Dennis Rodwell discusses the papers presented at a recent conference on Civilising the City. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? Many readers of Context will have attended the International Conference in Edinburgh last spring under the title 'Civilising the City: Quality or Chaos in Historic Towns'. Many will also have attended the Annual Day School of the Association of Conservation Officers, which was held immediately beforehand. The proceedings of this conference have now been published in a book* edited by Patrick Harrison CBE. The publication was launched at a reception held in Edinburgh Castle on 15 February 1991 and hosted by Lord James DouglasHamilton MP, Scottish Office Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment. This book includes the challenging contribution made at the Day School by James Simpson, in his paper entitled "Conserving what?". Coupled with a commendable plea for the constant monitoring of standards in historic building restoration work, this paper promoted the thesis that the conservation movement has in some way become taken over, if not corrupted, by the heritage industry. My own contribution to the conference was presented at one of the workshops, and is published in the book under the title The French Connection: The Significance for Edinburgh of Conservation Policies in the Marais, Paris'. I was interested to assess Simpson's thesis against the developing and comparative situation of conservation work in the cities of France. With time to reflect, I find myself wondering whether in fact the thesis that the heritage industry has hijacked the conservation movement is not in substantial measure a function of the latter's over possessive attitude towards a narrow architectural interpretation of the continuing purpose of historic buildings and conservation areas. The development of the conservation movement was largely inspired and promoted by architects and sympathetic enthusiasts. It is therefore natural that there should be some diffidence when *Copies of the book Civilising the City, which records the proceedings of the Conference of the same ride held in Edinburgh in rhe Spring of 1990,may be purchased from the EOTCCR, Advocates Close, 357 High Street, Edinburgh EHi !PS (tel: 031-225 8818) price .(12 (plus .(1.90 postage & packing). CONTEXT 31 conservation proves to be so successful that other interests become involved. It could be argued that this is simply one aspect of the extension of confidence in the beneficial value of urban conservation. The alleged 'packaging' of historic buildings by economic and leisure consultants, as part of a 'tourist product', is but one of many manifestations of this confidence. It could also be argued that a part of this problem, as it is perceived, arises because the conservation movement has regarded historic buildings and areas as museum-like objects, which demand retention and restoration for historical reasons only, and in a manner largely unrelated to the functions they perform either individually or collectively. By extension, this means that conservationists have delegated to others the responsibility for determining how old buildings are used, and how conservation areas are integrated into overall planning objectives for our towns and cities. The remit, for example, of the Edinburgh New Town Conservation Committee focuses almost entirely on the exteriors of the buildings of Georgian and Victorian Edinburgh and thus, by implication, on facadism. This Committee, which was established some 20 years ago as a result of a previous International Conference in Edinburgh, has almost no remit to become involved in the interiors of these buildings (except in the context of problems of structural stability), or to become involved in the soft and hard landscaping of spaces between them. Much of the overall townscape value of Edinburgh's New Town is dependent upon the public and private gardens, and the streetscape. Yet consideration of these forms no part of the closely defined brief for this Committee's operation. Neither do transport matters, nor issues of strategic planning, both of which have been largely ignored in the conventional approach to the conservation of Britain's historic towns. The Committee does - from time to time - comment informally on some of the wider issues, but this forms no part of its official role. This is not to criticise the New Town Committee, whose work is rightly renowned, and of which I have been proud to be a member for a total of six years. It is simply to comment that these nonstrictly-architectural aspects have not been considered relevant to the function of this important player in the conservation scene. The Prince of Wales has described Edinburgh as "The most civilised city in Britain", an accolade that encourages complacency. Edinburgh prides itself on being a residential city, whose centre is still lived in to an extent unmatched in other British cities of its size. It is this characteristic, accompanied by the quality of the architecture, that goes such a long way to achieving this perception of civilisation. In comparison with its continental counterparts, the historic core of Edinburgh has become depopulated in recent years. Many of the factors affecting the quality of life for those still resident in its centre, and also those working in it, have been eroded through the loss of many everyday amenities and the increasing pollution of traffic noise and fumes. The population of the Old Town reduced from 20,000 to 3,000 in the 50 years between 1931 and 1981. Although this decline has now been reversed, and the population now stands at some 7,000, the 21
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=