part 1 - Iccrom

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Conservation of urban architectural heritage in Rosario: inventory, regulation and evaluation instruments Abstract Carolina Rainero 1 Conservation of built heritage must be considered as an identity and local development factor that plays a positive role in building the urban landscape. However, urban dynamics themselves jeopardize built heritage, since building a city on an existing one implies substitutions that, in many cases, act against urban memory. This paper intends to reflect upon urban policies’ follow-up and monitoring strategies of urban architectural heritage protection and conservation in Rosario. The Urban and Architectural Heritage Conservation and Rehabilitation Municipal Program, which depends on Rosario Municipality’s Planning Office, has implemented an extensive property protection program. The first actions were focused on control of demolition files which involved heritage buildings, on elaboration of an inventory of property in the city’s central area – highly exposed to substitution given its high real estate value – and on <strong>part</strong>icipating in the elaboration of the new urban code (2008) that has used urban indicators to attempt to discourage indiscriminate substitution in heritage areas as a measure to complement direct property conservation. The state action proposes regulatory instruments that, on the one hand, regulate or limit actions on heritage and, on the other, prioritize the incorporation of heritage in the definition of urban landscape. Heritage protection is not feasible with just the elaboration of property inventories or protective regulation. These represent the reference framework and the starting point of continuous and permanent follow-up and monitoring of the actions that public conservation policies must address in relation to urban heritage interventions. Keywords: urban conservation, architectural heritage, inventory, regulations instruments 1 Professor of Architecture. Facultad de Arquitectura, Planeamiento y Diseño. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. crainero@sede.unr.edu.ar; carorain@hotmail.com Introduction v v v Experiences in historic cities cannot be taken as referents since they differ in nature, whether for historical, constitution or growth dynamics reasons. On the other hand, the population fails to see in heritage a wealth factor, and tends to consider heritage a load rather than an alternative for development. The city grows and is transformed and, unfortunately, irreplaceable buildings and property can be substituted in this process, giving rise to an evident contradiction. From the physical perspective, the city is being built on the existing city, but this could take place without destroying the several layers that overlap in space-time. Its unique buildings, streets and landscape as a whole make up a rich tangible heritage which, like landmarks or anchorage, account for historical continuity, provoking reflections of urban heritage and culture as regards identity, forms of evocation and memory. Therefore, it is necessary to reflect upon management, from the indirect control of urban shapes to the instruments that permit anticipating architecture — city projects. Figure1.RosarioCentral Area (Source:Arq,Carolina Rainero). 1. City characterization Towards 1852, Rosario, a village of 9,785 inhabitants, became a town (Figure 1). 1 By that time, the village had extended spontaneously following the Hispanic checkerboard orthogonal tradition, from the core of the settlement made up of the chapel and Rainero, C. 2012. How to register memory? Documentation, recording, archiving and preservation of intangible cultural heritage in Venezuela. In Zancheti, S. M. & K. Similä, eds. Measuring heritage conservation performance, pp. 59-66. Rome, ICCROM. 59
MEASURING HERITAGE CONSERVATION PERFORMANCE 6th International Seminar on Urban Conservation the square outwards. In 1866 the first section of the Argentine Central Railway (Ferrocarril Central Argentino) opened, and this determined a new element in the spatial structuring of the city and the region. The rise in the number of inhabitants contributed by immigration, the expansion of the port activity, and the growing agricultural exports trade helped the city grow by founding new villages, incorporating hamlets or adding rural territory. Thus, a city with varied hues, a mosaic of landscapes with a distinct identity, was formed. In the first decade of the 20 th century the works that would change the city’s appearance were built: the port, the first urban park (Independence Park), the hospital, the racecourse and the Saladillo baths, 2 among others. Rosario became a booming ‘metropolis’, where the modern age has left unique fingerprints, especially in the downtown area. Until 1930, while there were substitutions of the original buildings, the city grew on new land. However, from then on, the city was built on the existing town. From 1930 to 1966, the country underwent a social and economic crisis, presided over by military administrations. The city could not elude the national reality and experienced scant transformations. Towards 1968, when the economy and urban transformations were booming, the Rosario Regulating Plan was enacted. Its Code stipulated the division of the urban area into Districts, which arise from reordering and streamlining the city zones, and indexes were established to anticipate changes in the urban landscape. The city is still growing fast but has to face the consequences of unattended regulations regarding urban land ‘qualification’. The lack of appreciation of the existing city needs to be emphasized. The indexes suppose an empty lot and no pre-existing structures are recognized. Therefore, the city heritage and its urban landscape are left unprotected. The aforementioned indicates that, for the purposes Figure 2. Paradigmatic Buildings. Rosario. Central Area (Source: Arq, Carolina Rainero). of considering urban heritage, Rosario presents a complex reality (Figure 2). 2. The city and its urban heritage Despite having a unique natural coastal landscape and a wide variety of built heritage, this richness is not openly recognized by the inhabitants. Some of the reasons for this are: lack of sensitivity to a common past, 3 a mercantile nature, and property developers’ speculation, which has pervaded almost all of the city’s development actions, motivating the urban heritage devastation for decades, and even unto the present, due to the current economic boom. The central area is the most affected area. This presents paradigmatic works linked to the city’s urban history where the progress paradigm, understood as upward development, has caused irreplaceable losses and generated a change in the landscape scale. However, if society does not claim protection of the city heritage, public regulations are left with little margin to be applied. Unfortunately, in my view, urban regulations, which have regulated the city since its inception until the elaboration of the 2007 Urban Plan, did not reconcile appreciation of the urban land with heritage. The regulating instruments have always considered the urban land as empty, with no precursors. This causes vulnerability in the local urban cultural heritage. 4 3. Heritage regulations The city’s distribution and construction regulating instruments have contributed to destruction rather than protection. As mentioned above, the 1968 Urban Code has been <strong>part</strong>ly responsible for substitutions, due to the indiscriminate treatment the urban land has received. However, the first precedent regarding the intention to conserve and value the urban heritage dates from 1984, when Decree No. 0998 was issued and the Evaluating Committee was formed 5 to evaluate and advise regarding any intervention on real estate property whose building permits dated from before 1953. In 1987 the Evaluating Committee became the Urban and Architectural Heritage Conservation Committee. By Ordinance No. 5278, the Urban Conservation Fund of Rosario was created, which represents 3% of municipal taxes. Also, demolition permit and approval procedures were amended. 6 In 1996 the Urban and Architectural Heritage Conservation and Rehabilitation Program 7 was established, under the Planning Office of the Municipality of Rosario. Rainero, C. 2012. How to register memory? Documentation, recording, archiving and preservation of intangible cultural heritage in Venezuela. In Zancheti, S. M. & K. Similä, eds. Measuring heritage conservation performance, pp. 59-66. Rome, ICCROM. 60
Page 2 and 3:
Silvio Mendes Zancheti Katriina Sim
Page 4 and 5:
6 th International Seminar on Urban
Page 6 and 7:
Contents Foreword..................
Page 8 and 9:
Monitoring of the state of conserva
Page 10 and 11:
Measuring Heritage Conservation Per
Page 12 and 13:
Assessing the performance of conser
Page 14 and 15:
MEASURING HERITAGE CONSERVATION PER
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21: MEASURING HERITAGE CONSERVATION PER
Page 26 and 27: Conserving and identifying heritage
Page 44 and 45: The Complexity of Historic Garden L
Page 64 and 65: How to register memory? Documentati
Page 78 and 79: Assessing the cultural significance
Page 86 and 87: Assessing the cultural significance
Page 100: MEASURING HERITAGE CONSERVATION PER
show all

part 1 - Iccrom

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?