Department Store 233
305 Preston 339; Preston Bus Station 339
Oviedo 323; Sports Palace 323 Prilep 283
Pristina 267–8; Beograd Department Store
Pakistan 26, 34, 165–6 268; Boro i Ramiz Sports Centre 268;
Paks 255; Catholic Church Holy Spirit 255 Cathedrals of Christ the Saviour 268;
Palma Sola (Venezuela) 395; Planta de EPS building 268; Grand Hotel 268;
Ensamblaje Volkswagen 395 Institute of Albanology 268; Kosovski
Pampulha 83–4; Casa do Baile 84; Casino Božur Hotel 268; Ljubljanska Bank 268;
84; Centro de Referência de Urbanismo, National Bank 268; National Theatre
Arquitetura e do Design 84; Church of 268; National and University Library
Saint Francis of Assisi 83–4; Iate Tênis 267; Parliament building 268; Printing
Club 84; Museu de Arte da Pampulha 84; house 268
Pampulha Complex 84 Prizren 267–8; Arasta Housing tower 268;
Paris 380, 424, 428, 432–3, 444, 446–7, Hotel Theranda 268; Shadrvan Shoping
451–52nn; Armée du Salut building 451n; Centre 268
Centre Georges Pompidou 380, 428; Citè Puebla 396, 399; Volkswagen Factory 396
de l’architecture et du patrimoine 424;
Collège Neerlandais 446–7; Fondation Qatar 27, 34, 171–2
Le Corbusier 428; Institut français Québec 87
d’architecture 425; Maison de Verre 425; Queensland 191
Maison La Roche 444; Musée du Louvre Quelimane 62
432–3; Musée des Monuments Français Quezon City168; Church of the Holy
425; Pavillon Turgot 432–3 Sacrifice 168
Parma 427; Centro Studi e Archivio della Quimper 396; Usine de Fleetguard 396
Comunicazione 427; Università degli Studi Quito 101
di Parma 427
Partizanske 318 Rabat 60
Pavlodar 151 Ramat-Gan 142
Pećka Banja 268; Church of Saint John 268 Ras al-Khaimah 183
Pemba 62 Reggio Emilia 413; Nebbiara 413
People’s Republic of China see China Republic of Korea see South Korea
Persian Gulf 121 Republic of San Marino see San Marino
Peru 34, 89, 107–8 Resende 399
Philippines 34, 168–9 Reykjavik 259
Pierrefitte-sur-Seine 244; Cité des Poètes 244 Rezé 459; Unité d’habitation 459
482 Index of places
Riga 24, 270–2, 423; Architect’s Summer 90; Municipal Theatre 90; National
House 271; Art Theatre house 271; Congress 90; National Library 90; Templo
District Administration building 270, 272; Votivo de Maipú 90
Dome cathedral 271; Latvian Museum of San Vito di Altivole 457; Brion Tomb 455,
Architecturture 423; Spilve Terminal 272 457
Rio de Janeiro 84, 400; Associação Brasileira São Paulo 83, 411–12; Copan building
de Imprensa Headquarters 84; Edificio 411–12
Gustavo Capanema 84; Estação de Sarajevo 219–20; Džidžikovac 220;
Passageiros de Hidroaviões 84; Instituto Provincial Museum 219; Saint Joseph
Histórico-Cultural da Aeronáutica 84; Church 220; Sárospatak 257; Zagreb
Manguinhos 400; Parque do Brigadeiro Hotel 220
84; Parque Eduardo Guinle 84; Santos- Scotland 24, 34, 344–5
Dumont Airport 84 Semey 151
Riyadh 366, 368 Senegal 34, 68–9
Romania 24, 34, 305, 411 Seoul 177–8; Arario Museum 177;
Rome 350, 374, 376–8, 425, 438, 455; Childrens’ Grand Park 178; Kkummaru
Corviale 378, 425; Eur 376; Garbatella 178; Old Seoul Station 178; Royal Palace
376; Montesacro 376; Museo Nazionale of Gyeongbokgung 178
delle Arti del XXI secolo (MAXXI) 425, Serbia 34, 294, 314–15
438; Palazzo dei Congressi 376–7; Palazzo Sfax 78
Postale 455; Palazzo Sturzo 374; Sistine Shanghai 127, 379
Chapel 471; Tiburtino 376 Sharjah 183–4
Rotorua District 194 Shotts 396; Cummings Engine Factory 396
Rotterdam 295, 424, 459–60; Shymkent 150
Groothandelsgebouw 295; Het Nieuwe Sichuan 127
Instituut 438; Netherland Architecture Sierra Leone 355
Institute 424; Van Nelle Factory 459–60 Silesia 232, 300
Rudersdal 236; House of Knud Holscher Sillamäe 238
236 Singapore 34, 174–5, 395; Former Jurong
Russia 24, 34, 205, 246, 299, 308–9, 398 Town Hall 175; State Courts 174–5
Russian Federation see Russia Sintra 407; Quinta de Regaleira 407
Siófok 257; Evangelical Church 257
Saaremaa 238 Skalholt 258–60; Folk High School 258–60
Sabon Garis 357 Skopje 283; City Hospital 283
Saint Petersburg 205, 309; St. Petersburg Slovakia 30, 34, 317
Academy of Fine Arts 205 Slovenia 30, 34, 283, 320–1
Salzburg 208; Schloss Klessheim 208; Wals- Snowdonia 347
Siezenheim stadium 208 Sofia 223; Iavorov residential complex 223;
Salalah 162; Sultan Qaboos palace 162 Mausoleum of Georgi Dimitrov 223;
Sana’a 367 Ropotamo restaurant 223
San José 95–6; Banco Central de Costa Rica Sokoto 356
building 96; Caja Costarricense de Seguro Sousse 78
Social building 96; Church of Nuestra South Africa 31, 34, 71–2, 400
Señora de Fátima 95–6; Jenaro Valverde South Australia 191
building 96; Plaza de la Cultura-Museos South Korea 26, 34, 177–8, 188
96 Soviet Union 15–16, 24, 30, 135, 205, 214,
San Juan 81; Auditorio Juan Victoria 80–1 246, 276, 335
San Marino, Republic of 28, 34, 311–12; Spain 28, 34, 53, 201, 323, 411
Borgo Maggiore 311–12; Church of Stavoren 294–5; J.L. Hooglandgemaal 294–5
the Blessed Virgin Mary Our Lady of Štip 283
Consolation 311–12 Stockholm 326–7; Skansen 326
Santa Ana de los Ríos de Cuenca 101 Struga 283; Palace of the Ministry of Defence
Santa Fe 81 283
Santiago de Chile: Bellas Artes Palace 90; Strumica 283
Central Post Office 90; Cousiño Palace Svit 318
90; Estadio Nacional de Chile 90; La Sweden 34, 53, 326–7
Alhambra Palace 90; La Moneda Palace Switzerland 34, 329, 411, 444
Index of places 483
Sydney 190–1; Opera House 28, 30, 190, Tower 146, 390; National Museum of
192, 235 Western Art 145; Tokyo Prefectural Office
386; Tokyo Railway Station 385–6; Tokyo
Taibet Zamman 148 Tower 146
Tallin 237–8, 423; City Hall 238; Linnahall Toronto 86–7, 398; Black Creek Pioneer
238; Museum of Estonian Architecture Village 86; New City Hall 86–7; Toronto
423; Olympic Sailing Sports Center 237–8 Design Museum 398
Tal-Qroqq 286; University Campus 286 Transylvania 305
Tanganyika 74–5 Triesen 274
Tangiers 60 Tunis 77–8; Cathedral of St. Vincent de Paul
Tanzania 34, 74–5 77; City Hall 78; El Menzah 77; Medina
Tapiola 241 77; National Bardo Museum 78

Taraz 150 Tunisia 34, 77–8
Tartu 238 Turin 414; Fiat Factory 398; Lingotto 398
Tasmania 191 Turkey 30, 34, 332–3
Tataouine 78; Chénini 78; Hotel Dar Kenza Turkistan 150
78 Tuscany, Grand Duchy of 264
Tatarstan 309
Ta’ Xbiex 286; Lodge 286 Ube 145; Watanabe Memorial Auditorium 145
Tblisi: Bank of Georgia 246; Clock Tower Ukraine 24, 30, 34, 299, 335–6
248; Holy Tbilisi Trinity Cathedral 248; Umm al-Quwain 183
Marxism-Leninism Institute 247; Ministry Umuahia; Odumegwu Ojukwu’s bunker 361
of Motorways building 246 United Arab Emirates 27, 34, 183
Tehran 138–9; Azadi Stadium 139; Azadi United Kingdom 53, 285, 347, 396, 399, 438
Tower 138, 140; Campus of the University United States of America 34, 110
of Tehran 139; Central Station 139; Hajj Upper Silesia 300
building 139; Hassan Abad Square 138; Uruguay 34, 113–15
Maidan Mashgh 138; Mausoleum of USSR see Soviet Union
Khomeini 139; Ministry of Agriculture Utrecht 295; Schröder House 454; Municipal
building 139; Ministry of Justice building Theatre 295
139; Municipal Theatre 139; Takhti 139;
University Sharif mosque 139 Vaduz 273–4; Castel of Vaduz 274;
Tel Aviv 30, 141–2; Asia House 142; El-Al Parliament building 268, 273
Offices 142; Mann Auditorium 141–2 Valencia 324
Telemark 297 Vancouver 87; Marwell building 87
Tema New Town 357 Vareš 220; Majdan workers’ housing estate
Tete 62 220
Thailand 34, 180–1 Varna 66; Palace of Culture and Sports 66
Thessaloniki 252–4; Archaeological Museum Vatican City State 34, 349–50; Museo
253; Museum of Byzantine Culture 252–4 Petriano 349; Paul VI Audience Hall 349;
Tirana 198–9; Catholic Cathedral of St. School of mosaic building 349; Seminario
Paul 198; Enver Hoxha’s mausoleum 199; Romano Minore 350
Monumental axis 199; Palace of Brigade Venezuela 34, 116–17
199; Shallvare block 199 Venice (Italy) 265, 421; Archivio Progetti
Tivat 292 427–9; Biennale of Architecture 423; Casa
Tocopilla 90; Caja del Seguro Obrero alle Zattere 265; Montenegro Pavilion
Obligatorio 90; Escuela Pablo Neruda 90; 293; San Marino Pavilion 312; Università
Escuela Arturo Prat Chacón 90 Iuav di Venezia 427–9
Tokyo 145–6, 385–6, 388–90, 391n, Vermont 410
464n; Edo-Tokyo Tatemono-en 145, Victoria, Lake 56
425; Harumi Kōsō Apartments 386; Vienna 207–8, 232; Architekturzentrum
Hotel Okura 391n; house of the pianist Wien 423; Christus Hoffnung der Welt
Sonoda Takahiro 391n; Imperial Hotel church 208; New Haas House 208;
145; International House of Japan 145, St. Stephan’s cathedral 208
388–9; Kunio Maekawa’s house 145; Meiji Vietnam 34, 186–7
Mutual Life Insurance 390; Meiji Yasuda Viljandi 238; Ugala Theater 238
Life Insurance 390; Nakagin Capsule Villa de Leyva 93
484 Index of places
Vilnius 276–7; Independence Square 277; Yemen 367
Lithuanian Parliament complex 277; Yerevan 204–5; National Museum-Institute
Palace of Concerts and Sports 277 of Architecture 205; Yerevan Cascade
Vladivostok 309; passenger building of the 204
sea port 309 Yokohama 384, 388; Kanagawa Prefectural
Library and Music Hall 386, 388
Wales 34, 346–7 Yugoslavia 219, 267, 283, 294, 320
Wallachia 305
Wallonia 217–18; Pont de Wandre 218 Zealand 235
Warsaw 300, 423; Muzeum Architectury 423 Zagreb 225–6, 423; Ban Jelačić Square 226;
Weil am Rhein 424; Vitra Design Museum 424 City Café 226; City Hall 225; Croatian
Weimar 17, 249–50; Canteen of the Museum of Architecture 423; Great

Bauhaus-Universität 249–50 Arsenal 226; Novakova Street 226; Unité
Wellington 194–5; Bank of New Zealand d’Abitacion 225; Walls 226; Zagrepčanka
195; Beehive 194; State Insurance building 226
195; Victoria University 194; Wellington Zamalek district 44
Club 194 Zanzibar 74–5; Forodhani Waterfront 75;
West Africa see Africa Kelele Square 75; Stone Town 74–5
Western Australia 191 Zaria 356–57; Ahmadu Bello University
West Germany see Germany campus 357
Wroclaw 299–300; Centennial Hall 300; Zhambyl 151
Panorama Racławicka building 299; Zsàmbék 257; Underground Military Base
Werkbund Exhibition 300 257
Wuxi 127; Chunlei shipyard 127 Zürich 409, 444; Irchelpark 409
Index of names
Aalto, A. 241 Algie, S. 88

Abakelia, T. 247 Alihodzic, R. 293
Ábalos, I. 416n Al-kheder, S. 149
Abdrassilova, G. 151–2 Alle, V. 151
Abdulrahman, M.E. 67 Allen, T.J. 402n
Abed, J. 122 Almeida, A.B. 74
Abedin, Z. 167 Alterman, R. 143
ABK Architects 396 Altezor, C. 97
Abrams, C. 175–6 Altmäe, R. 238
Abreu, A.R. de P. 402n Aluko, T. 66
Abry, A. 61 Al-Zubair, M. 164
Achleitner, F. 269 Amanat, H. 138, 140
Adachi, Y. 391n Amashukeli, T. 248
Adam, R. 21n Amit-Cohen, I. 143
Adams & Dodd, Price 193–4 Ammar, L. 78
Addor, G. 329–30, 459, 461 Anatolie, S. 289
Adedayo, O.F. 67 Ando, T. 368
Adeyemi, A. 359, 363 Andrés de Masi, O. 82
Adlham, K. 173 Andresen, B. 344
Afandizadeh, R. 212 Andrieux, J.-Y. 20n
Afkhami, S.A. 139 Ang, K. 175
Aga Khan III, Prince 57 Antić, I. 314–15
Aguilar Civera, I. 401 Appadurai, A. 368, 370n
Ágústsson, H. 260 Aqeel, A. 185
Ahmad, F. 137 Aradeon, D. 55
Ahmad, Y. 137, 159, 161 Arana Sánchez, M. 115
Aibassov, Y. 150 Araújo, I.M. 304
Akagawa, N. 182 Archer, J. 57
Akbar, P. 139 Architects Co-Partnership (ACP) 362
Akinseymoy, K. 67 Architecture-Studio 122, 162
Akitek, K. 174–5 Ardalan, N. 140
Akulenko, V. 337 Argan, G.C. 374
Al-Kubaisy, F. 122 Aribi, R. 37
Al Salam, M. 367 Ármannsson, P.H. 259–60
Al Sayyad, N. 370n Arnesen, K. 298
Al-Asad, M. 21n, 46, 401n, 403n Arnold, D. 20n
Alatalu, R. 239 Arrol, W. Sir see William Arrol & C. Sir
Alawi, C. 162 Arsac, A. 42
Albakri, H. 159 Artimovich, A. 214
Albani, F. 331, 464n Arup Group Ltd. & Partners 172, 395–6
Albert Khan Associates 395, 398 Arutiunian, V.M. 206
Alcazaren, P, G. 170 Ascanio, T. 99
Alfrey, J. 347, 403n Ascione, P. 465n
486 Index of names
Aseyev, Y. 337 Bayzidi, Q. 140
Ashby, J. 88 BBPR 374–5
Ashley, H. 159 Beach, J. 367
Asplund, G. 327 Becher, B. 438
Athfield, I. 194–5 Becher, H. 438
Athouguia, R. 303 Becker, A. 263
Atkins 166 Becket, W. 168
Augé, M. 472, 473n Behnisch, G. 250
Auhammad, S. 185 Behrens, P. 226
Aulenti, G. 312, 374 Belapolsky, Y. 214
Avermaete, T. 21n Belau, P. 99
Aveta, C. 236 Belgrave, C.D. 120–1

Awal, G.A. 135 Bell, D. 307
Ayuba, P. 67 Bell, P. 342
Azaryahu, M. 143 Bellalta, J. 90
Azevedo, P.O.D. de 84–5 Belluš, E. 318
Azuma, T. 390n Belousov, V.N. 293
Bembel, A. 214
Baan, I. 55, 426 Bendimérad, S. 416n
Bačkalov, A. 269 Benevolo, L. 19, 22n, 266
Badran, R. 367 Benkari, N. 163
Baeta, R.E. 83 Bennett, H. 339
Bahga, S. 125 Benzagouta, S.D. 37
Bahga, S. 125 Benzagouta, Y.N. 37
Bajlon, M. 220 Bep Architects 395
Baker, C. 182 Bercé, F. 245
Baker, H. 57 Berckmans, C. 218
Bakhtiar, L. 140 Berg, M. 300
Bakhtiari, K.Z. 139 Bergaoui, M. 77
Balán, A. 318 Berger, M. 416n
Baldessari, L. 376 Bergera, I. 440n
Baldi, M.P. 81 Bergeron, L. 403n
Baldus, É. 432–3 Bergkvist, K. 298
Ballal, A. 404n Bergmann, J. 402n
Banfi, G.L. see BBPR Berim, O. 309
Bannen, P. 89, 91 Bermejo, J. 90
Bannerman, D.G. 345 Bernard, P. 218
Baptiste, H. 451n Bernik, S. 322
Baqaen, S. 149 Bernini, G.L. 350
Barba, L.F.D. 101 Berte, G. 199
Barber, D. 22n Bertheau Odio, J. 96
Barbiano di Belgiojoso, L. see BBPR Beynon, H. 402n
Bardi, P.M. 376 Bharbra, S. 57
Barkhin, B. 308–9 Bianchi, P. 287
Barragán, L. 106, 432 Biggs, L. 401n
Barry, G. Sir 344 Bijvoet, B. 459, 463
Barthes, R. 406 Binet, H. 432, 438
Barua, J. 58 Biraghi, M. 19, 22n, 266, 382n
Basilico, G. 10 Birra, C. 296
Bassi, A. 313 Birrer, P. 275
Bat’a, T. 395 Bishop, R.C. 473n
Battis, E. 122 Blagojevic, L. 316
Bauchet, B. 446, 451n Bo, S. 126
Baudelaire, C. 381, 382n Boari, A. 105
Baumol, W.J. 470, 473n Bobbitt, P. 473n
Bautista, N.I. 170 Bobyl, V. 214
Bayardo, N. 113–14 Bodenstein, R. 46
Index of names 487
Bofill, R. 201–2 Bulat, V. 290
Bogdanović, B. 219–20, 268 Bulegato, F. 313
Böhringer, F. 273 Burke, S. 192
Bolliger, J. 329–30 Burle Marx, R. 84
Bonamy, F. 69 Burri, R. 433
Bond, M. 359, 361 Buttlar, von, A. 251
Bonfanti, E. 382n
Bonomo, B. 416n Cacoub, O.-C. 42, 77–8
Bontempelli, M. 374 Calabresi, G. 473n
Booth, R. 339 Caldenby, C. 236, 328
Borbón Zeller, J. 96 Camacho, C.A. 93
Borchers, J. 90 Campos, S. 25–7

Borg, E. 241 Campos Paredes, K.J. 101
Borges Recio, M. 99 Candeba, C. 290
Boriani, M. 206, 334 Canella, G. 374
Bornhorst, D. 395 Capano, F. 208
Borromini, F. 350 Čapková, G. 231
Bosio, G. 199 Cappelli, P. 29
Boswijk, A. 402n Carabelli, R. 61
Bottai, G. 265 Caramellino, G. 416n
Botz-Bornstein, T. 21n Caratelli, P. 184
Bouman, O. 431n Carol II, King of Romania 305
Bourdieu, P. 416n Carrazana, R. 99
Bourennane, J. 173 Carrieri, M. 349
Bourennane, M. 173 Carrilho, J. 64
Bowen, W.G. 473n Carrión Mena, F. 103
Boyd, D.W. 342 Carughi, U. 3, 20n, 23, 32–3nn, 265, 266n
Boyd, N. 192 Carullo, V. 5, 432, 440n
Boyer, M. 59–60 Casanelles, E. 403n
Boyi, F. 126 Casciato, M. 20n, 32–3nn, 43
Boysan, A. 396 Castellanos, C.B. 402n
Bozdogan, S. 12, 21n Castells, M. 365, 367–8, 370n
Bradley, B.H. 401n Castilho, J. de 39
Braem, R. 216, 218 Castilho, L.G. de 39
Braillard, M. 330 Castillo Ruiz, J. 325
Bramante, D. 350 Cavanilles, F. 323
Brasini, A. 199 Ceauşescu, N. 305
Brašovan, D. 315 Ceg International 172
Bratuškins, U. 272 Chabbi, A. 185
Braum, M. 251 Chakhava, G. 246
Braye, D. 416n Chalk, W. 339
Bregu, V. 199 Chamber, D. 211
Brennan, J.J. 342 Chamber, W. 261
Breuer, M. 27, 244 Champ, P.A. 473n
Brguljan, V. 316 Chang, J.-H. 21n
Brigden, G. 165 Changfu, G. 126
Brinkman, J.A. 398, 459–60 Chapagain, N.K. 158
Bristow, D. 57 Chareau, P. 459
Bromley, D.B. 473n Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor 107
Bronnikov, P. 309 Chatillon, F. 452
Bronovitskaya, A. 309–10 Chaudhary, A. 125
Bruan, Y. 85 Chavez, H. 117
Brun, E. 69 Chevallier, F. 20n
Bryggman, E. 241 Chiaramonti, B.N.M.L. see Pius VII
Bucheery, A. 122 Chilingaryan, N. 206
Buchli, V. 403n Chiorino, C. 401n
Buchmeier, M. 402n Chipkin, C. M. 73
488 Index of names
Chlomauskas, E. 277 Cumming, W. 263
Chmutina, N.B. 335 Curtis, W.J.R. 21n, 33n
Choay, F. 21n, 416n Custódio, J. 304
Choi, C. 178–9 Cuypers, P. 295
Chomette, H. 51 Czebe, I. 257
Choueiri, Y.M. 370n
Christofilopoulou, S. 230 D’Acosta-Calheiros, H. 99
Chulasawake, P. 181 D’Auria, V. 364n
Chung, S.-J. 179 D’Olivo, M. 376
Chung, T. 158 Dacarro, F. 178
Chung, W.N. 130, 131 Daher, R.F. 149
Cid, P. 303 Dahl, T. 298

Ciucci, G. 382n Dainese, E. 55
Clark, J. 403n Dal Co, F. 266
Clark, P. 416n Dalokay, V. 166
Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Company Dalrymple Belgrave, C. 120–1
345 Daly, L. 165
Cohen, J.-L. 19–20nn, 22n, 37, 61, 431n Damluji, S.S. 164
Collado, A. 82 Darley, G. 401n
Collins, P. 464n Darvish, J. 139
Colquhoun, A. 21n Davies, J.O. 340
Connell, A. 57 Dawbam, G. see Norman & Dawbarn
Contri, S. 105 Architects
Cook, P. 208 De Carlo, G. 312, 378
Cooke, C. 254 De Fusco, R. 21n
Coomans de Brochene, T. 218 De Jonge, W. 464–5nn
Córdova, A. 109 De Luca, G. 265
Córdova, R. 109 De Martino, R. 275
Córdova & Williams Architects 108 De Meulder, B. 43
Cormatches, A. 90 De Micheli, M. 18, 22n
Ćorović, A. 220 De Pieri, F. 5, 411, 416n
Corradine, A. 94 De Renzi, M. 455
Corrales, J.A. 324 de Seta, C. 382n
Correa, C. 365, 370n de Solà-Morales, I. 20n
Correa, M. 90 Deglane, H. 69
Corrêa Lima, A. 84 Dehio, G. 249
Correia, A. 40 Deleuze, G. 15, 22n
Corvino, V. 28, 465n Delgado Cruz, M.J. 103
Cosenza, L. 265 Delius, P. 140
Cossons, N. 402n dell’Orto, E. 28
Costa, V.V. da 39 Demissie, F. 21n
Costa, L. 84 Denison, E. 47, 49
Costeau, J. 376 Dennis, T. 339
Cotte, M. 403n Denniston Intl. Architects & Planners 162
Cottom, B. 106 Denysenko, G.G. 337
Coudroy de Lille, L. 416n Depaule, J.-C. 416n
Cowser, B. 342 Derde, A. 48
Creangă, H. 306 Deroko, A. 268
Crinson, M. 363n Design Group 357, 359
Crippa, M.A. 21n Dešman, M. 322
Criscuolo, M. 29 Di Biase, C. 331
Cros, H. du 158 Di Fausto, F. 199
Csaba, L. 257 Di Maio, A. 5, 469
Csete, G. 257 Díaz, A.L. 95–6
Cubitt, J. 54, 355–6, 359 Didi-Huberman, G. 422, 430n
Cubr, F. 233 Dietrich, G. 281
Cummer, K. 131 Dilmé, E. 203
Index of names 489
Dimitrov, G. 223 Ericson, S. 402n
Dimitrovski, V. 284 Ervi, A. 241
Dissing, H. 235 Escherich, M. 251
DiStefano, L.D. 131 Esquillan, N. 245
Dixon, H. 343 Estévez, R. 99
Dmochowski, Z. 65, 67 Estudio Sepra 80
Dobrovic, N. 292, 315 Etesam, I. 140
Doggett, M. 174, 176 Euvremer, L. 244–5
Dogotaru, A. 290 Euvremer, Y. 244–5
Dolkart, A.S. 417n Evans, D. 343
Dolukhanyan, L.K. 206 Evans, T. 348
Dorel-Ferré, G. 403n Evenson, N. 134

Douet, J. 403n Evin, A. 402n
Doxiadis, C.A. 124, 165 Exarchopoulos, P. 254
Drėmaitė, M. 278
Drew, J. 13, 54, 355–7, 359 Fabijanić, N. 226
Dripe, J. 272 Fajardo Moreno, Raúl 94
Dudescu, R. 306 Fakhoury, L.A. 148–9
Dudok, W.M. 295, 342, 446–7 Falckenberg, S. 430n
Duiker, J. 463 Famiglietti, G. 266
Dulio, R. 20n Fanelli, G. 18, 22n, 438, 440n
Dulla, M. 319 Farmahinifarahani, R. 140
Dumont, P. 218 Farmanfarmaian, A. 139
Dunkl, J. see Querkraft Farmer, B. 403
Duque, C.V. 94 Fatullayev, S.S. 212
Durán, A.M. 101, 103 Fehmiu, B. 268
Dušan, J. 318 Fehn, S. 297
Dušan, O. 321 Fenollosa, E. 144
Dushkina, N. 310 Fernandes, J.M. 40, 64
Dvořák, M. 232 Fernández, A. 96–7
Dvořáková, V. 319 Fernández del Amo, J.L. 324
Dziekońscy, E. 299–300 Figini, L. 459
Dziekońscy, M. 299–300 Filippetti, R. 70
Findal, W. 260
Eatwell, J. 473n Fiorentino, M. 376, 378
Eckardt, F. 251 Fisac, M. 324
Ekelund, H. 241 Fischer von Erlach, J.B. 208
EKIP consulting 48 Fitch, A. 129
Ekram, L.N. 123–4 Fitri, I. 137
Ekwueme, A. 361 Focketyn, H. 55, 364
El Asmar, J.-P. 155 Folić, L. 268–9
Eleb, M. 61, 416n Folkers, A.S. 55, 76
Elisashvili, T. 248 Foot, J. 417
Elleh, N. 21n, 55 Ford, H. 395
El-Masri, S. 122 Foroughi, M. 139
Elsheshtawy, Y. 21n, 122, 173, 185 Forster, K.W. 379
Elster, J. 472–3nn Foster, H. 21n
Elwall, R. 434, 438, 440n Foster, N. 339, 312, 368
Emmons, P. 370n Fosu, E.K. 55
Engel, P. 209 Foulks, W.G. 112
England, R. 285–6 Fowler, P. 403n
Engleback, N. 339 Frampton, K. 21n
Engström, K. 326 Franz, B. 251
Enríquez, E. 99 Freeman Fox & Partners 345
Enwonwu, B. 362–3 Freitas e Costa, M.S. de 63
Ergut, E.A. 20n Freres, P. 291–2
Erhartt, G. see Querkraft Frieden, C. 281
490 Index of names
Fry, E.M. 13, 54, 355–7, 359 Goeritz, M. 106
Fuchs, B. 318 Goetze, N. 187
Fuentealba, A. 90 Goldfinger, E. 432, 434, 449
Fujioka, H. 391n Gomboš, S. 226
Gómez, C.S. 94
Gabaglio, R. 334 Gonçalves, I. 64
Gabarelli, L. 115 Gontsa, F. 336
Gabriadze, R. 248 González, A. 94
Gadini, P. 62–3 Gonzalez, M. 99
Galadjeva, S.H. 288–9 Gorbik, V.O. 337
Galasso, G. 265 Gosseye, J. 230
Galer, L. 290 Gotō, O. 390–1

Galić, D. 225, 227 Gottardi, R. 99
Galimzhanova, A. 152 Goudiaby Atepa, P. 362
Galván, J. 99 Goycoolea, R. 38, 40
Garatti, V. 99 Grabowski, H. 402n
García Cuetos, M.P. 325 Grabrijan, D. 221
Gardella, I. 265 Gradov, Y. 213–14
Gargiani, R. 18, 22n Graf, F. 331, 464–5nn
Gasparini, G. 118 Grajewski, G. 300
Gatier, P.-A. 451n Graser, J. 452n
Gatley, J. 195 Graves, M. 110–11
Gaudet, P. 292 Grcev, K. 284
Gazvoda, D. 321 Grechina, M.G. 336
Gebremedhin, N. 49 Gregotti, V. 302, 374, 380, 382n, 423
Gehry, F.O. 368 Greisch, B. 218
Geijerstam, J. af 404 Grignolo, R. 5, 20n, 32n, 443, 451n,
Ģelzis, M. 270–3 456n
Gemoets, M. 43 Grigoryan, A. 205
George, W.S. 132 Grigoryan, K. 205–6
Georgescu, H. 306 Grimshaw, N. 339
Georgiev, S. 224 Groenendijk, P. 296
Gerard, D. 52 Gropius, W. 28, 459
Gerkar, M. von 187 Grossman, J. 318
Gerlach & Gillies-Reyburn Architects 357, G-Studio Enrico Giacopelli 464n
364 Gu, M. 128
Gertz Manero, A. 106 Guanzhang, W. 126
Gevorkian, G. 139 Guarda, G. 90
Ghaidan, U. 58 Guardini, R. 379
Giacumacatos, A. 253–4 Gudaitis, A. 276–7
Gillardin, C. 281 Guedes, P.M. 63–4
Gillespie, Kidd & Coia 345 Guillén, M.F. 401
Gillet, G. 244 Guizot, F. 243
Giorghis, F. 52 Gulotta, D. 334
Giovannoni, G. 374 Guoxiang, M. 126
Giovenale, G.B. 349 Gurzadyan, S. 204
Gitai, A. 426 Gustav II Adolf, King of Sweden 326
Gitai Weinraub, M. 426 Gustavsson, T. 298
Gjulnazaryan, A. 205 Gutiérrez, R. 82
Glaudinov, B. 152 Gutschow, E. 146
Glaudinova, M. 152 Gutschow, N. 146
Glendinning, M. 20–1nn
Gmp International GmbH 211 Habib, F. 140
Godio, A. 49 Hackett, M. 343
Godovanyuk, E.M. 337 Haddad, E.G. 21n
Godwin, J. 54, 66–7, 357, 362, 364n Haddad, N. 149
Goering, L. 402n Hadi, Ş. 332, 333
Index of names 491
Hadid, Z. 210–11, 425 Hopwood, G. 13, 54, 65–7, 357, 362, 364n
Hadžimuhamedović, A. 220 Horden, R. 339
Hadžimuhamedović, F. 221 Horin, M.B. 142
Hake, A. 58 Hornick, S. 404n
Hall, A. 343 Horsfall, G. 339
Hall, S. 370n Horta, V. 217, 464n
Hamouche, M.B. 122 Hostettler, H. 447–8
Hamzah, H. 161 Hovanesian, V. 139
Haraguchi, S. 403 Howard Coaldrake, W. 146
Harminc, M.M. 318 Hoxha, E. 199
Harris, E. 310 Hoxha, P. 199
Harris, J. 162–3, 172 Hrausky, A. 322

Harrison, R. 403n Hrubý, J. 233
Hart, B. 71, 73 Hubáček, K. 231, 233
Hartoonian, G. 20n Hudson, K. 403n
Harvey, D. 402n Hughes, D. 57
Harwood, E. 339–40 Hughes, Q. 287
Hattstein, M. 140 Hughes, R. 55
Havin, V. 214 Huntington, S. 370
Havlíček, J. 232 Huseynov, M. 210
Hayden, D. 416n
Heidegger, M. 379 Ibelings, H. 19, 22n, 296
Hellman, L. 14 Ibler, D. 283
Henáres Cuéllar, I. 325 Ibrahim, A.-H. 367
Hendrix, J.S. 370–1nn Ierides, V. 230
Henn, G.W. 398, 402n Iglésias, O. 64
Hernández Martinez, A. 325 Ilieva, M. 290
Hernandez Molina, R. 94 Imamuddin, A.H. 123–5
Herrán, J. 114 Ingham, K. 339
Herrel, E. 58 Irace, F. 21n
Herrero Lombardia, P. 323 Isaza, E.J. 94
Herron, R. 339 Isenstadt, S. 416n
Hervé, L. 432 Islam, M. 124
Herz, M. 55, 364n Isozaki, A. 367, 390
Heuter, C. 251 Ito, T. 218
Heuvel, D. van den 21n, 364n Ivan F.K. 214
Hewison, R. 404n Ivánka, A. 257
Hewitt, D. 16 Ivanković, V. 227
Heynen, H. 230 Ivanič, M. 322
Higgott, A. 440n Izchenko, V. 151
Higuchi, T. 391n
Hildebrand, G. 401n Jackson, S.I. 355, 363n
Hinchman, M. 70 Jacobsen, A. 236
Hiroyuki, S. 146 Jahn, H. 469
Hirsch, R. 301 Jaidah, I. M. 173n
Hise, G. 402 Jakob, M. 4, 405
Hoa, N.M. 188 Jākobsons, I. 271
Hoang, D.T. 188 Jalaghania, Z. 246
Hobsbawm, E. 15, 22n Jamrozik, J. 55n, 364n
Hoe, H.K. 160 Janák, P. 232
Höfer, C. 438 Janeiro, M.d.L. 64n
Hoffmann, J. 233 Jänes, P. 237
Hok International 211 Janković, Ž. 268
Holland, J. 355, 363n Jánossy, G. 257
Hollein, H. 208 Jäntti, T. 240–1
Holness, G.V.R. 401n Jatta, B. 350n
Holod, R. 402n Jeanneret, C.-E. see Le Corbusier
492 Index of names
Jeanneret, P. 329 Keshavjee, S. 88
Jeffries, M. 401n Kessab, A. 37
Jelinek, S. 226 Khalifa bin Hamad al-Thani, Sheikh, Emir of
Jeremy C.W. 20n Qatar 172
Jiménez, M.P. 116 Khan, H.-U. 61, 370n
Jingshen, Y. 126 Khan, M. 165
João V of Braganza, King of Portugal 302 Khatib & Alamy 154
Joh, S.-Y. 178 KHR Arkitekter AS 122
John V of Braganza see João V of Portugal Khrushchev, N.S. 309
Johnson, N.S. 346–7 Kibalnikov, A.P. 214
Johnson, R. 28 Kiefer, P.-K. 249
Jokilehto, J. 20n, 76n Kiley, D. 410

Jones P. 401n Kim, C.-S. 179
Jones, E.F. 111 Kim, S.G. 177
Jonge, W. de 464–5nn Kim, V. 151
Jonson, P. 422 Kimpflinger, W. 402n
Jopela, A. 64n Kirby T.M. Jr 20n
Jorgensen, V. 58 Kjersheim, A. 297
Jukić, I.F. 219 Klaaßen, L. 402n
Julliard, D. 329–30 Klaniczay, P. 257
Jumsai, S. 182n Klimek, S. 299
Jureviciene, J. 278 Klimov, I.F. 214–15
Klotz, H. 423
Kadić, M. 220 Kobe, S. 175–6
Kadić, R. 220 Koenigsberger, O. 175–6
Kafrawi, K. el 172 Kohout, M. 233
Kahlo, F. 106 Kolaneci, K. 199
Kahn, A. 395, 398, 401n Kolarov, G. 183
Kahn, L. 123–4 Kolevica, P. 200
Kainarbaev, A. 151 Kong, L. 176
Kakuzō, O. 144 Konstantinovski, G. 268, 284
Kaleva, E. 224 Korol, V. 214
Kallab, O. 153 Korshagen, E. 236
Kalm, M. 239 Kosaka, H. 391n
Kalnoy, K. 151 Koselj, N. 322
Kandulkova, Y. 224 Kosogova, I. 151
Kanematsu, K. 391n Kotěra, J. 232
Kanoun, Y. 37 Kovačević, D. 268
Karakayali, S. 21n Kovačić, V. 226
Karantinos, P. 253 Krasenko, V. 335
Karetki, M. 290 Krastiņš, J. 272
Karfík, V. 318 Krejcar, J. 232
Kārkliņš, J. 270, 272 Krier, R. 208
Karmakar, A. 185 Krige, S. 403n
Karmi, D. 141–2 Kriukelis, J. 277
Karmi, R. 142 Krokos, K. 252–3
Karp, R. 238 Krstić, B. 315–16
Kasa-Vubu, J. 42 Krstić, M. 315
Kassim, B. 160 Krunić, S. 268
Kassou, A. 61 Krutilla, J.V. 473n
Kate Otten Architects 72 Kubasov, V. 309
Kaufmann, J. 447–8 Kubov, A. 335
Kauzalarić, M. 226 Kuipers, M.C. 296
Kawamura, E. 146 Kulczewski, L. 90
Kazakov, Y. 214 Kultermann, U. 55, 61
Kazev, V. 151 Kurakata, S. 391n
Kerr, J.S. 28 Kurokawa, K. 146, 390
Index of names 493
Kurrer, K.-E. 402n Libera, A. 376–7, 455
Kurtović, I. 315 Lico, G. 277
Kusno, A. 137 Ligorio, P. 408
Kuznezov, Y. 151 Lim, W.S.W. 21n
Lindegren, Y. 240–1
Labadi, S. 403n Lindsay, I. 345
Lacerda, M. 304 Linner Díaz, A. 95–6
Lacuesta i Contreras, R. 203 Lins Corrêa, E. 85
Laffont, R. 416n Linster, A. 281
Lagae, J. 43 Llano, A.E. 94
Lage, L. 64 Lloyd Wright, F. 145
Legoretta, R. 367 Lock, M. 357–8, 364n

Lai, C.K. 161 Locsin, L. 168–9
Lakotko, A.I. 215 Lomholt, J. 370n
Lamers, E. 257 Long, D. 345
Lang, J.T. 132, 134 Long, M.J. 339
Lang, P. 402n Longstreth, R. 22n
Langini, A. 281 Loo, D.K. 159–60
Lans, B. van der 76 Loos, A. 233
Laptsevich, B. 214 Looveer, A.-H. 237
Larbi, S.O. 361, 364n Lopes, C. 63
Larmour, P. 343 López, F. 99
Lasam, R.J. 168 Lordkipanidze, R. 248
Lasner, M.G. 416n Lorenz, W. 402n
Laurens, C. 42 Lőrinczi, Z. 257
Lauterbach, H. 300 Loustau, C.J. 80, 115
Lavrenčić, F. 220 Louw, H.J. 403n
Le Brusq, A. 188 Lővei, P. 257
Le Corbusier 77, 80, 84, 94, 130, 132, 145, Lovejoy, D. 165
226–7nn, 244, 329, 411, 428, 432, 444, Lozano A.D. 118
451n, 455, 458, 464n Lu, D. 21n
Le Flanchec, R. 244 Lu, W. 128
Le Garrec, S. 416n Lubinski, R. 226
Le Roux, H. 55, 73, 363–4nn Lucas, G. 403n
Leach, A. 20n Luci, R. 268
Leão, C. 84 Ludeña-Urquizo, W. 403n
Leclerc, L. 281 Lugard, F. 357, 364n
Lee, F. 158 Luis e Carranza 113
Lee, H.Y. 129, 131 Lukeš, Z. 233
Leendert, C. 460 Lumbera, B.L. 170
Lees, L. 417n Lund, C. 236
Lefaivre, L. 21n Lunn, U. 236
Lehne, A. 209 Lux, S. 382
Lei, A. 156
Leitanaitė, R. 278 Maaskant, H. 295
Leitch, A. 342 Macdonald, S. 112, 340, 403n
Lemaire, R. 217 Mačiulis, A. 278
Lemmans, B. 21n MacKenzie Murchison, K. 99
Lenin 223, 309 Madran, E. 334
Lennon, J.L. 134 Maduro, N. 117
Lenoir, A. 243 Maekawa, K. 145
Lenza, C. 21n Magalhães, A. 40, 64
Leopold I, King of Belgium, 217 Magema, M. 42
Leuchsenring, E.R. de 98 Magro Conti, J. 287
Levin, L. 213–14 Mahdy, H. 185
Lewi, H. 192 Maheux, H. 43
Liandzbergis, Z. 277 Mahmoud, W.B. 78
494 Index of names
Maier, C.S. 402n McKim, Mead and White 99
Maiullari, M.T. 403n Meier, H.-R. 22n, 250–1, 402n
Makaš, E.G. 20n Meier, R. 439
Maki, F. 146 Meili, A. 449–50
Makiya, M. 162–3 Melucco Vaccaro, A. 20n
Makkonen, L. 242 Menacho, A. 108
Makovecz, I. 255, 257 Mendelsohn, E. 300, 464n
Makower, T. 173 Menelik II, Emperor of Ethiopia 51
Malekabbasi, A. 185 Menghini, A.B. 200
Malraux, A. 244 Menyhárd, I. 257
Manassi, A. 60 Merce, M. 201
Mändel, M. 239 Merchant, Y. 165

Mandić, S. 268 Mérimée, P. 243
Manfredini, M. 157 Merlini, C. 329
Mangen, N. 279, 281 Mesa, M. 103
Mannell, S. 88 Mesman, M. 21n, 364n
Marasović, M. 361 Metrany, K. 143
Marcu, D. 305–6 Meyer, B. 452n
Marcus, B. 185 Meyer, U. 281
Marin, B. 416n Meyhöfer, D. 402n
Marino, G. 330–1 Mezzedimi, A. 50–1
Markovic, R. 269 Miccoli, L. 127
Markuš, A. 293 Miceli Farrugia, A. 287
Marris, R. 469, 473n Michael, A. 228
Marschall, S. 73 Michaelides, N. 228–9
Marsden, S. 192 Micheli, S. 266
Marstein, N. 298 Michelucci, G. 311–12, 428
Marstine, J. 421, 430n Mickievich, L. 214
Martin, P. 403n Mies van der Rohe, L. 233, 411, 428, 454–5,
Martinez, E. 99 469
Martinez I.P. 99 Mihelič, M. 322
Martínez, J. 89–90 Mihevc, E. 282–3
Martinez, A.H. 325 Milenka, A. 116
Maruri, C. 99 Milgate, M. 473n
Marychenko, Y.M. 335 Milić, M. 316
Masák, M. 233 Miller, D. 417n
Masoud, A. 165 Miloševic, P.V. 221
Másson, N.Ú. 259 Milučký, F. 317–18
Mathews, J.A. 402n Minato, W. 388–9
Matri, F. 78 Mindlin, H.E. 85
Matsuura, T. 391n Ming, L.M. 161
Matté-Trucco, G. 398 Miró Quesada, L. 107–8
Mattoso, J. 64 Mirza, M.A. 165
Mattsson, H. 328, 416n Mistri, M.P. 165
Max Lock & Partners 364n Misuri, M.A. 183
May, E. 57–8 Mitsuyasu, Y. 145
May, R. 245 Miyazawa, H. 391n
Mayat, Y. 73 Mkhitaryan, A. 204
Mayekawa, K. 386, 388–9 Mladenović, D. 268
Mazuras, Č. 276–7 Mndoyants, A. 309
Mazuré, M.R. 108 Mobutu, J.-D. 42
Mazzoleni D. 370n Mogens C. 235
Mbanefo, F. 361 Mohammed, M.S. 167
McBride Neill, J. 342 Mokhtabad Amrei, S.M. 140
McClelland, M. 88 Molina, R.H. 94
McCormick, L. 262, 343 Momo, G. 349–50
McDowell, D. 345 Moneo, R. 33, 453, 464n
Index of names 495
Montaner, J.M. 118 Nesterov, T. 290
Montes, P.E. 94 Neto, A. 39
Moral, E. del 106 Neuberger, P. 395
Moravčíková, H. 319 Neutra, R. 432
Moreira, J.M. 84 Newmen, P. 473n
Morel, J.M. 409–10 Nichols, D. 192
Moretti, L. 376 Nickson & Borys & Partners 362–3
Morgan, M. 343 Niemeyer, O. 25–6, 37, 83–4, 402n, 411–12,
Morganti, L.M. 312–13 469
Morganti, C. 313 Niglio, O. 94
Morris & Steedman 345 Nikken Sekkei Ltd. 144, 146
Morris H.E. 339 Nikoladze, I. 247

Morris, J.S. see Morris & Steedman Nikоlić, М. 315
Morris, W. 235 Niño Murcia, C. 94
Moshiri, I. 139 Nistor, S. 307
Motisi, M.E. 430n Nkwocha, D. 362
Mott, H. and A. 345 Noble, J.A. 73
Moughtin, J.C. 363–4nn Nomura, M. 391n
Mowla, Q.A. 124–5 Noobanjong, K. 182
Mualam, N. 141, 143 Nora, P. 405
Mukařovský, J. 23 Norman and Dawbarn architects 74, 286
Mullarkey, D.J. 473n Norman, N. Sir see Norman & Dawbarn
Muller, R. 90 Architects
Multari, G. 28, 465 Nøstvik, K.H. 56–7
Mumford, L. 9, 20n Nouvel, J. 368
Mumtaz, K.K. 167 Novikov, F. 309
Muñoz Sanz, V. 403n Núñez, H.J. 40
Muñoz F. 323 Núñez, P. 402n
Munts, V. 210 Nuriyev, R. 211
Murano, T. 145, 386 Nyaseme, J. 57
Muratori, S. 374, 378 Nygård, A. 326, 328
Musgrave, R.A. 473n Nypan, T. 32–3nn
Mušič, M. 292
Musmeci, S. 264–5 O’Gorman, J. 104, 106
Musteata, S. 290 O’Keefe, S. 404n
Müther, U. 250 Oberholster, J.J. 73
Mutiso, D. 57 Odgers, D. 340
Mutnjaković, A. 267–8 Oers, R. van 403n
Myhrberg, K. 200 Oeschger, A. 447–8
Office Sōken 390n
N’gomb, C. 362 Oganesian, K.L. 206
Na, S.-J. 178 Ogbechie, S.O. 364n
Nagy, K. 255 Ohana, Y. 290
Nahas, A.S. 44 Ojala, M. 240
Naitō, T. 145–6 Ojukwu, O. 361
Naqvi & Siddique Associates 165–6 Olivé Negrete, J.C. 106
Nasib, M. 163 Olivetti, A. 379, 382n
Nasvytis, A. 276–7 Olley, J. 263
Nasvytis, V. 276–7 Olmo, C. 18, 22n, 401n
Nathan, F. 281 Olszewski, A.K. 301
Nati, R.V. 170 Oluwakitan, O. 362, 364n
Nazarbayev, N. 151 OMM Design Workshop and Urban
Neaverson, P. 403n Solutions 72
Neidhardt, J. 221 Önsel Atala, Z. 334
Neri, M.L. 257 Ordasi, Z. 257
Nervi, P.L. 349–50, 395 Orgeix, E. d’ 20n, 32–3nn, 43, 245
Ness, W. 402n Orro, O. 238–9
496 Index of names
Orteu, Xavier 203 Petrescu, A. 305
Orsini, V. 408 Petričić, B. 315
Osanloo, H. 140 Petrozzi, R. 57
Osborne, R. 193 Petrulis, V. 278
Osten, M. von 21n Pevsner, N. 339
Ostergren, G. 112, 403n Phalatse, M.R. 403n
Ostrogović, K. 225 Philippot, P. 217
Ostrom, E. 471, 473n Phillips, R. 129
Otero, R. 99 Philokyprou, M. 230
Otten, K. see Kate Otten Architects Phokaides, P. 230
Otto of Bavaria, King of Greece 252 Piacentini, M. 226, 374, 382n
Otto, F. 250 Piano, R. 379–80, 455, 469

Oubrerie, J. 243 Picari, V. 198
Oulebsir, N. 37 Piccinato, L. 374
Ovando, F.R. 99 Pichuev, G. 309
Ove Arup & Partners 396 Pickard, R. 20n, 32n, 236, 296
Owuso-Addo, J. 361, 364n Picton, T. 440n
Özgönül, N. 334 Piedra, E.R. 99
Özkan, S. 402n Pignatelli, N. 266
Ozkaya, B.T. 20n Pimentel, V. 108
Pini, D. 122
P&B Gregory Architects 341, 343 Pirandello, L. 470
Pabst, W.B. 71–2 Pirkovič, J. 321–2
Pacca, B. Cardinal 264 Pius VII, Pope 264
Pace, G.G. 362 Pius XI, Pope 349
Padron-Lopez, G. 245 Pizzigoni, V. 464n
Padron-Lopez, M. 245 Plečnik, J. 232, 321
Pagano, G. 374, 382n, 464n Plośko, J. 210
Pahlavi, M.R., Shah of Persia 138–9 Pocock, S. 22n
Palmer, M. 403n Poelzig, H. 300
Palumbo, E. 42 Pokorný, Z. 233
Pani, M. 106 Pokrovsky, I. 309
Pantović, M. 315 Polat, E.O. 332, 334
Parisi, R. 4, 395, 401n Polevitzky, I.B. 99
Parlagreco, S. 301 Pollini, G. 459
Parzik, K. 220 Ponti, G. 28–9, 165, 376, 459, 462
Pashako, F. 199–200 Popov, P. 224
Patiño, M. 94 Popović, V. 292
Paulicelli, A. 202 Poretti, S. 464n
Pavić, M. 225 Porfirio Díaz, J. de la Cruz 105
Pavone, C. 402n Porro, R. 98–9
Payot, L. 329–30 Portaluppi, P. 447–8
Pecić, M. 268 Portinar, C. 84
Pedretti, B. 20n Portoghesi, P. 378, 423
Peelen, E. 402n Porumbescu, N. 306
Peil, M. 364n Posada, J.J. 94
Peña Suárez, M. de la 324 Posokhin, I. 309
Pengfei, Z. 126 Postma, J.D. 262
Percy Thomas Partnership 347 Povar, I. 290
Pereira, P. 304 Powell, R. 370n
Pereira, W.L. 172 Prager, K. 233
Peressutti, E. see BBPR Prelovšek, D. 322
Pérez, F. 91 Price, G.M. 401n
Perham, M. 364n Pritchard, M. 347
Perret, A. 455–6 Pritzker, C. 423
Persico, E. 374, 382n Pritzker, J. 423
Pessoa, A. 303 Prudon, T.H.M. 20n, 33n, 465n
Index of names 497
Pszczółkowski, M. 301 Riegl, A. 11, 19, 20n, 219, 232
Purini, F. 4, 372, 378, 382n Riesco, H. 91
Putnam, T. 403n Rietveld, G. 295, 454
Pyla, P. 230, 416n Riewoldt, O. 402n
Pym, F. 342 Rifkind, D. 21n
Rigamonti, G. 198
Qaboos bin Said Al Said, Sultan of Oman Rigol, I. 100
162–3 Ripinsky, N. 151
Quaroni, L. 374, 376, 378, 436–7 Ristic, J. 269
Querkraft 207–8 Rivera, D. 106
Quesada Garland, L.M. 107 Rivero, A.L. 402n
Quintana, A. 99 Riza, E. 200

Quirós Alvarado, T. 95 Robert, Y. 43
Quist, W. 21n Roberto, M. 84
Robertson, H. 86
Rabinbach, A.G. 401n Robinson, C. 440n
Raça, A. 200 Rodriguez Vega, E. 97
Radević, S.K. 292 Rodríguez, E.L. 100
Rading, A. 300 Rodríguez, F. 103
Radulović, V. 293 Rogers, E.N. see BBPR
Rago, G. 117 Rogers, R. 339, 376, 378, 380, 396,
Ragon, M. 21n 455
Ragot, G. 243 Rohn, I. 103
Rahman Eghbali, S. 140 Rojas, Á. 100
Rahman, M. 125 Rosnay, J. de 402n
Raid, A. 237 Rossem, V. van 296
Rais, I. 220 Rossi, A. 374
Ramalho, J.R. 402n Rossini, G. 312
Rappaport, N. 402n Rougé, L. 416n
Rashid Bin Saeed Al-Maktoum, Sheikh, Emir Rouissi, F. 78
of Dubai 183 Rowe, P.G. 155
Rašić, I. 267 Rubanenko, B.R. 150
Raspopović, I. 314–15 Ruby, A. 402n
Rattray, C. 343 Ruby, I. 402n
Ratushny, Y. 151 Rudberg, E. 298
Ravnikar, E. 320–1 Rudnev, L. 210
Ravnikar, V. 322 Rudny, V. 309
Raw, K.M. 346–7 Rudolff, B. 122
Rawls, J. 472, 473n Rui, H. 404n
Ray-Jones, T. 435–6 Ruseckaitė, I. 278
Rct, S. 146 Ruskin, J. 235
Rechter, J. 141–2 Rutherford, J. 370n
Rechter, Z. 141–2 Rоtеr-Blаgојеvić, М. 315
Reda, S. 68–9
Regaleira, V. 38 Sabatino, M. 382n
Reichlin, B. 451n Sacripanti, M. 376
Reidy, A.E. 84 Sadegh, A. 139
Reklaitė, J. 278 Sadikin, A. 135
Ren, G.Y. 49 Saenz, F.J. de Oíza 411
Renard, C. 81 Sainciuc, L. 290
Repellin, D. 451n Sakakura, J. 145, 387–9
Repton, H. 409 Sakulpanich, R. 182
Revell, V. 86–7 Salam, A. 155
Rewal, R. 132 Salama, A.M. 4, 173, 365, 370–71nn
Richel-Bottinga, S. 296 Salami, I.O. 363n
Ridolfi, M. 376 Salgado, M. 302
Riegert, K. 402n Saliba, R. 155
498 Index of names
Saliya, Y. 366, 370n Sharp, D. 254
Salman, Y. 334 Sharq, S. 367
Salmona, R. 92, 94 Shasore, L. 67
Salvisberg, O.R. 300, 448 Shaw, T.M. 70
Samonà, G. 378 Shchusev, A. 247
Sanamyan, O. 205 Shiffer, R.A. 112
Sánchez del Río Pisón, I. 323 Shipley, I. 159
Sanchez, L.M. 325 Shizhao 126
Sand, J. 416n Shtolko, V.G. 335
Sandri, M.G. 21n Shull, C.D. 112
Sanou, O. 97 Shulman, J. 432
Sant’Elia, A. 372–3 Silaban, F. 160

Santos, C.C. dos 63 Silapakanok, J. 181
Sanyal, S. 132 Šillinger, K. 318
Sanz Salla, C.O. 20n Silva Contreras, M.E. 402n
Sap, P. see Querkraft Silva Mousinho de Albuquerque, L. da 302
Sardarov, A.S. 215 Silva, L.T. da 39
Sarkis, H. 155 Silva, K.D. 158
Sarno, R. 465n Simms, H.G. 262
Sarquis J. 416n Simons, T. 239
Sava, V. 290 Siri, R.F. 114
Savinio, A. 374 Sirisrisak, T. 182
Scalco, T. 5, 421 Siza, A. 31
Scalvini, M.L. 21n Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP 184
Scarpa, C. 372, 455, 457 Skrypnyk, P.I. 337
Scheurmann, I. 251 Šlapeta, V. 233
Schittich, C. 403n Slater, T. 417n
Schlup, M. 450 Slaton, D. 112
Schmal, P.C. 260 Slawik, H. 402n
Schmit, P.P. 281 Smiljanić, D. 220
Schoentjes, R. 41 Smith, T. 401n
Schofield, J. 403n Snodin, M. 423, 431
Schön, E. 226 Snøhetta 297
Schröder, I. 55 Socolescu, T. 306
Šćitaroci, M.O. 227 Sohaib, S. 165
Scott Tallon Walker Architects 261–2 Sołtysik, M.J. 301
Scott, K. 361–2 Somorjay, S. 257
Secil, C. 310 Sonne, W. 251
Seelow, A.M. 260 Soria, J. 107, 109
Segarra Lagunes¸ M. 106 Soromenho, M. 304
Seier+Seier 234 Sosrodihardjo, K. see Sukarno
Seif, O. 46 Sostres i Maluquer, J.M. 202
Selassie, H. Emperor of Ethopia 51 Spânu, A.-L. 306
Selva, L. de 188 Spārītis, O. 272
Selyhanov, S. 213–14 Sparke, P. 416n
Semmens, H. 87 Spence, B. 194, 345
Sen, A.K. 473n Sperling, S. 402n
Sennott, R.S. 22n Spiteri, J. 286
Seoane, E. 107–8 Sprinkle Jr, J.H. 22n, 112
Sepmann, H. 237 St John Wilson, C. 338–9
Sert, J.L. 324 Stakhovich, O. 214
Sesto, F. 116–17 Stamatovic Vučković, S. 291, 293
Shabanov, M. 210 Staņa, M. 271
Shackel, P.A. 403n Stanley Price, N. 20n
Shaimaa, A. 46 Steedman, R.R. see Morris & Steedman
Shamruk, A.S. 215 Stefanita, I. 290
Shan, J. 128 Stephenson & Turner 195
Index of names 499
Stewart, G. 88 Thu, N.V. 186
Stiefel, B.L. 20n Thurston, P. 452n
Stigliano, M. 200 Tinney, S. 402n
Stiller, A. 281 Tinoco, J.J. 63–4
Stirling, J. 338 Tisnado, R. 162
Stone, E.D. 165 Tjahjono, G. 136
Štraus, I. 221 Tkhilava, T. 246
Strautmanis, I. 272 Tokarev, M. 284
Stropin, F. 192 Tokmagambetov, Y. 151–2
Stubbs, J.H. 20n, 32–3nn Toledo, F. de, viceroy of Peru 107
Studio F 64 29 Tomé, M. 304
Stuers, V. de 294–5 Tomić, M. 268

Štulc, J. 233 Tonna, J. 287
Suárez, I. 90 Tønnesen, A. 236
Suárez, J. 323 Topalov, C. 416n
Sukarno 135 Topuz, H.V. 335
Sutlić, K. 227 Torosyan, J. 204
Švácha, R. 233 Tostȍes, A.C. dos Santos 304
Sylla, A. 70 Toudoire, M. 36
Syllas, L. de 355–6 Toulier, B. 43, 245, 465n
Sysoev, G. 214 Tournikiotis, P. 21n
Szalatnai-Slatinsky, A. 318 Tovmasyan, M.Z. 206
Szczerski, A. 301 Trevallion, B.A.W. 357, 364n
Szrogh, G. 257 Tumanishvili, D. 32n
Tutlytė, J. 278
Tafuri, M. 21n, 374, 378 Tvarožek, J. 318
Tägil, T. 298 Tzigal, V. 214
Tala N’gai, F. 42 Tzonis, A. 21n
Tamanian, A. 204–5
Tan KokChaon, C. 401n Uduku, O. 4, 355, 363–4nn
Tan, W. 402n Ugo, M. 4, 383
Tange, K. 145, 165, 386 Ukhobotov, L. 151
Taniguchi, Y. 391n Ulyanov, V.I. see Lenin
Tatsuno, K. 385–6 Underwood, J.L. 69
Taylor, F. 32n Urabe, S. 383–4
Taylor, J.L. 155 Urban, F. 416n
Taylor, K. 134 Urbanik, J. 300
Techno exportstroy 66 Urošević, A. 269
Tedros, M. 48 Urrejola, P. 91
Teige, K. 220, 232 Uskoković, S. 227
Teklemariam, M. 49 Utzon, J. 28, 190, 234–6
Templ, S. 233 Uytenbogaardt, R.S. 72
Ter Minassian, T. 206
Terragni, G. 376–7 Vaccaro, G. 312
Tesar, H. 208 Valera-Turalba, M.C. 170
Testa, C. 80 Valgums, V. 270, 272
Tetzlaff, M.M. 53 Valtrović, M. 314
Thake, C. 287 Vamero, C. 48
Thakur, N. 134 Van Grunderbeek, A. 41
Theocharopoulou, I. 416n Van Loo, A. 218
Thewes, G. 281 Vancaš, J. 219
Thijssen, T. 402n Vanlaethem, F. 88
Thomas, P. see Percy Thomas Partnership Vardosanidze, V. (Lado) 248
Thomson, R.G. 20n Vargas Vargas, E. 96
Thor, B. 309 Varosio, F. 431n
Thorvaldsson, T.S. 258–9 Vasconcellos, E. 84
Throsby, D. 473n Vaso, P. 199
500 Index of names
Vaughan Richards, A. 67, 361–2, 364 White, S. see McKim, Mead and White
Vayner, I. 335 Whittle, J. 339
Vázquez Molezún, R. 324 Wiedmann, F. 173, 370n
Vecherskyy, V. 337 Wilford, M. 338–9
Vécsei, I. 318 William I of the Netherlands, Prince of
Vela, S. 203 Orange 279
Veneziano, A. 115 William II of the Netherlands, Grand Duke
Verlag, S. 402n of Luxembourg 280
Veronesi, G. 374, 381 William Arrol & C. Sir 345
Videla, E.M.C. 81 William, O. 398
Vilamajó, J. 114 Williams, A. 80
Vilhjalmsson, M. 258–9 Williams, C. 108

Villanueva, C.R. 116 Williamson, O.E. 469, 473n
Villarán, M. 108 Willing, M. 431n
Viñuales, G.M. 82 Wilson, C. 339
Visconti, G. 31 Wilson, C.St.J. 339
Visone, M. 1, 3, 9, 20n, 32n, 266 Winler, H.M. 422
Vitiu, E. 290 Wirjoatmodjo, S. 135
Vittorini, R. 5, 453 Womersley, P. 345
Vivas, F. 117 Wray, T. 440n
Vlugt, L.C. van der 399, 459–60 Wright, F.L. 145, 165, 454, 464n, 469
Vodopivec, A. 321 Wright, T. 184
Voinot, J. 36 Wülffleff, C.-A. 69
Volait, M. 46 Wyly, E.K. 417n
Volcheck, V. 214
Vollaard, P. 296 Xu, Y. 126
Voltan, A.M. 350
Von Schultz, U. 328 Yamazaki, Y. 383, 390n
Vorobjov, S. 272 Yang, L. 128
Vos, E. de 416n Yang, Y. 128
Vrh, C. 220 Yarwood, J. 122
Vries, P. de 294–5 Yasinsky, R. 335
Yeltsin, B. 309
Wade, A. 69 Ylimaula, A.-M. 242
Wagenaar, C. 416n Yöney, N.B. 334
Wal, A.J. van der 294 Yoshida, N. 385
Wallenstein, S.-O. 328, 416n Yoshimura, J. 145, 388–9, 391n
Wang, W. 263 Yoshiyuki, Y. 391n
Warren & Mahoney Architects 194 Yoshizaka, T. 145
Warzée, G. 218 YRM International architects & planners 162
Watkin, D. 9, 20n Yu, X. 128
Webster, A. 55
Wedebrunn, O. 236, 260, 298 Zaghouani, I.K. 78
Weinwurm, F. 318 Zahra, Q.A. 125
Weiss, J. 99 Zakić, Z. 268
Weiß, K.D. 403n Zanfi, F. 416n
Weitling, O. 235 Zani, G. 312
Welling, H.G. 298 Zankovich, V. 213–14
Welzbacher, C. 251 Zapata, C. 187
Wen, X. 128 Zardini, M. 431n
Wenger, S. 362 Zardoya Loureda, M.V. 100
West, F.G. 339 Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nayan, Sheikh, Emir of
Wetterberg, O. 328 Abu Dhabi 184
Wetzk, V. 402n Zeman, L. 233
White, J. 417n Zerda, J.L. 403n
Index of names 501
Zevi, B. 9, 374, 378, 382n Zöldy, E. 257
Zewditu, Empress of Ethiopia 50 Zorec, M. 322
Žeželj, B. 315 Zschokke, W. 209
Zhang, T.-T. 402n Zubairu, S.N. 67
Zhylytskyi, P.N. 335 Zumthor, P. 432
Zittlau, R. 402n Zupan, G. 322

Conservation Policies For 20th Century Architectural Heritage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conservation Policies For 20th Century Architectural Heritage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 05:59 09 May 2017

“This extensive work is a critical examination and comparison of heritage protec-

Massimo Visone is Adjunct Professor in History of Architecture at the University of

has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,

1 The shadow line: architecture between time and history 9

Malta – Moldova – Montenegro – Netherlands – Norway – Poland –

Index of places 474

1.1 Gabriele Basilico, Monte-Carlo 05-A12-137, 2005. (Collection 10

Johannesburg, 1948. (Brendan Hart, 2016)

1962. (Gregorius Antar Awal, 2005)

7.24 Andrija Mutnjaković, National and University Library, Pristina, 267

11.5 Mayekawa Kunio, Kanagawa Prefectural Library and Music 388

16.4 Ludovico Quaroni, Church of Santa Maria Maggiore, 437

Canada, Michael McClelland, Era Architects Inc.

Finland, Anna-Maija Ylimaula, University of Oulu

Switzerland, Giulia Marino, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (Tsam)

she acts as conservator, curator and independent researcher.

Docomomo as an organization recognised worldwide it’s its capacity to develop ini-

History and preservation

dimensions to the ambivalent geographies of architecture that offer fresh opportuni-

Heritage and globalization

Figure 1.3 Louis Hellman, Architect’s Journal, 20.11.15

in cooperation between the Weimar Bauhaus University and Dortmund Technische

the importance of the ‘masters’ of modern architecture needs to be assessed as

27 http://www.atrium-see.eu/ (accessed on July 15, 2016).

Time factor (memory)

great interest or in danger of deterioration or destruction.25 Similarly, in Western Asia,

implemented, to be monitored over time.

Relational value (identities)

Monument and context (heritages) – planning for protection

Pierre, 2012), p. 10.

AFRICA Ghana Algeria, Angola, Democratic

Movement, considered the geographical and socio-economic reality of the country.

promoted by the Institute of Planning and Urban Management of Luanda (2015). It is

Palumbo, Auguste Arsac or Olivier-Clément Cacoub and, at a later stage, Congolese

architecture were re-appropriated through artistic interventions. Such exploratory work

http://www.cultnat.org (in English)

constructed, and the once state-of-the-art infrastructure deteriorated to the point of

Figure 3.6 Arturo Mezzedimi, City Hall, Addis Ababa, 1961–1964

http://archiafrika.org (in English)

the maintenance of buildings. Independence (1963) created an additional ambiguity

Casamemoire, Association for the Preservation of the Twentieth-Century Architectural Heritage

Mozambique has a considerable legacy regarding its twentieth-century architecture,

Figure 3.11 National Arts Theatre, Iganmu, 1976. Listed in 2009

Nigeria has a comprehensive record of traditional buildings written by Zbigniew

more, modern constructions were limited by antiquated by-laws which fortunately

The Heritage Portal:

A country of Arab-Muslim tradition, Tunisia is resolutely committed to the contem-

position that also intangible values are treated.

Arquitectura moderna y Estado en la Argentina. Edificios para Correos y Telecomunicaciones.

ernist Architecture because it was originally designed by Le Corbusier for another

Heritage conservation has developed in Canada much as it had developed in other

Bellas Artes were only listed in the 1970s.

tura y diseño, 79 (2012): 24–30.

the architectural constructions such as temples, convents, chapels, houses, groups

that it is increasingly attracting more interest from academic groups, professionals,

National Organization of Historical Monuments:

Blog, The modern form in Latin America:

assisted projects affecting properties listed or determined eligible. Owners of listed

Since its formation as a nation, Uruguay received the contribution of immigratory

nacionales (in Spanish)

Modernist architecture constitutes part of a distinctive feature of Venezuela’s identity,

of assigning and administering national monuments.