Defining and Managing the Historic Urban Landscape: Reflections on the English Experience and Some Stories from Liverpool

Abstract

<jats:p>The period since the 1960s has been characterised by growing societal concern with urban heritage protection and the development of legislative, fiscal and urban planning instruments that seek to ensure the protection and enhancement of historic buildings and environments. International organisations such as UNESCO and European level documents such as the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) have stressed the cultural and economic value of the ‘wise management of natural and cultural heritage’. Since the 1970s many cities have sought to redefine and regenerate themselves through a revalorisation of their past and the protection and enhancement of their historic urban landscapes. Urban heritage has thus often come to be seen as a component of the territorial capital of places, and often had a symbiotic relationship with the objective of urban regeneration. However, urban heritage is not a static concept and ideas about what constitutes heritage, the value of different historic urban environments, and the contribution they can make to city development and regeneration continue to evolve. This paper reflects on this evolution in the context of the English planning system and illustrates some key trends and issues surrounding urban heritage through a consideration of recent and ongoing heritage related planning episodes in the northern English city of Liverpool.</jats:p>

Social Impact Evaluation in Culture-led Regeneration Processes: Reflections on the “Social Return On Investment” Perspective

“…First of all, the section dedicated to the role of cultural heritage represents a snapshot of a heritage discourse that varies from democratization and emancipation to exclusion logics, marketization, and risks associated with lobbyismall parts of the wider challenge to integrate heritage management into planning policies and practices (Smith, 2006;Sykes & Ludwig, 2015;Rey Pérez & González Martínez, 2018). The HUL approach is positioned in this scenario as a way to preserve heritage and to manage historic cities.…”

“…Secondly, a point of innovation is in the concept of dynamism in which significant places are to be sustained in harmony with an ever-changing present, avoiding conservation that is frozen in some particular time span. Here, the concept of the immutable and unique value of a given heritage is transcended by the possibility of conceiving many overlapping and interconnected values that reflect different points of view (Sykes & Ludwig, 2015). This vision implies a proactive involvement of local stakeholders and citizens in planning the future development of their city and a wider access of stakeholders in heritage management (Rey Pérez & González Martínez, 2018).…”

“…The challenge regards the practical application of this new paradigm in rational planning environments where the risk of commodification and marketisation can be dramatic, AESOP / YOUNG ACADEMICS NETWORK significantly reducing the social utility of heritage, with the consequence that people are expelled from the neighbourhood where they live (García-Hernández et al, 2017;Sassen, 2014;Smith, 2002;Sykes & Ludwig, 2015).…”

Synergies and Frictions between Mega-events and Local Urban Heritage

“…Leading up to the 2008 ECoC then, the heritage of Liverpool found itself at an interesting moment. Following decades of decline and abandonment, heritage had come to play a key role in the rebirth of the city starting in the 1980s and culminating in the awarding of WHS (Sykes et al 2013, Sykes andLudwig 2015). However, despite all of these efforts, there were yet 440 listed historic buildings at risk in 2009 (Liverpool City Council 2009).…”

Valuing Urban Heritage Through Participatory Heritage Websites: Citizen Perceptions of Historic Urban Landscapes

“…This quotation raises awareness of the ways in which people value their urban environment and identify with it. It feeds into the growing attention paid in heritage policy to the social values of heritage and the participation of citizens in heritage valuing (Jones, 2017; Sykes & Ludwig, 2015). However, although there are clear policies and methods for identifying material heritage (e.g., historic buildings), capturing the intangible sociocultural meanings that citizens ascribe to urban landscapes appears to be far more difficult and is often neglected (Jones, 2017; Pocock, Collett, & Baulch, 2015; Stephenson, 2008).…”