Context 160 - July 2019

C O N T E X T 1 6 0 : J U L Y 2 0 1 9 7 on heritage values in the first programme on energy efficiency in buildings in Sweden, c1974–1984’. The paper analyses the ‘energy savings plan for existing buildings’ (EBB), introduced in Sweden after the first oil crisis of 1973. It discusses how the effects of policies on historic buildings were perceived and communicated to a wider public as conflicting aims for building conservation and energy efficiency in Sweden emerged for the first time, as the government made a huge investment to reduce the dependence on imported oil. Initially, little consideration was given to the risk to heritage values when giving property owners financial incentives to retrofit their houses. Increasing knowledge about the existing building stock soon showed, perhaps surprisingly in a Nordic climate, that older houses were not necessarily energy inefficient. An information campaign launched by proponents of building conservation encouraged property owners to direct energy conservation measures to the interiors, thus protecting the exterior character of individual buildings and minimising the impact on complete neighbourhoods. The authors note that towards the end of the EBB, the heritage sector had better articulated its aims and was better able to communicate and articulate the messages necessary to influence appropriate measures aiming at increased energy efficiency. That is something that seems to remain a serious challenge in the UK, despite the passage of time, the increasing urgency and the advocacy of informed participants in the process. The paper concludes with a discussion of how the values formulated in the 1970s affect policy and practice today. In dealing with heritage values, the issue of authenticity often arises.The Nara Document on Authenticity, formulated in Nara, Japan, in 1994 is often cited. Giovanni Boccardi, chief of the emergency preparedness and response unit for the culture sector at Unesco has written a paper on ‘Authenticity in the Heritage Context: a reflection beyond the Nara Document’ that takes the issue forward. This issue has not taken centre stage in UK discourse, given our obsession with ‘significance’, but it has been the subject of intense debate and policy evolution internationally over the last quarter of a century, notably where world heritage sites have been concerned. The author notes that two main factors have been driving these processes: the need to integrate new cultural perspectives into the discipline, especially from the non-western world (perhaps becoming more reflective of our own multi-culturalism?); and the growing recognition of the role of communities in defining heritage value. Despite this, Boccardi detects a lack of shared understanding of what authenticity means by heritage practitioners and academics, and of how this can be demonstrated. The issue continues to generate controversy among experts, as is reflected by the comparatively large number of sites nominated for world heritage inscription that seem unable to make a convincing case for their authenticity on the basis of ICOMOS’ evaluation criteria. Against this background, the paper aims to provide a clearer definition of what authenticity means in the context of conservation by reassessing the whole question from a fresh perspective. The paper takes a more philosophical than practical standpoint in an attempt to clarify the persisting ambiguities and generate pause for thought. The paper articulates what the key elements of a framework comprise, to assist in defining the practicalities associated with the application of the concept of authenticity within the heritage field, while also highlighting issues that will require further study and exploration. As a small, densely populated nation with often densely concentrated heritage assets, where we aim to protect both the countryside and our urban heritage, sustainable development is a core planning principle, leading to more intensive development. A paper from Joar Skrede and Sveninung Krokann Berg of the Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research, Oslo, has some interesting observations to make about urban densification and sustainable development in related to heritage. The authors note that densification projects often take place in historic environments, and they may represent a challenge to the preservation of cultural heritage, given the popular tripartite sustainability model, with its emphasis on economic, social and environmental concerns. The paper provides a discussion on what Skrede and Berg consider to be a fourth pillar of sustainability: cultural sustainability. By incorporating concepts from cultural economics, they have highlighted how cultural heritage represents cultural value specifically and how it should be considered alongside other sustainability concerns. They do this by reference to three illustrated, ongoing Norwegian urban densification projects. In the case of the new Governmental Quarter in Oslo, cultural values were prominent in the debate, but it is not likely that this will prevent the probable demolition of some historic buildings. This leads to the conclusion that it is, to say the least, preferable in urban planning strategies to add at a high level a clear cultural component as a distinguishable fourth pillar of the present sustainability model, irrespective of statutory protections. The final paper will interest those wishing to know more about the heritage of traditional industrial buildings on the Karpas Peninsular in Cyprus. The authors of a paper on carob warehouses that appeared in the Journal of Architectural Conservation in March 2016 have now followed the same methodology and format in the same region with a paper on olive oil mills. The Construction Historian The paper perhaps of most interest to Context readers in the latest issue of The Construction Historian (the magazine of the Construction History Society, Issue 4, April 2019) is an appreciation