Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Progress in Planning
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/progress

The politics of conservation planning: A comparative study of urban heritage

making in the Global North and the Global South☆
Elisabetta Pietrostefani, Nancy Holman*
Departmentof Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), United Kingdom

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Urban heritage is the category of heritage that most directly concerns the environment of each and every person.
Conservation Conservation or the integration of the built historic environment in city planning is typically viewed as a de-
Planning sirable undertaking, and policies to this effect are established as an integral element of planning in many
Heritage countries. Our paper investigates the complexities at play between conservation planning structures, their ap-
Value
plications and how these vary between contexts. It asks: how does conservation compare between planning
Governance
Urban
systems of the North and South and what does this suggest about heritage value? Based on a survey of con-
Comparative analysis servation planning systems in 5 countries, focusing on 5 city case-studies, this paper studies conservation’s
position within planning in current urban policy in different contexts. Our paper analyses how different planning
systems have adopted and integrated urban heritage definitions and accordingly, how zoning techniques, gov-
ernance levels and planning constraints have resulted in quite varied conservation planning outcomes not only
between the North and South but between European examples alone. In exploring contexts where the desirability
of conserving and enhancing the historic environment is overlooked, overturned or simply ignored despite the
existence of conservation policies, this paper also explores the limitations regulation has in pinning down
heritage values.

1. Introduction mean that historic structures and urban forms are valued more highly
than new urban architecture or the many other cultural assets in cities.
Comparative studies on planning are never easy. What to leave in? Rather we are actively choosing to focus on an aspect of planning policy
What to exclude? Where to study? - are all questions that must be ad- and how it is practiced that purports to support cultural precepts of
dressed and involve choices, value judgements and justifications in what matters in place. In so doing, we build a picture of how heritage
response. For our part, we have chosen to focus on a single aspect of policy gets applied in different contexts focusing specifically on the
historic conservation policy, the conservation of heritage areas in cities history of policy; the official discourse of planning regulation; and most
in the Global North and the Global South. We have chosen cities as importantly the nature of politics, culture and governance in the ulti-
there is generally higher pressure to develop land and largely due to the mate implementation and practice of policy. Our findings suggest that
intensity of development, cities have far more heritage areas than do there is no clear model of Global North or Global South planning as
their rural counterparts. Conservation policy also illuminates the ten- context and circumstantial histories matter.
sions present in the urban land nexus (Scott & Storper, 2015) where a The objective of our paper therefore is to untangle how conservation
desire to protect common pool resources and a desire to develop land planning systems and the local value of urban heritage are linked across
means that regulation and market forces can be brought into tight focus several different planning contexts in the Global North and the Global
for examination. At the heart of the paper we believe that it is often this South drawing on the idea of planning cultures (Booth, 2011; Friedmann,
juxtaposition of desire to develop or a desire to conserve that offers a 2005; Knieling & Othengrafen, 2015; Othengrafen & Reimer, 2013;
window into what is valued and how that value gets expressed. This is Sanyal, 2005; Valler & Phelps, 2018), which can be thought of as ‘…the
not to say that affective impacts of heritage do not matter, nor does this collective ethos and dominant attitudes of planners regarding the

☆
We would like to thank all the interviewees who participated in this study greatly enriching our analysis. We thank seminar participants in Gothenburg (AESOP
2018), London (LSE Economic Geography WIP) and London (Writing the World Seminar), in particular Austin Zeiderman, Alan Mace, Claire Mercer and Megan
Ryburn.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Holman).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2020.100505
Received 31 May 2019; Received in revised form 31 January 2020; Accepted 20 May 2020
0305-9006/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Elisabetta Pietrostefani and Nancy Holman, Progress in Planning, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2020.100505
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

appropriate role of the state, market forces, and civil society in influ- national and more specifically urban context in order to reveal how
encing social outcomes’ (Sanyal, 2005, p. xxi). As regulation has been societies value heritage, to then address challenges to these values and
argued to be a way of enforcing collectively rational behaviour and how systems, challenges and values are variegated across local con-
pinning down local values (Ahlfeldt & Holman, 2015; Bevir, Rhodes, & texts.
Weller, 2003; Holman, Mossa, & Pani, 2018) we see this as a good way An interpretative approach also helps us avoid post-colonial dis-
of examining how heritage is valued in these diverse contexts. Through courses in addressing conservation in the Global South given that
30 in-depth interviews (see Appendix A) and a comparative analysis of conservation is most often first formalised through legislation backed
the ways in which heritage is regulated through the planning system in by colonial governments or similar. As we shall see, although the
five case-study cities our paper will address our objective through an starting point for conservation planning in our southern case-studies is
examination of four key areas. First, we will discuss the ‘creation of often adopted from western discourses, the systems evolve differently in
heritage’ and its link to value. Secondly, we will outline the evolution of light of contextual parameters, similar to our northern cases. We are
heritage policy within the context of national planning systems that thus able to carry out our exercise by adopting the same lens to our
relate to each of our case study cities. Thirdly we will illustrate within southern case-studies as we did our northern cases (Balbo, 2014;
our cities how these regulations have shaped space and in our final Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000; James & Lodge, 2003, 270). Via this com-
section we will examine the politics of enforcement. In so doing, we parative analysis (Clarke, 2012; Sanyal, 2005), we denote relationships
illustrate how various regulations and definitions of heritage reveal across and between ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ models allowing us to
how heritage gets valued through planning policy and; how challenges develop new theoretical models that avoid valorising western per-
to these values in the form of the application or the evasion of reg- spectives of planning (McFarlane, 2010).
ulations occur and in turn how localised and variegated these values are The finer points of the analysis are rooted in a series of elite semi-
in practice. structured in-depth interviews carried out between June 2016 and
We take an interpretive approach, addressing the question through January 2017 in London, Paris, Milan, Beirut and Rio de Janeiro. All
textual analysis of official documents, semi-structured in-depth inter- our respondents were asked similar questions to increase overall com-
views with planning officers and a policy mapping of both Northern and parability. These included questions on historic and current trends in
Southern cities illustrating the extent of the protected areas in each city Urban Heritage Areas (UHA) designation and regulation; the relation-
(Bevir & Rhodes, 2006; Hamin, 2003; Holman, 2014). This method, ship of this with policy implementation; and, for local planners, how
following Bevir and Rhodes (2006, 89), was chosen as it allows us to residents interacted with these regulations. Given the geographic reach
analyse the influence of regulation on value, given that ‘people adopt of this study, cities were chosen based on several factors. Practical
beliefs and perform actions against the backdrop of an inherited tra- considerations included the language competencies of the researchers,
dition that influences them’. Traditions in this case are those formalised geo-referenced data availability and existing contacts. More sub-
by conservation planning. The underlying challenge is that, in order to stantively we first wanted to have cities with a similarity in planning
grasp how urban heritage is valued differently between countries, we ‘families’ (Newman & Thornley, 1996) with Milan, Paris, Beirut and Rio
must start by considering the legislative framework in order to gain a de Janeiro all being from the Napoleonic tradition. Here London was
better understanding of how value emerges (Ahlfeldt & Holman, 2015; also included as a city with a very different planning history but also a
Holman et al., 2018; Pani, 2017). strong culture of conservation policy. We also wished to look at country
Our approach was chosen in order to come to terms with com- specific cities with interesting policy characteristics or planning chal-
plexity. It rests on a philosophical analysis of meaning – in our case lenges in the implementation of heritage policy. To this end we chose
value – in formalised actions: the actions being legislation or the Paris as a city rich in heritage with quite rigid regulations (Cornu,
written plan and its implementation through government officials 2003); London as a city with a significant housing crisis often attributed
(Bevir & Rhodes, 2006; Thomas, 2005). An interpretative approach to restrictive planning; (see Cheshire & Hilber, 2008; Cheshire &
distinguishes itself through theoretical views, that allow us to make Dericks, 2014; Hilber, 2015), Milan as a city with stringent regulations
sense of the governance of conservation planning in various contexts yet recent development trends (Savini & Aalbers, 2016); Rio de Janeiro
(Bevir et al., 2003) and respects the notion that planning cultures are as a city where rapid urbanisation has led to the destruction of parts of
dynamic (Bishwapriya, 2005, p. 22). It will allow us to make some the historic core of the city (Simon & Braathen, 2019), and Beirut a city
initial deductions on how conservation planning plays out in various where postwar reconstruction has done more damage to the historic
cities, and to interpret what these actions suggest about the negotiation core than did the war (Puzon, 2019).
between intrinsic and economic value. This of course takes into account The interviewees were selected by integrating purposive and chain
that our analysis of meanings can grasp meaning only as part of a wider sampling techniques. First, officers occupying positions at different le-
web of beliefs – the other elements of urban planning – knowing that vels of government in handling the designation and management of
heritage is only a small portion of them (Bevir & Rhodes, 2006, 15). conservation areas were contacted. They were asked to provide further
To work through specific examples of how heritage is valued in contacts, which enabled access to representatives at all levels of gov-
these local contexts, we are limiting our comparison of conservation ernment (state, regional, local). The interview strategy thus included
planning to three contexts in the Global North and two in the Global combined elements of maximal variation and snowball sampling of
South: England, France, Italy, Brazil and Lebanon using London, Paris, interviewees nested into the initial purposive sampling (Creswell, 2009;
Milan, Rio de Janeiro and Beirut as case-study cities. Each planning Flyvbjerg, 2006). Interviewees included architects, planners, politi-
system has its own peculiar starting point borne out of specific societal cians, and association or NGO members and activists. Interviewees
conditions and social models (see Marchettini et al., 2014; Minnery, were encouraged to discuss the appropriateness of conservation plan-
Storey, & Setyono, 2012; Newman & Thornley, 1996; Sotomayor & ning in their local contexts given other urban pressures. The final
Daniere, 2018, Watson, 2015). In part this is what makes comparative sample includes 30 interviews, approximately six for each analysed
planning led by an interpretive approach (Bevir & Rhodes, 2006), that city. Interviews were kept to under one hour and recorded, and inter-
takes value seriously (Ahlfeldt & Holman, 2015; Holman et al., 2018; viewees were guaranteed anonymity (Creswell, 2009). This design al-
Pani, 2017) such an effective way of examining how societies value lowed the participants to express diverse ideas and allowed us to react
particular aspects of physical and social infrastructures. It is these ‘soft and follow up on emerging viewpoints.
cultural’ aspects of what is and is not valued that have for a large part In Section 2, our paper proceeds with a review both of urban heri-
produced differences in very similar planning systems (Ernste, 2012). tage definitions in the theoretical literature and its different values. A
Our first goal is therefore to build a thick description (Sanyal, 2005, clear theoretical sense of the units of analysis is necessary before in-
p.12) of the various regulations and definitions of heritage in each itiating comparative analysis. Section 3 compares the development of

2
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

conservation planning legislation at the national level in England, to our analysis as they form a part of heritage planning most closely
France, Italy, Brazil, and Lebanon, highlighting the differences between aligned with area-based policies and imply both preservation and
systems that have been considered best practice examples of con- adaptive reuse.
servation planning (Albrecht & Magrin, 2015; Cornu, Negri, Bady, & The question then turns to how heritage is identified or ‘created’ via
Leniaud, 2013). Given the complexity of these issues, the goal of this regulation, (Pendlebury, 2009, 7). This typically results in a legal re-
paper is not to provide a thorough description of each national con- cognition or technical obligation to conserve urban heritage. As we
servation planning system (for which references will be provided), but shall see, the buildings, districts and other spaces designated by na-
to disentangle the elements, which will be most likely to influence how tional, regional or local government are conceived in diverse ways
urban heritage is valued beyond its policy. Section 4 then moves on to using a variety of evidence and policy motivations. This variety fre-
see how these regulations developed at the national level are applied quently results in a diversity in the physical evolution of cities. The
locally in our case study cities: London, Pairs, Milan, Rio de Janeiro and conservation of this stock includes stabilisation, rehabilitation, re-
Beirut. Finally, in Section 5, we reflect on intrinsic vs economic value storation, and other supportive activities, which vary greatly. In con-
and the politics of policy implementation. texts where ‘heritage creation’ is effectively integrated into planning
Our case-studies will reveal that although conservation planning systems, conservation policy helps to underpin value by legally estab-
originates in associated legal families, it is influenced by planning lishing protection for UHAs. It is therefore possible to unpick what is
cultures and national frameworks, specifically the opportunities and valued by first understanding what the regulations define as heritage
constraints of national planning systems, which vary greatly (Clarke, and second examining how far the regulation extends in terms of limits
2012; Keller, Koch, & Selle, 1996; Nadin & Stead, 2008). In practice, to development.
conservation planning thus assumes many different meanings, and Bearing in mind that legislation is known to follow some way be-
seems to be more closely linked to context than the authors would hind public or societal attitudes (Larkham, 1992, 96), there is a broader
originally have thought, even in neighbouring European settings conceptualisation of what is meant by the historic environment, which
(Friedmann, 2011; Newman & Thornley, 1996). Our survey of case- goes beyond what is designated by a governmental body. As noted by
studies suggests that local urban heritage value differs widely according Rautenberg (2003), heritage specification is predicated on two pro-
to geographical location and historical context (Albrecht & Magrin, cesses; the first is founded in heritage legislation, which creates ‘na-
2015; Balbo, 2012; Batista & Macedo, 2010; Cornu et al., 2013). If this tionally legitimate’ and ‘legally binding’ specifications with the second
is so, value systems are linked to the evolution of policy, which reacts to linked to socio-cultural factors emanating from what ‘counts’ as heri-
both location and history. tage to the population. For Rautenberg (2003), it is the social process of
Finally, in our conclusion we discuss our understanding of the place valuing that precedes the creation of legally binding designation.
of conservation within planning in current urban policy and what our Therefore, before designation occurs, a form of appropriation materialises
findings suggest about how urban heritage is valued throughout dif- through actors such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and
ferent contexts. In concluding, we bring out more of the parallels be- community based organisations (CBOs) in the planning policy process
tween our northern and southern case-studies, to suggest there is no (Balbo, 2014, 272). In certain Southern contexts, these actors have
simple model that is particularly Northern or Southern. increasingly filled the role of legislative agencies in light of a wide-
range of government limitations. To facilitate an effective comparative
2. ‘Heritage creation’ and its link to value exercise, however, this paper will limit itself to formalised processes, as
it is within these moments of codification that societal preferences and
2.1. Heritage as part of planning? values are formally underpinned.
The appreciation that heritage conservation as a part of planning
In many contexts, the conversion of the material city into an object comprises ‘…a culture of decision-making and the ways in which that
of historic knowledge was provoked by the extensive and rapid trans- culture is expressed in the institutions of the state and the legal system’
formation of urban space after the industrial revolution. This radical we concur with Booth (2011, p. 16) that this illustrates that this ‘…
moment in the evolution of cities provoked the investigation and in- shapes the way in which planning is understood and put into effect’
terrogation of the ‘old city’ creating a context in which the ‘monument’, (Booth, 2011, p. 25). This inevitably makes it a political enterprise
the ‘listed building’ or the ‘building of architectural value’ became the further reinforced through the understanding that the city is a political
starting point for conservation efforts. Definitions, speed of develop- actor in itself (Palermo & Ponzini, 2010; Poulot, 2006). Thus, this
ment and political appetite naturally varied across countries but the historic and geographic construction establishes the un-designation or
underlining principle of the retention of a sense of cultural and archi- disregard for heritage as an equally political choice, which confirms
tectural inheritance remains the same (Cornu, Fromageau, & Wallaert, that undesignated heritage is not necessarily without value.
2012, 2013; Earl, 2015). We accept the limits of our study – it will not address civil society as
As heritage preservation became more embedded in policy it moved a part of the governance system directly, in order to make the cases
beyond the ambit of antiquaries and architects making room for con- more easily comparable. We will, however, identify in which cases
servation policy to emerge. This shift allowed for function to be con- actors are more significant than others in terms of their formal and
sidered alongside form (Ashworth, 2011), enabling a broader policy informal roles and powers (Minnery et al., 2012). As suggested by Balbo
scope, encompassing building ensembles, public spaces such as streets, (2014, 282), we need to be aware in our reflection, of who is leading
stairs, green and open spaces and even entire neighbourhoods (Bernier, the governance of conservation within each of our reviewed planning
Dormaels, & Le Fur, 2012; Choay, 1992; Habitat III, 2015; Tunbridge, systems. In cases where state governance is lacking, it may have been
1984). In part, this was a recognition that it is the area and the setting taken over by alternative entities.
that often creates social, cultural economic and environmental value in The underlining factor is that urban heritage is an active process of
a city (Ashworth, 2011; Dalmas, Geronimi, Noël, & Tsang King Sang, identification (Smith, 2006). As this paper will show, although the
2015; Larkham, 1992; Licciardi & Amirtahmasebi, 2012; Lowenthal, starting point for conservation planning is the same or similar in most
1985; Pendlebury, 2009; Smith, 2006). This is because urban fabric case-studies presented, the evolution is perhaps not so surprisingly,
often characterises an historic urban example, a unique population quite different. This is natural as the process of identification is ne-
density, street pattern or other important urban morphological or cul- cessarily linked to cultural, political and economic principles, which
tural features (Tweed & Sutherland, 2007). It is therefore intimately affect the intrinsic values of urban heritage. If these principles change
related to place-based planning and policy objectives or as noted by or evolve, as argued by Pendlebury (2009, 7) ‘…not only can heritage
Burke (1976) ‘preserving purposefully’. This makes UHAs ideally suited identification change but it can also be contested’.1 The process

3
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

becomes more complex when you consider the multitude of factors

linked to conservation planning. For example, who is actually identi-
fying urban heritage? And how does this change how value is de-
termined? Is it central government, local government or communities?
Moreover, how is value justified? For example, although urban heritage
was traditionally linked to cultural concerns, (Pendlebury, 2009) this
has changed as culture has been overtaken by issues like economic
development or even sustainability. Here we see the frame of heritage
subtly mutate in order to take on the dominant concerns of the day so
that it remains relevant and maintains a certain gravitas (Gayego,
2014).
Values will unavoidably vary according to local historical and
geographical frameworks. Given the past dominance of the North in
shaping planning theory and practice (Watson, 2015), a comparison
with the South can be useful in unpicking taken-for-granted assump-
tions about how planning addresses certain issues and re-questions
Fig. 1. Intrinsic and economic values.
differences between the North and South (McFarlane, 2010; Roy, Note: Fig. 1 is adapted from Zouain (2002).
2009). Cities of the South are often conceptualised as a less-developed,
which frequently implies an underdevelopment of their regulatory and
governance systems (Roy, 2009). Comparative analysis between the have in providing for a human want or need). As has been well estab-
North and South has therefore often been a question of policy transfer – lished, markets and regulation interact in cities (Ahlfeldt and Holman,
where the adaptation of a Northern model to a Southern context is 2015; Balbo, 2014), making it necessary to analyse the relationships
assessed. This vision is stressed within a heritage discourse, where the between planning systems and urban heritage’s use values as well as its
notion of patrimonialisation is repeatedly said to be a European one non-use values.
(Choay, 1992). Although the notion was certainly born in Europe, it Stemming from capital theory, Rizzo and Throsby (2006) describes
seems unfair to presuppose that every effort to embed heritage con- heritage as an asset. The notions of ‘capital’ and ‘heritage’ present a
servation in the planning regimes of Southern cities derives from a number of similarities, they are both stocks of material assets, or of
European notion of patrimonial consciousness and an attempt to adapt wealth, which can offer a source of income (Vernieres et al., 2012).
this to a non-European context. As discussed, ‘heritage creation’ is an Moreover, heritage as capital requires investment to maintain it (Ost,
active process. It may certainly start as an exogenous concept coming 2009). And conservation can, although this is not always the case, fa-
from colonial compulsions, but the development of heritage in the cilitate an investment process of allocating resources over time. For
planning paradigm deserves the benefit of doubt when considering example, heritage buildings are re-used (adaptive reuse) for con-
national policies (Hanna, 2010). Moreover, it will allow us to assess the temporary activities or develop a framework for tourism. Investment,
adoption of economic and culturally specific planning tools for every however, also highlights the opposition between economic and intrinsic
given city through the same lens: a view supported by many (Balbo, values of heritage and how they evolve at different rates (Throsby,
2014; Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000; James & Lodge, 2003, 270). 2010; Vecco, 2007). If we consider only the economic value, through
As we shall see, because every example is different, one cannot even revenue extraction and tourism exploitation of heritage, its other values
identify a specific ‘Northern’ model that would apply to every Northern will decrease slowly every year as we can see from Fig. 1 (left side); the
example, as there will always be variegation. Therefore, if we are to more urban heritage is exploited, the greater the loss of its intrinsic
examine Northern cases through this lens expecting variation there is values (Zouain, 2002, 221). The search for an equilibrium, that max-
no reason not to apply this logic to Southern cases as well. In fact by imises economic contribution while respecting the patrimonial aspects
proceeding in this manner we may more easily form an iterative loop – the junction point of the two curves – is thus necessary for a ‘living’
whereby Southern case studies might offer insights into the re-theori- urban heritage to exist, and in practice proves difficult. The paradox of
sation of planning in the North (McFarlane, 2010; Roy, 2011). The lens urban heritage in the economy of any given city is that it is precisely the
will also help us to avoid problems linked with post-colonial theorisa- recognition intrinsic heritage values that allows for economic ex-
tion and explore new theoretical possibilities (McFarlane, 2010). ploitation (Ost, 2009).2
Comparative thinking is a well-suited strategy for revealing the dis- As we see in Fig. 1 after a subjective growth of intrinsic value, there
tinctiveness and limits of particular theoretical claims, and also for is a corresponding rise in economic use-value3 (accessibility, use of the
formulating new lines of inquiry (Clarke, 2012; McFarlane, 2010; good) of urban heritage. The pursuit of this economic value begins to
Sanyal, 2005). Only through such comparisons can an understanding of diminish the intrinsic value through its consumption (Zouain, 2002)
the place of conservation within planning in current urban policy be causing its shrinkage. Despite this the economic value is partially re-
teased out, in order to speculate on future progression and possible tained, as cities are still able to use structures even if the building stock
responses (Balbo, 2014, 270; Minnery et al., 2012). loses its heritage related values. Given that conservation planning ne-
cessarily influences the determination of value through its identifica-
tion process, it is important to consider these relationships. In fact, as
2.2. Opposing values – intrinsic vs. economic we shall see, distinct conservation planning systems will give weight to
one value over another determined in large part by societal desires il-
As discussed earlier, one way that heritage value can be expressed is lustrated by the production of stringent or lax regulation and the ap-
through an examination of regulation creation, its application or its plication of that regulation strictly or liberally. The stability of an urban
evasion. This is because it illustrates the tensions that are ever present
between a desire to extract value from land and a desire, in this case, to
2
retain values that are cultural and historic. In this section of the paper Non-use values are a pre-requisite to use values in heritage cases; without
we move to consider urban heritage’s use values (or the utility it may non-use values market transactions would not be generated and additional
economic value would not be created.
3
Here we are speaking specifically of use value in its economic sense taken
1
By intrinsic values we mean all intangible values associated with a given from environmental economics, rather than ‘use-value’ from the perspective of
urban heritage, whether they be cultural, historical, social, or environmental. Marxian political economy.

4
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

ecosystem that integrates heritage into development decisions will to bridge conservation planning with the construct of value, we must
therefore require a system of planning, be it state or non-state led, to attempt to explain the complex way in which value links back to the
manage this process. planning paradigm.

2.3. Total economic value 3. Conservation planning in the Global North and the Global
South
Although we have established that urban heritage values sometimes
work in opposition (economic vs intrinsic values), we need to delimit 3.1. Starting points of heritage conservation
their multidimensional character (Navrud & Ready, 2002; Vernieres
et al., 2012). If we considered only the use-value of heritage buildings, The state of conservation of buildings and spaces can reflect many
their value would often be lower than that of new builds and the re- things: level of income, education, social and behavioural habits, ulti-
storation of urban heritage would always be considered an expenditure mately the stratification of factors that contribute to defining the un-
of resources that could be better used in other ways (Provins et al., ique characteristics of a community. All these aspects are, however, in
2005; Tuan & Navrud, 2007). Urban heritage values are most simply most cases, heavily influenced by the planning systems that underline
understood through the well-known delineation of Total Economic the realities of conservation in a given country. The market has not
Value (TEV) adapted from environmental economic theory where forms proven to be a reliable institution for allocating present and future
of value are monetary but also social, cultural/aesthetic, environmental consumption; urban heritage is therefore strongly dependent upon
and historical (Provins et al., 2005; Serageldin, 1999; Vernieres et al., regulation to pin down value and help determine supply (Ahlfeldt &
2012). Holman, 2015; Rizzo & Towse, 2002).
TEV considers both use and non-use values of urban heritage, ap- In the cases of England, France and Italy, the first examples of urban
pealing to the marketable and non-marketable sides of the equation heritage legislation appeared over a century ago. Each system started
(Pagiola, 1996). The use values of a heritage asset are the direct eco- with listed building designation and then evolved to include its own
nomic benefits that derive from it such as revenues or service transac- unique interpretation of UHAs. In England the process began with the
tions that increase in value because of their presence in heritage 1882 Ancient Monument’s Protection Act, updated in 1953 with the
buildings (Vernieres et al., 2012). For example, lack of accommodation Historic Buildings and Monuments Act (Historic England, 2015a; Civic
and supply of goods and services in an urban heritage environment can Amenities Act 1967, Chapter 69, 1967). In France a first law was in-
result in missed opportunities for induced growth, development and troduced in 1887 and updated in 1913 with amendments that made
welfare. Non-use values, which can be divided between environmental, provisions to classify buildings of historic or artistic value to the public
cultural, social and historic are often interlinked and refer to the assets without the owner’s consent, public or private, and entailing the ob-
people attach intrinsic socio-cultural values to (existence value), or that ligation to not modify the building, or any section of it without ob-
are closely associated with a way of life and its legacy (bequest value) taining permission from local government (Cornu et al., 2013;
(Serageldin, 1999; Smith, 2006). Existence value can be defined as the Devernois, Muller, & Le Bihan, 2014). In Italy the Legge Nasi (n. 185/
value placed upon the knowledge that a heritage asset exists. For a good 1902) first established a list of national monuments and was further
to have existence value there are two necessary conditions: uniqueness developed by the Legge Bottai (n. 1089/1939) which addressed the
and irreversibility. If these conditions are not present, then the good in needed protection of structures of artistic or historic interest (Carughi,
question probably has a small or zero existence value. 2012). Article 9 of the Italian Constitution, moreover, states the need to
These values are often tied to identity, aesthetic or architectural protect and enhance both the landscape, historical and artistic heritage
qualities, social structures and community values but also to more of the nation (Cosi, 2008). In each case, the legislative framework
general urban atmospheres that are typical of specific urban environ- started with architectural inscriptions within a heritage legislative
ments. Finally, option value is heritage’s ‘insurance policy’, referring to framework where individual buildings are classified or listed in the
a heritage asset’s possible future value or the value of the information French case, given a Grade I, II or II* in the English case, or classified as
we can derive from it (OECD, 2007). It supposes that even if there is no being of ‘great cultural interest’ (monumenti) or of minor architectural
imminent plan for a heritage asset, its destruction will result in an ir- value or ‘other interest’ (beni architettoici) in the Italian case (Ministero
reversible impact and loss; there is a high value associated with not dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo, 2016).
making irreversible decisions. Although TEV considers the values of Similar to our European cases, the legislative framework in Brazil
urban heritage holistically, it cannot reflect them all nor explain all the and Lebanon also began with architectural inscriptions. In both cases,
relationships. Especially as, all cases are different; certain examples of the first examples of urban heritage legislation appeared in the 1930s.
urban heritage may present greater social values while others greater The first conservation law in Lebanon dates back to the French mandate
cultural ones. (1920–1942) and stipulates the protection of urban heritage within all
Importantly for our analysis conservation planning systems and how artefacts dating before 1700 through the Antiquities Law (166/LR - 7/
restrictive they are will vary according to which urban heritage values 11/1933) (Audrerie, 2000; Tyan, 2012). It also declared that im-
they stress. Few planning systems will enforce regulations preserving all moveable objects dated after 1700 may be preserved if special public
values, for if they did, we would be left with static historic cities not interest of historic or artistic value can be ascertained (Toubekias &
responding to contemporary urban needs brining us back to earlier Dentzer, 2009, 16). Merely 20 years after the monuments law in France,
notions of preservation instead of conservation (Ashworth, 2011). In- Lebanon had introduced a law that recognised the diverse values of
deed, the identification of all these values does not imply their use in stand-alone buildings, both historic and artistic and similar to its
practice (Vernieres et al., 2012, 72). TEV does, however, help to northern counterparts, the legislation specified two ways of inscription.
identify the different values that contribute to decision-making, these In Lebanon a building could either be inscribed by ministerial decree or
decisions are typically informed by conservation planning or the lack of classified by the Head of State (Article 26) on an inventory of historic
such a system or the evasion of its regulations. Conservation planning is monuments managed by the General Directorate of Antiquities, a part
made complex as each value ascribed to urban heritage is contested by of the Ministry of Culture (Hanna, 2010; Tyan, 2012).
a variety of stakeholders participating in the ‘heritage creation’ process. As with Italy, the first reference to immoveable heritage in Brazil is
This appeals to one of the old tales of planning: given a reality, can in the Constitution (1934). It states that ‘it is the responsibility of the
planning powers intervene to shift the balance of forces toward social Union and the States to protect natural beauties and monuments of
goals in the ongoing processes of urban restructuring and, if so, with artistic and historical value’ (Castriota, 2008; da Silva, 2012b, 120).
what tools? (Friedmann, 2008, 250; Palermo & Ponzini, 2012). In order The 1937 Constitution then transmitted the responsibility to protect

5
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

historic monuments to municipalities and swiftly recognised the natural including ‘beautiful ensembles’4 which are ‘complexes of immobile
value of landscapes (da Silva, 2012b, 120). Decree-Law 25/1937 cre- things (buildings) that hold aesthetic or traditional values’ (Carughi,
ated the four Livros de tombo (Inscription books), which interestingly 2012; Giannini, 1976).
divided heritage assets both by category and type of values between In France, a similar definition relating to the idea of a ‘heritage
Archaeology, Ethnography and Landscape, History, Fine Arts and ap- ensemble’ is inscribed through the 1906 lois des sites (updated in 1930).
plied arts (Batista & Macedo, 2010; Camara dos Deputados, 2010; Dos This law complemented the 1913 historic monuments law by extending
Santos & Telles, 2017). Heritage buildings or monuments could thus, in protection to historic sites (Assemblée Nationale, 2017). By definition,
theory, be listed in one or more of these registers. This is different from it protected areas presenting landscape value, both rural and urban – it
other formalizations of value present in our case-studies, as the division is the oldest indication of value being attributed to landscape addres-
of the books underline the importance of identifying the principle type sing another layer of urban heritage non-use values (Ministère de la
of value recognised in a building, thus acknowledging the multi- Culture et de la Communication - Direction Générale des Patrimoines,
dimensionality of intrinsic heritage values. According to the legislation, 2012). This law is part of the French environmental code, and although,
an asset recognised for its historical value needs to be inscribed in the as specified, it isn’t directly addressed at UHAs it has resulted in the
appropriate book specific to it and not in any other, st this would risk protection of many equivalent areas. One of the most famous is in Paris
invalidating the inscription (da Silva, 2012b, 124). Decree-Law 25/ (Fig. 4) and was inscribed in 1975. It covers 4400 ha (42 % of the
1937 also made a first allusion to the concept of historical areas, surface area of Paris) including almost all of the 11 first arrondissements
neighbourhoods, sub-cities or city-centres (tombamento do conjunto ur- and parts of the 16th and 17th (APUR, 2004; IAU-IDF, 2013). Both
bano) to be inscribed in any of the four books. Article 17 of 25/37 these initial Italian and French laws indicate that although urban
specifies that in the neighbourhood of the listed building ‘it is not heritage areas are conceptually separate from natural preserved areas,
possible to … make a construction that prevents or reduces visibility’ they have links that should not be overlooked. Indeed, the reason why
(Decreto-lei 25/37 | Decreto-lei n° 25, de 30 de novembro de 1937, techniques for the economic valuation of natural amenities have been
1937). successfully transposed to the historic environment lies in their many
According to both Brazilian and Lebanese legislation, assets must be similarities (Provins, Pearce, Ozdemiroglu, Mourato, & Morse-Jones,
legally preserved, and their owners should maintain their original 2008).
features. In the Lebanese case, no alterations should be carried out Following the 1937 law, Brazilian municipalities started pursuing
without the approval of the General Directorate of Antiquities. In Brazil, conservation at the local level in the 1970s. In Rio, Lucio Costa lobbied
there are different categories of building listing, similar to our northern to change the concept of urban conservation from isolated buildings to
case-studies. The first, called tombamento stipulates the conservation of urban heritage areas. Contemporaneously Rodrigo Mello Franco was
all original elements of the building, interior or exterior. The second, active within the National Institute of the Historical and Artistic
bem preservato, only protects exterior elements of the building (facades, Heritage (IPHAN) based in Rio, and advocated the concept of urban
roofs, etc). The third category, bem tutelado, are buildings only semi- fabric and buildings as homogenous ensembles (Batista & Macedo,
protected, demolition or changes are permitted, however new con- 2010; Da Silva, 2012a). Some effort was also made in Lebanon to ad-
struction needs to follow the general aesthetics of the surrounding (Da vance conservation planning. Beirut’s Urban Master Plan (1964) in-
Silva, 2012a). itiated a concern for conservation of historic areas. During Amin Ge-
Social concerns are thus formalised through the recognition of non- mayel’s (1982−88) mandate as president, two decree-laws were issued.
use values of urban heritage, making the continued existence of these The law of urbanism 9/9/1983 n°69 required the delimitation of ar-
buildings important. In all our case-studies, urban heritage was thus chaeological areas and other historic zones presenting aesthetics, his-
first ‘created’ through the recognition of the intrinsic values of in- toric or ecological value (Hamdan, Lamy-Willing, & Yazigi, 2012). The
dividual architectural examples, frequently tied to notions of nation- law of construction 16/9/1983 n° 148 subjects buildings of historical
hood and culture (Choay, 1992; Pendlebury, 2009) The non-use values importance to construction permits to be evaluated by the General
of urban heritage, notably the cultural, social and historic values Directorate of Antiquities (Fischfisch, 2011). Other attempts in Lebanon
making the continued existence of these buildings important, were the were through decentralisation efforts. Article 74 of the municipal law of
first to be emphasised by conservation planning. The differentiation of 1977 stipulates that the mayor has the obligation to protect historic
the various levels of importance of these buildings highlighted the idea monuments. The municipality was given responsibility to financially
that even structures of humble origins may also carry significance. participate in the conservation of both public and private buildings in
their municipal perimeters (Hamdan et al., 2012; Hanna, 2010).
3.2. The evolution of planning regulation systems
3.2.2. Conservation planning: an integral part of cities
From their inception, up and to the introduction of modern town The shift in the conception of UHAs as an integral part of cities
planning systems in Italy (1942), England (1947) and France (1954), varies within our case-studies. In England, the 1967 Civic Amenities Act
conservation policy grew slowly but progressively (Mehl-Schouder, (updated in 1990) marked this transition by establishing conservation
Driard, & Ibanez, 2015; Newman & Thornley, 1996; Scattoni & Falco, areas (CA) having ‘special architectural or historic interest, the char-
2011) reflecting the dynamism of planning as a social practice (Sanyal, acter or appearance of which is desirable to preserve or enhance’ (UK
2005). In our two southern contexts, while notions of heritage areas in Parliament, 1967, 1). This transition is closely tied to England’s post-
Brazil developed steadily, similarly to our northern case-studies, in war demolition and rebuilding, which spurred many communities to
Lebanon the political will towards conservation was sporadic and rarely take action. As we shall see this is reflected in the local nature of where
followed through. power lies in the designation process.
Since their creation in 1967, CAs in England have evolved through
3.2.1. Initial designations of urban heritage areas different policy documents. Until recently, central government set the
In England, this came in the shape of the 1931 Ancient Monuments stage for the planning system through Planning Policy Statements and
Act, which introduced the idea of preservation schemes and extended Guidance (PPG and PPS) (DCLG, 1994, 2010). PPG15 first laid out
this to the area directly surrounding an ancient monument controlling government policies for the identification and protection of historic
development nearby. In the cases of France and Italy, although UHAs buildings and conservation areas (DCLG, 1994). It explained how
were not identified within urban codes, they were identified from an
environmental perspective, including adding UHAs into valued natural
environments. In Italy the law (n.1497/1939) refers to ‘natural goods’ 4
Denominated in Italian legislation as ‘bellezze d’insieme’.

6
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

development and conservation generally needed to be considered to- leaving him with a avis simple in the rest of the area (Fig. 3) (Ministère
gether and broke down the links between the planning system and de la Culture et de la Communication, 2016). The reality of this
conservation policy (DCLG, 1994). It was replaced by PPS5, which amendment in the law is, however, as discussed with interviewees, that
highlighted planning’s central role in conserving heritage assets in the the state does not have the means to draw new individual specified
perspective of using them in creating sustainable cities and preserving perimeters for each of its 40,000 monuments (STAP Paris Interview). A
quality of life (DCLG, 2010). These policies, among others, were re- coordination problem will thus arise between ABFs and local mayors,
placed in 2012 by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) who will now need to take responsibility for all modifications in the
(DCLG, 2012). The NPPF sets out core principles that should underpin newly created ‘simplified sightlines’ (avis simple areas). It is worth
plan making, and includes the historic environment under the umbrella noting that a similar regulation exists in the UK context but applies only
of the environmental role of the three dimensions of sustainable de- in London where specific sightlines are controlled to create viewing
velopment (DCLG, 2012, 2). It aimed at simplifying the national plan- corridors to key monuments in the capital (GLA, 2012). The develop-
ning framework and was often described by interviewees as similar to ment of this policy, which has its origins in the London Building Act of
the PPS5 but much less detailed. Whilst the borough policy officers we 1894, helps to illustrate the importance of power, history and local
interviewed were concerned with the loss of detail between PPS5 and development pressures to the creation of localised policy (for a fuller
the NPPF there is striking evidence to suggest how powerful the heri- discussion see Historic England, 2018).
tage lobby was in securing a good outcome for conservation policy The French legislative system specifies an astonishing three other
within the NPPF as the framework went through various stages of ways to designate UHAs. Secteurs Sauvegardés6 were introduced as an
drafting (GLA2 and Historic England Interview) (Lennox, 2013). instrument in 1962 in a period in which heritage conservation was far
In France, the legislative jump is not as clear-cut, the structure for from being at the top of the political agenda. Now part of the French
the protection of UHAs has been characterised as a millefeuilles, a cu- urbanism code, they are part of the Plan de sauvegarde et de mise en
linary metaphor that reflects the multiple (and many argue redundant) valeur (PSMV)7 which replaces the local urban plan. With the decen-
layers of regulation that result in numerous legislative tools protecting tralisation of the state in 1983 came the creation of protection zones for
urban areas (Bleyon, 1981). Interviewees described it as extensive, architectural and urban heritage and landscapes (ZPPAUP), now part of
binding and containing wide-ranging constrictive measures (STAP Paris the heritage code (Cornu, 2003). Although the ZPPAUP aimed at des-
Interview). The French attempt at solving this was the creation of the ignating UHAs, it did not entirely break from the pattern of protecting
Code du Patrimoine in 2004, which brought together all the scattered neighbourhoods around historic monuments. Although areas were now
texts on the protection of heritage (Code Du Patrimoine, 2010). designated, they were not conceived as holistic landscapes in their own
The 1943 act extended state control by establishing an easement to right but were an attempt to improve the 1943 law.
protect a 500 m perimeter around all historical monuments (Devernois By 2010 policy evolved and the ZPPAUP were replaced by the aires
et al., 2014). This measure is part of the heritage code and can be de valorisation de l’architecture et du patrimoine (AVAP)8 (Code Du
considered a French forerunner to the conservation area, but more Patrimoine, 2010). The biggest marker of this evolution was the in-
importantly, it is a measure still implemented today. As emphasised by clusion of concepts of well-being within a sustainable development
Planchet (2009), addressing the outskirts of historic buildings through framework. AVAP also required a management plan only partially
an administrative constraint is far from linking monument legislation to subsidised by the state, which takes the form either of a Plan de Sau-
town planning law. The technique strengthens the singularity of vegarde et de Mise en Valeur (PSMV) or of a heritage PLU (Rouillon,
monuments and is based on the misleading assumption that conserva- 2014). An attempt to simplify the urban heritage designation system
tion in the immediate vicinity of a monument remains bound to the was finally made in 2016 with a legislative amendment that regroups
historic monument (Choay, 1992; Le Louarn, 2011). None of our other the secteurs sauvegardés, ZPPAUP and AVAP into one category: the Site
northern examples apply such a restrictive measure. The concept of Patrimoniales Remarquables (SPR)9 (Ministère de la Culture et de la
curtilage exists around listed buildings in England but, as recommended Communication, 2016). Although the details of the implementation of
by Historic England, no line is ever drawn and the boundaries of the this most recent amendment to the legislation are still unclear, inter-
spatially protected area are up for interpretation (Historic England, viewees confirmed that if certain areas were prone to more than one
2015b). In fact, as written, the policy relating to curtilage and which UHAs legislation in the past, the most restrictive one would be applied
structures may or may not be protected within it is rather vague and, (Ministry of Culture France Interviews).
like much of England’s town planning regulation, has been further Conservation planning has a unique place in the Italian context, so
specified by case law rather than codification. much so, that some have argued that the principles and practises of
The 1943 law also restricts urban areas by adding sight line re- conservation planning are one of Italian urbanism’s few contributions
strictions to the field of vision around the monument: within these areas to the field (Balducci & Gaeta, 2015). The Italian architect Gustavo
any action changing the appearance of both buildings as outdoor Giovannoni coined the term ‘urban heritage’ in the 1930s as obtaining
spaces, cannot take place without the prior authorisation of the its value not as an individual and autonomous object but as part of the
Architect of the Buildings of France (ABF) (Devernois et al., 2014). This overall character of urbanism (Choay, 1992). From 2004, all Italian
role is one of the few remaining positions that permits individuals to public buildings constructed 70 or more years ago were automatically
hold sovereign power, a power superior to that of local mayors or listed to avoid the loss of cultural values provided by civic architecture
prefects. This power is called the avis conforme and denotes the ABF’s (Ministero dei beni culturali e delle attività culturali e del turismo,
power to accept or decline any proposal to change or demolish build- 2017).
ings in curtailed areas around monuments (Art. 7. R425-18) (Devernois Interestingly, the Italian system did not develop an UHAs designa-
et al., 2014). Given the large number of historical monuments in France tion strategy that resembles the English conservation areas or French
(about 40,000 across the country), this measure results in the ABF being
in control of nearly 3 million hectares of land, which is roughly 5% of
France (Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication, 2013). The
(footnote continued)
law’s most recent evolution (7 July 2016), finally limited the avis con-
buildings. The avis simple is simply on the other hand closer to giving advice.
forme5 to a smaller sector delimited around the monument by the ABF, 6
Preserved sectors (Translated by the authors).
7
Protection and enhancement plan (Translated by the authors).
8
Areas of enhancement of architecture and heritage (Translated by the au-
5
The avis confrome is the French administrative action of giving assent and thors).
9
represents the irrefutable power to accept or decline any proposal to modify Remarkable heritage sites (Translated by the authors).

7
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

ZPPAUP. The vincoli paesaggistico10 are derived solely from the 1939 Mioni & Pedrazzini, 2005) stressed how historic centres are in no way
environmental law mentioned earlier, which later received modifica- replaceable, differing visually and perceptively from the rest of Italian
tions in the 1980s (n. 431/1985 "Aree tutelate per legge") and in 1999 settlements, because of their display of unmistakable patterns, under-
(n. 490/99 ‘Testo Unico’) (Ministero dei Beni e della Attività Culturali e scoring the traits of strong spatial cohesion that is immediately mor-
del Turismo, 2016). The Cultural Heritage and Landscape code later (22 phologically recognisable. Italian conservation planning is thus em-
January 2004 n. 42) integrated these previous norms in an attempt to phasising historic centres’ option value. Several interviewees stressed
simplify legislation. Within this code, Article 136 and Article 142 apply how the conception of Italian conservation planning is deeply seeded in
to landscapes. Article 136 identifies buildings and areas of significant the country’s history and geography: the historic centre being a dis-
public interest11 while Article 142 identifies the areas having natural tinctive urban characteristic of the Italian urban landscape (UNESCO/
interest. Even though this construct is tied initially to environmental ANCSA and CE Interview). Similar arguments could be made about
rather than socio-cultural historical values, it includes restrictions certain historic centres in England or France, but they are not legisla-
linked to heritage more holistically. For Example, the neighbourhood of tively recognised in the same manner: in Italy, the temporal threshold is
Brera, one of Milan’s historic quarters, is protected by a vincoli pae- given much more weight.
saggistico and within its specifications it considers the preservation of its The dangers of Italian historic centres are linked to the possible
historic character by controlling things like the appearance and décor of isolation and transformation of this central area, for in designating
buildings (MiBAC Interview) (Gazzetta Ufficiale, 2009). Therefore, these central islands of land, there is a risk that the intangible values are
even though this legislative feature does not classify the area as a cul- gradually lost as they become areas for tourism and not for everyday
turally valuable one, it identifies it as being significant to people’s people, referring back to the opposition of economic and intrinsic va-
identity and in so doing, as noted by our interviewees, the area’s lues as illustrated in Fig. 1, which illustrates a fall away from the
character and form can be protected through the imposition of mea- equilibrium point between economic value and intrinsic value when
sures to protect “…historicism, décor, view and perspective” (MiBAC only one value is promoted. Although this is not the case in Milan, when
and conservation legislation specialist Interviews). the vincoli paesaggistici cover the whole of historic centres, the risk of
What is distinctive about urban heritage ‘creation’ in Italy, however, this isolation happening is high (UNESCO/ANCSA and CLS Interviews).
is a considerable focus on the centro storico, both in policy and related As Bandarin (2015) argues, there is no purpose in maintaining archi-
literature (Albrecht & Magrin, 2015; Morpugno, 2014) highlighting tectural appearance If you turn the city into an empty shell. Instead of
historic centre as retaining singular urban heritage value. Although this going towards inclusiveness and the living nature of heritage, ‘the
is true in other countries where UHAs are clustered in the centre of a historic centre creates insularisation’ (Lombardy Region Interview) as a
city such as London (see Fig. 3) or Paris (see Fig. 4) through the Secteurs result of constraints tied to it and ‘dangerously transforms the area into
Sauvegardés, Italy not only institutionally defines these areas but spe- a theme park’ (Italian historic centre specialist). This essentially de-
cifically promotes them. ANCSA (Associazione Nazionale Centri Storici scribes the tipping point of the right-hand side of Fig. 1, where the
Artistici), founded in 1961 after the promulgation of the Gubbio charter, pursuit of this economic value (through tourism) begins to diminish the
appealed the need to classify historical centres as a whole as unique intrinsic value of UHAs through its consumption. It is important to
examples of history where the phases of development could be clearly again note variegation in the implementation and creation of policy
identified in light of a low number of modern replacements (Bonfantini, even within countries. Here Milan, which is not only a cultural city but
2015).12 The Commissione Franceschini in 1964 undertook a census of also a strong economic motor for Italy, has applied the notion of vincoli
cultural property and underlined the value of the centri storici as settled paesaggistici in a slightly different way that allows for the valuation of
urban structures that constitute cultural ensembles and the original and heritage but also ensures places for economic development.
authentic part of settlements (Cosi, 2008; Olivetti et al., 2008). In fact, Similar to the French and Italian systems, Brazil inserted con-
the concept of Italian historic centres was thought of as a way to pre- servation within its zoning policies. Brazilian zoning delimited areas of
serve both the physical and social body of historic centres in order for historic, artistic or environmental value (Afonso da Silva, 1968). Law
these to remain interlinked (Albrecht & Magrin, 2015). There is a clear 3.289/1983 created zoning for the protection of urban areas of cultural
distinction to be made between the vincoli paessagistici and historic or landscape value and demarcated them as undevelopable. Law
centres. While the former presents elements both of valorisation and 10.829/1987 outlined that all urban master plans should have four
safeguarding, the latter are almost solely about promotion and valor- zones. Similar to Italian historic centres, the monumental zone should
isation (Art. 117, comma 3, of the Italian Constitution) (Fantini, 2014). feature the main characteristics of the city’s urban design (da Silva,
In practice, many historic centres are partially superimposed by vincoli 2012b), however, it does not receive as much attention in the literature.
paessagistici (Fig. 5). In fact, architectural and planning movements in Brazil have often been
The 1967 Legge Ponte (Law n. 765) officially included historic cen- overlooked despite featuring planning protagonists such as Lucio Costa
tres as part of overall city planning, delimiting them by the notation or Roberto Burle Marx.
‘Zone A’ in Italian Master plans or PRGs which delimits zoning areas, The shift in the conception of UHA’s in Brazil had indeed been
buildable exploitation and the areas to be allocated to public services successful. Article 215 and 216 of the Brazilian Constitution of 1988
(Campos-Venuti & Oliva, 1993).13 Although this has evolved today, as departed from the use of the word monument to refer to ‘urban com-
historic centres are now defined on a case by case basis through their plexes and sites manifesting artistic-cultural value’ (da Silva, 2012b). It
urban plans and with more complex zoning techniques, it underlines also expanded the definition of value by stating that heritage is all
the significant value accorded to them in the Italian case. Various au- things ‘bearing reference to identity, action, memory of Brazilian so-
thors and interviewees (Politecnico Interview) (Bonfantini, 2012, 2013; ciety’ (Batista & Macedo, 2010). It further designated all sites retaining
historic references to quilombos communities (slaves) (da Silva,
2012b), reflecting the incorporation of diversity into the values that
10
underpin conservation in Brazil (PROURB Interview). The 1988 Con-
Landscape protection (Translated by the authors)
stitution also laid the groundwork for the 2001 evolution of conserva-
11
These include a. good of specific administrative use b. ‘immovable things’,
tion planning. Although Brazil does not place urban heritage within the
‘villas and gardens’, ‘parks’ c. and d. ‘complex of properties’, ‘areas of scenic
beauty’ remit of environmental, as does Italy and France, Article 225 of the
12
In many ways the conservation movement in Italy was in fact initiated by 1988 Constitution underlined the right of everyone to an ecologically
ANCSA. was originally animated by architects who’s objective was to conserve balanced environment, requiring federal entities or municipalities to
the aesthetic value of historical centres. include environmental analysis in their creation of conservation areas
13
PRGs (Piano Regolatore Generale) are general regulatory plans for the city. (Castriota, 2008).

8
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

The 10.237/2001 Estatuto da Cidade - City Statute law builds on the making it very difficult to be used to protect UHAs. This is one of many
1988 Constitution to create a new legal urban order to provide land examples that characterises the evolution of conservation planning in
access and equity in large urban cities. The main concept behind many Lebanon, although societal desires are present, as seen in NGO activism
of the instruments of the City Statute is that all property has a social (SBH and APLH interviews), political will is rare, and most often lacks
function and in that manner, land is seen as much as a public good as a follow through mainly because of the aggressiveness of real estate as
marketable one, recognizing the existence and bequest values of areas Lebanon’s biggest economic driver (Hanna, 2010; Krijnen & Fawaz,
(Da Silva, 2012a; da Silva, 2012b). Special Interest Districts (SID) can 2010; Krijnen, 2010).
be registered within this law with different foci: social, environmental, In Lebanon other attempts were made to further conservation at a
cultural or functional. Cultural Special Districts are most often the ones city level. In 1995 in Lebanon, the Council for Development and
more closely tied to urban heritage, and include specifications of the Reconstruction (CDR),14 inventoried 1,016 houses built between 1860
types of preservation for each building within them (Da Silva, 2012a). and 1943 in the peri-central area of Beirut and proposed classification
Districts inscribed for cultural values are known as APAC in the city of (Tyan, 2012). The list formed the first reference of a census of heritage
Rio de Janeiro and are most often established by the Rio General De- buildings in Beirut, and the basis on which the Ministry of Culture re-
partment of Cultural Heritage (DGPC) which is part of the Municipal quested the Governor of the city to take temporary measures to freeze
Secretary of Cultures (Da Silva, 2012a). Article 123 of the City Statute demolition. This measure led to a massive campaign organised by the
specifies that urban areas can also be inscribed for their environmental owners, in which they demanded that the state either overturn its de-
value, for example, in Rio de Janeiro, green areas play an important cision or provide compensation for the injustice and subsequent eco-
role in the memory and identity of the city (see Fig. (Batista & Macedo, nomic damage caused by the freeze (CDR Interview) (Akl & Davie,
2010). Article 123 therefore promotes and respects locally derived 1999). Giving way to socio-political pressure, and the values of private
values of preservation. property, the CDR restricted the inventory, whereby 592 properties
Although our southern case-studies present similarities, while his- were freed from registration and only 459 buildings divided into five
torical zoning was incorporated in many city plans in Brazil, the zoning categories (A, B, C, D & E) remained (Resolution No. 97/12 on 2/6/
of Lebanon today covers only 16 % of the territory (UN-Habitat, 2011). 1997). In 1999, after continuing pressure, D and E were also eliminated
The non-regulated parts are entirely developable, and policies applied from the list by official decree (No. 32 on 3/3/1999).
to regulated sections are commonly disregarded (whether addressing This was done by claiming that the buildings lacked a cultural
conservation or other urban concerns) (CDR Interview) (Tyan, 2012). component, thus limiting urban heritage’s definition and thereby its
This lack of regulation gives way to high exploitation coefficients (cost embedded value to a cultural one (Council of Ministers Lebanese
of regulation vs profit via development), parcel amalgamation and the Republic, 2010). A decree was also later signed that closed this in-
construction of large highways through historic urban areas (SBH and ventory, meaning that no institutional entity could add buildings to be
APLH Interviews). Beirut’s Master Plan has not been updated since protected (SBH and APLH Interviews). In 2010, the Council of Ministers
1964, and most efforts to amend it or to introduce a new Master Plan commissioned the CDR to conduct a comprehensive study of the
have been hindered by political pressure (Ashkar, 2018). Examples of buildings under frozen demolition, recommending the release of
municipalities who conceptualise urban heritage’s touristic economic buildings not having a cultural component. This progression reflected
potential are rare (Akl & Davie, 1999). negatively on the unity of the few remaining traditional neighbour-
During the Lebanese civil war (1975–1990) the centre of Beirut was hoods in the city of Beirut. As interviewees lamented (CDR, UNESCO-
gravely damaged. Many buildings, such as those constructed under the LB, SBH Interviews), in Beirut, conservation planning never really took
French mandate, were perceived as symbols of a blamed political order on a broader scope and has mostly failed in recognizing the value of
rather than as part of the nation’s identity and were the target of hostile urban heritage fabric, with some successes for isolated buildings.
factions (Tabet, 2001). Beirut as a whole, however, maintained a cer- It is clear from this analysis of the evolution of urban heritage leg-
tain coherence, with only an estimated 10 % of buildings destroyed islation in our five case-studies that context plays a substantial role in
(Tabet, 2001). It is in fact often argued that although the destruction of how urban heritage is ‘created’. Even though the beginning of con-
Lebanon’s urban heritage began during the war, it only really boomed servation planning is very similar between all our examples, planning
during its reconstruction (Akl & Davie, 1999; Davie, 2001, 2004). This cultures and the contingent histories of place influence national defi-
is in contrast to Europe, where the urban destruction of the Second nitions of urban heritage, meaning that these built forms are somehow
World War led to the development of modern town planning with valued differently.
conservation as part of the conversation, suggesting different outcomes
for conservation planning depending on the nature of war (civil or
3.3. From cultural to holistic non-use values
between nations). This echoes the work of Bevir and Rhodes (2006, 89)
who note how inherited traditions can be disrupted by crises of identity
As we have seen in the previous section, the reasons behind why
making it difficult to formalise these values.
monuments and UHAs are designated is tied to different types of value
The shift in the conception of UHAs as an integral part of cities was
associated with these different heritage forms. While single heritage
attempted after the war with little successes. It was not until 2008 that a
designations appear to be tied to historic and cultural values, UHAs are
new law was established to enlarge the conservation of urban fabric
first conceived from an environmental value perspective in Italy (vincoli
(Hanna, 2010). This legislative project was led by Ghassan Salamé,
paesaggistici) and France (sites inscrits), from the perspective of cultural-
Minister of Culture (2000–2003) with the aim of recognising the notion
historical value in England, to a cultural or landscape value perspective
of architectural value and urban ensemble to be protected (LOCE and
in Brazil. These initial values, however, have evolved both through the
UNESCO-LB Interviews). Article 2 of the 2008 N.37 law on cultural
conceptual evolution of these first designations and also through the
goods enlarged the heritage sector to cover urban fabric, it recognised
creation of new regulatory tools.
the ‘historical, scientific, aesthetic, architectural or symbolic value,
Our review of multiple policy documents for this paper suggests that
whether religious or secular’ of many immoveable properties including
the policy trend altered from being concerned primarily with cultural
‘structures, landmarks, edifices, buildings, or part thereof’
and historic urban heritage values to having a more holistic
(International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR), 2014). Although a
more inclusive definition of urban heritage was now ratified, under-
lining the different intrinsic values of immoveable objects, bylaws were 14
At the request of the Minister of Culture Michel Eddé and with the assis-
never issued to provide a framework for its operation and management tance of the Lebanese Association for the Protection of Sites and Historic
(SBH Interview). As yet no precedent has been set for its application, Monuments (APSAD).

9
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

understanding of what urban heritage might be in four of our case- successful given that national policies rephrased urban heritage in this
studies. The joint consideration of socio-cultural, historical, environ- perspective. Agenda 21 for Culture’s Fourth Pillar of Sustainable
mental, and economic values becomes predominant and inscribes Development (by United Cities and Local Governments) exemplifies this
heritage into the sustainable development discourse (Council of movement, followed by the inclusion of heritage in the sustainable ci-
European Union, 2014; Gayego, 2014; Vernieres et al., 2012). This ties discourse of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and its in-
suggests at least a partial incorporation of urban heritage values as clusion in the recent United Nations Conference on Housing and
understood through TEV delineation into national policies. Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III 2015;). The evolution of
In England, the NPPF is now the key document linking urban conservation planning in our case-studies suggests that the concepts of
heritage to sustainability. It highlights ‘the wider social, cultural, eco- these movements have effectively trickled down to national policies.
nomic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic Secondly, it can be argued that as conservation is a ‘luxury’ of
environment can bring’ (DCLG, 2012, 126). It also states that local planning, its inclusion into a sustainability discourse might therefore
planning authorities should take into account the positive contribution have been orchestrated to give it more gravitas, not unlike earlier shifts
that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable commu- toward more economic language. The restoration and maintenance of
nities including their economic vitality (DCLG, 2012, 131), clearly ap- urban heritage is often considered an expenditure of resources that
pealing to both use and non-use values of urban heritage. The NPPF also could better be used in other ways. Conservation is thus intricately tied
included the historic environment under the environmental umbrella with the cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to preserve
within the three dimensions of sustainable development, associating heritage buildings (Provins et al., 2005; Serageldin, 1999; Tuan &
urban heritage with environmental values when initially conservation Navrud, 2007). If a high proportion of a city’s economy is linked to
areas were underpinned and valued for their historical and archi- construction and/or real-estate development, net income sacrificed to
tectural interests (DCLG, 2012, 2). This illustrates the evolution of conservation will be high and cities in urgent need of economic growth
heritage policy in England, which has, over the years been able to shift will not be willing to make the sacrifice (Barton, Blumentrath,
itself with the leitmotif of the day going from the promotion of con- Bernasconi, Pinto, & Tobar, 2013). This is especially true in places
servation for its own sake, to the promotion of heritage based on its where weak governance systems do not enforce planning as we shall see
value as a tool for economic and placed based regeneration to now as a in the second part of this paper. We cannot forget that there is often a
promoter of sustainable growth. prevalent political rhetoric favouring economic maximisation over
In France, the biggest change in the evolution of urban heritage other social constructions of value, which occurs in both the Global
came with the progression from the ZPPAUP to the AVAP in 2010. The North and the Global South (Ahlfeldt & Holman, 2015; Lee, 2011).
Loi de Grenelle (2010) introduced sustainable development notions Perhaps in order to overcome this rhetoric, conservation has often
through the AVAP that were not previously present, establishing a gained importance not as a cultural variable within planning but as one
national engagement to the environment and altering the underlining inserted into the sustainable development discourse, thus attracting
values of UHAs in France (ICOMOS France, 2010). The AVAP also in- more attention by modifying how it is included in policy. This could
cluded well-being into its conceptualisation, introducing the notion that also be why heritage is often classified as an urban amenity, as a way of
the value of UHAs is linked to urban emotional perceptions (Code Du boosting attractiveness (Finco & Nijkamp, 2001; Glaeser, Kolko, & Saiz,
Patrimoine, 2010). The evolutions in English and French conservation 2001). Even organisms like UNESCO have somehow compromised,
planning thus present similarities in repositioning themselves closer to adjusting their interpretations of historic landscapes to be much more
discourses of sustainability and emphasizing the multidimensionality of inclusive, to use the words of Bandarin (2015, 14) a ‘much more flex-
values. It seems governments were keen to streamline conservation ible, open-ended and people driven approach to conservation’.
planning by linking it to sustainability and making it part of a more
popular and accessible discourse. 4. Heritage in space
In Italy, the theoretical jump in legislation is less specified but still
present. Art 143 of the updated Cultural Heritage and Landscape code 4.1. Heritage counts
mentions the necessity to find ‘correct ways to insert modern elements
in landscape areas’ in order to ‘sustainably develop these areas’ Spatially we see the regulations impacting on our case study cities in
(Carughi, 2012). Moreover, although the historic centre is a concept the various ways. Listed buildings in both London (16,420) and Paris
linked to the history of a given city, it has been argued that it also (3,842) are great in number and were designated over an extended
supports notions of sustainability through its links to the UNESCO 2011 period of time going back as far as the 1850s. Milan counts 1677 listed
Recommendations on the historic urban landscape (Bonfantini, 2015). buildings however data on their year of designations is unfortunately
Therefore, although Italian conservation planning doesn’t specify sus- not readily available. UHAs in Paris (22) and Milan (31) only reach a
tainability’s role in related legislative documents, or in practice, as maximum of 6 designated areas a year, while London (965) sees high
commented by one of our interviewees (CLS Interview) it has subtly number of designations from the 1970s. However, despite London’s
attempted to include it within the conservation discourse. large number of UHAs this does not mean that London in necessarily
Although Lebanese legislation remains vague, specifying solely more constrained than Paris. Not only are UHAs in Paris more spatially
historic and artistic values, its Brazilian counterpart includes all the extensive, English CA policy can, in many cases, be less restrictive given
modern values at very early stages of urban heritage conservation, it is locally arbitrated and locally enforced.
acknowledging economic, cultural, historic and natural values (Dalmas Lebanon’s attempts at classifying historic buildings is very sporadic,
et al., 2015). As Canani (2005) explains the 25/1937 law specifies that with only 37 monuments and architectural elements classified through
when verifying each building or monument, it is necessary to question decree on the General Inventory of Historical Monuments between
what values it represents, which attributes justify its existence, and 1934 and 2002, and 1,367 listed through orders for the entire country
what kind of relationship it fosters with the local people, thus addres- (DGA Interview) (Toubekias & Dentzer, 2009). Data on the number of
sing the existence, bequest and option values of urban heritage. The 25/ nationally listed buildings in Beirut is unavailable and just over 200
37 Law has been commended by many (Batista & Macedo, 2010; da buildings from categories A, B, C of Resolution No. 97/12 on 2/6/1997
Silva, 2012b). Despite its age, its concepts, regulations and purpose are have escaped demolition (APLH Interview). There are no formally in-
clear, remaining relevant even now. scribed UHA’s areas in Beirut, a few streets were identified as part of the
These evolutions or original multi-dimensionalities of value as in only real attempt to further UHA legislation in the 1990s, but the only
the Brazilian case suggest two things. First that the international push result was the Municipality’s marking of roads in question with signs
to include urban heritage into the sustainable cities discourse was saying ‘Rue à caractère traditionnel’ (road with traditional character).

10
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 2. London.

Rio de Janeiro on the other hand, presents numbers much closer to our extent, locally varied.
European examples. The General Department of Cultural Heritages The superposition of French conservation areas results in 93,5 % of
(DGPC), part of the Municipal Secretary of Cultures, is Responsible for Paris being subject to some form of regulation. The Secteurs Sauvgardés
preservation of over 2,000 listed buildings (bens tombados), 10,000 are typically neighbourhoods, in Paris the 7th arrondissement and the
minor listed buildings (bens preservados), and over 90 UHAs (APAC), Marais. What used to be the SPR range from the size of small neigh-
numbers close to the amount of listed buildings in London (IRPH, bourhood to half a city. None are found in Paris itself but there are over
2018). 40 in the Ile-de-France area, many of which are show in the ‘Grand
Paris’ areas in Fig. 4. Paris not only has an extensive site inscrit, as
mentioned earlier, it also has a series of sites classes which include all
4.2. UHAs as a spatial construct the parks in Paris as well as some of the most important perspectives in
the city such as the Invalides esplanade. When asked why Paris does not
Figs. 2–4 demonstrate how the size of UHAs and the details of their have ZPPAUP/AVAP, interviewees responded that the wide range of
spatial demarcations vary in light of the evolution of legislations dis- conservation planning present within the inner walls of Paris made it
cussed above. CAs in England are relatively small, delimited areas, they unnecessary (STAP Ile-de-France Interview). In fact, throughout the
usually do not map full city centres but several, even many specific whole site inscrit the ABF has an avis confome on all demolition. More-
areas within them. In large cities, such as London, they are clustered in over, the layering of 2000 historic monuments, an inscribed site, and
the centre of the city, marking its most historic part despite the absence two secteurs sauvegardés and various smaller site classes means that there
of other regulations, with the exception of strategic protected views in is very little that needs further conservation. As an interviewee said:
London, which are designated by the Mayor. These strategic views are there are 2150 conservation constraints on 1950 buildings (Paris Mu-
focused on St Paul’s Cathedral, the Palace of Westminster and the nicipality Interview).
Tower of London and are broken into the categories of: Panorama; Vincoli paesaggistici have similar spatial delimitations to English
River Prospects and Townscape. In practice, these views are protected conservation areas. For example, Milan has 31 vincoli paessagistici in-
from development that may obscure them. This does not mean that new cluding the neighbourhood of Brera, the area around the Castello
development is not possible, only that any development should be Sforzesco and the area di via Francesco Sforza e Largo Richini. The
sensitive to these sightlines. Historical centres usually count several greatest difference in the Italian demarcation of urban heritage can be
CA’s such as a range of houses or a square and its surrounding build- observed through the historic centre. It is characterised by its insularity,
ings. The delimitations are particularly specific, presenting an at- which is quite striking as we can see in Fig. 5 (Bonfantini, 2013). This
tempted reconciliation between conservation planning and mainstream has led, in recent urban plans, to the transition from the notion of
modern town planning. They allow construction of new builds both historic centre to that of historic city as colourfully argued by
within and between them and they are not integrated into local urban Bonfantini (2012, 2). The difficulty arises, however, with the recogni-
plans (Rodwell, 2007). Some areas like South West London do have tion of the historic environment, which is not part of the historic centre
contiguous CAs that create larger designated areas, but these are locally in a given context. Conservation planning cannot simply equate to the
controlled and managed meaning that the rigidity of policy is, to some

11
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 3. ‘Grand Paris’ and central Paris.

Note: SPRs are the Sites Patrimoniales Remarquables, PSMV are the Secteurs Sauvegardés. The second image zooms in on central Paris and illustrates the 500m
perimeters which have been omitted in the left image for clarity.

Fig. 4. Milan.

12
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Between all our case studies, Beirut presents the weakest example in
terms of the spatial extent of its conservation planning. As illustrated in
Fig. 6, of the individual buildings locally listed in 1997 (Resolution No.
97/12 on 2/6/1997) few remained in 2009 and even fewer today
(Pietrostefani, 2015). The UHA clearly identified around these clusters
of heritage buildings are marked by signs denoting ‘roads with tradi-
tional character’ but remain mostly as nostalgic reminders of a historic
urban fabric which is no longer intact, and their protection is in no way
enforced (CDR and APLH Interviews). We thus observe evident differ-
ences in the spatial demarcations of UHAs in our two southern ex-
amples. While UHAs in Rio are well-defined and spatially extensive, in
Beirut although an effort at defining UHAs was attempted, its for-
malisation through legislation was not followed-through. Heritage is
morphologically valued differently in Beirut and Rio.
Our case-studies show that urban fabrics are valued differently ac-
cording to geographical context and suggest that policies need to be
interpreted within their own context and not through policy transfer.
Our hyper-factual approach has helped us demonstrate that heritage is
morphologically valued differently in London, Paris, Milan, Rio and
Beirut (Ridley in Rhodes, 1997), although similarities are present, such
as the spatial concentration of value in the most central, typically most
historic areas of each of these cities. While historic centres and large
neighbourhoods are valued in Milan and Rio, smaller concentrated
UHAs allowing for greater building flexibility are appreciated in
London and numerous layers of conservation systems are applied in
Paris resulting in almost no flexibility. Upon reflection, not only are
these differences observable to the naked eye in these cities, but they
result in some urban fabrics being more coherent that others in light of
the dissimilar spatial protections. This suggests that although the
planning system is not the only element that will determine heritage
value, it will implicitly change how urban heritage is viewed by the
Fig. 5. Rio de Janeiro. population. Valuing urban heritage is therefore necessarily rooted in
Note: Data from Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro. the analysis of country planning systems where zoning plays a major
role as it results in different integrations of urban heritage in the city.
widening of cartographic boundaries of a historic centre based on the It is clear that there is not one way of defining and thus ‘creating’
extension of a temporal threshold as has sometimes been done UHAs even between countries with similar planning origins such as
(Bonfantini, 2012). In Naples the local authority (LA) decided to extend France and Italy. Urban heritage is engrained in local history both
the historic centre perimeter from the 19th century to the early 20th conceptually and spatially and this inevitably modifies its construction
century, bringing the historic centre beyond its traditional definition or within planning. As such, heritage is a social construction dependent
pre-industrial urban fabric (Raspi Serra, 1990; Argan, 1990). The upon spatial and temporal interpretations of the past: this implies that
danger of this simple extension is the creation of static museum cities, its meaning is likely to change through time and across space, adding to
which have been highly criticised by heritage specialists (Bandarin, its complexity.
2015; Bonfantini, 2012). In practice, however, spatial identification presents limitations.
Figs. 6 and 7 demonstrate the great differences in size and extent of Despite different evolutions of conservation between Rio and Beirut, for
UHAs in Beirut and Rio de Janeiro determined by the evolution of example, as we shall see in Section 4.4, the planning issues at stake
legislation. APACs in Rio de Janeiro are concentrated in the Central and present many parallels. In Rio, even though spatially conservation is
Southern districts of the city, with a few recently inscribed in suburban extensive, in practice regulation is not necessarily respected and con-
neighbourhoods such as the APAC de Marechal Hermes (N° 37.069/ servation of heritage buildings is in many cases more closely tied to
2013) (IRPH, 2018). UHAs range from small delimited areas, similar to local will and real-estate pressure than legislative presence (PROURB
London, to much larger areas such as the APAC of Santa Teresa (L.495 - Interview). Borde and Sampaio (2012)) observe discontinuity within
09/01/1984 Nº 5.050/1985), which not only covers Rio’s Montmartre the Rio’s urban fabric, typified by significant morphological contrasts:
typical 19th century and belle-époque buildings, but also part of the narrow lanes of the original neighbourhoods cut by wide avenues of the
mountain going up to Cristo Redentor (IRPH, 2018). Part of the Santa twentieth century; heritage houses preserved as a backdrop of recent
Teresa APAC was also inscribed as a Cultural Landscape on the World skyscrapers driven by densification (Guimaraens, 2002); urban voids
Heritage List in 2012 (UNESCO, 2012). In the central areas of the city, and buildings in an accelerated state of degradation driven by the
many of the APAC have contiguous borders, resulting in larger desig- densification of the centre of Rio (Guimaraens, 2002). The extensive
nated areas, for example the Corredor Cultural neighbours the Cruz legislative mapping is thus not necessarily what can be observed with
Vermelha APAC and the Arcos de Lapa (Borde & Sampaio, 2012). Un- the naked eye in certain contexts and is not necessarily representative
like our European case-studies (with the exception to some extent of of conservation planning in practice, highlighting the paradoxes of the
England and the mezzogiorno in Italy), despite the considerable spatial Carioca urban planning process. Similar tensions are also wide-spread
extent of UHAs within Rio, the enforcement of the regulation varies in Beirut.
greatly, this often depends on the local population’s support of the
preservation of their neighbourhood and is not helped by the lack of
management plans for any of the Rio UHAs (PROURB and Rio Muni-
cipality interviews).

13
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 6. Beirut.
Note: Data from Majal – Academic Urban Observatory. Academie Libanaise des Beaux Arts. Red points mark buildings identified and listed in 1997 that are now
demolished. Green points mark buildings identified and listed in 1997 that were still existing in 2009, few of which still remain today.

5. Reflections on intrinsic vs. economic values and places (Lee, 2006). The designation process in England thus reflects
the interests of local society; locally defined places are then provided
5.1. The role of public officials protection under national planning legislation (Ahlfeldt & Holman,
2015, p. 174). This underlines the complexities of valuing urban heri-
The extent of the constraints these various conservation planning tage across one country, and touches on the complexities of values that
systems present, together with the degree to which they are enforced, will arise in analysing examples from wide-ranging contexts in this
also speaks to how urban heritage is valued within a given context. The paper (Pendlebury, 2009). In fact, interviewees who dealt with heritage
principal actors defining and enforcing the systems are necessarily in- at a national level found it difficult to generalise what aspects of CAs
volved. Values alter depending on the level of government deciding were valued with many local choices viewed as peculiar or unexpected
heritage constructs, shapes and restrictions. In other words, who de- in terms of designation (Historic England Interview).
cides what is valuable? Does the mayor, the local authority, the re- In practice, LPAs have only limited resources in terms of enforce-
sidents or central government decide? And if different actors are in- ment and typically the system is reactive rather than proactive with
volved does this lead to coordination problems? As argued by Rhodes officers only checking work where complaints are made (Harris, 2013).
(2007), not only do patterned, interdependent, and bargained beha- This makes CA integrity incredibly reliant on collaboration between
viours of government vary between contexts but so does their config- communities and local planners (Ahlfeldt & Holman, 2015). Inter-
uration, building different policy networks. viewees commented that the control of conservation areas is not what it
The English system must be applauded for making this negotiation should be (GLA 1 and Hackney Borough Interviews). The loss of front
local. The NPPF eliminated the regional planning apparatus (except for gardens, replacement of windows and doors are a common feature
London) and introduced neighbourhood planning providing, a set of when private houses do not demolish but radically change a building’s
tools for local people to ensure the developments in their areas reflect appearance without asking for permission. Interviewees commented
community motivations (Paragraph. 184 DCLG, 2012). LPAs are re- that this ties to a political idea in England that an individual’s house is
sponsible for the designation and supervision of CAs, making urban their castle, and therefore unless the CA has an Article 4 Directive (a
heritage designation in England a locally defined system. If urban legal proviso, which extends and strengthens planning control) the
heritage is ultimately for people, especially those who live in and council is not able to enforce higher standards. LPAs have the right to
around an UHA, power residing with local governments seems appro- withdraw permitted developments under Article 4 directives, which
priate. In fact, criteria for selection of CAs varies from region to region, compromised in 2009 about 13 % of all CAs in England (Ahlfeldt &
making the value attached to heritage interpreted through specific sites Holman, 2015). This demonstrates the inherent role LPAs have in the

14
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

protection, or not, of UHAs and illustrates how local attitudes and va- one person. The Lebanese Council of Ministers pass legislation, but its
lues act as support within the process. In France, the opposite was noted implementation falls to the Ministry for Culture. Proceedings of con-
by interviewees: owners might lay claim to the right to dispose of their servation planning therefore depend greatly on the minister in charge
good as they see fit but the concept of public good is so engrained in the and so are intimately tied to personal agendas and changing political
law and in society that the ‘existence value’ of the heritage for the will (Hamdan et al., 2012). The formality of policy and value are thus
public will almost always succeed (STAP Paris Interview). not immediately intertwined, the difficult and capricious reality of
As discussed earlier in this paper, French conservation planning is politics, especially when tied to an individual, can therefore disrupt this
characterised by heavy restrictions and the layering and juxtaposition relationship. When regulation is not enforced, conservation is often
of legislation, resulting in a building often being subject to more than rendered an even more political decision, especially in cities which are
one regulation. It is difficult to ascertain where heritage ‘creation’ lies ultimately political actors (Tunbridge, 1984). Actors may comply with a
in French conservation planning. Each of the multiple UHA designa- policy that is inconsistent with, even opposed to, their beliefs, or they
tions is tied to an authority. Listed buildings are linked to the con- may sidestep the implementation of policy because of their convictions
servateurs des monuments historiques; what were the 500 m perimeters, (Bevir et al., 2003). The opportunities and constraints linked to con-
the ZPPAUP and secteurs sauvegardés, are the responsibility of the servation planning not only depend on how regulations are set up, but
Architect of the Buildings of France (ABFs); while the management of in what context and to what degree they are implemented. As Bevir
the sites is a matter handled by the Minister of the Environment. The et al. (2003, 193) argue ‘we cannot properly understand a political
ABF’s power certainly encompasses the most land. In Paris the ABF practice solely by its legal character’, and so we must attempt to con-
holds absolute planning control over 90 % of the territory as well as an sider how it actually plays out. Although regulation is often a key first
avis simple for all building permits and urban planning certificates etc. step: it is difficult for conservation, unlike some other urban concerns,
This power denotes the importance of history in the conception of to be effected through informal means.
conservation planning, for it comes out of a post-war concern to pre-
serve areas that had not been damaged during the war (STAP Ile-de- 5.2. The value of land vs. heritage value
France Interview). As an interviewee noted, such a measure would
never be allowed today, as it evokes regal institutionalism, but remains 5.2.1. The extent of conservation constraints
as a result of history (STAP Paris Interview). In some ways, therefore, The extent of the constraints these various conservation planning
the French conservation planning system has opted to ‘maintain such systems present are also unavoidably linked to the complexities at play
power with heritage experts and (make it in a way undemocratic) to between land use policy structures, its applications and how these vary
protect it’ (STAP Ile-de-France Interview). between contexts (Ahlfeldt & Holman, 2015; Vernières, 2011; Watt,
Restrictions in Italy vary whether a building is public or private. Pincetl, & Joa, 2014). To different degrees, depending on context, the
When the building is private there is an obligation to conserve it and benefits of urban heritage are often overrun by more pressing needs tied
the soprintendenza – the regional cultural heritage authority – can im- to urban growth and development pressures, resulting in conservation
pose works to be carried out on buildings (Ministero dei Beni e le sometimes being a loosely integrated variable in planning – a luxury not
Attività Culturali, 2016). The restrictions and confinements of vincoli necessarily being advocated as an intrinsic part of contemporary urban
paesaggistici are not much less invasive (Politecnico Interview). The fabric (Tweed & Sutherland, 2007; Watson, 2015).
vincoli paesaggistici are nominated by the region, who identifies and English conservation planning is underlined by notions of compro-
starts the designation process, establishes specific guidelines which are mise and balance. The tendency to use the word ‘significance’ in pre-
then delegated to municipalities after the approval of the so- vious planning documents such as PPS5 and PPG15 changed to the
praintendeze. Restrictions are detailed in the plan and are controlled by predominant use of the word ‘interest’ in the NPPF, as an interviewee
regional government. Just like the French system is characterised by the argued, implicitly altering the weight given to urban heritage assets
power held by the ABF, the Italian system is characterised by the role of (Historic England Interview). As noted by Historic England (2015b, 3)
the soprintendenza. This body decides all detail related to vincoli archi- conservation is not a stand-alone exercise, it must be negotiated and
tettonici and buildings surrounding them in an ad-hoc perimeter. In balanced with other local and national priorities. Although the NPPF
practice, they decide many elements of the décor of urban areas, vastly states that ‘local planning authorities should set out a strategy for the
limiting the freedom to build or modify in designated areas. These in- conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment’ in their Local
clude binding procedures related to building work, with restoration Plan (Paragraph. 126 DCLG, 2012, 15) and should recognise it as ir-
only carried out by qualified staff – disputes have arisen between the replaceable, the document also clearly addresses a negotiation between
state and the region on the training such staff should have received conservation of heritage assets and necessary developments (Para-
(MiBAC interview). graph. 61 DCLG, 2012, 15). A scale with existence value on one side
Despite the advancement of conservation planning in Brazil, a series and direct use values of land on the other is thus established. A com-
of institutional and economic complications make its implementation promise is immediately put forward between the protection of urban
difficult. Castriota (2008) argues a disarticulation of the various bodies heritage and the evolution of the modern city. As with most elements in
responsible for the preservation and administration of Brazilian cities. the English system, which is based on case-law, this leaves a great
In the case of Rio, the federal (IPHAN), state (INEPAC (State Institute of amount of space for interpretation. Local Planning Authorities (LPAs),
Cultural Heritage)), and municipal (of DGPC (Municipal Council - which hold planning control, are given the option of permitting partial
General Department for Cultural Heritage) authorities often do not loss of heritage in CAs according to their judgement. LPAs must, how-
successfully collaborate. Interviewees (IRPH and PROURB) argued that ever, ‘not permit loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without
this dis-articulation has generated a large number of un-registered taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed
buildings and limited the efficient implementation of legislation in after the loss has occurred’ (Paragraph. 136, DCLG, 2012, 15). Loss of
practice. They noted that land division has contributed not only to existence value is thus only justified if direct use values of land are
changing the spatial configuration of Rio but has created difficulties exploited.
that go far beyond conservation. This suggests a conflict between the Despite the NPPF stating that the planning system is to contribute to
urban heritage values recognised in legislation and how value re- the achievement of sustainable development through its economic,
cognition plays out in practice. social and environmental dimensions, many authors consider English
Beirut is characterised by the opposite tendency. While Rio presents planning to be fixed on a growth-imperative model wishing to limit
too many actors and the lack of coordination between them, Beirut further planning power (DCLG, 2012; Lee, 2011; Rydin, 2013). Cen-
reveals a system where the decision to value UHA can be overturned by tring on economic profit has made social constructs of the built

15
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

environment such as urban heritage preservation unpopular, criticised than others with regard to their historical urban environments. Clearly,
as mechanisms hampering the market by restricting land supply and there is a lack of geographical consistency within the system (MIBAC
leading to rising house prices (Cheshire & Hilber, 2008; Hilber, 2015). and UNESCO/ANCSA Interviews). In some regions, the Italian case
This ‘negotiation’ between conservation planning and development, is presents an over estimation of intrinsic values of heritage which results
much rarer in the French or northern Italian systems, where the pos- in a very limited usage of its use values. While in others, lack of en-
sibility of compromise especially in terms of new builds within UHAs is forcement as well as residents and developers disrespecting regulation
much more restricted. In fact, in comparing our three European sys- results in illegal amendments and modifications to historic properties
tems, the strong tensions between conservation and growth, especially and built environments.
noted in London, seem disproportionate (Cheshire & Dericks, 2014). This trend supports the notion that opportunities and constraints
Demolition and new build are controlled in the English context, but linked to planning will not only depend on how regulations are set up,
their local determination, available local resources and local values and but in what context and to what degree they are implemented and that
attitudes create far more variation in the ultimate outcome of their it is often in this willingness to implement policy, or not, that we can
conservation (Bottrill, 2005). Negotiation between conservation and also see value being expressed. The formality of policy and value are
development is much more widely found in our Global South case- not immediately tied, the difficult reality of political activity and gov-
studies and, though not part of this study, it must be said also in the ernance intervenes between them. When regulation is not enforced,
southern Italian context. conservation is in many ways a political decision, tied to the value of
The French system has often been criticised as presenting an ar- actors within cities with regulation enforced or ignored based on the
rangement characterised by too many checks and balances. The 2016 values of these actors (Tunbridge, 1984). As Bevir et al. (2003, 193)
legislative amendment finally simplified and clarified things by elim- argue ‘we cannot properly understand a political practice solely by its
inating the simultaneous imposition of codes (Ministère de la Culture et legal character’, and so we must attempt to consider how it actually
de la Communication, 2016). From 2016 onwards areas where two plays out. In analysing how conservation planning compares between
codes existed would be subject to the most restrictive only. For ex- northern and southern cities, we must attempt to unpick the element of
ample, if a building is in a site inscrit and in the perimeter of a historic governance that follows regulation in the hierarchy of political will. As
monument, it will only be subject to restrictions by the historic suggested by Balbo (2014, 282), we need to be aware in our reflection,
monument, because it is the most restrictive (Heritage code) (Fig. 3). of the reassessment of the government versus urban governance; in
On the other hand, if the building is a site inscrit but not in the perimeter cases where state governance is lacking, it may have been taken over by
of a monument it will be subject to the environmental code. Other independent entities.
simplifications to the system are also occurring, not only with the In our southern case-studies, we become more aware of the luxury
limitation of the 500 m perimeter, as discussed in section 3.2.1. of this of conservation in light of the greater need for urban development in
paper, but with the first de-designation of an urban heritage asset in fast-growing cities (Cheng, Yu, & Li, 2017; Lee, 1996). We are also
Paris. For example, a public consultation is was recently underway to continuously reminded of the pronounced economic and political
de-designate the entrance to the Bois de Boulogne in proximity of the choice to value land and economic speculation, over valuing urban
Suresnes bridge (Prefet de la Région d’Ile de France, 2017). Inter- heritage. Therefore, conservation planning in our southern cities is
viewees confirmed that there is little reason for this listing, designated characterised by a pitched conflict between the value of land for re-
in 1922, to exist (MSD France Interview). The cast iron bridge, built development and the value of heritage practiced through regulation.
between 1873 and 1874, was destroyed and replaced by a reinforced Having discussed the extent of the constraints of northern conservation
concrete bridge in 1951. In addition, this area of the city has been planning, we now find ourselves unpicking the degree to which an
profoundly transformed, to the point that the epicentre of the perimeter absence of constraints illustrate how urban heritage is valued within
of protection turns out to be a major road. This consultation on de- our southern contexts.
designation has been made possible by recent changes to the environ-
mental code as it relates to the total or partial de-designation of a 5.2.2. Playing the land exploitation game
monument of a site classé. As conservation often entails keeping exploitation rates low, main-
The Italian system is also often characterised by too much restric- taining conservation areas in highly dense cities is a challenge in con-
tion, suggesting too high a price is legislatively placed on the existence texts of rapid urbanisation. This marks a difficulty in integrating heri-
value of all urban heritage. Owners usually prefer their buildings not to tage in urban policies in practice (Batista & Macedo, 2010; Castriota,
be within UHAs and work on properties within UHAs is often done 2008). Within this climate, a cleverly-contextual legal attempts have
without permission to avoid extra costs (ISTAT, 2015). The Italian been made in various contexts to protect the few remaining heritage
conservation planning is, however, also characterised by institutional buildings by utilising the nation’s tendency towards land exploitation.
regional disparity, both in terms of amount of designations and in en- In Beirut, this approach is closely tied to the TCE (Total Coefficient
forcement of regulation in practice. ISTAT (2013) statistics reveal the of Exploitation) of the city, which determines how high one can build
country’s regional division resulting in different conditions of the urban on a parcel of land. In 1971 Beirut changed the TCE of its city centre to
historical environment. Northern cities such as Milan have 3 out of 4 6, approximately 160−180 m high, equivalent to the buildings of La
historic buildings in an excellent or good condition whereas southern Défense in Paris (Ashkar, 2018; Hanna, 2010). This very high coefficient
cities have fewer than half of all heritage assets in a good state (ISTAT, was later suppressed, and planning law accorded no coefficients or
2015). The Commissione Franceschini (1964) was the first governmental formal height restrictions: the sky was the limit. This law approved on
body to denounce the degradation, the state of abandonment and the 12/10/2017, allows for the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR),
lack of development of urban heritage in Italy in the 1960s. Today, meaning that an owner may sell the undevelopable portion of their
while some cities adhere to the restrictive regulations, others, especially protected parcel (air rights) to someone else who is then allowed to
in southern regions are characterised by a laxer application of these and build the same quanta of development elsewhere in the city (Hilton,
thus a deterioration of the historic environment. 2017; Saade, 2017). This allows owners to keep their heritage building
There are many reasons why southern regions are characterised by while benefiting from the development value of their land. In return,
degradation, amongst these are: lack of political will to enforce reg- selling the TDR gives owners the necessary revenue to engage in re-
ulation, lack of compliance resulting in resident-led illegal amendments novating their building (Beirut Municipality Interview) (Saade, 2017).
and construction and/or a lack of local investment in UHAs (Bonfantini, Although this approach in no way attempts to preserve the few re-
2012) (For a larger discussion, see Pietrostefani (2019). Interviewees maining heritage areas as a whole, it is a last resort to protect individual
remarked that some regional governments have worked much more buildings. We cannot comment on the implementation of this

16
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

legislation, as the government has yet to ratify it, similar mechanisms may be argued for the cases of northern Italy and France (Choay, 1992),
have been successful in contexts presenting similar land exploitation in our southern case-studies, economic exploitation does not come from
difficulties. In Brazil, the City Statue includes clauses regarding the the building itself but from the land it is built on (Ost, 2009). The
purchase and transfer of property rights for buildings having to main- greater the exploitation of land, the greater the loss of all heritage va-
tain their original form (Da Silva, 2012a). The TDR makes possible to lues, both intrinsic and economic, where a heritage asset’s possible
transfer or sell the unused portion of a building to a site in another area future value is lost (OECD, 2007).
defined by the city’s urban master plan (Da Silva, 2012a). An Inter-
viewee commented that such mechanisms should be further developed 5.2.3. Dissonance between legislation and practical urbanism
in contexts like Rio de Janeiro to create a better balance between those In the 2000s legislation for new building construction became more
who profit from urban development and heritage building owners, for a flexible in Rio, stimulating the construction business. Real-estate de-
more equal city paradigm (Rio Municipality Interview). This regulation velopers wanted to maximize legally permitted land use (Da Silva,
offers an excellent window into locally derived values that seek to both 2012a). Since 2005, the central area of Rio de Janeiro has therefore
preserve heritage as a living memory in the city, but also acknowledge seen increasing real estate projects. State led infrastructure projects
the financial costs of doing so. have also contributed to accelerating the processes of urban transfor-
Such alternative legislations have been pursued to counter tenden- mation (Borde & Sampaio, 2012). Although many buildings escaped
cies towards demolition. In the 1940s, the creation of the Avenida demolition through regulation, many others, especially in economically
Presidente Vargas in Rio, justified the demolition of hundreds of challenged UHAs suffered from deterioration and obsolescence.
townhouses, entire blocks of colonial fabric, a ninety-meter strip of one Townhouses in these areas are often internally demolished to respond
of Rio’s parks (Campo de Santana), and the dismantling of two churches to the expanding demand for parking, and given the growing demand
(Borde & Sampaio, 2012; Ribeiro & Simao, 2014). Praça Onze, another for housing, old buildings in degraded conditions are often occupied
space of great symbolic value for Carioca urban culture, a site of car- (IPHAN Interview).
nival parades and a public space for immigrants and newly freed slaves, The port zone of Rio (APA SAGAS) for example retains significant
was also eliminated. The decision was controversial as it prioritised historic references to quilombos communities (ex-slaves). However, it
urban redevelopment and modern aesthetics over an urban fabric with has undergone great transformation. Substandard and informal housing
evident sociocultural value (Borde & Sampaio, 2012). This was the predominates in much of this area, with heritage buildings abandoned
beginning of a trend, which flourished in the 1970s, where high-rise and degraded (PROURB Interview). The Municipality of Rio then pu-
buildings became symbols of progress and modernity (Da Silva, 2012a). shed for rehabilitation of the district in an effort to reintegrate it in the
As a consequence many important historical buildings were demolished more dynamic sections of the city through the Projeto Porto do Rio
and substituted by modern ones (Rojas, 1999). Accounts from the published in 2001 (Soares & Moreira, 2007). The plan has been im-
Monroe Palace demolition in 1975 frame it as an effort to remove decay plemented very slowly and it is argued that the area’s urban heritage is
and abandonment from the city, placing these values above the historic de-naturalised and under-protected because of Olympic investments
importance of the site (Paraizo, 2004). However, an interviewee (Borde & Sampaio, 2012) (PROUB Interview). Moreover, the lack of
(PROURB) argued that this, like many other examples, was just a jus- public resources for social housing represent a great threat to the per-
tification for clearance, which concealed more speculative and political manence of local families and heritage streets such as Rua São Francisco
ambitions. Moreover, damage was not limited to buildings. In 8/18/ da Prainha.
2009 Judge Herman Benjamin in the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice In fact, although many neighbourhoods in Rio welcomed APACs for
stressed how damage is not limited to structural harm, but includes the protection they afford built heritage, in some areas there was fierce
more systemic damage to the environment as a whole (Miranda, 2017). opposition. The elected mayor in 2001, Cesar Maia, promised a sus-
These comments were being applied to the irregular conduct of a real- pension of licensing of new buildings in his campaign, and once elected
estate company in Rio de Janeiro who had damaged the green area of as he could not change legislation he declared an APAC though mayoral
an UHA, affecting the environmental value of the location. decree (Da Silva, 2012a). The neighbourhood of Leblon was thus de-
This tendency to demolish, indicating how land and its exploitation signated. This started a power struggle between local NGOs and pres-
is valued more than urban heritage value, is also present in Beirut. sure-groups and construction firms who argued this suffocated the real
Recent work by Gebara, Khechen, and Marot (2016)) maps Beirut’s estate market and would bring unemployment and economic losses.
demolition-based urban restructuring where approximately 78 % of Much of the local population was also not happy, as APAC prevented
authorised construction was based on redevelopment, much of this on modifications to their properties and hindered them from selling (Rio
plots that contained heritage buildings. This figure rises in the neigh- Municipality Interview).
bourhoods of Mazraa (90 % of urban reconstruction is demolition- Similar examples exist in the Beiruti context. Real-estate promoters
based) and in the historic quarter of Zokak-El-Blat (85 % demolition). able to operate with impunity have destroyed many buildings with high
This is also illustrated in Figure 7 in Section 4.3.2. Owners of heritage heritage value (Akl & Davie, 1999). In 2004, the Lebanese building law
buildings in Beirut often see no point in renovating in the absence of (Law 646/2004) allowed for more intensive land exploitation (Ashkar,
subsidies and given they are unable to increase ground rent from these 2011; Krijnen & Fawaz, 2010), increasing potential ground rents,
buildings, they often engage in legal or illegal demolition (Krijnen, especially in areas of the city characterised by low-rise rent-controlled
2018b). This tendency towards demolition suggests that in many cases, (often heritage) buildings (Krijnen & Fawaz, 2010; Krijnen, 2018a).
land value and the economic benefits to be made from it trumps the Real estate developers started acquiring multiple plots, merging these
preservation of urban heritage values. The economic and intrinsic va- in order to create larger ones to circumvent maximum building heights
lues of urban heritage are secondary to economic exploitation of land (Krijnen & Fawaz, 2010; Krijnen, 2018a). The economic logic of land
and financial speculation (Fig. 1) and the potential of urban heritage to thus became much stronger than the recognition of patrimonial value;
create prestige or revenue is not taken into account, as the culture and urban heritage is in fact rarely exploited in a commercial logic through
local values of the market do not support this. boutique hotels and restaurants in Beirut (Ziad El Samad, 2016; Zouain,
In the introduction of this paper we proposed that the more urban Liatard, & Fournier, 2011). As argued by Barton et al. (2013), if a high
heritage is exploited, the greater the loss of its intrinsic value (Zouain, proportion of a city’s economy is linked to construction, net income
2002, 221). Thus, to support a ‘living’ urban heritage, there is a con- sacrificed to conservation will be high and cities in urgent need of
stant search for equilibrium between the two curves that allows for economic growth will not be willing to make the sacrifice. In 2017, the
economic benefit to occur and patrimony to be respected. However, real estate sector made nearly 15 % of the Lebanese GDP with no capital
while the over-regulation of urban heritage or ‘museumifying’ UHA investment in infrastructure and transport (CEIC, 2017; Fransabank,

17
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table A1
List of Interviews.
# Institution or Organisation Ref. within text Country City

1 Historic England Historic England UK London

2 Greater London Authority GLA 1 UK London
3 Greater London Authority GLA 2 UK London
4 Hackney Borough - London Hackney Borough UK London
5 Ministry of Cultural- National Directorate of Heritage and Architecture Ministry of Culture France France Paris
6 Territorial services of architecture and heritage (Services Territoriaux de l'Architecture et du Patrimoine STAP) STAP Paris France Paris
Paris
7 Territorial services of architecture and heritage Services Territoriaux de l'Architecture et du Patrimoine STAP) Ile- STAP Ile-de-France France Ile-de-France
de-France
8 Paris Town Hall (Mairie de Paris) Paris Municipality France Paris
9 Ministry of Sustainable Development (Ministère de l'Écologie et du Développement durable) MSD France France Ile-de-France
10 IAUV (Academic) IAUV Italy GN/GS
11 MiBAC Milano (Regional Ministry of Culture) MiBAC Italy Milano
12 Lombary Regional Government Lombardy Region Italy Milano
13 Urban heritage legislation expert CLS Italy Milano
14 Constitutional and urban heritage law expert CE Italy Milano
15 Politecnico di Milano expert Politecnico Italy Milano
16 Representative of UNESCO and ANCSA UNESCO/ANCSA Italy/France Paris
18 Cultural Heritage and Urban Development in Lebanon Project CHUD Lebanon Beirut
19 Representative Permanent Delegation of Lebanon to UNESCO UNESCO-LB Lebanon Paris
20 Representative of the Association for the protection of Lebanese Heritage NGO APLH Lebanon Beirut
21 General Directorate of Antiquities, Lebanese Ministry of Culture DGA Lebanon Beirut
23 Project Manager at Council for Development and Reconstruction CDR Lebanon Beirut
24 Beirut Municipality Council Beirut Municipality Lebanon Beirut
25 Save Beirut Heritage NGO SBH Lebanon Beirut
26 Lebanese Order of Civil Engineers LOCE
27 Rio Heritage Institute (Instituto Rio Patrimonio da Humanidade) IRPH Brazil Rio
28 National Historical and Artistic Heritage Institute Brazil IPHAN Brazil Rio
29 PROURB - Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro PROURB Brazil Rio
30 Municipality of Rio Rio Municipality Brazil Rio

2017). five case studies located in both Global North and Global South cities so
As in the case of Leblon in Rio, local NGOs, neighbourhood asso- that the complexities of regulation and context could better emerge. As
ciations and academics have put pressure on the local government in we have shown there is no simple model that is particularly Northern or
Beirut in an attempt to halt new developments in neighbourhoods Southern, nor is there any country specific model that stays fixed
considered to have heritage value, even those not formally inscribed. So overtime. Planning culture and by extension the expression of it
too in Mar Mikhael, heritage based activism was widespread through policy is as changeable as societal values themselves (Sanyal,
(Ashkarian, 2012; Fawaz, Krijnen, & El Samad, 2018). However, given 2005). Variegation always exists.
the lack of legislation or municipal will to limit high-rise development What this means for planning and more specifically conservation
the neighbourhood’s morphology has changed significantly (APLH In- planning is nonetheless interesting. All of our cases began their jour-
terview), as evidenced by the Laziza factory complex, the first brewery neys from similar points of departure, but each then proceeded in
of the middle east, which was demolished in (2017) to construct high- slightly different directions based on local contexts, producing different
end condos (Ghorayeb, 2017). In both Rio and Beirut, non-govern- results. This is perhaps not unexpected, but it lends further weight to
mental and community based organisations have thus increasingly the work that eschews ideas that patrimonialisation is a European ideal
filled the role of government agencies in light of questionable en- merely applied in colonial contexts (Choay, 1992). While it may be true
forcement or lack of legislation (Da Silva, 2012a; Hanna, 2010). The that ‘heritage creation’ emerged first in Europe, the development of
necessity for civil action in both cases is warranted and again suggests regulations, the implementation of these rules and the histories and
that it is not possible to determine value purely through legislation communities surrounding them are very much local and therefore
(Rojas, 2002). In many ways, NGOs are leading the governance of produce place specific outcomes. We contend that the embedded his-
conservation planning Balbo (2014, 282). Huybrechts and Verdeil tories of urbanism, planning regulation and the invention of a con-
(2005) have argued that Lebanon is a weak state with a strong society: ceptualisation of what heritage means develop both separately and in
value is present but a pattern of appropriation not designation shows parallel in each nation state. Whether urban planning and its practice
more about urban heritage value (Rautenberg, 2003). Heritage appro- links itself to the destruction of urban heritage ensembles or whether it
priation is key to survival of Lebanese urban heritage, despite this attempts to conserve them, the concept of heritage emerges as a factor
method’s obvious limitations of being easily halted by government in opposition to dominant real estate models by becoming either an
(CDR and CHUD Interviews). obstacle to the pursuit of economic value or an element that needs to be
factored into the conservation of the intrinsic value of heritage. It is
here, in this urban land nexus (Scott & Storper, 2015) that we can begin
6. Conclusion
to see the value judgements exercised in the application of planning
policy.
The objective of our paper was the untangling of how conservation
In practice, conservation planning assumes many different mean-
planning systems and the local value of urban heritage were linked
ings, bound in local context and the operation of the planning systems
across several different planning contexts in the Global North and the
more broadly. Societal values impact planning decisions and in turn the
Global South. We illustrate the complexities of heritage conservation,
outcomes of these decisions, further embed societal values until these
its integration into planning regulation, the implementation of these
values are disrupted through internal or external events. Assuming that
regulations and ultimately what this tells us about how society defines
any one model can describe a Global North or a Global South
value in the context of conservation. We did this through an analysis of

18
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

perspective underplays circumstantial histories. We contend that un- referees as well as the editors of Progress in Planning, seminar parti-
picking these processes through a close reading of the legislative de- cipants in Gothenburg (AESOP 2018), London (LSE Economic
velopment of regulation and its implementation (or not) illuminates the Geography WIP) and London (Writing the World Seminar), in particular
tensions between the desire to develop for economic value or conserve Austin Zeiderman, Alan Mace, Claire Mercer and Megan Ryburn, as
based on intrinsic value provides academics and planners a window well as Edward (Ted) Pinchbeck and Alessandro Balducci.
with which to view how value is expressed

Author statement Declaration of Competing Interest

We would like to thank all the interviewees who participated in this None.
study greatly enriching our analysis. We thank three anonymous

Appendix A. The politics of conservation planning: a comparative study of urban heritage making

See Table A1.

References Booth, P. (2011). Culture, planning and path dependence: Some reflections on the pro-
blems of comparison. Town Planning Review, 82(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.3828/
tpr.2011.4.
Afonso da Silva, J. (1968). Aplicabilidade das normas constitucionais. Editôra Revista dos Borde, A. L. P., & Sampaio, A.daR. (2012). Politicas Urbanas e Patrimonio Cultural:
Tribunais. Paradoxos e Dialogos na Area Urbana Central do Rio De Janeiro. 54 Congreso
Ahlfeldt, G. M., & Holman, N. (2015). No escape? The coordination problem in heritage Internacional Da Americanista.
preservation. Environment & Planning A, 47(1), 172–187. Bottrill, C. (2005). Homes in Historic Conservation Areas in Great Britain: calculating the
Akl, Z., & Davie, M. F. (1999). Questions sur le Patrimoine Architectural et Urbain au Liban. proportion of residential dwellings in conservation areas. AugustEnvironmental Change
ALBA - URBAMA. Institute1–11. http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/40house/
Albrecht, B., & Magrin, A. (2015). Esportare il centro storico. Catalogo della mostra. background_doc_K.pdf.
Fondazione la triennale di Milano. Burke, G. (1976). Townscapes. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
APUR (2004). Protéger le patrimoine et favoriser la création architecturale. Special PLU. Camara dos Deputados (2010). Legislação sobre Patrimônio Cultural (Edicoes Ca).
Argan, G.C. (1990). Il concetto di ‘centro storico’’.’ In J. Raspi Serra (Ed.), Il concetto di Campos-Venuti, G., & Oliva, F. (1993). Cinquant’anni di urbanistica in Italia: 1942-1992.
centro storico : ricerca archeologica, recupero, conservazione, riuso, protezione dei Laterza.
beni culturali (pp. 15–21). Guerini studio. Canani, A. S. K. B. (2005). Herança, sacralidade e poder: sobre as diferentes categorias do
Ashkar, H. (2011). The Role of the State in initiating gentrification: the case of the neigh- patrimônio histórico e cultural no Brasil. Horizontes Antropológicos, 11(23), 163–175.
bourhoofd of Achrafieh. Lebanese University. Carughi, U. (2012). Maledetti Vincoli: La tutela dell’architettura contemporanea. Umberto
Ashkar, H. (2018). The role of laws and regulations in shaping gentrification: The view Allemandi C.
from Beirut. City, 22(3), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2018. Castriota, L. B. (2008). Intervenções sobre o patrimônio urbano: modelos e perspectivas.
1484641. Fórum Patrimônio: Ambiente Construído e Patrimônio Sustentável, 1(1), 9–31. http://
Ashkarian, V. (2012). Le développement local du quartier Mar Mikhaël. Beyrouth: Université forumpatrimonio.com.br/seer/index.php/forum_patrimonio/article/viewFile/
Libanaise, Institut des Beaux Arts. 59/54.
Ashworth, G. (2011). Preservation, conservation and heritage: Approaches to the past in CEIC (2017). Lebanon GDP: GVA: Real Estate | Economic Indicators. https://www.ceicdata.
the present through the built environment. Asian Anthropology, 10(1), 1–18. https:// com/indicator/lebanon/data/gdp-gva-real-estate.
doi.org/10.1080/1683478x.2011.10552601. Cheng, S., Yu, Y., & Li, K. (2017). Historic conservation in rapid urbanization: a case study
Assemblée Nationale (2017). Loi du 21 avril 1906 organisant la protection des sites et of the Hankow historic concession area. Journal of Urban Design, 22(4), 433–454.
monuments naturels de caractère artistique. http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/ https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2017.1289064.
evenements/salon-des-maires/dates_cles/protection-sites-1906-1.asp. Cheshire, P., & Dericks, G. (2014). Iconic design as deadweight loss: Rent acquisition by
Audrerie, D. (2000). La protection du patrimoine culturel dans les pays francophones. Editions design in the constrained London office Market. SERC Discussion Paper.
ESTEM. Cheshire, P., & Hilber, C. (2008). Office Space Supply Restrictions in Britain: The Political
Balbo, M. (2012). The medina: The restoration and conservation of historic Islamic cities. I.B. Economy of Market Revenge. The Economic Journal, 118(529), F185–F221.
Tauris. Choay, F. (1992). L’allégorie du patrimoine. Seuil: AT/Patrimoine.
Balbo, M. (2014). Beyond the city of developing countries. The new urban order of the Civic Amenities Act 1967, Chapter 69, 1 (1967). (Testimony of UK parliament). http://
‘emerging city’. Planning Theory, 13(3), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/ www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/69.
1473095213496098. Clarke, N. (2012). Actually existing comparative urbanism: Limitation and cosmopoli-
Balducci, A., & Gaeta, L. (2015). L’Urbanistica Italiana nel Mondo: Contributi e debiti cul- tanism in North-South interurban partnerships. Urban Geography, 33(6), 796–815.
turali. Donzelli Editore. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.33.6.796.
Bandarin, F. (2015). Urban conservation and the end of planning introduction. Reconnecting Code du patrimoine (2010). (testimony of Vincent Negri & Marie Cornu).
the city. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.1–16. Cornu, M. (2003). In Direction de l’architecture et du patrimoine du Ministère de la
Barton, D. N., Blumentrath, S., Bernasconi, P., Pinto, R., & Tobar, D. (2013). Guidelines for culture et de la Communication (Ed.). Patrimoine architectural, urbain et paysager :
opportunity cost evaluation of conservation policy instruments (Issue 11). enjeux juridiques et dynamiques territoriales : colloque des 6, 7 et 8 décembre 2001Lyon:
Batista, V. O., & Macedo, C. L. (2010). Cultural heritage in Brazilian legislation and areas l’Harmattanhttp://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb39017571d.
of protection of cultural environment in Rio de Janeiro. Politicas Culturais Em Revista, Cornu, M., Fromageau, J., & Wallaert, C. (2012). In Centre de recherches sur le droit du
2(3), 96–120. patrimoine culturel (Ed.). Dictionnaire comparé du droit du patrimoine culturelCNRS
Bernier, L., Dormaels, M., & Le Fur, Y. (2012). La patrimonialisation de l’urbain — Presses de Éditionshttp://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb42733629p.
l’Université du Québec. Presses de l’Université de Québechttp://www.puq.ca/ Cornu, M., Negri, V., Bady, J.-P., & Leniaud, J.-M. (2013). In La Documentation Française
catalogue/livres/patrimonialisation-urbain-2453.html. (Ed.). 1913 Genèse d’une loi sur les monuments historiques: Mémoire des grandes lois
Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (2006). Governance stories - London School of Economics and patrimoniales.
Political Science. Routledge. Cosi, D. (2008). In Aracne (Ed.). Diritto dei beni e delle attività culturali.
Bevir, M., Rhodes, R. A. W., & Weller, P. (2003). Comparative governance: Prospects and Council of European Union (2014). Conclusions on cultural heritage as a strategic resource
lessons. Public Administration, 81(1), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299. for a sustainable Europe, 32, 1–7. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_
00342. data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/142705.pdf.
Bishwapriya, S. (2005). Hybrid planning cultures: The search for the global cultural Council of Ministers Lebanese Republic (2010). Proceedings of Meeting of the Council of
commons. In B. Sanyal (Ed.). Comparative planning cultures (pp. 3–28). Routledge. Ministers: 19.
Bleyon, J.-B. (1981). L’Urbanisme et la Protection des Sites. La Sauvegarde du Patrimoine Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods ap-
architectural urbain. Librarie générale de droit et de jurisprudence. proaches. SAGE.
Bonfantini, B. (2012). Planning the historic centres in Italy: For a critical outline. Planum. da Silva, F. (2012b). Cidades Brasileiras e o Patrimônio Cultural da Humanidade. EDUSP -
The Journal of Urbanism, 2(25), 1–19. Editora da Universidade de São Paulohttp://www.edusp.com.br/loja/produto/896/
Bonfantini, B. (2013). Centri Storici: infrastrutture per l’urbanità contemporanea. cidades-brasileiras-e-o-patrimonio-cultural-da-humanidade,-as.
Territorio, 64, 153–161. Da Silva, R. C. M. (2012a). Politicas para a preservaçao do patrimonio cultural em face do
Bonfantini, B. (2015). Historic Urbanscapes for Tomorrow, Two Italian Cases: Genoa and desenvolvimento urbano no Rio de Janeiro. In R. L. Cavallazzi, & R. C. Paraizo (Eds.).
Bologna. European Spatial Research and Policy, 22(2), 57–71. https://doi.org/10. Patrimonio, ambiente e sociedad: novos desafios espaciais (pp. 117–133). PROURB.
1515/esrp-2015-0025. Dalmas, L., Geronimi, V., Noël, J.-F., & Tsang King Sang, J. (2015). Economic evaluation

19
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

of urban heritage: An inclusive approach under a sustainability perspective. Journal Villes En Parallele, 32–33, 63–87.
of Cultural Heritage, 16(5), 681–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2015.01.009. IAU-IDF (2013). Patrimoine bâti, identité et territoires, 167. Les Cahiers.
Davie, M. F. (2001). Beyrouth 1825-1975: un siècle et demi d’urbanisme. Ordre des ICOMOS France (2010). LE PATRIMOINE: UN MODÈLE DE DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE
Ingénieurs et Architectes de Beyrouth. Quelles performances énergétiques pour le patrimoine architectural et urbain en Europe et
Davie, M. F. (2004). Le patrimoine architectural et urbain au Liban: prise de conscience, en Méditerranée? .
idéologies de protection et éléments de prospective. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal- International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR) (2014). Country Summary-LEBANON.
01078936. http://www.ifar.org/country_title.php?docid=1309292450.
DCLG (1994). Planning policy guidance 15: Planning and the historic environment. IRPH (2018). Patrimonio Cultural Carioca. http://pcrj.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/
DCLG (2010). Planning policy statement 5: Planning for the historic environment. index.html?appid=d3906debb8724872a7a50608d2fae884.
DCLG (2012). National planning policy framework. Communities and Local Government. ISTAT (2013). Paesaggio e patrimonio culturale. In Istituto nazionale di statistica (Ed.).
Decreto-lei 25/37 | Decreto-lei no 25, de 30 de novembro de 1937 (1937). Decreto-lei 25/ Rapporto Bes: il benessere equo e sostenibile in Italia.
37 | Decreto-lei no 25, de 30 de novembro de 1937. https://presrepublica.jusbrasil.com. ISTAT (2015). Paesaggio e patrimonio culturale. Rapporto Bes: il benessere equo e sostenibile
br/legislacao/109250/decreto-lei-25-37. in Italia.
Devernois, N., Muller, S., & Le Bihan, G. (2014). In AFD (Ed.). Gestion du patrimoine urbain James, O., & Lodge, M. (2003). The limitations of’ Policy transfer and’ Lesson drawing for
et revitalisation des quartiers anciens : l’éclairage de l’expérience française. A Savoir. public policy research. Political Studies Review, 1(2), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.
Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in 1111/1478-9299.t01-1-00003.
contemporary policy-making. Governance, 13(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Keller, D., Koch, M., & Selle, K. (1996). ‘Either/or’ and ‘and’: First impressions of a
0952-1895.00121. journey into the planning cultures of four countries. Planning Perspectives, 11(1),
Dos Santos, H. M., & Telles, M. F.deP. (2017). Livros do Tombo. http://portal.iphan.gov. 41–54.
br/uploads/ckfinder/arquivos/LivrosdoTomboDicionárioIphan.pdf. Knieling, J., & Othengrafen, F. (2015). Planning culture—A concept to explain the evo-
Earl, J. (2015). Building conservation philosophy. lution of planning policies and processes in Europe? European Planning Studies,
Ernste, H. (2012). Framing Cultures of Spatial Planning. Planning Practice and Research, 23(11), 2133–2147. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1018404.
27(1), 87–101. Krijnen, M. (2010). Facilitating real estate development in Beirut: A peculiar case of neoliberal
Fantini, S. (2014). Il centro storico come bene paesaggistico a valenza culturale. Aedon. public policy (Issue October). American Univeristy of Beirut.
Fawaz, M., Krijnen, M., & El Samad, D. (2018). A property framework for understanding Krijnen, M. (2018a). Beirut and the creation of the rent gap. Urban Geography, 00(00),
gentrification: Ownership patterns and the transformations of Mar Mikhael, Beirut. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2018.1433925.
City, 22(3), 358–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2018.1484642. Krijnen, M. (2018b). Gentrification and the creation and formation of rent gaps: Opening
Finco, A., & Nijkamp, P. (2001). Pathways to urban sustainability. Journal of up gentrification theory to global forces of urban change. City, 22(3), 437–446.
Environmental Policy & Planning, 3(4), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/jepp.94. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2018.1472461.
Fischfisch, A. (2011). Formes urbaines et architecturales de Beyrouth (depuis le XIXe siècle Krijnen, M., & Fawaz, M. (2010). Exception as the Rule: High-End Developments in
jusqu’à nos jours). ALBA. Neoliberal Beirut. Built Environment, 36(2), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative 36.2.245.
Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363. Larkham, P. J. (1992). Conservation and the changing urban landscape. Progress in
Fransabank (2017). Lebanon’s Real Estate Sector: Current Status and Future Trend (Issue Planning, 37(Part 2), 83–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-9006(92)90010-D.
March). Le Louarn, P. (2011). Le patrimoine culturel et la décentralisation. Presses Universitaires de
Friedmann, J. (2005). Planning cultures in transition. In B. Sanyal (Ed.). Comparative Renneshttp://pur-editions.fr/detail.php?idOuv=2578.
planning cultures (pp. 29–44). Routledge. Lee, R. (2006). The ordinary economy: Tangled up in values and geography. Transactions
Friedmann, J. (2008). The uses of planning theory: A bibliographic essay. Journal of of the Institute of British Geographers, 31(4), 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
Planning Education and Research, 28cne(2), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1475-5661.2006.00223.x.
0739456X08325220. Lee, R. (2011). Ordinary economic geographies: Can economic geographies be non-eco-
Friedmann, J. (2011). Insurgencies: Essays in planning theory. Routledge. nomic? In Sage (Ed.). The SAGE handbook of economic geography (pp. 368). Sage.
Gayego, V. (2014). Cultural heritage, city, sustainability: What is the role of urban leg- Lee, S. L. (1996). Urban conservation policy and the preservation of historical and cul-
islation in preservation and development? Ambiente & Sociedade, XVII(2), 89–110. tural heritage. Cities, 13(6), 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-2751(96)
Gazzetta Ufficiale (2009). La Giunta Regional: dichiarazione di notevole interesse pubblico del 00027-3.
Quartiere Brera in comune di Milano. http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/atto/serie_ Lennox, R. (2013). Political advocacy for the historic environment: A public policy review
generale/caricaArticoloDefault/originario?atto.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=2010- of England’s national planning policy framework. The Historic Environment, 4(1),
01-22&atto.codiceRedazionale=10A00540&atto.tipoProvvedimento= 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1179/1756750513Z.00000000021.
DELIBERAZIONE. Licciardi, G., & Amirtahmasebi, R. (2012). The economics of uniqueness: Investing in historic
Gebara, H., Khechen, M., & Marot, B. (2016). Mapping new constructions in Beirut (2000- city cores and cultural heritage assets for sustainable development. The World Bank:
2013). Jadaliyyahttp://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/33751/Mapping-New- Urban Development Series.
Constructions-in-Beirut-2000-2013. Lowenthal, D. (1985). The past is a foreign country. Cambridge University Press.
Ghorayeb, J. (2017). Historic Laziza brewery demolition begins, can it be stopped?March 27. Marchettini, N., Brebbia, C. A., Pulselli, R., & Bastianoni, S. (2014). The Sustainable City IX
BeirutReport. (2 Volume Set). http://www.witpress.com/books/978-1-84564-820-6.
Giannini, M. S. (1976). I beni culturali. Rivista Trimestrale Di Diritto Pubblico4. McFarlane, C. (2010). The Comparative City: Knowledge, Learning, Urbanism.
GLA (2012). London view management framework SPG (Issue march)https://www.london. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(4), 725–742. https://doi.org/
gov.uk/priorities/planning/supplementary-planning-guidance/view-management. 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00917.x.
Glaeser, E. L., Kolko, J., & Saiz, A. (2001). Consumer city. Journal of Economic Geography, Mehl-Schouder, M.-C., Driard, J.-H., & Ibanez, P. (2015). In Dalloz (Ed.). Code de l’ur-
1(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/1.1.27. banisme: commenté.
Guimaraens, C. (2002). Paradoxos Entrelaçados: as torres para o futuro e a tradição nacional. Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication - Direction Générale des Patrimoines
UFRJ. (2012). Fiche Pratique 01 - Travaux en espaces protégés.
Habitat, I. I. I. (2015). Issue papers 4 – Urban culture and heritage issue paper (Issue May). Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication (2013). Patrimoine et architecture: Chiffres
Hamdan, A., Lamy-Willing, S., & Yazigi, S. (2012). Axes de réflexions pour une réforme du Clés 2013 – Statistiques de la Culture.
droit de l’urbanisme au Liban. ALBA, Université de Balamandhttp://www.alba.edu.lb/ Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication (2016). Loi création: une nouvelle ambition
french/axes-reflexion-reforme-droit-urbanisme-liban. pour la culture. http://www.culturecommunication.gouv.fr/Actualites/En-continu/
Hamin, E. M. (2003). Mojave lands: Interpretive planning and the national preserve. Johns Loi-creation-une-nouvelle-ambition-pour-la-culture.
Hopkins University Press. Ministero dei beni culturali e delle attività culturali e del turismo (2017). Vincoli in Rete.
Hanna, M. (2010). L’Echec des politiques patrimoniales au Liban: Acteurs et Enjeux. http://vincoliinrete.beniculturali.it/VincoliInRete/vir/utente/login#.
Harris, N. (2013). Surveillance, social control and planning: Citizen-engagement in the Ministero dei Beni e della Attività Culturali e del Turismo (2016). SITAP. http://www.
detection and investigation of breaches of planning regulations. The Town Planning sitap.beniculturali.it/.
Review, 84(2), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2013.11. Ministero dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo (2016). Vincoli in Rete. http://
Hilber, C. (2015). UK Housing and Planning Policies: The evidence from economic research vincoliinrete.beniculturali.it/VincoliInRete/vir/utente/login.
(Issue May)http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/EA033.pdf. Ministero dei Beni e le Attività Culturali (2016). Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la
Hilton, D. (2017). Lebanon activists cite win for heritage preservation. Aljazeerahttps:// Documentazione. http://www.iccd.beniculturali.it/.
www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/171013114545683.html. Minnery, J., Storey, D., & Setyono, J. (2012). Lost in Translation? Comparing Planning
Historic England (2018). London’s image and identity: Revisiting London’s cherished views. Responses to Urban Growth in the Global North and South. Urban Geography, 33(6),
Historic England (2015a). The historic environment in local plans. Historic England & 850–865. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.33.6.850.
HIstoric Environment Forum. Mioni, A., & Pedrazzini, L. (2005). In Franco Angeli (Ed.). Valorizzazione dei centri storici.
Historic England (2015b). Managing significance in decision-taking in the historic environ- Criteri e indirizzi per i piccoli e medi comuni lombardihttp://www.dastu.polimi.it/index.
ment. Historic England & Historic Environment Forum. php?id=833.
Holman, N. (2014). Like mixing oil and water? The take-up of sustainability in hard-to- Miranda, M. P. S. (2017). Lei do Tombamento completa 80 anos, mas continua atual.
reach places—An east Texas case study. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Consultor Juridicohttps://www.conjur.com.br/2017-dez-09/ambiente-juridico-lei-
34(4), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X14549468. tombamento-completa-80-anos-continua-atual.
Holman, N., Mossa, A., & Pani, E. (2018). Planning, value(s) and the market: An analytic Morpugno, D. (2014). Il valore del centro Storico-Artistico: prezzi edonici a Perugia. Bologna
for “what comes next?”. Environment & Planning A, 50(3), 608–626. https://doi.org/ e Triestehttps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 [Politecnico di Milano].
10.1177/0308518X17749730. Nadin, V., & Stead, D. (2008). European spatial planning systems, social models and
Huybrechts, E., & Verdeil, É. (2005). Beyrouth entre reconstruction et métropolisation. learning. DisP - The Planning Review, 44(172), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/

20
E. Pietrostefani and N. Holman Progress in Planning xxx (xxxx) xxxx

02513625.2008.10557001. 2011.01051.x.
Navrud, S., & Ready, R. C. (2002). Valuing cultural heritage: Applying environmental va- Rydin, Y. (2013). The future of planning : Beyond growth dependence. Policy Press.
luation techniques to historic buildings, monuments, and artifacts. Edward Elgar. Saade, T. (2017). A success for Beirut’s heritage, but not yet a victory. October 31Beirut
Newman, P., & Thornley, A. (1996). In Routledge (Ed.). Urban planning in Europe: Todayhttp://beirut-today.com/2017/10/31/success-beiruts-heritage-not-yet-
International competition, national systems and planning projects. victory/.
OECD (2007). Assessing environmental policies. Policy brief. Sanyal, B. (2005). Comparative planning cultures. Routledge.
Olivetti, L., Della Pepa, C., Abram, J., Guccione, M., Guido, M., Prosperetti, F., & Spitz, E. Savini, F., & Aalbers, M. B. (2016). The de-contextualisation of land use planning through
(2008). In Fondazione Adriano Olivetti (Ed.). Strategie di valorizzazione e gestione per il financialisation: Urban redevelopment in Milan. European Urban and Regional Studies,
patrimonio architettonico: sguardi e proposte. 23(4), 878–894. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776415585887.
Ost, C. (2009). A guide for heritage economics in historic cities: Values, indicators, maps and Scattoni, P., & Falco, E. (2011). Why Italian planning is worth studying. Italian Journal of
policies research report. The Getty Conservation Institute. Planning Practice, I(1), 4–32. http://ijpp.uniroma1.it/index.php/it/article/view/4.
Othengrafen, F., & Reimer, M. (2013). The embeddedness of planning in cultural contexts: Scott, A., & Storper, M. (2015). The Nature of Cities: The Scope and Limits of Urban
Theoretical foundations for the analysis of dynamic planning cultures. Environment Theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(1), 1–15.
and Planning A: Economy and Space, 45(6), 1269–1284. https://doi.org/10.1068/ Serageldin, I. (1999). In Culture in Sustainable Development (Ed.). Very Special places: The
a45131. architecture and economics of intervening in historic citiesThe World Bankhttp://www-
Pagiola, S. (1996). Economic analysis of investments in cultural heritage: Insights from en- wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1999/09/14/
vironmental economics. Environment Department, World Bank. 000094946_9905260827175/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf.
Palermo, P. C., & Ponzini, D. (2010). Spatial planning and urban development: Critical Simon, V. K., & Braathen, E. (2019). Collective heritage and urban politics: an uncertain
perspectives. Springer. future for the living culture of Rio de Janeiro? International Journal of Heritage Studies,
Palermo, P. C., & Ponzini, D. (2012). At the crossroads between urban planning and urban 25(4), 380–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1493700.
design: Critical lessons from three italian case studies. Planning Theory & Practice, Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
13(3), 445–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.701661. Soares, E. M. A. S., & Moreira, F. D. (2007). Preservação do patrimônio cultural e
Pani, E. (2017). Economic geographies of value revisited. Geography Compass, 11(9), reabilitação urbana: o caso da zona portuária da cidade do Rio de Janeiro. Da Vinci,
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12326. 4(1), 101–120.
Paraizo, R. C. (2004). Urban heritage representations in hyperdocuments: The Monroe Sotomayor, L., & Daniere, A. (2018). The Dilemmas of Equity Planning in the Global
Palace in Rio de Janeiro. City & Time, 1(1), 39–51. South: A Comparative View from Bangkok and Medellín. Journal of Planning
Pendlebury, J. (2009). In Routledge (Ed.). Conservation in the age of consensus. Education and Research, 38(3), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Pietrostefani, E. (2015). L’évaluation du patrimoine urbain: le cas libanais, vol. 1, Techniques 0739456X17700495.
Financières et Développement65–79. https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_ Tabet (2001). Beyrouth: Portrait de Ville.
op=view_citation&hl=en&user=VVogR6sAAAAJ&citation_for_view= Thomas, G. (2005). The qualitative foundations of political science methodology.
VVogR6sAAAAJ:u-x6o8ySG0sC. Perspectives on Politics, 3(4), 855–866.
Pietrostefani, E. (2019). Conservation planning and informal institutions: Heterogenous pat- Throsby, D. (2010). The economics of cultural policy. Cambridge University Press.
terns in Italian cities. Working Paper. Toubekias, G., & Dentzer, J.-M. (2009). Report of the joint ICOMOS/World Heritage Centre
Planchet, P. (2009). Droit de l’urbanisme et protection du patrimoine enjeux et pratiques. Le reactive monitoring mission to TYRE, Lebanon.
Moniteur. Tuan, T. H., & Navrud, S. (2007). Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries :
Poulot, D. (2006). Une histoire du patrimoine en Occident, XVIIIe-XXIe siècle: du monument comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates.
aux valeurs. Presses universitaires de France. Environmental and Resource Economics Review, 38, 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Prefet de la Région d’Ile de France (2017). Dossier d’enquête Publique: declassement du Site s10640-006-9056-5.
"Entrée du Bois de Boulogne aux Abord du Point Suresnes. Tunbridge, J. E. (1984). Whose Heritage to conserve? Cross-cultral reflections on political
Provins, A., Ozdemiroglu, E., Johns, H., Pearce, D., Mourato, S., & Chowne, P. (2005). In dominance and urban heritage conservation. Canadian Geographer, XXVIII(2).
EFTEC (Ed.). Valuation of the historic environmenthttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress. Tweed, C., & Sutherland, M. (2007). Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban de-
2008.01.001 Issue July. velopment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83(1), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Provins, A., Pearce, D., Ozdemiroglu, E., Mourato, S., & Morse-Jones, S. (2008). Valuation landurbplan.2007.05.008.
of the historic environment: The scope for using economic valuation evidence in the Tyan, M. (2012). La protection du patrimoine bâti au Liban: Cadre juridique, acteurs et enjeux.
appraisal of heritage-related projects. Progress in Planning, 69(4), 131–175. https:// Modern Heritage Observatory Reunion.
doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2008.01.001. UNESCO (2012). Rio de Janeiro: Carioca Landscapes between the Mountain and the Sea.
Puzon, K. (2019). Saving Beirut: Heritage and the city. International Journal of Heritage https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1100/.
Studies, 25(9), 914–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1413672. UN-Habitat (2011). Lebanon urban profile: A desk review report.
Raspi Serra, J. (1990). Argan G. C. Il concetto di ‘centro storico. In G. studio (Ed.). Il Valler, D., & Phelps, N. A. (2018). Framing the future: On local planning cultures and
concetto di centro storico : ricerca archeologica, recupero, conservazione, riuso, protezione legacies. Planning Theory & Practice, 19(5), 698–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/
dei beni culturali (pp. 15–21). . 14649357.2018.1537448.
Rautenberg, M. (2003). In E. P. Cresson (Ed.). La rupture patrimonialehttp://www.culture. Vecco, M. (2007). In Economica (Ed.). Economie du patrimoine monumentale.
gouv.fr/mpe/dossiers/parutions_signalees/2003_rup_patrimoniale.htm. Vernières, M. (2011). Patrimoine et développement: Etudes pluridisciplinaires. GEMDEV –
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity Karthalahttp://www.gemdev.org/publications/patrimoine/patrimoine_tab.htm.
and accountability. Open University Press. Vernieres, M., Patin, V., Mengin, C., Geronimi, V., Dalmas, L., Noel, J., Tsang, J., & Sang,
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies, K. (2012). In A. F. de Développement (Ed.). Méthodologies d’évaluation économique du
28(8), 1243–1264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607076586. patrimoine urbain : une approche par la soutenabilité économique du patrimoine urbain. A
Ribeiro, C. R., & Simao, M. C. R. (2014). Relações e contradições : direito à cidade e Savoir.
patrimônio urbano. Encontro Da Associação Nacional de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação Em Watson, V. (2015). Seeing from the south : Refocusing urban planning on the globe’s
Arquitetura e Urbanismo. central urban issues. Urban Studies, 46(October 2009), 2259–2275. https://doi.org/
Rizzo, I., & Throsby, D. (2006). Cultural heritage: Economic analysis and public policy. 10.1177/0042098009342598.
Chapter 28983–1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0676(06)01028-3. Watt, T., Pincetl, S., & Joa, M. (2014). The Push and Pull of Land Use Policy:
Rizzo, I., & Towse, R. (2002). The organisation and finance of cultural heritage in Sicily. Reconstructing 150 Years of Development and Conservation Land Acquisition. PLOS
Edward Elgar Publishinghttp://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/display. One, 9(7), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103489.
do?tabs=moreTab&ct=display&fn=search&doc=ETOCCN044409215&indx=1& Ziad El Samad, D. (2016). Property, housing and processes of gentrification: A case study of
recIds=ETOCCN044409215&recIdxs=0&elementId=0&renderMode=poppedOut& the neighbourhood of Mar Mikhael (Beirut). American University of Beirut.
displayMode=full&frbrVersion=&dscnt=0&scp.scps=scope:(BLCONTENT%25. Zouain, G. (2002). Le patrimoine culturel dans l’économie: éléments d’une réflexion.
Rodwell, D. (2007). Conservation and sustainability in historic cities. London: Blackwell Travaux et Jours, 69, 203–224.
Publishing. Zouain, G., Liatard, F., & Fournier, Z. (2011). Les industries créatives dans la ville: Le cas
Rojas, E. (1999). Old cities, new assets: preserving Latin America’s urban heritage. Inter- du quartier de Mar-Mikhayel à Beyrouth. Travaux et Jours, 85, 139–185.
American Development Bankhttps://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Old_Cities_
New_Assets.html?id=AN1PAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y. Elisabetta Pietrostefani, is a PhD candidate in Regional and Urban Planning the
Rojas, E. (2002). Urban heritage conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean a task for Geography and Environment Department, London School of Economics and Political
all social actors. Science.
Rouillon, V. (2014). Vers l’évaporation des ZPPAUP et des AVAP? Table ronde sur les dis-
positifs de protection du patrimoine. La Lettre d’Echanges N°121.
Roy, A. (2009). The 21st-Century Metropolis: New geographies of theory. Regional Studies, Nancy Holman, is the Director of the Regional and Urban Planning Studies programme
and an Associate Professor in Regional and Urban Planning at the Geography and
43(6), 819–830. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701809665.
Roy, A. (2011). Slumdog cities: Rethinking subaltern urbanism. International Journal of Environment Department, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Urban and Regional Research, 35(2), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.

21