8 couraged. Clearly, such situations have their limitations and basically good concepts, spoilt by poor detailing and a lack of conviction, are the usual, unwelcome outcome. Fortunately, there are some architects who do share, at least, some of our interests and who are prepared to 'preserve and enhance the existing character'. It is with working with them that real progress is made and we remain entirely reliant on their good intentions. However, there is much we can do to influence the climate of opinion, by means of theoretical debate and by our own efforts at negotiation. How many satisfactory in-fill schemes do you know that have enhanced the character of a Conservation Area? Clearly, there are many gallant attempts, but the overall standard remains disappointing. Little wonder that Conservation Officers turn increasingly to repair of old buildings as an apparently more manageable task. Nevertheless, new works, whether as extensions or complete structures, remain part of our task. This should not be nervously side-stepped. Over the years, I have attended numerous conferences and listened to many papers on the thorny subject of historic infill. The same arguments and the same colour slides inevitably appear, to little, apparent effect. Rarely do the examples seem relevant or the arguments particularly pertinent, but the roundabout continues to turn. Often I gain the impression of a deliberate effort to obscure, with the 'architect knows best' as the all-pervading message. As an architect myself, I find this deeply unhelpful and a mystifying process, designed to prevent rational thought. It seems to me that there is a general failure to address the basic issues or of any attempt to find common ground. Perhaps unsurprisingly, our agenda and that of the architectural profession fail to coincide, despite all these years of seemingly rational discourse. Unfortunately, it would appear that the task itself is not viewed with sufficient seriousness. There appears too much more credit, and thus peer approval, for the individual, personal statement. Conversely, there is little incentive to work within an established context, despite the obvious intellectual challenge. There was a time when the Civic Trust awards seemed to offer the opportunity of establishing an appropriate critical platform. Unsurprisingly, awards can only reflect the nature of the entries and a lack of suitable candidates can reduce the beneficial effects. Typical negotiation sketch. In fundamental terms, I see our task as one of achieving continuity and that this historic, cultural and social continuity as being central to a 'conservationist' stance. Preservation tends to stress separateness and the isolation of objects in metaphorical, or literal, glass cases. I can obviously enjoy a useful discourse with those who share a conservationist point of view, as defined in this manner. Preserving 'character' seems to require such a need for continuity, whereas the preservation of individual artefacts inevitably leads to disjunctures. Are we sure that we have arrived at an appropriate philosophy, by which to guide our responses? In my mode of thought, A (the old) + B (the new) ought to lead to C (the new conse1vationist outcome). When A and B remain separated, disunity is stressed and harmony LODIS remains unachievable. In conclusion, it is my view that the professional Conservation Officer is uniquely placed to play a vital part in the building design debate when it involves dealing with the historic context. Our special experience, gained in our daily tasks, provides us with a markedly relevant point of view. I believe we should be proud of our knowledge and sure in our purpose and that we should actively pursue our aims. With this in view, I believe that our new Institute could take up the challenge and establish a usefully proactive role. I have in mind making use of a suitable forum for debate and in achieving a general initiative-seeking profile. What do you think? D F Stenning, Historic Buildings and Design Section of Essex County Council Planning Department. LocalDistinctiveness Strategiesto promoteeconomic ompetitiveness Peter de Figueiredo describes a European project to distil the essence of the place. Local Distinctiveness is what makes places special. It marks the difference between one place and another. For historic towns and villages, it is the key to their attractiveness and the reason why we cherish their intrinsic character. Yet, throughout the UK and beyond, these unique qualities are being eroded: by the actions of multinational companies; by the distortion of local cultures; by the use of standardised products; and by the loss of the connection between people and their local environments. By allowing these actions to undermine the attractiveness of our historic towns; we risk damaging their future prosperity. For in an increasingly competitive economic climate, the distinctive town enjoys a natural advantage. Local distinctiveness is often why people choose to visit a place, to shop in one town rather than another, and a major factor in attracting business investment. The link between local distinctiveness and economic competitiveness is the subject of an international project, titled LODIS, funded by the European Union. The project has just been approved under the RECITE programme . Context 60 December 1998
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=