Historical Urban Landscape

HISTORICAL
URBAN
LANDSCAPE
GÁBOR SONKOLY
Historical Urban Landscape
Gábor Sonkoly
Historical Urban
Landscape
Gábor Sonkoly
Eötvös Loránd University of Budapest
Budapest, Hungary
ISBN 978-3-319-49165-3 ISBN 978-3-319-49166-0 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-49166-0
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017930215
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Cover image © Nick Norman / National Geographic / Getty
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgments
My research was hosted by institutions to which I am extremely grateful,

and enriched by friends and colleagues to whom I am greatly indebted. It
was at the Institut d’Études Avancées of Paris, an ideal haven for study and
writing, that I could commence this book, and my home university, the
Eötvös Loránd University of Budapest, granted me a sabbatical semester
to accomplish it. Without those peaceful periods, it would have been very
hard indeed to realize this analysis. Thanks to my fellow professors at the
Atelier Department for European Social Sciences and Historiography I
could enjoy the certainty that everybody is replaceable, which is a most
reassuring feeling. I express my gratitude to Olivier Bouin for coaching me
with care, friendship, and wisdom.
During the years of my research, I received a great deal of intellectual
inspiration and support in the somewhat loosely defined fields connecting
Social Sciences and Cultural Heritage, for which I would like to offer my
sincere thanks to Isabelle Anatole-Gabriel, Isabelle Backouche, Maria Elena
Barral, Ana Carolina Bierrenbach, Dorothee Brantz, Esteban Buch, Christina
Cameron, Gábor Czoch, Péter Erdősi, Tamás Fejérdy, Ana Fernandes,
François Hartog, Dominique Ionga-Prat, Rohit Jigyasu, Bruno Karsenti,
Luda Klusaková, Zoltán Krasznai, Sabina Loriga, Melania Nucifora, Marie-
Vic Ozouf-Marignier, Jacek Purchla, Kapil Raj, Jacques Revel, Joan Roca,
Mechtild Rössler, Gino Satta, Gábor Soós, Philipp Ther, Laurier Turgeon,
Nicole Valois, Nicolas Verdier, and Rosemary Wakeman. My thanks also go
to Christopher Ryan for his valuable suggestions regarding the language of
the text, and especially to my editors at Palgrave Macmillan, Kristin Purdy
and Jessie Wheeler, for having steered me through the production process.
v
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 The History of Historic Urban Landscape 9
3 Vienna and The Vienna Memorandum 77
4 History and Cultural Heritage 123
5 Conclusion 145
References169
Index183
vii
List of Abbreviations
CDC Community-driven Conservation

CLUSHT Community-led Urban Strategies in Historic Town
CUD Comprehensive (Urban) Development
HUL Historic Urban Landscape
IUCH Intangible Urban Cultural Heritage
IUCHMP Integrated (Urban) Cultural Heritage Management Plan
LUH Living (Urban) Heritage
SC Sustainable City
VI Visual Integrity
ix
List of Figures
Fig. 3.1 Number of recognitions of World Heritage Sites in the

Europe and North America Unit of UNESCO in periods
of five years 80
Fig. 3.2 Number of UNESCO World Heritage Commission reports
on the seven cities per year (reports on Vienna in dark grey)88
Fig. 3.3 Number of threats mentioned in UNESCO World Heritage
Commission reports on the seven cities per year (threats to
Vienna in dark grey)89
Fig. 3.4 Urban programs (“practices”) acknowledged by the
UN-Habitat Programme in Vienna per year 97
xi
List of Tables
Table 4.1 Opposing History and cultural heritage by perception of time 131
Table 4.2 Opposing History and cultural heritage by their ideological/
theoretical content 132
Table 4.3 Opposing History and cultural heritage by the role of
the historian/expert 133
Table 4.4 Parallel evolution of History and cultural heritage 135
Table 5.1 Contemporary urban heritage conservation and
management notions 154
xiii
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Historic urban landscape (HUL) is the most recently codified1 notion

of international urban heritage conservation; it was conceived to cover
the various forms of “contemporary interventions in and around (urban)
World Heritage sites,”2 whose number is growing considerably, while
those responsible for their management must face the symptoms of urban
development as well as the integration of the conceptual novelties of cul-
tural heritage preservation (intangible heritage, cultural diversity, and sus-
tainability). HUL is more than a simple category of heritage preservation:
its creators and its earliest proponents and leading proponents define it as
an “approach,”3 and claim that it represents a milestone in the history of
cultural heritage preservation and a paradigm shift in urban planning.
As an urban historian, I was intrigued by the unconventional denomi-
nation of this notion. “Historic” and “urban landscape” make an unusual
compound, which lends itself to a great variety of interpretations. This
may suit the diverse ambitions behind it, but it can also raise doubts about
the possibility of their practical realization. Already, the adjective “his-
toric” marks a significant stage in the continuous conceptual expansion
of the notion of cultural heritage. It is the first time that one of its offi-
cial denominations has evoked History. Although there is quite a clear
difference between “historic” and “historical” in English, this notion—
as an international term—functions in many other languages, including
the other official languages of the United Nations Educational Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), in which this distinction cannot
be expressed. The French historique, the Russian исторический, or the
© The Author(s) 2017 1

G. Sonkoly, Historical Urban Landscape,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-49166-0_1
2 G. SONKOLY
Spanish histórico refers to both “historic” and “historical”; therefore, the

original distinction is easily blurred in translation, and consequently in
international debates.
Thus, the title of this book, Historical Urban Landscape, is intended to
convey the idea that a critical analysis is necessary if we are to understand
the significance and the utility of such a compound. Moreover, HUL as
an “approach” reveals academic aspirations, openly manifested in the two
published volumes on the subject, that can arouse the interest of scholars
involved in urban studies—specialists in urban planning and architecture,
as well as social scientists and historians alike. HUL is part of the cultural
heritage discourse, which suggests that these aspirations can be associated
with the enormous number of academic initiatives that share the title of
heritage studies. This shows that after approximately five decades the con-
ceptualization of cultural heritage has reached the point of independent
academic institutionalization. Whereas ethnologists and anthropologists
widely discuss the effects on their own disciplines of intangible cultural
heritage, codified only two years before HUL,4 historians and the repre-
sentatives of other social sciences and the humanities are more reluctant to
assess the effects of this recent development of cultural heritage on their
respective disciplines. Nevertheless, they need to become more aware of
the growing importance of cultural heritage in social, political, and even
economic discourse. This is particularly true of historians, since many non-
professional social actors and decision-makers confuse the two domains
because they both refer to the past to construct present identities.
Like any international concept codified in standard-setting instru-
ments, HUL is expected to achieve various tasks: it should (1) provide
a conceptual framework for contemporary urban heritage conservation,
(2) provide guidelines for urban heritage management, and (3) serve as a
regulatory instrument implemented by different levels of political authori-
ties. Accordingly, its analysis requires a methodological approach which
considers these functions simultaneously, as well as the conceptual chal-
lenges and the societal novelties which created the need for the wording of
the new instrument. The relatively short history of HUL is situated in the
longer history of international urban heritage protection, as well as in the
even longer history of urban planning. It can be considered as a manifesta-
tion of a new regime in both of these two partially interrelated processes.
The expression “regime” is an often recurring denominator in contempo-
rary social sciences in History, especially in relationship to the history of
cultural heritage, since the term is considered to be suitable to frame the
INTRODUCTION 3
periodization of cultural and social changes in relationship to the levels

of the political Establishment from universal to local. In their Heritage
Regimes and the State, the editors define “regime” as “a set of norms and
rules regulating the relationship between a state-government and society,
international regimes come about through negotiations among actors on
an international level.”5 Due to the recent expansion of the notion of cul-
tural heritage, its current regime can be characterized by means of inter-
sections between heritage-making and “culture’s resource potential and
the ensuing questions of ownership rights and responsibilities.”6 Thus,
the first level of the HUL analysis is to regard this notion as the out-
come of international debates about how to solve the current challenges
of urban heritage management, as well as its impact on the different levels
of governance of urban heritage. In this context, urban heritage appears
not merely in its tangible form but also as a resource for development, as
well as for local identity-construction, which questions the meaning of
authenticity, the original decisive criterion for the selection of Cultural
World Heritage Sites. This modification leads to the redefinition of urban
heritage sites, which demands a new functional standard of authenticity
suitable for the new regime.7 The original definition of urban cultural heri-
tage sites—and the maintenance of their authenticity—is not only que-
ried because of urban development and related governance issues but also
due to the current complexity of the notion of World Cultural Heritage
since the ratification of two crucial conventions in the early 2000s.8 These
conventions represent the integration of more political voices into the
universal definition of cultural heritage, but this diversity inevitably results
in a less coherent and a more open-ended conceptualization. HUL was
intended to channel this current complexity of cultural heritage, as well as
to mediate between urban conservation and development. As we shall see
later, it is not the only notion to fulfill this complicated mission. Moreover,
it is in competition with the others, which makes it possible to identify
diverse personal, professional, and group interests in contemporary urban
heritage management. Among these concurrent approaches and concepts,
HUL has proved to be one of the most appropriate to “find a balance
between urban heritage conservation, socio-economic development and
sustainability” according to Sophia Labadi and William Logan, who dedi-
cated their recent volume to these three interrelated aspects of heritage
cities and to their governance challenges between international and local
levels.9 From this practical point of view, HUL is a toolkit designed to
achieve sustainable heritage cities.10
4 G. SONKOLY
The number of heritage cities is growing exponentially not only

among World Heritage Sites but also at lower levels of cultural heritage
protection. It is not obvious, however, how HUL cities could be identi-
fied among them. Though this book cannot venture to identify all the
specific characteristics of HUL cities and evaluate the degree to which
they succeed in meeting the expectations of urban heritage conservation,
development, and sustainability, some theoretical attempts will be made
to determine their group. The first obvious choice of a HUL city must
be Vienna, which hosted the conference where the notion was worded in
2005. Subsequently, HUL moved to Asia, more specifically to Shanghai,
and its World Heritage Institute of Training and Research for the Asia and
the Pacific Region (WHITRAP) built up a system of pilot cities. These 11
cities could be currently regarded as the applications of the HUL prin-
ciples.11 This is especially true of the Australian city of Ballarat, which
not only published its own realization of the HUL approach in order to
offer a model,12 but is also included in the previously mentioned book by
Labadi and Logan to illustrate the application of HUL in a local context.13
Since this book enumerates most of the recent concepts of urban heritage
management with corresponding examples, it is also useful to distinguish
HUL cities—such as Ballarat or Vancouver—from other heritage cities
determined and managed according to different concepts. Another pos-
sible way to define HUL cities is by derivation from the World Heritage
Lists. Since HUL is also expected to link and unite the tangible and intan-
gible aspects of urban heritage, cities which appear concurrently on both
lists could be considered as fitting sites for research into the challenges
related to HUL. According to a non-exhaustive survey, six such cities can
be tentatively identified (Beijing, Bruges, Cordova, Marrakesh, Palermo,
and most recently Vienna), out of which the proximity of the two kinds of
heritage is the most obvious and best studied in Marrakesh.
The great variety of possible definitions of HUL cities makes it clear that
the dozen years which have passed since the first announcement of HUL
in 2004 do not provide sufficient historical distance to assess either the
degree of success of its reception (in comparison to its peer concepts) or its
utility to accomplish its original objectives. Its critical history within that
of the conceptual development of international urban heritage protection,
however, will differentiate the regimes of urban heritage and demonstrate
its current specificities through the study of the genesis of HUL. These
regimes not only serve to narrate the conceptual history of urban heri-
tage, or cultural heritage in general, but also to p osition it in relationship
INTRODUCTION 5
to History by applying the theory of Regimes of Historicity. Thus, the

history of international urban heritage protection summarized through
the emergence of HUL will be integrated into an evolution with a much
wider scope. This book uses the example of HUL to demonstrate how the
history of cultural heritage can be constructed as a historical problem, as
well as why it is necessary to demarcate History from cultural heritage and
what consequences the increasing popularity of the latter has for History.
First, the conceptual history of urban heritage preservation—based on
the standard-setting instruments of international organizations—reveals
the fundamental elements of the current conception of urban heritage
(Chap. 2). Second, this conception, as worded in the HUL approach, is
investigated through the analysis of Vienna, which played a crucial role in
the establishment of HUL (Chap. 3). Third, to complete the Historical
Urban Landscape approach, a parallel history of historical science and
cultural heritage will be constructed in order to establish a periodiza-
tion which makes it possible to integrate the Cultural Heritage Regimes
into a broader historical context (Chap. 4). The three analyses are linked
together with the theory of presentism—an integral part of the Regimes
of Historicity—according to which our period can be differentiated from
the previous one by a new perception of time: future-oriented modernism
has gradually been replaced by a present-based mentality, whose uncritical
obsession with the past is exhibited in a set of fuzzy concepts, of which
cultural heritage is the most influential and the best established. The par-
ticular methodology of each chapter is demonstrated in such a way as to
show how it can be used in education, and each chapter is intended to
trigger further debate and research about the relationship between social
sciences and cultural heritage.
Notes
1. The following two standard-setting instruments of UNESCO
defined the HUL: Declaration on the Conservation of the Historic
Urban Landscapes (UNESCO, 2005b), Recommendation on the
Historic Urban Landscape. A New International Instrument
(UNESCO, 2011).
2. UNESCO (2005c) 36.
3. The two begetters of HUL published two volumes to explain the
intentions underlying the use of this term. The first is a general
introduction, and the second edited volume is a description of its
6 G. SONKOLY
elements by various authors. Francesco Bandarin and Ron van

Oers (2012) The Historic Urban Landscape. Managing Heritage in
an Urban Century (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell); Francesco Bandarin
and Ron van Oers (2015) Reconnecting the City. The Historic
Urban Landscape Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage
(Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell).
4. Among several publications, the following volumes offer a com-
prehensive view on the problem: Regina F. Bendix, Aditya Eggert,
Arnika Peselmann (eds.) (2012) Heritage Regimes and the State
(Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen); Chiara Bortolotto
(ed.) (2011) Le patrimoine culturel immatériel. Enjeux d’une nou-
velle catégorie (Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de
l’homme); Daniel Fabre, Anna Iuso (eds.) (2009) Les monuments
sont habités (Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme);
Dominique Poulot (ed.) (1998) Patrimoine et modernité (Paris:
L’Harmattan) 265–308; Laurajane Smith, Natsuko Akagawa (eds)
(2009) Intangible Heritage (London: Routledge); and a special
issue of the Flemish Volkskunde review entitled Brokers, Facilitators
and Mediation. Critical Success (F)Actors for the Safeguarding of
Intangible Cultural Heritage, Volkskunde 2014: 3.
5. Bendix et al. (2012) 12–13.
6. Ibid., 13.
7. Lucie K. Morriset attempts to describe this constant redefinition of
heritage objects/sites according to her methodology determined
by the “Regimes of Authenticity.” In her approach, these are the
distinctive periods of the ongoing process of heritagization.
Morriset, Lucie K. (2009) Des régimes d’authenticité. Essai sur la
mémoire patrimoniale (Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes)
23–30.
8. These conventions are the Convention for the Safeguarding of the
Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003) and the Convention on the
Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expression
(2005a).
9. Labadi, S., Logan.W. (eds.) (2016) Urban Heritage, Development
and Sustainability. International frameworks, national and local
governance (London-New York: Routledge) 7–8.
10. Bandarin, van Oers (2015) 203–316.
11. Because of the regional vocation of the WHITRAP, its 11 pilot cit-
ies are mainly in Asia (eight cities), while two are in the Pacific and
1one in Latin America. HUL (2015).
INTRODUCTION 7
12. Ballarat (2013) Ballarat and UNESCO’s historic urban landscape

approach (Ballarat: City of Ballarat).
13. Buckley, K., Cooke, S., Fayad, S. (2016) Using the Historic Urban
Landscape to re-imagine Ballarat: the local context in Labadi, S.,
Logan.W. (eds.) (2016) Urban Heritage, Development and
Sustainability. International frameworks, national and local gover-
nance (London-New York: Routledge) 93–113.
References
Bandarin, Francesco, van Oers, Ron (2012) The Historic Urban Landscape.
Managing Heritage in an Urban Century (Oxford: Wiley–Blackwell).
Bandarin, Francesco, van Oers, Ron (eds.) (2015) Reconnecting the City. The
Historic Urban Landscape Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage
(Oxford: Wiley–Blackwell).
Bendix, R. F., Eggert, A., Peselmann., A. (eds.) (2012) Heritage Regimes and the
State (Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen).
Bortolotto, Chiara (ed.) (2011) Le patrimoine culturel immatériel. Enjeux d’une
nouvelle catégorie (Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme).
‘Brokers, Facilitators and Mediation. Critical Success (F)Actors for the Safeguarding
of Intangible Cultural Heritage’ Volkskunde 2014:3. (Special issue).
Fabre, D., Iuso, A. (eds.) (2009) Les monuments sont habités (Paris: Éditions de la
Maison des sciences de l’homme).
HUL (2015), http://www.historicurbanlandscape.com/index.php?classid=6043,
date accessed 15 August 2015.
Labadi, S., Logan, W. (eds.) (2016) Urban Heritage, Development and
Sustainability. International Frameworks, National and Local Governance
(London-New York: Routledge).
Morriset, Lucie K. (2009) Des régimes d’authenticité. Essai sur la mémoire patrimo-
niale (Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes).
Poulot, Dominique (ed.) (1998) Patrimoine et modernité (Paris: L’Harmattan).
Smith, L., Akagawa, N. (eds.) (2009) Intangible Heritage (London: Routledge).
UNESCO (2003) Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=17716&URL_
DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, date accessed 7 January
2016.
UNESCO (2005a) Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of
Cultural Expressions, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_
ID=31038&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, letöltve
2014.7.27.
UNESCO (2005b) Declaration on the Conservation of the Historic Urban
Landscapes, http://whc.unesco.org/document/6812, date accessed 7 January
2016.
8 G. SONKOLY
UNESCO (2005c) Vienna Memorandum on World Heritage and Contemporary

Architecture—Managing the Historic Urban Landscape (http://whc.unesco.
org/document/6814/, date accessed 7 January 2016.
UNESCO (2011) Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. A New
International Instrument, Including a Glossary of Definitons, http://portal.
unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=48857&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_
SECTION=201.html, date accessed 7 January 2016.
CHAPTER 2
The History of Historic Urban Landscape
Introduction
The concept of HUL has become an indispensable concept of cultural her-
itage preservation in the past decade. It not only represents a new stage in
the ever-expanding notion of cultural heritage (from the tangible through
landscape to the intangible), but it also means that the notion of cultural
heritage is no longer a mere concept of preservation but is also conceived
as an institutionalized form of knowledge to interpret and manage the
social, economic, and cultural realties engendered by its own evolution
over several decades. This form of knowledge describes and manages
social and cultural realities according to the discourse of international—
primarily UNESCO and International Council on Monuments and Sites
(ICOMOS)—legal texts of an administrative nature. These texts reveal a
process which started with The Athens Charter in the 1930s and became
increasingly intensive as time went by up to the last ten years, during
which new instruments have emerged that do not simply attempt to find
the most adequate ways to conserve urban heritage but are intended to
frame all the aspects of the generated heritage cities and heritage quarters.
Since HUL is the first officially defined notion with this purpose, its
historical analysis could contribute to an understanding of why its defini-
tion is necessary, how it is rooted in the roughly eight decades of inter-
national heritage preservation, and whether it is sufficient to achieve its
original objective, namely, to match the expectations related to the expan-
sion of cultural heritage—as intangible heritage or as an organic element

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-49166-0_2
10
G. SONKOLY
of sustainable development—with those of concerned social actors, most

notably heritage conservation experts and local decision-makers. Seeing
that the story of HUL covers the last decade, the methodological question
also arises: can such a recent and unfinished period be chosen as an object
of contemporary history?
We started our analysis with the presupposition that history should not
ignore the evolution of cultural heritage and its analysis requires the devel-
opment of a special methodology that takes account of its contemporary
nature. This evolution is a continuous expansion, in which increasingly
wide sectors of the environment and of society are interpreted as heri-
tage while the number of preserved sites is also growing spectacularly. At
the beginning of the 2010s, World Heritage sites already numbered more
than 1000, more than 500 of which are in urban settings: either entire
towns and quarters or historic monuments in an urban environment. In
addition to these World Heritage sites, there is a growing number of cities
and towns under regional, national, or local protection, on which inter-
national regulations are often imposed, whether directly or indirectly. In
this sense, the current concept of HUL, which was created to handle these
entities, can be understood as an object of conceptual history, which is
part of the longer history of urban heritage preservation and of cultural
heritage conservation in general.
The choice of the conceptual history approach for the analysis of HUL
can be explained by the fact that HUL belongs to the notion of cultural
heritage, which is also the result of a long evolution and represents the
most institutionalized member of the presentist quartet of fuzzy notions
that will be discussed in Chap. 4. This approach is especially beneficial
when clear concepts are missing, as is the case with contemporary cultural
heritage.1 Furthermore, this approach is also useful to discern significant
elements of a concept which can be traced back synchronically in time to
comprehend its otherwise overwhelming complexity. This overwhelming
complexity is reduced through the analysis of HUL in order to make it
intelligible for research by (1) identifying the crucial events and personali-
ties related to it; (2) distinguishing its specificities against other—mainly
scientific—definitions of urban landscape; (3) discerning appropriate sig-
nificant elements to effectively place its conceptual history into longer and
wider contexts of modern and contemporary social and cultural develop-
ments; and (4) establishing a database of the most important standard-
setting instruments of international urban heritage preservation in order
to reveal those developments.
THE HISTORY OF HISTORIC URBAN LANDSCAPE 11
The chronology of the genesis of HUL will be examined in detail in

Chap. 3, in which we analyze the confluence of different social levels and
scales of the reception of the novelties of cultural heritage preservation. As
we have already mentioned in Chap. 1, the initiators of HUL, Francesco
Bandarin and Ron van Oers, can be identified more easily than those of
any other earlier concepts of cultural heritage preservation. Bandarin, an
architect of Venetian origin, the former director of UNESCO’s World
Heritage Centre (2000–2011) and assistant director-general for Culture
(2010–2014), was already one of its proponents during the wording of
The Vienna Memorandum in 2005. Van Oers, a Dutch urban planner, was
responsible for the Programme of World Heritage Cities between 2005
and 2009, and he was the deputy director of the World Heritage Training
and Research Institute for the Asia-Pacific Region in China (2009–2015),
which was established to propagate the HUL concept in that region.
Bandarin and van Oers published an explicative volume on the concept of
HUL soon after the UNESCO Recommendation on HUL of 2011 and
co-edited a second one to prove the relevance of the concept a few years
later.2 These two volumes and the great number of scientific events related
to HUL since its first official wording in 2005 serve not only to indi-
cate the noteworthy efforts of the UNESCO administrators to bring this
notion close to the academic public but also to show that this public was
receptive to this notion because of the earlier proliferation of the notion
of urban landscape in their respective disciplines.
The Emergence of the Notion of Urban Landscape

Though the notion of HUL was not a conceptual invention of any scien-
tific discipline dealing with the city, several such disciplines (mainly urban
geography, urban studies, monument and heritage protection studies, his-
tory of art) applied the notion of landscape from the 1970s onward to
understand and analyze the modifications of urban territory and society.
After The Vienna Memorandum, these attempts multiplied, and reflections
on this new notion were partially linked to the numerous scientific debates
on the renewed notion of landscape. It is probably no exaggeration to say
that by the 2000s landscape had become the notion most frequently used
to examine the relationship between territory and identity. Michael Jakob,
for example, starts his concise essay on the landscape with the expres-
sion of omnipaysage3 to express that the landscape is omnipresent “from
journalism, through scientific publications to the screens … and to our
12
G. SONKOLY
thoughts.”4 From the 1990s onward, the notion of landscape has become
an integral part of both administrative and scientific heritage protection,
and, consequently, since then it has also affected the evolution of the
notion of cultural landscape, which was the first attempt at UNESCO to
bridge the inner division—cultural and natural—of World Heritage, which
is often judged as non-universal because of its primarily Western origins.5
Current cultural heritage protection uses the notion of (cultural) land-
scape to determine and protect territories which are examples of tradi-
tional co-existence between nature and human society and which are
threatened by modernization and/or by globalization.6 Associating land-
scape with tradition, however, is quite surprising in view of its longue durée
conceptual history because the notion of landscape appeared in those
Western European languages which later became the official languages of
UNESCO7 only from the sixteenth century onward. It is generally classi-
fied as part of the vocabulary of modernization inasmuch as it is part of a
new, objectivizing, and disenchanted approach8 in which nature emerges
as landscape.9 Accordingly, the landscape did not appear originally to con-
serve the traditional perception of the world and space, but resulted in the
abandonment of this perception in the ateliers of the increasingly indi-
vidualistic arts and in the studios of ever-more professional science and
administration.
Both the emergence and the prevalence of the notion of landscape par-
ticular to a given era usually indicate two important modifications: (1) the
interpretation of nature and the relationship between nature and society
are undergoing changes and (2) one—normally privileged—social group
must face unavoidable consequences. All the three landscape-oriented
periods in Western history (the Renaissance; the “Golden Age” between
1750 and 1860,10 and the current period starting in the 1970s) are good
examples of this double principle. The Renaissance elite’s new interpreta-
tion of nature can best be grasped in the artilisation in situ and in visu11
of their regard. Our era tries to abandon the artificial separation between
culture and nature through the notion of landscape, which can serve as
a proper territorial reference for the ineluctable concept of sustainabil-
ity. These interpretations of landscape, specific to the two endpoints of
modernity, are linked by the Romantic definition of landscape, which
is strongly connected to nineteenth-century nation-building and to the
related mapping of national territories as well as to sciences dedicated to
that mission. Owing to these activities, the preceding essentially artistic
interpretations of landscape were becoming scientific. Obviously, other
significant differences could be mentioned about the interpretations of

landscape in the three periods, but just now similarities are more impor-
tant, since they can reveal continuities and shared principles in the history
of landscape. For our present study, the most indicative continuous charac-
teristic is probably that landscape is usually the construction of a—mainly
urban—elite, which instrumentalizes this notion to express a threatened
or already lost credibility and, consequently, to protect itself against
unavoidable changes. Thus, urban/regional development in the form of
landscape management does not have exclusively economic purposes, but
also manifests moral and ideological contents. These contents are closely
related to the role which landscape and landscape design “play as grand
mnemonic devices.”12 From this point of view, current architectural usage
of urban landscape is determined more by “memory-laden projects such as
New Urbanism, postmodern historicism, site remediation, activist historic
preservation, ecological re-creation,” which partially bring back the emu-
lative characteristic of classicism and renounce the modernist “repudiation
of externalized memory”13 in the practice of “architects and landscape
architects.” Ecological recreation or ecological considerations in general
extend the scale of memory from human/cultural to environmental/
climatic. Consequently, the contemporary definition of urban landscape
meets the current tendencies to identify landscape with cultural landscape
due to the heritagization of nature. According to François Walter, the
latter process already begins in the nineteenth century when the protec-
tion of the fatherland and the natural environment are linked through
landscape conservation, and, in consequence, both mutually convey each
other’s memory.14 Though the protection of the natural environment was
largely freed from its earlier ideological contents after the Second World
War, it was still carried out according to aesthetic, later ecological and
economic, considerations until the emergence of the principle of sustain-
ability, which emphasized the organic reconciliation of nature and culture.
In the early modern Europe, the notion of landscape had different con-
notations in Germanic languages, in which it referred to territory, and in
Romance languages, in which it referred both to the image and to the
entity which was represented by the image.15 This bygone dichotomy is
integrated into contemporary languages in such a way that all the origi-
nal three meanings (territory, image, and representation) co-exist, though
their significance may vary from one language to the other. The history of
urban landscape depends on the language(s) which we take into consider-
ation for its analysis. From the viewpoint of our current investigation, we
14
G. SONKOLY
do not analyze the national histories of urban landscape, but the period
in which different national conventions are being conflated due to the
intensification of the internationalization of urban planning and, later,
because of UNESCO regulations of universal scope worded in English
and French. The birth of HUL prompts scholars to understand this new
notion in the context of the conceptual evolution of urban landscape.
Hardly a year after the Vienna Conference, two scientific conferences were
organized in March 2006 as an attempt at a comparative analysis of the
emergence of HUL. The first conference was organized at the École des
Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales of Paris in order to give an interdisciplin-
ary definition of urban landscape reflecting on its “current importance.”16
The other bilingual conference took place in Montreal with the aim of
bringing together scholars and specialists in heritage protection to inter-
pret the newly defined notion of HUL.17 These two conferences reveal
many similarities and complementary considerations, which provide an
excellent starting point for the attempt to understand the complexity of
the HUL.
Having analyzed the relevant scientific literature, Jannière and Pousin
differentiate between two possible approaches to the interpretation of the
urban landscape (paysage urbain): the first defines urban landscape within
the general notion of landscape, whereas the second starts from urban
materiality (matérialité urbaine).18 The first group includes approaches
which use the notion of urban landscape to (1) determine urban territo-
ries by a gaze; (2) integrate different (architectural, geological, botanical,
etc.) perceptions of cities following the practice of landscape architecture;
and (3) understand the city aesthetically as a perceived (not just seen, but
detected by other senses) entity, which is determined by the language.
The second group incorporates approaches which regard the city as (1) an
object of infrastructural development; (2) an expanding megapolis, which
requires appropriate urban planning; and (3) a site of constant transfor-
mations, which need to be archived by means of photography. All these
approaches share an inner tension because their definition of urban land-
scape encompasses reality and its perception, that is, both the referent and
the representation.19
Different disciplines arrive at the definition of the townscape, the
predecessor of urban landscape, loaded with this inner tension, more or
less simultaneously. Though this notion served as early as the late nine-
teenth century to describe historical cities and quarters, it became wide-
spread in England after the Second World War, when it was used in the
newly founded The Architectural Review to refer to developments in the

eighteenth-century rural domains as an alternative to the modernist archi-
tectural movements for urban reconstruction.20 In the 1960s, the notion
of urban landscape emerged in French urban planning and geography with
a similar meaning, but with far more politicized connotations.21 In the two
historically most urbanized regions of Europe, in Italy and Belgium, urban
conservation initiatives already applied this term to the protection of his-
torical cities in the 1880s and in the 1900s, respectively. The consequently
aestheticized cities and urban landscapes, which become frequent in inter-
war history of art, are depicted as the “face of the patria,”22 as a significant
representative element of national or regional identities.
The replacement of townscape by landscape, anticipating the emer-
gence of HUL, is less evident in French since both terms are translated by
paysage urbain. In English, however, it is easily detectable in the 1990s,
and it suggests the gradual integration of approaches characterized by
the notion of townscape into urban planning and (cultural) geography,
which would lead to the new notion of urban heritage protection in the
2000s. Landscape urbanism, for example, first meant only the planning
and management of green urban territories in the 1990s. Then, it progres-
sively acquired environmental and ecological implications until it reached
a point where it covered the whole of urban planning, regarded as a means
of social mediation used to change the perception of the functioning of
the city.23 Thus, the evolution of the notion of urban landscape is becom-
ing crucial from “the perspectives of ecology, social co-existence (both
social and symbolic) and those of the access to resources.”24 Similarly,
the notion of “megaform” emerging from Kenneth Frampton’s critical
regionalism based on his “landscape form,” in which the notion of land-
scape is required to perform at least three tasks: (1) to make cities greener;
(2) to integrate different approaches, social and cultural perceptions, and
so on; (3) to facilitate more comprehension and participation than the
previous architectural paradigms.25
Some participants at the Montreal conference implicitly doubted
whether the new notion of HUL defined in The Vienna Memorandum
truly reflects the contemporary modifications of the notion of urban land-
scape. Comparably to the arguments of the Parisian conference, Gérard
Beaudet emphasized that HUL should be determined by the gaze and not
by the urban materiality, as the ICOMOS definition presumed. In conse-
quence, HUL and the notion of cultural landscape would become incom-
patible, and this might lead to conceptual confusions.26 HUL’s definition
16
G. SONKOLY
by the gaze could seemingly conclude with the subsequent definition of

the notion of visual integrity (VI).27 According to Gordon Bennett28 and
Julia Gersovitz,29 the main challenge stemming from HUL, however, is not
its operational implementation for heritage protection but its inbuilt out-
dated “modernist” view of urban planning. This idea is developed further
by Julian Smith through an analytical framework based on a dichotomy
between twentieth-century modern (object-observation-visuality-based)
and twenty-first-century postmodern (rituals-experience-empathy-based)
architectural paradigms.30 Smith concludes that The Vienna Memorandum
implied a transfer between the two and, consequently, is characterized by
both. The intention of keeping HUL within a modernist register can be
detected from the fact that its definition focusses on the development of
VI instead of concentrating on the establishment of the participative and
cultural role of the heritage architect. Smith explains this by the defensive
reactions of modernist architects. The identification of professional inter-
ests in the definition of HUL is an important result of his analytical frame-
work. Smith’s approach, linking the definition of HUL to a paradigm shift
in architecture, helps to comprehend its genesis and conceptual evolution
within the history of heritage architecture and urban planning, the most
significant disciplines in the management of urban heritage.
The Analytical Framework of the Conceptual

History of Historic Urban Landscape
Bandarin and van Oers define the HUL approach as “a new approach to
urban conservation,”31 which belongs to “the urban development pro-
cess.”32 In the process of urban development and in the related urban
planning, urban conservation appears as a “modern utopia” threatened
by “the rise of gentrification, tourism uses and real-estate pressures.”33
Accordingly, the concept of HUL is to be understood as part of the his-
tory of urban planning, formulated to solve its current problems in a form
of a “modern utopia.” It is not surprising that the two architects define
their concept as a utopia.
Already in the long prehistory of institutionalized urban planning, ever
since Antiquity, the representation of an ideal society normally took the
form of an ideal settlement—usually a city. The utopian thinkers of the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries inherited this tradition and infused
it into the progressive institutionalization of urban planning,34 which
brought together the practical needs of the central authorities and mod-
ernist utopian ideologies aiming at a brighter future. As urban planning

became more institutionalized, the forms and images of the ideal urban
settlement which represented the ideal society became more systematic,
and the number of trained experts, who were expected to apply these
forms and images during mass urbanization and successive industrial-
technical revolutions, grew exponentially. Similarly to the applied ideol-
ogies, the professionalization of urban planning did not, however, lead
to the establishment of ideal societies in the planned cities and urban
quarters. As a result, the schemes of previous generations were regularly
frustrated, and the distance between the horizon of expectations and the
historical experience grew continually. Consequently, urban planning had
to undergo its own paradigm shifts, to the point where, from the 1970s
onward, the link between the targeted society and the appropriate urban
space was determined less and less by the original modernist ideologies
and increasingly by the intention to grasp local identities and to comply
with participative principles.35 As Fredric Jameson summarizes, “the fact is
that traditional, or perhaps we might better say modernist, urbanism is at
a dead end.”36 The phrase “modern utopia” is meant to express the idea
that HUL is a new phase in the evolution of urban planning (“utopia”)
because its recent paradigm shift corresponds to the current principles of
urban conservation (“modern”).
Nevertheless, “modern” as a qualifier reveals a telling contradiction
within HUL. On the one hand, it refers to the kind of urban conserva-
tion which befits the abovementioned new paradigm within urban plan-
ning; that is, it means “postmodern” or, rather, “contemporary.” On the
other hand, this “modern” places urban conservation into the history of
previously progressive urban planning in order to free it from the fre-
quent criticism of hindering urban development by over-regulation in the
name of heritage conservation. This latter is explained by Bandarin and
van Oers as the replacement of static monument conservation by dynamic
preservation, which is essential to the HUL approach.37 Here again, this
“modern” designates a significant shift from monument-based conserva-
tion, which is very much embedded in the temporality of modernization
based on a distancing rupture in the past. Moreover, although this “mod-
ern utopia” refers to a shift in urban planning as well as in urban con-
servation, the authors emphasize that their approach “is not designed to
replace existing doctrines or conservation approaches, but rather is envis-
aged as a tool to integrate policies and practices of conservation of the
built environment.”38 The inner contradictions related to the temporality
18
G. SONKOLY
of the definition of HUL are to be solved by attributing the same sig-

nificance to the past (“urban conservation”) and to the future (“urban
development”),39 which endows the present with the prerogative of being
the constant arbitrator between the two. Hence, HUL as a “modern uto-
pia” implicitly conveys a presentist approach. This recognition helps to
comprehend its inner contradictions—being explicitly modern, implicitly
presentist—and, consequently, to interpret the dilemma of contemporary
urban heritage preservation oscillating between heritage conservation and
urban development by the model of the Regimes of Historicity.
The inner contradictions of the “modern utopia of HUL” stem from
the position of utopia in contemporary, or we might say presentist, urban
planning and architecture. Utopia has always been an integral part of
urban planning theories because of its ability to project the experienced
reality into an ideal and imagined future through the propagation of the
image of the latter. Current tendencies in urban planning, however, often
blur the traditional distinction between reality and its fictitious representa-
tion. The most frequently cited examples are Edward Soja’s scamscapes,
in which “image and reality become spectacularly confused, the difference
between true and false, fact and fiction not only disappears, but becomes
totally and preternaturally irrelevant”40 or the Disneyfication of cities,
which is no longer “an American singleton”41 but rather a globalized phe-
nomenon. In this context, rehabilitated historical urban centers are due
to turn into elegant and/or touristic shopping areas, in other words, into
spaces of consumption. As Rem Kolhaas notes, “to be saved, downtowns
have had to be given the suburbian kiss of death.”42 The fading borderline
between experienced reality and imagined ideals in contemporary urban
environment does not only manifest itself in the unstoppable spreading
of consumer spaces but also change the scale of reference of the ideals.
Traditional utopias are based on a community or, later, on a society and,
accordingly, project these entities onto an idealized future. Nevertheless, a
presentist utopia must take into account responsibilities on individual and
universal levels. The former is expressed in Soja’s thirdspace epistemolo-
gies, in which he judges that “the provocative shift back from epistemology
to ontology and specifically to the ontological trialectic of Spatiality–
Historicality-Sociality is the starting-point for a strategic re-opening and
re-thinking of new possibilities.”43 In other words, urban space appears
through its practitioners’ practice, which is like a “lived space …, where
all histories and geographies, all times and spaces are immanently present
and repeated.”44 On the other hand, the reference to the universal level is
necessary since environmental concerns channel every urban development

project to the global scope of urbanization, which requires appropriate
actions and precautions to avoid the threats of climate change, and the
concomitant recognition of social, economic, and natural factors under
the auspices of sustainability. The traditional zoning of urban planning
is becoming less relevant, thanks to the recognition of the influence of
personal use of urban territory as well as through the redefinition of urban
space as a unity of built and natural components. The privileged status of
the historical center, however, is the “nodality never disappears.”45 The
current tendencies of urban planning can be quite easily identified by the
conceptual novelties of cultural heritage protection: the appreciation of
personal use of urban space may be associated with the prerogative of
knowledge transmission embodied in the notion of intangible cultural
heritage; the integration of the built and natural urban environment in
a unified urban territory from the point of view of urban development
relates to the notion of cultural landscape—uniting cultural and natural
entities—as well as to the definition of cultural heritage as an intrinsic ele-
ment of sustainability. Thus, the unifying directive of HUL in the field of
urban cultural heritage conservation can be recognized in the complexities
of contemporary urban planning. In this sense, the definition of HUL as
a presentist utopia can not only reveal its place in current cultural heritage
preservation but also shed light on the role of urban heritage in contem-
porary urban development.
As we will discuss in detail in Chap. 4, the model of the Regimes of
Historicity allows a positive—presentist—definition to cultural heritage
and, consequently, enables us to interpret its inner contradictions (“fuzzi-
ness”) in an evolution of historical mentalities expressed in the chang-
ing perception of time. In this sense, the evolution of cultural heritage
protection is simultaneously characterized by a shift from the modernist
monumental period to the dynamic presentist approaches as well as by
the continuity of the fear of a future loss, which must be prevented in the
present. The former—the changing perception of time—can be used as
an essential criterion for the conceptual history of HUL. The latter—the
commitment to secure continuity—serves to overcome the dichotomy
between modernism and presentism by applying a proper theory of mod-
ernization, based on a new characteristic of modernization which so far
can be interpreted and observed as a relentless professionalization.
The principle of security in Michel Foucault’s theory of biopower seems
to fulfill this requirement. Foucault started his series of lectures entitled
20
G. SONKOLY
“Security, territory, population”46 at the Collège de France in the late

1970s with the explication of the significance of these three concepts in
his theory of biopower.47 Foucault puts emphasis on the new “mechanism
of power” through which the increasingly centralized authorities take con-
trol over the society, which is reinterpreted and reframed by the authori-
ties themselves in the early modern and modern periods. This extremely
complex evolution is described by three processes—corresponding to the
three concepts in the title, which begin successively and continue simul-
taneously. It is important to note that these processes do not replace each
other; rather, the earlier ones contribute to the complexities of the later
ones, that is, to the professionalization of security.
To summarize in simple terms, the first and earliest process is the terri-
torial projection of the sovereignty of the authorities, that is, the construc-
tion of the legally unified territory of the modern state. This is followed
by the introduction of discipline into more and more domains of social
existence. The third process is the gradual imposition of security as a
guiding principle and as an ultimate goal. Sovereignty functions in the
territory, discipline functions in the body, and security functions in the
population. The three processes determine a certain historicity, which is
revealed in the successive techniques of the management of space: for the
sovereign, the selection, and the development of the exemplary capital is
the most important, whereas discipline constructs new, mainly segregated
territories and hierarchizes the territory of the state; finally, security lays
its territorial systems onto already existing ones (channels, transportation,
administrative hierarchies, etc.),48 by rendering serial indicators to these
elements to be able to measure them and to decide on their eventual
modifications. The management of security is based on the definition and
the modeling of serial indicators, and their confluence can be measured
in a special territorial unit. This unit is called the milieu, a term which is
supposed to express an organic relationship between natural and human
elements, which are investigated by the bureaucrats of the central authori-
ties in order to produce better plans for the future and by researchers to
produce better “data”49 for scientific analysis.
Thus, the ongoing professionalization of activities related to secu-
rity provides a significant element of continuity between modernity and
“beyond,” as well as between administrative and scientific domains. The
idea of security and the history of its ever-growing complexity connect
the considerations of the early modern and modern central authorities
described by Foucault to the current obsession with preservation to avoid
loss, which is essential for cultural heritage conservation. Security inte-

grates all the new perceptions of territory and time related to moderniza-
tion, and hence, it is the most crucial element of the theory of biopower.
Security is a modern term, but it conveys a special temporality, binding
together the present with the future through the concept of prevention
and by not prioritizing the distant future over the near future. As a result,
in contrast to future-based utopian ideologies of modernization, it is not
alien to contemporary presentism, and, moreover, it can be regarded as
one of the predecessors of cultural heritage, which also prioritizes the
security of entities and practices that are considered to be threatened.
Foucault’s biopower, completed with the Regimes of Historicity, delin-
eates a temporality that is not only suitable for combining future-based
and present-based mentalities into a single model but also suitable for
defining the perception and interpretation of time as one of the indicators
of the analysis of the conceptual history of HUL. In this model, modern-
ization begins with the gradual replacement of the past-based traditional
perception of time by future-based time, which is finally acknowledged as
a rupture and leads to the definition of historical time.50 This modernist
perception of time vanishes into our present-based period, which is too
close and contemporary to fully acknowledge this new rupture. It is worth
noting that the realization of the previous grand rupture lasted for some
three centuries. Historical time is characterized by the appearance of a
horizon of expectations, that is, the projection of the realization of pres-
ent ideas and ideologies into the future, and by the historical experience
which determines the degree of success of its realization. As the distance
between the horizon of expectations and the historical experience grows,
uncertainty prevails, and modernist ideas and ideologies lose credit. This
increasing sensation of uncertainty is yoked together with the swelling
demand for security not only at the level of biological needs, as in the early
modern and modern periods, but also in matters of identity. Identity is
sensed as more secure if it is deeply rooted in the past, and this anchor is
expressed through tangible objects and intangible practices manifested as
the different categories of cultural heritage. Accordingly, the conceptual
history of HUL should take into consideration that the evolution of the
perception of time is closely linked to the growing sophistication of the
mechanism of security.
In Foucault’s model the central authorities’ mechanism of security is
preceded by different forms of territorialization and by the transformation
of the ensemble of subjects into the population of the state. From the
22
G. SONKOLY
point of view of security, these processes were manifested in the division

of the state’s territory into milieus, which made both the previously mot-
ley space and the heterogeneous group of subjects measurable and man-
ageable. Hence, the other two concepts—territory and population—are
present as principal categories of analysis in the model of biopower. The
conceptual history of urban heritage also requires indicators—concepts
which exist over a longer period of time—to reveal how the modifications
of the interpretations of these concepts indicate historical changes. Since
the use of security—and the related perception of time—was chosen as a
principal indicator to place the conceptual evolution of the urban heritage
into a longer historical process, the other two concepts could also be ben-
eficial for our model. Modern territorialization resulted in an exhaustive
and parceled-out exploitation of space, in which every form of identity
construction requires a territorial anchorage. In consequence, the analysis
of the evolution of urban heritage must also take into consideration the
conceptual development of the perception of territory in the discourse on
urban heritage. Population—people defined by their biological needs—as
a category, is a fait accompli by the beginning of the conceptualization of
urban heritage; that is why it does not make much sense to examine its
conceptual evolution as manifested in the documents of urban heritage.
With security expanding from biological to social and cultural needs as we
get closer to our own time, it is necessary to find a concept through which
this expansion is measurable with the means of conceptual history. The
heritage discourse uses the notion of community to refer to the conveyers
and users of identity, which is manifested in the various forms of cultural
heritage. Thus, while Foucault determines the trio of security, territory,
and population to analyze the process of modernization of the mechanism
of power, we apply a similar trio to be able to place the conceptual history
of urban heritage into a wider historical context. The three components
of our analysis will be the perception of security (and time), territory, and
community. These three notions will be analyzed in the most often quoted
standard-setting instruments51 to understand the necessities which led to
the emergence of the notion of HUL.
The Database of Standard-Setting Instruments

of Urban Heritage
The international legislation and regulation of urban heritage preserva-

tion, to which HUL inherently belongs, is normally considered to have
started with The Athens Charter in 1931 (not published until 1943) but
became systematic only from the 1960s onward, thanks to the activities
of UNESCO and ICOMOS. The legislative and regulatory documents
usually refer to a selection of earlier documents in their preambles; they
never intend to replace them, but to complete them or to render them
more accurate. These documents from a period of 80 years compose a cor-
pus which is characterized by the logic of integration rather than replace-
ment. The period of eight decades offers a sufficient historical distance
to compare the documents with the means of conceptual history, that is,
to analyze our three fundamental concepts. This approach is not based
on analyzing the political circumstances of the period of the given docu-
ment. We are well aware that these documents are the results of complex
political debates, which should be analyzed in order to contextualize their
contents.52 This detailed analysis, however, would be far too lengthy and
would risk blurring the objectives of our research with the details of the
politico-administrative circumstances. The conceptual historical approach
does not determine the eventual changes of norms on the basis of politico-
administrative events but rather in terms of the changes in the meaning of
the selected components of the concept of HUL during the period under
examination.
The database contains standard-setting instruments—documents—that
are either directly related to the international protection of urban heritage
or quoted by the initiators of HUL in their two volumes on the subject.
From the legal point of view, these standard-setting instruments differ in
scope, ranging from international conventions to national memoranda,
but they are all accepted and ratified with the same objective in mind: to
institute (peremptory) norms. The arrangement of these documents into
a database raises the problem of a (paradigm) shift in the discourse of
international law. Although both peremptory international law and social
sciences deal with ever-changing social conditions, they express these
changes differently. Social sciences have undergone paradigm shifts among
changing social, economic, environmental, or cultural conditions and have
experienced their attempts to adapt in the form of “turns” in the last few
decades. International law considers each consensual international instru-
ment as an extraordinary asset, which should not be subjected to altera-
tion even in case of obvious changes that would otherwise demand new
definitions and regulations. In consequence, the logic of these subsequent
documents is integrative; that is, they refer to each other as significant
stages of an evolution without explicit inner conflicts: the continuous and
organic expansion of the notion of cultural heritage. In this discourse, the
very notion of cultural heritage appears to be integrative since it absorbs
24
G. SONKOLY
any social or cultural change without difficulty. From the perspective of

the protection of cultural heritage, new responses to current changes
are interpreted as the expansion of the original concept by new aspects
expressed by new attributes, such as intangible or cultural landscape heri-
tage. Thus, the integrative logic does not permit the critical description of
the possible inner conflicts which may be inherent in these new attributes.
Therefore, the introduction of the notion of cultural landscape to the
cultural heritage discourse in the 1980s, for example, was not expressed
as an attempt to replace the disputed binary categorization, based on the
dichotomy of cultural and natural heritage, that was in use at that time.
Cultural landscape as a category was the acknowledgment of the fact that
any cultural heritage site, whether cultural or natural, is artificially deter-
mined and results from an interaction between society and nature. The
integrative logic guarantees not only the stability of the acknowledged
conceptual framework but also its typology. As a result, cultural landscape
was officially accepted as a World Heritage category in 1992, but it could
not modify the original triple division of cultural, natural, and mixed sites,
and it was applied as a sort of meta-category integrating mainly cultural
sites and to a lesser extent mixed sites.53 A similar process of adaptation
can be observed in the institution of the notion of intangible heritage,
which also resulted in the previously non-existent notion of tangible
heritage, from the 1990s onward. The undeniable linguistic symmetry of
the internal division of cultural heritage into tangible and intangible (or
into matériel/immaterial in French and material/immaterial in Spanish)
could apparently suggest a conceptual symmetry which explains the emer-
gence of the notion of intangible heritage as a necessary outcome of the
expansion of the notion of cultural heritage, originally regarded as exclu-
sively tangible. The definitions of the two notions of heritage, however,
follow completely different kinds of logic. Yet, from the 2000s onward, it
is common to refer to these two notions in the documents as each other’s
organic complements, and HUL, the most significant conceptual novelty
of the cultural heritage of the period, is often defined as a combination of
the two. Thus, the analysis of HUL with the tools of conceptual history
demands a methodological approach which can bring the internal contra-
dictions hidden by this integrative logic to the surface.
HUL is the product of an intensive conceptual development that has
lasted some 50 years54 and which is marked by documents issued by orga-
nizations and authorities with various legal scopes and vocations. We have
identified 39 of these instruments, which had a significant influence on
the genesis of HUL, and we have added 5 others, which are the official
definitions of HUL or are directly related to such definitions. Thus, a
database of 44 standard-setting instruments and related documents has
been established for the investigation of the history of the notion of the
HUL. According to the issuing authorities, the documents can be divided
into three groups: (1) 21 were signed by the ICOMOS, the professional
network of experts related to UNESCO and established immediately after
The Venice Charter in 1965; (2) 14 are official instruments of UNESCO;
and (3) 9 documents were worded by other international or national
organizations, and they are often cited in debates and in documents of
ICOMOS and UNESCO on urban heritage.55
International organizations such as UNESCO or the Council of Europe
adopt and provide conventions and recommendations, as well as declara-
tions and charters. ICOMOS and the corresponding national, regional, or
continental organizations also express their opinions in the form of decla-
rations or charter-like documents (such as principles, norms, resolutions,
and guidelines). Conventions and recommendations are the most influen-
tial because they are subjected to ratification, acceptance, or accession by
the member states; in other words, these international standards are inte-
grated into national legislation and require a wide consensus (a two-third
majority for conventions and a simple majority for recommendations)
by the appropriate bodies of UNESCO. Since these instruments entail
obligations for nation-states, they are fewer in number than the other
instruments, which are also used to define norms but are not subjected
to ratification, as declarations or charters are. The former are formal and
solemn instruments, and also ethical references, which are suitable for spe-
cial occasions when principles of great and lasting importance need to be
enunciated. Though they are meant to be less frequently issued, they actu-
ally appear more and more often. Their authority and importance are not
justified legally, but more by their practical adoption. Memoranda can be
regarded as their predecessors, often formulated to offer solutions to local
challenges with detailed professional expertise, but aiming at g
eneralizable
practical and theoretical outcomes in the future. The first official defini-
tion of HUL, The Vienna Memorandum, belongs to this category.
The frequency with which these documents are issued indicates the
intensity of the debates on urban heritage protection and suggests that
we can identify distinct periods of debates before the analysis of the three
concepts.56 An increasingly conscious attitude toward urban heritage pro-
tection began in the 1960s and was followed by an intensive period of
26
G. SONKOLY
theoretical reflection triggered by The World Heritage Convention in the

1970s and by a thematically extensive period in the 1980s. The spectacu-
lar growth of the number of heritage sites by the turn of the 1980s and
1990s raised so many unforeseen questions that more complex regulations
were required, which were manifested in a greater number of instruments,
and, consequently, in a more intricate definition of urban heritage. This
increase is most visible in the case of the ICOMOS documents: out of
the 21 instruments quoted in reference to HUL, only 5 were adopted
between 1965 and 1990, 16 between 1993 and 2011.
ICOMOS documents can be often considered as preliminary materials
for UNESCO conventions and recommendations since ICOMOS, their
issuing authority, was established to promote the application of theory,
methodology, and scientific techniques to the conservation of architec-
tural and archaeological heritage as a global non-governmental organiza-
tion of experts. Its decisions are not binding for its member states or for
the members of any related international organizations, so it produces
declarations, charters, resolutions, and the like, and not conventions or
recommendations. Nevertheless, these documents also follow the integra-
tive logic of the consensual decision-making process of the other interna-
tional organizations and are generally intended to prepare the ground for
UNESCO regulations on monument and heritage protection. Roughly
half of the instruments in our database were issued by ICOMOS. Most of
them were adopted by the General Assembly, and we have also included a
few which were produced by regional or national ICOMOS Committees
but quoted by global organizations as norm-setting instruments because
of their trailblazing and pioneering nature.
The interrelatedness of the documents—the inner coherence of our
database—can be measured by the frequency of cross-references. On the
basis of this indicator, the 20 ICOMOS documents57 can be grouped into
the following categories: (1) key instruments to determine or reformulate
a certain field of the (urban) heritage preservation discourse58; (2) instru-
ments to define a new or only partially expressed aspect of the heritage
preservation discourse59; and (3) instruments with a narrower scope or less
significance, implicitly contributing to the development of the heritage
preservation discourse.60
The key ICOMOS documents commence, obviously, with The Venice
Charter, which refers to The Athens Charter in its preamble as an anteced-
ent, since “the time has come to examine the Charter afresh in order to
make a thorough study of the principles involved and to enlarge its scope
in a new document.” Among other reasons, the necessity for a new regu-
lation is justified by the fact that “people are becoming more and more
conscious of the unity of human values and regard ancient monuments as
a common heritage”; therefore, “the principles guiding the preservation
and restoration of ancient buildings should be agreed and be laid down
on an international basis.”61 The Venice Charter is the most frequently
quoted document in our database: nine ICOMOS instruments refer to it
directly. The next instrument, The Washington Charter, which was delib-
erately intended to regulate the protection of historic cities and quarters,
was adopted 23 years later, in 1987. In addition to The Venice Charter, it
referred to the UNESCO (Warsaw–) Nairobi Recommendations of 1976
as a means to complement these earlier instruments by defining “the prin-
ciples, objectives and methods necessary for the conservation of historic
towns and urban areas. It also seeks to promote the harmony of both
private and community life in these areas and to encourage the preserva-
tion of those cultural properties, however modest in scale, that constitute
the memory of mankind.”62 The next mention of The Washington Charter
can be found only 24 years later in The Valletta Principles (2011c), which
also aimed at the preservation of “historic cities, towns and urban areas,”63
though here the word “conservation” was replaced by “safeguarding and
management” in the title, suggesting that a paradigm shift may have taken
place in urban heritage preservation in the meantime.
Four instruments do not refer exclusively to urban heritage, but are
considered fundamental in the other documents and in the heritage pres-
ervation discourse. The Guidelines on Education and Training (1993) were
drawn up in part due to the recent “breadth of the heritage encompassed
within the concept of monuments, ensembles and sites”; that is, the num-
ber of heritage sites was growing so quickly that “many different profes-
sions need to collaborate within the common discipline of conservation
in the process and require proper education and training.”64 The Xi’an
Document (2005) can be regarded concomitantly as a landmark instrument
adopted to celebrate the 40th anniversary of ICOMOS as well as a sign of
a more prominent Asian voice in international heritage preservation, espe-
cially if we regard its references in the preamble.65 It mentions The Vienna
Memorandum and introduces the notion of “heritage structure” as an
extended version of the heritage site or area, but this conceptual innova-
tion is not used in the following documents. The acceleration of heritage
regulation, or, at least, a more visible demand for it, is revealed by the
increasing number of instruments in the 2005–2011 period. The Charter
28
G. SONKOLY
on the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites (2008c)

attempts to summarize the statements about heritage communication in
all the relevant ICOMOS documents by recognizing “the importance of
public communication as an essential part of the larger conservation pro-
cess” (variously describing it as “dissemination,” “popularization,” “pre-
sentation,” and “interpretation”). It implicitly acknowledges that every
act of heritage conservation—in all cultural traditions of the world—is
by its nature a communicative act. Accordingly, the professionalization of
heritage communication (“a clear rationale, standardized terminology, and
accepted professional principles for Interpretation and Presentation”)66 is
an essential means to bring heritage experts more efficiently close to soci-
ety. The Paris Declaration (2011b), similarly to The Xi’an Declaration,
cites several instruments to justify its own precedent-setting significance
in defining heritage as “a driver of development.”67 Despite the fact that
neither the conceptual pair of tangible/intangible heritage nor sustain-
ability was defined in the early years of international heritage protection,
the history of ICOMOS can be interpreted as a continuous effort to unite
these notions. In this sense, the growing number of instruments from
the late 1990s—such as the Nara, Xi’an, and Québec documents—is
not presented as a novelty, but as an intensification of heritage protec-
tion. Nevertheless, these instruments reconsider fundamental notions like
“authenticity,” “context,” and “spirit of place.”68 Safeguarding heritage,
interpreted as a “communicative act” in The Charter on the Interpretation
and Presentation (2008c), is used as “heritage conservation” to trigger
economic development by means of sustainability. By the 2010s, the soci-
etal role of heritage had become complex to an unprecedented degree.
The significance of the second group of ICOMOS documents lay in
the fact that they determined essential elements of HUL by reinterpret-
ing the relationship between cultural heritage and the relevant social and
cultural practices. This process of reinterpretation was closely linked to the
emergence of the concept of intangible cultural heritage and, accordingly,
to the definition of the relationship between tangible and intangible heri-
tages. On account of these developments, The Nara Document (1994)
is crucial since it deliberately challenges “conventional thinking in the
conservation field”69 by questioning the current definition of authentic-
ity, one of the two main pillars of tangible heritage conservation, in the
name of cultural (and “heritage”) diversity “in a world that is increasingly
subject to the forces of globalization and homogenization, and in a world
in which the search for cultural identity is sometimes pursued through
aggressive nationalism and the suppression of the cultures of minorities.”70

Whereas authenticity (with integrity) was an essential criterion for the
identification and selection of tangible heritage, from the point of view of
the concept of intangible cultural heritage, which is still being developed
in the 1990s, the traditional interpretation of authenticity was disturb-
ing or even irrelevant. Consequently, the justified attempts to unify tan-
gible and intangible heritages withered when they reached the definition
of authenticity as early as in the 1990s. In this sense, HUL has inherited
the problem of the definition of authenticity from the perspective of the
expanded notion of cultural heritage. The International Cultural Tourism
Charter (1999) is also an important example of the endeavors to supervise
the social use of the expanding cultural heritage. This instrument begins
with the recognition of the fact that “a primary objective for managing
heritage is to communicate its significance and need for its conservation to
its host community and to visitors.”71 The Burra Charter of the Australian
ICOMOS attained its final form in the same year (after the earlier versions
of 1977 and 1988) in order to determine practical standards for the more
efficient conservation of “places of cultural significance,”72 through which
it further alienates heritage preservation from its original standpoint of
professional monument conservation by attributing more importance to
social and cultural practices in the designation of the territory and scope
of preservation. The Charter on Cultural Routes (2008a) strives for the
“the macrostructure of heritage on different levels,”73 which is above the
national level and scope of heritage protection, and legitimates a network-
based territorial dimension for heritage. The Quebec Declaration on the
Preservation of the Spirit of Place (2008b) seems to find the right notion to
connect the tangible and the intangibles heritages by taking into consid-
eration the third, “spiritual” aspect of cultural heritage, which is applied
“to develop a new conceptual vocabulary that takes into account the onto-
logical changes of the spirit of place.”74 The Dublin Principles (2011a)
broaden the temporal limits of urban heritage by bringing it closer to the
present and by attributing a major role to the inhabitants of former indus-
trial quarters whose identity is fading.75
We selected only the seven most frequently quoted instruments from
those documents which are occasionally mentioned to explain the emer-
gence of HUL. Their simple thematic inventory shows quite spectacu-
larly how the growing complexity of the notion of cultural heritage led
to a growing complexity of regulations. The Resolutions of the Symposium
on the Introduction of Contemporary Architecture into Ancient Groups of
30
G. SONKOLY
Buildings (1972)76 consider the social aspects of (tangible) cultural heri-

tage from the perspectives which integrate contemporary architecture into
historic context. The Resolutions of the Symposium on the Conservation of
Smaller Historic Towns (1975) are also intended to raise social conscious-
ness of the specificities of urban heritage in small towns.77 The Itaipava
Principles (1987b) are meant to blur the line separating the protected
and unprotected parts of the city by defining “critical areas”78 in the year
when The Washington Charter was issued. The Principles for the Recording
of Monuments, Groups of Buildings and Sites (1996b) require the par-
ticipation of governmental bodies and even individuals for the record-
ing of monuments in addition to conservation experts.79 The Declaration
of San Antonio (1996a) is an American reflection upon the “European
(Bergen) and Asia (Nara) definitions of authenticity.”80 The Charter on
Built Vernacular Heritage (1999c) is a further step in the process of the
integration of social practices into heritage conservation81 before the defi-
nition of the new concepts—such as intangible heritage, HUL, or spirit of
place—in the 2000s. The Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural
Heritage Value of ICOMOS New Zealand (2010a) can be seen as a local
assessment of these conceptual novelties and an attempt to offer an alter-
native to the spirit of place (officially defined two years before) in the form
of the notion—“place of cultural heritage value”—which is value-based,
does not belong to the jargon of monument architects, and redefines
both pillars of conventional heritage protection by defining authenticity
as the “identification and analysis of relevant evidence and knowledge,
and respect for its cultural context” and integrity as “the wholeness or
intactness of a place, including its meaning and sense of place, and all the
tangible and intangible attributes and elements necessary to express its
cultural heritage value.”82
The selected UNESCO documents can be divided into two groups.
The first is composed of the instruments which are most frequently quoted
by the initiators of HUL,83 while the second group helps to trace back its
evolution from The Vienna Memorandum to The HUL Recommendation
between 2005 and 2011.84 The expansion of the notion of cultural heri-
tage and the related problems reveals the same logic as has been demon-
strated in the case of the evolution of the ICOMOS documents.
The database was completed by eight important documents which
were adopted by international organizations other than UNESCO or
ICOMOS. Conventionally, The Athens Charter,85 produced by the
Congrès internationaux d’architecture moderne (CIAM), the International
Congresses of Modern Architecture, is considered as the starting point

of the international regulation of urban heritage protection; indeed, it
can also be regarded as a modernist manifesto, as the denomination of
the organization indicates. Other international gatherings of architects
adopted The Quito Norms (1967) and The Declaration of Amsterdam
(1975). Even though the regulations of the European Union did not
claim universal applicability, the four of them (The European Charter of
the Architectural Heritage, 1975; The Granada Convention, 1985; The
Aalborg Charter, 1994; and The European Landscape Convention, 2000)
are considered as exemplary on a universal level. On the basis of our selec-
tion criteria, one national document qualified for the database because
of its substantial impact to the international cultural heritage discourse,
manifested in the frequency with which it appears in international docu-
ments and in the HUL debate. The Dutch Belvedere Memorandum (1999)
is a regulatory endeavor to examine the relationship between cultural his-
tory and spatial planning. Although it was conceived to determine the
particular requirements for the developmental planning of a Dutch prov-
ince, it conveys a universal significance for the later definition and practice
of HUL by aiming “to recognize, and to maintain the recognizability of,
cultural-historic identity in both rural and urban areas, as a quality and
basic starting point for further developments.”86
The selected 44 documents are considered to represent the evolution
of the urban heritage preservation discourse. This complex evolution will
be revealed first by the analysis of the changing interpretations of its three
fundamental components, which subsequently add up to the conceptual
history of urban heritage.
The Changing Perception of Security and Time

of Urban Heritage
The examined international documents, without exception, call for a halt

to dangerous processes which are expected to be brought under control
by increasingly comprehensive and professional tools of the urban heritage
protection. The origins of these dangers are already identified with the
elements of modernization in the earliest documents, and prevention is
recognized as their remedy from the 1960s onward. The sources of these
dangers can be passive tendencies such as losing “character” (The Athens
Charter, The Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding of Landscapes
and Sites, 1962)87 or “authenticity” (The Venice Charter), or active pro-
32
G. SONKOLY
cesses such as armed conflicts, trafficking in monuments and artistic

objects (The Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding of Landscapes
and Sites, 1962), accelerated progress (The Quito Norms), industrializa-
tion and urbanization (The Recommendation concerning the Preservation
of Cultural Property, 1968), that is, the symptoms of “the fever of prog-
ress”88 as it is recapitulated in 1967. Though “Customary precaution”89
is mentioned as necessary, but not sufficient for the desired protection as
early as in The Athens Charter, “preventive measures” appear only in The
Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding90 to link monuments from
the past with “future generations.”91
In the 1970s, the documents provide more and more detailed lists of
threats stemming from the effects of modernization. From the viewpoint
of the perception of time, the most important novelty is the idea of tem-
poral continuity in heritage protection in contrast to the perception of
heritage territories, which are still determined by the dichotomy of old
and new. Already, The ICOMOS Resolutions on Contemporary Architecture
(1972) declare “that architecture is necessarily the expression of its age,
that its development is continuous, and that its past, present and future
expression must be treated as a whole.”92 According to The European
Charter of the Architectural Heritage (1975), the destruction of built
heritage would entail that “part of man’s awareness of his own continuity
will be destroyed.”93 According to The Nairobi Recommendations (1976),
“the living presence of the past” can be experienced in “historic areas.”94
While the heritage discourse is penetrated by this temporal continuity, his-
tory first appears as a synonym of the past,95 then in the form of school his-
tory, since history teaching is expected to promote the “study of historic
areas,”96 while scholarly historians are not listed among other experts who
are expected to determine historic areas.
In the 1980s, more emphasis is given to the “knowledge of the history
of a historic town or urban area,”97 as well as to the development of other
competences. This might suggest that the idea of the continuous tem-
porality of urban heritage protection form the mid-1970s onward would
generate and require an interdisciplinary attitude as one of the main char-
acteristics of the new urban planning. Already in 1975 The Declaration
of Amsterdam states that “new buildings of today will be the heritage
of tomorrow.”98 Twelve years later, The Itaipava Principles “see urban
planning as a continuous and permanent process” to which “the preserva-
tion of urban historical sites must be of the basic aims.”99 Thus, heritage-
focussed urban planning is intended to replace the previous (modernist)
tradition of urban planning characterized by intergenerational fractures of

continuity and permanence. This change makes the growing number of
threats manageable by appropriate “sustainable management strategies for
change.”100 Even so, the original threats depicted before the early 1970s
are amplified by environment pollution and other tendencies to the extent
that the “irreversible cultural, social and even economic losses”101 require
“training in disaster preparedness”102 by the early 1990s as The ICOMOS
Guidelines on Education and Training declare in 1993.
The 1990s were characterized by the further development of the
notion and toolkit of sustainability,103 as well as by an increased emphasis
on the role of history in teaching104 and constructing identities,105 which
are related to the growing appreciation of urban heritage. The Belvedere
Memorandum proposes the management of the drastic territorial meta-
morphosis of the Netherlands by taking into consideration the perspec-
tives of cultural history and by the enhancement of historical identities
derived from the cultural history of the country. The preamble of The
Nara Document on Authenticity (1994) gently but firmly relativizes the
definitions of authenticity both of The Venice Charter and of The World
Heritage Convention.106 This unveiled criticism reveals a paradigm shift
and indicates that a certain historicity is emerging after three decades of
international heritage protection even though the standard-setting docu-
ments maintain their integrative logic. By this time the growing aware-
ness of future danger caused by present behaviors is so strong that The
ICOMOS Principles for the Recordings of Monuments, Groups of Buildings
and Sites (1996b) blatantly begins with a statement that “cultural heritage
is continuously at risk.”107 Dangers are not just projected in the future but
are irreversibly placed in the present.
In the first half of the 2000s, the fear of loss seems to be soothed by
the more accurate definition of sustainability108 and by the possibility of
recreation encoded in the freshly established notion of intangible cultural
heritage.109 The continuous recreation of intangible heritage, however,
raises questions about authenticity, which had ensured the survival of the
tangible cultural heritage determined by its outstanding universal value
(OUV). The Nara Document already started the deconstruction of this
authenticity, but it is The Yamamoto Declaration on Integrated Approaches
for Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage (2004), right after The
Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003), which openly pro-
claims that “intangible cultural heritage is constantly recreated, the term
‘authenticity’ as applied to tangible cultural heritage is not relevant when
34
G. SONKOLY
identifying and safeguarding intangible cultural heritage.”110 The European

Landscape Convention (2000) applies the integrative notion of landscape
to sustainability by defining the notion of “landscape management,”111
which implicitly includes the management of culture. Officially, culture is
defined as the fourth pillar of sustainability in 2002.112 Though intangible
heritage and the application of sustainability for heritage protection result
in significant theoretical improvements, these novelties could hardly be
kept within the conceptual and professional framework of cultural heritage
protection, which was still strongly influenced by the tradition of monu-
ment conservation.
The second half of the 2000s is characterized by a quest for concepts
which could embrace the divergent tendencies in heritage protection.
Even if the complexity of cultural heritage had by that time reached a
point where a wider range of scholars, experts, and professionals than
ever before felt the need to get involved in its management, the relatively
large number of instruments of this period does not display an unani-
mous attempt to develop heritage protection accordingly. Instead, two
contrary tendencies seem to emerge. The first one, mainly present in some
ICOMOS documents113 and the ICOMOS comments on HUL,114 seeks
to keep the discourse of urban heritage preservation within the tradition
of tangible heritage protection and to employ this tradition for the new
challenges by ensuring the predominance of established monument pro-
tection experts. The other tendency, marked by the HUL approach, pro-
ceeds from a supposed equality of the members of heritage construction, in
which the concerned social actors’ roles were distributed proportionately
to the importance of their participation. The internal dilemma of urban
heritage protection manifested by these two tendencies is reflected in the
expression of “sustainable conservation” of The ICOMOS Charter on the
Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites (2008c).115 This
expression is a compound of the early term of “conservation” with sus-
tainability instead of “safeguarding,”116 which would be more appropri-
ate for the new paradigm of temporal continuity inherent to the idea of
sustainability. “Sustainable safeguarding” would mean a total rupture with
static monument protection, while “sustainable conservation” could sug-
gest its integration into the new imperative.
The dilemma of the handling of co-existing discourses is very much
present in the commemorative article by Michael Petzet, the president of
ICOMOS, written for the 40th anniversary of The Venice Charter with
the intention to update its values.117 He states in the introduction that
The Venice Charter is “an unassailable document the validity of which will
be affirmed more and more as time passes”; its creation was a “historic
event” leading to such “an irreplaceable instrument” that “attempts to
write a ‘new Charter of Venice’—one example being the Cracow Charter
of 2000—make little sense.”118 Following this logic, Petzet tries to prove
that The Venice Charter is fit to respond to the new challenges coming
from the expansion of the notion of cultural heritage; then he locates the
principles of The Venice Charter in the European history of monument
protection. Thus, he argues that the main dilemma of heritage protection
is still the choice between restoration and conservation, just as it was in the
nineteenth century, and it can still be solved efficiently by applying Georg
Dehio’s classic (i.e., modernist) reply: “conserve, do not restore.”119
He offsets the criticisms the modernist tradition by “Post-modernism”
by referring to Alois Riegl’s “still useful system of commemorative and
present-day values”120 and to Walter Benjamin’s notions of “trace” and
“aura,” which go “far beyond the question of material/immaterial or
tangible/intangible values.”121 From the practical point of view, Petzet
regards the projection of this dichotomy to heritage protection as a return
of the “restore or conserve” dilemma in a way that would allow not only
the eventually acceptable but also the refutable restoration as an adequate
alternative to conservation. In this sense, the changing notion of cultural
heritage is not a societal issue but an integral part of the history of monu-
ment protection, and heritage is meant to indicate a fracture in time that
is a privileged moment, in which it becomes heritage and, in consequence,
inalterable. Seven years later, The Valletta Principles (2011c) also regard
change as the greatest threat to urban heritage.122 It dedicates a whole
unit to the “aspects of change” and warns that “changes that are inherent
to urban growth must be controlled and carefully managed to minimize
physical and visual effects on the townscape and architectural fabric.”123
By the year of The Vienna Memorandum (2005d), continuity encoded
in sustainability and the management of change impose themselves as the
key problems of urban heritage protection. Though HUL is intended to
integrate these issues into cultural heritage protection, there is only one
international instrument, The Xi’an Declaration on the Preservation of the
Setting of Heritage Structures (2005), which refers to it in the entire period
of our analysis. But even this document uses it only as a reference and not
as a model since it introduces its own notion, “heritage structure,” to
replace the original monument. One of the advantages of this new term lies
in its lenient attitude to change since “managing change to the setting of
36
G. SONKOLY
heritage structures, sites and areas need not necessarily prevent or obstruct
change.”124 As The Nara and Yamamoto Documents played crucial roles in
the deconstruction of authenticity stemming from predominantly Western
traditions, the Chinese setting of The Xi’an Declaration may also have
some influence on this permissive concept of change in heritage manage-
ment. The growing importance of non-Western experts in UNESCO and
ICOMOS from the 1990s onward and their criticism of cultural heritage
conceived within linear and historical time also contributed to the more
complex perception and conceptualization of urban heritage. In the sec-
ond half of the 2000s, there are no new standard-setting instruments on
urban heritage125 as if the reflections on HUL would be apposite to solve
the inner dilemma of urban heritage protection, making the HUL itself its
comprehensive and integrative concept, which is exactly what it was origi-
nally supposed to do. The adaptation of the UNESCO Recommendation
on the HUL seemed to be proving this presumption in 2011.
Nevertheless, in the same year of 2011, ICOMOS produced three new
instruments, which are significant for the protection of urban heritage,
and none of which happens to refer to the notion or to the instruments
of HUL. Two of these documents, however, tend to support the percep-
tion of urban heritage as continuity without mentioning HUL. The Paris
Declaration on heritage as a driver of development is fairly open to the
perception of heritage in its continuity since it determines the “preserva-
tion of historic districts and encourage[s] their restoration and regenera-
tion” as its first objective, then a little later mentions the “revitalisation
of towns.”126 The Dublin Principles for the Conservation of Industrial
Heritage are also a crucial instrument in defining urban heritage in its
continuity since it incorporates “sites, structures, areas and landscapes” of
the “two centuries”127 from the industrial revolution up to our own time
into the legitimate heritage. In contrast to these documents, The Valletta
Principles are reluctant to associate management and change within the
framework of “management of change.”
“Management of change” is a priority among the tools of the HUL
approach listed in Recommendation on the HUL,128 in which “the active
protection of urban heritage and its sustainable management as a condition
sine qua non of development” and the “active collaboration of the main
stakeholders”129 are declared to show how much this approach is based
on functioning in the present. It is not just focussed on the present; it is
also supposed to manifest a paradigm shift: “In the course of the past half
century, urban heritage conservation has emerged as an important sector
of public policy worldwide. It is a response to the need to preserve shared

values and to benefit from the legacy of history. However, the shift from
an emphasis on architectural monuments primarily towards a broader rec-
ognition of the importance of the social, cultural and economic processes
in the conservation of urban values, should be matched by a drive to adapt
the existing policies and to create new tools to address this vision.”130
The Recommendation is more cautious than its Preliminary Report, which
dedicates a separate paragraph to the management of change, proclaiming
that “current principles and practices are still inadequate to define the lim-
its of acceptable change, and the assessments tend to be ad hoc and based
on subjective perceptions.”131 Moreover, it continues with a sentence,
criticized in The ICOMOS Notes on the Recommendation,132 which openly
claims the definition of urban heritage as a continuum.133 Though this
definition was excluded from the adopted version of the Recommendation,
its text still contains plenty of indications that the management of change
perceived by the HUL approach defines the time of heritage as a dynamic
continuity and not as a static permanence determined by selected fractures.
The Conceptual Evolution of the Territory

of Urban Heritage
All the examined documents determine the territorial unit of urban heri-
tage preservation. Prior to The World Heritage Convention, this territory
is conceived as a protection zone around the particular monument or
the group of monuments protected. Even though the protection is still
focussed on the monument, the recurring intention to define the zone of
protection gradually leads to a shift from the traditional object-oriented
monument conservation to a territory-based heritage protection, which
demands the establishment of the necessary conditions and vocabulary
for the delimitation of the protected territories. The justifications for
protection show how aesthetic criteria are progressively replaced by cul-
tural significance. Concerning the criteria for protection, both The Athens
Charter and The UNESCO Recommendation of 1962 emphasize the
importance of the “picturesque perspective,”134 the latter is even entitled
Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty and Character
of Landscapes and Sites135 (emphasis added). The Recommendation concern-
ing the Preservation of Cultural Property (1968) also encourages the “pres-
ervation of the character and aesthetic qualities” of “historic quarters,”136
though this is the last allusion to aesthetic characteristics: later the choice
38
G. SONKOLY
of urban sites for protection is generally justified by cultural factors. The

first paragraph of the definitions of The Venice Charter specifies that “the
concept of a historic monument embraces not only the single architectural
work but also the urban or rural setting in which is found the evidence
of a particular civilization, a significant development or a historic event.
This applies not only to great works of art but also to more modest works
of the past which have acquired cultural significance with the passing of
time.”137 Three years later, The Quito Norms, which openly set out to give
an all-American interpretation to the European approaches presented in
the Weiss report to the 1963 Recommendation of the Council of Europe138
and in The Venice Charter, prioritizes not only the cultural aspects for the
selection of “traces of the past” but also introduces and mentions several
times the notion of cultural heritage.139 The Recommendation concerning
the Preservation of Cultural Property determines the protected urban ter-
ritories from the perspective of cultural property.140
Though the jargon of the protected urban territory is not yet unified,
the expression of site is used in every text. There are important differences
in the interpretations of this site, and, especially, in the definition of this
protected territorial unit, which is called “neighbourhood of monuments”
in The Athens Charter, “landscape” in The Recommendation concerning the
Preservation of Cultural Property, and “setting” and “surrounding area”
in the three documents dating from the late 1960s. From 1962 onward,
these sites are expected to be divided into zones. The expression of “urban
landscape” appears in The Recommendation concerning the Preservation of
Cultural Property and in The Quito Norms. In both cases, it refers to the
surroundings of the monument in the sense that it can integrate the urban
natural environment into protection through zoning.
The World Heritage Convention divides the future register of cultural
heritage into three categories (monument, group of buildings, and site),
the third of which (“site”) becomes the basic category of World Heritage.
According to its definition, the site is “a topographical area, which is of
special value by reason of its beauty or its interest from the archaeologi-
cal, historical, ethnological or anthropological points of view.”141 Thus,
the most frequently quoted instrument links the aestheticizing tradition
of monument protection with sensitivity to culture, which is validated
by scientific—mainly ethnological and anthropological—reference. The
expression “group of building,” typical of the early 1970s,142 is used to
connect the monument and the site here, but later, it progressively disap-
pears from the examined documents, without being replaced by any other
standardized expression intended to describe the territorial unit of urban

heritage until the 2000s. In the second half of the 1970s, the following
terms are used simultaneously for this purpose: area, zone, (historic) cen-
ter, quarter, core, or even heart of the city. The common characteristic of
the definitions is that the adjective “old” is more often used than “his-
toric” to designate the protected territories.143 From the conceptual point
of view, old and new city quarters are still sharply distinguished within
urban territories, which does not allow the establishment of a functional
definition of the territory of urban heritage. However, there seems to be
a growing demand for such a definition, reflected in the expression of
“management of space” in The Declaration of Amsterdam144 and in the
definition of environment in The Nairobi Recommendation.145 The term
“landscape” appears only twice in the examined documents in this decade:
it refers to the background of the group of buildings in the World Heritage
Convention,146 and it serves as a synonym for the natural surroundings
of small towns in The Resolutions of the Symposium on the Conservation of
Smaller Historic Towns.147
Among the three instruments dating from the 1980s, The Itaipava
Principles of the Brazilian ICOMOS represent the most important concep-
tual renewal. The Granada Convention (1985) maintains the triple catego-
rization (monument, groups of buildings, and site) of The World Heritage
Convention. The Washington Charter (1987a) uses the conventional
expression of “historic area,” but, referring to this, it enumerates “mate-
rial and spiritual elements” as well as “the relationships between buildings
and green and open spaces,” which should be taken into consideration for
its definition and management.148 In the same year, The Itaipava Principles
surpass the approach found in the previous documents, which is based
on the division of the urban territory between old and new following the
modernist tradition of monument conservation. Its first basic principle
is that “urban historical sites may be considered as those spaces where
manifold evidences of the city’s cultural production concentrate. They are
to be circumscribed rather in terms of their operational value as ‘critical
areas’ than in opposition to the city’s non-historical places, since the city
in its totality is a historical entity.”149 In this way, the urban historical sites
are meant to weld together not only the built and natural environment
but also the everyday experience of its dwellers. This definition of The
Itaipava Principles would permit the interpretation of the totality of the
urban territory as heritage, but it does not yet provide an appropriate term
for this approach because its notion of “historical site” not only belongs
40
G. SONKOLY
to the vocabulary of monument conservation, dividing the urban territory

into old and new since The Athens Charter, but is determined as its basic
category in The World Heritage Convention.
The growing number of standard-setting instruments in the 1990s
indicates that the management of the hundreds of new World Heritage
sites is getting more complicated and, consequently, preservation prin-
ciples established in the 1970s are due for adjustment. We can observe
two significant modifications in the interpretation of the territory of urban
heritage. First, the notion of landscape returned after the extension of
the World Heritage categories by “cultural landscape” in 1992 and The
Declaration of San Antonio (1996a) “urban areas” as a subcategory of
cultural landscape.150 Second, The Burra Charter introduces the notion of
“place of cultural significance,” which is essentially different to the notion
of site because of its inherent intention to consider the changing cultural
practices and interpretations related to a given place, which can be among
many other things, “urban areas and towns” too. Deliberately, The Burra
Charter enumerates and combines all the verbs associated with heritage
preservation (“conserve, maintain, preserve, restore, reconstruct, adapt,
protect”), which previously were used separately to distinguish between
approaches in the long history of monument and heritage protection.151 As
opposed to the “site,” which conveys a static character and top–down defi-
nition, the “place of cultural significance” is meant to express a dynamic
character and a definition by community practices.
While the notion of “place” is rarely present in the examined docu-
ments in the 2000s and only appears in relationship to intangible cultural
heritage, “landscape” becomes a fundamental term. In the 2000s, the ter-
ritorialization of the cultural heritage is affected by the non-territorial con-
cept of intangible cultural heritage152 and by the spectacular proliferation
of “landscape” in the standard-setting instruments and in the scientific
debates corresponding to them. From the 1990s onward, ever-stronger
voices in UNESCO have been pointing out that the institutionalization
of the (tangible) cultural heritage does not suit the protection of non-
Western forms of identity constructions, but these criticisms could not find
an appropriate conceptual framework to instigate changes which would
preserve the already established structure of World Heritage while respect-
ing the integrative logic of its development. The Recommendation on the
Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore153 (1989) was unable
to offer a solution since both “traditional culture” and “folklore” origi-
nate from the Western academia and, consequently, contain distinctions
(traditional vs. modern; high vs. popular; tangible vs. folklore), which
would impose further external categories on communities striving for the
recognition of their internal specialities. These expectations are supposed
to be satisfied first by the List of Masterpieces, established in 2001 and
extended in 2003. This notion has proved to be a cul-de-sac (though one
which is seldom mentioned as such) compared to the notion of intangible
cultural heritage, which was defined in the Intangible Cultural Heritage
Convention in 2003, and the List was incorporated into that of intan-
gible heritage.154 The institutionalization of the concept of intangible cul-
tural heritage took place at the same time as that of cultural diversity,
recognized and defined in a Universal Declaration155 (2001a) and in the
Diversity of Cultural Expressions Convention156 (2005b). As we saw in the
case of The Yamamoto Declaration, the evolution of the notion of cultural
heritage toward intangible heritage and cultural diversity does not neces-
sarily involve an open criticism of its territorialization. It is rather a lack of
territorial definition that characterizes UNESCO documents in the first
half of the 2000s. Though “place of memory” 157 is mentioned in the
Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention, it is not used as a category but
only used as a mere reference which should be integrated into education.
“Cultural space” is the only conceptual novelty which appeared dur-
ing the definition of intangible heritage, but it remains undefined and is
not included in the five domains which function as the categories for the
List of Intangible Cultural Heritage from 2008. The first category of the
List of Masterpieces (2001, 2003), however, was cultural space, to which
7 “masterpieces” belong out of the total of 47.158 The notion of cultural
space proved to be arbitrary because it was never made clear why it was
introduced instead of the already established cultural landscape, and it does
not appear again in any later standard-setting instrument. Nevertheless,
its brief appearance indicates a paradigm shift in the territorialization of
cultural heritage, which can be characterized on the basis of the exam-
ined evolution by the insufficiency of the territorial categories of tangible
heritage (primarily the “site” and the “area”) for the renewed notion of
cultural heritage extended by the intangible heritage. This is why “cultural
space” was introduced, but the term was too imprecise to comply with
the expectations of tangible heritage stemming from the archiving tradi-
tion of monument conservation. The years of the definition of intangible
cultural heritage and cultural diversity were partially devoted to finding a
territorial category which could satisfy the two diverse branches of cultural
heritage—tangible and intangible—which came with rather contradictory
42
G. SONKOLY
requirements. The notion of cultural space has not been elaborated fur-
ther, whereas “cultural landscape” remains as a meta-category for World
Heritage, and the notion of HUL was defined in 2005. In consequence,
“landscape” and its specified versions seem to be the best suited to the
extended concept of cultural heritage from the second half of the 2000s.
The significance of the institutionalization of the double notions of
intangible heritage and cultural diversity in the overall evolution of cultural
heritage is recognized and well documented, both in the official heritage
literature and in its scientific interpretation. The question is how much the
analysis of its territorialization can refine these results. French social sci-
ences can provide a great many attractive models to interpret this territori-
alization since the relationship between society and its territory has always
been one of their main concerns. Daniel Nordman summarizes this rich
tradition in a model which opposes space and territory.159 According to
this opposition, territorialization—that is, the manifestation of a commu-
nity’s identity through territorial entities—can be described conceptually
by a transformation from space to territory. While space (espace) is neutral,
containing and lacking denominations and borders, territory (territoire) is
endowed with social content, denomination, and delimitation. Territorial
denominations like “area,” “site,” “space,” “place,” landscape,” “country,”
“fatherland,” and “land” can be interpreted in the process of territorializa-
tion—that is, in the evolution of their social appropriation—according to
whether they manifest more “spatial” or “territorial” characteristics. In
this sense, “site” or “area” is situated in one extreme of territorialization
since they are endowed with prescribed borders and names and registered
to express a sort of belonging. On the contrary, “space” is situated on the
other extreme, without attached social attributes. In this model, “land-
scape” is positioned in a transitory situation between space and territory
because it belongs to a register of identity construction and it is denomi-
nated, but it lacks precise borders, unlike “site” or “area.” As a matter of
fact, this permeable and imprecise border—determined by a viewer who
may be an individual or a community—is one of the main characteristics of
the “landscape.” Consequently, this transitory position of landscape makes
it suitable for the process of territorialization of cultural heritage at the
moment of its conceptual expansion by intangible heritage. The impre-
cise—or fuzzy—nature of landscape appropriately covers up the concep-
tual uncertainties of the expanding cultural heritage.
Nevertheless, one wonders why the notion of cultural landscape, origi-
nally containing urban landscape too, did not prove to be sufficient for
the safeguarding of urban World Heritage. One possible answer can be

found in the official evaluation of the first decade (1992–2002) of its
introduction to World Heritage jargon.160 According to this, the World
Heritage Committee still understands rural landscape primarily in terms
of the notion of “cultural landscape,” and human settlements (only small
towns and villages) are only considered to belong to it if they are situ-
ated there. The author suggests in vain that urban landscapes of cities
should be “integrated as cultural landscapes” to the cultural landscape cat-
egory—functioning as a meta-category161—since three years later urban
landscape protection seems to have found its own category in the form of
the HUL.162
One of the reasons for the emergence of this new notion can be illus-
trated by the European criticism of the UNESCO notion of cultural land-
scape,163 which was manifested in the wording of The European Landscape
Convention in 2000. According to this, the UNESCO selection based
on the OUVs revealed an elitist approach since it was not only sites (of
tangible heritage) that should be regarded as cultural landscape, but
every “area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the
action and interaction of natural and/or human factors.”164 In this sense,
a much wider and truly integrative notion of landscape was defined. As
the preamble declares, “the landscape has an important public interest
role in the cultural, ecological, environmental and social fields, and con-
stitutes a resource favourable to economic activity and whose protection,
management and planning can contribute to job creation”, and it “con-
tributes to the formation of local cultures and […] is a basic component of
the European natural and cultural heritage, contributing to human well-
being and consolidation of the European identity”, and also, it “is an
important part of the quality of life for people everywhere: in urban areas
and in the countryside.”165 This concept of landscape is more comprehen-
sive than the one which attempts to strike a balance between the cultural
and natural categories of World Heritage, staying essentially within the
tangible register of cultural heritage.
Though HUL was formulated to unite the divergent branches of cul-
tural heritage in one concept, which would be applicable to urban heritage
preservation, it provoked a quest for more appropriate terms. Bandarin
and van Oers mention eight ICOMOS declarations and charters, which
affected its conceptual finalization during the six years between its first def-
inition and its standardization (2005–2011). As we have seen, however, it
is only the earliest, The Xi’an Declaration on the Preservation of the Setting
44
G. SONKOLY
of Heritage Structures (2005), that refers to The Vienna Memorandum and

to the notion of HUL among its listed “heritage structures.”166 The Paris
Declaration on heritage as a driver of development (2011b) uses the notion
of “multifunctional, landscaped urban neighbourhood,”167 but its rela-
tionship to HUL is unclear because of the lack of appropriate definition.
Though the landscape and the cultural landscape are present in all these
standard-setting instruments, HUL is not mentioned even in The Valletta
Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of Historic Cities, Towns,
Urban Areas (2011c),168 which were conceived for a very similar purpose
to that of the UNESCO Recommendation on the HUL in the same year.
The fact that ICOMOS felt the need to declare principles on urban heri-
tage protection independently of HUL in the very same year seems to
prove that the unifying intention behind it could not succeed.
While many decision-makers and experts were busy conceptualizing
and regulating HUL at UNESCO in the second half of the 2000s, its
Advisory Body, ICOMOS, was also preoccupied with finding other solu-
tions to the same challenges, as the relatively large number of instruments
shows. As a result, two possible alternatives were formulated concurrently
at the ICOMOS General Assembly in Quebec in October 2008 with The
Charter on the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites
and The Quebec Declaration on the Preservation of the Spirit of Place. The
former, similarly to The Principles for the Recording of Monuments (1996b),
is a manifesto of the professionalization of heritage communication, which
still claims a leading role for the heritage professionals, while admitting
that the participation of other experts and stakeholders is also neces-
sary in heritage preservation. The heritage territory is discussed under
the conventional notion of “site,” which involves every other territorial
term including landscape, referring here only to the natural setting of
heritage.169 The latter document aims at a conceptual renewal by deter-
mining the “spirit of place” as its key term. It simultaneously possesses
“living, social and spiritual nature,”170 and expresses the unity of tangible
and intangible elements of cultural heritage. This Declaration acknowl-
edges that “intangible cultural heritage gives a richer and more complete
meaning to heritage as a whole and it must be taken into account in all
legislation concerning cultural heritage, and in all conservation and res-
toration projects for monuments, sites, landscapes, routes and collections
of objects.”171 This is an obvious recognition of the fact that the intan-
gible cultural heritage became essential for any kind of heritage protec-
tion, including urban heritage. In this situation, the experts of monument
conservation suggest the notion of “spirit of place,” which is better suited
to, and more typical of, their own tradition of architecture and urban plan-
ning than urban landscape, which can belong to any discipline concerned
in heritage protection. “Landscape” appears in this document as a territo-
rial category of tangible heritage in line with its former definition related
to World Heritage. These instruments from 2008 reveal the possible strat-
egies employed by tangible heritage experts to cope with the intrusion
of intangible cultural heritage into their domain: either they acknowl-
edge its presence, but continue to employ the conventional concepts and
categories,172 or they attempt to maintain their authority by proposing
notions originating from their own tradition. The differences between
the approaches represented by ICOMOS experts and those involved in
the notion of the HUL became even clearer during the preparation of
the Recommendations on the HUL in 2010–2011 when all the concerned
groups and experts were invited to express themselves. In the ICOMOS
critique of the text of the Recommendation,173 three groups of dangers
can be identified: (1) monumental conservation based on historic area
or center would be subordinated to contemporary social requirements
in a landscape-focussed heritage preservation; (2) in consequence, “con-
temporary architecture”174 could penetrate historic areas with relative ease
under the label of heritage-based development approved by the HUL
approach; (3) thus, the expert on built heritage would be subjected to
a loss of influence since he or she would be only one, and not even the
most prominent, among the stakeholders, and, consequently, heritage and
monument protection would also gradually be deprived of its authority.
Some of the ICOMOS comments appear, differently phrased, in the final
version of this Recommendation, but no essential corrections were made
to the document. For example, the expression “contemporary architec-
ture” remains unchanged despite of being fiercely criticized, and the dis-
approving statement on “the forms of pseudo-historical design”—already
present in The Vienna Memorandum175—was not reinserted though this
was requested in the ICOMOS comments. This was the very expression
which was already considered by some participants at the Montreal round-
table on The Vienna Memorandum in 2006 to be a revealing indicator of
the “outdated view of modernist architects.”
This Recommendation defines HUL as “the urban area understood
as the result of a historic layering of cultural and natural values and attri-
butes, extending beyond the notion of ‘historic centre’ or ‘ensemble’ to
include the broader urban context and its geographical setting.”176 It con-
siders that the HUL approach is necessary to “maintain urban identity.”177
The careful conceptual considerations which governed the choice of the
46
G. SONKOLY
Recommendation’s vocabulary are reflected in its Glossary of Definitions,

which identifies each HUL component by previous standard-setting
instruments. Though the number of these instruments is much smaller
than our database,178 this format also reveals a certain historicity in the
composition of the HUL, which is comparable to the results of our inves-
tigation. The Glossary determines the following milestones in the evo-
lution of HUL: (1) The Nairobi Recommendation (1976) determined
“historic and architectural (including vernacular) areas [… of which]
the cohesion and value […] are recognized” partially, but not any more
exclusively by a monument; (2) The Washington Charter (1987a) defined
“historic urban areas, large and small, […] with their natural and man-
made environments” and considered that “these areas embody the values
of traditional urban cultures”; (3) The European Union research report
No. 16 (2004) established the principles of the “sustainable development
of urban historical areas,” which include a division of urban heritage into
three categories (“monumental heritage of exceptional cultural value;
non-exceptional heritage elements but present in a coherent way with a
relative abundance; new urban elements to be considered”); (4) The Xi’an
Declaration (2005) introduced and defined the notion of “setting,” which
allowed the perception of the totality of urban environment as heritage;
(5) The Burra Charter contributed the notion of cultural significance,
which “is embodied in the place itself,” that is, the heritage territory is
immanently endowed with the role of conveying identity.179
Our analysis resulted in a similar but more detailed history of the ter-
ritorialization of urban heritage. It is worth mentioning that none of the
five instruments mentioned in the Glossary refers to “landscape.” They use
“area,” “environment,” “setting,” or “place,” but not “landscape” as ter-
ritorial categories of heritage. These instruments are not quoted to justify
the relevance of the landscape approach of the Recommendation, but to
explain how HUL is meant to express social, economic, and cultural reali-
ties embodied in the current cultural heritage discourse. The relevance of
the “landscape approach” itself is justified by references to “natural land-
scape,” which is borrowed from the definitions of the International Union
for Conservation of Nature and those of the World Wildlife Fund.180
Apparently, neither the abundant literature on urban landscape in social
sciences and humanities nor the previously approved texts of The Vienna
Memorandum and the Declaration on the Conservation of the Historic
Urban Landscapes (2005c) were convincing enough to demonstrate the
relevance of the choice of the “landscape approach” to frame the con-
temporary comprehensive nature of cultural heritage. The significance of

the “natural landscape” in the shaping of the HUL approach cannot be
explained simply by the evolution of the territorialization of urban heri-
tage since it inevitably refers to the problematic co-existence of society
and nature within cultural heritage, which will be analyzed through the
evolution of the notion of community of urban heritage.
The Conceptual Evaluation of the Community

of Urban Heritage
Urban heritage conservation is already fundamentally defined as a legal

problem in The Athens Charter: how the community can ensure the pro-
tection of monuments and sites of a private property situated on its ter-
ritory. For this purpose, the earlier international documents prescribe a
set of beneficial measures: the establishment of national inventories of
monuments and sites, the creation of national monument conservation
institutions, the systematic education of the public to raise awareness
of the importance of heritage as well as the level of sentimental attach-
ment to it. The significance of legal regulations and that of the didactic
role of heritage are present in all of our instruments. The community
itself, however, can vary in size or scale according to the purpose of the
particular document. In the 1960s, The Venice Charter defines heritage
as the common value of humanity, while The Quito Norms see heritage
sites as the conveyers of national pride, which provide the exemplary
European countries not only with pride but also with significant income
from tourism.181
The World Heritage Convention, following the spirit of The Venice
Charter, announces the necessity of cultural heritage protection in the
name of “mankind as a whole.”182 Heritage protection at the universal level
is meant to serve as a model for subsidiary levels as The Recommendations
at National Level of the Convention reveal.183 After a short theoretical
introduction, both the Convention and the attached Recommendations
emphasize the need to establish national administrative institutions of her-
itage protection in every member state. Accordingly, the primary objective
in the 1970s was the completion of a hierarchy of heritage conservation
on three levels (international, national, and local), in which the subsidiary
levels would be established to reproduce the universal level, representing
humanity as a (cultural) whole in a postcolonial world, in which many
member states were about to create their own national identities.
48
G. SONKOLY
From the second half of the 1970s, however, the idea of cloning the
levels of heritage protection was gradually abandoned in favor of the mobi-
lization of local communities to use their heritage to express their specifici-
ties. Correspondingly, the instruments attribute a growing importance to
the local community in the protection of urban heritage. Cultural heritage
is no longer merely part of school curricula; it is expected to guarantee a
“harmonious social balance”184 to “enable individuals to find their identity
and feel secure despite abrupt social changes”185 and “to stimulate a sense
of pride.”186 Consequently, local communities are urged to mobilize for
the protection of urban heritage because it constitutes “the cornerstone of
their identity,”187 which should be expressed in the practice of participa-
tion188 and in the voluntary activities of the locals.189 The involvement of
the local community is not only a local matter any longer: The Declaration
of Amsterdam claims that professionals worldwide should develop a new
urban planning on a human scale.190
In the documents of the 1980s, the conservation of historic urban areas
is generally presented as the custodian of cultural identity that “concerns
their residents first of all.”191 The two ICOMOS documents of 1987 are
particularly keen on the involvement of local people in the survey of these
areas, which can help to evaluate their attachment to their place of resi-
dence and can enhance their civic consciousness.
By the 1990s, heritage sites are predominantly regarded as the mani-
festations of community identities, and, correspondingly, the efficiency
of their protection is considered proportionate to the involvement—and
to some extent to the openness—of the local population. “Cultural” as a
qualifier no longer refers only to heritage but also to the community which
constructs and preserves it,192 and even to their identity.193 The examined
documents from this decade show concern about the threat of homog-
enization in local communities, which should tactfully open themselves to
external influences by linking together participation and their culture, and
by respecting traditional local diversity194 or American pluriculturalism.195
The desired opening up of local communities puts tourism, as an unavoid-
able form of external influence, into a different light. Tourism and tourists,
mentioned in several earlier documents as major threats to the heritage
conservation, are listed among “the groups who value the site” in The
Declaration of San Antonio (1996a),196 and The International Cultural
Tourism Charter (1999a) repeatedly emphasizes the maintenance of the
integrity of heritage sites, in which “sustainable tourism” should play an
integrative role.197 In the general appraisal of community participation and
that of local culture, The Principles for the Recording of Monuments, Groups
of Buildings and Sites (1996b) represent an exception since the commu-
nity is defined not as a conveyer but as a receiver of the values of heritage
conservation, and—ignoring the emergence of intangible heritage—the
document includes only specialists in tangible heritage among the listed
recording experts.198
The examined UNESCO documents canonize two significant changes
in the perception of community in the first half of the 2000s. On the
one hand, the postulate of a unified human culture embodied in a uni-
fied World Heritage is replaced by the principle of cultural diversity,
according to which “cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as
biodiversity for nature.”199 On the other hand, the Convention for the
Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003) redefines the role
of the community in the designation and maintenance of cultural heri-
tage. Whereas according to The World Heritage Convention (1972a) and
its related Recommendations it is the responsibility of the international
community “to adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural
and natural heritage a(n active) function in the life of the community and
to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning
programmes,”200 The Intangible Heritage Convention declares already in
its preamble “that communities, in particular indigenous communities,
groups and, in some cases, individuals, play an important role in the pro-
duction, safeguarding, maintenance and recreation of the intangible cul-
tural heritage.”201 Accordingly, in the course of the three decades between
the two Conventions, both the theoretical and the practical significance
of the local communities grew spectacularly because these communities
are defined ultimately as the necessary quasi-biological components of
humankind. In consequence, their responsibility also grew proportion-
ately because the preservation of the conveyers of their own identity is rep-
resented as a necessary condition of the survival of humankind. UNESCO
experts consider this enhanced role of the community as an essential
adjustment in the history of cultural heritage preservation, and they date
this recognition to the period of 1992–2007,202 which otherwise corre-
sponds to the acknowledgment of cultural landscape as a conventional
category of World Heritage preservation. In this period community par-
ticipation developed from being an advisable element to being a necessary
principle. The World Heritage Operative Guidelines (2005a) are the first to
use the expression “World Heritage Partners.”203 In 2007, the “4Cs”—
the four World Heritage strategic objectives defined five years earlier—
50
G. SONKOLY
were completed by community participation as the fifth official strategic

objective.204 In the 2000s, every document suggests that the principles
and techniques of community participation and community involvement
in heritage preservation should be worked out. Local communities appear
as stakeholders equal to heritage experts or politicians in decision-making
about heritage preservation. The sense of ownership, which was already
essential at the beginning of international heritage conservation, is empha-
sized again. The Paris Declaration (2011b) intends “to help local com-
munities take ownership of their heritage,”205 and The Valletta Principles
(2011c) define gentrification as one of the major threats to historic areas
since its effects “lead to the loss of a place’s liveability and, ultimately, its
character.”206 To avoid these undesirable outcomes, uncontrolled external
investment should be prevented by the development of a more mature
sense of ownership among the local community. Cultural heritage is obvi-
ously still the conveyer of the community’s identity, but its role becomes
more complex since it is also responsible for the community’s economic
development and welfare. These considerations are present in every instru-
ment related to HUL.
By the end of the 2010s, the meaning of community had also
expanded. The Recommendations on the HUL stress its own bridging role
between the different levels of social actors: “The historic urban landscape
approach learns from the traditions and perceptions of local communities,
while respecting the values of the national and international communi-
ties.”207 It is worth noting that this description defines every level of the
decision-making process of heritage conservation in terms of communi-
ties, which supposes that administration is replaced by identity and hier-
archy is impregnated by intimacy. Consequently, World Heritage experts
are expected to establish “a fine balance of both top-down and bottom-up
management strategies (…) to the sustainability of World Heritage sites
in that each site is formally protected by a suitable management frame-
work.”208 The HUL approach reflects the results of a process in which the
community-based approach becomes omnipresent not just for the defini-
tion of cultural heritage but also for its management.
Conclusion
By employing the conceptual history approach, we were able to represent
the history of urban heritage in the international standard-setting instru-
ments as an evolution and to identify and date the significant shifts in it.
Otherwise, the corpus of these documents—completed with their official
interpretations, which are easily accessible in the virtual archives of the

issuing organizations—would have revealed these moments with more
difficulty because of their integrative logic. As a matter of fact, the corpus
of the instruments and their official interpretations closely resembles the
scriptures and the commentary literature of a religious tradition, which
can only be fathomed with its own special hermeneutics. In this sense,
the interpretations function like commentaries, which do not question
the contents or credibility of the original texts, but are intended to bring
them up to date. Two excellent examples for this are the article by Micheal
Petzet, commemorating the 40th anniversary of The Venice Charter, and
the often cited article by Jukka Jokilehto, about the meanings of HUL,209
which places the concept in the continuous tradition of heritage conser-
vation through the notion of integration and through Cesare Brandi’s
theory of restoration. The two books by Bandarin and van Oers, however,
signal a slight departure from this tradition. They were not published by
UNESCO, and the first one takes a critical stance by declaring that “urban
heritage conservation has become a moving target, to which a static,
monumental approach as inherited from the previous century is wholly
inadequate, or may become perhaps downright destructive.”210 On
the basis of the two volumes and the related academic events, we could
presume that HUL was meant to define a paradigm shift,211 which would
lead not only to the definition of a dynamic urban heritage preservation
but also to its integration into scientific discourse.
Has HUL succeeded in achieving this double goal? Here we encounter
the limits of contemporary history. The past ten years (since The Vienna
Memorandum) or barely five (since the UNESCO Recommendation)
are not enough to offer a justified historical perspective, but our analysis
reveals very useful indications concerning the reception of this new notion,
which can help us to predict its near future. In order to understand the
double—administrative and scientific—relevance of HUL, it is necessary
to resume the evolution of the three composing elements of our analysis,
in order to estimate this relevance in the light of the developments which
led to its emergence.
The examined documents, from The Athens Charter onward, always
start with a list of threats which are becoming more diverse and complex
over time. Certain problems could have been partially solved, for example,
by preventing large-scale illegal traffic in art or institutionalizing heritage
conservation on international and national levels, but the “fever of prog-
ress” and its consequences, such as environmental pollution and uncon-
trollable social change, have not ceased to spread. Heritage preservation
52
G. SONKOLY
has borne an inherent contradiction to the perception of time since its

very beginning: theoretically, it is against the loss induced by moderniza-
tion, but in practice, it is historical (or modern) since it chooses privileged
moments from the past to be conserved unchanged. Cultural heritage
conservation has inherited this contradiction, but its modern(ist) practice
is being increasingly criticized as presentism establishes itself and the par-
tially unproductive preventive measures also leads to criticism and frustra-
tion. In consequence, the desperate struggle with uncontrollable progress
is eventually replaced by the elaboration of the principles of sustainability,
a truly presentist scheme to interpret contemporary society, in which cul-
tural heritage—thanks to its antimodernist theoretical foundation—takes
a predominant position. Sustainability appears in our documents in the
1990s and becomes omnipresent as a guiding principle from the 2000s
onward. In the meantime, there has been a spectacular expansion of secu-
rity, from the legal security of precious objects to the overall protection of
natural and cultural sites with the related societal and cultural practices.
In this sense, the once modernist notion of security—meant to guarantee
the secure progress of a society—becomes presentist, designed to maintain
its actual state through the “management of change.” This approach does
not identify ruptures in the past and intends to avoid their occurrence
in the future by interpreting evolution as a continuity or current. Thus,
sustainability can be deciphered as the integrative form of the several intel-
lectual attempts since the early modern period to rationalize security, a
form which is well on its way toward academic institutionalization, for
example, in the new science of cultural heritage management based on the
proper assessment of threats to cultural heritage. The success of the HUL
approach very much depends on the opinion of urban heritage experts:
on whether they consider this approach an efficient way to identify these
threats.
As the time of urban heritage was gradually perceived in its conti-
nuity, its territory within urban space also became regarded in its con-
tinuity by the end of the examined period. The territorial definition
of urban heritage started as a problem of the monument and the area
around it (–1950s), then as the classification of the “historic area” unit-
ing the monument—with its adjacencies—and the neighborhood within
the totality of the historic center and even that of the whole settlement
(1960s–1980s). This classification—or “zoning,” to use its technical
denomination—of the urban heritage is crystallized around the “heritage
site,” which is accepted as the key notion of the territory of the protected
area and affirmed by The World Heritage Convention. The “site,” how-
ever, proved to be inadequate with the emergence of intangible cultural

heritage,212 which resulted in a quest for less territorialized concepts—
such as cultural space, setting, heritage structure, cultural place, spirit of
place, and landscape—to express the freshly expanded notion of cultural
heritage (1990s–2000s). All these concepts share two significant charac-
teristics, which are opposed to the elements of the territorial vocabulary
of former cultural heritage conservation (area, zone, site, and so on):
their definition is open-ended, in that they include a personal—individual
or communal—definition of their boundaries, and, consequently, they
allow the eventual incorporation of the whole city or town into the ter-
ritory of urban heritage. The former distinction between the old and
the new parts of the city from the point of view of heritage protection
becomes blurred by the definition of the territory of the increasingly
threatened industrial heritage or the self- organizing micro-cosmoses
of the favelas,213 which tend to express their identity under the label of
intangible heritage. The consequent continuity of the urban heritage
territory can be perceived as the emergence of the growing number of
co-existing heritage spots in the city or as the expansion of the former
historic urban center. The examined documents showed several attempts
to pin down this new territorial continuity of urban heritage in the form
of the aforementioned variety of territorial expressions. Landscape has
a double advantage compared to the other expressions: it has already
been present in international heritage protection in the form of “cultural
heritage” for more than 20 years, and it is enjoying a conceptual boom
in most of the disciplines which feel involved in urban heritage protec-
tion. Therefore, HUL can easily enter both administrative and academic
discourses. Its interpretations, however, can be as disparate as those of
the landscape itself. Similarly to the possibilities of the integration of
HUL into the security sciences, success with which it fulfills its originally
intended integrative role in the management of urban heritage protec-
tion techniques depends on its interpretation by the experts concerned.
In other words, its survival relies on how much the two different per-
ceptions of the continuity of urban heritage territory—by the extension
of the old or by the co-existence of heritages of different provenance—
could be merged. In the case of a clash between the two perceptions, it
depends on whether the representatives of the winning interpretation
choose HUL as the proper notion to describe and manage this urban
territory. The two understandings of current urban heritage differ from
each other primarily with respect to the role that they attribute to the
relevant urban community, which is to define it.
54
G. SONKOLY
The notion of community has fundamentally changed during the

period of our analysis, reaching its current situation, where it refers to
local communities which are actively involved in the interpretation and
protection of their urban heritage. At first, heritage conservation was reg-
ulated to express the community’s legal right to challenge individual rights
in the protection of cultural properties through which collective identity
acquired a complementary element to define and express itself. In the
early twentieth century and before, the main beneficiaries of this restric-
tion of individual rights were the agents of nation-building. After the
calamities of the Second World War, international heritage conservation
started on the path toward institutionalization, which is reflected in the
standard-setting instruments by the fact that humankind is defined as the
reference community and the lower levels of cultural heritage protection
are expected to be organized following the model of the World Heritage
(1950s to mid-1970s). The establishment of a uniform (top–down) and
consensual hierarchy of cultural heritage conservation was supposed to
provide a consensual identity which would counter the inherently conflic-
tual nation-building,214 enabling the whole of humankind to avoid a new
worldwide conflict and ensuring a mutually peaceful future. The unity of
the international community was expressed by a universal culture, which
has been defined as the World Heritage based on OUV since 1972 and
documented as the World Heritage List since 1978. The definition of an
OUV, however, immediately resulted in disagreement about its relevance,
which gradually led to the definition of intangible cultural heritage as a
complement of tangible heritage and to the redefinition of the community
as its conveyer (mid-1970s to 2000s). In the meantime, the principle of
the common culture of humanity is replaced by the principle of cultural
diversity, which necessitates the participation of the local community in
cultural heritage protection, an immanent element of intangible heritage
protection. Recognizing the consequences of this, HUL aspires to bridge
the gap between the local and the international communities by learn-
ing from the former and, through this, by facilitating a flow of norms in
two directions: not only top–down, but also bottom–up. The integrative
character of the urban landscape approach is manifested not only verti-
cally between the different layers of communities but also horizontally
since it incorporates every aspiring community within the territory of a
city under shared heritage preservation. As a result, HUL defines integrity
and participation as the pivotal issues in urban heritage protection, which
constitutes a double expectation of the local community: on the one
hand, landscape means a territory bearing the identity perceived by the

community, which must be protected intimately; on the other hand, this
community is expected to expose its heritage—and consequently itself—
genuinely to an external gaze, that of a visiting tourist, for example, who
also has the right to determine it by his or her own gaze and perception.
This double expectation can hardly be met in the context of the threats
of ongoing globalization and homogenization, which are constantly men-
tioned in the examined documents. One of the reasons for landscape-
based self-identification (identification paysagère) is precisely the desire to
resist global influence on a local level.215 Participatory heritage protection,
which is an integral element of the HUL approach, brings the conflicts
of perceptions and interpretation between the local community and the
visitors to the surface, but it also implies a conflict between the experts in
static monumental conservation and the community which perceives it “as
a living continuity.”216
The convergence of the conceptual evolution of the three elements
of international urban heritage protection determines the following main
periods: (1) when urban heritage is primarily conceived as a cultural
property threatened by the effects of modernization (including individu-
alization) and is defined by ruptures in territory and time (1930s–1960s);
(2) when urban heritage, as part of (world) cultural heritage, is adminis-
tratively and conceptually institutionalized and regulated, which leads to
imminent criticism (1970s–1980s); the criticism of the first institution-
alization causes a second one under the banners of intangible heritage,
diversity, and sustainability, which cannot openly replace the previous
paradigm because of the integrative nature of international heritage pro-
tection, but inevitably leads to a quest for appropriate operative notions,
including HUL. These notions are given the impossible task of bridging
the gap between the two, essentially contradictory paradigms, and they
trigger open the hidden debates between the concerned experts and the
interest groups.
According to the new paradigm of urban heritage protection, the pro-
tected heritage unit is defined in a continuous time (sustainability), in a
continuous territory (landscape), and by the perception of its local com-
munity, which is the custodian of the survival of cultural diversity and,
consequently, of human culture. Therefore, the security of this heritage
and the proper assessment of threats to it are essential for the survival of
humankind. As we saw in Foucault’s model, in the modern period the
milieu was the territorial unit used to describe and analyze the threats and
56
G. SONKOLY
their effects on human society. The question arises, whether currently the
landscape, and more precisely HUL, would be an appropriate concept to
play a similar role: that is, to prove the utility and scientificity of the new
cultural heritage paradigm in the protection of urban heritage. During the
second phase of the conceptual evolution of the urban heritage, authen-
ticity and integrity were chosen as the essential criteria of this scientificity
of cultural heritage. The conceptualization of intangible heritage relativ-
ized the former definition of authenticity to the extent that it became
too problematic for heritage assessment. On this account, the definition
of the remaining integrity turned out to be the principle concern in the
contemporary quest of the identification of a suitable new notion of urban
heritage preservation.217 According to the initiators of the HUL approach,
this integrity must be defined “with respect to the values,” which “should
originate from the communities of users (bottom-up) and not only from
the experts (top-down),”218 to attain the double objective of HUL, which
is to ensure efficient contemporary urban heritage protection and to
provide a suitable scientific notion and administrative tool for it. Thus,
the utility of the HUL approach can be measured by the frequency and
intensity of its recognition by local communities and by heritage experts,
which also implies the appropriateness of its definition of integrity.219
Here again, because of the lack of the necessary historical distance, we
are unable to tell whether HUL has proved to be the integrative concept
of urban heritage protection to redefine the integrity of urban heritage
in a manner which was acceptable and attractive for its stakeholders. The
scarcity of references to HUL in the instruments of the second half of the
2000s, however, indicates that its eventual approval by the community of
experts did not happen immediately.
Since we lack the necessary time interval, we can continue our research
by changing the scale from international to local. The location of the first
official definition of HUL, The Vienna Memorandum, in the city which
gave its name to it, was not an accident. It was the result not only of an
urgent need to regulate the management of the spectacularly rising num-
ber of urban World Heritage sites at the level of UNESCO but also of a
local crisis linked to a high-rise building, disapproved of by UNESCO,
at the level of the City of Vienna. The analysis of the emergence of HUL
from the point of view of this city will probably show the interest of local
communities in participating in decision-making about international heri-
tage conservation as well as their understanding of integrity.
Notes
1. As Hans Christian Röhl puts it, “where clear concepts are missing,
the history of the concepts and ideas is used as a substitute.” Hans
Christian Röhl (2008) Allgemeine Rechtslehre (Köln-München:
Carl Heymanns Verlag) 10.
2. Bandarin, van Oers (2012), Bandarin, van Oers, (2015).
3. Michael Jakob (2008) Le paysage (Paris: Infolio) 7–15.
4. Ibid., 7.
5. For the history of the notion of cultural landscape within World
Heritage, see Cultural Landscapes. The Challenges of Conservation
(2003) World Heritage Papers 7 (Paris: UNESCO), N., Mitchell,
M. Rössler, P-M. Tricaud (eds) (2011) Paysages culturels du patri-
moine mondial. Guide pratique de conservation et de gestion, World
Heritage Papers 26 (Paris: UNESCO). These publications list the
large number of scientific events in which the notion of cultural
landscape was examined from the perspective of cultural heritage.
6. UNESCO divides cultural landscapes into three categories: (1)
intentional, (2) organically evolved (subdivided into relict (or fos-
sil) landscapes and continuing landscapes), and (3) associative. See
Cultural Landscapes. The Challenges of Conservation (2003) 18.
7. The official UNESCO languages used in practice are English,
French, and Spanish.
8. P. Donadieu, M. Périgord (2007) Le paysage (Paris: Armad Colin)
10, 122. For the early modern history of landscape, see Jean-Marc
Besse (2009) Le goût du monde: exercices de paysage (Arles: Actes
Sud/ENSP).
9. Enrico Fontanari (2012) ‘La dimension paysagère du projet pour
la ville contemporaine’ in A. Bergé, M. Collot, J. Mottet (eds.)
Paysages européens et mondialisation (Seyssel: Éditions Champ
Vallon) 199.
10. François Walter (2004) Les figures paysagères de la nation. Territoire
et paysage en Europe (16e-20e siècle). (Paris: Éditions de l’Écoles des
hautes études en sciences sociales) 15.
11. Conan, Michel (1994) ’L’invention des identités perdues’ in

Berque, Augustin (ed.) Cinq propositions pour une théorie du pay-
sage (Seyssel: Champ Vallon) 40.
12. Treib, Marc (ed.) (2009) Spatial Recall: Memory in Architecture
and Landscape (New York: Routledge) XII. For the general his-
58
G. SONKOLY
tory of the use of landscape for mnemonic purposes, see Simon

Schama (1995) Landscape and Memory (New York: Alfred
A. Knopf).
13. Ibid., XII.
14. Walter (2004) 468–469.
15. Donadieu, Périgord (2007) 9.
16. Hélène Jannière, Frédéric Pousin (2007) ‘Paysage urbain: d’une
thématique à un objet de recherché’ in Strates. Matériaux pour la
recherche en sciences sociales 13, 10. The texts of this conference
were published in an edited format.
17. Procès-verbaux/Proceedings ‘Le patrimoine et la conservation des
paysages urbains historiques/Heritage and the Conservation of
Historic Urban Landscapes’ (2010) http://www.patrimoinebati.
umontreal.ca/documents/Table_ronde_2010_Proces_verbaux.
pdf, date accessed: July 26, 2014. As the title indicates, these texts
were not published in an edited format.
18. Jannière, Pousin (2007) 11.
19. Ibid., 12.
20. T.W. Sharp (1948) Oxford Replanned (London: Architectural
Press).
21. Frédéric Pousin (2007) ‘Du townscape au “paysage urbain”, circu-
lation d’un modèle rhétorique mobilisateur’ in Strates. Matériaux
pour la recherche en sciences sociales 13, 25–50.
22. Jannière, Pousin (2007) 19.
23. Donadieu, Périgord (2007) 27. Michael Jakob shares this opinion.
Jakob (2008) 154.
24. Donadieu, Périgord (2007) 43.
25. Kenneth Fampton (1999) ‘Seven points for the Millennium. An
untimely manifesto’ in The Architectural Review November,
76–80.
26. Procès-verbaux/Proceedings (2010) 41–42.
27. Ibid., 43–45. Gordon Fulton examines the problem of VI by evok-
ing conflicts between the evolution of the skyline and urban heri-
tage preservation.
28. Ibid., 47–48. One of Bennett’s main criticisms of The Vienna

Memorandum is its reduced definition of “contemporary
architecture.”
29. Ibid., 65. According to Julia Gersovitz, the expression “pseudo-
historical design” in The Vienna Memorandum reveals a modernist
approach, which ignores “the 40 years or so that have seen Post
Modernism.”
0. Ibid., (2010) 67–70.

3
31. Bandarin, van Oers (2012) 8.
32. Ibid., 11.
33. Ibid., 8–10.
34. Several technical universities and schools were established in eigh-
teenth- and nineteenth-century Europe and North America to
train architects and engineers, who were also in charge of planning
urban infrastructure. This was followed by the creation of urban
planning departments, as in Liverpool (1909), Budapest (1919),
and Harvard (1924)—at the beginning of the twentieth century.
35. Since we are concentrating on the evolution of urban planning
from the point of view of the definition of HUL, investor-based
neo-liberal urban planning, which is the other main result of the
loss of credit of ideologies in urban development and the principal
rival of participative urban planning, is not discussed here.
36. Fredric Jameson (2003) ‘Future City’ in New Left Review 21, 66.
37. Bandarin, van Oers (2012) Chap. 5, 148–178. Chapter 5 explains
how the HUL regulations can contribute to the dynamic preserva-
tion of urban heritage.
38. Ibid., 14.
39. Urban “conservation addresses the past and the future at the same
time” in order to “integrate—or, to be more precise, re-integrate—
urban conservation principles and practices into urban develop-
ment.” Bandarin, van Oers (2012) 10.
40. Edward W. Soja (1996) Thirdspace. Journeys to Los Angeles and
Other Real-and-Imagined Places (Cambridge-Oxford: Blackwell)
274.
41. Jameson (2003) 71.
42. Quoted by Fredric Jameson. Ibid., 70.
43. Soja (1996) 81.
44. Ibid., 311.
45. Edward W. Soja (1989) Postmodern Geographies. The reassertion
of Space in Critical Social Theory (London-New York: Verso) 234.
46. Michel Foucault (2009) Security, territory, population (New York:
Palgrave Macmillan).
47. Ibid., 3–29.
48. Ibid., 21.
49. Ibid., 23.
50. This rupture and its recognition in early modern and modern

Europe are accurately described by Reinhart Koselleck. Koselleck
(2004) 26–42.
60
G. SONKOLY
51. The choice of this conceptual trio determines the language of the
sources since the notion of community in English has no equiva-
lent in French, which is the other official langue of the selected
international documents. Another analysis should determine
whether the conceptual evolution of the community of urban heri-
tage would generate similar results in other languages than English.
52. The complexity of the genesis of such an instrument can be mea-
sured in Christina Cameron and Mechtild Rössler’s book about
the unfolding of The World Heritage Convention. Cameron,
Christina, Rössler, Mechtild (2013) Many Voices, One Vision: The
Early Years of the World Heritage Convention (New York:
Routledge).
53. In 2013, there were 758 cultural, 193 natural, and 30 mixed sites
on the World Heritage List of 981 sites. Among these sites, 85 (79
cultural and 6 mixed) were classified as cultural landscape. The
institution of this category, embodying the co-existence of culture
and nature, was partially justified by the relative inability of non-
Western states to have cultural sites recognized because of the
inappropriateness of the categorization of the World Heritage,
characterized by a harsh distinction between culture and nature, to
their traditions. Nevertheless, in 2013, the cultural landscape
meta-category was also dominated by the Western (European and
North American) sites because more than half of the sites (43)
were situated in this region.
54. This process dates back to The Athens Charter—that is more than
70 years before The Vienna Memorandum—but there was not any
standard-setting instrument on urban heritage protection between
The Athens Charter (1931) and The Venice Charter (1964), which
means 40 years of continuous development.
55. The distribution of the document types
UNESCO ICOMOS Other Sum
Convention 3 – 2 5
Recommendation 5 – – 5
Declaration 3 6 1 10
Charter – 7 3 10
Resolutions, Principles, Guidelines – 7 – 7
Other 3 1 2 6
Total 14 21 8 43
56. The issuing of standard-setting instruments by decades
UNESCO ICOMOS Other Sum
–1970 2 1 2 5
1971–1980 3 2 2 7
1981–1990 – 2 1 3
1991–2000 – 7 3 10
2001– 9 9 – 18
Total 14 21 8 43
57. The 21st instrument, the ICOMOS Comments on the First Draft of
the UNESCO Recommendations on the Historic Urban Landscape,
only refers to one draft document; therefore, it is not taken into
account in this categorization.
58. The first group is made up of The Venice Charter (1964), The
Washington Charter (1987a), The Guidelines on Education and
Training in the Conservation of Monuments, Ensembles and Sites
(1993), The Xi’an Declaration (2005), The Charter on the
Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites (2008c),
The Paris Declaration (2011b), and The Valletta Principles (2011c).
59. The second group is made up of The Nara Document on Authenticity
(1994), The International Cultural Tourism Charter (1999a), The
Burra Charter (1977, 1988, 1999b), The Charter on Cultural
Routes (2008a), The Quebec Declaration (2008b), and The Dublin
Principles (2011a).
60. The third group is made up of The Resolutions of the Symposium on
the Introduction of Contemporary Architecture into Ancient Groups
of Buildings (1972), The Resolutions of the Symposium on the
Conservation of Smaller Historic Towns (1975), The Itaipava
Principles (1987b), The Principles for the Recording of Monuments,
Groups of Buildings and Sites (1996b), The Declaration of San
Antonio (1996a), The Charter on Built Vernacular Heritage
(1999c), and The Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural
Heritage Value (2010a).
61. ICOMOS (1964) 1.
62. ICOMOS (1987a) 1.
63. ICOMOS (2011c) 1.
64. ICOMOS (1993) 1.
62
G. SONKOLY
65. ICOMOS (2005) 1.

66. ICOMOS (2008c) 1.
67. ICOMOS (2011b) 1.
68. ICOMOS (2011b) 1.
69. ICOMOS (1994) 1.
70. ICOMOS (1994) 1.
71. ICOMOS (1999a) 1.
72. ICOMOS (1999a) 1.
73. ICOMOS (2008a) 1.
74. ICOMOS (2008b) 1.
75. ICOMOS (2011a).
76. ICOMOS (1972).
77. ICOMOS (1975).
78. ICOMOS (1987b) 1.
79. ICOMOS (1996b) 1.
80. ICOMOS (1996a).
81. ICOMOS (1999c).
82. ICOMOS (2010a) 10.
83. These are the most important conventions on the definition of
cultural heritage on a global level: the Convention concerning the
Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972a),
the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage (2003), and the Convention on the Protection and
Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005b). In addi-
tion to these conventions, the following three recommendations
were incorporated, since they can be regarded as their antecedents,
and another two, which are the extended explanations of their con-
tents: Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty
and Character of Landscapes and Sites (1962), Recommendation
concerning the Preservation of Cultural Property Endangered by
Public or Private Works (1968), Recommendation on the
Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore (1989),
Recommendation concerning the Protection, at National Level, of
the Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972b), and Recommendation
concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic
Areas (1976). The following two declarations were also analyzed:
Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001a) and
Declaration on Integrated Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible
and Intangible Heritage (2004).
84. These documents are the three main instruments to define HUL:
The Vienna Memorandum (2005d), the Declaration on the
Conservation of the Historic Urban Landscapes (2005c), and the
Recommendation on the HUL. A New International Instrument
(2011). For a more thorough comprehension of the process of
definition, we also included the Preliminary Report on the Draft
Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (2010a) and
the ICOMOS Comments on the First Draft of the UNESCO
Recommendations on the Historic Urban Landscape (2010b).
85. The Athens Charter was adopted in 1931 and published in 1943
after considerable reediting.
86. The Belvedere Memorandum (1999) 33.
87. The Athens Charter (1931), UNESCO (1962).
88. The Norms of Quito (1967) VIII.1.
89. The Athens Charter (1931) V.
90. UNESCO (1962) II.7.
91. The Venice Charter (1964) 1.
92. ICOMOS (1972) 1.
93. Europa (1975) 2.
94. UNESCO (1976) Annex. 20.
95. Europa (1975) 1.
96. UNESCO (1976) 52.
97. ICOMOS (1987a) 11.
98. The Declaration of Amsterdam (1975) 2.
99. ICOMOS (1987b) 2.
100. ICOMOS (1993) 2.
101. ICOMOS (1987a) 1.
102. ICOMOS (1993) 9.
103. Europa (2000), ICOMOS (1999a).
104. ICOMOS (1996a), ICOMOS (1999b).
105. The Belvedere Memorandum (1999).
106. ICOMOS (1994) 1.
107. ICOMOS (1996b) 1.
108. It “was in 2002, 30 years after the adoption of the (World

Heritage) Convention that the World Heritage Committee
adopted the Budapest Declaration, the first official document to
mention heritage and sustainable development in the same
breath.” Labadi, S., Logan, W. (2016) 7. The 2002 Budapest
Declaration is not included in the database because it is a rather
64
G. SONKOLY
short declaration and it does not deal with urban heritage.

UNESCO (2002) 6–7.
109. UNESCO (2003) 2.
110. UNESCO (2004) 1.
111. Europa (2000) I.1.e.
112. Culture was identified as the fourth pillar of sustainability in

2002. ICOMOS (2011b) 2.
113. ICOMOS (2008c), ICOMOS (2011c).
114. ICOMOS (2010b).
115. ICOMOS (2008c) 3.
116. Concerning the verbs of cultural heritage, see The Burra Charter
(ICOMOS 1999b) later in this chapter.
117. Michael Petzet was the president of ICOMOS between 1999 and
2008. Michael Petzet (2004) Principles of Preservation. An
Introduction to the International Charters for Conservation and
Restoration 40 Years after the Venice Charter, http://www.ico-
mos.org/venicecharter2004/petzet.pdf, date accessed July 27,
2014.
118. Petzet (2004) 1. The Kraków Charter, cited as a false pretender,
considers that “heritage cannot be defined in a fixed way” and its
“appropriate preservation should be adapted to the evolving situ-
ations, which are subject to a process of continual change.” It also
uses the term landscape for the urban context similarly to the later
HUL approach. Accordingly, it can be regarded as one of the first
attempts to renew heritage protection to integrate the ideas of
“management of change” and sustainability into it. Michael
Petzet, elected as the president of the ICOMOS a year earlier, was
among the 18 experts who signed this document. The Kraków
Charter (2000).
119. Ibid., 12.
120. Bandarin and van Oers quote Alois Riegl several times. First, they
emphasize that he was the first significant theoretician of monu-
ment protection and, similarly to Petzet, they mention his system
of values. In the chapter entitled “Management of change,” they
ascribe to him the introduction of the notion of change into
monument protection. Bandarin, van Oers (2012) 26, 118.
121. Petzet (2004) 23.
122. “The loss and/or substitution of traditional uses and functions,
such as the specific way of life of a local community, can have
major negative impacts on historic towns and urban areas.”

ICOMOS (2011c) 2.c.
123. Ibid., 3.c,
124. ICOMOS (2005) 3.
125. The two documents on the “spirit of place” dating from 2008 do
not refer directly to urban heritage.
126. ICOMOS (2011b) 1.
127. ICOMOS (2011a) 1.
128. UNESCO (2011) IV.b.
129. Ibid., 1., V.25.
130. Ibid., Introduction 4.
131. UNESCO (2010a) 3.
132. UNESCO (2010b) 4.
133. “A specific approach has to be developed to define the role of
contemporary architecture and contemporary creation in historic
places, as the need to respect a continuum has been frequently
disregarded or misunderstood.” UNESCO (2010a) 3.
134. The Athens Charter (1931) III.
135. UNESCO (1962) 138.
136. UNESCO (1968) 142.
137. ICOMOS (1964) Definitions. 1.
138. Recommendation 365 and Order No. 216 (1963) on the preser-
vation and development of ancient buildings and historic sites
(May 1963, Doc. 1570, rapporteur: Mr. Weiss).
139. The Quito Norms (1967) 1, 6, 8, 9, 10.
140. UNESCO (1968) 142., I.1.a.
141. UNESCO (1972a) 147.
142. The “group of buildings” is also used in the ICOMOS Resolutions
on the Introduction of Contemporary Architecture into Ancient
Groups of Buildings in 1972. ICOMOS (1972).
143. ICOMOS (1975) 2., The Declaration of Amsterdam (1975),
Europa (1975) 1.4.6.7., UNESCO (1976) I.1.a.
145. UNESCO (1976) I.1.b. The definition of “environment” is the
following: “The ‘environment’ shall be taken to mean the natural
or man-made setting which influences the static or dynamic way
these areas are perceived or which is directly linked to them in
space or by social, economic or cultural ties.”
146. UNESCO (1972a) UNESCO (1972a) 147.
66
G. SONKOLY
147. ICOMOS (1975) 5.

148. ICOMOS (1987a) 1.
149. ICOMOS (1987b) 1.
150. ICOMOS (1996a) 3. 4.
151. ICOMOS (1999b) 1–2.
152. The Yamamoto Declaration declares that “further considering
that there are countless examples of intangible cultural heritage
that do not depend for their existence or expression on specific
places or objects, and that the values associated with monuments
and sites are not considered intangible cultural heritage as defined
under the 2003 Convention when they belong to the past and
not to the living heritage of present-day communities.” UNESCO
(2004) 10.
153. The title of this Recommendation contains “traditional culture
and folklore,” but the text mentions only “folklore,” which is
defined as “traditional and popular culture.” Therefore, this
instrument does not provide an unambiguous explanation of the
relationship between the three categories (traditional culture,
popular culture, and folklore), which it tries to safeguard.
UNESCO (1989) 239.
154. “The Committee shall incorporate in the Representative List of
the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity the items pro-
claimed ‘Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of
Humanity’ before the entry into force of this Convention.”
UNESCO (2003) VIII.1.
155. UNESCO (2001a).
156. UNESCO (2005a).
157. UNESCO (2003) 14. c.
158. UNESCO (2001b).
159. In Nordman’s model the degree of territorialization of territorial
expressions (such as homeland, country, area, and district.) is
revealed by whether they are equipped with denominations and
borders. This model is conceived to correlate the emergence of
French national identity and the evolution of the borders of the
French state in the early modern period. Daniel Nordman (1998)
Les frontières de France. De l’espace au territoire, XVIe- XIXe siè-
cles (Paris: Gallimard).
160. P. J. Fawler (2003) World Heritage Cultural Landscapes,

1992–2002, World Heritage Papers 6. (Paris: UNESCO) 30.
According to point “T” of the UNESCO definition of cultural

landscape: “towns and/or villages within the inscribed landscape.”
161. Ibid. 57.
162. The practical guide for the conservation and management of

World Heritage cultural landscapes uses the HUL documents for
the problems of urban landscapes. N. Mitchell, M. Rössler,
P-M. Tricaud (eds.) (2011) 28–31.
163. Fawler (2003) 22–23.
164. Europa (2000) I.1.a.
165. Europa (2000) 1.
166. ICOMOS (2005).
167. ICOMOS (2011b).
168. ICOMOS (2011c).
169. ICOMOS (2008c) 2. According to the definition, cultural heri-
tage site “refers to a place, locality, natural landscape, settlement
area, architectural complex, archaeological site, or standing struc-
ture that is recognized and often legally protected as a place of
historical and cultural significance.”
170. ICOMOS (2008b) 2.
171. Ibid., 3.
172. The other five ICOMOS instruments (The Xi’an Declaration,
The Charter on Cultural Routes, The Dublin Principles, The
Valletta Principles, and The Paris Declaration) from the period of
2005–2011 apply the conventional territorial categories. As a
novelty, The Charter on Cultural Routes launches the notion of
cultural route. The ICOMOS New Zealand proposes the “place
of cultural heritage value” as a key notion. ICOMOS (2010a).
173. ICOMOS (2010b).
174. The use of “contemporary architecture” is particularly criticized
in the comments: “Today’s articulation of ‘contemporary’ is
expressed in terms of ‘iconic architecture’, ‘signature architects’,
and the self-conscious design of the ‘Heritage of the future’. This
is not a debate in which UNESCO should engage in any partisan
sense. The wording in the 2005 Vienna Memorandum was most
unfortunate in this respect; its interpretation in a number of cit-
ies, close to disastrous.” Later, “respecting contemporary archi-
tecture it needs to be stated that it must not become dominant
over historic structures. Scale, volume, material, quantity, etc.
must not exceed historic architecture but needs to follow the
68
G. SONKOLY
principle of continuity.” ICOMOS (2010b) 8. Comment (11,

12).
175. UNESCO (2005a) 68. §21.
176. UNESCO (2011) I.8.
177. Ibid., 1.
178. Only five documents are mentioned. Ibid., Appendix 54–55.
179. Ibid., Appendix 54–55.
180. “Landscape approach (from the International Union for

Conservation of Nature—IUCN, and the World Wildlife Fund—
WWF) The landscape approach is a framework for making
landscape-level conservation decisions. The landscape approach
helps to reach decisions about the advisability of particular inter-
ventions (such as a new road or plantation), and to facilitate the
planning, negotiation and implementation of activities across a
whole landscape.” Ibid., 54.
181. The Quito Norms (1967) VII.1.
182. UNESCO (1972a) 135.
183. UNESCO (1972b).
184. Europa (1975) 4.
186. ICOMOS (1975) 3.
187. UNESCO (1976) Annex. 20.
188. Europa (1975) 9.
189. UNESCO (1976) 36.
191. ICOMOS (1987a) 3.
192. ICOMOS (1994) 8.
193. ICOMOS (1996a), ICOMOS (1999a).
194. ICOMOS (1994).
195. ICOMOS (1996a) B.1.
196. Ibid., B.7.
197. ICOMOS (1999a) 2.
198. ICOMOO (1996b) 49, 50.
199. UNESCO (2005b) 62.
200. UNESCO (1972a) 137.
201. UNESCO (2003). 2.
202. M.-T. Albert, M. Richon, M. J. Viñals, A. Witcomb (eds.) (2012)
Community Development through World Heritage. World Heritage
Papers 31 (Paris: UNESCO) 27–28.
203. Ibid., 27.

204. Ibid., 32–33.
205. ICOMOS (2011b) 4.
206. ICOMOS (2011c) 7.
207. UNESCO (2011) I.13. Emphasis added.
208. M.-T. Albert, M. Richon, M. J. Viñals, A. Witcomb (eds) (2012)
77.
209. Jukka Jokilehto (2010) ‘Notes on the Definition and Safeguarding
of HUL’ City and Time 4:3, 41–51.
210. Bandarin, van Oers (2012) 118. Emphasis added.
211. HUL is defined as a paradigm shift several times in the second
volume by its two initiators. Bandarin, van Oers (2015) 3, 14,
180–183, 194, 195.
212. It is quite telling that the UNESCO List of Intangible Cultural
Heritage is not composed of sites, as the World Heritage List is,
but of elements.
213. Two examples of pauperized suburbs organizing themselves
under the label of intangible cultural heritages are described by
Mary Lorena Kenny and Carlos Sandroni. Mary Lorena Kenny
(2009) ‘Deeply rooted in the present. Making heritage in
Brazilian quilombos’ in L. Smith, N. Akagawa (eds.) Intangible
Heritage (London-New York: Routledge); Carlos Sandroni
(2011) ‘L’ethnomusicologue en médiateur du processus patri-
monial. Le cas de la samba de roda in Chiara Bortolotto (ed.)
Le patrimoine culturel immaterial. Enjeux d’une nouvelle caté-
gorie (Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme)
233–250.
214. Krzysztof Pomian considers that in postwar Europe heritage as a
consensual form of nation-building replaced the models of
conflict-based nation-buildings, which formerly divided European
nations, and consequently lost their credit during the calamities
of the Second World War. Krzysztof Pomian (1996) ‘Nation et
patrimoine’ in D. Fabre (ed.) L’Europe entre cultures et nations
(Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme) 85–98.
215. Pierre Donnadieu distinguishes between three forms of resistance
based on landscape-based identity: (1) anamnezis, that is, linking
memory to landscape; (2) resistance against uniformization; and
(3) resistance against globalization. Pierre Donnadieu (2012)
‘Construction et déconstruction des identités paysagères euro-
G. SONKOLY
70
péennes dans les régions urbaines’ in A. Bergé, M. Collot,

J. Mottet (eds.) Paysages européens et mondialisation (Seyssel:
Éditions Champ Vallon) 191.
216. Fontanari (2012) 199.
217. Jukka Jokilehto also considers integrity as the most important
novelty of the HUL approach. He distinguishes between the
elements of functional, structural, and VI. Jokilehto (2010)

47–50. Bandarin and van Oers are quite open about the failure of
the double principle of tangible cultural heritage conservation:
“The safeguarding of the authenticity or integrity of the physical
and social fabric of an urban complex is doomed to remain a myth
or, at best, an approximation.” Bandarin, van Oers (2012) 9.
218. Ibid., 74.
219. According to the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation
of the World Heritage Convention “Integrity is a measure of the
wholeness and intactness of the natural and/or cultural heritage
and its attributes.” UNESCO (2005e) 18.
References
Albert, M.-T., Richon, M., Viñals, M. J., Witcomb, A. (eds.) (2012) Community
Development through World Heritage, World Heritage Papers 31 (Paris:
UNESCO).
Besse, Jean-Marc (2009) Le goût du monde: exercices de paysage (Arles: Actes Sud/
ENSP).
Cameron, Christina, Inanloo Dailoo, Shabnam (eds.) (2010) Procès-verbaux/
Proceedings « Le patrimoine et la conservation des paysages urbains historiques/
Heritage and the Conservation of Historic Urban Landscapes », http://www.
patrimoinebati.umontreal.ca/documents/Table_ronde_2010_Proces_ver-
baux.pdf, date accessed 26 July 2014.
Cameron, Christina, Rössler, Mechtild (2013) Many Voices, One Vision: The Early
Years of the World Heritage Convention (New York: Routledge).
Conan, Michel (1994) ‘L’invention des identités perdues’ in A. Berque (ed.) Cinq
propositions pour une théorie du paysage (Seyssel: Champ Vallon) 33–49.
Cultural Landscapes. The Challenges of Conservation (2003) World Heritage
Papers 7 (Paris: UNESCO).
Donadieu, P., Périgord, M. (2007) Le paysage (Paris: Armad Colin).

Donnadieu, Pierre (2012) ‘Construction et déconstruction des identités pay-
sagères européennes dans les régions urbaines’ in A. Bergé, M. Collot, J. Mottet
(eds.) Paysages européens et mondialisation (Seyssel: Éditions Champ Vallon)
179–198.
Europa (1975) European Charter of the Architectural Heritage adopted by the
Council of Europe, October 1975, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-
texts, date accessed 7 January 2016.
Europa (1994) The Aalborg Charter, Charter of European Cities and Towns towards
Sustainability, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/pdf/aalborg_char-
ter.pdf, date accessed 7 January 2016.
Europa (2000) European Landscape Convention, http://conventions.coe.int/
Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm, date accessed 7 January 2016.
Fawler, P. J. (2003) World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, 1992–2002, World
Heritage Papers 6. (Paris: UNESCO).
Fontanari, E. (2012) ‘La dimension paysagère du projet pour la ville contempo-
raine’ in A. Bergé, M. Collot, J. Mottet (eds.) Paysages européens et mondialisa-
tion (Seyssel: Éditions Champ Vallon).
Foucault, Michel (2009) Security, Territory, Population (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan).
Frampton, Kenneth (1999) ‘Seven Points for the Millennium. An Untimely
Manifesto’ in The Architectural Review November, 76–80.
ICOMOS (1964) International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of
Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter), http://www.icomos.org/en/
charters-and-texts, date accessed 7 January 2016.
ICOMOS (1972) Resolutions of the Symposium on the Introduction of Contemporary
Architecture into Ancient Groups of Buildings, at the 3rd ICOMOS General
Assembly, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed 7
January 2016.
ICOMOS (1975) Resolutions of the Symposium on the Conservation of Smaller
Historic Towns, at the 4th ICOMOS General Assembly, http://www.icomos.
org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed 7 January 2016.
ICOMOS (1987a) Charter for Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas
(The Washington Charter), http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts,
date accessed 7 January 2016.
ICOMOS (1987b) First Brazilian Seminar about the Preservation and
Revitalization of Historic Centers (The Itaipava Principles), http://www.ico-
mos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed 7 January 2016.
ICOMOS (1993) Guidelines on Education and Training in the Conservation of
Monuments, Ensembles and Sites, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-
ICOMOS (1994) The Nara Document on Authenticity, http://www.icomos.org/
en/charters-and-texts, date accessed 7 January 2016.
G. SONKOLY
72
ICOMOS (1996a) The Declaration of San Antonio, http://www.icomos.org/en/

ICOMOS (1996b) Principles for the Recording of Monuments, Groups of Buildings
and Sites, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed 7
January 2016.
ICOMOS (1999a) International Cultural Tourism Charter. Managing Tourism at
Places of Heritage Significance, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-
ICOMOS (1999b) The Burra Charter (The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places
of Cultural Significance), http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts,
ICOMOS (1999c) Charter on Built Vernacular Heritage, http://www.icomos.
ICOMOS (2005) Xi’an Declaration on the Preservation of the Setting of Heritage
Structures, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed 7
January 2016.
ICOMOS (2008a) Charter on Cultural Routes, http://www.icomos.org/en/
ICOMOS (2008b) The Quebec Declaration on the Preservation of the Spirit of
Place, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed 7 January
2016.
ICOMOS (2008c) Charter on the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural
Heritage Sites, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed
7 January 2016.
ICOMOS (2010a) Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage
Value (ICOMOS New Zealand, text revised and approved by the Executive
Board of ICOMOS NZ on 4 September 2010a), http://www.icomos.org/
ICOMOS (2010b) ICOMOS Comments on the First Draft of the UNESCO
Reccommendations on the Historic Urban Landscape, 24 December 2010b,
http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed 7 January
2016.
ICOMOS (2011a) Joint ICOMOS—TICCIH Principles for the Conservation of
Industrial Heritage Sites, Structures, Areas and Landscapes (The Dublin
Principles), http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed 7
January 2016.
ICOMOS (2011b) The Paris Declaration on Heritage as a Driver of Development,
2016.
ICOMOS (2011c) The Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of
Historic Cities, Towns, Urban Areas, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-
and-texts, date accessed 7 January 2016.
Jakob, Michael (2008) Le paysage (Paris: Infolio).

Jameson, Fredric (2003) ‘Future City’ New Left Review 21, 65–79.
Jannière, H., Pousin, F. (2007) ‘Paysage urbain: d’une thématique à un objet de
recherché’ Strates. Matériaux pour la recherche en sciences sociales 13, 9–24.
Jokilehto, Jukka (2010) ‘Notes on the Definition and Safeguarding of HUL’ City
and Time 4:3, 41–51, http://www.ceci-br.org/novo/revista/docs2010/
C&T-2010-162.pdf, date accessed 24 July 2014.
Kenny, M. L. (2009) ‘Deeply Rooted in the Present. Making Heritage in Brazilian
Quilombos’ in L. Smith, N. Akagawa (eds.) Intangible Heritage (London-New
York: Routledge) 151–168.
Koselleck, Reinhardt (2004) Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time
(New York: Columbia University Press).
Mitchell, N., Rössler, M., Tricaud, P-M. (eds.) (2011) Paysages culturels du patri-
moine mondial. Guide pratique de lconservation et de gestion, World Heritage
Nordman, Daniel (1998) Les frontières de France. De l’espace au territoire,
XVIe – XIXe siècles (Paris: Gallimard).
Petzet, Michael (2004) Principles of Preservation. An Introduction to the
International Charters for Conservation and Restoration 40 Years after the
Venice Charter, http://www.icomos.org/venicecharter2004/petzet.pdf, date
accessed 27 July 2014.
Pomian, Krzysztof (1996) ‘Nation et patrimoine’ in D. Fabre (ed.) L’Europe entre
cultures et nations (Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme)
85–98.
Pousin, Frédéric (2007) ‘Du townscape au « paysage urbain », circulation d’un
modèle rhétorique mobilisateur’ Strates. Matériaux pour la recherche en sciences
sociales 13, 25–50.
Röhl, Hans Christian (2008) Allgemeine Rechtslehre (Köln-München: Carl
Heymanns Verlag).
Sandroni, Carlos (2011) ‘L’ethnomusicologue en médiateur du processus patri-
monial. Le cas de la samba de roda’ in C. Bortolotto (ed.) Le patrimoine cul-
turel immaterial. Enjeux d’une nouvelle catégorie (Paris: Éditions de la Maison
des sciences de l’homme) 233–250.
Schama, Simon (1995) Landscape and Memory (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).
Sharp, T. W. (1948) Oxford Replanned (London: Architectural Press).
Soja, Edward W. (1989) Postmodern Geographies. The Reassertion of Space in
Critical Social Theory (London-New York: Verso).
Soja, Edward W. (1996) Thirdspace. Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-
Imagined Places (Cambridge-Oxford: Blackwell).
G. SONKOLY
74
The Athens Charter (1931) The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic
Monuments. Adopted at the First International Congress of Architects and
Technicians of Historic Monuments, Athens, 1931, http://www.icomos.org/
The Belvedere Memorandum (1999) The Belvedere Memorandum, A policy docu-
ment examining the relationship between cultural history and spatial planning,
http://www.belvedere.nu/download/belvedere_memorandum.pdf., date
accessed 7 January 2016.
The Declaration of Amsterdam (1975) The Declaration of Amsterdam issued by the
Congress of Architectural Heritage, held in Amsterdam, the Netherlands,
21–25, October 1975, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date
The Granada Convention (1985) Convention for the Protection of the Architec
tural Heritage of Europe, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/
QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=121&CM=8&CL=ENG, date accessed 7 January
2016.
The Kraków Charter (2000) Principles for Conservation and Restoration of Built
Heritage, Cracow 2000, https://www.e-epites.hu/1229, date accessed 31
July 2015.
The Quito Norms (1967) Final Report of the Meeting on the Preservation and
Utilization of Monuments and Sites of Artistic and historical Value held in Quito,
Ecuador (The Norms of Quito) from November 29 to December 2, 1967,
2016.
Treib, Marc (ed.) (2009) Spatial Recall: Memory in Architecture and Landscape
(New York: Routledge).
UNESCO (1962) Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty
and Character of Landscapes and Sites, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.
phpURL_ID=13067&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html,
UNESCO (1968) Recommendation Concerning the Preservation of Cultural
Property Endangered by Public or Private Works, http://portal.unesco.org/en/
ev.phpURL_ID=13085&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.
html, letöltve 2014.7.27 date accessed 7 January 2016.
UNESCO (1972a) Convention Concerning the Protection of the World
Cultural and Natural Heritage, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_
ID=13055&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, date
UNESCO (1972b) Recommendation Concerning the Protection, at National Level,
of the Cultural and Natural Heritage, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.
UNESCO (1976) Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding and

Contemporary Role of Historic Areas, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.
UNESCO (1989) Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture
and Folklore, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=13141&URL_
2016.
UNESCO (2001a) Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, http://portal.
UNESCO (2001b), http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/00264-EN.
pdf, date accessed 26 July 2015.
UNESCO (2002) UNESCO World Heritage Centre—Decision: 26COM 21B.35,
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/877, date accessed 15 August 2015.
UNESCO (2003) Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=17716&URL_DO=
DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, date accessed 7 January 2016.
UNESCO (2004) Declaration on Integrated Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible
and Intangible Heritage, http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/23863/
10988742599Yamato_Declaration.pdf, date accessed 7 January 2016.
UNESCO (2005a) World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture, Managing the
Historic Urban Landscape. International Conference, Vienna, 12–14.5. 2005a.
Report (Vienna: City of Vienna-UNESCO).
UNESCO (2005b) Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of
Cultural Expressions, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=31038&
URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, letöltve 2014.7.27.
UNESCO (2005c) Declaration on the Conservation of the Historic Urban
2016.
UNESCO (2005d) Vienna Memorandum on World Heritage and Contemporary
UNESCO (2005e) The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention, Committee Reference 39 COM 11, http://whc.unesco.
org/en/guidelines/, date accessed 7 January 2016.
UNESCO (2010a) Preliminary Report on the Draft Recommendation on the
Historic Urban Landscape, http://whc.unesco.org/document/117636, date
UNESCO (2010b) A New International Instrument: The Proposed UNESCO
Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) Comments by
G. SONKOLY
76
ICOMOS, 24 December 2010b, http://www.icomos.org/en/what-we-do/

focus/more-themes/historic-urban-landscape, date accessed 27 July 2014.
Walter, François (2004) Les figures paysagères de la nation. Territoire et paysage en
Europe (16e-20e siècle) (Paris: Éditions de l’Écoles des hautes études en sciences
sociales).
CHAPTER 3
Vienna and The Vienna Memorandum
Introduction
In May 2005 Vienna hosted the conference World Heritage and
Contemporary Architecture, Managing the Historic Urban Landscape,
in the course of which The Vienna Memorandum, the first official defi-
nition of the HUL approach, was drawn up. Before we analyze the
events that took place in Vienna between 2000 and 2005, events which
were largely responsible for the fact that this city was chosen as the
venue for this conference, we should evoke the changing relationship
between the host city and the standard-setting instrument named after
it in the history of international urban heritage preservation. The three
paradigmatic and most frequently quoted instruments in this history,
named after the cities that hosted the events where the instruments
were formulated, are The Athens Charter (1931),1 The Venice Charter
(1964),2 and The Vienna Memorandum. The role played by the three
cities evolved spectacularly: Athens played a merely decorative part and
Venice—sinking dangerously—was itself a case in point, whereas Vienna
took an active part both in the organization of the conference and in
the wording of the memorandum. An explanation of the operational
role played by Vienna, compared to that of the previous host cities,
will also help to answer the questions raised in Chap. 2 about the rel-
evance and the utility of the HUL approach to the heritage communi-
ties concerned.

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-49166-0_3
78 G. SONKOLY
The Venice Charter was named after the city which symbolized the
paradigm of cultural heritage protection in the 1960s. By that time, it
had become obvious that the protection of Venice could not remain on
the level of the protection of individual monuments, but that the whole
city needed to be conserved, with its buildings, waterways, and morpho-
logical characteristics. For such a venture, however, neither the financial
resources of Venice nor those of the whole of Italy proved to be sufficient.
The whole of humankind was to be mobilized to make “people more and
more conscious of the unity of human values and regard ancient monu-
ments as a common heritage.”3 Saving Venice was not simply an expres-
sion of the triumph of a united humanity; it also meant a technical victory
over natural demise. As we saw in Chap. 2, urban heritage protection
could not function according to the principles of The Venice Charter by
the 2000s. Although Venice did not sink below the sea, the city lost more
than half of its population during the four decades between the 1960s and
the 2000s,4 and has been depicted more rarely as the symbol of the heroic
endeavor of humankind, and more frequently as the universal example
of the failure of socially insensitive urban heritage conservation.5 In the
meantime, the principle of global warming was institutionalized, and one
of its critical consequences, rising sea levels, reiconized this city on water,
which is no longer exposed to natural risks stemming from the conflict
between nature and civilization, but rather to those of the uncontrolla-
bility of nature conquered by civilization. One of the several reasons for
the Vienna Conference in 2005 was to offer an alternative for the hun-
dreds of World Heritage cities in the form of a predictable equilibrium
between conservation and development, to avoid the fate of Venice and of
those lost, historic cities and neighborhoods which remained unprotected
against global processes such as mass urbanization, industrialization, cli-
mate change, gentrification, and so on.
The Historic Centre of Vienna had become a World Heritage site four
years before the conference, and immediately after this recognition was
almost struck off the World Heritage List because of a high-rise construc-
tion project planned near the city center. This short crisis ended happily
for both the City of Vienna and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre
(WHC) since Vienna succeeded in keeping its title and the WHC could
boast not only an effective intervention but also an enthusiastic partner,
the Municipality of Vienna, which participated actively in the develop-
ment of the intended new paradigm with its own example and the nec-
essary infrastructure. Thus, the 2005 conference is an excellent case for
VIENNA AND THE VIENNA MEMORANDUM 79
the study of the evolution of urban heritage at the moment when its two
extreme levels—the highest (universal) and the lowest (local)6—meet
and affect each other reciprocally. This interaction does not take place
between equal partners, since UNESCO, as a standard-setting interna-
tional organization, can withdraw the title of a World Heritage Site in case
of “improper behaviour,”7 which necessarily leads to a loss of prestige. It
does not, however, dispose of more serious measures, and even this one
is used extremely rarely, since the UNESCO WHC’s role is to protect
OUV and not to risk its ultimate loss. In the case of Vienna, the local
level is powerful, since the city’s history has given it a multi-level identity
linked to its multi-level central functions (international, Central European
regional, national, and provincial), and it has rich and complex traditions,
regulations, and practices in the fields of heritage protection, urban devel-
opment, and social care. These made the city an ideal locus for the defini-
tion of a new paradigm of urban heritage protection, especially so soon
after the successful resolution of the high-rise conflict in 2003, which hap-
pens to be the most frequently recurring type of threat in the management
of urban World Heritage Sites for the WHC. Therefore, Vienna’s road to
the international conference is an exceptional case study to explain the
effects of the international urban heritage preservation on the local level.
The analysis will be performed through the parallel study of two processes.
The first is Vienna’s changing contemporary self-representation, with spe-
cial attention to the period of 2000–2005, when the Historic Centre as a
(World) Heritage Site was growing more significant, though the signifi-
cance and the appreciation of this representative role varied greatly from
one social actor to the other. The second process is the crisis around the
World Heritage title and its resolution, in which the events in Vienna are
evaluated and interpreted with respect to their effects on the different
levels of the city’s identity.
Urban Heritage Protection in Vienna

Before World Heritage
The nomination of the Historic Centre of Vienna was rather belated in
comparison to other European or even Central European capitals. By the
time Vienna received the title, 14 other European capital city centers (or
their urban monuments) were already on the World Heritage List, includ-
ing Budapest (1987) and Prague (1992), as were even two capitals of
80 G. SONKOLY
Austrian provinces: Salzburg (1996) and Graz (1999). This lateness can be
only partially explained by the fact that Austria—in spite of its capital city
being one of the four UNO headquarters in the world—ratified the World
Heritage Convention only in December 1992, the 30th European state to
do so. At the same time, Austria managed to receive the great majority
of its World Heritage titles soon after the ratification, between 1996 and
2001. This process started with Salzburg and the Schönbrunn Palace in
Vienna and ended with the Fertő/Neusiedlersee Cultural Landscape and
the Historic Centre of Vienna8; in other words, Austria’s World Heritage
List was almost complete within six years.9 This period coincides with that
of the recognition of the most numerous Western World Heritage Sites
since the establishment of the List (Fig. 3.1).
The process of nominating the Historic Centre of Vienna to become
a World Heritage Site started in January 2000. It was a concerted effort
by the Austrian Landmark Preservation Office (Bundesdenkmalamt), the
relevant municipal departments, as well as representatives of the City’s
Archive and the Historical Museum, co-ordinated by Manfred Wehdorn,10
an eminent Viennese architect and university professor of architec-
ture. The borders of the World Heritage Site were determined by the
Ringstrasse—with the adjacent monumental territories—and the Danube
Canal, and extended to include the Belvedere Palace.11 The proposed core
120 111
100
80
63
60 53 53
49
43
40 36 36
20
0
80
85
0
90
95
5
00
–0
–1
–1
8–
1–
–2
86
91
01
06
11
7
8
19
19
96
19
19
20
20
20
19
Fig. 3.1 Number of recognitions of World Heritage Sites in the Europe and
North America Unit of UNESCO in periods of five years
zone covered 3.7 square miles with a buffer zone of another 4.6 square
miles: altogether two percent of the city’s territory. The Historic Centre
was recognized as a World Heritage Site quite easily, one year after the
candidature, which could be explained by the city’s outstanding cultural
and political importance in the past and by its extremely rich tradition of
monument and heritage protection.
Similarly to many other European cities and towns, Viennese monu-
ment protection became an essential issue after the Second World War,
during which one-quarter of the buildings were destroyed. In the Historic
Centre and its vicinity, the area of Saint Stephen’s Cathedral and the
quarters south to the Danube Canal (Leopoldstadt) were the most seri-
ously damaged.12 The reconstruction of the city can be divided into three
phases. First, the urban community had to be reorganized between 1945
and 1950, when the city was split into four administrative units controlled
by the Allies. The following years (1950–1965) were devoted to the
reconstruction of the city; the rebuilding of the most significant public
monuments took precedence over that of housing, with the consent and
the effective support of the inhabitants. In consequence, soon after the
signature of the 1955 State Contract, which guaranteed Austria’s neu-
trality, the citizens of Vienna could celebrate it in the freshly renovated
Burgtheater and Staatsoper.13 Although the Historic Centre’s symbol
and highest building, the badly damaged Saint Stephen’s Cathedral, was
reopened as early as 1952, its renovation was completed only in 1986,
by the reconstruction of the façade of the North Tower, which also con-
cluded the sixth phase of the lengthy renovation of the Cathedral.14 This
event marked the symbolic end of the period of reconstruction following
the Second World War: the Historic Centre was now rehabilitated.
These 40-odd years of reconstruction fundamentally challenged the
Austrian tradition of monument protection. The theoretical and technical
integration of the protected monumental buildings into their surround-
ings was undoubtedly one of the main issues. The modifications in the
interpretation and management of the monumental urban environment,
as well as their Austrian and Viennese characteristics, set the parameters
for a process that we will document and analyze in order to comprehend
the solutions (reorganizing the Wien-Mitte high-rise project, retaining the
World Heritage title, and finally wording The Vienna Memorandum) to
the conflicts that arose between 2001 and 2003. As we saw in Chap. 2,
paradigm shifts in the territorial concepts of urban rehabilitation linked
to urban planning mark different periods in the development of the
82 G. SONKOLY
international evaluation of urban heritage. Correspondingly, the gradual

expansion of the notion of cultural heritage brings with it a need for the
territorialization of new phenomena such as industrial heritage, contem-
porary architecture, parks, and gardens at the local level. By the 1990s,
this growing complexity of the objects of protection demanded a new
terminology, which was expected to express and embrace their intricacies.
The period of reconstruction after the devastation wrought by the
Second World War marked a new era for the Historic Centre of Vienna.
The protection of the city’s built heritage was still envisaged according
to the principles of monument protection, but the huge volume of the
reconstruction cast doubt on their relevance. By the 1950s, Austrian mon-
ument protection could boast a century-long history of institutionaliza-
tion, since the first specialized state office, the K.K. Centralkommission zur
Erforschung und Erhaltung der Baudenkmale, was established in 1850.15
When delving deeper into the prehistory of Austrian heritage protection,
one should bear in mind that monument protection (Denkmalschutz)
with very early scientific pretensions and with extensive institutional, aca-
demic, and legal recognition is not its only source. In German-speaking
countries, it is twinned with the untranslatable notion of Heimat(schutz),
which has obvious territorial connotations, and it expresses these connota-
tions through the terms of landscape (Landschaft) and place (Ort) even
for urban settings as early as in the 1910s.16 While in English and French,
heritage (patrimoine) has been the unique expression for the popular use
of the past since the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in
German, the non-synonymous Denkmal and Heimat are used simultane-
ously. Astrid Swenson convincingly points out the resulting uncertainties
between the three languages in the fields of co-operation and translation
for the period before the First World War.17 The changes in the use of
these terms in the various German-speaking provinces and countries in
different periods would deserve further investigation.18 From the point
of view of the Viennese World Heritage, it is important to stress that due
to this German (-speaking) specialty of significant territorial aspects of
monument protection, the linking of heritage to the notion of cultural
landscape is not a novelty, but more like the revival of an earlier notion,19
which had been partially devalued, politically, in the meanwhile.20
The long reconstruction of the Viennese Historic Centre leads to the
passage from monument protection to heritage protection. On the basis
of the conceptual evolution of the protected territory, this long period
can be divided into shorter stretches by two important municipal bylaws
and the associated central funds allocated to rehabilitation: the first is

the Old Town Conservation Amendment21 and the Vienna Old Town
Conservation Fund22 in 1972, and the second is the Vienna Housing
Rehabilitation Act, which created the Vienna Land and Urban Renewal
Fund (WBTS)23 in 1984. Due to the modification of the monument pro-
tection law in 1972, building-based protection was replaced by block-
based protection (Ensembleschutz), and, consequently, the protected areas
were indicated on the new zoning on the development map of Vienna,
and the unified preservation of the Historic Centre became legally fea-
sible. By the time Vienna’s Historic Centre was recognized as a World
Heritage Site, some eight percent of its building stock had been given
protected status in 115 protected blocks.24 The WBTS Fund provided
financial support for the renovation of more than 220,000 apartments
in 4555 buildings within 20 years, and it played a principal role in the
establishment of the “gentle urban renovation” (sanfte Stadterneuerung),
which has become one of Vienna’s most famous characteristics.25
The origins of the “gentle urban renovation” of the 1980s can be traced
back to the block renovations in the second phase of the reconstructions.
After the rebuilding of the most important public edifices of the Historic
Centre in the 1950s, the growing demand for block and quarter rehabili-
tations resulted in various initiatives. The phases of the rehabilitation of
Blutgassenviertel (1956–1965) are good examples both of those ideas and
of the criticism that their realization elicited, which were characteristic not
only of Vienna at this time but of most other European cities and towns.
The first project there started as a residential center (Wohnzentrum).
Later on, residential functions were paired with commercial activities
(Nikolaigasse), and here the maintenance of the traditional ambiance of
the Historic Centre as well as more moderate reconstruction costs, offset
by the rental incomes from the new retail outlets, were the new require-
ments. The conceived rehabilitation, however, was criticized for not
respecting the original social character of the neighborhood: for gentrify-
ing it through the intervention.26 The reconstructions of the protected
areas in the new legal environment that emerged after 1972 were more
attentive to the specific social composition of the city quarter concerned.
The first positive example of this was the rehabilitation of the Spittelberg
neighborhood, which could not boast a unified or exclusive building
unit but became one of the success stories of the reconstruction of the
Viennese Historic Centre27 by combining the three key elements of the
Viennese “gentle renovation”: the observance of the criteria of sustainable
84 G. SONKOLY
development, the application of the principles of residential participation

to preserve the existing social composition, and open-call project-based
public financing. Thus, this urban renovation model has gradually initi-
ated a holistic approach, especially since the passing of the new Viennese
bylaw on the protection of nature in 1998 (Wiener Naturschutzgesetz),
which involved new measures to maintain the city as a functional ecologi-
cal unit.28 When the WHC recognized the Viennese Historic Centre as
a World Heritage Site, its “gentle renovation,” complemented by legal
regulation of the sustainability of urban nature, qualified it for definition
as urban landscape, an urban territory apt for a holistic approach.
Vienna is not only characterized by gentle urban renovation but also by
the legal protection of the historic environment, which also contributed to
the easy adoption of the holistic principles of urban heritage. The notion
of place (scape) (Ort/sbild/) appears as early as the beginning of the twen-
tieth century in Austrian monument conservation, which incorporates the
built environment into monumental representation and refers to the role
of the monument as a bearer of identity. During the period of recon-
struction, already in the 1950s, there was a demand in urban planning
for larger built units (größere Zusammenhänge),29 institutionalized in the
concept of the block of buildings (Ensemble) in the 1970s. These blocks
are not just units for planning and management; they also play a role in
identity construction, since it is the value related to a block (Ensemblewert)
that has made the preservation of an urban neighborhood possible since
an amendment to the Austrian law on monument protection in 1978.30
The legal expansion of protected urban heritage, incorporating even the
urban ecology in the 1990s, however, did not yet have its own territorial
denomination. Cultural landscape was still used in legal instruments refer-
ring exclusively to the protection of nature.31
By the year of the WHC recognition of the Historic Centre of Vienna,
Austrian/Viennese heritage protection was endowed with an extremely
rich and compound variety of instruments, whose constituents had evolved
over more than one and a half centuries. Even though several norms were
inserted according to international standards, the whole maintained its
local frame of interpretations and characteristics. To different degrees, the
following traditions of local heritage preservation contributed to the fact
that the Viennese Historic Centre could be interpreted as urban landscape:
• A co-ordinated façade renovation program had already started in the

1950s for historic cities, towns, and urban centers to preserve historic
urban units, which enabled cityscape protection to move from aim-

ing at the conservation of original substance to the representation
of a unified structure,32 within the one-and-a-half-century-long his-
tory of monument protection. This program was also a useful way to
mobilize local communities for urban conservation.
• The Austrian Topography of Arts (from 1907)33 produced an artis-
tic monumental inventory of Austria with scientific accuracy. The
very first volume presents the area around Krems, including Wachau,
which became a Cultural Landscape World Heritage Site in 2000.
• The Heimatschutz initiatives were institutionalized at the beginning
of the twentieth century. According to this approach, the relation-
ship between the built and the natural environment was essential
even in urban territories, and the term used for this unit was land-
scape (Landschaft), besides Heimat.
• Landscape architecture, which started to be institutionalized on the
international scene at the end of the 1960s, had a growing influ-
ence on Vienna and it promoted the inclusion of parks and gardens
in monumental inventories34; that is, the preserved urban area was
understood as a combined unit of the built and the natural environ-
ments by the end of the twentieth century.
• The preservation of built rural heritage (bäuerliche Erbe) has paid
more and more attention to the unity of the built and natural envi-
ronments as a value of centuries-long development since the 1960s.
In the 1980s, this approach was accepted as a norm in monumental
protection.
• The block of building as a unit of value worthy of protection was
legally recognized by the 1970s on the basis of the criticisms leveled
at the achievements of the first decades of reconstruction. This con-
ceptual evolution ensured continuity between monumental protec-
tion and urban heritage protection.
• Vienna was probably the earliest place in the world to deliberately
catalog industrial heritage,35 and the city gained an international
reputation for its renovation a century later. One of the most exqui-
site examples is the Gasometer, once the largest urban gasworks in
Europe, which was refurbished as a residential and cultural center.
The use of industrial heritage from the 1980s accelerates the percep-
tion of the objects of rehabilitation as urban quarters, built silhou-
ettes, and recyclable historic buildings because of the structure and
character of industrial urban units.
86 G. SONKOLY
• The legal and systematic preservation of contemporary architecture

was also institutionalized in the 1980s; Vienna played a pioneering
role, which helped the city to become more open to the co-ordinated
protection of buildings originating from different epochs.36
Having summarized briefly the history of Viennese monument and her-

itage protection, we can conclude that Vienna was not merely following
a path defined by the conceptual evolution of cultural heritage protection
but actually helping to create that path, which we could trace in Chap.
2. By 2001, the model of “gentle urban renovation” had a history going
back almost 25 years, which probably made the municipality, the heri-
tage protection experts, and even the city-dwellers more sensitive to the
causes and the results of the new paradigms of urban heritage preserva-
tion. The years of “gentle urban renovation” slowly eroded the distinction
between old and new, which was the conceptual basis for monumental
protection. As a result, both the territory of urban heritage and the age
of urban objects worth selecting as heritage appeared as a continuum,
without weakening the institutional framework of monumental protec-
tion. Owing to the expansion of the territory of urban heritage, it was not
only the Historic Centre that could be protected but also other quarters
originating from more recent or even contemporary periods. Owing to
the perception of historical time as a continuum, the city was more lenient
in its attitude toward contemporary architecture in historic settings, as
the reception of the Haas House shows.37 Consequently, the notion of
authenticity related to monument protection has also changed, to embody
the continuity of the successive levels of the evolution of urban morphol-
ogy and built environment and to ensure the further development of the
historically evolved cityscape.38
The Vienna Historic Centre as a World

Heritage Site
Since the addition of the Viennese Historic Centre to the World Heritage
List came rather later than it did for many historic cities, its justification
included concepts about the development of World Cultural Heritage
which were taking shape in that period. The two most important innova-
tions were the official conceptualization of cultural landscape since the
early 1990s and the growing significance of intangible heritage leading
to the Convention in 2003. Those who proposed Vienna for nomination
were aware of these tendencies. The city was presented “as a historically
grown urban landscape where not only are individual historical epochs
equally represented one beside the other, but where manmade structures
are to be seen on an equal footing with the natural context.”39 On the
other hand, Vienna’s uniquely long tradition as “the musical capital of
Europe” was stressed without using the term “intangible heritage,” which
was not yet fully canonized. The Advisory Board Evaluation and the
Decision took over both approaches, since “the historic town of Vienna,
like an urban cultural landscape, integrates a complex stratigraphy of his-
toric layers from the ancient Celtic and Roman times onwards,”40 and
as a World Heritage Site, Vienna received all the three nominated and
approved criteria, including criterion vi because of the city’s musical tradi-
tion.41 The nomination of the Viennese Historic Centre is a well-prepared
document which convincingly demonstrates Vienna’s excellent character-
istics as a heritage site, as is shown by the fact that the ICOMOS evalua-
tion based on the nomination and the WHC justification repeats its most
important elements almost verbatim. The recognition in 2001 was almost
unequivocal except for one condition: “The Committee recommended
that the State Party undertake the necessary measures to review the height
and volume of the proposed new development near the Stadtpark, east
of the Ringstrasse, so as not to impair the visual integrity of the historic
town. Furthermore, the Committee recommended that special attention
be given to continuous monitoring and control of any changes to the
morphology of the historic building stock.”42
The freshly won World Heritage title would be endangered by this
development, the Wien-Mitte Project. Even this favorable decision of the
WHC predicted that the dynamically developing city of Vienna, endowed
with two extended and unconnected World Heritage Sites, would face a
series of conflicts from 2001 onward, which did not concern these sites in
terms of the venerable local tradition of monument protection but from
the point of view of VI. Because of this positive decision which includes
a negative condition, the history of the Viennese Historic Centre can be
told either as a success story, by referring to the growing prestige of the
city and the increasing number of tourists expected by the municipal-
ity, or as a succession of conflicts between the WHC and the Viennese
Municipality (and the relevant Austrian authorities) questioning again and
again whether high-rise building investments in the World Heritage Sites’
buffer zones and even in more remote urban areas harm the VI of the
preserved territories. This series of conflicts started with the crisis linked
88 G. SONKOLY
to the Wien-Mitte Project, which could have led to the loss of the World
Heritage title, a considerable blow to the city’s prestige so soon after the
title had been sought for and won. The threat of delisting, however, is
always at UNESCO’s disposal, so the city was obliged to give way if it
wished to avoid it. From this point of view, the history of the Viennese
World Heritage Sites consists of a series of these compromises, which have
reoccurred nine times within the last 15 years (Fig. 3.2).
The case of Vienna’s World Heritage title is not exceptional. Threats
regularly emerge not only in the case of the Central European capitals
(Budapest and Prague),43 which are mentioned in the Viennese nomi-
nation and decision documents as comparable cases, but with the other
Austrian World Heritage Cities (Graz and Salzburg) as well. In addition to
the case of Vienna’s Historic Centre, it is worth examining the other two
most often cited (also Central European) urban conflicts in the context
of World Heritage from the 2000s: Cologne Cathedral and the Dresden
Elbe Valley. On the basis of the analysis of the state of conservation docu-
mentation of the seven Central European cities, we can suppose that the
World Heritage title brings with it an ongoing series of challenges for
the cities concerned. In the case of these seven cities, between 2000 and
2015 there are only two years without threats being documented, and no
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Fig. 3.2 Number of UNESCO World Heritage Commission reports on the

seven cities per year (reports on Vienna in dark grey)
less than five years when more than half of the cities were reported (Fig.
3.2). During the history of World Heritage, threat analysis has become a
discipline in its own right, in which protection of nature is the main ref-
erence and an assortment of criteria, originally developed for the natural
environment and extended to cover urban environment, is applied.44 Out
of the 75 (!) possible threats, there are only 10 which have been observed
for the seven cities and with very different degrees of frequency (Fig. 3.3).
Almost half of the threats are related to housing (six out of seven cities),
while other frequently spotted threats are management systems/plans (six
cities) and ground transport infrastructure (four cities).
Obviously, the various reports and threats reveal very different prob-
lems, so their comparative analyses can only serve to identify general ten-
dencies. The examples of the two German cities, Cologne and Dresden,
illustrate this well. In the case of Dresden, only one threat related to trans-
port was reported, specifically the construction of the new transportation
connection over the Elbe River, the Waldschlössen Bridge, which was car-
ried out in spite of repeated warnings by the UNESCO WHC. Finally,
this site was delisted in 2009, five years after its recognition—the only
European site to have suffered this fate so far.45 Despite the more fre-
quent and various warnings, Cologne Cathedral, the only urban site in
14
12
10
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Fig. 3.3 Number of threats mentioned in UNESCO World Heritage Commission

reports on the seven cities per year (threats to Vienna in dark grey)
90 G. SONKOLY
the seven cities which was recognized without a buffer zone, became a
success story of heritage protection.46 Similarly to the case of Vienna, the
development of the Deutz area, quite remote from the Cathedral, would
have resulted in buildings 100–149 meters high, which raised problems
of VI in 2003. In response, Cologne Cathedral was listed among endan-
gered sites in 2004, but the report of 2006 referred to a favorable turn
following the example of the management of the Wien-Mitte Project: a
buffer zone and related regulations were established.47 The conflict was
concluded in 2008 by the replacement of the originally planned high-rise
buildings with smaller ones, as well as by the official recognition of the
Cologne Cathedral buffer zone by the UNESCO WHC.48 Nevertheless,
the threat of delisting, which was a possibility in the case of Vienna in
2002 and became a reality in the case of Dresden, was not even men-
tioned in the reports on the other Central European cities that were
examined.
In the case of smaller cities, such as Graz and Salzburg, the maintenance
of the historic character of the inner city was at issue in the most significant
threats, whereas in the case of the bigger cities it was the development of
the buffer zones and planned high-rise development in the outer districts.
Out of the seven examined cities, Salzburg, the first Austrian urban World
Heritage Site, was reported the most often. Various projects (including
a planned sports center threatening the integrity of the Historic Centre,
nearby high-rise buildings, a hydroelectric power station, a viaduct, etc.)
caused the UNESCO WHC to request—in vain—that the city prepare
a management plan which would guarantee the integrity of the World
Heritage Site.49 Similarly, in the case of Graz, new developments endan-
gered the protected site (the demolition of the Kommod-Haus and its
planned replacement by a Zaha Hadid edifice, the new Kastner & Öhler
Department Store, which was judged oversized, and so forth), but here
a compromise was achieved by “softening” the original plans, by estab-
lishing a general management plan, and by the extension of the buffer
zone, with the result that there have not been any threat reports on Graz
since 2009.50 In Prague the highly controversial Blanka Tunnel51 and in
Budapest the disputed rehabilitation of the inner seventh district (the so-
called Jewish quarter), as well as failure to preserve residential houses or
provide information about new developments, have led to repeated mis-
sions and reports.52
The comparison of threat reports shows clearly that Vienna too has had
to face repeated criticism from the WHC since the Wien-Mitte conflict.
The first and regularly reoccurring requirement since 2003 is that the city
should develop technical tools in order to conserve historical buildings
and to assess integrity.53 Even though Vienna has acquired the necessary
equipment, it has been accused of not using it properly to measure VI,
a concept that is gradually developing.54 The Wien-Mitte conflict hav-
ing been solved, the development of another railway station (the Main
Station) was reported to be endangering the VI of the other Viennese
World Heritage Site (the Schönbrunn Palace)55 because of the planned
construction of a 100-meter tower in the vicinity of the Main Station.
This project, together with others like the planned high-rise construction
of the Kometgründe Department Store in Meidling, caused a new con-
flict between the City Hall and the WHC, lasting six years. During this
period, the WHC complained several times about not receiving sufficient
information concerning new developments, and objected that the modi-
fied plans offered by the city were not suitable for maintaining VI. In the
meantime, Vienna had obtained all the necessary technical equipment to
produce the required visual impact assessment, but according to the WHC
it was not being used properly to reveal the real situation.56 This new crisis
was resolved by the 2012 UNESCO–ICOMOS mission, which declared
the planning of the developments acceptable, but also repeated the earlier
objections concerning VI. This opinion was restated in the 2013 decision
with the only condition that the WHC must be informed about further
development around the Main Station. Since 2015, a new project, the
development related to the Intercontinental Hotel, has led the WHC to
express its discontent concerning the improper use of the available tech-
nical tools to ensure the sustainable development of the World Heritage
Site.57 In contrast to these reoccurring conflicts, the WHC praised the
creation of the Vienna High-Rise Concept, which is intended not only
to maintain the VI of Vienna’s World Heritage Sites but also to eradicate
the former “exclusion-zones for high-rise buildings” dating back to 2002,
which corresponded to the areas most seriously damaged in the Second
World War and partially coincided with the buffer zone of the Historic
Centre.58
The analysis of the reported threats of the Viennese World Heritage
Sites between 2002 and 2015 reveals how integrity has become pre-
dominant over authenticity—as we could already see in the analysis of the
standard-setting instruments—and how integrity has become equivalent
with the principle of VI in the WHC reports, while this notion is not
defined or regulated in the Operational Guidelines. Though the principle
92 G. SONKOLY
of sustainability can already be found in WHC documents in the 1990s,

it was only in 2012 that it appeared for the first time among the reports
on Vienna; since then it has become very frequent and always refers to
the appropriate maintenance of VI, a greatly reduced interpretation of the
concept of sustainability.
During the period of our analysis, the territory covered by Vienna’s
World Heritage Sites has been expanding. On the one hand, the central
areas which developed intensively in the second half of the twentieth cen-
tury in the context of their restoration after war damage are no longer
exempt from urban heritage regulations. On the other hand, the core
zone increasingly affects the buffer zone and even more remote districts
through the application of the principle of VI. In this process, the manage-
ment of the Wien-Mitte Project, as the primary example of the implemen-
tation of these principles, can be considered as a precedent. This first crisis
not only included the characteristics of later conflicts between the WHC
and the local authorities but has often been cited during these conflicts as
an exemplary solution.
The First Threat: The Wien-Mitte Project and Its

Consequences
The status of the Wien-Mitte Project59 as a precedent stems from a coinci-
dence: it was one of the numerous high-rise developments which received
building permits immediately after the World Heritage nomination of
Vienna’s Historic Centre. The one-and-a-half-year-long crisis, accompa-
nied by the real threat of being delisted from the World Heritage List,
was a short interval in the history of the reconstruction of the Wien-Mitte
Railway Station, which took more than 20 years between 1991, the year
of the first winning proposal of the Ortner & Ortner Architectural Studio,
and the completion of the same architectural office’s second winning proj-
ect between 2007 and 2013. The call for tenders to refurbish the rail-
way station, which played an essential role in the resolution of the World
Heritage conflict in 2003, was only a brief episode in this long history.
It was not won by Ortner & Ortner, but by another Viennese studio,
whose plans were never implemented because of financial difficulties.60
This shows that the Wien-Mitte conflict did not lead to a final solution for
the development project; it merely indicated the limits of development
which should be respected.
The Historic Centre and the railway station did not constitute a unit
prior to this conflict. The history of the Wien-Mitte Project and that of the
Historic Centre are linked together by the fact that the station is included
in the buffer zone of the World Heritage Site and by the simultaneity of
their respective official approvals. The subsequent short crisis lasted less
than two years, between 2001 and 2003. However, it not only resulted in
the reinterpretation of the World Heritage and its surroundings—without
a tangible solution for the reconstruction of the railway station—but also
contributed to the organization of the Vienna Conference in 2005. At the
peak of the crisis in 2002, the UNESCO WHC showed itself to be very
keen to settle the status of this new site. An ICOMOS Mission arrived
in March, and in May a WHC Mission—headed by Francesco Bandarin,
the dynamic president elected one and a half years earlier—thoroughly
investigated the management of the critical project. In addition to this,
the forthcoming WHC Session happened to be in Budapest, not far away,
which made the Viennese case even more noteworthy. In June, the deci-
sion of this session included a potential delisting of the Historic Centre if
the Wien-Mitte Project was not settled properly.
The crisis between the city and the WHC affected the City Council too.
Between 2000 and 2015, the topic of the Vienna World Heritage appears
most frequently in the Minutes of the City Council in 2002; this hap-
pened to be the year when a snap election was held in November, which
raised its political sensitivity even higher. In the first half of the year, the
Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) addressed two letters about the Wien-
Mitte conflict to Rudolf Schicker, Councilor for Urban Development and
Transport.61 The first letter, sent in February, was technical in nature: it
inquired about the zoning of the new World Heritage Site, especially con-
cerning the regulations on high-rise buildings and the institutional man-
agement of the site.62 The second was far more political: Heinz-Christian
Strache, the future president of the FPÖ, demanded answers about the
May conference with WHC leaders and accused the Social Democrat-run
municipality of deliberate deception and unresponsiveness, charges which
of course were denied.63 The content and the tone of this second corre-
spondence indicate how quickly the originally professional topic started to
be used for political purposes.
A similar tendency can be perceived between the two thematic
debates—held in March and in September, before and after the WHC
Session decision—at the City Council. Although Rudolf Schicker began
the first debate by claiming that the Wien-Mitte should no longer be
94 G. SONKOLY
regarded as a Socialist “den of thieves”64 by the opposition, the debate

soon turned toward the development of the subway network, which
shows that the representatives were not particularly concerned about the
heritage project itself. In September, however, after the negative decision
of the WHC Session and before the November elections, the debate on
the Vienna World Heritage Site was much lengthier and far more heated,
though many other heritage-related topics were also mentioned which
are not directly linked to the Wien-Mitte Project.65 The FPÖ protested
mainly against the alleged deceit practiced by the municipal leaders toward
UNESCO and the citizens for two years, which might endanger the city’s
prestige and forced the citizens to appeal to the Constitutional Court.66
The Greens criticized the system for project evaluation dominated by
Hans Hollein and the lack of transparency. The Austrian People’s Party
(ÖVP) added their worries about the aesthetic unity of Vienna.67 Among
the possible solutions to the conflict, the FPÖ supported 65 meters as the
upper limit for high-rise buildings, and the Greens demanded transpar-
ency in calls for investment and in evaluation, while the ÖVP emphasized
the necessity to “get rid of Hollein.” All the opposition parties underlined
the need for the citizenry to participate in the decision-making process.
The Social Democratic city government insisted that the project had been
prepared transparently and that they would definitely keep both the World
Heritage title and the Wien-Mitte Project. The quest for a solution to
the crisis generated a series of regulations within six months: the zoning
regulation on high-rise building was voted in April, the management plan
of the Viennese World Heritage Sites was finalized in June, and a general
study of the Historic Centre was completed in October to prepare for the
restrictions on roof-space conversions that were to be introduced.
In February 2003, the representatives of Vienna, Austria, ICOMOS,
and the UNESCO WHC met in Paris to discuss the state of affairs, and
the Austrian participants reassured the representatives of the international
organizations that they would continue to strive to maintain the World
Heritage title of the Historic Centre. Seeing that the WHC still insisted
that buildings must not exceed a height of 60–70 meters in the area of the
project,68 the previously chosen plans were abandoned in March and the
municipality prepared its next report accordingly in April. From this point
onward, the path to the official celebrations of the World Heritage Site
was straightforward. In May a new tender was announced; it was won in
the autumn by a more modest proposal, which was praised for its simplic-
ity by the judges.69
This exemplary solution would not only be brought up and quoted in

the 2005 Conference in Vienna but wouldalso be cited in the context of
the solution to similar problems in Salzburg in 2003.70 Repeatedly fac-
ing similar threats concerning VI, Vienna had recourse to the Wien-Mitte
solution again in 2015 in the case of the nearby Intercontinental Hotel
development. Here, Wien-Mitte served as an official precedent for “inten-
sive fine tuning” between the local authorities and the international orga-
nizations and for reaching a consensus over the format of a 70-meter-high
building.71 The essence of the story of the short crisis over the Wien-
Mitte Project is this fine-tuning between authorities. Its elements originate
partly from the nature of urban cultural heritage—heritage is meant to be
consensual—and partly from Vienna’s particular situation, which enables
this city to make an example of a solution like this. Vienna is willing and
able to reach a compromise, which has resulted in one tall building (the
Vienna City Tower) being allowed to exceed the tolerance threshold of
WHC/ICOMOS, but also in other high-rise buildings being kept within
the 65-meter limit. Thus, both the relevant international organizations
and the investor could enjoy a sense of accomplishment. “Gentle urban
renovation” and “intensive fine tuning” seem to share an important char-
acteristic: their attributes refer to the co-existence of the principles of con-
servation and development in Viennese urban heritage preservation.
This co-existence probably stems from several elements of the Viennese
tradition. One is participation by the citizenry—the fact that it is always
possible to mobilize the inhabitants’ community consciousness and identity
for heritage preservation,72 which has deep roots in the sensitivity toward
the local environment that originated in the Heimat movements. There is
also an almost uniquely long (in European terms) political continuity in
the Viennese City Hall (the city has had a Social Democrat Bürgermeister
since 1946), which is especially favorable for long-term developments like
the Wien-Mitte Project. Vienna’s willingness and ability to negotiate with
international organizations come from her international character. Vienna
is not only one of the four official headquarters of the United Nations
(UN); the city is also one of the most often cited examples of progressive
urban planning projects. Vienna forms its image of itself by harmonizing
current international trends with inner social demands. As a result of this
policy, the city itself often becomes an example of these trends. In this
sense, the World Heritage title seems to be another tool which the city
could use for its own benefit, after a short period of hesitation around the
Wien-Mitte Project.73
96 G. SONKOLY
Vienna, The International City

According to Jacques le Rider, the peaceful post-1955 consolidation in
Austria in general and Vienna in particular has been disturbed by the dras-
tic geopolitical recomposition of Central Europe, the region that is essen-
tial for Austrian identity, after 1989–1990 and by the crisis around 2000,
so much so that even its places of memory had been restructured by the
beginning of the twenty-first century.74 For Vienna, the fresh reopening
of Eastern Central Europe represented new potentials and rivalries at the
same time. The city had accumulated several decades of international sig-
nificance by that time, enough to reinforce its mission as a regional center,
but it also had to take into consideration similar ambitions from the other
side of the former Iron Curtain, from cities like Bratislava, Budapest, or
Prague. Obviously, Vienna’s advantages and infrastructure are more than
outstanding, but it simply could not afford to give up or lose the World
Heritage title—already won by Budapest and Prague—in a situation like
the Wien-Mitte conflict.
After the First World War, Vienna, the former capital of the Austro-
Hungarian Monarchy, was the Central European capital which had to suffer
most from the significant decline in its central functions. It was not just that
it ceased to be the capital of the second largest European empire; it became
the capital of a smaller state than Prague’s Czechoslovakia or even Budapest’s
Hungary. After the Anschluss, it even lost its role as a capital city. From 1955
onward,75 however, Vienna gradually grew into an international city, follow-
ing a successful strategy of exploiting attributes deriving from an imperial past,
from the neutrality of Austria, and from its geopolitical situation. In this new
narrative, the Congress City of Vienna has a five-century tradition dating back
to the Habsburg-Jagellonian Summit of 1515, and characterized by several
remarkable historical events such as the Congress of Vienna in 1814/1815
and two US–Soviet summits (in 1961 and in 1979) in the years of the Cold
War. The opening of the Vienna International Centre (“UN City”)76 in 1979
was the high point of a process in which a city formerly divided between the
four Allies became the third headquarters of the UN after New York and
Geneva within a period of two decades. As a UN headquarters, by the 2000s
Vienna was playing host to four major (International Atomic Energy Agency
since 1957, United Nations International Development Organization since
1966, Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban
Treaty Organization since 1996, and United Nations Office on Drugs and
Crime since 1997) and eight minor UN organizations.
Since 1999, Vienna has been a Best Practices Hub for the UN-Habitat
Programme,77 which is intended to promote award-winning urban plan-
ning programs (“practices”) and to “act as a resource centre for other
solution seeking stake holders, firstly in Vienna, secondly in the region
(Central and Eastern Europe) and thirdly worldwide.”78 Vienna’s long
traditions of social care and innovative urban planning seem to correspond
well to the expectations of UN-Habitat. It is not only the Best Practices
Hub that shows up Vienna’s outstanding role in the UN-Habitat pro-
gramme but also its exceptionally large number of officially recognized
“practices”79: Vienna alone is credited with more listed urban practices
than any EU member state except for Spain. Moreover, Vienna initiates far
more acknowledged urban practices than the second and third European
cities (Madrid and Barcelona). Similarly to other European cities and towns,
most of these urban programs were recognized between 1998 and 2006,
the initial period of the award system of the UN-Habitat Programme (Fig.
3.4). The Wien-Mitte crisis broke out at a time when Vienna was receiving
the most numerous UN-Habitat recognitions for exemplary urban plan-
ning, and when its Best Practices Hub was beginning to influence Central
Europe. In the year of the negative WHC decision, 2002, Vienna received
one best practice and 11 good practice acknowledgments, twice as many
14
12
10
0
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Fig. 3.4 Urban programs (“practices”) acknowledged by the UN-Habitat

Programme in Vienna per year
98 G. SONKOLY
as Bratislava, Budapest, and Prague together during the 18 years of the

UN-Habitat awarding system.
Out of these 12 urban practices, two good practices are exclusively
related to the Historic Centre, whereas the others either concern the
whole city or are intended for other urban areas such as the Green Belt.
One of the inner city programs, called SYLVIE, targets noise reduction
by defining noise as a social problem and mediating between noise-
makers and noise-victims.80 Another good Viennese practice is “gentle
urban renovation,” which was already acknowledged as a “best practice”
in 1998, mainly because of the threefold principle described above.81 Its
tenant-oriented approach to renewal mainly concerns the urban quar-
ters surrounding the Historic Centre, in which the rehabilitation of the
city is implemented while paying special attention to local social prob-
lems (crime, unemployment, and relative poverty) during the interven-
tion, which takes place at the preferred micro- (apartment or building)
or meso- (quarter) level with proportionate financial investment to avoid
segregation and gentrification. Thus, the locus for these rehabilitation
programs is usually the buffer zone of the World Heritage Site. Vienna’s
traditions and significance as an international city and its eminent posi-
tion in comprehensive urban planning, acknowledged by the UN-Habitat
Programme, meant that the Wien-Mitte conflict simply could not result
in the city being delisted, and the city’s special situation augured that this
debate, quite common in the context of urban World Heritage Sites, could
lead to a solution with implications that went far beyond the Viennese
buffer zone. As we have seen, the practical conflict was resolved in 2003,
but the deeper theoretical disagreements would lead—only one and a half
years after the official celebrations of the Viennese World Heritage Site—
to the Vienna Conference, which was intended to bring about a paradigm
shift in the management of the urban heritage at a global level.
Vienna’s Role and The Vienna Memorandum

Owing to the events in Vienna in spring 2003, especially the annulment
of the original Wien-Mitte Project, the 2003 WHC Session in Paris not
only reached a favorable decision about the World Heritage status of the
Historic Centre but also requested “the Secretariat and ICOMOS to orga-
nize a symposium on high-rise constructions and contemporary archi-
tecture in World Heritage historic cities: the criteria for regulation and
management; … and to provide a proposal on publishing the outcome
of the symposium, for consideration by the World Heritage Committee

at its 28th session in 2004.”82 This latter demand proved to be necessary
because high-rise constructions were becoming an acute problem for the
more than 300 urban World Heritage Sites. During the discussion about
the controversial situation of Cologne Cathedral in the 24th Session, the
UK delegation inquired about the proceedings of the conference held a
year before, since the question of “high-rise buildings and visual integrity”
was a burning issue for the heritage cities in their country too. Bandarin,
the director of the WHC, took the opportunity to announce a conference
for May 2005 in Vienna, which was intended “to discuss the contempo-
rary interventions on World Heritage sites” under the topic of HUL.83
The meaningful conceptual transformation of VI into HUL in this dis-
cussion is understandable on the basis of our analysis of the conceptual
evolution of urban heritage in Chap. 2. Notwithstanding, it is significant
that HUL replaced the notion of VI at the very beginning and was defined
as a response to a WHC Session decision, which referred to “historic city,
high-rise constructions and contemporary architecture,” but did not men-
tion either VI or the newly worded HUL. These latter notions shared a
common characteristic: neither of them had yet been defined or regulated.
The publicized conference’s scope and aspirations were much broader
than those of the usual technical conferences organized to solve the prob-
lems of controversial sites,84 since it had four main organizers (UNESCO
WHC, ICOMOS, the Austrian Ministry for Education, Science and
Culture, and the City of Vienna) and five international professional
organizations also took part in its preparation.85 The conference invita-
tion offered the first short and functional explanation of HUL: “While
proper definitions and guidelines for the conservation and management
of cultural monuments, natural sites, and since 1992 cultural landscapes
as the ‘combined works of nature and of man’ are in place, they are still
missing for the preservation of historic urban landscapes. This conference
aims to fill this gap.”86 (Emphasis added) Thus, Vienna had the honor of
being chosen by the WHC to host a new standard-setting conference,
because it had managed to solve one of the most burning problems of
urban heritage.
The city played an eminent role in the organization and management
of the conference. The documentation of the event shows clearly how
much the memorandum owed to its birthplace87: one of the two main
organizers was the City of Vienna—the other was the UNESCO WHC—
the Executive Board contained only Viennese members, and five Viennese
100 G. SONKOLY
constituted the most numerous group among the authors of the prelimi-
nary Draft of The Vienna Memorandum.88 There were five representatives
of Vienna among the speakers, and half of the approximately 670 partici-
pants at the conference were Austrians, mainly Viennese. In addition to
this, the conference was complemented by an exhibition entitled Vienna.
World Heritage and contemporary art, which showcased a dozen architec-
tural projects that were meant to exemplify successful Viennese interven-
tions in urban heritage. Manifestly, the Wien-Mitte Project, exhibited in
its winning 2003 format, was one of these.89 The Viennese speakers, from
Bürgermeister Michael Häupl to exhibition curator Manfred Wehdorn,
emphasized the same message: heritage preservation must be kept in bal-
ance with development according to a holistic approach (the city seen
as Gesamtkunstwerk)90 and bearing in mind that the main goal is the
improvement of the citizens’ quality of life, which is, besides, a source of
special pride for the Viennese.91
These principles appear in the text of The Vienna Memorandum, which
is the basis for the UNESCO Declaration on the Conservation of the Historic
Urban Landscapes issued in 2005 and that of the Recommendation on the
Historic Urban Landscape. A New International Instrument of 2011. In
the case of the seven cities we examined, The Vienna Memorandum was
often used as a reference in the threat reports between 2005 and 2007,92
and conferences on HUL have been organized all over the world since
2007. Thus, the reception of the Vienna Conference and its memoran-
dum should suggest that Vienna not only retained its World Heritage sta-
tus but also made a major contribution to the global management of the
territorialization of urban heritage by universalizing its own example.
The subsequent history of threats to Vienna’s World Heritage status,
however, reveals that the concept of VI has retained its conceptual inde-
pendence and has become the most frequently used reference in the treat-
ment of urban heritage at the UNESCO WHC. Although Ron van Oers
classified VI as the first of the three most important elements of HUL
at the Vienna Conference,93 his view of VI as a significant, but not pre-
dominant, factor within the holistic notion of HUL does not seem to have
been carried over into the following years. As a result, the management
guidelines of urban World Heritage Sites could not be unified according
to HUL principles. The Viennese publications94 about Vienna’s World
Heritage Sites after 2005 still repeat the same doubts about urban heritage
management as had already been expressed during the Wien-Mitte con-
flict. In the meantime, the HUL approach has moved its headquarters to
Asia, where a specialized center has started working on its application and
promotion in Shanghai.95
Conclusion
The definition of Vienna’s Historic Centre brings a new territorial division
to the inner city by dividing it into a core zone and a buffer zone, and the
short crisis was technically about the relationship between these two newly
founded units. According to a Viennese opponent of the World Heritage,
Friedrich Achleitner, also a member of the Senior Advisory Group of the
Vienna Conference in 2005, the coloring of the zones of the Vienna World
Heritage Sites resembles a city after the explosion of a bomb: the core
zone is devastated (red), there is still some life in the buffer zone (blue),
whereas the outer areas flourish in their untainted freedom.96 Despite the
irony of this exaggeration, the World Heritage title definitely brings great
changes to the protected areas within a very short time, which an archi-
tect can experience as a catastrophe. In the year of the World Heritage
nomination (2000), 8 percent of the buildings in the Historic Centre
were protected, a figure which had grown to 80 percent, owing to new
regulations, by the year of the conference (2005).97 First the Wien-Mitte
and then the other high-rise construction conflicts gradually eroded the
border between the core zone and the buffer zone from the perspective of
urban heritage, under the label of VI. Thus, following the ever-expanding
logic of cultural heritage, the territorial borders dividing the old (protect-
able) and the new are vanishing between the protected quarters and their
surroundings, as had happened between the monument and its environ-
ment in the first phase of the evolution of urban heritage conservation.98
However, it is not yet decided whether this expansion would take place
according to the notion of VI or that of HUL. The history of the Vienna
World Heritage Site demonstrates how contradictory the consequences of
the territorial expansion of the originally protected can be in the case of
the two notions.
Nevertheless, the integrative logic of the international standard-setting
instruments would not allow these two notions to be represented in a
binary contradiction; they can even complement one another, as some of
the lectures given at the Vienna Conference showed. The WHC’s han-
dling of urban threats, however, proves that neither the desired integrative
notion of urban heritage management nor its guidelines have yet been
identified. The continuous inquiry about the threat of VI subordinates the
102 G. SONKOLY
unprotected part of the city, especially the somewhat pejoratively denomi-

nated buffer zone, to the core zones through a process that Wolfgang
Kos, the director of the Historical Museum of Vienna (Wien Museum)
between 2003 and 2015, has defined as “polemical visualization,” because
it ignores the dynamic practice and the perspectives of the inhabitants in
the city.99 In this sense, urban landscape means a static visual unity, which
dissolves the borders of protection from above and spreads its visual (top-
down) principles over the totality of the urban territory. In contrast to this,
the Vienna Conference was able to mobilize the Viennese decision-makers
by promising the expansion of the heritage territory through the notion
of HUL. This approach also leads to the integration of contemporary
buildings and quarters into the protected territory of urban heritage; in
other words, the borders of protection are also being dissolved, but HUL
is intended to avoid the museification of the city by establishing a dynamic
relationship between historic areas and contemporary architecture.100
Determining heritage territory exclusively in terms of VI could give
rise to a situation of continuous threats, as is shown by the examples of
the seven cities in Central Europe—a region far from being among the
most dynamic in the world—since the bigger or the more active a city
is, the more likely it is to move away from the starting point of protec-
tion. In this sense, urban heritage protection manifests itself as an ongoing
series of crises and solutions, in which the local authorities are obliged to
postpone their final decisions by bargaining for exemptions and immu-
nities. The arguments and the communication techniques employed by
local authorities in correspondence over polemic visualization resemble
the circular logic that privileged Central European towns used against
centralizing tendencies in the early modern period.101 Vienna’s recur-
rent inability to properly apply its technical equipment to produce the
required visual impact assessment is a striking example of this relationship
between the two levels of World Heritage Sites, which becomes farcical
when the ICOMOS experts denounce their Viennese colleagues for cal-
culating on the basis of tourists with an average eye level of 1.6 meters.
In the case of contemporary Vienna and other heritage cities, the center
and the city play opposite roles to those they played in the early modern
era. Now, the central authorities are trying to maintain stability, while
the local authorities strive for development, but also attempt to avoid the
loss of a title which produces economic profits. It is also interesting to
observe how the central ideology of security, the measurement and regu-
lation of (visual) threat, is undergoing a process of professionalization.
This process entails a growing number of threat reports. In the case of

European World Heritage Cities, there are 0.4 reports per year for the
period of 1978–2000, nine reports per year between 2000 and 2009, and
10.7 reports per year between 2010 and 2015.102 A global comparison of
reports on threats related to VI reveals that it is predominantly an urban
and typically a “Western” problem: 92 percent of the cases concerned cul-
tural World Heritage properties and 44 percent of the reported sites were
situated in Europe and North America between 2004 and 2012.103 This
comparison is part of an attempt by the WHC to define and standardize
the notion of VI in 2013. The related “Background document”—obey-
ing the integrative logic of the international instruments and in opposi-
tion to the straightforward demand for a paradigm shift expressed in the
two volumes on HUL—discusses HUL among the “other debates by
the WHC related to ‘visual integrity,’” without specifying the relationship
between the two concepts or even mentioning any “other” debate.104 In
order to prove the need for an urgent definition of this notion, the docu-
ment lists 13 “cases where issues related to visual integrity [jeopardize]
the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage property.” Of the 13
cases, 11 are urban and 10 are situated in the “Western” unit, which shows
even more clearly which heritage sites are the most affected by the prob-
lem of VI.105 The key cases include Prague, Cologne, Dresden, and, not
surprisingly, Vienna, which is listed as the very first case, represented by
the successfully solved Wien-Mitte affair and still attacked over the high-
rise development near the Main Station consecutively in 2009, 2010, and
2011.
Instead of the crisis cycles of threats and solutions, the HUL approach
aims at a dynamic equilibrium based on a holistic conception of the city.
Obviously, this approach is also problematic, but it aims at sustainability
instead of the protection of aesthetic integrity; in other words, it favors
the management of change instead of unmanageable change. It may lead
to a more innovative and interdisciplinary professionalization of match-
ing local and global indicators of security. As the documents emerging
from the Vienna Conference indicated, and subsequent publications by
the Viennese Municipality on their World Heritage Site show, the City
Council gives priority to the quality of life of its citizens among the heri-
tage indicators of security, which is part and parcel of the Viennese tra-
dition and which gives the city its worldwide distinction. While the VI
approach keeps the urban heritage within the register of tangible heritage,
the city tries to find other references such as that of intangible heritage or
104 G. SONKOLY
HUL. The double tradition of heritage protection in German-speaking

territories, embodied in the more official Denkmalschutz and the more
civic Heimatschutz, stimulates active participation by the local authorities
and citizens, which could encourage not only the preservation of local
traditions but also the survival of the sophisticated polemical techniques
originating from the early modern period. These techniques may prove
to be useful not only in one-off disputes with the central state but also in
conflicts with any other higher authorities, as the crisis management prac-
ticed by the Viennese Municipality revealed before and after the Vienna
Conference. At this conference, the host city was extremely active not only
because of its own rich traditions but also thanks to the way the notion of
urban heritage had been evolving from the 1970s onward, according to
which the historic city is not defined as a mere monumental site but more
as an active participant expressing itself through a widening circle of social
actors.
Thus, local communities play an essential role in contemporary cultural
heritage management, though the attributed degree of the employment
and the justification of this role differ from one heritage expert to another.
The HUL approach would give more leverage to local communities and
decision-makers in heritage preservation, which could eventually lead to
the misuse of tangible heritage, whereas the VI approach keeps heritage
conservation within the competence of heritage experts and does not
include the aspects of the safeguarding of intangible heritage in urban
heritage protection. Intangible urban cultural heritage is an often men-
tioned but rarely defined notion, especially in the context of big cities like
Vienna. The elements of the Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage and the
Register of Best Safeguarding Practices are predominantly situated in rural
settings or in small towns. If they belong to big cities, their location is
primarily in the popular neighborhoods of Latin American cities, in which
they are often designated to express the precinct’s distinct identity.106 It is
quite rare for an element of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity
to be situated in or directly linked to tangible World Heritage Sites. I
could find only six such cities,107 which Vienna joined most recently with
its “Classical horsemanship and the High School for Spanish Riding
School Vienna” in 2015 as the first European capital. The efficient and
fairly quick drafting of the Austrian—and Viennese—intangible cultural
heritage register indicates again that the significant national and urban
tradition of heritage preservation allows a productive appropriation of
a new cultural heritage paradigm. Austria ratified the Convention for the
Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2009, and made up

its first national list of 18 elements in 2010. By 2015 this list included as
many as 90 elements,108 of which 11 have a national scope—including
the Province of Vienna—and three are exclusively Viennese.109 It is the
Spanish Riding School which is recognized by the UNESCO Committee
as the second solely Austrian element. According to its Nomination
File, such a cultural practice—categorized among the oral traditions and
expressions—is officially approved on the territory of the Viennese World
Heritage site, which offers a reassuring and exemplary answer to several
great challenges of the contemporary safeguarding of intangible heritage:
its over 500-year-old tradition is successfully maintained and preserved110;
it is integrated organically into tangible heritage111; it guarantees the dou-
ble direction (traditional inner and representative/spectacular outer) of
knowledge transmission112; and it is not negatively affected by adopting
contemporary social changes as women and non-Austrians are integrated
among its current practitioners.113 Moreover, the Spanish Riding School
of Vienna declares that it is extremely cautious where animal rights are
concerned, since this practice of “classical horsemanship” is characterized
by “respect for the close relations between humans, animals and nature as
well as cultural and biological diversity.”114
The recognition and the functioning of the Spanish Riding School of
Vienna would definitely demand a much longer analysis, since the exam-
ple of the double cultural heritage of Marrakesh (listed 14 years before
Vienna as an intangible element)115 warns us that the double expectation
of knowledge transmission—within the concerned community as well as
toward spectators and other visitors—integral to intangible cultural heri-
tage is not without difficulties. Marrakesh is a heritage city and a popular
tourist destination at the same time; therefore, it is constantly exposed to
the interest of a wide audience.116 Income from tourism may contribute
not only to the maintenance of the built monumental heritage, but also to
the survival of cultural practices through the tourists’ donations to the art-
ists performing in the cultural space of the Jemaa El-Fna square. The inter-
generational transmission of its typical traditions, however, is threatened
by the growing indifference of the younger generations.117 Consequently,
the expected double transmission of the intangible cultural heritage can be
implemented only partially or unsuccessfully, as Adil Boulghallat demon-
strated in his recent thesis.118 The price of its implementation is the trans-
formation of the performing community itself, which is obliged to archive
and represent the safeguarded cultural and/or social practices according
106 G. SONKOLY
to external viewpoints. Though the hakawatis (traditional storytellers)

survive in the imagination of both locals and tourists, they are gradually
disappearing from the square.119 Public storytelling is increasingly ham-
pered by the noise of the tourist crowds and that of the related merchants,
who are unable to participate in the traditional halqat (gathering to listen
to the storyteller) because they do not speak Arabic or because their daily
routine does not allow it. Thus, the hakawatis who were once the loca-
tion’s main attraction and the reason for its protection are being pushed
from the center of the square to its edges, which is not only a territorial
but also a symbolic rehierarchization of the three main groups (storytell-
ers, tourists, and vendors) who regularly use its territory.120 The intangible
urban heritage brings forward the problems of knowledge transmission
and, consequently, that of the privacy of the concerned urban community,
that is, the protection of the traditional line separating the private and
the public spheres of individual members as well as of the community as
a whole, among the increasing number of external regards and effects,
which in part result from the heritagization of cultural/social practices in
question. The well-orchestrated Spanish Riding School of Vienna, which
operates indoors, is definitely less affected by these influences than the
open-air cultural space of the Jemaa El-Fna square, but the redefinition of
the community’s privacy is unavoidable, and it leads us back to the notion
of authenticity in heritage preservation.
Authenticity was tackled several times in Chap. 2, since it belongs
among those conjectural dilemmas—together with its co-concept of
integrity—which are expected to be resolved in the urban context through
the implementation of HUL. The example of Vienna not only concretized
the theoretical indicators of the development of urban heritage (temporal-
ity, territory, and community) identified in Chap. 2 but also widened the
circle of the conjectural dilemmas, which are necessary to demonstrate
recent changes in urban heritage protection and its current complexity.
In this sense, the economic perspective of cultural heritage evoked by the
dilemma of urban protection versus urban development121 is completed
with the different forms of tourism, largely triggered by heritagization,
which undoubtedly modify the safeguarded cultural practices. The politi-
cal use of the cultural heritage discourse is also an inevitable component in
the interpretation of contemporary urban heritage. The polemics around
the Wien-Mitte Project showed how various political groups exploit con-
ceptual novelties related to cultural heritage for their own political pur-
poses, and how the use of urban heritage reveals the provisional interests
of political and social groups. Accordingly, both the changing vocabulary

of urban heritage and its application can be regarded as historical objects,
just like any other debate in history aiming at the construction of identity.
Local disputes on heritage are the political practices of the past with a
peculiarity stemming from the administrative origin of the cultural heri-
tage discourse: that no or very few historical references are used.122 This
reveals one of the major novelties of cultural heritage from the perspective
of History: the historian as the accredited researcher of the past is either
passed over or solicited in a different role. Therefore, the cultural heritage
is a historical problem which surpasses the epistemological considerations
of historical science and targets the contemporary social position that is
the ontology of the historian.
Notes
1. The fourth CIAM (Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture

Moderne) conference was held partly in Athens; the participants
were also debating while they cruised on the “Patris” from
Marseille to Athens and back. Eric Mumford (2000) The CIAM
Discourse on Urbanism, 1928–1960 (Cambridge, Massachusetts:
The MIT Press) 73–94.
2. It was the Second Congress of Architects and Specialists of

Historic Buildings, held in Venice in 1964, which decided to
adopt the International Restoration Charter (The Venice Charter)
and to create an international organization of monument conser-
vation experts, the ICOMOS, founded in 1965.
3. ICOMOS (1964) 1.
4. Leopoldo Mazzarolli (2008) ‘Presentation’ in A Future for

Venice? Considerations 40 years after the 1966 Flood (Turin–
London–Venice–New York: Umberto Allemandi) 9.
6. I presume that both the conceptual fuzziness and the relative
novelty of cultural heritage permit its easier communication and
adaptation between the different levels of identity construction
(universal, continental, national, regional, and local) than any
other previous forms of identity building, especially that of nation
building, which originally despised or suppressed concurrent lev-
els. Gábor Sonkoly (2000) ‘A kulturális örökség fogalmának
értelmezési és alkalmazási szintjei’ Regio 11:4, 45–66.
108 G. SONKOLY
7. Obviously, this is not an official expression but is borrowed from

a Viennese poet and journalist of architecture, Friedrich Achleitner
(2005) ‘Das Erbe und die Erben. Weltkulturerbe—Unbehagen
an einem Begriff oder: einige Fragen’ in Csáky, Moritz—Sommer,
Monika (eds.) Kulturerbe als soziokulturelle Praxis (Innsbruck–
Wien–Bozen: Studien Verlag) 15.
8. Since 2001, the only new World Heritage Site for Austria (2011)
is an Alpine set of archaeological sites (prehistoric pile dwellings)
in six countries, mainly in Switzerland.
9. The chronology of the Austrian World Heritage Sites of this

period is as follows: Historic Centre of Salzburg; Palace of
Schönbrunn (1996), Hallstatt-Dachstein/Salzkammergut
Cultural Landscape (1997), Semmering Railway (1998), City of
Graz (1999), Wachau Cultural landscape (2000), Ferő/
Neusiedlersee Cultural Landscape; Historic Centre of Vienna
(2001).
10. Manfred Wehdorn (1942–) is the most renowned expert on

Viennese World Heritage, who has published widely on the heri-
tagization of Vienna. Since 1988, he has been director of, or
served on the board of, various heritage conservation institutions
in Austria.
11. Carl E. Schorske (1981) Fin-de-siècle Vienna. Politics and culture
(New York: Vintage Books) 33.
12. Manfred Wehdorn (2004) Vienna, a Guide to the UNESCO

World Heritage Sites (Wien–New York: Springer) 40.
13. Ibid., 63.
14. Manfred Wehdorn, Das kulturelle Erbe. Vom Einzeldenkmal zur
Kulturlandschaft (Innsbruck–Wien–Bozen: Studien Verlag) 24.
15. Ibid., 15.
16. The Hamburg Construction Care Act provides the first official
denomination of urban landscape in 1912, when it prescribes the
protection of “Strassen-, Orts-, und Landschaftsbild” (Wehdorn
[2005] 33). Hugo Hassinger publishes the inventory of Viennese
monuments under the title of “… Kunst- und Naturdenkmale des
Wiener Ortsbildes.” Hugo Hassinger (1916) Kunsthistorischer
Atlas und verzeichnis der erhaltenswerten historischen Kunst- und
Naturdenkmale des Wiener Ortsbildes. Österreichische
Kunsttopographie XV (Wien: Schroll).
17. According to Astrid Swenson, “…both English and French have

generic, albeit non congruent terms … there is no corresponding
single word in German. In addition to Kulturerbe a variety of
expressions are needed such as Kulturgüter (cultural property),
Denkmal (monument) or Heimat (nominally ‘homeland’, but
carrying implications that translations are not quite able to pro-
vide)” Swenson (2013) 9.
18. It would be worth analyzing in depth why, in the case of Lower
Austria, for example, the Verein für Landeskunde von
Niederösterreich (established in 1864) first dropped the expres-
sion Denkmalpflege, when it united with the Verein für
Heimatschutz und Denkmalpflege in 1925, and called the new
association Verein für Landeskunde und Heimatschutz von
Niederösterreich, and then again in 1939, just after the Nazi occu-
pation, why it dropped Heimatschutz and simply called itself
Verein für Landeskunde von Niederdonau und Wien, and never
took back either of the two “lost” terms (Wien Geschichte
(2015)). The use of Heimat varies from one German-speaking
province to the other, and also reflects the changes in
mentalities.
19. The role of the notion of Heimat in the construction of German
identity was demonstrated in the case of Pfalz by Celia Appelgate.
In the late 1940s and in the 1950s, it was deployed as the repre-
sentative of a continuous local identity against the “official mad-
ness” of the Second World War in the form of a revival. This
period marked the first renaissance of this term. Celia Applegate
(1990) A Nation of Provincials: The German Idea of Heimat.
(Berkeley: University of California Press) 230–244.
20. Wehdorn (2005) 33–34.
21. Altstadterhaltungsnovelle (1972) 43–46.
22. Wehdorn (2004) 96.
23. Wiener Wohnhaussanierungs-Gesetz (1984) 2353–2382.
24. Wehdorn (2004) 93.
25. Wehdorn (2005) 39.
26. These debates brought the expression Nobelghetto to the atten-
tion of a wider Viennese public. Wehdorn (2005) 38.
27. Ibid., 39.
28. Wiener Naturschutzgesetz (1998).
110 G. SONKOLY
29. Otto Demus (1955) ‘Zur Lage. Eine Mahnung’ Österreichische

Zeitschrift für Kunst und Denkmalpflege 9, 41.
30. Wehdorn (2005) 47.
31. Ibid., 87.
32. Ibid., 49.
33. Hans Tietze (1907) Die Denkmale des politischen Bezirkes Krems
in Niederösterreich (Wien: Schroll).
34. Änderung des Denkmalschutzgesetzes (1999) 1335–1361. This
modified Act brought 56 Austrian parks and gardens under legal
protection. Eleven of them are located in Vienna; thus, the city is
the second best represented province in Austria.
35. The request for an inventory of Viennese industrial and technical
monuments to be drawn up was made only two years after the
Monument Conservation Act of 1925. Peter Swittalek (1982)
‘Der Begriff “Technisches Denkmal” erläutert an oberöster-
reichischen Beispielen’ Kulturzeitschrift Oberösterreich 32:3,
43–49.
36. Wehdorn (2005) 65.
37. The Haas-Hauses—situated just in front of the Saint Stephen’s
Cathedral—were reconstructed between 1985 and 1990 accord-
ing to the plans of the Viennese starchitect Hans Hollein
(1934–2014). Although this group of buildings is intended to
stand out from its built environment, which is especially obvious
given its central location within the Historic Centre, it was quickly
accepted by the Viennese public, partly because it became one of
the favorite locations of the visual media.
38. Wehdorn (2004) 99.
39. UNESCO Vienna (2001a) 8. Emphasis added.
40. UNESCO Vienna (2001b) 3.
41. The definition of selection criterion vi is “to be directly or tangi-
bly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with
beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal
significance” UNESCO (2005c) 10. It should preferably be used
in conjunction with other criteria. Out of the seven cities that are
analyzed in this chapter, Prague and Salzburg fulfill this criterion.
In the case of Prague, the tradition of higher education dating
back to the foundation of Charles University as well as Mozart
and Kafka are mentioned in the justification. In the case of
Salzburg, the selection is explained by the musical tradition, prin-
cipally by Mozart, who also appears in Vienna’s justification

among the other representatives of the Classical period of the
Viennese School. The haphazard use of this criterion can be illus-
trated by the fact that Vienna University—which was founded
only 17 years after Charles University and which became far larger
and more influential—is not mentioned. This criterion is not
attributed to many significant cultural capitals which are selected
for the World Heritage List due to other criteria.
42. UNESCO Vienna (2001c) I.A. Emphasis added.
43. The nomination suggests Vienna’s comparison with Budapest
and Prague because of their similar history and size (UNESCO
[2001a] 7). The nomination refers to Vienna’s “role as a model,”
which is omitted in the justification (UNESCO (2001b)).
44. The UNESCO website uses a conference paper on forest preser-
vation as the principle reference on threat indicators. M. Patry,
C. Bessett, B. Leclerq (2005) 2nd World Heritage Forest Meeting.
Nancy. http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/
activity-43-2.pdf, date accessed 15 August 2015.
45. UNESCO Dresden (2015).
46. UNESCO Cologne (2015).
47. Manfred Wehdorn (ed.) (2006) Wien, Weltkulturerbe. Der Stand
der Dinge. Stadtentwicklung Wien (Wien: Stadt Wien) 37.
48. The Vienna Conference was first announced officially during the
debate on Cologne Cathedral in 2004, referring to the decision
of the WHC Session in 2003. UNESCO WHC (2004) 266–267.
49. UNESCO Salzburg (2015) Particularly Report 2015.
50. UNESCO Graz (2015) Particularly Report 2009.
51. UNESCO Prague (2015) Particularly Reports 2009, 2009,

2010, and 2011.
52. UNESCO Budapest (2015) Particularly Reports 2008, 2011,
2013, and 2015.
53. UNESCO (2002).
54. UNESCO WHC (2013) 20.
55. UNESCO Vienna (2008).
56. One of the UNESCO Reports notes disapprovingly that the

Viennese visual impact assessment takes the eye level of tourists as
1.6m. UNESCO Vienna (2010).
57. UNESCO Vienna (2015a).
58. UNESCO Vienna (2015b) 7–8.
112 G. SONKOLY
59. The proceedings of the Vienna Conference 2005 refer to the

Wien-Mitte Project three times. In addition to this, the plans are
presented in the exhibition as a winning project, which is an
exemplary case of the application of the HUL approach. City of
Vienna (2005) International Conference World Heritage and
Contemporary Architecture. Managing the Historic Urban
Landscape (Vienna: City of Vienna) 36, 40, 74, 103.
60. Henke Schreieck (2003). According to their website, the project
failed because they could not reach a consensus with the
investor.
61. The documentation is available in the databank of the Vienna
City Archives: Informationsdatenbank des Wiener Landtages une
Gemeinderates (IWLG) 2000–2015.
62. The official answer refers to Arnold Klotz (1940–), Austrian

architect and the director of the city department for urban devel-
opment (199–2005), as the first director of the Vienna World
Heritage Site (2002–2004). He later became the project manager
of the Vienna Conference, 2005. IWLG Id(29003).
63. IWLG PGL/02633/2002/0001-KFP/GF.
64. IWLG FSP/01093/2002/0005-KFP/GM.
65. IWLG AST/04086/2002/0002-KFP/AL.
66. IWLG AST/04086/2002/0002-KFP/AL: 13–15.
67. IWLG AST/04086/2002/0002-KFP/AL: 15–19.
68. By that time, the 87-meter Vienna City Tower was already fin-
ished and could not be dismantled.
69. Wehdorn et al. (2014) 105.
70. UNESCO Salzburg (2003).
71. UNESCO Vienna (2015a).
72. The citizens’ appeal to the Constitutional Court was also used as
a political weapon. IWLG AST/04086/2002/0002-KFP/AL:
14.
73. This usage of the World Heritage is resumed by Rudolf Schicker:
“I would like to point out that the security of the World Heritage
can only be guaranteed through a vital vibrant city structure
(mixed application of residence, work and small enterprises).”
IWLG Id(30568) 2.
74. Jacques Le Rider (2001) ‘Mittel- bzw. Zentraleuropa und Österreich
als imaginäre Gedächtnisorte der europäischen Identität’ in
Csáky, Moritz, Stahel, P. (ed.): Die Verortung von Gedächtnis

(Wien: Passagen Verlag) 144.
75. 1955 was not only the year of the Austrian State Treaty, which
guaranteed Austria’s independence, but also of Austria’s admis-
sion to the UN.
76. The construction took place between 1973 and 1979 and cost
8.8 billion Schillings, provided by the Austrian State (65 percent)
and by the City of Vienna (35 percent). City of Vienna (2008)
United Nations Vienna International Center (Vienna: City of
Vienna) 10.
77. The UN Human Settlements Programme, UN-HABITAT, is the
UN agency for human settlements. It is mandated to promote
socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities with the
goal of providing adequate shelter for everybody. Although it was
founded in 1978, it came to prominence after the Habitat II
Conference in 1996 when it underwent a major revitalization and
started awarding the Dubai International Award for Best Practices
to Improve the Living Environment.
78. The Central European vocation of the hub is described here:
http://bestpractices.at/main.php?page=hub/about&lang=en,
79. The Dubai International Award has been awarded biannually

since 1996 in four categories (award, best practice, good practice,
and promising practice). The number of awarded programs in the
first three EU cities and in the aforementioned Central European
capitals are the following: Vienna 66, Madrid 46, Barcelona 36,
Bratislava 3, Budapest 1, and Prague 1. Mirror.unhabitat.org
(2015).
80. Mirror.unhabitat.org (2015) id=2800.
81. Mirror.unhabitat.org (2015) id=2798.
82. UNESCO WHC (2003) 96.
83. UNESCO WHC (2004) 1450–1452.
84. Similarly to other endangered sites, the City of Cologne also
organizes a symposium to analyze the threats to its World Heritage
Site, but its scope is limited to local problems. UNESCO WHC
(2004) 1449–1450.
85. These organizations are the International Centre for the Study
of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property
114 G. SONKOLY
(ICCROM), the International Federation of Housing and

Planning, the International Federation of Landscape Architects,
the Organization of World Heritage Cities, and the International
Union of Architects.
86. UNESCO (2005b).
87. UNESCO (2005a).
88. At the end of the first version of The Vienna Memorandum, the
representatives of participating organizations are listed. Vienna is
represented by the director of its World Heritage Sites (Arnold
Klotz), by its acclaimed specialist (Manfred Wehdorn), and by
three members of the city’s consulting agency Europaforum Wien
(established in 1996), which is—among many other things—in
charge of the non-bureaucratic tasks related to the World Heritage
Sites. The management of this agency consists primarily of social
scientists and not of architects, which is a novelty. http://www.
europaforum.or.at/index.php?id=3&lang_id=en.
89. The Vienna City Tower is also exhibited as part of the project.
The City of Vienna (2005) 103.
90. The City of Vienna (2005) 16.
91. The City of Vienna (2005) 4. 74.
92. The threat reports refer to the Vienna Conference and to HUL
five times (2005: Cologne, 2006: Cologne, Graz, 2007: Graz,
Salzburg 2007). Since 2008, it has not been used as a reference.
UNESCO Cologne (2015), UNESCO Graz (2015), UNESCO
Salzburg (2015).
93. The other two elements identified by van Oers are “contempo-
rary architectural interventions in historic cities” and “the lost
control of urban development and protected monuments due to
heavy modernisation.” The City of Vienna (2005) 36.
94. M. Wehdorn, (ed.) (2006) Wien, Weltkulturerbe. Der Stand der
Dinge. Stadtentwicklung Wien (Wien: Stadt Wien). M., Wehdorn,
P., Csendes, S., Hayder, M., Schwarz, (eds.) (2014) Wien (Wien:
Springer).
95. WHITRAP, HUL (2015).
96. Achleitner (2005) 15.
97. Wehdorn (2004) 107.
98. Wehdorn (2004) 89–100.
99. Wolfgang Kos considers monument-based VI problematic (“pole-
mische Visualisierung”), because it selects standpoints—such as
the roof of the Vienna Museum of Fine Arts—which cannot be

reproduced or grasped by ordinary people walking round the city.
Wolfgang Kos (2006) Städtische schönheit als Leitmotiv? in
Wehdorn, Manfred (ed.): Wien, Weltkulturerbe. Der Stand der
Dinge. Stadtentwicklung Wien (Wien: Stadt Wien) 45.
100. M., Wehdorn, P., Csendes, S., Hayder, M., Schwarz (eds.) (2014)
Wien (Wien: Springer) 33.
101. Mack Walker describes this technique thus: “The resiliency of the
system lay in its capacity to hold the state power below the thresh-
old where the system might be overturned. It brought individual
wills into its service, into the service of restraining one another.”
Mack Walker (1971) German Home Towns. Community, State
and General Estate, 1648–1871 (Ithaca–London: Cornell
University Press) 13. I found many examples of sophisticated
techniques used by city governments to disrupt or postpone the
measures and inquiries of the central authorities which were
regarded as unfavorable for them. Gábor Sonkoly (2011) Les
villes en Transylvanie modern (1715–1857). Essai d’interprétation
(Saarbrücken: Éditions universitaires européenes) 131–152.
102. This impressive growth is less easy to explain with reference to the
growing number of World Heritage Sites, since in the twenty-first
century the number of sites in Europe has increased only mod-
estly (Fig. 3.1).
103. UNESCO (2013) 16–17.
104. Ibid., 17–18. Emphasis added. ñ.
105. Ibid., 3–16.
106. Until 2015, fewer than ten cities with populations above one mil-
lion could possess a specific UNESCO Intangible Cultural
Heritage element. Except for the “Peking Opera” (2010) and the
“Spanish Riding School Vienna” (2015), these elements repre-
sent popular culture and are mainly linked to connected neigh-
borhoods like the “Carnival of Branquilla” (2008), the “Tango”
of Buenos Aires and Montevideo (2009), the “Candombe and its
socio-cultural space: a community practice” (2009) of the south-
ern districts of Montevideo, the “Fado, urban popular song of
Portugal” (2011) of Lisbon, the “Frevo, performing arts of the
Carnival of Recife” (2012), “the Taper of Our Lady of Nazareth
in the city of Belém” (2013), or the “Filete porteño, a traditional
painting technique in Buenos Aires” (2015). For the role of the
116 G. SONKOLY
construction of intangible heritage in popular urban districts see

Endnote 213 in Chap. 2.
107. The six World Heritage cities with UNESCO intangible cultural
heritage elements are as follows (the first date shows the city’s
recognition as a tangible site and the second date indicates the
recognition of an intangible element on its territory): Córdoba
(1984, 2012), Marrakesh (1985, 2001/2008), Beijing (1987,
2010), Bruges (2000, 2009), Vienna (2001, 2015), and Palermo
(2015, 2008).
108. In comparison with two neighboring countries, the Austrian list
is fairly long: the Hungarian National Inventory of Intangible
Cultural Heritage includes only 24 elements (four of which are
on the UNESCO List, http://szellemikulturalisorokseg.hu/
index0_en.php?name=en_f22_elements, data accessed 7 April
2016), while the Swiss List of Living Traditions includes more
than 160 elements (none of which are on the UNESCO List,
http://www.lebendigetraditionen.ch/index.html?lang=fr, data
accessed 7 April 2016).
109. Vienna shares one element with the Province of Burgenland, the
Lovara (Rom) songs (http://immaterielleskulturerbe.unesco.at/
cgi-bin/unesco/element.pl?eid=77&lang=en, http://www.leb-
endigetraditionen.ch/index.html?lang=fr, data accessed 7 April
2016). The three exclusively Viennese sites are the Spanish Riding
School (2010), the Viennese Dudler (Viennese-style yodeling,
2010), and Viennese Coffee House Culture (2011).
110. UNESCO Vienna (2015c) 4.
111. “Daily work and life of the practitioners of the Spanish Riding
School is marked by various social practices and culturally-shaped
rituals and ceremonies.” Ibid., 4.
112. Ibid., 9–11.
113. “In September 2008 the Spanish Riding School put an end to
gender discussion and admitted the first two female riders.” Later,
“Application is not limited to Austrians but is open to all nation-
als of European Union countries in accordance with the relevant
employment regulations.” Ibid., 6.
114. Ibid., 6.
115. The Jemaa El-Fna square has enjoyed protection as Morocco’s
artistic heritage by the sultan’s dahir since 1922. It was the first
cultural space on the UNESCO List of Masterpieces of Oral and
Intangible Places of Humanity (2001–2005) and duly incorpo-

rated with the other elements into the Representative List of
Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2008. The Medina of Marrakesh
has been a World Heritage site since 1985. The Jemaa El-Fna
square appears in the general description of the Medina as “a
veritable open-air theater.” http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/331,
data accessed 7 April 2016.
116. It is Ahmed Skounti, a renowned Moroccan anthropologist and
heritage expert, who has examined the problems associated with
safeguarding the place’s cultural practices among the conditions
of mass tourism and the other effects of globalization. Ahmed
Skounti (2006) La Place Jemaâ El Fna. Patrimone culturel imma-
tériel de Marrakech, du Maroc et de l’Humanité (Rabat: Bureau
de l’UNESCO pour le Maghreb), Ahmed Skounti (2012) La
ville rouge: La medina de Marrakech, Maroc. Patrimoine mondial:
bénéfices au-delà des frontières (Paris: UNESCO Publishing),
Ahmed Skounti, Ouidad Tebba (2006) Étude de la transmission
et du profil sociologique des acteurs de la Place Jemaâ El Fna de
Marrakech (Rabat: UNESCO).
117. Skounti (2006) 47–48.
118. Adil Boulghallat (2015) L’UNESCO et l’institutionnalisation du
patrimoine culturel immatériel. Le cas marocain de la place Jama’
L-Fna et ses conteurs (PhD dissertation, École des Hautes Études
en Sciences Sociales, Paris).
119. Boulghallat (2015) 265–350.
120. Ibid., 289.
121. As was demonstrated in Chap. 2, the protection/development
dilemma is no longer considered as a dichotomy due to the
englobing approach of sustainability.
122. The short historical descriptions in the nomination documenta-
tion of the World Heritage Sites not only reveal the very limited
role attributed to History in the cultural heritage discourse but
also manifest how little room is dedicated to critical interpreta-
tions of the past against the political intentions of heritagization.
In the historical description of the seven Central European cities,
which we compared in this chapter, history itself—as a noun or in
adjectival form—appears in the nominations of only four cities. In
Salzburg’s case, the site is narrated as a particular pattern (“of
ecclesiastical leadership”). In the case of Cologne Cathedral, the
118 G. SONKOLY
site is integrated into the “five thousand years of history” of places

of worship. Budapest is the only case in which national history is
mentioned in the case of the extension of the site in 2002, when
the elements of the World Heritage Site are referred to as “his-
torical inspiration for the Hungarian nation.” The other sites’
descriptions tend to refrain from mentioning their national attri-
butes, and represent themselves through their continental,
regional (Central European), or local specialities with universal
importance. Again, it is Vienna which is defined as a significant
place in European history as well as in the universal history of
music, literature, and psychology. From the point of view of its
historical reference, Vienna’s nomination stands out from the
others. It not only includes the city’s preservation history but also
gives a social and cultural historical narrative of the city. In the
case of the other sites, styles and periods are listed according to
the logic of the history of art, whereas for Vienna, the historical
description is according to periods, in which not only the political
and cultural aspects are mentioned but Vienna’s social particulari-
ties are also emphasized.
References
Achleitner, Friedrich (2005) ‘Das Erbe und die Erben. Weltkulturerbe—
Unbehagen an einem Begriff oder: einige Fragen’ in M. Csáky, M. Sommer
(eds.) Kulturerbe als soziokulturelle Praxis (Innsbruck-Wien-Bozen: Studien
Verlag) 13–18.
Altstadterhaltungsnovelle (1972) Landesgesetzblatt für Wien, 1972. 16. 43–46,
https://www.wien.gv.at/recht/landesrecht-wien/landesgesetzblatt/jahr-
gang/1972/pdf/lg1972006.pdf, date accessed 15 August 2015.
Änderung des Denkmalschutzgesetzes (1999) Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik
Österreich, 1999. 170. 1335–1361, https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/
BgblPdf/1999_170_1/1999_170_1.pdf, date accessed 15 August 2015.
Applegate, Celia (1990) A Nation of Provincials: The German Idea of Heimat
(Berkeley: University of California Press).
Boulghallat, Adil (2015) L’UNESCO et l’institutionnalisation du patrimoine cul-
turel immatériel. Le cas marocain de la place Jama’ L-Fna et ses conteurs (PhD
dissertation, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris).
City of Vienna (2005) International Conference World Heritage and Contemporary

Architecture. Managing the Historic Urban Landscape (Vienna: City of Vienna).
City of Vienna (2008) United Nations Vienna International Center (Vienna: City
of Vienna).
Demus, Otto (1955) ‘Zur Lage Eine Mahnung’ Österreichische Zeitschrift für
Kunst und Denkmalpflege 9, 41–47.
Hassinger, Hugo (1916) Kunsthistorischer Atlas und verzeichnis der erhaltenswerten
historischen Kunst- und Naturdenkmale des Wiener Ortsbildes. Österreichische
Henke Schreieck (2003) Wien Mitte—Henke Schreieck Architekten, http://www.
henkeschreieck.at/index.php/projects/mixed-use/wien-mitte/, date accessed
15 August 2015.
Kos, Wolfgang (2006) ‘Städtische schönheit als Leitmotiv?’ in M. Wehdorn (ed.)
Wien, Weltkulturerbe. Der Stand der Dinge. Stadtentwicklung Wien (Wien:
Stadt Wien) 42–45.
Le Rider, Jacques (2001) ‘Mittel- bzw. Zentraleuropa und Österreich als imag-
inäre Gedächtnisorte der europäischen Identität’ in M. Csáky, P. Stahel (eds.)
Die Verortung von Gedächtnis (Wien: Passagen Verlag) 139–150.
Mazzarolli, Leopoldo (2008) ‘Presentation’ in A Future for Venice? Considerations
40 Years after the 1966 Flood (Turin-London-Venice-New York: Umberto
Allemandi) 9–10.
Mirror.unhabitat.org (2015) UN-HABITAT Best Practices Database: Best
Practices, http://mirror.unhabitat.org/bp/bp.list.aspx?bpTag=Best+Practice,
date accessed 28 July 2015.
Mumford, Eric (2000) The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928–1960 (Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press).
Patry, M., Bessett, C., Leclerq, B. (2005) 2nd World Heritage Forest Meeting.
Nancy, http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-43-2.
pdf, date accessed 15 August 2015.
Schorske, Carl E. (1981) Fin-de-siècle Vienna. Politics and Culture (New York:
Vintage Books).
Skounti, Ahmed (2006) La Place Jemaâ El Fna. Patrimone culturel immatériel de
Marrakech, du Maroc et de l’Humanité (Rabat: Bureau de l’UNESCO pour le
Maghreb).
Skounti, Ahmed (2012) La ville rouge: La medina de Marrakech, Maroc. Patrimoine
mondial: bénéfices au-delà des frontières (Paris: UNESCO Publishing).
120 G. SONKOLY
Skounti, Ahmed, Tebba, Ouidad (2006) Étude de la transmission et du profil soci-

ologique des acteurs de la Place Jemaâ El Fna de Marrakech (Rabat: UNESCO).
Sonkoly, Gábor (2000) ‘A kulturális örökség fogalmának értelmezési és alkalmazási
szintjei’ Regio 11:4, 45–66.
Sonkoly, Gábor (2011) Les villes en Transylvanie modern (1715–1857). Essai
d’interprétation (Saarbrücken: Éditions universitaires européenes).
Swenson, Astrid (2013) The Rise of Heritage. Preserving the Past in France,
Germany and England, 1789–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Swittalek, Peter (1982) ‘Der Begriff “Technisches Denkmal” erläutert an oberös-
terreichischen Beispielen’ Kulturzeitschrift Oberösterreich 32:3, 43–49.
Tietze, Hans (1907) Die Denkmale des politischen Bezirkes Krems in Niederösterreich
(Wien: Schroll).
UNESCO (2001b), http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/00264-EN.pdf
UNESCO (2005a) Vienna Memorandum on World Heritage and Contemporary
UNESCO (2005b) International Conference: World Heritage and Contemporary
Architecture, http://whc.unesco.org/en/events/112/, date accessed 7
January 2016.
UNESCO (2005c) The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
UNESCO (2013) International World Heritage Expert Meeting on Visual
Integrity, 6 to 9 March 2013, Agra, India date accessed, Backround Document,
http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/events/documents/event-992-12.pdf, 7
January 2016.
UNESCO Budapest (2015) Budapest, Including the Banks of the Danube, the Buda
Castle Quarter and Andrássy Avenue, http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/400/
documents/, date accessed 29 December 2015.
UNESCO Cologne (2015) Cologne Cathedral, http://whc.unesco.org/en/
list/292/documents, date accessed 29 December 2015.
UNESCO Dresden (2015) Dresden Elbe Valley, http://whc.unesco.org/en/

UNESCO Graz (2015) City of Graz—Historic Centre and Schloss Eggenberg,
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/931/documents/, date accessed 29
December 2015.
UNESCO Prague (2015) Historic Centre of Prague, http://whc.unesco.org/en/
list/616/documents/, date accessed 29 December 2015.
UNESCO Salzburg (2003) Historic Centre of the City of Salzburg, http://whc.
unesco.org/en/soc/2750, date accessed 29 December 2015.
unesco.org/en/list/784/documents/, date accessed 29 December 2015.
UNESCO Vienna (2001a) Nominations, http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nomi-
nations/1033.pdf, date accessed 15 August 2015.
UNESCO Vienna (2001b) Advisory Body Evaluation, http://whc.unesco.org/
archive/advisory_body_evaluation/1033.pdf., date accessed 15 August 2015.
UNESCO Vienna (2001c) Report of the 25th Session, 11–16 December 2001c,
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom01.htm#1033, date accessed 15
August 2015.
UNESCO Vienna (2008) UNESCO World Heritage Center—State of Conservation
(SOC 2008) Historic Centre of Vienna, http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/915,
date accessed 29 December 2015.
(SOC 2010) Historic Centre of Vienna (Austria), http://whc.unesco.org/en/
soc/570, date accessed 29 December 2015.
UNESCO Vienna (2015a) UNESCO World Heritage Center—State of
Conservation (SOC 2015a) Historic Centre of Vienna (Austria), http://whc.
unesco.org/en/soc/3329, date accessed 29 December 2015a.
UNESCO Vienna (2015b) UNESCO-World Heritage; Palace and Gardens of
Schönbrunn (Austria) (C 786) and Historic Centre of Vienna (Austria) (C
1033): State of Conservation Report. Ref.: Decision 37 COM 7 B.71, http://
whc.unesco.org/en/list/1033/documents, date accessed 29 December
2015b.
UNESCO Vienna (2015c) Nomination File No. 01106 for Inscription in 2015c on
the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage List of Humanity,
http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/RL/classical-horsemanship-and-
the-high-school-of-the-spanish-riding-school-vienna-01106, date accessed 7
April 2016.
UNESCO WHC (2003) Decisions Adopted by the 27th Session of the World Heritage
Committee in 2003, http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2003/whc03-27com-
24e.pdf, date accessed 15. August 2015.
UNESCO WHC (2004) WHC Summary Record, http://whc.unesco.org/
archive/2004/whc04-28com-inf26e.pdf, date accessed 15. August 2015.
122 G. SONKOLY
UNESCO WHC (2013) Mission Report on Historic Centre of Vienna (C 1033) &
Palace and Gardens of Schönbrunn (C 786) (Austria) (Paris: UNESCO),
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1033/documents/, date accessed 15 August
2015.
Walker, Mack (1971) German Home Towns. Community, State and General Estate,
1648–1871 (Ithaca-London: Cornell University Press).
Wehdorn, Manfred (2004) Vienna, a Guide to the UNESCO World Heritage Sites
(Wien-New York: Springer).
Wehdorn, Manfred (2005) Das kulturelle Erbe. Vom Einzeldenkmal zur
Kulturlandschaft (Innsbruck-Wien-Bozen: Studien Verlag).
Wehdorn, Manfred (ed.) (2006) Wien, Weltkulturerbe. Der Stand der Dinge.
Stadtentwicklung Wien (Wien: Stadt Wien).
Wehdorn, M., Csendes, P., Hayder, S., Schwarz, M. (eds.) (2014) Wien (Wien:
Springer).
Wien Geschichte (2015) Verein für Landeskunde von Niederösterreich—Wien
Geschichte Wiki, https://www.wien.gv.at/wiki/index.php/Verein_f%C3%BCr_
Landeskunde_von_Nieder%C3%B6sterreich, date accessed 17 August 2015.
Wiener Naturschutzgesetz (1998) Landesgesetzblatt für Wien, 1998. 45. 175–199,
gang/1998/html/lg1998045.htm, date accessed 15 August 2015.
Wiener Wohnhaussanierungs-Gesetz (1984) Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik
CHAPTER 4
History and Cultural Heritage
Introduction
It is remarkable that History, the primary carrier of national and civili-
zational identity constructions based on historical time, is reluctant to
respond to challenges coming from the recent conceptualization of cul-
tural heritage, though for many History and cultural heritage are inter-
changeable or even synonyms, since both refer to the past and to the
exploitation of the past in the present. Despite the conceptual nuances
between “historic” and “historical” in English, the notion of HUL reveals
certain pretensions of cultural heritage to associate the two domains.
Most of these pretensions, however, are not direct or conceptual, but are
the logical consequences of recent developments in identity construc-
tions. Through the expanding lists of World Heritage, the most recent
European Parliament resolutions favoring “an integrated approach to cul-
tural heritage for Europe,”1 and the great number of national laws2 on
cultural heritage as well as through the proliferation of regional and local
festivals, cultural heritage has not only become an unavoidable element of
current identity constructions but often served as the uncritical—that is,
unhistorical—use of the past. As a reaction to this, historians usually turn
away in embarrassment or ignore the uncontrolled boom in interpreta-
tions of the past by claiming a lack of competence in the field of heri-
tage. This attitude is not necessarily approved of by the rest of the society,
which expects the historian to participate more intensely in contempo-
rary matters and to promote research results in a more accessible way.

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-49166-0_4
124 G. SONKOLY
Historians’ insensibility to cultural heritage can also be partially explained

by the fact that this concept is not originally a scientific one: it does not
result from the conceptual evolution of the social sciences and humani-
ties.3 Yet, the popular or, more fashionably, participative interpretations of
the past in current heterogeneous societies under the label of heritage are
so overwhelming that historians simply cannot afford to disregard them
any more. Otherwise they will be afflicted by their consequences without
having the chance to express their opinion about these interpretations.
Fernand Braudel’s warning to his contemporary historians in 1950 does
not seem to have lost its relevance: “Nonetheless historians themselves,
handicapped by their training and sometimes predilections, remained to
be convinced. It often happens that a whole generation, influenced by
strong and rich traditions, can traverse the fertile period of an intellectual
revolution without even being affected by it.”4 If historians do not wish
gradually to become heritage experts, it seems to be quite urgent to deter-
mine the line between their discipline and the growing field of cultural
heritage, or to find a means to integrate the two domains.
Though both History and cultural heritage possess many national, sub-
disciplinary, and thematic varieties, both domains are international and
widespread enough for their theoretical comparison to provide an intel-
ligible starting point for further research. The co-existence of History and
heritage can be traced back to the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, but this co-existence grew problematic only in the second phase
of the expansion of heritage into cultural heritage. The first phase of this
process is resumed by Michel Melot—referring to the French case—as
an evolution in which “culture gave way to heritage.”5 The French con-
text is exemplary because of the first institutionalization of heritage as
a comprehensive notion and practice incorporating art, monument, and
culture, as well as their management and promotion. The initial repre-
sentative elements of this institutionalization were the establishment of
the first Ministry of Culture in the world in 1959 and the Malraux law
in 1962, but these elements can be completed by other similar forms of
institutionalization in different national contexts, such as the establish-
ment of the English Heritage Trust, an executive non-departmental body
of the British government, in 1983,6 and by the 1972 World Heritage
Convention and its related discussions and documents, which set the
international pattern for the comprehensive notion of cultural heritage.
The first phase took place in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, which were
the determining decades of postmodern debates and the beginning of
HISTORY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE 125
the turns in History and in the related social sciences and humanities,
as well as those of the related societal and cultural changes. The second
phase—starting in the 1990s—is not only characterized by the diversifica-
tion of the notion of cultural heritage and by the spectacular administra-
tive expansion of Cultural Heritage Management, but also by the growing
presence of cultural heritage in higher education and academia, which
elicited reactions from more and more representatives of social sciences
and humanities. Therefore, our comparison of the two domains applies to
their state from the 1990s onward.
In order to determine the relationship between History and cultural
heritage, this chapter provides a set of criteria: firstly, to define the current
role of History as a discipline of identity building as opposed to the recent
evolution of the concept of cultural heritage and its effects; secondly, to
find the appropriate means to compare the two domains; and thirdly, to
survey the benefits of such a comparison.
The Current Meanings of History and Cultural

Heritage
A comparison of History and cultural heritage would first demand a fairly
clear definition of both concepts, which is relevant to the period that we
defined as the second phase of the expansion of cultural heritage. Since
this period is very recent, we need to observe both concepts in progress:
History is being transformed by internal uncertainty and by an external
loss of credibility, whereas cultural heritage is burdened by inner contra-
dictions originating from its recent conceptual expansion and by its claims
to enter academia.
Though many attempts have been made, the borderline separating
academia and cultural heritage has never been clearly defined for several
reasons. First, it is not an impenetrable border: the same person can be a
scholar or/and a heritage producer depending on his or her temporary
function or status. Second, amateurs who dabble in identity building based
on past/traditional cultures and practices do not often see the difference
between heritage and History dealing with those cultures. Third, cultural
heritage is in continuous expansion, so it cannot really be separated from
anything related to identity and/or community building; History and
other humanities, which were once the principal agents of these processes,
are now witnessing an ongoing intrusion into their fields of study.
126 G. SONKOLY
During the previous decades of the unrivaled rise of cultural heritage,

two types of institutional intrusion have taken place: (1) sciences and aca-
demic fields directly linked to the conservation of those past objects, which
have gradually become “tangible heritage,” have often been regrouped
under the label of heritage (as in the case of the establishment of the
Institut national du patrimoine in France in 2001); (2) heritage studies
departments have appeared in Faculties of Social Sciences and Humanities,
often baffling other scholars, who are not certain whether this new disci-
pline aims to describe new social realities created by cultural heritage or
toassist in the creation of the new identities expressed through cultural
heritage. The dubious notion of Cultural Heritage Management, indicat-
ing that cultural heritage is also linked to political and financial realities,
has not helped to solve this ambiguity, since it could mean both or neither.
Though the most recent constructivist approach of heritage studies deals
with “the mental multiple realities of knowledge that create cultural rep-
resentations and cultural identity,”7 it does not really help to distinguish
heritage studies from post-turn8 social sciences and humanities.
In his most recent book about the role of History in contemporary
societies, François Hartog regards the notion of cultural heritage as one
of the key concepts of the presentist Regime of Historicity, which can be
“more or less considered as a system formed” by the “quartet of memory,
commemoration, heritage and identity,” though these concepts “do not
share either the same history or the same scope.”9 One of the common
characteristics of these terms is that their definition is deliberately fuzzy,
which suits the contemporary presentist Regime of Historicity, to which
they belong, very well. Despite the fact that these concepts are unclear,
“the historian cannot ignore them”10 in his or her questioning, since they
are taking over the former authority of the historian to augur the future
by telling the past.
Thanks to its inherent dichotomy between modernity and presentism,
Hartog’s analysis aiming at the contemporary role of History in relation
to the presentist vocabulary offers an appropriate framework to compare
History and cultural heritage by taking into consideration their succes-
sion in time. The model of shifting Regimes of Historicity11 supposes a
dynamic contraposition between social sciences and humanities originat-
ing from the modernist Regime of Historicity and the system of the quar-
tet of notions evoked by Hartog, which belongs to the presentist Regime.
This contraposition is dynamic, since social sciences and humanities are
not replaced by the new institutions of this system but rather challenged
by the presentist Regime of Historicity, which forces these disciplines to

continuously adapt to it. Their righteous attempts at adaptation in the
form of methodological “turns,” however, were often perceived by the
rest of society as uncertainty about their own establishment and credence.
In the meanwhile, cultural heritage, child of its own time and the most
institutionalized member12 of the quartet, has gained social credit and has
proved to be particularly advantageous in presentist identity construc-
tions. In this context, historians, like other representatives of social sci-
ences and humanities, are seen as experts in conservation or guardians of
social entities, which are defined by terms and approaches quite often alien
to their own academic traditions. The recent definition of presentism by
Hartog (as opposed to modernism) is certainly useful for understanding
the current situation of History in relationship to cultural heritage, but
the former definition of presentism (as the practice of a common fallacy in
historical writing by introducing present-day ideas into depictions of the
past)13 can also help to distinguish History from cultural heritage, because
it has definitely moved toward a less critical stance since the codification of
the notion of intangible cultural heritage.
Since cultural heritage was meant to be a primarily administrative term
before the second phase of its expansion, very few historians felt any need
to draw a line between their discipline and this expanding new concept. It
was finally David Lowenthal, a geographer-historian, who tried to identify
cultural heritage in comparison to History in the 1990s. In the conclusion
of his detailed essay on the relationship between heritage and History,
Lowenthal refuses either “to bolster heritage faith with historical scholar-
ship” or “to embrace heritage as history,” since the former would “smudge
the line between faith and fact,” while the latter “disguising authority
as authenticity” would “cede [heritage] a credence it neither asks nor
deserves.”14 He defines heritage as “popular faith” or a “self-conscious
creed,”15 whose “crusaders are amazed to find history itself still in splendid
health.”16 Fifteen years later, on the other hand, François Hartog tries to
understand why history has lost its credibility against presentist notions,
including cultural heritage, determining our relationship to the past.
The question of credibility and faith related to History versus cul-
tural heritage alludes to the change in the social use and recognition of
the discipline of History. But how could heritage raise doubts concern-
ing disciplines, above all History, which were based on objectivity? To
resume the story of the faith in History, Hartog says that “at the end of
the twentieth century, History seems to have moved from omnipotence to
128 G. SONKOLY
impotence.”17 It has lost the privileged position, dating back to the early
nineteenth century, which allowed it to shape (national) identity and to
determine the future by exploring the past. It has become just one of the
many cultural practices which are in competition to form new identities.
History has responded with the creation of “connected, shared or global
history”18 to the accusation of being an agent of long-standing discrimina-
tion against the oppressed within the nation19 and that of favoring Western
concepts of civilization and modernization by imposing Western narratives
on non-Western societies and cultures,20 but his is only an acknowledg-
ment of following exterior patterns instead of being the trailblazer of iden-
tity building. Several scholars have explained the rise of cultural heritage
by the fact that academic History was reluctant to respond to recent social
and cultural demands to integrate the past into popular identity construc-
tions. As a belated response to the rise of cultural heritage, History is being
expanded through the promotion of its previously marginal branches21
and the introduction of several forms of “applied History.”22
History going public and cultural heritage going academic are nar-
rowing the gap between them, and they encounter each other more fre-
quently. Moreover, because of their apparent similarities, both referring to
the past as a source for present and future identities, they are often mixed
up by non-professional members of society, including politicians and other
decision-makers, who feel more and more concerned by an ever-increasing
interest in both concepts due to the recent multiplication of the presentist
terms evoked by Hartog. Hence, a simple bivalent opposition or com-
parison would most probably obscure its actuality, and any straight line
which tries to separate History from cultural heritage would be mislead-
ing. In addition, the vagueness of presentist concepts surrounding History
requires an approach which takes into consideration their encoded uncer-
tainty and their inner contradictions.
A Set of Criteria to Compare History and Cultural

Heritage
Lotfi Zadeh’s generalized theory of uncertainty and its related fuzzy
logic23 offer a tempting approach for the intended comparison. It “dif-
fers from other theories in three important respects”24: (1) it is based on
the consideration that information is a generalized constraint; (2) bivalent
logic is abandoned for fuzzy logic based on approximation and degree of
belonging; (3) it is natural language capable, that is, it focuses on impre-

cise perceptions and their expressions. Recent application of fuzzy logic
proved its utility for analyzing the role of situational human perception
with its “vague and ambiguous constituents,” which are incorporated into
scientific analysis not in order to simplify the complexities of real life but in
order to develop concepts to understand them.25 In the case of our com-
parison, this approach supposes (1) an operational definition of History
and cultural heritage which allows us to put them into opposition but
also permits us to perceive their conceptual modifications in practice and
in time; and (2) a set of bipolar indicators, according to which the two
concepts’ distance from one another can be estimated. The collection of
sources referring to History and cultural heritage from different agents
of contemporary identity building for the purpose of analyzing concep-
tual similarities and differences in their everyday use with the help of the
selected indicators can be effectuated in a later phase of research outlined
according to this framework of analysis.
For the intended comparison, both domains are endowed with opera-
tional definitions: History is considered as historical science and cultural
heritage as a globalized reference. While History’s institutionalization is
quite easily traceable and documented, that of cultural heritage is much
more complex. In order to make the two concepts and the two inher-
ent processes of institutionalization comparable, the following specifica-
tions about the meaning of cultural heritage are required: (1) though
the current notion of cultural heritage stems from that of heritage, in
our comparison it does not refer to any knowledge/culture transfer in
general, but is specific to the second phase of heritage into cultural heri-
tage; (2) in certain cases cultural heritage has national “prehistories,”26
which significantly influenced its more recent development, made global
by international agents like UNESCO or the European Union27; (3) the
international institutionalization of cultural heritage raises important theo-
retical and practical questions during its European/Western adaptation,28
and it is also linked to controversies of an occidentalist nature,29 which
affect the perception of History in a postcolonial context. Accordingly, we
define cultural heritage as a juridical-administrative concept in its current
state, which serves to create adoptable forms of identity based on chosen
objects, landscapes, practices, and so on, which link all possible levels of
the society (from the lowest to the highest) due to its international insti-
tutionalization and its standard-setting vocation.
130 G. SONKOLY
System of Indicators
The most important common characteristic of History and cultural heri-
tage is the fact that both interpret the past for the sake of present identity
building; therefore, the first set of indicators should relate to the percep-
tion of time. As Hartog’s model suggests, our period is characterized by
the co-existence of two Regimes of Historicity. There is as yet no consen-
sus on how to typify the current period, which began more or less simul-
taneously with the rise of cultural heritage. The epithet “postmodern”
merely served as the denial of the previous period, which was understood
to be a “new era,” but it did not produce a positive definition, or, accord-
ingly, any means of identifying the “beyond.”30 The inbuilt impediment
to the possibility of surpassing31 “Modern Times” has led us to embrace
contemporaneity as a neutral term, which is incapable of satisfying the
specification and identification needs32 of our present. This lack of a posi-
tive definition of our age can be explained either by the fact that the neces-
sary time lapse required for a “period to be summarized into a diachronic
denominator, as a concept which binds together common structures,”33
as Reinhart Koselleck observed with regard to the concept of the Neuzeit,
has not yet taken place, and/or by the fact that we do not possess a form
of temporalization (e.g., non-linearity) that is dissimilar to the idea of
modernization common to scientific descriptions based on historical time.
Since this changing perception of time—that is, from glorious progress
to neutral change—is often conceived as a symptom of disillusionment
with modernization, which is inherently connected with the emergence of
historical time, the perception of time is a crucial element in comparing
History and cultural heritage.
The most frequently mentioned main difference between the two con-
cepts is their theoretical and practical role in society. Consequently, the
second set of indicators should reveal their ideological content (or its
absence) and its decisive norm-giving communities. The third and small-
est set of indicators is generated from the second one, since it deals with
the role of the historian in the two opposed domains. All the indicators are
organized into a system of bipolar oppositions, which allows the definition
of the two domains in their operational relationship to each other. This
system is also meant to clarify the use of History and cultural heritage in
contemporary texts and manifestations.
The comparison is presented in a simplified format that takes the form
of three tables, each including a number of bipolar oppositions. Obviously,
each of these oppositions should be described in detail, and their interre-

latedness should also be explained, bearing in mind the fact that the suc-
cess of cultural heritage is often justified by a certain disappointment in
History and in social sciences and humanities in general.
Comparing History with Cultural Heritage

In the case of the perception of time, cultural heritage is endowed with a
fear of the future, in which tradition compensates for the fading of prog-
ress and the formerly expected revolution is replaced by an irrefutable
catastrophe. It all happens in societies where longevity is general and, con-
sequently, personal pasts and memories are more praised and appreciated
than ever. Thus, interior time is more suitable, and academic periodization
and exterior ideologies are less and less appealing. Existence in time is
more and more qualitative, in the sense that it is based on and profits from
the experience of personal memories, because it ensures individual inde-
pendence from discredited ideologies with their suspended narration34
and, consequently, from time, as well as from day-to-day policies aimed at
their own survival35 with their paralyzed time. On the eve of the—most
probably natural—catastrophe, the scale of time is changing: historical
(humanity-based) time is replaced by a climatic (Earth/Universe-based)
time, which is more appropriate for the idea of sustainability, in which
culture—as its fourth pillar—is expressed in the form of cultural heritage,
since this latter is not founded on the dichotomy of humankind versus
nature but rather on the unity of these two entities, and cultural heritage is
also closely linked to economy, regarded as a resource for tourism, creative
industry, the labor market, and so forth (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1 Opposing History and cultural heritage by perception of time

History Cultural heritage
Modernism Presentism
Related to progress Tradition-based (because progress fades)
Exterior time Interior (personal) time
Remote past Recent past
Periodical (quantitative) time Qualitative time without periodization
Ideological time Suspended or paralyzed time
Narrated time Non-reflected time
Historical time Climatological time
132 G. SONKOLY
As from the point of view of the perception of time the personal aspect36
is crucial for cultural heritage, its participative and locality/community-
based character is decisive for its theoretical content. In the meanwhile,
History can be refuted not only as a falsely objective and elitist inter-
pretation of the past but also as an agent of separation between social
groups, nations, and civilizations. History—especially conceived through
its nationalist legacy dating back to the nineteenth century—finds its way
less easily toward ethnic identity constructions, which are also obsessed
with the past without “any focussed interest in the future.”37 Cultural
heritage, with its synchronously internationally uniting and locally partici-
pative vocations, is more appealing both for supranational, multi-cultural,
and globalizing tendencies and for the local communities which feel
threatened by the same tendencies. The individual, or the—civilized or
non-civilized38—inheritor, who was subdued by the former imperative of
objectivity in historical science, returns gloriously as the essential agent for
the transmission of cultural heritage (Table 4.2).
But it is not only the individual who changes his or her status: the
historian does so too. It seems that society needs him or her less or more
seldom as a scholar. The historian, however, is more often solicited as a
stakeholder for cultural heritage projects, as an expert in political state-
ments, or as an expert in multi-disciplinary analyses for sustainable devel-
opment. In the multiplying occasions of commemorative festivities, the
historian is expected time and time again to act as a sort of Thaumaturge
of the event,39 whose storytelling skills are welcome, but whose critical
opinion is not (Table 4.3).
Table 4.2 Opposing History and cultural heritage by their ide-

ological/theoretical content
Objective Subjective
Academic Juridical-administrative
Elit(ist)e Vernacular
Individual as a victim Individual as an agent
National Multi/international
National Ethic(ism)
Particular/specific Cultural diversity
Separating Uniting
Occidental Global
Civilizational (the Savage is distant) The Savage is contemporary
Table 4.3 Opposing History and cultural heritage by the role of the historian/
expert
Historian as a scholar Historian as an expert

Historian as a scholar Historian as a witness
Historian as a scholar Historian as a stakeholder
Historian as a scholar Historian as a Thaumaturge (at commemorations)
Current Impact of Cultural Heritage on History

It would be unjust to ignore all the efforts that historians have made to sat-
isfy the changing expectations of society and of their academic peers. Post-
turn History is evidently not the same as it used to be in the nineteenth
century or even in the 1970s. Various attempts were made to modify the
scale and scope of History from Alltagsgeschichte through microstoria to
oral history and public history. The role of national histories has also been
revised considerably as nations themselves were reconstructed on both
coasts of the Atlantic Ocean. North American historians took an active
part in the redefinition of their countries’ past from a multi-national per-
spective. In Europe, one of the most widespread methodologies to update
national history—the Places of Memory approach—even applied a cul-
tural heritage technique to the rewriting of French national history for
the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution. As Pierre Nora wrote
when explaining his methodological choice, “the nation itself melted into
heritage.”40 The French example was soon followed by Austrian (1995),
German (2005), Italian (2006), and “Russian” (2007) volumes and sev-
eral unsuccessful attempts. The question is how much the rest of the
society knows about these inner modifications and how much they meet
the external expectations in an age when the extended present is—to use
Kosselleck’s classic model—apparently unable to bridge experience and
expectations. In this case, expectations (1) are abandoned as such to avoid
frustrations; (2) are considered as ultimately threatened by experience,
and, accordingly, urge the development of the theory and the practice
of sustainability; or (3) are held within the scope of the concerned com-
munity and applied to identity building on a level which remains con-
trollable locally.41 The first two options are relatively indifferent from the
134 G. SONKOLY
erspectives of present-day academic history, because the first one is cer-

p
tainly an impasse, and the second seems to be entirely covered by cultural
heritage.
The third option, however, allows us to further develop the compari-
son of History and cultural heritage. It reveals significant changes in the
recent disciplinary developments of historical science, that is, the insti-
tutionalization of the marginal branches of History, which have been
regarded as inferior to scholarly or academic history. Already Lowenthal
stressed the importance of school history in the relationship between
History and cultural heritage (“school history is more heritage than
history”),42 while the last 15 years have witnessed the expanding institu-
tionalization of public history43 and historical culture (Geschichstkultur,
cultura histórica). The latter is defined as “a dynamic process of social
dialogue, through which interpretations of the past are disseminated,
negotiated and debated,”44 which leads us to citizen history (within
citizen science, a fairly new label for the old practice of non-professional
science) as well as to the fairly new, but well-promoted social platform
(“collaborative research”),45 and to co-creation in History writing, in
which the historian becomes only one of the stakeholders in his/her
own science. For David Brett, History is no longer an abstract noun,
but a verb to express our self-definition (“we history”),46 which could
explain why the historian has lost his or her exclusive authority over the
past among contemporary social conditions, which can be characterized
by a previously unseen mass longevity, spreading diasporas with special
needs for historical identity and reference, and so on. The inclusion of
the institutionalization of these formerly marginal branches and tech-
niques in our comparison permits us to establish a periodization47 of
the changing nature of the relationship between History and cultural
heritage from the founding of historical science to the current period
(Table 4.4).
One of the most important modifications of the long-shared story of
History and cultural heritage is the growing complexity of the gray zone
of marginal branches separating and connecting the two domains. This
zone is no longer exclusively destined to channel the achievements of aca-
demic history to the larger public; it is also meant to bring public percep-
tion to scholarly history.
Table 4.4 Parallel evolution of History and cultural heritage
Predisciplinary period (–1800s)

Official history Popular history
Period of historical science (1800s–1960s)
History (historical science) Heritage (first regime: national prehistories)
Academic School (patrimone, Denkmalschutz, Heimatschutz, patimonio,
history history cultural property, etc.)
Period of postmodern debates (1960s–1980s)

History (historical science) Cultural heritage
(second regime: international establishment)
School history
Period of presentist uncertainty (1990s–)
History (historical science) Cultural heritage
(third regime: diversification and academic pretensions)
School history
Public history
Geschichtskultur
cultura histórica
Cultural heritage studies
Conclusion
Lowenthal was right to emphasize the importance of school history in
the relationship between History and cultural heritage in the late 1990s.
School history, although firmly based in scholarly history, was obliged to
follow the social changes of perception of time and the past more rapidly
than scholarly history itself because of its proximity to the non-professional
public.48 With the anachronistic tendencies of the 1970s, which led to
scholarly history losing some of its credibility and to the ascent of cul-
tural heritage,49 traditional school history based on chronology shifted
toward thematic history teaching, in which the “great dates” of national
and political history became problematic and were withdrawn from the
focus. The refocussing of History teaching gave way to heritage to engage
teachers and students in the sensual perception of the past.50
The modalities of the reforms of school history as well as the academic
institutionalization of the formerly marginal branches of History might
vary from one country and from one academic tradition to another, but
136 G. SONKOLY
one characteristic is common: they challenge the authority of academic

History and that of the academic historian, as we have demonstrated in
the comparison. In the meantime, cultural heritage seems more irresist-
ible than ever, if we consider the popularity of World Heritage in the
global South or the importance of cultural heritage in the Horizon 2020
Framework Programme of the European Commission, which would quite
probably further strengthen the zone below academic history and assist
the ascent of cultural heritage. Though the effects of the recent concep-
tual evolution of cultural heritage cannot be compared to the effects of
intangible cultural heritage on anthropology and ethnography, historians
should ignore neither the conceptual novelties of cultural heritage nor the
prominent institutionalization of formerly marginal branches of scholarly
history related to them. The general withdrawal of History from non-
professional society should not continue with similar tendencies from its
own peripheries but should rather be accompanied by the reappropriation
of these territories. Otherwise, academic history might find that the for-
mer marginal position held by the historical branches related to cultural
heritage is substituted by its own. The fuzzy line separating History and
cultural heritage is not only permeable from the side of cultural heritage.
Cultural heritage proves to be a proper object for contemporary historical
research, which demands not only a thorough knowledge of this domain
but also the establishment of a precise equilibrium between a duly devel-
oped critical methodology and the historian’s appropriation of the con-
cerned community’s identity construction by taking into consideration
the indicators of the perception of time and those of ideological content.
The historians’ rising awareness of the recent conceptual evolution of
cultural heritage may do more than merely help them to play a more deci-
sive role in bridging the presentist experience and the matching moderate
expectations; it may elicit from them more elaborate reflections on sus-
tainability, the most influential and dispersive presentist theory. In conse-
quence, the discourse on the four pillars of sustainability (culture, ecology,
economy, and society) would not be abandoned as exclusive to cultural
heritage, but enriched by the critical approaches of History, and the social
sciences and humanities in general. The analysis of the conceptual evolu-
tion of HUL in Chap. 2 not only constructed cultural heritage as a his-
torical problem but also presented the closely related sustainability and
resilience in its historicity.51
Notes
1. Europa (2015).
2. For a fairly comprehensive list of national cultural heritage laws, see
the UNESCO Database of National Cultural Heritage Laws
h t t p : / / p o r t a l . u n e s c o . o r g / c u l t u r e / e n / e v. p h p -U R L _
ID=33928&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.
html. One of the most striking examples of national legislation on
cultural heritage is the Hungarian Hungarikum law (No. xxx/2012,
modified version lxxx/2015) determining a list of “values, which
are the pinnacles of the Hungarians (magyarság) through their
characteristics, uniqueness, particularities and qualities, which are
typical of the Hungarians” (http://www.hungarikum.hu/
node/86, date accessed 29 December 2015). The elements of the
list are selected by a committee of 21 members, only one of whom
is delegated by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and one by the
Hungarian Academy of Arts, the other 19 by political and admin-
istrative bodies. At the moment, the extremely diverse list contains
55 elements—in eight categories—varying from the spritzer and
the onion (typical of the town of Makó) through the Kürt data-
recovery system and the first Hungarian translation of the Bible to
the legacy of the most famous Hungarian football player. Though
the list automatically involves all the Hungarian World Heritage
tangible sites and intangible elements, it is not included in the
UNESCO Database of National Cultural Heritage Laws, which
shows how the meaning of cultural heritage can change between
the levels of its interpretation and use.
3. History as a discipline is conceived in its broadest sense, encom-
passing all those branches which place it among social sciences as
well as among the humanities.
4. Fernand Braudel (1980) On History (Chicago: Chicago University
Press) 18.
5. Michel Melot (2005) ‘Quand la culture cède la place au patri-
moine: L’Inventaire général et l’évolution de la notion de “patri-
moine culturel”’ in C. Barrère, D. Barthélemy, M. Nieddu,
F. Vivien (eds.) Réinventer le patrimoine (Paris: L’Harmattan)
25–43.
6. In 2015, English Heritage was divided into two parts: Historic
England and the new English Heritage Trust, which may indicate
138 G. SONKOLY
that the conceptual intrusion of cultural heritage into History does

not only affect urban heritage.
7. Britta Rudolff (2006) ‘Intangible’ and ‘tangible’ heritage. A topol-
ogy of culture in context of faith’, unpublished PhD dissertation,
Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz, 52.
8. By post-turn, we mean the current state of social sciences and
humanities after the decades of cultural, linguistic, geographic,
spatial, critical, and other such turns.
9. In his recent book about the current social function of history,
François Hartog shows how “in the name of the present contem-
poraneity (le contemporain) has become a societal and political
imperative, unquestionable evidence,” and, consequently, how the
historian is becoming the “expert of memory,” who is expected to
tell “what really happened.” François Hartog, Croire en l’histoire
(Paris: Flammarion) 46–49.
10. Ibid., 50.
11. François Hartog (2003) Régimes d’historicité (Paris: Seuil).
12. As opposed to memory, commemoration, or identity, cultural heri-
tage is provided by institutions and codified standards on different
social levels from the universal to the local.
13. David Hackett Fischer (1970) Historians’ fallacies (New York:

Harper & Row).
14. David Lowenthal (1998) The heritage crusade and the spoils of his-
tory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 250.
15. Ibid., 1.
16. Ibid., 250.
17. François Hartog (2013) 29.
18. Ibid., 271.
19. Pierre Nora (1997) Les lieux de mémoire, vol. 1–3 (Paris: Quarto
Gallimard) vol. 3. 1579.
20. These accusations range from certain claims of World History in
the 1990s to liberate History writing from its Eurocentric orienta-
tion to the different forms of Occidentalism. For the latter see Ian
Buruma—Avishai Margalit (2004) Occidentalism (New York:
Penguin Press).
21. By marginal branches, we mean those forms of History which are
more accessible for the public or which deliberately appeal to the
public, and which are discussed in the last two subchapters of
Chap. 4.
22. Wolfgang Hardtwig, Alexander Schug (eds) (2009) History sells!

Angewandte Geschichte als Wissenschaft und Markt (Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner Verlag).
23. Lotfi A. Zadeh (1983) ‘Commonsense Knowledge Representation
Based on Fuzzy Logic’, Computer, 16:10, 61–65.
24. Lotfi A. Zadeh (2006) ‘Generalized theory of uncertainty (GTU)—
principal concepts and ideas’, Computational Statistics & Data
Analysis 51, 16.
25. Gesa Mackenthun, Sunne Juterczenka (2009), The Fuzzy Logic of
Encounter. New Perspectives on Cultural Contact (Münster: 2009) 15.
26. We distinguish the national histories of heritage protection from
the international institutionalization of cultural heritage. The for-
mer can be traced back to different periods around the turn of the
eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries in different countries,
while the latter, certainly influenced by the national developments,
marks a momentary universal consensus in the 1960s and 1970s,
and, accordingly, has a considerable general impact. For the prehis-
tory of the internationalization of heritage, see Astrid Swenson
(2013) The Rise of Heritage. Preserving the Past in France, Germany
and England, 1789–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press). The international institutionalization of cultural heritage
happens in English and in French, which are not only the opera-
tional languages of UNESCO (and also those of the European
Union) but also those languages in which long national histories of
heritage (patrimoine) conservation took place. It is often forgotten
that cultural heritage is a loanword, or rather a “loan concept,” in
most other languages, which suggests that the adoption of this
seemingly international concept does not necessarily reflect the
same realities in the adopting societies. Romance languages may
have minor difficulties because of the French patrimoine, but even
other European languages, which started to develop a special
vocabulary for monument conservation in the nineteenth century,
are still hesitant about how to select a proper terminology for heri-
tage preservation.
27. Even in present-day English, if the definition of heritage is restricted
to “built heritage,” it “is easily caricatured as ‘elite’ or ‘establish-
ment’ history,” while History proves to be more progressive.
Andrew Thompson (2014) ‘History and Heritage: A Troubled
Rapport Care for the Future: Thinking Forward through the Past’,
140 G. SONKOLY
http://careforthefuture.exeter.ac.uk/2014/02/history-and-
heritage-a-troubled-rapport/, date accessed 3 January 2015. This
quotation shows well that heritage does not necessarily equal cul-
tural heritage even in the languages from which it originates.
28. It would be worth analyzing how Erbe as a term belonging to the
vocabulary of Volkskunde (Regina Bendix (1997) In search of
authenticity {Madison: University of Wisconsin Press} 161.) relates
to Kulturerbe in German (Astrid Swenson examines only Denkmal
and Heimat in her aforementioned comparison).
29. The opposition between tangible and intangible heritages is often
interpreted as a Western/non-Western dichotomy. In the case of
Asian cities, for example, it is stated that “current conservation
practices in Western countries rely heavily on physical retention
and restoration of built heritage, whereas, Eastern or Asian heri-
tage preservation has a strong focus on the intangible heritage.”
Thisbigcity.net, ‘Three Threats to Asia’s Urban Heritage | This Big
City’, http://thisbigcity.net/three-threats-asias-urban-heritage/,
30. For the main dilemmas of “beyondism” see Joris van Eijnatten, Ed
Jonker, Willemijn Ruberg, Joes Segal (2013) ‘Shaping the
Discourse on Modernity’ International Journal for History,
Culture and Modernity 1:1, 3–20.
31. From the point of view of temporality, the “modern” attribute
implies a moving target continuously projected to the future, so it
cannot be reached or surpassed.
32. The “contemporary” adjective merely refers to present-day with-
out providing a positive identity, which distinguishes one genera-
tion or a period significantly from any other.
33. Reinhardt Koselleck (2004) Futures past (New York: Columbia
University Press) 224.
34. François Hartog (2010) ‘La temporalisation du temps: une longue
marche’ in J. André, S. Dreyfus-Asséo, F. Hartog (eds) Les récits du
temps (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France) 13–17.
35. Marc Abélès, French Political Anthropologist, introduced the con-
cept of “politics of survival” to describe contemporary political
strategies and the paralyzed (indecisive) time as one of their main
characteristics. Marc Abélès (2006) Politique de la survie (Paris:
Flammarion).
36. Fredric Jameson also emphasizes the presentist aspects of the new
temporality awakened by postmodern theory without using this
denomination. As he points out, “a weakening of historicity, both
in our relationship to public History and in the new forms of our
private temporality, whose ‘schizophrenic’ structure (following
Lacan) will determine new types of syntax or syntagmatic relation-
ships in the more temporal arts.” Fredric Jameson (1991)
Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (London-
New York: Verso) 9.
37. Benedict Anderson distinguishing between nationalism, as an

“obsession with the past with a focus on the future” or a utopia,
and present-day ethnicism, which is “an obsession with the past
without any focused interest in the future.” Benedict Anderson
(2011) Comparatively Speaking: On Area Studies, Theory, and
‘Gentlemanly’ Polemics’ Philippine Studies 59:1 136–137.
38. Globalization and mass migration questioned not only the rele-
vance of national and universal histories originating from the nine-
teenth century but also the evolutionary interpretation of
civilization, which placed the (underdeveloped) Savage into the
past. Gérard Lenclud (2010) ‘Être contemporaine. Altérité cul-
turelle et constructions du temps’ in J. André, S. Dreyfus-Asséo,
F. Hartog (eds) Les récits du temps (Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France) 43–67.
39. Olivier Dumoulin (2003) Le rôle social de l’historien. De la chaire
au prétoire (Paris: Albin Michel) 327–343.
40. François Hartog (1995) ‘Temps et Histoire. Comment écrire

l’histoire de France? ’ Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 50:6
1232.
41. Following Paul Ricœur’s analysis of the construction of historical
time, Bernard Lepetit arrives at the conclusion in his paradigmatic
essay on the “present of History” that historians cannot allow a
rupture between the past and the present by undetermined hori-
zons of expectations, but, rather, they should prevent the horizon
of expectations from escaping by determining modest and precisely
measured projects, which fit the concerned community. Bernard
Lepetit (1995) ‘Le present de l’histoire’ in B. Lepetit (ed.) Les
forms de l’expérience. Une autre histoire sociale (Paris: Albin Michel)
297–298.
42. Lowenthal (1998) 125.
142 G. SONKOLY
43. “Heritage has created, or helped to create the space for, what
Americans and the Australians call ‘Public History’—i.e. those
community-based, work- or office-related, and institutional forms
of historical self-representation.” Raphael Samuel (1994) Theatres
of Memory. Volume I: Past and Present in Contemporary Culture
(London-New York: Verso) 278.
44. Fernando S. Marces (n.d.) ‘Historical Culture | Cultura Histórica’,
http://www.culturahistorica.es/historical_culture.html#1, date
45. Helena Imminga-Berends (2013) Social Platform. A review on an
experiment in a collaborative research design (Brussels: European
Commission).
46. David Brett (1996) The construction of heritage (Cork: Cork

University Press) 4.
47. This periodization is not intended “to obliterate difference and to
project an idea of the historical period as massive homogeneity,” as
Jameson warns (Jameson [1991] 6.), but simply to create a tool for
analysis, which allows us to measure temporal change in contem-
porary history. As Jacques Le Goff explains, “L’historien se doit de
maîtriser le temps en même temps qu’il se trouve en son pouvoir,
et dans la mesure où ce temps change, la périodisation devient
pour l’historien un outil indispensable.” Jacques Le Goff (2014)
Faut-il vraiment découper l’histoire en tranches? (Paris: Seuil) 188.
48. Marc Ferro (2005) ‘L’histoire racontée aux enfants à travers le
monde’ in A. Corbin (ed.) 1515 et Les grandes dates de l’histoire de
France (Paris: Seuil) 468.
49. Pierre Nora (2005) ‘Ce que chronologie veut dire’, in A. Corbin
(ed.), 1515 et Les grandes dates de l’histoire de France (Paris: Seuil)
460–461.
50. “Heritage, if we adopted some of its procedure, could begin to
educate us in the language of looks, initiate us into the study of
colour coding, familiarize us with period palettes” Samuel (1994)
274.
51. One of the main objectives of the HUL approach is to “link sus-
tainability and Historic Urban Landscapes.” Francesco Bandarin,
Ron van Oers (2015) Reconnecting the City. The Historic Urban
Landscape Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage (Oxford:
Wiley–Blackwell) 311–212.
References
Abélès, Marc (2006) Politique de la survie (Paris: Flammarion).
Anderson, Benedict (2011) ‘Comparatively Speaking: On Area Studies, Theory,
and ‘Gentlemanly’ Polemics’ Philippine Studies 59:1, 107–139.
Bendix, Regina (1997) In Search of Authenticity (Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press).
Braudel, Fernand (1980) On History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Brett, David (1996) The Construction of Heritage (Cork: Cork University Press).
Buruma, I., Margalit, A. (2004) Occidentalism (New York: Penguin Press).
Dumoulin, Olivier (2003) Le rôle social de l’historien. De la chaire au prétoire
(Paris: Albin Michel).
Europa (2015) European Parliament Resolution of 8 September 2015 towards an
Integrated Approach to Cultural Heritage for Europe (2014/2149(INI)),
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P8-
TA-2015 0293&language=EN, date accessed 29 December 2015.
Ferro, Marc (2005) ‘L’histoire racontée aux enfants à travers le monde’ in
A. Corbin (ed.) 1515 et Les grandes dates de l’histoire de France (Paris: Seuil)
465–468.
Fischer, D. H. (1970) Historians’ fallacies (New York: Harper & Row).
Hardtwig, W., Schug, A. (eds.) (2009) History Sells! Angewandte Geschichte als
Wissenschaft und Markt (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag).
Hartog, François (1995) ‘Temps et Histoire. Comment écrire l’histoire de France?’
Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 50:6, 1219–1236.
Hartog, François (2010) ‘La temporalisation du temps: une longue marche’ in
J. André, S. Dreyfus-Asséo, F. Hartog (eds.) Les récits du temps (Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France) 13–17.
Hartog, François (2013) Croire en l’histoire (Paris: Flammarion).
Imminga-Berends, Helena (2013) Social Platform. A Review on an Experiment in
a Collaborative Research Design (Brussels: European Commission).
Jameson, Fredric (1991) Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism
(London-New York: Verso).
Le Goff, Jacques (2014) Faut-il vraiment découper l’histoire en tranches? (Paris:
Seuil).
Lenclud, Gérard (2010) ‘Être contemporaine. Altérité culturelle et constructions
du temps’ in J. André, S. Dreyfus-Asséo, F. Hartog (eds.) Les récits du temps
(Paris: Presses Universitaires de France) 43–67.
144 G. SONKOLY
Lepetit, Bernard (1995) ‘Le présent de l’histoire’ in B. Lepetit (ed.) Les formes de
l’expérience. Une autre histoire sociale (Paris: Albin Michel) 273–298.
Lowenthal, David (1998) The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Mackenthun, G., Juterczenka, S. (2009) The Fuzzy Logic of Encounter. New
Perspectives on Cultural Contact (Münster: Waxmann Verlag).
Marces, Fernando S. (n.d.) Historical Culture | Cultura Histórica, http://www.
culturahistorica.es/historical_culture.html#1, date accessed 3 January 2015.
Melot, M. (2005) ‘Quand la culture cède la place au patrimoine: L’Inventaire
général et l’évolution de la notion de “patrimoine culturel”’ in C. Barrère,
D. Barthélemy, M. Nieddu, F. Vivien (eds.) Réinventer le patrimoine (Paris:
L’Harmattan) 25–43.
Nora, Pierre (1997) Les lieux de mémoire, vol. 1–3 (Paris: Quarto Gallimard).
Nora, Pierre (2005) ‘Ce que chronologie veut dire’ in A. Corbin (ed.) 1515 et Les
grandes dates de l’histoire de France (Paris: Seuil) 459–461.
Rudolff, Britta (2006) ‘Intangible’ and ‘Tangible’ Heritage. A Topology of Culture
in Context of Faith (PhD dissertation, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz).
Samuel, Raphael (1994) Theatres of Memory. Volume I: Past and Present in
Contemporary Culture (London-New York: Verso).
Thisbigcity.net (2011) Three Threats to Asia’s Urban Heritage | This Big City,
http://thisbigcity.net/three-threats-asias-urban-heritage/, date accessed 3
January 2015.
Thompson, Andrew (2014) History and Heritage: A Troubled Rapport Care for
the Future: Thinking Forward through the Past, http://careforthefuture.exeter.
ac.uk/2014/02/history-and-heritage-a-troubled-rapport/, date accessed 3
January 2015.
UNESCO Database of National Cultural Heritage Laws, http://portal.unesco.
org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=33928&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_
SECTION=201.html, date accessed 29 December 2015.
van Eijnatten, J., Jonker, E., Ruberg, W., Segal, J. (2013) ‘Shaping the Discourse
on Modernity’ International Journal for History, Culture and Modernity 1:1,
3–20.
Zadeh, Lotfi A. (1983) ‘Commonsense Knowledge Representation Based on
Fuzzy Logic’ Computer 16:10, 61–65.
Zadeh, Lotfi A. (2006) ‘Generalized Theory of Uncertainty (GTU)—Principal
Concepts and Ideas’ Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 51, 15–46.
CHAPTER 5
Conclusion
The construction of urban heritage, as an integral part of cultural heritage,

has proved to be a proper subject for historical analysis. Its characteristics,
primarily the fact that it is a rival of History in the interpretation of the
past and that it is evolving before our very eyes, called for a special meth-
odology, which was established and demonstrated in Chaps. 2, 3 and 4.
First, the historical interpretation of the emergence of HUL demands
the development of a special methodology, suited to the task of reveal-
ing the paradigm shifts which lie hidden behind the integrative logic and
language of international cultural heritage preservation and its standard-
setting instruments. The Regimes of Historicity model and the method-
ological considerations of conceptual history determine the elements of
this methodology, which is completed by Foucault’s model of biopower
to determine the three indicative concepts—security/time, territory, and
community—of the evolution of international urban heritage preserva-
tion. The history of these three concepts shows how the international
discourse of urban heritage arrived at the current period of sustainability
and resilience, marked by lowered horizons of expectation and enhanced
sensibility toward experience. HUL, as the best established notion of con-
temporary urban heritage, is expected to integrate the novelties of cultural
heritage and, consequently, is refuted or ignored by those who disagree
with the recent conceptual developments that it expresses.
Second, the international level of the conceptual evolution of urban
heritage is examined at the point where it intersected with the local level,

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-49166-0_5
146 G. SONKOLY
through the analysis of the emergence of HUL, which is closely related

to the history of the Historic Centre of Vienna as a World Heritage Site,
since Vienna hosted the important conference during which The Vienna
Memorandum was worded. Vienna’s role in the definition of HUL shows
the growing importance of the local level in the construction of the cur-
rent vocabulary of cultural heritage. The recent history of Vienna and
other Central European World Heritage Sites also indicates that HUL
could not play the role of the integrative concept of contemporary urban
heritage preservation, since it tends to be ignored in the practice of World
Heritage conservation, which seems to adhere to the modernist practice
to which VI is better suited.
Third, we faced the challenge of comparing two fields where the inter-
pretation of the past may take place—cultural heritage and historical schol-
arship—which do not necessarily belong to the same register from the
perspective of academic institutionalization but are often mixed up by the
decision-makers and social actors involved. The rise of cultural heritage—
with its inherent fear of loss—and the lack of confidence that characterizes
post-turn histories inevitably result in a feeling of uncertainty, which is not
only a contemporary zeitgeist but is also reflected in the current usage
of fuzzy terms which serve to exploit the past in order to construct con-
temporary identities. We found Hartog’s conceptual quartet (memory,
commemoration, heritage, and identity) particularly useful to compare
cultural heritage with History, while his model of presentism helps to jux-
tapose these two domains in spite of the fact that both of them are “mov-
ing targets” because of the way they are continually being modified. His
presentist quartet can be completed by the notion of “landscape,” which
is sufficiently fuzzy to integrate social and cultural realities and their rep-
resentations by various social actors and groups. Thus, the personal—or
bottom-up—interpretations of historical time expressed in memory and
commemoration are twinned with the personal interpretation of territory
embodied by landscape. Since the 1990s, landscape has been increasingly
used as an analytical category in the social sciences, in architecture, and in
urban planning, as well as in cultural heritage preservation. In the latter
field, it is defined in the form of cultural landscape and later as HUL. In
certain disciplines and in certain national discourses, it is a revival of ear-
lier concepts, while in others it is a new phenomenon, but its usage is
always justified by a necessary renewal that will include the interpretations
of the social actors. The theory of presentism—an integral part of the
model of the Regimes of Historicity—also proved to be useful to situate
CONCLUSION 147
the conceptual development of cultural heritage in a longer evolution,

which starts with the gradual vanishing of the traditional conception of
time and with its replacement by historical- or future-based modernist
time. Accordingly, the 50 years of cultural heritage can be interpreted not
only as part of the two centuries of the history of heritage, but also as part
of the more than 500 years of the construction and deconstruction of
the modern perception of time between the sixteenth and the twenty-first
centuries. In this sense, cultural heritage acts as an indicator of the decon-
structive tendencies of the modern perception of time by integrating the
tradition of monument conservation, which is antimodernist in its theory
and modernist in its practice, with presentist concepts in order to avoid
further loss and future catastrophes, under the banner of sustainability.
This interpretation of cultural heritage permits us to place it in a longue
durée and to interpret it with the tools of conceptual history, as we have
done in the case of international urban heritage protection, which resulted
in the current notion of HUL and in the debates related to this notion.
The three analyses construct the components of the HUL approach,
which will render the evolution and the current situation of urban heritage
appropriate for historical research and teaching. Thus, the chronology of
the relationship between cultural heritage and History presents the evolu-
tion of the former as a historical problem, which can be related to the social
and cultural history of the relevant periods. It also helps to create a criti-
cal vocabulary for its evolution, which renders the great national varieties
comparable with each other, as well as with the international developments
of cultural heritage in standard-setting organizations such as UNESCO,
ICOMOS, or the European Union. The conceptual analysis of the indica-
tive concepts of urban heritage resulted in the interpretation of the evolution
of a notion belonging to the cultural heritage vocabulary in its historicity,
which is also comparable to national cases. Vienna’s case revealed the sig-
nificance of the linguistic diversity behind the international discourses on
cultural heritage, which are predominantly in English and in French.
The diversity of national cases should also be taken into consideration in
the general comparison between cultural heritage and History presented in
the three tables in Chap. 4, in which cultural heritage is used to describe the
non-academic interpretations of the past, which have become more numer-
ous and self-confident than ever since the institutionalization of historical
scholarship. National case studies serve to establish whether this generalized
matrix possesses the proper elements to compare non-critical approaches
to the past with scholarly interpretations. In contemporary Central and
148 G. SONKOLY
Eastern Europe, for example, the recently arrived heritage discourse allows
the resurgence of theories about national identities which were disproved
by academics long ago and were thought to have been forgotten. These
rediscovered and mostly imaginary continuities, however, do not only sig-
nal the “impotence of History” in this part of the world: they constitute a
rather widespread phenomenon. Local and unofficial ancestors and heroes
are only partially identified, because official History is reluctant or unable to
do so, or because it has become too critical to promise a bright future based
on a glorious and unequivocal national past. The strengthening peripher-
ies of historical scholarship should draw the attention of the historian to
the fact that these non-scientific tendencies ought not to be ignored, since
they seem to express the identity aspirations of a growing number of social
actors who used to be the audience for historical identity constructions,
and whose quest for reference in the past is more frequently satisfied in the
former peripheries of historical science, which can be more at ease with the
discourse of cultural heritage than with that of critical history.
In the meantime, cultural heritage is establishing itself not only as a
wishful reference to the past but also as an expanding field of knowledge
with academic pretensions, which multiplies its inner contradictions as we
saw in the conceptual historical analysis of HUL. This analysis identified
the inner ruptures or paradigm shifts within the unifying intention of the
cultural heritage discourse expressed in the integrative logic and language
of its standard-setting instruments. In consequence, the conceptual evolu-
tion of urban cultural heritage is presented as a historical problem, which
is related to simultaneous social and cultural changes and reveals the diver-
sity of its possible interpretations by different individuals and groups. The
expansion of the concept of urban heritage and the increasing number
of urban heritage sites coincided in the 2000s, calling for a conceptual
renewal to properly conceive these tendencies and a related methodol-
ogy to manage them. As the reception of HUL in the last decade has
shown, this conceptual renewal could not result in a single notion, since
urban heritage territories and communities were interpreted differently by
the various professional groups concerned. For those who consider that
urban heritage conservation should remain within the tangible register
of heritage, the notion of VI is better suited to the treatment of changes
in the surroundings of the heritage areas. For those who consider that
the notion of urban heritage has expanded so much in the last 20 years
that certain compromises are necessary from the perspective of tangible
heritage conservation, for instance giving up the traditional concept of
CONCLUSION 149
authenticity, to save the validity of cultural heritage while safeguarding

historic cities, the introduction of HUL as an integrative notion is the
solution. Obviously, this controversy is not only theoretical and profes-
sional but also raises existential issues for the heritage experts involved,
who may feel that their influence is threatened by a more comprehensive
and less “authentic” approach to urban heritage. For the former group,
the conceptual expansion of cultural heritage should be regarded as an
extension of the previous interpretations, which, consequently, should not
be undermined by it. In other words, urban heritage is primarily made
up of (cultural and natural) monuments, which should be conserved in
the framework of tangible heritage, and the outcome of this conservation
should be channeled to the intangible aspects of urban existence through
education and the popularization of monument conservation. In this
sense, the tangible and intangible aspects of urban heritage belong to two
separate domains, which are linked together, but whose relationship is
rather loose because of their distinct intellectual provenance and conser-
vation techniques. From this perspective, any attempt to merge the two
would lead to compromises which pose considerable threats for the tangi-
ble heritage. For the latter, time has proved that static conservation is not
a viable option. Thus, it is necessary to integrate divergent tendencies and
interpretations of urban heritage protection, even if it will inevitably lead
to compromises from the point of view of the older and better established
tangible heritage conservation. A telling harbinger of the first compromise
is that the principle of authenticity is vanishing from the international heri-
tage preservation discourse.
As we saw in Chap. 2, HUL was introduced to incorporate and,
consequently, reconcile polarities which were the results of the history
of the definition and management of urban heritage before the 2000s.
According to both explicative books on HUL1 and the related literature,2
Patrick Geddes, with the “organic and holistic approach” that he initiated
in the early twentieth century, was a major inspiration for the wording of
HUL. This current emphasis on the holistic approach suggests that the
more than century-old history of urban heritage conservation, which was
considered to be in conflict with urban development, should be replaced
by a unifying approach in which the two become complementary to each
other. It also serves to link contemporary urban heritage conservation to
sustainability, which is holistic by definition, since it is set on its four pil-
lars intended to end the artificial separation between nature, society, and
culture. Consequently, it revives hopes for the realization of a promising
150 G. SONKOLY
Utopia, based on harmonious urban development, in which heritage is

respected and exploited properly, in contrast to the Dystopia of uncon-
trolled urban development or that of narrow-mindedly over-regulated
urban conservation. For the former, hundreds of examples can be cited;
the latter is epitomized by the history of Venice in the second half of
the twentieth century in Bandarin and van Oers’ first volume on HUL,
since this city “is a failure from the viewpoint of the socially conscious
urban conservation principles.”3 Venice’s fate is contrasted with that of
Varanasi, where “in spite of the lack of (physical) authenticity and integ-
rity, city’s values as an historic city and spiritual centre are totally intact.”4
This more metaphorical than scientific opposition is meant to resume the
HUL-dilemma: “Venice or Varanasi?” To make this dilemma more appro-
priate for comparative research, we propose to identify the elements of the
HUL-dilemma in the form of axes, which were revealed partially in the
descriptions of HUL and partially in our analysis in the previous chapters.
Accordingly, the five axes, which are expected to be combined in the HUL
approach in order to assure socially conscious and value-based practice in
holistic urban conservation, are follows:
1. The distinction of cultural and natural heritage dating back to the

first phase of the institutionalization of heritage, codified in its sec-
ond phase by the categorization of World Heritage, which is con-
stantly challenged in the third phase and leads to the conceptualization
of cultural landscape and related notions in the cultural heritage
discourse. This recent evolution can be made easily intelligible for
social sciences and humanities thanks to current posthumanist
approaches5 and to the viewpoints expressed in the material and spa-
tial turns. From the perspective of current urban heritage preserva-
tion, the unification of cultural and natural urban heritages would
mean a more complex definition of the city and, consequently, the
development of new materialist conservation and urban planning
techniques, which would emerge from an ecological definition of
urban territory.
2. The fusion of cultural and natural heritages would entail the theo-
retical clarification of the two essential criteria of World (tangible)
Heritage, authenticity and integrity, which are defined in the sec-
ond phase of the history of heritage, and are fundamentally modi-
fied in the third phase. Authenticity’s original relevance is
undermined by the arrival of intangible cultural heritage, and integ-
CONCLUSION 151
rity is becoming a major reference—also in compounds starting with

the adjective “integrative”— without being endowed with the
appropriate conceptualization as we could observe in the case of
VI. Since these notions convey the theoretical foundation of cultural
heritage, their reformulation should be conducted in concert with
those social sciences and humanities which are currently debating
them.6 From the viewpoint of urban heritage conservation and
urban planning, the reformulation of the two notions raises ques-
tions about the credibility of the management and development of
concerned urban territories solely on the basis of tangible heritage
and that of the built environment, however sophisticated and com-
prehensive its definition might be.
3. Hence, the third axis is determined by the notions of tangible and
intangible cultural heritage, which are the result of the splitting of
the original concept of cultural heritage determined in the second
phase of its institutionalization, and the conceptual novelty repre-
sented by the intangible heritage is one of the most significant mark-
ers of the third phase. Since “tangible heritage” designated heritage
for most of its history until the 2000s, this term is normally used in
relationship to its conceptual pair, intangible heritage. Since several
social sciences and humanities are traditionally concerned with the
former, and many—not necessarily the same ones—are intrigued by
the latter, there is no lack of scientific research on them. This state-
ment is even more true if we include the recent proliferation of heri-
tage studies, to which we have already referred in Chap. 4. We could
also observe that the two elements of this conceptual pair stem from
different theoretical considerations, which makes it especially com-
plicated to arrange them into the same discourse. From the perspec-
tive of urban heritage, this conceptual pair touches the very essence
of the Venice–Varanasi dilemma, because the role of the urban com-
munity and that of the different social actors, including their con-
sciousness, participation, knowledge-transmission, and identity, are
inherent to it. These characteristics are expressed in various ways
depending on these stakeholders’ choice of reference in the rich and
contradictory history of cultural heritage protection. Urban plan-
ning is confronted with participatory principles and practice in
expanding urban heritage territories, in which the growing aware-
ness of urban heritage might hinder corporate investments.
Intangible urban heritage could be regarded as a possibility of the
152 G. SONKOLY
popular appropriation of the heritage discourse as a new means to

express local identity. Thus, the one-time administrative language of
heritage conservation is used by a larger group of social actors to
express their objectives, which is definitely a suitable set of research
topics for disciplines studying urban societies.
4. The next axis is assigned to the use of the cultural heritage discourse
by different agents of urban heritagization. It is determined by the
originally legal-administrative wording of heritage, originating from
national legislations in the first phase of the history of heritage and
gradually shaped by the standard-setting instruments of interna-
tional organizations in the first two phases, during which scientific
terms and concepts were employed in international administrative
discourses. Obviously, the philosophy and the practice of the fallacy
of a statement or argument is exercised differently in administrative
organizations and in academia, but the growing number of loan
concepts—particularly in the third phase of cultural heritage his-
tory—as well as the current academic pretensions of cultural heri-
tage make it necessary for the administrative and the academic
discourses on urban heritage to be compared and systematically
elucidated. From the viewpoint of urban heritage and urban plan-
ning, it should prompt more active participation by scholars in the
making and safeguarding of urban heritage.
5. This participation would also mobilize those scholars—representa-
tives of social sciences and humanities—in the affairs of urban devel-
opment, which is expected to merge with urban heritage
conservation, who were usually solicited to a lesser extent. The
HUL approach does not consider urban heritage and its territory as
a separate entity within the city, as was usually the case in the first
two phases of heritage history; it explores urban heritage conser-
vation and urban development together, which leads to a more
flexible and comprehensive definition of urban heritage requiring
the participation, views, and obviously the analyses of academics.
As a result of our analysis of the history of urban heritage conserva-

tion and that of the genesis of HUL, these five axes could be identified
as the elements of the “HUL-dilemma” and could thus serve to narrate
the history of urban heritage conservation on international, national,
and local levels in a comparative way, as well as to position and evalu-
ate current heritage concepts and practices from the perspective of the
CONCLUSION 153
HUL-principles. The five conceptual axes, completed with the indica-

tive analytical triplet of security/time–territory–community elaborated in
Chap. 2 and with the periodization of the history of cultural heritage,
determined in relationship to History in Chap. 4 and applied to the his-
tory of urban heritage conservation, make the Historical Urban Heritage
approach apt to compare contemporary notions of urban heritage conser-
vation and their implementation in heritage cities.
HUL was created to raise conceptual problems, and it was meant to
solve these problems in theory and in practice. Though it was defined
as a general concept for the third phase of the institutionalization of
urban heritage conservation and management, it is by now obvious that
it could not fulfill this exclusive assignment. Nevertheless, it has become
a significant reference for its concurrent notions, not only because of its
standard-setting instruments but also because HUL is better elucidated
than any other approach, including VI, which is the second most wide-
spread notion, but still very far from the degree of conceptualization of
HUL. Whereas HUL and VI have a universal scope, the other notions
do not necessarily possess this dimension; rather, they were introduced
for a particular aspect of urban heritage management or for a specific city.
However, they are all characterized by similar objectives, and they reveal
contemporary governance issues, which are comparable due to the per-
meability of the cultural heritage discourse7 to which they are connected.
The various forms of the practical employment of urban heritage conser-
vation notions suppose that we can turn our theoretical periodization of
cultural heritage into a system of “Regimes of Urban Heritage,” since
the “regime” as an analytical category considers norms and regulations
as essential and it allows simultaneity, as opposed to the “period,” which
postulates succession. Hence, the three phases of Chap. 4 are converted
into three Regimes of Urban Heritage, which articulate the growing com-
plexity of urban heritage conservation as follows:
• The first regime is determined by national and local heritage conser-

vation regulations, and it lasts until the codification of international
cultural heritage protection (1800s–1960s).8
• The second regime corresponds to the first institutionalization of
cultural heritage as an international norm (1960s–1990s).
• The third regime corresponds to the second institutionalization of
cultural heritage characterized by its expansion in terms of concepts,
significance, and number of heritage sites and elements (1990s–).9
154 G. SONKOLY
Beyond HUL and VI, we selected seven contemporary notions of urban

heritage conservation, which address similar problems and/or use HUL as
a reference.10 These notions are presented in Table 5.1.11 Obviously, this
concluding chapter is not destined to offer a comprehensive comparative
investigation of these notions, but their juxtaposition in the analytical grid
determined by our indicator triplet is appropriate for a short demonstra-
tion of the functioning and the utility of the HUL approach. Each notion
is evaluated according to the main features deduced from its description
Table 5.1 Contemporary urban heritage conservation and management notions

Notion Institution Reference cities
Historic Urban Landscape UNESCO Dujiangyan, Shanghai, Suzhou,

(HUL) Tongli (China); Ajmer-Pushkar,
Hyderabad, Varanasi (India);
Rawalpindi (Pakistan), Ballarat
(Australia), Levuka (Fiji), Cuenca
(Ecuador)
Living (Urban) Heritage ICCROM Hoi An (Vietnam)
(LUH)
Intangible Urban Cultural UNESCO Brugge, Cordóva, Marrakesh, Beijing,
Heritage (related to Palermo, Vienna
Cultural Rights) (IUCH)
Sustainable City (SC) Delhi Development Hauz Khas Village, Delhi (India)
Authority
Community-led Urban European Gori (Georgia), Gyumri (Armenia),
Strategies in Historic Commission Lutsk (Ukraine), Soroca (Moldova),
Towns/Town Reference Zaqatala (Azerbaijan)
Plan/(CLUSHT)
Integrated (Urban) European Graz (Austria), Liverpool (UK),
Cultural Heritage Commission Lublin (Poland), Naples (Italy),
Management Plan Poitiers (France) Regensburg
(IUCHMP) (Germany), Sighisoara (Romania),
Valencia (Spain), Valletta (Malta),
Vilnius (Lithuania), etc.
Community-driven ICOMOS Not identified yet
Conservation (CDC)
Comprehensive (Urban) Office of the City Havana
Development (CUD) Historian of
Havana
Visual Integrity (VI) UNESCO Historic Cities and Urban Cities on
the World Heritage List
CONCLUSION 155
and arranged in the grid of time–territory–community. From the view-

point of the perception of time, three subcategories are established: two
follow the logic of Regimes of Historicity—that is, modernist and presen-
tist—while the third is determined as “ahistorical,” since it expresses either
the momentary procedure of a cultural practice or the ecological time of
natural urban environment. Similarly, the subcategories of territory cor-
respond to the history of the definition of urban heritage: the first is the
modernist denomination (area or zone), while the presentist terms—place
and landscape—are distinguished, since they reveal different perceptions
of urban heritage. As we saw in Chap. 2, “place”—–as in cultural place,
spirit of place, place of memory, place of cultural significance, or place of
cultural heritage value—refers more to intangible cultural heritage mani-
festing cultural and social practices and not necessarily integrating tan-
gible heritage.12 Since community, the third indicator, is essential in all the
notions except for VI, it is assessed by its three dedicated functions: (1) the
mobilization of the local community for the protection of their heritage;
(2) the introduction of participatory principles; and (3) the channeling of
the local identity based on urban heritage to higher levels of identity con-
struction (as the entire city in the case of a neighborhood, the country, or
the international community).
The analytical grid arranged the nine notions into a scale, in which their
distance from each other is determined by their abovementioned charac-
teristics. Not surprisingly, HUL and VI are situated in the two extremes of
this scale: HUL—in the ideal-typical format perceived in Chap. 2—is pre-
sentist, landscape-based, and confers significance to the local community,
which is involved in a participative mode and connected to higher levels of
heritage protection. In contrast, VI is modernist, zoning-based, and func-
tions in a top-down manner as we observed in Chap. 3. Six notions come
closer to HUL, though each reveals a different profile. IUCH, CLUSHT,
and CDC prove to be the closest to HUL, while IUCHMP, LUH, and SC
are almost halfway between the two extreme notions, though still closer
to HUL. IUCH emphasizes the importance of local cultural practices
under the auspices of intangible cultural heritage, but its theoretical tool
kit seems to fail to connect the concerned heritage community to the
territory of the entire city and to higher levels of identity construction.
CLUSHT and IUCHMP are European initiatives of “integrated conser-
vation,”13 which can profit from the integrative notion of landscape that
is characteristic of EU projects, but their objectives and their indicators of
success are still within the modernist discourse of economic development.
156 G. SONKOLY
In contrast, LUH belongs to the presentist discourse, but it is still defined

within the limits of tangible heritage and fails to connect to higher lev-
els of identity construction. The most recent ICOMOS notion related to
contemporary urban heritage conservation, CDC worded in the Florence
Declaration, offers multiple definitions for landscape and emphasizes par-
ticipation and the significance of channeling local practices and identities
to larger units—especially through tourism—but it does not address con-
flicts between external and internal knowledge-transmission encoded in
its proposed tool kit.14 The ecological axis of the HUL-dilemma is rightly
addressed through the notion of SC, but its other aspects are not concep-
tualized. The only notion which comes close to VI is the CUD of Old
Havana, which is based on modernist temporality and territory and allows
a limited opportunity for participatory principles.15 Similarly to the com-
parison of History and cultural heritage, however, our juxtaposition of the
recent notions of urban heritage conservation serves their evaluation on
the basis of the degree of belonging to the conceptualization of current
dilemmas rather than to establish a strict binary system of presentist versus
modernist approaches. Its main purpose is to make the administrative and
scientific discourses on urban heritage mutually legible.
The remaining principle of cultural heritage protection, integrity, is a
good example of how important it would be to bring the two discourses
closer to each other. In contrast to urban landscape, VI is not a widespread
notion either in urban planning or in social sciences, so it does not easily
enter into any scientific discourse. The WHC’s recent attempts to define
it reveal that the principal of integrity referred originally to natural sites,
and did not change fundamentally when the Operational Guidelines were
updated in 2005.16 In consequence, such an application of integrity to
cultural heritage sites can be regarded as the extension of the definition
and management of natural heritage to urban heritage. Thus, two impor-
tant common characteristics can be identified in the two extremes of the
examined simultaneous notions of contemporary urban heritage: both the
HUL and the VI approaches indicate a new phase in the territorializa-
tion of urban heritage, and they are both intended to frame a territorial
unit in which the interaction of nature and culture can be measured and
controlled. There is an obvious difference, however, in their priorities,
which can be explained by their origins. Stemming from the discourse of
natural heritage, the VI approach regards the urban heritage as an ecologi-
cal unit in which culture can be perceived primarily through its “aesthetic
qualities” and “beauty”17 and does not include a territorial denomination
CONCLUSION 157
which could serve as a sign or framework for identity construction. Linked

to the notion of “important views” of paragraph 104 of the Operational
Guidelines, however, territorial notions typical of the second Regime of
Cultural Heritage protection—as buffer zone and area—are used,18 which
suggests that here the territory of urban heritage is regarded more as a
technical device than as a social arena to express identity. The 2008 Round
Table of the University of Montreal started from this paragraph in order
to “explore the concept of visual integrity and issues arising from develop-
ment projects in or near World Heritage Sites.”19 Though the significance
of the “important view” is shown from several perspectives, its relation-
ship to VI could not be conceptualized. This remains the case today,
since the 2013 UNESCO International World Heritage Expert Meeting
on Visual Integrity could not get any closer to a theoretical definition of
VI. Nonetheless, the Montreal Round Table raised some essential chal-
lenges of the application of the VI approach, which echo the concerns
expressed under the label of “polemic visualization” in Chap. 3: Michael
Turner emphasizes how much “views and panoramas” depend “on the
values and needs for the community and the importance that is currently
being attributed,”20 and “cognitive mapping as a tool to protect important
views” is brought in to take into consideration the diverse views experi-
enced “with the eye, with the body and with the soul.”21 Though these
well-justified observations could not be introduced into the official debates
on VI, they reveal why HUL—because of the choice of “landscape”—can
express integration through the gaze, that is, the interpretation of the con-
cerned community, which prioritizes the cultural component of heritage,
and makes it more appealing for the territorialization of identity.
The obvious contemporary reference for the handling of culture and
nature in unison is sustainability. In a way, all the examined notions, except
for CUD, can be considered as different modes of the territorialization of
sustainability from the perspective of cultural heritage preservation. While
the VI approach starts from the original ecology-based definition of sus-
tainability, HUL’s priorities have more to do with the other three (society,
economy, and culture), which were identified later, but gradually gained
precedence over ecology. The most recent phase in the evolution of the ter-
ritory of urban heritage reveals how its territorialization took the form of
spatial representations, which are less precise than its former vocabulary.22
Thus, “place” is typical of intangible heritage-based approaches, while
“landscape” becomes a meta-category of World Heritage in the form of
“cultural landscape” and is codified, though not necessarily applied, for the
158 G. SONKOLY
management of urban heritage at a global level. In contemporary cultural

heritage preservation, “landscape” is defined as the territory of sustainabil-
ity or resilience, that is, the proper territorial unit in which security can be
measured and maintained. Cultural landscape was introduced to express
the unity of natural and cultural heritage. HUL was designated to expand
monument-based urban heritage conservation and to ensure the involve-
ment of the relevant urban community in it. Hence, we can conclude that
the current notion of landscape is used similarly in the cultural heritage
discourse to the way “milieu” was applied by the central authorities in ear-
lier centuries: it means a territorial unit which is suited to the development
of the indicators of the expanding notion of security. Landscape imposes
itself as the new “milieu,” even if its wider recognition is hindered by pro-
fessional considerations. The definition of HUL and the involvement of
the Viennese in its establishment revealed the extent to which an enlarged
concept of security is encoded in it: the conservation of the tangible heri-
tage and the preservation of the intangible heritage are important, but
their main role is to contribute to liveability, or the quality of life of the
citizens.23 How did cultural heritage come to include liveability, which
originally belonged to a different register? We saw in Chap. 2 how biodi-
versity and cultural diversity converge in the text of the Convention on the
Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which states that cultural diversity is as
crucial as biodiversity from the point of view of the survival of humanity
and assigns particular importance to the safeguarding of cultural heritage,
which is one of the principal custodians of this survival. In the hundreds
of urban World Heritage sites, especially in Europe, which is dotted with
these historic cities, the static approach of cultural heritage conservation
itself could be seen as a threat to the liveability of the city. Thus, HUL can
be expected to reveal the proper unit for liveability by linking higher and
lower levels of social actors in such a way that local people could express
themselves—through participation, co-creation, and so on. The novelty
of the complex conception of security lies precisely in this relationship
between the levels of identity and the constructs of security. The milieu
was invented in order to measure security, while the landscape of cultural
heritage is seen not only as a way to measure it but also as a way to mea-
sure its perception and sensation.24 From the point of view of this complex
security, it is understandable that the territory of urban heritage is expand-
ing to include the whole of the city, since this protection is envisaged as
a necessary condition for the survival of the community and its habitat.
In this sense, HUL has the potential to turn the city concerned from its
CONCLUSION 159
territorial division between protected and non-protected territories into

a sort of heritage city, which is united by its continuous temporality and
territoriality as we demonstrated in Chap. 2 and can be observed in the
HUL pilot city of Ballarat. In consequence, the population of these cities
also changes into a series of heritage communities, which make use of the
urban landscape not only to represent their identity but also to express
their experience of their built and natural environment.25
These urban heritage communities are growing in number. The dra-
matic increase of urban World Heritage sites over the last 30-odd years
has made them less exceptional (500 sites are less “outstanding” than
50), and the originally distinguishing title is also becoming a day-to-day
reality, which is not only representative but also eventually constitutes a
framework for social and cultural realities.26 In addition to the univer-
sal level of urban heritage conservation, hundreds of other historic—or
less historic—quarters are protected at national, regional, or local lev-
els. Heritage protection is becoming a norm, a conventional means to
express belonging and identity. Moreover, the areas concerned, which
were often abandoned in the mid-twentieth century, regained their
attractiveness in Europe and North America from the 1970s onward,27
which resulted in massive immigration toward them. In consequence,
the expanding territory of urban heritage accommodates very diverse
social groups—from the well-off inhabitants of freshly gentrified areas
through fancy artistic neighborhoods to the pauperized population of
rustbelts—all of whom tend to formulate their identity and the attached
claims under the banner of cultural heritage. Obviously, politicians also
use the heritage discourse to mobilize the relevant population, as we saw
in the debates about the Viennese World Heritage Site. The segments
and the totality of the population involved are expected to behave as a
heritage community. Therefore, they must satisfy the double expectations
of the internal—intimate—and external transmission of their knowledge.
In other words, their security, as a heritage community, is guaranteed by
the efficiency with which they ensure the continuity of their particular
cultural and social practices, as well as by the fact that these practices
remain or become attractive to external spectators, who may be heritage
experts, political or corporate decision-makers, or simply tourists. At the
same time, these communities are normally too heterogeneous to share
such practices, which consequently need to be assembled or invented.
In this sense, the practices related to identity building in the heritage
communities are similar to those of nation-building in the nineteenth
160 G. SONKOLY
and twentieth centuries. As the population of the nation-state was crucial

for the nation’s cultural and biological survival, the heritage community
is also fundamental, not only on the national level but also on all other
levels of social existence. The main attributes of these communities—
participation, cultural diversity, and liveability, which were revealed by
the conceptual evolution of urban heritage—however, suggest that in
order to ensure their safety and survival their evaluation should be con-
ducted in a more participatory manner than that of the population of the
nation-state.
In spite of the increasing participatory interpretations of urban land-
scape and the related interpretation of time, the social sciences and the
humanities seem to have failed to find a proper label for the integration
of demands that come from outside the circles of their ordinary inter-
locutors. The postmodern debates and the methodological turns were
extremely useful in the deconstruction of the foundations of the social
sciences and the humanities, which were deeply rooted in nineteenth-
century ideologies, but they remained predominantly within their own
discourse. It is quite revealing that none of the “turns” are named after
the social actor, the “person,” though most of them are characterized by
the rejection of the false objectivity of the nineteenth century.28 From the
perspective of the social reception of the social sciences and the humani-
ties, these turns did not necessarily help to open them up to the con-
cerned social actors, including non-specialist decision-makers. On the
contrary, these turns could eventually complicate the discourse of these
sciences to such an extent that the jargon pushes the scholars even fur-
ther away from the rest of society. Consequently, the different bottom-up
movements from the 1970s onward—described as democratic or partici-
patory tendencies—had difficulty finding their conceptual equivalent in
the continuously widening vocabulary of the interpretative turns. While
these turns rightly reconstruct the respective scientific discourses, they
do not necessarily bring these debates and the renewed disciplines any
closer to communities characterized by a growing desire to reinterpret
their past in order to construct their newly found identities. As a result,
the vocabulary and tool kit of cultural heritage are often found suitable
to label these identities, and bureaucrats urge scholars to participate in
these constructions according to the growing variety of “co-creation.”
Co-creation might be an option for scholars who wish to engage in these
identity constructions, but they are also expected to determine and mea-
sure the units of security in its expanded and complex format, which
CONCLUSION 161
includes the evaluation of the community’s own perception of security.

It remains to be seen whether HUL will remain the appropriate unit for
application in an urban setting, but it is predictable that the personaliza-
tion of urban heritage, and cultural heritage in general, will entail the
personalization of the academic disciplines which will be invited to take
part in its evaluation.
Notes
1. Bandarin, van Oers (2012) 12–13, Bandarin, van Oers (2015) 2,
6.
2. Labadi, Logan (2016) 3–4.
4. Ibid., 71.
5. I strongly agree with Gary Campbell and Laurajane Smith, how-
ever, that “posthumanist” and “new materialist” approaches could
return to “the fetishisation of the material world that typified tra-
ditional heritage, and resisted critical thinking.” Gary Campbell,
Laurajane Smith (2016) Keeping Critical Heritage Studies Critical:
Why “Post-Humanism” and “New Materialism” are not so Critical,
unpublished conference paper. Given at the third Association of
Critical Heritage Studies Conference, Montreal, June 2016. 12.
Culture and nature can be integrated by subordinating human per-
ception in the name of posthumanism, or by attributing personal-
ity to nature and by defining natural actors, which would be an
immense, but not unprecedented, challenge for heritage studies,
since natural heritage protection commenced with the definition of
legal personalities in nature. In addition, several communities still
bear the knowledge of personified nature in the form of intangible
heritage.
6. Concerning the redefinition of authenticity, anthropology, ethnol-
ogy, and philosophy seem to be the most affected disciplines. (For
the first two see Bendix (1997) and Introduction, Endnote 4; for
the third see Carole Talon-Hugon (ed.) (2015) Éthique et esthé-
tique de l’authenticité [Nice: C.R.H.I. – Revue Noesis]).
“Integrative” approaches occur frequently in several social sciences
and humanities, but integrity in the sense of cultural heritage pres-
ervation requires more academic exploration in these disciplines.
7. See Chap. 3 Endnote 6.
162 G. SONKOLY
8. This can be divided into two subregimes, as international regula-

tions began with the Athens Charter as we saw in Chap. 2, but
these standards are not compulsory.
9. This categorization seems to be built upon European and American
histories, but if we set it side by side with Nezar Alsayyad’s more
global periodization of “heritage and tradition” in relation to con-
sumption in the last 200 years, a similar history unfolds: “The first
phase … instituted a hybridity … the second period of postcolonial
nationalism (is) in the demand for historic monuments and sym-
bolic buildings … Today, in the third phase …the outright manu-
factures of heritage coupled with the active consumption of
tradition in the built environment.” Alsayyad, Nezar (ed.) (2001)
Consuming Tradition, Manufacturing Heritage. Global Norms
and Urban Forms in the Age of Tourism (New York: Routledge) 3.
This volume examines the impact of globalized tourism on heri-
tage, which is an essential aspect of contemporary urban heritage
that needs to be further investigated in future studies.
10. The most recent edited volume on urban heritage by Sophia Labadi
and William Logan was a great help in defining and analyzing most
of the selected notions. Labadi, Logan (2016).
11. The characteristics of the seven newly introduced notions were
determined by the following sources: LUH—Pham Thi Thanh
Huong (2016) Living heritage, community participation and sus-
tainability: redefining development strategies in the Hoi An
Ancient Town World Heritage property, Vietnam Labadi, Logan
(2016) 274–290; IUCH—Janet Blake (2016) Safeguarding intan-
gible cultural heritage in the urban environment: some experience
gaining from implementing UNESCO’s 2003 convention in
Labadi, Logan (2016) 114–133; SC—Yamini Narayanan (2016)
Deep ecology and urban conservation principles for urban villages:
planning for Hauz Khas Village, Delhi City in Labadi, Logan
(2016) 291–307; CLUSHT and IUCHMP—Rob Pickard (2016)
Management strategies for historic towns in Europe in Labadi,
Logan (2016) 151–174; CUD—Matthew J. Hill, Maki Tanaka
(2016) Entrepreneurial heritage: historic urban landscapes and
politics of “comprehensive development” in post-Soviet Cuba in
Labadi, Logan (2016) 214–232. CDC—ICOMOS (2014) The
Florence Declaration on Heritage and Landscape as Human Values.
CONCLUSION 163
12. “Place” is suggested by countries which intend to universalize the

heritage of their formerly suppressed—mostly indigenous—popu-
lations. The Australian Burra Charter defines the “place of cultural
significance” (1999b), the New Zealand ICOMOS declares the
charter on “places of cultural heritage value,” and the Declaration
on the Preservation of the Spirit of Place was worded in Quebec
(2008b). Nevertheless, the “spirit of place” belongs to the archi-
tectural discourse, though it is not defined in the Quebec Charter
as an independent unit, but as an extension of the tangible monu-
ment, and it is later used accordingly.
13. Pickard (2016) 152.
14. It defines landscape as “cultural habitat,” “fusion of culture and
nature,” and “driver for growth.” ICOMOS (2014) 4–5.
15. Hill and Tanaka argue that any exclusion of CUD from HUL
would mean “that HUL is truly applicable in a narrow group of
European cities due to its inability to grasp the range of informal
urbanization processes and forms of economic dependency that
characterize countries in the Global South such as Cuba” Hill,
Tanaka (2016) 228. The geographical distribution of the current
reference heritage cities, however, does not support this argument,
since dedicated HUL cities are situated on other continents besides
Europe. Started in the late 1960s, according to the first HUL vol-
ume (Bandarin, van Oers [2012] 136–137), the Old Havana
model fits better to the similar initiatives from the same period in
other communist countries, which aimed to attract tourism and
used these areas to test the functioning of limited private entrepre-
neurship within a state-controlled economy rather than the current
reflections on urban heritage conservation. The invention of the
small town of Szentendre in the vicinity of Budapest as a tourist
destination in communist Hungary happened at the same time as
the Old Havana initiative, and they share many characteristics.
Kende, Tamás (2014) ‘Kép, önkép, múltkép: a modern Szentendre’
in P. Erdősi, J. Majorossy (eds.) Kép, önkép, múltkép. Fejezetek
Szentendre történetéből (Szentendre: Ferenczy Múzeum) 11–102.
16. The first Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage (1977)
defined four conditions for the selection of World Heritage Sites,
which were extended to seven in 2005, but the only slight change
toward the cultural aspect of World Heritage is the inclusion of the
164 G. SONKOLY
“aesthetic value” in condition (iii). UNESCO (1977) 4–5.,

UNESCO (2005f) 11–12.
17. UNESCO (2015f) 11.
18. According to paragraph 104, “for the purposes of effective protec-
tion of the nominated property, a buffer zone is an area surround-
ing the nominated property which has complementary legal and/
or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to
give an added layer of protection to the property. This should
include the immediate setting of the nominated property, impor-
tant views and other areas or attributes that are functionally impor-
tant as a support to the property and its protection.” UNESCO
(2015f) 21.
19. Christina Cameron, Christine Boucher (eds.) (2008) Procès-

verbaux/Proceedings Le patrimoine mondial/World Heritage:
Définir et protéger “les perspectives visuelles importantes”
Defining and protecting “important views” (http://www.patri-
moinebati.umontreal.ca/documents/Table_ronde_2008_Proces-
verbaux.pdf, date accessed 26 July 2014) 11.
20. Ibid., 42.
21. Ibid., 207–208.
22. According to Daniel Nordman’s three indicators (identification,
denomination, and delimitation), the new territorial terms differ
from the previous ones on the level of delimitation since their bor-
ders are not predetermined—as in the case of “area” or “heritage
site”—but are rather the product of a consensus between the social
actors involved.
23. “Urban heritage, including its tangible and intangible compo-

nents, constitutes a key resource in enhancing the liveability of
urban areas and fosters economic development and social cohesion
in a changing global environment” UNESCO (2011) 1.
24. According to François Ascher, “threat and the principle of precau-
tion” are the essential elements of contemporary urban planning,
in which social actors search for anything which can “ensure, reas-
sure, produce trust.” François Ascher (2001) Les nouveaux princi-
pes de l’urbanisme (Paris: L’Aube) 76–77.
25. Jean-Marc Besse explains that the landscape takes charge of the
dimension of human relationship to the world which has been
abandoned by modern science and which is the direct, immediate,
CONCLUSION 165
physical link to the sensible elements of this world. Thus, the land-
scape is primarily an experience. Besse (2009) 49–50.
26. In Budapest, for example, since 2013 the territory of the World
Heritage Site has been used to define the area in which the home-
less are not allowed to dwell. Budapest (2013).
27. An abundant literature treats the “return to the center” phenom-
enon in many disciplines related to urban studies. From the per-
spective of our analysis, two relevant examples are L.A. Herzog’s
comparative essays on the revitalization of traditional urban centers
in the USA, Mexico, and Spain, and Isabelle Backouche’s book on
the changing paradigms of urban renovation in French city centers
since 1943. L. A. Herzog (2006) Return to the Center (Austin:
University of Texas Press), Isabelle Backouche (2013) Aménager
la ville (Paris: Armand Colin).
28. “Personal turn” appears only in literary criticism to challenge the
prevailing academic discourse and to liberate minority voices within
academia in the 1990s, but its establishment, especially in the con-
text of other humanities and social sciences, cannot be compared
to other movements classified as “cultural turns.” Doris Bachmann-
Medick (2009) Cultural Turns (Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag).
References
Alsayyad, Nezar (ed.) (2001) Consuming Tradition, Manifacturing Heritage.
Global Norms and Urban Forms in the Age of Tourism (New York: Routledge).
Ascher, François (2001) Les nouveaux principes de l’urbanisme (Paris: L’Aube).
Bachmann-Medick, Doris (2009) Cultural Turns. Neuorientierung in den
Kulturwissenschaften (Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag).
Backouche, Isabelle (2013) Aménager la ville. Les centres urbains français entre
conservation et renovation (De 1943 à nos jours) (Paris: Armand Colin).
Press).
ENSP).
166 G. SONKOLY
Blake, Janet (2016) ‘Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage Heritage in the

Urban Environment: Some Experience Gaining from Implementing
UNESCO’s 2003 Convention’ in S. Labadi, W. Logan (eds.) Urban Heritage,
Development and Sustainability. International Frameworks, National and Local
Governance (London-New York: Routledge) 114–133.
Budapest (2013) 77/2013.(XII.3.) Fővárosi Közgyűlési rendelet, http://pmkh.
jogtar.hu/jr/gen/startfrjmp.cgi?dbnum=105&cpxdocid=null&cpxdate=null
&ev=null&szam=null&tipus=null&pr=null&fun=null&menubar=y&toolba
r=y, date accessed 7 January 2016.
Cameron, Christina, Boucher, Christine (eds.) (2008) Procès-verbaux/Proceedings
« Le patrimoine mondial/World Heritage: Définir et protéger « les perspectives
visuelles importantes » Defining andprotecting « important views », http://www.
patrimoinebati.umontreal.ca/documents/Table_ronde_2008_Proces-
verbaux.pdf, date accessed 26 July 2014.
Campbell, Gary, Smith, Laurajane (2016) Keeping Critical Heritage Studies
Critical: Why “Post-Humanism” and “Nem Materialism” Are Not So Critical
(Unpublished conference paper, Given at the third Association of Critical
Heritage Studies Conference, Montreal, June 2016).
Herzog, L. A. (2006) Return to the Center. Culture, Public Space and City Building
in a Global Era (Austin: University of Texas Press).
Hill, Matthew J., Tanaka, Maki (2016) ‘Entrepreneurial Heritage: Historic Urban
Landscapes and Politics of “Comprehensive Development” in Post-Soviet
Cuba’ in S. Labadi, W. Logan (eds.) Urban Heritage, Development and
(London-New York: Routledge) 214–232.
ICOMOS (1999) The Burra Charter (The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places
ICOMOS (2008) The Quebec Declaration on the Preservation of the Spirit of Place,
2016.
ICOMOS (2014) The Florence Declaration on Heritage and Landscape as Human
Values, http://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Secretariat/2015/
GA_2014_results/GA2014_Symposium_FlorenceDeclaration_EN_
final_20150318.pdf, date accessed 7 January 2016.
Kende, Tamás (2014) ‘Kép, önkép, múltkép: A modern Szentendre’ in P. Erdősi,
J. Majorossy (eds.) Kép, önkép, múltkép. Fejezetek Szentendre történetéből
(Szentendre: Ferenczy Múzeum) 11–102.
CONCLUSION 167
Narayanan, Yamini (2016) ‘Deep Ecology and Urban Conservation Principles for
Urban Villages: Planning for Hauz Khas Village, Delhi City’ in S. Labadi,
W. Logan (eds.) Urban Heritage, Development and Sustainability. International
Frameworks, National and Local Governance (London-New York: Routledge)
291–307.
Rob Pickard (2016) ‘Management Strategies for Historic Towns in Europe’ in
S. Labadi, W. Logan (eds.) Urban Heritage, Development and Sustainability.
International Frameworks, National and Local Governance (London-New
Talon-Hugon, Carole (ed.) (2015) Éthique et esthétique de l’authenticité (Nice:
C.R.H.I.– Revue Noesis).
Thanh Huong, Pham Thi (2016) ‘Living Heritage, Community Participation and
Sustainability: Redefining Development Strategies in the Hoi An Ancient Town
World Heritage Property, Vietnam’ in S. Labadi, W. Logan (eds.) Urban
Heritage, Development and Sustainability. International Frameworks, National
and Local Governance (London-New York: Routledge) 274–290.
UNESCO (1977) The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention, http://whc.unesco.org/archive/out/opgu77.htm, date
References
Abélès, Marc (2006) Politique de la survie (Paris: Flammarion).

Achleitner, Friedrich (2005) ‘Das Erbe und die Erben. Weltkulturerbe—
Unbehagen an einem Begriff oder: einige Fragen’ in M. Csáky, M. Sommer
(eds.) Kulturerbe als soziokulturelle Praxis (Innsbruck-Wien-Bozen: Studien
Verlag) 13–18.
Albert, M.-T., Richon, M., Viñals, M. J., Witcomb, A. (eds.) (2012) Community
Development through World Heritage, World Heritage Papers 31 (Paris:
UNESCO).
Alsayyad, Nezar (ed.) (2001) Consuming Tradition, Manifacturing Heritage.
Global Norms and Urban Forms in the Age of Tourism (New York: Routledge).
Altstadterhaltungsnovelle (1972) Landesgesetzblatt für Wien, 1972. 16. 43–46,
gang/1972/pdf/lg1972006.pdf, date accessed 15 August 2015.
Anderson, Benedict (2011) ‘Comparatively Speaking: On Area Studies, Theory,
and ‘Gentlemanly’ Polemics’ Philippine Studies 59:1, 107–139.
Änderung des Denkmalschutzgesetzes (1999) Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik
Applegate, Celia (1990) A Nation of Provincials: The German Idea of Heimat
(Berkeley: University of California Press).
Ascher, François (2001) Les nouveaux principes de l’urbanisme (Paris: L’Aube).
Bachmann-Medick, Doris (2009) Cultural Turns. Neuorientierung in den
Kulturwissenschaften (Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag).
Backouche, Isabelle (2013) Aménager la ville. Les centres urbains français entre
conservation et renovation (De 1943 à nos jours) (Paris: Armand Colin).

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-49166-0
170 References
Press).
Bendix, R. F., Eggert, A., Peselmann., A. (eds.) (2012) Heritage Regimes and the
State (Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen).
ENSP).
Blake, Janet (2016) ‘Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage Heritage in the
Urban Environment: Some Experience Gaining from Implementing
UNESCO’s 2003 Convention’ in S. Labadi, W. Logan (eds.) Urban Heritage,
Development and Sustainability. International Frameworks, National and Local
Governance (London-New York: Routledge) 114–133.
Bortolotto, Chiara (ed.) (2011) Le patrimoine culturel immatériel. Enjeux d’une
nouvelle catégorie (Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme).
Boulghallat, Adil (2015) L’UNESCO et l’institutionnalisation du patrimoine cul-
turel immatériel. Le cas marocain de la place Jama’ L-Fna et ses conteurs (PhD
dissertation, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris).
Braudel, Fernand (1980) On History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Brett, David (1996) The Construction of Heritage (Cork: Cork University Press).
‘Brokers, Facilitators and Mediation. Critical Success (F)Actors for the Safeguarding
of Intangible Cultural Heritage’ Volkskunde 2014:3. (Special issue).
Budapest (2013) 77/2013.(XII.3.) Fővárosi Közgyűlési rendelet, http://pmkh.
jogtar.hu/jr/gen/startfrjmp.cgi?dbnum=105&cpxdocid=null&cpxdate=null
&ev=null&szam=null&tipus=null&pr=null&fun=null&menubar=y&toolba
r=y, date accessed 7 January 2016.
Buruma, I., Margalit, A. (2004) Occidentalism (New York: Penguin Press).
Cameron, Christina, Boucher, Christine (eds.) (2008) Procès-verbaux/Proceedings
« Le patrimoine mondial/World Heritage: Définir et protéger « les perspectives
visuelles importantes » Defining andprotecting « important views », http://www.
patrimoinebati.umontreal.ca/documents/Table_ronde_2008_Proces-
verbaux.pdf, date accessed 26 July 2014.
Cameron, Christina, Inanloo Dailoo, Shabnam (eds.) (2010) Procès-verbaux/
Proceedings « Le patrimoine et la conservation des paysages urbains historiques/
Heritage and the Conservation of Historic Urban Landscapes », http://www.
patrimoinebati.umontreal.ca/documents/Table_ronde_2010_Proces_ver-
baux.pdf, date accessed 26 July 2014.
Cameron, Christina, Rössler, Mechtild (2013) Many Voices, One Vision: The Early
Years of the World Heritage Convention (New York: Routledge).
References 171
Campbell, Gary, Smith, Laurajane (2016) Keeping Critical Heritage Studies

Critical: Why “Post-Humanism” and “Nem Materialism” Are Not So Critical
(Unpublished conference paper, Given at the third Association of Critical
Heritage Studies Conference, Montreal, June 2016).
City of Vienna (2005) International Conference World Heritage and
Contemporary Architecture. Managing the Historic Urban Landscape (Vienna:
City of Vienna).
City of Vienna (2008) United Nations Vienna International Center (Vienna: City
of Vienna).
Conan, Michel (1994) ‘L’invention des identités perdues’ in A. Berque (ed.) Cinq
propositions pour une théorie du paysage (Seyssel: Champ Vallon) 33–49.
Cultural Landscapes. The Challenges of Conservation (2003) World Heritage
Demus, Otto (1955) ‘Zur Lage Eine Mahnung’ Österreichische Zeitschrift für
Kunst und Denkmalpflege 9, 41–47.
Donadieu, P., Périgord, M. (2007) Le paysage (Paris: Armad Colin).
Donnadieu, Pierre (2012) ‘Construction et déconstruction des identités pay-
sagères européennes dans les régions urbaines’ in A. Bergé, M. Collot, J. Mottet
(eds.) Paysages européens et mondialisation (Seyssel: Éditions Champ Vallon)
179–198.
Dumoulin, Olivier (2003) Le rôle social de l’historien. De la chaire au prétoire
(Paris: Albin Michel).
Europa (1975) European Charter of the Architectural Heritage adopted by the
Council of Europe, October 1975, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-
Europa (1994) The Aalborg Charter, Charter of European Cities and Towns towards
Sustainability, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/urban/pdf/aalborg_char-
ter.pdf, date accessed 7 January 2016.
Europa (2000) European Landscape Convention, http://conventions.coe.int/
Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm, date accessed 7 January 2016.
Europa (2015) European Parliament Resolution of 8 September 2015 towards an
Integrated Approach to Cultural Heritage for Europe (2014/2149(INI)),
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P8-
TA-2015 0293&language=EN, date accessed 29 December 2015.
Fabre, D., Iuso, A. (eds.) (2009) Les monuments sont habités (Paris: Éditions de la
Maison des sciences de l’homme).
Fawler, P. J. (2003) World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, 1992–2002, World
Heritage Papers 6. (Paris: UNESCO).
Ferro, Marc (2005) ‘L’histoire racontée aux enfants à travers le monde’ in
A. Corbin (ed.) 1515 et Les grandes dates de l’histoire de France (Paris: Seuil)
465–468.
Fischer, D. H. (1970) Historians’ fallacies (New York: Harper & Row).
172 References
Fontanari, E. (2012) ‘La dimension paysagère du projet pour la ville contempo-

raine’ in A. Bergé, M. Collot, J. Mottet (eds.) Paysages européens et mondialisa-
tion (Seyssel: Éditions Champ Vallon).
Foucault, Michel (2009) Security, Territory, Population (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan).
Frampton, Kenneth (1999) ‘Seven Points for the Millennium. An Untimely
Manifesto’ in The Architectural Review November, 76–80.
Hall, Peter (2002) Cities of Tomorrow. An Intellectual History of Urban Planning
and Design in the Twentieth Century. Third edition (Malden-Oxford:
Blackwell).
Hardtwig, W., Schug, A. (eds.) (2009) History Sells! Angewandte Geschichte als
Wissenschaft und Markt (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag).
Hartog, François (1995) ‘Temps et Histoire. Comment écrire l’histoire de France?’
Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 50:6, 1219–1236.
Hartog, François (2010) ‘La temporalisation du temps: une longue marche’ in
J. André, S. Dreyfus-Asséo, F. Hartog (eds.) Les récits du temps (Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France) 13–17.
Hartog, François (2013) Croire en l’histoire (Paris: Flammarion).
Hartog, François (2015) Regimes of Historicity—Presentism and the Experience of
Time (New York: Columbia University Press).
Hassinger, Hugo (1916) Kunsthistorischer Atlas und verzeichnis der erhaltenswerten
historischen Kunst- und Naturdenkmale des Wiener Ortsbildes. Österreichische
Henke Schreieck (2003) Wien Mitte—Henke Schreieck Architekten, http://www.
henkeschreieck.at/index.php/projects/mixed-use/wien-mitte/, date accessed
15 August 2015.
Herzog, L. A. (2006) Return to the Center. Culture, Public Space and City Building
in a Global Era (Austin: University of Texas Press).
Hill, Matthew J., Tanaka, Maki (2016) ‘Entrepreneurial Heritage: Historic Urban
Landscapes and Politics of “Comprehensive Development” in Post-Soviet
Cuba’ in S. Labadi, W. Logan (eds.) Urban Heritage, Development and
(London-New York: Routledge) 214–232.
ICOMOS (1972) Resolutions of the Symposium on the Introduction of Contemporary
Architecture into Ancient Groups of Buildings, at the 3rd ICOMOS General
Assembly, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed 7
January 2016.
References 173
ICOMOS (1975) Resolutions of the Symposium on the Conservation of Smaller

Historic Towns, at the 4th ICOMOS General Assembly, http://www.icomos.
ICOMOS (1987a) Charter for Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas
(The Washington Charter), http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts,
ICOMOS (1987b) First Brazilian Seminar about the Preservation and
Revitalization of Historic Centers (The Itaipava Principles), http://www.ico-
mos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed 7 January 2016.
ICOMOS (1993) Guidelines on Education and Training in the Conservation of
Monuments, Ensembles and Sites, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-
ICOMOS (1994) The Nara Document on Authenticity, http://www.icomos.org/
ICOMOS (1996a) The Declaration of San Antonio, http://www.icomos.org/en/
ICOMOS (1996b) Principles for the Recording of Monuments, Groups of Buildings
and Sites, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed 7
January 2016.
ICOMOS (1999a) International Cultural Tourism Charter. Managing Tourism at
Places of Heritage Significance, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-
ICOMOS (1999b) The Burra Charter (The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places
ICOMOS (1999c) Charter on Built Vernacular Heritage, http://www.icomos.
ICOMOS (2005) Xi’an Declaration on the Preservation of the Setting of Heritage
Structures, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed 7
January 2016.
ICOMOS (2008a) Charter on Cultural Routes, http://www.icomos.org/en/
ICOMOS (2008b) The Quebec Declaration on the Preservation of the Spirit of
Place, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed 7 January
2016.
ICOMOS (2008c) Charter on the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural
Heritage Sites, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed
7 January 2016.
ICOMOS (2010a) Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage
Value (ICOMOS New Zealand, text revised and approved by the Executive
Board of ICOMOS NZ on 4 September 2010), http://www.icomos.org/en/
174 References
ICOMOS (2010b) ICOMOS Comments on the First Draft of the UNESCO

Reccommendations on the Historic Urban Landscape, 24 December 2010, http://
www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed 7 January 2016.
ICOMOS (2011a) Joint ICOMOS—TICCIH Principles for the Conservation of
Industrial Heritage Sites, Structures, Areas and Landscapes (The Dublin
Principles), http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed
7 January 2016.
ICOMOS (2011b) The Paris Declaration on Heritage as a Driver of Development,
http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed 7 January 2016.
ICOMOS (2011c) The Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of
Historic Cities, Towns, Urban Areas, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-
and-texts, date accessed 7 January 2016.
ICOMOS (2014) The Florence Declaration on Heritage and Landscape as Human
Values, http://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Secretariat/2015/
GA_2014_results/GA2014_Symposium_FlorenceDeclaration_EN_
final_20150318.pdf, date accessed 7 January 2016.
Imminga-Berends, Helena (2013) Social Platform. A Review on an Experiment in
a Collaborative Research Design (Brussels: European Commission).
IWLG PGL/00690/2002/0012-KFP/GAT: Schriftlicher Antrag, https://www.
wien.gv.at/infodat/ergdt?detvid=28328, date accessed 15 July 2015.
IWLG PGL/02633/2002/0001-KFP/GF: Schriftlicher Anfrage, https://www.
wien.gv.at/ma08/infodat/2002/pgl-02633-2002-0001-kfp-gf.pdf, date accessed
15 July 2015.
IWLG FSP/01093/2002/0005-KFP/GM: Mündliche Anfrage, https://www.
wien.gv.at/infodat/ergdt?detvid=28993, date accessed 15 July 2015.
IWLG AST/04086/2002/0002-KFP/AL: Aktuelle Stunde, https://www.wien.
gv.at/infodat/ergdt?detvid=35023, date accessed 15 July 2015.
IWLG Id(29003): Antwort, https://www.wien.gv.at/infodat/ergdt?detvid=29003,
IWLG Id(30568): Antwort, https://www.wien.gv.at/infodat/ergdt?detvid=30568,
Jakob, Michael (2008) Le paysage (Paris: Infolio).
Jameson, Fredric (1991) Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism
(London-New York: Verso).
Jameson, Fredric (2003) ‘Future City’ New Left Review 21, 65–79.
Jannière, H., Pousin, F. (2007) ‘Paysage urbain: d’une thématique à un objet de
recherché’ Strates. Matériaux pour la recherche en sciences sociales 13, 9–24.
Jokilehto, Jukka (2010) ‘Notes on the Definition and Safeguarding of HUL’ City
and Time 4:3, 41–51, http://www.ceci-br.org/novo/revista/docs2010/
C&T-2010-162.pdf, date accessed 24 July 2014.
Kende, Tamás (2014) ‘Kép, önkép, múltkép: A modern Szentendre’ in P. Erdősi,
J. Majorossy (eds.) Kép, önkép, múltkép. Fejezetek Szentendre történetéből
(Szentendre: Ferenczy Múzeum) 11–102.
References 175
Kenny, M. L. (2009) ‘Deeply Rooted in the Present. Making Heritage in Brazilian
Quilombos’ in L. Smith, N. Akagawa (eds.) Intangible Heritage (London-New
Kos, Wolfgang (2006) ‘Städtische schönheit als Leitmotiv?’ in M. Wehdorn (ed.)
Wien, Weltkulturerbe. Der Stand der Dinge. Stadtentwicklung Wien (Wien:
Stadt Wien) 42–45.
Le Goff, Jacques (2014) Faut-il vraiment découper l’histoire en tranches? (Paris:
Seuil).
Le Rider, Jacques (2001) ‘Mittel- bzw. Zentraleuropa und Österreich als imag-
inäre Gedächtnisorte der europäischen Identität’ in M. Csáky, P. Stahel (eds.)
Die Verortung von Gedächtnis (Wien: Passagen Verlag) 139–150.
Lenclud, Gérard (2010) ‘Être contemporaine. Altérité culturelle et constructions
du temps’ in J. André, S. Dreyfus-Asséo, F. Hartog (eds.) Les récits du temps
(Paris: Presses Universitaires de France) 43–67.
Lepetit, Bernard (1995) ‘Le présent de l’histoire’ in B. Lepetit (ed.) Les formes de
l’expérience. Une autre histoire sociale (Paris: Albin Michel) 273–298.
Lin, Jan (2011) The Power of Urban Ethnic Places (New York-Oxon: Routledge).
Lowenthal, David (1998) The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Mackenthun, G., Juterczenka, S. (2009) The Fuzzy Logic of Encounter. New
Perspectives on Cultural Contact (Münster: Waxmann Verlag).
Marces, Fernando S. (n.d.) Historical Culture | Cultura Histórica, http://www.
culturahistorica.es/historical_culture.html#1, date accessed 3 January 2015.
Mazzarolli, Leopoldo (2008) ‘Presentation’ in A Future for Venice? Considerations
40 Years after the 1966 Flood (Turin-London-Venice-New York: Umberto
Allemandi) 9–10.
Melot, M. (2005) ‘Quand la culture cède la place au patrimoine: L’Inventaire
général et l’évolution de la notion de “patrimoine culturel”’ in C. Barrère,
D. Barthélemy, M. Nieddu, F. Vivien (eds.) Réinventer le patrimoine (Paris:
L’Harmattan) 25–43.
Mirror.unhabitat.org (2015) UN-HABITAT Best Practices Database: Best
Practices, http://mirror.unhabitat.org/bp/bp.list.aspx?bpTag=Best+Practice,
Mitchell, N., Rössler, M., Tricaud, P-M. (eds.) (2011) Paysages culturels du patri-
moine mondial. Guide pratique de lconservation et de gestion, World Heritage
Morriset, Lucie K. (2009) Des régimes d’authenticité. Essai sur la mémoire patrimo-
niale (Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes).
176 References
Mumford, Eric (2000) The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928–1960 (Cambridge,

MA: The MIT Press).
Narayanan, Yamini (2016) ‘Deep Ecology and Urban Conservation Principles for
Urban Villages: Planning for Hauz Khas Village, Delhi City’ in S. Labadi,
W. Logan (eds.) Urban Heritage, Development and Sustainability. International
Frameworks, National and Local Governance (London-New York: Routledge)
291–307.
Nora, Pierre (1997) Les lieux de mémoire, vol. 1–3 (Paris: Quarto Gallimard).
Nora, Pierre (2005) ‘Ce que chronologie veut dire’ in A. Corbin (ed.) 1515 et Les
grandes dates de l’histoire de France (Paris: Seuil) 459–461.
Nordman, Daniel (1998) Les frontières de France. De l’espace au territoire,
XVIe – XIXe siècles (Paris: Gallimard).
Patry, M., Bessett, C., Leclerq, B. (2005) 2nd World Heritage Forest Meeting.
Nancy, http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-43-2.
pdf, date accessed 15 August 2015.
Petzet, Michael (2004) Principles of Preservation. An Introduction to the
International Charters for Conservation and Restoration 40 Years after the
Venice Charter, http://www.icomos.org/venicecharter2004/petzet.pdf, date
accessed 27 July 2014.
Rob Pickard (2016) ‘Management Strategies for Historic Towns in Europe’ in
S. Labadi, W. Logan (eds.) Urban Heritage, Development and Sustainability.
International Frameworks, National and Local Governance (London-New
Pomian, Krzysztof (1996) ‘Nation et patrimoine’ in D. Fabre (ed.) L’Europe entre
cultures et nations (Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme) 85–98.
Poulot, Dominique (ed.) (1998) Patrimoine et modernité (Paris: L’Harmattan).
Pousin, Frédéric (2007) ‘Du townscape au « paysage urbain », circulation d’un
modèle rhétorique mobilisateur’ Strates. Matériaux pour la recherche en sciences
sociales 13, 25–50.
Procès-verbaux/Proceedings « Le patrimoine et la conservation des paysages urbains
historiques/Heritage and the Conservation of Historic Urban Landscapes »
(2006), http://www.patrimoinebati.umontreal.ca/documents/table_
ronde_2006_proces_verbaux.pdf, date accessed 26 July 2014.
Röhl, Hans Christian (2008) Allgemeine Rechtslehre (Köln-München: Carl
Heymanns Verlag).
Rudolff, Britta (2006) ‘Intangible’ and ‘Tangible’ Heritage. A Topology of Culture
in Context of Faith (PhD dissertation, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz).
Samuel, Raphael (1994) Theatres of Memory. Volume I: Past and Present in
Contemporary Culture (London-New York: Verso).
Sandroni, Carlos (2011) ‘L’ethnomusicologue en médiateur du processus patri-
monial. Le cas de la samba de roda’ in C. Bortolotto (ed.) Le patrimoine cul-
turel immaterial. Enjeux d’une nouvelle catégorie (Paris: Éditions de la Maison
des sciences de l’homme) 233–250.
References 177
Schama, Simon (1995) Landscape and Memory (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).
Schorske, Carl E. (1981) Fin-de-siècle Vienna. Politics and Culture (New York:
Vintage Books).
Sharp, T. W. (1948) Oxford Replanned (London: Architectural Press).
Skounti, Ahmed (2006) La Place Jemaâ El Fna. Patrimone culturel immatériel de
Marrakech, du Maroc et de l’Humanité (Rabat: Bureau de l’UNESCO pour le
Maghreb).
Skounti, Ahmed (2012) La ville rouge: La medina de Marrakech, Maroc. Patrimoine
mondial: bénéfices au-delà des frontières (Paris: UNESCO Publishing).
Skounti, Ahmed, Tebba, Ouidad (2006) Étude de la transmission et du profil soci-
ologique des acteurs de la Place Jemaâ El Fna de Marrakech (Rabat: UNESCO).
Smith, L., Akagawa, N. (eds.) (2009) Intangible Heritage (London: Routledge).
Soja, Edward W. (1989) Postmodern Geographies. The Reassertion of Space in
Critical Social Theory (London-New York: Verso).
Soja, Edward W. (1996) Thirdspace. Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-
Imagined Places (Cambridge-Oxford: Blackwell).
Sonkoly, Gábor (2000) ‘A kulturális örökség fogalmának értelmezési és alkalmazási
szintjei’ Regio 11:4, 45–66.
Sonkoly, Gábor (2011) Les villes en Transylvanie modern (1715–1857). Essai
d’interprétation (Saarbrücken: Éditions universitaires européenes).
Swittalek, Peter (1982) ‘Der Begriff “Technisches Denkmal” erläutert an oberös-
terreichischen Beispielen’ Kulturzeitschrift Oberösterreich 32:3, 43–49.
Talon-Hugon, Carole (ed.) (2015) Éthique et esthétique de l’authenticité (Nice:
C.R.H.I.– Revue Noesis).
Thanh Huong, Pham Thi (2016) ‘Living Heritage, Community Participation and
Sustainability: Redefining Development Strategies in the Hoi An Ancient Town
World Heritage Property, Vietnam’ in S. Labadi, W. Logan (eds.) Urban
Heritage, Development and Sustainability. International Frameworks, National
and Local Governance (London-New York: Routledge) 274–290.
The Belvedere Memorandum (1999) The Belvedere Memorandum, A policy docu-
ment examining the relationship between cultural history and spatial planning,
http://www.belvedere.nu/download/belvedere_memorandum.pdf., date
The Declaration of Amsterdam (1975) The Declaration of Amsterdam issued by the
Congress of Architectural Heritage, held in Amsterdam, the Netherlands,
21–25, October 1975, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date
178 References
The Granada Convention (1985) Convention for the Protection of the Architectural
Heritage of Europe, http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/Que
VoulezVous.asp?NT=121&CM=8&CL=ENG, date accessed 7 January 2016.
The Kraków Charter (2000) Principles for Conservation and Restoration of Built
Heritage, Cracow 2000, https://www.e-epites.hu/1229, date accessed 31
July 2015.
The Quito Norms (1967) Final Report of the Meeting on the Preservation and
Utilization of Monuments and Sites of Artistic and historical Value held in Quito,
Ecuador (The Norms of Quito) from November 29 to December 2, 1967,
http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts, date accessed 7 January 2016.
Thisbigcity.net (2011) Three Threats to Asia’s Urban Heritage | This Big City,
http://thisbigcity.net/three-threats-asias-urban-heritage/, date accessed 3
January 2015.
Thompson, Andrew (2014) History and Heritage: A Troubled Rapport Care for
the Future: Thinking Forward through the Past, http://careforthefuture.exeter.
ac.uk/2014/02/history-and-heritage-a-troubled-rapport/, date accessed 3
January 2015.
Tietze, Hans (1907) Die Denkmale des politischen Bezirkes Krems in Niederösterreich
(Wien: Schroll).
Treib, Marc (ed.) (2009) Spatial Recall: Memory in Architecture and Landscape
(New York: Routledge).
UNESCO (1962) Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty
and Character of Landscapes and Sites, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.
UNESCO (1968) Recommendation Concerning the Preservation of Cultural
Property Endangered by Public or Private Works, http://portal.unesco.org/en/
ev.phpURL_ID=13085&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.
html, letöltve 2014.7.27 date accessed 7 January 2016.
UNESCO (1972a) Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=13055&URL_
DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, date accessed 7 January 2016.
UNESCO (1972b) Recommendation Concerning the Protection, at National Level,
of the Cultural and Natural Heritage, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.
UNESCO (1976) Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary
Role of Historic Areas, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=13085&
URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, date accessed 7 January
2016.
Heritage Convention, http://whc.unesco.org/archive/out/opgu77.htm, date
References 179
UNESCO (1989) Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture

and Folklore, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=13141&URL_
2016.
UNESCO (2001b), http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/00264-EN.
pdf, date accessed 26 July 2015.
UNESCO (2003) Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage,
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=17716&URL_DO=DO_
TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, date accessed 7 January 2016.
UNESCO (2004) Declaration on Integrated Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible
and Intangible Heritage, http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/23863/
10988742599Yamato_Declaration.pdf, date accessed 7 January 2016.
UNESCO (2005a) World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture, Managing the
Historic Urban Landscape. International Conference, Vienna, 12–14.5. 2005.
Report (Vienna: City of Vienna-UNESCO).
UNESCO (2005b) Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of
Cultural Expressions, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=31038&
URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, letöltve 2014.7.27.
UNESCO (2005c) Declaration on the Conservation of the Historic Urban
2016.
UNESCO (2005d) Vienna Memorandum on World Heritage and Contemporary
UNESCO (2005e) International Conference: World Heritage and Contemporary
Architecture, http://whc.unesco.org/en/events/112/, date accessed 7 January
2016.
UNESCO (2005f) The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
UNESCO (2010a) Preliminary Report on the Draft Recommendation on the
Historic Urban Landscape, http://whc.unesco.org/document/117636, date
UNESCO (2010b) A New International Instrument: The Proposed UNESCO
Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) Comments by
ICOMOS, 24 December 2010, http://www.icomos.org/en/what-we-do/
focus/more-themes/historic-urban-landscape, date accessed 27 July 2014.
180 References

UNESCO (2013) International World Heritage Expert Meeting on Visual
Integrity, 6 to 9 March 2013, Agra, India date accessed, Backround Document,
http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/events/documents/event-992-12.pdf, 7
January 2016.
UNESCO Budapest (2015) Budapest, Including the Banks of the Danube, the Buda
Castle Quarter and Andrássy Avenue, http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/400/
documents/, date accessed 29 December 2015.
UNESCO Cologne (2015) Cologne Cathedral, http://whc.unesco.org/en/
UNESCO Database of National Cultural Heritage Laws, http://portal.unesco.
org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=33928&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_
SECTION=201.html, date accessed 29 December 2015.
UNESCO Dresden (2015) Dresden Elbe Valley, http://whc.unesco.org/en/
UNESCO Graz (2015) City of Graz—Historic Centre and Schloss Eggenberg,
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/931/documents/, date accessed 29
December 2015.
UNESCO Prague (2015) Historic Centre of Prague, http://whc.unesco.org/en/
list/616/documents/, date accessed 29 December 2015.
unesco.org/en/soc/2750, date accessed 29 December 2015.
unesco.org/en/list/784/documents/, date accessed 29 December 2015.
UNESCO Vienna (2001a) Nominations, http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nomi-
nations/1033.pdf, date accessed 15 August 2015.
UNESCO Vienna (2001b) Advisory Body Evaluation, http://whc.unesco.org/
archive/advisory_body_evaluation/1033.pdf., date accessed 15 August 2015.
UNESCO Vienna (2001c) Report of the 25th Session, 11–16 December 2001,
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom01.htm#1033, date accessed 15
August 2015.
(SOC 2008) Historic Centre of Vienna, http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/915,
date accessed 29 December 2015.
UNESCO Vienna (2015a) UNESCO World Heritage Center—State of Conservation
References 181
UNESCO Vienna (2015b) UNESCO-World Heritage; Palace and Gardens of

Schönbrunn (Austria) (C 786) and Historic Centre of Vienna (Austria) (C
1033): State of Conservation Report. Ref.: Decision 37 COM 7 B.71, http://
whc.unesco.org/en/list/1033/documents, date accessed 29 December 2015.
UNESCO Vienna (2015c) Nomination File No. 01106 for Inscription in 2015 on
the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage List of Humanity,
http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/RL/classical-horsemanship-and-
the-high-school-of-the-spanish-riding-school-vienna-01106, date accessed 7
April 2016.
UNESCO WHC (2003) Decisions Adopted by the 27th Session of the World Heritage
Committee in 2003, http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2003/whc03-27com-
24e.pdf, date accessed 15. August 2015.
UNESCO WHC (2004) WHC Summary Record, http://whc.unesco.org/
archive/2004/whc04-28com-inf26e.pdf, date accessed 15. August 2015.
UNESCO WHC (2013) Mission Report on Historic Centre of Vienna (C 1033) &
Palace and Gardens of Schönbrunn (C 786) (Austria) (Paris: UNESCO),
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1033/documents/, date accessed 15 August
2015.
van Eijnatten, J., Jonker, E., Ruberg, W., Segal, J. (2013) ‘Shaping the Discourse
on Modernity’ International Journal for History, Culture and Modernity 1:1,
3–20.
Walker, Mack (1971) German Home Towns. Community, State and General Estate,
1648–1871 (Ithaca-London: Cornell University Press).
Walter, François (2004) Les figures paysagères de la nation. Territoire et paysage en
Europe (16e-20e siècle) (Paris: Éditions de l’Écoles des hautes études en sciences
sociales).
Wehdorn, Manfred (2004) Vienna, a Guide to the UNESCO World Heritage Sites
(Wien-New York: Springer).
Wehdorn, Manfred (2005) Das kulturelle Erbe. Vom Einzeldenkmal zur
Kulturlandschaft (Innsbruck-Wien-Bozen: Studien Verlag).
Wehdorn, Manfred (ed.) (2006) Wien, Weltkulturerbe. Der Stand der Dinge.
Stadtentwicklung Wien (Wien: Stadt Wien).
Wehdorn, M., Csendes, P., Hayder, S., Schwarz, M. (eds.) (2014) Wien (Wien:
Springer).
Wien Geschichte (2015) Verein für Landeskunde von Niederösterreich—Wien
Geschichte Wiki, https://www.wien.gv.at/wiki/index.php/Verein_f%C3%BCr_
Landeskunde_von_Nieder%C3%B6sterreich, date accessed 17 August 2015.
Wiener Naturschutzgesetz (1998) Landesgesetzblatt für Wien, 1998. 45. 175–199,
gang/1998/html/lg1998045.htm, date accessed 15 August 2015.
Wiener Wohnhaussanierungs-Gesetz (1984) Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik
182 References
Zadeh, Lotfi A. (1983) ‘Commonsense Knowledge Representation Based on

Fuzzy Logic’ Computer 16:10, 61–65.
Zadeh, Lotfi A. (2006) ‘Generalized Theory of Uncertainty (GTU)—Principal
Concepts and Ideas’ Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 51, 15–46.
Zunke, R., Wehdorn, J., Wehdorn, M. (eds.) (2014) The Historic Centre of Vienna.
World Cultural Heritage and Vibrant Hub (Wien: City of Vienna).
Index
A Austria, 80, 81, 85, 93, 94, 96, 104,

The Aalborg Charter, 31 108n8, 108n10, 110n34,
academic institutionalization, 2, 52, 113n75, 154
135, 146 authenticity, 3, 6n7, 28–31, 33, 36,
Achleitner, Friedrich, 101, 108n7, 56, 70n217, 86, 91, 106, 127,
114n96 149, 150, 161n6
architecture, 2, 14, 16, 18, 30, 32, 45,
58n28, 65n133, 67n174, 77, 80,
82, 85, 86, 98, 99, 102, 108n7, B
146 Ballarat, 4, 154, 159
area, 18, 27, 30, 31, 36, 38–43, 46, Bandarin, Francesco, 6n3, 6n10, 11,
48, 53, 65n145, 66n159, 16, 17, 43, 51, 57n2, 59n31,
67n169, 81, 83, 85, 87, 90–2, 59n37, 64n120, 69n210,
94, 98, 101, 148, 155, 157, 159, 69n211, 70n217, 93, 99, 107n5,
163n15, 164n18, 164n22, 142n51, 150, 161n1, 161n3,
164n23, 165n26 163n15
historic area, 32, 39, 45, 50, 52, Barcelona, 97, 113
102 Beaudet, Gérard, 15
Asia(n), 4, 6n11, 11, 27, 30, 101, Beijing, 4, 116n107, 154
140n29 Belgium, 15
Athens, 77, 107n1 Benjamin, Walter, 35
The Athens Charter, 9, 22, 26, 30–2, biodiversity, 49, 158
37, 38, 40, 47, 51, 60n54, biopower, 19–22, 145
63n85, 77, 162n8 Blanka Tunnel, 90
Note: Page numbers followed by “n” denote endnotes.

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-49166-0
184 INDEX
Blutgassenviertel, 83 urban heritage conservation, 1–4,

Boulghallat, Adil, 105, 117n118, 36, 47, 51, 78, 101, 148, 149,
117n119 151–4, 156, 158, 159, 163n15
Bratislava, 96, 98, 113n79 contemporary, 1–3, 10, 13, 15,
Braudel, Fernand, 124, 137n4 17–19, 21, 45, 51, 52, 56, 79,
Brett, David, 134, 142n46 86, 99, 102, 104–7, 123, 124,
Bruges, 4, 116n107 126, 129, 131, 132, 134, 136,
Budapest, 59n34, 63n108, 79, 88, 93, 140n32, 140n35, 142n47,
96, 98, 111n43, 113n79, 118, 145–7, 149, 153–8, 162n9,
163n15, 165n26 164n24
Jewish quarter, 90 contemporary architecture, 30, 45,
built rural heritage, 85 58n28, 65n133, 67n174, 77, 82,
The Burra Charter, 29, 40, 46 86, 98, 99, 102
continuity
spatial, 18, 31, 42, 150, 157
C temporal, 32, 34
CDC. See community-driven The Convention on Intangible Cultural
conservation (CDC) Heritage, 33
Central Europe, 96, 97, 102 Cordova, 4, 154
China, 11, 154 Cracow, 35
cityscape or townscape, 14, 15, 35, 85, CUD. See comprehensive urban
86 development (CUD)
climate change, 19, 78 cultural diversity, 1, 41, 42, 49, 54,
co-creation, 134, 158, 160 55, 132, 158, 160
Cologne, 88–90, 99, 103, 111n48, Cultural Heritage, 1, 9, 78, 123–42,
113n84, 117n122 145
Cologne Cathedral, 88–90, 99, cultural landscape, 12, 13, 15, 19, 24,
111n48, 117n122 40–4, 49, 60n53, 80, 82, 84–7,
community, 18, 22, 27, 29, 40, 42, 99, 108n9, 146, 150, 157, 158
47–50, 53–6, 60n51, 64n122, cultural property(ies), 27, 38, 54, 55,
95, 105, 125, 132, 133, 136, 109n17, 113n85, 135
141n41, 142n43, 145, 153, 155, cultural space, 41, 42, 53, 105, 106,
157, 159–61 115n106, 116n115
urban community, 53, 81, 106, 151, cultural tourism, 29, 48
158
community-driven conservation
(CDC), 154–6 D
comprehensive urban development Danube river, 80, 81
(CUD), 154, 156, 157, 163n15 The Declaration of Amsterdam, 31, 32,
conceptual history, 4, 5, 10, 12, 39, 48
16–24, 31, 50, 145, 147, 148 The Declaration of San Antonio, 30,
conservation 40, 48
cultural heritage conservation, 10, Dehio, Georg, 35
19, 21, 52–4, 70n217, 158 Denkmal, 109n17, 110n35
INDEX 185
Denkmalschutz, 82, 104, 135 gentrification, 16, 50, 78, 98

Disneyfication, 18 Gersovitz, Julia, 16, 58n29
Diversity of Cultural Expressions globalization, 12, 28, 55, 69n215,
Convention, 41 117n116, 141n38
Dresden, 88–90, 103 governance, 3, 153
The Dublin Principles, 29, 36, 67n172 The Granada Convention, 31, 39
The Dutch Belvedere Memorandum, 31 Graz, 80, 88, 90, 108n9, 114n92,
154
group of buildings, 38, 39, 110n37
E
Elbe river, 89
England, 14, 99, 137n6, 139n26, 154 H
environment, 10, 13, 15, 17–19, 23, Hadid, Zaha, 90
33, 38, 39, 43, 46, 51, 65n145, Hartog, François, 126–8, 130,
81, 83–6, 89, 95, 101, 110n37, 138n9, 138n11, 138n17,
113n77, 151, 155, 159, 162n9, 140n34, 141n38, 141n40,
162n11, 164n23 146
Europe(an), 12, 13, 15, 30–2, 34, 35, Häupl, Michael, 100
43, 46, 47, 59n34, 59n50, Heimat, 82, 95, 109n17–19, 140n28
60n53, 69n214, 79–81, 83, 85, Heimatschutz, 85, 104, 109, 135
87–90, 95–7, 102–4, 113n79, heritage-city, 105, 159
115n102, 116n113, 117n122, heritage management, 2–4, 36, 52,
123, 129, 133, 136, 139n26, 100, 101, 104, 125, 126, 153,
146–8, 154, 155, 158, 159, 154
162n9, 163n15 heritage structure, 27, 35, 36, 44, 53
Council of Europe, 25, 38 heritage studies, 2, 126, 135, 151,
The European Landscape Convention, 161n5
31, 34, 43 heritagization, 6n7, 13, 106, 108n10,
117n122, 152
high-rise construction, 78, 91, 98, 99,
F 101
fine tuning, 95 historical centre, 19, 39, 45, 52, 53,
The Florence Declaration, 156, 162n11 78–84, 86–94, 98, 101, 108n9,
folklore, 40, 41, 66n153 110n37, 146, 150
Foucault, Michel, 19–22, 55, 59n45, historical culture, 134
145 historical experience, 17, 21
Frampton, Kenneth, 15 historical science, 5, 107, 129, 132,
fuzzy logic, 128, 129 134, 135, 148
historical time, 21, 36, 86, 123, 130,
131, 141n41, 146
G historic character, 90
Geddes, Patrick, 149 Historicity, 5, 18–21, 33, 46, 126,
gentle urban renovation, 83, 84, 86, 127, 130, 136, 141n36, 145–7,
95, 98 155
186 INDEX
Historic Urban Landscape (HUL), 1, International Congresses of Modern

5n1, 5n3, 9–70, 77, 99, 100, Architecture, 30–1
123, 142n51, 145, 154, 162n11 International Council on Monuments
dilemma, 18, 34, 36, 106, 150, and Sites (ICOMOS), 9, 15, 23,
152, 156 25–30, 34, 36, 39, 43–5, 48,
history, 1, 9–70, 77, 123–42, 145 56n61, 60n55, 64n117, 64n118,
holistic approach, 84, 100, 149 87, 91, 93–5, 98, 99, 102,
homogenization, 28, 48, 55 107n2, 147, 154, 156, 162n11,
horizon of expectations, 17, 21, 163n12, 163n14
141n41 international law, 23
HUL. See Historic Urban Landscape The Itaipava Principles, 30, 32, 39
(HUL) Italy, 15, 78, 154
I J
ICOMOS. See International Council Jakob, Michael, 11, 57n3, 58n23
on Monuments and Sites Jameson, Fredric, 17, 59n36, 59n41,
(ICOMOS) 59n42, 141n36, 142n47
identity, 3, 11, 21, 22, 28, 29, 31, 40, Jemaa El-Fna Square, 105, 106,
42, 43, 45, 46, 48–50, 53–5, 116n115
66n159, 69n215, 79, 84, 95, 96, Jokilehto, Jukka, 51, 69n209, 70n217
104, 107, 107n6, 109n19, 123,
125–30, 132–4, 136, 138n12,
140n32, 146, 148, 151, 152, K
155–60 knowledge transmission, 19, 105, 106,
important view, 157, 164n18 151, 156
industrial heritage, 53, 82, 85 Kolhaas, Rem, 18
Intangible Cultural Heritage Koselleck, Reinhart, 59n50, 130,
Convention, 41 140n33
intangible heritage, 1, 9, 24, 28–30, Kos, Wolfgang, 102, 114–15n99
33, 34, 41, 42, 49, 53–6,
66n154, 86, 87, 103–5,
116n106, 140n29, 157, 158, L
161n5 Labadi, Sophia, 3, 4, 6n9, 7n13,
intangible urban heritage, 106, 151 63n108, 161n2, 162n10, 162n11
integrated conservation, 155 landscape management, 13, 34
integrated cultural heritage landscape urbanism, 15
management, 52, 104, 125, List of Masterpieces, 41, 116n115
126, 154 liveability (of the city), 50, 158, 160,
integrative logic, 24, 26, 33, 40, 51, 164n23
101, 103, 145, 148 living urban heritage (LUH), 154–6,
integrity, 29, 30, 48, 54, 56, 70n217, 162n11
70n219, 90, 91, 99, 103, 106, Logan, William, 3, 4, 6n9, 7n13,
150, 156, 161n6 63n108, 161n2, 162n10, 162n11
INDEX 187
Lowenthal, David, 127, 134, 135, P

138n14, 141n42 Palermo, 4, 116n107, 154
Paris, 14, 94, 98
The Paris Declaration, 28, 36, 44, 50,
M 67n172
Madrid, 97, 113n79 participation, 15, 30, 34, 44, 48–50,
management of change, 35–7, 52, 54, 84, 95, 104, 151, 152, 156,
64n118, 64n120, 103 158, 160, 162
management of space, 20, 39 perception of time, 5, 19, 21, 22, 32,
Marrakesh, 4, 105, 116n107, 52, 130–2, 135, 136, 147, 155
117n115, 154 personalization, 161
mechanism of power, 20, 22 Petzet, Michael, 34, 35, 51, 64n117,
Melot, Michel, 124, 137n5 64n118, 64n120, 64n121
milieu, 20, 22, 55, 158 place, 10, 14, 19, 22, 27–30, 40–2,
modernization, 12, 17, 19, 21, 22, 31, 44, 46, 48, 53, 65n125,
32, 52, 55, 128, 130 67n169, 67n172, 77, 79,
Montreal, 14, 15, 45, 157, 161n5 82, 84, 85, 98, 99, 101,
monument, 9–11, 17, 19, 26, 27, 29, 113n76, 118n122, 124, 126,
30, 32, 37–41, 44–7, 51, 52, 55, 130, 137n3, 139n26, 146, 147,
66n152, 78–87, 99, 101, 104, 155, 157, 163n12
105, 107n2, 109n17, 110n35, place of cultural significance, 40, 155,
114n93, 124, 139n26, 147, 149, 163n12
158, 162n9, 163n12 place(s) of memory, 41, 96, 133,
monument protection, 34, 35, 38, 155
45, 64n120, 81–7 polemic visualization, 102, 157
population, 20–2, 48, 78, 115n106,
159, 160, 163n12
N postmodern, 13, 16, 17, 124, 130,
The Nairobi Recommendations, 32 135, 141n36, 160
The Nara Document, 28, 33 Prague, 79, 88, 90, 96, 98, 103,
nationalism, 29, 141n37, 162n9 110n41, 111n43, 113n79
nation-building, 12, 54, 69n214, 159 presentism, 5, 19, 21, 52, 126, 127,
natural heritage, 24, 49, 150, 156, 131, 146
161n5 professionalization, 17, 19, 20, 28, 44,
New Zealand, 30, 67n172, 163n12 102, 103
Nora, Pierre, 133, 138n19, 142n19 public history, 133–5, 141n36,
Nordman, Daniel, 42, 164n22 142n43
O Q
oral history, 133 quarter, 39, 81, 83, 90, 98
outstanding universal value (OUV), The Quebec Declaration, 29, 44
33, 43, 54, 79, 103 The Quito Norms, 31, 32, 38, 47
188 INDEX
R 50, 54, 60n54, 61n56, 77, 91,

regime(s), 18, 19, 21, 130, 135, 145, 101, 145, 148, 152, 153
146, 153, 155, 157, 162n8 Saint Stephen’s Cathedral, Vienna, 81,
Regime of Historicity, 126, 127 110n37
rehabilitation programme, 98 Strache, Heinz-Christian, 93
resilience, 136, 145, 158 sustainability, 1, 3, 4, 12, 13, 19, 28,
Rider, Jacques le, 96, 112n74 33–5, 50, 52, 55, 64n112,
Riegl, Alois, 35, 64n120 64n118, 84, 92, 103, 117n121,
131, 133, 136, 142n51, 145,
147, 149, 157, 158
S Sustainable City (SC), 154–6
Salzburg, 80, 88, 90, 95, 110n41, Swenson, Aristid, 82, 109n17,
117n122 139n26, 140n28
scamscape, 18
Schicker, Rudolf, 93, 112n73
Schönbrunn Palace, 80, 91 T
school history, 32, 134, 135 tangible heritage, 24, 28, 29, 34, 41,
security, 19–22, 31–7, 52, 53, 55, 43, 45, 49, 54, 103, 104, 126,
102, 103, 112n73, 145, 153, 138n7, 148–51, 155, 156, 158
158–61 temporality, 17, 21, 32, 106, 140n31,
Shanghai, 4, 101, 154 141n36, 156, 159
site, 13, 14, 38–42, 53 temporalization, 130
heritage site, 1, 3, 4, 10, 24, 26–8, territorialization, 21, 22, 40–2, 46, 47,
34, 40, 44, 47, 48, 50, 52, 56, 82, 100, 156, 157, 166n159
67n169, 78–81, 83–94, The Xi’an Document, 27
98–105, 108n8, 112n62, The Yamamoto Declaration, 33, 41,
113n84, 114n88, 115n102, 66n152
117n116, 117–18n122, 146, thirdspace, 18
148, 153, 156–9, 163n16, threat(s), 19, 32, 33, 35, 48, 50–2,
164n22, 165n26 55, 79, 88–95, 100–3, 111n44,
Smith, Julian, 16 113n84, 149, 158, 164n24
social platform, 134 threat analysis, 89
Soja, Edward, 18, 59n40, 59n43, threat of delisting, 88, 90
59n45 traditional culture(s), 40, 66n153,
sovereignty, 20 125
space and territory, 42
Spain, 97, 154, 165n27
Spanish Riding School, 104–6, U
115n106, 116n111, 116n113 UN-Habitat programme, 97, 98
spirit of place, 28–30, 44, 53, 65n125, United Nations (UN), 1, 95–8,
155, 163n12 113n75, 113n77
Spittelberg, 83 United Nations Educational Scientific
standard-setting instrument(s), 2, 5, and Cultural Organization
10, 22–31, 36, 40, 41, 44, 46, (UNESCO), 1, 9, 78, 129, 147
INDEX 189
urban development, 1, 3, 16–19, W

59n35, 59n39, 79, 93, 106, Walter, François, 13, 57n10, 58n14
112n62, 114n93, 149, 150, 152 The Washington Charter, 27, 30, 39,
urban heritage, 1, 9, 77, 138n6, 145 46
urban heritage management, 2–4, Wehdorn, Manfred, 80, 100,
100, 101, 153 108n10, 108n12, 108n14,
urban history, 1, 32, 39, 46 108n16, 109n20, 109n22,
urban planning, 1, 2, 14–19, 32, 33, 109n24–6, 110n30, 110n36,
45, 48, 59n34, 59n35, 81, 84, 95, 110n38, 111n47, 112n69,
97, 98, 146, 150–2, 156, 164n24 114n88, 114n94, 114n97,
urban studies, 2, 11, 165n27 114n98, 115n9, 115n100
urban territory, 11, 19, 38–40, 53, 84, Wien-Mitte Project, railway station,
102, 150 91–3
utopia, 16–19, 141n37, 150 World Heritage, 1, 3, 4, 10–12,
24, 38, 40, 42, 43, 45, 49, 50,
54, 56, 60n53, 67n162,
V 69n212, 77–96, 98–105,
The Valletta Principles, 27, 35, 36, 44, 108n8, 108n10, 111n41,
50, 67n172 112n62, 112n73, 113n84,
Vancouver, 4 114n85, 114n88, 115n102,
van Oers, Ron, 6n3, 6n10, 11, 16, 17, 116n107, 117n115,
43, 51, 57n2, 59n31, 59n37, 117–18n122, 123, 136,
59n39, 64n120, 69n210, 137n2, 146, 150, 154, 157–9,
69n211, 70n217, 100, 107n5, 163n16
114n93, 142n51, 150, 161n1, World Heritage Committee, 43,
161n3, 163n15 63n108, 99
Varanasi, 150, 151, 154 World Heritage Convention, 26,
Venice, 35, 77, 78, 107n2, 150, 151 33, 37–40, 47, 49, 52,
The Venice Charter, 25–7, 31, 33–5, 60n52, 63n108, 70n219, 80,
38, 47, 51, 60n54, 77, 78, 107n2 124
Vienna, 4, 11, 77–118, 146 World Heritage Institute of Training
Vienna Memorandum, 11, 15, 16, 44, and Research, 4
58n28, 58n29, 60n54, 67n174
The Vienna Memorandum, 11, 15, 16,
25, 27, 30, 35, 44–6, 51, 56, Z
58n28, 58n29, 60n54, 77–118, Zadeh, Lotfi, 128, 139n23, 139n24
146 zone, zoning
visual integrity (VI), 16, 58n27, buffer zone, 81, 87, 90–3, 98, 101,
70n217, 87, 90–2, 95, 99–104, 102, 157, 164n18
114n99, 146, 148, 151, 153–7 core zone, 92, 101, 102

Historical Urban Landscape

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Historical Urban Landscape

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

HISTORICAL

ISBN 978-3-319-49165-3 ISBN 978-3-319-49166-0 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017930215

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

Cover image © Nick Norman / National Geographic / Getty

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

My research was hosted by institutions to which I am extremely grateful,

2 The History of Historic Urban Landscape 9

3 Vienna and The Vienna Memorandum 77

4 History and Cultural Heritage 123

CDC Community-driven Conservation

Fig. 3.1 Number of recognitions of World Heritage Sites in the

Historic urban landscape (HUL) is the most recently codified1 notion

© The Author(s) 2017 1

Spanish histórico refers to both “historic” and “historical”; therefore, the

periodization of cultural and social changes in relationship to the levels

The number of heritage cities is growing exponentially not only

to History by applying the theory of Regimes of Historicity. Thus, the

elements by various authors. Francesco Bandarin and Ron van

12. Ballarat (2013) Ballarat and UNESCO’s historic urban landscape

UNESCO (2005c) Vienna Memorandum on World Heritage and Contemporary

The History of Historic Urban Landscape

© The Author(s) 2017 9

of ­sustainable development—with those of concerned social actors, most

The chronology of the genesis of HUL will be examined in detail in

The Emergence of the Notion of Urban Landscape

significant ­differences could be mentioned about the interpretations of

newly founded The Architectural Review to refer to developments in the

by the gaze could seemingly conclude with the subsequent definition of

The Analytical Framework of the Conceptual

ernist utopian ideologies aiming at a brighter future. As urban planning

of the definition of HUL are to be solved by attributing the same sig-

necessary since environmental concerns channel every urban development

“Security, territory, population”46 at the Collège de France in the late

loss, which is essential for cultural heritage conservation. Security inte-

point of view of security, these processes were manifested in the division

The Database of Standard-Setting Instruments

The international legislation and regulation of urban heritage preserva-

any social or cultural change without difficulty. From the perspective of

theoretical reflection triggered by The World Heritage Convention in the

on the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites (2008c)

aggressive nationalism and the suppression of the cultures of minorities.”70

Buildings (1972)76 consider the social aspects of (tangible) cultural heri-

Congresses of Modern Architecture, is considered as the starting point

The Changing Perception of Security and Time

The examined international documents, without exception, call for a halt

cesses such as armed conflicts, trafficking in monuments and artistic

tradition of urban planning characterized by intergenerational fractures of

identifying and safeguarding intangible cultural heritage.”110 The European

of public policy worldwide. It is a response to the need to preserve shared

The Conceptual Evolution of the Territory

of urban sites for protection is generally justified by cultural factors. The

standardized expression intended to describe the territorial unit of urban

to the vocabulary of monument conservation, dividing the urban territory

the safeguarding of urban World Heritage. One possible answer can be

of Heritage Structures (2005), that refers to The Vienna Memorandum and

Recommendation’s vocabulary are reflected in its Glossary of Definitions,

temporary comprehensive nature of cultural heritage. The significance of

The Conceptual Evaluation of the Community

Urban heritage conservation is already fundamentally defined as a legal

were completed by community participation as the fifth official strategic

interpretations, which are easily accessible in the virtual archives of the

has borne an inherent contradiction to the perception of time since its

2 The History of Historic Urban Landscape 9

3 Vienna and The Vienna Memorandum 77

4 History and Cultural Heritage 123

of sustainable development—with those of concerned social actors, most

significant differences could be mentioned about the interpretations of