You have been working in the field of heritage conservation and development in the Netherlands for a long time. What are the main trends observed now? How have approaches changed?
Jean-Paul Corten:
Over the past 25-30 years, we have begun to pay much more attention to adapting historic buildings to modern functions - what is called adaptive reuse. For example, in the 1970s, when coal mines were actively closed, no one thought to change their functionality and continue to use them, they were simply dismantled. As a result, we have almost completely lost our valuable industrial heritage; we managed to preserve only one mine and redesign one more. And here is an example from 2008. The fire completely burned down the building of the Faculty of Architecture of Delft University, a new building was required. It would seem that the most logical decision for the architects was to create their own icon-building, to realize their creative ambitions. Instead, the decision was made to reformat the existing abandoned building. That is, over the forty years that have passed since the 1970s, ideas about working with heritage have completely changed, the use of historical buildings in a new capacity has become customary and even fashionable in Holland.
This became possible thanks to a radical paradigm shift. We stopped considering working with heritage as exclusively protecting individual buildings and structures, and moved on to a more comprehensive approach. This includes understanding the importance of the historical environment, and the economic aspects of working with monuments, and their social significance. Tangible heritage began to be perceived as an important factor in development, taken into account in the development and discussion of urban strategies and territorial plans.
How did these changes affect the education system, have specialists in the field of working with heritage become more in demand?
Undoubtedly. Moreover, if earlier it was mainly architects and restorers, sometimes art critics and historians, who were engaged in historical buildings, today universities train a variety of specialists who must understand the economic, social, and local aspects of working with heritage. As a result, it becomes possible for a dialogue between professionals from different fields, which was previously difficult, as well as a search for a balance between conservation, development and intervention.
In Russia, we are still in the traditional paradigm of the protection of monuments. The number of OKNs is growing every year, while the state is unable to provide sufficient funding for restoration work. Developers strive to find loopholes in the legislation or ignore it altogether. As a result, we are losing a huge number of monuments, instead of finding worthy use for them in new conditions. How can we get out of this vicious circle and how can the experience of Holland be useful?
First of all, you need to define the concept of heritage. In the Netherlands, we managed to get away from the perception of a monument as a static conserved object and realize its dynamic nature. The building has its own life, which can change, but should not stop. A building can and must adapt to new conditions, otherwise it will most likely simply disappear. This approach is also historically justified, because if we look at the history of our favorite monuments, we will see that their functions have changed, the buildings themselves have changed to meet the demands of the time. If we exclude the possibility of change and intervention in principle, we immediately find ourselves in anti- or pseudo-historical positions.
The possibility of development and adaptation is now recorded in various documents and recommendations of UNESCO, and it all began with the so-called Amsterdam Declaration of 1975, when the Council of Europe, within the framework of the Congress on European Architectural Heritage, first introduced the concept of an integrated conservation approach. In 1987 the same concept was used by ICOMOS in its Charter, and then adopted by UNESCO. In particular, at UNESCO this concept was developed by my compatriot and colleague Ron van Urs, now, unfortunately, deceased. So the move from a conservative position to conservation through development and change management has Dutch roots, and I am very pleased with that.
What other features of working with historical buildings are important and characteristic for Holland?
It seems to me that the ability to be creative in solving difficult problems. I mean not only design solutions, although, of course, Holland is famous for its architects who know how to delicately and carefully work with heritage. We are also talking about creative approaches in project and organization management, the introduction of non-standard financing models and operating models.
An important feature is the participation of all stakeholders in the process, first of all, residents and local communities. A conversation about heritage in Holland is always a conversation about society, social values, always a dialogue. Of course, there are disputes, sometimes heated ones, but it is in these disputes that the truth is born.
And here we again come back to the issue of conservation through development. If we put modern use and change management at the forefront, then we simply cannot ignore and include the target audience in the discussion process. With this approach, heritage protection ceases to be an end in itself, it becomes a means to achieve, including social goals. How can cultural heritage sites meet the current needs of society? If you ask such a question, then you will not be able to fail to involve the widest circle of people in the discussion.
Does the emphasis on conservation through development and change management mean that we are abandoning the traditional conservative model?
Not at all, one approach does not cancel the other, there are cases when you need to protect and conserve. The approach to working with heritage can change, that's fine. Perhaps in another 30-40 years a new concept will be on the agenda. Therefore, it is so important to continue thinking in this direction, discussing, debating. The development of such a dialogue is one of the goals of my visit to Russia and the publication of the book “Reuse, Redevelop & Design. How the Dutch Deal With Heritage ". I am happy to talk about Dutch approaches to working with heritage, but by no means present them as a panacea and the only possible option, let's discuss, criticize, look for new meanings.
