Change Over Time 4.2 by Change Over Time Journal

Change Over Time

UPCOMING ISSUES Vandalism SPRING 2015

Landscape and Climate Change FALL 2015

Ruskin Redux SPRING 2016

National Park Service Centenary FALL 2016

4.2

Change Over Time

AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSERVATION AND

THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

FALL 2014

EDITOR IN CHIEF

Frank Matero

University of Pennsylvania

Published by the University of Pennsylvania Press,

Change Over Time

3905 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ASSOCIATE EDITORS

Kecia L. Fong Institute for Culture and Society, University of Western Sydney

Meredith Keller University of Pennsylvania

Rosa Lowinger Rosa Lowinger & Associates, Conservation of Art + Architecture, Inc. EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Nur Akin

pennpress.org for a more detailed discussion of upcoming topics and deadlines for submission. Articles are generally restricted to 7,500 words or fewer. Guidelines for authors may be requested from Kecia Fong (cot@design.upenn.edu). None of the contents of this journal may be reproduced without prior written consent of the University of Pennsylvania Press. Authorization to photocopy is granted by the University of Pennsylvania Press for individuals and for libraries or other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transaction

Erica Avrami

with the CCC and payments are remitted directly to the CCC,

Columbia University

222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. This consent does

Luigia Binda

not extend to other kinds of copying for general distribution, for

Politecnico di Milano, Italy

advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, for database retrieval, or for resale.

University of Virginia

2015 Subscription Information (USD)

Christine Boyer

Print and electronic:

David G. De Long University of Pennsylvania

John Dixon Hunt University of Pennsylvania

Jukka Jokilehto University of Nova Gorica

David Lowenthal University College London

Randall Mason University of Pennsylvania

Robert Melnick University of Oregon

Elizabeth Milroy Philadelphia Museum of Art

Witold Rybczynski University of Pennsylvania

Steven Semes University of Notre Dame

Jeanne Marie Teutonico Getty Conservation Institute

Ron Van Oers

VOLUME 4

World Heritage Institute of Training and Research for Asia and the Pacific (WHITRAP)

NUMBER 2

Fernando Vegas Universitat Politècnica de València

ISSN 2153-053X

themed issue Ruskin Redux (Spring 2016). Please visit cot.

Reporting Service, provided that all required fees are verified

Princeton University School of Architecture

FALL 2014

Change Over Time is currently seeking papers for the upcoming

Istanbul Kultur University, Turkey

Daniel Bluestone

Change Over Time

Printed in the U.S.A. on acid-free paper.

Individuals: $35.00; Students: $20.00; Institutions: $72.00. Single Issues: $20.00. International orders, please add $18.00 for shipping. Electronic-only: Individuals: $31.50; Institutions: $63.00. Subscriptions are valid January 1 through December 31. Subscriptions received after October 31 in any year become effective the following January 1. Subscribers joining mid-year will receive immediately copies of all issues of Change Over Time already in print for that year. Please direct all subscription orders, inquiries, requests for single issues, and address changes to: Penn Press Journals, 3905 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Telephone: 215.573.1295. Fax. 215.746.3636. Email: journals@pobox. upenn.edu. Prepayment is required. Orders may be charged to MasterCard, Visa, American Express, and Discover credit cards. Checks and money orders should be made payable to ‘‘University

Running an ad or special announcement in Change Over Time is a great way to get publication, program, and meeting information out to those in your field. Change Over Time is a semiannual journal focused on publishing original, peer-reviewed research papers and review articles on the history, theory, and praxis of conservation and the built environment. Each issue is dedicated to a particular theme as a method to promote critical discourse on contemporary conservation issues from multiple perspectives both within the field and across disciplines. Forthcoming issues will address topics such as Landscape and Climate Change, Vandalism, and Ruskin Redux. 2015 Advertising Rates Ads are inserted at the back of each issue and on cover 3 (inside back cover). Only cover 3 positioning is guaranteed. Half Page: $200

Full Page: $300

Cover 3: $350

Issue Closing Dates Season & Theme

Reservation Deadline

Artwork Deadline

Publication Date

Spring 2015 Vandalism

3/13/15

3/27/15

4/30/15

Fall 2015 Landscape and Climate Change

9/11/15

9/25/15

10/30/15

Mechanical Specifications Half Page: 5¼” x 4”

Full Page: 5¼” x 8¼”

Cover 3: 6” x 8½”

All journals are black and white and printed offset on matte stock. Ads must be emailed as print-optimized PDF files. Images should be scanned at a resolution of 300 dpi. All fonts should be embedded (type I fonts recommended). Halftones are shot at 133-line screen. No bleeds.

of Pennsylvania Press,’’ and sent to the address immediately above. All address changes and other business correspondence may be sent to the address immediately above. Typographic cover artwork by Kerry Polite. Visit Change Over Time on the web at cot.pennpress.org.

Submission Address and Contact Info Send reservations and materials, formatted according to specs, to: Emily Stevens, Journals Assistant University of Pennsylvania Press 3905 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4112 Email: emilyste@upenn.edu; Fax: 215-746-3636 A complete ad rate card may be downloaded at cot.pennpress.org by selecting the “Advertising” link from the right menu bar.

EDITOR IN CHIEF

Frank Matero

University of Pennsylvania

Published by the University of Pennsylvania Press,

Change Over Time

3905 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ASSOCIATE EDITORS

Kecia L. Fong Institute for Culture and Society, University of Western Sydney

Meredith Keller University of Pennsylvania

Rosa Lowinger Rosa Lowinger & Associates, Conservation of Art + Architecture, Inc. EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Nur Akin

Erica Avrami

with the CCC and payments are remitted directly to the CCC,

Columbia University

222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. This consent does

Luigia Binda

not extend to other kinds of copying for general distribution, for

Politecnico di Milano, Italy

advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, for database retrieval, or for resale.

University of Virginia

2015 Subscription Information (USD)

Christine Boyer

Print and electronic:

David G. De Long University of Pennsylvania

John Dixon Hunt University of Pennsylvania

Jukka Jokilehto University of Nova Gorica

David Lowenthal University College London

Randall Mason University of Pennsylvania

Robert Melnick University of Oregon

Elizabeth Milroy Philadelphia Museum of Art

Witold Rybczynski University of Pennsylvania

Steven Semes University of Notre Dame

Jeanne Marie Teutonico Getty Conservation Institute

Ron Van Oers

VOLUME 4

World Heritage Institute of Training and Research for Asia and the Pacific (WHITRAP)

NUMBER 2

Fernando Vegas Universitat Politècnica de València

ISSN 2153-053X

themed issue Ruskin Redux (Spring 2016). Please visit cot.

Reporting Service, provided that all required fees are verified

Princeton University School of Architecture

FALL 2014

Change Over Time is currently seeking papers for the upcoming

Istanbul Kultur University, Turkey

Daniel Bluestone

Change Over Time

Printed in the U.S.A. on acid-free paper.

Full Page: $300

Cover 3: $350

Issue Closing Dates Season & Theme

Reservation Deadline

Artwork Deadline

Publication Date

Spring 2015 Vandalism

3/13/15

3/27/15

4/30/15

Fall 2015 Landscape and Climate Change

9/11/15

9/25/15

10/30/15

Mechanical Specifications Half Page: 5¼” x 4”

Full Page: 5¼” x 8¼”

Cover 3: 6” x 8½”

Change Over Time AN

INTERNATIONAL OF

AND

THE

BUILT

JOURNAL

CONSERVATION ENVIRONMENT

FALL

................. 18640$

$$FM

2014

09-26-14 15:21:57

4.2 PS

PAGE i

194 Foreword: The Venice Charter at Fifty F R A N K G . M AT E R O

ESSAYS

196 Historic Cities and the Venice Charter: Contributions to the Sustainable Preservation of Urban Heritage EDUARDO ROJAS

204 From International to Cosmopolitan: Taking The Venice Charter Beyond the ‘‘State-Party’’ Politics of Experts CHRISTOPHER KOZIOL

218 Deconsecrating a Doctrinal Monument: Raymond M. Lemaire (1921–1997) and the Revisions of the Venice Charter CL AUDINE HOUBART

CONTENTS 244 Learning from a Legacy: Venice to Valletta L O E S V E L D PA U S A N D A N A P E R E I R A R O D E R S

264 Spain Under the Venice Charter CAMILL A MILETO AND FERNANDO VEGAS

286 The Place of the Venice Charter Principles in the Context of National Cultural Revival in Ukraine after 1991 K AT E R Y N A G O N C H A R O VA

................. 18640$

CNTS

09-26-14 15:21:58

PAGE ii

196

308 European Industrial and Engineering Heritage as an Illustration of Current Challenges in Deﬁning Heritage and its Uses PIERRE L ACONTE

322 The Venice Charter Down Under: Its Legacy in Landscape Preservation

204

JANE LENNON

338 The Venice Charter and Cultural Landscapes: Evolution of Heritage Concepts and Conservation Over Time CARI GOETCHEUS AND NORA MITCHELL

264 358 The Care and Management of Historic Hindu Temples in India: An Examination of Preservation Policies Inﬂuenced by the Venice Charter in Non-Judeo-Christian Contexts ASHIMA KRISHNA

388 Civilization-Making and Its Discontents: The Venice Charter and Heritage Policies in Contemporary China

286

ROBERT SHEPHERD

404 The Concept of Historic Authenticity and Its Methodology for the Preservation of Historic Urban Areas in Chinese Contexts 322

SHUJIE CHEN

................. 18640$

CNTS

09-26-14 15:22:07

PAGE iii

338

418 Riegl’s ‘‘Modern Cult of Monuments’’ and the Problem of Value MICHELE L AMPRAKOS

436 Authenticity: Principles and Notions 358

TOSHIYUKI KONO

462 Is There a Need for a Charter on . . . the Wise Use of Charters and Conventions? JEAN-LOUIS LUXEN

471

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

388 477

THE VENICE CHARTER: A BIBLIOGRAPHY

487

CALL FOR PAPERS

489

UPCOMING ISSUES

404

418

................. 18640$

CNTS

09-26-14 15:22:15

PAGE iv

Change Over Time

................. 18640$

HFTL

09-26-14 15:40:12

PAGE 193

FOREWORD: THE VENICE CHARTER AT FIF TY FRANK G. MATERO University of Pennsylvania

Attendees of the congress held at the Fondazione Cini, May 1964. (Giuseppe Fiengo through Andrea Pane)

194

................. 18640$

FRWD

09-26-14 15:22:22

PAGE 194

2014 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Second International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments and the adoption of the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, known today as the Venice Charter. Thirty-three years earlier, the First International Congress met in 1931 in Athens to rescue the field of heritage conservation from the inherited polarities of nineteenthcentury restoration and preservation to a mediated view of the past as series of discreet histories, distinct from the present. It was, however, in 1964 at the Second Congress that the concept of universal heritage was further refined as the totality of unique expressions within each country’s own cultural traditions. Such complexities were no doubt amplified in response to the wholesale destruction in postwar Europe and the increasing expansion of heritage classifications. Today, contemporary conservation still holds to the principles of the Venice Charter, while also arguing that value and significance are culturally determined, a point clearly stated in the preamble of the original Venice Charter. In recent decades a number of principles and assumptions in the Venice Charter have been challenged as our definitions of cultural heritage have changed and our relationship to that heritage has evolved. Social, economic, technological, and cultural changes demand that we critically examine the Venice Charter and its influences. In 2006 scholars and practitioners returned to Venice to redress the charter and its legacy on its fortieth anniversary. Now, ten years later, at its centenary, it is time again to reconsider the inherited tenets of heritage conservation as codified in the Venice Charter, especially given current postmodern challenges in not only defining what heritage is, but how it has been used (and abused), interpreted, and displayed. The papers presented in this special issue of Change Over Time are the final result of a two-day international symposium held on April 2–3, 2014 and cosponsored by US/ ICOMOS and The Graduate Program in Historic Preservation, School of Design at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Frank Matero, Conference Co-Chair

MATERO

................. 18640$

FRWD

09-26-14 15:22:23

195

FOREWORD

PAGE 195

HISTORIC CITIES AND THE VENICE CHARTER Contributions to The Sustainable Preservation of Urban Heritage

EDUARDO ROJAS University of Pennsylvania

Figure 1. San Francisco Square in Quito, Ecuador, on a Sunday. (Eduardo Rojas)

196

................. 18640$

$CH1

09-26-14 15:22:15

PAGE 196

The Preservation of Urban Heritage: An Idea from Modern Times

The opening statements of the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites—commonly known as The Venice Charter 1964—tell us about the scope and depth of its origins. They express the concern for history and its material expressions, which is: Imbued with a message from the past, the historic monuments of generations of people remain to the present day as living witnesses of their age-old traditions.1 They articulate the universality of the values of this heritage. People are becoming more and more conscious of the unity of human values and regard ancient monuments as a common heritage.2 With these considerations in mind, the charter articulates the challenge for architects and technicians of historic monuments gathered in 1964 in Venice as holding: The common responsibility to safeguard . . . [the historic monuments] . . . for future generations . . . [and] . . . to hand them on in the full richness of their authenticity.3 In its conceptual makeup, the charter is a product of its time. It is strongly inﬂuenced by the ideals of the international movement in architecture and is the embodiment of a reaction to the romantic reconstruction and improvement approach used by the conservators of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This is evident in the charter’s call for the recourse to all the sciences in the practice of conservation and restoration in Article 2, and it is also present in many of its detailed recommendations. A few are worth mentioning: the monuments should be intervened with minimally, and any intervention should show respect for the original materials (Article 9); and when interventions are needed, each should bear a clear contemporary stamp so as to differentiate it from the monument’s original material(s) and/or design (Article 9). The charter also departed from the early tradition that focused on the preservation of an individual monument and recognized in Articles 1, 6, 7, and 14 that the preservation

ROJAS

................. 18640$

197

HISTORIC CITIES AND THE VENICE CHARTER

$CH1

09-26-14 15:22:16

PAGE 197

of a monument should also encompass the preservation of its setting. Moreover, it indicates in Article 5 that the preservation of a monument is facilitated if it is put to ‘‘some socially useful purpose.’’4 The Venice Charter provided scholars and practitioners with internationally agreed upon principles to guide the preservation and restoration of ancient buildings, but allowed each country to apply the established principles within the framework of its own culture and traditions. Much has happened in fifty years and it is most appropriate to take a fresh look at the Venice charter. The focus here is to trace the charter’s contribution to the study and practice of urban heritage preservation and the challenges that the profession currently faces. This endeavor, however, would be incomplete if no proper consideration were given to the different charters, norms, recommendations, conventions, resolutions, and other documents approved by ICOMOS and UNESCO in the last fifty years that expanded the scope of the international concern for our material and intangible heritage and provided guidelines for its preservation. The list is long and varied, each making its unique contribution to expand the scope of the concern for material heritage. This is the case for the Nara Document on Authenticity of 1994, which provides this broad perspective and stresses that authenticity is the essential, qualifying factor concerning the values of heritage. It specifies that authenticity includes the monument’s ‘‘form and design, materials and substance, use and function, traditions and techniques, location and setting, and spirit and feeling.’’ Most of the other documents further expand the concepts of urban heritage preservation from individual monuments to neighborhoods and towns.

The Preservation of Historic Neighborhoods and Towns: A Growing Concern The recommendations of the Burra Charter of 1979 extend beyond the individual monument and include the preservation of ‘‘places of cultural signiﬁcance.’’5 The Washington Charter of 1987 further expanded the concern for historic towns and other historic urban areas as an integral part of the social and economic development of urban communities. The Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage of 1999 expanded the concern of the international community of conservators to the value of buildings. The latest international document, the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape of 2011, expanded the scope of the analysis and practice of urban heritage preservation beyond the monuments and the physical components of towns and historic neighborhoods to encompass the urban areas understood as the result of a historic layering of cultural and natural values and attributes, extending beyond the notion of ‘‘historic center’’ or ‘‘ensemble’’ to include the greater urban context and its geographical setting. The expanding concerns of the international community of practitioners matched the growing interest of cultural elites in advocating for the preservation of the historic city beyond the monuments contained within city limits. Preservation specialists joined town planners and architects in advocating and devising methods to preserve the vast number of historic towns and centers. The movement that started in Europe in the second half of the twentieth century had followers in Latin America in the late twentieth century and later progressed in Asia and Africa in the early twenty-ﬁrst century. Furthermore,

198

CHANGE OVER TIME

................. 18640$

$CH1

09-26-14 15:22:17

PAGE 198

local communities around the world show a strong determination to preserve their historic neighborhoods and their ways of living, which are threatened by predatory real estate investments in poorly regulated but rapidly growing globalized cities. Therefore, the concern for urban heritage preservation that was initially focused on the historic monument and the public spaces surrounding them evolved to encompass whole neighborhoods, historic centers, and historic towns. The preservation of urban heritage areas has gradually gained voice as a social concern in many countries and, more importantly, has also gained political legitimacy as an area of government intervention in some. The expansion of the international community’s concern for preserving urban heritage sites runs parallel with the evolution of the concepts and principles guiding the practice and the institutions responsible for heritage preservation. Two aspects are worth noting. First, today we have a more profound understanding of the variety of social and cultural values held by urban heritage sites and a greater appreciation of the economic use value of their buildings. The conceptualization of urban heritage as cultural capital that provides a ﬂow of sociocultural services and as an input for production allows a more precise appreciation of its contribution to development and provides additional reasons for their preservation. Second, we also have a better understanding of the factors behind the functional and physical obsolescence of historic centers and urban heritage areas and numerous urban rehabilitation experiences that have successfully reversed these processes of obsolescence. These experiences provide a wealth of validated knowledge on the most effective strategies to revert the deterioration processes affecting urban heritage sites.

What the Venice Charter Does Not Tell The Venice Charter and subsequent documents provide a clear guide on how to preserve urban heritage. However, they are less precise or even silent in defining what to preserve and through which means. Determining the societal value of urban heritage sites remains a difficult issue. What heritage means to experts in history or in the arts may not be so important for other members of the community, and the appreciation for the continuation of sociocultural services that heritage provides may vary significantly from community to community. The relative importance of individual buildings or public spaces can differ significantly—ranging from world-renowned monuments to regional or local heritage sites known only within restricted territorial boundaries. Preservation advocates still struggle with the thorny issues of what to preserve and to what extent those sites should be preserved. The response to this challenge varies from country to country and has evolved over time. The initial top-down and mostly normative approach to listing urban heritage sites is giving way to a more participative and open process that captures the interests and objectives of numerous stakeholders. However, only rarely are the outcomes of this process fully and effectively integrated into urban planning instruments, so that urban heritage sites to be preserved (and the extent of preservation required) become part of the urban plan that serves as the democratically approved social contract among citizens, defining what landowners can or cannot do with their properties to preserve the community’s

ROJAS

................. 18640$

199

HISTORIC CITIES AND THE VENICE CHARTER

$CH1

09-26-14 15:22:17

PAGE 199

interests. But for a handful of countries worldwide, the preservation community faces a challenge in going beyond identifying urban heritage sites in national lists under the purview of cultural institutions and making the preservation of their social and cultural values part and parcel of the planning instruments regulating urban development. The financial resources needed to preserve urban heritage are another area of contention, although the Venice Charter—and many of the other documents that followed it— advocate principally for government intervention that implicity calls for the use of public funds to preserve heritage. In the early stages of concern for preserving urban heritage, the interest of cultural elites is usually matched by sporadic support from private philanthropy and, in some exceptional cases, by the direct support of governments. This is a stage when the preservation of urban heritage is mostly a ‘‘concern of the elite.’’ As the preservation of urban heritage gains political legitimacy, it becomes a concern of governments, thus giving rise to a new set of issues. Initially most governments opt to support heritage as a merit good, making it an object of public expenditure. Government funds are then invested in the preservation of significant monuments—some public, and others in private hands. On occasion the government spends public funds in the preservation of portions of historic centers. This approach is expedient, but has many drawbacks that have been well documented. Two are worth mentioning: • First, it is known that the preservation and rehabilitation of urban heritage produces many private benefits that are mostly linked to its economic use values. It is therefore unfair, inefficient, and unsustainable for the public sector to shoulder all of the costs of preservation efforts. Unfairness stems from the possibility of public expenditures subsidizing individual owners and users who might otherwise be capable of paying for the majority of the related costs. Because the public sector bears the costs of preservation—an inefficient and ineffective system—other stakeholders crowd out, and the system fails to mobilize the potential contributions of private stakeholders. • The second drawback of this approach is that in extreme cases, a proactive public sector not only prevents potential private investments but also undertakes the impossible task of operating and maintaining, with limited resources, a vast array of heritage buildings and public spaces. Resources for the preservation of heritage are notoriously scarce. Total expenditures for heritage preservation are relatively small in almost all countries; thus, governments—even in the most advanced countries—face severe budget constraints to pursue this approach to heritage preservation.

Adaptive Rehabilitation as a Sustainable Approach to Preserving Urban Heritage The conceptual and practical problems related to direct public expenditure on heritage preservation led governments to begin guiding market forces toward the preservation of

200

CHANGE OVER TIME

................. 18640$

$CH1

09-26-14 15:22:18

PAGE 200

urban heritage. The public sector approach began to combine direct expenditure with taxation and regulations to attract private agents to preserve and make good use of urban heritage sites. It also became common for governments to offer tax incentives to private owners of heritage properties either as a stimulus for their preservation efforts or to compensate for the extra expense of maintenance. Governments also provided subsidies to individuals or organizations that preserved heritage. The use of these financial tools is often contested in terms of the opportunity cost of public resources, particularly in lowincome countries. Almost all countries use regulations to preserve urban heritage. Hard regulations like land-use and building statutes impose restrictions on the activities of individuals or corporations in order to align their behavior with the government’s policy objective of preserving heritage. There are also soft regulations like design guidelines that are mostly unenforceable. This non-monetary tool of government intervention effectively transfers the costs of preservation to the owners of the buildings. Many urban development experts criticize the regulations that modify the property rights of private owners of heritage buildings, objecting to their potential rigidity and the distortions that they introduce into markets, along with alleged subjectivity as they mostly represent the opinion of experts. The combined effect of the use of these methods is that urban heritage is regarded as a financial and urban planning liability for the development of the cities. The limitations of these traditional instruments to guide markets toward wellpreserved urban heritage areas call for new approaches and intervention instruments. The new goal is to preserve the socio-cultural values embodied in urban heritage areas by turning them into well-functioning spaces of the city where buildings and public places retain their characteristic heritage value as a result of being used and maintained to satisfy contemporary needs of a wide variety of social actors. The key to achieving this sustainable approach to heritage preservation is to allow the adaptive rehabilitation of heritage buildings and public spaces and to attract a wide variety of users and investors to the heritage area. Realizing these objectives requires employing analytical methods and intervention instruments of the preservation and urban planning disciplines. The objective is to turn urban heritage into an asset for the development of the city. Satisfying the needs of contemporary urban activities and real estate market demand through adaptive rehabilitation requires regulations that are flexible and approved and enforced with the concurrence of the community. The focus of historic preservation analysis and regulation should be to determine the ‘‘carrying capacity’’ of heritage buildings and public spaces. That is, determine a heritage building or site’s capacity to accommodate contemporary uses without losing its heritage values. The focus of urban planning analyses and interventions is to improve the infrastructure, accessibility, and quality of the public spaces of heritage areas in order to create favorable conditions to attract new users and investors. However, achieving the right combination of public interventions and incentives to private investments poses a considerable governance problem.

ROJAS

................. 18640$

201

HISTORIC CITIES AND THE VENICE CHARTER

$CH1

09-26-14 15:22:19

PAGE 201

The Good Governance of Urban Heritage Areas: A Key to Their Sustainable Preservation Success in the governance of urban heritage areas under this approach means that a community manages to make adequate use of its institutions, structures of authority, and collaboration among stakeholders to attain a sustained preservation of its urban heritage. Successful governance of the urban heritage preservation process requires achieving a delicate balance between preservation and development; between preserving sociocultural values and allowing interventions that incorporate contemporary uses into heritage buildings and sites. As with any situation in which there are significant trade-offs, achieving this balance requires reaching agreements among the stakeholders concerning the relative importance of the social-cultural values of heritage, and the limits of the adaptive transformations allowed and the contributions made by the new users and stakeholders attracted to the area. In other words, it requires the careful weighing of the trade-offs between conservation, adaptation, and development. To attain such a balance, several changes are needed in the institutions, structures of authority, and means of collaboration among stakeholders. The regulations affecting the use of urban heritage sites must progress from preventing au trance changes to its attributes and uses to promoting the sensible adaptive rehabilitation of the buildings and public spaces to satisfy contemporary needs. Further, communities need to revise the role played by institutions caring for their heritage. This needs to evolve from an overconcern for the preservation of monumental heritage to a focus on sustainable use, conservation, and development of a wide array of urban heritage assets that can be put to work to further the sustainable development of the broader city. This implies that the position in the city government structure of the institutions caring for urban heritage should move to the core of the group of agencies promoting the social and economic development of the community. The preservation of urban heritage should also cease to be the sole responsibility of the local, state, or federal government. The procedures for managing urban heritage need to move away from transferring all of the costs of preservation to the private owners of monuments and buildings. They should evolve toward mechanisms that coordinate the contributions of all interested stakeholders in preserving and developing heritage assets, including the government, private philanthropy, and beneficiary communities. In sum, the sustainability of the urban heritage preservation process is enhanced when an urban heritage site becomes attractive for a wide variety of social actors interested in a diversity of values. The preservation efforts that rest on the adequate promotion of the economic values of urban heritage provide a greater chance to preserve socioeconomic values. This approach requires a flexible attitude to preservation to allow the adaptation of urban heritage sites—public and private—to new uses with social or market demand. This process supports the principle that change is the essence of cities and that the cities and their neighborhoods are constantly in transition. Freezing the physical characteristics and uses of urban heritage sites precludes change and can easily turn the prospects of a preservation process from being an engine of socioeconomic development

202

CHANGE OVER TIME

................. 18640$

$CH1

09-26-14 15:22:20

PAGE 202

through the sustained adaptive rehabilitation of heritage areas to accommodate new uses to the cause of abandonment and physical decay. The arguments advanced here suggest that avoiding the latter always requires accomplishing the former. The drafters of the Venice Charter were wise in establishing principles for the preservation and restoration of monuments and sites that are of universal and permanent validity. They were also right in calling for governments to play a significant role within their own traditions and institutional arrangements. Their work was significantly complemented by the drafters of subsequent charters and related documents that expanded the concern for monuments and their surroundings to whole historic centers and neighborhoods. Their contributions inspired generations of preservationists and town planners to advocate for and ensure the preservation of the vast urban heritage of mankind. The arguments advanced here suggest that the size and complexity of the task, together with our new understanding of the expanded role of urban heritage assets in the social and economic development of our communities, call for new management approaches. The sustained preservation of heritage assets requires continuous use to satisfy contemporary needs. The contribution of all stakeholders is required in order to achieve this state of affairs, a situation that poses a significant governance problem that can only be resolved by recognizing heritage as a central concern of the urban development process as well as the institutions in charge of ensuring balanced social and economic development in urban communities. The time has arrived for the preservation community to agree on universally valid principles of urban heritage governance that complement the preservation principles of the Venice Charter.

References 1. ICOMOS, International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter) (Paris: ICOMOS, 1964), accessed August 15, 2014, http://www.icomos.org/en/component/ content/article/179–articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/157–the-venice-charter. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid., Article 5. 5. Australia ICOMOS, The Burra Charter, (Australia ICOMOS, 1999), accessed August 15, 2014, http:// australia.icomos.org/publications/charters/.

ROJAS

................. 18640$

203

HISTORIC CITIES AND THE VENICE CHARTER

$CH1

09-26-14 15:22:20

PAGE 203

THE VENICE CHARTER: A BIBLIOGRAPHY Complied by Alyssa Lozupone and Frank Matero ‘‘The Actuality of the Venice Charter.’’ Scientific Journal: The Venice Charter 1964–2004: ICOMOS 4 (ICOMOS, 1994). This article is a summary of the commentaries made during the 1990 International Symposium. It reviews the praises and critiques of the Venice Charter identified by the national committees, as well as the recommendation for the creation of a ‘‘parallel text’’ that would remedy the charter’s shortcomings. Adam, Robert. ‘‘Does Heritage Dogma Destroy Living History?’’ Context: Institute of Historic Building Conservation 79 (2003): 7–11. In this article Robert Adam criticizes the Athens, Venice, and Krakow Charters for only reinforcing the ‘‘principles of the previous document,’’ a phenomena he refers to as ‘‘mission creep.’’ To explain this concept, he compares the three charters. Ahmad, Yahaya. ‘‘The Scope and Definitions of Heritage: From Tangible to Intangible.’’ International Journal of Heritage Studies 12, no. 3 (2006): 292–300. This article compares the Venice Charter with subsequent charters adopted by UNESCO and ICOMOS and discusses how the definitions and principles of the charter have been reinterpreted over time. Apell, Robert. ‘‘The Charter of Venice and the Conservation of Monuments of the Modern Movement.’’ First International DOCOMOMO Conference: Conference Proceedings, DOCOMOMO, 1991. This article discusses the need for the Venice Charter and the historical context surrounding its creation. The author also discusses the Modern Movement and the preservation challenges modern architecture presents to the charter’s principles. The author pinpoints articles from within the charter and how they are compatible (or not) with modern architecture. ‘‘The Application of the Venice Charter.’’ Scientific Journal: The Venice Charter 1964– 2004, ICOMOS 5 (2004): 59.

477

................. 18640$

CH17

09-26-14 15:30:56

PAGE 477

This short article discusses the translation of the Venice Charter and ‘‘complementary charters’’ that have been created since the 1964 document. Araoz, Gustavo F. Jr., and Brian L. Schmuecker. Discrepancies Between U.S. National Preservation Policy and the Charter of Venice. ICOMOS, 1987. The catalyst for this paper was the growing concern within the field that preservation in the United States was diverging from the restoration norms and practices of the Venice Charter. The authors compare the history and contents of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation with the charter to support or disprove this concern. Bouras, Charalambos. ‘‘Strict and Less Strict Adherence to the Principles of Anastylosis of the Ancient Monuments in Greece.’’ The Acropolis Restoration News 9 (2009): 2–8. In this article the author briefly discusses the history of the Venice Charter. He mentions that while nothing within the charter has changed, ‘‘discussions on bringing it up to date have been held two times.’’ The remainder of the document discusses the principles of the Venice Charter and how they have been applied to the restoration of ancient monuments throughout Greece. Abstract provided by AATA database: Presents a brief history of the international charters for the preservation of monuments. The restoration of several Greek monuments is discussed in terms of the articles in the Venice Charter (1964). These include the Acropolis, the theater at Epidauros, and houses on Delos. The reuse of ancient monuments, particularly as theaters, is considered. Monuments that have undergone anastylosis in Greece, including the stoa of Attalos in Athens, the Panathenaic Stadium in Athens, the Temple of Poseidon at Sounion, the odeion at Patras, the tholos at Delphi, the Temple of Athena at Priene, the stoa at Brauron, and the odeion of Herodes Atticus in Athens, are discussed. The problems encountered with the adoption of inappropriate materials in past restorations and anastyloses—for example, cement reinforced with iron bars—are highlighted. The principle of reversibility is considered in light of the Venice Charter. The relationship between nature, environment, and monument is emphasized. Chalturin, A. G. ‘‘The Fifth General Assembly of ICOMOS—1978.’’ Scientific Journal: Thirty Years of ICOMOS 5 (1995): 38–39. This publication summarizes the Fifth General Assembly, held in Moscow and Suzdal in 1978. The summary mentions the assembly’s proposed amendments to the Venice Charter and the motivation for suggested changes. Chung, Seung-Jin. ‘‘Architectural Conservation in the East Asian Cultural Context with Special Reference to Korea.’’ Ph.D. Diss., University of New South Wales, 1998.

478

CHANGE OVER TIME

................. 18640$

CH17

09-26-14 15:30:57

PAGE 478

The following summary is extracted from the abstract provided by the author: The Venice Charter has been viewed as a fundamental international document reflecting the internationally accepted philosophy for the protection of architectural heritage throughout the world. However, so strongly are European attitudes to architecture and its conservation embedded in the Venice Charter, that it has skewed all conservation thinking towards the concept of the European-type monument which emphasizes visual beauty through its material substance. Thus the Venice Charter seems ill-suited to East Asian culture which has led to an attitude of placing more emphasis on the inner meaning represented in a structure and on the natural environment, than on the visual and material aspects of a structure. The purposes of this dissertation are to redress a current Western bias, which has permeated global conservation practice in the field of cultural heritage, particularly when applied to architecture, and to make suggestions for developing new conservation policies more suited to the unique values and aesthetic sense of Korea. Dalibard, Jacques. ‘‘The Next 20 Years.’’ APT Bulletin 21, no. 1 (1989): 4–8. This article provides a brief history of the Venice Charter and outlines the main criticisms of the document. The publication also discusses the ICOMOS Assembly in Moscow in which a revised version of the charter was proposed. The author discusses his opposition to the proposed changes as well as his criticisms of the original charter. Erder, Cevat. ‘‘The Venice Charter Under Review.’’ Scientific Journal: The Venice Charter 1964–2004: ICOMOS 4 (ICOMOS, 1994). This article summarizes some of the criticisms of the Venice Charter, specifically those that ‘‘led some experts to propose that the Venice Charter might well be expanded or changed further to reflect the broader interests in historic conservation.’’ The author also discusses ‘‘the pros and cons of this argument by conducting a critical review of the Venice Charter in order to point out why and in what respects the charter is now effective and ineffective.’’ Ultimately, the author concludes that ‘‘the Charter should be preserved as it stands, as an historic monument itself.’’ ‘‘History of the Venice Charter.’’ Scientific Journal: The Venice Charter 1964–2004: ICOMOS 4 (ICOMOS, 1994). This short article provides a brief history of the Venice Charter and a comparison between the document and the earlier Athens Charter. Horler, Miklos. ‘‘The Charter of Venice and the Restoration of Historical Monuments in Hungary.’’ ICOMOS Bulletin 1 (1971): 53–125. This publication is intended to explain the influence of the Venice Charter on the protection of historic monuments in Hungary. The beginning of the document also explores, briefly, the influence of World War II on the content of the Venice Charter.

479

BIBLIOGRAPHY

................. 18640$

CH17

09-26-14 15:30:58

PAGE 479

‘‘The INTABU Venice Declaration on the Conservation of Monuments and Sites in the 21st Century.’’ International Network for Traditional Building, Architecture and Urbanism, 2007. http://www.intbau.org/archive/venicedeclaration.htm. The INTBAU Venice Declaration is an attempt to clarify the Venice Charter and its interpretation. As an introduction to the declaration, the authors outline their criticisms of the original charter. They then discuss each article within the original document and provide comments, additions, and reinterpretations. Jerome, Pamela. ‘‘An Introduction to Authenticity in Preservation.’’ APT Bulletin 39, no. 2/3 (2008): 3–7. This short article explores the ongoing debate over the meaning of ‘‘authenticity.’’ The author begins with the definition of authenticity as outlined by the Venice Charter and provides examples of how the meaning has been challenged over time. Jokilehto, Jukka. ‘‘Comments on the Venice Charter with Illustrations.’’ Scientific Journal: The Venice Charter 1964–2004: ICOMOS 4 (ICOMOS, 1994). In this publication the author comments on each article within the Venice Charter. He expands on the content of each article with a modern commentary and discusses how concepts and meanings have changed since the creation of the Charter. Jokilehto, Jukka. ‘‘International Trends in Historic Preservation: From Ancient Monuments to Living Cultures.’’ APT Bulletin 29, no. 3/4 (1995): 17–19. This article briefly discusses the context surrounding the creation of the Venice Charter and summarizes how the charter’s emphasis on original material has been a catalyst for the development of new scientific tools for the survey, analysis, and conservation of historic structures. Jokilehto also mentions the application of the Venice Charter in the preservation of historic urban areas and the implications of tourism development. The article also briefly discusses how the Nara Document served as an expansion to the Venice Charter. Jokilehto, Jukka. ‘‘The Context of the Venice Charter (1964).’’ Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 2 (1998): 229–33. In this short article Jokilehto reviews the catalysts for the Venice Charter’s creation as well as initial criticisms of the document. The article also summarizes the 1964 Venice congress by mentioning who was in attendance and what other resolutions were adopted. Jokilehto, Jukka, and Joseph King. ‘‘Authenticity and Conservation: Reflections on the Current State of Understanding.’’ Expert Meeting on Authenticity and Integrity in an African Context, UNESCO, May 26 and 29, 2000. This paper discusses the Venice Charter and how it applies to Africa’s built heritage. The charter is related to topics of authenticity, historic towns, and cultural landscapes. Also

480

CHANGE OVER TIME

................. 18640$

CH17

09-26-14 15:30:59

PAGE 480

discussed is the emphasis on intangible heritage within African culture and the challenges these ideals present to the values and methodology presented within the Venice Charter. Krakow Charter 2000: Principles for Conservation and Restoration of Built Heritage. Krakow: The International Conference on Conservation, 2000. The creation of the ‘‘Krakow Charter’’ may be considered an attempt to produce a substitution for the Venice Charter. The Krakow Charter was the result of the conference in Krakow in 2000. (Szmygin, Boguslaw. ‘‘Venice Charter: The Universal Document or Burden of the Past? A Conservator’s Point of View.’’ In The Venice Charter Revisited, edited by Matthew Hardy, 71–81. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008.) The Krakow Charter does not speciﬁcally discuss the Venice Charter but mentions that the principles outlined are in response to it. The Krakow Charter states: ‘‘Conscious of the profound values of the Charter and working towards the same aims, we propose the following principles for conservation and restoration of the built heritage in our time.’’ Larsen, Knut Einar. ‘‘A Comment Concerning the International Course on Wood Conservation Technology in Relation to the Venice Charter.’’ In ICOMOS, A Quarter of a Century, Achievements and Future Prospects. Lausanne: ICOMOS, 1990. This short article explores how ‘‘revitalization’’ (or reconstruction) practices are in line with the goals of the Venice Charter, with speciﬁc attention paid to preservation practices in Japan and Thailand. Lewis, Miles. ‘‘The Conservation Analysis: An Australian Perspective.’’ APT Bulletin 28, no. 1 (1997): 48–53. This article summarizes the criticisms of the Venice Charter that led to efforts to revise the document during the Fifth General Assembly of ICOMOS in 1978. The publication focuses on the Australian viewpoint and the creation of the Burra Charter. Menon, A. G. K. ‘‘Rethinking the Venice Charter: The Indian Experience.’’ South Asian Studies: Journal of the Society for South Asian Studies 10 (1994): 37–47. This article discusses architecture and preservation in India and the challenges they present to the Venice Charter. India’s architecture is both inspired by Western culture as well as representative of indigenous styles. While the sites inspired by Western culture can be restored according to the Venice Charter, the indigenous architecture constructed by India’s master masons requires different treatment. The author recommends the creation of an India Charter in order to appropriately conserve indigenous architecture. Mihelicˇ, Breda. ‘‘Town Planners and Conservators: A Hundred Years of Disagreement and Co-operation.’’ Varstvo Spomenikov 39 (2001): 213–26. Within this article there is a subsection entitled, ‘‘The Venice Charter and the Venice School of Architecture,’’ which discusses the relationship between the Venice Charter and city planning. Included within this is also discussion of the charter’s emphasis on the

481

BIBLIOGRAPHY

................. 18640$

CH17

09-26-14 15:30:59

PAGE 481

significance of ‘‘monument ambience.’’ According to the author, this concept led to the creation of measures for the protection and renovation of historic centers in Europe. Miller, Hugh C. ‘‘Preservation Technology Comes of Age in North America.’’ APT Bulletin 37, no. 1 (2006): 55–59. This article discusses the rejection of the Venice Charter by the U.S. delegation to the Second International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments. The article briefly reviews the delegation’s reasons for rejecting the document, highlighting U.S. preservation practices at the time and the reasons the principles outlined in the charter were not applicable. Miller, Hugh C. ‘‘USA.’’ In ICOMOS, A Quarter of a Century, Achievements and Future Prospects. Lausanne: ICOMOS, 1990. This article summarizes the commentaries made by the U.S. Committee during the 1990 international symposium. The article discusses the U.S.’s initial reaction to the Venice Charter and its influence on the nation’s ‘‘preservation system.’’ The document concludes with suggestions for a ‘‘contemporary version of the Charter.’’ The Monument for the Man. Padova: Marsilio, 1972. This book was published seven years after the Second International Congress of Architects and Specialists of Historic Buildings in 1964 and documents the Acts of the Congress of Venice. ‘‘Monuments and Sites XI – The Venice Charter 1964–2004–2044?’’ ICOMOS: Monuments and Sites XI (2005). Ndoro, Webber. ‘‘The Question of Authenticity and Its Application to Cultural Heritage in Africa.’’ Scientific Journal 7 (ICOMOS, 1996). This article provides a brief summary of the Venice Charter, including the context for its creation and criticisms of its sole focus on European heritage and ideals. The emphasis of the publication, however, is on the charter application to heritage sites in Africa. The author emphasizes that in African culture, the emotional and religious value of heritage sites are most important but that unfortunately these features are ignored in the charter. The author includes a call to action, stating ‘‘if [the] ICOMOS operation guidelines are to find a place in the conservation movement and heritage management in Africa they have [to] take cognizance of the traditional values of the region into consideration.’’ Pecs Declaration on the Venice Charter. Pecs: ICOMOS, 2004. This declaration was created at the 2004 ICOMOS Conference dedicated to the fortieth anniversary of the Venice Charter. The declaration outlines the conference participants’ suggestions and recommendations formulated about the Venice Charter.

482

CHANGE OVER TIME

................. 18640$

CH17

09-26-14 15:31:00

PAGE 482

Petzet, Michael. ‘‘Principles of Preservation.’’ In International Charters for Conservation and Restoration 40 Years after the Venice Charter. Paris: ICOMOS, 2004. The first half of this article discusses core preservation issues (e.g., authenticity, rehabilitation, construction and relocation, reversibility, and so on) in light of the principles set out by the Venice Charter, encouraging readers to understand the charter as a product of its time. Report on the 14th US/ICOMOS International Symposium. US/ICOMOS, 2011. The report discusses the theme of the 14th International Symposium: ‘‘The influence of the Venice Charter and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards on the design of new additions to historic buildings and new buildings in historic districts.’’ This document also summarizes the presentations, discussions, and tours that took place at the symposium. It does not, however, outline in detail the discussions that took place at the symposium. Roman, Andras. ‘‘Reconstruction: From the Venice Charter to the Charter of Cracow 2000.’’ In Strategies for the World’s Cultural Heritage: Preservation in a Globalised World: Principles, Practices and Perspectives. Madrid: 13th ICOMOS General Assembly and Scientific Symposium, 2002. This short article discusses the principles regarding reconstruction outlined by both the Venice Charter and the Charter of Cracow. The author then provides examples of reconstruction projects and argues that they ‘‘can neither be approved of, nor justified on the basis of one single document on monument protection.’’ At the end of the article he argues that there is a need for a conference that will eliminate the ‘‘theoretical chaos’’ surrounding reconstruction and support a more unified practice. Silva, Roland. ‘‘The Significance of the Venice International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, with Special Reference to Eastern Countries.’’ Presentation at the First International Congress on Architectural Conservation, University of Basle, March 1983. This article begins by discussing the impacts of the Venice Charter: what it achieved and how it changed practice. The author then emphasizes that while the Venice Charter was a significant document, it is not the ‘‘end of the road.’’ He discusses the limitations of the charter and how Asian countries, specifically, have begun to correct or combat the shortcomings of the document. A Study Report on Doctrinal Texts of Cultural Heritage Conservation. Japan: ICOMOS, 1999. This publication is a compilation of ICOMOS charters. Important charters to note include: The Florence Charter (Historic Gardens) Adopted by ICOMOS in December 1982, this charter was created to serve as an

483

BIBLIOGRAPHY

................. 18640$

CH17

09-26-14 15:31:01

PAGE 483

‘‘addendum to the Venice Charter’’ and address the preservation and conservation of historic gardens. Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas (Washington Charter) Adopted by ICOMOS in October 1987, this charter was also drafted to ‘‘complement the Venice Charter’’ and address the preservation and conservation of historic towns and urban areas. The Nara Document on Authenticity Adopted in 1994, the Nara Document was ‘‘conceived in the spirit of the Charter of Venice’’ and serves to broaden its application ‘‘in response to the expanding scope of cultural heritage concerns and interests in our contemporary world.’’ Summary Report on the Vth General Assembly of ICOMOS. Moscow and Suzdal: ICOMOS, 1978. This report summarizes the proceedings of the Fifth ICOMOS General Assembly. This includes a summary of the Committee on the Revision of the Venice Charter and their conclusions regarding the revision of the Venice Charter. This summary report also provides insight into the events preceding the assembly. It discusses the creation of an ad hoc committee prior to 1978 to discuss the revision of the Venice Charter. The committee met in Ditchley Park and created a revised charter, which was then distributed to the attendees of the Fifth General Assembly in 1978. Summary Report on the VIth ICOMOS General Assembly Roma, Bari, Firenze, Verona: ICOMOS, 1981. A new version of the charter was presented during the Sixth ICOMOS General Assembly addressing Articles 1, 2, 14, and 15. The changes have not been made and the original version of the Charter prevails. (Szmygin, Boguslaw. ‘‘Venice Charter: The Universal Document or Burden of the Past? A Conservator’s Point of View.’’ In The Venice Charter Revisited, edited by Matthew Hardy, 71–81. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008.) This document summarizes the proceedings of the Sixth ICOMOS General Assembly in Rome. It reflects on the recommendation of ICOMOS’s president that the Venice Charter be updated, extended in scope, and translated more broadly for greater accessibility. The report also summarizes the recommendations formulated at the symposium, which include providing an analysis of the errors made in the application of the charter and the formulation of an international committee (initiated by ICOMOS) to focus on the doctrine. Wilfried, Lipp. ‘‘The Charter of Venice as a Document of the Times.’’ Muemlekvedelem: Kulturalis orokesegvedelmi Folyoirat XLVIII (2004). This article briefly discusses the context surrounding both the creation of the Athens Charter and the Venice Charter. Specifically, the author discusses the Venice Charter in the context of historicism and modernism following World War II.

484

CHANGE OVER TIME

................. 18640$

CH17

09-26-14 15:31:01

PAGE 484

Wyss, Alfred. ‘‘General Synthesis.’’ In ICOMOS, a Quarter of a Century, Achievements and Future Prospects. Lausanne: ICOMOS, 1990. This publication is a summary of the 1990 International Symposium. It reviews the national committees’ discussions of the Venice Charter, summarizes the shortcomings identiﬁed, and discusses the charters that have been adopted (including those that still need to be created) in an attempt to compensate for the Venice Charter’s weaknesses. Ylimaula, Anna-Maija A. ‘‘Application of the Venice Charter in the Restoration of the Parthenon.’’ Nordic Journal of Architectural Research (1996): 21–34. The author of this article discusses the application of the Venice Charter during the restoration of the Parthenon (1986–96). The publication reviews each of the charter’s articles and discusses how the Parthenon restoration adhered to the deﬁnitions and recommendations articulated in the document.

485

BIBLIOGRAPHY

................. 18640$

CH17

09-26-14 15:31:01

PAGE 485

................. 18640$

CH17

09-26-14 15:31:02

PAGE 486

CALL FOR PAPERS Ruskin Redux Spring 2016 Guest Editor: John Dixon Hunt The spring 2016 issue of Change Over Time is planned on the preservation ideas and practice of John Ruskin. This is a preliminary call for two responses: (1) suggestions of articles and topics that might be taken up; and (2) for an anthology of Ruskin’s relevant writings which COT will offer. This last is intended as a collection of Ruskin’s remarks on preservation, excluding the most obvious piece on ‘‘The Lamp of Memory’’: letters, diaries, other writings, whether in fragments or larger passages (please provide references). The editor will gather these and organize them, with proper acknowledgment of suggestions made, in an effort to collect and present a compendium of Ruskin’s remarks on this topic as an eminently usable tool for reference. This would complement not only the Cook and Wedderburn edition of Ruskin’s writing, but of the considerable publication of materials since his death. Submittal inquiries may be sent to John Dixon Hunt (jdhunt@design .upenn.edu), guest editor. Articles are generally restricted to 7,500 or fewer words (the approximate equivalent to thirty pages of double-spaced, twelve-point type) and may include up to ten images. The deadline for submission of manuscripts for the spring 2016 Ruskin Redux issue is February 15, 2015. Guidelines for authors may be requested from Kecia Fong (cot@design .upenn.edu), to whom manuscripts should also be submitted. For further information please visit cotjournal.com.

487

................. 18640$

CH18

09-26-14 15:30:57

PAGE 487

Change Over Time

UPCOMING ISSUES Vandalism SPRING 2015

Landscape and Climate Change FALL 2015

Ruskin Redux SPRING 2016

National Park Service Centenary FALL 2016

4.2

Change Over Time

AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSERVATION AND

THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

FALL 2014