part 1 - Iccrom

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 partly 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