CONTEXT 176 : JUNE 2023 41 Notes from the chair World heritage: cultural and natural The idea for an issue of Context with a theme of world heritage sites came about after Unesco had stripped Liverpool of its world heritage status. Many views were expressed about whether or not the decision was justified. Arguments both for and against were set out in Context 170, December 2021. This current issue, looking at many aspects of world heritage site designation, gives me the opportunity to say something about my own very limited experience of this topic. While I was still working as leader of the conservation and design team at Kensington and Chelsea Council (RBKC) in the early 2000s, I was asked to make some preliminary investigations into the pros and cons of seeking world heritage site designation for the Museums’ Area of South Kensington. As might be expected, the main part of the investigations centred on the criteria for designation, the details of the procedures involved and the costs which might be incurred. Information was widely available on the concept of ‘outstanding universal value’ and the selection criteria. It quickly became apparent to me that this area of South Kensington, also known as Albertopolis, would fit the selection criteria because of its cultural, historic and architectural quality. As its name might suggest, the area is the product of Prince Albert’s vision for a cultural quarter of London which would bring together a number of arts and scientific institutions. Sadly, he did not live to see the fruits of this vision, but the area today is characterised by a diversity of institutions, from the Royal Colleges of Music and Art, the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Royal Albert Hall, representing the arts, to Imperial College, the Science Museum and the Natural History Museum, representing the sciences. The area represents the very best of Victorian architecture, from George Gilbert Scott’s Albert Memorial in Kensington Gardens in the north, to Alfred Waterhouse’s masterpiece, the Natural History Museum, in the south. Despite the reconstruction of Imperial College in the 20th century, the area today retains much of its coherence, both culturally and architecturally. So far, so good, but the next questions to be asked were those of a political nature, specifically the potential costs and benefits. Having learned about the need to find a place on the UK’s Tentative List and the potential cost involved, it did not seem beyond the two local authorities concerned (the area is split between the City of Westminster and RBKC) to put together a convincing case for designation. However, it very quickly became apparent that it might be difficult to make a convincing case of the potential benefits to local politicians. The Unesco website lists three advantages of designation: prestige and raised public and governmental awareness; increased levels of protection and conservation; and increased availability of financial assistance. Less explicit, but widely acknowledged elsewhere, are the potential economic benefits, particularly through tourism. It soon became clear that none of these was likely to be perceived as a public benefit for Albertopolis. It was already well-known, both nationally and internationally; as a tourist destination, it was suffering stress through its over-popularity; adequate protection through listing and conservation area designation had been in place for many years; and the existing institutions were adequately funded through the public purse, and were well set up to make applications for grant aid through the National Lottery and other sources. The idea was quietly put to one side. This may have been a pragmatic and sensible approach in the circumstances, but there might have been a potential cultural benefit of world heritage site designation in giving the institutions, the local authorities, businesses and residents a forum to deal with matters of local interest. The recently published UK Tentative List (see the Editorial on page 40) consists of six locations, three of which are defined as cultural and three defined as natural. This seems to reflect an issue that is
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=