C O N T E X T 1 5 0 : J U L Y 2 0 1 7 11 Editorial: Conservation and urbanism Been there, done that, forgotten it Is there any good idea about urbanism that Patrick Geddes had not already come up with by 1905? We will come back to that question later. Our previous issue of Context (May 2017) focused on green retrofit: making historic buildings more energy-efficient. In this issue we zoom out to look at how the conservation of historic buildings fits into a wider concern: successful urbanism. In writing about such matters it is usually a good discipline to avoid using the word ‘sustainable’. In the 1980s and 90s including that word in the title of a book or an article generally suggested some sort of concern with the uses of resources, and with thinking about the impact of development on people in other places and at future times, as well as here and now. The word communicated something. But after a while it became used as a placebo, free of any real content, merely intended to give a sense of comfort to the writer or the reader. That tendency was accelerated in the UK when in 2012 (in the National Planning Policy Framework) the government at last defined the term ‘sustainable development’. As the word ‘development’ already had a legal definition, the extremely long definition of ‘sustainable development’ in the NPPF constituted a definition of the word ‘sustainable’. The NPPF states that ‘the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development’ and that the policies in paragraphs 18 to 219 of the NPPF (a total of 43 pages, almost the whole of the document) ‘taken as a whole, constitute the government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system’. That is clear, then: ‘sustainable’ means ‘acceptable’. Which means that the job of planning lawyers is no longer to define what ‘sustainable’ means, but to define what is acceptable in the terms of the NPPF. We offer that cautionary note on the meaning of ‘sustainable’ because discussions of urbanism, such as some of the articles in this issue of Context, still often grapple with that slippery term. Dave Chetwyn (page 12) argues that in the heritage sector sustainable development should be discussed not only in terms of efficient building performance, but also in the wider context of place and planning. ‘Urban design analysis,’ Chetwyn writes, ‘often shows that historic areas have superior characteristics in terms of layouts, mixed-use, concentrations of facilities, permeability and other characteristics. Good planning can build on these qualities.’ Sean McEntee (page 16) provides evidence for that by highlighting a development proposal for Norton Folgate in London. McEntee writes of the need ‘to broaden the perception of built heritage from a specialism concerned with architectural and historic interest to a more coordinated mainstream activity representative of social gains and inclusivity’. Linda Shetabi (page 23) takes us to Myanmar, where ‘liveability’ (meaning quality of life) is the abstract urbanistic word of the moment. (It is not a new term: Jane Austen used it inMansfield Park in 1814 and it has been in use in an urban context since the 1970s). The country needs to think about monuments and tourism, Shetabi writes, but more important is the intangible heritage and social fabric that local populations value. Colin Davis (page 15) focuses on an aspect of urbanism that is a national obsession: parking. Parked cars can be integrated into conservation areas reasonably effectively while conforming to current legislation and rules regarding cars parked on public land, Davis writes. He has some practical suggestions for how it can be done. James Caird (page 39) tell us that even Samuel Pepys had parking problems, and he recalls the insights into the process of urban change offered in the 1960s by Lewis Mumford, Jane Jacobs and Gordon Cullen. Which brings us to Patrick Geddes. Steven Robb (page 19) describes Geddes’ inspired approach to renewing the slums of Edinburgh at the end of the 19th century. What Geddes called ‘conservative surgery’ involved making a place better to live in without sacrificing its historic and architectural value, and without displacing the people who lived there, and those people became actively involved in the process. It took almost a century, and bitter experience of very different approaches (which went under names such as comprehensive redevelopment, urban renewal and urban regeneration), before we began to relearn what Geddes had taught. What is the relationship between conservation and urbanism? Historic buildings contribute to making the places we love. The quality of places we enjoy often lies not just in their historic buildings, but in their wider urban fabric. These days we find it hard to make successful places, when so much development is shaped by big organisations, machine-made buildings, motorised traffic and the supposed fundamental human right to park. Historic places – made by human beings for people on foot – offer us types of environment that we find almost impossible to create today. It would be crazy not to treasure them, and to learn from them how to plan and build today. C O N S E R V A T I O N A N D U R B A N I S M
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=