Search results

Adaptive reuse processes aim to preserve heritage values while creating new values through the architectural interventions that have become necessary. This claim provokes a discussion about the meaning of values, how we can preserve them in practice and how we can translate them into architectural qualities that users experience. Riegl's understanding of the different perspectives of heritage values in the past and present opens up the possibility of identifying present values as a reflection of current social, material and political conditions in the architectural discourse.

This qualitative and practical study compares two Belgian projects to trace the use of values in adaptive reuse projects from an architectural design perspective. The Predikherenklooster, a 17th-century monastery in Mechelen that now houses the public library, and the C-Mine cultural centre in Genk, a former 20th-century coal mine, are compared. The starting point is Flemish legislation, which defines significance through values, distinguishing between 13 heritage values.

The study demonstrates the opportunities that axiological questions offer during the design process of an adaptive reuse project. They provide an overarching framework for tangible and intangible aspects that need to be discussed, particularly in terms of the link between what exists, the design strategy and their effect.

Adaptive reuse can draw on approaches from both heritage conservation and contemporary architecture and explore values as a tool for “re-designing” built heritage.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the conservation and contemporary management of three nineteenth‐century shopping passages: the Galleries Saint‐Hubert in Brussels, the Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II in Milan and the Passage in The Hague. The submission of the Galleries Saint‐Hubert to the World Heritage Tentative List in 2008, presents a unique opportunity for studying this typology in its contemporary environment.

The authors’ research questions are: what are the characteristics of passages? what are their authentic values? and how can the authenticity of these buildings be conserved by their contemporary management? The applied methodology is a cross‐case‐comparison, based on the definition of authenticity as presented in the Nara Document on Authenticity. The analysis is presented in the form of a matrix.

The findings show that the significant value of passages does not only include the architecture of the building but also the versatility of its program and its present urban role. It is only by conserving this combination that these buildings can be conserved in their full richness of authenticity.

Criteria for transnational inclusion in the World Heritage List of several nineteenth‐century passages are suggested as the matrix used for cross‐case‐comparison may be applied to analyse other case studies of passages, as well as for other types of heritage where authenticity of the site is threatened by uncontrolled retail development.

Although passages have been studied extensively within the field of architectural history, retail history and socio‐cultural studies, hardly any previous research had focused on the preservation and contemporary management of this building type.

The purpose of this paper is to present and discuss the contribution of European Commission (EC) initiatives to stimulate cultural heritage research over the last 20 years and the contribution of the research results to cultural heritage management and sustainable development.

From a brief introduction to the EC initiatives related to cultural heritage, the paper continues with an overview of the research projects so far funded by EC Framework Programmes. It includes the main conclusions and recommendations reached during the NET‐HERITAGE conference last March, in support to the debate on the existing gaps, and to suggest ways forward, which can be useful to research institutes as well as other funding organizations.

Although the EC should be commended for its substantial contribution to the field of cultural heritage research over the last 20 years, it is the first, however, to acknowledge that this is just the beginning and that much more needs to be done in order to help ensure sustainability and the consequent transmission of the European cultural legacy to future generations, at both regional and national levels.

In providing an overview of EC‐funded cultural heritage research, the paper is useful to the readers of the journal, who might consider obtaining EC funding and so stimulate their participation in future funding schemes and related projects. It highlights some potential areas for research and continues to scientifically underpin that cultural heritage research can help increasing competitiveness in Europe and beyond.