12 C O N T E X T 1 4 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 5 REBECCA MADGIN and MICHAEL TAYLOR Who do heritage values belong to? Finding the tools to unlock and recognise different forms of heritage expertise will be challenging in a society in which identity is complex and historic consensus fragile. During the 21st century the value of heritage has shifted in two main ways. First, the notion of what is of value has shifted both temporally and also in the type of historic assets that are afforded official value. Second, the idea of who can ascribe value has been extended. The what category is accepted within the heritage profession as a necessary element for the evolution of the sector, particularly as more recent structures assume significance. The who question is much more complex but it, too, is part of the same need for the heritage to evolve. If, as Historic England states, heritage belongs to everyone, then by definition anyone at any time and for any reason can ascribe a value to the physical legacy of our past. However, this presents problems for a formal system that privileges categories that are adjudged to be ‘objective’ by experts with specialist knowledge to ‘read’ and ‘de-code’ historic buildings. Historic England’s Conservation Principles recognised this with the introduction of communal value and especially its sub-category of social value.1 Who has a say in how to measure and incorporate value within heritage management presents a continuing problem. The Farrell Review asked ‘how do we make conservation of our future heritage a more open, democratic and interactive process?’2 This revealed the inherent contradiction that while heritage may be for everyone, their values are not sufficiently recognised within the current system. Until now the debate has centred on plurality and democracy; who is an ‘expert’, who is a ‘professional’ (and therefore who is neither an ‘expert’ nor a ‘professional’) remain the focus yet remain unresolved. To ascribe official value to St Paul’s Cathedral in London or to St Bride’s Church in the new town of East Kilbride goes unquestioned because one is 17th century and the other was designed by a distinguished architectural practice, Gillespie, Kidd and Coia. The expertise that adjudged these buildings to be historic assets is thus recognised. At the heart of this is a cultural acceptance that the process of ascribing significance to St Paul’s and St Bride’s was based on valid knowledge. However, more recent moves within the planning system and in society more generally are questioning received practices in the name of plurality and Leicester’s Clock Tower has been dismissed as being ‘like some mightily elaborated flagpole’ but many locals name it as the landmark they most readily identify with the city. References 1 Jones, S (2014) ‘Conservation and social value’, Context 133, March 2014 2 Farrell,T (2013) The Farrell Review, Farrells, London
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=