part 1 - Iccrom

MEASURING HERITAGE CONSERVATION PERFORMANCE
6th International Seminar on Urban Conservation
As mentioned above, heritage is considered a key
factor and an identity resource in urban planning.
Therefore, four action lines are defined:
• Elaboration and instrumentation of a legal
framework, developing specific guidelines
to rule action in heritage areas and
sites.
• Restoration of heritage buildings, through
interventions in both public and private
buildings, technical and management
counselling; urban subsidies and
agreements.
• Survey, indexing and inventory.
• Disclosure and awareness, through campaigns
and publications.
At present, 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.
5. Rosario’s Urban Code
and conservation of urban
architectural heritage
The recent introduction into the Urban Code of
built heritage conservation issues creates a radical
change in heritage policies. Rather than considering
heritage as an isolated issue, heritage policies now
give heritage a key role in the configuration of the
urban landscape. In 2006 The Planning Office and
Universidad Nacional de Rosario agreed to propose
urban heritage protection criteria to meet Rosario’s
special needs, to update and re-formulate the inventory
of heritage buildings of all urban areas — the
central area, first and second rings and city limits —
and to create measures to protect not only heritage
buildings but also urban landscape.
The studies indicate that some homogeneous areas
are recognized which, despite having a low rate of
heritage buildings, 14 determine urban landscape
feasible to be conserved. This particular aspect of
what can be defined as scattered heritage motivates
a regulating proposal to address protection of the
landscape or its surroundings beyond the property
protected by the inventory. 15
• Promoting uses and activities to ensure
the life of the heritage property.
• Defining ability to build and height rates
to discourage introducing substitution
processes in heritage property sites.
• Expanding the protection area of a heritage
property to the neighbouring lots, in
order to highlight it or to ensure a good
view of the protected property.
• Encouraging public-private agreements
(urban agreements).
5.1. Instruments and regulations
The following examples help to introduce some
considerations regarding the Central Area Urban
Reordering Plan in relation to the heritage issue:
Urban Code — Ordinance 8243/08. These include
the ‘indirect’ heritage protection instruments in
the Urban Ordering Plan: General Urban Regulations,
Particular Urban Regulations and the protection
instruments and realization of special sites of
municipal land.
These instruments might be applied to special
interest areas in a single or combined way, in the
form of statements, and they are classified into: historical
protection areas, ecological and environmental
protection areas, natural reserve areas and social
interest areas.
Moreover, the concept of urban and construction
agreements is introduced. These legal instruments
formalize the agreement between Rosario Municipality
and public, private or joint venture entities
for urbanization, reconversion, urban reformation
and protection, conservation and urban rehabilitation
actions.
Regarding general urban regulations, expiration
of construction indexes is proposed, and these are
substituted by the sections category — or significant
fragments — which correspond to completion,
renewal and heritage. 16
Finally, protection of the heritage surrounding
property is introduced, and this leads to higher
appreciation, giving these maximum construction
heights to match the conservation sections.
Historical, architectural and urban heritage protection
should consider the following criteria:
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.
62